Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-02 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 1 of 7 Pages For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Kevin Harrison and Matt Martin, Community Development; and eight other citizens, include media representative Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the work session at 1:30 p.m., and the meeting was audio recorded. ___________________________ 1. Discussion of Preparation for Thornburgh Appeal Hearing. Kevin Harrison gave a brief overview of the issue, referring to a staff report and the case file. Commissioner DeBone asked for clarification of the differences between the conceptual master plan and the final master plan. Mr. Harrison stated that the first stage is the conceptual master plan with a proposal, and the criteria are in State law. It is all on paper at that point. This provides the foundation for subsequent approvals. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Pages The final master plan follows, with uses and activities becoming more fixed, and details regarding overnight or residential housing becoming clearer. That leads to individual site plans and subdivision plats, and construction. Some details and requirements might be laid out in the conceptual master plan, if the developer has this information. The key concept here is that if the Board finds that the conceptual master plan was initiated, there is no expiration date on this step and they can proceed with the next. If it has not been initiated, it has expired and there are no land use entitlements to the property. Mr. Harrison stated that the typical life span of a land use permit is two years for initial approval and extensions after that. Chair Baney asked how the resorts were notified, or if they were, to make them aware of the extensions so they could have taken advantage of them. Ms. Craghead stated it was done through public notice; she does not think this is done through individual notifications. Ms. Craghead said the parties are Loyal Land LLC, represented by counsel; and Nunzie Gould, represented by attorney Paul Dewey. Ms. Gould has established status and has a right to participate. However, if this heard done de novo, others can participate at the remand level as well. Mr. Harrison stated that the record is large and the most relevant documents were provided to the Board. There will be additional evidence to come. The Order signed by the Board accepted the appeal, de novo, but only on the issue regarding whether the conceptual master plan had been initiated; and whether it was substantially exercised and if not, whether it was the fault of the applicant. There are 38 conditions of approval. (Mr. Harrison referred to the document.) Red wording shows actions substantially exercised and not appealed to LUBA. These are off the table. The conditions in blue are those the Hearings Officer feels were substantially complied with. Those conditions shown in black were not substantially exercised and are fully under review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Pages LUBA gave directions to the County and that is listed. The County has to consider whether all relative actions were exercised. If the Board looks at the conditions of approval individually, if one does not comply, the conditional use permit has not been initiated. Or, they can look at them as a whole and determine if they have been exercised on balance. Determining fault is a key component in this review. After considering the reports from LUBA and the Hearings Officer, if it was not initiated, the Board can review the others. Much of this has to do with determining fault of the applicant to not take action when they should or could have. There could have been a delay by an agency, and there were arguments presented by the applicant, challenged by the opponent and summarized by the Hearings Officer. One has to do with a delay with BLM, and another with general economic conditions and bankruptcy proceedings of the original landowner. One has to do with the problem with the timing of appeals, and one has to do with applying for the final master plan because of these other factors. Commissioner Unger said that the process has been moving forward and conditions were being met, but the timeline got very long. He asked if approved conditions are in compliance. Ms. Craghead said that has already been decided. Mr. Harrison stated that the Hearings Officer felt if they had done so, and had met the threshold. Chair Baney stated that the resorts came in under a variety of changes. There should have been certain rules at the time that they would have had to meet. Ms. Craghead said there was an issue of whether they still had water rights, but had them at the time of original approval. Mr. Harrisons stated that they are not guaranteed approval at the next stage. That would be shown at that time. This decision simply talks about the conditions of approval for the CUP and whether it was done in a timely manner. Mr. Harrison stated that Code says that a remand from LUBA goes back to the decision-maker who rendered the decision. The Hearings Officer and BOCC have different rules. The Hearings Officer cannot take in or consider new evidence and testimony, but it is clear the Board can take this information in a de novo review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Pages “Substantially exercised” has been defined by the Hearings Officer and not challenged by LUBA. The words mean different things to different people, so it has been contentious. Commissioner Unger stated that ‘initiated’ is the key world. He wondered if the clock is tolled while the case is in litigation. Commissioner Unger asked if the final master plan can be pursued before the other is in place. Mr. Harrison said that you want the CUP first in most cases, but the CUP process had also been started, so they ended up with overlapping lawsuits and appeals. Commissioner Unger wants to be sure the scope is narrow, but needs certainty to move forward. Mr. Harrison stated the Board has the authority to interpret the conditions of approval, as it is not statutory. They need to be plausible and meet the criteria. Ms. Craghead said the opponents argue that the applicant should have applied for a CUP while other things were underway, even though they were subject to numerous appeals.. Chair Baney appreciates the work being distilled down to make it more manageable. Mr. Harrison said the applicant has granted the Board until August 3 to come to a decision, as it is in statute. It has to be mailed out by then, so a decision needs to happen a few weeks before then. It is at the Board’s discretion as to how long to allow the record to be open for additional testimony. Chair Baney said the Board has to stay on track and cannot consider any absences or vacations of any parties in scheduling dates. 2. Discussion of June 26 Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Matt Martin said this involves the agricultural lands issue, and the Board wanted to get public input on how this program is or is not working. They conducted six public meetings from Brothers to Sisters, Terrebonne, Alfalfa, La Pine and Bend. Attendance was fair throughout, with the most attendees in Sisters, and Brothers per capita. The public was engaged in their community to learn more. An overview was provided to the attendees, along with the reason for the meetings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Pages They had a series of exercises at the meetings to find out more, and whether the agricultural lands program is working. They asked for specific issues or uses that were of question, and through individual questionnaires and an on-line survey. This provided a wide range of ways to receive feedback. There are diverse opinions. The program has been in place for forty years with the last significant outreach being twenty years ago. They discussed the program in general and tried to find out if newcomers understand it and who has issues with it. They also held several stakeholder meetings with various groups regarding irrigation issues, Central Oregon Landwatch, farming and ranching interests and others. They are working on a report that will be provided prior to the joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Chair Baney asked how many surveys were returned from those who did not attend. Mr. Martin stated around twenty, with 175 others at the meetings. Nick Lelack said that there will be a PowerPoint presentation and report at the joint meeting. It will discuss the history of the program, background and why this conversation was initiated, the tools, results and alternatives to next steps. Regarding the agenda, it would be helpful to know the hoped-for outcome. The public would also like to speak at the meeting, if the Board wants to allow this. There will be alternatives to next steps. He anticipates 50 to 100 attendees. Public input will have to be limited if there are that many attendees. An additional meeting can be planned to discuss alternatives with the Planning Commission if time does not allow for this. Staff would like to know if a meeting with the Planning Commission is desired annually. Chair Baney asked what kind of testimony they should seek , or are they just looking for general comments. She worries that a few will try to drive policy for the many. She is concerned that some is out of the Board’s purview and is under the control of the State. Mr. Martin replied that input has been received from maybe 250 people. Some just want to share their comments with the Board. Managing expectations is a challenge. In part, it depends whether there are other items to be on the agenda of this meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 2, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Pages Peter Gutowsky stated that one might anticipate that if public comment is allowed, they will focus on the alternatives. The population is very diverse and there are a variety of opinions and values. Some had asked if they could share their ideas with the Board. Mr. Martin stated that there would be a summary of the program and what is dictated by the State. Mr. Gutowsky said some do not want to participate unless there is a proposal, but some appreciated the questions being asked without a preconceived decision of the Board. Mr. Lelack said the white paper that will provide an overview, feedback and more may be very helpful in dealing with the legislature and State. Chair Baney is in favor of public testimony but it has to be managed properly. Commissioner Unger supports this, as does Commissioner DeBone. Commissioner Unger asked about other agenda items and whether the Planning Commission had any. Staff needs to know about any additional topics for that agenda by June 12. Commissioner Unger asked about discussions regarding irrigation canals. Chair Baney said that without proper notice, this should probably not be a discussion topic at the joint meeting due to the intense interest in that issue at this time. It would be a disservice not to dedicate adequate time for any of the bigger issues. ___________________________ At this time, the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real estate negotiations. ___________________________ 3. Other Items. After executive session, the Board took action. UNGER: Move approval of the direction given to staff during executive session. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. DATED this 3!'---Day of 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commission~ /1, ~ Tam~ Anthony eBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~-k Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 2 , 2014 Page 7 of7 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2014 1. Discussion of Preparation for Thornburgh Appeal Hearing -Kevin Harrison 2. Discussion of June 26 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission -Matt Martin 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an exeeutive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (el, real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS I 92.660{2l, exeeutive session. Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at /300 NW Wall St., Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. r-:;i ~ ~~ ~ ( ~;. I I ~ ~~ Ic£ ~ i } ~ I '" ~-i ~ II ~ \J '" ~I -:S . ~ '" ..) ~ \)) -­OJ I~I s... ~~ ~ ~ I"'C ,~ I ~ '"""t7 1 ~'-­I "'C ~I j .J I I I '~~ t~ ~! t--­vi QI I ~ , E P ~ ~ ] ~ l ~ I I cU ~ ~ '"::3-­ ~ • j I ~ ... ~ 1 ce-­~ ~ ~.::: ~ I 1../\ ==**: ~ ~ ~OJ ~ ~ ~ c ~ 0<) LO J'­, 0 \ \'-­<"'-..c: ~ ~ I Q. 1"­t"\-:r '--­ I ~ -"-.S) Dt I ~ ~ ~,. AI ! ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ -r ~ r----­r­:. ~ cO­I:r ~ , I ~ ~ ~ ~J ~ iJ i' \,.. ~ -' VJ -­-~ - ~ E:: ~, ~'" t-~I ~ '" 4 .~ ~ f0 " ...:s '"V ~ "'C ~ " J"'C l ~ ... ~ « ~ ::::. .3 ~ '? 3 ~ ~I uc::::; ~ V\ ;: ~I ~ I'­I'­co C\ \'"-' ~ ::E ~ \""'> ~ ~ \.0 " ('­ ~ -- ~ ~ u $ ~ J 1 j ~ -L. ~~ -~ ::: '" r ~8. pc: -~ V> ~ ( ' ~, l .J ~ t ~ ~ co C 0... 0 ~ r -.­·s i ~ ::J ~VI kJVI ~ OJ ~~~ ~OJ E 3V\ j 4­ ~ co J <I ~ "" 0 ~ ~ I Z 'tj ~ ~' l-I 0 !=t /" \.l ~ ~ Q :J ~ 1 ~ c} s­15 I N ~ j 0 ==**: '4 ~ -­ I I ~ e1< ~ .--1 ~ I .­co ! --' 0... Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental SoIls DIvision P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DATE: May 27,2014 TO: Deschutes County Soard of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Matthew Martin, Associate Planner Nick Lelack, CDD Director RE: Agricultural Lands Program Public Outreach Update / Joint Work Session Summary The Soard of County Commissioners (SOCC) will hold a joint work session on June 26 at 5:30 p.m. with the Planning Commission to discuss the results of the agricultural lands program public outreach campaign. In addition, pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.2.2(e), the Planning Commission, serving in the capacity of the County's Committee for Community Involvement, aims to "meet with the Soard of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities." The June 26 joint meeting provides an opportunity for the SOCC and Planning Commission to discuss other land use matters facing the county. The purpose of this work session is to set the agenda for the Joint SOCC-Planning Commission meeting on June 26. Background As part of the FY 2013-14 Community Development Department work plan, the (SOCC) originally directed staff to explore alternatives (Non-Resource Lands, Secondary Lands, Sig LooklHS 2229, and/or Regional Resource Definitions) to determine the best option for reviewing and potentially changing farm and forest land designations in Deschutes County. The project initiated in the fall with a series of work sessions and panel discussions with the Planning Commission. As result, it was determined by both bodies that it was premature to contemplate agricultural land alternatives (Le. Non-Resource Lands) when we do not know all the issues today. Outside of the Comprehensive Plan Update, completed in 2011, the last time staff engaged residents and stakeholders about the specific challenges and opportunities facing agricultural lands occurred in the early 1990s. As a result, the SOCC directed staff to first conduct a public outreach campaign to understand community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm designations and land uses. In short, to find out "what's working and what's not?" During the month of May the planning division held six (6) community conversations in locations throughout the county that were well received and attended. Each meeting provided an Quality Services Performed with Pride overview of the existing agricultural lands program with details focusing on the statewide and local land use planning history, structure, and policies. A variety of public engagement techniques were provided to generate comments including facilitated exercises, questionnaires, and an on-line survey. In addition, several stakeholder meetings were held independent of the community conversations with organizations such as Central Oregon Land Watch, Deschutes Basin Board of Control, Deschutes County Farm Bureau, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. These meetings provided an excellent opportunity to understand the unique and diverse perspectives of each group. Next Steps A joint work session with the BOCC and Planning Commission is scheduled for June 26, 2014, at 5:30 p.m., in the Deschutes Services Center Barnes and Sawyers Rooms. At this meeting, staff will present the results of the public outreach process and summarize the general themes heard from the public and stakeholders. A summary report will be also provided. Staff will provide options for next steps to modify the County's Agricultural Lands program, if any, for the BOCC and Planning Commission's consideration, and seek direction on June 26 or at a future meeting once the bodies have had time to review and evaluate the information presented. -2­