2009-1282-Minutes for Meeting June 01,2009 Recorded 6/15/2009rf
NANCY UBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKOS VV 2009-1282
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
II 06/1512009 08:53:01 AM
ill! IIII
2 3202
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., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
OF BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JUNE 19 2009
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal
Counsel; Tom Blust and Dan Sherwin, Road Department; Nick Lelack, George
Read, Tom Anderson and Will Groves, Community Development; and three other
citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10: 03 a. m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, Discussion and
Consideration of Approval of the Community Development Department
2009-2010 Work Plan and Discussion of the Community Development
Department 2008 Accomplishments.
Tom Anderson gave an overview of the accomplishments of Community
Development Department during the past fiscal year.
Customer service surveys still came back very positive, even with staffing
cutbacks. They did more with on-line building and septic repair permitting and
restaurant relicensing.
There is a lot of effort behind the scenes for this to work, as well as mapping
projects. The rapid decline in requests for permits and reviews did result in
being able to respond to requests more quickly.
iviinMes of rsoara or Lommissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 1 of 9 Pages
(A copy of the accomplishments document is attached for reference)
In regard to the work plan for the next fiscal year, items have been prioritized
but sometimes a new issue will arise that requires changes. Two of the major
goals are positive customer service, which remains the # 1 goal; and offering full
structural permits on line, including electronic plan review. The hope is to be
as paperless as possible and work from electronic information.
Regarding Code enforcement complaints, it has been suggested that anonymous
complaints be accepted. This was already to be discussed as part of the work
plan.
The GIS group is to support the long-range plan and the comprehensive plan, as
well as the transportation plan update.
In the Building Division, the biggest expectation is to be able to turn around
plans and requests quickly. Staff hopes to work towards whatever solution
comes about regarding the south County groundwater protection issue, in
conjunction with the Department of Environmental Quality.
Community Development will be required to do additional restaurant
inspections this year, per the State, including temporary restaurants and events.
In terms of land use planning, the department will be as efficient and quick as
possible. There are many potentially controversial issues that can take a lot of
staff time, and this is hard to predict. Long-range planning, including the
comprehensive plan, is an important project for the year.
The department is ready to work with the City of Bend on its urban growth
boundary expansion.
Commissioner Luke said that in regard to anonymous Code complaints and
confidentiality, when the case is resolved it becomes a public document.
However, if there is a health and safety element involved, the department will
respond even if the complaint is anonymous.
Nick Lelack stated that the Planning Commission has recommended some Code
amendments. Some of these were addressed at a meeting in May but no
decisions were made. The planner who would handle these will be busy with
the community plans, so he suggested that the Board discuss this with the
Planning Commission at a future date when some of the comprehensive plan
work has been done. There will be some changes required due to the adoption
of statutes at the State level.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 2 of 9 Pages
Commissioner Baney agreed, as did Commissioner Unger. Commissioner
Baney asked if changing the structure of the Planning Commission has been
suggested. She was advised that it was felt that there is too much being
addressed now. Commissioner Luke stated that the current Planning
Commission may be interested in making quasi-judicial decisions, but this
should not be considered until the comprehensive plan update is done.
Mr. Lelack stated that one question is whether to allow additional commercial
uses through a rezoning process, not the comprehensive plan update.
Commissioner Unger said that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances
that involve notice or special situations. At times it just makes sense to come to
a solution on some of these instances. Commissioner Baney stated that this is a
beginning point and perhaps does not involve a particular property owner, but
the overall needs of the community. The Transportation Planning Rule also
comes into play.
Mr. Lelack stated that former Planning Commissioner Pace had asked about site
rating requirement changes in regard to weed abatement. Dan Sherwin said that
some other cities and counties utilize this process. Weeds become a problem
when the ground is disturbed by construction. Commissioner Luke stated that
there is a big difference between requirements and education. Mr. Sherwin said
that he tries to educate primarily. Mr. Anderson said that a lot depends on the
extent of the permits needed; it may be too early to put this as a stated objective.
In regard to TDC lots or those that have a non-development covenant on them,
this work could be included in the proactive Code enforcement program. This
would cover replacement buildings and agricultural structures that are
improperly being used as residences. All proactive Code enforcement is
administered as time allows.
Mr. Anderson stated that the suggestion was that the County purchase wetlands
ground to protect it. If a grant is received to be able to identify where these
properties are, this is an option but it is too soon for a decision.
Commissioner Luke said that the property needs to be properly maintained in
regard to vegetation and oversight given on how it is being used.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 3 of 9 Pages
Commissioner Baney asked about the requirements for restaurant licensing for
temporary events, such at the Saturday Market. Mr. Anderson stated that he is
already drafting something in this regard that takes into account input from the
State. It is related to the Department of Human Services' rule. From a practical
standpoint, it is agreeable but there should not be a decrease in the level of
safety inspections done.
Commissioner Luke stated that he is not convinced there should be fewer
inspections. He is concerned about the possibility of a group of people getting
sick. He would like to see further discussions on this topic.
Commissioner Unger said he feels the work plan is a good one. He asked about
the funding stream for some of the projects. Nr, Anderson said some are
granted funds for administrative purposes, but not all. Some items are required
by the State and have to be addressed anyway.
Chair Baney opened the hearing for other comments.
William Kuhn of Sizemore Road had a number of questions and comments. In
the discussion regarding parcels that are auctioned off with high ground water,
he asked if it is possible when these are auctioned of that it be stipulated that
property be combined with another if a neighboring owner purchases it.
Commissioner Baney said that the County is not auctioning off high
groundwater lots at this time, and is not requiring consolidation. Laurie
Craghead stated that the "red" lots are not being auctioned off, but others have a
restrictive covenant that does not allow a septic system. However, if it is
combined with another lot, the septic system may be allowed.
Mr. Kuhn asked about posting Code enforcement information on the website.
Commissioner Luke stated that if the whole process is complete, this could be
picked up by a title search. Mr. Anderson said that once a Code enforcement
complaint is addressed and corrected, it is removed.
Mr. Kuhn asked about a new ordinance requiring Code compliance on any past
violation that might have fallen through the cracks at that time. For instance, if
CCR's required something but it was not done. In his case, he has spent a lot of
time and money trying to get a cluster development situation addressed. The
County does not have a system to deal with this kind of issue, and he feels that
a simple solution makes sense. This should be included in the permit process.
(He then began to go into the history of his situation.)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Ms. Craghead stated that the County has no authority over subdivision CCR's.
She also advised that this is a case that has been heard by LUBA and could end
up coming before the Board, so discussion must be limited.
Mr. Kuhn wants there to be a way to correct this type of situation. He
emphasized that he understands how difficult it is for the Commissioners and
others to listen to his complaints, but he has tried every way possible to address
his problem.
He asked if an appeal is made for a building or safety issue, why the person
who handles the appeal is also the one who makes the decision. Ms. Craghead
said this is per State law. Mr. Kuhn stated that he has never seen the decision
made in the past by the State. Ms. Craghead advised that since there is the
possibility of an appeal, she recommends against the Board discussing this issue
further.
Mr. Kuhn said that requirements should be retroactive and asked whether there
is a way to appeal a suppositional statement made by a County employee. Ms.
Craghead stated that it might be appealed if it is part of a formal decision, not a
comment made over the counter.
Being no further input, the hearing was closed. Mr. Anderson said he would
incorporate the changes as discussed by the Board. There is no further formal
action required.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009-036,
Authorizing County Administrator Signature of Document No. 2009-290, a
Loan Agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality regarding
a Study of Feasibility of Expanding the Sunriver Sewer System.
Ms. Craghead gave a brief overview of the item. She said that the County is
authorizing a lien on Fund 297 in favor of the Department of Environmental
Quality, and a reserve account will also be necessary. Mr. Kanner stated that he
is not aware of any changes to the Order from what has been discussed in work
sessions.
LUKE: Move approval of the Order.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 5 of 9 Pages
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009-
212, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Sisters regarding
the Use of Property for a Fire Training Facility.
Laurie Craghead said that the City of Sisters has already approved this
document.
LUKE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings, and
Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinances No. 2009-015 and 2009-016,
Amending Code to Change the Designation of Certain Property from
Forest Use to Urban Reserve (City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary).
LUKE: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2009-015.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2009-
015, by title only.
LUKE: Move adoption.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2009-016.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 6 of 9 Pages
Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2009-
016, by title only.
LUKE: Move adoption.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2009-
265, Approving a Lot of Record Verification (Applicant: Central Oregon
Irrigation District).
Laurie Craghead said this is the final decision per the direction of the Board. It
has been reviewed and minor typographical errors were corrected.
Commissioner Luke confirmed that the decision only affects this parcel.
LUKE: Move approval, including minor changes as discussed.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda with the exception of the
minutes of the hearing held on December 17, 2008.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
7. Signature of Order 2009-030, Assigning the Name of Meadow House Loop to
an Unnamed Access Road
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 7 of 9 Pages
8. Signature of Order No. 2009-031, Assigning the Name of Meadow House Court
to an Unnamed Access Road
9. Signature of Order No. 2009-034, Assigning the Name of Mashie Lane to an
Unnamed Access Road
10. Signature of Order No. 2009-035, Assigning the Name of Brassie Lane to an
Unnamed Access Road
11. Approval of Minutes:
. Work Session of May 27
. Public Hearing of December 17, 2008 (Lower Bridge Mine)
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
12. Before the Board is Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $82,847.86
for Two Weeks.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of
$1,257.95 for Two Weeks.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 8 of 9 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,530,689.71 for Two
Weeks.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None were offered.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
DATED this 1St Day of June 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Tammy Baney, air
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
ez&', a,4~ -
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 9 of 9 Pages
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REOUEST TO SPEAK
Agenda Item of Interest Date
'~`'~o
Name W)14 ~U
Address J~o S 4V G q 77o&
Phone #s
E-mail address
F] In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1-1 Yes F]No
Page 1 of 2
William John Kuhn
From: "Kevin Harrison" <Kevin-Harrison @co.deschutes.or.us>
To: "William John Kuhn" <william@riskfactor.com>
Cc: "Laurie Craghead" <Laurie_Crag head@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Nick Lelack"
<Nick_Lelack@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Tom Anderson" <Tom-Anderson@co.deschutes.or.us>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: one quick question
Bill: You will see that the code requires certain things to be recorded with the plat. We have the ability to
manage that sequence of events. You are referring to something that exists outside of the code and I am
not aware of any ability to enforce such a requirement since property sales are not subject to CDD
oversight.
From: William John Kuhn [mailto:william@riskfactor.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:52 AM
To: Kevin Harrison
Subject: Re: one quick question
Thank you Kevin.
appreciate the section of the code that describes the requirements, but what I'm wondering is how does
the County ensure that the requirements are enacted prior to sale?
When I have talked to the clerk's office they say they don't check. When I talk to the assessor's & the
cartographer's office they say they don't check those kinds of requirements, they only check the legal
description to verify the tax.
have asked around and code does not require anyone and any level to do any thing to prevent the sale.
When I ask title companies they say that County does that when the purchaser of property asks for a
permit.
Is that true?
Bill
Original Message
From: Kevin Harrison
To: William John Kuhn
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: one quick question
Bill: Attached is a current copy of Chapter 18.128 of the County Code. Cluster developments are
described in section 18.128.200. Your question is addressed in 18.128.200(7). Hope this helps.
Kevin
From: William John Kuhn [mailto:william@riskfactor.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Kevin Harrison
Subject: one quick question
Hi Kevin,
Please forgive my interruption.
(~v i (t 0)
05/31/2009
Page 2 of 2
In the case of a cluster development - How does the County enforce the terms of condition that a homeowners'
association and agreement is/are established prior to the sale of any parcels?
trust this is a non-legal question because it deals with process and procedure at CDD.
Assuming you have time, thank you for answering,
Bill
William Kuhn
INVEST/O - Registered Investment Advisors
PO Box 5996
Bend, OR 97708-5996
541 389 3676
William(cDRiskFactor.com
"First, they ignore you, Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE- The information contained in this electronic mail transmission, including all
attachments, is confidential and may not be shared or forwarded without authorization of the sender and, if so
authorized, may not be shared or forwarded without this Notice. This transmission is intended solely for the
individual named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination or
unauthorized use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender by replying to this transmission, and then delete it from your computer and network.
05/31/2009
Page 1 of 1
William John Kuhn
From: "Anthony Raguine" <Anthony_Raguine@co.deschutes.or.us>
To: "William John Kuhn" <william@riskfactor.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: do you have time for a quick question?
Hi Bill. I haven't worked on a cluster development so I'm not sure how this is done. For the type of
condition you've described, I would require the applicant to submit documentation proving the creation of
the HOA prior to final plat approval. Since you can't sell lot that aren't platted, this would be one way to
ensure the HOA is created prior to sale of lots. There may be other ways to ensure compliance.
Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
Deschutes County Planning Division
Phone: (541) 617-4739
Fax: (541) 385-1764
From: William John Kuhn [mailto:william@riskfactor.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Anthony Raguine
Subject: do you have time for a quick question?
Hi Anthony,
In the case of a cluster development - How does the County enforce the terms of condition that a
homeowners' association and agreement is/are established prior to the sale of any parcels?
I trust this is a non-legal question because it deals with process and procedure at CDD.
Assuming you have time, thank you for answering,
Bill
William Kuhn
INVEST/O - Registered Investment Advisors
PO Box 5996
Bend, OR 97708-5996
541 389 3676
William RiskFactor.com
"First, they ignore you, Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE- The information contained in this electronic mail transmission, including all
attachments, is confidential and may not be shared or forwarded without authorization of the sender and,
if so authorized, may not be shared or forwarded without this Notice. This transmission is intended solely
for the individual named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any
dissemination or unauthorized use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission, and then delete it from
your computer and network.
p(u Kf,) o 2-
05/31/2009
Page 1 of 2
William John Kuhn
From: "William John Kuhn" <william@riskfactor.com>
To: "Tom Anderson" <Tom Anderson@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Dennis Perkins"
<Dennis_Perkins@co.deschutes.or. us>
Cc: "DLCD Jinings Jon" <Jon.Jinings@state.or.us>; "DCBS Knowles Twyla X
<Twyla.J.Knowles@state.or.us>; "DCBS Ewert Mike D" <Mike. D. Ewert@state.or.us>; "DCBS
Broadfoot Jerod.X <Jerod.A.Broadfoot@state.or.us>; "DCBS Blackwell Richard Y"
<Richard. Y. Blackwell@state.or.us>; "Mark Pilliod" <Mark_Pilliod@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Laurie
Craghead" <Laurie_Crag head@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Kevin Harrison"
<Kevin-Harrison@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Catherine Morrow"
<Catherine-Morrow@co.deschutes.or. us>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 9:11 PM
Attach: 070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B65731.pdf
Subject: arguments in favor of reversing the Perkins approval of B65731
To Dennis Perkins,
Please find our attached arguments in favor of reversing the Perkins approval of B65731.
Thank you for your consideration of our appeal,
William Kuhn
INVEST/O - Registered Investment Advisors
PO Box 5996
Bend, OR 97708-5996
541 389 3676
William(a)RiskFactor.com
"First, they ignore you, Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi
Original Message
From: Tom Anderson
To: William John Kuhn ; Dennis Perkins
Cc: DLCD Jinings Jon ; DCBS Knowles Twyla J ; DCBS Ewert Mike D ; DCBS Broadfoot Jerod.A ; DCBS
Blackwell Richard Y ; Mark Pilliod ; Laurie Craghead ; Kevin Harrison ; Catherine Morrow
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: RE: appeal Perkins approval
Bill, the issuance of this permit required land use sign off. You can appeal that sign-off (which is a land use
decision), under an administrative appeal. That will bring the matter before a Hearings Officer and you will have
your opportunity to present your perspective on the greater land use issues. My understanding is that really is
where your concern lies. There is a $250 fee to bring this appeal, which you can apply for in our Bend office. I
believe your e-mail below will satisfy any time limit on bringing the appeal that may exist.
I will be out of the office until next Wednesday, but would be happy to discuss this with you further when I return
if you wish.
Tom
Tom Anderson
f~v ~_(4 n (.0
08/20/2007
To Dennis Perkins - Deschutes County Building Director
Re: our appeal of B65731 for a room being allowed in a garage at 65595 Sisemore Road.
This is to further clarify our position and reason for filing our appeal of a building permit issued
to Jeff and Pat Dowell sometime during the past few weeks (very late July or early August
2007). We still do not know when the permit was issued because even though we have asked to
be kept informed by the County, even though we have searched the County website, even though
we wrote an email to the Building director directly requesting to see all the building permits for
this parcel - no information is available for individual building permits, and no response was
received from our written communications.
In our discussion on Thursday 9 August 2007 I brought up the code violation complaints we
submitted to the County on 4 May 2007. We communicated that the garage floor did not meet
safety and health issues specifically mentioning R 309.3. "Garage Floor Surface. The area of
floor used for parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement
of liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway." Your initial response was to say
that in a detached garage the floor of a garage does not have to be sloped. Although I have not
seen that exemption specifically mentioned anywhere in the safety and health building codes,
when a "Living Space" is being built or constructed inside the garage it certainly does add a
dangerous issue to be considered. You did of course then recognize that the issue of a detached
garage actually was moot because the entire structure has been used as a "Living Space" and the
Dowells have submitted documents to Civil Court claiming that the room that was constructed in
the garage without permit in 1997 was being used as a BEDROOM.
The concept of anyone arguing the issue of a sloped floor is not an important safety and health
issue concerns us. This is especially true since the room that is already there has been illegally
used as a bedroom for the past ten years. Each and every one of the ten or eleven renters has
been in danger, and it appears that the County does not care.
During our discussion you commented that you didn't know if you had the power to `not issue' a
building permit, or to deal with the non-sloping garage floor. If you don't have the power as
Director of Building for Deschutes County, then who does? I have had numerous
communications with Oregon State officials, and each and every one of them has looked at their
computer records for Deschutes County and Dennis Perkins is listed as the person in the County
who has the power, authority, and obligation to enforce State building, safety, and health codes.
Also during our discussion when I suggested that maybe you ought to speak with Mr. Pilliod, the
County Legal Counsel you commented that you couldn't remember more than one time having
talked to Mark Pilliod. You said that you had on numerous occasions dropped in on and talked to
Rick Isham, former County Legal Counsel. You then also said that you didn't want to go around
your boss. I assumed correctly that you were talking about Tom Anderson Community
Development Director. If you have not talked to either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Pilliod about the
issues I have raised in our appeal and the original code violation complaints, we ask that you do
before you make your decision regarding this appeal. I am sure that they will concur with the
state, that you have the power, authority, and obligation to enforce the simple building, safety,
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B65731.doc page 1 0&1 bNp 6:55:58-
S~l
and health issues regarding the NON-SLOPING FLOOR in an attached garage, where the
owners of the structure want a permit to legalize the illegally built bedroom in the garage, and
that you must deal with that issue as Director of Building for Deschutes County.
If someone dies because the Building Director for Deschutes County did not deal with the code
violation complaint, and this appeal of an issued building permit legalizing a room already
installed in a garage that did not have a sloped floor because gasoline pooled on the floor and a
spark from the dryer a few feet away caused an explosion - who would be responsible? Who
would be liable?
THEN THERE IS THE CONCEPT OF SELF-REGULATION - how does the County deal with the issue
that it relies on the honesty and integrity of the owner, developer, builder to work within the law,
ordinance, and general knowledge of safety and health regulations if there is no penalty when
they don't? The County Code Violation Complaint process is useless and meaningless unless
there is enforcement when valid complaints are made.
We are asking you in this appeal to withdraw the permit for the following specific reasons:
a) The original building permit should have been terminated when the County realized
the Dowells had built beyond the maximum building line on a final plat map.
b) The Dowells built a bedroom in their garage that had a doorway directly between the
garage and the bedroom.
c) There was no building permit applied for, or issued, nor was there an inspection of
the original room built in the garage.
d) There was no electrical permit applied for, or issued, nor was there an inspection of
the wall of the room built in the garage.
e) We had submitted a letter to the County in January 1997 calling attention to the fact
that there was NO joint owners' agreement for this cluster development even though
it was required. The County could have done what it did to us in 1987 when Mark
Shipman, Assistant Planner wrote us a letter saying that our lot line adjustment
application was subject to the condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the deed restrictions to the Cluster Development on CU-80-22 shall be recorded with
the Deschutes County Clerk to run with parcels 1, 2, & 3 of that land use application.
After all, a civil court judge has ruled that the Dowells must enter into such an
agreement with the Kuhns. It can be further mentioned that there was NO
requirement, condition, or stipulation in the Findings and Decision of CU-80-22 and
MP-79-232 that the proposed deed restrictions had to be recorded. Again the joint
owners' agreement was required.
f) Section R309 of the International Residential Building Codes which discusses both
Garages and Carports - item "R309.3 Floor surface - The area of floor used for
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B6573 Ldoc page 2 OW1 T q b:55:58PM
parking of automobiles or other vehicles shall be sloped to facilitate the movement of
liquids to a drain or toward the main vehicle entry doorway."
Regarding Deschutes County File ID 1611190000100BU20070727090314 (please see attached
two pages) Record ID B65731:
There are several hand written notes on the diagram page. The existing bedroom constructed
without permits in 1997 inside the garage shows an asterisk in the diagramed 10' by 12'
bedroom relabeled "TV Room" written in for the allowed building permit per DAP (Dennis A
Perkins). As noted in our complaint and appeal, it has been used as a bedroom since it was built.
How can the use of a room in a structure as per the statement, "No Bedroom Allowed Per DAP"
be enforced? Since it isn't enforceable, how can it be part of an allowed building permit? Given
the Dowells' history with ignoring and circumventing the established building, safety, and health
codes, and their history of violating other County codes such as attaching a fifth-wheeler to the
house septic system in 1997, or putting a deck on the roof without a railing, we would like to
know what if they or their renters are "caught" using the new TV Room as a bedroom as they
have done for the past 10 years? What are the consequences?
Another more recent example of the Dowells and their renter slipping one by the County is when
either the renter or the Dowells removed the illegally burned mattresses and moved the springs
that had been on the burn piles and then dumped them on BLM Property where they thought no
one would find them. This kind of stuff needs to stop, and the only way to stop it is for the
County to ENFORCE its codes when and where it can.
Thank you for your consideration of our appeal and concerns that the County enforce building,
safety, and health codes at 65595 Sisemore Road. If your interpretation or memory of our
communication was at all different from what I have presented, please be sure to give your
version so that we can quickly come to an agreement.
William Kuhn & M Leigh Kuhn, Appellants
With Copies to:
Tom Anderson
Mark Pilliod
Laurie Craghead
Kevin Harrison
Catherine Morrow
DLCD Jinings Jon
DCBS Knowles Twyla J
DCBS Ewert Mike D
DCBS Broadfoot Jerod.A
DCBS Blackwell Richard Y
DEQ Harris-Dunning Shari
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B65731.doc page 3 08/Ib20016:11 :S.-
i
Thursday 9 August 2007
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Not all Building Code provisions are clear. When there are practical
difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the Code, modifications
for individual cases may be granted. For customers who are dissatisfied with
a staff member's decision, an appeal may be made to the Building Official.
Date:
Permit Number: B 65731
Property Owner(s) Name: Jeff & Pat Dowell William Kuhn & M Leigh Kuhn, Appellants
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone. Kuhn phone 541 389 3676 FAX:
Job address/location:
Please note the nature of your request and Identify the specific Code Section that you
would like reviewed. Why do you feel that this appeal is necessary? (41se additional pages as
necessary.)
a room being allowed in a garage at 65595 Sisemore Road
in violation of R309.3, Please see Code Violations files on 4 May 2007
See also attached discussion.
Initial Appeal Findings: Date
Building Official:
b1dg\forms\12/22/2906 DAP:bgd
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave, Bend OR 97701
(541) 3M6575 FAX 385-1764
65595 Sisemore Road PO Box 5996 (65575 Sisemore Rd.)
Bend Oregon 97701 Bend Oregon 97708-5996
65595 Sisemore Road
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B6573 Ldoc page 4 0&1-1 6:51:1.-
CLAD COVER SHEET FaR C MA
07/2-7/2007 09:03:1.4
BU
1 PAGES
FILE ID
1611190000100BU2Q0la727'090314
TAXMAP
1611190000100
SERIAL.
163466
DIVISION
BU
SITUS
65595 S ISEMORE RD
HOUSE#
65595
STREET
SISEMORE
CONTENT
PP/ B65731
RECORD ID
B6573I
Caner Sheet Identifier
AHJKMT X
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B6573 Ldoc page 5 aoo, -15. 1.
WdB :WA 600-1- 9 o2rd
01
rY
aoP' [ £L999 JO lu,addyag suppod s!uuaa 0, CZ [ 80L0\OuiPlingsuolaelap3poD\llamOCI\SLSS9dold\saod\:D
i IN
Towy u01suvika
a ~n~n
:Jra~{i +4i 70 6u.s1'fav~ lfxarv*to:n
aenoaddr ac ApeaaTR rF o7,Im2 a77
0V1. 16 t3a.1 ea4V1 'naa „ror
y]iv~dc., SviAq 01 IML 6itN:7P
afV1 " 5aW!4i• AvA* wo u1
"I fit 11r." t teR,23) cesc GML
Tian=9 zed. in= 2;er :e.oura
Pff aicunsis 36riss ;-S-vi
C
(let
p
I
3
0
These photos were taken by DEQ Natural Resource Specialist - Solid Waste Program,
Shari Harris-Dunning on Friday 3 August 2007
not more than 100 feet from the Dowell property on BLM land.
"0
. ~ < 'Ac
X
r
r i 6n(rt
x a
C~
~ M
V
$ f ~
t + _
~ ~h ~•rt~ yr
.r C yf
M Wr
r_
f
,I t
Ilk ,
sir
i - ~ ~ f• Syr ~ ,
WA,
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B6573I.doc page 7 -n.o> 6: 16 P.
gon
4 re
f• 7't~?+tr.CiK.~abn~i,Go.anmr
.F"
Jolt & Put r)owcll
10705 ATE 3r Ave
Vancouver, WA 98686
Dear W. & Mrs, Dowell.,
tae-partrnent of EnvironrnenUl Quality
ChRierh R$sia a (tend 01 ic6
AkI U Kona MiAct Baud
Smd, OR 97702
(541) 388-6146
FAX {541) igR428)
Augtmst 8, 207
14, upper? 3utniirtg Complaint Solid Wmic Complaint
65595 Sisemre Road (near Bend)
Deschutes County
W April 2A, 2007, praatik Messinti, Environmental Socialist with the Oregon DepuI of 1irritmmt antal
Quality (Deport t~ acnt you a letter. The letter was is reference to s, caa taint or dense smoke and noxious.
odors from open burning lmtctive,, at 65595 Sir rwv Road. Dmchutcss County mcords show that you mt tha
property ownem, It is our untlrratanding that this prop" is rented out, nod slam ow"nt xa1t have hmmn
conducting open burning. A*c*rding to Frank Messina, he has communicated with you omm this matter and no
additional burning of prohibited materials has ocowyed sioce olio April letter.
A11I Widl 1110 11 bUMing Taint ,at tht. property listed above, the DeparItttertt has also mceived solid
ivwte complaints. I wo* for tk Department's Solid Waste Frr gmtn and bIave been wo rims jointtly with'Fronlc
Messittaa an this issue.
On August 3, 207, Y went out to the ncigbboring prop=. Iy acid conducted an investigation. I observed the
following;
New the driveway of 65595 .gisanwre Road was evidence of an old lxaa:lm. The busWuniper° trees
sonic durance from the old bursa .arch were bmwo and charred.. While this its trot a Solid WItisto platter, it
did vunurm aje front the pim?wtive of safe fire pJ1 how and the poti'entiol for tomt fires. I 11M
enclosed a couple of picture* for your Tcferc icc.
J tindoram d that allegedly m attnesws were included [tithe jxvvious open b= l do bout umne
photograph ahowing cha=d mattress springs in the previous open bum anew. l am sure that you am
aware that the Department prohibits the hurning of these "s o maicriAl, if you or'yc4irwntcr Tmc&
infomation on the proper dispu ul ofmitu esscs or oftt hoitschold items, 7 +wuuld be happy to poxor~ide
you with technical amistanoe on throe matters,
Whion I walked along the OLM progeny adjacent to your property, mugbly due north and appmxirnatoly
200 feet from the bw m pile, I observed partially c harred aastt s Wrings littered on federal property..
While the Dapartwnt cola not absolutely prove dw-%c mattress springs were the ones from the tenant's
burn pile, it certainly is ooinuldcniwl that similar bimied wastes ore locatud both and a0ioceni to your
property. Next to the burned mattress springs was an area of heavy oil/diesel stained soil, Again, the
Departwxnt cannot provide any substantive docuinentalon about aK aircurnsternac9 of the heavy
oilldiescl corntaininetw soil,, but its proximity to the'turned matt mes mid proximity to your property
soncsrne the Depa ttmetiit a$- it is p053iblc that the BLU property is being used to illegally dispa w of
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B6573 Ldoc page 8 fl IV 7 6:55:58 PM
solid. waste and potmicum contaminated soils by your renter. I have included photogmptis for your
inturmation, vied wilt also send. r iest to tlwt idea J3LM 6fEce.
As you utc tha property owner, ultimtrtcly you Wv rwMibil.ity+ for tk tines of r+m on your properly.
You should requira, that your rcntm use the solid wasiehecycling facilities located throughout Deschutes
County. You should also require tout they not uw public landa fbr dispo so] of solid wo site. if (be Department
observes continued illWl dispoW of stil ld waste githcr qn Qr adjawnr to your proporl:y, we will mJulm that y okl
or your rentcra clean up the sal d waste and properly dispose of it.,
17lrc oloKSt facility to your prt+pcrty is the NuulhtxgLTn2& &aticw, locawd on Cryrear Road, betwom Fend
and 31stet i_ To get ti) tiro site, heal no"h an )Frprear Road (u boW 5 miler nowt of Turnalo Gf of lTv y 20). The
station is approximately4 miles down dw road. Ik Northwest Transfer Station can also be accessed riom Hwy
t 26 between Sisters and Redmond. Kc>u1 south on Fryroar Rtgd; the transfor We is approximately 1 mile dowii
the mad,
Because of the rcrnote nature; efyovr pr-operty, the luck of wester, distance to near t pre dtpartn=t, acrd
surrounding naturnt beauty, you may want to cwcfu[ y ormslder wWhcr ymu want to allow no buttrirng
activities on. your property. Without adequate. water supplies, fire suppression equiprocnt, and the adjacent
sensthve wttdlife coniday, the continued } mace of open burning may ptit your property at risk, put the
surrounding Comst land a►t rtsk, and create winecessaty liability for you.
TlraTtk YOU fa' }'Omer canparWOn and attmtlon to these matters. If you ha-ve any qucs iuna, pl;mc contact me at
(54t) 388-6146, x24.0 or crnail me of lU3rira.&tr?urtf! ltari(i~~,tlc~.st~t+~.or.us.
Sinccrrly,
Nutu,rtrl ltosvvca Spcciulst
Solid Wastc Program
Eastern Region - Benti office
00: PJi-mbetth Dmback
Etratem Region Solid Was#c Manager- The, Danes
Linda Hayes-<.rotman:
Eastern Region Air Quatity hftwSer- Send office
'Ciro Qrunderron;
Dermhvtcs County avlil Wasao ~.tndc Pr t~ttoemont At1kc
117 ram Ca fayttie Stteet, Dead, OR 97'101
Many BcpuM:
Field. l finaga, Dewbutes Resource Area, JOA NIA Yd Street, Prineville, 4R 9,7714
Evic, phow8raphs
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B65731.doc page 9 OWIV20O7 6:55:58P
l
4wo iar J*~My" i H(~ WA "a$ IN ""PI
7a:~ln6t+ra11 ilhtlieii:
r.
.i
R U/-JI /V
I)LM pftptrty
116,4 OW -CAWCO
yMr-rR~~ C. SPRI ~L 3ja~f+9
.0 ►V,
SE~Corder'fi": 4_ .
SK)a
C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\CodeViolationsBuilding\070812_To Dennis Perkins ReAppeal Of B65731.doc page 10 08/1-7 6:55:58 PM
William John Kuhn
Martha Leigh Kuhn
PO Box 5996 Bend, Oregon 97708-5996 Phone: (541) 389-3676
Thursday 12 June 2003
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Suggestion for Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission,
My wife and I would like to suggest an ordinance that to us seems logical and certainly might help deal
with the type of developer who gives a bad name to development.
All prior preconditions of any prior commitments of development must be complete before any
land use process may continue or be processed further. Any precondition of development found
to be incomplete shall result in denial of any current application or process.
The County has numerous codes that on the surface seem adequate to produce a desired affect yet in
actuality fall flat on their face because they are not always enforced or implemented properly.
Take for example the developer of a cluster development who is required by ordinance to have a
homeowners' association and a joint owners' agreement in place before the sale of the first parcel. The
developer fails to implement the association and neglects the agreement. A sale goes through because no
one at the County actually looks over the shoulder of the developer. Later a dispute arises between
homeowners and there is no agreement outlining a procedure to follow to remedy the difficulty, or what
happens when all joint landowners do not pay their share of taxes in joint property, etc.
For your information, when we suggested a version of this ordinance to Laurie Craghead, County Legal
Council, she suggested that the 150-day deadlines in ORS 215.427(1) and Deschutes County Code
("DCC") 22.20.040(A), must be dealt with. She also suggested that the Provisions in ORS 197.522,
215.110(6) and ORS 215.427(3) requiring the County to approve applications under the regulations in
effect at the time of the application and overcome the prohibition against retroactive legislation in ORS
215.110 need to be considered.
We believe it is worthwhile considering that applications cannot and should not even be considered until
all provisions of previous conditions have been met. We do not understand why the County would not
want their requirements be honored as the ordinances now stand, but this is not happening.
Please consider our request as an effort to assure that law-abiding residents' rights are respected in the
land use process.
Thank you for your consideration,
A~~7r,Ea ;AvvuLl lz,.4 lclu,4-
William John Kuhn Martha Leigh Kuhn
c:tdocstymp65575\dmocodetplanningcommission\nm ordi~ =c cndedW30612 tod-planningcommissiomeordidmdm Page 1 20030612
37.0540
Commissioners. The Board of Commission- MCC 37.0640. If the Planning Commission
ers decision is the County's final decision and recommends approval of the application, that
is appealable to LUBA within 21 days of the recommendation is forwarded to the Board of
signed Board order. Commissioners. The Board's decision is' the
County's final decision on a Type IV applica-
(E) PC review's are legislative actions which in-
volve the adoption or amendment of the
County's land use regulations, comprehensive
plan, map inventories and other policy docu-
ments that affect the entire County, large ar-
eas, or. multiple properties. These applications
involve the greatest amount of discretion and
evaluation of subjective approval criteria, and
must be referred by majority vote of the en-
tire Planning Commission onto the Board for
final action prior to adoption by the County.
The Board of Commissioner's decision is the
County's final decision and is appealable to
LUBA within .21 days of the signed Board
order or ordinance as applicable.
37.0540 Assignment of decision makers.
The following County entity or official shall decide
the following types.of applications;
(A) Type I Decisions. The Planning Director shall
render all Type I decisions. The Planning Di-
rector's decision is the County's final decision
on a Type I application.
(13) Type II Decisions. The Planning Director
shall render the initial decision .on all Type II
permit applications. The Planning Directors
decision is the County's final decision unless
appealed to the Hearings Officer. The Hear-
ing Officer decision on such an appeal is the
County's final decision on a Type II applica-
tion and is appealable to the Land Use Board
of Appeals.
(C) Type III Decisions. The Hearings Officer
shall render all Type III decisions. The
Hearings Officer decision is the County's fi-
nal decision on a Type III application and is
appealable to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
(D) Type IV Decisions. The Planning Commis-
sion shall render the initial decision on all
Type IV permit applications. If the Planning
Commission denies the Type IV application,
that decision is final unless -appealed to the
Board of Commissioners in accordance with
LUP Admin & Procedures
tion and is appealable to the Land Use Board
of Appeals.
(E) PC Actions. The Planning Commission shall
review all PC actions. If the Planning Com-
mission adopts by majority vote of the entire
Planning Commission a resolution to recom-
mend an action, the Planning Commission re-
fers the resolution-to the Board for final ac-
tion. The Board's decision is the County's fi-
nal decision on -a PC application and is ap-
pealable to the Lind Use Board of Appeals.
37-0550 Iultiation of action.
Except as provided in MCC 37.0760, Type I - IV
applications, may only be initiated by written, consent
of the owner of record or contract purchaser. PC
(legislative). actions may .only. be, initiated by the
.Board of Commissioners, Planning Commission, or
Planning Director.
37.0560 Code compliance and applications.
The County shall not approve any application for a
permit or other approval, including building permit
applications, for any property that is not in full com-
pliance with all applicable provisions of the Mult-
nomah County Land Use Code and/or any permit
approvals previously issued by the County. A permit
or other approval, including building permit applica-
tions, may be authorized if it results in the parcel
coming into full compliance with all applicable pro-
visions of the Multnomah County Code.
374570 Pre-application conference meeting.
(A) Prior to submitting an application for a Type
II, Type III or Type IV application, the appli-
cant shall "schedule and attend a pre-
application conference with County staff to
discuss the proposal. The pre-application con-
ference shall follow the procedure set forth by
the Planning Director and may include a fil-
ing fee, notice to neighbors, neighborhood
organizations, and other organizations and
agencies.
4 v "a 0 V
CHAPTER 37
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES
§s:
37.0510 Purpose.
37.0520 Scope.
37.0530 Summary Of Decision Making Processes.
37.0540 Assignment Of Decision Makers.
37.0550 Initiation Of Action.
37.0560 Code Compliance And Applications
37.0570 Pre-Application Conference Meeting
37.0580 Application Reauirements For Type 11- IV Applications
37.0590 Complete Application - Required Information
37.0600 Completeness Review And 150-Day Rule
37.0610 Hearings Process - Type 11 Appeals Tvpe III Or Tvpe IV Applications
37.0620 Hearings Notice - Type 11 Appeals Type III Or Tvpe IV Apmlications
37.0630 Posting Notice Requirements - Tvpe III Type IV Hearings
37.0640 Appeals.
37.0650 Reapplication Limited.
37.0660 Conditions Of Approval And Notice Of Decision
37.0670 Recording Of Decision.
37.0680 Performance Guarantees.
37.0690 Expiration And Extension Of A Type II Or Tvme III Decision in EFU and CFU Zones
37.0700 Expiration and Extension Of Type 11 Or Type III Decisions In Exception Areas and Lands Within the UGB
37.0705 Type IV Ouasi-Judicial Plan and Zone Change Approval Criteria
37.0710 (PC) Legislative Hearing Process.
37.0720 Notice Of PC Hearings.
37.0730 Continuance Of PC Hearings.
37.0740 Interpretations.
37.0750 Expiration Of Prior Land Use Decisions.
37.0760 Revocation Of Decisions.
37.0770 Transfer Of Ammroval Rights.
37.0780 Ex Parte Contact. Conflict Of Interest And Bias.
37.0790 Procedural OWections.
37.0800 Applicability In The Event Of Conflicts.
§ 37.0510 Purpose.
This chapter provides the procedures by which Multnomah County reviews and decides upon applications for all permits
relating to the use of land authorized by ORS chapters 92, 197, and 215 and those other permits processed through the
Multnomah County Land Use Planning Division. These permits include all form of land divisions, land use, and
legislative enactment's and amendments to the Multnomah County Comprehensive Plan and Multnomah County Code.
An applicant may elect to consolidate applications for two or more related permits needed for a single development
project.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0520 Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all lands within the unincorporated areas of Multnomah County not within the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 1
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
UYN OS
§ 37.0530 Summary Of Decision Making Processes.
The following decision making processes chart shall control the County's review of the indicated permits:
APPROVAL PROC
ESS
Permit Type
I
II
III
IV
PC
Initial Approval Body
(Not a
"land use
decision"
(Planning
Director)
(Hearings
Officer)
(Planning
Commission)
(Legislative)
Allowed Uses
X
Review Uses
X
Conditional Uses
X
Community Service
X
Design Review
X
Plan/Zone Change (single tract)
quasi-judicial
X
Plan/Zone Changes-legislative
X
Zone Code Text Changes
Initiated b Count only)
X
Variance
X
Non-conforming
Uses/Determination of Non-
conforming Us
X
Extension of Decision
X
Revocation of Decision
X
Property Adjustments
X
Planned Unit Developments
X
Land Divisions
• Subdivision
• Major Partition
• Minor Partition
X
X
X
Significant Environmental
Concern
X
Hillside Development Permit
X
Willamette River Greenwa
X
Zoning Code Interpretations
X
Grading and Erosion Control
X
Floodplain Development
X
Street & Property Addressing
X
Permit Types
(A) Type I decisions do not require interpretation or
the exercise of policy or legal judgment in
evaluating approval standards. Type I decisions
include, but are not limited to, site plan approval of
building or other specialty permits and final
subdivision and planned unit development plans
where there are no material deviations from the
approved preliminary plans. Because no discretion is
involved, Type I decisions do not qualify as land use
or limited land use decisions. The process requires
no notice to any party other than the applicant. The
Planning Director's decision is final and not
appealable by any party through the normal land use
process. Type I decisions may only be appealed
through a writ of review proceeding to circuit court.
(B) Type II decisions involve the exercise of some
interpretation and discretion in evaluating approval
criteria. Applications evaluated through this process
are assumed to be allowable in the underlying zone.
County Review typically focuses on what form the
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 2
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
use will take, where it will be located in relation to
other uses and natural features and resources, and
how it will look. However, an application shall not
be approved unless it is consistent with the
applicable siting standards and in compliance with
approval requirements. Upon receipt of a complete
application, notice of application and an invitation to
comment is mailed to the applicant, recognized
neighborhood associations and property owners
within 750 feet of the subject tract. The Planning
Director accepts comments for 14 days after the
notice of application is mailed and renders a
decision. The Planning Director's decision is
appealable to the Hearings Officer. If no appeal is
filed the Planning Directors decision shall become
final at the close of business on the 14th day after
the date on the decision. If an appeal is received, the
Hearings Officer decision is the County's final
decision and is appealable to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days of when the signed
Hearings Officer decision is mailed pursuant to
37.0660(D).
(C) Type III decisions involve the greatest amount of
discretion and evaluation of subjective approval
criteria, yet are not required to be heard by the
Board. Applications evaluated through this process
primarily involve conditional uses and some land
divisions applications. The process for these
decisions is controlled by ORS 197.763. Notice of
the application and Hearings Officer hearing is
published and mailed to the applicant, recognized
neighborhood association and property owners 750
feet of the subject tract. Notice must be issued at
least 20 days pre-hearing, and the staff report must
be available at least 7 days pre-hearing. The
Hearings Officer shall accept into the record all
testimony and evidence relevant to the matter, prior
to the close of the hearing. The Hearings Officer
decision is the County's final decision and is
appealable to LUBA within 21 days of when the
decision is final. The decision is final the day the
signed Hearings Officer decision is mailed pursuant
to 37.0660(D).
(D) Type IV decisions include plan amendment
and/or zone change applications of an individual
parcel or tract. These applications involve
substantial discretion and evaluation of subjective
approval criteria. The process for these land use
decisions is controlled by ORS 197.763. Notice of
the application and Planning Commission hearing is
published and mailed to the applicant, recognized
neighborhood association and property owners
within 750 feet. Notice must be issued at least 20
days pre-hearing, and the staff report must be
available at least 7 days prehearing. At the
evidentiary hearing held before Planning
Commission all testimony and evidence relevant to
the matter shall be accepted prior to the close of the
hearing. If the Planning Commission denies the
application, any party who appeared before the
Planning Commission either in person or in writing,
may appeal the Planning Commissions denial to
Board of Commissioners within 14 days after the
decision is signed. If no appeal is filed, the Planning
Commissions denial shall become final upon the
close of business on the last day of the appeal
period. If the Planning Commission votes to approve
the application, that decision is forwarded as a
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for
final consideration. In either case, any review by the
Board of Commissioners is recorded novo, as if
new, and all issues relevant to the applicable
approval criteria may be considered. The Board of
Commissioners decision is the County's final
decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days
of when the signed Board order is mailed.
(E) PC review's are legislative actions which
involve the adoption or amendment of the County's
land use regulations, comprehensive plan, map
inventories and other policy documents that affect
the entire County, large areas, or multiple properties.
These applications involve the greatest amount of
discretion and evaluation of subjective approval
criteria, and must be referred by majority vote of the
entire Planning Commission onto the Board for final
action prior to adoption by the County. The Board of
Commissioner's decision is the County's final
decision and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days
of the signed Board order or ordinance is mailed.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0540 Assignment Of Decision Makers.
The following County entity or official shall decide the
following types of applications:
(A) Type I Decisions. The Planning Director shall
render all Type I decisions. The Planning Director's
decision is the County's final decision on a Type I
application.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 3
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
(B) Type II Decisions. The Planning Director shall
render the initial decision on all Type II permit
applications. The Planning Director's decision is the
County's final decision unless appealed to the
Hearings Officer. The Hearing Officer decision on
such an appeal is the County's final decision on a
Type II application and is appealable to LUBA.
(C) Type III Decisions. The Hearings Officer shall
render all Type III decisions. The Hearings Officer
decision is the County's final decision on a Type III
application and is appealable to LUBA.
(D) Type IV Decisions. The Planning Commission
shall render the initial decision on all Type IV
permit applications. If the Planning Commission
denies the Type IV application, that decision is final
unless appealed to the Board of Commissioners in
accordance with MCC 37.0640. If the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the
application, that recommendation is forwarded to the
Board of Commissioners. The Board's decision is
the County's final decision on a Type IV application
and is appealable to LUBA.
(E) PC Actions. The Planning Commission shall
review all PC actions. If the Planning Commission
adopts by majority vote of the entire Planning
Commission a resolution to recommend an action,
the Planning Commission refers the resolution to the
Board for final action. The Board's decision is the
County's final decision on a PC application and is
appealable to LUBA.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0550 Initiation Of Action.
Except as provided in MCC 37.0760, Type I - IV
applications may only be initiated by written consent of
the owner of record or contract purchaser. PC
(legislative) actions may only be initiated by the Board
of Commissioners, Planning Commission, or Planning
Director.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0560 Code Compliance And Applications.
The County shall not approve any application for a
permit or other approval, including building permit
applications, for any property that is not in full
compliance with all applicable provisions of the
Multnomah County Land Use Code and/or any permit
approvals previously issued by the County. A permit or
other approval, including building permit applications,
may be authorized if it results in the parcel coming into
full compliance with all applicable provisions of the
Multnomah County Code.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0570 Pre-Application Conference Meeting.
(A) Prior to submitting an application for a Type II,
Type III or Type IV application, the applicant shall
schedule and attend a pre-application conference
with County staff to discuss the proposal. The pre-
application conference shall follow the procedure set
forth by the Planning Director and may include a
filing fee, notice to neighbors, neighborhood
organizations, and other organizations and agencies.
(B) To schedule a pre-application conference, the
applicant shall contact the Land Use Planning
Division and pay the appropriate conference fee. The
purpose of the pre-application conference is for the
applicant to provide a summary of the applicant's
development proposal to staff and in return, for staff
to provide feedback to an applicant on likely
impacts, limitations, requirements, approval
standards, fees and other information that may affect
the proposal. The Planning Director may provide the
applicant with a written summary of the pre-
application conference within 10 days after the pre-
application conference.
(C) Notwithstanding any representations by County
staff at a pre-application conference, staff is not
authorized to waive any requirements of the County
Code. Any omission or failure by staff to recite to an
applicant all relevant applicable land use
requirements shall not constitute a waiver by the
county of any standard or requirement.
(D) A pre-application conference shall be valid for a
period of 6 months from the date it is held. If no
application is filed within 6 months of the
conference or meeting, the applicant must schedule
and attend another conference before the County
will accept a permit application. The Planning
Director may waive the pre-application requirements
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doe page 4
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
if, in the Director's opinion, the development does
not warrant these steps.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0580 Application Requirements For Type
II - IV Applications.
All permit applications must be submitted at the Land
Use Planning Division office on the most current form
provided by the county, along with the appropriate fee
and all necessary supporting documentation and
information, sufficient to demonstrate compliance with
all applicable approval criteria. The applicant has the
burden of demonstrating, with evidence, that all
applicable approval criteria are, or can be met.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0590 Complete Application - Required
Information.
Unless stated elsewhere in the Multnomah County Code,
a complete application includes all the materials listed in
this subsection. The Planning Director may waive the
submission of any of these materials if not deemed to be
applicable to the specific review sought. Likewise,
within 30 days of when the application is first submitted,
the Planning Director may require additional
information, beyond that listed in this subsection or
elsewhere in the County Code, such as a traffic study or
other report prepared by an appropriate expert, where
needed to address relevant approval criteria. In any
event, the applicant is responsible for the completeness
and accuracy of the application and all of the supporting
documentation. The County will not deem the
application complete until all information required by
the Planning Director has been submitted. Unless
specifically waived by the Planning Director, the
following must be submitted:
(A) One copy of a completed county application
form that includes the following information:
(1) An accurate legal description, tax account
number(s), map and location of all properties
that are the subject of the application.
(2) Name, address, telephone number and
authorization signature of all record property
owners or contract owners, and the name,
address and telephone number of the applicant,
if different from the property owner(s).
(B) A complete list of the permit approvals sought
by the applicant.
(C) A current (within 30 days prior to application)
preliminary title report for the subject property(ies).
(D) A complete and detailed narrative description
that describes the proposed development, existing
site conditions, existing buildings, public facilities
and services and other natural features. The narrative
shall also explain how the criteria are or can be met,
and address any other information indicated by staff
at the pre-application conference as being required.
(E) Copy of the pre-application meeting notes.
(F) Up to 10 copies of all reports, plans, site plans
and other documents required by the section of this
code corresponding to the specific approval(s)
sought.
(G) At least one copy of the site plan and all related
drawings shall be in a readable/legible 8 % by 11
inch format for inclusion into the County's record of
the application.
(H) All required application fees.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0600 Completeness Review And 150-Day
Rule.
(A) Upon submission of a Type II or Type Ill
application, or a Type 1V zone change application,
the Planning Director shall date stamp the
application form and verify that the appropriate
application fee has been submitted. The Planning
Director will then review the application and
evaluate whether the application is complete. Within
30 days of receipt of the application, the Planning
Director shall complete this initial review and issue
to the applicant a completeness letter indicating
whether the application is complete. If not complete,
the Planning Director shall advise the applicant what
information must be submitted to make the
application complete.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 5
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
(B) Upon receipt of a letter indicating the application
is incomplete, the applicant has 180 days from the
original application submittal date within which to
submit the missing information or the application
shall be rejected and all materials returned to the
applicant. If the applicant submits the requested
information within the 180 day period, the Planning
Director shall again verify whether the application,
as augmented, is complete. Each such review and
verification shall follow the procedure in subsection
(A) of this section.
(C) An applicant shall file within 30 days of the
mailing of the initial completeness letter, a statement
accepting the 180 day time period to complete the
application. Failure of an applicant to accept the
time to complete the application within 30 days of
the mailing of the completeness letter will constitute
a refusal to complete the application.
(D) Once the Planning Director determines the
application is complete, or the applicant refuses to
submit any more information, the County shall
declare the application complete and take final
action on the application within 150 days of that date
unless the applicant waives or extends the 150-day
period. The 150-day period, however, does not apply
in the following situations:
(1) Any hearing continuance or other process
delay requested by the applicant shall be deemed
an extension or waiver, as appropriate, of the
150-day period.
(2) The 150-day period shall be replaced with a
120-day period on all lands within an Urban
Growth Boundary or applications involving
mineral extraction.
(3) The 150-day period does not apply to any
application for an amendment to the County's
comprehensive plan or land use regulations nor
to any application for a permit, the approval of
which depends upon a plan amendment.
(E) The approval criteria and standards which
control the County's review and decision on a
complete application are those which were in effect
on the date the application was first submitted.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0610 Hearings Process - Type II Appeals,
Type III Or Type IV Applications.
All public hearings on Type II, Type III, or Type IV
applications shall be quasi-judicial and comply with the
procedures of this section.
(A) Once the Planning Director determines that an
application for a Type III or Type IV decision is
complete, or once an appeal of a Planning Director's
decision on a Type II application has been properly
filed, the Land Use Planning Division shall schedule
a hearing.
(B) Notice of the hearing shall be issued in
accordance with MCC 37.0620.
(C) The property subject to a Type III or Type IV
application shall be posted in accordance with MCC
37.0630.
(D) The Planning Director shall prepare a staff
report on the application which lists the applicable
approval criteria, describes the application and the
applicant's proposal, summarizes all relevant County
department, agency and public comments, describes
all other pertinent facts as they relate to the
application and the approval criteria, and makes a
recommendation as to whether each of the approval
criteria are met.
(E) At the beginning of the initial public hearing
authorized under these procedures, a statement shall
be announced to those in attendance, that:
(1) Lists the applicable substantive criteria;
(2) The hearing will proceed in the following
general order: staff report, applicant's
presentation, testimony in favor of the
application, testimony in opposition to the
application, rebuttal, record closes, deliberation
and decision;
(3) That all testimony and evidence submitted,
orally or in writing, must be directed toward the
applicable approval criteria. If any person
believes that other criteria apply in addition to
those addressed in the staff report, those criteria
must be listed and discussed on the record. The
decision maker may reasonably limit oral
presentations in length or content depending
upon time constraints. Any party may submit
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration. doe page 6
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
written materials of any length while the public
record is open;
(4) Failure to raise an issue on the record, with
sufficient specificity and accompanied by
statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
County and all parties to respond to the issue,
may preclude appeal on that issue to the Land
Use Board of Appeals;
(5) Any party wishing a continuance or to keep
open the record must make that request while
the record is still open;
(6) That the decision maker shall disclose any ex
parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias before
the beginning of each hearing item and provide
an opportunity for challenge. Advised parties
must raise challenges to the procedures of the
hearing at the hearing and raise any issue
relative to ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest
or bias, prior to the start of the hearing.
(F) Requests for continuances and to keep open the
record. The decision maker(s) may continue the
hearing from time to time to allow the submission of
additional information or for deliberation without
additional information. New notice of a continued
hearing need not be given so long as the decision
maker(s) establishes a time certain and location for
the continued hearing. Similarly, the decision maker
may close the hearing but keep open the record for
the submission of additional written material or
other documents and exhibits. The decision maker(s)
may limit the factual and legal issues that may be
addressed in any continued hearing or open-record
period.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0620 Hearings Notice - Type II Appeals,
Type III Or Type IV Applications.
Notice for all public hearings for Type III, IV or an
appeal of a Type II application shall conform to the
requirements of this section. At least 20 days prior to the
hearing, the County shall prepare and send, by first class
mail, notice of the hearing to all owners of record, based
upon the most recent Multnomah County records, of
property within 750 feet of the subject tract and to any
County-recognized neighborhood association or
identified agency whose territory includes the subject
property. The County shall further provide notice at least
20 days prior to a hearing to those persons who have
identified themselves in writing as aggrieved or
potentially aggrieved or impacted by the decision prior
to the required mailing of such notice. The County shall
also publish the notice in a newspaper of general
circulation within the County at least 20 days prior to the
hearing. Notice of the hearing shall include the
following information:
(A) The time, date and location of the public
hearing;
(B) Street address or other easily understood
location of the subject property and County assigned
case file number;
(C) A description of the applicant's proposal, along
with a list of citations of the approval criteria that the
County will use to evaluate the proposal;
(D) A statement that any interested party may testify
at the hearing or submit written comments on the
proposal at or prior to the hearing, and that a staff
report will be prepared and made available to the
public at least 7 days prior to the hearing;
(E) A statement that any issue which is intended to
provide a basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals must be raised before the close of the
public record. Issues must be raised and
accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to
afford the County and all parties to respond to the
issue;
(F) A statement that the application and all
supporting materials and evidence submitted in
support of the application may be inspected at no
charge, and that copies may be obtained at cost, at
the Multnomah County Land Use Planning Division
during normal business hours; and
(G) The name and telephone number of the planning
staff person responsible for the application and who
is otherwise available to answer questions about the
application.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0630 Posting Notice Requirements - Type
III, Type IV Hearings.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 7
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
The requirements of this subsection shall apply to Type
III and Type IV hearings.
(A) The County shall supply all of the notices which
the applicant is required to post on the subject
property, and shall specify the dates the notices are
to be posted.
(B) The applicant must place the notice along the
frontage of the subject property. If a property's
frontage exceeds 300 feet, the applicant shall post
one copy of the notice for each 300 feet or fraction
thereof, not to exceed four signs. Notices shall be
posted within 10 feet of the right of way and shall be
clearly visible to pedestrians and motorists. To the
extent practicable, all signs shall be equally spaced.
Notices shall not be posted within the public right of
way nor on trees. The applicant shall remove all
signs within 10 days following the event announced
in the notice.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0640 Appeals.
Appeals of any decisions of the County must comply
with the requirements of this section.
(A) Type I decisions by the Planning Director are
not appealable to any other decision maker within
the County.
(B) A Notice of Appeal of a Type II decision by the
Planning Director or Type IV decision by the
Planning Commission must be received in writing
by the Land Use Planning Division within 14
calendar days from the date notice of the challenged
decision is provided to those entitled to notice. If the
County's notice of decision is mailed, any appeal
must be received by and at the Land Use Planning
Division within 14 calendar days from the date of
mailing. Late or improperly filed appeals shall be
deemed a jurisdictional defect and will result in the
automatic rejection of any appeal so filed.
(C) The following must be included as part of the
Notice of Appeal:
(1) The County's case file number and date the
decision to be appealed was rendered.
(2) The name, mailing address and daytime
telephone number for each appellant.
(3) A statement of how each appellant has an
interest in the matter and standing to appeal.
(4) A statement of the specific grounds for the
appeal.
(5) The appropriate appeal fee. Failure to
include the appeal fee within appeal period is
deemed to be a jurisdictional defect and will
result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so
filed.
(D) Standing to Appeal. Those who are entitled to
appeal a Type II or Type IV decision include those
who are entitled to notice under MCC 37.0620.
(E) The Land Use Planning Division shall issue
notice of the appeal hearing to all parties entitled to
notice had the initial decision been subject to a
hearing under MCC 37.0620. Notice of the appeal
hearing shall contain the following information:
(1) The case file number and date of the decision
being appealed;
(2) The time, date and location of the public
hearing;
(3) The name of the applicant, owner and
appellant (if different);
(4) The street address or other easily understood
location of the subject property;
(5) A description of the permit requested and the
applicant's development proposal;
(6) A brief summary of the decision being
appealed and the grounds for appeal listed in the
Notice of Appeal;
(7) A general explanation of the requirements
for participation and the County's hearing
procedures.
(F) Appeal hearing, scope of review. Appeal
hearings shall comply with the procedural
requirements of MCC 37.0610. Appeal hearings
shall be de novo, as if new, and all issues relevant to
the applicable approval criteria may be considered.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 8
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
(G) The County has the standing to appeal to LUBA
any Hearings Officer decision. The County also has
standing to intervene in any appeal to LUBA from a
County Hearings Officer decision.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0650 Reapplication Limited.
If an application is denied or withdrawn following the
close of the public hearing or the end of the appeal
period, no reapplication for the same or substantially
similar proposal may be made for one year following the
date of final decision denying the permit or the date of
withdrawal.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0660 Conditions Of Approval And Notice
Of Decision.
(A) All County decision makers have the authority
to impose reasonable conditions of approval
designed to ensure that all applicable approval
standards are, or can be, met.
(B) The applicant retains the burden of
demonstrating that applications comply with the
approval criteria or can and will comply with the
approval criteria through the imposition of
conditions of approval. Further, the applicant must
file evidence demonstrating that an approval criteria
can be met with the imposition of conditions as well
as demonstrate a commitment to comply with
conditions of approval.
(C) Failure to comply with any condition of
approval shall be grounds for revocation of the
permit(s) and grounds for instituting code
enforcement proceedings pursuant to the county
code.
(D) Notice of decision. The County shall send, by
first class mail, a notice of all decisions rendered
under a Type 11, Type Ill, or Type 1V process. For
Type II decision, notice shall be mailed to all
property owners within 750 feet of the subject tract,
to those persons who have identified themselves in
writing and to any County-recognized neighborhood
association or identified agency whose territory
includes the subject property. For Type III and Type
IV decisions, notice shall be mailed to those who
submitted written comment, requested the decision
in writing or provided oral testimony at a hearing on
the matter, and DLCD at the discretion of the
applicant. The notice of decision shall include the
following information:
(1) The file number and effective date of
decision;
(2) The name of the applicant, owner and
appellant (if different);
(3) The street address or other easily understood
location of the subject property;
(4) A brief summary of the decision, and if an
approval, a description of the permitted use
approved;
(5) A statement that the decision is final at the
close of the appeal period unless appealed, and
description of the requirements for perfecting an
appeal;
(6) A statement that a person receiving notice
cannot appeal a Type II or Type IV decision
directly to LUBA unless all local appeals are
exhausted;
(7) The contact person, address and a telephone
number whereby a copy of the final decision
may be inspected or copies obtained.
(E) Modification of Conditions. Any request to
modify a condition of permit approval shall be
processed in the same manner, and shall be subject
to the same standards, as was the original application
provided the standards and criteria used to approve
the decision are consistent with the current code.
However, the decision maker may at its sole
discretion, consider a modification request and limit
its review of the approval criteria to those issues or
aspects of the application that are proposed to be
changed from what was originally approved.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0670 Recording Of Decision.
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 9
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
The County may impose as a condition of final approval
of a Type II, Type III, or Type IV decision, the
requirement that the applicant record with the County
the Notice of Decision. The Notice of Decision shall run
with the land and shall be placed in the county deed
records prior to the issuance of any permits or
development activity pursuant to the approval. Proof of
recording shall be made prior to the issuance of any
permits and filed with the Land Use Planning Division.
Recording shall be at the applicant's expense. Any
recording required under this section shall be properly
signed and executed within 30 days after the decision
becomes final; provided, however, that the Planning
Director may grant reasonable extensions, not to exceed
an additional 30 days, in cases of practical difficulty.
Failure to sign and record the Notice of Decision within
the prescribed period shall void the decision.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0680 Performance Guarantees.
When conditions of permit approval require the
applicant to construct certain improvements, the County
may allow the applicant to submit a financial guarantee
in order to postpone construction, or to guarantee
construction to certain standards. Financial guarantees
shall be governed by this section.
(A) Form of guarantee. Guarantees shall be in a form
approved by the County Attorney, including an
irrevocable stand-by letter of credit issued by a
recognized lending institution to the benefit of the
County, a certified check, dedicated bank account or
allocation of a construction loan held in reserve by
the lending institution for the benefit of the County.
The guarantee shall be filed with the Land Use
Planning Division.
(B) Amount of guarantee. The amount of the
performance guarantee shall be equal to at least
110% of that estimated cost of constructing the
improvement in question. The amount of the
performance guarantee may be larger than 110% if
deemed necessary by the Planning Director. The cost
estimate substantiating the amount of the guarantee
must be provided by the applicant supported by
either an engineer's or architect's estimate or written
estimates by three contractors with their names and
addresses. The estimates shall separately itemize all
materials, labor, and other costs.
(C) Duration of the guarantee. The guarantee shall
remain in effect until the improvement is actually
constructed and accepted by. the County. Once the
County has inspected and accepted the
improvement, the County shall release the guarantee
to the applicant. If the improvement is not completed
to the County's satisfaction within the time limits
specified in the permit approval or the guarantee, the
Director may draw upon the guarantee and use the
proceeds to construct or complete construction of the
improvement and for any related administrative and
legal costs incurred by the County. Once constructed
and approved by the County, any remaining funds
shall be refunded to the applicant.
(D) If the applicant elects to defer construction of
improvements by using a financial guarantee, the
applicant shall agree to construct those
improvements upon written notification by the
County, or at some other mutually agreed-to time. If
the applicant fails to commence construction of the
required improvements within 6 months of being
instructed to do so, the County may, without further
notice, undertake the construction of the
improvements and draw upon the applicant's
performance guarantee to pay those costs as
provided in paragraph (C) above.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0690 Expiration And Extension Of A Type
II Or Type III Decision in EFU and CFU Zones.
(A) A decision approving development on land
zoned for Exclusive Farm Use or Commercial Forest
Use outside of an urban growth boundary is void
two years from the date of the final decision if the
development action is not initiated in that period.
The Planning Director may grant one extension
period of up to 12 months if:
(1) An applicant makes a written request for an
extension of the development approval period;
(2) The request is submitted to the county prior
to the expiration of the approval period;
(3) The applicant states reasons that prevented
the applicant from beginning or continuing
development within the approval period; and
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 10
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
(4) The county determines that the applicant was
unable to begin or continue development during
the approval period for reasons for which the
applicant was not responsible.
(5) Approval of an extension granted under this
section is an administrative decision, is not a
land use decision as described in ORS 197.015
and is not subject to appeal as a land use
decision.
(6) Additional one year extensions may be
authorized where applicable criteria for the
decision have not changed.
(B) New application required. Expiration of an
approval shall require a new application for any use
on the subject property that is not otherwise allowed
outright.
(C) Deferral of the expiration period due to appeals.
If a permit decision is appealed beyond the
jurisdiction of the County, the expiration period
shall not begin until review before the Land Use
Board of Appeals and the appellate courts has been
completed, including any remand proceedings before
the County. The expiration period provided for in
this section will begin to run on the date of final
disposition of the case (the date when an appeal may
no longer be filed).
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0700 Expiration and Extension Of Type II
Or Type III Decisions In Exception Areas and Lands
Within the UGB.
(A) All Type II and Type III approvals automatically
become void if any of the following events occur:
(1) If, within two years of the date of the final
decision, all necessary building permit(s) have
not been issued, if required; or
(2) If, within two years of the date of the final
decision, the development action or activity
approved in the decision is not initiated or, in
situations involving only the creation of lots or
property line adjustments, the final survey or
plat has not been approved by the Planning
Director and recorded.
(B) Notwithstanding Subsection (A) of this section,
on exception lands the decision maker may set forth
in the written decision, specific instances or time
periods when a permit expires.
(C) The Planning Director may extend, prior to its
expiration, any approved decision for a period of six
months up to an aggregate period of one year;
provided, however, that there has been substantial
implementation of the permit. Any request for an
extension shall be reviewed and decided upon by the
Planning Director as a Type II decision.
(D) Substantial implementation of a permit shall
require at a minimum, for each six month extension,
demonstrable evidence in a written application
showing:
(1) The permit holder has applied for all
necessary additional approvals or permits
required as a condition of the land use or limited
land use permit;
(2) Further commencement of the development
authorized by the permit could not practicably
have occurred for reasons beyond the reasonable
control of the permit holder;
(3) The request for an extension is not sought for
purposes of avoiding any responsibility imposed
by this code or the permit or any condition
thereunder; and
(4) There have been no changes in
circumstances or the law likely to necessitate
significant modifications to the approval.
(E) New application required. Expiration of an
approval shall require a new application for any use
on the subject property that is not otherwise allowed
outright.
(F) Deferral of the expiration period due to appeals.
If a permit decision is appealed beyond the
jurisdiction of the County, the expiration period
shall not begin until review before the Land Use
Board of Appeals and the appellate courts has been
completed, including any remand proceedings before
the County. The expiration period provided for in
this section will begin to run on the date of final
disposition of the case (the date when an appeal may
no longer be filed).
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 11
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0705 Type IV Quasi-Judicial Plan and
Zone Change Approval Criteria.
(A) Quasi-judicial Plan Revision. The burden of
proof is upon the person initiating a quasi-judicial
plan revision. That burden shall be to persuade that
the following standards are met:
(1) The plan revision is consistent with the
standards of ORS 197.732 if a goal exception is
required, including any OAR'S adopted pursuant
to these statutes;
(2) The proposal conforms to the intent of
relevant policies in the comprehensive plan or
that the plan policies do not apply. In the case of
a land use plan map amendment for a
commercial, industrial, or public designation,
evidence must also be presented that the plan
does not provide adequate areas in appropriate
locations for the proposed use; and
(3) The uses allowed by the proposed changes
will:
(a) Not destabilize the land use pattern in the
vicinity;
(b) Not conflict with existing or planned
uses on adjacent lands; and
(c) That necessary public services are or will
be available to serve allowed uses.
(4) Proof that circumstances in the area affected
by the proposed revision have changed since
adoption of the plan, or that there was a mistake
in the plan, are additional relevant factors which
may be considered under this subsection.
(B) Quasi-Judicial Zone Change. The burden of
proof is upon the person initiating a zone change
request. That burden shall be to persuade that:
(1) Granting the request is in the public interest;
(2) There is a public need for the requested
change and that need will be best served by
changing the classification of the property in
question as compared with other available
property;
(3) The proposed action fully accords with the
applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan;
and
(4) Proof of change in a neighborhood or
community or mistake in the planning or zoning
for the property under consideration are
additional relevant factors to be considered
under this subsection.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Add,
09/26/2002)
§ 37.0710 (PC) Legislative Hearing Process.
(A) Purpose. Legislative actions involve the
adoption or amendment of the County's land use
regulations, comprehensive plan, map inventories
and other policy documents that affect the entire
County or large portions of it. Legislative actions
which affect land use must begin with a public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
(B) Planning Commission Review:
(l) Hearing required. The Planning Commission
shall hold at least one public hearing before
recommending action on a legislative proposal.
Recommendations by the Planning Commission
shall be by majority vote of the entire Planning
Commission.
(2) Planning Director's report. Once the
Planning Commission's hearing has been
scheduled and notice provided under MCC
37.0720, the Planning Director shall prepare and
make available a staff report on the legislative
proposal at least 7 days prior to the hearing.
(3) At the beginning of the initial public hearing
authorized under these procedures, a statement
describing the following shall be announced to
those in attendance:
(a) That the hearing will proceed in the
following general order: staff report, public
testimony, record closes, deliberation and
decision;
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 12
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
(b) That all testimony and evidence
submitted, orally or in writing, must be
directed toward the relevant issues. If any
person believes that other issues apply in
addition to those addressed in the staff
report, those issues must be listed and
discussed on the record. The decision maker
may reasonably limit oral presentations in
length or content depending upon time
constraints. Any party may submit written
materials of any length while the public
record is open;
(c) That failure to raise an issue on the
record, with sufficient specificity and
accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to afford the County and all
parties to respond to the issue, may preclude
appeal on that issue to the Land Use Board
of Appeals;
(d) That the decision maker shall call for any
ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias
before the beginning of each hearing item.
(4) Planning Commission recommendation. At
the conclusion of the initial hearing or a
continued hearing under MCC 37.0730, the
Planning Commission shall adopt a
recommendation on the proposal to the Board of
Commissioners. If the Planning Commission
decides that no action is appropriate, the matter
is terminated and may not be appealed unless
otherwise provided by law. If the Board of
Commissioners has initiated the legislative
proposal, the Planning Commission shall submit
to the Board of Commissioners a report and
recommendation not to act. If the Planning
Commission recommends adoption of some
form of the proposal, the Planning Commission
shall prepare and forward to the Board of
Commissioner's a report and recommendation to
that effect.
(C) Board of Commissioners review:
(1) Board of Commissioners action. Upon a
recommendation from the Planning Commission
on a legislative action, the Board of
Commissioners shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposal. Any interested person
may provide written or oral testimony on the
proposal at or prior to the hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Board of
Commissioners may adopt, modify or reject the
legislative proposal, or it may remand the matter
to the Planning Commission for further
consideration. If the decision is to adopt at least
some form of the proposal, and thereby amend
the County's land use regulations,
comprehensive plan, official zoning maps or
some component of any of these documents, the
Board of Commissioners decision shall be
enacted as an ordinance and final upon signing.
The Board of Commissioner's decision is
appealable to LUBA in accordance with OAR
Chapter 661, Division 10 and ORS 197.830 or
current applicable state statutes.
(2) Notice of final decision. Not later than 5
days following the Board of Commissioner's
final decision, the Planning Director shall mail
notice of the decision to DLCD in accordance
with ORS 197.615 or current applicable state
statutes.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended,
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0720 Notice Of PC Hearings.
Notice of the date, time, place and subject of a
legislative hearing before the Planning Commission shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the County at least 20 days prior to the hearing
and as required by law. The Planning Director shall also
notify the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) 45 days prior to the initial public
hearing or as required by law.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0730 Continuance Of PC Hearings.
The decision maker(s) may continue the hearing from
time to time to allow the submission of additional
information or for deliberation without additional
information. New notice of a continued hearing need not
be given so long as the decision maker establishes a time
certain and location for the continued hearing. Similarly,
the decision maker may close the hearing but keep open
the record for the submission of additional written
material or other documents and exhibits. The decision
maker(s) may limit the factual and legal issues that may
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 13
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
be addressed in any continued hearing or open-record
period.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0740 Interpretations.
(A) The Planning Director shall have the authority to
decide all questions of interpretation or applicability
to specific properties of any provision of the
comprehensive framework plan, rural area plan, or
other land use code. Any interpretation of a
provision of the comprehensive framework plan,
rural area plan or other land use code shall consider
applicable provisions of the comprehensive
framework plan, rural area plan, and the purpose and
intent of the ordinance adopting the particular code
section in question. A request for an interpretation
shall be processed as a Type Il application.
(B) The Planning Director may refuse to accept an
application for an interpretation i£
(1) The Planning Director determines that the
question presented can be decided in
conjunction with approving or denying a
pending land use action application or if in the
Planning Director's judgment the requested
determination should be made as part of a
decision on an application for a quasi-judicial
land use or zone change permit not yet filed; or
(2) The Planning Director determines that there
is an enforcement case pending in which the
same issue necessarily will be decided.
(C) The Planning Director determination to not
accept an application under this section is not a land
use decision and shall be the county's final decision.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0750 Expiration Of Prior Land Use
Decisions.
§ 37.0760 Revocation Of Decisions.
In the event an applicant, or the applicant's successor in
interest, fails to fully comply with all conditions of
approval or otherwise does not comply fully with the
County's approval, the County may institute a revocation
or modification proceeding under this section.
(A) All Type 11, Type III and Type IV decisions may
be revoked or modified if the Planning Director
determines a substantial likelihood that any of the
following situations exists:
(1) One or more conditions of the approval have
not been implemented or have been violated; or
(2) The activities of the use, or the use itself, are
substantially different from what was approved
or represented by the applicant.
(B) Revocation or modification shall be processed as
a Type III decision. The Land Use Planning Division
or any private complaining party shall have the
burden of proving, based on substantial evidence in
the whole record, that the applicant or the applicant's
successor has in some way violated the County's
approval.
(C) Possible actions at the revocation hearing.
Depending on the situation, the Hearings Officer
may take any of the actions described below. The
Hearings Officer may not approve the new use or a
use that is more intense than originally approved
unless the possibility of this change has been stated
in the public notice. Uses or development which are
alleged to have not fulfilled conditions, violate
conditions or the use is not consistent with the
County's approval may subject to the following
actions:
(1) The Hearings Officer may find that the use
or development is complying with the conditions
of the approval or is as approved by the county.
In this case, the use or development shall be
allowed to continue;
All land use decisions authorized prior to January 1,
2001 (Ord. 953 & Ord. 997) shall expire on January 1, (2) The Hearings Officer may modify the
2003, unless a different timeframe was specifically approval if the Officer finds that the use or
development does not fully comply with the
included in the decision.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 993, Amended, conditions of approval, that the violations are
09/26/2002; Ord. 953 §2, Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000) not substantial enough to warrant revocation,
and that the use can comply with the original
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 14
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
approval criteria if certain conditions are met. In
this case, the Hearings Officer may modify the
existing conditions, add new conditions to
ensure compliance with the approval criteria, or
refer the case to the code compliance officer for
enforcement of the existing conditions;
(3) The Hearings Officer may revoke the
approval if the Officer finds there are substantial
violations of conditions or failure to implement
land use decisions as represented by the
applicant in the decision approved, such that the
original approval criteria for the use or
development are not being met.
(D) Effect of revocation. In the event that the permit
approval is revoked, the use or development
becomes illegal. The use or development shall be
terminated within thirty days of the date the
revocation final order is approved by the Hearings
Officer, unless the decision provides otherwise. In
the event the decision maker's decision on a
revocation request is appealed, the requirement to
terminate the use shall be stayed pending a final,
unappealed decision.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0770 Transfer Of Approval Rights.
Unless otherwise stated in the County's decision, any
approval granted under this code runs with the land and
is transferred with ownership of the land. Any
conditions, time limits or other restrictions imposed with
a permit approval shall bind all subsequent owners of the
property for which the permit was granted.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0780 Ex Parte Contact, Conflict Of Interest
And Bias.
The following rules shall govern any challenges to a
decision maker's participation in a quasi-judicial or
legislative action:
(A) Ex parte contacts. Any factual information
obtained by a decision maker by anyone other than
staff outside the context of a quasi-judicial hearing
shall be deemed an ex parte contact. Prior to the
close of the record in any particular matter, any
decision maker that has obtained any material
factual information through an ex parte contact shall
declare the content of that contact and allow any
interested party to rebut the substance of that
contact. This rule does not apply to legislative
proceedings or contacts between county staff and the
decision maker.
(B) Conflict of interest. Whenever a decision maker,
or any member of a decision maker's immediate
family or household, has a financial interest in the
outcome of a particular quasi-judicial or legislative
matter, that decision maker shall not participate in
the deliberation or decision on that matter.
(C) Bias. All decisions in quasi-judicial matters shall
be fair, impartial and based on the applicable
approval standards and the evidence in the record.
Any decision maker who is unable to render a
decision on this basis in any particular matter shall
refrain from participating in the deliberation or
decision on that matter. This rule does not apply to
legislative proceedings.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0790 Procedural Objections.
Any party who objects to the procedure followed in any
particular matter, including bias, conflict of interest and
undisclosed ex parte contacts, must make a procedural
objection prior to the County's rendering a final
decision. Procedural objections may be raised at any
time prior to a final decision, after which they are
deemed waived. In making a procedural objection, the
objecting party must identify the procedural requirement
that was not properly followed and identify how the
alleged procedural error harmed that person's substantial
rights.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
§ 37.0800 Applicability In The Event Of
Conflicts.
The provisions of MCC 37.0510 through 37.0800
supercede all conflicting provisions in the Multnomah
County Code except as provided in MCC Chapter 38 for
the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
(Ord. 997, Repealed and Replaced, 10/31/2002; Ord. 953 §2,
Reorg&Renum, 11/30/2000)
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 15
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
§ 37.9999 Establishing Fees and Charges for
MCC 11.05 Land Use General Provisions, 11.15
Zoning, 11.45 Land Division, Chapters 37 and 38 and
repealing resolution no. 01-068
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 02-104
Establishing Fees and Charges for MCC 11.05 Land Use
General Provisions, 11.15 Zoning, 11.45 Land
Divisions, 37 Administration and Procedures, 38
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, and
Repealing Resolution No. 01-068
The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners Finds:
a. On April 13, 2000, the Board adopted Ordinance No.
944 (reenacted by Ord. 997) establishing land use
fees by resolution.
b. On May 24, 2001, the Board adopted Resolution No.
01-068 setting the land use fees currently in effect.
C. The County has entered into intergovernmental
agreements (IGA) with the cities of Portland and
Troutdale to provide planning services for areas
outside those city limits and within the urban growth
boundaries (service area).
d. The fees for planning services provided by Troutdale
under IGA are those set by Troutdale.
e. The fees for planning services provided by Portland
under IGA are those set by Portland except for
certain fees that are subsidized by the county. It is
necessary for the County to adopt a separate fee
schedule for the different fees charged to county
service area customers.
f. All other fees and charges established by Resolution
No. 01-068 remain the same and apply only to the
areas not covered by IGAs.
The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners
Resolves:
1. Resolution No. 01-068 is repealed and Land Use Planning
Division fees for MCC Chapters 11.05, 11.15, 11.45, 37
and 38, excluding planning services provided under IGAs
are set as follows:
1. Plan Review
(A) Legislative plan revisions: $2,162.00
(B) Legislative zoning map amendment:
$2,162.00
(C) Quasi-judicial plan revision: $2,162.00
(D) Quasi-judicial plan revision in conjunction
with other action as defined under MCC 11.15.8205:
$1,140.00 plus the fee for the associated action.
II. Action Proceedings
(A) Change of Zone Classification: $1,667.00
(B) Planned Developments: $2,006.00
(C) Community Service
(1)Regional Sanitary Landfill
The base fee shall be $2,152 payable at the time of
application. An additional fee of not more than
$21,516 may be charged to cover the cost of any
technical review and analysis required to evaluate the
application, as determined by the Planning Director.
Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners
may, by order, provide that the fee for technical review
and analysis be increased to a total of $32,274 if the
Board determines that such an increase is justified by
the complexity of issues raised on a particular
application. If charged, the additional fee shall be used
to hire technical consultants to supplement the staff.
(2)All Others: $1,667.00
(D) Conditional Use: $1,667.00
(E) Appeal of administrative decision by Planning
Director: $108.00
(Refundable if appellant prevails at initial or
subsequent appeal hearing)
(F) Variance: $549.00
(G) Modification of conditions on a prior contested
case requiring a rehearing: Full fee for Action
(H) Lots of Exception: $796.00
(I) Other contested cases: $570.00
(J) Zoning code interpretation by the Planning
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 16
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
Commission: $475.00
(K) Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
Site Review: $1,667.00
111. Land Divisions
(A) Type 1 and Category 1 Tentative Plan.
(1) 20 lots or less $1,468.00
(2) More than 20 lots $1,468.00
plus $27.00 for each lot over 20.
(B) Type 2 Tentative Plan $775.00
(C) Type 3 and Category 3 Tentative Plan
$500.00
(D) Type 4 and Category 4 Tentative Plan
$226.00
(L) Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Site
Review: $344.00
(M) (M) Temporary Permit: $172.00
N) Design Review: $645.00
(1)The fee required for Design
Review revisions submitted after a permit is
issued shall be the actual costs required to
process the application which includes the
hourly cost of employee time, overhead, and
other related costs.
(2)Design Review of on-premise advertising
signs: Single Sign: $27.00
V. Miscellaneous Charges
(A) Notice Sign: $9.00
(E) Property Line Adjustment $183.00
(F) Time Limit Extension $86.00
IV. Administrative Actions
(A) Health hardship pen-nit: $172.00
Health hardship permit renewal: $86.00
(B) Land Use permit: $86.00
(C) Non-hearing variance: $253.00
(D) Review Uses: $253.00
(E) Exceptions and Lots of Exception: $118.00
(F) Administrative decision by Planning Director:
$253.00
(G) Willamette River Greenway Permit: $629.00
(B) Notice of Review or Appeal: $570.00
Transcript cost per minute of hearing time: $4.00
(C) Records and reports (per page): $0.32
(D) Pre-hiitiation Conference: $307.00
(E) Rescheduled Hearing: $226.00
2. Fees for planning services provided by the City of Troutdale
under IGA are as set by the City of Troutdale.
3. Fees for planning services provided by the City of Portland
under IGA are set in the attached Exhibit A.
4. This Resolution takes effect and Resolution 01-068 is
repealed on July 25, 2002.
ADOPTED this 25th day of July 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
(H) Significant Environmental Concern Permit:
$629.00
(I) Administrative modification of conditions
established in prior contested cases: $172.00
Lonnie Roberts, Vice-Chair
(J) Hillside Development Pen-nit: $457.00
(K) Type B Home Occupation Permit: $834.00
REVIEWED:
THOMAS SPONSLER, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 17
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
By
Sandra N. Duffy, Assistant County Attomey
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 18
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
EXHIBIT A
Land Use Planning Fees For Planning Services provided by the City
of Portland under IGA are as set as follows:
Adjustment Review
$1
647
Residential Use onl
,
Non-residential or mixed use
$1,654
Comprehensive Plan M Amendment
$15,849
Conditional Use
Type I
$2,268
Type II Minor
$3,100
Type III (Major)
$8,283
Conditional use Master Plan and Cen
City Master Plan
$7,136
Amendment Minor Type 11
New/Amendment (Major) Ty
III
$12,264
Convenience Store Review
$2,260
Demolition/ Demolition Delay Extensi
Review
$3,049
Accessory Buildings (Type In
$795
Landmarks, Inventoried Bldgs
$2,983
(Type III
Design Review
0.0041 of
construction cost
Minor B
minimum $773
maximum $3,276
Minor A (includes residential
minimum $3,436
projects 4
maximum $6,813
Major
minimum $5,258
maximum $18,071
Environmental Conservation
$5
832
Residential use (only)
,
Non-residential or mixed use
$6,971
Environmental Enhancement (Type D
$562
Environmental Protection II
$3,654
Environmental Protection 111
$4,360
Environmental Violation
$8,659
Excavation and Fill
$2,311
Final Plat Review / Final Development
Review
(for Planned Development or
Planned Unit Development)
If preliminary with Type I with
$1,635
street
If preliminary was Type I with
$3,509
street
If relimin was Type IN
$3,509
If pre] imin was Type III
$5,848
Greenway
$778
Residential use (only)
Non-residential or mixed use
$3,956
Hazardous Substances
$9,077
Historic Landmark designation or remo
Individual properties
$3,914
Multiple Properties or districts
$4,703
Impact Mitigation Plan
Amendment inor (Type II
$2805
,
Implementation (Type II
$3,445
Amendment Use (Type 11
$4,940
New/Amendment (Major)
$21,163
Industrial Park
$3,247
Land Division Review
Type 1
$5,100 + $123 per
lot
Type IN
$6,281 + $123 per
lot
Type III (3 lots or fewer and no
$7,154
street
Type III
$8,176 +$123 per
lot
Land Division Amendment Review
Type 1
$3,066
Type IN
$3,926
Type III
$7,154
Major Land Division
$7,683 +$120 per
lot
Final Plat Maps
$2,861
Title 34 Variance
$795
Minor Land Division
$3,564
With Concurrent Type II Revi
$3,841
Title 34 Variance
$3,119
Final Plat M s
$820
Non-conforming Status Review
$2,069
Non-conforming Situation Review
C, E or I Zone
$12,405
OS or R Zone
$4,139
Planned Development Review
Type IN
$3,939
Type III
$6,132
Planned Development Amendment /
Planned Unit Development Amendmen
Type IN
$2,686
Type 111
$6,929
Planned Unit Development
Major
$6,780 + $124 per
lot
Minor
$3,504
Pre-Application Conference
$1,906
Pre-Application Conference for PUD/P
Final Development Plan
$717
Reasonable use
$1,354
Statewide Planning Goal
$28,604
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration. doc page 19
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
Substandard Lot
$1,342
Tree Preservation Violation Review 1
$5,757
Tree Removal
$836
Tree Review (I0
$3,877
Validation Review
$2,194
Zoning M Amendment
$4,668
Other Unassigned Reviews
T I
$2,455
Type II / IN
$2,423
Type III
$5,757
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 20
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
Administrative Development Reviews
Community Design Standards
Check
$125
Design Advice Re guest
$1,370
Environmental Plan Check
$716
Expert Consultation (above bas
fee
$80 per hour
Limited Consultation
$150
Pre-Development Conference
$950
Photocopies
$.50 cents/ page
Plan Check
$1.18 per $1,000
Both residential and commerci
valuation
$97 minimum
Property Line Adjustment
$927
Renotification Fee
$486
Transcripts
Actual cost
Zoning Confirmation
Tier A (bank letter, lot segregati
$273
new DM
Tier B (zoning/development
analysis, nonconforming standa,
evidence
DMV Renewal
$42
Appeals
Type II/IN
$250
Type III
%2 of avolication fee
(Res. 02-104, Repealed & Replaced, 07/25/2002; Res.01-068,
Repealed & Replaced, 05/24/2001; Res.00-044, Added, 04/13/2000)
C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\PlanningCommission\New Ordinance Recommended\MultnomahCoChapter37_Administration.doc page 21
05/31/2009 11:24:08 AM
DRAFT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WORK PLAN
2009 - 2010
The Community Development Department mission is to facilitate orderly
growth and development in the Deschutes County community through
coordinated programs of Land Use Planning, Environmental Health,
Building Safety, Code Enforcement, education, and service to the public.
Coordinated Services and Administration
Building Safety
Environmental Health
Planning
DC-2009-22-4
DRAFT
iio COORDINATED SERVICES AND
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
The Community Development Department (CDD) Coordinated Services and
Administration division is managed by Tom Anderson, Director. Operations within this
division include satellite offices in Redmond and La Pine as well as the main office in
Bend. The Administrative Supervisor for Coordinated Services oversees 7 Permit
Technicians who serve customers, handle phone calls and process related paperwork in
support of each division. In addition, CDD has a Management Analyst, Administrative
Supervisor and two Administrative Secretaries who provide support to all divisions.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
CDD customer service will continue to be the highest priority in FY 2009-10.
Management will continually assess customer feedback to ensure that the "front
counter' is run efficiently, wait times are minimized and comprehensive and
accurate information is provided. Improve the overall customer service rating by
1.0% and develop a means to obtain a greater number of customer survey
responses.
2. Develop additional improvements to quality customer service, including analysis
of determined methods to improve turn around times and decrease customer
waiting times.
3. Provide phone coverage Monday through Friday; returning all calls within 24
hours.
4. Continue implementing additional elements to the scanned image database. In
addition to scanning all new files received or generated on a daily basis, the
next project will include scanning of historical comprehensive plan documents.
This will provide customers and staff with instant internet access to historical
files. Long range planning staff will inventory and identify the documents for
ease of document retrieval.
5. Enhance online permit application ability. The initial project included simple
online applications for basic permits issued to licensed contractors in addition to
online renewal applications for licensed facilities. The next phase will include
temporary restaurant licenses, septic repair permit and re-roof permits.
6. Maintain seamless customer service associated with the administration of the
City of Redmond building program. Although the City continues to work toward
developing its own building program, it is important to continue to implement
improvements to County service provision as they are identified. Ensure
responsiveness to informational requests. The City of Redmond has a fully
functioning inspection request phone system as well as a web application with
the IVR system.
Community Development Department Page 2 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
7. Evaluate the effectiveness of the permitting system and the need to enhance,
modify or terminate certain features within the system to meet current needs
and expectations, without adversely affecting the original data. Begin
researching other permitting systems for eventual migration to a new permitting
system within the next five to eight years. A main focus will be the system
currently being purchased by the State of Oregon Building Codes Division.
Staff will participate on a statewide committee for research and implementation.
8. Expand customer service by providing wireless Internet access in the lobbies
and conference rooms at all CDD office locations.
9. Assist County Administration in the processing of Liquor License Applications to
determine whether there are any existing Building Safety, Planning or
Environmental Health violations, which would preempt applicants from
qualifying for licensure.
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION
10. Provide ongoing support to the Building, Environmental Health, and Planning
Divisions in the achievement of their work plan objectives.
11. Improve team building, internal communication and training opportunities.
Document bimonthly focused training sessions and distribute to appropriate staff.
Provide more ongoing training opportunities to the Permit Technicians and
provide customer service coaching.
12. Participate on the County Campus Safety Committee, while maintaining a safety
team to conduct quarterly inspections and the annual fire drill. The team will
have representation from each division and will continue to emphasize safety and
accident prevention at weekly division meetings. Continue to work with Risk
Management and other Departments as appropriate to ensure the safety of staff
and visitors. The Department is committed to maintaining an exemplary safety
record while complying with all applicable Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations.
13. Continue to evaluate space at the Bend and satellite facilities to best
accommodate the changing needs of staff and business operations, at the lowest
cost and with the least amount of disruption.
Community Development Department Page 3 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
CODE ENFORCEMENT
The Code Enforcement program consists of two Code Enforcement Technicians working
in coordination with law enforcement personnel from the Sheriffs Department, supported
by CDD management and the CDD operating divisions. Code Enforcement is
responsible for investigating code violation complaints associated with the building, land
use, environmental health and solid waste codes, with the overriding goal of achieving
voluntary compliance.
14. Continue to implement a monthly statistical reporting system. Through frequent
statistical analysis, areas which require improvement will be identified and
appropriate steps will be taken to correct problems. The objective is to maximize
program efficiency by reducing the length of time cases remain open.
15. Survey other code enforcement jurisdictions and incorporate innovative practices
where appropriate. Efforts will include additional involvement with the State level
Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) as well as the OCEA Central
Oregon Chapter, including conference participation and networking.
16. Continue thorough review of the Code Enforcement Procedures Manual,
including input from the Board of Commissioners, and update those sections to
reflect current practices, delete those no longer appropriate, and add provisions
for updated objectives. One discussion item will be a review of the policy on
accepting anonymous complaints.
17. Continue proactive Code Enforcement effort in investigation of illegal second
dwellings, review of temporary use permits, and replacement dwelling follow-up.
18. Continue to work with the Legal Department on innovative methods of resolving
the most serious and difficult code enforcement cases, including injunctions, daily
fines and foreclosures.
19. Continue to establish a relationship between CDD Code Enforcement and rural
subdivision homeowners associations. Code Enforcement Technicians will make
themselves available to speak at stakeholder meetings to share Deschutes
County Code Enforcement information and operating procedures.
20. Update CDD inventory of permitted docks on the upper Deschutes River. Identify
docks constructed without required approvals in order to enforce county code
related to the protection of riparian and aquatic habitat.
Community Development Department Page 4 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS)
In addition to supporting the mapping and geographical analysis needs of each of the
operating divisions, the GIS Analyst/Programmer and GIS Analyst are responsible for
the development and maintenance of the County digital spatial database and for
providing state-of-the-art mapping and data services to local governments, citizens, and
businesses. In addition, GIS supports customer service applications. The Senior Web
Applications Developer performs significant Web site upgrades and enhancements to
improve customer communication and internal efficiency.
GIS PROJECTS
21. Continue to educate CDD staff on the use of GIS data and products in their work
objectives, and identify areas where current or modified GIS capabilities may
assist those objectives, including enhanced linkages between the GIS and permit
systems. Areas of particular emphasis include:
■ Digitizing Certificates of Satisfactory Completion for Environmental Health
■ Creating Depth to Groundwater/Nitrate Reduction Area Atlas/Maps for
Environmental Health Division and public use
■ Complete and publish the Zoning Atlas for Planning Division and public
use
■ Complete digitizing areas covered by Conservation Agreements for
Planning Division and provide data electronically to internal and external
customers
■ Providing training and assistance for CDD employees and outside groups
as requested for Community Development Online Mapping Applications
■ Create daily building inspection database for inspector routing
■ Maintaining and enhancing GIS Metadata on demand
22. Work with Senior Web Application Developer to enhance and expand the
Community Development Online Mapping Application. Enhancements will
include incorporating additional land-based records and map related information
for display, query, storage and retrieval.
23. Provide technical support for personal computers, printers, projectors and
computer systems.
24. Provide technical support, including mapping and analysis to the cities of Bend,
La Pine, and Sisters for future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)/Urban Reserve
Area (URA) expansions.
25. Create and inventory databases and maps for all surface mines in Deschutes
County. Work with the Planning Division to determine which surface mines are
currently active and which surface mines have been reclaimed. Determine which
surface mines no longer require Surface Mining Impact Area reviews; update the
Land Use Tracking System (LUTS), Geographic Information System (GIS) and
Deschutes Information Access Line (DIAL) to reflect the current mining status.
Community Development Department Page 5 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
26. Provide support to Long Range Planning Division for the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Assist with mapping, analysis and technical support.
27. Update and enhance the Land Use Tracking System (LUTS) by incorporating
and updating the spatial databases contained within LUTS.
28. Work with the CDD technology team to help implement Electronic Plan Review
for Building Safety Division.
29. Assist Long Range Planning with mapping and database support for the
Destination Resort Remapping Project. Help determine where remapping of the
Destination Resort Combining Zone should occur and identify specific areas
within the county that meet or exceed the applicable criteria for remapping.
30. Continue to provide GIS support of the South County Groundwater Protection
Project. Compile data/reports/technical analysis for Environmental Health/United
States Geographic Survey (USGS) Optimization Modeling and potential load
reduction scenarios.
31. Work with the Planning Director to integrate the County land use GIS databases
into the County Code by adopting an ordinance, which will adopt one set of data
for all internal/external County Information Systems; including, but not limited to
GIS, Land Use Tracking System (LUTS), Local Area Virtual Atlas (LAVA), and
Deschutes Information Access Line (DIAL).
32. Complete the Historical Map Collection project. Work with the Senior Web
Application Developer to create a document retrieval system for query and
display of all official maps.
33. Write scripts to create spatial GIS data from existing tabular permit databases.
Work with Senior Web Application Developer to make newly created GIS data
available through various web applications.
34. Work with the Transportation Planner, ODOT and their Transportation Planning
Analyst Unit (TPAU) in an effort to complete the update of Deschutes County's
Transportation System Plan.
35. Create pre-printed series of maps that will be provided in PDF on the department
Web site.
Community Development Department Page 6 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
WEB PROJECTS
36. Online Ecommerce Application: Develop ability to process other types of permits
online such as septic renewal and septic replacement permits using our
ecommerce application. Also update current application with subcontractor
information.
37. Online Ecommerce Temporary Restaurant License Permits Application: Develop
online ecommerce application to schedule and pay for temporary license permits.
Design an interactive calendar to allow event holders to schedule events and
vendors to purchase licenses for those events.
38. Community Development Online Mapping Application (Internet): Expand the
CDMap online mapping application to the internet for our customers to use.
Provides mapping and reporting capabilities for all information pertaining to
Community Development. Build in a security structure for internet use. Enhance
this application to contain more features and data.
39. Online Pending Land Use Mapping Application: Upgrade and redesign the online
pending land use application to incorporate maps, forms and comments, which
could potentially be built into CDMap.
40. Water System Mapping Application: Develop application for searching and
displaying information regarding water systems and wells within Deschutes
County, which could potentially be built into CDMap.
41. Electronic Plan Review Application: Implement pilot project. Further enhance
application using Flex technology. Developers will submit building plans in digital
format online; integrate further into current business processes.
42. Online Ecommerce Food Handler Test Application: Upgrade the current public
access food handler application to an online ecommerce food handler
certification test/payment system, which the public can access over the internet.
This application would be developed with the current Flex technology.
43. Community Development Document Retrieval Application Records / Searches:
Develop search capabilities for subdivision documents, which will need to be
scanned into our system. Provide links to the survey image retrieval application.
In conjunction with Information Technology (IT) staff, develop a search system to
research child/parent tax lot number structure in order to retrieve data attached to
cancelled tax lots.
44. Community Development Internet Site Maintenance and Additions: Continue to
maintain and keep data current on the CDD Web site. Add additional
functionality, such as email subscriptions to current information, fee calculators,
customer surveys and embedded property research. Continue to expand the
information center to provide a "one stop shop" for all of Community
Development's data. Add interactive forms to help staff process incoming
information such as:
Community Development Department Page 7 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
• Online Illness Complaint Form
• Get Legal Program/Quickstart Program Pages
• Online Address Request Form
• Online Address Problems Form
• Online Property Violation Report Form
45. Counter Web Applications: Develop well organized counter web applications for
planners, permit technicians, plan reviewers, building inspectors and
environmental health inspectors to retrieve information and maps pertaining to
their needs. Place all information in one location instead of having to retrieve it
from many sources. Develop and implement better, more user friendly web tools
for staff.
46. Public Access Application Upgrade: Upgrade public access terminal applications
to use current technology and be more user-friendly. Provide additional
information which may incorporate functionality of the one stop shop applications,
with focus on the customer.
47. Mobile Applications: Develop mobile building inspection application to gain
access to data and reports for use by the inspectors in the field. Develop mobile
license facility inspection application for use outside of wireless area.
48. Update and Reorganize Tables: Work with Information Technology staff to
update and reorganize our Community Development tables. Make available for
use in the Data Warehouse.
49. Online Community Development Statistics Dashboard Application: Automate
monthly statistics reports in a Flex dashboard format. This application would
include dynamic charts and reports. The database needs to be updated and
reorganized first.
50. Land Use History Documents Application: Automate application to retrieve land
use history maps and documents scanned by the Clerk's office.
51. Internet Usage Reports: Monitor data collected from internet usage reports to
determine which areas of the Community Development web site should receive
the most focus for future enhancement.
Community Development Department Page 8 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
The Building Official, Dennis Perkins, an Assistant Building Official, 10 Building Safety
Inspectors, and support staff provide construction plan review, consultation and
inspection to assure compliance with national and State building specialty codes.
Deschutes County's Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the state mandated
Building Codes for the people of the community through a process of education and a
clear and fair application of the Specialty Codes. The Division provides all of these
services to the City of Redmond through a contract and provides various services to
Lake, Jefferson and Crook Counties and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division on
an "as needed" basis.
52. Maintain plan review turnaround times to meet stated goal of 14 days for
residential structures.
53. Maintain field inspection turnaround time to meet state goal of 24 hours. .
54. Continue to participate in regular meetings with the Central Oregon Builders
Association (COBA) and maintain an excellent working relationship with that
group.
55. Utilize the new inspection request and scheduling system, Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) to the highest level possible. Provide training to users as
needed, both customers and employees.
56. Coordinate with other divisions, departments and agencies to help make the
development process seamless. This will include the E-permitting system that the
State of Oregon has implemented.
57. Study the permit expiration rules and practices with the goal of obtaining a
uniform method of addressing the problem of evaluating permit extensions.
58. Continue to refine and update the Building Safety Division Web site.
59. Establish new and maintain existing intergovernmental agreements with other
jurisdictions to offset the staffing shortages for our Building Division and other
local Building Divisions.
60. Provide opportunity for staff training and continuing education needs.
61. Assist other divisions in the department to achieve better communication and
support of each others needs and goals.
62. Utilize CDD satellite offices to adjust to the volume of activity in each area.
Community Development Department Page 9 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Provide and promote protection of Public Health and the Environment through
education, consultation, and regulation.
The Environmental Health Division (EH) provides plan review, consultation and
inspection of regulated public facilities (restaurants, pools, tourist facilities, schools and
child care centers) and on-site wastewater and dispersal systems. The Division also
regulates public water systems to provide safe drinking water and works with the County
Health Department on a variety of epidemiology programs and issues. In addition, EH is
engaged in the proactive pursuit of protection of the Groundwater in South County
through grant funding. A staff of 8 provides this range of services.
ADMINISTRATION
GOAL: Maintain a healthy work environment, which promotes an atmosphere of
collaboration, education, and high morale among the Environmental Health staff.
Objectives:
63. Continue to cross train staff in all areas of Environmental Health to provide back-
up and allow for a shifting workload during these uncertain times.
64. Continue to learn and fine tune the processes required for licensing and tracking
all EH functions through our data bases.
65. Continue to update the Web site to provide useful information to the public about
EH programs.
66. Explore alternative work scheduling to better serve the customers and alleviate
the stress of the seasonal workload.
67. Enter into contract with Lake County to do site evaluations in Lake County.
ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Goal: To provide homeowners who are served by On-site Wastewater Treatment
systems with an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) oversight program that is practical
and effective. Operation and Maintenance tracking and reporting is mandatory as per
OAR 340-71 for Alternative Treatment Technology (ATT), which the County is
contracted to regulate.
Community Development Department Page 10 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
Objectives:
68. Continue to refine database and office processes to efficiently track O&M
activities.
69. Create a document detailing the processes of how the O&M activities are
tracked.
70. Develop a plan for follow-up of time of sale transfers and non-compliant systems
as required by OAR 71.
71. Hold a meeting with the O&M providers to find ways to more efficiently track
annual inspections, fees, ownership changes, and contract extensions.
Goal: Maintain a service turn around average of 10 calendar days for issuance of
approximately 1,200 annual permits; 30 calendar days for approximately 250 annual site
evaluations; and 2 days for the 1,800 annual field inspections.
Objectives:
72. Become more efficient in our permit review and standardized inspection
processes.
73. Develop checklists to help front counter technicians ensure a more efficient
operation.
Goal: To communicate better with our customers
Objectives:
74. Attach the standardized inspection procedures flyer with permits.
75. Implement the use of the application questionnaire to better understand what the
applicant is proposing.
76. Develop an electronic mail list for installers and distributors to improve
information transfer.
77. Create an information sheet concerning Recreational Vehicle (RV) waste.
78. Research ways to provide treatment and disposal of low volumes of animal
enclosure waste and water softener waste, which are not now regulated.
Community Development Department Page 11 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
Goal: Communicate better with each other
Objectives:
79. Provide two sets of South County water table maps for staff reference.
80. Create a complete book of all Alternative Treatment Technology information.
81. Create a collection of approved product and application information for easy staff
reference.
Goal: Develop an on-site storm water review process to coordinate with on-site
wastewater permit review and planning site plan review.
Objectives:
82. Ensure that all water dispersal needs are met, particularly conflicts between
storm water and on-site wastewater dispersal.
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY
Goal: Apply the tools, experience, and information gained from the La Pine National
Demonstration Project and the County Regional Problem Solving Project to identify and
implement solutions to protect and improve the quality of the sole source of drinking
water in South Deschutes County.
Objectives:
83. Assist the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in achieving a sustainable
solution to the public health hazard in South County.
84. Provide homeowners and installers with updated information about denitrifying
technologies.
85. Evaluate newly approved technologies for nitrogen reduction capabilities.
86. Assist planning with "High Groundwater Lot Work Plan" as provided in their work
plan.
87. Implement the financial assistance program in coordination with the Planning
Division.
Community Development Department Page 12 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES
Goal: To provide operators of food service facilities with the education and tools to
protect the public from foodborne illness.
Objectives:
88. Create and implement on-line Temporary Restaurant License application and
issuance.
89. Allow for one Environmental Health Specialist per year to train and be certified as
a Standardized Inspection Officer by the Department of Human Services (DHS)
to ensure greater consistency in licensed facility inspections.
90. Update all existing handouts, brochures and information on the Web site.
91. Add the mobile food unit inspection reports to our on-line database.
92. Perform either self-assessment or baseline survey for the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Voluntary National Food Regulatory Standards Program.
93. Send a newsletter to licensed restaurant and mobile food unit owners annually
and explore other methods of informing food service operators of current events.
94. Perform 100% of required inspections on all licensed food service
establishments.
95. Implement the complete Temporary Restaurant changeover by correcting
language and fees in fee schedule.
POOLS AND SPAS
Goal: Provide oversight and education to all public pools and spas operators and to
protect the public from water-borne disease.
Objectives:
96. Provide clear and detailed handouts to help educate pool and spa operators on
relevant issues regarding pool and spa maintenance, best management
practices and local, state and federal rule changes.
a. Provide educational material to pool operators about changes to the
wading pool rules.
b. Provide educational material to pool operators about changes required to
submerged main drain grates and the Federal Virginia Graeme Baker
Pool and Spa safety act
97. Create an educational approach to routine inspections.
Community Development Department Page 13 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
98. Provide EH staff with opportunities to:
■ Gain pool and spa inspection experience
■ Add to the diversity of understanding of pool management and chemical
handling through continuing education
■ Learn effective communication methods targeting pool and spa operators
99. Investigate the need for a specific County ordinance to regulate continuing non-
compliers and other rule abuses not addressed by State pool and spa codes.
100. Ensure Deschutes County representation to any State committee is well informed
and up to date on industry and code changes.
101. Work with the Information Technology section to modify the exiting license facility
data base to link facilities with multiple interdisciplinary licenses (i.e. hotel with
food service and pool/spa).
DRINKING WATER
Goal: Assure citizens of Deschutes County safe drinking water by implementing and
enforcing drinking water standards through professional technical and regulatory
assistance to all public water systems.
Objectives:
102. Maintain current level of customer service for public health and drinking water
inquiries.
103. Continue to keep the number of Significant Non-Complier (SNC) systems to a
minimum.
104. Continue working on the additional 42 small public systems recently added to
inventory.
105. Maintain sanitary survey rate of 41 per year to meet increased inspection
frequency and the addition of new water systems.
106. Earn 80% or more of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund allocation.
107. Complete the Drinking Water Mapping Project working with GIS staff.
108. Maintain immediate response time for water quality alerts.
109. Continue to train additional staff in this growing program.
110. Identify and inventory public water systems not currently regulated.
Community Development Department Page 14 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Goal: To aide the Deschutes County Health Department (DCHD) in their mission to
provide public health services to the community.
Objectives:
111. Maintain the high level of communication with the DCHD by continuing to attend
meetings with them to discuss public health needs and how the Division and
DCHD can work together to meet those needs.
112. Assist the DCHD in foodborne illness investigations.
113. Assist the DCHD and County disaster preparedness teams by becoming a part of
the emergency response plans.
Community Development Department Page 15 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
PROVIDING COURTEOUS, TIMELY, AND PROFESSIONAL LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
THROUGH INNOVATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS.
The Planning Division consists of 13 employees, including an Administrative Secretary
under the supervision of the Planning Director, Nick Lelack. Current Planning includes a
Principal Planner, 3 Senior Planners, 2 Associate Planners and 1 Assistant Planner.
Current Planning handles individual land use applications, zoning review and sign-off for
building and septic permits and information to the public on all land use related issues. It
is also responsible for all addressing and road naming in the rural County. Long Range
Planning includes a Principal Planner, 2 Senior Planners, and an Associate Planner.
Long Range Planning conducts public involvement to consider land use policy, updates
the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and coordinates with the cities
and agencies on various planning projects.
CURRENT PLANNING
PROCESSING CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
114. Meet 150-day time limits for processing all current planning applications.
115. Issue all administrative decisions for land use actions that require prior notice
within 45 days of determination of complete application.
116. Issue all administrative decisions for development actions (sign permits, lot-line
adjustments etc.) and land use actions that do not require prior notice (non-
visible landscape management and abbreviated Surface Mining Impact Area site
plans) within 21 days of determination of complete application (Note:
Approximately 850 applications are expected in the next fiscal year).
117. Process applicant initiated code amendments to change land use regulations to
fix problems, clarify regulations and allow new uses. This averages about 8-10
amendments each year.
118. Process land use applications for the City of La Pine under an Intergovernmental
Agreement.
PUBLIC CONTACT
119. Counter duty, phone duty, and appointments. Counter planner available 8 a.m. to
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Wednesday (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Provide for
customer appointments with individual planners as needed. (Note: We expect
Community Development Department Page 16 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
about 3,000 Planning customers next fiscal year.) Provide phone coverage
Monday through Friday; return all calls within 24 hours.
MONITORING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND ASSISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT
120. Work with Code Enforcement to respond to code complaints and to monitor
conditions of approval for land use permits.
ADMINISTRATION
121. Continue cost accounting system for current planning section and analyze data
from that system. Information will be used to review fees and to quantify work
tasks not directly tied to land use permits.
122. Increase opportunities for customers to access information through use of
technology. Areas to explore are:
■ Design and function of the CDD Web site
■ Readability of information
■ Monitor "hits" on the CDD Web site to determine most popular sites
■ Develop a standardized pre-application process
MEASURE 37/MEASURE 49
123. Work with the County legal department to process Measure 49-related land use
applications.
LONG RANGE PLANNING
REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
124. Identification of funding mechanisms to pay for strategies to assure the
groundwater quality meets safe drinking water standards.
WETLAND GRANTS
126. Explore state and federal grant opportunities to help offset the cost of developing
a Local Wetland Inventory and wetland protection measures for the South
County.
127. An $80,000.00 grant award has already been secured from the Deschutes River
Mitigation and Enhancement Committee. Approximately $60,000.00 is needed to
cover the shortfall.
Community Development Department Page 17 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
WETLAND MANAGEMENTMILDLAND FUEL TREATMENT
128. Coordinate with the County Forester, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon
State Parks and Recreation Department, and environmental non-government
organizations to discuss wildland urban interface issues near wetland and
riparian areas. Many areas of the unincorporated county have community wildfire
protection plans or state legislation (Senate Bill 360) that give homeowners a
framework for minimizing their wildfire risk in wildland urban interface areas.
129. Resolve conflicts between County conditional use requirements in wetland and
riparian areas and goal of fuel reduction to prevent wildfire risk. Develop
riparian/wetland treatment techniques so they jointly address the fuel load and
riparian restoration/enhancement.
130. Propose amendments to County Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County
Code Title 18 to implement agreements.
RED LOT (HIGH GROUNDWATER) LOTS
131. Coordinate with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes Basin Land
Trust, Deschutes River Conservancy and County Property Management on
management options for County owned land adjacent to Deschutes and Little
Deschutes Rivers in the South County.
132. Compile a list of conservation easements for GIS staff to map and ensure that all
are part of the scanned property records.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
133. Work with the Board of County Commissioners (Board), the Planning
Commission and the public to implement a work program to write a new
Comprehensive Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan was written in 1979 and
has been updated in a piecemeal fashion since that time.
134. Continue working with the public to determine their vision for future development
and conservation. A new plan will provide a blueprint for the future, incorporating
not only the changes that have already occurred in the County, but also
coordinating with the changes from Measure 49 and the State Task Force on
Land Use. Working with the public includes completing the initial review with the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee; working with interested stakeholders
including government and quasi-government agencies and community
organizations; working with individual members of the community.
135. Define an updated and visually appealing format and organization for the
comprehensive plan.
Community Development Department Page 18 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
136. Create new chapters with updated goals and policies as needed. Review the
chapters with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners at
informal work sessions.
137. A new plan will incorporate other planning efforts, such as the Transportation
System Plan (TSP) update, the destination resort mapping described below and
the high groundwater development work program. It is anticipated that new
policies would embody both programs and identify appropriate implementation
measures.
■ Initiate a legislative process to amend the Comprehensive Plan and other
action items by holding public hearings with the Deschutes County
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
DESTINATION RESORT REMAPPING
138. Identify a preferred option for a remapping process to be adopted into code.
139. Hold at least one stakeholder meeting and one public meeting to present options
before identifying a preferred option to present to the Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners.
140. As directed by the Board of County Commissioners, prepare draft
comprehensive plan policies and a code for the remapping process; initiate a
legislative process by holding public hearings before both bodies.
TRANSPORTATION
141. Provide comments and expertise to current planning staff.
142. Participate in the annual County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process.
143. Continue to update the 1998 County Transportation System Plan (TSP), working
with Technical Advisory, Steering, and Stakeholders committees. Update will be
funded in-house or positioned to be at least partially funded from an extension of
the original 2007 State Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant.
144. Calculate System Development Charges (SDCs) as part of land use application
review duties. Review those amounts and any appeals with the Road
Department Director, who is final authority.
145. Work with the Road Department on preparing an amendment of the Deschutes
County TSP to add 19th Street extension in Redmond. Amend the TSP to add
the extension from the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the
Deschutes Market interchange.
146. Continue work with the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to
promote the Safe Sidewalks program to keep sidewalks clear of snow and ice.
147. Coordinate with local, state and federal agencies through the Deschutes County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop a regional trail plan.
Community Development Department Page 19 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
Upon completion of a trail plan, amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to
include the routes. Also work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee to develop an online trail guide.
148. Continue to pursue opportunities for grant funding for transportation projects.
Prepare and administer grants as needed.
149. Coordinate with the City of Sisters on transportation planning issues as Sisters
begins to update its TSP.
150. Serve the following committees:
■ Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC).
• Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) TAC.
• Highway 97/20 Project Technical Advisory Committee.
■ Central Oregon Rail Plan study group.
■ South Redmond Collaborative Group
■ La Pine Comprehensive Plan Technical Advisory Committee
■ Redmond Mass Transit Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee
■ Wickiup Junction/97 Technical Advisory Committee
■ Transportation Growth Management review committee for pre-approved
consulting firms.
CODE AMENDMENTS (LISTED IN ORDER FROM HIGH PRIORITY TO LOW PRIORITY)
151. Process applicant-initiated code amendments.
152. Amend Deschutes County Code to provide authority and standards for lot line
adjustments and flag lots.
153. Begin a process to update the goals and policies for Terrebonne.
154. Change the Land Management (LM) zone sign ordinance to insure that signs in
the LM zone are not identical to signs in urban commercial zones.
155. Add standards and criteria that require defensible space for wildfire protection.
156. Complete other code amendments as staff time permits.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
157. Continue creating and updating CDD web sites that provide information on
specific planning-related programs and opportunities for public participation.
Community Development Department Page 20 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
158. Monitor Oregon Legislature on the review of the State planning program. Keep
planning staff, the Planning Commission and the public informed and engaged.
159. Staff the Planning Commission - the designated public involvement committee
■ Recruitment and training of new commissioners as needed.
■ Coordination of schedule and packet preparation.
■ Complete and submit the 2008 Community Involvement Report to the
State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee.
■ Provide opportunities for the Planning Commission to host land use
related seminars.
160. Explore the potential for conducting polling and public surveys through the
County Web site or media outlets such as television, radio and print.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES
BEND PROJECTS
161. Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
• Collaborate with City to complete UGB amendment.
■ Execute new intergovernmental agreements for urban unincorporated
area.
162. Urban Reserve Area (URA)
■ Upon state acknowledgment of a UGB amendment, reinitiate a URA work
program for the City of Bend.
■ Collaborate with city staff to complete URA public facility (water, sewer,
transportation) analysis.
■ Provide open forums and public involvement opportunities.
■ Draft findings.
■ Initiate legislative amendments to Comprehensive Plan Transportation
System Plan and Title 18.
■ Execute new intergovernmental agreements with City of Bend and special
districts affected by the URA.
163. Transportation/Land Use
■ Assist the City of Bend with Safe Routes to School (SR2S) efforts in the
Bend-La Pine School District, and County schools (Tumalo Elementary).
■ Participate in Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical
Advisory Committee.
164. Demolition Land Fill Site
■ Coordinate with City of Bend to understand their planning goals for the
site. Assist County Property Management in preparing a request for
Community Development Department Page 21 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
proposal for a refinement plan for the site. Assist Property Management
in obtaining city approval of the refinement plan or rezone.
165. Bend Vision 2030
■ Work with the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District and the City of
Bend to implement the Vision Bend 2030 Action Item for an open space
park and natural area plan in the greater Bend region.
■ Work as needed to coordinate as lead partner on two action items:
Regional Trail Plan and Regional Trail Council.
REDMOND PROJECTS
166. Urban Growth
■ Assist as requested by the Board of County Commissioners on planning
for the County-owned property east of Redmond.
■ Coordinate with Division of State Lands in the planning of their site south
of the UGB.
167. Transportation / Land Use
Participate in the South Redmond Area Collaborative Planning Group to
address transportation and other issues in the Redmond Area, including
Pronghorn secondary access. Coordinate with City of Redmond, Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), National Guard, Governor's
Office and BLM.
■ Participate in Highway 97 Redmond to Deschutes Junction refinement
plan (includes Quarry interchange).
■ Assist Redmond in addressing and street administration.
SISTERS PROJECTS
168. Urban Growth
■ Coordinate with City as needed for any UGB amendments.
169. Transportation / Land Use
■ Work with City of Sisters and ODOT on alternative routes (bypass).
LA PINE PROJECTS
170. Work with the La Pine City Council to implement provisions in intergovernmental
agreements regarding services for processing current planning applications in La
Pine.
171. Coordinate with La Pine on Portland State University, Population Research
Center, 2009 Housing Unit and Population Questionnaire.
172. Coordinate with La Pine in their development of a comprehensive plan, including
the legislative process for establishing an Urban Growth Boundary.
Community Development Department Page 22 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
ODOT / BLM / USFS PROJECTS
173. Participate in ODOT funded refinement planning projects for Highway 97 and
Highway 20. These projects may include planning for the Quarry Road
interchanges and the Wickiup Junction interchange or bypass.
174. Coordinate road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United
States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface plans.
OTHER PROJECTS
HISTORIC
175. Provide staff to the Historic Landmarks commission for any county related
applications or policy issues.
176. Correct the Comprehensive Plan list of historic resources.
177. Complete the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for HLA-05-04, the Walker
Ranch archeological and historic site.
POPULATION
178. Portland State University, Population Research Center, 2009 Housing Unit and
Population Questionnaire
■ Coordinate with Assessor and Administration Offices
• Submit questionnaire to Portland State University in Fall 2009
179. US Census
■ Assist the Information Technology Department regarding the Local
Update of Census Addressing as requested
■ Assist geographic information system staff regarding annual annexation
updates in Deschutes County
180. Work with La Pine to develop a Coordinated Population forecast for La Pine and
an amendment to the County coordinated forecast.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS
181. Convert CDD Archive materials to electronic format and microfilm.
182. Establish a pre-application process for land-use applications.
183. Develop an educational handout for all land owners in wetlands or flood plain.
Coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Division
of State Lands.
184. Coordinate with the Environmental Health and Building Safety Divisions to
expedite zoning confirmation of building permits.
Community Development Department Page 23 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
DRAFT
185. Establish a procedure and process for verifying and amending GIS zoning data.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
186. Participate in Regional Economic Opportunities Analysis.
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS:
187. Continue to assist the public in the process of forming Restricted Firearm
Districts.
188. Provide addresses as required by County Code. Work with Project Wildfire and
local fire departments to change road names as needed.
189. Coordinate with Information Technology (IT) and the Assessor's Office to ensure
reliability of situs addressing data layer. Review list of unaddressed properties
(2,100).
190. Administer programs, policies and procedures associated with the processing of
Measure 49 claims.
191. In coordination with County Legal Counsel and Property Management, identify
County owned property suitable for auction.
192. Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the solar setback requirements to meet
energy conservation goals.
193. Other Committee Assignments:
■ Association of Oregon Planning Directors
■ Commute Options Working Group
■ Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
■ Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee
■ Project Wildfire
■ USFS Provisional Advisory Committee
■ Safety Committee
■ Planning representative on regional water planning discussions, headed
by irrigation districts, Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, Oregon
Consensus, etc.
Community Development Department Page 24 of 24
Work Plan FY 2009-10 4/29/2009 7:25 AM
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/
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Nick Lelack, Planning Director
CC: Tom Anderson, Community Development Director
Date: June l 2009
Re: Planning Commission Input on Community Development Department Work Plan 2009-2010
On April 9, 2009, the Planning Commission discussed the Planning Division element of the
Community Development Department's Accomplishments and Work Plan 2009-2010.
Commissioners did not take any formal action on any issue, but rather provided comments on the
items below. The Board conducted a work session on the draft Work Plan on April 22.
1. Code Amendments (pages 20-21 of the Work Plan)
a. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to add to the list of Code Amendments
his package of "repair" code amendments, combine them with the staffs list of "clean-
up" code amendments and make this a priority item.
b. Commissioners Brown and Irvine expressed their interest in amending Deschutes
County Code Titles 2 and 22 to allow the Planning Commission to make quasi-judicial
land use decisions.
2. Other Projects
a. Chair Cyrus and Commissioners Brown, Klyce and Irvine would like staff to initiate a
rezoning applications for property owners who believe mistakes have been made
regarding the zoning of their property. Each property has its own unique set of
circumstances, and each is an "up-zone" to a more intensive use. Rezoning to an
more intensive use will require compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule.
The three properties are:
8755 13th Street. Terrebonne: Randall Etter states he owns or is in contract
to buy this property. According to the Assessors office, it is owned by Richard
Anderson with contract buyers, Kerry and Wendy Backsen. It has been
operated as an auto-repair business. Mr. Etter ran an auto repair business
during the periodic review period (1996). In 1997, new plan policies were
adopted and challenged, then in 1998 the Terrebonne Plan designations
were affirmed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Mr.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Etter claims to have not been included in the plan designation changes that
he requested; however, he was not the property owner at the time and
appears to not be the property owner now. In January 2006 Mr. Etter was
denied a Nonconforming Use Verification for his Auto Repair business, he
was not able to demonstrate that his business was established prior to
November, 1997. The property is zoned Terrebonne Residential and currently
contains a metal building. Staff has not further verified the property
ownership issues nor contacted the listed owners.
ii. 65315 Highway 97, Deschutes Junction: Bob Fair has owned this property
for over 30 years. The property was originally zoned by ordinance PL-5
Exclusive Farm Use (A-1). In 1978, the Board denied a request to rezone this
property from A-1 to General Commercial (C-2). However, the Board
approved a zone change from A-1 to A-S, Rural Service Center. This zone
permitted Agribusiness and retail store, restaurant, office or service
establishment. Later, In 1979, under PL-15, the property was zoned EFU,
and remains zoned EFU today. In 1996, Mr. Fair applied for
a Nonconforming use Verification and was denied. Mr. Fair owns the property
now and is requesting that we rezone his property to Rural Commercial.
iii. 52379 Huntington Rd., City of La Pine: John Thomas and his wife own this
property. It is currently zoned Rural Residential-10, and Mr. Thomas states
that the property should be rezoned to commercial.
The options to address these properties/rezonings include:
i. Address the Terrebonne and Deschutes Junctions issues as part of the
County's Comprehensive Plan Update, and the City of La Pine's during
the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
ii. The applicants may initiate the amendments and pay the fees; or
iii. The Board may direct staff to initiate any/all of the zone changes as part
of the Work Plan; or
iv. The Board may pay for or waive the fees and either direct staff to initiate
the zone changes or the applicants to make application for the zone
changes.
3. Code Enforcement
a. As part of the Code Enforcement Procedures Manual update item, Commissioner
Quatre recommended that the Board consider removing the provision that requires
complaining parties to sign their names. Chairman Cyrus stated that he believed
names were required to reduce frivolous complaints.
Page 2 of 2
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
Accomplishments - Year 2008
The Community Development Department mission is to facilitate orderly
growth and development in the Deschutes County community through
coordinated programs of Planning, Environmental Health, Building Safety,
Code Enforcement, education, and service to the public.
♦ Coordinated Services and Administration
♦ Code Enforcement
♦ Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
♦ Building and Safety
♦ Environmental Health
♦ Planning
COORDINATED SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION
The Community Development Department (CDD) operations are managed by Tom
Anderson, Director. This includes satellite offices in Redmond and La Pine as well as
the main office in Bend. The Administrative Supervisor for Coordinated Services
oversees 7 Permit Technicians who serve customers, handle phone calls and process
related paperwork in support of each division. In addition, CDD has a Management
Analyst, Administrative Supervisor and two Administrative Secretaries who provide
support to all divisions.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customer surveys collected over 2008 show a decrease of .04% in average customer
satisfaction, however, customers still rated staff service above average in all categories.
Customer visits decreased by 25% from 21,694 in 2007 to 16,242 in 2008, which may
have contributed to slightly lower averages than last year, which was an all time high.
Customer Service Questionnaire Statistics
Service
Compared
Processing
to
Overall
Yearly
# Returned
Efficiency
Courtesy
Knowledge
Handouts
Time
Elsewhere
Service
Average
July - December 1996
45
4.37
4.75
4.44
4.19
3.81
4.44
4.49
4.36
Calendar Year 1997
155
4.50
4.72
4.48
4.21
3.91
4.21
4.44
4.35
Calendar Year 1998
121
4.58
4.78
4.59
4.02
3.73
4.07
4.29
4.29
Calendar Year 1999
107
4.58
4.65
4.60
4.23
4.17
4.53
4.53
4.47
Calendar Year 2000
78
4.63
4.68
4.59
4.24
4.10
4.39
4.47
4.44
Calendar Year 2001
80
4.80
4.90
4.81
4.47
4.47
4.85
4.78
4.73
Calendar Year 2002
82
4.62
4.79
4.70
4.58
4.39
4.71
4.49
4.61
Calendar Year 2003
76
4.62
4.81
4.53
4.38
4.36
4.62
4.73
4.58
Community Development Department Page 2 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
Customer
Service Questionnaire Statistics
Service
Compared
Processing
to
Overall
Yearly
# Returned
Efficiency
Courtesy
Knowled a
Handouts
Time
Elsewhere
Service
Average
Calendar Year 2004
46
4.81
4.94
4.74
4.61
4.61
4.84
4.79
4.76
Calendar Year 2005
55
4.86
4.94
4.71
4.52
4.49
4.92
4.80
4.75
Calendar Year 2006
54
4.31
4.66
4.45
4.51
3.83
4.41
4.40
4.37
Calendar Year 2007
52
4.83
4.85
4.85
4.71
4.60
4.90
4.81
4.79
Calendar Year 2008
41
4.61
4.75
4.70
4.51
4.51
4.62
4.57
4.61
The increased availability of information on the CDD Web site and improved
informational brochures helped to keep customer wait times to a minimum. The
average customer waiting time in 2008 was 5 minutes, compared to 6.7 minutes
in 2007. However, customer visits in 2008 have decreased from 2007. The
decrease in volume of customers can be attributed to the slowing housing
market.
2. The goal of issuing permits online was reached in November 2008. The permits
available for purchase online at this time are electrical, plumbing and mechanical
permits. Official Payments Corporation administers credit card payments online
and developed a user friendly web application for licensed contractors.
3. As part of our online services, customers who are renewing a licensed facility are
able to do so online. This service allows customers with multiple transactions to
complete them all in one transaction. Having this service available will greatly
reduce staff time during the annual license facility renewal season each year.
4. Provided addressing services to the City of Redmond through September 2008
Due to a lack of funding, the City of Redmond cancelled the contract for services
effective October 2008.
5. CDD staff participated on the statewide Permit System Business Practice
Committee. The committee is focusing on helping the Building Codes Division
design a permit system that will be available to all jurisdictions statewide at no
cost. The State and the software vendor will be visiting CDD to get a first hand
Community Development Department Page 3 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
look at our systems in order to better incorporate some of our capabilities in the
new system design. With our current legacy system having a limited life span
left, this is an important first step in researching available options. We will
continue to take an active role in the process and then monitor the
implementation of the new statewide system next year.
6. Continued to manage our strategic plan for maintaining documents and records
to comply with Oregon Administrative Rules related to document archiving. We
have recently completed scanning all documents that had been stored in the
County Clerk's archive facility. Current documents are routinely scanned from in-
house files. These documents are transferred to the County Archive facility
where they are maintained until the designated destruction date, while all
permanent documents continue to be scanned and microfilmed. With the
purchase of an oversized document scanner this year, we are able to scan all
documents in-house and are no longer using a vendor for this process. This not
only is a costs savings, but we are also able to have our oversized documents
scanned in a timelier manner.
7. A web application was developed to allow customers to submit construction
plans electronically. Free software was installed for use by the plans examiners
in reviewing electronic plans. The initial tests of this product were very positive,
however due to the slowdown in permit applications, the opportunity_to complete
testing of this product has been delayed.
8. The Technology Team continued to assess the equipment used by staff including
computers, software, printers, scanners and audiovisual equipment to ensure
that operational needs were met. The team has developed an initial list of
projects that will enhance customer service, staff efficiency and internal and
external communications. Projects include online permit application processing
making data available to inspectors while in the field, an electronic plan review
project and review of business processes and procedures. This list will be
enhanced or modified to address changing needs and goals of the department.
9. Coordinated Services continued to improve team building, internal
communication and training opportunities. Focus Training sessions with other
divisions provided an opportunity to discuss and clarify code changes, new
policies and procedures, and other topics of timely interest. Additional regular
meetings were held to facilitate communication and coordination between
divisions.
Community Development Department Page 4 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
CODE ENFORCEMENT
The Code Enforcement (CE) program consists of two Code Enforcement Technicians,
supported by a Law Enforcement Technician from the Sheriff's Department,
management and the operating divisions. Code Enforcement is responsible for
investigating code violation complaints with the overriding goal of achieving voluntary
compliance. If necessary, Code Enforcement may issue citations for prosecution in
circuit court.
2008 Code Enforcement Activity Report
CASE TYPE
NUMBER
OPENED
NUMBER
CLOSED
AVERAGE DAY
TURNAROUND*
Building
88
84
92
Environmental Health
30
32
70
River
2
6
NA
Plannin
89
96
109
Li htin
9
8
40
Solid Waste
37
47
123
Total
255
273
87,
*Code Enforcement case opened and closed in 2008 calendar year
10. Continued a proactive code enforcement program. Operational focus now
includes investigation of illegal second dwellings, review of temporary use
permits (medical hardship verification, RVs as temporary residence), and
replacement dwelling follow-up.
11. Implemented a citation procedure for Environmental Health code violations within
Bend and Redmond city limits. This procedure was cooperatively developed
through collaboration with the Sheriffs Office and their police chiefs.
12. Worked cooperatively with the Department of State Lands (DSL), Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Oregon Parks and Recreation
(OPRD) in resolution of riverfront and wetland land use violations. Continued
efforts to develop a joint process for violations in national wetlands.
13. Worked collaboratively with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) to resolve complex environmental health and solid waste code violations.
14. Attended Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) conferences,
networking and exchanging information to improve operational procedures and
practices. Recently completed OCEA training on Code Enforcement Best
Practices in the Courtroom.
15. Scheduled presentations with county neighborhood associations enhancing a
cooperative approach to enforcement issues. Currently working with associations
to address their area livability concerns.
Community Development Department Page 5 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
16. Collaborated with the Planning Division in the revision of home occupation and
temporary use medical hardship rules. These revisions have improved code
enforceability, while accommodating public demand and use patterns through a
public process.
17. Coordinated and facilitated pre-application meetings involving relevant divisions
(Planning, Environmental Health, and Building Safety) to enhance efficient case
resolution.
18. Proactively addressed new trends in land use violations: Events Centers in Multi
Use Agricultural (MUA) and Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones with notice given
to alleged operators. Collaborated with relevant County departments and
divisions (Planning, Environmental Health, Building Safety Division, County
Legal, County Road Department, Sheriffs Office and the Board of County
Commissioners).
Community Development Department Page 6 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS)
In addition to supporting mapping and geographical analysis needs of each of the
operating divisions, the GIS Analyst/Programmer and GIS Analyst for the program are
responsible for the development and maintenance of the County digital spatial database
and for providing state-of-the-art mapping and data services to local governments,
citizens, and businesses. In addition, a Senior Web Application Developer serves as the
webmaster for the CDD Web site and coordinates the development of web-based staff
and customer service applications.
GIS PROJECTS
19. Continued to train employees, both individually and in groups, on the expanded
use of the Local Area Virtual Atlas (LAVA) program.
20. Provided exemplary customer service to both internal and external customers.
Internal customers received assistance and guidance with regard to in house
computers and peripherals. External customers received quality and professional
services for their GIS related requests.
21. Worked with the Deschutes County Environmental Health Division and the
Deschutes County Health Department to map all public water systems in
Deschutes County. Created geographic data sets for all public water systems
and corresponding wellhead locations in Deschutes County.
22. Updated the Land Use Tracking System by incorporating new Wetland,
Landscape Management and Lot of Record databases.
23. Provided technical support, statistical analysis, and mapping support to the City
of La Pine and multiple consulting firms working in conjunction with the City of La
Pine.
24. Completed a major implementation of the 2007 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetland Inventory (NWI). This included implementing new NWI wetland
data into Deschutes County's GIS data and Land Use Tracking System (LUTS).
25. Continued to maintain the zoning layers, including updates and changes, for
each of the incorporated cities within Deschutes County.
26. Continued to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) in an effort to create transportation
modeling scenarios for the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan.
27. Assisted Long Range planning staff with the Bend Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) statistical analysis, mapping and public hearing presentation displays.
Also provided technical assistance to the City of Bend Planning Commission
regarding GIS analysis in support of the City of Bend UGB process.
28. Updated and maintained the GIS Metadata, a summary for all GIS data
maintained by CDD for the County GIS program.
Community Development Department Page 7 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
29. Provided mapping/analysis to the Long Range Planning Division in support of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
30. Completed assembly of CDD's Historic Map Collection. Scanned relevant map
materials and prepared digital files that can be accessed digitally. Maps were
previously stored only at the County Clerk's office in hardcopy format.
31. Completed mapping of Deschutes County's Goal 5 Historic resource inventory.
32. Created digital and geographic databases of all valid Conservation
Agreements/Easements required by the county Planning Division.
33. Continued to provide GIS support of the South County High Groundwater Work
Program. Compiled data, reports, maps, and technical analysis for
Environmental Health and the United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
Optimization Modeling and potential load reduction scenarios.
34. Worked with Deschutes County Administration to produce technical maps for the
Deschutes County Recreation Assets Committee.
35. Provided mapping support to Deschutes County Property Management staff in
support of the Redmond Eastside Framework Plan.
WEB PROJECTS
36. Online Ecommerce Restaurant Licensing Renewal Application: Developed an
online ecommerce application to collect payments over the web for restaurant
licensing renewal.
37. Online ECommerce Permit Application: Developed online ecommerce application
to process simple building permit applications, such as electric, plumbing and
mechanical permits. Collect online payments using our credit card processor,
Official Payments Corporation. Application was built using Flex technology and a
Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) certificate was implemented for security.
38. Inspector Queue: Developed an online application to report the status of the
inspector's daily inspection schedule.
39. Comprehensive Plan Web site: Designed a Web site for the Comprehensive Plan
process. Includes a community conversation section and a built in calendar.
40. Online Restaurant Evaluation Report Application: Develop an online reporting
application to provide restaurant inspection results to the public. Similar to
Marion County's application.
41. Electronic Plan Review Application: Developed a pilot application to process
building plans online. Pilot developers submit building plans in digital format
online. Need to integrate into current business processes.
Community Development Department Page 8 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
42. Community Development Online Mapping Application (Intranet): New online
mapping application for internal Community Development use called CDMap.
Provides mapping and reporting capabilities for all information pertaining to
Community Development. Built with easy to use Flex technology, CDMap
contains interactive mapping, printable maps, reports containing Assessor and
Community Development data, charts, Community Development documents, tax
maps, surveys, mailing labels and Exclusive Farm Use analysis capabilities.
43. Online Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Research Mapping Application: Upgraded
existing desktop EFU application to an online version incorporated into CDMap.
Maintained the same functionality to analyze EFU data and generate maps and
reports for EFU research.
44. Online Road Access Permit Report: Incorporated the road report into our CDMap
application. This report provides a road map and current road information to our
Permit Techs for determining road access permit criteria.
45. Online Restaurant Evaluation Report Application: Develop an online reporting
application to provide restaurant inspection results to the public. Similar to
Marion County's application.
46. Community Development Online Customer Survey: Used SurveyMonkey.com to
create an online survey for Community Development customers to provide
feedback regarding our customer service to our department.
47. Community Development Internet Content Management: Continue to maintain
our internet site, keeping the content current by providing and publishing the
latest information, forms, news, events, documentation, etc.
48. Community Development Web Support: Continued to provide web support to
staff and customers by answering questions and fixing problems. Also continued
to publish data for staff to the Community Development's Web site.
49. Internet Usage Reports: Built usage reports to monitor the restaurant application
and the inspector queue application. Also built an administration application to
monitor our ecommerce application.
Community Development Department Page 9 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
BUILDING SAFETY
The Building Official, Dennis Perkins, an Assistant Building Official, 10 Building Safety
Inspectors, and support staff provide construction plan review, consultation and
inspection to assure compliance with national and State building specialty codes.
Deschutes County's Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the state mandated
Building Codes for the people of the community through a process of education and a
clear and fair application of the Specialty Codes. The Division provides all of these
services to the City of Redmond through a contract and provides various services to
Lake, Jefferson and Crook Counties and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division on
an "as needed" basis.
50. The goal to complete all inspection requests within 24 hours has generally been
accomplished. In those cases where the 24 hour inspection time could not be
met, they were given priority and completed the next working day.
51. The division has continued to support the City of Redmond building inspection
program. Over the past year, the City has modified our intergovernmental
agreement to better meet their needs.
52. The division has made a renewed effort to work more closely with all eight fire
departments in our jurisdiction. Together with the fire departments, the division is
working to more closely regulate the placement of propane tanks and service
piping.
53. Residential fire sprinklers are being installed and are being considered to be
mandatory in all new residential construction. The division is training and
ensuring that the local fire departments are consulted when sprinkler system
inspections are required.
54. The division was able to respond to all requests from neighboring jurisdictions for
inspection support through existing intergovernmental agreements.
55. The division has worked to improve consistency in inspections of commercial
structures, which was affected by a number of staff adjustments made this past
year. Staff is being retrained to better provide consistent application of the
Commercial Codes.
56. The inspection staff is utilizing the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system and
has been successful in making the IVR a tool for reducing data input time and
providing better public access to the daily inspection results.
57. Building Safety continues to work with the Central Oregon Builders Association
(COBA). Monthly meetings are the primary interaction; however, the division has
been asked and has agreed to support COBA in other activities. COBA has also
been invited to review all funding and fee increases proposed by the department.
Community Development Department Page 10 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/2912009 7:23 AM
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Provide and promote protection of Public Health and the Environment through
education, consultation, and regulation.
The Environmental Health Division (EH) provides plan review, consultation and
inspection of regulated public facilities (restaurants, pools, tourist facilities, schools and
child care centers) and on-site wastewater and dispersal systems. The Division also
regulates public water systems to provide safe drinking water and works with the County
Health Department on a variety of epidemiology programs and issues. In addition, EH is
engaged in the proactive pursuit of protection of groundwater quality in southern
Deschutes County. A staff of 8 provides this range of services.
ADMINISTRATION
58. Reallocated individual workloads and coverage areas per shifting demand.
59. Created electronic shared calendars to coordinate assigned duties and
scheduled time off.
ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
60. Assessed 151 sites for feasibility for on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal
systems, down 52% from 2007. Issued 1223 permits and authorizations for new
and existing on-site treatment and dispersal systems, down 31 % from 2007.
61. Performed 1,345 inspections to ensure proper siting, installation or abandonment
of on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, down 28% from 2007.
62. Created attachments for permits with standardized inspection procedures.
63. Permitted and inspected the retrofitting of 8 conventional septic systems and the
installation of 8 new systems with denitrifying technology, bringing the total to 65
homes treating their wastewater to standards necessary to ensure safe drinking
water in South County.
64. Finished the first full year of Operation and Maintenance billing and
recordkeeping for the 166 septic systems requiring annual reporting per OAR
340-71. The compliance rate with this program is about 96%.
65. Created and implemented a questionnaire to better understand applicant
Authorization Notice applications.
66. Created electronic folders to store product information.
Community Development Department Page 11 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
67. Published article in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering entitled, "Overview of
the Field Test of Innovative On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems during the
La Pine National Demonstration Project."
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY
68. Continued to support the Board of County Commissioners during their fact-
finding phase following public hearings on the proposed rule for on-site system
upgrades. Support included responding to requests for information from the
Board and the public and updating public information materials, including the
project Web site at www.deschutes.org/cdd/qpp.
69. Supported the Board of County Commissioners during final hearing, deliberation
and decision on the proposed Local Rule. The Board decided unanimously to
adopt the rule on July 23, 2008. Support included supplying information as
requested and finalizing ordinance, code and resolution language and exhibits.
70. Completed the short term implementation plan for the Local Rule. Completed
work on implementation plan tasks in anticipation of the October 23, 2008
effective date of the Local Rule.
71. Completed changes to the permit database system in Accuterm to track nitrogen
reduction system installations and provide property-specific information about
performance standards and upgrade requirements.
72. Drafted the long range groundwater protection plan for south Deschutes County
including long-term financial assistance and groundwater monitoring programs.
73. Submitted and received approval of the final report for the Groundwater
Protection Project from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Completed
and closed the grant. Posted the final report on the project Web site.
74. Received the published report for the identification of nitrogen reduction
processes in sand filters from the USGS entitled, "Mass balance and isotope
effects during nitrogen transport through septic tank systems with packed-bed
(sand) filters." The field sampling in support of this study was completed using
new and established sand filters located in Deschutes County.
FOOD INSPECTION PROTECTION PROGRAM
75. Performed 1,680 Inspections on restaurants, temporary food booths, mobile food
units, commissaries, warehouses, and bed and breakfasts.
76. Provided plan review for 90 new or remodeled restaurants.
77. Tested 1,019 food handlers in-house or out in the community.
78. Helped in making the restaurant scores and inspections available to the public
through the CDD Web site. Recorded 7,696 hits on the Web site in 2008.
Community Development Department Page 12 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
79. Entered into an agreement to provide an internet site to allow Food Handler
testing online.
80. Implemented online renewal licensing on the CDD Web site for customer
convenience.
81. Deputized three Environmental Health Specialists who are now able to issue
citations for compliance issues at Licensed Facilities.
82. Investigated 42 significant complaints about foodborne illnesses.
83. Worked with the Health Department to investigate the foodborne illness outbreak
at the Deschutes County Jail.
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
84. Investigated 36 water quality alerts (5 E.Coli, 27 Coliform, 4 Chemical) with same
day response time.
85. Addressed 3 Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs are systems with a history of
non-compliance).
86. Responded to 7 violations (unaddressed violations become SNCs).
87. Conducted 40 sanitary surveys (comprehensive inspections of the source,
treatment, storage, distribution and management to evaluate the system's ability
to provide safe water).
88. Provided professional technical and regulatory assistance to public water
systems in and around Deschutes County.
89. Responded to an increasing number of inquiries from private well owners and
non-public systems.
90. Conducted 14 on-site consultations to assist systems in developing required
emergency response plans and received 15 more completed plans.
91. Continued to train additional staff to assist with growing program.
92. Continued to work on the grant funded water system mapping project with GIS
staff.
93. Participated on a statewide committee and awarded a third party trainer contract
with Oregon Association of Water Utilities (OAWU) to teach Groundwater
Operators Courses required for operator certification.
Community Development Department Page 13 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
POOLS. SPAS. AND TOURIST FACILITIES
94. Performed 371 pool and spa inspections.
95. Performed 37 tourist accommodation inspections.
96. Reviewed 9 pool/spa plans.
97. Taught a spring Pool Operators Training Class attended by 43 operators and
developed a Powerpoint presentation for this class.
98. Worked with the State Health Division to edit and rewrite existing pool rules
99. Worked to educate the community of pool/spa operators about the new Federal
Main Drain legislation, the Virginia Graeme Baker Act (VGB). Sent out letters
and email to all operators in June and posted several articles and bulletins on the
County pool Web site to educate operators. Distributed a State Bulletin
regarding VGB (issued on August 25, 2007) to operators during routine
inspections. Consulted with numerous operators on hundreds of vessels and the
required structural changes, maximum flow rates and approved grate designs.
SCHOOLS
100. Completed all 104 National School Lunch Program inspections for 52 schools in
several school districts serving over 19,000 meals per day.
101. Continued to assist schools in the implementation of required Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans and Standard Operating Procedures.
102. Continued to improve consistency amongst all four sanitarians conducting
inspections.
CHILDCARE
103. Completed 100% of inspections for 70 licensed child care facilities.
104. Began cross-referencing drinking water sources and on-site septic permits to
rural child care homes to ensure compliance with Drinking Water and
Department of Environmental Quality rules.
Community Development Department Page 14 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
PLANNING
PROVIDING COURTEOUS, TIMELY, AND PROFESSIONAL LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES
THROUGH INNOVATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE, AND COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS.
The Planning Division consists of 13 employees, including an Administrative Secretary
under the supervision of the Planning Director, Nick Lelack. Current Planning includes a
Principal Planner, 3 Senior Planners, two Associate Planners and an Assistant Planner.
Current Planning handles individual land use applications, zoning review, sign-off for
building and septic permits and information to the public on all land use related issues. It
is also responsible for all addressing and road naming in the rural County. Long Range
Planning includes a Principal Planner, 2 Senior Planners, and an Associate Planner.
Long Range Planning conducts public involvement to consider land use policy, updates
the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and coordinates with the cities
and agencies on planning projects.
CURRENT PLANNING
105. Current Planning received 832 land use applications in the year 2008. This
compares with 985 applications for the year 2007, a 15% decrease, and 1,090 in
2006.
106. There were 22 appeals filed in the year 2008. This compares with 21 appeals in
the year 2007, a 5% increase, and 12 appeals in 2006.
107. There were 53 applications reviewed by the County hearings officers in the year
2008. This compares with 80 in 2007 and 46 in 2006. Eighteen decisions were
appealed to the Board of County Commissioners in 2008. This compares with 12
appeals in 2007, a 50% increase, and 7 appeals in 2006.
108. There were 11 appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in 2008. This
compares with 2 appeals to LUBA in 2007 and 6 appeals in 2006.
109. Current Planning met with 3,026 customers in 2008. This compares with 4,116
customers in 2007, a 26% decrease, and 5,227 customers in 2006.
110. Received and processed all land use applications for the City of La Pine in
accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement.
111. There were 7 Measure 37/49 vested rights determinations rendered by County
Hearings Officers in 2008.
Community Development Department Page 15 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION:
112. Reviewed and made recommendations on the 2008-2009 Community
Development Work Plan.
113. Planning Commission recommendations were made to the Board of County
Commissioners on the following text and plan amendments and other items:
■ Sunriver Town Center
■ Aspen Lakes (Cluster development conversion to destination resort)
■ Bend Urban Growth Boundary proposal
■ Geographic Information System Zone Map
■ Temporary Medical Hardship (for RVs)
■ Deadlines to Complete Land Use Permits
■ Mass Gathering Permits (4 Peaks & Jeld Wen Tradition)
■ Noise Permits (Bend Airport Runway Replacement & ODOT Repaving of
Highway 97)
■ Weddings in MUA-10 zone
■ After-the-fact partitions to legitimize improperly created parcels.
■ Small hydroelectric facilities in the Open Space & Conservation
(OS&C) zone
■ Transferable Development Credit text amendment for the La Pine
Neighborhood Planning Area
114. Completed a Community Involvement Report for 2007 for the State Citizen
Involvement Advisory Committee.
115. Initiated the public process for updating the County comprehensive plan and
hosted informal discussions on the following topics:
■ August: Growth and Community Involvement
■ September: Rural Lands - Farm and Forest
■ October: Rural Lands - Rural Reserves, Destination Resorts
■ November: Built Environment - Rural Residential, Economy, Housing,
Urbanization, Natural Hazards
■ December: Natural Resources - Rivers, Wetlands, Riparian Areas,
Fish and Wildlife
STAFF:
116. Coordinated with the Board of County Commissioners to fill three Planning
Commissioner vacancies. Reappointed two planning commissioners as part of a
process to arrange terms to ensure commissioner appointments are
appropriately staggered.
117. Assured meeting materials are available for easy access by the public on the
CDD Web site.
Community Development Department Page 16 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
118. Maintained a web page for pending code amendments for easy access by the
public.
119. Monitored and reported on the progress of the State Task Force on Land Use
(The Big Look).
120. Prepared press releases on controversial topics of discussion to alert the public.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND AGENCIES
BEND COORDINATION
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) EXPANSION:
121. Attended fifteen interagency coordination meetings with City staff.
122. Attended ten Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
123. Attended May 2008 City of Bend public facility open house.
124. Attended twenty-five joint Bend Planning Commission and County Planning
Commission liaison work sessions.
125. Attended two Board of County Commissioners and Bend City Council work
sessions in June and September 2008.
126. Participated in three joint Bend and Deschutes County Planning Commission
public hearings in January, June and October 2008.
127. Coordinated with Bend staff to amend Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
policies, Comprehensive Plan map, Transportation System Plan map, zoning
(DCC Title 19 - Bend Urban Growth Area), and zoning map.
128. Attended Bend Planning Commission and Deschutes County Planning
Commission deliberation meetings in October and November 2008.
129. Participated in two Board of County Commissioner work sessions in November
2008.
130. Participated in joint Board of County Commissioner and Bend City Council public
hearing in November 2008.
131. Attended Bend City Council deliberation meetings in December 2008.
Community Development Department Page 17 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
REDMOND COORDINATION
132. Attended collaborative meetings with the City of Redmond, Department of State
Lands (DSL), Oregon Military Department and Deschutes County in September
and November 2008.
133. Assisted in the development and adoption of the Eastside Framework Plan in
conjunction with the County's Properties and Facilities Department.
SISTERS COORDINATION
134. Responded to City of Sisters inquiries about siting a landfill in the unincorporated
area of Sisters' 2005 UGB Expansion, County ordinances relating to holding
zones and exception process in October 2008.
135. Attended a joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the Sisters
City Council to assist in answering questions on the comprehensive plan and
destination resorts.
LA PINE COORDINATION
136. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development approved the
Coordinated Population forecast in August 2008.
137. Drafted amendments to the Urbanization Chapter of Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan (DCC 23.48) to recognize a conservative twenty-year
population forecast for the City of La Pine that can then be used by city officials
and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to estimate
the City's twenty-year land need and the location of a Urban Growth Boundary.
138. Worked with the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Development
(OHCD) to develop a plan for affordable housing and other compatible uses on
the County owned community facility zoned property. OHCD will develop a
request for proposals and/or solicitation of a master developer.
139. Worked with the Bend/La Pine School District to adopt an agreement regarding a
proposed school site.
GRANTS
140. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) - WETLAND PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT GRANT:
■ Submitted a $350,000 grant proposal for a 2008 EPA Wetland Project
Development Grant.
Community Development Department Page 18 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
■ Coordinated with the Washington D.C. Congressional delegation, Deschutes
Resources Conservancy, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes
Basin Board of Control, EPA-Region 10, Oregon Water Resources
Department, City of Bend, and other stakeholders to receive their formal
support.
141. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
(DLCD) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT:
■ Awarded a $90,000 technical assistance grant to help fund a technical
committee and associated public involvement process to address land-use
and water quality issues south of Sunriver to the Klamath County border.
142. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT):
TRANSPORTATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT GRANT:
■ Obtained a $100,000 grant to update the Deschutes County Transportation
System Plan.
143. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM (FEDERAL EPA):
■ Submitted final federal forms and officially closed-out the grant with U.S.
EPA-Region 10.
144. WATER QUALITY COOPERATIVE GRANT (FEDERAL USGS):
■ Submitted final federal forms and officially closed-out the grant with U.S.
EPA-Region 10.
PROJECTS
SOUTH COUNTY GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT
145. Attended Deschutes County, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development two-day interagency
meeting in January 2008.
146. Attended Board of County Commissioner, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development work
session in January 2008.
147. Coordinated with facilitator, and Administrator's office to distribute packets for a
Financial Assistance Advisory Committee. Attended and recorded six meetings
from January to May 2008.
148. Attended and recorded testimony delivered at public hearing with the Board of
County Commissioners in La Pine regarding a revised Local Rule in March 2008.
149. Attended Board of County Commissioner deliberation of a Local Rule in April
2008.
Community Development Department Page 19 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
150. Participated with Oregon Water Wonderland I and II, Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development in May 2008 to discuss Goal 11 and the sewer annexation process.
151. Attended a public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners in Bend
regarding a revised Local Rule in July 2008.
152. Participated with Sunriver, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development in July 2008 to
discuss opportunities to extend sewer service into adjoining rural neighborhoods.
153. Participated with House Interim Committee on Energy and the Environment
about Local Rule and Groundwater Protection Program in September 2008.
OTHER
154. Continued tracking of destination resorts to ensure they are meeting the required
housing ratio. Worked with Eagle Crest to obtain the needed information through
a survey.
155. Deschutes Steelhead Reintroduction Meetings
■ Reviewed four Request for Proposals regarding an Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Risk Assessment for Central Oregon Cities and Counties.
■ Completed memorandum to County Administrator summarizing
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and land use ordinances relating
to natural resources.
156. 2008 Housing Unit and Population Questionnaire
■ Coordinated with Assessor and County Administrator offices.
■ Questionnaire submitted to Portland State University in August 2008
■ Preliminary forecast announced in November 2008
■ Final forecast certified in December 2008
157. Conference Presentations
• Upper Deschutes River Coalition (40th Anniversary of Wild Scenic River
Act) - Promise of Partnerships.
■ Oregon Planning Institute (2008) - Big Planning Projects for Small Cities
■ Oregon Planning Institute (2008) - System Planning Focus
■ Oregon Department of Transportation Fall Development Review
Conference - County's experience with destination resorts
■ Prepared a Destination Resort and Transportation Impact PowerPoint for
current planner presentation at 2008 Association of Oregon Counties
Annual Conference
Community Development Department Page 20 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
158. Historical Landmarks Commission
• Staff to the Historical Landmarks Commission, responsible for processing
county historic land use applications.
■ Coordinated with the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a county
representative to the Historical Landmarks Commission.
■ Processed a request of an approval of a landscape plan and fence
surrounding a new fish screen.
159. Skyline Forest
■ Participated with County Administrator, Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development and Oregon Department of Forestry staff
discussion of Skyline Forest in August 2008.
160. Destination resorts
■ Coordinated with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development in analyzing destination resorts in Central Oregon.
CODE AMENDMENTS
STAFF INITIATED:
161. Mini Storage Text Amendment adopted in January 2008.
162. Geographic Information System Zone Map amendment adopted in May 2008.
163. Temporary Medical Hardship (for RVs) amendment adopted in July 2008.
164. Amateur radio facility amendment adopted in August 2008.
165. Temporary Medical Hardship (for RVs) amendment adopted in September 2008.
APPLICANT INITIATED:
166. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community provisions to add a new Town Center
District adopted June 2008.
167. Wedding activity in Multiple Use Agricultural zone amendment, denied November
2008.
168. Cluster development provisions to except certain development standards when a
cluster development (Aspen Lakes) converts to a destination resort, denied
November 2008.
169. Transferable Development Credit text amendment for the La Pine Neighborhood
Planning Area (application pending).
Community Development Department Page 21 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
170. Wedding activity in Exclusive Farm Use zone amendment (application pending).
171. Title 22 code amendment to incorporate language from ORS 92, allowing for
after-the-fact partitions to legitimize improperly created parcels.
172. Amend Chapter 15.08, Signs, to address multiple variance requests in La Pine
(application pending).
173. Amend Chapter 18.16, EFU, to be consistent with ORS 215.284(7) (application
pending).
174. Amend Chapter 18.16, EFU, to allow for processing of aggregate in conjunction
with road projects (application pending).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
175. Rewrote the Comprehensive Plan to provide the public with a user-friendly
version. The rewrite, called the Working Comprehensive Plan, will be used to
analyze existing goals and policies.
176. Presented an overview of the work program to the Planning Commission and
Board in June 2008.
177. Coordinated with the County Public Communications Coordinator for media
releases announcing upcoming Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
(Planning Commission) meetings.
178. Created a schedule for the plan update and a public input plan.
179. Promoted the comprehensive plan update in interviews on Daybreak and Direct
Connect (KOHD) as well as Good Morning Central Oregon and Inside Deschutes
County. Also conducted a number of radio and printed press interviews.
■ http://video.google.com/videol)lav?docid=2109386173313591485&hl=en
■ http://video.google.com/videoplav?docid=3297641395057900761&hl=en
180. Coordinated with Senior Web Applications Developer, to develop a
Comprehensive Plan Update Web site.
■ (http://Iava5.deschutes.org/cdd/compplan/index.cfm)
181. Attended a joint meeting with the Board of County Commissioners and the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee for a discussion of growth and
community involvement in August 2008.
182. Steering Committee schedule mailed out to 42,500 property owners with the
county tax bills in the unincorporated area.
183. Comprehensive Plan Steering Commission held the following meetings in 2008:
Community Development Department Page 22 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
• Farm and Forest panel discussion in September.
■ Rural Reserves and Destination Resorts discussion in October.
• Rural Development, Housing, Economic Development, Urbanization and
Natural Hazards discussion in November.
■ Deschutes River Corridor and Fish and Wildlife discussion in December.
184. Six listening sessions were held around the county in October and November
2008 to hear from the community regarding land use. The county was divided
into seven management areas for analysis and a meeting was held in a central
location for each of the five areas with population.
■ Sisters City Hall
■ Redmond School District
■ Deschutes Services Center
■ La Pine Senior Center
■ Brothers School
■ Terrebonne Community School
185. A schedule was prepared for the listening sessions and sent to email lists
including government and non-government agencies and the public located in
the rural communities of each management area. The flyer was also distributed
at each listen session meeting and sent out as a press release to the numerous
local newspapers.
186. Besides listening sessions, the county contacted 159 governmental and quasi-
governmental agencies and 28 community organizations with an offer to meet
and discuss potential issues or lead a presentation and discussion with their
group on comprehensive plan issues. The list below identifies actions from
August to December 2008:
■ Project Wildfire
■ Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
• Central Oregon Irrigation District
■ Bend Municipal Airport Group
■ Central Oregon Real Estate Governmental Affairs Committee
■ Bureau of Land Management
■ Project Wildfire and Community Wildfire Protection Plan representatives
■ La Pine Fire District Board
■ Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Deschutes River Conservancy
• Oregon Military Department
187. Organized and held a destination resort stakeholders meeting to discuss
potential options. Created alternatives for destination resort remapping and a
process to analyze properties that want to be added to the resort map.
Community Development Department Page 23 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
188. Maintained the CDD Web site related to long range planning and transportation
planning issues.
189. Awarded $100,000 grant from ODOT/DLCD to update Transportation System
Plan (TSP).
190. Held open houses in September 2008 on TSP update in Bend, La Pine,
Redmond, Sisters, Terrebonne, and Tumalo.
191. Awarded a $200,000 grant from ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program to add
sidewalks along B Avenue in Terrebonne and sidewalks, bike lanes, and
bioswales to U.S. 97 through the community.
192. Coordinated with the Bureau of Land Management and the Count Road
Department on the environmental process to identify a footprint for 19t Street
between southern Redmond and Deschutes Junction.
193. Participated in ODOT-funded refinement planning projects for Highway 97.
These projects included:
■ US97/US20 Refinement Plan (Bend area)
• Wickiup Junction interchange or bypass
■ U.S. 20 in Tumalo
■ Southern extension of U.S. 97 Re-Route in Redmond
194. Coordinated with the Department of State Lands on the master planning of a
Bureau of Land Management property south of the County Fairgrounds (part of
South Redmond Collaborative Group).
195. Worked with the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, including
completion of the GIS-based regional bike guide (road routes), County Trails
Plan and Web site upgrades.
196. Worked with the City of Bend on projects relating to UGB expansions and
designation of Urban Reserve Areas.
197. Worked with the City of Redmond on the update of their TSP with emphasis on
19th Street.
198. Worked with the City of Sisters on the update of their TSP, especially as it
pertains to potential alternate routes around Sisters.
Community Development Department Page 24 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
199. TRANSPORTATION RELATED COMMITTEES:
■ Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee.
■ South Redmond Area Collaborative Planning Group to address transportation
issues, including 19th Street and Pronghorn secondary access.
■ La Pine Transportation Advisory Committee.
■ Commute Options Working Group
■ Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
■ Oregon Solutions Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
■ Central Oregon Transportation Advisory Committee Rail Plan Technical
Committee
■ ODOT N. 97 Technical Management Team
■ City of Bend 97/Cooley Mid-Term Solution Technical Advisory Committee
■ City of Sisters TSP Technical Advisory Committee
200. OTHER COMMITTEES:
Project Wildfire
■ Participated in Monthly Meetings as a Board appointed member
Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee
■ Attended monthly meetings as Secretary
■ Draft monthly minutes
■ Coordinate with the Board to fill vacancies
Provisional Advisory Committee
■ Attended quarterly meetings
Bend Parks and Recreation District
■ Participated in 2008 CIP/SDC Advisory Group
Association of Oregon Planning Directors
■ Participated in selected meetings
■ Prepared a presentation and led a discussion on destination resorts
Chronic Health Advisory Committee
■ Participated in selected meeting
Community Development Department Page 25 of 25
Accomplishments 2008 4/29/2009 7:23 AM
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2009
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak
should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please
use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you
to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject
of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing.
2. PUBLIC HEARING, Discussion and Consideration of Approval of the
Community Development Department 2009-2010 Work Plan and Discussion of
the Community Development Department 2008 Accomplishments - Tom
Anderson, Community Development Department
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Order No. 2009-036, Authorizing County
Administrator Signature of Document No. 2009-290, a Loan Agreement with
the Department of Environmental Quality regarding a Study of Feasibility of
Expanding the Sunriver Sewer System - Tom Anderson, Community
Development Department
4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First and Second Readings, and
Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinances No. 2009-015 and 2009-016,
Amending Code to Change the Designation of Certain Property from Forest
Use to Urban Reserve (City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary) - Will Groves,
Community Development Department
5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009-212, an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Sisters regarding the Use of
Property for a Fire Training Facility - Will Groves, Community Development
Department
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 1 of 9 Pages
6. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Document No. 2009-265, Approving a
Lot of Record Verification (Applicant: Central Oregon Irrigation District) -
Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Department
CONSENT AGENDA
7. Signature of Order 2009-030, Assigning the Name of Meadow House Loop to
an Unnamed Access Road
8. Signature of Order No. 2009-031, Assigning the Name of Meadow House
Court to an Unnamed Access Road
9. Signature of Order No. 2009-034, Assigning the Name of Mashie Lane to an
Unnamed Access Road
10. Signature of Order No. 2009-035, Assigning the Name of Brassie Lane to an
Unnamed Access Road
11. Approval of Minutes:
• Work Session of May 27
• Public Hearing of December 17, 2008 (Lower Bridge Mine)
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1
County Service District
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the
Extension/4-H County Service District
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 2 of 9 Pages
15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
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.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place 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)
Monday, June 1, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 4, 2009
9:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development Department
10:00 a.m. Regular Update with the District Attorney
1:30 p.m. Regular Update with Road Department (at job site, Deschutes Market Road/Tumalo
Road overpass project)
2:30 p.m. Regular Update with Solid Waste Department (at job site, Deschutes Market
Road/Tumalo Road overpass project)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 3 of 9 Pages
Monday, June 15, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation
10:00 a.m. Oregon Youth Challenge Graduation Ceremony
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
9:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health & Human Services Department
10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Department
Monday, June 22, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - includes public hearings on proposed budgets,
and consideration of adoption of the budgets
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Department
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families
2:00 p.m. Regular Meeting with the Sheriff
5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Monday, June 29, 2009
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
7:30 a.m. Conference Call with Public Affairs Council (State Lobbyist) regarding Legislation
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 2
8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall
Friday, July 3
Most County Offices will be closed to observe Independence Day.
Monday, July 6
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, July 8
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 9
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council - Redmond City Hall
Wednesday, July 15
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, July 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, July 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, July 23
5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
Monday, July 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, July 29
Opening Day at the Deschutes County Fair
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 3
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, August 5
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 12
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 17
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
12 noon Regular Meeting with Department Directors
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 6 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, August 19
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 24
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, August 26
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, August 31
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 2
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 3
10:00 a.m. Regular Update with District Attorney
11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development
1:30 p.m. Regular Meeting with Road Department
2:30 p.m. Regular Meeting with Solid Waste Department
Monday, September 7
Most County Offices will be closed to observe Labor Day
Wednesday, September 9
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Thursday September 10
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council - Redmond City Hall
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Health and Human Services
Mondgy, September 14
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Wednesday, September 16
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 17
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with County Clerk
10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Community Justice
Monday, September 21
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, September 23
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 24
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Fair & Expo Director
10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Assessor
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Commission on Children & Families
2:00 p.m. Regular Meeting with Sheriff
Monday, September 28
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 8 of 9 Pages
Wednesday, September 30
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 1
8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall
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.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 1, 2009
Page 9 of 9 Pages