Loading...
2009-53-Minutes for Meeting January 14,2009 Recorded 2/11/2009COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,P000NTY CLERKDS y4 1009-N COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/1112009 10;13,36 AM 11111111111111111111111111111 2009-53 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244- Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Kristin Maze, Nick Lelack, Kevin Harrison, Peter Gutowsky and Anthony Raguine, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; two other members of the Sheriff's Office; and ten other citizens, including media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin.. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 35 p. m. 1. Work Session regarding Transfer Development Credit Program & Pollution Reduction Credit Program (Applicant: Sagebrush Development). Kristen Maze said that Sagebrush Development (AKA Vic Russell and others) wish to develop property in the neighborhood planning area, known as the former Baldwin Herndon property. They propose to change the timing for payment of the PRC's until the time of final plat approval. This would allow the developer to record a final plat, put in infrastructure and possibly sell individual lots to builders. Commissioner Luke stated that this would allow the developer to make money off the land, and he feels the PRC's should be paid at the time of the sale by the developer; unless the developer is actually the builder. Ms. Craghead stated that there has to be a way of notifying the buyers that they are on the hook for the PRC's, per the Planning Commission's recommendation. Tom Anderson stated that Mr. Russell proposed this because he perhaps does not intend to build any homes. There will also be a sewer SDC and other obligations that may be imposed by the City of La Pine. He said the Planning Commission suggested a lien on the property to show that the PRC is due, as it would be hard to track otherwise. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 1 of 16 Pages Commissioner Unger asked why this can't be paid at the time building permits and other fees are paid. It is much more simple and predictable. Ms. Craghead stated that there could be cases where property is never developed and the County won't be able to collect PRC's. Commissioner Luke said that he feels the cost could be prohibitive for someone to go in and build. Mr. Anderson said that each time someone does this, it is prorated for the whole piece. The recorded plat is notice that the obligation exists. This is the simplest way for CDD to track activity. However, notice to the public is an issue. A note could be put on DIAL that an obligation exists. The Planning Commissioner recommended approval of the text. The Board advised to go forward with scheduling the appropriate hearing. 2. Work Session regarding an Appeal regarding Expanding Mining Operations at the Johnson Road Mining Site (Applicant: Latham). Paul Blikstad said the Board already agreed to hear this appeal. He referred to an oversized map and gave a brief overview of the history of the property. The owner would like to do on-site crushing, and a scale would be built. The entrance already exists and there are acceleration and deceleration lanes on the road. Cascade Pumice owned the land in 1995 and got approval for mining operations, indicating they would only mine for perhaps eight or nine years. Therefore, there is an assumption among residents in the area that mining would end. Commissioner Luke stated that if there are materials there, under State law, the owners must be allowed to mine. Ms. Craghead said this doesn't put a cap on what can be mined. The appellants feel the scope of what was to be mined was limited. The inventory shows it as a mining site with materials. ESEE indicated how many yards and the type of material; it is listed as pumice material. It is also listed under DOGAMI. Commissioner Luke asked what State laws say must be done in regard to mining sites. Ms. Craghead said she would have to research this, but they have to deal with Goal 5 inventory and it is a protected industry. Mr. Blikstad said that Robert Houston of DOGAMI feels DOGAMI has exclusive authority in regard to reclamation, but Ms. Craghead stated that it depends on when the permits were approved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 16 Pages Mr. Blikstad added that the reclamation needs to be "ongoing", and the headwall is to be reclaimed as well. It is perhaps 40 feet from normal ground level. The Hearings Officer felt, based on the ESEE analysis, that the headwall should not be seen from Tumalo State Park. However, it is only visible from certain hiking spots in the park and not from the camping area. The 1990 ESEE may allow crushing at the site; the applicant has proposed incidental drop crushing and roll crushing. The Hearings Officer said that processing is allowed on the site, and staff feels that this includes crushing. The appellants have indicated 18 assignments of errors. One is that crushing is not considered processing. Another question is what constitutes a noise and dust sensitive use. (See attached copy of Code) The Hearings Officer addressed this; it could include structures, grounds and the entire property. Mr. Blikstad feels this is a different interpretation; that a noise sensitive use is a house, hospital, church, public school but not the grounds of those buildings. The Hearings Officer also found that the noise sensitive claim was met, based on information from dwellings. This conflicts with some of the decision, since the grounds were not part of the study. (He referred to an oversized map of the area.) All homes were determined to be beyond 1/4 mile. There were appeals from both the applicant and opponents. The opponents brought up 18 assignments of error, most of which have to do with Goal 5 inventory, dust and noise. Commissioner Luke asked if the gravel was suitable for road use, and whether there is ample material available if this is not approved. He also asked where the material is being processed at this time. Ms. Craghead said they can continue to mine but the question is whether they can expand operations and do processing on site. Mr. Blikstad stated that the applicant's appeal relates to the use of specific sites for crushing and washing. The Hearings Officer felt that certain sites on the property were better for sound buffering. The second issue is the 100-foot buffer area that has to be landscaped. The applicant said that it has already been done with existing vegetation and that the standard really doesn't apply to them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 3 of 16 Pages The third issue is mining being visible from Tumalo State Park; the Hearings Officer wants the applicant to work with the Park Manager to change the site plan to buffer mining activities from the Park, as some activities can be seen from a few points on the trails. Mr. Blikstad stated that this almost puts the site plan revision authority on the shoulders of Tumalo State Park representatives. Ms. Craghead said that there will be a one by one argument from each of the parties at the hearing. There is a time constraint to consider. Commissioner Unger said he is comfortable with information being presented at the time of the hearing. The appeal documents will be provided along with a staff report prior to the hearing. On page 34 of the Hearings Officer's decision, item # 16, regarding water logs and testing, a concern was how the applicant can test wells that aren't on the applicant's property. The concern seems to be chemical spills such as fuel. Commissioner Luke said that he feels that the water level is probably at least 400 feet down. Mr. Blikstad stated that Kyle Gorman of the Water Resources Department indicated he is not concerned about this possibility. Commissioner Unger asked when reclamation is required, and Mr. Blikstad said that DOGAMI requires it when mining ceases. Ms. Craghead added that a reclamation plan has to be submitted at the time of application and must comply with the Goal 5 process. The underlying zone is EFU. A public hearing on this issue is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21 at 4:00 p.m. At this time, it was decided that equipment should be set up to record the Board's discussion. 3. Economic Development Grant Requests. • Cascade Women Lawyers - Seminar- the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. • Disabled American Veterans - Transportation Van - the Commissioners granted $1,000 each. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Pages 4. Discussion of Planning Commission Request regarding Event Venue Code Enforcement. Ms. Craghead said that this is not a noticed public hearing but there is no restriction on taking public comment. The Planning Commission, per Nick Lelack, did take formal action to draft a resolution to delay any Code enforcement throughout calendar year 2009. Commissioner Baney asked if the Planning Commission has ever taken such action before. Mr. Anderson stated that they have never passed a formal resolution such as this in regard to a Code enforcement issue. Dave Kanner stated that the first issue is the idea of rather than waiting for the applicant to come up with an acceptable text amendment, to instead have staff write something that might work. This is unprecedented and it is not up to staff to write it. The concern is that there does not appear to be a way in State law to get this done. There are differences of opinion in this, but if they keep waiting for the applicant to come up with something, this could go on for a long time. The Planning Commissioner would simply like to see something that they can either approve or deny without rewriting it. Commissioner Luke said that he attended a meeting to discuss this in general, and how the Planning Commission should deal with the public. It is not the County's role to do the writing for the public. The County cannot write and then review the language; this eliminates checks and balances. An exchange of ideas is fine, but there needs to be balance. Commissioner Baney stated that this could have been a text amendment requested by the Board instead of the applicant. Other amendments have been written by the County rather than having them be applicant driven. Commissioner Luke stated that the County has assisted in the past, but did not write the entire document. Ms. Craghead said that there have been times when it took a lot of staff resources. This was an applicant driven amendment because it wasn't on the CDD work plan; so it was suggested that they draft their own. Because of that, and the fact that they don't have an attorney, it resulted in a constant back and forth writing. Staff is more accustomed to writing the text, and the applicant did pay an application fee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 5 of 16 Pages Mr. Lelack was asked by the Planning Commission how long it would take to resolve, as six months from now puts it into the wedding season. This is why it ended up taking so long in the first place. Commissioner Luke said that this assumes it does not violate State law. Mr. Lelack stated that DLCD may feel it is possible that this can be resolved. Mr. Anderson stated that others at DLCD feels it can be handled but nothing is available from them in this regard. Most of the violators have not been cited at this point. The two cases that have been open for some time have now been put in abeyance. No new ones have been opened in about 6 or 7 cases. The Planning Commission recommended that no additional enforcement be done until the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Luke stated that the text amendment only gives them permission to apply. This would likely be appealed to the State. Ms. Craghead said they may have to put up a bond and get permission from LUBA to proceed, but it would be at their own risk. Mr. Anderson stated that Code enforcement does not just want to hand out citations; they want compliance with Code. He remains neutral. The up side to delaying Code enforcement allows time to have the amendment addressed without shutting down businesses. It also fits in with something akin to an unpermitted building; time is allowed to make it right before more aggressive measures are taken. On the other side are a whole lot of angry neighbors who attend all the meetings, and feel that Code enforcement should have been pursued last year. They feel Code is being ignored and the County is letting illegal businesses operate freely. There are very strong emotional feelings on both sides. The Board is being asked for its perspective on this issue. If the County writes the Code amendment to get the technical issues out of the way, the Board and Planning Commission can make a policy decision at that point. It would be faster than doing the back and forth writing of the amendment, and perhaps will eliminate some of the controversy. Mr. Kanner said that if staff writes the amendment, and the applicant does not like it, then what - does it move forward without their blessing. Commissioner Luke feels people will get married regardless. There are more things at issue than weddings. This is commercial activity. Buildings have to have adequate facilities for the number of guests, and parking has to be suitable for ADA. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 6 of 16 Pages There is a lot more at stake than just weddings. By not doing Code enforcement on these activities, building code is also not being addressed. Commissioner Unger disclosed that he has attended an event held by David and Lisa MacDonald on their property, and they are distant relatives through marriage. Ms. Craghead stated that he can still participate in a legislative matter. Commissioner Unger said that the County was somewhat responsible for creating this problem by letting it slide and by having enforcement be complaint driven. The operators got to the point that believed these activities were permissible. By not doing anything, the County is partially to blame. The Planning Commission wants a firm process to follow. These businesses will be compromised and this is not to be taken lightly. He would like to see Code enforcement not being enforced immediately. Ms. Craghead stated that they hear the argument many times about things being allowed in the past, so therefore it is acceptable. She asked what parameters would be permitted if they were put in abeyance; in essence, the level of violation to be allowed while they work through this issue. Sheriff Blanton said they don't object to weddings or anyone trying to make a living. He does object to having to deal with the residual problems. In regard to not enforcing violations, Officers could show up in response to a violation of State law, with nothing to do with the County. He said that the Planning Commission meeting went on for about five hours. He got a letter from the Katrinas family who said they were highly offended by the Dec. 11 meeting and felt they were rudely criticized. What ends up happening is that the Sheriff's Office has to respond when there is a call. His job has nothing to do with zoning or what needs to be enforced under policy, but they get the call. The complainant will be told who to call about this issue. There was a request about how many complaints they receive, but there are many neighbors in this situation who don't complain because they are worried about the fallout. There is a list of complaints in the system, though. He wants to support economic vitality but his Department takes the brunt of the calls. When they respond to a call and go to a venue of some kind, the people want something done immediately. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 7 of 16 Pages He won't send people out with a decimal meter, as it is not realistic to do this. One loud remark could cause the meter to register a violation. His Department ends up dealing with the neighborhood situation. Mr. Blikstad sent an e-mail saying the Sheriff's Office position has changed. It was not a big deal when this first started. Because of publicity and mailings, this has snowballed. His position is that he is not in opposition of someone making a living. However, his department does not deal with land use or zoning. Their work is not complaint driven; and they hope to be proactive. They get complaints often who don't know where the noise is coming from or they don't want to be identified. The Officers are the bad guys if they have to show up at these calls, to both to the complainer and the violator. However, they are not able to remedy it. They also don't want to have the complainer have to sign a complaint. If the Board allows wedding events and list certain conditions, someone will have to be hired to deal with them. His Department does not want to do it. If there are no teeth in what is decided, violations will continue. It could become just a cost of doing business to the violator. If someone is unhappy that they are not complying, who gets cited? They will not break up a wedding. Most of those guests will not know anything about a Code violation. What will happen at an event cannot be foreseen nor controlled. It is human nature. His office is not in opposition to people conducting business, but they can't be in the position of trying to make everyone happy. Ms. Craghead stated that she said there are times when she could not complete a thought because there were so many interruptions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Luke said he has had problems with neighbors during his life, and cannot imagine living next to these kinds of events on a continual basis all summer long. It is a commercial activity. If it is approved on EFU ground, it is a non-farm use. Then what comes next. It is impossible to know. If you allow one kind, how do you deny the next one. There was a two-year process with home occupation Code. Let the Planning Commission figure out how to handle it as a whole, including the amount of traffic, how many people, and so on. It can't be decided on a case-by-case basis because that could drag on forever. He cannot support not enforcing Code. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 8 of 16 Pages They have had a lot of time to deal with this but don't want to hire an attorney. The County should not be doing this. You can't just keep looking at those who want to make money at the expense of their neighbors. The County should not be spending all this time trying to figure out how to help the violators - look at the neighbors' rights, too. There was no right to do this kind of business from the time they bought their property, and it does not belong in a residential area. He cannot support writing it nor extending it. Commissioner Unger feels this should be addressed in the comprehensive plan. This is coming before then, however. He went to the Planning Commission hearing and heard the testimony. It seemed to him that the people doing the events are trying to do so in good faith, and feel that staff did not deny it, that they were not exactly allowed but the County would not do anything about it. Kind of an implied consent. The PC is trying to come up with a solution. Staff should not write the language but perhaps there could be more work together on drafts. The County's expertise could help to come up with something the Planning Commission can address. Commissioner Luke stated that he has heard this more than once, that because it was not enforced it is okay. He asked if a letter from DLCD would help, giving that agency's opinion as to whether there is a way to accommodate this. However, this does not speak for the Board of Commissioners. Five-minute break was then taken. Commissioner Luke said they have to be complaint driven. There has to be permission to enter a property or a good cause to investigate. Anyone who takes a complaint as consent to proceed is wrong. Commissioner Baney stated that there is no process to apply in this situation. It seemed to be if the neighbor complained, then you could deal with it. Some neighbors don't care. Commissioner Unger would like the County to assist with writing the documents and extend the timeframe. Commissioner Luke said this is having the County overlook Code violations and ignore the neighbors' complaints. Commissioner Unger said that he wants to follow the Planning Commission's lead to allow them to operate while they work through the issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 9 of 16 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that staff will need to know what should be enforced. He does not think it is right for the Sheriff to have to respond when nothing can be done. Sheriff Blanton said they don't get calls regarding zoning, just for noise and traffic. Ms. Craghead stated that the Planning Commission was not very exact about what they want to do. Sheriff Blanton said his Department cannot enforce the noise situation; it is impossible to regulate. Mr. Anderson said that staff has not requested the Sheriff to ignore the noise situation; the expectation was that the violators would comply. There were two letters; one in May 2007, a courtesy letter to inform operators that a complaint was received but it would not be enforced immediately; that there was a process underway to evaluate this kind of use and invite them to participate. It basically said, through the wedding season, that there is no exact date. In September 2007 no Code proposal had been received for EFU land, another letter was sent out to the same operators, asking for a letter in the next thirty days so a decision could be reached prior to the next wedding season, and that there was no guarantee of non-enforcement beyond that. Commissioner Baney said she does not feel this should be extended. It was clear that they needed to stop what they were doing. The offenders were to present something to address it and they have not done so. They relied on nothing was going to happen. A glaring point is that this process is incredibly complicated and they should have had the guidance of a land use attorney. This is no fault of the neighbors. They should have until the end of the year. They have dragged their feet but if it is that important to them, they would have done something. Policy can't be based on this. There are some situations where this could make sense. She would like to see staff work with them to come up with on something that is presentable. She has considered the neighbors' and operators points' of view, and feels something can be extracted from all of that. She heard that there are grandfathered ten- acre parcels, but feels that this type of activity is not appropriate on those parcels. Having these occur every weekend is too much; it is a quality of life issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 10 of 16 Pages Even twenty acres is not big enough. There are concerns about the size of the parcels. The conditional use application is the way to go - to review outdoor versus indoor use, location on the property, and so on. She looked at the outdoor mass gathering and parade ordinances. However, the parade provision is for public events. Ms. Craghead said that there is a third one, an event permit for special events but on a very limited basis. Commissioner Luke asked if the outdoor mass gathering ordinance can be adjusted to allow a certain number of weddings. Ms. Craghead stated that it only talks about certain hours and numbers of people. If it is under 3,000 people there could be a way to do this, but it is a fine line between an outdoor mass gathering and a land use issue in State law. It is hard to know how far you can tweak the ordinance. No one has called the County for details on this. There may be case law but they have not heard anything from DLCD. There is a significant impact clause in land use, and it is not known when the County would cross that line. Also, the outdoor mass gathering ordinance cases have to be heard by the Board. Commissioner Luke said that transportation and traffic have to be addressed. He said the neighbors have rights, too. If this was not done correctly, it could end up being an outright ban. Commissioner Baney said more than 500 people for more than 240 hours in a three-month period applies in the outdoor mass gathering ordinance. Ms. Craghead said it cannot be more than one event every three months. There has to be a safety plan, a medical team on site and other requirements. It is hard to know how far this can be adjusted. A home occupation requires that the work be done substantially inside a structure and there be no more than five employees. Parking restrictions could limit the number of guests. Commissioner Baney said that there may be properties where this makes sense and others where it doesn't. She would like to get it to something that the Planning Commission can address. Ms. Craghead stated some have indicated that they want to call these properties a private park, which is questionable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Pages David Weigand, consultant for the applicant, testified that the applicants did not drag their feet. They already had an application before the Planning Commission, but were told that EFU has different requirements from the WA zone. This was in early July. They were trying to get something before the Planning Commission sooner. There were conversations with the neighbors and two meetings with DLCD. They worked aggressively to get this done after the summer. No feedback was received until just before the first hearing. Many of these people cannot survive without the additional income. It will take a year to get this done. On the heels of a denial on MUA, it makes sense that staff could help. It is difficult for any business in this economy to pull the plug for a year. It is a serious hardship. Hiring attorneys is also costly. He asked that the Board not stop the businesses, but list some restrictions that might be acceptable. This could include noise parameters. They have already done this homework. This would allow the applicants to continue their businesses. Commissioner Luke stated that in the MUA issue was concern that these are commercial activities. The buildings have to have ADA access, their own drainfield and appropriate parking. He asked how many of Mr. Weigand's clients could bring their facilities up to those standards. State building officials want to see fire sprinklers and there has to be adequate water to do that. Mr. Weigand stated that most of the events take place in temporary structures, such as pole tents. Conditional use permits can allow temporary facilities. He does not know the specific rules regarding restroom facilities. Most of the venues he goes to do not have permanent structures. Parking is in pastureland, and nothing unsightly happens and it is cleaned up afterwards. There is no long-term effect. He requested an extension so businesses don't have to be shut down. This is a $5 million impact just from wedding venues. There are numerous hotels, restaurants, catering companies, and other visitor businesses that do well because of these venues. This impact should not be overlooked. He would like to see a final version that makes sense for the long term, but time should be given through 2009. Commissioner Luke asked if he is suggesting that these weddings would not happen in Deschutes County if EFU land was not available. Mr. Weigand said that other counties do host them, and some areas have a permitting process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if weddings were booked after December. He replied they were taking tentative reservations but they were not booked solid. Most of these businesses are not sure what to do next. Commissioner Baney asked about the timeline. Mr. Anderson said that the Planning Commission would be informed of this discussion and the sooner this can come to the Board for a decision, the happier everyone will be. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation at its next meeting in February. Commissioner Luke asked if Commissioner Baney has some limits or conditions to be considered. Commissioner Baney said she cannot support it on all EFU ground. Ms. Craghead stated that the Planning Commission wants to do it right, and this will take time. Parcel size, noise, structures, parking, traffic, how many times a year, and so on are issues to address. Commissioner Baney said she would extend it if there wasn't already a Code enforcement issue pending. The County needs to back the Code. She feels that the applicants will need a land use attorney or consultant to do their part. The last thing the County needs is to have to take on a project when there are not enough funds or staffing to do what already needs to be done by the County. Commissioner Luke asked if they are to consider the size or dimension of a parcel, what kind of findings might justify that particular size. For example, twenty acres - how can that be justified. Ms. Craghead said that twenty acres complies with the comprehensive plan and protects Goal 3 and the use of the land. It better meets those goals than ten acres could. Farmland could still be preserved. Commissioner Luke stated that if parking is allowed on fields, it takes a long time for the ground to come back. If it is in farm deferral, then what. Ms. Craghead said it is possible that it would have to go out of farm deferral unless they can show there is still adequate farm use on that ground. A condition could be imposed that they could lose farm deferral where the activities are occurring. Mr. Kanner said this is a long away from the two items that were to be discussed. These issues need to be resolved but it is the Planning Commission's task at this point. It will then come to the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 13 of 16 Pages Too much speculation is happening at this time. He said that he is hearing that two Commissioners would vote against Code enforcement abeyance today. He is still not clear about the first issue, having staff write the text amendment. Commissioner Baney said she would like to see staff assist at a higher level. This is an issue that has ramifications important to economic development, and also limiting commercial use on agricultural land. It is difficult to navigate. She is sensitive to the fact that it is hard to stop a business for a year. But the owner should have appropriate zoning in place. If staff helps guide it at a higher level, it will be faster and perhaps they don't miss an entire year. A lot of these issues were addressed under MUA land discussions. Commissioner Luke stated that if it involves all EFU ground, it will likely not pass by the Board. Commissioner Unger would like to see it go to the Planning Commission and ask staff where they fit in. Commissioner Luke asked where the neighbors fit in. Commissioner Baney said about 50150. Commissioner Luke said the neighbors are not the ones committing the violations. Commissioner Unger stated that the neighbors are important but there are more people in the area than before. Anything that grows creates impacts. The comprehensive plan should address how to balance this. Quality of life is important as well. Commissioner Baney said that the Planning Commission's role is critical in this process. It oversteps in considering that Code enforcement need not be followed. That is not the recommendation she would hope to get from them. This starts down a road that should be followed to a conclusion. Ms. Craghead stated that adequate time would help them get to their decision. Commissioner Luke asked what staff is not doing because of the time they are spending on this. Mr. Lelack said that the question is whether it will take more time to meet with the applicants and take a shot at drafting the document, or deal with it multiple times. It would be faster for the County to deal with it, as they have the expertise. However, parameters need to be considered. If the applicant will not amend the application to include these restrictions, then it becomes a policy question. Ms. Craghead said it is not necessarily unprecedented of the County to handle this type of thing even if the applicant doesn't like the direction it is taking. They can withdraw the application but the County can choose to proceed anyway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 14 of 16 Pages Sheriff Blanton that the Planning Commission should not criticize other County officials, like the Sheriff's Office, for doing its job. Commissioner Luke said that the Planning Commission may not like it, but have to respect that the Sheriff has a job to do. Mr. Blikstad said temporary restrooms can be used in some situations. It depends on the site and the conditional use. Commissioner Unger stated they are sometimes permanent but not permanent. They are infrequent and equipment is brought in for the events. Commissioner Baney said a question is whether the facilities should be permanent. The Planning Commission can choose to disagree. 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger said he attended the Redmond Economic Development Committee meeting, and they are moving forward on various projects. Commissioner Luke stated she would like to talk more about uses at the Bend Airport and the Redmond Airport. Commissioner Unger added that they need to complement each other and not compete, and both need an updated twenty- year plan. Commissioner Unger begins County College in Corvallis beginning January 15. 6. Other Items. None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Pages of Commissioners. ATTEST: f d" Recording Secretary DATED this 14th Day of January 2009 for the Deschutes County Board Ct.fq;,v0j Tammy Ba ey, (fhqjf Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Page 16 of 16 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 1. Work Session regarding Transfer Development Credit Program & Pollution Reduction Credit Program (Applicant: Sagebrush Development) - Kristen Maze 2. Work Session regarding an Appeal regarding Expanding Mining Operations at the Johnson Road Mining Site (Applicant: Latham) - Paul Blikstad 3. Planning Commission request regarding Event Venue Code Enforcement 4. Economic Development Grant Requests: • Cascade Women Lawyers - Seminar • Disabled American Veterans - Transportation Van 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 6. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. -7 Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. rn o N ~ b ~ C `aT/ _ I Doc me n Re rod uces oorl ~ E a Arc iv x M ~ M rrAi Od ~ M o o a ) O c~ • IV) ~9 N 1 L W L O b 4 C 8 V) v ° N o c 2 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ar r O a Community Development Department X Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division r~ 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ Staff Report TO: Deschutes Board of County Commission FROM: Kristen Maze, Associate Planner DATE: December 29, 2008 WORK SESSION: January 14, 2009 SUBJECT: Text Amendment TA-08-8 Deschutes County Code, Sections 11. 12.020 Transferable Development Credit Transactions The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ('Board') will hold a work session on January 14, 2009, at the Deschutes Services Center, starting at 1:30 p.m. The Board will consider an applicant initiated text amendment by Sagebrush Development, LLC, for the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"), Sections 11.12.020 Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Transactions. The purpose of this work session is to present the proposed amendment and answer any questions of the Board. BACKGROUND This is an applicant initiated text amendment that proposes to change the timing of when Pollution Reduction Credits (PRCs) are required to be paid. DCC 11.12.020 (D) currently requires payment for all PRCs prior to final plat approval. "Prior to final plat approval in the Receiving Area, the Community Development Department must have record of the required number of TDC's established and available to apply to the development of a tract or lot meeting the following criteria within the Receiving Area." DCC 11. 12.010 defines "Pollution Reduction Credit" credit given for retrofitting of an existing wastewater treatment system or payment into the County fund and "Transferable Development Credit" credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic system on the subject property or a PRC. Transferable Development Credit and Local Rule History In 1996 Deschutes County and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) recognized that significant consequences could occur from the pattern of development in South Quality Services Performed with Pride Deschutes County and began a collaborative project known as Regional Problem Solving Project (RPS). The RSP project area encompasses approximately 42 square miles between Sunriver to the north and La Pine to the south, and includes thousands of small-subdivided lots, and some larger parcels, throughout southern Deschutes County. In 2002 Deschutes County adopted Chapter 11. 12, TDC Program based on policy direction from Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 23.44, Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County. The TDC program was intended to reduce the overall impact from development in flood plains, wetlands, deer migration corridors and areas susceptible to groundwater pollution from nitrates. This program was also developed to help maintain open space and preserve the rural character of the area by reducing the overall density of development that would otherwise exist in the future if a dwelling were built on every legal lot. When the TDC program was implemented it identified as the "sending area" future residential growth from existing subdivisions in South Deschutes County. TDC's are allocated to eligible lots, into the Neighborhood Planning Area, also referred to as the "receiving area" where TDC's are required to be redeemed based on a net developable acreage formula. The Neighborhood Planning Area is County owned land acquired from Bureau of Land Management, located between La Pine and Wickiup Junction, west of Highway 97 with the exception of the area transferred to the Baldwin-Herndon Oregon Trust';Tax lot 22-10-106 and the southwest quarter of section 11 that are contiguous. The TDC program operates in a voluntary, market-driven manner. Those property owners who choose to sell their TDC's retain ownership of the underlying land on which certain uses, such as camping, wood cutting, vegetation management, agricultural use and construction of a small storage structure are allowed. A conservation easement is placed on the property that prohibits the construction of a single-family dwelling and on-site sewage disposal system on the property. Property owners who sell their TDC's and enter into a Conservation Easement restricting future uses on their property may elect to sell the deed for the underlying property to a willing buyer. Initially the TDC program required property owners to enter into an agreement with the County and record a Bargain and Sales Deed and Restrictive Covenant that placed restrictions on future development on a lot or parcel of land which then allowed land in the receiving area to acquire the TDC for future development. In 2004 Chapter 11.12 was amended to eliminate the requirement for the recording of a Bargain and Sale Deed because this deed prevented the property owner from refinancing or selling the property without the County first relinquishing its right of ownership. After two completed USGS studies the TDC program alone was determined not to be enough to solve the groundwater pollution problem in south Deschutes County. In 2006 Deschutes County adopted an amendment to include Pollution Reduction Credits. These amendments changed the focus of the Transferable Development Credit program to a Pollution Reduction Credit program that requires retrofitting existing septic systems to create credits required for development in the Neighborhood Planning Area. Neighborhood Planning Area developers are required to work with homeowners to retrofit existing septic systems with nitrogen-reducing technology or pay into a "Partnership Fund" that would then be made available to property owners interested in retrofitting their existing wastewater treatment systems. Prior to this amendment Deschutes County convened a Technical Advisory Committee made up of 17+ members of the La Pine community, state agencies, various professionals and developers, to assist the County in developing financial assistance program for a drinking water '10/ 18/2001 Memo Regarding Lot of Record Fact Finding for Tax Lot 22-10-106 2 protection program for south Deschutes County. The Committee represented diverse perspectives in seven meetings over a 10-month period beginning in July 2005. The Committee raised a number of issues and reached a primary milestone in December 2005, when they recommended: • Everyone contributes to the problem so everyone should contribute to the solution ■ Focusing funds from the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area to help retrofit existing septic systems • Develop a Local Rule that requires Best Available Technology for future septic systems and set standards for existing systems to meet over time. The Committee continued to meet to draft the amendments to the original TDC Program and coordinate with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality over the basic elements of a local rule. Local rule amendments to DCC 13.14 were adopted July 23, 2008 to include; the use of nitrogen reducing systems for: • all new construction, o major repairs (repairs to drainfields, this does not include tank replacements), o major alterations (changes that would cause increases in flows or proposing to connect to a system that doesn't meet minimum sizing requirements for the use), and • authorization notices. the upgrade of all existing systems by November 2022 These Local rule amendments are currently up for referendum with the Deschutes County residence. APPLICANT PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The applicant has worked with staff to propose a text amendment that meets his needs and the intent of the TDC/PRC program. The proposed text amendment is outlined below and are underlined for new language and shown as stFiket#Fe6g14 for deleted language. The proposed text amendment will amend the existing code as follows: Section11.12.010-Definitions Financial Assistance Fund" means whichever fund created by the County to aid property owners in complying with the requirements to reduce the overall discharge of nitrogen into the basin groundwater of south Deschutes County. "Pollution Reduction Credit" (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater Treatment System or payment into the County's Financial Assistance Fund. 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. b. Payment into the County's Financial Assistance Fund the proportional cost established by Board of County Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County's fund shall be use d to aid property owners in retrofitting their Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems. D. Assignment of TDCs to the Receiving Area. Area, AFea= 1. The total number of required TDCs including PRCs applicable to a subdivision in the Receiving Area shall be established and made a condition of approval at the time of tentative plan approval. 2. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department. 3. TDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 4. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 5. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required per acre or alter the factors for which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area. 6. At the time of final plat approval, any remaining required PRCs for the partition or subdivision shall be divided by the number of residential lots approved for the partition or subdivision. 7. The required PRCs and their cost for each lot shall be shown on the final plat. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a residential lot in the Receiving Area the Department must have payment of the required number of PRCs for that lot ANALYSIS The applicant, Sagebrush Development LLC, currently owns approximately 54 acres in the Neighborhood Planning Area. This area consists of Quadrant 1A - 17.6 acres, Quadrant 1 B - 24.8 acres and Quadrant 1 D- 12.1 acres. Sagebrush Development has Quadrant plan approval for Quadrants 1A, 1 B and 1 D and tentative plat approval for a Quadrant 1A for a 73 single family lot subdivision. According to Resolution 2006-043 Quadrants 1A, 1 B, and 1 D need 325 PRCs prior to development which shall be divided proportionally according to gross number of acres among each of the quadrants. The conditional approvals for the applicant's tentative plat number 2 states; 2. Prior to final plat approval, all Pollution Reduction Credits (PRCs) must be paid in full to the County. The total amount due for Quadrant 1A has been calculated to be 104 PRC's (325 times 32%) in accordance with DCC11.12 and the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 2006-043. This condition is taken straight from the DCC section 11.12.020 (D) Total Gross Acres in Q1A 17.6 acres PRCs needed for Q1A, 1B, 1D 5.96 PRC/acre PRCs required for Q1A, Tentative Plat 17.6 X 5.96 =104PRC 4 Based on this condition and the above calculation Sagebrush Development is required to either pay the 32% or $779,520 for 104 PRC's or retrofits in cooperation with a property owner on property eligible for a PRC prior to recording the final plat of Quadrant 1A The applicant outlines the purpose of the PRC program and the reason for the requested text amendment: "The purpose of the PRC program is to assist the southern portions of Deschutes County to protect the drinking water of its residents. The funds for the PRC program will be placed in an account to assist existing area residents with rebates or low interest loans to meet the Local Rule that requires all existing septic systems to be converted to nitrogen reducing systems and requires all new development to use nitrogen reducing systems. The purpose of the PRC program is met if funds are placed into the PRC accounts at the time of building permit is obtained on a lot rather than at the time a final plat is recorded. In addition, a letter from Tom Andersen, the County Engineer states: 7n addition, we have offered to allow you to pay the fallback amount at the time the lots sell, rather than up front.' It is logical to pay PRCs when development occurs rather than at the time of the initial plat. At the time of the initial plat it is uncertain whether development will occur. If no development occurs there should be not duty to pay for pollution reduction. The proposed text amend ensures that a developer or lot owner will pay PRCs at the time of building permit is requested. This is similar to the timing of System Development Charges. Therefore, it will not be difficult to track whether PRC payment have been made." This proposal has gone through significant changes. Staff worked with the applicant's representative, Bob Lovlien to develop text that will meet the original objective of the TDC code and address the applicants concerns. The following reasons support this text amendment: ➢ The intent of the Neighborhood Planning Area which Bureau of Land Management sold to the County was to establish means to address the ground water problem in Deschutes South County. The program was designed to limit development on small lots within the sending area of La Pine and encourage development in Neighborhood Planning Area as well as assist La Pine residents in funding for converting existing septic systems to nitrogen reducing septic systems. This proposal will require a Neighborhood Planning Area developer to meet its PRC obligation at the time of building permit. Tentative and final plats in the Neighborhood Planning Area will cite the PRC obligations enabling a developer to establish a subdivision and sell lots while defraying the PRC obligation to the time of building permit issuance. ➢ If adopted, PRCs would be processed similar to a system development charges. It will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The cost a PRC per lot will be shown on the recorded final plat. The tracking of all PRC cost will be flagged electronically which will require payment of PRCs for individual lots upon building permit issuance. The tentative plan conditions will outline the PRCs required to develop and their cost per 5 lot. The final plat will show the cost per lot which will be tracked electronically through our building permit process. All money will be sent to the PRC funding account, which is renamed the proposed Financial Assistant Fund. ➢ Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment because it maintains the Neighborhood Planning Area as a "receiving area" and provides mechanisms through the TDC and PRC programs to protect the groundwater of south Deschutes County. Planning Commission Recommendation At the November 13, 2008 work session the Planning Commission asked that the code include the proposed PRC payment requirement be placed on the deed and the title report in addition to the final plat. The county currently does not record or special notice sewer or transportation SDC's that encumber properties, so to record this could be somewhat misleading if the buyer is unaware of the other SDCs. This requirement would also be costly to the county or the property owner because it would require a deed be recorded for each individual lot at the time of final plat approval. Typically, a good title report reviews the final subdivision plat and would research property burdens like SDC's. Ultimately it is the seller's responsibility to disclose the PRC burden to the buyer in the real estate transaction. At the public hearing held on December 11, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed text amendment with no changes. REVIEW CRITERIA Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 11 or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. Therefore, the County must determine that the proposed text amendments are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and the County Comprehensive Plan, Title 23. The attached draft findings demonstrate compliance with both Statewide Planning Goals and County Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commission; Review and discuss the applicant proposed text amendments. Attachments: 1. Text Amendment 2. Resolution 2006-043 3. Findings 6 Chapter 11.12. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT PROGRAM 11.12.010. Definitions. 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. 11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria. 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. 11.12.010. Definitions. As used in DCC 11. 12, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 11.12.010. "Certificate of TDC Purchase" means a certificate from Deschutes County that documents the purchase or, in the case of a PRC, creation of TDC(s). "Department" means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County Community Development Department. "Existing Wastewater Treatment System" means a wastewater treatment system in use in the Sending Area on May 31, 2006 that is not a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by Deschutes County. Financial Assistance Fund" means whichever fund created by the County to aid property owners in complying with the requirements e GG 1•9. 14- to reduce the overall discharge of nitrogen into the basin groundwater of in south Deschutes County. "High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area" means the area mapped in 2000 by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife which shows the area of priority protection for migrating mule deer within a larger migration corridor acknowledged under statewide planning Goal 5. A copy of this map is on file with the Department. "Net Developable Acre" means the acreage in a tract of land in a Receiving Area calculated by subtracting the acreage reserved for collector road right-of-way and community parks and open space from the gross acreage of a subject tract. "Nitrate Loading Management Model" means the groundwater model developed by the US Geological Survey to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes County. "Nitrogen Reducing System" means a wastewater treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes County. "Pollution Reduction Credit" (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater Treatment System or payment into the County's Financial Assistance (Fund. "Receiving Area" means the area designated by the County where Transferable Development Credits are required in order to purchase and develop a tract of land. "Restrictive Covenant" means a legal instrument which places restrictions on future development on a lot or parcel of land in the Sending Area. "Retrofit" means to upgrade or replace an Existing Wastewater Treatment System in the Sending Area with a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by the County. cm_.__c_ r___ J„ " r , , . 1. . . Chapter 11.12 1 (2006) "Sending Area" means the area designated by the County in which Transferable Development Credits may be sold. "TDC Report" means a report from a title company verifying title to and encumbrances on the subject property. "Transferable Development Credit" (TDC) means the credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic system- on the subject property or a PRC. (Ord. 2008-XXX § X, 2008;Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. A. Sale of TDCs from the Sending Area. Either Section B or C shall be followed for the creation of TDCs, B. Restrictive Covenant 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a TDC. 2. The Department shall send the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the number of TDCs the subject property is eligible for based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. Upon mutual agreement of a sale between the property owner and TDC purchaser, the following transactions shall occur: a. The property owner shall provide a TDC Report to the Department. b. If the TDC purchaser is other than the County then the property owner and TDC purchaser shall sign a TDC Contract form provided by the County. c. Upon Department review and approval of the TDC Report and receipt of payment of the consideration in accordance with the County's agreement with the property owner or the TDC Contract pursuant to DCC 11.12.010(A)(3)(b), the County shall prepare a Restrictive Covenant that restricts development on the subject property. This Restrictive Covenant shall be signed by the County and the property owner. The County shall record the Restrictive Covenant. d. Contemporaneously with the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, County shall provide the TDC purchaser with documentation of the TDC purchase. C. PRC. 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a PRC. 2. The Department shall provide the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the subject property is eligible for a PRC based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. The County shall grant a PRC to a developer in the Receiving Area if the developer provides one of the following: a. A Retrofit, in cooperation with the property owner of a property eligible for a PRC, Existing Wastewater Treatment System and documentation submitted to the County that includes proof of ownership of the subject property, proof of consent of the property owner for the Retrofit, and final County inspection of the Retrofit; or b. Payment into the County's Financial Assistance €Fund the proportional cost established by Board of County Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County's fund shall be use d to aid property owners in Retrofitting their Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems. D. Assignment of TDCs to the Receiving Area. Prior- to final pleA a al in the Reeeiving Area, the DepaAnient must have r-eeer-d of the required nuffiber- ef TDGs es4ablished and ewailable to apply 4e 1. The total number of required TDCs, including PRCs, applicable to a subdivision in the Receiving Area shall be established and made a condition of approval at the time of tentative plan approval. Chapter 11.12 2 (2006) 23. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department. 43. TDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by Board of County Commissioner resolution. -54. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 65. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required per acre or alter the factors for which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area. -76. At the time of building pefmit. final plat approval , any remaining required PRCs for the partition or subdivision shall be divided by the number of residential lots approved for the partition or subdivision. 7. The required PRCs and their cost for each lot shall be shown on the final plat. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a residential lot in the Receiving Area, the Department must have payment of the required number of PRCs for that lot. E. Non-Residential Districts. Where permitted under DCC 18.61.050, uses in non-residential districts in the Receiving Area do not require TDCs. F. Right to Develop. If an owner of a lot or parcel of land eligible for a TDC chooses not to participate in the TDC program, the owner shall not be restricted from developing said lot or parcel in accordance with the applicable zoning standards in DCC Title 18, and any other applicable regulations, rules or standards. (Ord. 2008-XXX § X, 2008; Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) 11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria. A. A lot or parcel that meets the following criteria is eligible to receive a TDC. The lot or parcel shall: 1. Be located within the "Sending Area" identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department; 2. Be no greater than two acres in area; 3. Be capable of being served by an on-site sewage disposal system that meets current Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards, as demonstrated by a satisfactory feasibility evaluation for an on-site sewage disposal system or when the lot or parcel is shown as being eligible for such system on the TDC Sending Area map; and 4. Not be developed with an existing sewage disposal system, or if developed with an existing sewage disposal system, the landowner shall disable said system, or 5. Have received prior approval for a site evaluation or an installed septic system that has expired or is no longer valid, or 6. Have an Existing Wastewater Treatment System eligible for a Retrofit. B. TDCs shall be assigned to an eligible lot or parcel that meets the criteria in DCC 11.12.030(A), as follows: 1. An eligible lot or parcel upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned one TDC. 2. An eligible lot or parcel located in the High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned an additional one-half TDC. 3. An eligible lot or parcel upon which an Existing Wastewater Treatment System has been Retrofitted shall be assigned one TDC. 4. The Board of County Commissioners may by Resolution revise the number of TDCs assigned or the factors for which TDCs are assigned to eligible lots or parcels in the Sending Area. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) Chapter 11.12 3 (2006) 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. A. Purpose. The TDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in implementing the TDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of Regional Problem Solving insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the Receiving Area are concerned. B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the TDC program for record keeping accuracy, determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the TDC allocation criteria in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options to exercise. C. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall, serve for two years. Thereafter, members shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the membership of the TDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis. D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the following organizations, agencies or professions: 1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser; 2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development interests; 3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water; 4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management; 5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon; 6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area; 7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team; 8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio member. 9. Staff may select additional members as it deems appropriate. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) Chapter 11.12 4 (2006) L REV D LEGAL OUNSEL NANCEANKENSHIP,CCOUNTY CLERK W J~D COMMISSIONERS' JO1 06/08/1006 03;45:21 PM Hill ILI IIIIIIIIIIIIilllili BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution establishing Pollution Reduction Credits as part of the Transferable Development * RESOLUTION NO. 2006-043 Credit Program required for developing the La Pine Neighborhood Receiving Area WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2006- 016 amending Deschutes County Code Chapter 11.12 to define a Transferable Development Credit ("TDC'J as including a Pollution Reduction Credit ("PRC') for the retrofitting, as that term is defined in Ordinance 2006- 016, of existing wastewater treatment systems or for payment in lieu of retrofits, and WHEREAS, Ordinance 2006-016 also amended Chapter 11.12 to allow developers to contribute to the County's fund for TDCs and PRCs instead of installing retrofits in order to develop in the TDC program's "Receiving Area;" and WHEREAS, the TDC Review Committee met and recommended that 534 PRCs are needed to complete the development of Quadrants 2a, 2b and 2d, 325 TDCs are needed for Quadrants la, lb and ld, and 3,654 for Neighborhoods 3 and 4 in the Newberry Neighborhood with the PRCs to be divided proportionally, according to the gross number of acres, among each of the quadrants within each designated Neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the TDC Review Committee also recommended that payment into the County's fund shall be used by the County to aid property owners in retrofitting existing wastewater treatment systems, and; WHEREAS, DCC 11.12.020 states that the Board may, by Resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required in the Receiving Area or alter the factors for which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. The number of PRCs needed to develop Quadrants 2a, 2b, and 2d is 534, to be divided proportionally, according to the gross number of acres, among each of those quadrants. Section 2. The number of PRCs needed to develop Quadrants la, lb, and Id is 325, to be divided proportionally, according to the gross number of acres, among each of those quadrants. Section 3. The number of PRCs needed for Neighborhoods 3 and 4 total 3,654, to be divided proportionally, according to the gross number of acres, among each of the quadrants in those neighborhoods. PACE I OF 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 2006-043 (06105/2006) Section 4. Payment of $7,500.00 into the County's fund by developers in the Newberry Neighborhood shall equal one P~RC. DATED this..) ' day of 2006. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TA-08-8 FINDINGS This proposed text amendment is applicant initiated. This proposal will change the timing of when Pollution Reduction Credits (PRC's) are required to be paid. DCC 11. 12.020 currently requires that payment for all PRCs is required prior to final plat approval. The text amendment will allow payment of all PRCs at the time of issuance of a building permit. The Planning Commission will hold a work session on November 13, 2008 and a public hearing on December 11, 2008. The Board will hold a work session and a public hearing and first reading following the recommendation of the Planning Commission. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23.44 Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County specifically address goals for preserving water and air quality, reducing wildfire and the protection of wildlife habitat in south Deschutes county. The proposal maintains the preservation of the Neighborhood Planning Area as a "receiving area" and provides mechanisms through the Transferable Development Credit and PRC programs to protect the groundwater of south Deschutes County. Therefore this proposal is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan chapter 23.44 goals and strategies. Chapter 11.12. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT PROGRAM 11.12.010. Definitions. 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. 11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria. 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. 11.12.010. Definitions. As used in DCC 11.12, the following words and phrases shall mean asset forth in DCC 11.12.010. "Certificate of TDC Purchase" means a certificate from Deschutes County that documents the purchase or, in the case of a PRC, creation of TDC(s). "Department" means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County Community Development Department. "Existing Wastewater Treatment System" means a wastewater treatment system in use in the Sending Area on May 31, 2006 that is not a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by Deschutes County. "High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area" means the area mapped in 2000 by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife which shows the area of priority protection for migrating mule deer within a larger migration corridor acknowledged under statewide planning Goal 5. A copy of this map is on file with the Department. "Net Developable Acre" means the acreage in a tract of land in a Receiving Area calculated by subtracting the acreage reserved for collector road right-of-way and community parks and open space from the gross acreage of a subject tract. "Nitrate Loading Management Model" means the groundwater model developed by the US Geological Survey to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes County. "Nitrogen Reducing System" means a wastewater treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes County. "Pollution Reduction Credit" (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater Treatment System or payment into the County's fund. "Receiving Area" means the area designated by the County where Transferable Development Credits are required in order to purchase and develop a tract of land. "Restrictive Covenant" means a legal instrument which places restrictions on future development on a lot or parcel of land in the Sending Area. "Retrofit" means to upgrade or replace an Existing Wastewater Treatment System in the Sending Area with a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by the County. "Sending Area" means the area designated by the County in which Transferable Development Credits may be sold. "TDC Report" means a report from a title company verifying title to and encumbrances on the subject property. "Transferable Development Credit" (TDC) means the credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic system- on the subject property or a PRC. Chapter 11.12 1 (2006) (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. A. Sale of TDCs from the Sending Area. Either Section B or C shall be followed for the creation of TDCs, B. Restrictive Covenant 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a TDC. 2. The Department shall send the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the number of TDCs the subject property is eligible for based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. Upon mutual agreement of a sale between the property owner and TDC purchaser, the following transactions shall occur: a. The property owner shall provide a TDC Report to the Department. b. If the TDC purchaser is other than the County then the property owner and TDC purchaser shall sign a TDC Contract form provided by the County. c. Upon Department review and approval of the TDC Report and receipt of payment of the consideration in accordance with the County's agreement with the property owner or the TDC Contract pursuant to DCC 11.12.010(A)(3)(b), the County shall prepare a Restrictive Covenant that restricts development on the subject property. This Restrictive Covenant shall be signed by the County and the property owner. The County shall record the Restrictive Covenant. d. Contemporaneously with the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, County shall provide the TDC purchaser with documentation of the TDC purchase. C. PRC. 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a PRC. 2. The Department shall provide the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the subject property is eligible for a PRC based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. The County shall grant a PRC to a developer in the Receiving Area if the developer provides one of the following: a. A Retrofit, in cooperation with the property owner of a property eligible for a PRC, Existing Wastewater Treatment System and documentation submitted to the County that includes proof of ownership of the subject property, proof of consent of the property owner for the Retrofit, and final County inspection of the Retrofit; or b. Payment into the County's fund the proportional cost established by Board of County Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County's fund shall be use d to aid property owners in Retrofitting their Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems. D. Assignment of TDCs to the Receiving Area. Prior to final plat approval in the Receiving Area, the Department must have record of the required number of TDCs established and available to apply to development of a tract or lot meeting the following criteria within the Receiving Area: 1. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department. 2. TDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 3. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 4. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required per acre or alter the factors for which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area. E. Non-Residential Districts. Where permitted under DCC 18.61.050, uses in non-residential districts in the Receiving Area do not require TDCs. F. Right to Develop. If an owner of a lot or parcel of land eligible for a TDC chooses not to participate in the TDC program, the owner shall not be restricted from developing said lot or parcel in accordance Chapter 11.12 2 (2006) with the applicable zoning standards in DCC Title 18, and any other applicable regulations, rules or standards. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) 11.12.030. TDC Fending Area Eligibility Criteria. A. A lot or parcel that meets the following criteria is eligible to receive a TDC. The lot or parcel shall: 1. Be located within the "Sending Area" identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department; 2. Be no greater than two acres in area; 3. Be capable of being served by an on-site sewage disposal system that meets current Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards, as demonstrated by a satisfactory feasibility evaluation for an on-site sewage disposal system or when the lot or parcel is shown as being eligible for such system on the TDC Sending Area map; and 4. Not be developed with an existing sewage disposal system, or if developed with an existing sewage disposal system, the landowner shall disable said system, or 5. Have received prior approval for a site evaluation or an installed septic system that has expired or is no longer valid, or 6. Have an Existing Wastewater Treatment System eligible for a Retrofit. B. TDCs shall be assigned to an eligible lot or parcel that meets the criteria in DCC 11.12.030(A), as follows: 1. An eligible lot or parcel upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned one TDC. 2. An eligible lot or parcel located in the High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned an additional one-half TDC. 3. An eligible lot or parcel upon which an Existing Wastewater Treatment System has been Retrofitted shall be assigned one TDC. 4. The Board of County Commissioners may by Resolution revise the number of TDCs assigned or the factors for which TDCs are assigned to eligible lots or parcels in the Sending Area. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. A. Purpose. The TDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in implementing the TDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of Regional Problem Solving insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the Receiving Area are concerned. B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the TDC program for record keeping accuracy, determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the TDC allocation criteria in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options to exercise. C. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall serve for two years. Thereafter, members shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the membership of the TDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis. D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the following organizations, agencies or professions: 1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser; 2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development interests; Chapter 11.12 3 (2006) 3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water; 4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management; 5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon; 6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area; 7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team; 8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio member. 9. Staff may select additional members as it deems appropriate. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) Chapter 11.12 4 (2006) Chapter 11.12. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT PROGRAM 11.12.010. Definitions. 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. 11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria. 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. 11.12.010. Definitions. As used in DCC 11. 12, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 11.12.010. "Certificate of TDC Purchase" means a certificate from Deschutes County that documents the purchase or, in the case of a PRC, creation of TDC(s). "Department" means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County Community Development Department. "Existing Wastewater Treatment System" means a wastewater treatment system in use in the Sending Area on May 31, 2006 that is not a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by Deschutes County. Financial Assistance Fund" means whichever fund created by the Count , to aid property owners in com pl %in;:r witli the re uirenlents 4 r" to reduce the overall discharge of nitrogen into the basin around-vvater of in south Deschues County. "High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area" means the area mapped in 2000 by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife which shows the area of priority protection for migrating mule deer within a larger migration corridor acknowledged under statewide planning Goal 5. A copy of this map is on file with the Department. "Net Developable Acre" means the acreage in a tract of land in a Receiving Area calculated by subtracting the acreage reserved for collector road right-of-way and community parks and open space from the gross acreage of a subject tract. "Nitrate Loading Management Model" means the groundwater model developed by the US Geological Survey to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes County. "Nitrogen Reducing System" means a wastewater treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes County. "Pollution Reduction Credit" (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater Treatment System or payment into the County's Financial Assistance tt4 +Fund. "Receiving Area" means the area designated by the County where Transferable Development Credits are required in order to purchase and develop a tract of land. "Restrictive Covenant" means a legal instrument which places restrictions on future development on a lot or parcel of land in the Sending Area. "Retrofit" means to upgrade or replace an Existing Wastewater Treatment System in the Sending Area with a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by the County. I'T'34I1[[TS-'f G, ~~[11 CIIlC[SLf [~I-'[7c C T"J~. Chapter 11.12 1 (2006) "Sending Area" means the area designated by the County in which Transferable Development Credits may be sold. "TDC Report" means a report from a title company verifying title to and encumbrances on the subject property. "Transferable Development Credit" (TDC) means the credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic system. on the subject property or a PRC. (ChcL 2004 X:X X 2(1OR'Ord. 2006-016 §l, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002) 11.12.020. TDC Transactions. A. Sale of TDCs from the Sending Area. Either Section B or C shall be followed for the creation of TDCs, B. Restrictive Covenant 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a TDC. 2. The Department shall send the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the number of TDCs the subject property is eligible for based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. Upon mutual agreement of a sale between the property owner and TDC purchaser, the following transactions shall occur: a. The property owner shall provide a TDC Report to the Department. b. If the TDC purchaser is other than the County then the property owner and TDC purchaser shall sign a TDC Contract form provided by the County. c. Upon Department review and approval of the TDC Report and receipt of payment of the consideration in accordance with the County's agreement with the property owner or the TDC Contract pursuant to DCC 11.12.010(A)(3)(b), the County shall prepare a Restrictive Covenant that restricts development on the subject property. This Restrictive Covenant shall be signed by the County and the property owner. The County shall record the Restrictive Covenant. d. Contemporaneously with the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, County shall provide the TDC purchaser with documentation of the TDC purchase. C. PRC. 1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that the subject property is eligible for a PRC. 2. The Department shall provide the property owner or interested person written verification confirming the subject property is eligible for a PRC based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030. 3. The County shall grant a PRC to a developer in the Receiving Area if the developer provides one of the following: a. A Retrofit, in cooperation with the property owner of a property eligible for a PRC, Existing Wastewater Treatment System and documentation submitted to the County that includes proof of ownership of the subject property, proof of consent of the property owner for the Retrofit, and final County inspection of the Retrofit; or b. Payment into the County's Financial Assistance *Fund the proportional cost established by Board of County Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County's fund shall be use d to aid property owners in Retrofitting their Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems. D. Assignment of TDCs to the Receiving Area. Pf 4 l plat n u 1. The total number of required TDCs. including PRCs applicable to a subdivision in the Receiving Area shall. be established and .made a condition of ap roval at -the time of tentative plan approval. Chapter 11.12 2 (2006) 23.. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department. 43. TDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by Board of County Commissioner resolution. a4. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution. 65. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required per acre or alter the factors for which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area. - f6 •1t the time of POR144 li final plat approval am° remaining required 1'RCs for the partition or subdivision shall be divided by the number of residential lots approved for the partition or subdivision. 7._ The required PR{:`s and their cost for each lot shall be shown on the final Mat K. Prior to issuance of a building permit fora residential lot in the Receiving Areas the Department must have payment of the required number of PRCs for that lot E. Non-Residential Districts. Where permitted under DCC 18.61.050, uses in non-residential districts in the Receiving Area do not require TDCs. F. Right to Develop. If an owner of a lot or parcel of land eligible for a TDC chooses not to participate in the TDC program, the owner shall not be restricted from developing said lot or parcel in accordance with the applicable zoning standards in DCC Title 18, and any other applicable regulations, rules or standards. (Ord. 2008-XXX 4 X. 2008; Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002) 11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria. A. A lot or parcel that meets the following criteria is eligible to receive a TDC. The lot or parcel shall: 1. Be located within the "Sending Area" identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department; 2. Be no greater than two acres in area; 3. Be capable of being served by an on-site sewage disposal system that meets current Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards, as demonstrated by a satisfactory feasibility evaluation for an on-site sewage disposal system or when the lot or parcel is shown as being eligible for such system on the TDC Sending Area map; and 4. Not be developed with an existing sewage disposal system, or if developed with an existing sewage disposal system, the landowner shall disable said system, or 5. Have received prior approval for a site evaluation or an installed septic system that has expired or is no longer valid, or 6. Have an Existing Wastewater Treatment System eligible for a Retrofit. B. TDCs shall be assigned to an eligible lot or parcel that meets the criteria in DCC 11.12.030(A), as follows: 1. An eligible lot or parcel upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned one TDC. 2. An eligible lot or parcel located in the High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned an additional one-half TDC. 3. An eligible lot or parcel upon which an Existing Wastewater Treatment System has been Retrofitted shall be assigned one TDC. 4. The Board of County Commissioners may by Resolution revise the number of TDCs assigned or the factors for which TDCs are assigned to eligible lots or parcels in the Sending Area. (Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002) Chapter 11.12 3 (2006) 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. A. Purpose. The TDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in implementing the TDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of Regional Problem Solving insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the Receiving Area are concerned. B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the TDC program for record keeping accuracy, determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the TDC allocation criteria in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options to exercise. C. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall serve for two years. Thereafter, members shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the membership of the TDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis. D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the following organizations, agencies or professions: 1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser, 2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development interests; 3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water; 4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management; 5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon; 6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area; 7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team; 8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio member. 9. Staff may select additional members as it deems appropriate. (Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 §1, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002) Chapter 11.12 4 (2006) Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee Grant Opportunity Needed: Policy direction from the Board on whether to pursue a wetland grant that funds a Local Wetland Inventory for south county and a subsequent process that identifies and protects significant wetlands Key Points: ' Central Oregon Irrigation District hydroelectric project upstream of Bill Healy Bridge provides Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) with funds for a fish and habitat enhancement program for the Upper Deschutes River Basin. • The Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement (M & E) Committee approves projects using hydroelectric project funding. County staff role is as an ex-officio secretary. • M & E Committee in October 2008, with input from ODFW, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council and Deschutes River Conservancy, adopted a new Upper Deschutes River Restoration Strategy that identifies and prioritizes restoration actions necessary to support high quality riparian and aquatic habitats. • The Upper Deschutes River Restoration Strategy lists priority actions including: 1. identifying high-value, at-risk riparian areas (HIGH); 2. reviewing and revising city, county, and state land use regulations (HIGH); and, 3. implementing land transactions to protect identified valuable areas (MEDIUM). • M & E Committee alerted Deschutes County of an opportunity to apply for a wetland grant that would fund a Local Wetland Inventory for south Deschutes County and a subsequent process that identifies and protects 'significant wetlands.' • A Local Wetland Inventory would build on the work of the 2007 USGS near-stream environment study, which documented groundwater flow paths and their interface with near stream environments. Intact riparian and wetland areas can help protect surface waters from impacts from nitrate-rich groundwater discharges. • The timing of this opportunity coincides with the County's involvement with an Endangered Species Act risk-assessment, the High Groundwater Development project, the Comprehensive Plan Update, and Community Development Department's FY 2008-09 work plan listing the need to develop and implement a Local Wetland Inventory. • A preliminary application estimates a grant request of $125,000 with a $25,000 County match of in-kind services. December 16, 2008 E L 0 L 0. W L N s v a~ D O O N V !Q V 0 o° LO N T64)- 4) LL cu C U C ca N Q L 0 A- -0 M C: CU U 0 m N (D .C a) a) -0 a) oCU J:) O Q O N Cl CU a E ~O C U C W.S:2 42- U -0 a C 0- a) L O L ; a) a) 0 0 C > c a) 0 CO L- cu N L- r•' a O O (D a) U ca C .a U c _ - U C6 ~ocuc co C ~ L L Lu . Q ca 4-0 L aa) Z U) a)~~- m C N in c O I -1-a `V - O CD > J ca >N 06 - N O O T- O O U c N ' ~..r o CM o M 0 a, I N CL c O O U N C ca m 'L O " Q Q. ~ 'L co ~ N ca CU = C N 0 cu ~ccli 'ca O Q a) O a) o q-- E U cu a) O C .1.-0 cu - . 0- N .O C a a) CU L' L Q E ~U 0 co 0 O N N E U 4 A A~A Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DATE: October 30, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: Appeal of Hearings Officer's decision on CU-07-102, SP-07-46 (MA-08-3, MA- 08-4); also file nos. A-08-14, A-08-20, for Latham Excavation BACKGROUND Latham Excavation submitted applications for a conditional use permit and site plan for surface mining activities at what was/is an existing pumice mining site on Johnson Road. The applicant's original proposal was to expand the surface mining operation at the site approved in 1995 (through site plan SP-95-10), and to include drilling and blasting at the site, and to construct an office and shop at the site. The applicant modified the request to remove these two aspects of the proposed use, based mainly on concerns of the neighbors. The amended applications thus included: • Seek approval for extraction only within the footprint of the area approved for extraction in the approval for SP-95-10. • Approval for excavation of Bend Pumice and associated overburden materials and aggregate materials incidental to excavating pumice and overburden materials. • Approval for processing and sale only of materials extracted on-site; no processing or sale of materials brought in from off-site. • Recognize importation of materials from off-site for eventual use in reclamation. • Elimination of any approval for drilling and blasting. • Show alternative locations for screening and crushing of pumice and overburden materials. • Eliminate the office and shop and other structural accessory support facilities on site. • To allow for use of a portable scale for weighing excavated materials on site. The modification includes the following refinements and clarifications to those proposed at the original February 19, 2008 hearing: To allow for crushing of welded tuff and other incidental rock materials encountered in extraction of pumice and overburden materials. To provide for extraction, processing and sale of sand and horticultural materials. Board Memo - Latham Excavation Page 1 of 3 Quality Services Performed with Pride • To provide for washing of tuff, sand and horticultural materials. • To modify the maximum area of the slots to be 5 acres. • To note on the site plan the locations of the area where materials being brought in are being deposited, where haul roads exist and what vegetation will be retained. • To show the type and location of portable weighing scale that applicant proposes to use. • To show compliance with DEQ air contaminant discharge permit requirements for applicant's roll crusher. The applicant's revised burden of proof from February 19th lists the following as part of the request: • To add on-site processing, including crushing, of pumice and pumice overburden materials within the same footprint approved by the site plan approved by SP-95- 10. • To include temporary stockpiling on site of excavated material for sale to consumers. • To recognize that the pumice overburden is being mined for sale rather than retained on site. • To allow for hauling of materials up until 5:00 p.m. during the time period November 15 through February 15. • To recognize that the weather station has been removed from Sites 355 and 356 and installed on Site 303. • To recognize use of a water tank for water storage on site. • To allow for use of a portable scale for weighing material to be sold. Two public hearings on the applications were scheduled before the County Hearings Officer. The first hearing occurred on February 19, 2008, and the second on April 15, 2008. In between the hearing dates, on March 20, 2008, the applicant submitted modifications to the applications. The modifications were included in the April 15th hearing proceedings. According to the County Procedures Ordinance, the modification applications restarted the 150-day review period. The Hearings Officer's written decision on the modified applications was mailed out on July 31, 2008, approving the applications, with 18 conditions of approval. The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Hearings Officer's decision on August 12, 2008. Notice of the reconsideration request was mailed out by staff, and a decision on the reconsideration was issued by the Hearings Officer. Her decision was mailed out on October 14, 2008. During the 12-day appeal period following the Hearings Officer's original decision, an appeal of her decision was submitted by opponents Hoffman, through their attorney Paul Dewey. According to the County's Procedures Ordinance, the reconsideration request is handled first. Because the Hearings Officer declined to reconsider her decision (the reconsideration decision left the approval as written), the appeal by Hoffman carries through to the reconsideration decision. The applicant filed an appeal of the reconsideration decision as allowed by code. Consequently, the Board has two appeals to consider in this proceeding. Board Memo - Latham Excavation Page 2 of 3 The County Code and State law require a maximum 150-day review period for land use proceedings with the County. Staff has calculated the review period, and with the modification applications, together with the time extension requested by the applicant at the April 15th hearing, staff believes that the 150-day review period ends on December 11, 2008. APPEALS As indicated above, there are two appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision (file nos. A-08-14, A-08-20). The applicant's appeal requests an on-the-record review by the Board. The opponents appeal includes a request for de novo review by the Board. Staff believes that given the time constraints for a hearing and decision on these applications, it may not be possible to complete a review of these applications and issue a written decision by December 11th Staff believes there are outstanding policy issues that should be considered by the Board. These are: • what constitutes a noise and dust sensitive use; • whether the expansion of the proposed surface mine requires a revised ESEE (Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy) analysis by the Board; • whether the use of the term "processing" in the ESEE analysis (at site 303 as well as numerous other sites in the County) was intended to allow crushing; • the degree of protection to be afforded under the visual screening standards of the code and the manner in which the topographical exception should be applied; Staff believes that there are also issues related directly to the site itself that warrant review by the Board. The opponents have listed 17 alleged errors in the decision, and the applicant has listed 5 alleged errors. Staff will not repeat those here, but they can be reviewed in the attached notices of appeal. Staff has a very large file on this matter, which is likely over 2,000 pages in length. Most of it is available for review on-line, so rather than copy it for the Board, staff will copy only the most pertinent parts for a Board determination of whether or not to hear the appeals. I am submitting for your review the following: ■ The applicant's and the appellant's notices of appeal ■ Hearings Officer's decisions (original decision and reconsideration decision) ■ The County's 1990 ESEE analysis for site no. 303 ■ Vicinity map showing the location of the mining site Please contact me at your convenience if you have any questions. I have a very large air photograph from the record that shows the property in relation to the surrounding area and development, which I can bring to a work session. Board Memo - Latham Excavation Page 3 of 3 "Necessary for" as used in DCC 18.36.050 and 18.40.050, means the dwelling will contribute substantially to effective and efficient management of the forestland to be managed by the resident(s) of the dwelling. "Neighborhood" means one of four areas in the La Pule Urban Unincorporated Community, La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area, as depicted on the Neighborhood Planning Area Neighborhood and Quadrant Plan, Figure 11; in DCC 23.36.052, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Each Neighborhood has a Residential Center District including a Neighborhood Park and is divided into Quadrants by neighborhood collector streets. "Neighborhood commercial building" means a building located in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community, La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area, Residential Center District that does not exceed a total of 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and may contain retail, service, office, or food service establishment, excluding drive-through. A neighborhood commercial building is a stand-alone commercial use to serve neighborhood needs. It is not intended to draw large numbers of patrons from outside of the neighborhood. The design of the building shall be residential in scale and character. Off-street parking is limited to a maximum of one space per 500 square feet of building. Off-street parking must be located at the side or rear of the building. The public entrance to the building shall be from the primary street frontage. "Neighborhood park" means a public park located in the central area of each Neighborhood in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. Neighborhood Park size ranges from two to five acres. "Neighborhood quadrant" means one of the four sub areas in each of the four neighborhoods in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community, La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. The Quadrants are depicted on the Quadrant Plan, Figure 11, in DCC 23.36.052, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. "New construction" means any structure for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of Ordinance PL-15. For purposes of the Flood Plain Zone (FP), "new construction" means any structure for which the start of construction commenced on or after the date of adoption of the amendments to the Flood Plain Zone in Ordinance No. 88-030. "Noise-sensitive use" means real property normally used for sleeping or normally used as schools, churches, hospitals or public libraries. Property used in industrial or agricultural activities is not "noise-sensitive" unless it meets the above criteria in more than an incidental manner. Accessory uses such as garages or workshops do not constitute noise-sensitive uses. "Nonconforming lot or parcel" means a lot or parcel which is smaller in area than the minimum lot or parcel size in the zone. "Nonconforming structure or use" means a lawful existing structure or use at the time DCC Title 18 or any amendment thereof becomes effective which does not conform to the requirements of the zone in which it is located. "North lot line" means a lot line that requires solar access protection, as specified in DCC 18.116.180, that is 45 degrees or more from a north-south axis as determined by a metes and bounds description established on a County Assessor's tax lot map, verified by a survey filed with the County Surveyor or established by an official plat recorded in the County Clerk's Office. If more than one north lot line exists for a parcel or lot, solar protection shall be required for each line and the most restrictive solar setback must be met. Chapter 18.04 19 (08/2008) "Dust-sensitive use" means real property normally used-,,a residence, school, church, hospital or similar use. Property used in industrial or agricultural activities is not "dust-sensitive" unless it meets the above criteria in more than an incidental rn-: Accessory uses such as garages and workshops do not constitute dust-sensitive uses. "Dwelling, multi-family" means a building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other. "Dwelling, seasonal" means a dwelling unit, including a manufactured home, travel trailer, or camping vehicle, designed for and used as a temporary dwelling by one family for recreational or seasonal purposes only. "Dwelling, single family" means a detached building containing one dwelling unit and designed for occupancy by one family only, not including temporary structures such as tents, teepees, travel trailers and other similar structures. "Dwelling, single family - zero lot line" and in the Neighborhood Planning Area means a detached building containing one dwelling unit and designed for occupancy by one family only where one or more of the building's sides coincide with a lot line, not including manufactured homes and such temporary structures as tents, teepees travel trailers and other similar structures. "Dwelling, two-family" means a building containing two dwelling units and designed for occupancy by two families. "Dwelling unit" means one or more rooms in a building designed for occupancy by one family and having not more than one cooking area or kitchen. "Dude ranch" means a ranch operated wholly or in part as a resort offering horse riding related activities as outdoor recreation opportunities, and offering only temporary rental accommodations for vacation use by nonresidents. "Easement" means a grant of the right to use a parcel of land or portion thereof for specific purposes where ownership of the land or portion thereof is not transferred. "Ensure" means guarantee; make sure or certain something will happen. "ESEE" stand for "economic, social, environmental, and energy." ESEE means the economic, social, environmental and energy "consequences," as defined in OAR 660-16-005, that might result from prohibiting, restricting, or fully allowing a "conflicting" use. A conflicting use is one which could negatively impact or be negatively impacted by the Goal 5 resource. "Excavation, grading and fill and removal" as used in DCC Title 18, these activities shall not include practices that constitute accepted farming practices as defined in ORS chapter 215. "Exempt vegetation" means a tree or other plant that is shown by the sun chart accompanying a solar access permit application to cast existing shade on a protected area. "Existing" means existing at the time of application. Chapter 18.04 (08/2008) F F e"t 14 Reproduces Poorly (Archived) R O 0. d o~ J 4'_ E LL LL ~ m m mZ °E m n N f E nE pp ~ OOh- U Oro O a O`~ N O Yag pp O Y • V wO~ d Uo~ Y ' u'/Oi .~-w °p 401 ap<O C ~O CviN tp ^ v OO .1 a > > > > T j www<:a wwwwwwwwwa wwwww wwww~~ w ww ww u~ wwwwww 6 0 N M V N V V O ' O~ 2 -t q'^ ° O m 0 0 V ' b 0 0 6'' b Vf c. . . C) Y(O m~n Q YC^ O QNtO T °www~ °wwwwwwwwww °wwwwwwwwww °ww °ww °aw <s> °wwwwww mm rv m M' ~ ~oo$ - -m° m ~o -o~v a n a v^io ° a oo ~o,nNN a~~=ui as f e Q'-~~ a awn a Yi anroor. ~ww»w owwwwwwwwww >wwwww wwwww ~ww >ww ~ww N Ywwwwww °0 0 O a,., mn doo 0 0 V d ~ O d 00~ h N O ON ~y° ~ ...00 y 00 O O c7 h v a o m - w o0 0 o c.i b~ N~ 0 V~ m 9 m C ' O V O c Y n~~ N A w n m A m m m m f ! d N ^ m M r LLwwww u~.wwwwwwwwww ~w w w ww ww wa,w Www LLww LLww en ..wwwwww ° w m U Y E 2 eE_="a~~fgmdo'S ~o LLa `may... ~ o O « or ~ W LL tY O -N y [n cn C7 N f!I N ~ V i9 u ° ~ ~ d O fN. Q1 LL, 't 7 m5= ¢~=LLw w w~3o =E ~o ~o a'a co ;z tO cY,~Q~ _ _-_c _ E70 wt- O "I ~ ar Uf- 1 UdUU~ c c c O' °°oq`nNNO Q °o .°•i~ VrorvrvNrvNNry`~ °'N~°i, .3 ~Y`t°i, "X 5`,. u Ix LOO a J one ~ .~!T^q ~~n ~]q^viw ~ewa 2w :o co m ~ ~m ~0 4 ~ ~g$y ym .o'S.a ~aaaaatloaa pa Co LL e vyQQ5} ~Qh p ~Q1 yQ'~ ° m o _ LO > ~blO ~O O ...O... p q..w D Gt~U 'O ~N ~O~ N10 'O ~D V ~ U~ ~ B~ O ~ K F d I- J d U "O = or~~o vow o~+ N m o LL C w Vr Z, 4+ N N N N °N N °N N V ~~LLLLLLLL~LL~~ on a d a m m a o rn D O E E E v o U d c °c °c c P $ o N o _ c m d j ~ m G m 'o O W o u c ° ~ d v 2: E E W m u E E 3 d a N CO E° ° o i c O d o c¢ o cCC m udi .2 E h LL c° o e' ° 'm o c Ic E o 'm U O1 v o c n & a LL m 5 c °1 C L° m e o E 0: w a E -L° o n o o c C N E o d m e a E E 0 0 v ° a E o m U 3 m o• m d v a> N o m a .4 U o° o ~ V u e v EN c I m rn @ y c a°fi E w 9 .W c= c o E m f a r m m co a a r a m Q> _ m co m2 :2 a a o h 2 Z oo °m 'Z ~ m Y o c °c v o o c o in m y, o f 'v = m y E a w m 'p O E m E y- E a E (i = 10 0 o a N 8 a g c m o m a~i a a t m v" 3 N m m 3 a> .c 7 °c y y F c N m m o E d u) a N m ° a 'o m e c m F- !9 - t ay o am o° w 0 o; d m c° E c = N U W W d i z o a; m, c 2 r= V , u t n o n` n A. ma 10 °o o- A EM _ cC C U) C a O c Q C C 'Ln V c }0 07 0 02 N J~ O z N m 7 c a O O a O N r 00 O O N 0 0 00 o 0 0cc,,~~ .o ' o o i ' o c, o ~o o c.o no c o -o oo o ~o - - o - o - o o - o - o - o - o - c o O OCa ,o o o o ~ u o 'o o no 7 a (o o ~ oo o ~ o o o ~ o u c r o o r- d ~n 0 O oo o 0 'o 0 - o ~ o ~ c o 0 00 0 o dr 0 1 'n 0 ~ 0 «i o c r- o ri o o o g o 67 o kn ~ r~ V3 A ~ C o 0 n (9 o b"~ ~ c C~ - o C7 - .9 o o UJ o Ln J ~ t9 0 o In U1 0 .c, Vl 0 k9 o , U ~ o ~ ~ UJ (ri 0 U f] 0 P !I3 l 0 o O~ b 9 to o eFl v o~ U3 o o Vl 0 0 r9 0 ~ o s U) in o m U7 ~ N n F% o c~ G> 0 r` h9 0 o !n u: fn n o U7 o o rA 0 ;o !9 UJ ~n 1 O O O O M O 60 69 0 69 69 V) Vd N to V) 0 t9 f9 0 t9 o to 0 0 0 f A o 0 0 o o 69 o 0 6% f 9 00 ot 9 69 E9 M 0 0 69 V) fA 69 t9 0 0 o o o o O O 0 o 0 o 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 o 0 o 0 c 0 o 0 O o 0 O n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o o 0 0 o o o C N O c V O 0 1 ifI M 0 O 0 N 0 ip c 0 0 0 N 0 O o a) U 0 N 0 Lo O N O O O ro O o O o o o M 0 0L 0 o o fn o N O O o O o O o tr) 7 N to C U M M o 6 9 t 9 o 69 6 9 69 o 69 Ul f9 o o to Go o o o 6 9 6 9 c9 f9 f9 6 9 t9 t9 y o o 6 9 6 9 o6 9 of9 f9 11 f9 fA o vi o o o o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 i o o o o o o o o o o o o n (n 0 0 0 0 tn N N . f9 f9 N t9 E% 69 N EA o O c O O O O O O O o O 0 c o o o O O O o 0 o 0 O O o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O N O ' 0 0 o 6 6 6 ' 6 - 6 ' 0 0 , O ' 0 0 0 0 ' O ' N h i N 0 0 0 O N 0 0 Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N U O fn c fn o O V O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O M N L C (p N s - N N N U ~ FA t o E 0 W. f9 V i co 69 Go o to fA f9 o o v) V3 t9 t 9 6 9 69 69 69 o o o t9 69 t9 o o o M f A EA V) t o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 o o o 0 o o o o o o o o oo o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' c i 0 0 ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- Nc o o un oo NO o O o O 7 o O 7 o fn O o N f) c o N o N o W) o Lo O oo ro o fn o O oo fn O o O o O o O oo O N o O o O o N o h o 0 o 0 o 0 o N r 1 N - (p N U f9 f 9 f 9 f9 fA t 9 fA t9 f9 t9 t9 t9 o fA o 0 o o o 0 0 64 f9 f 9 o 0 o o o f 90 69 o 0 0 v, v, 0 69 o 69 69 tr, o t aom o o ro o m o aoro o O m o eo o co o ao o o o m O m O eo o ro o ao o m o ro o roro o o ro o ao o ro o roro 0 0 ro 0 oo 0 ao 0 m o ao0 oo 00 o o °p c o 0 o o c o oo 0 ao o rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o rn o o o N N O N O N O O N N O N O N O N co N o 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N C C I~ co M N W N co N W N N N N M W - W O - 02 w N N o o N N N N r N o 0 0 0 O N o o N N O N N M o 7 N 04 N Q N N %n N \1 N h N N N N N N N N r- r - n ~ rz N E r~ N w ;6 7 o e a a o o rn rn rn rn rn a> ~ . - o o o o a I I O O m c ~ U 0 c U 0 o U E o o p m c p U cr. E r o c o a o > ~ ~ O U } c 'p 7 p C Q z -O X o C s N 7 O O o ~ ~ LL U c . 0 oa o U a W 3 2 U o ~ N O C a) o w cc N y o o O •p L "O C l0 m O O m U J N E a C a) N Q J C x W ? W x W In e 41 E _ > C w u1 c 7 fU co C d LL U O L _ O 0Q 1 O -p O U `o O o 3 U ° - c . 2i 'o a) c o c E ~ c N (°c d w E L S 2 o V O O o c 6 E c o m 0 . o U Q L to d (p J , > L H c c U c t d m E p a E o L .0 c 7 m O U t0 d > L N '(p U p p -O F c 0 2 o O C _ U (4 L - L co y d U N M N O O U Z N a) LL d p N d 7 o O LL 2: LL' N N 41 o C .o (0 7 CO (p V U l6 y a YO j N C W ( U C (0 W U) O N o -p E ° r O E l6 7 N w L _ U ~ C -0 > C (u J Z C j ' N LL 0 7 'a c Q E 8 f0 3 d 'a '70 C E C C C o 0 ` N Q' N C G 7 C C Q 'p L Z p 2 a) 7 O co C N N O f0 Y O V O CC m U N C O L U O l0 O N f0 L C (0 N C O C U W 7 p Y C C 0 fU E 7 Y 2 L c p 7 (0 O d O = C (0 N V (p 'a C a) C O C O ~ O f// U Y L N N N E E O 7 ~ N ( n U ` V U = Q co LL' m C N U _ Ol y C N C O m > N U - i a) E y Y p 0 m ( m c N 7 O = E Q p Q d Y1 NO j Q U d LL ~ U p U 2 O N 0 (U M C U) O L L 'C CL n L O i? ~ l0 O a > d L C_ L > • O (0 O d (U O E N r O ~ O C 7 p E J E N W -O O U C' m C (n w N .O O 7 YO U N O C 7 t ~ 0 0 a C N d C f0 -Fa E Y , C C O L '6 cc E N a N w c ( C C C - (U a t N f a a . O O N n 7 E o r ca U l6 LLZ (p J O c U o 05 7 v) aI U r U 0 (p J (p J N LL N z 0 O u) ~ fU fU wo O (n N 0 fU co 2N U m O 2 N m Z N f 0Q (U = N Y 0 (p J 7 2 7 (n N m 7 2 w J w U o > ~ d O 0 m !2 ~ N U F p o ° o -J~) I c-, y o M l I" u07 O lN w ~ 00 M Y rz o P. co e m N co U C E o` c c o 06 (a E 0)C6 m o m 2 a Q'a ca o m 14 Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Organization: Cascade Women Lawyers Organization Description: This organization is the Central Oregon chapter of the Oregon Women Laywes (OWLS). The mission of the organization is to "transform the practice of law and ensure justice and equality by advancing women and minorities in the legal profession." As part of this effort, OWLS and CWL provide continuing legal education seminars for lawyers to help fulfill Oregon State Bar educational requirements. Project Name: Dr. Donna Beegle - Culture of Poverty Seminar Project Description: This request is to pay for speaking fee and associated expenses to bring Dr. Donna Beegle to Central Oregon to speak. In addition to CWL members, this speaking engagement will be open to state and local governments and non-profit organizations providing services to the poor. Dr. Beegle is the author of "See Poverty, Be The Difference," a resource book for professionals working with people in poverty. She has been working and writing regarding insights and strategies for communicating more of ectively across race, class, gender and generational barriers for 17 years. Her work will be features in an upcoming documentary entitled: Invisible Nation. Dr. Beegle's grew up in poverty. At the age of 25 she was a single parent of two children with no job skills. Over the next 10 years, Donna Beegle went from a high school dropout to a PhD. Project Period: Ongoing Amount of Request: $5,000 Previous Grants: None wG~V"V~aG2a 0 { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Direct Application to: l~~ u Commissioner Tammy Baney Commissioner Commissioner Dennis R. Luke All Three Commissioners Date: E Project Name: Dr. Oonf)ot Project Beginning Date: M 6 r(-h Id )()6'q I Project End Date: Amount of Request: [FileRFtv Date Funds Needed: Applicant/Organization: tti Tax ID Address: St ni r,. 1 City & Zip: n 1 ~,r~ Cs 7~~ l Contact Name(s): ~F16 A kGL1yyS6/4 Telephone: 3 1 Fax: Alternate Phone: F I Email: (L~ iS~c ~t 5 -Ci &I L,&,[ ecw On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Amount Approved: By: Date: Declined: By: Date: CASCADE WOMEN LAWYERS DESCHUTES COUNTY LOTTERY GRANT APPLICATION Cascade Women Lawyers ("CWL") is the Central Oregon chapter of Oregon Women Lawyers ("OWLS"), a statewide, non-profit, organization with a mission "to transform the practice of law and ensure justice and equality by advancing women and minorities in the legal profession." See attached Exhibit A. As part of that mission, OWLS and CWL endeavor to provide quality continuing legal education ("CLE") seminars for lawyers to help fulfill the Oregon State Bar requirement for Access to Justice, formerly elimination of bias, credit. Dr. Donna Beegle has a Ph.D in education and speaks all over the'nation on the subject of the Culture of Poverty. Her home office, however, is in Portland, Oregon. Her three-hour seminar, Poverty 101 (See Exhibit B), qualifies for the Access to Justice CLE and CWL wants to be able to provide such a CLE here in Bend for Central Oregon Lawyers. CWL, however, wants to not only assist in the education of local lawyers, but intends to open the invitation to the seminar to state and local government and non-profit providers of services to the poor, such as the Women's Resource Center, CASA and Housing Works. CWL's goal for the seminar is to provide education for lawyers and other service providers to understand why the poor behave as they do in order that the service providers can better provide services and help the poor break their cycles of poverty and develop their own economic stability. CWL will also attempt to arrange for each of the service providers to set-up displays for participants to view before and after the seminar and during the break. Dr. Beegle offered her services to CWL on March 10, 2009 from 9:00 to 12:00 at nearly half her normal rate because she will already be in Bend for two other organizations that day and the next. Additionally, while CWL has to pay for a hotel room for Dr. Beegle for the night before and for breakfast and lunch the day of the seminar, CWL can share the cost of the airfare and a rental car with Central Oregon Community College and Partnership Against Poverty. As of yet, CWL does not have a location for the seminar but is likely to either use the sanctuary at the First Presbyterian Church of Bend or rent a room at the Central Oregon Community College. If facilities must be rented, that will be an additional cost to those estimate expenses listed below. In addition to Dr. Beegle's costs, CWL will be mailing a single page flyer and registration form to all the lawyers in Central Oregon and provide the flyers to the various county and state human services agencies and to the various non-profit organizations that provide services to the poor. With the advertisement to the service providers and the lawyers, CWL estimates that 200 people will attend the seminar. The announcement/registration flyer, along with the course materials will include notation, on the cover or the first inside page of all sponsors for the seminars. The course materials could also include any logos or other larger sized advertisements the sponsors want to be included. Furthermore, any introductions at the seminar will include the announcement of the sponsors. CWL would also be open to discussing other conditions the County may wish to impose upon the acceptance of the grant funds. CWL Lottery Grant Application Page 1 Oregon Women Lawyers - Mission I of 1 i 11ttp://www.oregonwoiueWawyers.org/wlio_we_are/ t HOME WHO WE ARE MEMBERSHIP EVENTS AWARDS SERVICES CHAPTERS Mission Mission History Oregon Women Lawyers mission and purpose The Oregon Women Lawyers mission is to transform the practice of law and ensure Board of justice and equality by advancing w-W and Minorities in the legal profession. Directors With over 1200 members, Oregon Women Lawyers (OWLS) helps hundreds of Past women attorneys create valuable professional networks and warm friendships. Our Presidents networking and leadership gatherings provide contacts and information to a vide range of legal professionals: experienced attorneys seeking to polish their leadership Staff skills, newer attorneys looking for mentors and assistance, large firm attorneys Chapters navigating a culture biased tovvard a traditionally male model of success, and sole practitioners seeking referrals and connections. Volunteers Although great gains have been made since women first started practicing law, there DragonFlies is still not a level playing field for women. While equal numbers of men and women have been graduating from law schools for nearly two decades, the percentage of OWLS vomen in management positions, firm partnerships, judicial seats, and political Foundation appointments remains much, much smaller. OWLS vvorks to close these gaps. Unks Contact Us ® 2008 Oregon women Lawyer' F-IT 12/30/2008 10:33 PM Oregon Women Lawyers - Mary Leonard Law Society Board littp://www.oregomvoimnlawyers.org/chapters/ HOME WHO WE ARE MEMBERSHIP EVENTS AWARDS SERVICES CHAPTERS Mission Oregon Women Lawyers Chapters History OWLS has 10 regional chapters. Each chapter hosts its own meetings and events. Board of To find out more about a local chapter, contact the chapter representative as indicated below. Directors Past In addition to our chapter activities, OWLS invites interested members to participate Presidents in the Regional Outreach Committee. Contact committee chair Bethany Graham for more information. VIN Staff Click here for resources to help your chapter organize events and Clackamas Women Lawyers celebrate the f ti f th i h t ith Chapters programs. orma on o e r newc ap er w a summer picnic DragonFlies CHAPTER CONTACT INFORMATION OWLS Cascade Women Lawyers (Bend) Foundation Lorte Hancock; 541.749.4060 Clackamas County Oregon Women Lawyers Kathleen Rastelter, 503.742.5398 Coast Women Lawyers (Lincoln County/Central Coast) Contact the OWLS office: 503.595.7826 Queen's Bench Leadership Josephine County Women y Lawyers. (Grants Pass) Kristin Sterling, I Nicole DeFever, Susan Hon. Victory Walker O'Toole, Marja Selmann and Sarah Krick Lane County Women Lawyers (Eugene area) Jane Yates; 541.686.8833 Linn-Benton Women Lawyers (Albany/Corvallis) Debra Blythe; 541.979.6969 Mary Leonard Law Society (Salem) The Mary Leonard Law Society CULLS") is the Salem-area chapter of Oregon Women Lawyers. Named after Mary A. Leonard, the first woman to practice law in Oregon in the 1880's, the chapter meets monthly from September to June, usually on the third Tuesday at Willamette University Commons. Shannon Terry; 541.554.6915 Queen's Bench (Portland) Queen's Bench, the Portland chapter of Oregon Women Lawyers (OWLS), is an independent non-profit organization whose mission is to promote the professional advancement, camaraderie, and good fellovship among women in the legal profession and the community. Queen's Bench provides a supportive environment for attorneys, law students and those who work in the legal field to meet, network and make friends. Sarah Krick ; .503.239.7273 Rebecca J. Bloom Chapter (Umatilla and Morrow Counties) Named after Rebecca J. Bloom, a prorrinent eastern Oregon and Washington attorney, the Rebecca J. Bloom Chapter of OWLS hosts informal monthly meetings in addition to CLE screenings and netvwridng events in Urrtalilla and Morrow Counties. Kittee Custer; 541.276.7139 Rogue Women Lawyers (AshlandlMedford) Stefanie Burke; 541.779.8900 Washington County Women Lawyers (Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tualatin) Mary Bruington; 503.846.3413 ® 2008 Oregon Women Lawyers 1 of 1 12/30/2008 10:33 PM Business Registry Business Name Search Page 1 of 4 0RE00 SECHETARY OF STATE I vra'o Business Name Search 9 New Search Printer Friendly Business Entity Data 01-017:38 Entity Entity ti di i Registry Duration Renewal Registry Nbr c on Jur s D t Type Status Date Date a e 151834-86 DNP ACT OREGON 03-31-1989 Entity Name OREGON WOMEN LAWYERS Foreign Name Non Profit MUTUAL BENEFIT WITH MEMBERS Type New Search Printer Friendly Associated Names Type PPB PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 O BOX 40393 Addr 2 CSZ PORTLAND OR 97240 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA Please click here for general information about registered agents and service of process. Type AG REGISTERED AGENT Start Date 1 03-31- 1989 Resign Date Name AGNES SOWLE Addr 1 501 SE HAWTHORNE 5TH FLOOR Addr 2 CSZ PORTLAND OR 97214 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type MAL MAILING ADDRESS Addr 1 PO BOX 40393 Addr 2 CSZ PORTLAND OR 97240 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type PRE PRESIDENT Resign Date CALDERA Name LAURA TAYLOR Addr i BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, PC http://egov. sos. state. or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_be_rsn=53 7212&p_src... 1/4/2009 Business Registry Business Name Search Page 2 of 4 Addr 2 1888 SW 5TH AVE STE 300 I CSZ PORTLAND OR 97204 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type SEC SECRETARY Resign Date Name JANE YATES Addr 1 GLEAVES SWEARINGEN Addr 2 975 OAK ST STE 800 CSZ EUGENE OR 97401 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Printer Friendly Name History Business Entity Name Name T e Name Status Start Date ta]te OREGON WOMEN LAWYERS EN CUR 03-31-1989 Please read before ordering Copies. ,1 T T - ivew ae arcn Yrunter y rienmy sum ma ri 1St0 Image D Action I ransaction IT Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By ate Date Date Change 03-25- AMENDED ANNUAL 2008 REPORT 03-25-2008 FI 01-28- AMENDMENT TO 2008 ANNUAL REPORT 01-28-2008 FI 03-27- AMENDED ANNUAL 2007 REPORT 03-27-2007 FI 03-01- ANNUAL REPORT 2006 PAYMENT 03-01-2006 SYS 02-18- ANNUAL REPORT 2005 PAYMENT 02-18-2005 SYS 03-29- ANNUAL REPORT 2004 PAYMENT 03-29-2004 SYS 05-09- AMENDMENT TO 2003 ANNUAL REPORT 05-09-2003 FI 03-05- ANNUAL REPORT 2003 PAYMENT 03-05-2003 SYS CHANGE OF 02-22- REGISTERED 02-22-2002 FI 2002 AGENT/ADDRESS 02-20- ANNUAL REPORT 2002 PAYMENT 02-20-2002 SYS 05-07- AMENDED ANNUAL 2001 REPORT 05-07-2001 FI 04-06- NOTICE LATE 2001 ANNUAL 04-06-2001 SYS http://egov. sos.state.or. us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_be_rsn=53 7212&p_src... 1/4/2009 Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Printer Friendly Business Entity Data Page I of 2 01-04-2009 17:41 Entity Entity i di ti J Registry Duration Renewal Registry Nbr T e Status s c on ur Date Date Date 193887-92 ABN ACT 01-05-2004 Entity Name CASCADE WOMEN LAWYERS Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Printer Friendly Associated Names Type ppB RINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 15 SW COLORADO AVE STE 3 Addr 2 CSZ BEND OR 97702 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this hi irinPCr_ Type REP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 1 01-02- 2008 Resign Date Name LAURA CRASK COOPER Addr 1 15 SW COLORADO AVE STE 3 Addr 2 CSZ BEND OR 97702 Country UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Type REG GISTRANT Of 151834- Record 86 OREGON WOMEN LAWYERS Addr 1 Addr 2 CSZ Country littp://egov. sos. state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_be_rsn=1012121&p_sr... 1/4/2009 Business Name Search Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Printer Friendly Name Hi storv Page 2 of 2 Business Entit Name y g Name Status Start Date End Date CASCADE WOMEN LAWYERS EN CUR 01-05-2004 Please read before ordering Copies. New Search Printer Friendly Summarv Historv Image Date Action Transaction Effective Status Name/Agent . Dissolved By Date Date Change 01-02- AMENDMENT OF 2008 REGISTRATION 01-02-2008 FI Representative 01-02- RENEWAL OF 2008 REGISTRATION 01-02-2008 FI 12-27 2005 RENEWAL PAYMENT 12-27-2005 SYS 01-05- APPLICATION FOR 2004 REGISTRATION 01-05-2004 FI Representative Ne-w Searcu Pr niter F r iendiy Counties Filed All Counties Filed. About Us I Announcements I Laws & Rules i Feedback Site Map i Policy i SOS Home I Oregon Blue Book I Oregon.gov For comments or suggestions regarding the operation of this site, please contact : businessregistry.sos@state.or.us © 2009 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=1012121&p_sr... 1/4/2009 About Us I Cotntnt"cation Across Barriers Navigation Home About Us What We Do Who We Serve X contact us r Tools Articles News Store > Newsletter Ittp://www.coiiibarriers.coii-Vabout Home About Us We are a consulting firm founded in 1990 by Dr. Bob Fulford & Dr. Donna M. Beegle Our mission is simple, but has far reaching implications: to improve communication and relationships across poverty, race, gender, and generational barriers. About Dr. Beegle Donna M. Beegle, Ed.D. is a highly experienced National public speaker, discussion leader, trainer, and the author of "See Poverty, Be The Difference," a resource book for professionals who work with people in poverty. Donna has worked and written articles providing insights and strategies for communicating more effectively across race, class, gender and generational barriers for 17 years. Donna's inspiring story and work have been featured in newspapers around the nation, on local TV and on National programs such as PBS. Her work on poverty is being featured in a Documentary titled: Invisible Nation (air time to be announced). Donna has worked with educators, justice professionals, health care providers, social service agencies, and other organizations all over the nation who want to make a difference for those living in the crisis of poverty. Invisible Nation - Donna is the only member of her family who has not been incarcerated. After growing Reading List up in generational migrant labor poverty, leaving school for marriage at 15, having two children and continuing to cope with poverty, she found herself, at 25, with no husband, little education, and no job skills. What followed in 10 short years were: self-confidence, a G.E.D., an A.A. in Journalism, a B.A. (with honors) in Login/Register Communications, a Master's Degree in Communication with a minor in Gender Studies (with honors), and completion of a Doctorate Degree. Donna completed her Doctorate in Educational Leadership at Portland State University in 2000, where she taught speech communication courses for eight years. She is currently president of Communication Across Barriers, a consulting firm devoted to improving communication and relationships. Donna is also founder and CEO of the new nonprofit, PovertyBridge which is dedicated to changing lives for people in poverty. Donna is available for workshops, curriculum development, organizational development and planning, and inspirational keynote presentations. l» I1Er~~w,~r.~lr~4-S~r~r+ ~ i""``rs~x~•c•t~s^~~. ~ ;s~ L.;Y,•tir>aY 1 of 1 12/30/2008 10:34 PM Copyrights @ 2007 Communication Across Barriers, All fights Reserwd. J Workshops I Conumnucation Across Barriers I-Atp://www.conbarriers.coiii/worksl)ops Navigation Home : Home Workshops > : About Us . . . . . Educational Workshops What We Do - - All sessions are offered in a workshop or keynote format. . : Who We Serve Donna' s two most requested workshop sessions are "Poverty 101" and "Concrete tools . for communicating more effectively." Participants can receive continuing education Contact Us credits. See our website for a complete list of Communication Across Barriers sessions. - - - - All sessions are customized to meet your organizational goals. Tools Articles . Poverty 101 News What does it mean to leave no child behind? What does it mean to be from - poverty and go to school in America? Through sharing her journey out of Store generational poverty, findings from her doctoral research on generational ; poverty, successful completion of a Bachelor's degree, and fifteen years of Newsletter working in schools struggling with educating students from poverty, Donna Beegle frames the discussion of how to successfully engage students and families X Invisible Nation from generational poverty in the education process. . Reading List . . Learning Objectives: • Discuss the impact and meaning of education for students from generational poverty Login/Register • Understand how poverty in the U.S. is internalized as a personal deficiency • Understand how to develop a welcoming climate and meaningful curriculum for students from poverty backgrounds • Explain the difference between immigrant poverty and poverty in the U.S. • Discuss the confounding of race and class issues in developing strategies for educating students from poverty • Explain the barriers perceived by people in poverty when dealing with educators • Understand how to implement changes in communication, teaching and learning styles to enhance education success for students from poverty • Discuss ways to motivate and provide meaningful incentives to students from poverty backgrounds • Understand how to connect in meaningful ways to redefine the meaning and value of education • Explain how to frame education goals from the perspective of students and families from poverty Breaking Barriers: Concrete Tools for Working Working with 1 of 5 12/30/2008 10:35 PM vii Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Organization: Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Organization Description: Founded in 1920, this 501(c)(4) organization focuses on serving veterans and their families. The Bend DAV runs a daily shuttle to Veterans Administration Medical Centers for veterans from Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson Counties as well as Warm Springs. The shuttles are operated exclusively by volunteers. Project Name: DAV Transportation Van Project Description: The DAV Transportation Network provides daily shuttle service traveling a 350-mile round trip from Central Oregon to the VA Medical Center in Portland. Vans log over 80,000 miles a year and transports more than 3,000 veterans annually, free of charge. The grant funds will be used, along with other funds, to purchase a new transportation van. Project Period: Ongoing Amount of Request: $5,000 Previous Grants: None o ~ 2{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Direct Application to: Commissioner Tammy Barley Commissioner Michael M. Daly Commissioner Dennis R. Luke All Three Commissioners Date: 12_2 -0or 08' Project Name: Project Beginning Date: Project End Date: 9 rr Amount of Request: S Date Funds Needed: n/lo ff S3o Applicant/Organization: DAY Tax ID 237-33--2 Auuress: I I icy « ,r~,p. I061w1Cy Contact Name(s): Telephone: 3j. e /,/77 ~i~-aria Ff}r~ec~t~ Fax: 330-q 7(o Alternate Phone: Email: r e~zJC.,_ cv, SC s,6,-, US 71 On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will, be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the. future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Amount Approved: By: Date: Declined: By: Date: DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities.. The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is a non-profit association of more than 1 million veterans who suffered some degree of disability in time of war or armed conflict. Founded in 1920, the DAV is totally funded by dues and contributions. The organization receives no federal funding. The DAV focuses strictly on serving veterans and their families. A non-partisan organization, the DAV has no political action committees and endorses no political candidates. In addition to the daily shuttle service to the Veterans Administration Medical Centers (VAMC), the DAV helps veterans and their family members get all the benefits they earned and are entitled to, without charge. The Bend DAV daily shuttle serves over 14,000 veterans from Deschutes County, as well as veterans from Warm Springs, Crook, and Jefferson counties. Coordination, scheduling and operations are performed by local volunteers and are overseen by a coalition of veterans groups. Describe the proposed project or activity. The DAV Transportation Network provides a daily shuttle service traveling a 350 mile round trip route from Central Oregon to the VA Medical Center in Portland. Operating from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, the shuttle service is managed by local volunteers. The van logs over 80,000 miles a year and transports more than 3,000 veterans annually, free of charge to the veteran. 3. ' Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. Since 1989, The DAV daily shuttle has provided a vital transportation service ensuring that more than 3,000 veterans from Central Oregon can reach their medical appointments each year. The van will continue to be provided as an ongoing service until appropriate medical care is available locally. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. The DAV daily shuttle service provides free transportation to medical appointments to more than 3,000 veterans a year, many disabled and low-income, some who are homeless and indigent and others who are unable to drive. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. The shuttle service from Central Oregon to the Portland VA Medical Center exists exclusively for the benefit of any veteran in the Central Oregon community, including any disabled veterans and their attendants or aids when required. Continued Deschutes County Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Application Continued Itemize anticipated expenditures. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. The DAV Transportation van currently providing the daily shuttle service from Central Oregon will have accumulated over 170,000 miles by its anticipated replacement date. The entire grant will be used to purchase the replacement van needed to continue this critical program. The grant will be supplemented by private funds from DAV members, fundraisers, and charitable donations, to meet the total purchase price. DAV - Commanders Club Page 1 of 2 Donate I Contact Us I 'M Home History Donate Wall of Honor Member Benefits Programs Help For Vets Tax Info FAQ Tax Information Your gift is tax-deductible according to IRS regulations. The Disabled American Veterans is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt c under Title 26 United States Code, Section 501(c)(4), and contributions to the DAV are deductibl, U.S.C. 170(c)(3). 9 © Disabled American Veterans. All rights reserved. Donate By Mail I DAV Home https://www.dav.org/commandersclub/Tax.aspx 12/29/2008 Community Development Department Planning Divi_ in Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 MEMORANDUM http.//www,co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DATE: January 12, 2009 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: Event venue text: amendment and pending code enforcement Text Amendment Procedure: In addition to conducting preliminary discussions with the applicant, as well as having meetings with the applicant after the text amendment was submitted, staff has reviewed two separate text amendment submittals regarding the draft code, both of which required substantial time to review and critique (including 3 planning staff members and County Counsel). Additional submittals from the applicant may be required to develop final language that could potentially be adopted by the Board. In the interest of streamlining the process to allow for a quicker recommendation to the Board, and for Board discussion, deliberation and decision, it is possible for staff to draft language rather than the applicant. Although this is not usually done in an applicant driven text amendment, it may be prudent in the interest of shortening the process in this case (see discussion item below). Staff would take great care to assure the public that this effort is not meant to influence the decision one way or another, but rather to streamline the process and allow decision makers to focus on policy, rather than technical issues. Pending Code Enforcement: At the public hearing on January 8, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously directed Legal staff to prepare a resolution, indicating a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that code enforcement activity with respect to existing wedding event venue operators be suspended through 2009, to allow time for the code amendment process to be completed. Staff is requesting input and direction from the Board in this area. Qttahty Services Perforated zvittr Pritle To: Sheriff Blanton From: Lt. Decker Date: 01/13/09 Re: Concerns over Event Proposal I understand that the Deschutes County Planning Commission has presented to the Board of County Commissioners a proposal to allow the owners of property in EFU the opportunity to continue holding such events for the duration of 2009. With this in mind I would like to suggest that if this is the considered action then the Board of County Commissioners also consider an exemption of Section D and E of the Noise Ordinance, County Code 8.08. These are the sections that pertain to quality of life concerns where the individuals hearing the noise are not at risk of harm but the noise is considered to be a nuisance. It is to be expected that there will be music at all of the wedding events and that with a gathering of people the noise will travel at times, at least 50' from the property line. (We have seen first hand during the Four Peaks Festival that neighbors were armed with their own sound meters and would not hesitate to call if the music peaked during a shift in the wind.) So although the enforcement action for Community Development has been waved it only means more work for the Sheriff's Office, as this will be, and was evident during the past year, as the only recourse for adjacent property owners. The approach should be consistent with any Conditional Use Permit and understanding that the permit, in this case would be for wedding events, then they should be allowed to have them during the hours listed, just as :in construction, between the hours of 7:00a.m. and 10:00p.m. (or any hours set by the Board.) The normal expected noises, music, vehicles and people, has to be considered part of doing the business of holding these events and the Sheriff's Office should never become a pawn for political reasons. The waiver, as it was demonstrated last year, will result in our resources being diverted and could cause a delay in an actual emergency situation or a reduction in patrol staffing who otherwise could be available to take a dangerous intoxicated driver off of the road. I would also suggest that just a; in the lighting ordinance if there is a limit to the acceptable noise level that a trained representative from CDD respond and collect the data for any future enforcement action, if necessary. To understand the concern of an unnecessary drain on the resources of the Sheriff's Office I will provide data from calls to dispatch and log entries covering the two Four Peaks Concerts and the three known addresses that held events this past summer. During the Four Peaks Concert of 2007 the Sheriff's Office received at least 7 known calls of service because of the noise. During 2008 that number increased to 13 calls for service. This past summer, by checking only the addresses of the event holders, (although other calls could have been made but no address given) I located 16 calls for service at 62279 Powell Butte Hwy, four calls to 22122 Neff Rd and five calls to 22955 Someday Way. I would consider that knowing ;how the frustrations have increased and as history showed us, with the Four Peaks concert, calls for service on the noise violations will also increase over the upcoming summer. 1-10-2009 RE: TA-08-9 Wedding Event Text Amendment on EFU lands Sheriff Blanton, In a meeting regarding TA-08-9 Venue/Wedding Events on January 8, 2009 with the Planning Commission, a decision was voted on to write a formal letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting that all these illegal wedding locations be granted a grace period to operate though 2009 with no planning code citations to be issued. As you know, paraphrasing your words, there is no way to hold a quiet wedding. We don't want to be forced to call on your staff in regards to noise. Since these event centers seem to be proliferating like a bad weed in the county there will be additional strain put on your department. These venue places were already granted a grace period for all of 2008. We and other neighbors are totally opposed to this idea. We have put up with these weddings for two entire summer seasons and a third is not reasonable. So our question is asking your support against extending the grace period. If you agree this is not best for your department due to the strain it puts on your deputies and budget would you please voice that to the County Board of Commissioners? We don't know of anywhere that people are given free rein to continue in illegal activity with the county's blessing. The law abiding citizens of this county are getting fed up and are beginning to wonder just why they follow county laws. We also want to say we were highly offended and ashamed of our planning commission during the December 11, 2008 meeting. At this meeting letters from county officials such as yourself were rudely criticized by all the board members. Paraphrasing their words on your letter in opposition was that Sheriff Blanton just doesn't want to do his job. Perhaps another letter would help the Planning Commission to understand exactly the meaning of your words in your letter against this text amendment. In our belief it has nothing to do with you not wishing to have your deputies do their job but in the volume of calls due to noise and traffic issues. We wish to thank you and your deputies for your support and appreciate the time that has been spent responding to our calls with noise complaints. I would appreciate a letter back in regard to this proposed extension of extending the grace period for all of 2009. 62237 Powell Butte Hwy. Bend, Or. 97701 Thank you for your time, rj~~~ Harry and Leslie Ketrenos 541-383-0130 a° Activity reports obtained from CAD records by entering known addresses only. Callers who provided general concerns over traffic and noise, without providing or knowing the specific address, would not be accounted for without a more thorough hand search of all calls. Premise History for 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND Page 1 of 1 Premise History for 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND in BEN Call Date Time Location Call Type Pty No. 08208134 09/13/0819:08 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08200792 09104/08 17:05 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08200829 09/04/0817:57 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 0819674908/30/0815:07 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08191593 08/24/0811:02 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08191086 08/23/0818:00 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08185103 08/16/0819:56 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08160944 07/19/08 20:31 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08154823 07,/12/08 21:11 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08152618 07/10/0811:51 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08148237 07/05/0815:33 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08145849 07/03/08 09:59 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08144759 07/02/08 07:43 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08141929 06/28/08 22:04 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08135887 06/21/08 20:56 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 08135912 06/21/08 21:23 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND 0722420210/04/0716:23 62279 POWELL BUTTE HWY; LAVENDER POND NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 DISPUTE R3 3 CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4 4 PUBLIC/OFFICER ASSIST 4 CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4' 4 CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4 4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4. CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4 4 CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4 4 CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLATION 5 R5 ANIMAL COMPLAINT 5 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLATION 4 R4 ~~Igse~ -:2~'rt as of: 01/12/2009 08:50 htfp://cad_comm.deschutes.or us/cgi bm/snweb?location=62279+POWELL+BUTTE+HWY&juns_.. 1/12/2009 I ^~'R Premise History for 22122 NEFF RU Premise History for 22122 NEFF RD in BEN Call Date Time Location No. 08191188 08/23/08 20:48 22122 NEFF RD 08178480 08/08/08 20:51 22122 NEFF RD 0816094107/19/08 20:29 22122 NEFF RD 08135926 06/21/08 21:49 22122 NEFF RD 07202848 09/08/0719:36 22122 NEFF RD Page I of 1 Cali Type Pty NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 Efose _ = Rr Crh ` as of: 01/12/2009 08:47 http://Cad.comm.deschutes.or.uslegi binlsnweb?location=22122+Neff+Rd&juris=BEN&sentence... 1/12/2009 _ Premise History for 22955 SOMEDAY WAY Page 1 of 1 Premise History for 22955 SOMEDAY WAY in BEN Call Date Time Location Call Type Pty No. 0824294910/29/08 07:48 22955 SOMEDAY WAY CODE 6 FOLL-UP R4 4 0820813809/13/0819-12 22955 SOMEDAY WAY NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 0820244709/06/0817:37 22955 SOMEDAY WAY 0817839108/08/0818:43 22955 SOMEDAY WAY 08140919 06/27/08 21:11 22955 SOMEDAY WAY 07005796 01/09/0710:43 22955 SOMEDAY WAY R4 SHOTS HEARD/SHOOTING 4 COMPLAINT R4 TRAFFIC COMPLAINT R3 3 NOISE COMPLAINT/LOUD PARTY 4 R4 SHOTS HEARD/SHOOTING 2 COMPLAINT R2 as of; 01/12/2009 08:48 h4:llcad.comm.deschutes.or us/egi bin/snweb?location=22955+SOMEDAY+LN&juris=BEN&s... 1/12/2009