Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oops. Right.

Tell me to run the line.

No, it's okay. We're going to start. Yeah. Maybe we'll have an intervention.

We'll call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda are public comments from something that is not on the agenda. So is there any comments from the public on items not on today's agenda? Okay.

Anybody online? Okay.

Next item, action items are reopening the public hearing, amendments to the sister UGB.

Kyle, actually, Kyle isn't here, so Will's going to be handling that, I guess. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Good morning. I'm getting myself set up here. That's my audio.

There we go.

Adam, could I be elevated?

Yeah.

Okay. Let me find my share screen then.

Okay.

Thanks for your patience here.

I'm trying to find my share screen up.

Not seeing my share screen option.

Should be on the lower, lower right. That's where it is for me.

They moved it. They moved it. Oh, there we go. Great. Good evening. Thanks again for your patience. Will Groves, your planning manager, filling in for Kyle Collins. We have for your pleasure tonight a Sisters Urban Growth Boundary expansion, continued hearing. This is file number 24726105PA and 106ZC, applicant is the City of Sisters. Following the Planning Commission's June 25th vote to open and reopen the public hearing, this is the time and the place set for the hearing on file number 105PA and 106ZC concerning amendments to comprehensive plan designations and zoning designations for multiple properties in advance of a proposed expansion of the City of Sisters urban growth boundary. And staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed. The record materials and the entire project website is at www.deschutes.org, Sisters UGB. Hearing Procedure. The Planning Commission will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at the hearing. The hearing is also being recorded. The Commission may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. County staff will give a brief report on this issue. Agency personnel will be invited to provide any comment. City Assisters staff, as the applicant, will provide an overview of the proposal. And then we'll take testimony from any interested persons. Following the testimony, the Commission can request staff to answer additional questions. This is a hybrid hearing. with both in-person and remote participation. For our in-person participants, if you wish to testify, please fill out a blue sign-up sheet and submit that to staff. After your name's called, please come up to one of the tables at the front of the room before beginning your testimony. And remember, before starting your testimony, to please provide your first and last name as well as your mailing address. For remote participants, If you want to testify, you must be logged into Zoom or have called in using the Zoom dial-in option. When the chair asks if anyone would like to testify, you will need to use the raise hand feature to notify the commission. To do this, you need to press the raise hand button on your computer or smart device, or if you called in, dial 9. Testimony time limits. So due to the expected amount of participation, staff notes that public testimony excluding agencies will be limited to three minutes per party, not including any follow-up questions from the commissioners. Hearing procedures. In addition to oral testimony, if anyone has written testimony to submit, please hand it to me after your testimony. If you're participating remotely, you can submit your written testimony via email to my address on the screen. And that's actually going to be Kyle's address that you'll see up on the screen there. The chair and the staff are responsible for conducting an orderly hearing. Any testimony or behavior which is inappropriate will be addressed and may result in that member of the public being removed from the hearing. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. However, cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. If any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair to be recognized. The chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, any party may challenge the qualifications of any commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify himself. withdraw from the hearing, or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide on the issue. At this time, do any members of the commission need to set forward any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest?

Anybody? I will, for the record, just disclose that I have talked to a number of members of the community who I have referred them back to the mining department to submit written testimony so it could be on the record.

All right, does any party wish to challenge any commissioner member of the hearings body based on conflicts of interest? All right, as no challenges are presented, the hearing is now open, and staff will present a brief report. So the proposal before you, again, is the UGB amendment, which would add 318.6 gross acres to the east of the current Sisters UGB, north of the highway, and south of Sisters Eagle Airport. This is a map of the subject area there. The proposal is subject to review by the following bodies, so the City of Sisters Planning Commission, the Deschutes County Planning Commission, the Sisters City Council, and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will each engage on this matter. The county role in this process is to coordinate with the city and the affected agencies to evaluate, under applicable county and state standards, the county side comprehensive plan and zoning actions required for the proposal to proceed. Public and agency comments. So during the initial open record period, we received three comments that were provided from the following state agencies, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Oregon Department of State Lands. And they've been invited this evening to testify and following the staff report. And any commissioner questions on that staff report will be invited to testify. These comments were largely concerned with the inclusion of lands within the proposed UGB expansion area that is adjacent to both Whitechess Creek and Indian Ford Creek. Both Whitechess Creek and Indian Ford Creek are designated as protected Goal 5 resources within the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. There's a map that shows the wetlands associated with Whitechess Creek and Indian Ford Creek. And Whitechess also has a floodplain associated with it shown on the figure. The agency comments raise the following questions regarding the proposal. What are the city's obligations to evaluate, inventory, and protect sensitive Goal 5 resources within the proposed UGB expansion area? If the city is obligated to take additional Goal 5 work, when is this work required to be undertaken under state statute, and what is the city's expected timeline for undertaking this work? And how will the existing Goal 5 protections in place at the county level be maintained in the proposed expansion area following UGB amendment, but prior to annexation? And has the city adequately addressed any Goal 5 requirements within their burden of proof and UGB lands needs analysis? We've got a lot of public comments. 84 to date have been received, including 61 comments submitted during the open record period. The majority of these comments were supportive. However, there have been some comments which have expressed concern or specifically requested denial of the proposal. Supportive comments were extensive and noted the public engagement process in crafting and selecting the UGB alternatives and the immediate needs of the city to supply land for housing, employment opportunities, and public facilities. In addition, if the current UGB process is not concluded by January 1, 2027, the city will be required to re-perform land needs analysis under new statutory standards. Also, the selected alternative is adjacent to existing urban infrastructure and is composed of parcels containing low-density rural residential uses, which were felt by commenters to be more compatible with lands by UGB. Finally, there were concerns that attempts to include the McKenzie Meadows property MMV within the UGB would undermine the expansion process due to a variety of unresolved legal issues, access concerns, and natural resources constraints. There were public confidence in opposition. There were concerns with loss of natural resources, open space, and small town values as the city expands. Concerns regarding viable transportation and infrastructure connections. Concerns that the properties will not be developed in a timely manner to provide affordable housing for the community. Unknowns regarding legal encumbrances for the Barclay Meadows property is slated for inclusion through CC&Rs. Feelings that previous community engagement efforts did not adequately capture community sentiment. A desire to see the MMV property included for a variety of reasons. Concerns that the properties are not adjacent to existing school infrastructure and amenities. Desire to maintain the existing character of the city, regardless of what ultimately becomes with the UGB amendment, and questions on timing of future development and the included UGB lands, and concerns around the loss of natural resources. There were miscellaneous comments, concerns about wildfire impacts, and a need for an affordable workforce housing in the Sisters community. So next steps, you'll be conducting a hearing today, and at the closing of the hearing, you will have an opportunity to continue the hearing to a date and time certain, close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain, close the hearing and set a date for deliberations, or close the hearing and commence deliberations. And again, for anyone who needs to supply materials to the written record or for contacts on this, Kyle Collins, who I'm filling in for this evening, will be back on Tuesday. And that concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions by the commission. And after that, we'll move to agency comments.

Questions? Oh, yeah. Commissioner Williams. You're muted.

And this might not be an immediate answer, but the existing statutory standards versus the new statutory standards, if it's not met by 1-1-27, do we know what those are? Like the difference between the two?

There are requirements associated with the studies that the city would have to go through that are being changed, but I'll look to the applicant to direct that, to explain that in more detail.

Okay. Sounds like we're good to move on.

All right. So let's move to agency comment. Would you like to go first? Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

Jessica Salgado I work with Oregon Department of State lands. I provided a comment that you may see somewhere in your packet. That is a wetland determination response for the UGB expansion area. So I took a look at all the information that DSL has on that area in particular and determined that there is factual evidence that wetlands are present within that expansion area. So we have, I referenced a DSL file number WD 2022-551, which is a wetland delineation report that was submitted in 2022 and approved by the department that showed one of the parcels having wetlands. Within that the map that that Will showed earlier had like the NWI National Wetland Inventory wetlands that were mapped adjacent to Indian Ford Creek. It was one of those properties with the Indian Ford Creek wetlands. So just providing that for context on Goal 5 resources in the UGB expansion area. DLCD is better equipped at answering kind of the goal five process from here on. So I can let Kevin speak.

Any questions from the commission? I have one. So curious as to, I mean, this process has been going on for the last couple of years. Why wait till the 11th hour to submit any comments or did anybody not reach out to you guys or why the delay in the input?

Good question. I received the wetland determination request from DLCD and responded, I believe, I responded after the first hearing date, but let me see what date I sent it.

But nobody from the city or the consultants or any of those reached out to you guys on something that should have been obvious? Anybody else? Kevin Young, Thanks.

Kevin Young, Right well, shall I go next, then. Kevin Young, Okay, my name is Kevin young i'm a senior urban planner for dlc i'm here. Because Amanda Punton, who's our Goal 5 natural resources expert, couldn't be here today, but that's okay. I think I'm quite familiar with the issues that we're discussing today. I also review UGBs for the agency, so I'm quite familiar with the process. And I've been engaged with the City of Sisters in this work as they've been going along. So in that capacity, I will apologize that we didn't catch this sooner in the process. It is a challenging body of work to go through the whole UGB analysis process. We didn't know, we weren't aware that there were wetlands present until late in the game. And it's our job to let you know that that is the case. That said, I want to be clear that the agency DLCD is not opposed in any way to the UGB expansion effort. We in fact funded the work that was done that underpins this analysis. I think our concern is just managing the identified resources, making the transition from county jurisdiction to city jurisdiction and what happens in the interim period to make sure that those identified resources are either protected as provided by the county under current county regulations or Once they are annexed into the city, the city has done the requisite Goal 5 analysis that's required. So they would complete a LWI for the UGB expansion area. And LWI is a local wetland inventory. And then in conjunction with that, identify protections for those resources in the UGB expansion area. It's my understanding, we've been in communication with both city and county staff that There is a plan moving forward to accomplish just that thing. And I'm here to support that work because I am also aware of the January 1st, 2027 deadline and that we want the city, we want the county to be successful in this effort. So if you have any questions, happy to answer.

All right. Questions, anybody? Great. Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Williams.

So, Kevin, you support a plan for just that, but is there a mandate for that? If it does go from county to city, are they required to if it gets approved?

Yes, that is part of the requirements under Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 23, when a city expands their UGB, and we have information in the record that there are wetlands or other Goal 5 features present in the UGB area, that then obligates the city to complete the local wetland inventory in the Goal 5 work. So yes, that is a requirement that the City of Sisters is aware of.

Anybody else? Oh, Commissioner.

I just want to make sure I completely understand exactly what's happening with this. So before when this went through the city council and the sisters planning, they did not know that this one parcel had wetlands on it. Is that correct? Or people were aware of it? I'm trying to figure out, this is new information or was this aware?

I was like, the city can answer it when they get up here.

Okay. Okay. Then I'm going to pause and keep learning. And then if I still have a question, then I will bring it up later.

Another question, and again, this might be for the City of Sisters, but while we have DLCD here and DSL, presumably, depending upon how the Goal 5 analysis plays out in regards to the wetland impact on the 300 and some acres that are proposed to add into the UGB, but presumably it'll cut down ultimately on the net developable land um would that entail going back to steps earlier in the process looking at um you know fulfillment of the need need and is that maybe a question for the city sisters later but anybody want to respond to that

I think I could clarify that. So the local wetlands inventory itself would be an effort to, with landowner approval, if site access is granted, the city would hire a consultant to go out there and map all of the wetlands. And if they don't have site access, then they can still map them based on desktop resources like my assessment was based on. And then they have to do a functional assessment. So using the Oregon freshwater wetland assessment methodology, they try to assess what functions are these wetlands providing for the watershed and And that's what the basis of is this a significant wetland that the city should protect is based on. So we're trying to, at the outcome of the local wetlands inventory, designate locally significant wetlands.

Okay, that's interesting. It sounds like quite a bit involved in analyzing that. And with the January 1 deadline, it may be endangered regardless. But thank you for that answer.

Anybody else? Great. Thank you. And who do we have next? The City of Sisters?

Thank you, Chair. So by way of process, the City of Sisters will present and then we will take anyone who submitted a blue form in the order received.

And I have five of those so far.

Good evening. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair and Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to be in front of you tonight to answer your questions and to help this project move to the finish line. And so my name, of course, is Scott Woodford, the Community Development Director for the City of Sisters. And I also have with me tonight some other members of our project team and they're online. And that's Matt Hasty, project manager for MIG, which is a consulting firm that does big projects like these all over the state of Oregon, are experts in this. As well as Melissa Ryan, she goes by Missy, who is our legal counsel for the UGB amendment. for questions and a resource, and I will call on them at various times tonight. I'd also like to thank the staff for their communication, their efforts to help us work through this process. It's been an interesting process, to say the least. And I want to thank them for their quick turnaround on getting information to us and helping to problem-solve issues.

So that's been instrumental.

Had a great relationship with the county given that we're an agency and we partner with the county a lot So I just want to thank them for that their efforts to go into a long summary of the process today, but just to remind you of the time that this community has put into this project to date. It really started about six years ago when we updated our comprehensive plan, and that was when we first identified the need for a potential urban growth boundary amendment based on our housing needs analysis. We also went through a long process in anticipation of that UGB amendment of doing a look at efficiency measures where we did everything we could as a community that was feasible, I guess, to encourage infill and to reduce the amount of expansion that we were going to need. We changed a lot of our zoning rules. something that the state requires before you submit an urban growth boundary amendment. They wanna make sure that you're utilizing your existing lands as efficiently as possible before you ask for an expansion. So we took several years to do that. And then in early 2024, we started this, we kicked off the urban growth boundary amendment process. And part of that was standing up a citizen-led steering committee of 14 or 15 folks in the community. It was a broad group of folks representing both people who lived in the city and who lived in the county, and including property owners who were in the stubble area. So we felt like that was a great group, and we got solid feedback from them. and ultimately through that process and a lot of public engagement the steering committee recommended that the concept that is in your packet would be the concept that the city should go forward with and it was after considering all the properties within a half mile and some within a mile of the existing city boundary so this wasn't this was not a hosting process this was a very methodical deliberate process and we considered a lot of different lands and discounted those lands for various reasons to get to where we are tonight so uh we uh the steering committee was uh interested is excited about it the community is excited about it uh we have widespread community support for this i think if you were to note the differences in the comments of both in support and objection if you took out the comments that were from folks that are affiliated with uh mckenzie meadows village property i think you would see that that's the vast majority of the comments are in support of this of this concept So the questions that have been raised tonight, I just want to appreciate the county and the state's commitment to environmental preservation and just reiterate that the city of Sisters is right there with them. I think the community of Sisters has a track record of environmental protection that is well documented. And so we are ready to address all the issues that have been brought up. These are not new issues. In fact, the question to the wetlands, whether or not the city reached out or was aware of this until the last minute, we had planning level information for the potential for wetlands on the site from pretty much day one. So we knew that those were constraints out in this area so that we could plan around them. So when the letters came out, it was not anything that we hadn't already known about. In fact, the state's delineation, or I guess you can call it a delineation, in fact matched up pretty closely to what our planning level information was for wetlands. So we have a plan to protect those. After adoption, we will do an inventory of the wetlands. So I think that's in accordance with what the state's expectations are. In fact, if you'll refer to one of the original letters that came forward, it clearly says that these are things that would be expected to be done after the UGB is adopted. And I want to emphasize after. We have good planning level information. I don't think that the state's expectation is that we would go do wetland delineations for all the properties within a sedentary before we knew whether the UGB was going to be adopted. That's not standard practice around the state. So an example of our, so we did bring in lands that have wetlands and we brought in lands that have riparian habitat. And that was a conscious decision on the part of the steering committee. One of the thoughts was that this could provide some valuable parks and open space and recreation opportunities for the expansion area. We need 26 acres of park space to keep pace with the growth in our community. And these would be prime opportunities. Right now, Welch's Creek goes through the Middle East systems. And unless you're a fortunate one to setbacks up to it, it is pretty much locked up to the community. So the steering committee will sell it as an opportunity to plan ahead before development comes and provide wide, long, very deep setbacks from the creek that would protect both riparian areas and provide that trail opportunities and some park opportunities. And I just want to note along the lines of the concept of the City of Sisters having a good track record on environmental protection. About five years ago, we partnered with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council that the city got a grant and partnered with them. and did a bunch of stream restoration to the existing uh parts of white cheese creek through uh sisters through our creekside park to improve uh habitat for for fish and to um and habitat for animals in general and so i think there's a documented commitment to environmental protection and uh The steering committee felt strongly that bringing in these properties may ultimately result in these sensitive areas being more protected in the city than if they were to be left in the county because they could be publicly owned by the city and they're part of our city. They're closer to where the folks that would be the ones protecting it and managing it. as opposed to just leaving it in the county the way it is. So that was a conscious choice on the part of the steering committee. We also brought in additional land. I think there was a good question about if things were wetlands, wouldn't they take away some lands that would be needed for residential uses or these other needs that we've identified? That's a great question. That's why we took in additional land above and beyond what we needed for our minimum requirements. So we have a plan to address all the concerns that have been raised. I addressed the wetlands inventory that would be done after adoption. We've actually put in for another grant from the state to help pay for that. The state's been really good about providing funds for planning in urban growth boundary areas. And so if we are fortunate to get that, that would be one of the things we'd spend it on even if we don't get it we'll still do it it's a requirement and I think the other point of that letter that was submitted was to more of an FYI to the community my understanding is that many communities after they get their UGB amendment adopted forget about that step and I was talking to Ms. Bunton she said it's more of an fyi to say hey heads up this is an expectation that will will be expecting from the city after the ugb is adopted in regards to the oregon department of fish and wildlife comments those were welcome comments as well they came in a little bit late but uh those are again i think they're concerned about the uh the riparian area along white juice creek and indian ford creek and the fish habitat to make sure that that is maintained and even enhanced. The concern, I think, with the county right now is in terms of what happens to those lands while they're in our urban growth boundary, still in the county, not in the city yet. Once they're in the city, they'd be subject to our floodplain ordinances. and all of our other environmental protections. The question has been, what happens while they're still in the county? And that's what we're planning to address. One of those concerns, one of those issues that the staff has identified and really unforeseen because it's kind of a little used part of the Deschutes County Code is that when there's lands that are Goal 5 resources, wetlands, floodplain, landscape management, there are these overlay zones that are part of the existing zoning on the property. The quirk of the code, when they're brought into a different part of the county code, those protections don't come along with it. It's just a quirk of the code. I don't think anybody foresaw that. It was identified through the process, but something that needs to be addressed because nobody wants to see those lands potentially in the county without protections And that's why today we, the city, submitted a text amendment to the county code and a comp plan text amendment to address that gap that is in the county code so that we won't have that situation here. And so that's one reason why we will be requesting that the Planning Commission continue this hearing until August 27th so that The staff has time to review that and to properly notify the state and to bring that forward to the Planning Commission, hopefully at the same night that this UGB amendment would be reviewed for a recommendation for approval. Probably a lot of questions that I just generated with that statement, so I'm happy to answer those questions. Also, just wanted to let my team on the screen know if they have anything else that they want to add in terms of what I just said. I know, Matt, you had mentioned maybe going into a little more detail on what those comprehensive plan and text amendments involve, but I'll throw it up into you.

Yeah, happy to do that. And I won't go into a ton of detail because this will come before y'all down the road soon here. But I'll say just a little bit more. What we're going to be proposing are some amendments to your comprehensive plan. You have a table in your comprehensive plan that identifies what zoning designations are applied in which comprehensive plan designations. And so we're going to propose some amendments to make sure that the existing designations, which then refer to sort of your strongest Goal 5 protection overlay zones, can continue to apply. So that's one thing. And then similarly, in the development code, we also want to make sure that you can continue to apply those same designations. That's kind of where this gap is. And, you know, ultimately, this doesn't change the designation of the land areas and change the uses that are allowed. But we do want to make sure that we continue. There's no loss in the ability and the strength of land. um your environmental protections between the time that the ugb is amended and the time that the areas that areas are annexed to the city so that's a quick review of that and just i'll know very quickly in response to one of the earlier questions i think scott did a great job of of answering most of the questions you all asked but there was a question about sort of what are the differences between um the rules we're under now versus the rules that go into effect on January 2027, what's sort of different there. The main difference is that after January 2027, cities are required to use a different set of housing projections. And doing that would require us to go back and basically redo the analysis of future land need for housing. And that would then impact our analysis of future land need overall. That could then impact the size of the expansion area. It might not be significant changes, but we would need to go back and take a look at that. And that would take a fairly significant amount of time and resources. So that's sort of what that change entails after January 2027. And so we've been working really hard to try to be efficient stewards of public resources and finish this process before then so that we don't have to go back and spend more time and more money to move through this, kind of redo a bunch of stuff we've already done a really thorough job of doing. So that's it for me. And thanks for your attention.

Great, anybody else? Okay, questions?

Maybe just a quick one, if I can, Chair. Commissioner? Thank you for that information, Mr. Woodford. And I guess what I'm hearing from the City of Sisters is that the potential for wetlands, obviously the existence of the creeks, riparian corridor, the floodplain and so forth are not a surprise to the City of Sisters that the steering committee that was formed early on took that into account. I presume in the steps that Matt Hastie just alluded to when you establish the needs, acreage needs and so forth and then you do the inventory of existing land within the existing urban growth boundary, net that out, and get net expansion needs and so forth, then it wasn't a surprise. I'm assuming that agency input impact on your timeline was a bit of a surprise anyway. So trying to understand this, It seems that, you know, there's this need for this Goal 5 analysis. And what I'm hearing from the City of Sisters is that that wetlands inventory and that process can be done after the urban growth boundary expansion, if I'm understanding you right. Anytime we have these urban growth boundary expansions, as you know, the county has a role to play there. So if we were to seed that process while the land still is under county authority, you know, that's a significant cessation of our oversight role. And then I presume that it's brought in, that land is brought into an urban growth boundary then before the next step, which would be annexation, which presumably would not be in one big gulp, but probably parcel by parcel, that there'll be additional processes with annexation. And finally, when there are development proposals after annexation, there's probably an additional regulatory level there. So I guess I'm partly reassured by the steps to come on in the future. But wanting to hear more through the hearing and understand more about our role in the county and the planning division, if we are fulfilling our role by, I don't know if the word is seeding that or essentially acknowledging that those goal five inventory processes, those resource protection processes are going to occur at some point. Did I characterize your comments fairly, sir?

I think so.

Yeah.

Just to add to that, next steps in the process after we get the UGB adopted, we will go into the process where that's basically amending our comprehensive plan to adopt an area plan. So those will be prime opportunities to start doing some of that inventory and go find resources and web and inventory.

Anybody else? Yeah, go ahead.

I just want to note that we're not proposing to kind of cede your oversight responsibilities related to Goal 5 protection once the UGB is amended. The county's Goal 5 protections would continue to be in place, and that's what we're trying to ensure is that your, frankly, best quality overlay zone would continue to apply in this area until the area is annexed by the city. So That's what we're trying to do, is make sure that you are able to continue to do that. And then the city needs to prepare this local wetlands inventory and do just what Jessica Salgado talked about. Then once those areas are annexed, you're right, that's when the city's protections kick in. and that's when if development occurs further analysis is done so that's i think all accurate um and i'll just reiterate that yes we did consider all of these areas in the planning level land needs analysis for the ugb and in fact like scott said if you take a look at the information we provided kind of throughout the process and overlay it on top of the maps from um

dsl and odf and w it looks it's basically almost exactly the same boundary so i mean we've been looking at the same maps for for quite some time so just wanted to note that so thank you thank you for that i have a question okay so at the last hearing i asked a question about the number of the of the acreage proposed and all of the different parcels How many and which ones were interested in developing? And those that, of those that are, what's the timeline of those parcels? For example, you know, if somebody, I can see somebody, you know, interested in being part of the UGB, but has no intention developing their property for the next 10 or 20 years. My concern is whether or not you have a bit of a Tetris problem is connectivity between parcels that are interested in developing and whether or not, you know, what the net developable land is of the, I think it's 218 acres you're proposing. And like I say, I was hoping that would be submitted as part of the written testimony and I didn't see it come in. That's a question I would very much like to see before we close the public record, because I would like to see which parcels do want to be brought in, or excuse me, those that want to be developed immediately and those that don't. And those that do, I'd love to see it broken down into within five years, five to ten, and more than ten years. Because I would anticipate there's probably some people that are planning for the future that would love to be part of the UGB, but have no immediate intentions of developing the properties. And so that's, I mean... My curiosity, because, you know, I know you have to connect roads and you can't jump over parcels with utilities, et cetera. And so I would, yeah, I'd very much like to know if, for example, all of the parcels along the existing city limits are not interested in developing, those past those are kind of up in the air, kind of stuck. So anyhow.

So obviously, it's really difficult to know who's going to develop and when, right? A lot of it's based on how much longer they want to live on their property. What's the market? Like you say, where is the property position relative to the existing boundary? Because you have to be contiguous to be able to annex. You can't jump over properties. We didn't do a survey. It's not a requirement or it's not standard to do a survey of all the property owners in there to say yes or no. Do you want to develop and when will you develop?

Maybe other communities do that, but that's...

In the experience of our consultant, that's not something that has typically been done. But you get a sense of where people are on the issue by their public comments, coming to the meetings, submitting letters. I think we did submit into the record, but I think we only had two property owners on record saying that they didn't want to be in the UGB. We do have a set of property owners that have been talking to a developer in the third concept that encompasses, I think, about 100 acres who have expressed an interest in being part of a master plan development. Whether they go forward in five years and still together, it's almost impossible to sell. You can't have people commit themselves like that. You hope that, that's a 20 year plan too. We don't expect all the properties to come knocking at the door on day one. Some of those property owners that made today say, I have absolutely no interest in developing my property. Uh, maybe in 20 years, they're thinking differently or they saw the property and somebody else and that's kind of how those are. That's how urban growth boundary amendments work. Um, is that, uh, that you have some that are obviously very eager to be on it. Uh, some that are ambivalent, some that may not want to be in it, but those. Property owner injection is not a criteria in the state's law to. bring in or not bring in land? So while it's an interesting question, it's not entirely relevant because it's not a criteria in the state's law, in the state's criteria. Matt, do you want to add anything to that since you've seen a lot more of these UGPs than I have?

Yeah, I would just kind of reiterate everything you said and note that we have had communication, as Scott said, with a developer who's looking at a pretty large developing a pretty large percentage of frankly the most some of the most developable land within this area and we've had a number of other folks um approach the city and say hey i'm also interested at some point um and i'd like to see my land included and relatively few property owners as scott said say i don't want to see this happen um and as scott said this is a 20-year plan i i totally understand The the perspective and the desire to see, you know, this land be developable in the next five years. And I think a significant percentage of it is based on what we've heard from property owners out there. But it is a 20 year expansion. So we don't expect all 200 plus developable acres to be brought in, but a substantial amount of it. from my perspective, is, and as Scott said, that is not a criterion that we can use. We took a hard look at all of this land that we can look at, you know, that is eligible for inclusion. And there were areas that were, frankly, much more parcelized and where we heard more strong opposition and that really did not make sense to develop, and they were not included in the proposed expansion area. So, you know, this is something we've looked at very closely throughout the process, and we've had a ton of community discussion and comment around this issue up to this point. And we do have some maps that I think we can provide if the written record is reopened. We have some additional information we can provide to help address the questions you've been asking here. So just again, thank you.

Yeah, great. And just real quick follow-up. Like I say, it may not have been part of the requirements of what you're trying to do, but it's certainly, for my consideration in making a decision on this, something I would like to see. I mean, I don't know where that 100 acres is that you're talking about. It may be on the far side that's blocked off and you can't get to. we haven't been provided that information.

So, Commissioner?

So, each of you both just said this, but it also came up at the last hearing too, that it's actually not a criteria that you can include in your process. And I think since we're, you know, volunteers with different day jobs, it may benefit i think i get what you mean vaguely but i think it may benefit us to hear um exactly what you mean by that like you can't because if you did then who you know who's holding you accountable to that rule where is what is that rule um and then secondary to that are we held to that rule like we also can't or shouldn't be using that as a criteria when we make a recommendation to the board and then thirdly does the board all is the board allowed to use that as a criteria in making their decision um so again number one what do you mean you're not allowed to or you can't like where does that come from legally and then does that affect us and does that affect the board I think I get it, but I just want to hear more.

Understandable. Yeah, we could provide some more information on that, I guess, if the commission will indulge us and continue the meeting until August 27th. But just a little bit of background on that is that it's why it's not a criteria is because if that were a criteria, then we probably wouldn't get many expansions of our urban growth boundaries in the state of Oregon. So that's why it's probably not a criteria, but...

forth by the state, like these are the criteria that you use? Or is it just not a criteria that was identified as a part of the sister's process?

Well, it's not a specific criteria that you use to help evaluate properties in the boundary.

Like for anyone, anywhere, like, I mean, like theoretically, or it's not like anywhere under any circumstance. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound challenging. I'm just really hoping to get the clarity of like, I get that it's not a criteria, but can you just say why it's not? Theoretically, I get why.

Looks like Matt has got his hand up and maybe has a better answer than me. I'll note that

For some of these questions, because again, exactly these questions came up during the process of evaluating the UGB alternatives. And so we, as Kevin Young said, we communicated, coordinated, consulted with the LCD since they are the keepers of these rules along the way. And we asked them exactly that question. Can the objection of a property owner be used as a criterion not to include that? Or can one property owner stop an entire UGB boundary from being amended? And the answer was no, they cannot. And so that's partly where that comes from. And we can provide copies of communications if that's helpful. I will also just note briefly that some of the information we talked about in terms of where is this block of properties that we believe is potentially developable in the short term, that's also probably buried deep in that application, but that application that the city presented is super long and there is a map that shows that in the application. So I think, you know, we're happy, again, if you open the written record to point these things out a little more clearly because it is hard to find and we understand that and sort of say, hey, here's some of the information that we've presented or that we've prepared and assembled and that responds to some of these questions. So we'll be happy to provide some of that, you know, to the extent we can.

It looks like Kevin has his hand up.

Yeah, I wanted to just support what I'm hearing. And there is no criteria under the state rules that would allow you to include or not include a property owner based on their consent or their interest in urbanizing or not. I will say there is a scenario, and I think Matt alluded to this, when, as you're looking at the lands that come into UGB, you go through this prioritization process of which lands, you know, we're protecting farm and forest lands. So exceptional lands are typically the first lands that would come in to an urban growth boundary. And if you're looking at a lot of exception lands, these are all lands within the same category. And in that circumstance, I do believe it would be possible. And I think I heard Matt say that was a consideration in terms of the particular areas that qualified for inclusion in the UGB. There were some that were, it was clear that some of the property owners were more interested. That's fine, as long as it's within the same category under the state rules. I don't know that I explained that super well, but I guess I'm just trying to say that, yeah, that they're explaining this correctly. And I will also say that UGB, the UGB process is like this statewide. You don't know. It's very hard to anticipate what property owners are going to do once they're included in a UGB Because things can change, attitudes can change, property ownership can change, all of that. And so it's very tough to know exactly how urbanization is going to happen following the UGB expansion. It will happen. It sounds pretty likely. It's just what that form looks like, where it happens first is hard to anticipate.

Commissioner?

Thank you, all three of you guys. That made a lot of sense to me. I guess it sounds like, if I'm understanding correctly, that if we were to make a recommendation that was based on the objections of a property owner or property owners, that sort of like ignores this prioritization categories that you have been mentioning, then that actually would be, like if the board were to take that recommendation, that would actually be against the state rules, which then could trigger a whole other process for like, hey, you guys broke the rules. Right? And maybe that's a question for either Melissa or Stephanie, but it seems like if I'm understanding right, we're not supposed to break the rules. So if we break the rules, then something happens. So we have to follow the rules. Stephanie's nodding. Melissa's smiling. Okay, I think I'm getting this. Thank you very much for, hopefully that's helpful to other people than just me, but it was definitely helpful to me.

So, clarification. It's a criteria that you're certainly not required to take a look at. Is it information you can use? For example, if you decide you want to do a UGB expansion and nobody in that area wants to develop their property, it would seem to me relevant information.

Yeah, I always share, like, you know, this question's come up many times through our steering committee. Other people have the same question as you. It's kind of common thought, common sense. You know, some people say they don't want to be in there. Why would you bring them in there, right? But I think the state's rules are designed to make sure that we get the best land, you know, that the land, the suitability of the land is the biggest criteria for urbanizing, not what a property owner now or 20 years from now might think about development. So there is a lot of criteria, but that's where the criteria really wants to take us is. looking at the suitability of the land. Is it going to be easy to urbanize? Is it near adjacent or is it going to be easy or relatively easy to get utilities to these properties from existing city infrastructure? Social environmental factors, how far away from downtown is it? Those are considerations. And so I think that I'm kind of speaking for the state, Kevin, who's here, but that's my understanding of what the law or what the rules are really intending to get at. Tony.

So I don't know if this is a question for before the public hearing or after the public hearing. Scott had said continuing the hearing until August 27. Matt said keep the written record open until August 27. If the public hearing was continued on August 27, the City of Sisters has the opportunity to speak about they're trying to approve the code zone amendment to address floodplains. So I just want to clarify that. What are they wanting to look at? What are we wanting to look at? That would help us make a decision. And we may not go with that decision at all. I just, you know, are we looking, you know, what are their wants versus, you know, what do we really want to do?

So I can I can try to answer that and then Scott or Missy can add to it or correct me. And I do want to say just back also to Chair Cyrus's comment. Yes, we can consider those things like property owner desires, but they can't be the sole criterion. We have to balance all of the factors that the state identifies for us to balance. So it really is a balancing act and it is a long range act. um boundary amendments so i i do want to sort of be clear that it's not that we can't consider those things we can but we have to balance those with a bunch of other factors and i would totally echo what scott said you know that the goal is to have the most suitable land command and that's what we have tried to do kind of throughout this process In terms of, I think what I was trying to say was reopen the written record. I don't know that I meant necessarily keep it open to a specific date, but I think there is a request or proposal that the hearing be continued to August 27th to allow us to provide additional information, particularly about addressing this potential gap in protection of Gulf Rives resources that the county has has identified and that we have been working closely with staff to craft something that we think will address that gap. So that is our desire is to be able to come back with that at that later date. And, you know, you may want to have a work session even before that just to get more up to speed on it. That's not for me to decide. But that, I think, is our goal, is to be able to identify pretty specifically and provide that information about how to address those potential gaps to address the issue that your staff has raised. And that, again, we've been working closely with them to address. And I think that's why, you know, and we've been very appreciative that they've, you know, worked with us on that and taken time to Talk through that with us so that we can provide something we think is going to do the job there. So I don't know. Just did that answer your question? Is that helpful? All right. Maybe Sky can articulate it better than I can. We'll see.

So the DLCD comment. brought up another question for me. A comment that, as I understood correctly, said that any of the lands coming within the UGB will be developed. Does the city anticipate condemnation on the properties that flat out do not want to develop their properties?

no that's not i don't think that i can't speak for our city council but i would think that would be a a absolute last resort like only scenario i could see potentially is if there was a key transportation connection that needed to be made uh that was on a property that was preventing development of other properties within the ugb and so it's a it's a it's a section right away that the city needed that's the only scenario that i could potentially think of where there would be a condemnation if the property owner wasn't willing to come into the city and develop but as a matter of uh policy i i highly doubt that that would ever happen in the city of sisters and i i guess i'd throw it back to matt to see and missy uh to see if they've ever seen that happen where cities condemned a property because a property owner has not proposed annexation matt do you guys want to add to that that's it yeah i haven't seen that and i don't know

I don't want to speak for Kevin in terms of what he said a few minutes ago, but there is no requirement that all these lands that are brought in be developed in the next 20 years. So that's not a requirement. It's a goal. I mean, this is the 20-year supply, the anticipated 20-year supply of land. And I guess I'll also just say that... It's intended to be a 20-year supply of land, but the city doesn't have to wait 20 years to look at expanding its urban growth boundary again. So the city can take a look at this in the future and bring in other lands before that 20 years is up, if they can make the case that there's a need for that land and go through a similar process. And I'll finally say that the city can also look at exchanging land. um within a ugb taking land in um and taking land out and that is done by cities um around the state actually our firm just worked for the city of grants pass which went through a ugb exchange process because they had gone through an amendment process or an expansion process about 10 years ago and they found that yes in fact certain land was not developing for a variety of reasons there was other land in closer proximity to the ugb well not in closer proximity But that was more developable and they exchanged lands and that was approved just recently. So that's another possibility. This is not a thing that's like it's absolutely set in stone forever or even for the next 20 years. So I do just want to kind of make it clear that this is a really important thing for the city to be able to move forward, to meet the housing needs they've got there. But it is not. irrevocable or, you know, it can be adjusted down the line. So I think it's just important to kind of keep that in mind. Great.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I have a number of questions, if I can just do them all at once. Ideally, if this were to go through and there was a group of landowners who had come together with a 100-acre parcel, it was the closest to town, they wanted to develop it, what is the fastest that housing would be built?

What's that? So say your scenario is if somebody petitioned to annex into the city, how long would it take from that point to when something would be suitable for occupancy or assuming like the best case scenario? Well, I mean, the annexation process takes a little time in and of itself because you have to negotiate the terms of the annexation and record a, agree on an annexation agreement. Then they'd have to go through a land use process to master plan, the silo master plan process is required in addition to a zoning amendment to apply city zoning to the property subdivision would also be a required stuff they could they could bundle all that stuff together they don't have to do it sequentially but that process could take in my experience, five to six months easily. And then you have, what we can't control is how long it takes for them to start construction. They're gonna have to do all the layout of the utilities, the grading, the construction of the roads, the streets, and then they gotta get that, it's a final plot process is what we call it, where they record a final plot with the county. That creates the lots that they can start drawing building permits on. And then however long it takes to, assuming those are houses, how long it takes to build houses or how long it takes to construct a multifamily building or a commercial development. So, I mean, you're probably talking at least a couple of years from annexation in the best case scenario to when two or three years to when somebody, when a building is actually ready for occupancy.

My other two questions are procedural for staff. I don't know, Will or Peter, if you would answer it. But to just go back to the public hearing question about written record versus continuing the public hearing, if you could clarify that. I think the request, it sounds like, is to leave the written record open, not to have another public hearing meeting. But I don't know that that question was actually answered.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, Commissioners. So this is something that's come up in other hearing processes. I don't know if it's happened before you before. So we have a scenario in which the applicant has submitted additional applications and wishes to synchronize those applications. And in order for that to happen, the earliest date that those could occur were both the new applications to deal with the Goal 5 resource protections as well as the current matter could be heard would be August 27th. And so the board in similar situations and hearings offices in similar situations has entertained a procedure whereby at just about this moment in the hearing, the hearings body would decide if they thought that extension to August 27th was suitable. And if so, notify the members testifying here today that they may, while they're certainly welcome to testify today, that they may want to hold their testimony to be responsive to to the entirety of the application materials on the 27th. So procedurally what this would look like if the chair wished to entertain it would be one, see if there was any interest in in fact honoring the request to continue the hearing to the 27th for another oral hearing night second to leave the written record open in the interim during that time and then And then thirdly, to check with the audience to see if there were any objections to that time frame or any supplementation that was needed. If so, the Planning Commission could decide that this matter would be continued to the 27th and then let the members of the public here know this evening that they would be given an opportunity to present in full on the 27th, although they're not precluded from testifying this evening as well. And sometimes that can save people the frustration of providing testimony on multiple nights or providing testimony against individuals

uh information you know that they just haven't received yet thank you okay peter um it's not it's unclear at this time what this city of citrus is recommending as you noted it's requesting continued hearing oral and written to august 27th for the closed closed the oral record and the red record or two, and possibly two to 27. I think this question is premature. It's important that you're engaging city staff on this issue, but you also need to hear from other members of the public. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think it's important to acknowledge what you've heard at this very moment. You need to let the hearing play its course, and then you can ask for clarity on what You get to take the totality of the testimony to determine how you want to proceed. The Planning Commission has the discretion. But the timing for determining the next steps will be when everyone who wants to testify here in public or remotely has done so. And then the question becomes timing.

Of course. Thank you. That was not my suggestion to do otherwise. It just the question came up. I didn't feel like it was answered. My last question, which is also procedural, is we're talking a lot about this is already in the record for the City of Sisters. Is that included in this record by reference that we may, you know, if it hasn't been presented to us, but it's in the record of the City of Sisters, may we read that and consider it in our testimony or does it have to all be separate and new?

It does need to be in your record, so it's important that everyone knows the basis by which you're making your decision. I'm trying to remember, I think that this question came up previously, and I think that some effort was made to import some of that record, but to the extent that you're making a request for that, we can look to the City of Sisters to provide any materials of their prior activities to prepare for this so that those materials are available for you and they can submit that at their discretion.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, just to feed off Commissioner Altman's timing question. Appreciate your response, Mr. Woodford. I was just probably directed towards Mr. Hasty because it sounds like you've dealt with quite a few of these UGB amendments. What's the turnaround time that you're typically seeing in swiftness? Like say, I know there's lots of there's lots of factors that go into it. But like, what are you saying? I don't know if you're involved with City of Bend or I think like Stevens Ranch. But is there any example you can give of like a turnaround time for when? say, an amendment is adopted for UGB and then when houses are occupied?

I mean, it really is specific to some degree, the community, the market. It's hard for me to give a much better answer than Scott gave. I mean, that was a That was a pretty solid answer, in my opinion. But if there are property owners who are interested in development, then it can move forward. The annexation request can move forward fairly quickly. The other thing I would just note is that the city plans to go through, it's called an area planning process to identify where some of those roads or infrastructure would need to be and on which properties and what the plans would be for making sure that happens as part of the development process. So we're kind of eagerly waiting to get started on that process as well. And that would then inform also the annexation process. So I think again, Scott's, answer of, you know, about two years from annexation. It's a pretty good answer, but it's not to say it couldn't happen more quickly, and it's not to say it couldn't happen longer. So I'm sorry that's not a better answer for you. It's just very hard to say in any given community.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else?

I guess back to this the extending the hearing and I just want to because I guess it sounds like we're a little unclear so i'd like an opportunity for you to clarify my understanding is that you when you guys were noting the wetland. That there would be, in my mind, it was like a loophole, like something, there was a gap between before the properties were annexed that would not be protected, the wetlands would not be protected. But could you clarify that so that we understand why we should extend this per your recommendation? Sure.

Yeah, I'll try to explain it, and maybe Will could, I'm sure he could explain it better to you than me, but there's different sections of the county code, and right now there's Title 18, where a lot of these protections exist. uh and when we rezone to uh propose to rezone to urban area reserve uh and that is within a different title of the code it's a sister's urbanizable area those protections are not in title 21 they're kind of they're siloed i guess and so uh the concern that the county staff raised was that in the interim, that those parcels would not have as stringent or robust of a protection for floodplain and wetlands as it does now. So we're trying to amend the code so that those protections would come along with the rezone into Title 21. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, county code. I'm sorry if I said city.

Any other questions? Yes. Just quickly, respectfully, Mr. Chair, this is all great, and we've heard brief staff introduction, agency comments, and we've heard at length from the applicant an initial round of questions from us. I'm really kind of interested in getting to the public hearing and the comments from people that signed up to speak tonight, so

Great. All right. So we only have, I think, five of these. Is there anybody else that would like to comment? And based on this, I would suggest that we allow everyone up to five minutes for testimony. We've heard a significant amount of comments from the city and agencies. So first on the agenda, I have Catherine Levitt. And on deck is Bill Willits. So, Catherine, come on up. Yeah, state your name and address. Yep, have a seat. And, Bill, you can come on up to the next mic. Pick one.

My name is Catherine Levitt, and I am in Sisters on Parrot Huntington Road, which is part of their plan. And if you'll bear with me, I'm very naive with these meetings. I haven't been to them. And my reasoning is I have lost six family members in the last year, including my husband, mother, sisters, brothers. I mean, it's been a really horrific three years. So I have not been a part of all of this, trying to get through it. But I'm opposed. And one of the reasons is because of all I've gone through, this is my sanctuary. I live on Parrot Huntington where there is only eight residents. I have gone through and talked to each of the residents except for two in what they want to do. One lives in London. I was not able to get a hold of them. The other one, I was not just timing wise, was not able to get a hold of them. Only one of those residents said yes, but that's when because they're elderly and when they pass, their sons want to develop it for their future. All of the others say no. I'm right on the creek. I talked to a neighbor across the creek. He's got developers banging on his door. And like I say, I just talked to him before I came here. And he said, I haven't been following anything, but I heard that light development was going to come in on 126. They want to put bridges across the creek and they want to go right through my property. Even though I'm saying no, that they can have a right to go in and take it. And I'm saying, whoa, it's got, you know, the floodplain, which I'm going, how can they change all of these things? And they say that kind of goes to the back. Well, I find that the county is handling it quite well right now. And there's a lot of restrictions I have to go through just to build a pole barn or whatever. And so that makes me nervous. And I have to say, I don't have a lot of confidence in the City of Sisters. I've been around. My husband was in business in, and Matt, you knew my husband, I believe, Levitz Westernware for over 40 years. What we had to go through just when they wanted to refurb downtown, they were going to do it exactly the way they wanted to do it with really not, they say they want... Information from the city and the end of businesses. I had to go business to business to business and get everybody's signature on a piece of paper just to say, let's put two crews on this because you, the town of sisters would dry up the way that they wanted to do it. They were going to, there was no timeframe, no time limit. So we got that passed and got two crews and went forward. They also got a grant from the city to put back in parking that nobody, they say, everybody's always, the community's all for this. Well, they put it back in parking because they got a grant. Everybody in the whole town complained about it. And after two years, the limit that they could then change it, well, gee, then they spent all this money to change it all back. They did research on the creek. They wanted to put salmon in the creek. Well, guess what? They did all of this research, supposedly. They put salmon in and they all died because it was too hot. Did they not test it? Did they not look at all of this? So all of these things, I'm not that confident in what's happening. And you say, well, if you don't want to be part of the city, you don't have to. Well, even in environmentalists or whatever, what about the creek? They're talking about putting these bridges over. Why does if they put an industrial building on the other side of the creek, why do they have to put a bridge across the creek and through the residential area? Why is that a demand? And all of these things that I just don't understand, and forgive me, I'm naive with this. I haven't been following as closely as I should have. But now I'm paying more attention when I said here that, oh, yeah, they want to buy my land and... go right across me, whether I want it or not. I don't want it. I don't want to be a part of the city. I don't want my taxes going up. I don't want to be on the sewer system. I don't want to be on their water. I want my well. I want to be where I am. And I have a gate and I want to be left alone. So I don't have a lot to say right now other than yes, I'm definitely opposed. And the one other thing is there are people I know within that have property that are offering their property. So this is just one section I want. And like I say, my neighbors don't want it either.

Thank you. And on deck is Christopher Kobach.

Bill Willits, and I am managing partner of McKenzie Meadow Village. I think it's important to clarify, we talk about Barkley Meadows and we talk about Barkley Meadows First Edition. They're uniquely different. MMV is 100% in favor of the airport Barkley Meadows development. It happens to be the green space here. This is the land that we can test right now. This is the land that came forward because it has site constraints that the city is going to address. But it also has impossible infrastructure costs. Catherine's talking about ODOT access, a bridge through her property, things of that nature, none of which has been put into any plan or defined. It's this elephant. And I spoke to you last time, and it's a very simple thing. and Scott have said there are two people that are opposed in Berkeley Meadows first edition. We say there are 10 people opposed. Catherine is saying her neighbors are opposed. We have documentation. We're prepared to deliver it to you that 10 people are opposed. What needs to be understood is in those CC&Rs, it takes a super majority to develop. That means that if more than four people vote no, there's 19 properties there, we think. If more than four people vote no, it's no. Well, we've got 10 no votes. It is a cruel joke on housing production in the state of Oregon because the land is not going to come in in one year, five years, 10 years, or 20 years, and we're willing to document it. If Scott and MIG have 10 yes votes, please bring them. But we have 10 no votes, which makes the land foreclosed on forever. So that is really my point. And yes, from an Oregon land use point of view, maybe you can just bring in land that will never come in and call that good. But there has got to be a moral obligation for the city of Sisters to deliver reality. And that's all we're asking for. Let's just get to reality here. And I hope and pray that the county will require them because we're prepared to deliver our side of the story. And I think what you're going to find out is what Catherine is suggesting. This land is paper land. but it's never going to turn into dirt.

Thank you. On deck, we have Garrett Mosier.

You ready for me? Yes, please go ahead. Chair Cyrus, Planning Commission, Christopher Kobach, on behalf of MMV, I was here last time and you have my contact information, so I'll save some time with that. I have written testimony and substantive points to make, but I'm not going to make them today based on the city's request, as vague as it may be, because the way I look at it, one way or the other, this has to come back. The city's acknowledged. that it can't meet the Goal 5 obligations under the UAR zone. They say not all the protections are in Title 21. None of them are. There's a 100-foot setback in Chapter 18 on this property. There's zero in Chapter 21. There's wetland protections that apply more strict than the state ones to all wetlands under Title 18. It's not in Title 21, the floodplains. There's no protection under 21. So they've admitted by saying we're going to file a new application to fix this, and they're going to come back on August 27th. So my procedural request is if the commission is going to consider another hearing on the 27th of August or this other application, well let's let's let everybody participate on this application too so you have all the information because as you can see they're very closely related applications and the last thing i wanted to say is i want the account city to address one issue with these new applications they're taking a different process it's going to either come to you or hearings officer then it's going to go to the board but it gets appealed to luba in a separate process This process goes to the state for objections and then the Court of Appeals if there's further debate. But that's a process. And if this new application goes the normal process in the county, the Luba appeal won't be filed till near the end of the year and nothing will be settled until after their deadline. So I'd like the city to answer if it could, how are they going to deal with this uncertainty of their new application that they need to fix this application when it's not going to be resolved? The appeals won't be resolved until next year. Now, they kept MMV out of their current application largely because of a fear of this land watch appeal of our rezoning. Well, where's the concern about the appeals of their application that they need to fix the Goal 5 application? That's a question I'd like to hear on August 27th. So I'd encourage you to open it all up for us to come back and talk about these issues.

Thank you. All right, thanks. And on deck is Carrie... Okay, sorry.

Okay, go ahead. Good evening, Chair Cyrus, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Garrett Mosier here today on behalf of the Central Oregon Builders Association. Thanks for the opportunity to testify here tonight. I'm going to keep my comments brief as I was expecting a two-minute deadline here, and I'll follow up with written comments. First, I'd like to thank this commission for taking the time to hear from all stakeholders involved in all perspectives to get this decision right. It's critical that we do this the first time and not go through a lengthy and arduous process to amend what we've done or swap plans or do the things that have been mentioned here tonight. The housing need in Sisters is dire. With the average home price of $800,000, Sisters is not a realistic place for working families to live, work, and build a future. There's an opportunity to change that and add significant affordable middle housing stock to the city, but it will not be done with the map before you today. I say this because areas like the Barclay First or Sub Highway 126 area are not suited for affordable housing, middle housing, commercial development, any type of development really. This area has no paved roads, no water mains, no power infrastructure, has not had a traffic study completed. It features wetlands, water resources, scenic resources, wildlife corridors. All of this will eventually prevent that area from being cost or time effectively developed. Additionally, this area is nearly two mile walk from the city with no sidewalks to schools or shopping areas. Simply put, the current map is bringing in lands for development that are not developable. I want to be clear that these lands within the current map identified by Brooks Resources are not under the same dynamic. those areas should remain included in the map. There are significant acreage that are not suitable for housing or commercial development that ought to be reconsidered. Sisters, residents, businesses, schools, and public safety agencies are relying on this process resulting in workforce housing development. That is why COBA asks you to please remand the UGB amendment to the City of Sisters with the direction to redraw the boundary to include lands that will be realistically developed in the next 20 years. Thank you. Thank you.

And on deck is Morgan Greenwood. Go ahead.

Thank you. Carrie Sponstrom. I recently moved to Sisters 69219 Yellow Daisy Lane, also just outside the Urban Growth Broadenry, but not within this particular area. I was not in Sisters until recently, but I have reviewed the process documents and the comments. I'm actually a certified planner and former planning director. And I was impressed with the extensive participatory process that was done by the city and MIG. I know MIG is actually known in the industry for participation, community participation and their outreach. I am supportive of the preferred option, particularly the lands closer to the airport. They are, in my mind as a planner, the best info option in terms of proximity. You're hearing a lot of discussion about distance. They are probably, a lot of those lines are probably like two blocks from the library. and a couple blocks from City Hall, very close to downtown. And yes, they will make my traffic worse, but I am still supportive. I think that from a traffic perspective, while they might mind personally, I think they're probably the best traffic option as well in terms of accessibility. They are less invasive on natural resources than several of the other options that were reviewed. And, you know, I know there's a lot of talk about the long range. It is a 20 year plan. I've been through as a planning director in communities where some of those larger lands are. are being developed at the very end of an urban growth boundary. And so it is a continuous process and it's not always comfortable for everybody. And so I do want to thank you all for your part in the process, as well as the city. I've worked in communities with both floodplains, wetlands and wildlife urban interfaces. And in my experience, which does include the 2017 Northern California fires in Sonoma and Napa that were devastating to 5,000 homes were lost in that one fire or two fires. Floodplain and wetlands are much more predictable in terms of a hazard. I've done hazard plans for two different communities. And they're also a little bit easier to plan for and protect in terms of natural resources. From what I've seen, the residents of Sisters are very actively involved. And I've read, like I said, I've read too many of the comments from the process. before I chose Sisters and part of that was the respect for the natural environment and so I do believe that the city will be held accountable for protecting the wetlands by the residents and also planning for open space opportunities. I have seen where Public stewardship gets involved with wetlands and creek waterways. It can actually, along with private partnerships from land resource environmental groups, present some really successful opportunities to steward wetlands as well as waterways and improve them over, not that the private ownership is doing a bad job of stewarding it, but opening that land As Mr. Woodward had said, the potential for public open space to enjoy, but also, in my experience, to enhance and actually improve some of those wetlands. I'm not as familiar with the Weikus Creek area, but in terms of the Indian Ford Meadows, I do live in the Indian Ford Meadows subdivision. that is across from this. And I do think there's a potential for that. And so I am supportive of this. Thank you.

Thank you.

okay i'll clean up here uh thank you very much chair cyrus commissioners my name is morgan greenwood for the record uh i am a resident of the city of sisters and served on the ugb steering committee in that capacity i'm currently employed by cascades east association of realtors and was formerly employed by central oregon builders association But I do want to make clear that this evening I'm speaking solely on my own behalf. I'm not representing the positions, priorities, or values of either my current or my former employer. Before I move on to my prepared remarks, I did want to expressed my surprise at one of the comments made by the city's consultant in referring to a possible solution if this 20-year land supply does not develop out due to either ownership issues, topography, or other challenges with development. He mentioned that a land swap could be done. I do want to note that there is no statewide statute for a land swap. It is a fairly arduous administrative process, so much so that in 2025, both the City of Roseburg and the City of Monmouth had to each obtain individual legislation for city-specific authority in order to swap land into their UGB. In the case of Roseburg, the challenges around residential development did indeed pertain to issues of ownership and challenges for infrastructure development due to topography. So if staff from DLCD is still on the call this evening, I would be interested in his interpretation of the ease with which a land swap can be done. Last month I was before you and expressed my deep concern that the City of Sisters has failed to conduct an adequate Goal 14 analysis and that the public record does not support the conclusion that the proposed expansion area can be efficiently urbanized. While significant issues around Goal 14 remain, my concerns have only intensified in light of the letters submitted to the County Planning Commission by DSL and ODF&W. These letters raise significant concerns regarding the presence of wetlands and protected species. Most importantly, they indicate that additional analysis will be necessary, including the completion of a wetlands inventory and associated goal five work. This is a costly and time consuming undertaking above and beyond the area planning about which the public has already been made aware. Additionally, the outcome of this work will likely affect the amount of developable land within the expansion area, the location and cost of infrastructure, the density and configuration of future development, and ultimately the feasibility of delivering housing. Yet none of this information has been presented to the city's planning commission or to city council or fully evaluated in the public process. The public indeed had previously been led to believe that the wetlands could be protected with a simple conservation easement. I raised these issues in a June 5th letter to Sisters City Council and city staff and received no response to date. Residents deserve to know this information before the process continues. We deserve a complete and transparent understanding of the costs, timelines, and regulatory requirements associated with this proposal, and especially of how this work could delay needed housing, a priority that the community has made clear. Proceeding without this information undermines public confidence in the planning process and deprives decision makers and residents alike of information that is essential to evaluating this proposal on its merits. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this application. Sisters taxpayers have not been informed of the timeline and financial impacts of these requirements, and I believe it will be negligent to proceed until they have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Anybody online? Monica, you're up.

Hi, it's Monica Thomas. I'm in Sisters in downtown. And I've been listening to this and I'm quite dismayed by what I'm hearing. I'll just make a few points here. The mention of discussion around wetlands sounds so negative from a lot of angles. And I just want to remind you that we had a flat fire here last year that was within downtown Sisters. And What we need is reduced wildfire risk. And we do need more affordable housing here, but a higher priority is public safety. And this wetland is a gift. And I do not see this as a problem. This is something that we have a lot of partners ready to work with us on restoring the Indian Ford watershed. So, why not? So, and I do trust the city to do that more quickly and efficiently than the county because we live here and, you know, it fires a big deal here. So we need, I think it's really important to keep this Indian Ford Creek watershed in, um, don't forget we do need 20 something acres of of parkland and this would be a perfect place for it um of course this that area would not be developed you know ugb is not just for development um i'd like to remind you that we have a hundred acres of undeveloped land within the current urban growth boundary we've got infrastructure here maybe When we get a new county commission next year, we'll have some new, fresh ideas on how to incentivize development within the existing UGB. We have dozens of vacant buildings that could be converted from commercial to residential. So if anybody's really serious about getting affordable housing as soon as possible, I urge you to look there. And lastly, the reason Mackenzie Meadows Village was not included was ultimately because of the lack of evacuation routes, as I mentioned before. They don't have enough evacuation routes now between Tollgate and Mackenzie Meadows 3 and Village at Cold Springs. So that was the nail in the coffin on that. And unless Forest Service and ODOT suddenly allow... more evacuation routes to be created through Forest Service land, you're not going to see any housing there soon. So just let that go. I'll have more to say in my written comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other online comments? Okay. Well...

Thank you, Chair. That concludes the public testimony, both in person and online, for tonight. And so, as I mentioned at the beginning of the hearing, you'll need to make a choice about how to proceed. We have a request that I'd like to confirm from the City of Sisters, which I think I understand to be to keep the written record open until August 27th and continue the oral hearing at that point. If I could ask Scott.

We actually had a second request for that same thing, is to continue the oral hearing

Yeah, I agree with what Will just said as far as the city's intention.

Great. So is there any comments, motions, suggestions? I mean, I would entertain a motion to continue the oral hearing till October. August 27. Second that. And written. Well, I would assume that the written certainly would be continued to be kept open during that time as we're continuing the hearing itself. To clarify, yeah, yeah. My assumption was as if the hearing was left open that written would still would also be open. Oh, I have a hand. Commissioner Williams.

And part of my clarification from that had been from this last, when we had closed the oral, kept the written open so that, and then everything got closed and then it was recommended to reopen the public hearing. We weren't allowed to submit anything per se between the last meeting and this meeting because everything had been closed. So that's why I wanted that clarification. So I would move to have the next public hearing on August 27th while keeping the written record open during this timeframe as well.

Right. We have a motion on the table to that effect.

Okay.

I would second it then. Any other comments? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. The hearing will be continued. Thank you.

And thank you, Chair, and just for the public benefit, Kyle Collins will continue to be the recipient of any written correspondence. You can email him, call him. He'll be back on Tuesday in the interim. His messages will pile up. So appreciate your patience during that time, and we will keep the record up to date and look forward to seeing everybody on the 27th.

Great, thank you. And at this time, we are going to have a public hearing on private family burial grounds. So anybody who would like to offer comments on private burials, stick around. It's up to you guys. I'm fine. Hopefully they'll give us the Reader's Digest version and we'll keep going.

Thanks, everybody.

We'll see you in a month. I got a cheat sheet.

Thanks.

I forgot all my parts on the last one.

That's okay. We'll do it together.

Okay.

I'm making an echo. Is that okay? Okay.

If you'll bear with me one moment while I sort out my presentation for the record, my name is Tanya Saltzman, senior planner, relearning how to use Zoom.

Perfect. While you're doing that, I'll notice it looks like the audience is slightly dissipated.

Time, it's very... We even lost half the staff. Why isn't it going? Okay. Thank you for bearing with me. All right. This is the time and place set for public hearing on file number 24726000352TA. Concerning amendments establishing regulations for private family burial grounds, staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed. And first, I'll just note that the record, the project website and the full record is at deschutescounty.gov slash burials TA. Okay. The Planning Commission will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being recorded. The Commission may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. Staff representing Deschutes County as the applicant will give a brief report on this issue. We will then take testimony from agencies and any interested persons. Following testimony, the commission will request staff to answer additional questions. This is a hybrid public hearing with both in-person and remote participation. For our in-person participants, if you wish to testify, please fill out a blue sign-up sheet and submit it to staff. After your name is called, please come up to one of the tables at the front of the room before beginning your testimony. Before starting your testimony, please provide your first and last name as well as your mailing address. For our remote participants, if you want to testify, you must be logged into Zoom or have called in using the Zoom dial-in option. When the chair asks if anyone would like to testify, you will need to use the raise hand feature to notify the commission. To do this, press the raise hand button on your computer or smart device, or if you called in, dial star nine. In addition to oral testimony, if anyone has written testimony to submit, please hand it to me after your testimony. If you're participating remotely, you can submit your written testimony via email to my address on the screen. The chair and staff are responsible for conducting an orderly hearing. Any testimony or behavior which is appropriate will be addressed and may result in that member of the public being removed from the hearing. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, any party may challenge the qualifications of any commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify him or herself, withdraw from the hearing, or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the commission need to set forth any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest?

Does any commissioner have anything to disclose? And if so, please state the nature of SAME and whether you can proceed.

Okay. Does any party wish to challenge any commissioner as a member of the hearings body based on conflicts of interest?

As no challenges are presented, unless Will has one, the hearing is now open. Staff will proceed with a brief report. Emphasis on the brief.

Okay. Try not to make jokes pertaining to the subject matter. It's really hard. We do take this very seriously, but we struggle. I was not here for the work session. Will capably covered it in my absence. I did review it, so I'm aware of the conversations that happened. I do try to address that a little bit in this presentation. So thanks for your patience on that. I will do a brief presentation on the amendments. So a little bit of background. Sorry, let me just minimize something on my screen. The Deschutes County Planning Division routinely, rarely to routinely, receives inquiries from property owners seeking to establish private family burial grounds. These aren't pertaining to the establishment of a cemetery or a burial park, kind of a public thing, but it's for sites dedicated to family members of that property owner. The ORS, Oregon Revised Statute 97-460, outlines requirements for the establishment of these types of sites, in part requiring that the Jurisdiction's Planning Commission provide written consent to approve the site and also provides a list of requirements for utilizing property in this manner. The Board of County Commissioners initiated this text amendment during review of the last work plan, so they directed staff to do this. So here we are. Brief summary of the proposal. It adds a new section to Deschutes County Code Chapter 18116, which is Supplementary Provisions, to establish criteria and process for review of private family burial grounds. And it notes that they're non-commercial private uses and not a public cemetery or mortuary. It requires applicants to demonstrate compliance with the state law within ORS 97-460 and to record a restrictive covenant to notify future property owners of the location of the burial site. It requires siting of the burial grounds to be certain distances from water sources to reduce environmental concerns. So that's 100 feet from wells or other drinking water sources, 50 feet from streams, rivers, and lakes, 25 feet from property lines, and 50 feet from on-site wastewater systems. The Planning Commission is the review body and is ultimately the decision maker. The amendments do not establish rules governing cemeteries. Again, those are a totally separate thing. I believe it's the Oregon Cemetery and Mortuary Board that kind of deals with all of that stuff. Similarly, these amendments do not govern the handling, disposition, or disinterment of human remains. So that is a business we are not getting into here. Yeah. So just to touch on some of the items raised in the work session, and I might call for Will or Stephanie to come up and add some nuance to this. So there were questions about the meeting timing. So recognizing that the Planning Commission meets every two weeks at best, or twice a month, I should say, sometimes that might make for an awkward timeframe. So is there a way to have expedited meetings? And in consultation with legal counsel, if review is set up as a proceeding to be held as a public meeting as opposed to a full public hearing such as this, the only requirement is to comply with public meetings law, which statute requires 24 hours notice for what they call special meetings. So the way staff is interpreting it is that we could realistically call a Zoom-type impromptu meeting as long as it's noticed. We would post it the same way we post our planning commission meetings on the meetings portal, and I believe that would cover it. I'll turn to Stephanie. Ideally, I think the goal would be to have it during an established planning commission meeting, but in certain special circumstances, perhaps not.

Hi. Hi. Good evening. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel. I did a real deep dive following up on some of the questions that arose at last month's or a couple weeks ago at the last Planning Commission meeting and framed by Tanya with some of her questions. What Tanya just stated is accurate, but the caveat I will say is that there are some jurisdictions, and I can't identify what those jurisdictions are, but my research indicated that some jurisdictions will treat this more akin to a land use application. So it would require a hearing, which would require the notice associated with the hearing. But the way I read the materials, and There's not going to be volumes and volumes on this subject, unfortunately, is that, yes, it does not have to be, it does not have to be processed as a land use application. It concerns land, but it's not a permit. It's the statute uses the term written approval. So written approval by the Planning Commission. It's not phrased in terms of a permit from the Planning Commission. So I am advising that we can read it as broadly or as narrowly as we wish because there is no authority that has given me this while you've got to treat it as a land use application. If you wanted to do so, we could. but that would complicate it. So I'm satisfied with the outcome of the research that I provided to Tanya in my email response about a week ago. But I'm going to stay up here in case there are additional questions. There's more. And I might have to go back and grab my notes.

Yes.

I assume that that would require a quorum?

Yes.

Yes. Either any action taken by the planning commission requires a quorum, whether it's a public meeting or an emergency meeting, you still can't take action without a quorum. Good question.

Yes. In this application, they would say we would like to bury a body of a family member. Would they then give us the location? We would just say yes or no? Or would we look at like a site plan review?

Because the water, I mean, they would have to submit all of the documents that are required by that code amendment.

Basically, if it passed that kind of water setbacks, you know, All the setbacks, we would just say yes or no.

Actually, that's why we're here.

Yes.

Because we get to make the rules.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand like how that, is it just as simple like we all join the Zoom or those who can, can join the Zoom and we say, I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out how complicated that.

That's exactly what we'll be discussing.

Okay. Yeah, yeah.

We are, you know, you are, not we, you are developing the rules that you want to have associated with. I had several additional notes at the end of my email to Tanya, one of which is, you know, how deep does it have to, does a body have to be buried? There's no requirement in state law. You could say it has to be five feet. You could say it has to be 10 feet. You know, I mean, so I'm just kind of throwing examples out there as to the areas you have discretion. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, of course. So there was also a question about appeals, and this kind of piggybacks on what Stephanie was just saying about how this is treated, either as a land use decision or just written approval. So are these appealable, and if so, by whom? And according to Stephanie, there's no formal process. Again, it's left very minimal in the state code, as I think we've alluded to previously. It's pretty bare bones.

Oh, cool.

Sorry. That was intentional. I promise you. I promise you it was intentional. It just happens. But as Stephanie noted, there are mixed opinions on this.

That's why you bury them deeper. Yes.

We've started. I'm sorry. I'm going to take a deep breath. So if the review is set up as a full public hearing, which I think is not right now what we are doing, but it is obviously possible for the Planning Commission to do that, then in that case it would be appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. Otherwise, if there's no local appeal process provided, then the recourse would be in circuit court. Correct. Yes.

Yes. Where there's no appeal provided, anyone can seek a writ, like a writ of review or a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. I can get into all the writs. And there's no pun for that one. Not yet.

More items that were raised, types of burials. According to legal counsel, urns of ashes may be included in this. There was a question about that. So, you know, the question remains, will people bother to do that is unclear, but it technically would also cover people burying urns of ashes in addition to burials. There is no distinction between green or natural burials and regular burials. That was a question as well. So it's all kind of just burials. Then the biggie was building or developing on a burial site. So how, if at all, are these regulated by CDD? And I'll just turn it directly over to Stephanie.

Actually, we do have a question from Commissioner Williams.

Oh, yes.

I don't think I asked this question last time, but like when doing normal building stuff, which is building up typically, you have to notify like basically your surrounding neighbors. But with this, we would, if I were the homeowner, would not have to notify any of my next door neighbors, much less the one that I'm dumping the body off 25 feet off their property.

Is that correct? That is correct. That is not in the statute or in the written rules. It is a thing that I suppose could be required, but there's no notice requirement built in. Except for, obviously, there is a restrictive covenant attached to the property, to the land, but that just goes for kind of wherever the property owner is.

I assume the restriction would keep it to your own property.

Absolutely. Yes, you can't bear on other people's property. I guess you could seek an easement from your... Okay, go ahead.

So, yeah, the question about building or developing on a burial site, in general, you know, anything that involves disinterment, you know, moving remains, kind of messing with remains, is not really a CDD land-use thing. It has to do with the Cemetery and Mortuary Board. You know, they deal with how you dispose of things and in what way or how to, you know, disinter and then kind of certify that that was done. So that is kind of beyond the scope of these amendments, although it is a very... Interesting and relevant question. For our concerns, it is like, is there a restrictive covenant? Has it been filed or has it been removed? And so what happens to make that happen is kind of beyond the purview of our code.

Can I, Mr. Chair, can I ask just a little bit of clarification on that? Understand it's out of scope and, you know, I never want to make things more complicated. I always want to make them simpler. But aren't we kind of setting ourselves up for that consideration, even if it is out of our authority or out of the scope of this process, if we have people that, you know, that do bury bodies on their land and land changes ownership, a couple of Ownership down the road, somebody wants to build on that. I looked just briefly at, you know, who owns remains beneath the surface. And it gets pretty complicated pretty fast. And you get into Native American considerations and all kinds of regulatory laws. And it turns out that probably nobody does. There's such a thing as custody or stewardship, but ownership of your own body has to be explicitly. At any rate, it's pretty interesting. It's pretty intense. I'm just wondering if we're setting ourselves up for a situation, even if, as you said, this particular text amendment doesn't cover handling or disinterment of remains. I mean, isn't that necessarily implied? If we have more remains on the landscape, there's the potential for that. And we just say, not on us.

Fortunately or fortunately, that is the case. There was something that I pointed out, again, kind of at the end of my summary. Look at this. It's like three single-spaced pages responding to Tanya. And this was one of the questions that came up at the last meeting. The legal obligation to disclose the burial to any buyer is it, you know, that's all it has to be recorded. And, you know, obviously, if I'm going to be selling my property, I'm working with a realtor or something, I'm going to have to disclose that in other forms and whatnot. But the failure to disclose doesn't void the sale. So that's one thing just kind of as an FYI, but it could be a lawsuit based on fraud or misrepresentation. So again, what the Planning Commission is considering There could be ramifications. There could be ripple effects. But we're in these four corners of allowing someone to bury somebody on their property, period, the end. And then the other thing, too, is future owners are not automatically obligated to let family visit the gravesite. And if ongoing access is desired, it must be established through a recorded easement before the property changes hands. So there's a lot of there's a lot of directions that we could go, but the matter before the Planning Commission is placing the remains in the ground on a private property, and that's it. It's not to say that any of us personally or even maybe collectively as a group wouldn't be concerned or thinking about what could happen in the future, But we don't get to control that or make rules around that for better or for worse.

Pretty straightforward. Thanks for answering that.

I still have questions on... Oh, there's so many questions.

One that comes to mind, that last passage you read, I'm not going to argue with an attorney that's done research on it, but I do think that Native Americans do retain rights to visit, regardless of future ownership.

Yeah, and that would be a separate Indian law, or I don't know if that's even the appropriate term anymore, but what was colloquially referred to as Indian law when I was in law school. Yeah, those laws and regulations, there's federal implications and treaty rights and all sorts of things that are well beyond the scope of this. But it's good that you brought it up because it's interesting to compare and contrast.

Thank you. Yeah. Great. Okay, go ahead.

Here's some notes from legal counsel that she might have already just... But here's some just helpful FYIs I thought that were really helpful and interesting. Oregon, and a little bit peripheral to some of the amendments, but just as a helpful note, Oregon provides a property tax exemption for family burial grounds. Only applies to the portion of the land that's actually used for the burial. Didn't know that was a thing, but I guess it is.

No, I learned a lot, actually, in my research.

And as Stephanie just said, the legal obligation to disclose the burial does not void the sale, but it could be grounds for a lawsuit. But we've covered that already.

Well, they'd probably want to keep the tax deduction in place.

I mean, it's, I don't know. And again, the easement, and this came up in my research with just, I think it was the cemetery and mortuary board. If someone is like, my grandma's buried here, I want to preserve access for all of the future generations, you have to record an easement. So that's a whole separate thing than the restrictive covenant. That's a, you know, a an area that people can access. So that's just a noted thing if you want access to your burial site. And operating a burial ground in violation of ORS 97-460 is a Class B misdemeanor, carrying up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Burying someone without the required disposition permit violates another ORS, which carries its own potential penalties. So... We're not including that in the code, but, you know, in case anyone is watching this, we want to make them aware of the consequences. But there is, I mean, this is to say that, like Stephanie said, what the Planning Commission is considering is very narrow, but there's really a tremendous amount of regulation on kind of the other aspects of burial and all of the things surrounding that issue. So public and native comments, we received none. And I don't think anyone is here to make a comment. We'll, of course, open it up as necessary.

That's the end of my presentation.

As far as next steps, options to move forward after we hear any testimony, if it's here, continue the hearing to a date and time certain, close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain, close the hearing and set a date for deliberations, or close the hearing and commence deliberations this evening. With that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you. Are there any All the comments from anyone online?

So is there anybody online? Oh, Commissioner Williams.

The setbacks that were established, are we taking them from state code? And the only one I really, well, two of them, only 25 feet from someone else's property and 50 feet from waterways.

Did we take them off state reg or did we just come up with them? Some other counties did. Um, and then the one, uh, the onsite wastewater that came directly from our, our staff.

Um, so none of that is statute.

Correct. So, okay.

I think Lane, Lane and Benton County.

Yes. Um, and I'm forgetting which one, but, uh, we, we based it based on those.

Okay. And, uh, Okay. That was my question.

Okay. So, um, I, oh, yes, go ahead.

Uh, what are you seeing from other counties for like, is there a land use application fee associated with it? Then I assume it's staff time and coming to a planning commission. So I was just curious on what the fee is. Yeah.

Look at the feeds. My preliminary research and Nicole before me, who was working on this as well, most counties seem to be pretty hands-off with the ones who are not doing it as kind of full public hearings. They barely had kind of a process. It was very, very light. So my hunch would be that it would be a pretty low fee. But I could certainly get back to you on that. Admittedly, I didn't look into it.

Yes.

Do we have to adopt this?

Um, that's a good question. It is in the ORS. So we have to basically, so it's been in the ORS for some time, and we have been following sort of an interim process that largely follows the ORS, but just not with the planning commission review or approval. There's been a couple cases of those, a few one-offs. What is your advice?

Well, what I would say, and I'm going to refer back to some of my research here. So I learned a lot. I think I already said that. One of the things is, OK, so before any burial may occur. whether it's on private property or in a cemetery or at sea. I learned about at sea burials. The family must have both a death certificate from the medical examiner or medical certifier and a disposition permit, which is issued by the local registrar or health department. And there's a statute 432-158. A death report is required to be submitted within five calendar days after death or finding the body and before final disposition. And there's no period within which a disposition permit must be issued. However, a disposition permit authorizing internment in a private family burial ground cannot be issued without a record of the Planning Commission's written consent. We're establishing what the process would be for somebody to get that disposition permit. I suppose if the Planning Commission didn't approve rules, either the interim, you know, kind of whatever the county's been doing in the meantime would persist, which arguably would not be consistent with state law, which requires Planning Commission written approval, or we would simply tell people,

That there's no provision.

There's no way for you to get a disposition permit to bury somebody on private property. But that's, you know, that's my answer to you right now is based on my understanding of the process. I don't know. I mean, like, do we just as a county say there's no private burials on private property when state law allows it? That could be a conflict between state law and local law. So that would be an issue. Yeah.

Does the state have a depth requirement? And again, we're just following their rules. And if they don't have a depth requirement, can we write that into our rules or not? Because it's more restrictive than the state rules.

Yes, there is plenty of authority for you to determine setbacks, distance from property lines, water sources, all of that. And yes, you can, we, you as the planning commission can prescribe a depth requirement. There is no state depth requirement. I did notice that in my research.

OK, so I assume we have, did we answer the question? I assume we have nobody online. OK. So it would appear that we have no further public comment. Is there a motion on how you guys would like to proceed? We can continue the hearing. We can close the hearing and leave the record open. Or we can close the record and set a time for deliberations. Or we can deliberate tonight. What's your pleasure?

I would like to close the hearing. I have the energy to deliberate tonight, but I don't know about my colleagues.

I second that motion.

I also know that we have, like, some things maybe added to our agenda. It's your discussion.

So, yes.

I'm going to leave as soon as we vote on this, because I have a previous obligation that I didn't realize would conflict. So, you can just, in case that affects anyone's

So you have an obligation tonight?

Yep. As soon as we vote on this, I'm out of here. No disrespect to anybody. I'm really sorry. I don't plan to make this a habit, but in case that affects how people vote.

Understood. We are running a lot later than normal. to hear your discussion so i would i would change so so i guess my we have a lot of open issues with regard to potential criteria etc um everything from setbacks to depths to you know are we gonna identify a coyote digging depth or a certain footage or whatever i mean The point, I guess the question is, I could see probably at least half hour, 45 minutes minimum of discussion on criteria. What's your guys' pleasure?

One question would be, do we have a lot of discussion at our next planning meeting? Because if it's fairly wide open, it would make sense to deliberate at the next meeting. And I read the document Will set out, and I just can't remember what our next meeting is covering.

Yes. that's the only agenda item that i know on july 23rd so to be steady close the hearing and set the liberation uh for july 23rd uh you would have two items uh the first item which i don't imagine it being lengthy just given the kind of procedural and very kind of narrow technical issues I guess I would kind of favor that direction.

Your thoughts?

I like the idea of closing the hearing. and maybe putting off deliberations but my question is are we likely to get any written comments is there a reason or a staff recommendation on leaving the written record open until probably a couple days prior to deliberations or something yeah usually we need to make the packet which is one week before so just shy of a week it would be i mean it's up to the planning commission we've gotten i've gotten no comments thus far i don't know what that

necessarily means they could all come this week but um my my guess is i don't anticipate a lot if any comments what are you all so i i would have a motion to close deliberations or excuse me close the hearing and deliberate um can i yeah yes you may may i um

Leave the written record open for another week. I don't think there's any harm in that. And then commence deliberations on the 23rd.

Actually, we didn't even second on that to start with, so does anybody second that?

Tony seconded it, yeah.

Oh, did you?

Yeah.

Okay. I second the new motion, the modified one.

As a point of clarification, just so staff would have time to get a packet together, could the record close on the end of the day on Wednesday, the 15th?

That'd be fine. That's what was meant. Okay. All right. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Great. Passes. Hearing is closed. Deliberations are extended for a few more days. Excuse me. The record is extended and deliberations on the 27th.

23rd.

23rd. Okay.

That's August 27th.

What she said.

Thank you, everyone.

All right. Thank you. All right, that concludes all of our business staff comments.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening. So in latest news, there was a modification by the board on Wednesday to the CDD annual work plan. It turned out that there was a gentleman in Terrebonne who was going to build a duplex under the previous non-clear and non-objective definition of duplex that allowed a breezeway as the way that those structures could be connected and under the clear and objective code change you have to have an attached wall and it turned out that he had set himself well on that path and his bank did not a bit like the fact that he was going to have an attached structure rather than a detached structure And through board discussion that happened on Wednesday, they decided that because this was an inadvertent effect of the clear and objective update, a change in definitions which changed the type of attachment that was required for the structure that they'd like CDD to prioritize a fix associated with that. And we anticipated this. We knew, I think we discussed at great length, that the clear and objective, we were making thousands of changes, and at least some of these would produce unintended consequences, and here's one of them. And luckily, there's an inspiration that came through. House Bill 2138, I think, is the number. They have it transposed. For properties within the UGB allows duplexes to be two dwellings on a property, however configured. Attached, not attached, however configured. If you're a duplex, you can have two dwelling units. And that provision doesn't apply directly to Terrebonne or the rural Deschutes County or the other zones in Deschutes County where duplexes are allowed. But it was an inspiration, noting that it provides another type of housing and another type of financing in this case that's available. So that's something that will be likely coming through your hearing, if not through a hearing, at least through a work session through you in the fall to try to get that patched through. In addition, we've mentioned on July 23rd, we'll be bringing you to the PC work session, planning commission work session on the remand for the 2040 comp plan. So, again, that won't be a formal hearing process. That will be just a work session for you to give any input as that matter moves forward to the board. Speaking of clear and objective, the most recent one that Kyle brought to you has cleared the board and has gone through second reading and is adopted and will be effective within 90 days. We have, let's see. And that's really what I've got on my big list of things that are staff comments. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Stephanie, do you have anything?

Yes. I had the pleasure, using that word very generously, of attending a show cause hearing before the Land Conservation and Development Commission two weeks ago. And the commission voted to send a petition for an enforcement order to a contested case hearing which will be on august 11th the hearings officer that's been assigned to the matter is currently out of town but we as in the county thousand friends and land watch made a joint request for a pre-hearing conference with the hearings officer the hearings officer will return next week and hopefully we'll get that scheduled soon so that we have a better understanding of deadlines, witness lists, exhibit list exchanges, discovery, you know, all these things that could be in the realm or maybe not be in the realm of things. The whole thing will transpire very quickly unless there is another motion or request to extend the timeline within which the commission has to act on the hearings officer's recommendation. And the hearings officer has only 30 days to turn around a recommendation after the contested case hearing. So lots and lots of procedure, lots of moving parts. And I will know more hopefully after a pre-hearing conference, which we hope will take place in short order when the hearings officer returns.

I think properly your description of your pleasure was sarcasm.

No. Actually, I have to say I enjoy litigation, preparation, argument, written and oral advocacy. So there was a pleasurable part of that all, you might say. So for what it's worth.

Thank you. Tanya. Yeah.

Just one quick thing of the Terrebonne community plan continues. We are this close to pinning down an open house date. We've had some venue issues because apparently all the schools like to do construction in the summer. So it makes it really hard to find a place to have an open house. We think that we are going to have August 11th, which is a Tuesday as our next open house. And there will be advertising and we'll remind you a few more times. It's going to be in a school in the very, north tip of Redmond because we couldn't get Terrebonne, but we think that that will be acceptable. And we're going to be coming back to the community, parroting back what we heard saying, you know, did we hear this correctly? Are we understanding what you want, don't want, you know, how you feel about this and trying to get a little more nuance to some of the comments that were received that I had shared with you a few weeks ago, months ago. So that is our next step in that project. And I'll keep you posted on those dates if you want to come.

Great, thank you. Peter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Certainly a weighty topic today, so thanks for all your attention. Excellent questions. The process for the sister team will continue on the 27th. Earlier this week, Will Groves sent you an email, a boarded email that he had shared with board account commissioners just highlighting the significant number of like land use matters that are heading for the board of county commissioners. Some of the unprecedented conservatively 12 public hearings between now and the end of the calendar year. His staff is, you know, both in terms of long range and current planning with colleagues who are out on FMLA. are are really um i would say uh stretched um and but nonetheless there's just credit to he and his team um of course involved as it gets closer to work uh or even earlier but um just wanted to share that with you where where our bandwidth is is is uh quite extended at the moment um But I think it's a reflection of just kind of, in some respect, the legality of this community. There's something in the 12 topics that touch all the points on the compass. So with that, just wanted to lastly just extend my appreciation for your understanding as Tracy's coordinating planning commission dinners. So you won't be seeing a regular email. from her or me, but just a reminder that as we have the next meetings on the 23rd of July, for example, is to get back to her the day prior, before the end of business day, just letting her know if you're interested in a dinner. And if so, of course, that will be purchased. And for someone like that, it's funny that I came a little late and almost missed it.

Did you RSVP?

We want to be mindful of your interest and your time and be good stewards of the resources that we have. So thanks for your understanding there. And again, a great meeting. I appreciate all of you in attendance and your attention to all of these topics, including the last one. Those are some Absolutely questions and, you know, credit to you for taking the time necessary to kind of think through this. This is big in. Private burials certainly raise a host of them. So no need to rush this at all. So just wanted to congratulate you on your patience and your stamina. This is what it really means.

Great. Thanks. Commissioner Williams.

No comments. Sorry I couldn't be there today. Working real hard down in South County and didn't get home until about 4.50. Oh, perfect. But I look forward to discussing private burials.

All right. Thank you.

Commissioner Hofkamp. Didn't have anything planned, but just in reaction to one of your comments, Peter, that in regards to the workload of the board with land use applications and stuff like that, just want to renew the thought out there. I'm not going to pursue it any further, but that if the board were interested, let me back up. I'm perfectly happy with the lines of authority as they stand, but if the board were interested in, at their will for fairly routine matters. I'm thinking of like we get a fair number of text amendments in regards to whether it's clear and objective or alignment with state law or S and stuff like that. It's actually a fair number of them that come along, but... There's not a whole lot of policy involved there. And if they wanted to delegate that authority, decision authority, to the planning commission, you have a veteran planning commission that's quite capable of handling that kind of thing. I'm not advocating for that. I'm not power grabbing here. I'm just suggesting if they want to lighten their load a little bit, that might be a way that, you know, they might be interested in pursuing. And that's all I have. Thanks.

Commissioner Altman.

Mr. Stockham. No comments. Thanks for a good evening.

Mr. Kelly. I'd just like to thank everybody.

It was an interesting meeting tonight.

Have a good one.

Meeting's adjourned.