Loading...
2009-1382-Minutes for Meeting July 01,2009 Recorded 7/15/2009G DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01115/2009 08;17;58 AM II I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III 2 -1302 i 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 and Page , or as Fee Number Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Dave Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Laurie Craghead and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; David Givans, Auditor; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad and Peter Russell, Community Development; media representatives Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and a reporter from KOHD TV; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Before the Board was a Discussion of House Bill 2228 (Transfer of Development Rights from Resource Lands - Skyline Forest). Nick Lelack said that the purpose of the Bill was a transfer of development rights program. Sections were added that deal with the Metoliois site and small-scale recreation. Other sections deal with the pilot transfer development rights program. One section deals with Skyline Forest specifically. There is no apparent connection between the Metolius and Skyline Forest tracts. Mr. Lelack referred to a map showing Fidelity National timber holdings (formerly Crown Pacific). They own nearly 35,000 acres in Deschutes and Klamath counties. Skyline Forest is about 33,000 acres with up to 3,000 shown as a sustainable development area; 1,200 of these acres are contiguous. Up to 282 residential units might be allowed, as well as a store, restaurant, and basic support services. Golf courses are specifically excluded. The 1800 acres surrounding the rest of the land would be contained within a conservation easement that would minimize wildfire risk and impacts on groundwater, wildlife, and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 1 of 10 Pages Brad Chalfant with Deschutes Land Trust said that the Deschutes Land Trust is specifically mentioned. Commissioner Luke asked why another land trust would not be allowed; Mr. Chalfant stated that some specificity was desired and the DLT is the only established, community-based land trust in the area. Dave Kanner pointed out that County Code does not contain a definition of master plan, which is required to contain design guidelines. Mr. Lelack replied that there is an additional 12800 acres in easement. The goal is to protect the property's overall health. Mr. Chalfant stated that the Oregon Department of Forestry is giving input on how to minimize impacts, since there is no such thing as a non-impact project. Commissioner Baney said that she has been I n meeting where they discussed steelhead habitat. She asked what the legalities are if someone tries to sue Once you get up into that area, there is little that would be subject to mitigation for water. Land use applications are held in abeyance during the land use process. Commissioner Luke disclosed that he has toured this and other properties with Mr. Chalfant and the Department of Forestry. Commissioner Unger asked if the bill indicates that Skyline Forest might not be used if the use can be transferred to another. Mr. Chalfant said that there has been concern about large timber holdings and the pressure to develop them. It was felt a new vehicle should be developed to address this. The collection of pilot projects was intended to handle this issue, the goal of which is to limit development to urban type areas, away from rural environments. Mr. Lelack said the legislation is self-executing. The next step would be working with Fidelity and the land trust to refine this. Mr. Chalfant added that it was expected that this would not happen during this legislative session and that there would be a more extensive public process. Five years was allowed for the process. It is unique and groundbreaking and needs to be done properly. Commissioner Baney said that if done right, this could be a great gift to the community. Mr. Lelack said there would be a public process; he wondered if this should be included in the comprehensive plan update. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Pages 2. Work Session on Event Venues Issues & Planned Hearing (July 15). Mr. Lelack stated that the draft matrix explains what has occurred regarding this issue, and gave an overview of the various meetings and discussions. Some new definitions are proposed in the text amendment. The legislature discussed this issue but made no decisions. A minimum lot size and restricted activity areas are proposed by the applicant, as well as setbacks, the number of events, a traffic plan, hours of operation and so on. Screening of uses from noise, traffic and other adverse impacts are to be controlled; and equipment is to be stored when not being used. Commissioner Luke asked if these uses would displace current farming activities. Laurie Craghead stated that it could be based on whether the property is high value farmland. Commission Luke said that they could still be within 100 feet of the neighboring property, even if the subject property is large. In addition, if there is no permit for building, they are not supposed to be occupied. He mentioned that the Hearings Officer might require a berm but that berm might affect the views from the neighboring property. At this time, the group discussed the matrix of issues and possible solutions. First, can this legally be added to County Code per State law. Mr. Blikstad said there is a difference of opinion even at the State level. Therefore, it is uncertain if private parks can include an event venue. Under the private park portion of the Code, there is a variety of uses depending on the area (paintball games, etc.). Commissioner Unger would like to have more feedback from the State. Commissioner Luke feels it may be impossible to get clear direction. In regard to the types of events, Ms. Craghead stated that she feels specific events should not be listed if they are religious in nature. For instance, wineries in some areas can host events of all kinds. The wording "similar gatherings" might be considered. Ms. Craghead stated that the public hearing is to be based on what the Planning Commission has suggested, with the Board making recommendations on various options. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 3 of 10 Pages Mr. Blikstad said the Planning Commission recommended no more than twenty events per year. However, the events would likely happen during the summer months, concentrating the use. Mr. Lelack said that Commissioner Luke stated that any number is arbitrary; how can they be justified. Ms. Craghead said that any particular number would be hard to enforce, anyway. The Sheriff will not be responding, but a Code enforcement person would perhaps work. Tom Anderson stated that in terms of enforcement, the Sheriff cannot count the number of events, and this would be difficult for Code enforcement personnel as well. There would have to be a list submitted in advance, and the list probably would change over time, creating more administrative work. Commissioner Baney said there are a lot of compliance issues in the County besides these events. Permitting has been structured for some of them that make sense. Perhaps each event needs a permit. Sheriff Blanton stated that a potential option is to allow for part of the application fee used for a compliance officer to track the events and document whether they are working within the parameters developed. If 911 gets a call complaining about parking or noise, the compliance officer would respond. He also asked that if parking, traffic, etc. is close to the property line, this should be considered as well. The compliance officer would need to know all of the details of the event. The whole objective to this is voluntary compliance. The problem is that some of the people with this type of property will not know what type of rules or policy is being developed, or may not be on site when the event takes place. Commissioner Baney asked about compliance to OLCC rules. The OLCC can give a warning or cite, and then revoke. Ms. Craghead said there is a provision in Code for this. The next permit would not be issued if the rules were not followed. The definition for the number of events would be one event in every seven day period; i.e. six or seven days in between events. Mr. Blikstad said the Planning Commissioner recommended a minimum lot size of ten acres and a minimum setback of 300 feet from the neighboring dwelling. However, there was no consensus in this regard. Mr. Lelack stated that this includes activity areas as well, such as parking. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 4 of 10 Pages Mr. Lelack added that the distance is affected by topography, vegetation and other things. Commissioner Unger would like the compliance officer to have some authority. Sheriff Blanton said that it is easy to come up with parameters, but when it is 2:00 p.m. on a Sunday and the neighbors complain, that is a different story. There may not be manpower available in any case, and it is hard to shut down something that is in progress. Mr. Anderson reiterated that if an event is not only the list, `Commissioner Luke asked if the individual property or the event can be personal or a way to generate revenue. If the owner sells the property, there should be a different application process. Commissioner Luke stated that if there is one-time event like a family reunion or a friend's daughter, it might be handled differently. This would not require a permit. Ms. Craghead stated that this depends on the numbers and whether it affects the roads. Commissioner Luke asked about amplified music and whether a tent is adequate. Ms. Craghead stated that indoors would be logical to control the noise. Commissioner Unger said the Planning Commission did not differentiate between amplifying music or other things, such as speakers. Peter Russell said that if there were events in an established building, which is different from building one that would require system development charges. Commissioner Luke said that SDC's are collected if a commercial use changes from one to anther. Mr. Kanner stated that a tenant improvement triggers this, but a change of use might never be known. Commissioner Unger said that he feels the intent was to not create permanent structures for that use. The group took a five-minute break at this point. Ms. Craghead asked where you measure the distance from; a deck or the dwelling; or if the property is not yet developed. Also, the property lines need to be clearly marked. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 5 of 10 Pages In regard to indoor music, Commissioner Luke asked if home occupation rules apply if an event is indoors. If no new buildings can be established, does this also apply to remodels. Mr. Blikstad stated that most events appear to not be held within a residence, as they are not big enough. Commissioner Luke asked if portable offices and trailers could be used. Ms. Craghead said that schools and churches are permitted uses, but under private parks, the only thing mentioned is yurts in campgrounds. However, there have to be restroom facilities. Commissioner Unger suggested that facilities be temporary and be used only when needed. Mr. Blikstad said if this becomes too restrictive, it will in essence wipe out all of the operators. Commissioner Luke stated that there needs to be limitations to keep things under control. Commissioner Baney said that if there is an allowed use, she would rather not see delivery trucks bringing tents and porta-potties to each event; an agricultural or accessory building converted to this use would be better. Commissioner Luke said that if he and thirty others bought properties in a rural area, but the County let a commercial enterprise come in next door, is that fair. It is a commercial activity in an area where it was not allowed. It changes the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Baney stated that what the difference is if it was a tent or a building then. Commissioner Unger said that there could be a farm auction or similar use. Ms. Craghead stated that the County already allowed a cabinet shop to be allowed as a commercial use. Commissioner Baney feels she would rather see an accessory building instead of a big tent and porta-potties. Commissioner Luke stated that a big riding arena was built without permits but is now used for riding events. Agricultural buildings can be built without permits per the State. Therefore, standards that have to be met by those who put in buildings for commercial use. Commissioner Luke pointed out that someone could end up with three event operators adjacent to them. Mr. Lelack said that the Planning Commission considered this but felt there would not be that many applicants. Commissioner Luke asked about improvements for handicapped. Mr. Anderson said this only applies if there is a structure. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 6 of 10 Pages In terms of the use of land for commercial purposes, if the applicant uses the land to park a tractor or store hay, it remains a farm use. Mr. Lelack said a soils specialist spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, addressing soil compaction and other questions. However, this area does not have high value farmland per se. Mr. Russell said that a paved approach from the road onto the driveway could be required. Mr. Lelack said that the goal is to not have people parking along the roads. Flaggers could be required for larger numbers of visitors. Discussion occurred as to varying opinions on private parks; Ms. Craghead said the only sure way to know is to get a decision from LUBA or the Attorney General. In regard to an annual review, Commissioner Luke said that if the property is sold, the new owner needs to be brought up to speed. Mr. Anderson agreed philosophically, but there is more to it, such as upset neighbors. Regarding septic systems, the operator could upgrade or add a system that might be preferable to bringing in portable toilets. Commissioner Luke said that most septic tanks are designed for family use. A large group could overload the system. Mr. Anderson stated that an assessment would be required. Buffering and screening was then addressed. Mr. Blikstad said that it would be difficult to write anything in Code to accomplish this. Commissioner Baney asked about protecting the view corridor. Ms. Craghead stated that this is only in landscape management areas. There are provisions in the comprehensive plan that talk about protecting views, but no Code criteria was developed under Goal 5. There is only general language. Commissioner Unger said that House Bill 2228 did talk about the projection of views. Commissioner Baney stated that this has come up in regard to radio towers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 7 of 10 Pages Mr. Blikstad said that the applicant took out what staff proposed regarding the wildlife overlay. They were concerned about this affecting certain times of the year; for instance, within a winter deer range. The discussion ended at this time; staff will consider the comments and information, and most of it will be considered further by the Board. 3. Further Review of Economic Development Grant Requests (from June 29 meeting). Dave Inbody said that recommendations have been made as to limiting grants to 503(c)(3) status nonprofits. This would exclude government agencies, including internal offices and educational entities. Commissioner Unger stated that he is not necessarily in favor of limiting it in this fashion. This would exclude some groups that perhaps a Commissioner might want to support. Another suggestion was to limit the amount, unless it relates to a matching grant. Emergency uses or seed money for fundraisers might be included. There would have to be a good reason not to limit the grant amount. Some of the larger grants have been given to internal departments in the past. Mr. Kanner said that a break has been given in the past for benevolent organizations in regard to Community Development fees, and he feels that Mr. Anderson will be looking for funding again this year. Commissioner Luke suggested that the individual groups apply if they need this. Mr. Inbody stated that the questions are limiting the organizations, what the grants are for, the amounts, take them as they come, and when this starts. He suggested they wait until the amount is better known. The Board discussed limiting the amount to $500. The amount of funding to come is unknown; the first payment will not come in until August. Mr. Kanner said that if the first payment is lower than expected, promised funding for grants could be in jeopardy. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 8 of 10 Pages Commissioner Baney said she would prefer to wait until August when the amount is better known. Commissioner Luke stated that he would support that but wants to focus on projects rather than particular groups. Commissioner Luke disagrees. $30,000 out of $200 million budget is pocket change. He wants to fulfill commitments that have been made. The Budget Committee approved these amounts. He feels that the nonprofits need this support during these times. He wants to review the applications and decide who should get funding. Commissioner Luke said it would be helpful to know what the funding will be, but this should not be the deciding factor on how the funds should be allocated. Mr. Kanner suggested that the groups reapply in August when more is known. 4. Further Discussion of Administrative Policy GA-19, Fuel Purchasing (from June 29 meeting). LUKE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 5. Other Items. A discussion occurred regarding economic development at the Bend Airport. Mr. Kanner suggested that dialogue remain open on this issue. The Commissioners still want to see an updated Airport Master Plan as soon as possible. Mr. Kanner said in regard to Fresh Start program, Commissioner Unger feels it is a valuable program, and should be supported. Commissioner Luke stated that the funding goes into a pool and does not benefit a particular juvenile. Commissioner Unger will speak further with Ken Hales at Juvenile Community Justice about this program. Mr. Kanner stated that a letter to the Ethics Commission supporting former Planning Commissioner Brenda Pace has been drafted for Board signature. The Board said they would gladly sign it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 9 of 10 Pages In regard to customer service training, Mr. Kanner said that the Audit Committee meets on Thursday and a Commissioner should do an introduction at the training class. Commissioner Baney said she will attend the class on July 9. Commissioner Baney said that a letter to OLCC will be drafted regarding how they handle community culture issues. A representative of the City of Bend also needs to sign it. Commissioner Baney attended a meeting of the Mental Health Advisory Board, who said there is a glaring issue with providing mental health services in the Sisters area. The percentage of those being helped in Sisters is very low, while all other areas are much more highly served. The recommendation is to find some space in Sisters for a counselor, or perhaps use a mobile unit, after further discussions with Mental Health Director Scott Johnson. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. DATED this 1St Day of July 2009 for the Deschutes Coun Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Chair ,mac Dennis R. Luke, Vice hair ATTEST: a&L'l Alan Unger, Commissioner qawmi:~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Page 10 of 10 Pages ON c ~ T _ 5 r c N. ~ c o -c N r 31 • M ~ d ~ r 0 r lJ ~ L J 4 ` ^n lL~ (\Ja ~ V G1 ~ ~ < C ~ O • b ~J E I ro L 0 N n. 1~ rn O ~ { 5 co 75 'cc 3 L -o E 0! M IT U r ~ ~ V a a~ 4 ~ w 04 c o, 4 o Olc ~ ~n a, E " = a Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2009 1. Discussion of House Bill 2228 (Transfer of Development Rights from Resource Lands - Skyline Forest) - Nick Lelack 2. Work Session on Event Venues Issues & Planned Hearing (July 15) - Paul Blikstad 3. Further Review of Economic Development Grant Requests (from June 29 meeting) - Dave Inbody 4. Further Discussion of Administrative Policy GA-19, Fuel Purchasing (from June 29 meeting) - Dave Inbody, David Givans 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Z) mew k 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 DATE: July 1, 2009 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director SUBJECT: Work Session on HB 2228 The purpose of this work session agenda item is for planning staff to provide the Board with a brief overview of HB 2228 as it relates to the Skyline Forest. This bill, known as the Rural Unemployment Reductions and Living-Wage Jobs Opportunities Bring Stability Act (RURAL JOBS), passed the Legislature and is pending before the Governor. It declares an emergency. According to the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD) Legislative Concept for HB 2228, the bill was initially proposed to provide incentives for retention of the working forest and agricultural land base. It would provide a market-based, non-regulatory, "Oregon transfer of development rights (TDR)" program. Under this program, development rights that currently exist in an area needing protection - a "sending area" - may be transferred to a designated area more appropriate for development - a "receiving area." This transfer would involve only willing participants who are the owners of land in the "sending" areas and owners of land in the "receiving" areas. However, in late spring, the bill was amended to include provisions related to the Skyline Forest (Section 9) and the Metolius Basin. Staff will summarize the Skyline Forest provisions of HB 2228 (attached) at this work session. Quality Services Performed With Pride TJ O J 7 z O .-r O H a21Y sal ~aa.~J s M lJ GJ ~ z Sisewn` CIS LL a~ ~ z E m a. a) C. C O m N fn j m t O_ 00 cn U 2 ~ 00®~ If o s Q CC _ 4.0 rW 0 O :P4 rn ,o~S~aazJ a aa~ C a s c a d e 0 uz U 0 a~ nt N1 o u JQ~ AA oar d s~5 N cC JO ~ C Q m ' N d 'L Vl O 3 O N Z ~ d • N N N ~ N O U ~ C N C N 7 U U U L S N l0 Y N u, ` ~ • I r I Y `U o w L_ i ~:J f i A a s ~ a~ m ~ C9 _ i y - s rp a I t i ii O-VES C QU o 2{ HB 2228 RURAL JOBS ACT Q!!Iwkarly ~~~rrs/ sy 1DarJirrr-6Drj Jnrly 291 Skyline Forest (Bull Springs Tres Farm) r~ Y• 1 -A r HB 2228 Purpose - Establishes pilot TDR program to transfer residential development rights from farm or forest property to other property. - Sections 2-3: Metolius resort site - Sections 4-5; Small-scale recreation community - Sections 6-8: Pilot TDR Program e Section 9: Skyline forest e No connection between Skyline Forest and Metolius sections. 3 k t T C3- 1 W4 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) HB 2228 Fidelity National Timber Holdings . - - ~ Siu R~dmVdd - Skyline Forest Sl y fine Foes i. Bend'. 33,000 acres L„t_ Southern Conservatton Tract F` - f a /9~ Q 34,700 acres in Deschutes & K rnattt- s " ;M, ° Area ; Gilchrist Tree Farm 14,000 acres Area 2 ) 1 9,700 acres `henndt Mazama Tree Farm Area 3 11,000 acres C ; HB 2228 - Rural Jobs Act, Skyline Forest JULY 2009 ;SL.a".Ire hi - Skyline Forest - Location Skyline Forest (Bull Springs Tree Farm) 0 , r a, TAUeree C:aN 'S~ , R$57 tgela r M., 2 I Document Reprod!,tc-,~S Poorly (Arcnivea) Skyline Forest Areas } Skyline Forest 33,000 acres Skyline Forest Sustainable Developrhent Area Up to 3,000 acres (1,200 acres developable) Skyline Conservation Tract 30,000 contiguous acres Sustainable Development Area - Land Uses • 3,000 acres • 1,200 continuous acres • Specific location TBD • Up to 282 residential units (permanelt, rental or lodging), a caretakers residence • Restaurant; small community store, sMall•scale recreational, commercial & basic seNlice uses • All utility, maintenances and security facilities necessary to support the developme'lt • No golf course or golf related facilities 1,800 acres • Conservation easement, minimize wildfire risk, maintain wildlife habitat, equestrian facilities 3 Skyline Forest Skyline Forest a- c Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Sustainable Development Area Opportunities Units ConseNsO R4dm hd = Slsten, ^ 137 For the con f the Skyline Conner. to a land trust i sityutte Forest% , nd B 183 For the abc~v~ conveyance of Area 1 to a saris Awst or federal or e state agency 224 For the above & the conveyance of Area 2 to a land trust or federal or t L state agency aPine -^-4-- = r 282 For the above & the conveyance of Gilchrist Tree Farm Area 3 to a land trust or federal or # state agency Sustainable Development Area Conditions skyline Forest (Bull Springs Tree Farm) • Must be developed in consultation with; T • ODF&W to minimize impacts on wildlife, particularly deer and elk • State Forestry Dept, and USFS to minimize r wildfire risks Provide firefighting faaHfies and services. Structures designed &maintained to wildfire safety standards of the Oregon Forestlard- Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 199.7 • Wells sited to minimize impacts of-groundwater on Whychus Creek and Melvin Springs • Uses allowed upon satisfaction of additional conditions related to land transfers. 9 r ~per,., i 4 1. 1 i Document Poorly Sustainable Development Area Access " Shall be serve6by l primary access m4 and 1 emergency route • Access routes maybe public or private roads Primary access route shall intersect US 20 between mileposts 3 and 6. IF Sustainable Development Area Process " No changes to Deschutes` County codes or plans are required. " Land uses shall be allowed as "outright permitted uses by Deschutes County following approval of master plan." State and local planning laws are waived,' no exceptions or amendments are required. " Master plan to contain design guidelines to ensure sustainability principles will be incorporated into the development& operation uses. Sustainable building design, water conservation & energy conservation. " Ensure negligible visual impacts from Awbrey Butte & the Planview scenic turnout. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing. "Deschutes County shall apply only the provisions- [of this law) as standards and criteria for an application for, or amendment to, a master plan or land division application or other development permit applications submitted..." 5 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Sustainable Development Area Process Master plan submittal required wiff t ;after the effective date of this law. • "County isrequire," *~cess the master plan & land division app44MIo iS qursuant to the procedural " ovisions of its local land use regulations. County is requ atiprove the master plan & any tentative or final land. riaion applications it'2lieations are consistent with the law. s • County is reQUirEd t4 condition final approval of the master plan and land division applications on the execution of the conservation easement(s) & agreements for land transfers. • Master plan & land division plans shall goyem development in perpetuity and shall not expire (addresses vested rights). • Land use applications held in abeyance during 5-year period. • If action not taken in 5 years or owner opts out - development opportunities expire & laws in effect at that time will govern development potential, etc. Skyline Conservation Tract 30,000 acres in fee 1,800 acres in easement • Transfer to a land trust for the purpose of creating community forestlands • Managed so that wildlife and recreational values are safeguarded and the overall forest health, including sustainable timber production and wildfire prevention, is maintained over the long term. 6 Skyline Forest e~ 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2228 Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.OOA (5). Presession filed (at the request of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski for Department of Land Conservation and Development) CHAPTER AN ACT Relating to transfer of development rights from resource lands; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. The Legislative Assembly finds that: (1) Providing for rural unemployment reductions and living wage job opportunities brings stability to economically distressed rural communities. (2) Sections 1 to 9 of this 2009 Act are intended to reduce unemployment and create living wage jobs in economically distressed counties. (3) Working forests make vital contributions to Oregon by providing jobs, timber, timber products, tax base and other social and economic benefits, by helping to maintain soil, air and water resources, by reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and by providing habitat for wildlife and aquatic life. (4) Population growth, escalating land values, increasing risks due to wildfire and invasive species, and changes in land ownership and management objectives, with a resulting increase in conflict caused by dispersed residential development, require that new methods be developed to facilitate continued management of private lands zoned for forest use for timber harvest. (5) It is the public policy of the State of Oregon to: (a) Explore alternative methods to encourage the continued management of private forestlands for timber production. (b) Protect water quality, wildlife habitat and other important natural resources by lim- iting location of dispersed residential development on forestlands. (c) Provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses by es- tablishing locations at which residential development rights or development opportunities transferred from forestlands may be used. (d) Provide for a limited number of demonstration projects for small-scale recreation communities that: (A) Create incentives for economic development in areas that are in need of long-term job creation; (B) Enhance the state's leadership in sustainability and natural resource stewardship; (C) Encourage appropriate public access to and stewardship of recreational resources on public lands consistent with the carrying capacity of the lands and resources; and (D) Provide for additional sources of long-term funding for stewardship of natural re- sources. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 1 SECTION Ia. Sections 1 to 9 of this 2009 Act may be cited as the Rural Unemployment Reductions and Living-Wage Job Opportunities Bring Stability Act or the RURAL JOBS Act. SECTION 2. As used in sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act: (1) "Management plan" means the management plan for the Metolius River Basin that was recommended to the Legislative Assembly on April 2, 2009, by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) "Metolius resort site" means land mapped as eligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455 by Jefferson County that has not been developed as a resort. (3) "Overnight lodgings" has the meaning given that term in ORS 197.435. (4) "Tract" has the meaning given that term in ORS 215.010. SECTION 3. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 215.700 to 215.780, one or two small-scale recreation communities may be established on forestlands as specified in sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act. (2) If, within 90 days after the effective date of this 2009 Act, the owner of a Metolius resort site notes the Department of Land Conservation and Development that it has elected to seek approval of a small-scale recreation community, the owner may, within two years after the effective date of this 2009 Act, apply to a county for approval of a small-scale recreation community. (3) A small-scale recreation community authorized under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act may be established only in conjunction with a transfer of development opportunity from a Metolius resort site. A transfer of development opportunity must be carried out through an agreement between the owner of a Metolius resort site and the owner of the site proposed for development of a small-scale recreation community. In the agreement, the owner of the Metolius resort site must: (a) Agree to limit the use of the Metolius resort site, consistent with the management plan in consideration for the opportunity to participate in the development of the small-scale recreation community; and (b) Agree to grant a conservation easement pursuant to ORS 271.715 to 271.795 that: (A) Limits the use of the Metolius resort site to be consistent with the management plan; (B) Allows public access to that portion of the site that is not developed; and (C) Contains other provisions, as required by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, that are necessary to ensure that the conservation easement is enforceable. (4) A small-scale recreation community authorized under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act must be sited on land that is: (a) Planned and zoned for forest use; and (b) Within a county that has a seasonally adjusted average annual unemployment rate over the preceding 10 calendar years that is more than 110 percent of the unemployment rate for the entire state over the same period, as reported by the Employment Department. (5) A small-scale recreation community authorized under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act may not be sited on land that is: (a) Within an area identified as "Area 1" or "Area 2" in the management plan. (b) Within an area described in ORS 197.455 in which destination resorts may not be sited. (c) Within an area protected by or inventoried as a significant resource in an acknowl- edged comprehensive plan provision implementing statewide land use planning goals relating to: (A) Open space, scenic and historic areas and natural resources; (B) Estuarine resources; (C) Coastal shorelands; or (D) Beaches and dunes. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 2 (d) Within an area identified as subject to a natural hazard by an acknowledged com- prehensive plan provision implementing a statewide land use planning goal relating to pro- tection from natural hazards. SECTION 4. (1) A small-scale recreation community authorized under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act must meet the following development standards: (a) The community must be located on a tract that contains 200 or fewer acres of land. (b) The community must consist of 240 or fewer units and have as its primary purpose the provision of overnight lodging units. (c) The community may contain one restaurant containing 5,000 or fewer square feet, and accessory uses necessary to the operation of the community, including accessory recre- ational facilities. (d) The owner of the property must spend at least $1.5 million on off-site resource en- hancement or restoration projects on nearby public lands that will be used by individuals from the community. (e) The community may not include a golf course or related facilities. (f) The community must be developed and operated in a sustainable manner by meeting the following criteria: (A) When fully developed, the community must use reclaimed water as the primary source of water for any irrigation of grounds. (B) Facilities for snowmobiling or other motorized recreational activities are not per- mitted. (C) At least 50 percent of the tract on which the community is located must be dedicated to permanent open space that is contiguous and demonstrates the biological viability of the site as habitat or that provides ecosystem services to the area. (D) Significant natural resource functions and values on the site must be preserved. (E) Impervious surfaces, including rooftops and paved roads, trails and parking areas may not exceed 35 percent of the total site area. (F) Potable water usage must achieve a 20 percent reduction below standard code-built developments. Reclaimed water usage for nonpotable water needs may account for the entire reduction required. (G) Stormwater must be managed on-site. Off-site runoff must be limited to predevelop- ment runoff rates. (H) A restaurant, lodge or other nonresidential building must be designed and con- structed to meet regionally or nationally recognized design standards for sustainable design that are acceptable to the county having land use jurisdiction over the proposed development site. (1) Residential buildings must be designed and constructed to meet regionally or na- tionally recognized design standards for sustainable design that are acceptable to the county having land use jurisdiction over the proposed development site. The developer must achieve certification for all buildings, with at least 50 percent of the buildings achieving a top-tier rating under the rating system selected. (J) Additional housing capable of housing at least 50 percent of the peak season employ- ees must be provided on-site. (2) In addition to the development standards described in subsection (1) of this section, a small-scale recreation community must: (a) Develop an environmental operations manual that describes core practices for oper- ating the small-scale recreation community, including: (A) Waste reduction, recycling and diversion practices. (B) Cleaning and site maintenance practices. (C) Staff education practices. (D) Commitment of the community to environmental stewardship. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 3 (b) Establish a conservation stewardship organization, as a separate nonprofit entity funded through income generated by the development, that is charged with: (A) Development of a baseline study that establishes the current level and condition of the local environment. As part of the baseline study, the organization must develop a long- term stewardship plan that targets net creation and rehabilitation of resources, on-site and off-site. (B) Ongoing review, election and management of habitat restoration projects that im- plement the goal of the long-term stewardship plan. (C) Education and outreach on environmental stewardship. (c) Organize and manage volunteers working to conserve local resources. (d) Monitor performance of energy and water usage and site development standards versus actual practice. (e) Audit and publish annually a report of the community's performance result for the preceding year. SECTION 5. (1) An application for a small-scale recreation community under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act may be filed only by the owner of a Metolius resort site and the owner of the site on which development of the small-scale recreation community is proposed and must be filed jointly by the owners. The owners shall file a copy of the application with the Department of Land Conservation and Development at the same time that the owners file the application with the county having land use jurisdiction over the proposed development site. (2) A county shall review an application for a small-scale recreation community under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act as a conditional use in a forest zone and as a land division under ORS chapter 92. (3) In addition to the standards set forth in sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act, the small- scale recreation community must meet the land division standards and other development standards of the county, including standards for streets, utilities and services, unless the standards conflict with sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act. If the development standards of the county are dependent on the zoning of the site, the county shall apply the development standards for an urban residential zone with the highest population density. (4) If more than two applications for a small-scale recreation community are filed under sections 2 to 5 of this 2009 Act and a county has not yet approved an application, the de- partment shall determine which of the applications may proceed, taking into consideration: (a) The time at which each application was filed; (b) The unemployment rate in the counties, if more than one county is involved; and (c) The findings set forth in section 1 of this 2009 Act. (5) When two applications for small-scale recreation communities have been approved, additional applications may not be considered. (6) A county may charge a fee to cover the costs of processing an application. SECTION 6. (1) There is established the Oregon Transfer of Development Rights Pilot Program in the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Working with the State Forestry Department, the State Department of Agriculture and local governments and with other state agencies, as appropriate, the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall implement the pilot program. (2) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules to implement the pilot program. The commission, by rule, may: (a) Establish a maximum ratio of transferable development rights to severed develop- ment interests in a sending area for each pilot project. The maximum ratio: (A) Must be calculated to protect lands planned and zoned for forest use and to create incentives for owners of land in the sending area to participate in the pilot project; and (B) May not exceed one transferable development right to one severed development in- terest if the receiving area is outside of an urban growth boundary. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 4 (b) Require participating owners of land in a sending area to grant conservation ease- ments pursuant to ORS 271.715 to 271.795, or otherwise obligate themselves, to ensure that additional residential development of their property does not occur. (c) Require participating owners of land in a sending area to allow reasonable public ac- cess to the property. (3) The commission, by rule, shall establish a process for selecting pilot projects from among potential projects nominated by local governments. The process must require local governments to nominate potential projects by submitting a concept plan for each proposed pilot project, including proposed amendments, if any, to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan that are necessary to implement the pilot project. (4) When selecting a pilot project, the commission must find that the pilot project is: (a) Reasonably likely to provide a net benefit to the forest economy or the agricultural economy of this state; (b) Designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on transportation, natural resources, public facilities and services, nearby urban areas and nearby farm and forest uses; and (c) Designed so that new development authorized in a receiving area does not conflict with a resource or area inventoried under a statewide land use planning goal relating to natural resources, scenic and historic areas and open spaces, or with an area identified as a conservation opportunity area in the "Oregon Conservation Strategy," 2006, by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (5) The commission may select up to three pilot projects for the transfer of development rights under sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act. (6) A sending area for a pilot project under sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act: (a) Must be planned and zoned for forest use; (b) May not exceed 10,000 acres; and (c) Must contain four or fewer dwelling units per square mile. (7) The commission may establish additional requirements for sending areas. (8)(a) Except as provided otherwise in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a local govern- ment participating in a pilot project shall select a receiving area for the pilot project based on the following priorities: (A) First priority is lands within an urban growth boundary; (B) Second priority is lands that are adjacent to an urban growth boundary and that are subject to an exception from a statewide land use planning goal relating to agricultural lands or forestlands; (C) Third priority is lands that are within an urban unincorporated community or a rural community in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. (b) The commission may authorize a local government to select lower priority lands over higher priority lands for a receiving area in a pilot project only if the local government has established, to the satisfaction of the commission, that selecting higher priority lands as the receiving area is not likely to result in the severance and transfer of a significant proportion of the development interests in the sending area within five years after the receiving area is established. (c) If lands described in paragraph (a)(B) of this subsection are selected for use as a re- ceiving area in a pilot project, the minimum residential density of development allowed under sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act must be at least 10 dwelling units per net acre. (d) A receiving area may not be located within 10 miles of the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary. (9) The commission may establish additional requirements for receiving areas. (10) The commission, by rule, may provide a bonus in the form of a higher ratio if a substantial portion of the new development in the receiving area of the pilot project is af- fordable housing within an urban growth boundary. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 5 SECTION 7. (1) Notwithstanding contrary provisions of statewide land use planning goals relating to public facilities and services and urbanization, and notwithstanding ORS 215.700 to 215.780, a local government may change its comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan to allow residential development in a receiving area consistent with sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act if the Land Conservation and Development Commission has approved a concept plan for the pilot project. (2) The local governments having land use jurisdiction over lands included in the sending area and the receiving area for the pilot project shall adopt amendments to their respective comprehensive plans and land use regulations implementing the plans that are consistent with subsection (3) of this section. (3) When the commission has approved a proposed concept plan, the local governments having land use jurisdiction over the affected sending area and affected receiving area shall adopt overlay zone provisions and corresponding amendments to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations implementing the plan that identify the additional residential develop- ment allowed through participation in the pilot project. The Department of Land Conserva- tion and Development shall review the overlay zones and corresponding comprehensive plan amendments in the manner of periodic review under ORS 197.628 to 197.650. (4) Notwithstanding ORS 197.296 and 197.298 and statewide land use planning goals relat- ing to urbanization, a local government may amend its urban growth boundary to include adjacent lands in a receiving area, consistent with an approved concept plan, if the net res- idential density of development authorized in the receiving area is at least 10 dwelling units per acre. (5) Local governments or other entities may establish a development rights bank or other system to facilitate the transfer of development rights. (6) A county shall review an application for a pilot project under sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act as a comprehensive plan amendment. A county may apply other procedures, in- cluding master plan approval, site plan review or conditional use review as the county finds appropriate to subsequent phases of review of the pilot project. SECTION 8. (1) The Department of Land Conservation and Development, the State Forestry Department, a local government participating in the Oregon Transfer of Develop- ment Rights Pilot Program or a third-party holder identified by the Department of Land Conservation and Development may hold, monitor or enforce a conservation easement pur- suant to ORS 271.715 to 271.795 or other property interest to ensure that lands in sending areas do not retain residential development rights transferred under sections 6 to 8 of this 2009 Act. (2) An entity that is eligible to be a holder of a conservation easement may acquire, from a willing seller in the manner provided by ORS 271.715 to 271.795, the right to carry out a use of land authorized under rules of the Land Conservation and Development Commission implementing the pilot program. SECTION 9. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Community forestlands" has the meaning given that term in ORS 530.600. (b) "Skyline Forest" means that certain real property consisting of approximately 33,000 contiguous acres in Deschutes County owned on June 1, 2009, by Cascade Timberlands (Oregon) LLC and located within sections 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, township 16 south, range 10 east; sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35 and 36, township 17 south, range 10 east; and sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, township 17 south, range 11 east. (c) "Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area" means a portion of up to 3,000 con- tiguous acres of the tract known as the Skyline Forest that is located in township 16 south, range 10 east, Deschutes County: portions of the northwest quarter, southwest quarter, southeast quarter, northeast quarter of section 7; portions of the northwest quarter, south- west quarter, southeast quarter of section 8; portions of the southwest quarter of section Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 6 16; portions of the northwest quarter, southwest quarter, southeast quarter, northeast quarter of section 17; portions of the northwest quarter, southwest quarter, southeast quarter, northeast quarter of section 18; section 19; portions of the northwest quarter, southwest quarter, northeast quarter of section 20; portions of the northwest quarter of section 21; portions of the northwest quarter of section 29; and portions of the north half of section 30. (d) "Skyline Conservation Tract" means the portion of the Skyline Forest consisting of approximately 30,000 contiguous acres that is not included within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. (e) "Southern Conservation Tract" means that certain real property consisting of ap- proximately 34,700 contiguous acres in Deschutes and Klamath Counties owned on June 1, 20099 by Cascade Timberlands (Oregon) LLC and located within one of the following areas: (A) "Area one" consists of approximately 14,000 acres of land located within sections 1, 29 3, 10, 119 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 229 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of township 22 south, range 9 east, Deschutes County; sections 5, 6, 79 8, 17, 18, 30 and 31 of township 22 south, range 10 east, Deschutes County; (B) "Area two" consists of approximately 9,700 acres of land located within sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 119 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 229 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of township 23 south, range 9 east, Klamath County and the portion of Parcel 3, Partition Plat No. 34-08 located in township 23 south, range 9 east, Klamath County; and (C) "Area three" consists of approximately 11,000 acres of land located within sections 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34 and 35 of township 23 south, range 9 east; sections 3, 4 and 9 of township 24 south, range 9 east; section 1 of township 25 south, range 7 east; sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 109 12, 13, 149 15, 16 and 17 of township 25 south, range 8 east; Parcel 1, Partition Plat No. 34-08 located in township 24 south, ranges 7 and 8 east, Klamath County; the portion of Parcel 3, Partition Plat No. 34-08 located in township 24 south, ranges 8 and 9 east, Klamath County and the land lying west of U.S. Route 97. (f) "Land trust" means the Deschutes Land Trust, an Oregon nonprofit corporation or another nonprofit conservation organization that is either accredited by the Land Trust Ac- creditation Commission or is nationally recognized as a land conservation organization, the primary mission of which is land conservation. (2) Contingent upon satisfaction of the requirements of subsection (3) of this section, the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area may be developed and used for the following purposes: (a) The Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area may contain up to 282 residential units, a caretaker's residence, a restaurant, a small community store, a ,small-scale com- munity conference center, an equestrian facility, small-scale recreational, commercial and basic service uses, and all utility, maintenance and security facilities necessary to support the development. The residential units may be permanent residences, rental units or lodging units. The specific number of residential units allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area, up to a maximum of 282, is dependent upon the number of acres of the Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Conservation Tract conveyed to a land trust or a federal or state agency pursuant to this section. Up to: (A) 137 residential units shall be allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area in exchange for the conveyance of the Skyline Conservation Tract to a land trust; (B) 183 residential units shall be allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area in exchange for the conveyance of the Skyline Conservation Tract and area one of the Southern Conservation Tract to a land trust or to a federal or state agency; (C) 224 residential units shall be allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area in exchange for the conveyance of the Skyline Conservation Tract, area one and area two of the Southern Conservation Tract to a land trust or to a federal or state agency; or Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 7 (D) 282 residential units shall be allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area in exchange for the conveyance of the Skyline Conservation Tract, area one, area two and area three of the Southern Conservation Tract to a land trust or to a federal or state agency. (b) The Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area may not contain a golf course or golf-related facilities. (c) All development, not including access roads and utility lines to the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area and up to five acres for maintenance and security facilities, shall be located on 1,200 contiguous acres within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. The owner shall use the remaining undeveloped 1,800 acres of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area for the primary purposes of minimizing the risk of wildfire and maintaining wildlife habitat value. However, an equestrian facility may be located within the otherwise undeveloped 1,800 acres if the facility is located on no more than 40 acres contiguous to the developed portion of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. The owner shall cause a conservation easement pursuant to ORS 271.715 to 271.795 to be recorded on the entirety of the undeveloped 1,800 acres prohibiting partitions and develop- ment, but allowing recreational uses, such as picnic grounds, trails and restrooms. The equestrian facility permitted by this section shall also be allowed within the conservation easement. The conservation easement must be held by a land trust and shall contain terms agreed to by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Forestry Department. (d) Roads, utility corridors and all utility facilities necessary to serve the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area shall be allowed as outright permitted uses within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area, the Skyline Forest and on nearby lands regardless of the comprehensive plan or zoning designation of the lands. (e) The uses allowed by this subsection shall be allowed only upon approval of a master plan as provided by subsection (5) of this section. The master plan shall contain design cri- teria and standards to ensure that sustainability principles will be incorporated into the de- velopment and operation uses within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. The design criteria and standards shall promote sustainable building design, water conservation and energy conservation. (f) The master plan described in subsection (5) of this section shall incorporate design criteria and standards to ensure that there will be negligible visual impacts under normal daylight viewing conditions from Awbrey Butte and the Plainview scenic turnout located on the McKenzie-Bend Highway No. 17, also known as U.S. Route 20, near milepost 9. The design criteria and standards shall also require all outdoor lighting to be downward facing, to the extent practicable. (g) The Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area shall be served by one primary access route and by one or more emergency and secondary access routes that use existing roads as much as practicable. The access routes may be private or public roads, including roads managed by the United States Forest Service. The primary access route shall intersect the McKenzie-Bend Highway No. 17, also known as U.S. Route 20, between mileposts 3 and 6 to provide access from the eastern boundary of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area to the referenced highway. (h) The Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area, including all access roads, must be developed in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to minimize impacts on wildlife, particularly deer and elk populations. (i) The Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area, including all access roads, must be developed in consultation with the State Forestry Department and the United States Forest Service to minimize wildfire risks. Q) The owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area shall provide adequate firefighting facilities and services to address the needs of the development. All structures shall be designed and maintained consistent with the default wildfire safety standards of the Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 8 Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997, as set forth in administra- tive rules of the State Forestry Department. (k) Any wells used to provide water for uses within the Skyline Forest Sustainable De- velopment Area shall be sited to minimize impacts of groundwater use on Whychus Creek and Melvin Springs. (3) The land uses described in subsection (2) of this section shall be allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area upon the satisfaction of the following condi- tions: (a) The owner of the Skyline Forest and the Southern Conservation Tract transfers: (A) The Skyline Conservation Tract to a land trust for the purpose of creating commu- nity forestlands; and (B) The Southern Conservation Tract, whether to a single buyer or multiple buyers, to a land trust for the purpose of creating community forestlands or to a federal or state agency. However, the owner may choose to retain all or a portion of the Southern Conser- vation Tract, in which case the number of residential units allowed within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area shall be limited as set forth in subsection (2)(a) of this sec- tion. (b) The consideration for any transfer does not exceed the fair market value of the property as established by an appraisal based on the hypothetical condition or assumption that all development rights on the properties, whether actual or potential, have been extin- guished as contemplated by subsection (6) of this section. The appraisal must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The appraisal shall comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions if: (A) The land trust or state agency proposes, in part or in whole, to use federal funds to purchase the property and has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that federal funds will be secured for the purchase; or (B) The property is being conveyed to a federal agency. (c) The Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Conservation Tract will be managed so that wildlife and recreational values are safeguarded and the overall forest health, in- cluding sustainable timber production and wildfire prevention, is maintained over the long term. (d) The owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area obtains the land use approvals required by subsection (5) of this section. (4) The uses authorized by subsection (2) of this section shall be allowed as outright permitted uses by Deschutes County, following approval of the master plan required by sub- section (5) of this section by Deschutes County. The uses allowed by subsection (2) of this section are allowed notwithstanding those provisions of ORS 215.700 to 215.780 relating to lot size and dwelling standards on forestlands, those statewide land use planning goals relating to agricultural lands, forestlands, public facilities and services, transportation and urbanization and those provisions of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan and land use regulations limiting uses of forestlands. Approval of the master plan and land division appli- cations required by subsection (5) of this section for the development and use of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area and all associated road and utility corridors may not require exceptions to any statewide planning goal or amendment of any local comprehensive plan or land use regulation. Deschutes County shall apply only the provisions of this section as standards and criteria for an application for, or amendment to, a master plan or land di- vision application or other development permit applications submitted pursuant to this sec- tion. (5) The owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area may submit an ap- plication to Deschutes County for approval of a master plan for the development and use of the area. The application must be submitted within five years after the effective date of this 2009 Act, subject to the following: Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 9 (a) The master plan shall demonstrate compliance with subsection (2) of this section and include a tentative land division application to create the lots within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. (b) Deschutes County shall process the master plan and all land division applications pursuant to the procedural review provisions of its local land use regulations. However, Deschutes County shall approve the master plan and any tentative or final land division ap- plications if the applications are consistent with subsections (2) and (3) of this section. No additional land use or land division standards shall apply to the approval and development of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. (c) Deschutes County shall condition final approval of the master plan and land division applications on the execution of an agreement to record a conservation easement in ac- cordance with subsection (2)(c) of this section, an agreement to transfer the Skyline Con- servation Tract to a land trust for the purpose of creating community forestlands and, if applicable, an agreement to transfer all or a portion of the Southern Conservation Tract ei- ther to a land trust for the purpose of creating community forestland or to a federal or state agency. The agreements shall specify that recordation of the conservation easement, trans- fer of the Skyline Conservation Tract and transfer of all or a portion of the Southern Con- servation Tract shall be contingent upon the following terms: (A) The owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area shall obtain all fed- eral, state and local licenses, permits, rights and other entitlements necessary for develop- ment of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area, each of which shall be final and no longer subject to appeal; (B) The land trust or the federal or state agencies, as applicable, shall obtain adequate funding to purchase the Skyline Conservation Tract or the Southern Conservation Tract, as applicable, in accordance with subsection (3)(b) of this section; and (C) The land trust or the federal or state agencies shall develop and implement manage- ment standards that provide reasonable assurance to the owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area that the Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Con- servation Tract will be managed to establish forest health, manage wildfire risk and maintain compatibility with the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. (d) The master plan and all associated land division plans shall govern development of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area in perpetuity and shall not expire. Regulations requiring the submittal of final plats within a specified time period following tentative plan approval shall not apply to the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area. The master plan may be amended at any time following an administrative review by Deschutes County. Deschutes County shall approve the amendments if the amended master plan remains con- sistent with subsections (2) and (3) of this section. (6) The Deschutes Land Trust, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, shall have a right of last opportunity to purchase the Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Conservation Tract, and any purchase agreement shall provide a minimum of three years for the Deschutes Land Trust to obtain funding for any purchase. If at any time after two years from the date of any purchase agreement or the date of filing of a master plan under sub- section (5) of this section, whichever is later, the Deschutes Land Trust has failed to dem- onstrate a reasonable likelihood it will be able to obtain the funds necessary to complete the purchase, the owner of the Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Conservation Tract may seek alternative buyers for any property that is the subject of a purchase agreement under this subsection. The Deschutes Land Trust will in good faith notify the owner of the Skyline Conservation Tract and the Southern Conservation Tract if at any time during the period of any purchase agreement the Deschutes Land Trust concludes it does not wish to complete the purchase or will be unable to obtain the necessary funding to complete the purchase. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 10 (7) Development and construction uses within the Skyline Forest Sustainable Develop- ment Area may proceed according to the approved master plan once the transfer of fee title of the Skyline Conservation Tract and, as applicable, all or a portion of the Southern Con- servation Tract, is complete. Following transfer of fee title of the Skyline Conservation Tract and, as applicable, all or a portion of the Southern Conservation Tract, all development rights on the conveyed lands are extinguished and the conveyed lands shall be thereafter managed as community forestlands or as federal or state forestlands. (S) At any time within five years after the effective date of this 2009 Act, the owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area may either file an application for a master plan pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, or submit written notice to Deschutes County and the Deschutes Land Trust stating the owner's intent to relinquish the development op- portunities authorized by this section. Until the owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area files a master plan application or submits a notice of relinquishment un- der this subsection, the owner may not divide, develop, obtain a lot of record determination or prohibit public access to any portion of the Skyline Forest. If the owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area submits a notice of relinquishment under this sub- section, or the owner allows the five-year time period to elapse without taking any action under this subsection, the development opportunities authorized by this section shall expire and the owner may divide, develop and prohibit public access to any portion of Skyline Forest pursuant to the laws in effect at that time. (9) If the owner of the Skyline Forest Sustainable Development Area does not file a master plan within five years of the effective date of this 2009 Act or if Deschutes County does not approve a master plan as provided in subsection (5) of this section within 15 years of the effective date of this 2009 Act, then the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall cease to have any force or effect. (10) The development opportunities provided by this section are fully transferable and will run with the land in the event of a change of ownership of the Skyline Forest or all or a portion of the Southern Conservation Tract. SECTION 10. On or before February 1, 2013, the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall make a report to the Seventy-seventh Legislative Assembly, in the man- ner described in ORS 192.245: (1) Evaluating the Oregon Transfer of Development Rights Pilot Program established in sections 6 to S of this 2009 Act; and (2) Recommending whether the pilot program should be continued, modified, expanded or terminated. SECTION 11. This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2009 Act takes effect on its passage. Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 11 Passed by House May 12, 2009 Repassed by House June 16, 2009 Chief Clerk of House Speaker of House Passed by Senate June 12, 2009 President of Senate Received by Governor: M............................................................ 2009 Approved: M............................................................ 2009 Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: M.,.......................................................... 2009 Secretary of State Enrolled House Bill 2228 (HB 2228-B) Page 12 `R Community Development Department g ,t 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 DATE: June 22, 2009 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: Event venue text amendment, File No. TA-08-9 The Board requested a matrix from Planning staff on the text amendment application at the initial work session with the Board on May 4th. We have developed a draft matrix based on our understanding of the Board's direction. It can be revised for the public hearing per your direction. Please find the draft matrix attached to this memo. As you know, there is a work session on TA-08-9, the event venue text amendment scheduled for next Wednesday, July 1" at 1:30. A public hearing is scheduled on the text amendment for Wednesday, July 15th at 5:30 p.m. If you should have any questions, feel free to contact either Nick Lelack or me at your convenience. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride I '4 Issue Discussion Resolution (possible) Is the use in conformance This is the first hurdle for If the Board is to approve with State law and County reviewing the proposed text this use, staff recommends Code (i.e. is an event venue amendment. There seems that it be included as a a "private park" as listed in to be even a difference of "sub" use under the private the regulations) opinion at the State level as park listing in 18.16.031(E) to whether event venues can be considered under the private park use. The Planning Commission There could be an issue The Board may want to voted to limit events to: with respect to allowing consider allowing other weddings/receptions, only Jewish "right of religious activities for birthday and anniversary religious responsibility or "rights of passage," or take parties, bar mitzvahs and passage " events. this part of the text bat mitzvahs, and amendment out altogether. graduation parties. Should there be a limit on The Planning Commission The Board will need to the number of events voted to allow one event per determine/decide that if allowed on any given week. Assuming that these these uses are allowed, property? types of events would whether this is the generally occur only during appropriate number of warmer months (May-Sept), events that should be this would mean up to 20 allowed. Possibly also events for a property. establishing a maximum number of events (such as 20) for any property. It may be an option to require the operators to submit a list of proposed events for a calendar year as a condition of any approval. Should there be a minimum The Planning Commission There was discussion at the parcel size and minimum voted to establish a PC hearings and also at the setback distance from a minimum lot size of 10 first Board work session as neighboring dwelling for acres and a minimum to whether a minimum lot these events. setback from the activity size is needed at all, when area to a neighboring the issue is the separation dwelling of 300 feet, or a between events and minimum setback from the neighboring dwellings. closest property line to the What separation will work activity areas of 100 feet, appears to be a matter of for these events. There was opinion. At least one no real consensus from the member of the Planning Planning Commission as to Commission thought that what an appropriate 1,000 feet should be the separation distance should minimum. be. Should sound amplification The Planning Commission Staff believes that decibel be allowed. voted to allow sound meters would be very amplification indoors only difficult at best to monitor for properties with a and administer and does not minimum lot size of 10 believe this is a viable acres, and allowed it option for regulating noise outdoors for properties from event venues. And it with a minimum lot size of appears that the Sheriff s 20 acres. Disturbance from Office is reluctant to the noise/sound from the enforce noise complaints events appears to be the for these uses. A cut-off of biggest issue, based on the events at 9:00 p.m. at testimony received. the latest was Staff s recommendation, which could help reduce the impacts of these uses. Buildings allowed on the The Planning Commission's Allowing only existing event sites - should only recommedation included a buildings (existing as of the existing buildings be provision that only date of adoption of the allowed as part of an event buildings (nonfarm event venue code) to be venue. structures) existing on the used for events seems to be date of adoption of the logical and should not event code be allowed for prevent existing operators event venue operation. from complying, assuming Temporary buildings such a conditional use permit is as tents, cabanas, pavilions approved for their site. It or other collapsible shelters prevents someone from are allowed. building a structure and then applying for a CUP for an event site. Should there be a limit on There was no restriction Staff does not believe that a the number of event sites in recommended by the restriction on the number of any given area (i.e. a Planning Commission for event venues in any given template-type restriction). where these events could be area is necessary. Staff placed in relation to each believes that the number of other. these sites will be dictated by the market and by the ability to obtain land use approval. What parking standards The Planning Commission's Pictures of the parking areas should apply to the use (i.e. recommendation included from one site indicated that what driving surface should item 8, which states: "Sight parking occurs on pasture or be required for parking and distance and driveway irrigated areas. Staff access). widths shall be adequate for believes it would not be the proposed use based on necessary to require an the amount of traffic event operator to pave, produced for any particular gravel/cinder or put down event, and the necessary wood chips on pasture emergency vehicle access. areas. Dust should not be a Driveways extending from problem for this type of paved roads shall have a parking. It is the driveways paved apron, requiring and aprons into the site that review and approval by the would need dust control County Road Department. through surfacing. Staff Driveways shall be all- believes that this was the weather surfaces that intent of the PC's prevent dust, and may recommendation. include paving, gravel, cinders, or bark/wood chips." Require an owner-occupied There was discussion at the Staff believes that the site dwelling to be on-site. PC on whether the owner- for the event venue and occupied dwelling had to be dwelling should be on the on the same property as the same property (parcel or event venue, if the owner lot). Control of the events had more than one seems to staff to be (contiguous) parcel. paramount to lessening the impacts on neighbors. Require an annual review of Legal Counsel has indicated If Legal Counsel determines the land use permit, in case that an annual review may that an "annual review" is issues of compliance come or may not be allowed as allowable under the code, up with a particular site. part of the code. Home staff believes that this is a occupations (types 2 and 3) good idea for maintaining a allow for: an annual handle on the event venue inspection (type 2), and a sites. review every 12 months (type 3) for compliance with the code. Should event venues be Dan Haldement, Deschutes The Board will need to allowed to have either County Environmental decide whether temporary temporary or permanent (or Health Director, testified bathroom facilities should both) bathroom facilities. that temporary bathroom be allowed at all. If they facilities are allowed under are not, then the permanent certain circumstances. facilities at any given site may have to be upgraded. Buffering and screening. Should buffering and Buffering and screening screening be required for should be reviewed on a these uses. Some neighbors case by case basis. All of may prefer the noise over these conditional use any screening that might applications will be referred block a viewshed. to a hearing and it will be the Hearings Officer that makes the decision on these. Oregon Department of Fish The applicant did not want Staff believes that the and Wildlife concerns. the ODFW restrictions put ODFW restrictions should into the code, which staff be put into the code as had included with our draft written in Staff's original code language. draft. Applicapi+'& Final DrtvR TAlmor,,17 "Commercial Event" means an event which involves a transaction where an individual sponsor or attendee purchases the right to hold an event Events on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land shall be limited to: wbddings/receptions family and class reunions company picnics birthday and anrnversary parties barmitzvahs and batmitzvahs and graduation parties. Events on EFU land shall not include overnight stays for quests or any event that includes motorized vehicle sports or motorized racing events "Event Venue" means private ro ertmade available to host commercial events on a regular (such as weekly or monthly) basis "Activity Areas' means all areas and structures used on the site for an event venue operation including arkin areas weddin or other event areas ortable restrooms washin stations and stora a areas needed for an event. The activity area shall not include the entrance driv wa where it is not adjacent to parking "Permanent structure" includes any conventional structure not otherwise classified as a temporary structure "Temporary structure" includes tents, cabanas pavilions trailers chemical toilet facilities ana other non ermanent structures customar erected or sited use fortemora . Chapter 18.16 Exclusive Farm Use Zones Section 18.16.031, Nonresidential Conditional Uses on Non-high Value Farmland Only The following uses may be allowed only on tracts in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones that constitute non high-value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.16.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. E. Private Parks, playgrounds, hunting. and fishing preserves and campgrounds. For the purpose of DCC 18 16 031(E) the definition of private parks includes event venues. Events a roved under this Section shall not be subject to any outdoor mass gathering_reauirw ements A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030(F) through (BB), and the applicable uses under DCC 1816 031 may be established subject to applicable provisions in DCC 18.124 and 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm and forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on adjacent lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. M. A private park to be used as an event venue shall meet the following criteria: 1. The event venue shall not displace any farming activity alreadv existing on the property. 2. Located on property with: A minimum property size of 10 acres. A minimum setback from the activity area from neighboring dwelling units of 300 feet. Or. A minimum setback from the closest property line to the activity areas of the event venue on the subject property of. 100 feet. 3. Property must contain an owner occupied single-family dwelling and be operated by the owners of the property exclusive of catering or other contracted services; 4. Except for a single-family dwelling on the subject property (existing or future dwelling), only those non-farm structures existing on the date of the adoption of the event venue provision shall be used for the event venue operation. Temporary structures such as tents, cabanas, pavilions or other collapsible shelters may be allowed. 5. The number of events shall be limited to one (1) event per week 6. Sound amplification for events shall be only be allowed indoors for properties with a minimum lot size of 10 acres and shall be allowed outdoors for properties with a minimum lot size of 20 acres. 7. Traffic management plans shall be submitted with the application Traffic control shall comply with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards if required. 8. Sight distance and driveway widths shall be adequate for the proposed use based on the amount of traffic produced for anv particular event, and the necessary emergency vehicle access Driveways extending from paved roads shall have a paved apron requiring review and approval by the County Road Department Driveways shall be all-weather surfaces that prevent dust and may include paving, -gravel, cinders, or bark/wood chips. 9. Hours of operation for the event venue sites shall be within the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Any takedown activities shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m (noon). 10. Equipment, furniture, goods and other materials used for events shall be stored indoors on non-event days. The use shall not produce an outward appearance nor manifest any characteristics of a business or operation of a retail or wholesale nature except for those characteristics normally associated with or allowed for the EFU zone. Set-up and take-down activities for the event can occur one day prior to one day after an event. 11. Event venue activity areas, including any associated structures shall be sited and designed to effectively screen neighboring uses Primarily dwellings, from noise, glare odor, traffic and other adverse impacts. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require landscaping, berming, or other noise or sight obscuring mechanism to ensure effective screening. 12. Prior to commencement of the use a property owner shall sign and record the farm and forest easement required under DCC 18.16.020(J)(6). 13. Prior to commencement of the use a property owner/event operator shall sign and record in the County Clerk's Office a Conditions of Approval Agreement, prepared by the County. Section 18.116.030 of Title 18 should be amended to include the following: Use Requirements Event Venue 1 parking space per 2.5 attendees (use maximum possible attendance, plus 1 space per employee) s`Z f~~~ r~ f2r'r r ~ s'7~ 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/ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Building, located at 1300 NW Wall. Street in Bend, to consider the following request:_ FILE NUMBER: TA-08-9 SUBJECT: TA-08-9, A text amendment to the Deschutes County Code to allow event venue as a conditional use in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones, under the private park provision in both State Law and County Code. APPLICANT: Country Gathering Associates, c/o Kelly Brown Copies of the most current proposed language, staff report, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and proponents and opponents, and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. Documents are also available online at: www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/. Please contact Paul Blikstad with the County Planning Division at (541) 388-6554 if you should have questions; email address: paulb@co.deschutes.or.us Quality Services Performed With Pride L"Al t Department 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 APRIL 9, 2009 - 5:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Keith Cyrus. Members present were Vice Chair Todd Turner, Brenda Pace, Susan Quatre, Merle Irvine, Chris Brown and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. March .12, and March 26, 2009 minutes were approved. Commissioner Quatre indicated that the retreat minutes from March 6 are only a summary and do not contain details as to specific comments. Commissioner Irvine's concern about -how work sessions are conducted (without input from the applicants), was also discussed. Nick Lelack said that more detailed minutes could be provided. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None. III. DELIBERATION: TA-08-9, Text Amendment to the Deschutes County Code to Allow `Wedding Event Venue' as a Conditional Use In the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones, Under the Private Park Provision in Both State Law and County Code - Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Chair Cyrus recused himself due to conflict of interest. Vice Chair Turner chaired this portion of the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Irvine moved to close the written testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion approved. Commissioner Pace commented on an email received from Kelly Brown -regarding: weddings/events in Jefferson and Crook Counties. She had contacted both counties and Quality Services Performed with Pride was informed that they do not allow these events, and that if such events are being conducted they would be code violations. Nick Lelack summarized the next steps in this process, including work sessions, public hearings, deliberation/review and continuing to a public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. He also reviewed the final text amendment. language and the suggested criteria for a Conditional Use Permit to host events. Vice Chair' Turner requested input from the other Commissioners regarding how to deliberate this proposal, whether event venues should be allowed as private parks. The text amendment could be considered and voted on as a whole, or it could reviewed item by item and positions taken on each. He suggested a straw vote to get an idea as to how the others wanted to proceed. Commissioner Brown said he had mixed feelings about a straw vote but was thinking of making a recommendation to the Board that this move forward. Perhaps an item-by-item discussion would not be necessary - just a few revisions may be suggested. Commissioner Pace liked Vice Chair Turner's idea about a straw vote regarding private parks. She felt it would be better to go ahead and vote on the amendment as it is presented, since it has been reviewed so many times already, and she did not want to "micro manage." Commissioner Klyce wanted to go through the entire text amendment and discuss it. Commissioner Irvine agreed and said he could support some things in the document as it stands but not all of them; he did not want to combine everything into one vote. Commissioner Quatre thought that the ball is now in the Commissioners' court and it should be voted up or down as a whole, not reviewed piece by piece. This is the final submittal and nothing will be changed, no matter what any one of the Commissioners says. Vice Chair Turner observed that opinions are split right down the middle. Commissioner Pace asked if a straw poll could be taken (on the straw poll, issue of private parks). Vice Chair Turner asked all those who thought these events were appropriate as private parks to say "yes." Everyone indicated agreement except Vice Chair Turner and Commissioner Quatre. Vice Chair Turner suggested going through the proposal, item by item, and this was agreed. On page 3, under "Chapter 18.16 Definitions," Commissioner Brown was concerned about the word "property," which was not clearly defined, and he wanted to know CDD's position. Paul Blikstad said that after 23 years in planning he had never seen a need for a definition. There is a tax map number associated with an application, assessor's records, site plan, etc., and there is no doubt as to what the property is. However, this could come up in the future for some other unknown reason. Paul read a possible definition submitted by County Counsel Laurie Craighead. Parcel sizes and definitions were discussed. Commissioner Brown felt that if the applicant was required to live in his/her own residence on the property, better care of the property would be taken. He mentioned examples of agricultural-related ownership of properties and wanted to clarify whether ownership of contiguous properties would be considered'. Commissioner Klyce agreed with the first paragraph of Laurie Craghead's definitions: "For purposes of this section, 'property' means the lawfully created lot, parcel or tract on which the event will be sited and any contiguous lots, parcels or tracts under the same ownership or owned by family members or related business." Paul Blikstad read the definition contained in Title 18 of the County Code. Vice Chair Turner asked whether ownership by a trust would show up on the Assessor's records, and it was determined that it would. Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to accept the first (of three listed) definition of "property" as presented by Laurie Craghead, i.e., ending with the words "related business." Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. All voted in favor except Commissioner Pace. Continuing the discussion about the final, revised TA-08-9: Vice Chair Turner asked about the definition of a "commercial event," on page 3, and did not like the term "gain entry to an event," which could include selling tickets. Motion: Commissioner Brown moved to strike the words, "commercial event." Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion approved. Commissioner Quatre wanted to include the term "bat mitzvah" as well as "bar mitzvah," and wanted to clarify the terms in connection with motorized vehicles or related events. There could be as many as 2,000 RV's parked. Commissioner Brown suggested voting on these issues separately. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to change the wording "bar mitzvahs" to "religious and non-religious observances." Discussion: Commissioner Irvine mentioned bhagwan ceremonies, and Vice Chair Turner said that other events could also take place. Commissioner Quatre said that this is very complex - civil unions could also be included. Motion was not seconded. Commissioner Quatre then asked about the motorized/racing events and the possible parking problem. Vice Chair Turner said he thought of the Jeld-Wen parking permitting and wondered why it was different from RV event organizers needing to obtain the same type of permission. Commissioner Brown thought that the language as submitted said that these events were not allowed. Commissioner Quatre was concerned about RV parking but allowed that there is no overnight parking in the suggested language. Commissioner Irvine said that he read the language as indicating that these are the only activities that could occur. Commissioner Quatre felt that the term "may include" was innocuous. Nick Lelack added that parking so many RV's would require a mass gathering permit. Commissioner Pace thought that the problem would be less risky if this was required. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to change the language in Definition 18.16 (third line down) to say "shall be limited to..." instead of "may include...." Seconded by Commissioner Pace. All voted in favor except Vice Chair Turner. Vice Chair Turner asked about the second page, criteria for event venues, and indicated they should not displace any farming activities. Y Page 4, Section 2.a. Commissioner Pace felt that a 10-acre minimum is not large enough. She feels it should be 30 acres; Commissioner Quatre indicated it should be 40 acres. Paul Blikstad said that the references to "parcel or lot," have specific meanings and potentially limiting factors. "Property" would be a better option. Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to change the word "lot" to "property" in Section 2.a. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion approved. :Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned to change the minimum property size in Section 2.a. to 30 acres. She said there were far fewer public complaints received in connection with larger properties and more received regarding smaller properties. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Discussion: Commissioner Quatre thought that people did not buy property in EFU land to hold weddings but for farming activities, or just for peace and quiet. She felt that even 40 acres would be better but would go along with the 30. Noise from farming is expected; noise lasting until 10 p.m. from parties is not. Commissioner Irvine did not agree on a size limit and felt that potential conflicts had more to do with noise and the event location in proximity to neighbors. He thought that the focus should be on noise monitoring. Commissioner Pace discussed the fact the current sheriff has said he would not enforce noise or decibel limits, which means the neighbors are forced to listen. She agreed with Commissioner Quatre that people did not buy land in the EFU zone to listen to events which would occur on a regular basis. Vice Chair Turner spoke about the fact that this use is supposed.to be secondary to farm use, and with smaller parcels it becomes the primary use. Commissioner Irvine suggested that future sheriffs might also feel differently. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce were opposed to the minimum property size. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Quatre and Pace voted in favor. Page 4, Section 2.b. (minimum setbacks from neighboring dwellings). Noise issues were discussed as well as amplified versus non-amplified sound. Commissioner Quatre felt that 1,000 feet was a good setback; Commissioner Brown felt that noise levels should be monitored instead. Commissioner Pace asked how decibel monitors would be used. Commissioner Pace suggested skipping to Section 2.f., and Vice Chair Turner suggested looking at 100 feet from the dwelling versus 100 feet from the property line. Commissioner Pace again suggested going to Section 2.f. regarding sound amplification and said she preferred no amplification at all, no matter the property size. There may be a 1,000 acre property where it would not be a problem, but that has not been presented to us. Non- amplified drum sounds still carry. She would prefer that no amplification be allowed on any property of any size. Commissioner Brown thought that there are many types of music, and he did not want to eliminate a minister being able to wear a microphone. Commissioner Quatre said she has been to weddings with non-amplified music in L.A. County, and the minister and wedding couple had microphones, but the reception music was not amplified. Commissioner Pace said she has never been to a wedding where the bride and groom wore microphones and had never seen a preacher who could not make himself heard. She has been to auctions 4 that could be heard three miles away, with only the auctioneer wearing a microphone. She prefers no amplification at all. Commissioner Quatre mentioned a wedding she had attended during a high wind, and no one could hear anything. Commissioner Irvine felt that the ceremony itself would be of limited duration, and the amplification should be allowed at that time. Commissioner Quatre thought that the current requirement of people signing code enforcement complaints is a problem, and they should be submitted anonymously. Commissioner Irvine felt that microphones should be allowed during the ceremony. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned that sound amplification for events should not be allowed. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Commissioners Quatre, Pace and Vice Chair Turner voted in favor. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce were opposed. Motion: In Section 2.b., Commissioner Quatre wanted a minimum 1,000 foot setback from an activity area to any neighboring dwelling. Seconded by Commissioner Pace. Commissioners Pace, Quatre and Vice Chair Turner voted in favor. Commissioners Irvine, Brown and Klyce were opposed. Commissioner Klyce mentioned he did not want to go to outdoor mass gathering standards. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned to vote on whether Section 2.b. is satisfactory to the Commissioners as proposed with a 300 foot separation between the activity area and neighboring dwellings or 100 feet between the activity area and property line. Seconded by Commissioner Brown. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce voted in favor. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Pace and Quatre were opposed. Commissioner Pace asked if there was a 'middle ground, since 300 feet and 1,000 feet were not agreed on. Vice Chair Turner thought that it would not be possible. Commissioner Brown said the Board should see that the Commissioners are split. No discussion regarding Section 2.c. Regarding Section 2.d., Commissioner Pace said she disliked the way this section was written; she said the proposed text favors existing operators over new operators. This section puts new operators at a disadvantage. She would prefer it to indicate, if approved by the County, that permanent structures or no permanent structures should be available to everyone. Commissioner Brown thought that if events were allowed through conditional use permits on EFU land, this may be as close as we can get without changing things down the road. Vice Chair Turner mentioned non-farm structures that burn down - the way this is written, they cannot rebuild. Section 2.e. Commissioner Klyce wanted to limit the number of events to 20 per year which would make events less attractive as commercial operations. Commissioner Pace said what if an owner had property surrounded by three event locations - there would be more and more wedding event areas as this becomes a money making opportunity. The ...events could be finished -at an earlier date once the limit of 20 was reached, if they were all done early in the season. Another thought was that one venue has an indoor structure, so events could take place before/after summer months. Commissioner Pace thought that most events would be held over the four warmer months. July could be very busy, in just that one month. Commissioner Pace suggested one event per week with a maximum of 20 per year. Commissioner Brown did not want to change what the applicant has asked for - one per week. Some events could be held into September. He can see either one per week or 20 per year. Commissioner Quatre felt that indoor events would not impact neighbors and could be held in January without bothering anyone. She feels that both one per week and 20 per year are fair. Vice Chair Turner felt that one per week could be 50 events per year and could not support it. In the original matrix, there were events listed by parcel size, etc., and this discussion seems headed away from that. Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to change Section 2.e. to limit to 20 events per year. Seconded by Commissioner Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Irvine said that there is still the possibility of seven events being held back to back. He would vote against 20 because they could be bunched up. Commissioner Quatre agreed. Commissioners Klyce and Brown voted in favor. Commissioners Irvine, Pace, Quatre and Vice Chair Turner were opposed. Commissioner Quatre said she would.be in favor of limiting the number of events to a total number. Commissioner Pace was in favor of 20. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to limit the number of events to one per week and no more than 20 per year. Seconded by Commissioner Pace. Commissioners Quatre and Pace voted in favor. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Klyce, Irvine and Brown were opposed. Regarding Section 2.g. Paul Blikstad said that the wording should indicate "Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices." No discussion on Section 2.h. Regarding Section 2.j., Commissioner Klyce was concerned about operators having to take chairs indoors. Commissioner Pace felt it was easier to use the home occupation standards and to have it clarified. No discussion regarding Sections 2.k. and 2.1. No discussion regarding Section 18.116.030 of Title 18 (page 5). Vice Chair Turner suggested the proposal be forwarded to the Board with either "approved with revisions," or not, add the definition of "property," changes the uses to include "may include," change "parcel or lots," and others where there has not been a consensus. ....Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to forward TA-08-9 as amended, with majority votes and recognizing splits on some issues. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. 6 Discussion: Commissioner Quatre was concerned about the "bar mitzvah," language and whether something is being excluded for the general population. Commissioner Brown restated that the proposal could be forwarded with comments. Commissioner Quatre did not want to exclude other religious and non-religious communities. Commissioner Pace thought that "coming of age," might also be a good term. Commissioner Irvine agreed that it would be fair to include both genders. Vice Chair Turner thought that.using "rite of passage" was too general. Commissioners Brown, Irvine Klyce and Quatre voted in favor of the motion; Commissioner Pace and Vice Chair Turner were opposed. After a break, Vice Chair Turner suggested changing the wording to "such as," rather than only speck uses. Commissioner Brown felt that things could be missed if a specific list was created.. Using the language "such as," would clarify what is appropriate for a hearings officer. Commissioner Pace felt it was more relevant to code enforcement proceedings, and that "such as" is a very open-ended term. Commissioner Quatre used an example of a large number of balloons being launched - what could a code enforcement official do in that case? Vice Chair Turner thought that this might not be as straightforward a discussion as he had thought, and perhaps they should continue and forward the proposal on to the Board. Commissioners agreed with Vice Chair Turner and took no further action on TA-08-9. IV. WORK PLAN/ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick summarized the Information provided to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Brown mentioned an email he received for two Code Amendment tasks - repairing zoning mistakes (page 20 of the Accomplishments) and the language changes/technical corrections. He thought that it might be appropriate to list these two issues ahead of other priorities. Nick clarified that this was actually part of the work plan section, to be discussed next. Commissioner Quatre asked why there were so many LUBA appeals. Terri Payne said that many are filed by people who are against some particular activity. Terri and Nick also agreed that we have a well-informed public. During the discussion about the work plan, Terri mentioned keeping a spreadsheet showing tasks to be accomplished such as corrections and other items. Sometimes corrections are grouped and processed all at once, as time permits. Commissioner Brown asked if he could submit some suggestions/revisions. Nick mentioned that the legislature is currently considering three proposals that will directly affect us: EFU, destination resorts and the Metolius Basin. There are many tasks to be accomplished, and priorities do need to be set. Commissioner Brown asked how much work the Commissioners generate when they make some requests. Nick said that at this point the requests would need to be identified in the work plan. There. are three property owners who are currently upset with zoning, and their concerns could be added to the list, for example. Terri Payne added that until a