Loading...
2009-111-Minutes for Meeting March 04,2009 Recorded 3/18/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK LY j COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 111111111111111111111111111111111111 111 03/18/2009 08:41:41 AM 2009-111 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.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; George Read, Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky, Kristen Maze, Peter Russell, Barbara Rich, Terri Payne and Nick Lelack, Community Development Department; Anna Johnson, Communications; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; members of the Planning Commission; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and several other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. DLCD Affordable Housing Work Group Update. Nick Lelack did a PowerPoint presentation on the progress being made by the work group. House Bill 2225 resulted, the purpose of which is to encourage cities to build more affordable housing. Doug White of DLCD said that the discussion needs to include homebuilders, and some clear objectives should be set. This is a long-term proposal that spans at least fifty years. Housing would not be concentrated in one or two areas, but would be distributed more widely. Urban reserve areas and land to be considered in a UGB expansion should be included. The Redmond Eastside Framework Plan does identify land that could be used for this purpose. Commissioner Luke asked how they could guarantee housing will still be affordable in fifty years. Things change; the comprehensive plan is only good for twenty. Unless government owns the housing, the market will drive the price. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Pages Mr. Lelack stated that there could be a limitation on the amount of increase in value each year. Commissioner Baney stated that Habitat for Humanity runs against the same problem, and has a time frame for certain things to happen. Commissioner Unger said that this would be a different type of model; ownership could be handled differently. Commissioner Unger asked why a House Bill is necessary. Mr. Lelack stated that the County might lose momentum otherwise. Christine Lewis of Housing Works said that in regard to monitoring affordability, there are shared attributes The homeowner may have a first right to repurchase or perhaps the agency would just walkaway. They do not want to create ghettos but allow higher priced homes so that is part of the process. Commissioner Baney stated that there are a number of people losing their homes now and many of those will not be familiar with requesting assistance. Affordable housing overall is important, but if people do not have jobs, they cannot get into a home. Commissioner Unger said that this program will take some time to implement and perhaps by then the economy will be better. There was consensus of the Board to support these efforts. 2. Discussion of the Results of Stakeholder Meetings regarding Destination Resort Remapping. Peter Gutowsky said that the intent is to initiate a three-month public outreach program, to obtain feedback on unmapping and remapping concepts. Staff would meet with all stakeholders and organizations. They would come back with the results in June at a joint meeting of the Board and the Planning Commission. At that time appropriate legislative amendments could be developed. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference.) Mr. Gutowsky went over the process that must be followed for remapping and amendments. Destination resort mapping cannot be amended more than once every thirty months. Ms. Craghead noted that the State would not allow this to happen if the County does not have a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map amendments. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Pages Mr. Gutowsky detailed the dates when certain actions were taken and those that will occur in the future. Commissioner Luke stated that some public properties are eligible to be sold and should not be considered as inappropriate for use as a destination resort. Mr. Gutowsky discussed unmapping specific properties, which brings the amount of land set aside for destination resort use from over 112,448 acres to 15,058 acres. These properties are those under single ownership and greater than 160 acres in size. Commissioner Luke said that some developers may want to put in amenities and overnight lodging with no permanent residential ownership, and they require less acreage. He said that ODOT would require the Transportation Planning Rule be followed. Environmental and social impacts also need to be discussed. This includes whether the Deschutes Water Bank has enough water credits for future resorts. Commissioner Baney said that they might want to do the mailing to all 25,000 property owners who can choose to opt out. Commissioner Luke would like the mailing to be included in the tax statement mailing in the fall. Commissioner Baney asked how adding to the map would be handled. She feels there is a lot of discussion on unmapping but not adding to it. People should be asked not only if they care if their property is unmapped, but whether they want their property added if applicable. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the review criteria would apply. 3. Discussion of Grants. Wetland Grant from with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Fund. It was explained that this is an $80,000 award, and another $30,000 is needed to complete the process. Community Development would like to apply for another grant, and the Watershed Council is willing to be the grant agent in this case. The deadline for application is in April, and they would find out in September if they got the grant. If they do, the inventory work could begin the following year. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Pages • Community Action for a Renewed Environment Program Grant Barbara Rich discussed the EPA grant opportunity that relates to the protection of public water systems in the County. This is a public participation project, building a link between source water protection and land use. There needs to be more coordination between drinking water providers and land uses situations. Commissioner Unger likes the idea of being proactive. UNGER: Move approval of a letter to be signed either by all three Commissioners or one Commissioner designated to sign for the Board. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Discussion of Potential Expansion of South County Sewer Feasibility Study. Tom Anderson said that it appears there is potentially a larger area that can be served by the Sunriver Service District system, and Steven Runner and Terry Penhollow are present to discuss this with the Board. Mr. Runner stated that they have been working on setting up a feasibility study regarding expanding the Sunriver sewer system, including how to determine the cost, how connections would be handled, reconfiguration of the plant, and drafting contracts. They got a call from Representative Gene Whisnant about potential stimulus dollars through the Department of Environmental Quality and others, and Representative Whisnant would like to see the study expanded. Sunriver will complete the study now underway and could discuss this new idea if and when the dollars materialize. Commissioner Luke agreed that he would like to concentrate on the current study. It was felt that it will take some time to learn if the stimulus package will make funds available for this type of thing, and the outcome of the Local Rule measure will be known fairly soon as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Pages 5. Other Items. Dave Kanner said that there are two different ways for the DEQ to declare a public health hazard. One does not make a Goal I I process necessary. Under a different OAR, there is a Goal 1 I exception process needed. A bill introduced by Jackson County explains that if you are in an area where a determination of a pubic health hazard has been made, irrespective of soil type, location, dwellings, etc., no Goal 1 I exception is necessary. Commissioner Unger said that it appears to be limited to those properties with existing dwellings. Laurie Craghead has drafted an amendment to include properties that are eligible for a dwelling at some point. However, the area would be limited. Mr. Kanner will contact Representatives Whisnant and Stiegler regarding what is being considered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. DATED this 4th Day of March 2009 for th Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy B y, Ch D nnis R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: &144- Recording Secretary 01 ez- ~ a, I, zl~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 5 of 5 Pages Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fak (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes ore WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 1. DLCD Affordable Housing Work Group - Nick Lelack • Community Development Memo 2. Discussion of the Results of Stakeholder Meetings regarding Destination Resort Remapping - Peter Gutowsky 3. Discussion of Grants - Peter Gutowsky • Wetland Grant from with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Fund • Community. Action for a Renewed Environment Program Grant 4. Discussion of Potential Expansion of South County Sewer Feasibility Study - Tom Anderson 5. 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 otherivise indicated. Ifyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 0 < N N ca I 3 W N a, - X ~ T m co Y ~ Q) 0 t M Q- , SA i M C J\ O lz~ M .c a a I~ in 1 ~ M M N~ o - ► a` 6 V J Vl . N ue ~ ~ N s _S © ' oL1 N IS n C O N a o ` n d V ) "T°E 117 NW Lafayette Avenue! Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http:/)Iwww.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Planning Director DATE: February 25, 2009 MEETING: March 4, 2009 SUBJECT: Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) iWordable Housing Work Group SUMMARY I am serving on a State appointed affordable housing work group designed to encourage cities to provide sites dedicated to affordable housing. Based on the work group's recommendations, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has introduced HB 2225. Please find attached the legislative concept for HB 2225. This legislation would establish a Pilot Program to encourage up to five cities, to provide "sites dedicated to affordable housing" within urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The concept would direct LCDC - in coordination with the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services - to adopt rules for conducting the pilot project and selecting a limited number of local governments (up to five) to provide sites dedicated to affordable housing under some special provisions in the legislation and LCDC rules. The legislation would authorize pilot cities to designate sites dedicated to affordable housing through an expedited process for UGB expansion, or through other methods as may be specified in agency rules. The purpose of this work session is to briefly provide an overview of the work; group and legislation, and how it might impact Deschutes County. OVERVIEW On March 20, 2008, the LCDC directed the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DCLD) to initiate an affordable housing administrative rulemaking project. The project is intended to encourage cities to provide sites dedicated to affordable housing and manufactured housing parks, as a "pilot project" limited to a few cities. LCDC; appointed a work group to advise the department and the Commission (the list of work group members is provided at the end of this report). Based on input and recommendations from the workgroup, LCDC expected to adopt new administrative rules by the end of 2008. However, DLCD has found that the recommended rules cannot be adopted in a manner consistent with current State statutes. Therefore HB 2225 was introduced to obtain the Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division Quality Services Performed with Pride minimum statute change necessary to authorize this pilot project to proceed. In considering new rules/laws to provide sites dedicated to affordable housing and manufactured housing parks, LCDC indicated the work group should consider the following: • If UGB amendments are one of the recommended tools for this concept, allow an added site to be exchanged for a site already in the UGB better located to serve those in need of affordable housing; • Require that new sites designated for this purpose be capable of being served by transportation facilities, sewer and water service and other public facilities necessary for affordable housing, in the near-term; • Define the term "sites dedicated to affordable housing," taking into consideration regional factors, ownership and rental housing needs, government assisted housing, and the need to accommodate those displaced by mobile home park closures; • Propose safeguards to eliminate or minimize adverse impacts on farm and forest land protection and other key components of the statewide land use program; • Consider allowing a mix of affordable housing and market rate housing on a site dedicated to affordable housing; The work group continues to meet once or twice per month; our most recent meeting was Monday, February 23. The legislative concept for HB 2225 largely remains the same, however, it continues to evolve and several issues have yet to be addressed or defined. Please see the current version of HB 2225 attached. IMPACT ON DESCHUTES COUNTY Deschutes County will likely be home to one or more of the pilot program cities, and County owned property may be included in a Redmond pilot program. The cities of Redmond, Sisters and Bend have all indicated their interest to the DLCD work group regarding their interest in serving as one of the Pilot Program cities. While working for the City of Redmond, I indicated Redmond's interest in serving as a pilot program. Redmond is a good candidate for inclusion in the program for the following reasons: • There is a need for affordable housing in Central Oregon, and Redmond is centrally located in the region; • Redmond adopted its first Affordable Housing Plan in November 2007, which included a policy to provide land supply for affordable housing; • Redmond has identified a potential 40-acre parcel owned by Deschutes County in the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA) primarily for the purposes of affordable housing. The property is located near jobs on the east side of the city; • The County owned property is identified for a mixed income neighborhood, including affordable housing, in the Redmond Eastside Framework Plan, adopted in December 2008; and, • While some cities may expand their UGBs to include prime farmland for affordable housing, a concern raised by the Oregon Farm Bureau, Redmond's property is already included in its 50-year growth boundary (URA) and identified for future urban expansion. Based on my conversations with former Redmond City Counselor Joe Mansfield in 2008, the preliminary concept for the Redmond property consisted of the City purchasing the property from the County at a discounted rate. Then, Redmond would work with an affordable housing developer and/or provider (e.g., Housing Works) to develop a mixed income neighborhood. For example, there may be 60% market-rate housing and 40% affordable housing. It is important to note that HB 2225 would not require 100% of a site to be dedicated to affordable housing. Given the current economic conditions, Redmond may not be able to purchase the property for the foreseeable future. However, the County may still be able move forward with the same concept for the property (depending on the outcome of HB 2225) if Redmond is selected for the pilot program. The County could work with affordable housing developers/providers or donate a portion of the land for affordable housing, and then sell the remainder for market-rate housing. Redmond and its employers would still benefit from the provision of affordable housing in the community, and Deschutes County may be able to sell a small portion of its eastside Redmond property for market-rate housing. The City of Sisters has contacted DLCD about its interest in serving as a pilot program city as well. Sister's Community Development Director Eric Porter sent the following email to DLCD on February 17, 2009: "The City of Sisters is interested in being considered as a candidate for the pilot program described in HB 2225 (attached). Sisters is unique in several key aspects that we believe help to make us an ideal candidate for this program; (1) Our City Council is supportive of efforts to stimulate local development, including affordable housing; (2) We have an incredibly successful Habitat for Humanity established in Sisters that is and has been dedicated to providing affordable 'for purchase' housing; (3) We are a 'Severely Distressed' community as identified by the State Department of Economic Development; (4) We are under 5000 population (presently at 1875); (5) We have historically had high land costs within the city that make providing affordable housing challenging, and (6) We are also in the geographical area served by HousingWorks, a provider of affordable rental units (they constructed Tamarack Village in Sisters, a low- income apartment complex). We have the ability on staff to provide the required findings to expand our UGB, and have just completed a Housing Needs Analysis to correlate with our Housing Plan update. We now need to know what we can do to be put on the radar for consideration into this program once this becomes a possibility. Any suggestions or feedback you might have for us would be greatly appreciated." In addition, I understand affordable housing developers from Bend have contacted DLCD to indicate their interest in the program. However, I do not have any correspondence or information submitted on behalf of the City of Bend. All three Central Oregon communities may be uniquely qualified to serve as pilot program cities because of their significant differences in population. WORK GROUP MEMBERS John VanLandingham, LCDC (Chair), Lane County Legal Aid & Advocacy Center Janet Byrd, Housing Alliance/Neighborhood Partnership Fund Jon Chandler, Oregon Building Industry Association Shawn Cleave, Oregon Farm Bureau Bob Gillespie, Oregon Housing and Community Services Ann Glaze, Oregon Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee Jana Jarvis, Oregon Association of Realtors Al Johnson, Johnson & Sherton, P.C. Nick Lelack, Deschutes County/City of Redmond Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon Martha McLennan, Northwest Housing Alternatives Larry Medinger, Oregon Housing Council (Ashland-area homebuilder) John Miller, HOST Development Don Minor, Oregon Manufactured Housing Association Greg Mott, City of Springfield Linda Navarro, Oregon Bankers Association Jim Tierney, Columbia County Community Action Team Gregory Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Bob Rindy, Gloria Gardiner, Bryan Gonzalez, Department of Land Conservation and Development HB 2225 - DLCD/OHCS AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEGISLATIVE CONCEPT PURPOSE: This concept would establish a Pilot Program to encourage up to five cities to provide "sites dedicated to affordable housing" within urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The concept would direct the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) - in coordination with the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services - to adopt rules for conducting the pilot project and selecting a limited number of local governments (up to five) to provide sites dedicated to affordable housing under some special provisions in the legislation and LCDC rules. The legislation would authorize pilot cities to designate sites dedicated to affordable housing through an expedited process for UGB expansion, or through other methods as may be specified in agency rules. LCDC and OHCS would evaluate the results of this pilot program and report to the 2011 legislature regar thelesults. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THIS CONCEPT: The concept is intended to test one of several ideas being by LCDC to investigate ways to lower housing costs, incl encourage the provision of more "affordable housing" sta strategies to reduce the cost of housing in Oregon. The cc legislation requiring LCDC to explore ways to encourage dedicated to affordable housing, including manufac Rather than statute, LCDC and OHCS would affordable housing - these definitions would over time. The legislation would authorize:" dedicated to affordable housing - but on dedicated to affordable housing will e However, sites designate nder this i h~a housing," and Cann r oth land owners works er to site as to support" ` 4 "pment of Under thi cQ-n'k pt, LCDC would be • AdoIllizusina establish and i the Orand Con • Define "af a housing" 1 work group appointed to a le h( using, and to is int i~a in nursuin11 new ,to 7) to plan zone "land nobile home parks." deW,, afford ing" an sites dedicated to" )ro'6U1y var.is " re d would need to be adjusted pedith U(amend s one method to provide sites up to fiv ' ilot cit' selected by LCDC. Sites develop co ion with "market rate housing." )n must b nd zoned primarily for "affordable The concepnticipates that local governments and d under the pilot program is sutuated and priced so Ito: it the Affordable Housing Pilot Program, working with Services Department and local governments. )ses of this program. • Establish a pr sele pilot projects from nominations made by local governments POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A supply of land dedicated to affordable housing is necessary for the economic prosperity of Oregon communities. This legislation is one of several ideas LCDC and OHCS are currently examining to encourage affordable housing and to increase the supply of land suitable for affordable housing and available at a cost that enables development of such housing. • Ensure that norm rojects include concept plans and any proposed amendments to comprehensive plan and use regulations needed to carry out the pilot project • Ensure pilot projects are likely to provide sites for affordable housing that would not or could not otherwise be provided, that would serve identified populations who require such housing, be near transportation and other public facilities and services, and avoid or minimize adverse effects on natural resources, farm land, or forest land uses. • Deliver a report to the Seventy-seventh Legislative Assembly evaluating the affordable housing pilot program, including recommendations for legislation based on the evaluation. 109 House Bill 2225 Directs Department of Land Conservation and Development to establish pilot program in which local governments may site and develop affordable housing. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Proposed Revisions for Workgroup Discussion Feb 23, 2009 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to pilot program to establish sites dedicated to affordable housing; and declaring 3 an emergency. 4 5 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 6 SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 4 of this 2009 Act are added to and made a part of ORS 7 1 197.295 to 197.314. 9 SECTION 2. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that a supply of land 10 I dedicated to affordable housing including manufacture dwelling parks or mobile 11 home parks, and planned and zoned to encourage development of affordable housing 12 and to protect the land's use for Ong-affordable housing over a long pet-iod is 13 I necessary for the economic prosperity of Oregon communities. 14 15 SECTION 3. As used in sections 2 to 4 of this 2009 Act: 16 (1) "Affordable housing" has the meaning given that term by the Land Conservation 17 and Development Commission by rule under section 4 of this 2009 Act. 18 (2) "Lot" has the meaning given that term in ORS 92.010. 19 (3) "Manufactured structure" has the meaning given that term in ORS 446.003. 20 (4) "Market-rate housing" means 21 "Parcel" has the meaning given that term in ORS 92.010. 22 23 SECTION 4. (1) The Department of Land Conservation and Development, working 24 with the Housing and Community Services Department, other state agencies and local 25 governments, shall establish and implement an affordable housing pilot program. 26 Notwithstanding the statewide land use planning goal provisions pr-ov4di*g 27 r nts for amendments to urban b" wth boundaries, the Land Conservation 28 I and Development Commission shall adopt rules to implement the pilot program by 29 January 31, 201.0. 30 (2) Under the rules, the commission shall establish a site seleetion process by which 31 the commission mus may select five pilot pr-ojeets in up to five jurisdietiens cities, 32 except for a city in the Metro urban growth boundary, to participate in the pilot 33 program, from among nominations made by loe-al amities. Under the site 34 selection process: 35 (a) A le nominated city: 36 (A) May nominate potential pilot projeets that provide s Must identify a site to be 37 dedicated to affordable housing as part of the pilot program; and I (B) Must submit a eonee-f t plan proposed measures to dedicate the site for affordable 2 housing-r^r eneh pFopos^ d pilot project, including any proposed amendments to 3 comprehensive plans and land use regulations required to implement the proposed 4 measures and 5 (C) Must submit an analysis demonstrating a need for affordable housing in the city 6 that is unlikelv to be met without the special provisions of the pilot program. 7 (D) Must demonstrate that the city's current plan and zoning encourages affordable 8 housing through a combinations of methods including but not limited to: 9 (i) Allowing attached single family housing in single family zones; 10 (ii) Allowing a density bonus for development that includes affordable housing; 11 (iii) Prohibiting single family homes in multifamily zones; 12 (iv) Allowing accessory units as an outright use on single family lots; 13 (v) Allowing mixed use developments that include housing in commercial zones; 14 (vi) Allowing duplexes or triplexes as outright uses in certain single family zones. 15 (b) The commission shall select pilot pFojeets proposals that meet the requirements of 16 paragraph (a) of this subsection and that will are: 17 (A) Reasonably Provide a site for affordable housing that would not 18 otherwise be provided without the special rule provisions of the pilot program 19 described in Subsection (3) of this Section; 20 (B) likely Reasonably Serve identified populations in the area that require 21 affordable housing; 22 (C) Are near public facilities and services, including transportation, or for which the 23 facilities and services are planned and reasonably likely to be provided in the near 24 future; and 25 (D) Reasonably likely to meet the requirements of Subsection (3) of this section, fif the 26 pilot pFojeet requires proposal requires bFinging ^ new site within an urban growth 27 boundary amendment in order to provide a site dedicated to affordable housing, 28 loented. planned and zoned to avoid or- minimize adveFSe effeets on natural rese 29 uses. . and near-by form and forest 30 I (3) The Land Conservation and Development Commission;-rules for the pilot 31 program: 32 (a) Shall define "affordable housing" that would be authorized on sites dedicated to 33 affordable housing., ineluding sites that are used as and other terms as necessary. 34 "Affordable housing" shall include manufactured dwelling parks or mobile home 35 parks, and may include other housing types as specified by the rules. In defining 36 "affordable housing," the commission shall take into consideration 37 (b) Shall speeify related Fequirements fOF affi r-dable housing that me), include 38 age,: 39 I (A) Housing prices within particular a regions compared to the income of residents of 40 that region; 41 (B) The availability of government-assisted housing in a region; 42 (C) The need for sites to accommodate manufactured structures due to the conversion 43 of manufactured dwelling parks or mobile home parks in a region to other uses; 44 (D) Definitions of "affordable housing," "workforce housing" or other similar terms 45 used by state and federal governments; 46 (E) Recommendations by the Department of Housing and Community Services, and I (1~ Other relevant factors.; 2 (e) Shall limit the of eaeh t 't t So f' pilot 1 J - d 3 (b) May authorize mixed housing developments that include affordable 4 housing in conjunction with market-rate housing on a pilot project sites, provided: 5 (A) The market-rate housing does not exceed a specified percentage (60%?`') of the 6 total housing units developed on the site and ; and 7 (B) A specified percentage of the affordable housing will be developed prior to or at 8 the same time as the market-rate housing is developed; 9 (c) May include special provisions for amendment of an urban growth boundary in 10 order to establish a site dedicated to affordable housing under this pilot program, 11 provided such rules without r-egaFd to whether an uFban growth boundary already 12 - 13 inclusion of land 4vyithin -;-he urban gFowth boundaFy in ORS 197.298, an expedited 14 pr-oeess for amending urban gFO%'th boundsFies to inelude up to two sites per- pile4 15 , pr-ojeet that are dediented to aMr-dable housing if the rules- 16 (A) Are consistent with statutes, goals and rules pertaining to amendment of urban 17 growth boundaries, except as specified in Section 5 of this 2009 act; 18 (B) Limit the amendment of an urban growth boundarv for purposes of designating a 19 site for affordable housing under the pilot program to less than 50 acres for any city 20 selected for the pilot program; 21 ldentiA, speeitle goal and rule r-equiFements Felated to urban growth boundaFies t 22 mfly be notwithstood for the purpose of implementing the pilot ; and 23 (B) Require that any pilot-1>r ec~sites dedicated to affordable housing that are added 24 to ineluded withnf an urban growth boundary under the pilot program: 25 (i) Are dedicated to affordable housing through amendments to comprehensive plans 26 and land use regulations; and 27 (ii) Must Rremain planned and zoned for affordable housing, except as provided 28 otherwise by rules authorized in paragraph (d) of this subsection. 29 (d) Mav select nominations for pilot projects that designate sites dedicated to 30 affordable housing by means other than amendment of an urban growth boundary. 31 (4) A local government that brings a pilot project site within its urban growth 32 boundary under this act: 33 (a) Shall protect sites dedicated to affordable housing from conversion to other uses 34 before, during and after the development of affordable housing, except as provided 35 otherwise by rules authorized in subsection (3)(d) of this section; 36 (b) Shall ensure that affordable housing developed on the site continues to be used to 37 provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years through measures 38 including, but not limited to: 39 (A) Zoning restrictions; 40 (B) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices; 41 (C) Regulations, provisions or conditions like those described in ORS 197.309 (2); 42 (D) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government 43 to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on land dedicated to that 44 purpose pursuant to sections 2 to 4 of this 2009 Act; or 45 (E) Restrictive agreements entered into with sources of affordable housing funding; 46 and I (c) May authorize a mix of affordable housing and other housing types on a site, 2 provided the percentage of affordable housing units developed on the site meets or 3 exceeds requirements specified by rules authorized in subsection (3)(c) of this section. 4 (5) A local government that its amends an urban 5 growth boundary in order to add a site dedicated to affordable housin under this 6 pilot program may not plan and zone the site to allow a use, or mix of uses, not 7 authorized under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act unless the local government first 8 withdraws the site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to 9 law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the 10 goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries. 11 (6) A loeal government may not use seetions 2 to. 4 of this 2009,4et to bring high Vahm 12 farmland, as deter-mined by the eommission, within its urban gr-om4h-bou*dar-y-. 13 (7) The inclusion of sites dedieated to affer-dable housing within an UF'-,--.-. 14 boundaFy pumunat to this seetion does not suthOFize a local government to eonveI4 15 buildable lands within the urban gFO'A'th boundary that are planned fbi, needed 16 housing, as defined in ORS 197.303, to other- uses. 17 I Notwithstanding the exception in ORS 197.309 (1), for pilot project sites or 18 affordable housing developed under this section, a local government may act under 19 ORS 197.309 (1) in a manner that has the effect of establishing the sales price for a 20 housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or that requires a housing unit or 21 residential building lot or parcel to be designated for sale to a particular class or 22 group of purchasers. 23 (2) This section does not constitute a statutory contract. Sites dedicated to affordable 24 housing that are established under this section and affordable housing developed 25 under this section remain subject to new or additional regulatory requirements 26 authorized by law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations 27 implementing the goals. 28 (8) Except as otherwise provided by Commission rule local governments shall 29 consider and act upon pilot site proposals in a one-step process ending with a single 30 final decision adopting the plan and zoning amendments described in section O of this 31 act, addressing applicable standards in sections 2 - 5 of this act and if applicable, 32 special rules for amending the urban growth boundary. 33 (9) A local government's final decision on a pilot site shall be reviewable only by the 34 Land Use Board of Appeals as a post-acknowledgment plan and land use amendment 35 under ORS 197.610 to 197.625. 36 (10) The Commission and Department shall have standing to appeal or participate as 37 an intervener in an appeal of any local government final decision incorporating a 38 pilot project site into an urban growth boundary. 39 40 SECTION 5. (1) All statutes, goals and rules apply to adoption or amendment of plan 41 and land use regulations in order to designate and protect a site for affordable 42 housing, except that the commission rules adopted under section 4 of this 2009 act 43 may authorize an expedited amendment of an urban growth boundary to include a 44 site dedicated to affordable housing under the pilot program, by waiving the only the 45 following requirements amending an urban growth boundary: 46 (a) Goal 1.4 and implementinn rules re aiding 47 (A) A demonstration of need for housing to accommodate long range urban 48 population, except as required under subsection (2)(a)(C) of section 4 of this 2009 act 49 and I (B) Location factors??? 2 (b) The priorities for inclusion of land within the urban growth boundary in ORS 3 197.298, except that a local government may not use provisions under this section to 4 bring high value farmland, as defined by the commission, within its urban growth 5 boundary. However, subsequent amendments of an urban growth boundary must 6 consider buildable land in a site dedicated to affordable housing. 7 (2) The inclusion of sites dedicated to affordable housing within an urban growth 8 boundary pursuant to this section does not authorize a local government to convert 9 buildable lands within the urban growth boundary that are planned for needed 10 housing, as defined in ORS 197.303, to other uses. 11 (3) Exchange ofsife added to UGB for a site already in the UGB that would be re zoned 12 so as to be dedicated to affordable housing M? 13 (4) The rules described under this section apply only to amendment of an urban 14 growth boundary to include a site less than 50 acres dedicated to affordable housing 15 under the pilot program. 16 17 SECTION 6. LCDC to revise rules to implement Goal 10 by December 1, 2010. 18 19 SECTION 7. Sunset clause for pilot program (sunsets rules under Section 6 and 20 others as necessary) 21 22 I SECTION 8. This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the 23 public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2009 Act 24 takes effect on its passage. U • 0 •o a • a all G~ ac Ml tea" ^ • ~ A W a Ip 9$ J v Q O aci ' 0 i s COZO u fA a 4 %d tA a ~I a .0 .r a 0 N cU C~ C7 O 1 P- 14T C) Gl) R i0 R •r- 117 U) w U Q U W o a 0 C\l C L `r W ❑ rCF) - co v- ) N C) N C N . CL O W L2' W L 0 CL a) F- ~~Ly V✓ ( U L -C t- 45 C:) cf) a ol r 0 e- 0 ccli co I co l l e~ L[7 U) w <t > 0 C (3) 0) © X 0 0) r- 0 0) T- ❑ -j w w a ' W! L ~ a a of w w L V O s` c 0 fl 1 4. R.. _ ~ l t~ r 1 l5 x (yt- i' 1 4 a~ ' ~ TS r r . ry V~ r are. . _ t.a ~ ~ N cs•a° 8 - L i, N G U ~ 4 M; y ry. A Z rt. r o_ 'lflr M ~ >I h ~ b 19 ~ gl i -J i I , k ~ s 3 \ _ r t r ~a I a .p ~ p{ 4.1. Cl) v 2 I ?a F N CL -a ® CJ / -~r-• n m a e ~ ~ r rr .r r CL w X41 r. o ~ N U x, . x E s - ..F ~t r- , ~ xfzx = N 17 ~ gS Q W Kb e a c: O O 0 'CD a J S.9 O 0 {a may, kt) w., s ~y sa f~ S: w~ 4~ @A ~...i•' ,p,, AI Lot ~l L a we N Cc cr 4) O W 'OP n W O C N C t V/ ~ N CZ, 9V 0 f g = 00 U V/ O -60 X ul -0 ~ > c Q W ~ c C n y N C CL X 10 C Q W J 0 J o I-# H I - i JAW i Aso « V i ~ F~ ~ r 4 74 9 ~I L Ln 74 O M I li / t 1 / T` O 'c .r O M N C w V = N O C ~ US C N m E C L m "0. IL IL m E 0) 0 v C ~ 'C { m D d a1 J i / r a t i L• N j~ C r- _ O N v co V N V) O N LL oif m Q c m ED c J C L m 40 J i H 46 1_f ~ i ~I -8 i! •f 7 f- - t ml L V m M ~o I\ I 0 N C O • i• N N y co N o C ~ C a •Q Q 4, CL N o m •p n aii Eo C D z C L , 0 . ' J ~s i ~l C f~ i e e O't •L O ~ N O C ~ r V+ O •Q 0 M N Ea C i.. m 40 .2 V L ~ J ~ M 1 a N N ~ O Q 7 f0 Qc r_ D U d J i i~ C. i ■O 0 1~ = r d!16 i 1 \ i p o If ~CL N CL N C m Q .a -2 C 3 C 0 Z r :y i- ! - _ a t~ I'. l lrl; _ r i- c ` \f~ I~ I I I Ii ' ; 10 0 LL C n'~ Oregon Watershed Enhancement Program Grant Opportunity Needed: Policy direction from the Board on whether to pursue a wetland grant that funds a Local Wetland Inventory for South County Key Points: • An OWEB Technical Assistance grant of approximately $30,000.00 will leverage the Deschutes River Mitigation & Enhancement Program's recent $80,000.00 contribution and the in-kind commitments of Deschutes County and Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) to establish a south county local wetland inventory (LWI). ' Once DSL approves the LWI, it would then be adopted into our comprehensive plan. ' The timeline for hiring a wetland consultant, conducting the inventory and vetting it with the public and DSL, pushes the program out to 2010, with the Comprehensive Plan (LWI) amendments occurring in 2011. • 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. • Deschutes County would likely initiate a personnel services contract with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. This agreement would enable them to be the fiscal agent, while the County would initiate and complete the work plan. • A preliminary application estimates a grant request of $30,000.00 with a $10,000.00 County match of in-kind services. February 18, 2009 lD a 90 N O O fD 0 ~ C D CD ^ ~ = o m ~ C o n N (D ~ S t0 C A- Q n ~ Q ~ ) T N CD 0 a) > ;u o ~ o < •m o o cD. 3 = 3 a r 1 - ° m ~ m 2. `C o z N v v o m v n =3 s M - , -0 Q = o n o . o ~ Q :3 ~ ~ 0 cn a cD v v Q cn ~ E rnm ~ v = (n, v 0 CL CL ~ Q° :3 o 5 . < Q c~ CD cn o m C) W 0 O O 0 0 Cl) r Q 3 0 6. U) ic 90 m CL Y rh W 40 C) 0 0 0 CL 0 00 0 0 0 2) #MIL m CD CWL m n cD 3 CD rMIL O (Ma OregDn Akiao TedKubngoalfl.,Goy January 21, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes County Staff 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Commissioners and Staff, Department of Fish and Wildlife High Desert Region 61374 Parrell Road Bend, OR 97702 (541) 388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 Deschutes County staff submitted a grant request to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program (M&E) on January 13, 2009 for a project titled: "Wetland Protection in the Upper Deschutes Basin" (Project). The M&E Committee voted to approve the grant request for $80,000 on January 20, 2009 at their meeting in Bend. The Committee feels the Project is an important first step towards long term wetland, groundwater, and water quality protection. The Project will ultimately benefit the County's fish and wildlife habitat, as well. The Project helps to meet one of the highest Upper Deschutes Restoration Strategy' priorities, which is: "Identify at-risk, high value riparian areas". The M&E funds to Deschutes County are intended to help leverage matching funds. For background, a lay citizen board makes up the M&E Committee that serves the M&E Program. The Program is a partnership between Deschutes County, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Central Oregon Irrigation District aimed at mitigating for the impacts of the COID Siphon Hydropower Project in Bend. The M&E Program is guided by priorities found in the Upper Deschutes Restoration Strategy. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John D. Williamson Mitigation and Enhancement Program Habitat Biologist jack.d.williamson@state. or. us 'Deschutes River Conservancy, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Upper Deschutes River Restoration Strategy. http://www.restorethedeschutes.org/ 0 N' Oregon Theodore R Kulongoski, Govemor January 30, 2009 Peter Gutowsky, AICP Principal Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 Kate Brown Secretary of State Ben Westlund State Treasurer Re: Department of State. Lands Support for Conducting an LWI Dear Mr. Gutowsky: Thank you for providing the wetland protection project information and discussing the project and grant opportunity with me. An LWI will provide a much-needed wetlands inventory for this area and we are looking forward to working with the county on the development and approval of the LWI. Your description in the grant proposal (Section 10) accurately identifies the tasks that DSL wetlands staff will typically take on during LWI development. Because we provide technical input in addition to our obligation to review and approve the LWI, we find it helpful to all for us to be involved from the get-go. We cannot predict with any certainty how many hours we may spend on the LWI, but a safe estimate would be 10 days, and we would be happy to provide an in-kind match form with the total hours at the end of the project. We often ask this of others, and understand the importance. The work that has already been completed for the Upper Deschutes Basin area in support of the effort is impressive and will provide very helpful information for compiling the LWI. As mentioned during our phone conversation, the LWI study area will need to include entire parcels in a contiguous pattern, excepting federal land. We discussed a bit the difficulty of.gaining property access permission for the LWI. This is something we deal with for every LWI and the inventory methods account for that. Much can be done very accurately by an experienced firm using aerial photos, topography and landscape position, the information you have already compiled, and observations from public roads or in some cases from boats. All LWI maps are primarily for planning purposes and even if property access was granted, a wetland delineation report is generally needed prior to site development if a proposed project is anywhere near a mapped wetland. Please let us know if there is any other support we can provide at this time. Sincerely, At ►n.~ C - ~4 ~ 1ECFWED C. Morlan, PWS nds Program Manager FEB ®4 2NA G:1WWC\Wetlands Program1LMLWl Reviews0eschutes CountylLetter of support.doc Department of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 FAX (503) 378-4844 www.oregonstatelands.us. State Land Board Theodore R. Kulongoski Governor Deschutes County CDD 0 P? -~IIUM 00 cotn+~ February 20, 2009 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701-1925 Re: Watershed Council assistance in pursuing Local Wetland Inventory funding Dear Peter: I am pleased to be able to offer the assistance of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council in securing grant funding to complete a Local Wetland Inventory in south Deschutes County. As we have discussed in the past, the Watershed Council is interested in supporting the County's efforts to gather good information about the distribution and extent of wetlands. We believe that accurate mapping of wetlands will ultimately support good decision-making and policy development because it will provide rigorous data to help evaluate various wetland management, protection and restoration opportunities. In the past several weeks we have discussed the potential to apply for a variety grants from private, state and federal sources. Some of these funding sources prefer that the grant application be submitted by a 501(c)3 non- profit organization working in partnership with governmental entities such as the County. In these cases, the Watershed Council would be willing to serve at the grant applicant and/or fiscal agent when this would increase the probability of securing the grant funding. When grant funding is secured under this arrangement, the Watershed Council would establish an agreement with the County to outline how the funding would be used, the responsibilities of each party and other details. Although we will need to discuss specific grant details on a case-by-case basis, this general approach has worked well with many other partners in the past and has helped secure funding that would otherwise be unavailable. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional infonnation. Sincerely, Ryan Houston Executive Director Upper Deschutes Watershed Council P.O. Box 1812 Bend, OR 97709 . 700 NW Hill St. Bend, OR 97701 (541) 382-6103 Phone . (541) 382-4078 Fax Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) EPA Grant Opportunity Needed: Policy direction from the Board on whether to pursue an EPA grant to incorporate source water protection actions for public drinking water systems into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Deadline: March 16, 2009 Key Points: • Because the Local Wetland Inventory work program has been delayed for up to a year, staff time can be redirected towards this work program ' There are 173 different public water systems in Deschutes County with at least 188 sources (wells and surface water supplies) that have an associated 167,539 acres of source water protection area. Almost all of the source water protection areas are under different ownership from the water system. • Almost all the water systems have completed source water assessment reports • There is no existing coordination between the source water protection goals of public drinking water systems and development actions permitted by the County • As a result, land uses have been approved that directly conflict with goals to protect drinking water supplies (example: a surface mine approved in a source water protection area) ' Coordination of drinking water source area protection is commonly achieved through land use actions because conflicting uses can be identified and mitigated before land development permits (including land use, onsite and building) are issued ' No match is required for this grant, however, staff expects significant in-kind contributions from public water system operators and other stakeholders Outcome: Coordinated land development actions between the land use planning, drinking water and onsite wastewater programs within the Deschutes County Community Development Department. February 19, 2009