Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-21 Work Session Minutes 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, JANUARY 21, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Tom Anderson, Barbara Rich, Dan Haldeman, Will Groves, George Read and Peter Gutowsky of Community Development; Brian Shutterly and Damian Syrnyk of the City of Bend; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens, including media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Citizen Input. Gladys Biglor spoke regarding TA-0-89, the proposed ordinance regarding event venues, and said an agreement was reached by Commissioners Unger and Baney to have staff write a text amendment on behalf of the applicants. She asked that there be equal access to County resources at no charge to individuals who oppose this action. 1. Briefing on Bend UGB Expansion Proposal. ƒ Ordinance 2009-001: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D ƒ Ordinance 2009-002: Exhibit A, Exhibit B Commissioner Luke asked why City of Bend staff is in attendance today, since he was under the impression that no further testimony was allowed after November 24 joint public hearing. Peter Gutowsky said that both entities closed the oral record but kept he written open for seven days. No new information will be entered. The purpose of this meeting is to prepare the Board for a decision on Monday, January 26, regarding a first reading. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 1 of 8 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 2 of 8 Pages The County’s ordinances recognize the City Council’s urban growth boundary decision. Commissioner Luke asked about any changes made since the record closed. Mr. Gutowsky stated that they deliberated the record, as it existed on December 1 when the record officially closed. There has been no new information entered into the record since that time. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the boundary changed since the joint meeting. Laurie Craghead explained that the County could decide whether to approve the boundary. It is somewhat new information, but it is the decision of the City Council that the Board will or will not agree with. The ordinances show the boundaries based on staff recommendation and information in the record as of December 1, 2008. Mr. Gutowsky stated that Exhibit D shows the findings that City Council adopted as part of their set of ordinances. The County’s documents would be consistent. The effective date of both sets of ordinances would occur once the State concurs with the findings. Brian Shutterly, long range planning manager, said that the Council made some adjustments to the map, but the record was closed on December 1 and nothing has not been added to the record, and the record has not be reopened. Commissioner Luke noted that there was a change in the map that was brought forward by staff. Mr. Shutterly said that this change was based on information in the record and on staff recommendations. On January 5, an ordinance was adopted by the City of Bend regarding a text and map. The joint management agreement requires that this action be forwarded to the County Commission for action, prior to being submitted to DLCD for acknowledgement. There are corresponding changes in the boundaries. The expanded UGB as adopted by City contains a total of 5,475 suitable and available acres for housing and employment through 2028. (He referred to an oversized map.) It is smaller than the one seen before, by 479 acres. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Pages Alternative 4, as presented at the joint hearing, included some territory at the north end adjacent to both sides of Highway 97. A proposal for a future auto mall has been deleted from the expansion area, as well as some territory on the west side that was to be mostly light industrial. There was testimony from property owners who were concerned about compatibility issues, and there was also testimony from DLCD and ODOT about traffic impacts. Also dropped were 143 acres east of 27th St., south of Stevens Road. Also dropped were some areas adjacent to south Highway 97 for mixed employment and light industrial and moderate density residential. There was an addition at south Highway 97; alternative 4 included the J. L. Ward Company property. This entire ownership and the entire right of way for Knott Road were included, per request of the Commissioners. The boundary was expanded to include the Baker Road interchange at South Highway 97. City staff has coordinated with County staff and believes there is consistency in the plan. The next step is to submit it to the State. Commissioner Baney asked about defending items where there was no agreement between the two entities. Ms. Craghead stated that she did not think the County had agreed to defend any of it. It is a general policy of the County to not participate in an appeal of this kind unless there is a major situation that the County would like to weigh in on. Commissioner Unger asked what defending the finding would entail. Ms. Craghead stated that it would be defending what was submitted to the State agency. If it was remanded or went to the Court of Appeals, the County could choose to defend it there as well. The County is not obligated to defend in this case. Mr. Gutowsky said that this is strictly a City proposal and they would be the best ones to explain how it is consistent with State law. Dave Kanner asked if an emergency clause is necessary. Ms. Craghead stated that this is used only when one wants to shorten the time. DLCD has 120 days to review the information from the City and she feels that the 90 days for the ordinances to become effective should not be a problem. The ordinances would be active after 90 days even if it has not been acknowledged Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 4 of 8 Pages 2. Discussion of City of Sisters Rezone Issue. Will Groves gave an overview of the item, which involves a fire training facility and a location to allow it. (He referred to an oversized map of the area.) The site needs to be within the UGB and ultimately the city limits. Commissioner Baney asked why that part of the forest cannot be actively managed. Mr. Groves stated that is it not under forest management at this time. Ms. Craghead said that the last UGB expansion included this ground and other property. The proposal started at four acres, went to six, and is back at four again. Commissioner Luke asked what surrounds this property. Mr. Groves said that this information will be presented at the Monday meeting. This is for the zone change only; any applications for building would go to the City of Sisters. This will be addressed at the regular Board meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, January 26. 3. Economic Development Grant Request: ƒ Bend-La Pine Education Foundation – 2009 Trivia Bee – Commissioner Luke said he would grant funding in the amount of $500. 4. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Commissioners Luke and Baney will be at the Redmond Chamber event this week. Commissioner Luke said that the Commissioners met with the local Judges and Court Administrator last evening, and one of the important issues discussed was potential cuts in funding. 5. Other Items. United Way is receiving a $100,000 federal grant. They are a pass-through agency and need an advisory committee to recommend to the United Way Board who should get these funds. They would like someone from the County to participate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 5 of 8 Pages After a brief discussion, it was decided that David Inbody would be appropriate since he has worked with United Way on other issues. _______________________________ Mr. Kanner stated that project fact sheets could now be a part of the County’s website. The current one has to do with the Local Rule, which is now on the March 10 ballot. Commissioner Baney asked about an e-mail that has been circulating in regard to well depths in South County. She also asked if the health hazard is considered existing or potential. Barbara Rich explained that it is easy to confuse well depths when talking about average, shallow or deep. It depends whether it is measured from the top of the water table or the ground. This is something that is hard to articulate clearly and easily. Staff maintains that the wells are shallow compared to those found other areas in the County. Commissioner Luke added that it also depends on the time of the year. There are drainfields that were installed at some point in the past that are actually in the groundwater. Commissioner Unger said that the concern was contamination of wells that are 40 or more feet deep. However, the problem is potential contamination of the groundwater and the rivers, not just wells. Ms. Rich stated that the wells are an issue because people drink that water, but the Deschutes is also a source of drinking water for a lot of people. Commissioner Luke said that septic tanks were installed in some locations that were not filled with water and popped out of the ground in the wet season. There will be a problem no matter what the studies say. There can be a lot of debate but ultimately there is a shallow groundwater area with 6,400 potential septic systems in that area. That water eventually gets to the rivers. Once it gets to the Lava Butte area, it goes into the River. It has been shown in more than one way that there is a major tie between the groundwater and the river system. Mr. Kanner said the DEQ considers it an existing public health hazard. The situation now is that the water is not polluted but will be if something is not done. Ms. Rich stated that they have written it differently and she would have to look at the letters to know for sure. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that some wells show increased nitrate levels, and others have nitrates in the groundwater above them. Commissioner Unger added that if wells are not cased, it can make the problem worse. Commissioner Luke pointed out that there are a few other places in the County where there is a high groundwater level but these are fairly rare. Mr. Kanner presented a project fact sheet from the County’s website, Community Development page. The project is explained there. (A copy is attached for reference.) The fact sheet can be updated as appropriate. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the Klamath County Commissioners have approached Deschutes County to find out more about this issue, since they also are affected by the same problem in the northern part of Klamath County. Ms. Rich said that an FAQ page is available for review as well. Commissioner Unger asked why this is solely southern Deschutes County and not for a soil condition. Ms. Rich stated that this is the only area that has extensive data on the situation. Some places in Tumalo are similar but there is no data on what is going on there. It is at a much smaller scale. In the late 1990’s the DEQ wanted a lot more data to do anything. Commissioner Unger said that there are other sources of nitrates, such as faring and golf courses. Ms. Rich replied that 96% of the problem comes from residential use in the south County. The USES looked at the livestock issue and felt that this is disbursed adequately and does not go into the groundwater. She does not know who regulated the golf courses. Large systems are regulated by the DEQ. Commissioner Luke said that Tumalo does not have the density of housing that south Deschutes County does. Dan Haldeman stated that the soils in Tumalo are fairly similar but do not include a lot of sandy loam. Another consideration is that there is a public water system, which is the biggest risk factor for public health. Most private wells are shallow but these are not supposed to be used as potable water, just for irrigation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page 7 of 8 Pages Commissioner Baney said that the river study from the USGS seemed to indicate that any development near a stream will cause groundwater seepage into the rivers. Therefore, if a septic system exists near any river, it seems that they should all be on a similar system. Ms. Rich stated that the maps show the particular maps and where the water can intersect with the rivers. What is not known in the local wetlands inventory study is what areas are vulnerable to nitrogen rich pollutants. Native vegetation can protect the rivers from these impacts. The point of focusing groundwater protection on the systems that are just near the river does not address protecting the drinking water of the area, where it will first go into the aquifer. Commissioner Luke added that Deschutes River Woods has a different soil structure and has a lot of rock. The wells along the river there are quite deep. Mr. Kanner said that a fact sheet was mailed to all residents of southern Deschutes County last year. It can be updated if necessary. (A copy is attached.) Commissioner Unger asked if the referendum will be posted. Mr. Kanner replied that the voters’ pamphlet will be on line. Commissioner Unger asked if a link can be made between the referendum item under the Clerk’s site and the information in the Community Development site. Commissioner Baney would like it to be a “quick link”. In regard to commercial entities being a part of the requirement, Commissioner Baney would like it clarified that this is solely under the review of the DEQ and there are different rules. Commissioner Luke asked about sewer for the school in the New Neighborhood area. Tom Anderson said it is not yet available to the site but he assumes that it will be connected as soon as possible. Commissioner Unger asked if there is a reimbursement district as properties are connected. Ms. Craghead said the school is within the district and will have to connect. The County does not install sewers and does not have SDCs in that regard, so any reimbursement district would have to be handled outside of the County’s purview. The County does not have a sewer system or a sanitary district.