Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-02 Work Session MinutesJT� 0 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Inbody, and Anna Johnson, Administration; and for a portion of the meeting, Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack Terri Hansen Payne, and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; and four other citizens including some employees. No representatives of the media were present. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Hansen Payne handed out copies of the Comp Plan draft. The Planning Commission voted to approve the Comp Plan draft on January 13. They are trying to balance property rights vs. community interest. They have heard a lot from the public in this process. This is an overall document for the County but each individual area has items specific to them (Sisters, Terrebonne, etc.) There was considerable discussion about detail and flexibility. Some of the key issues were agriculture (and how can we support it), wildlife (whose job is it to protect it and how to do it), and water. Water is so pervasive; it is the longest chapter in the plan. What is the County role? Lastly are the community plans. La Pine and Deschutes River Woods had a lot of input in the community plans. The revised draft should be to the Board of Commissioners by next week. The next question is where we go from there. She said the Board could hold a hearing or set up two or three initially. Dave Kanner asked for her recommendation. Ms. Payne said they were open and thought either way would work. They are open to what the Board of Commissioners thinks would be most effective. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 1 of 8 Pages Nick Lelack asked what they would like for a time line. Do the public hearings come before the budget meetings? There would be time in June for the budget deliberations if the hearings were complete by late April or early May. Commissioner Baney said she would be leaning to doing them before the budget. She would like to do the hearings and deliberations while still fresh. If needed, that would give them some time. Commissioner Unger said he liked the idea of getting right into the hearings so there is time to digest what the public says. Mr. Kanner said the third week in May is reserved for budget meetings. He asked if they identify specific issues for the Comp Plan and have hearings on those issues. Ms. Payne said not exactly. The hearings are wide open to whatever the speaker wants to talk about. Mr. Kanner said the Commissioners should know what is in the plan before it is open to the public at hearings. He suggested they have additional work sessions so they can review the plan before holding the public hearings. This would give the Commissioners a better feel for what is in the plan. Commissioner Baney said she would like to have the hearings in the evenings. She suggested Bend, La Pine, Sisters and Redmond. She also suggested that they combine Sisters with either Bend or Redmond. Mr. Lelack said Redmond has been doing UGB's for several years. When they have been going to Redmond for the Comp Plan meetings, few people have been attending. Commissioner Unger said he liked the idea of plenty of workshops in February with the hearings held in March. Commissioner Baney asked that the workshops break the plan down into chapters so it will be easier to digest. Ms. Payne said that would be ok but chapter two is very large and she suggested doing it in two sessions. Mr. Kanner said they would have the plan as an item on the next four work sessions with the exception of March 2, as Commissioner Baney is out of the office. March 9 would be the last date. Commissioner Unger said all of the Commissioners should attend. Commissioner Unger asked how much different the final is from the draft. Ms. Payne said not much. Commissioner Unger asked if they could highlight the changes for them. Ms. Payne will give them a copy of the changes they made. Ms. Baney said at the end of the sessions they will know what the Planning Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Pages Commission and CDD's recommendations are. Commissioner Unger thanked them for working through all those difficult issues. Ms. Payne asked if what the Commissioners have now is ok to get them started. Commissioner DeBone said he would like to know what they are getting into. What are the goals and why are some of the policies written the way they are. He would like an individual work session. Mr. Lelack said the findings document will help and he will sit down with him one on one. Tom Anderson said it might be useful for them to start at the very beginning with the purpose of the comp plan, etc. Commissioner Baney said she could see that as a value to anyone and maybe have that as part of the first work session. Mr. Lelack asked if they wanted any of the Planning Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Baney said if they want to point out items but she did not want them as part of their dialog and decisions. She would like to know how they arrived at their decisions. Commissioner Unger said he agreed that he did not want to skew their decisions. Peter Gutowsky said staff will work on getting a PowerPoint presentation or outline done and he will get that information to the Commissioners. Sometimes they give handouts a week in advance and other times that may not work. Commissioner Baney said she would like to spend more time on the pieces that they need give special attention. 2. Planning Division Work Plan Update (various programs). Mr. Gutowsky said Ms. Payne is reading the Comp Plan update and has the task ahead of her in preparing you for the public hearings. She is also doing the Work Plan. Her priority though is the Comp Plan update. The schedule will be when she can make that happen. Commissioner DeBone said with the Comp Plan, commercial event items, and South County issues there is some turmoil. There is talk about the perimeter but not a lot of talk about South County until later. Mr. Gutowsky said there is a schedule of the timetable. Mr. Lelack said there are two priorities, commercial events and the scoping of South County Community Plan. He said the regional economic opportunity analysis grant is moving forward. He was not sure what County role would be but DLCD has asked us to sit at the table and play a role in the UGB. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Pages Mr. Gutowsky said they will meet with the City of Bend tomorrow and then monthly with DLCD. He said they have asked to attend, not to participate, in those monthly meetings when they have the capacity. City of Bend wanted to be responsible for the technical documents. He wants to verify that that is still their viewpoint. He will better understand County role after the meeting tomorrow. Commissioner Unger asked when they would be through with the Comp Plan. Mr. Lelack said they have a specific 24 -month schedule. Mr. Gutowsky said the fall of 2012, and then the state will acknowledge it by 2013. Mr. Lelack said the next item on the agenda is the Historical Landmarks Commission. For 20 years, Deschutes County handled this but it has been transitioning over the last five years. Now Bend, Redmond, and La Pine are all breaking up to create their own landmarks commission. They will take their members and Deschutes County will keep their own. Deschutes County will remain the certified local government. CDD will have to have some staff as a resource for that. It will be beneficial for everyone to operate with the same expatiations. Commissioner Baney asked if this would take more time for the County in the Future. She suggested the possibility of contracting to someone else. Mr. Lelack said that for the last couple of years the City of Bend has done the staffing. County has not had to get involved that much. In terms of contracting to someone else, he felt the County could handle three to four meetings per year. He said it depends on the scope. Mr. Gutowsky said the state gives money for resources so it is enticing for Bend and Redmond to have their own commission. He said if there is an ambitious agenda and no grants, they could not pay for staff. It could become difficult to meet their expectations. Getting the Board together with the new commission will be critical in determining these expectations. One of the challenges is the grant deadline, which is February 25. Mr. Lelack said they would do the applications. The Board will not meet unless they know the issues. Commissioner Baney said she is concerned if funding is granted; then turned down. Mr. Lelack said any grant has to come through the County before it will be submitted. Mr. Lelack then transitioned to commercial events in the EFU zone. One of the questions is what do they prepare for public hearings for that process. They want Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Pages to develop a text review process. The Planning Commission did not want to help with identifying what is in the text amendment. Page 3 lists the types of activities that may be allowed. They had ideas about how to develop that which includes revising the last text amendment and drafting a proposal to initiate the hearings. A couple of the members do not want to be a part of the reviewing or developing and other members said that is CDD's role. Commissioner Unger said he has attended some of those Planning Commission hearings. He thought the recommendation they brought did not solve much; it only brought more issues. The state does not give us any guidance on this. You have issues, maybe list good and bad for each issue. If we do go that route, it takes a lot of time. Mr. Lelack said the Planning Commission could be involved in two ways. He said the Code allows CDD to have the hearings. It is to be determined if they have to be involved but do not have to have the hearings. Commissioner DeBone said there is still no starting point. Mr. Lelack said exactly. Mr. Gutowsky said staff is trained to be neutral. They could do a work session or BOCC could direct CDD to develop some guidelines. Tom Anderson said this one screams out for a matrix. They would have a range and for each range, they could have a bullet point. Commissioner DeBone suggested doing it as a group. Commissioner Baney asked for the matrix with the areas the Planning Commission agreed to. Commissioner Unger said there is a lot to be absorbed. People can have two outdoor mass gathering events. This deals with commercial use. A lot can happen now with having these on your property without charging. Mr. Kanner said this item could be worked on after the Comp Plan. Commissioner Unger asked if this was something that needs to be in place later this year. Mr. Kanner said step two would be to conduct a work session in late March. Commissioner Baney said it might be determined by acreage rather than by zone. Mr. Anderson said there are parcels of all sizes in all zones. MUA could be up to 20 acres. He said there are not many large acreage MUA's. If they want to open discussion to all zones determined by acreage, it will give staff a place to start working. Commissioner Baney said to clarify involvement with the Planning Commission. Mr. Lelack said they would work with BOCC to develop the plan and then determine if BOCC wants the Planning Commission to review it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Pages Mr. Lelack moved on to the South County Comp Plan. Mr. Gutowsky said they would like to review the plan with residents to understand what issues are important to them. They will come back to the Board in June and let the Commissioners know where they are. They will have some alternatives on how to develop the Comp Plan. They want to honor the resident's viewpoints. Mr. Lelack said the last project is for staff to draft a package of text amendments and to propose a package of amendments. Mr. Gutowsky said to create definitions for bed and breakfasts, private parks, etc. Commissioner Baney said when it is done she thought they would need to determine how to plan for updates in the future; how will it be funded and how do they invest in it? Mr. Kanner said if they are looking at 10 years or longer, they can create a fund for Comp Plan updates. There are funds for long range planning in place now. He does not see a lot of money coming in. Commissioner Baney said if they went 30 years that is a long period. Commissioner Unger suggested a periodic review every 5 years. If that is done, it would not have to be such a large process. Keep the schedule so that they are adjusting to the needs of the County. Mr. Lelack said they do not have the mandate. Mr. Anderson said that is a great concept. He was not sure it has to do with money as much as commitment. They used mostly existing staff and later down the road will do with the staff they have. The concept is good in terms of laying out the commitment in a shorter period than 30 years. Mr. Gutowsky said there are policies now that underscore revisiting the comp Plan. If there were a 5 -year policy, their staff would recognize the document would need to be updated as the community changes. Mr. Lelack said notices and flyers went out. Ms. Payne said the flyers that went out in the tax bills were the most costly. Mr. Gutowsky said it is nice to do a survey every now and then. Commissioner DeBone asked if they need a two- year comp plan every time. Is two years good for the process of less time? Mr. Gutowsky said they could ask the question when the process is done and see if they are satisfied. Mr. Lelack said if done regularly, every 5 years or so, it would go much quicker. Commissioner Unger said in looking at other issues such as sage grouse, energy issues, etc., when they come up see about working them into this long term planning. George Read said there is a reason no one in the state has had a new comp plan. State law says yes or no, there is not a lot they can do. Mr. Lelack Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Pages said some areas of the Comp Plan would not change as much as some areas of the smaller communities. Deschutes Junction will be discussed March 9. 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner DeBone went to a rotary meeting where Greg Walden attended. Commissioner Baney will not be able to attend the ribbon cutting ceremony. She will be meeting with the AOC lobbyists. She will then be on a three-hour conference call on sage grouse (ODFW proposal.) Commissioner Baney said a Commissioner is needed for the Investment Advisory Committee. Commissioner Unger suggested the Commissioners take turns. He said it is a good committee. Commissioner Baney said she would be able to attend next Tuesday. Commissioner DeBone said he would attend also. 4. Other Items Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation — Mark Pilliod and Steve Griffin The Board went into executive session at 2:55 p.m. Mr. Kanner said the Volunteers In Medicine would like someone on their board. Commissioner Baney said they are in a state of a complete overhaul of their structure. The average board member contributes $1400 dollars in a yearly basis. She is obligated to donate $1200 annually. Mr. Kanner said they want someone from the County to be on their board. Commissioner Baney said she found it to be a total waste of time. It was a fundraising board; it was not about clients, service or access to service. Commissioner Unger said he supports them but he is too busy to be on their board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Pages Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. DATED this Day of I' a Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Se,,6retaly Tammy Baney, Chair 2011 for the Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Pages 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/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: February 2, 2011 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND The Deschutes County Planning Commission (Commission) voted on January 13, 2011 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt the draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (Plan). This memo is to provide an overview of the Plan process so far, highlight key issues and seek direction on the Board's preferred review process. Planning staff are currently coordinating with legal counsel to ensure the Planning Commission recommended Comprehensive Plan is compliant with state law and local ordinances, and contains adequate findings. It is anticipated that the completed revisions will be provided to the Board by mid-February. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS OVERVIEW Over the past 21/2 years the Planning Commission and community have discussed revisions to the County Comprehensive Plan. The first year the Commission reviewed State land use regulations, existing goals and policies and current conditions and trends. Panels of experts provided additional guidance on defined topics. Public outreach included listening sessions around the County, booths at the spring and fall Home and Garden Shows, outreach to other jurisdictions, agencies and organizations, a dedicated website and press releases and interviews. Staff combined the information gathered with additional background research into a fall 2009 Comprehensive Plan update draft. The foundations of the 2009 Plan were: (1) balancing private property rights and community interests; (2) creating a broad policy framework for the entire county while also establishing distinct chapters of the plan to address unique issues in different areas/communities; and (3) supporting partnerships, cooperation and collaboration with public, private and non-profit organizations to implement the Plan's goals. Additional community outreach was followed by a year of discussion by the Commission of each goal and policy. A significantly revised draft was released in fall 2010. Three Planning Commission public hearings were scheduled for Bend, Sisters and La Pine. The hearing was continued for one additional meeting in Bend. The Commission then deliberated and recommended approval. Quality Services Performed with Pride Deschutes County Draft Comprehensive Plan Update KEY ISSUES Associated Projects There are a few Comprehensive Plan sections that were, or will be, adopted separately and incorporated into this Plan. First, the Transportation System Plan is a separate project, with hearings anticipated later this year. A second separate project is destination resort mapping, with amended approval criteria already adopted and a revised map under consideration. Third, the Board raised concerns over land uses in Terrebonne, Tumalo and Deschutes Junction. Initially these areas were being reviewed as part of this Plan update, but to give adequate attention to those communities, they were spun off as separate projects. For Terrebonne and Tumalo, public outreach led to community plans that were adopted by the Board. For Deschutes Junction, there was little consensus on the need for a community plan and specific policies for that area are still under discussion. All these projects are important pieces of the Comprehensive Plan, but are not part of this update. Big Picture Land Use Issues Throughout this process there have been lively debates over the future of land use in the County. The key to crafting this Plan was finding balance between competing ideas. • Private property rights and community interests: There was considerable discussion over how to draw the line between individual property rights and wider community interests like clean rivers or the quiet enjoyment of property. Views ranged from those who did not want any restrictions to those who expressed concern that existing regulations are not adequate to protect community interests. • The role of government: The role of government, particularly County government, was discussed in relation to various policies. There was considerable conversation, but not always consensus, on the importance of coordination and partnerships with all stakeholders. • Level of detail in Plan policies: Staff and the Commission had differing ideas of how much detail should be in the Plan. Staff noted that detail is often needed for clarity and to ensure usefulness. Commissioners noted that general policies are more inclusive and more useful over a long period of time. Key Land Use Topics The following topics generated the most discussion and debate. • Agriculture: It was noted that Deschutes County land is challenging to farm profitably, but can't easily be rezoned due to State regulations. • Wildlife: Some expressed opinions that the County should not regulate wildlife on private land while others noted that wildlife is a Targe part of their quality of life and should be protected. • Water: Issues included the County's role in water quality and quantity, south County water issues, the value of the river system, conservation and minimizing development impacts. • Future Community Plans: Residents of south County and Deschutes River Woods have expressed interest in working with the County to develop community plans specifically for their areas. East County residents have noted that their issues differ from other areas and should be addressed in more detail as well. pg 2 2-2-11 Deschutes County Draft Comprehensive Plan Update BOCC DIRECTION ON REVIEW PROCESS The Board directed staff to establish a schedule to ensure adoption by June 30, 2011. Staff seeks direction on the Board's preferred review process to meet that target. Specifically: • Is this work session sufficient to prepare the Board for public hearings? As an alternative, does the Board want to conduct a second work session upon receiving the recommended Plan prior to initiating public hearings? • How many public hearings should be scheduled? Where? When? o One or more hearings? o In Bend or around the county? o Regular 10 a.m. land use meeting or in the evening? • Draft Schedule / Timeline: February: Work Session(s) March: Hearing #1 — Bend (morning and evening — same day) Hearing #2 — La Pine (evening) April - May: Hearing #3 — Sisters (evening) Additional hearings? Locations? May — June: Deliberations / Adoption 2-2-11 pg 3 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2011 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Nick Lelack, Planning Director MTG: February 2, 2011 Work Session RE: Planning Division / Long Range Planning Section / Two New Projects The Board of County Commissioners (Board) held a work session on January 12 to identify new projects that could be initiated over the next five months, and those that will need to be deferred and reprioritized for the FY 2011-12 Work Plan. The Board requested that two new projects be initiated now based on available staff resources: • Commercial Events in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone Text Amendment; and, • Scoping a South County Community Plan. These two items received the highest priority after the Board expressed their full support for Long Range Planning (LRP) Section's FY 2010-2011 ongoing projects. Listed below in Table 1, are those projects. Others referenced on this fiscal year's work plan, but not yet begun, are summarized later in this memorandum. They will be initiated if/when staffing resources become available. Table 1 — Ongoing Projects Supported by the Board Planning Project Status Comprehensive Plan Update (2010-2030) On January 13, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the Plan Update to the Board. On February 2, staff will introduce the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board and seek direction on their desired review process, including the number, location and timelines of work sessions, public hearings and deliberations. Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis Deschutes County is administering a state grant to develop a Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, involving Jefferson and Crook Counties, and most of the cities in the tri -county area. County planning staff, with assistance from the Department of State Lands, is seeking to expand a technical assistance grant to address how implementing the REOA will occur over time and in multiple jurisdictions, among other new deliverables. The project must be completed by May 31, 2011. Quality Services Performed with Pride Table 1 — Ongoing Projects Supported by the Board Planning Project Status Destination Resort Eligibility Map Amendment The Planning Commission continued their November 18 public hearing to January 27. Once a recommendation is made, staff will postpone a Board hearing until the Land Use Board of Appeals issues their decision on Ordinances 2010-024 and 2010-025. These ordinances, which address map eligibility criteria and procedures were appealed by Central Oregon Land Watch. Oral arguments took place on January 20. Deschutes Junction The Planning Commission on January 13 made a recommendation on four Comprehensive Plan policies specifically addressing issues in the Deschutes Junction area. The Planning Division also recently issued an administrative declaratory ruling on the status of the pink building at the northwest quadrant of the intersection. Public hearings on both matters will occur in the spring. Transportation System Plan Update The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan addresses transportation needs throughout the County over the next twenty years (2010-2030). This is the first comprehensive update in over 10 years. A draft Plan is expected in June with public hearings occurring in the summer. South Deschutes County Local Wetland Inventory & Comp Plan Amendment Deschutes County is undertaking a La Pine Subbasin LWI to meet statewide planning goals. The DSL is reviewing the draft LWI. The agency is expected to send an approval letter in March. Once approved, DSL recognizes the LWI as part of the Statewide Wetlands Inventory. Deschutes County will then initiate a legislative amendment to adopt the LWI into its comprehensive plan Small Wind Energy System Text Amendments The Planning Commission is currently considering text amendments to allow small wind energy systems. A small wind turbine is a device that produces no more than 100 kW/hour electricity from wind. Small wind turbines allow homeowners, farmers, small business owners, and public facilities to generate their own energy for on-site use. The Planning Commission is holding its fourth hearing on February 10. Bend UGB Amendments The LRP Section undertakes localized and regional coordination duties, one of which pertains to the City of Bend's UGB amendment.' On November 3, Richard Whitman, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Director, on behalf of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, issued the Remand and Partial Acknowledgment Order of the City of Bend's UGB. The Commission's order became final on Jan. 3, 2011. The City of Bend estimates a 20 - 24 month timeframe to complete the remand order.2 The LRP Section will be attending monthly coordination meetings as a local partner during the remand process with DLCD and City staff. Historical Preservation Program Update & Grants The Cities of Redmond, Bend, and La Pine are moving forward with forming their own Historic Landmarks Commission. These actions will require amending the County's Historic Preservation Code later this spring and determining if staff should apply for its own CLG grant, due February 25. 1 Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.025 requires each county, through its governing body to be responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the county, including planning activities of the county, cities, special districts and state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for the entire area of the county 2 http://www.ci.bend.or.us/docs/UGB Remand Game Plan.pdf. On January 19, the Bend City Council received a report on the LCDC final order and approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a proposed work plan to complete the remand tasks. City Council also appointed a remand task force, made up of three city councilors and two planning commissioners, to oversee the remand project. -2- A. NEW PROJECTS I. Commercial Events in the EFU Zone The Planning Division has the capacity to assign Paul Blikstad, a Senior Planner in the Current Planning Division to undertake this specific text amendment. One approach for undertaking this project is described below. Step 1: Conduct two Planning Commission work sessions, one in February, the other in early March to develop a proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission will discuss and ultimately forward to the Board their preferred legislative criteria for siting commercial events on farm land. These concepts will address: • Activities/Events o Weddings/reunions o Entertainment/concerts o Farm stays (similar to guest ranch) • Compatibility o Minimum acreage o Noise o Lighting o Hours of Operation o Frequency and scale of activity (number of events / number of people) • Land use permitting process o Private park o Event venue o Home occupation o Commercial activity in conjunction with farm use o Public notice o Enforcement o Coordination between state agencies and county departments • Support Services o Transportation issues (traffic flow, parking, emergency services) o Public health requirements (food service, sanitation, garbage) o Groundwater wells o Building/fire safety Step 2 Conduct a work session in late March with the Board to select legislative criteria that can be the basis for crafting and initiating an amendment Step 3 Initiate public hearings, beginning in May with the Planning Commission.3 3 ORS197.610 requires the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to receive 45 days notice prior to the first evidentiary hearing. -3- II. Scoping a South County Community Plan The Planning Division has the capacity to assign Terri Payne, a Senior Planner in the LRP Section to undertake this project, as time becomes available during the Board's consideration of the Comp Plan Update. Table 2 provides an overview of the major elements of a South County Community Plan and an approach for scoping it over the next several months. Staff anticipates returning in June at a Board work session to share the results of the scoping effort. The effort will identify staffing resources necessary to undertake the project and additional costs such as consultants, room rentals and meeting notices. Table 2 — Scoping Approach for a South County Community Plan Part I. What is a Community Plan? What it Does .. . • It describes a vision statement, area history, existing land use conditions, public facilities, community input, and goals and policies. • It is a document created after an extensive public involvement process to reflect community values and their land use concerns • Goals and policies will provide a guide to decision making for land use planning, capital improvements, and physical development during the next 20 years. • The Community Plan is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan and upon adoption by the Board constitutes an official section. • Implementing new policies occurs after a Community Plan is adopted. The Board as the elected body determines during budgetary discussions every spring, the Planning Division's FY work program. What it Does Not .. . • It does not, upon adoption automatically change County regulations It does not overturn state law, state land use goals or regulations • Part II. What are the Major Elements of a Community Plan Background Documents • Wildlife Inventories (1990s) • Zoning o Land Use and Wildlife Zoning (1990s) o High Priority Deer Migration Area (2001) o Transferable Development Credits (2002) o Neighborhood Planning Area (2002) o Pollution Reduction Credits (2006) • Regional Problem Solving (1996 -1999) • KCM Sewer Feasibility Study (1997) • La Pine Demonstration Project (1999 -2004) • 11 USGS Studies (2005-2008) 4 • Community Wildfire Protection Plans o Upper Deschutes River Coalition (2007) o Greater La Pine and Sunriver (2010) • Protection of Groundwater — EPA (2008) • High Groundwater Work Program (2009) • Sewer Feasibility Study (2010) Draft Outline • Community Vision Statement • History • Land Use • Public Facilities and Services • Surrounding Land Use • Community Input • Goals and Policies • Maps 4 http://or.water.usgs.gov/prof/orl86/new site/reports.htm I -4- Table 2 — Scoping Approach for a South County Community Plan Part III. Scoping a South County Community Plan / Winter & Spring 2011 Public Outreach February - April • Develop a questionnaire that can be circulated throughout the area by email and/or as handouts, and published in the Newberry Eagle • Develop a webpage on the Community Development Department's website devoted to scoping this Community Plan • Meet with the Citizens Action Group, Upper Deschutes River Coalition, La Pine Park and Recreation District, road districts, La Pine City Council, Sunriver administration, and others to gain their input April -May • Evaluate responses and prepare a report for the Board June • Conduct a Board work session Initial Questions • Do you support the development of a South County Community Plan? • What is the boundary of South County? • What areas should be included in a South County Community Plan? o Rural subdivisions .. . o City of La Pine and Sunriver... o Other .. . • Are there different issues in different locations that need to be addressed? o Area 36.. . o North / South of State Rec Road.. . o Three Rivers.. . o Other .. . • What issues need to be addressed? o Land use .. . o Public facilities .. . o Transportation .. . o Recreation .. . o Natural Hazards .. . o Wildlife Habitat .. . o Other... • What kind of public outreach is needed to ensure adequate participation in the future development of a community plan? o Email / Website Updates .. . o Targeted Mailings .. . o Surveys .. . o Public Workshops .. . o Other .. . • Is interagency input (state and federal agencies) important for developing the community plan? • Is it important to revisit or review existing County documents during the development of a community plan? o Zoning .. . o Wildlife Inventories .. . o Regional Problem Solving . . o USGS Reports .. . o Sewer Feasibilities Studies .. . o High Groundwater Work Program .. . o Other... -5- III. Projects on Hold Table 3 lists projects that the Board acknowledged are on hold due to limited staff resources. These will likely be deferred and reprioritized for the FY 2011-12 work plan. Nonetheless, as capacity becomes available, staff will consider folding certain legislative amendments under one omnibus bill for efficiency during the hearing process before the Planning Commission and Board. Amendments that could be folded under one omnibus bill are noted with an asterisk (*). Table 3 - FY 2010-11 Projects Not Yet Begun Planning Project Description Action Plan to Implement Comp Plan Develop a 20 -year action plan to implement new Comprehensive Plan as a stand-alone document upon adoption Apply for Certified Local Government Grant Apply for a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant to pay for the costs to nominate the Whited Farmstead for National Register status, if supported by property owner Update Goal 5 Inventory of Natural & Cultural Resources upon Adoption of Comp Plan Although the Comp Plan update was not completed under periodic review and no updates to the Goal 5 resources were made, the County recognizes the importance of revisiting its Goal 5 resource list. To ensure the appropriate protection of Goal 5 resources, the County recognizes the importance of initiating a review of its existing inventories and programs. A review will include consideration of existing inventories and programs as well as the cumulative effects of growth on the County's Goal 5 programs * Solar Ordinance Text Amendments Introduce a variance procedure into the Deschutes County Code that would allow neighbors to mutually agree to waive the protections of the solar ordinance through the recording of a solar easement. Wildfire Protection Text Amendments Add standards and criteria that require defensible space for wildfire protection * Code Violation Text Amendment Initiate an amendment to prohibit the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code violation or is in violation with conditions of approval from a prior land use decision -6- ?4 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, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 1. Comprehensive Plan Update — Nick Lelack, Terri Hansen Payne 2. Planning Division Work Plan Update (various programs) — Nick Lelack & Planning Staff 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 4. Other Items Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation — Mark Pilliod and Steve Gruen 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 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please ca11388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. N (0vt 2 ..0 LL ^ 0 tp N= 11 v C6 TS cu � N °'1 L,„, 'D f0 E '- � r J '1 O r Phone # cz h 60 cQ U w 1. 4 __JJCThl ^\ V GJ Work Session 0) Z N 0) bC co a O