HomeMy WebLinkAboutHouse Bill 2229 Discussion
Memorandum
DATE: March 17, 2015
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, Director
Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
RE: HB 2229 / Agricultural Lands / Planning Commission Direction
BACKGROUND
Staff received direction from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on November 24, 2014 to
explore HB 2229, also known as the Big Look Bill, as it relates to correcting mapping errors of farm and
forestlands.1 Two major developments have occurred over the past two months that complicate
implementing HB 2229: a Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) letter and a
conversation with former Community Development Director John Anderson (1978-85). Given these
circumstances, the Planning Commission on February 26 and March 12 respectively, directed staff to:
Draft a letter to Jim Rue, DLCD Director to initiate rulemaking (Attachment 1); and,
Prioritize as a work program item for FY 2015/2016, a text amendment that reduces setbacks in
forestland related specifically to Haner Park and Section 36.
Unrelated to HB 2229, two items discussed by the Planning Commission last fall included:
o Allowing temporary medical hardship dwellings in the Conventional House Combining Zone; and,
o Comprehensive Plan amendments to clarify that resource land, EFU and Forest Use parcels, can be
re-designated and rezoned to non-resource lands through a quasi-judicial application process,
without taking an exception to Goal 3 or Goal 4.
DIRECTION
Staff seeks direction from the BOCC on how to proceed with the agricultural lands program. A matrix of
options relating to HB 2229 is provided as Attachment 2. One option for the BOCC’s consideration is
after discussing the utility of a rulemaking letter to Director Rue, placing the items summarized above on
the Community Development Department’s draft FY 2015-2016 work plan. Later this spring, those items
can be evaluated by the public, Planning Commission and ultimately the BOCC, in relationship to other
work tasks.
Attachments:
1. Draft LCDC Rulemaking Letter
2. Matrix of Options
1 ORS 215.788(1) https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors215.html
-2-
Matrix of Options for HB 2229
Options Summary Timeline
Request Land Conservation and
Development Commission
(LCDC) initiate rule making
DLCD envisioned rule making for HB 2229.2 Currently no formal
statewide rules or other standards exist to guide local governments in
planning and zoning “non-resource land.”
To be determined. If rule making
occurred, staff would be able to
evaluate its applicability to Deschutes
County and the resources and timeline
required for implementation.
Await results of the Southern
Oregon Pilot Project
On May 10, 2012, Governor Kitzhaber signed Executive Order (EO) 12-
07, which establishes a "Pilot Program for Regional Farm and Forest
Land Conservation."3 The pilot program involves three counties—
Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine—and authorizes them to enter into a
regional process to enable these counties to develop a plan to allow
"...appropriate additional regional variation in what lands must be
planned and managed as farm and forest lands.
According to a DLCD status update, only Jackson County will be
pursuing the assessment of possible mapping errors. A new scope
emphasizes the regional nature of this project including the
identification of regional criteria or methods to establish alternative
forest land designations or alternative farm parcel size opportunities
and regional criteria or factors for determining which lands should not
be designated under Goals 3 or 4. Furthermore, the contract provides
additional flexibility to the counties by allowing a county to proceed
with an approach that may not be regional in nature if it elects to stay
within the parameters of current state law.4
Douglas County has proposed a process to identify lands eligible for
non-resource designation. Appropriate rural and open space uses
would be authorized in new land use designations with lot sizes
between 10 and 40 acres.5
To be determined. If the results of the
Pilot Project are successful, staff would
be able to evaluate its applicability to
Deschutes County and the resources
and timeline required for
implementation.
2 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/072909/item8_policy_agenda_report.pdf. Page 10.
3 http://www.soregionalpilot.org/
4 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/meetings/lcdc/052214/02Item_3_SORPP.pdf
5 http://www.co.douglas.or.us/planning/Plan_docs/ff/PilotProgramUpdate14.pdf
-3-
Options Summary Timeline
Property Owners initiate Goal 3 or
Goal 4 Exception
The following five rural subdivisions are currently zoned Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) or Forest Use (F2):
Haner Park (F2)
Meadow Crest Acres (EFU)
Section 36 (F2)
Skyline Subdivision (F2)
Squaw Creek Canyon Recreation Estates 1st Addition (EFU and
F2)
A Goal 3 or 4 committed exception could be explored to demonstrate
that the respective properties are no longer capable of being used for
agricultural or forest uses due to housing, roads, infrastructure and
other improvements.
To be determined. Property owners
could band together and initiate a Goal
3 or 4 exception to re-designate and
rezone their properties to rural
residential
Initiate Non-Resource Lands
Program
A non-resource lands program would enable property owners, on a
case-by-case basis, to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and
zone change to re-designate their EFU property to a “Non-Resource”
zone.
Engage the community to draft eligibility criteria and non-resource
zoning. Amend County comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
incorporating policies and standards for now plan designation and zone.
Upon adoption, property owners on a case-by case basis would be able
to initiate Comprehensive Plan and zone change amendment.
12-18 months.
Initiate HB 2229, taking a sub-
regional or county-wide
approach
Develop a work plan in coordination with the Planning Commission,
BOCC, and DLCD. State law requires LCDC to approve the work plan. If
the work plan is approved, the County must provide an opportunity for
all farm and forest land to be considered in any regional or county-wide
approach.
24 to 48 months. Requires significant
resources to substantiate agricultural
and forest designations, transportation
and wildlife impacts, among others.
Initiate a text amendment that
reduces setbacks in forestland
related specifically to Haner
Park and Section 36
Develop a text amendment that reduces setbacks in Haner Park and
Section 36. 3-6 months
Date
Mr. Jim Rue, Director
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301
Re: HB 2229 / LCDC Rulemaking
Dear Mr. Rue:
House Bill 2229, Section 2(b)(B) directs the Land Conversation and Development Commission
(LCDC) to adopt rules that,
Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and
encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems.
The Deschutes County Planning Commission [add BOCC if they concur] respectfully requests
LCDC initiate rulemaking to implement the legislation and clarify processes for:
1. Updating farmlands and forestlands for land use planning;
2. Phasing;
3. Regional approaches to resolving land use problems;
4. Non-resource lands containing ecologically significant natural areas or resources;
5. Carrying capacity of the lands; and,
6. Significantly adverse effects.
Since the law took effect, Deschutes County has continually expressed interest in implementing
HB 2229, also known as the “Big Look Bill,” as evidenced by its participation in a 2010
Association of Counties panel discussion with state agency officials and subsequent
conversations with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Most
recently, Deschutes County requested input on a phased approach and clarification of key
issues relating to five pre-platted subdivisions with farm and forestland designations. Rob
Hallyburton, DLCD Community Services Division Manager wrote in a letter on January 8, 2015,
While we do not find that the county must review all land in the county, we would be
most inclined to approve a work program that includes some major region defined by
geographic characteristics rather than by property or subdivision boundaries.
Additionally, the county may not pre-determine specific areas for review, as subsection
5(3) requires the county to provide an opportunity for all farm and forest land to be
considered. If the county receives a request to review an area that is not included in the
original proposal, the county must review it. As explained above, we believe that this
-2-
area must be a geographic area of the county and not individual properties or
subdivisions.
Considering other aspects of HB 2229 not related to your question, the department has
been unable to determine the nature and scope of the mapping error the county intends
to address. It is not apparent why the areas the county has shared with the department
were incorrectly zoned at acknowledgment, and this is a fundamental aspect of the bill. If
the county chooses to move forward with a work program, the county will need to
demonstrate that the HB 2229 process is an appropriate vehicle for addressing the
county’s needs.
Based on Mr. Hallyburton’s letter, there remain differences of opinion whether HB 2229
is targeted exclusively to properties with mapping errors or if it also applies to updating
farm and forestlands designations based on changed circumstances. Without
administrative rules, undertaking a work plan is fraught with legal uncertainty. It is also
extremely difficult to gauge staffing resources and timelines.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
TBD