Loading...
2008-919-Minutes for Meeting August 28,2008 Recorded 10/24/2008DESCHUTES NANCY COUNTY CLERKDS CJ ~VOB■9 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL i9 11111!1 llllllllvlllll'uii~ s to 10/24/2008 10;11;40 AM 2009JO s Do n remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Vie-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as flee Dumber and Page , 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 MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THUI2SDAY9 AUGUST 28, 2008 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Planning Commissioners Todd Turner, Susan Quatre, Brenda Pace, Merle Irvine and Richard Dlyce; Dave Danner, County Administrator; Joe Studer, Forester; Tom Anderson, Peter Russell and George Read, Community Development; and seven other citizens. 1. Call to Order. Todd Turner and Commissioner Luke opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. 2. Comprehensive Plan Introduction. Terri Payne gave an overview of the requirements of the comprehensive plan, which originated in 1979, followed by various updates since then. With population growth, it is important that land use policies keep up. Land use affects quality of life and community values are important. 3. Role of Steering Committee. The Planning Commission will be the steering committee to guide these changes. The fourth Thursday of each month will be devoted to addressing comprehensive plan issues. Meetings will start with a discussion of State regulations, current conditions and trends, and the appropriate chapter in the comp plan, goals and policies now in place. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 1 of 9 Pages She said they are looking at this as a joint effort with the community. Two main things are to be considered: comments on the existing goals - whether to retain, delete, or amend; and new ideas that need to be in the comprehensive plan. The planned time frame is one year, after which the information will be put together as a cohesive document. It will then go to the steering committee for review and recommendations. At that point the formal adoption process would begin. Commissioner Luke asked what kind of update would be provided to the Board, as it can be frustrating if the (Commissioners don't know what is going on. Ms. Mayne stated that the plan is for the steering committee to meet with the Board about every two months to give an update on the current status, input from the community and to find out if the Board has suggestions or input. Commissioner Luke noted that the values in communities change, and have changed significantly since 1979. This should be a part of the mix, but not necessarily the driver since State law has to be followed. Ms. Payne said that they are putting together statistics and data on population, etc. Conditions can change, as can State law. Keith Cyrus stated that the Legislature may meet and change something. The group could put in a lot of work and effort but that could change directions, or they might have to start over on something. They have to watch for indications of radical change. For instance, there was Measure 37 and then Measure 49. Ms. Payne replied that this is being taken into account as well when they look at the big picture. The process will remain informal since some things can change. Susan Quatre said that the group needs to be ready for those changes so that the work being done is not wasted. Commissioner Luke stated that in 1993, he found that making changes in land use is difficult when rural legislators are involved. Populated areas do not want to see as much change. Transportation Committee meetings discuss Juniper Ridge; some people are worried about one city between Redmond and Bend. However, with few exceptions all of the private land is in the corridors; most of the other land is publicly owned. Things change. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 2 of 9 Pages There are unincorporated communities of different sizes, including the Deschutes Junction area. There used to be a restaurant, service station, shops and other businesses there, but the zone changed. He has asked staff to look at whether it should be zoned differently. The interchange there will be completed in the next couple of years, and Juniper Ridge will end up there as well. Commissioner Melton asked if the Planning Commission is ready for this, and whether they feel there is an easier process. Mr. Cyrus stated that he has no problem with moving forward, collecting data and having forums. It is what happens to the data and if the group becomes stonewalled. Restrictions put in place regarding land use has caused problems with running farms. He hopes they can come to consensus, but then have to figure out where to go with it. An agricultural committee was in place and they tried to present what agricultural lands in this area really are, but were ignored. They appointed an overall committee to write the plan and not much consideration was given to Central Oregon. Commissioner Luke asked if the plan would be to look at it by sections. Ms. Layne replied that the schedule would cover topics by chapter. Some may need to be rearranged. Some were valid in 1979 but that may no longer be the case. Commissioner Luke said a previous Board member indicated they got done with the adoption process of plan, and decided to put everything farm related into EFU and deal with it later. So now it's an issue. Commissioner Daly stated that he likes the idea of more local control. He has no illusions about the current legislative makeup; the "big look" committee may be ignored. Commissioner Melton asked if anything would be held out. Ms. Payne said that the intent is to throw everything on the table, and it may be possible to tweak some things but they have to stay within State law. Todd Turner stated that he first thought the schedule was too aggressive, but he is more comfortable that it will make the group focus and move forward quickly. He sees their role as more of public outreach for the Board. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 3 of 9 Pages Commissioner Melton said that sometimes the Board does not agree with the Planning Commission, but a lot of times both decisions are similar. The Planning Commission members are not always like-minded, but that is a good thing. Commissioner Luke pointed out that this is a process. People will have more than one chance to comment. Having two groups listen and filter than input is helpful. The Planning Commission is to be independent of the Board, and should not be worried about whether the Board is happy with what is done. Independence is important. Ms. Quatre said that those with the biggest investment will show up to testify to both groups. Ms. Pace added that the biggest problem is getting the public to show up. Public input is important to now what they want. Commissioner Luke agreed that it is difficult if they are not interested. Some would like to see change. Mr. Turner stated that it is important to find out how the public in general feels about a specific point. There can be small, powerful groups that really don't represent the public as a whole. Cynthia Smidt said that citizens need to send e-mails to the group. There is a blog set up. Tony Aceti said he attended the "big look" meeting in Madras, and it was acknowledged that much of the farm land in the region is marginal. The comprehensive plan says once land is irrigated, it is always considered that. This should be analyzed. He understands that only 17% of the land in the County is privately owned, which means there is a whole lot of public lands. When talking about open space, it is already there and not so much pressure should be put on private property owners in this regard. Ms. Quatre said that people need to sign in so that it is in the public record. Ms. Payne stated that they wanted people to be comfortable speaking and they may not want to sign in, but she will do what is required. Ms. Payne noted that there will be community workshops. Staff and the committee will take part in meetings in five different areas of the County. The consensus of the Board was that this process is acceptable Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 4 of 9 Pages 4. Population Growth. Kristen Maze gave an overview of growth in the State and particularly growth in Deschutes County and the reasons why citizens are attracted to the area. She said that incorporated areas have increased from about 34% to 41%. 5. Data Collection. ]Peter Russell said he has been working with GIS staff to answer questions about population data county-wide, including how much is public or private land. Also being considered is jurisdictional relationships, the number of homes and the projected number of homes; population and rural and residential lands. This is a snapshot of what is now in place; for instance, how much is farm land, how much is residential, in percentages or acres. Also included would be forest land, wildlife overlays and destination resort lands, plus urban and rural. The County has been divided into seven subregions: Sisters, Redmond, Bend, west, Sunriver and La fine, the central area with East Lake, and the far east. There are similarities but a lot of differences. The raw numbers of growth are available, but they have to find out how this information fits into those regions. This information will show where there are existing homes and land that can be developed. Some areas have groundwater or other issues that impact them. This will filter down into what is buildable. They will do the modeling for transportation and how people can build there without significant impacts. They will start open houses on the transportation system plan next week. This is the first model for a county in the state. Most of this has been done in urban areas. They will figure out where the traffic generators are, travel times, number of trips, which routes are better, etc. They have the current counts and will work the model around it and calibrate, then project forward. The State did the models for Bend and Redmond. They can tie into those. They are expecting a good turnout at most locations. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 5 of 9 Pages 6. Citizen Input Chapter. Ms. Payne gave an overview of who constitutes "citizens" and the role of the Planning Commission, along with the reason for input, how to clarify the information, assure responses and provide financial support for citizen involvement. Most of the input on the current comprehensive plan was taken in the 1970's and 80's, and things have changed significantly. A lot of people feel disconnected and don't understand where the policies came from. They need to fit this into the big picture. Most of the process is very procedural, very technical and needs a lot of legal expertise. It is too frustrating for most people. The appeals process is very cumbersome and it is hard for the average person to be involved. The legislature has said they can't get consensus on how to include citizen involvement. Some feel it gums up the system due to the open appeals process. It is hard to get the public involved and keep things moving. Some people feel that the appeals process is used by those who want slow or no growth to make things stop altogether. Others feel that it is needed to keep things concise. Some appeals can go on, get appealed, come back, go to court and come back. The balance can be lost and it is cumbersome. The controversy usually ends up in the high growth counties like Deschutes County. She then went over the four goals of citizen involvement, and discussed the citizen advisory committee's input and how information is disseminated on the website. She talked about how to include citizen involvement and whether the goals are realistic. In most places outside of Oregon, comprehensive plans are completely updated every ten to fifteen years. The process was so complicated in Oregon that many people said they would just do what is necessary after that point. Mr. Cyrus suggested that perhaps they could look at a portion of it each year with perhaps every five years looking at the rest, with changes in State law being addressed on an ongoing basis. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners "Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 6 of 9 Pages Ms. Quatre added that maybe plans and goals could be indexed, with cross- referencing used. In that way, updating something in five years, with links to the State goals, should not be that hard. There is the comprehensive plan, the legislature and ordinances, and LCDC providing input and changes. Commissioner Luke said that the legislature makes changes fairly often but the Code is not always changed right away. State law must be followed whether or not the County has updated it, since State law takes precedence if it is more restrictive. He added that some specific groups will be interested; in particular the irrigation districts and some organized homeowners associations and coalitions such as the Upper Deschutes Coalition. They should be involved to keep their membership informed. He added that farming has changed a lot in Deschutes County. There are a lot of hobby farms, but those who raise crops and cattle. These groups have different interests. Mr. Cyrus said that the Farm Bureau covers some of them. Commissioner Luke added that there are Realtors, forest property owners and other groups as well. Ms. Payne stated that they have already sent out letters to some of them and are learning about more groups all the time. They have offered to do presentations to some of them, but this won't start until October. They will talk about what is being done and listen to what they have to say. Commissioner Melton said that it costs a lot of money to do a comprehensive plan update. It helps to have a date so that it won't be put off due to lack of funding. Commissioner Luke stated that officials come and go, but staff is consistent. Staff just needs to keep the officials informed of what is coming. Ms. Pace said that some groups want to address open space. Ms. Payne stated that they have met with some of these groups and welcomed their input. Joe Stutler indicated that the U.S. Forest Service will be involved, as will someone from the DLCD panel. He wasn't sure about the BLM. 7. Other Business: Tom Anderson said he got a letter from the Sunriver Utility requesting $62,500 for match funds for a grant from Oregon Water Resources to look at extending the Sunriver sewer system south and west as a remedy for those property owners subject to local rule. This would cover that area and protect the groundwater. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 7 of 9 Pages Funds could come out of the financial assistance fund set aside to help southern Deschutes County residents. The advisory committee has recommended a portion of those funds be used for sewer feasibility studies. This would be contingent upon the award of the grant. Commissioner Luke stated that the Board approved this tentatively but wanted to let the Planning Commissioner know about it. This could affect a large number of lots. It was thought that if it covers the scope, it would be wise. They had a community meeting and over 50 people showed up. These people felt it could be a permanent solution. MELTON: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Tom Anderson said that a planning director to replace Catherine Morrow will not be hired for at least 60 to 90 days. Recruitment started earlier in the year. There has been serious number crunching since then and the department is not in very good financial shape right now, even with reserves. They will have to make additional budget and staffing reductions. The timing is not good to hire a planning director right now. This doe not mean they don't need one, but there are serious financial issues to address. S. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 8 of 9 Pages DATED this 28th Day of August 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: 4~5n~- Aotl~-- Recording Secretary Den is ZRLuke,~'dia Kr Minutes of Joint Meeting: Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Thursday, August 28, 2008 Page 9 of 9 Pages Tammy an y) Melton, Vice Chair P r____ 7 7" F= 4 n#,,AA Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE AND DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 AUGUST 28, 2008 - 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER 01. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION I11. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE: Discussion between the Board of County Commissioners and the Steering Committee. W. POPULATION GROWTH: Presentation on population growth in Deschutes County - Kristen Maze, Associate Plannep V. DATA COLLECTION: Discussion of the GIS data being collected and analyzed - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner VI. CITIZEN INPUT CHAPTER: Discussion of state requirements and local goals for community input - Terri Payne, Senior Planner Vll. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING -September 25, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 NOTE: Items included in the packet for Planning Commission meetings can be located on the Community Development Department website: www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd. Click on the calendar for the date of the meeting in which you are interested. The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an interpreter or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours' notice. For other assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service. Quality Services Performed with Pride ti Community Development Department Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division ro Cor Ptzer+etisivE 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 ~y PLAN 'APDAT6 (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 http://vmw.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd MEMORANDUM #2 TO: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee CC: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner DATE- August 20, 2008 MEETING- August 28, 2008 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement Chapter COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Deschutes County is initiating an update of the adopted comprehensive plan, the set of goals and policies that guide local land conservation and development. These goals and policies are developed from an analysis of existing conditions/trends and community input. The first topic to be considered in the update is the Citizen Involvement chapter. STATE LAND USE SYSTEM Oregon's land use system is based on 19 statewide Planning Goals. These goals were adopted in the 1970s after considerable debate. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement (Attachment 1), was considered key to an effective statewide planning system. Note that the word citizen was used broadly to include corporations, government agencies and interest groups, as well as individuals. "To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." The strong emphasis on community input was based on the idea that planning affects our quality of life and involves trade-offs between the values and goals of diverse members of the public. To find the right balance, all segments of the community must be involved in the land use discussions. Public involvement in planning is also important because people know their own community and can provide valuable information, thus becoming part of the process. At the same time, planners can pass information they have on to the community. The information exchange between the community and professional staff makes for effective planning. Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Memo # 2 Goal 1 requires each local government to create a program for citizen involvement that ensures the opportunity for public involvement. This program includes an official advisory committee whose role is to be a link to the wider community and to advise the decision makers on land use issues. The program for citizen involvement should contain the following elements. co Citizen Involvement: Establish and maintain a citizen input committee. © Communication: Use a wide range of media to communicate with the public. Citizen Influence: Provide meaningful and early opportunities for involvement prior to the formal public hearing process. Technical Information: Provide assistance in interpreting technical information. ® Feedback Mechanism: Provide a clear method of communicating to, and receiving a response from, decision makers. Financial Support: Ensure the resources are available to implement the program. Another aspect of community involvement is the need to communicate at the proper time and in the proper forum. State Statute contains legal procedures regarding how to provide notice of upcoming land use meetings, who has the right to participate and who has legal standing. These procedures are implemented through local codes. The procedures vary depending on whether the required decision is quasi-judicial (applying law) or legislative (making law). Procedural statute attempts to find a balance between providing land use predictability and efficiency and allowing public involvement. They also try to balance the rights of a property owner with the rights of neighbors. The laws and regulations are constantly changing in an effort to find the correct balance. CURRENT CONDITIONS There are a number of barriers today to effective public participation in planning. The first barrier is that many of the existing statewide policies were developed in the 1970s. At that time there was an extensive discussion about land use planning all around the state. The result was a set of statewide planning goals and local comprehensive plans to implement the state goals. Generally, the state goals and comprehensive plans have been updated in a piecemeal fashion since then. This has provided new policies on specific issues, but little statewide discussion about the larger questions of growth and conservation. Consequently, many of the existing goals and policies may no longer reflect current conditions or community values. Because the goals and policies may not reflect current conditions or values, it is hard for many members of the community to understand or connect with the land use system. Others in the community may have disagreements with the initial choices that were made. Lack of understanding and agreement with the existing land use policies present challenges to getting the community involved. pg. 2 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Memo # 2 A second major barrier to public participation is the lack of understanding of how the planning process works. Adopted policies are implemented through techniques such as zoning regulations. Many proposals, such as applications for destination resorts, receive considerable public input regarding the policy behind the regulations. However, these projects are judged on whether they meet the zoning regulations, not whether the policy behind the regulation makes sense. That can lead members of the community to think their views are not being heard and discourage further participation. Besides the process, there is the issue of the technical nature of planning. Often the general public, unfamiliar with planning jargon, can get confused by land use discussions. It is common in land use discussions to refer to statute and code provisions, technical assessments and acronyms, but that can limit meaningful participation to land use planners and attorneys. Finally the public is discouraged from participation through the legalistic nature of planning in Oregon. The main method used to ensure compliance with the state planning system is to allow members of the community to appeal local decisions. This leads to a complex system requiring an understanding of procedural and legal issues. It can be difficult to explain to a member of the community that their input cannot be accepted because they turned it in too late or that it did not address the appropriate criteria. In May 2008 the State Citizens Involvement Advisory Committee put out the Third Edition of a workbook on public participation Puttinq the People in Planning. This booklet explains the public participation rules clearly and contains numerous examples of ideas that are working effectively around the state to ensure that land use discussions involve all interested parties in a timely manner. This booklet has been added to our website at www.deschutes.or /c~ cdd under comprehensive plan update. TRENDS There appears to be continued support for public involvement in planning. The main concern being discussed is how this is currently implemented. The Big Look, a task force appointed by the governor and legislature, is considering possible amendments to the state planning system. One of the initial topics considered by the Big Look was citizen involvement. The concern raised was that the current system may provide too many opportunities for the public to appeal, creating an overly legalistic system. The issue is where to draw the line between broad public participation and legal appeals. Big Look: Choices for Oregon's Future, the draft recommendations dated 5/30/08, contains a section on governance that among other issues recommends reviewing state land use statutes and administrative rules. This would include a review of legal standing. At this time it is not known if this proposal will be recommended to the Oregon Legislature or adopted by them if it is recommended. These recommendations can be found at www.oregonbiglook.org. pg. 3 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Memo # 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES Each city and county must have a comprehensive plan that is acknowledged as being in compliance with the statewide planning goals. Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged in 1981 and included a chapter on Citizen Involvement. The Board of County Commissioners was originally designated as the required Citizen Involvement Committee, but that responsibility was given to the Planning Commission in 1986. The Planning Commission is drawn from various interests and geographic areas around the county and is intended to represent the wider community in land use matters. The Citizen Involvement chapter has 4 goals and 8 policies (Attachment 2). Historically, the Planning Commission has implemented the involvement program identified in the comprehensive plan through their work advising the Board of County Commissioners. They act as the initial sounding board on complex and controversial land use questions. For the last three years, a report on community involvement has been prepared and forwarded to the state Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee. These can be found at www.deschutes.or /q cdd under planning for the future, planning commission. The intent of these reports is to encourage staff and the Planning Commission to think proactively about community involvement. Note also that effective public involvement requires considerable staff time and funding. In challenging economic times there may not be the resources to organize public meetings, write informational pamphlets and prepare presentations, beyond what is legally required. NEW GOALS OR POLICIES Staff would appreciate hearing ideas on how to ensure an effective public involvement program. The following questions have been put together for discussion. Are the current goals and policies still relevant? ® Should they be modified? ® Are they sufficient? o Given that the comprehensive plan update process is a good time to involve the public, are there any other suggestions for effective public involvement? Attachments 1. Goal 1 2. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 23.124: Citizen Involvement Goals and Policies pg. 4 Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines GOAL 10 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OAR 660-015-0000(1) To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in alli phases of the planning process. The governing body charged with preparing and adopting a comprehensive plan shall adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be involved in the on-going land-use planning process. The citizen involvement program shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort. The program shall provide for continuity of citizen participation and of information that enables citizens to identify and comprehend the issues. Federal, state and regional agencies, and special- purpose districts shall coordinate their planning efforts with the affected governing bodies and make use of existing local citizen involvement programs established by counties and cities. The citizen involvement program shall incorporate the following components: 1. Citizen Involvement To provide for widespread citizen involvement. The citizen involvement program shall involve a cross-section of affected citizens in all phases of the planning process. As a component, the program for citizen involvement shall include an officially recognized committee for citizen involvement (CCI) broadly representative of geographic areas and interests related to land use and land-use decisions. Committee members shall be selected by an open, well-publicized public process. The committee for citizen involvement shall be responsible for assisting the governing body with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land-use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement. If the governing body wishes to assume the responsibility for development as well as adoption and implementation of the citizen involvement program or to assign such responsibilities to a planning commission, a letter shall be submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for the state Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee's review and recommendation stating the rationale for selecting this option, as well as indicating the mechanism to be used for an evaluation of the citizen involvement program. If the planning commission is to be used in lieu of an independent CC[, its members shall be selected by an open, well-publicized public process. 2. Communication To assure effective two-way communication with citizens. Mechanisms shall be established which provide for effective communication between citizens and elected and appointed officials. 3. Citizen Influence To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be involved in the phases of the planning process as set forth and defined in the goals and guidelines for Land Use Planning, including Preparation of Plans and Implementation Measures, Plan Content, Plan Adoption, Minor Changes and Major Revisions in the Plan, and Implementation Measures. 4. Technical Information To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. Information necessary to reach policy decisions shall be available in a simplified, understandable form. Assistance shall be provided to interpret and effectively use technical information. A copy of all technical information shall be available at a local public library or other location open to the public. 6. Feedback Mechanisms To assure that citizens will receive a response from policy-makers. Recommendations resulting from the citizen involvement program shall be retained and made available for public assessment. Citizens who have participated in this program shall receive a response from policy-makers. The rationale used to reach land-use policy decisions shall be available in the form of a written record. 6. Financial Support To insure funding for the citizen involvement program. Adequate human, financial, and informational resources shall be allocated for the citizen involvement program. These allocations shall be an integral component of the planning budget. The governing body shall be responsible for obtaining and providing these resources. A. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1. A program for stimulating citizen involvement should be developed using a range of available media (including television, radio, newspapers, mailings and meetings). 2. Universities, colleges, community colleges, secondary and primary educational institutions and other agencies and institutions with interests in land-use planning should provide information on land-use education to citizens, as well as develop and offer courses in land-use education which provide for a diversity of educational backgrounds in land-use planning. 3. In the selection of members for the committee for citizen involvement, the following selection process should be observed: citizens should receive notice they can understand of the opportunity to serve on the CCI; committee appointees should receive official notification of their selection; and committee appointments should be well publicized. B. COMMUNICATION Newsletters, mailings, posters, mail-back questionnaires, and other 2 available media should be used in the citizen involvement program. C. CITIZEN INFLUENCE 1. Data Collection - The general public through the local citizen involvement programs should have the opportunity to be involved in inventorying, recording, mapping, describing, analyzing and evaluating the elements necessary for the development of the plans. 20 Plan Preparation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to participate in developing a body of sound information to identify public goals, develop policy guidelines, and evaluate alternative land conservation and development plans for the preparation of the comprehensive land-use plans. 3. Adoption Process - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the proposed comprehensive land-use plans prior to the public hearing process to adopt comprehensive land-use plans. 4, Implementation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to participate in the development, adoption, and application of legislation that is needed to carry out a comprehensive land-use plan. The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review each proposal and application for a land conservation and development action prior to the formal consideration of such proposal and application. 5. Evaluation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to be involved in the evaluation of the comprehensive land use plans. 6. Revision - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed changes in comprehensive land-use plans prior to the public hearing process to formally consider the proposed changes. D. TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1. Agencies that either evaluate or implement public projects or programs (such as, but not limited to, road, sewer, and water construction, transportation, subdivision studies, and zone changes) should provide assistance to the citizen involvement program. The roles, responsibilities and timeline in the planning process of these agencies should be clearly defined and publicized. 2. Technical information should include, but not be limited to, energy, natural environment, political, legal, economic and social data, and places of cultural significance, as well as those maps and photos necessary for effective planning. E. FEEDBACK MECHANISM 1. At the onset of the citizen involvement program, the governing body should clearly state the mechanism through which the citizens will receive a response from the policy-makers. 2. A process for quantifying and synthesizing citizens' attitudes should be developed and reported to the general public. F. FINANCIAL SUPPORT 3 1. The level of funding and human resources allocated to the citizen involvement program should be sufficient to make citizen involvement an integral part of the planning process. 4 Chapter 1: Comprehensive Planning - Citizen Involvement Citizen Involvement Goals & Policies Goals 1. To promote and maintain better communication between the community's various segments (i.e., governmental agencies, business groups, special districts and the general public). 2. To provide the opportunity for the public to identify issues of concern and encourage their involvement in planning to address those issues. 3. To serve as a liaison between elected and appointed bodies and citizens of the county. 4. To provide educational opportunities for the people to learn about planning and how it may be used to assist their community and themselves. Policies 1. To assure that county and appointed officials are aware of citizen needs and attitudes and to permit effective two-way communication, the County shall perform the following: a. Conduct surveys as needed regarding citizen needs, attitudes and characteristics; b. Sponsor workshops and presentations by known specialists and experts; c. Prepare pamphlets explaining routine planning procedures; d. Write and distribute information newsletters; e. Prepare and present slide shows and/or films on such topics as growth versus conservation, the subdivision process, and the usefulness of planning; and f. Make presentations to special groups and school children. 2. The County Planning Commission will be the Citizen Involvement Committee to review and chango the County's Citizen Involvement Program so as to ensure its continued efficiency and usefulness. 3. Between updates, special committees representative of geographic areas or possessing special knowledge of specific topic shall be formed to assist with planning studies. 4. The County Planning Commission shall be kept aware of the activities and results of the special committees and will be informed of studies and activities of the County Planning Division which will assist them in the role as advisors. 5. Primary responsibility for coordination between the County, public, and other agencies shall be the county local coordinator. It shall also be the Planning Director's responsibility to assure the Planning Division studies are provided to members of the County Planning Commission. Working Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Draft 5-14-08 Page 1-33 Chapter 1: Comprehensive Planning - Citizen Involvement 6. During each plan update process, a committee broadly representative of the county's areas and interests shall be formed. The actual make-up of the committee will be determined by the Board of County Commissioners based upon a report by the County Planning Director regarding the issues and concerns needing addressing during the update process. If during the update process, additional issues are raised, the Board of County Commissioners may change the composition of the update committee to assure those new concerns are adequately addressed. 7. The plan update process shall occur at least every five years and be open to public view and involvement; public hearings to ascertain citizen views shall be held at the beginning and end of the process. 8. The County may, as required, change its Citizen Involvement Program to assure public involvement and access to information at all stages of the planning process and provide for an efficient and effective planning program. Working Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Page 1-34 Draft 5-14-08 ~E Q A Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ Steering Committee Schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update Deschutes County is initiating an update of the adopted Comprehensive Plan (Plan), the document that guides land use conservation and development. The current Plait includes many chapters that have not changed since they were written in the late 1970s, and thus may not reflect current conditions or community values. Additionally, the county is growing rapidly and we need to be proactive about where and how growth occurs. The Deschutes County Planning Commission will act as the Steering Committee, holding one meeting per month on the Plan. At these meetings topics that are, or should be, addressed in the Plan will be discussed, based on the following schedule. These meetings are open to the public and will provide an opportunity for community input. DATE MEETING TOPICS DISCUSSION 8-7-08 Work schedule, including o Function of Steering Committee Public involvement ground rules ® Schedule Comments/additions - Community Conversations plan Comments/additions © Quality of life/issue identification Land use - what works/what needs attention 8-28-08 Joint meeting with BOCC, including ■ BOCC comments . BOCC comments ■ Schedule ■ Comments ■ Growth projections ■ Growth and development is Community involvement ■ Community involvement goals and policies 9-25-08 Rural land discussion, including For both topics review and discuss ® Farm lands o State regulations, existing conditions, ® Forest lands trends - Current and potential goals and policies 10-23-08 Rural land discussion, including ® Rural reserves ■ deed and criteria ■ Destination resorts ■ Rema ping 11-20-08* Built environment, including For all topics review and discuss ® Rural residential - State regulations, existing conditions, ® Urbanization trends ® Economy - Current and potential goals and policies - Housing Quality Services Performed With Pride Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Schedule 2008-2009 DATE MEETING TOPICS DISCUSSION - Natural disasters 12-18-08* Natural resources, including For both topics review and discuss ■ Rivers/wetlands/riparian areas ■ State regulations, existing conditions, ■ Fish and wildlife trends • Current and potential goals and policies 1-22-09 Environmental quality, including For all topics review and discuss e Water State regulations, existing conditions, ® Air and land trends ® Energy Current and potential goals and policies 2-26-09 Issue areas, including For all topics review and discuss • Terrebonne ■ State regulations, existing conditions, • Tumalo trend's • Deschutes Junction Current and potential goals and policies 3-26-09 Transportation - Review state regulations, existing conditions, trends ■ Current and potential goals and policies 4-23-09 Public facilities and services • Review state regulations, existing conditions, trends ■ Current and potential goals and policies 5-28-09 Other Unincorporated Communities, For all topics review and discuss including - State regulations, existing conditions, - Sunriver UUC trends ® Resort Communities • Current and potential goals and policies - Rural Service Centers 6-25-09 Community resources, including For all topics review and discuss • Historic and cultural ■ State regulations, existing conditions, • Parks and recreation trends • Open Spaces ■ Current and potential goals and policies • Surface mining 7-23-09 Other, as needed Not known at Informal review of the new draft this time comprehensive plan *tentatively Note: this schedule is subject to change rescheduled Page 2 Revised 7-30-08 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee 8-28-08 Comprehensive Plan Update Comp Plan set of goals and policies that guide local land use ® Developed from analysis of local conditions and community input ® Implemented through zoning and other methods Goals/policies must fit in parameters of state planning system ® Current comp plan from 1979, pieces updated ® booking at entire plan to see what needs updating Why update matters ® 1St County anticipates 100,000 new people 2030 (approx. 34,000 unincorporated) Need to be sure our land use policies address anticipated growth 2°d land use choices affect our quality of life Important that policies reflect current conditions and community values Not always agreement - ensure the tradeoffs are understood Function of the Steering Committee o Initiating a year long information gathering process - 1 x month ® For variety of topics try to understand current conditions & community values ® Each topic staff or panel present info on state regulations, current conditions and/or trends and existing goals and/or policies When open up a conversation with the community is Stay at 10,000 ft - just looking at big picture ideas booking for two things from SC o Comment on existing goals - Detain? Amend? Delete? o Recommend new ideas that should be addressed in the plan Once input completed, staff will write up new plan Review informally before formal adoption Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee 8-28-08 Community Involvement Chapter State regulations Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. ® Citizen includes corporations, agencies, interest groups, individuals Local governments must: o Have a Citizen Involvement Program including a Committee for Citizen Involvement (PC) © Create a mechanism to assure effective two-way communication between public and elected/appointed officials o Provide for citizen input at all phases of the planning process o Assure technical information is understandable and available Assure citizens will receive a response from policy makers (land use decisions) ]provide financial support for the citizen involvement program Current Conditions Goal requires people have opportunity for involvement in all phases ® ]dig picture planning - looking at how the community will change in the future - what should be protected and where growth should occur Specific policies and proposals In Oregon big picture planning was mostly done in the 1970s/80s State goals and local policies from the 1970s/80s State has changed dramatically since then ® }Existing big picture policies may no longer reflect conditions or values Additionally many Oregonians don't understand where the current policies came from Lack of recent big picture planning leads to a disconnect between planning and community ® Not that policy planning isn't happening but limited - ham radio or Sunriver Community involvement is evident, often controversial Discussion is often narrow and community can't easily put the policies in context of larger planning issues ® Specific proposals are generally an implementation of existing policies Trickier for the public to participate because that stage in the planning process tends to be more procedural, technical and legalistic Procedures tell people when, where and how they can be involved Procedures ensure consistency and fairness, but can present barriers to participation when they are not fully understood ® The technical nature of planning also makes it hard for people to participate Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee 8-28-08 Primary avenue of enforcing state regulations is through the ability to sue, which encourages a complex process that requires attorneys Trends/Big Look ® One of the first topics examined was public participation in planning ® May 30 draft recommendations none on public involvement because no consensus from Big Look on how to improve current system ® Looked at 2 sides to community involvement Philosophical - land use decisions affect our lives so people should be able to. be involved in making those decisions Procedural/legal - State minimum procedures for when and how people can be involved through notice, standing and appeal statute Current system allows open standing to appeal ® Statute has been subject to court cases - case law ® Unintentionally created an adversarial system Tricky to find balance between allowing participation and providing certainty and fairness ® Balance depends on your perspective ® Many see appeals as a way for people opposed to growth to subvert decisions made in the public view after a full public process ® Others see appeals as a way to actively participate and ensure local governments are meeting state requirements ® Response to Big Look from 1000 }Friends also noted appeals are not used excessively (approx. 15,000 local land use decisions/year with 1-2% appealed) DC appeals to LLJBA 2006(5) 2007(2) 2008(6) - can be tied up for years ® Note Big Look recommendations includes examine statutes and rules to reduce complexity and restore flexibility - procedures included Outcome of Big Look process is unclear DC CP Chapter in comp plan is CIP Designates PC as Committee on Citizen Involvement 4 goals To promote and maintain better communication with community Provide opportunity for the public to raise and help address issues of concern o Serve as liaison between elected/appointed bodies and citizens © To provide educational opportunities about planning and its uses to the public 8 proactive policies to promote community involvement in planning Generally goals and policies are implemented informally, through the land use process and everyday actions :r3 u~ IRV,'' CD mm t~ C, ~ s M V„I f~ w 1 , 07- ' J I U a~ 3 i #J m ~ _O CL O a. N O ® O E a V O O c voilelod0d I~ ~ Spa 91~ .71 7 7 s}W I O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ® O O O O® 0 0 0® 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O R~ SV O O t0 ~ ~V L ~L D 0 L. t r% V 4 r l 1 k n E u O t~ i O O O 0 s r~ ~i 47 z *V L "lye, yy All Ur Y y. _1 y ~ ~ x la. A~ W E a O L. LM E .v t~ cn m E co O O s V O O CD L W LTT ~r .i, A m LL to V ME: N i DC O U 3 -0 o Y ® mi U 01s o a ,U tY ~ I - E 1~ r Vii. ~ - "mm . .m.._ 1 ~ 1 I ~ LM CL U) 0 -C Z a) U) Z: CO • 0 U W 0 U AMA • 1 _ j ■ a 0 • s 3 3 • 06 U Q O N N N N U 1 C6 U C~ J ~ ~a IJ~ ~ FAQ a ,j~, 0 arc t j i w i I QTY ~ vOJ LU WF 1 4 K .T k x ( Z z m 1 reo 00 R 7; 1 ca ~ y CD N ci s a k o LL. 4-~ s t ~ cu /IW~ ~ y e I E, j~ C N 0 ly OC9 t W CL 0 E L ~ ~ /pgy~pp (n 0) Ln Irl L J N C) N -1► N NO art ^ T- I' L LO 1 ~w N O O O N ® ® o ® o ® ® ® O O ® ® ® O O ® ® o ® o LO ® LO O m N N T- uoilelndod 9 ul l ~Sa co CL O c l i 2 cn E NW I..V co U LLJ a= W x " co N y .y ,A ~V r Y r- 3 i i 3}4~ i 'f Q. g 0 a O P a) ca 0 0 U c 0 co 0 E CK C O r U) 0 r 0 a~ t tl ~ C ~ c A C S ~o ~ 0-0 W x m , 4 ri t1G a r 7 t:. 3 l YI 1 +-mat .x~nj ppcc ~S ] y1 _Y y Y- t J NOW c W w 4rc} f ~V1 (-a r C> W T- OJ U W Sao LLJ w 0 00 Z lit A Z 00 'J00 V a ~ r! n ;I WAL- . 4 a. Y s 9a ~ k ~ h i ~ t .a I rj ■ CL CV) 40 r. 0 N L c 0 U 6 0 Ns, cu 0 a !m. 0 0 O c Q cc 0 -10 E V/ NW Ii W O \V P J 0 M C 0 E Q) ry O e