Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-03 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 1 of 8 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 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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; and, for a portion of the meeting, Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Matt Martin, Will Groves and Peter Russell, Community Development; and four other citizens, including Ted Shorack of the Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Agricultural Lands Update (preparation for continued discussion with the Planning Commission, September 25). Nick Lelack spoke about the upcoming meeting of the Board and the Planning Commission. Also, he asked if an update on Goal 11 should be a part of this meeting and, if so, whether the Board wants this in a public hearing forum. He asked them to decide today on agenda items beyond the agricultural lands piece. Peter Gutowsky presented a matrix of questions and concerns raised during the public process. He asked if the intent is to fold this into a public process at the meeting to kick off the discussion. He went over the background, issues and alternatives for action. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Pages Mr. Martin said the intent is to address key issues, and there were about 15 of them raised in outreach meetings. Background is included, and whether State Goals are a factor; and there are suggestions for action. He said that accessory dwelling units are an example. Mr. Gutowsky said some adjustments may be as simple as a Code change, but others are legislative and the County cannot make a change itself. They identified alternatives: status quo, especially if bound by the Statewid e system; whether minor amendments can be made, recognizing in the Comprehensive Plan that some changes are possible today; or initiating a full-blown resource lands program, but they would have to demonstrate the need, establish a new zone and all that goes with it. It would only be available on a case-by-case basis at that point. Another alternative is to lobby State representatives and the delegation so that this County can perhaps do what southern Oregon has been able to do recently in this regard. The Planning Commission is ready for the conversation, but they also have ideas on what is important to them and the path they think should be taken. The Board can also decide whether to accept public input at that time as well. Chair Baney wants to manage expectations at the meeting. They cannot present all of these to the legislature. It will need to be narrowed to the top goals of this work so it can be successful. There needs to be focus on certain ideas. Mr. Lelack said that the Planning Commission has not encouraged having all go to the legislature. Chair Baney stated that it is nice to know that some could be referred to the legislature when appropriate. Commissioner Unger noted that rules were made in Salem as to what is agricultural land. This does not necessarily mean these rules are right for this area. He likes the idea of looking at Jackson County to see what they have done, and determining whether this area can go the same direction. There are still issues to address, and the Board needs to know the challenges of living in this area, per public perception, and what could be done. Some things seem to make sense, but are not allowed. Perhaps there can be an exception process, which is more balanced. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Pages Commissioner DeBone asked if this is something that might be part of a comprehensive plan update. Mr. Lelack said some can be changes in Code, some could be part of the Comp Plan, but some require legislative action. They could indicate to the Board what is possible for each issue. Commissioner DeBone asked if they are to decide how big a bite to take. He is not interested in public input at this time, since they need to refine this list with the Planning Commission. Public input can come when they have it narrowed down to certain issues. Tom Anderson said that some topics might require more input from other counties. Chair Baney stated that there should be a follow-up to these discussions and they can ask for comments then, when there are specific issues to address. Mr. Gutowsky said that Planning is at capacity except for small changes. A major Comp Plan amendment would require a lot of staff time. Staff will be asking for direction as to how they should structure their next work plan. He wants to be sure expectations are realistic. The Planning Commission and Board can discuss priorities and the resources it might take to address those. Chair Baney asked if they could achieve some of this locally and not necessarily at the State level. Mr. Gutowsky said the non-resource lands program will be a huge project overall. It is hard to determine if there are elements that can be viewed in context of EFU uses. Beyond that, it is more complex. The question will be whether applicants might be willing to initiate a change. If property is further removed from the Bend UGB, given the history of complicated applications, there is always the chance of an appeal. The application can cost $20,000 and would still be subject to uncertainty. Mr. Lelack stated that a prominent state land use group has indicated a non - resource program is viable. However, there are others who will likely oppose this. It has never been tried on this size scale. Chair Baney said the soils classification process is established by the State. Therefore, it appears you cannot get far unless the basic rules are changed by the State. Mr. Gutowsky said that having irrigation and a previous agricultural use is a steep hurdle to cover. Some lands have had no farming history and no water. Then you can look at suitability as it relates to adjacent properties, wildlife overlay zones and other issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Pages Mr. Lelack stated they have done the math regarding soils classifications and percentages. It is unknown how many owners could benefit from this without going further with the State. Commissioner Unger said it is simple to think it is obvious, but it isn’t always. He would like a different choice than MUA-10 if they take something out of resource lands. Mr. Lelack said they could keep the same lot size, and just change the zoning. There are many options to consider. Commissioner DeBone feels an MUA-10 hobby farm type of property is a decent opportunity and a good middle ground. Mr. Lelack said he would reach out to the Planning Commission to get some ideas from them as to discussion points. Chair Baney wants to set this up at a work session soon. They need a lot of discussion with the Planning Commission. Mr. Gutowsky asked if the Board wants to discuss other topics. Will Groves spoke about the flood plain insurance program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA runs the national floodplain insurance program, and their operation was called into question by lawsuits. They were told that by providing insurance for these areas, they have impacted some species. FEMA agreed to the National Marine Fisheries Association’s offer to tell FEMA what needs to be done to protect endangered species. This has already been addressed in Washington, and they anticipate new rules in Oregon relating to salmon and steelhead. Whychus Creek, the far north reaches of the Deschutes River and parts of the Crooked River might be affected. This might involve new federal regulations that might have to be adopted as part of Code. A limited number of property owners here would be affected. Other jurisdictions are highly impacted. Some are sending letters to FEMA and the Governor. The general perspective here is to let the other counties take the lead. The big federal agencies are negotiating and it will propagate out to the local level eventually. If the Board wants this part of the Planning Commission meeting, information can be provided. However, it is not likely to have a local impact for several years. Chair Baney said she would like to see Goal 11 discussed first, and end with this presentation, which would provide basic info rmation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if this includes spotted frog. Mr. Groves said that there is an obligation not to harm these species, so there is a requirement already. Groups sued FEMA for failing to protect some species that were not already protected. The spotted frog issue might arise if a third party feels the frogs are being ignored. The County will continue with protections in place until told to do otherwise. Mr. Gutowsky stated that he understands that the spotted frog is in riparian areas where it is always wet, with active channels, and there is already a setback for wetlands. The U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife feels that what the County is doing now is very acceptable. The Road Department is also working in conjunction with this. Development is not dense enough, and there were great strides made in regard to the Whychus Creek area. Chair Baney feels the spotted frog issue will come up, so it should be addressed, and clarification made as to this and the other species issues. Mr. Lelack said Sage Grouse may also be brought up, but it is completely separate as well. In regard to the traffic study for the TPR, they are waiting for DLCD to negotiate this issue. Planning does not want to have an expensive study done before knowing what happens with the State agencies on a Goal 11 exception. Mr. Lelack said that he hopes this will be raised at a joint meeting. DEQ of course has to be involved and provide an update. Commissioner DeBone would like to see a document that addresses a Goal 11 exception, with the understanding they can’t discuss all of the aspects at that time. Mr. Gutowsky feels they could touch on these issues within a two-hour time period. Mr. Lelack said the agricultural lands update should take much of it. They could put the DEQ first so their representatives could leave early. Commissioner DeBone asked about view corridors and overlays that affect building, in response to a citizen’s inquiry. He does not have a solid feel for the view corridor issue and whether this is a strong driver. Mr. Groves said the landscape management combining zone extends over properties within a certain distance of rivers, streams and certain roads. The idea is for people to enjoy a more natural view. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Pages There is an abbreviated version of the permit for those structures that can’t be seen, called a non-visible landscape exception. The visible permit has rules attached: height, color, reflection, and screening. If there is no vegetation, they may require trees be planted. This has to do with Goal 5 resources, views and scenic corridors. 2. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-025, a Minor Text Amendment regarding Black Butte Ranch. Mr. Martin said this relates to a minor correction, as Black Butte Ranch was omitted from the resort district description. This Ordinance will correct the error. It is written in the text but not the title. There are no other changes. 3. Other Items. Erik Kropp said 9-1-1 purchases insurance developed for special districts, which needs to be approved by the governing body. The Sunriver Service District also purchases through this process. DEBONE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Mr. Kropp said the Board received an e-mail from a resident regarding Cat Rescue, Adoption and Foster Team. The message and draft response were distributed for review. Chair Baney said the County appreciates what CRAFT does and will do what it can to support their efforts. ___________________________ Regarding Audit Committee vacancies and appointments, interviews were held with three applicants, and two very qualified people are being recommended. The appointment letters would be approved at the next Board meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that one candidate has a lot of experience in audit programs, quality management and was on a national committee. The other person from Bend Park & Recreation helps with the agency viewpoint. The third person had a good skillsets but it was similar to what they already have with current members. ___________________________ Ted Shorack, from Astoria, just started with The Bulletin. He will be covering government issues. ___________________________ Chair Baney said Arts Central sent in a request for a lottery funds for their annual event later this month. She is on their board and is not sure if Judith Ure had received the request. Ms. Ure said the cycle has not ended, so this and others have not been reviewed. The Board funded this last year. It would come out of the fundraising category. UNGER: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Ms. Ure stated that Leadership Redmond has submitted a request for a grant. In the past they have provided scholarships in lieu of a Commissioner attending. The Board supports this, at one third each. UNGER: Move approval of the $1,200 grant. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Chair Baney said she spoke with Becky Johnson about the County’s relationship with OSU. She would like an update on their progress. Some information in the local paper of late has been incorrect regarding the County’s role and support. ___________________________ Regarding the UGB Remand Committee, Chair Baney would like Tony to sit in on those meetings. These meetings unfortunately conflict with Wednesday work sessions. Commissioner DeBone said he would do so. It is primarily a city conversation, but the County wants to be supportive. Mr. Anderson added that County staff has been involved and remains committed to assisting as appropriate. The Board discussed the AOC meeting in Bums on Friday. Chair Baney will attend since the other Commissioners have commitments with other groups that day. Commissioner DeBone will call in if able. Commissioner DeB one said there is a Governor's clean fuels advisory meeting scheduled in Portland for October 1, and he plans to attend via conference call. At this point, there is nothing on the Board meeting agendas for that day. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. DATED this I f1!::.-Day of h~. Tammy Baney, Ch Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 8 of 8 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., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 1. Agricultural Lands Update (preparation for continued discussion with the Planning Commission, September 25) -Nick Lelack 2. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-025, a Minor Text Amendment regarding Black Butte Ranch -Matt Martin 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 1 92.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board a/Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St .. Bend, unless otherwise indicated. I/you 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(a)deschutes.org. ~------------------------------ q j 1 J i ,I I I I ...." ...." ~ "C "C ro 'it; E I QJ r8i. ,., 0-.. \J \. ~ ~ ~ -3. ~ ~ . ~ ':' ~ " ~ ~ (>... ~Jf 11 ] '" ~·t ilt It) c,.I""'­~ ..;j­~ ~ , 1 x \>Q M ..) Po ~ <::rfI) t ~ ,\ "-rI) ~~ ~ r1 Q -V n-l""­ t-\-r ~ r ~ 0... '" Q) ro 0... Q) ro Community Development Department Planning DIvIsion Building Safety DIvIsion Environmental SoIls DIvision DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 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/ August20,2014 Board of County Commissioners Nick Lelack, Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner September 25/ Joint Planning Commission Meeting / Coordination This memorandum prepares the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for its joint work session with the Planning Commission on September 25. As summarized below, the Community Development Department (COD) is interested in providing three updates. 1. Agricultural Lands Program The BOCC directed COD to conduct a public outreach campaign to understand community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm designations and land uses. In May, the Planning Division conducted six community conversations in locations throughout the County. The meetings were held in Alfalfa, Bend, Brothers, La Pine, Sisters, and Terrebonne. Each one provided an overview of Deschutes County's agricultural lands program with details focusing on its history, relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, and recent land use trends. Staff utilized a variety of public engagement techniques to generate public comments, including facilitated exercises and questionnaires. An online survey was also made available on the COD website. In addition, staff approached numerous organizations in the region, offering to hold stakeholder meetings. A final report summarizing the results of this public outreach campaign was released in preparation of a joint Planning Commission and BOCC work session.1 A joint Board-Planning Commission work session was held on June 26,2014, to discuss the public outreach results. Staff gave a presentation and fielded questions from the Commissioners. The public was also given an opportunity to comment. Prior to determining the next steps of the project, the BOCC directed staff to address issues raised at the meeting and the previous public outreach reach campaign. During the September 25 work session, staff will provide a matrix and PowerPoint presentation recapping both. 2. National Flood Insurance Program and Endangered Species Act As a result of a 2010 settlement approved in federal court, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and drafting new rules for Oregon communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and have waterways bearing salmon or steelhead.2 Jurisdictions and property owners across the state rely on NFIP, administered by FEMA. The NFIP sets 1 www.deschutes.org/CDDPlanProcess 2 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/Salmon%20Recovervo/o20through%2OFloodplain%20Management.pdf Quality Services Performed with Pride building standards to minimize loss of life and property damage from floods. It also provides flood insurance not available through the private market. FEMA has been sued in several states, including Oregon, for failing to consult with NMFS or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are affected by development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), or "100-year floodplain." FEMA administers the NFIP in the SFHA and has an obligation under Section 7 of the ESA to implement its program so that listed species are not put at higher risk of extinction. Through the consultation process NMFS and FEMA must identify measures to ensure that implementation of the NFIP will not result in further loss of salmon and steelhead habitat. FEMA is presently working with NMFS on a biological opinion that would ensure that homes and other developments in these floodplain areas do not harm salmon and steelhead populations. This biological opinion would also give guidance to communities and potentially require them to adopt ordinances to address the ESA. Many Oregon cities and counties have expressed concern to FEMA and NMFS regarding the promulgation of new floodplain rules and guidelines, including the lack of staffing capacity to deal with technical ESA consultation; the potential liability of approving land use and building permits; and potential loss of real estate values if local zoning requirements change dramatically. Deschutes County is home to three populations of salmon and steelhead listed as threatened under ESA by NMFS and USFWS: spring chinook salmon, summer steelhead trout, and bull trout. Whychus Creek historically supported steel head and salmon prior to the establishment of the Pelton Round Butte Dams. Since 2007, Portland General Electric, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have led the effort to reintroduce salmon and steelhead fry and smolts in Whychus Creek. Bull Trout occupy the Deschutes River downstream from Big Falls and the Crooked River near the Rex Barber Bridge. Both areas contain incised canyons with development occurring beyond the rim. Big Falls naturally blocks bull trout from moving upstream into the Upper Deschutes River. The falls are approximately 1.5 miles downstream from Lower Bridge Road. According to the Assessor's Office, there are 167 lots in the rural county within 170 feet of Whychus Creek, Deschutes River or the Crooked River. Of these, 78 are developed with a residence. Staff will provide a PowerPoint describing the NFIP and ESA in more detail at the joint work session. 3. Long Range Planning Update I Goal 11 CDD will provide an update on the Goal 11 (Sewer) Exception for southern Deschutes County. The Planning and Environmental Soils Divisions continue to support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Project. Staff anticipates a draft burden of proof and map of the affected area to justify a Goal 11 exception will be available from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and DEQ by the end of September. DEQ and DLCD are interested in then initiating a series of informal public review meetings through February prior to commencing a formal Goal 11 exception application and public hearing process in Spring 2015. A schedule of those informal meetings is forthcoming. -2­ DRAFT Agricultural Lands Program Issues Analysis Issue Description Issue Summary Required Action Category 1 – Minor Local Amendments Conventional Housing Combining (CHC) Zone Medical hardship dwelling is not permitted in CHC Zone because such a dwelling is limited to the use of a manufactured home or recreational vehicle. The CHC Zone was established under PL-15, the original Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the CHC Zone is to “provide a variety of residential environments in rural areas by maintaining areas reserved for conventional and modular housing permanently attached to real property.” All outright and conditional uses allowed in the underlying zone except that in no case shall a housing type be allowed that is other than conventional or modular housing permanently attached to real property. Some property owners expressed frustration that there is no option to establish a temporary medical hardship dwelling in the CHC Zone. Pursuant to DCC 18.116.090, medical hardship dwellings are a manufactured home of any class or one recreational vehicle. While not currently allowed locally, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660- 033-013(10) permits the temporary residential use of an existing building for a medical hardship dwelling. STATE: No action by the State is required. LOCAL: Multiple local options: 1-Repeal this chapter of the ordinance. 2-Amend this chapter to permit a manufacture home/RV for medical hardship dwelling. 3-Amend medical hardship dwelling standards to permit the use of an existing building. Farm/Nonfarm Use Compatibility Provide protection against negative impacts created by incompatible uses. Use compatibility, or lack thereof, was one of the most frequently noted concerns expressed by the public. Incompatibility comes from two primary sources. The first stems from nonfarm uses and nonfarm use visitors creating impacts such as traffic, trespass, and noise that affect agricultural operations and productivity. The second is the nonfarm users are not familiar and do not appreciate the impacts created by agriculture including noise, dust, and odor that can lead to complaints that, even with existing “right to farm” protections, can be a time consuming and potentially costly distraction from managing a farm. STATE: No action necessary. LOCAL: Strengthen existing protections to include such things as increasing setbacks, use agreements, or use design criteria. -2- Issue Description Issue Summary Required Action Expedited Review Review process too lengthy, cumbersome, and is a deterrent to new uses being established. Many participants expressed frustration and concern with Deschutes County’s lengthy land use process that, in some instances, can have a negative impact on a landowner’s profitability. Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, outlines the process of reviewing land use applications. ORS 215.416 and case law specify required notice, timelines for review and decisions. STATE: Amend procedural requirements for issuing land use decisions. LOCAL: Implement new rules to expedite land use decisions in Deschutes County. Category 2 – State Legislative Amendments Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Provide housing for caregivers and rental for income. An ADU is a small, secondary and subordinate dwelling unit on a property with a single family dwelling. Comments received expressed interest in developing this housing type in the EFU zone. ADUs are not currently allowed in the EFU zone by local code or State law. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.3.5 supports initiating discussions with State to permit ADUs in EFU zone. STATE: Amend State law to allow ADU. LOCAL: Amend County code to permit ADU if State statute is changed. Category 3 – Local Non-Resource Program Category 4 – Regional, State Supported Program Farm Help Housing Housing options for full time farm workers is too limited and prevents opportunities to improve agricultural operations . An accessory dwelling is allowed through a land use decision if the dwelling will be occupied by a person(s) who will be principally engaged in the farm use of the land and whose seasonal or year- round assistance is required of the farm operator. The standards and criteria applicable to these uses are established by State statute. In addition, a room and board arrangement is permitted as a STATE: Amend State law to be more flexible and accommodating. LOCAL: Amend County code to conform to statute.