Loading...
2009-1489-Minutes for Meeting September 30,2009 Recorded 10/19/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS C1 2009'1489 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1011912009 09;09;01 AM IN 11111 it III][ I 11ill IIIII~II~ Zi 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.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 309 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne; Peter Gutowsky and George Read, Community Development; Marty Wynne, Finance; members of the Planning Commission; representatives of NeighborImpact; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and a representative of KOHD TV; and about a dozen other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. 1. Discussion on Housing Rehabilitation Loan Agreement with NeighborImpact for South County Septic Upgrades. Karen Orme, Corky Senegal and Laura Fritz, representing NeighborImpact, came before the group. Tom Anderson explained there have been several discussions about this issue over the past few months. There are two primary concepts. The County's financial assistance fund would help homeowners comply with regulations regarding failing systems or upgrades required at the time of major home remodel or new construction. The County's funding would primarily have to do with system failure. The NeighborImpact fund is a loan program with low interest, with payment deferred until the property changes hands. Commissioner Unger asked which systems would be required. Mr. Anderson said it would be the variable treatment system model, with a certain level of nitrogen reduction. The main concepts are using the County's financial assistance funding pooled with NeighborImpact's funds, under their loan program. They have had a successful program in place for a while. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Pages The more detailed concept is when someone may not qualify for a NeighborImpact low interest loan. This could be because the loan to value ratio is upside down or the property owner is behind on payments. The County program would basically guarantee that loan. (Mr. Anderson presented the concept paper in this regard.) Ms. Fritz gave an overview of how the organization might assist people in this situation. There are criteria in place. Concerning volume, two out of five applications were denied that potentially could have been approved through the County. Mr. Anderson said that NeighborImpact funds might be available for less risky items, such as general repairs and upgrades to the system. Commissioner Baney brought up how the contract could be defined. Woman from NeighborImpact said that the County would have to define the type of risk it is willing to take. If there are Code violations, those will have to be cleared up. Some have not paid their mortgage for a long time. Chair Baney asked if they could offer some guidelines. They indicated that they have met with the Finance Director and realize there is more to do to get this going. Commissioner Luke asked Marty Wynne and Dave Kanner if the County wants to entertain this level of risk. Mr. Kanner said that he does not think that the County is prepared to handle this on its own. Mr. Wynne said they need NeighborImpact's expertise. Mr. Anderson stated that potentially the homeowner might do some of the work. The loan might be based on income level, interest rate, and so on. The loan is deferred, but typically do not go any longer than seven years. They do not have to make payments until the term expires or the property is sold. It was decided that they should focus the $60,000 on guaranteeing the riskier loans, and NeighborImpact will work with Mr. Wynne and Mr. Kanner to better define the process and its parameters. Chair Baney said that if they are to use Deschutes County funds in this way, and there is a 15% administration fee, why the County would not handle these directly. She was advised that those funds would not be used unless the loan goes bad. The County funds act as a guarantee. The Board concurred that this could be a great partnership. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Pages 2. Discussion of House Bill 2229 - "The Big Look". Chair Baney left the meeting to attend a conference out of the area. Nick Lelack gave an overview of what he has learned thus far about this Bill. He said that Representative Garrett took this up, indicating that it was a starting point, and the task force was supposed to report back by February 1, 2009. Land use as it is being used today is to be analyzed inside and outside the UGB, and decisions made as to whether it is working. The Bill makes several changes to the law (staff report). The process allows counties to reevaluate the process to correct mapping and zoning issues, and to simplify the process. The solutions in the Bill are extraordinary. No resources were provided to help with this work, however. The key is the farm and forestland designation update. There could be a legislative review of these lands, to see if this is consistent. However, the law requires a look at all exception lands, such as MUA-10 and RR-10. Mr. Kanner asked if this change would be at the landowners' request. Commissioner Luke said that a lot of things were designated EFU because they were running out of time. If something is designated open space instead of EFU, this may be appropriate. Mr. Lelack stated that there are a lot of factors to consider for this to take place. Land would need to meet the designation of farm or forest per State law, based on the type of soils. It may be zoned EFU, but the soils are not. (handout) If land is irrigated or 50% or more has the proper soil type, it stays farmland. (The group recessed at this time to attend, via videoconferencing, to participate in a State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing on destination resorts. A discussion of this issue will be addressed at a future meeting.) 3. Comprehensive Plan Update: Release and Review of First Public Draft. (This item was addressed prior to item #2) Terri Payne gave an overview of the draft, based on input and studies, reports and other data. This plan has a lot of action items rather than just goals and policies. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet by any means. Some people have asked why this matters, and she has explained that land use impacts the quality of life. It is always a balancing act between property rights and regulation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Pages There will be 90 days of public input before a revision is done. Many meetings are scheduled. Chair Baney asked if this is standard procedure. Ms. Payne said this is the ideal, not necessarily the norm. They are trying very hard to get this out before the public. All information will also be on the CDD website. Peter Gutowsky stated that staff appreciates the Board's support of this endeavor, which has become a priority and a big commitment. It is forward thinking, and he is confident that this framework is a great starting point. All of the work has been done in house, and reflects a collaboration between regulators, the public and other stakeholders. It is in a user-friendly format to allow the public to easily access it. Those who are interested will find it is simple to review and critique. Staff will provide a copy of the update to all of the local City Community Development directors, to school districts, parks districts and others. It will also be available at every local library branch. He said that this is different, and is not the typical legislative process. They are truly committed to getting feedback from all entities. It is the communities' document, and when the process is done, it should be a good result. A person in the audience asked if there is any way to get the meetings on community television. Chair Baney said they would see if there is an avenue to do so. The County is trying to coordinate ways to get more people involved. This may include televising if at all possible. Commissioner Unger said that the Planning Commission meetings are also an important aspect. Ms. Payne stated that there is already a posting on when the Planning Commission meets and what their discussion topics will be. Mr. Gutowsky said that the south County public wanted things to move more slowly, based on input regarding the high groundwater pollution issue. There are several meetings scheduled there to obtain input on a variety of land use and environmental issues. Mr. Lelack said that the community discussions begin tomorrow night at the Planning Commission meeting. This is not quasi-judicial, but there are requirements that have to be met during this process. Mr. Kanner noted that the public input is not limited to the agenda items, but comments are welcome on any issue at any meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Pages 4. Other Items. The group attended, via videoconferencing, to participate in a State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing on destination resorts. Representatives of Wasco County, which does not have a destination resort, were to testify. Also to be addressed was countywide mapping of destination resorts and the application process. The question is how the process can be streamlined. After 25 years, the impacts of resorts are now known. Major concerns are traffic, the dangers of wildfire, water use, and other potential problems. Deschutes County is in the middle of evaluating its destination resort program, and knows a lot about what is working and not working. Al Johnson, a developer who has worked on a lot of projects on the Oregon coast, will also speak. Most of these were done through an exception process. The purpose of the panel is to get some ideas out on what is working and what is not. The Chair asked that just several people speak since time is limited. Commissioner Luke spoke at this time. He said he is not there to say that Deschutes County needs more resorts, but he wants to be sure that the process is fair. Nick Lelack then read his statement (a copy of which is attached). Mark Hash asked about Pronghorn and their promise to build overnight facilities as a condition of their permit, and whether they have defaulted on the bond. This could represent one of the problems they are trying to fix at the legislative level. Commissioner Luke stated that because Pronghorn was a new company, they actually put up the cash, about $7 million. This is a problem with others as well. The legislation has already made a change in that, along with case law. Mr. Lelack stated that there have been changes instituted already in this regard. Commissioner Luke indicated that Tetherow Crossing has provided a plan on the work to go on in that location. Some of this problem has been solved already. Mr. Hash said he hears that this could then be codified. Commissioner Luke indicated that this is something they are already doing. At this time, the video conference meeting went to the representatives of Wasco County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Pages It was stated that there would be a work group put together to look at the issue and complete its work in 2010. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the Deschutes County is not classified as navigable, and there are many questions on its ownership and use. Mr. Kanner said that Mike Dugan asked for a letter of support requesting mental health court funding. The Commissioners were supportive. Being no further items addressed, the work session adjourned at 3:45 p. m. DATED this 30th Day of September 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary qvbz/~/ Tammy Ban y, Chair De -~nis R. Luke V-1 Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 30, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orl? WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 1. Discussion on Housing Rehabilitation Loan Agreement with NeighborImpact for South County Septic Upgrades - Tom Anderson 2. Discussion of House Bill 2229 - "The Big Look" - Nick Lelack 3. Comprehensive Plan Update: Release and Review of First Public Draft - Nick Lelack 4. Other Items Note: Deschutes County has been invited to participate in a State Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing on destination resorts. County representatives, including members of the Board of Commissioners, will testify when called via videoconference between 2:30 and 4:00 p.m., during which time this work session will be recessed. 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 regarding a 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. J , p p N ` l1 ~ -r V p c L A n .S L f M r J V s `V M v U (L ~ l~ N L !\`5 3 ~ ~ ~ © ~ . y raj LL tt l 4 . ~ ~ 7 ox ~ bJ lJ (U L Ql)l z w o o _ co CL v.J Nei,ghborimpact C r"ti ica I ?Jeccs. C2ivsa sc wrv; ms, ~{~tpcst-t insa Chanxre. TO: Deschutes County Commission FROM: NeighborImpact RE: Draft proposal whereby Deschutes County will provide additional funding to provide Septic Upgrade Deferred Loans to low income households in South County; and to establish a County backed loan guarantee for households that do not qualify for existing Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program BACKGROUND NeighborImpact's Housing Center has administered a homeowner Housing Rehabilitation Program since 1994. The program is designed to help low income homeowners who cannot qualify for a conventional loan address health and safety issues so that they may remain living in their home. Qualified households receive a low interest deferred loan to fix problems in their home such as dry rot, failed plumbing, roof leaks, septic failure, etc. This program serves the dual purposes of preserving affordable housing stock in Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties as well as helping low income households live in a healthy and safe environment. In 2008, Deschutes County began requiring residents in the southern part of the County with failing systems to upgrade to nitrogen reducing systems in order to protect the drinking water in the region from high nitrate levels. NeighborImpact has been working with Deschutes County to try to provide financing through our Housing Rehabilitation Program to low income families who cannot afford to undertake this upgrade. Deschutes County refers families to our program when a household contacts the county to find out about financing options. It is our respective intent to formalize this relationship whereby the County will provide initial and ongoing funding so that more households can be helped than currently can be served through the existing NeighborImpact program. ELIGIBILITY ISSUES In the past year the number of program inquiries from South Deschutes County regarding septic upgrades has increased. One loan has already been made and another is in process. However, NeighborImpact has received feedback from Deschutes County that some families that have recently applied were denied the Rehabilitation Loan. Although this program has been created for families who tend to struggle financially, nonetheless NeighborImpact adheres to loan eligibility policies to ensure these loans will be paid back to us so that we can recycle the funds for future applicants through our revolving loan fund. Two such policies include the following: 1. Homeowners must be current on their mortgage payments and taxes; 2. Homeowners need to have enough equity in their house to cover the rehabilitation loan amount as well as any other liens if the house is sold or goes into foreclosure We have determined that these two requirements were the cause of some of the recent denials of South County applicants. A review of our records revealed that since January 2009 we have denied five applicants from South County who needed septic system upgrades - two applicants exceeded income limits for the program; two applicants did not have enough equity in their home and/or were behind on mortgage/taxes; and one applicant's house burned down therefore other policies excluded them from eligibility. Also in the past year NeighborImpact has sent out approximately seven applications to families who claimed to have septic system problems but who never followed up with us. It is possible that the two policies stated above discouraged them from applying for the program. NeighborImpact has been asked by Deschutes County staff to help find a solution for households that need a septic upgrade but are disqualified from our loan program because they are late on their mortgage or taxes and/or do not have enough equity in their home to qualify for the loan. PROPOSAL: NeighborImpact will establish a separate loan pool for South Deschutes County residents who have been disqualified for our existing loan program due to mortgage delinquency and/or inadequate equity. Funds for these loans will be drawn from NeighborImpact's Revolving Loan Fund and provided only for septic upgrades. A loan limit range of $8,000-$18,000 will be established for these loans. Existing program rules will apply, except for the policies regarding mortgage payment status and equity. Deschutes County will make $60,000 available during FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 to NeighborImpact to serve as a Loan Loss Reserve Fund. Deschutes County will sign documents to guarantee the full repayment of each loan to NeighborImpact in the event that the homeowner defaults on the loan using the Loan Loss Reserve Fund. It is estimated that NeighborImpact will be able to provide approximately 6-8 loans from this fund over the next two years. NeighborImpact will charge a service delivery fee of 15% of the loan amount, to be billed to Deschutes County. Discussion Items 1) Limit Deschutes County Funds to "bad loans"? a. Scope could be expanded as more Deschutes County funds are available 2) Risk acceptability of "bad loans" a. Behind on Payments b. Poor Loan to Value Ratio c. Historic default rates 3) If Deschutes County funds are used for existing program qualifying loans, what is the mix of NeighborImpact/Deschutes County Funds? a. Only use Deschutes County funds for septic repair/upgrade projects? b. 50150 match? 4) NeighborImpact Administrative Fee 5) NeighborImpact Loan/Qualification Process - Acceptable? a. Fairness Safeguards b. Contractor Selection c. County Permitting d. Loan Tracking/Accounting Madame Chair and members of the committee, I am Deschutes County Commissioner Dennis Luke. We wish to thank the committee for allowing us to testify by video today. I am not here today to tell you that Deschutes County needs more destination resorts. As a Legislator and now as a Commissioner, I have been interested in making sure the process was fair. As we read the Bill in the last session, it appeared to move much of the local process for Destination Resort decisions to the State level. One would only have to look at the Skyline Forest Legislation Bill to see that a lot of local input was not involved in that decision. I clearly did not disagree with the intent of the Bill, but local decision-makers would have very little to say about how the resort develops. It is my belief that public involvement is better served at the local level with an adequate appeal process to the State level, as is now in place. Deschutes County currently has stricter, requirements than the State in many areas. Two of our recent resorts, Pronghorn and Caldera, were not even appealed. Eagle Crest moved forward with some minor appeals. Clearly the State needs to require that local government makes sure that wildlife, water, farm, and forests are adequately protected, and that transportation issues are addressed, but the law already requires this to take place as part of the process. One area that could use some reinforcing is for a county to take into account the impacts on a neighboring county or a city within another county. At a recent hearing in Crook County on a proposed destination resort, the Deschutes County Road Department made their case concerning the impact of the proposed resort on an intersection at the Bend Airport. One of the requirements then placed on the resort was that at 50% build-out they would have to contribute money for improvements at the intersection. While the Crook County Court was willing to do this, they were not required to even consider our request. While I am not sure what the intent of the committee might be concerning a Bill in the special session, I would hope the issues dealing with destination resort would be more of an interim committee project where all parties involved would be able to participate. If a Bill is needed, it could come in the next session. It has been estimated by people I know in the industry that the investment for a new resort is between $30-50 million before any lots could be sold. I do not see anyone in a hurry to risk that kind of dollars in today's economy. We would also hope the committee might look at smaller developments and adjusting the investment accordingly. Smaller resorts on smaller acreages, without permanent housing or golf courses, might be a lot better option in the years ahead. A small factoid about Deschutes County is that of the two million acres within the County, 1.5 million acres are Federal or State owned. Take out the land within city limits, and this leaves just 400,000 acres, or about 20% of the County, under County jurisdiction. Then take out farm, forest and other areas unsuitable for development or already developed for rural housing, and the remaining areas for destination resorts is very small; and much of that land is already developed. Destination resorts do have an economic impact on the area that I believe far outweighs any requirements they may put on the systems. Many of the people who use the resorts are from other parts of Oregon. One could even make the argument that Bend itself is a destination resort. These resorts clearly served a purpose in the state of keeping the tourists in an area where they will do the least amount of harm to the environment while at the same time they are contributing to our economy. I like to use the example of the Legislature telling Washington County that they can not have anymore Intel campuses. Again, I would like to emphasize that the local process is very important. I sit on the Association of Oregon Counties Legislative Committee, and that was the point we continued to make last session. Review and appeal to the State is important, and is a vital part of the process, but I believe that public input is better served at the local level of government. Voters in Crook County voted not to continue with the resort mapping process. That is their right, and I respect their decision. But it was a local decision, and that is where it belongs, at the local level. Thank you for letting us testify today. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DATE: September 30, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Commissioners FROM Tom Anderson, Community Development Director Nick Lelack, Planning Director SUBJECT: HB 2229 - The Big Look Summary: The Board asked staff to provide an update on The Big Look law, House Bill (HB) 2229, and how it might impact Deschutes County. This memo and the work session provide the update. Background (provided, in part, by Senate Committee on Environment & Natural Resources): The Legislative Assembly passed legislation in 1969 requiring cities and counties to adopt comprehensive land use plans, without a corresponding enforcement mechanism or technical assistance system. In 1973, Senate Bill 100 created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to acknowledge plans, approve Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments, and establish and amend state land use goals. LCDC was also created under Senate Bill 100 to implement the goals and to coordinate state agencies. In 2000, Measure 7 was passed and amended the Oregon Constitution to waive land use requirements that caused a reduction in property value or to compensate the property owner for same. It was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court. In 2004, Measure 37 was approved, requiring compensation for devaluations caused by regulations that took effect after a claimant took ownership of a property, or allowing a waiver of those regulations causing property value reductions. Measure 49 passed in 2007 modifying Measure 37 by allowing compensation for M37 claimants to take the form of buildable home sites. In 2005, the Legislative Assembly passed Senate Bill 82, creating the Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning (Big Look Task Force) to perform a broad review of the land use planning program and make policy recommendations to the Legislative Assembly by February 1, 2009. Areas of concern included: the effectiveness of Oregon's land use planning program in meeting the current and future needs of Oregonians in all parts of the state; the respective roles and responsibilities of state and local governments in land use planning; and land use issues specific to areas inside and outside UGBs. Quality Services Performed with Pride In 2009, the Legislative Assembly passed HB 2229, which implements some of the Big Look Task Force's recommendations. The Law & Potential Impact on Deschutes County HB 2229 makes several changes to the statewide planning program, including: 1. Establishes overarching principles to guide the land use program (previously, the program contained 19 statewide planning goals without any overall statement of purpose); 2. Establishes a process to allow counties to enter a re-acknowledgement process for its Comprehensive Plan for two purposes: (1) to correct zoning-map errors on rural lands and (2) to update designations of farmlands and forestlands for land use planning (discussed below); 3. Revises the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) program to both simplify and streamline the process for multi jurisdictional efforts; and 4. Calls for LCDC, in cooperation with the Oregon Law Commission and other public or private entities, to appoint a work group to conduct a policy neutral review (no definition for policy neutral is provided) and audit of ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227, the statewide land use planning goals and the rules of the commission implementing the goals. This work will only commence "as resources are available." The legislation also includes a provision to "Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems." However, no changes were made to the program to implement this new provision. The reason is that The Big Look Task Force found that the current program already provides for regional approaches to address regional/local needs and issues. The Law: Update Farm and Forest Land Designations Sections 5-7 (pages 3-4) of the legislation establish a process for a county to update its farm and forest land designations. A county may update these designations through a legislative review of lands "to determine whether the lands planned and zoned for farm use, forest use or mixed farm and forest use are consistent with the definitions of 'agricultural lands' or 'forest lands' in goals relating" to each. The steps a county must take to update its farm and forest land designations include: 1. Submit a scope of work for the reacknowledgement process (comprehensive plan amendment) to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The DLCD approval is required before a county can move forward with updating the designations. 2. In addition to reviewing all farm and forest lands, a county must review all exception lands (typically, RR-10 or MUM 0 zoned lands) under ORS 197.732 to Goals 3 (agriculture) and 4 (forests) to determine whether they meet the definitions of agricultural and forest lands. 3. If, after completing the above steps, a county amends its comprehensive plan, zoning or land use regulations, the law requires a county to maintain inventories and establish a program to protect ecologically significant natural areas or resources for non-resource lands from the "adverse effects of new uses allowed by planning or zoning changes." In addition, a county is required to review lands that are planned or rezoned as non-resource lands to determine that the uses allowed by the changes are consistent with the "carrying capacity" of the lands. Specifically, a county must ensure that the amount, type, location and pattern of development on lands re-designated as non-resource lands will be rural in character; not conflict with farm or forest practices; and will not lead to significant adverse effects on water, energy, transportation, fish and wildlife, wildfire, public facilities and services, etc. 4. Finally, a county is required to submit plan or zoning amendments to DLCD for review. DLCD may also adopt rules to implement Sections 5-7 of this law to create a process or form by which the county will demonstrate that it has met all the requirements of this law. Potential Impacts on Deschutes County Deschutes County may benefit from these changes to state law because of potential incorrect designations of agricultural land by past zoning errors or if designated lands do not comply with state definitions of agricultural land in Goal 3. The process to evaluate agriculture land designations would be extensive because: 1. The current agricultural plan and zoning designations and regulations are the result of the County's 1992 farm study, which was a multi-year process to complete. Updating the plan and zoning designations will require updating the County's farm study. 2. If the County decides to update its agricultural land designations, it must also evaluate its exceptions lands. There are significant exception lands throughout Deschutes County. 3. Changing designations for agricultural (resource) lands to non-resource lands will also require updating inventories of ecologically significant natural areas and potentially establishing new programs to protect such areas. 4. The process to update these plan and zoning designations could result in more accurate designations of resource and non-resource lands in Deschutes County with updated inventories of ecologically significant areas and programs to protect such areas. The first draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update will include policies and actions that address the implementation of Sections 5-7 of HB 2229. Staff expects discussion on this issue throughout the Plan Update review and public hearing process - whether or not to proceed with implementation and, if so, the timing of implementation (i.e., early or mid-range action item). Board Direction This item is for discussion only. From: Merry Ann Moore [merryann@bendcable.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:58 AM To: Jackie Dingfelder Cc: sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; sen.markhass@state.or.us; se n.floydprozanski@state.or.us; Dennis Luke; Planning Commission; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Urging you to hear from resort critics as well as boosters during Wed. videoconference Dear Senator Dingfelder: I am writing to let you and the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee know that there is a strong, and I believe majority, view in Deschutes County that we have enough resorts. Yet, this Wednesday during your videoconference with Deschutes County Commissioners you will only hear from a resort booster, one of the Commissioners speaking about the benefits of Local Control of resorts, and a county planner. I am disappointed that the broad sector of citizens gravely concerned about more resort development in Deschutes County will not be represented. I am among those who believe the negative environmental and economic aspects of the new generation of resorts far outweigh the benefits. Among my foremost concerns: environmental and wildlife impacts, the strain on natural resources, the skirting of rules on overnight lodging, the promotion of this form of tourism over low-impact, more sustainable and equally economically beneficial tourism, the siting of these developments in places that strain municipal services (fire, emergency, water, etc.) and the costs to taxpayers who pay for infrastructure improvements to serve resorts. It's time for our County and State to move beyond this failed model of economic development. Building more luxury second homes in gated communities is not a plan for long-term economic health for rural Oregon. Yet it seems that continued Local Control of resort development will mean more of the same in Deschutes County. Please reach out to hear all the voices in the county before you make conclusions based on Wednesday's videoconference. Thank you for considering my views. Merry Ann Moore 69225 Hawksflight Dr. Sisters, OR 97759 541.549.2468 merryann@bendcable.com 9/28/2009 From: Eva Eagle [eva.eagle@mac.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:15 PM To: Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger Cc: Planning Commission; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Resort Legislation--Giving County Input Dear Commissioners, I am disheartened to hear how you plan to use your time with the Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday in your videoconference. How can you ask a resort representative to talk about community benefits when you give no time for the opposing view? Believe me, many of us in Central Oregon feel that the destination resort designation has too long been used to circumvent the planning process, resulting in significant environmental destruction without sufficient economic benefit. We who already pay taxes here are not happy about having to pay for road improvements, see our water supply deteriorate, and watch our native landscapes overrun with the monster homes and grass of these new exurbs. That's why so many of us have tried to support statewide legislation to control the use of the destination resort designation. The County has a very poor record of weighing the costs and benefits. Your plan for this hearing is more evidence that the 'real people' have little voice in County government compared to the developer community. Please show us you are more fair than this by inviting Central Oregon Landwatch or other spokespersons to participate in this videoconference. Why not admit that this is a controversial issue here with which we are all grappling? Thank you, Eva Eagle From: Sunni Rounds [sunnirounds@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 9:12 PM To: sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us Cc: sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; sen.markhass@state.or.us; sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Planning Commission; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Videoconference on statewide destination resorts reform Dear Ms. Dingfelder: It has come to my attention that on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, state legislators have requested a video conference with Deschutes County Commissioners and select staff regarding destination resort reform. Why is the public being ignored regarding this important issue? Common sense dictates that County Commissioners would be in favor of such resorts because they increase the tax base. In reality, these resorts (at least in Deschutes County) are little more than "gated communities", not the intent of destination resorts legislation when passed. We here in Deschutes County are alleged to have future nitrate contamination. An increase in destination resorts would do nothing to alleviate the alleged contamination; in fact, would contribute to the problem unless these resorts are mandated to install a sewage treatment plant, not the systems currently in use. Again common sense dictates that developers would not move forward due to the cost of installing a true treatment facility as utilized in larger U. S. cities. On another note, transportation routes must be taken into account. Here in Central Oregon, U.S. Highway 97 is the main north- south traffic artery. We already have one failed intersection without the funds to correct the problem. If more destination resorts are added, there will be more failed intersections and, no doubt, traffic fatalities. As I recall, there are 5 or 6 destination resorts already in Deschutes County, and it is doubtful any of them are operating at full capacity, especially in light of the current economy. Reform needs to mandate that current resorts need to be completed and operating at full capacity before even considering approval of another resort. Secondly, there needs to be a cap on the number of resorts a county may allow. Unchecked, to increase the tax base, you will no longer have forests, wildlife corridors, etc. because destination resorts will "swallow up" large areas of open space and forest land. One of our commissioners had the audacity to state that these resorts attract "quality people." I believe his reference to quality people meant "wealthy" people. However, wealthy visitors are not the backbone of the county. It is the hardworking people here, day in and day out, that make the area viable. I urge you to open this process up to the public for comment and really consider what the public has to say. I moved to Central Oregon due to its incomparable beauty, the wildlife, and just the general ambiance of the area. I realize urban growth is an integral part of the vitality of the region. Destination resorts do not meet the definition of urban growth. They consume large tracts of land that are habitat to creatures that were here long before humans. The more this habitat is encroached upon, the more wildlife must modify their hunting habits, and eventually become a danger to the human element. Look at California if you want to see this phenomenon in action. Thank you, Sunni Rounds P. O. Box 3154 La Pine, OR 97739 541.536.9335 9/29/2009 From: Katy Yoder [ktyoder@ykwc.net] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 7:09 PM To: Dennis Luke Cc: Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Planning Commission; sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Resorts To All Who SHOULD Be Concerned: I am extremely concerned and disappointed in the short-sighted attitudes that seem to prevail regarding the continuing proliferation of resorts in Central Oregon. My main concerns are about water and the misuse of our limited resources to feed the unending appetite of corporations who have no concern for the environment in which they "plant" their next resort. To receive water rights is an extremely difficult process for private citizens but when a corporation comes knocking at our politicians' door suddenly there are all kinds of ways to mitigate their use. This accomodation of big-business to fill up the tax revenues will result in future generations looking back on you the lawmakers and we the citizens as greedy and lacking the courage to stand up for what is right. Someone needs to protect our natural resources and it should be you. There are other ways to bring dollars to Central Oregon; please don't cave into the interests of the deep-pockets who don't care at all about the destruction they will wreak on this beautiful land we share. Katy Yoder 9/29/2009 From: Martha Bauman flapinemac@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 7:07 PM To: jackie dingfelder Cc: Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke; Alan Unger; Sen.Brian Boquist; Sen.Floyd Prozanski; Sen.Jason Atkinson; Sen.Mark Haas; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky; Planning Commission Subject: Videoconference with Deschuets County Commissioners Re: Destination Resorts Senator Jackie Dingfelder: I and my husband are opposed to any more DESTINATION RESORTS in Deschutes County. We have enough Destination Resorts already in the GREAT STATE OF OREGON. We DO NOT WANT ANYMORE built in our county, Deschutes. We like to good old open spaces that Central Oregon has to offer to Oregon's citizens and visitors. We moved from the valley to Central Oregon in 2002. We love it here and would like to keep the area pristine, so that we and our children and grandchildren can enjoy it as we are doing now. We do realize that growth will take place at some time or the other, but NOT in the form of DESTINATION RESORTS. To us and many like us, Destination Resorts will take away some things that are precious to us, like OUR PRISTINE WATER SUPPLY, wildlife, the freedom to roam around the county and enjoy it's beauty, these are just a few of the things that would be lost; not only to mention the increase of traffic, noise and pollution to our county. We are wondering why the videoconference is with the Deschutes County Commissioners and their staff only. Why aren't the citizens who live in Deschutes County invited to the meeting to give their opinions, whether it be against or for Destination Resorts. Since when are the citizens left out of decision making in this STATE????? We, as citizens of this State, should be HEARD on an important issue as Destination Resorts. Remember who put you in office in the first place!!!! We believe that Destination Resorts will not benefit the citizens, but will add to the stress that is already on the citizens of this county regarding our tax dollars. We want our tax dollars spent on necessary things that we need in our every day living. Just to mention a few things, we need fire and police protection, and would like to see the wildlife remain wandering around in our yards. We would appreciate an answer from you as to why the videoconference is only with the Deschutes County Commissioners and the staff and that NO CITIZENS are involved. Please consider our views on this issue. Donald & Martha Bauman 17050 Deer Run Lane La Pine, OR 97730 541-536-7670 lapinemac msn.com 9/29/2009 From: Wendy Holzman [wendomere@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:40 PM To: Jackie Dingfelder; sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us; sen.markhass@state.or.us; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us; Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack; Planning Commission Subject: Please listen to our voice as resort critics as well as supporters during Wed. videoconference Dear Senator Dingfelder: We am writing to let you and the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee know that there are many citizens in Deschutes County who believe that we have enough resorts. We are concerned that this viewpoint will not be expressed on Wednesday during your videoconference with Deschutes County Commissioners. We are disappointed that the broad sector of citizens gravely concerned about more resort development in Deschutes County will not be represented. We have concerns that this type of growth will have negative environmental and economic aspects that far outweigh the benefits. Among our concerns are: environmental and wildlife impacts, the strain on natural resources, the skirting of rules on overnight lodging, the promotion of this form of tourism over low-impact, more sustainable and equally economically beneficial tourism, the siting of these developments in places that strain municipal services (fire, emergency, water, etc.) and the costs to taxpayers who pay for infrastructure improvements to serve resorts. Let's move beyond this failed model of economic development. Building more luxury second homes in gated communities is not a plan for long-term economic health for rural Oregon. Yet it seems that continued Local Control of resort development may mean more of the same in Deschutes County. Thank you for considering our views, and those of like minded citizens on Wednesday. Wendy and Alan Holzman 324 E Wapato Loop Sisters, OR 97759 9/29/2009 From: Wendell Evers [FishyWendell@msn.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:59 PM To: sen.jackiedingfelder@state.orus Cc: senJasonatkinson @state. or. us; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; sen.markhass@state.or.us; sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us; Dennis Luke; Planning Commission Subject: Resorts/wed.videoconference Dear Senator Dingfelder: I am writing to state that a ten minute videoconference with a resort booster, a county planner, and a Deschutes County Commissioner (very pro development) will NOT give you a true view of the attitudes of many citizens towards more resorts in Deschutes County. Did you know that there are 28 golf courses already in Central Oregon? I am one of many in Deschutes County who thinks that there are enough golf courses and resorts in Deschutes County. Many of the resorts in Deschutes County are actually gated communities. They put a strain on resources for fire, emergency, schools, water, etc. They have a negative impact on wildlife, and they do not really encourage low-impact economically beneficial tourism. They put a strain on natural resources. Please do not listen only to the three presenters chosen so far to speak about more resorts in Deschutes County. Open up the discussion to other views. Thank-you, Anne Gregersen P.O. Box 3240 La Pine, Or 97739 541-536-7422 9/29/2009 From: Baldwin Frank [skibum@bendcable.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:34 PM To: sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us Cc: sen.jasonatkinson@state.or.us; sen.brianboquist@state.or.us; sen.markhass@state.or.us; sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us; Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Alan Unger; Planning Commission; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Destination Resorts in Deschutes County Dear Senator Dingfelder, Unless our County Commissioners get a lot more objective about studying the negative benefits of resorts and a lot more strict about the criteria for siting them, they are NOT representing our views, nor those of a wide majority of this county's residents. Deschutes County has enough destination resorts now. For one thing, the infrastucture costs to the public alone to add more resorts makes no sense, especially in an area with so many of them now. Please be objective and allow both sides of this critical issue to be heard in your future hearings and deliberations so that all facts can be brought to the table. Thank you. M/M Frank Baldwin, Sisters 9. Based on that input and direction from our Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners in July, we are now proposing revised destination resort goals and policies as well as procedures that will explain how to add and remove land from our resort map. Our proposal is also to bring the County into compliance with the 2003 legislative change that allows counties to remap eligible lands for destination resorts not more frequently than once every 30 months, and to create a process for collecting and processing all proposed map amendments. 10. The result will be a map that accurately reflects where resorts can be located Deschutes County. A public hearing is scheduled for November 19. Our proposed local criteria will exclude from the destination resort map properties that contain the following characteristics: * Less than 160 acres; * In an Area of Critical State Concern; * Inventoried Goal 5 resources the County has chosen to protect; * Zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) or Forest Use 1 (F-1); * Certain Irrigated lands; * Farm or forest land within 1-mile of urban growth boundaries; * Designated Urban Reserve Area under ORS 195.145; and * Platted subdivisions. 11. In addition, as part of the application process to add properties to the map, affected transportation agencies (ODOT) will have opportunities to discuss how a new resort would impact transportation facilities. 12. Amendments to our Destination Resort map will be initiated in 2010. Properties currently mapped that do not meet the new criteria will be proposed for removal. Lands that meet the new criteria will be proposed to be added to the map, if requested by the property owner. Adoption is currently anticipated for next summer. However, if the Legislature changes destination resort law in 2010, we will need to re-evaluate our schedule and currently proposed amendments. 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2229 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 recommendations of Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning; creating new provisions; amending ORS 197.010, 197.040, 197.650, 197.652, 197.654, 197.656, 197.747, 215.427 and 227.178; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 197.010 is amended to read: 197.010. The Legislative Assembly declares that: (1) In order to [assure] ensure the highest possible level of livability in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities and counties, re- gional areas and the state as a whole. These comprehensive plans: (a) Must be adopted by the appropriate governing body at the local and state levels; (b) Are expressions of public policy in the form of policy statements, generalized maps and standards and guidelines; (c) Shall be the basis for more specific rules and land use regulations which implement the policies expressed through the comprehensive plans; (d) Shall be prepared to assure that all public actions are consistent and coordinated with the policies expressed through the comprehensive plans; and (e) Shall be regularly reviewed and, if necessary, amended to keep them consistent with the changing needs and desires of the public they are designed to serve. (2)(a) The overarching principles guiding the land use program in the State of Oregon are to: (A) Provide a healthy environment; (B) Sustain a prosperous economy; (C) Ensure a desirable quality of life; and (D) Equitably allocate the benefits and burdens of land use planning. (b) Additionally, the land use program should, but is not required to, help communities achieve sustainable development patterns and manage the effects of climate change. (c) The overarching principles in paragraph (a) of this subsection and the purposes in paragraph (b) of this subsection provide guidance to: (A) The Legislative Assembly when enacting a law regulating land use. (B) A public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, when the public body: (i) Adopts or interprets goals, comprehensive plans and land use regulations implement- ing the plans, or administrative rules implementing a provision of ORS chapter 195, 196, 197, 215 or 227; or Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 1 (ii) Interprets a law governing land use. (d) Use of the overarching principles in paragraph (a) of this subsection and the purposes in paragraph (b) of this subsection is not a legal requirement for the Legislative Assembly or other public body and is not judicially enforceable. [(2)] (3) The equitable balance between state and local government interests can best be achieved by resolution of conflicts using alternative dispute resolution techniques such as mediation, collaborative planning and arbitration. Such dispute resolution techniques are particularly suitable for conflicts arising over periodic review, comprehensive plan and land use regulations, amendments, enforcement issues and local interpretation of state land use policy. SECTION 2. ORS 197.040 is amended to read: 197.040. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall: (a) Direct the performance by the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Devel- opment and the director's staff of their functions under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. (b) In accordance with the provisions of ORS chapter 183, adopt rules that it considers neces- sary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, in designing its administrative requirements, the commission shall: (A) Allow for the diverse administrative and planning capabilities of local governments; (B) Consider the variation in conditions and needs in different regions of the state and encourage regional approaches to resolving land use problems; [(B)] (C) Assess what economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed rule; [(C)] (D) Assess the likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic in- terests; and [(D)] (E) Assess whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact. (c)(A) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 or by goal under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 any statewide land use policies that it considers necessary to carry out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. (B) Adopt by rule in accordance with ORS chapter 183 any procedures necessary to carry out ORS 215.402 (4)(b) and 227.160 (2)(b). (C) Review decisions of the Land Use Board of Appeals and land use decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court within 120 days of the date the decisions are issued to determine if goal or rule amendments are necessary. (d) Cooperate with the appropriate agencies of the United States, this state and its political subdivisions, any other state, any interstate agency, any person or groups of persons with respect to land conservation and development. (e) Appoint advisory committees to aid it in carrying out ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 and provide technical and other assistance, as it considers necessary, to each such committee. (2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, the commission shall: (a) Adopt, amend and revise goals consistent with regional, county and city concerns; (b) Prepare, collect, provide or cause to be prepared, collected or provided land use inventories; (c) Prepare statewide planning guidelines; (d) Review comprehensive plans for compliance with goals; (e) Coordinate planning efforts of state agencies to assure compliance with goals and compat- ibility with city and county comprehensive plans; (f) Insure widespread citizen involvement and input in all phases of the process; (g) Review and recommend to the Legislative Assembly the designation of areas of critical state concern; (h) Report periodically to the Legislative Assembly and to the committee; [and] (i) Review the land use planning responsibilities and authorities given to the state, re- gions, counties and cities, review the resources available to each level of government and Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 2 make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly to improve the administration of the statewide land use program; and [(i)] (j) Perform other duties required by law. (3) The requirements of subsection (1)(b) of this section shall not be interpreted as requiring an assessment for each lot or parcel that could be affected by the proposed rule. NOTE: Sections 3 and 4 were deleted by amendment. Subsequent sections were not renumbered. SECTION 5. (1) For the purposes of correcting mapping errors made in the acknowledg- ment process and updating the designation of farmlands and forestlands for land use plan- ning, a county may conduct a legislative review of lands in the county to determine whether the lands planned and zoned for farm use, forest use or mixed farm and forest use are con- sistent with the definitions of "agricultural lands" or "forest lands" in goals relating to ag- ricultural lands or forestlands. (2) A county may undertake the reacknowledgment process authorized by this section only if the Department of Land Conservation and Development approves a work plan, from the county, describing the expected scope of reacknowledgment. The department may con- dition approval of a work plan for reacknowledgment under this section to reflect the re- sources needed to complete the review required by sections 7 and 13 of this 2009 Act. The work plan of the county and the approval of the department are not final orders for purposes of review. (3) A county that undertakes the reacknowledgment process authorized by this section shall provide an opportunity for all lands planned for farm use, forest use or mixed farm and forest use and all lands subject to an exception under ORS 197.732 to a goal relating to ag- ricultural lands or forestlands to be included in the review. (4) A county must plan and zone land reviewed under this section: (a) For farm use if the land meets the definition of "agricultural land" in a goal relating to agricultural lands; (b) For forest use if the land meets the definition of "forest land" used for comprehensive plan amendments in the goal relating to forestlands; (c) For mixed farm and forest use if the land meets both definitions; (d) For nonresource use, consistent with section 7 of this 2009 Act, if the land does not meet either definition; or (e) For a use other than farm use or forest use as provided in a goal relating to land use planning process and policy framework and subject to an exception to the appropriate goals under ORS 197.732 (2). (5) A county may consider the current land use pattern on adjacent and nearby lands in determining whether land meets the appropriate definition. SECTION 6. (1) If a county amends its comprehensive plan or a land use regulation mapping zoning designations under sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act, the county shall review lands that are planned or rezoned as nonresource lands to determine whether the lands contain ecologically significant natural areas or resources. The county shall consider ap- propriate goals and the "Oregon Conservation Strategy" prepared in September of 2006 by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2) The county shall maintain an inventory in the comprehensive plan of nonresource lands that contain ecologically significant natural areas or resources and establish a program to protect the areas or resources from the adverse effects of new uses allowed by the plan- ning or zoning changes. The county may use nonregulatory programs to protect the re- sources including, but not limited to, programs for the transfer of severable development interests to other lands that do not contain ecologically significant resources. (3) If a county amends its comprehensive plan or a land use regulation mapping zoning designations under sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act, the county shall review lands that are planned or rezoned as nonresource lands to determine that the uses allowed by the planning Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 3 or zoning changes are consistent with the carrying capacity of the lands. The county shall ensure that: (a) The amount, type, location and pattern of development on lands redesignated as nonresource lands: (A) Will be rural in character and will not significantly interfere with orderly and effi- cient development of urban areas in the vicinity; (B) Will not significantly conflict with existing or reasonably foreseeable farm or forest uses or with accepted farm or forest practices; and (C) Will not lead to significant adverse effects including, but not limited to, adverse ef- fects on: (i) Water quality or the availability or cost of water supply; (ii) Energy use; (iii) State or local transportation facilities; (iv) Fish or wildlife habitat or other ecologically significant lands; (v) The risk of wildland fire or the cost of fire suppression; (vi) The cost of public facilities or services; or (vii) The fiscal health of a local government. (b) Additional residential development on nonresource lands is, to the extent practicable, located and clustered to: (A) Minimize the effects on farm and forest uses; (B) Avoid lands subject to natural hazards; and (C) Reduce the costs of public facilities and services. SECTION 7. (1) A county shall submit decisions on planning and rezoning designations under sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act to the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment for review pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section and section 13 of this 2009 Act. (2) The department shall coordinate with: (a) The State Department of Agriculture in reviewing decisions on planning and rezoning designations for lands planned for farm use or mixed farm and forest use. (b) The State Forestry Department in reviewing decisions on planning and rezoning des- ignations for lands planned for forest use or mixed farm and forest use. (3) The Land Conservation and Development Commission has exclusive jurisdiction for review of a county's decision made under sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act. (4) A person who participated in the proceedings leading to the county's decisions under sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act may not raise an issue on review before the commission that was not raised in the local proceedings. (5) The commission may adopt rules implementing sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act. SECTION 8. ORS 197.652 is amended to read: 197.652. [Programs of the collaborative regional problem-solving process described in ORS 197.654 and 197.656 shall be established in counties or regions geographically distributed throughout the state.] (1) At the request of a county and at least one other local government in a region, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, other state agencies, as defined in ORS 171.133, metropolitan planning organizations, special districts and advisory committees on transportation may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process. (2) If requested to participate, the department shall assist the county with the process and encourage regional efforts to resolve land use planning problems using the authorities described in ORS 197.652 to 197.658. (3) The county, in cooperation with the other local governments, shall identify the land use planning problems to be addressed and the participants whose actions are necessary to resolve the land use planning problems. Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 4 (4) The county shall submit a proposed work scope and a proposed list of participants as a proposal to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review. The commis- sion shall review: (a) The proposed work scope to determine whether it can reasonably be completed within the time allowed; (b) The proposed participant list to determine whether it includes, at a minimum, all lo- cal governments that will need to amend a comprehensive plan provision or a land use reg- ulation, or adopt a new provision or regulation, in order to resolve the land use planning problems identified in the work scope; and (c) The proposed work scope and the proposed participant list for consistency. (5) A county may initiate amendments of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 only if the commission approves the work scope, the list of participants and a schedule for completion of the process. The schedule for completion of the process may: (a) Not exceed three years except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection. (b) Be extended by the commission for up to one year for good cause shown. (6) The decision of a county to submit a proposal under this section, and the decision of the commission to approve a proposal, are not final actions subject to judicial review. (7) If the commission approves a proposal under this section, the county must period- ically report on the progress in carrying out the proposal, as specified by the commission. (8) For purposes of ORS 197.654 and 197.656, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process include all participants on the list of participants approved by the commission unless the commission subsequently approves the addition or removal of a par- ticipant. SECTION 9. ORS 197.654 is amended to read: 197.654. (1) [Local governments and those special districts that provide urban services may enter into a collaborative regional problem-solving process. A collaborative regional problem-solving process is a planning process directed toward resolution of land use problems in a region. The process must offer an opportunity to participate with appropriate state agencies and all local governments within the region affected by the problems that are the subject of the problem-solving process. The process must include:] [(a) An opportunity for involvement by other stakeholders with an interest in the problem; and] [(b) Efforts among the collaborators to agree on goals, objectives and measures of success for steps undertaken to implement the process as set forth in ORS 197.656.1 [(2) As used in ORS 197.652 to 197.658, "region" means an area of one or more counties, together with the cities within the county, counties, or affected portion of the county.] After the Land Con- servation and Development Commission approves a proposal for regional problem-solving under ORS 197.652, the participants shall develop proposed actions to resolve the problems identified in the work scope. The participants must agree to: (a) Regional goals that describe how the region intends to resolve each regional problem described in the work scope; (b) Actions necessary to achieve the regional goals, including changes to comprehensive plans or land use regulations; (c) Measurable indicators of performance and a system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the regional goals; (d) Incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the actions to achieve the regional goals; (e) If the regional goals involve the management of an urban growth boundary, actions to coordinate the planning and provision of water, sewer and transportation facilities in the region; and (f) A process for correction of actions if monitoring indicates that the actions are not achieving the regional goals. Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 5 (2) A decision by a participant to enter into a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 is not a final land use decision. However, a regional problem-solving agreement is not final and binding until: (a) All local governments that are participants have adopted the provisions of the com- prehensive plans or land use regulations contemplated in the agreement; and (b) The commission has approved the comprehensive plan provisions and land use regu- lations as provided under ORS 197.656. (3) Changes to provisions of comprehensive plans and land use regulations adopted to implement a regional problem-solving agreement take effect 60 days after the commission notifies all participants that the commission has approved all of the changes. SECTION 10. ORS 197.656 is amended to read: 197.656. (1) [Upon invitation by the local governments in a region, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and other state agencies may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process.] After the adoption of changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658, the local governments that are participants shall submit the changes to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review in the manner set forth in this section. (2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may [acknowledge amendments] approve changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations[, or new land use regulations,] that do not fully comply with [the rules of the commission that implement] the statewide land use planning goals, without taking an exception under ORS 197.732, upon a determination that the changes: [(a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local partic- ipants, the commission. and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem- solving process;] [(b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on:] [(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process;] [(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process;] [(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process;] [(D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the tech- niques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;] [(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and] [(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals; and] [(c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals.] [(3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 to 197.650 for periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 for acknowledg- ment.] [(4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new regulations described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the commission on review that was not raised at the local level.] (a) Conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the goals, and any failure to meet indi- vidual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature; (b) Are needed to achieve the regional goals specified by the participants; and Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 6 (c) In combination with other actions agreed upon by the participants, are reasonably likely to achieve the regional goals. (3) The commission: (a) Shall review changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section and section 13 of this 2009 Act. (b) Has exclusive jurisdiction for review of changes to comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agree- ment under ORS 197.652 to 197.658. (4) A participant in the regional problem-solving process or a person who participated in the proceedings leading to the adoption of changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations may not raise an issue on review before the commission that was not raised in the local proceedings for adoption of the changes to the plans or regulations. (5) If the commission [denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section] disapproves changes to the comprehensive plans or land use regulations adopted by a local government to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658, the commission shall issue a written statement describing the reasons for the [denial] disapproval and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely basis. (6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of the region's commercial agricultural or forestland base, or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732. To identify land that is not part of the regions commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of the State Department of Ag- riculture, the State Forestry Department and the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment. (7) The Governor [shall] may require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the collaborative regional problem-solving process. (8) The commission may adopt rules to establish additional procedural and substantive requirements for review of changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations adopted by local governments to implement a regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658. SECTION 11. ORS 197.747 is amended to read: 197.747. For the purposes of acknowledgment under ORS 197.251, board review under ORS 197.805 to 197.855, [and] review of a proposed regional problem-solving agreement under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 or periodic review under ORS 197.628 to 197.650, "compliance with the goals" means the comprehensive plan and regulations, on the whole, conform with the purposes of the goals and any failure to meet individual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature. SECTION 12. Section 13 of this 2009 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197. SECTION 13. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall grant, deny or remand approval of proposed changes to a comprehensive plan or land use regulations adopted pursuant to sections 5 to 7 of this 2009 Act or ORS 197.652 to 197.658 within 120 days after the date that the local government submits the proposed changes. (2) The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall prepare a report stating whether the proposed changes comply with applicable statutes, goals and commission rules. The department shall provide a reasonable opportunity for persons to prepare and submit written comments or objections to the report; however a person may not: Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 7 (a) Submit written comments or objections to the report unless the person participated orally or in writing in the local government proceedings leading to the adoption of the pro- posed changes. (b) Produce new evidence. (3) After reviewing the proposed changes, the report and any written comments and ob- jections to the report, the commission shall prepare a proposed final order. The commission shall afford the local government and persons who submitted written comments or objections to the report a reasonable opportunity to file written exceptions to the proposed final order. If timely exceptions are not filed, the proposed order becomes final. (4) The commission's review under this section is confined to the record of proceedings before the local government, the report of the department and any comments, objections and exceptions filed under subsection (2) or (3) of this section and the proposed final order of the commission, including any responses to exceptions. The commission may entertain oral ar- gument from the department and from persons who filed exceptions, and may consider new issues raised by its review. The commission may not allow additional evidence, argument or testimony that could have been presented to the local government but was not presented. (5) A commission order granting, denying or remanding proposed changes must include a clear statement of findings that sets forth the basis for the approval, denial or remand, including- (a) Identifying the statutes, goals and rules applicable to the proposed changes; and (b) Supporting the determinations of compliance and noncompliance. (6) A commission order granting approval may be limited to an identified geographic area described in the order if: (a) The identified geographic area is the only area that is the subject of the proposed changes; or (b) Specific geographic areas do not comply with the applicable statutes, goals or rules, and the requirements are not technical or minor in nature. (7) The commission may issue a limited approval order if a previously issued approval order is reversed or remanded by an appellate court. The limited approval order may deny approval of that part of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the court found not in compliance with the applicable statutes, goals or rules and grant approval of other parts of the proposed changes. (8) A limited approval order is an approval for all purposes and is a final order for pur- poses of judicial review with respect to the approved geographic area. A limited order may be adopted in conjunction with a remand. SECTION 13a. ORS 197.650 is amended to read: 197.650. (1) A Land Conservation and Development Commission order may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided in ORS 183.482 by the following persons: (a) Persons who submitted comments or objections pursuant to ORS 197.251 (2) or proceedings under ORS 197.633, 197.636 or 197.644 and are appealing a commission order issued under ORS 197.251 or 197.633, 197.636 or 197.644; (b) Persons who submitted comments or objections pursuant to procedures adopted by the com- mission for certification of state agency coordination programs and are appealing a certification is- sued under ORS 197.180 (6); (c) Persons who petitioned the commission for an order under ORS 197.324 and whose petition was dismissed; (d) Persons who submitted comments or objections pursuant to sections 5 to 7 and 13 of this 2009 Act or proceedings under sections 5 to 7 and 13 of this 2009 Act and are appealing a commission order issued under sections 5 to 7 and 13 of this 2009 Act; (e) Persons who submitted comments or objections pursuant to ORS 197.652 to 197.658 and section 13 of this 2009 Act or proceedings under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 and section 13 Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 8 of this 2009 Act and are appealing a commission order issued under ORS 197.652 to 197.658 and section 13 of this 2009 Act; or [(d)] (f) Persons who submitted oral or written testimony in a proceeding before the commission pursuant to ORS 215.780. (2) Notwithstanding ORS 183.482 (2) relating to contents of the petition, the petition shall state the nature of the order petitioner desires reviewed and whether the petitioner submitted comments or objections as provided in ORS 197.251 (2) or pursuant to ORS 197.633, 197.636 or 197.644 or section 13 of this 2009 Act. (3) Notwithstanding ORS 183.482 (2) relating to service of the petition, copies of the petition shall be served by registered or certified mail upon the Department of Land Conservation and De- velopment, the local government and all persons who filed comments or objections. SECTION 14. In areas of the state that are growing rapidly, state agencies, as defined in ORS 171.133, cities and counties should, within constraints of applicable federal law and regulations, state law and rules and local ordinances: (1) Consider directing major public infrastructure investments, including major trans- portation investments, to reinforce compact urban development; and (2) Consider giving priority to investments that promote infill or redevelopment of ex- isting urban areas to encourage the density necessary to support alternative modes of transportation. SECTION 15. ORS 215.427 is amended to read: 215.427. (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), [and] (5) and (10) of this section, for land within an urban growth boundary and applications for mineral aggregate extraction, the governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. The governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on all other applications for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, includ- ing resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422, within 150 days after the application is deemed complete, except as provided in subsections (3), [and] (5) and (10) of this section. (2) If an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change is incomplete, the governing body or its designee shall notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. The application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of subsection (1) of this sec- tion upon receipt by the governing body or its designee of: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other infor- mation will be provided; or (c) Written notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be provided. (3)(a) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits additional information, as described in subsection (2) of this section, within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the county has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. (b) If the application is for industrial or traded sector development of a site identified under section 12, chapter 800, Oregon Laws 2003, and proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan, approval or denial of the application must be based upon the standards and criteria that were ap- plicable at the time the application was first submitted, provided the application complies with paragraph (a) of this subsection. (4) On the 181st day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of this section and has not submitted: (a) All of the missing information; Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 9 (b) Some of the missing information and written notice that no other information will be pro- vided; or (c) Written notice that none of the missing information will be provided. (5) The period set in subsection (1) of this section may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions, except as provided in sub- section (10) of this section for mediation, may not exceed 215 days. (6) The period set in subsection (1) of this section applies: (a) Only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the county; and (b) Unless the parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (10) of this section or ORS 197.319 (2)(b). (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the period set in subsection (1) of this section does not apply to an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adoption of a new land use regulation that was forwarded to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610 (1). (8) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (5) of this section, if the governing body of the county or its designee does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days or 150 days, as applicable, after the application is deemed complete, the county shall refund to the applicant either the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits. However, the applicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application. (9) A county may not compel an applicant to waive the period set in subsection (1) of this sec- tion or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS 215.429 as a condition for taking any action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change except when such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan amendment. (10) The periods set forth in subsection (1) of this section and the period set forth in subsection (5) of this section may be extended by up to 90 additional days, if the applicant and the county agree that a dispute concerning the application will be mediated. SECTION 16. ORS 227.178 is amended to read: 227.178. (1) Except as provided in subsections (3), [and] (5) and (11) of this section, the govern- ing body of a city or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 227.180, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. (2) If an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change is incomplete, the governing body or its designee shall notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. The application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of subsection (1) of this sec- tion upon receipt by the governing body or its designee of (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice from the applicant that no other infor- mation will be provided; or (c) Written notice from the applicant that none of the missing information will be provided. (3)(a) If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the re- quested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the city has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251, ap- proval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were appli- cable at the time the application was first submitted. (b) If the application is for industrial or traded sector development of a site identified under section 12, chapter 800, Oregon Laws 2003, and proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan, Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 10 approval or denial of the application must be based upon the standards and criteria that were ap- plicable at the time the application was first submitted, provided the application complies with paragraph (a) of this subsection. (4) On the 181st day after first being submitted, the application is void if the applicant has been notified of the missing information as required under subsection (2) of this section and has not submitted: (a) All of the missing information; (b) Some of the missing information and written notice that no other information will be pro- vided; or (c) Written notice that none of the missing information will be provided. (5) The 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section may be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total of all extensions, except as provided in subsection (11) of this section for mediation, may not exceed 245 days. (6) The 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section applies: (a) Only to decisions wholly within the authority and control of the governing body of the city; and (b) Unless the parties have agreed to mediation as described in subsection (11) of this section or ORS 197.319 (2)(b). (7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section does not apply to an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regu- lation or adoption of a new land use regulation that was forwarded to the Director of the Depart- ment of Land Conservation and Development under ORS 197.610 (1). (8) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (5) of this section, if the governing body of the city or its designee does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, the city shall refund to the applicant, subject to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section, ei- ther the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits. However, the ap- plicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application. (9)(a) To obtain a refund under subsection (8) of this section, the applicant may either: (A) Submit a written request for payment, either by mail or in person, to the city or its designee; or (B) Include the amount claimed in a mandamus petition filed under ORS 227.179. The court shall award an amount owed under this section in its final order on the petition. (b) Within seven calendar days of receiving a request for a refund, the city or its designee shall determine the amount of any refund owed. Payment, or notice that no payment is due, shall be made to the applicant within 30 calendar days of receiving the request. Any amount due and not paid within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request shall be subject to interest charges at the rate of one percent per month, or a portion thereof. (c) If payment due under paragraph (b) of this subsection is not paid within 120 days after the city or its designee receives the refund request, the applicant may file an action for recovery of the unpaid refund. In an action brought by a person under this paragraph, the court shall award to a prevailing applicant, in addition to the relief provided in this section, reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal. If the city or its designee prevails, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs at trial and on appeal if the court finds the petition to be frivolous. (10) A city may not compel an applicant to waive the 120-day period set in subsection (1) of this section or to waive the provisions of subsection (8) of this section or ORS 227.179 as a condition for taking any action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change except when such applications are filed concurrently and considered jointly with a plan amendment. Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 11 (11) The period set forth in subsection (1) of this section and the period set forth in subsection (5) of this section may be extended by up to 90 additional days, if the applicant and the city agree that a dispute concerning the application will be mediated. SECTION 17. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission, in cooperation with the Oregon Law Commission and other public or private entities, may, as resources are available, appoint a work group to conduct a policy-neutral review and audit of ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227, the statewide land use planning goals and the rules of the com- mission implementing the goals. (2) The commission shall sequence any review based on its judgment as to which aspects of the statewide land use program are most in need of updating. (3) A review undertaken under this section should, but does not have to, include appro- priate involvement of local government, professional land use planning, private legal and other representatives. (4) Recommendations should, but do not have to, address major policies and key proce- dures that are most appropriate for enactment by law and what policies and procedures are most appropriate for adoption by statewide land use planning goals or rules to allow for greater variation between regions of the state over time and to reduce complexity. SECTION 18. Section 13 of this 2009 Act and the amendments to ORS 197.652, 197.654, 197.656 and 197.747 by sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this 2009 Act apply to collaborative regional problem-solving processes commenced on or after the effective date of this 2009 Act. SECTION 19. 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. Passed by House May S, 2009 Repassed by House June 17, 2009 Chief Clerk of House Speaker of House Passed by Senate June 15, 2009 Received by Governor: M 2009 Approved: M............................................................ 2009 Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: M............................................................ 2009 President of Senate Secretary of State Enrolled House Bill 2229 (HB 2229-B) Page 12 Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Community Values Deschutes County will protect the high quality of life that stems from: ■ The beauty, bounty and richness of the natural environment ■ A healthy and diverse economy ■ Access to a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities ■ The rural character of the community ■ The balance between property rights and government regulations a N t ~ i ~ Y { ^ V µ V ~ ~yy^a y S k ^H Tc 1p.,v~~~~ s 77 a L k X A II I * W-1 1 y `t f n £ T f tit . f 11 - ST M . ✓ A Deschutes County has drafted a new Comprehensive Plan (Plan), the document that guides land use conservation and development. The Plan contains policies based on local conditions and community values and must comply with Statewide Planning Goals and regulations. We will be accepting informal comments and suggestions on the draft Plan from October 1, 2009 to January 7, 2010. The Plan will then be revised based on comments received and a formal adoption process will begin February, 2010. Please join the conversation Attend Planning Commission Meetings Attend Plan Overview/Community Plan Meetings Attend Plan Overview/Open House Meetings Contact Planning Staff All the meetings listed below will include a brief review of what is proposed and will provide an opportunity for public comments. We want to hear from you! Deschutes County Planning Commission Review Schedule Date Topic Location 10-1-09 Overview, Community Involvement, Land Use Bend 10-8-09 Natural Resources, Water sections La Pine 10-22-09 Natural Resources, other sections Bend 11-5-09 Resource Lands (Farms and Forests) Bend 11-12-09 Rural Development, Housing, Economy Bend 11-19-09 Destination Resorts Bend 12-2-09 Natural Hazards, Public Facilities and Recreation Bend 12-10-09 Urbanization and Unincorporated Communities Redmond 12-17-09 Appendices Bend 1-7-10 Wrap up Bend Note: This schedule is subject to change Bend meetings: 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center at 1300 NW Wall Street For La Pine and Redmond meeting times and locations, please see the website or cal l staff listed below 2009 Community Outreach and Open Ho uses Date Event Location 10-16,17,18 Home and Garden Show Booth County Fairgrounds 10-19 Plan Overview/Community Plan Terrebonne 10-20 Plan Overview/Community Plan Tumalo 10-27 Plan Overview/Open House Brothers 10-28 Plan Overview/Open House Redmond 10-29 Plan Overview/Community Plan Deschutes Junction 11-10 Plan Overview/Open House La Pine 11- 30 Plan Overview/Open House Sunriver 12-1 Community Plan Terrebonne 12-7 Plan Overview/Open House Bend 12-9 Plan Overview/Open House Sisters 12-14 Community Plan Tumalo 12-15 Community Plan Deschutes Junction Schedule subject to change For meeting times and locations, please see the website or call staff listed below For more information Visit the Deschutes County website at www.deschutes.orq/cdd and look for the link under comprehensive plan update, or contact staff listed below. Terri Hansen Payne terrip(a-deschutes.org 385-1404 Peter Gutowsky peterg(a)deschutues.org 385-1709 Peter Russell Pete rr .deschutes.org 383-6718 Kristen Maze kristenm(a)-deschutes.org 383-6701 OAR 660-033-0020 Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals and OAR chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and I-VI soils in Eastern Oregon; [and] (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. [and] (b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. 7- NRCS Land Capability Classification in the EFU Zone Soils With Classification Predominantly Class VII-VIII j (EFU Zone Properties, Outside WA Combining Zone, Non-Public Ownership) NRCS Land Capability Classification in the EFU Zone 4°~JT`S`z Soils With Classification Predominantly Class VII-VIII { (EFU Zone Properties, Outside WA Combining Zone, Non-Public Ownership)