The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-247-Minutes for Meeting May 16,2016 Recorded 6/10/20161 13 I 6 - ' El 1 Et :1:411EINMEL°F;gg; RECORDS C41 205-247 commiss ONERS JOURNAL 06/10/2016 01:53:10 pm 111111111111111111111 11111 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were County Administrator Tom Anderson and Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp; Dave Doyle and John Laherty, County Counsel; Will Groves, Community Development; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; and approximately twenty other citizens, including representatives of the media. CALL TO ORDER Chair Unger called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 1 of 19 CONSENT AGENDA DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda with the exception of the minutes, which have not yet been reviewed. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Board Approval of a Discretionary Grant to J Bar J Youth Services, $2,285 5. Board Signature of Letters Regarding the Deschutes County Planning Commission: • Accepting the Resignation of Jim Powell, and Thanking him for his Service • Appointing Hugh Palcic to the South County Position (from At -Large), through June 30, 2017 • Appointing Leslie Hudson to the At -Large Position, through June 30, 2020 • Appointing Jim Beeger to the Bend Area Position, through June 30, 2020 6. Board Signature of Minutes: • Work Sessions: May 4, 9 and 11, 2016 • Business Meeting: May 4, 11 and 16, 2016 • Public Hearing on Land Use Issues relating to Marijuana: May 2, 2016 • Department Update and Tour — County Forester: May 3, 2016 ACTION ITEMS 7. Before the Board was a Presentation regarding Deschutes County's Participation in Red Cross Blood Drives and Services. Lisa Stroup, Executive Director, American Red Cross — Central and Eastern Oregon; and Jen Shaw, Blood Services, came before the Board. Ms. Stroup explained that their region covers eleven counties, and Deschutes County is one of the best. They started out last year with four big wildfires, and none of the areas where this happened had the structure in place like Deschutes County does, or the cohesiveness. Deschutes County is a full -circle partner, covering participation, preparedness and providing for the blood supply. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 2 of 19 In the past twelve months in Deschutes County, the Red Cross has responded to 400 events and evacuations, resulting in 67 displaced families for a variety of reasons. Also, 851 people took an hour-long class to learn about preparing for emergencies. The agency does not want to wait until there is a disaster to get things going. This month, OIT students are presenting a survey on preparation. A thousand people attended information sessions on the Cascadia subduction issue. Ms. Shaw added that she oversees twenty counties in Oregon and Washington, east of the Cascades. They need 600 units of blood here every week. Deschutes County Health started this program here in 2006, and paired up with Search & Rescue and the State. There have been a lot of lives saved because of this. She thanked the County for the life-saving blood and time given. Chair Unger said that he enjoys the partnership, as no one can do these things by themselves. Commissioner Baney stated that people think the Red Cross is paid for through tax dollars, but it is supported by the community. A catastrophe can happen to anyone. This is an incredible organization that is funded solely by donations. Ms. Stroup added that Deschutes County supports this but most counties are not in the same position. Tom Anderson said that he would also like to recognize Chris Partain, who has coordinated the blood drives at the County for years; this is now going to be coordinated by Whitney Hale. 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2016-007, Adopting the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Deschutes County Rural Enterprise Zone. Janet Burton of EDCO (Economic Development for Central Oregon) gave an overview of the item. She manages EDCO business for the La Pine and Sunriver areas. She confirmed that the area meets Business Oregon conditions, based on income levels, higher unemployment, not exceeding the square miles, and has appropriately zoned land. The April 5 meeting for the taxing districts was well attended. Spring River Special Road District expressed some concerns but this was based on the type of business; also Sunriver Fire Department had questions regarding buildings, since they do not carry an additional bond for this. It was explained that if new buildings gn into Spring River Plaza or Sunriver Business Park, the same conditions as required now would apply. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 3 of 19 She and Commissioner DeBone met with La Pine Rural Fire Protection District representatives to answer questions about zoning, building and business types, which remain the same. She met with special road districts as well. The La Pine City Council met and they will approve a Resolution in support this week. There are letters of support from the Sunriver Business Park Association, La Pine Economic Development and others. Chair Unger asked if there is protocol as to who approves this in what sequence. David Doyle replied that there is nothing in ORS on this. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he closed the hearing. Commissioner Baney said she appreciates clarification of the comments and letters. There was some concern about zone changes, but those were alleviated. This enhances opportunities for the business zone that is already in place, and will not add any more impacts. Commissioner DeBone added that there was a community outreach meeting at the Sunriver library, and people from the districts came in to learn more. He joined their meetings as well. The road district ended up writing a letter of support. The fire district and chief explained they don't have bonded debt, and were concerned about future revenue. They run a tight fiscal ship, and there is no need for a ladder truck at this time. Sprinklers in buildings of a certain size are helpful. The economic development work being done between Sunriver, La Pine and EDCO is very positive. Commissioner Baney said that the development is not there yet, but the rules are in place. Some people are nervous about development that is already allowed. Commissioner Unger stated that he appreciates the discussion. This is a good addition to the zone and adds opportunity to grow the economic base, and the enterprise zone is short-term. DEBONE: Move signature of Resolution No. 2016-007. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 • Page 4 of 19 9. Before the Board was a Hearing on Solid Waste Franchise Exemption Request from College Hunks Hauling Junk. John Laherty gave an overview of the item, with the help of Timm Schimke. Deschutes County works under a franchise system for solid waste efforts, and a small number of companies provide this service through franchise agreements. An individual or company can request an exemption from the franchise requirement. College Hunks Hauling Junk seeks to provide some services, and some of these are solid waste related. They requested an exemption from the franchise requirements for those services. The existing franchisees have submitted responses to this request. Pat Cougill, an attorney for Morgan and Jenny Parker, owners of the local, CHHJ said he does not represent CHM on a national level. In terms of the local issue, he pointed out that under Code, in addition to the exemption process, there are rules to define services that do not include self -hauling. Therefore, he asked why there is a need for an exemption request. County Code is not specific like the Bend City Code, when explaining exempt activities if they are incidental to a business. County Code gives more examples. A dispute exists over what should be considered incidental. Another issue is that collateral work happens. Incidental is in Code and is tied into the business as exempt. Collateral would be doing the work and also solid waste, in instances where a customer asks for the company to remove solid waste. There is no clarification in Code as to the allowable size or amount of this incidental work. They are not seeking to get into the refuse collection business. They are not seeking an exemption from following the rules for disposal. All citizens need to follow those rules. Morgan Parker said he owns this company with his wife, Jen. Documents were presented that have all the necessary information for a good decision, but he can answer any questions. Commissioner Baney asked him to elaborate or walk through the information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 5 of 19 Mr. Parker said that a client would call the national call center to request help. They are asked what is to be taken away. Sometimes it is trash. They can haul trash per Code and tell people this. Sometimes people say they have items to donate such as furniture. The local company assesses the items, estimates the volume and the costs involved. Sometimes the clients are elderly or otherwise unable to do this work. Sometimes people just want someone else to do it. Some of it might go to a donation center. They will say whether an item can be donated and what they can't take, and sometimes it is hard to tell. They may not be able to find a group to take certain things. The clients like the convenience and the idea of knowing who they are calling. The company's services are not inexpensive, so they are not competing with others who might charge less. Commissioner DeBone asked if they have a base of operations and areas to sort and park. Mr. Parker said that they are in a business area off Plateau Drive, with a garage and an office. Commissioner Baney asked how other communities handle this. Mr. Parker said that there are 70 franchises in the U.S. This is the only one that has had an issue. 1800GotJunk in Portland is their closest competitor. The city has a franchise system there. They also charge a $300 application fee, meet requirements and are classified as a cleanup and haul away service. They do not handle curbside waste. It is working fine there. Chair Unger asked if they need a contractor's license. Mr. Parker replied that this is not required. There is a reference to ORS 701, but what was left out is the exemption provisions. This is an important exemption for projects under $1,000 that do not need a contractor's license. Terry O'Sullivan, representing Bend Garbage and others, said they submitted comments in writing. Mr. O'Sullivan said that there have been other applications by this company in other Oregon towns that were denied an exemption. This turns in large part on language in Code. He referred to language relating to self -hauling as being an incidental part of their business. The key language is incidental, not including accumulated or stored waste. This is an important distinction. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 6 of 19 The solution is simple. Incidental is just that, and they should not advertise to do this. Once in a while they will have to deal with it. They need to exercise their expertise as advertised, and if something is not something they can haul, the customer should call the franchised company. Chair Unger asked if the terms incidental and collateral are the same. Mr. O'Sullivan said that he does not recall seeing collateral in Code. The definition there is incidental. Jeff Eager of Cascade Disposal explained why jurisdictions have franchise ordinances. He said this is needed because the County is entrusting its obligations to dispose of solid waste in a protected and consumer -based manner. The tradeoff is that the franchisees get the exclusive right to dispose of solid waste, subject to some exemptions, paying fees and providing the service level as mandated. There has never been an application for an exemption as far as he knows. This is partially because the system works pretty well for citizens and businesses. There are three main criteria: the impact on franchisees, the applicant and the residents. Franchisees would lose out from the basic agreement, since where does an exemption end. They would be allocating services provided under certain rules and rates into a system with no rules and no franchise fees, no rate restrictions or other things in the system. In regard to 1800GotJunk, Deschutes County does not have curbside service like Portland. The franchisee is to dispose of solid waste. All is franchised. Salem, Corvallis and Jackson County addressed nearly the same thing as this, and it was denied. The Solid Waste Director told CHHJ long ago that they are not to dispose of solid waste at the landfill for others, but they have been doing that. They say they are not looking to get into the solid waste disposal business. Solid waste business have demonstrated they can do this, and pay a lot in franchise fees. If the Board denies this application, as is proper under Code, it does not mean to end College Hunks. Their attorney repeatedly says that this is only incidental to other things they do. If this is true, they should be doing what all others have to do, and arrange for transport and disposal of solid waste by a franchisee. It is not a major burden. Franchisees are willing to discuss the logistics to do this. He asked that the Board deny the exemption and allow College Hunks to work with the franchisees on the rest. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 7 of 19 Brad Bailey said he submitted arguments in writing already. He supports Mr. Eager's comments. They can work to provide services as is appropriate. This can be done on an as -needed basis. A representative of Cascade Disposal said he concurs with what was said. Commissioner Baney asked Timm Schimke about construction debris. There is another company called Let's Haul. They need to be fair and equitable. She asked if others are doing similar things. Mr. Schimke replied that there are others and no one complains about them. Mostly there are construction debris inquiries. They try to categorize this as a landscaper or a janitor, picking up scrap, loading it and transporting it, as incidental. There is a gray line there. Definitely Haney wanted to do cleanup and were told what is acceptable. There was so much work that this started to get modified. He lost his business because he crossed the line into franchise work. If they want to do cleanup and hauling but it is minor, it is not pursued. There is not a clear line. Mr. Cougill said it is important to understanding that they are not advertising to take garbage. Some national ads did reference this but they sat with the company and took the national website off. The hot tub incident relates to Mr. Eager's positon of disregarding the stated exemption. It was not a violation of Code like they said, to transport anything. These are possessions of families or part of a demolition job, and an incidental part of the demolition work. The exemption is only for doing other things when someone asks them to take garbage as well. There is no definition of collateral in Code, but this distinguishes between exempt items under self -hauling and does not include accumulated waste. Commissioner Baney said that if just involved a few bags of garbage, they would not be here today. She understands they are at a crossroads. She asked if they have reached out to others in the same business, to come up with a hybrid or a compromise. Mr. Parker said that they thought about other ways to operate, by just taking donatable items. It is hard to do this. Renting a box from the disposal companies or putting items on the street is hard for some to do. This would be a big expense for them as well. Anything is possible, and they might be able to come up with something that works. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 8 of 19 For example, there could be a hoarder's house that is stacked to the ceiling. They would clean out the property, which is very labor intensive. All of it might be waste, but it is more than just taking it to the landfill. There is a lot of labor to take care of the cleaning. Just like a contractor, they generate waste as part of the job. Ms. Parker said that they are also a moving company, as sometimes their truck is convenient for this. Some things can't be moved but might be donated. Mr. Parker added that many times people are in a time crunch. They think the company can take it all and it is hard to decide this and have to load things separately. They offer the convenience of overall service. Mr. Laherty provided options for the Board to consider as to what to do next. The Board closed the oral hearing and agreed to leave the written record open through Thursday, May 19. They will talk with staff and deliberate next Monday, May 23, at 10 a.m. 10. Before the Board were Deliberations and a Decision regarding an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding New and/or Non -conforming Structures (Dreifuss). Will Groves gave an overview of the item. He asked specific questions to help the Board get to a decision. 1. New above grade decks within 100 feet of a river. There is a 100 -foot setback from high water level. The Hearings Officer says this is a structure. The applicant feels this is part of landscaping and is incidental. Commissioner Baney stated that she thinks a deck is a structure. The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Baney said that a deck is not built to the same standards as a dwelling, so asked for more detail. Mr. Groves replied that they struggle with this, but if someone uses tools to assemble something and it is permanently in the ground, it is a structure. Landscaping such as plants are not assembled. A gray area would be something like a hot tub that in theory could be moved. Staff feels the deck is permanently affixed. LEBONE. Move to adopt the Hearings Officer's findings. BANEY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 9 of 19 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 2. Dock in compliance with river frontage standards. Mr. Groves said they need 200 feet of river frontage to be eligible for an individual dock. A simple linear line measurement falls short of this. Staff and the Hearings Officer have allowed for nook and cranny measurements, with a surveyor capturing detailed topography. One measurement was just under 200 feet. This is a policy interpretation with the 200 feet established to limit the number of docks. However, a licensed surveyor found that the measurement is over 200 feet when measured precisely. Commissioner Baney asked if this has to do with the water level. She is sensitive to setting precedence. Mr. Groves said they often recognize that some properties have strong curves at the riverbank. Commissioner DeBone said that it is reasonable to use the curvature. Chair Unger stated that he supports the idea of using a broad curve and not nook and cranny. BANEY: Move that the Board find that the intent of the river frontage standard is to provide spacing between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the river, and as a matter of policy and code interpretation, river frontage shall be measured as a single line or a single curve. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 3. Dock standards. Mr. Groves said that the applicant indicates this is two structures: a walkway and a dock. Code provides for a walkway but it does not comply with walkway standards. Commissioner DeBone asked if that means it would have to be removed. Mr. Groves answered that they may be able to solve this. They could ask the neighbor for a lot line adjustment but both have docks already. It could be a community dock if there is another participant with some river frontage. They don't have to live adjacent to the property but in the same community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 10 of 19 If there is to be removal of the dock, it would mean an emergency action to fix code violations. An application is needed for removal so it can be conducted so as to not be harmful to the environment, and they would have to work with other agencies. Community docks are afforded more area so can be larger. Or they could cut this one back to the right size. Chair Unger noted that there are two structures, a walkway and a dock, but the dimensional standards are too big. He wants them to have safe ingress to the river, and is not sure what this involves. Commissioner DeBone said that he does not think it is needed for safety. Commissioner Baney added that there are too many nuances to allow it, and they have to be fair and equitable. DEBONE: Moves that the Board find that this does not comply. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Dock, fill and removal standards. Mr. Groves said there are certain requirements for this type of project. The Hearings Officer questioned the effect on wetlands vegetation. Staff feels that the essential vegetation was lawfully established from the original concrete rip raff. Applicable river agencies were contacted and this did not require any mediation. BANEY: Move that the Board find the applicant complies. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 5. Bathhouse and bunkhouse. Mr. Groves stated that the previous owner constructed the bathhouse for RV use and applied for a septic system for this. The applicant built a bathhouse, bathing facility and sink, but no bathroom or kitchen. The previous owner claims that the County was asked if a permit was needed and was told none were required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 11 of 19 The zoning ordinance at the time has some limitations on accessory improvements. There was no mention of RV uses in PL -5, but it allowed for garages and other structures. Staff recommends that the code was not entirely inclusive and this may have been allowed. The applicant tried to obtain permits and it is unclear if one was needed. At most, the County failed at the time to enforce code or to instruct the applicant, but the Hearings Officer feels that this is not a good enough excuse to allow it. Commissioner Baney stated that this was in 1976 and not well documented. She disagrees with the Hearings Officer and feels that there is enough information to show it was lawfully established. Commissioner DeBone said that a structure may mean a lot more use than an RV. At some point the idea of don't ask, don't tell needs to come on line. Chair Unger stated that in 1976 they were probably looking at the amount of use being an RV there for the summer. Minimal use was probably allowed. He is concerned about the amount of future use. If it is there to support an RV that comes and goes, he is okay with that. He does not want to increase the use to the level of a vacation rental. He is willing to say that a certain amount of use is allowable, such as an RV. Mr. Groves said that there are two conditions of approval. They could prohibit overnight occupancy of the structures, and state that any recreational use be conducted and limited to a single RV. Chair Unger stated that this would be a compromise between what was allowed in the past and what they know today, to avoid creating a more intense use. Commissioner DeBone said he supports putting some borders on this. BANEY: DEBONE: Move that the Board find that the bathhouse was lawfully established as an accessory to RV use, with the conditions of approval as noted by staff. Second. VOTE: BANEY: DEBONE: UNGER: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 12 of 19 6. Procedural error in referrinm to PL -5. Mr. Groves stated that the Hearings Officer may have improperly taken notice of PL -5 by referring to the Uniform Building Code. The UBC in effect in 1976 has not been introduced into the record and cannot be relied upon as part of this record. DEBONE: BANEY: Move that the Board find that PL -5 is properly before the Board and that any procedural defect is cured; and that the Uniform Building Code effective in 1976 is not being relied upon. Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 7. Bathhouse expansion permitted. Mr. Groves said that there was no prohibition against the bathhouse being established at the time. It was expanded to the bunkhouse with a living room and storage area, and there was a bed in there at one time. The concern is that the applicant is expanding the bathhouse within the setback. This can be expanded on a normal property with a non -conforming garage or other structure if it is not getting closer to the river setback. This applies specifically to the rear, side and front setbacks. There is a carve -out for the river to allow the expansion of a dwelling. However, this is not a dwelling so the expansion is not allowed under code. A text amendment might be needed. A variance might be an appropriate venue as well. Code shows a preference for non - expansion of everything except a dwelling. Commissioned Baney said she is not comfortable allowing this, as it is too broad. She prefers that this be more narrowly defined through an exception or a variance. Otherwise there can be unintended consequences. The 1976 structure was lawful, but the expansion isn't. Chair Unger asked if they should put in a path towards a variance or an exception. Commissioner Baney replied that they would have to come back later for that. BANEY: Move that the Board support the Hearings Officer's findings. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 13 of 19 8. Adverse impacts relating to wastewater. Mr. Groves said that they have to show that the expansion had no adverse impact on the neighborhood relating to wastewater. The Hearings Officer declined to evaluate this, stating that land use talks about structures, but the DEQ decides how wastewater is to be handled. Essentially it is the same use, limited RV or vacation use with no increase. There was some testimony regarding non -RV users of the structure. Deschutes County Soils is concerned about the groundwater in that area. This is an interpretation issue for the Board. The question is, does the Board want to have DEQ handle these matters or involve the County. Staff included some recommended conditions of approval that would ensure no additional use of the system, and preventing people from spending the night in structures other than the RV and occasional use of the property. Commissioner DeBone said that they are in a sewer district but on the wrong side of the river so far. Chair Unger wants to recognize that this has been allowed in the past, and they look to DEQ for guidance. Commissioner Baney added that they operate as agents of the State. She feels staff can determine the best way to do this now. She is concerned that in 1976, the purpose was to support RV use and not for a separate lodging area. It is important to answer this question. Commissioner DeBone noted that these properties were sold as recreational lots, but once mosquitoes were brought under control, there was a lot more activity. DEBONE: Move that the conditions of approval recommended by staff be imposed. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Mr. Groves noted that there were many areas that were okay with the Hearings Officer; but staff will work on various conditions with the applicant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 14 of 19 11. Before the Board were Deliberations and a Decision on Lower Bridge Property Land Use Appeals. Mr. Groves explained the case and its history, and referred to a matrix. Commissioner Baney stated that the underlying hope was for development to help with cleanup of the area. 1. EFU zoned land. Mr. Groves said that staff feels this was answered. There were two areas that included EFU. They are removing 10.4 acres via a lot line adjustment; and handling another area the same way. This can be remedied by requiring lot line adjustments. DEBONE: Move to adopt the Hearings Officer's analysis. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 2. PUD includes flood plain zoned land. Mr. Groves said that the RR zone allows a PUD or cluster development, and open space is to be provided. The Hearings Officer struggled with including floodplain in the open space. It allows for subdivisions. The applicant says that this is part of open space and will be well protected. There is a question of statutory intent, and whether the wording is intentional or ambiguous. Staff recommends that the applicant work towards a text amendment to resolve this. Commissioner DeBone said that would help to make it clearer. It would be a one-time thing for this issue. Commissioner Baney indicated she wants to say that the floodplain can be used, but she is not sure it can be allowed. The fastest way to resolve this is to change code. She appreciates the leap to get there, but she doesn't think this is the way. Chair Unger added that he doesn't want this, either. When they are looking at a floodplain, it includes some uncertainties. This was set up as it is for a reason. Theoretically, they can have flooding issues. Commissioner Baney said that the planned unit development section is unique, and this has not been discussed in the past. It may be that there is nothing in the record as to whether it has ever come up. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 15 of 19 DEBONE: Move that the Board support the Hearings Officer's findings. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 3. Floodplain counted towards housing density bonus. Mr. Groves stated that if something is not included in the planned unit development, it can't count towards density. BANEY: Move that the Board support the Hearings Officer's findings. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Boundary of floodplain zone. Mr. Groves explained that the applicant indicates that the area is not subject to flooding, and staff agrees. The applicant wants to count as much towards residential as possible. There is a process through FEMA to adjust this boundary. The cliff side is not subject to flooding but this has to be determined. FEMA uses a broad brush. Commissioner Baney asked who has jurisdiction. Mr. Groves replied that the County can take notice of information from surveyors and engineers. FEMA can allow development in some areas. This area has no detailed elevation studies on file. There are a variety of methods available to deal with this. Commissioner Baney said that accurate maps would benefit the applicant. Mr. Groves stated that this concern is reasonable, but a correct FEMA study would involve engineers and surveyors, and usually this happens for near - river development only. The applicant does not plan to develop near the river, and the process is very costly. However, they would like the floodplain better defined. Commissioner Baney asked if the County can provide some kind of an intermediate step. Mr. Groves responded that the applicant might have some methodology to present in a subsequent application. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 16 of 19 Mr. Daniels, the applicant, interrupted to say some issues are not being presented by staff and are things they know about, and he did not want to sit there any longer and listen to the proceedings. David Doyle stated that this is not allowed in deliberations. Chair Unger asked for a five-minute recess so he could speak the Counsel and staff. After the recess, Mr. Groves said that they are not in an open record period. The applicant wants the record reopened only if certain issues were denied. The correct process would have been to ask for the record to be reopened, in writing, before deliberations began. The applicant feels there is additional information important for the decision. They will let the Board proceed and can submit a request later to reopen the record for specific reasons. At that time, all parties would be allowed to respond. Chair Unger said he wants to move forward with deliberations. If there are procedural events afterwards relating to the record, they can take that up later. Commissioner Baney stated that this is frustrating for the parties and the Board. They would put themselves in a bad position if they allowed this to be reopened for more information. The record has been available and there was plenty of time to comment before today. The instance regarding a floodplain boundary should have been addressed in the open comment period. She asked if this might cause grounds for an appeal as well. Another concern is that there has been a lot of time allowed for the process. Chair Unger said he wishes to continue discussions and deliberations. The other issue can be brought to legal counsel and addressed later in another context. Commissioner Baney asked if this might result in an appeal of the decision. Mr. Doyle replied that the request to reopen is, in his view, cherry -picking, and to do so would have been a procedural error. If initiated, it would be part of time extensions to allow all parties to comment. It is at the discretion of the Board to reopen the issue after deliberations but before signature of a decision. They would need an extension of the time period; otherwise, it could be a remand from LUBA on this alone. There is no opportunity to reopen it if the Board does this. Commissioner Baney asked if it is appropriate for Mr. Doyle to meet with the applicant's counsel. If they are willing to extend, she doesn't want to go through the deliberations now if there might be more clarity later. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Page 17 of 19 Monday, May 16, 2016 Mr. Doyle stated that they now want to reopen some of it due to trigger events today. He is hesitant to allow cherry -picking of issues. If information should have been in the record, they should have made this request before now. It would create precedence on how this kind of thing should proceed. It needs to be done on the front-end, not in the middle of deliberations. This option wasn't taken by the applicant, but they want to do it now that the Board did not decide on some issues the way the applicant wanted it to happen. This is a slippery slope to start down. A prerequisite is allowing for additional time and comments from all parties. After a brief discussion, Chair Unger continued the deliberations to the Board business meeting of Monday, May 23, 2016. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $4,496.10. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $140.00. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 18 of 19 RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $543,041.61. Tom Anderson explained that some of this is for cleanup of a property, as part of a court case. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 15. OTHER ITEMS None were offered. 16. ADJOURN Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p. m. DATED this r l=am Day of Deschutes County Board of Commission s. ATTEST: Recording Secretary 2016 for the Av.,- Uwe -- Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vi Chair a71,0_,,6„, - Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 19 of 19 Redmond Nlt Habitat for Humanity' 205 SW Black Butte Redmond Oregon We would like to thank the Deschutes County Commissioners for the generous opportunity given to the Redmond Habitat for Humanity to obtain and remodel the residence located at 205 SW Black Butte in Redmond. We have completely renovated the house to like new condition including the following highlight items: • Asbestos Abatement • Lead base paint testing • New Electrical service drop and fuse box • Complete new electrical wiring, fixtures, outlets and switches • New Plumbing service, all new pex piping, fixtures, valves and drainage • New electric heating system (mini split ductless system) • Underfloor bracing and leveling • New roofing • New paint inside and out • Removal of all interior lath and plaster walls (replace with new sheet rock) • Removal of old insulation replaced with new under floor, in the attic and in all walls • New sub floor throughout the house • New vinyl and carpet flooring though out • New cabinets • New appliances including range, refrigerator, overhead micro wave and dish washer • New exterior and interior doors • New trim and baseboard through out • Pre -wired for data and phone • Energy efficient lighting fixti iirec through nut • And a xeriscape landscaping and fenced yard at the end of completion of the project Redmond gilt Habitat f©r Humanity" Redmond Habitat for Humanity is excited for the opportunity to acquire these properties in order to provide affordable housing to qualified individuals in the Redmond community. • Our legal name and the name used on all documents pertaining to the acquisition and eventual development of these properties is. "Redmond Habitat for Humanity" Criteria for owning a RHFH home include but are not limited to the following: • Must be a United States citizen or permanent legal resident. • Must have NOT owned a home in the past three years. • Currently living in sub -standard, subsidized, or unaffordable housing. • Must contribute 500 hours of "sweat equity." • Must have proof of steady income and have satisfactory credit history. • Must be within 30-60% of the median income for Deschutes County. Restrictions: We have restrictions built into our contracts that require the home owner to reside in the home five years before having any ability to sell the home or obtain any equity, including the initial built in equity the home comes with. Overall the ownership and equity in the home is accrued by the home owner at a rate of 1/360 a month until the time they pay off the 30 year loan. Sales of the homes are subject to approval by Redmond Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors. Restrictions also exist on allowing any homeowner to have a construction lean placed on the property. We have also most recently executed a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant on our latest home which requires us and the purchasing home owner to agree that the housing unit remain solely for the low income families in the future. We also have first rights to purchase the home in the event the owner wishes to sell. A copy for this is available upon request. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or clarification. Sincerely, Scott Brown Director of Operations Redmond Habitat for Humanity 541-279-3937 Redmond Habitat 1 for Humanity® "Building Houses, Building Hope" Serving the Redmond School District since 1992 Scott Brown Director of Operations Office & ReStore Office: 541-548-1406 1242 South Hwy 97 FAX: 541-504-5485 P.O. Box 692 u r USo" t hfhredmond@gmail.com Redmona, `R 97756 facebook.] www.redmondhfh.org Il�ldllUigl9lufflfuui4WWV'iii„i d l iu is aui u w ii m u, wuu eig27-5." , Ts,,A2-74MinatrIVIMIL4, .4.0 Mr - 1" • �// K� �`Community Development Department Piannt Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division PO.Box 6O05 117 NW Laayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 07708-6085 (541)388'8575 FAX (541)385-1764 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2B.2O15 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Pianner RE: Appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247-15'000113'CU. 247-15- 000114'CU.347-15-000115-NUV.247-15'000116'LyN(247-15-000670-A) BACKGROUND In approximately 1976, applicant's predecessor constructed a small structure on the property, referred to as the "bathhouse," that had a sink, toilet, shower, and laundry facilities inside and a faucet and sink outside. In 2009 and 2010, the applicant built several structures on the subject property, including the existing dock, freestanding decks, walkways, 0aeage, and an addition to the "bathhouse" consisting of a bedroom and attached decking (effectively creating the bunkhouse). The applicant a(so placed eight cubic yards of gravel on the driveway. In 2013. the county received code violation complaints concerning construction and use of improvements on the subject property without necessary permits and approvals: 247 -13205 -CE (septic system); 247 -13206 -CE (work without building permits); and 247 -C13207 -CE (work without land use approval). The applicant submitted the subject land use applications seeking after -the -fact authorization/permits. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on December 9, 2015 finding that the proposal does not comply with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the "bathhouse" was found to have been unlawfully established while PL -5 was the active zoning code, aboveground decks were found to be not allowed in the 100-fpot river eetback, and the dock was found not to comply with a number of regulations. On December 22, 2015, the applicant appealed the decision to the BOCC. The Board conducted a de novo public hearing on March 30, 2016. The written record closed on April 20, 2010. Staff has developed this memo and a decision matrix to help the Board engage with the key decision points in this matter. Quality Services Performed with Pride II. Key Issues This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. M1 - Can new above-arade decks be constructed within 100' of a river? Issue Summary: The applicant constructed two connected raised decks within 100 feet of the Deschutes River. DCC 18.96.100(B) requires, "All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles from the ordinary high water mark." Applicant: Applicant's decks fall under the definition of "landscaping" pursuant to the Deschutes County Code, and are not structures. Landscaping is not regulated in the Flood Plain Zone, so the decks should be allowed outright as an accessory use to the primary use of the subject property. Applicant has also offered to lower the decks so that they are at -grade with the ground, should it be required as a condition of approval. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer has found the inclusion of "decks" in the definition of "landscaping" does not mean that decks are not also "structures" that are subject to provisions such as the river setback in this section. The applicant has not identified, nor has the Hearings Officer found, any provision in FP Zone or elsewhere in Title 18 that would permit the free-standing decks to be located within the 100 -foot river setback simply because they are "river -dependent" — i.e., facilitating river viewing. And as the staff report correctly notes, the purpose of the 100 -foot river setback is to prevent construction of structures — other than docks and piers — in close proximity to the river and potentially within riparian areas and wetlands. Staff Comment: Staff believes that the decks are structures under the DCC 18.04.030 definition: "Structure" means something constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another structure." Staff believes that the decks have a fixed connection to the ground or are a "similar permanent fixture". To the extent they also might also fall within an expanded definition of "landscaping" the decks are not exempt them from the requirement to be set back from the river. At one point, staff thought that placing the decks at -grade would allow them to comply with the code. This is because the definitions of "yard" and "setback" require these areas to be "unobstructed from the ground upward". However, upon further study of the relevant code quoted above, neither "yard" nor "setback" is used in these sections. Rather, permanent fixtures must be "set back" from the river, regardless of their relation to grade. Therefore, staff believes the decks cannot be permitted within 100' of the Deschutes River. M2 — Does the dock comply with river frontaae standards? 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 2 of 10 Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080(G)(4). One criterion requires that, No individual boat dock or pierohoUbea|lovvednnonykdvvith|easthmn 200 feet of river frontage." There is significant debate in the record if the property complies with this requirement. This debate hinges on the methodology used for measuring frontage. The river frontage is primarily olinaal feature. A of the river frontag comes to approximately 175 feet. Staff and Hearings Officers have previously admitted "nook and cranny" surveys performed by Scott Freshwaters, Gunxeyor, which capture the detailed frontage of a property. Mr. Freshwaters "nook and onanny" survey of the subject property broke the frontage into 63 segments measuring a total of 190.82 feet. This is largely because of the unevenness of the concrete riprap armoring the bank. Sun Country Engineering & Surveying conducted an additional survey on September 16, 2015 with 183 segments totaling 309.5 feet of shoreline. The difference when compared to the Freshwaters survey is accounted for in a letter from Tim Weishaupt, P.E. (Exhibit DD) and is primarily attributed to ice -free conditions for the Sun Country survey. Applicant: All real property is measured pneciee|y, down to inches and deQnyea, and that property descriptions can in fact be variable, particutarly where the land borders a body of water. The Subject Property should be measured no differently. If Applicant's property was not adjacent to the Deschutes River, but instead another parcel of dry land, the only acceptable measurement method for measuring those property lines would be the precise method employed by Mr. Weishaupt. Further, other docks approved by the County in the past have been approved using this same precise method of measurement to determine river frontage measurements. Hearings Officer: | find the appropriate measurement of a lot's river frontage is not its cumulative length measured by every "nook and cranny" of the irregular shoreline as depicted on the applicant's "Shoreline Survey." If that were the case, a property's frontage on the Deschutes River, the level of which is highly regulated and has dramatic seasonal vmrimtionn, could be different depending on the time of measurement. 1 find it unlikely the drafters of Title 18 intended river frontage to be such a variable measurement. For these reasons, | find river frontage should be measured by means of a recognized and objective demarcation — i.e., the ordinary high water mark (OMVVK8), defined in Section 18.04.030 as "the highest level on the bank of shore of a lake, river or stream to which the water ordinarily recedes annually in season." The applicant's submitted site plan depicts the OHWM on the subject property and shows it is approximately 175 feetlong. Staff Comment: Staff believes the intent of the river frontage standard is to provide spacing between docks and limit the overatl density of docks on the Deschutes River. Because the river frontage of the property is predominantly a linear feature, Staff believes the Sun Country survey, consisting of segments that average just over 1 foot in |angth, circumvents the intent of the river frontage standard. The "nook and cranny" survey increases the amount of "frontage" by about 20 percent. Since most properties on the Deschutes River have river frontages complicated by wetlands or small-scale non-linear bank faotunoo, staff believes affirming this measurement technique would effectively reduce the dock spacing and density well below the intended 200 feet. 24715-000113-CXJ.24715-000114-CU.24715-0001154JUV 24715-000110'LIM (24715-000070*\) Page 3uf1O While it might tempting to simply measure "frontage" from property line to property line, other properties on river bends may have strongly convex or concave frontages that significantly extend the river frontage of these property. Measuring these frontages with a single best -fit curve would preserve the dock -to -dock spacing and density as intended by the code. Staff recommends the board find that the intent of the river frontage standard is provide spacing between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the Deschutes River. Staff recommends that the Board find that, as a matter of policy and code interprmtetion, river frontage for the purposes 18.96.080(G)(4) shall be measured as a single line or a single curve. M3 — Does the dock comIv with dock square footage standards? Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080/G\(4). One criterion requires that, "No individual boat dock or pier shall be more than 20 feet in length or more than eight feet in width. The total surface area shall not exceed 160 square feet." This section also specifies, "No walkway shall be more than four feet in width. The length of the walkway shall be no more than the minimum required to allow access to a dook." Two definitions are also relevant to this issue: "Boat dock or pier, individual" means a personal use boating structure thais bui/t overor floats upon the water of a lake, river or stream, and that serves one property owner for mooring boats or as a landing place for marine transport, and that has a surface area of 160 square feet or less. 'Walkway" means a structure that is built over or floats upon the waters of a lake, river or stream and that provides access to a boat dock or pier. The submitted site plan shows the dock is 10.6 long, and 24.1 feet wide, for an area of 255.46 square feet. Applicant: Applicant has demonstrated that while the structure referenced as the "dock" may look like it is all one stnuotune, it is actually two distinct m1nuoturee, only one of which falls under thedmfinit|onofthahann"douk"aoitiadefinedintheOnechutesCpunh/Code.PurauanthoDCC 18.04.030. term "dock" is defined as" ... a structure that is over or floats upon the water... " Only 138 square feet of the structure meets the dock definition when the water level is at the ordinary high water mark. The other portion is an at -grade walkway that provides safe access to the dock, and was built on separate weight-bearing supports, though it is directly adjacent to the dock portion, making it appear as though the two are connected. Applicant has also offered to reduce the size of the dock and/or walkway as a condition of approval should the BOCC require it. Hearings OfficerThe Hearings Officer found that the property was not eliible for an individual boat dock and did not provide detailed findings on this issue. Staff Comment: If the dock is viewed as a single structure, it exceeds the width and square footage allowance for an individual dock. If the dock is viewed as two structures, the "dock" portion of the structure exceeds the width allowance for an individual dock. The "walkway" exceeds the width allowance for o walkway approach to an individual dock. In either case the dock structure does not conform to applicable standards. 24715-000113-CU.24715'00114-CU.247' 5-000115-NUV 247 -15 -008116 -LM (24745-00670f\) Page 4 of 10 The applicant has offered to reduce the size of the dock as a condition of approval. Even f the Board finds that the dock complies with the river frontagstandard under M3, abova, staff believes that a reduction in size of the dock cannot be conditioned at this point. Such a pjent would involve work in the bed and banks of the Deschutes River that cannot be evaluated for compliance with DCC 18.95.080(G). 18.120.050. and/or 18.128.270 without a detailed project description and agency comments from ODFW, DSL, ACOE, and USFWS. M4 — Does the dock comply with aoolicable fiKY~removalmtandards? Issue Summary: Work in the Bed and Banks of the Deschutes River must comply with o variety of criteria under DCC 18.128.270. The Hearings Officer found that 18.128.270/OX2Xe> was inadequately addressed in the Applicant's materials. This section requires, "That the essential character, qua|ity, and density of existing vegetation will be maintained. Additional vegetation shall be required if necessary to protect aquatic life habitotm, functions of the ecosystem, wildlife values, aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion." Applicant: Staff was unable to locate the applicant's briefing on this issue in the record. Hearings Officer: Evidence in the record is sparse concerning the character, quality and density of the vegetation that existed prior to construction. The aerial photos in the record do not provide sufficient detail to assess the vegetation, a|thouQh, as discussed above, the dock was constructed at the terminus of the gravel driveway and adjacent to existing riprap. Photos of the dock under construction appear to have been taken during the winter and as such do not depict the nature of vegetation during the growing season when it likely is more abundant. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer agrees with staffs conclusion that the record is inadequate from which to find this criterion is satisfied. Staff Comment: Re!ying ori available aerial photography, Staifbelieves that preexisting vegetation in the dock location was sparse reeds and rushes growing among the concrete riprap. While the construction of the dock may have reduced available light to such p|ante, staff believes the dock construction did not change the essential chanaoter, qua|ity, and density of existing vegetation at the site. Comments from ODWF and USWFS do not recommend additional vegetation to protect aquatic life hmbiCeta, functions of the eomoyabomm, wildlife values, aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion. Staif recommends the Board find the applicant has complied with this criterion. M5 — Was the bathhouse lawfully established? Issue Summary: The applicant has requested verification of the Bath House as a non- conforming use under DCC 18.120.010XB\. In order to qualify as a non -conforming use, the Bath House must have been awfuIIy established when it was constructed. This means that it needed to comply with any applicable zoning code, PL -5 in this case, and building codes effective in 1976. The Hearings{]fficerfoundthattheBaLhHoueevxaonotunaoftheau1horizoduaasa|kmvedin the RR -1 zone under PL -5 and that the structure should have obtained building permits at that time. DCC 18.120.010(F)(3) requires that the preponderanceofthe evidence demonstrate that the use was lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU 24745-000114+CU.24745-000115'NUV 247-15-000116'LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 5 of 10 Applicant: The HO mPL-5 to only authorize two uses in the RR -1 Zone - "not more than one private garage" and "home occupation." PL -5, RR -1 zone, does not authorize accessory uses. It places limitations on specific accessory uses. If the Bath House structure does not meet the description of any of the accessory uses listed under Section 3.160, then it was unregulated by those prnvioinnm, and there were no limitations on that particular accessory use in the RR -1 Zone. The Hearings Officer also erred when she denied the verification of the Bath House as a non- conforming use because the structure may have "potentially" required a building permit when it on- cunfonningumebenauoaU1eetruokunnnmayhove^potentiaUv"requiredobui|dingpomnitvvhenit was omnetnuoted, due to its size. Applicant argues that it is not appropriate for the Hearings Officer to make concrete findings based on unconfirmed recollections of third party standards that are not the laws of the State of Oregon or Deschutes County, and that it is not appropriate to make concrete findings based on the potential that a structure may have required a building pennit, particularly when there is substantial evidence in the actual Record that proves otherwise. Applicant has submitted undisputed evidence to the Record in the form of Ietters from the prior owner of the proparty, who also constructed the original Bath House. In his letter dated October 1, 2009. attached as Exhibit C to applicant's original Application dated March O. 2016 ("Application"), prior owner James Cate states that he checked with the County about building permits for the Bath House in 1976. and was told that they were not necessary, as long as the septic system to serve the Bath House was approved. There has been no evidence to the contrary of Mr. Cate's written testimony submitted to date, nor has his testimony been challenged or disputed in any way. Mr. Cate's first-hand account of the circumstances of the legal construction of the Bath House and connected septic system is substantial evidence in the Record, and is undisputed. Hearings Officer: Hearings Officer Green denied applicant's request for verification of the Bath House as a nonconforming use because the Bath House was not lawfully established at the time it was constructed in 1976. Specifically, she found that the construction of the Bath House was not legal under the applicable zoning code in 1976. PL -5, Rural Recreational Residential Zone ("RR -l"), because the Bath House did not conform to any of the accessory use Iimitations listed under 3.160 of PL -5. She also found that the Bath House structure "potentially" required a buliding permit when it was constructed. Staff Comment: Staff believes that Recreation Vehicle use of the property was an unregulated use in 1976. This is because it is not mentior,ed in PL -5 and the County issued a septic permit to support that use on the property in 1976. Could the Bath House have been constructed in 1976 as an accessory structure to the RV use of the property? Staff believes that this is unclear. Staff is unaware of other similar structures from this time period. However, Mr. Cate testified that he confirmed with the County that permits were not required to construct the structure and connect it the approved septic system and this testimony is unrebutted. Staff believes that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Bath House was lawfully established as an accessory to the RV use of the property in 1976. Since overnight occupancy of structures on the property has not been lawfully established, staif recommends a condition of any approval requiring: 1) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is otherwise lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 6 of 10 The applicant has not asked to change the extent or nature of RV camping on the property nor have they asked to establish the RV use of the property as a non -conforming use. As such, RV use of the property should be subject to DCC 18.116.095, Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot. Staif recommends a condition of any approval requiring: 2) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC 10.116.005. Alternatively, the Board could find, consistent with the Hearings Officer, that the Bath House was not a Iawful use under PL -5. In this context, testimony by a prior owner of the property suggesting that the County did not enforce then-appticable requirements is legally insufficient to deem establishment of the Bath House Tawful. M6 — Did the HO make a procedural error bv referrina to PL -5? issue Summary: The Hearings Officer needs to make a decision based on information available on the record. The applicant objects that the Hearings Officer, in part, relied on the text of PL -5, which was not introduced to the record during the open record period. The Hearings Officer has long held that she may take notice of County Ordinances and Land Use decisions without these materials being formally introduced to the record. Applicant: At the time the Record Period closed for the Hearings Officer's proceedings for the instant applications, on October 13, 2015, neither PL -5 nor the Uniform Building Code were a part of the Record for the instant app|iontions, and the Record was not re -opened. Applicant was not notified of the Record change, so had no chance to respond to the new evidence. The Hearings Officer unfairly raised and then relied upon the new arguments and evidence to make her Omciminn, without allowing Applicant to consider and respond to arguments raised for the first time by the Hearings Officer. This is a violation of the DCC. Staff Comment: To the extent Hearings Officer may have imtaken noticof PL -5, that zoning code is properly before the Board and that defect, if any, is cured. The Uniform Building Code in effecin 1976 has not been introduced into the record and cannot be (and is not being) relied upon as part of this record. M7 — Can the bathhouse's exoansion within the river setback be permitted? Issue Summary: Under DCC 18.96.100(B) and 18.84.090(C). new structures and additions must be set back 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Deschutes River. The Bath Hose expansion occurned, in part, in the 100 -foot river setback. To the extent the Board finds that the Bath House was lawfully eabab|imhed, it is unclear how the how that can expansion can be approved under the non -conforming use code. Expansions of non -conforming structures are allowed in the ^...front, side or rear yard setback area..." under [}CC 18.120.010(A)(3). Both Staff and the HO concur that the river setback is not a "...front, side or rear yard setback area..." and that expansions in the river setback are governed bv18.12O.O3O([]). Expansion of^ an existing residential dwelling which is within 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark along a stream..." is allowed under 18.120.030(D). It is undisputed in the record 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-0} 115-NUV.24715-0OO118'LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 7 of 10 that neither the Bath House nor the Bunk House ism dwelling eligible for expansion under 18.120.030(D). Applicant: The Bath House is a Iawfully established nonconforming use that was not subject to any setback provisions when it was constructed in 1976. and that the new addition "does not project into the required setback area at any point." Therefone, the addition of the Bunk House to the backside of the Bath House is permitted as an alteration or expansion of a non- conforming use, which is not subject to river setback provisions. Hearings Officer: Referring to 18.120.010(A)(3): "...this paragraph is not applicable because it does not expressly refer to encroachment into the river setback, but rather on!y to the front, rear and side setbacks — none of which is co -existent with the river setback." Referring to 18.120.030(D): "The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this exception "provides the only pathway to expand structures in the 100 -foot river setback and is only afforded to residential dwellings." Because have found neither the original bathhouse nor the bunkhouse is a dwe(ling, 1 find this exception is not avai!abLe" Staff Comment: Staff and the Hearings Officer read the non -conforming structure code to disallow structural expansions in the 100 -foot river setback gmnera|k/, but allow a specific exception for dwellings under 18.120.030(D). Staif is concerned that the app!icarit's proposed reading of the non -conforming use code is both textually implausible and would set a policy weakening the significant riverfront/riparian protections that come from the 100-fomt river setback. A text amendment is the appropriate venue for evaluating this sort of policy change. M8 — Has the applicant demonstrated that the exansion will have no adverse impact on the neiahborhood with reaard to wastewater? Issue Summary: DCC 18.120.010(E)(2) requires a finding that a non -conforming use alteration alteration will have no greater adverse impact on the neighborhood. The HO declined to evaluate potential wastewater impacts, finding that this was subject to DEQ regulation. Todd C|evmiand, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Supervisor, has testified that the existing system is contaminating ground water and that increased use of the existing system would increase the contamination. Mr. Cleveland has also testified that the existing system should have been decommissioned in 1992, foliowing an evaluation for residential development of the property. He also testified that other nearbv, similarly oituotmd, septic systems have typically degraded over time and fail to prevent groundwater contamination. Applicant: There is proothat the on-site septic system was permitted when built and has bee used since that time. If the 1992 denial had intended to decommission the entire existing systamn, it should have said so. The letter states absolutely nothing about entirely decommissioning the existing system on the property, or denial of anything more than the specific request to expand the existing system. The Applicant has argued that the RV use of the septic system was a permitted use and that the connection of the Bath House to the system is presumed lawful through Mr. Cate's unrebutted testimony. The septic system is used infrequentiy, and oniy during the 2-3 months out of the year that 24715-000113-CU.24715-000114-CU.24715-0001154JUV 24715 -000116 -LM (24715-000070-A) Page Onf1O applicant visits the property. The addition of the bedroom to the Bath House does not "change the nature or extent of the use of the property" or on-site septic system or cause further adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that the issue of the on-site septic system was not before her, and declined to make findings on the issue. The HO found the status and use of the septic system on the subject property — and in particular whether or not it has been or can be approved for use in connection with the bunkhouse -- must be evaluated and authorized by the Environmental Soils Division pursuant to the applicable DEQ regulations. In other words, the Environmental Soils Division must determine whether the addition of a bedroom to the bathhouse would result in an increase in flow to the septic system. Deschutes County Environmental Soils: There is "no indication of prior use" in the history of the on-site septic ayaLanl, and that the 1892 denial for a request to expand the use of the existing septic system for a year-round expanded residence was also a notice that the entire existing system was to be decommissioned. Staff Comment: Staff believes that the applicant has confused this issue by incorrectly assuming that the septic system is a non -conforming land use subject to DCC 18.120. Staff recommends that the Board find that the lawfulness of the inata||ation, oltenaUnn, or continued use of the system is not subject to Title 18 (except regarding some locational requirements), and falis under DEQ regulation. However, staff also believes that Hearings Officer incorrectly concluded any adverse impacts stemming from changes to the use of the system are not subjecto DCC 18.120.010(E)(2). The proposed alteration of the non -conforming use includes the addition of living and sleeping areas to the Bath House. If this addition results in unmitigated adverse wastewater innpaotn, this application should be denied forfailure to comply with 18.120.010(E)(2). Increased use: The applicant has added a bedroom and neighbors have testified that guests arriving in a passenger vehicle have stayed at the site. This results in use of the septic system that is not associated with the RV use of the property. The addition of the bedroom has the potential to increase the quantity of wastewater beyond the historic RV -only use of the property. Adverse immaot: Given the shallow groundwater in the vicinity, there is no septic system that could completely avoid contamination of the groundwater (See Mr. Cleveland's testimony). Increased use will result in increased contamination unless the septic treatment technology is enhanced, if this enhancement is even feasibte. The applicant has not proposed use restrictions that would ensure there would be no increased wastewater discharge. The applicant has not proposed to enhance the wastewater treatment system to offset any increases in groundwater contamination. Therofope, staff believes the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the alteration of the Bath House to include a bedroom will not adversely impact the neighborhood by increasing groundwater contamination. Staff recommends the following conditions of any decision to ensure the use will not increase groundwater contamination: 1) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is otherwise lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247-15-000114-CU247-15-000115fNUV 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000870-A) Page 9 of 10 2) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC 18.116.095. Attachments 1. Decision matrix. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 10 of 10 TION MATRIX DREIFUSS DELI Board Options Staff Comment -5 ui o _v 8 .0 03 Ca -0 .0 '•-• 00, -r= c = 0 -0 0 0 QID 4 _c , co o 0 0 <0 C.) • c a) :E -o C • E O 0 • °- 13 a) -0 2.) c O 3 • „, -6 ,D 0 -ID • • ° C • cn E .42 E a-) o 0.0 J 03 > Cf) CO a) co rts co co .c 0 a as 0 O • ' > O 0) II o • c m o 8 a c c o .75 E • 0 0•) ct. 0 E 2 (0• 0 '0 0 03 Z 01 t)- ca 13, '•- 0 *0 8 2 t•-• tD 0 c 0 0 tn -o c c f - a, ar... -a - 0-000) as .ca -0 • 40. 13 0 ..ti C CD C c0 715 11 0 0 0 cn O .C,03 -'500 _lc ......- E 0 O :- o (n 0 4- P 0 a) 4-0- -..s. g - ,Q ...v . 00) 03 a. E -- u) = ro S <.„00.. a. 0 _c 0 .- ._ . - - 0 0 (.0 c c .„,,. 0 .0 a ,.) I- E I) • • > 0 2 0 c o TS • 0 .c • c o- I a E- O V c 0 E 0.7) c ,o 200 03 0.13 -E •,,g` Tx') 0 0 - 00 1, o "0 C ° ▪ 0 Di .E• > 13) C a) a) _o in Li_ Ea -0 ELL) of 4" rl i 00) 3::, 0 - .0 > ,... 0 .... 0 "C. 03 -C 0 0 ra gs ,i, t ..g ;5 g, 0 0 - c t• o 73C "a tesi; -. '1, 0 c."; 4g E 0 05 *3 0 CS -C 5 8 • -v = '`- .7- .c U0) ... 0 E 0 ;C-• "=.0 2 >)" -.F. 2 0• 0 € 1-§ ,-, 5 5 a, • E• L c 17 -v 0 •- CD O. 0 C 0 to Ti's CO •0 -0 40 0 t.-. .... . a. ......0) a, .0 O • C0. 4., ..... ... o 0 CD cp 2 03 40 o 0 -0 ,- 000 at "- a) •• a ' u) E. -o c 0 •". 0.,"- ▪ La 0 •c 000c.0 E o. = o ... .. E f) ° .to 0 .0 ro :r5 0 "6 2 5 0 o.q-' ES e o *-- 0 5 CD- a) 0....c 0 41 or-• z 0 op -a 2 . np_o-rio 8.3.13g2 0 2• 4 0 co 0, CS 24.9 LA E 17; ‘.. °3 E0� c -1, 0 0 0 ...I' Eo''. -0 0 '0 a, O ca.>. 2 co .2 " - o .0 • (5 "-0 a 0.7 To 0 .._ 2,F2V25 03>>0.0 Os. a a--- o. (0 -r- o as u) 46 0. 213a) C 00) .0 0.E -. 3.- co .0 0 •••• .0 ,.. .03 u 03 2 E t .c 0 0 ,,, 14' E lc o c, -2 c ,._ zi 2 5...co 0c- 0 -0 0i- --E ,-. - 4... ,.,,.. .c .c E c a, a) .o 0 E a) a) 0 •;% "2 --...--c Po j5 >.'.-.:.-0) >:.'"• a e 0) „, -Ne •E" 0) .10. a) u ) . a, a. o •,.. , ..., C ., , „_...., _ E . la! 'cg* as° aiL.E- co 4 71-..... 2 c 2 fa c a, ai 11) ••••• E r) .2 - •-.2)ii 2 m. c .,:-, ,„ 0 „..0 0 0 to a .c e -0 ..02..„ 1 c >,..0 •-• ID o a) o 0 •z"...0 03 G. u) '0 0 2 -o°2 -c -o 00303 a) 0) 0 17; E 0 a) a 0. o 0 :- .c a) - 2 b- 2 ), a , i 5 g 2 ,, . 1 10 , E° E -2 1r) 03 2 o. 0 u) 2 a>, -:- °C ° 0 ° ° E a) a) La cp 2 -0 0 ra .o 4, > :.=.• 4= 2 43 := . 0-ocE 0.... a .- La- 5' 0 •-• Et' -s--' 2).c ° • 2 0.0 z.46 ors a) c -c3 2 a) .g. 2 2 > 5 a -0,_ 'ff ---• To ..c -c g ° -C °-C a).5E,6 Z 0 3 -'.. >, 0 2 2 513 °c _se v . 2 ..- 0 co a) 7-- u) N i•- 4-; W >. .4' 15 E E 0 c-sc ° 0 Ea. cu'c 03 cCO ',,.• °I--„ = 0 ....• 2 • Z . - a) E 0 O a) c > CL 0 0.-60002 3 • 0 a-co:0.00 E 15 0 a) ' 0 •.-. 0 > 03 a) JD 0 0 .0 113 O CO 0 b .0 :c. •4-, O o o o 3 0 - .0 ..-- o c 0 C o E c tiS 6 - 0 0 2 0) o>>c .m..-.1T!...'FF=oU0a.0.25.C2 (5Ew 0aE- OO..)•) t X> 3 21_.'.1.goc8 D0 ' 1 00 .0 0 . _o U000,1 . ..c as • .c ..,s -0 ...• c '- 15 CD c C.) ..a• C0 0 0 •0 0 , C.) --2 to 0 *_,,e O • Ta 0 .2 • cr -Ca) 0M 02 3 -Po MCI- 0° .7.5 8 z. 0- • C 0E E • gA 0 o g 0 E ... >, o 0 • O c 03 ,_0 71-5 0 O Ca '0 ?ii c a) c CO E a) - 0 3 '5 Ta S. -o • (0T 3 a) g re 0 E c -o co a) •E'" ° -• c; 0-0 0:9 _c 0- '515 00 -• o o 3 • 8 e o • 0 03.0 C • CO 03 0.0 O -0 0 C cU)°) 2- z 0 .0 C 0) aa 4-- c 0.w00 .2 a) ta - a') a) c E 2 2 43 ••-• c5 03 -5 0 _c 2 .8 o „ca' O W.20 MCI" •• PF.• Ta" 3 .-G 15 a) E °461,3) arE 2 C 4- -= O 0 40 _ „ 5 8 c0 c 4,2= coc 00 0 - 5 .5• E 0 ° _0 ea , a) OS C - ° - E M M ° .E1-) -E -6 2 "2 01-0 . E • „. Q) tO - o C 8 c -c 2 a al „;0, o co ▪ 4• -s z -i5c O. 8 8 . 0.--500000. < - 0 -13 co co co 0• 0 0, -a • 010 X 0 -0 • co • E c 0 o 0-2 00ao ai Board Options Staff Comment Information In Record 0 s3 N+- "V O 0.0 • •0 = C ogo 47) 1 a)8 QC= oa QBE co f6 dDE 0 O U Q E O U 0 T co C 0 r >,U N to >,i C N yL.. N d 9 .o+ C M ` N 1'' 1 J 0 '6 0 0 C S oN N 3 N to E y m c.0 CO a) 0- L c 2) > -- ; ^>. 0 0- •N 0 > L U O @ "' U p C .01111 �+ U C) 0 0 0 L C o w O 7 N U C 6 I. - N p 0 c ' .L.+ CO 3 0 0 •` U Y- U 0. N C L N 3 N 0 6 E 0 0 0 N � R CO w 1 0 22 X n 0 "" 121 -C f m tUj N •o O N 0 •L 6 0 L C; 0f N N o 0 0 o Y ° 0 c CO 'c c C r 0 0 0 L« y 0 T O O Y 0) N E O a) as 0 t6 (II ►' CO • .L., y) O n c Y 0 L N "U 0 C C _N C 7 CO ''-co .c o -O 0ECL 1« 0 O 3 VOl CO e R ton ? N "00 w C V N tD 0) 0 0) N*- 'O 0 C C 0) p 0 0 03 C a) •p 'O C W= w Dom) N— N N V- « 3 G 0= 'L" >+ a ._ o N coif o > cor d no a N> to •pL t0 0 L y t0 m A C30 c.OEOca 'aw�`oE io t N n L-. N, 0) m▪ ^. p U On, y 6 'L-' N m r t N o m 0 O .mow y CO 03 .� 0 «C E o >2 co .E 0- coo omo 2to � 2" "E2• `v°c m n i0 0 tY N c --t.-5 p t6 • m = `- E asn tt°tL- `� 0.--°>-) ) �v °• ua c.) .c 0 m v a��i iN a>oi� .00) N� � o m �,E or Y 0) Uc 2 '� c a) cD U� 7).c co >co .c O to .0 o• •c " d fa -c -c r 0 m re > c °a 2. w� 0= 31 a) vo)L a) -c.... (3=12c1°00 o��C >' ° re•m a°) aoi't 0 m 3 �c v00 o> o�m 0 m ` EO «mom>.-a)Y cm cmN 2�0d«o oapi�EoAa) �c Ed°vcrno �E Ea�O)ic cs c C000.W ge,�m$OE i� s 0 C m '38 U c a E V E g O 0 C >, N o E 0 0 t .2 o C o >_ V w o 0I a) V U C 0 w j y O w a) N C ?` H C« C '-•,•-> 6 co 3 O U 1 3 a) c o °- 2 nm o�cfl ° 0)7 aa3� � v Et,ri 2�om�0)0 00 l3mca�i 3o�:°N>> me m«oo o - S co n o).r 'O > 0 to a to 3 a) - U w to 2 to (Y co O. 10 N U C Q 3 0. 0) C 0 N y 0 x 000 N 3 c .0' c 0 t8 CO C D U L 0 3 N .0 O O N N 3 C 0 0 0 E -0 0 a m -c 1`J= m r.)-21528 9 0 ) D0 a)3 l6 0 cC 0 c v m- n O 07 E 0« c 0 E C N ca C N N .2 'O O C .N >. coi -•CDi.c $ If; a,ySc 0 L-' wr cr o0. a`)a 8 0 0 3 0> 0 0 40 0.7-- 03 U_ EO -c co -0 .-E N y 0,0.r C.y vt N O 1,..;)„,g a) 0_, 0 U 0) o Q 0) p c� 0 NL'0a ryC U c 00 0 0) U as 40lO 0 �ySc c;§'a.0 C N L •U)12 2 Y N ~ 'p D YW Q C O 1 E U L C C ` •• 0 co p O C 1 S `.c v W` 0 c in" .Jr, 0 U n•_ U L NN ° n lE 2 0" U rL tOSn Q 0 Q C N to E 3 �o C)ri •0 U - E CO • v 0 U O n N 0) C )> w N 12 0 <0 C C a c 45 iO 0 0) ri O O X 3 0 (6 =110=C-0 3 co 02 m N 7 inm tem N y 0) 0) 1,- N TL... co N T O C 0 D i0 N tO • c0 -0 3 l0 C 000,E O U 0 _ O C a N NC 0 t6 C 'C - 3 • y () N (L' 0 U V On 0-Ny ca = W �Q U 0 N C .L-. C n° 0 3 U m'-nNO0w C 0 N :F. 0) 0.) a) O c 0 0 N d L C rY of •O O a) en 3 0 3 • 7 O 0 0 U) 617 O t6 N r 8 w j 8 (0m V °,3) 07.01 c0 C 0 4-E. 0 nN N w 0 00 f0 T L_ 0 0) a) C co • 615 C o co • e•c c C p O O N ry a 3 0) O8� O o E O U c 0 ULoO • d CO 0 N M >' N ✓ c E c d c 0 O N 0 c0 CC U N J O N 0 C t6 Q_:- Oto CC E 1 a N 0) = N c CO L U N m V1 c O. U 5 13 > ca 2 0 0 Q nw `� n7 >v O N 0)) E a) a O N w N O L N c = N O .c0)0 c N 0 m O 2 C C 05 0 N N ▪ .c 07 U V u) a !O w CO E 0) N o N Q N N E U (,71.); 2O. N E nc a) o'n w T 0) O N N I. 0) C c y c 246 D. C O N S N C 3 g y oco oc o > >, w E -o 0 t6 3 0 •- na L m E_ U E c0 m ) 0 C tO O .Y 0 c ' C N .c U D 2• U 0 O ° c aa)) a) 0 10 C c co ce 0 p 0 0 0 0L E8z O >+ - C .-. O = •- 0 N 1 U 0 a L«O tnY U L m 0 UtA pp c N •- L U 0 O U.c N "L L... Board Options Staff Comment formation in Record 0 Fs "5 ,c o = .0 0 , ..,0 . c,--,,-, g. 05 .5- o ta .- C • - u o - t5• ° >•0 4) .0 • 0 -C • •• -0 ?--1 -c) :c.-- c c .0 i ei 8 to 2 x u; 3 76 •E •.E -0 ,,,, • s 2o..- :0 -,-- .c ) csi • ".5 .0 MS CD0 .. G r 0 ii c 0 < or- E u- ya -0 > 0 N c -C 00 2a ca ..... • 75 i• -i _ ,.., 41 0 .... c 4) -0 (6 'CI ca 0 0 r.. 2 a•-' --- - -0 c c CO 0 al 0 >..• 2 I 0 0 s= 43 e 0.. . ., -. co co ca. 0 .0 _0 ... .2c; 22co 'Ea .c co 0 co .... 0 ..-• .c = 0 ce C c X • -5 "a' -tc-S "5 •06' o c - 0 o op c 2 co a) 0 ... 0 0 .G o .-- .C,.. o . 0 .E ° ON D 0 CO 2 s .6 .....i_ ;-2_ 7, a li3 4 c - 0 = %) .r., • c .6 922 .= E -1 13 - .7. t 2 c 0 0. a) = o =0 t -5:c Eget a (/) 0.1- 0- CO c as .G o .... _sc a 0 c a) out- 0 •E Ja a) c .c 0 0 41) 8 o c ds 4-2 c_,) .ta OS 0 48 17 a) a 5 -0 CI .c 2 la :. a' a) o. .E) c '-' "Es = RS ••-• 2 a) C6 0 03 • CO g_ 0 TD _ 0 a 4-- 0 ••-• :32 Tg 5 E 5 4) tO 0...- - 5‘oc5Z• E= co , a., 0) C .-- E ,a z I' c CI 0 - ',-- : co (0 ,„ t'zcooailijo ' p..) - = -2 -0 --• a) 2,-..-§ • 0 0 E c c) co a) rn ci0a- '.... ..- ••••• 0 0- ,,, _c .- 0) '-• 0 oti .-- 7 0 - 0 7 ..Ni. • 1'. 0 C ° 0 43 11) -0 0 a) 03 V30 uas -5) Z -2 0 i c9 0 0 L.- .0 7.,• •sa a.0 - ...- _c -.91000.- a) % a) 0 .... a) u Cr3 c ...e. s_c 3 0 R,Tx 0 15 -a 4, E HO: Did not directly address issue. -Vo E 32 8 • • 0 C1 e 1 5 CO 0 13) 2 c (D •••• • c3"5 -E. .0)'.- o c C ,c o c a; o ° ogo )2 •c: co .5 - 0 x c > a) a) LE 73 0 a) -c 2 0 as 7, 2 -0 tA t) 2 5 -0 0 0 cf. E 0 -'11 ° co 4) 0 c Ttscn o.° 5,.. CO O 8, a 0 2 = To. 0 Al c o E c` O" .0 E0 0 92 c Q-2 2 a u) ▪ to 0,1- o os 0 8 .c "E" 0 c E .- "a c Is. • 0) ..c 8 ta 0 c -0 -a" c ° oc • 0.-0 E .c c.) C a) C 0 0- "0 .0 CU •c- - C .-. .0 0 01 CO CI) , > •C .2 0 2 6 ca° 06 O C '0 •- 0 7 2 > iii - 3 ea 2 .> a) •0 .73 .2 ' 4:2 o co Q)0.0 .c ci ca ,y2 o ..; cL0 .2 0, 6) 4) >, 0. -0 I- ,-„ CO E) -5 -35 M ' • 0 5 cri .c o X a) ,,,, "U-) 4) .0 c C a) u2 c (5041)-, cc c 0 to >....-• ma c .- 17 •zic .4..0.) 4 .2 a., ifi•-c• = To 8'0 0(') "S gi 8 0 E) "6 C) a) a> as as 0 2 rn :o -.,° -,T, -c :13' - -0 a) 0 TO. 7 CO . 0 d '7 13 Zn 5 > 030N -03.2X0 0N ° C -C 0 0-64)f-30' .,- ,... a) c ., •sp..9..,,,E -cccmc't)'6., 0 0 . t •:-.-, ac lij 4,-• RS It , 5_, c .... .3.3 .0 1- , 7 8 _• E >. ' 1-", a) C a) a) as 0 cc= a o Board Options a 0 L C w LO. 0 3 Ca 0 73 o o Lo ° m 0 ati p3° mt y ocoN'�,L S as 3 0 E 3� c �0 w 0 2) F. 0 0 O. 2 `.c o:Ea OO c a c.. r, <scE <2) UQowmoc N aw>.ao•- •.o .= r"0.3 W a) 'C 0 :a::: t ym d O0 ' Oc I! .0 c w 0 C n . o �0v "' as0 m� _ oEc`; m N N .C a C o a c o3m a .-. LvO o 3OdC...0... mL C y O o c E W ,Q c .= ' o Nm N0 a a) "N i •• N N •"'. m 0 E t.. ,..aOao'�N..-aN N C O 'xi °_ O a) c- V m 0 o O o0Nw 0 y • iy N .0 >s 0 0 3Ec 01LL 0 PS . CO g.o7,2 m"'EE-0c •-, - a Y om0 L 0 c .c c c m 75 12 3 % z,to w 00.13 ro cCO 0 c=.c o 0a a �a> in ocg'E f Na N 3 - o=E - 0.E 8, 0 L0 C6 E > Ca va c o E n.•-v0o p°pao Eau)N m ct0.;,: wm'daioV . c10ofwns °0.EcTN _om2o ao cNo�auam oacad U 5E o o _c j d_C ° eE a= itac �00,,L._0 3 .•-• -5. c0m CO PI c -_Oc w « 0O0 c C co me oOva tea': 0 ) 70 O j CC) N Ca O a o a* ° CEN '�Vaa L 'O 0 o 2'EOC>0p�a coo >o=w� c>,i�E o 1 76 �'cfl�n?cm0Ema 05 .c2 Umac a'41 v"x° E�2saNNa) Q� mwda=6 o�aa-ai g •=„om 0a .cc Q o ma vc Et ccL�0 too omo•c w o E E 0 ca o 0.N o • w =a ETorW in ° 0)"E o > mcooc-�'o O?NNc E0 ->; ca p oa) t CO a) o o • E co o U�m00!>dim€o2Sa»° ,„„ aotn0.v° y 8 4-gi ri 12 aJ w E COoo Ca2oICC o00 C=C)aE5 Information In Record c N a) 3 m= o c Ea =°? E $ a W ? O o o N o 0 a N0 .2 c 0 O w .g. 0? .L-. ...9 O as co a) N ° C N C y a) E .6.L.. y 0 is N a) m 0= 0 w N.L.. a) . E.o E, 3 r T ca a) c T a) w' N M.. co V L c 'C) U 0) •.-• y a) N y 0.N N N a ..L. - 0.0)C G...L.. = V) N N 0 Ncu L N O «1 E C 0.x ° c V tOi1 C C O N 0} N fa C C v = `-_' y::in'L" 0 a) 0. J, •c 0. a) to E rn: (? u 3 o ca >..-- ._ o mr coo=� w?co -acs a O L :/J N 0 c r N O •C O c y C `) N '- _ '6 0 G° c QO) c C 03 U .'. y N° Q) w m O C 0.N O C .00 V) x O C co O c N O° a C a) C 7 E Q '� .L.. y O .,L.. 'p O c F- U N 0 0 O rn •- r a) y N C a) O +O„ N o a) a 0. a) t0 N E :.- `- L L E c w •N N y a) o t0 C co N N y cy ..L. N a) o) _ •- • N d L O� H y L 07 N! j c U > N co a) a) o 0 01 E t` .... a L .5 Ti c N c N co 0 > O s T "+ 2 0.w u) ,,_,,T) 0 E O 5 03'3 00.00,) reu cc o8..E.5-0c ) °• Na) c L a) 0 0 ° = yO t0 N 7 O a) a) r 41 N N 'x a) w c 0 C• t. CO Noy' C o .Lr :G4 a) C C _ y"U=W M EWdr mg0 °0.a) 0f ErL- o.0 E 0 0 w 0 cep o c 0 a_=i2 _ w a)w c O.0 o 0. e c 20'5 to .c .- 0 0.o, a) 0 4) a) c»S aL O i0 o m o o Qa w q•c rn yacN�t0 iaRoFL-c�L co 3`E�uoi c$�S3c�=o • U O p m« `c O a) O W N O 0f N= a t0 Ht G `�-aH•yE asa8 !)>O+Er> = X a)a)>°d V 7 >> N v a N °) m 0 E E a) D o o C N a1 T Nas " OLwN Lc a) Y _3«C O D.a-2 -.F.. �"NLN N E L E C O'%°c0`7 N L)"0..V- `=c 7m gia a)OC T C a a; N 20>o 3 Q0..a0C•C a@a•N .0 uoa)0 cc caEN o 0.°,o - .c L0 0.= °oda"O 01'x t),p N Ey4 ►-na=�vc�cEE yyo�=`'�°°RQ.com>yow 'Oa0a..- Cc a) > C a) L 0 0 x L 0. >, L o ) N C L O 02 N.0 a) 0. 0.a N 0 a aF t6 N ENco tnoa-aNUNN en 12 m r tD O 0C 2 a+ 06 >0V 'O ...0 0 00 «L 00 ..= ,2 .cm 2. -es E0 0 E 0 72. r3p Z =m m R m 0 m_=C 0 0 o% 0 w o =� m m = m 0ES.iOmrin e=J3 =130CW. 3 Vim« v Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sods Division P.0. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2016 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Elizabeth A. Dickson's appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -15- 000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247- 15-000670-A) BACKGROUND In approximately 1976, Applicant's predecessor constructed a small structure on the property, referred to as the "bathhouse," that had a sink, toilet, shower, and laundry facilities inside and a faucet and sink outside. In 2009 and 2010, the applicant built several structures on the subject property, including the existing dock, free-standing decks, walkways, garage, and an addition to the "bathhouse" consisting of a bedroom and attached decking, creating the bunkhouse. The applicant also placed eight cubic yards of gravel on the driveway. In 2013, the county received code violation complaints concerning construction and use of improvements on the subject property without necessary permits and approvals: 247 -13205 -CE (septic system); 247 -13206 -CE (work without building permits); and 247 -C13207 -CE (work without land use approval). The applicant submitted the subject land use applications to permit the work performed after -the -fact. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on December 9, 2015 finding that the proposal does not comply with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the "bathhouse" was found to have been unlawfully established while PL -5 was the active zoning code, aboveground decks were found to be not allowed in the 100 -foot river setback, and the dock was found not to comply with a number of regulations. On December 22, 2015, the applicant appealed the decision to the BOCC. The Board conducted a de novo public hearing on May 30, 2016. The written record closed on April 20, 2016. Staff has developed this memo and a decision matrix to help the Board engage with the key decision points in this matter. Quality Services Performed with Pride II. Key Issues This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. M1 - Can new above-arade decks be constructed within 100' of a river? Issue Summary: The applicant constructed two connected raised decks within 100 feet of the Deschutes River. DCC 18.96.100(B) requires, "All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles from the ordinary high water mark." Applicant: Applicant's landscaping decks fall under the definition of "landscaping" pursuant to the Deschutes County Code, and are not structures. Landscaping is not regulated in the Flood Plain Zone, so the landscaping decks should be allowed outright as an accessory use to the primary use of the subject property. Applicant has also offered to lower the decks so that they are at -grade with the ground, should it be required as a condition of approval. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer has found the inclusion of "decks" in the definition of "landscaping" does not mean that decks are not also "structures" that are subject to provisions such as the river setback in this section. The applicant has not identified, nor has the Hearings Officer found, any provision in FP Zone or elsewhere in Title 18 that would permit the free-standing decks to be located within the 100 -foot river setback simply because they are "river -dependent" — i.e., facilitating river viewing. And as the staff report correctly notes, the purpose of the 100 -foot river setback is to prevent construction of structures — other than docks and piers — in close proximity to the river and potentially within riparian areas and wetlands. Staff Comment: Staff believes that the decks are structures under the DCC 18.04.030 definition: "Structure" means something constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another structure." Staff believes that the decks have a fixed connection to the ground or are a "similar permanent fixture". To the extent they also might also fall within the definition of "landscaping" does not exempt them from the requirement to be set back from the river. Staff thought that making the decks at -grade would allow them to comply with the code. This is because the definitions of "yard" and "setback" require these areas to be "unobstructed from the ground upward". However, upon careful reading of the relevant code quoted above, neither "yard" nor "setback" is used in these sections. Rather, permanent fixtures must be "set back" from the river, regardless of their relation to grade. Therefore, thecannot be permitted within 100' of the Deschutes River. � iiereiore, staff believes decks cannot ..., v�� 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 2 of 10 M2 — Does the dock comply with river frontage standards? Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080(G)(4). One criterion requires that, "No individual boat dock or pier shall be allowed on any lot with less than 200 feet of river frontage." There is significant debate in the record if the property complies with this requirement. This debate hinges on the methodology used for measuring frontage. The river is frontage is primarily a lineal feature. A straight-line measurement of the river frontage comes to approximately 175 feet. Staff and Hearings Officers have previously admitted "nook and cranny" surveys performed by Scott Freshwaters, Surveyor, which capture the detailed frontage of a property. Mr. Freshwaters "nook and cranny" survey of the subject property broke the frontage into 63 segments measuring a total of 196.82 feet. This is largely because of the unevenness of the concrete rip -rap armoring the bank. Sun Country Engineering & Surveying conducted an additional survey on September 16, 2015 with 183 segments totaling 209.5 feet of shoreline. The difference when compared to the Freshwaters survey is accounted for in a letter from Tim Weishaupt, P.E. (Exhibit DD) and is primarily attributed to ice -free conditions for the Sun Country survey. Applicant: All real property is measured precisely, down to inches and degrees, and that property descriptions can in fact be variable, particularly where the land borders a body of water. The Subject Property should be measured no differently. If Applicant's property was not adjacent to the Deschutes River, but instead another parcel of dry land, the only acceptable measurement method for measuring those property lines would be the precise method employed by Mr. Weishaupt. Further, other docks approved by the County in the past have been approved using this same precise method of measurement to determine river frontage measurements. Hearings Officer: I find the appropriate measurement of a lot's river frontage is not its cumulative length measured by every "nook and cranny" of the irregular shoreline as depicted on the applicant's "Shoreline Survey." If that were the case, a property's frontage on the Deschutes River, the level of which is highly regulated and has dramatic seasonal variations, could be different depending on the time of measurement. I find it unlikely the drafters of Title 18 intended river frontage to be such a variable measurement. For these reasons, I find river frontage should be measured by means of a recognized and objective demarcation — i.e., the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), defined in Section 18.04.030 as "the highest level on the bank of shore of a lake, river or stream to which the water ordinarily recedes annually in season." The applicant's submitted site plan depicts the OHWM on the subject property and shows it is approximately 175 feet long. Staff Comment: Staff believes the intent of the river frontage standard is to provide spacing between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the Deschutes River. Because the river frontage of the property is predominantly a linear feature, Staff believes the Sun Country survey, consisting of segments that average just over 1 foot in length, circumvents the intent of the river frontage standard. The "nook and cranny" survey increases the amount of "frontage" by about 20 percent. Since most properties on the Deschutes River have river frontages complicated by wetlands or small-scale non-linear bank features, staff believes affirming this measurement technique would effectively reduce the dock spacing and density well below the intended 200 feet. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 3 of 10 While it might tempting to simply measure "frontage" from property line to property line, other properties on river bends may have strongly convex or concave frontages that significantly extend the river frontage of these property. Measuring these frontages with a single best -fit curve would preserve the dock -to -dock spacing and density as intended by the code. Staff recommends the board find that the intent of the river frontage standard is provide spacing between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the Deschutes River. Staff recommends that the Board find that, as a matter of policy, river frontage for the purposes 18.96.080(G)(4) shall be measured as a single line or a single best -fit curve. M3 — Does the dock comply with dock square footage standards? Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080(G)(4). One criterion requires that, "No individual boat dock or pier shall be more than 20 feet in length or more than eight feet in width. The total surface area shall not exceed 160 square feet." This section also specifies, "No walkway shall be more than four feet in width. The length of the walkway shall be no more than the minimum required to allow access to a dock." Two definitions are also relevant to this issue: "Boat dock or pier, individual" means a personal use boating structure that is built over or floats upon the water of a lake, river or stream, and that serves one property owner for mooring boats or as a landing place for marine transport, and that has a surface area of 160 square feet or less. "Walkway" means a structure that is built over or floats upon the waters of a lake, river or stream and that provides access to a boat dock or pier. The submitted site plan shows the dock is 10.6 long, and 24.1 feet wide, for an area of 255.46 square feet. Applicant: Applicant has demonstrated that while the structure referenced as the "dock" may look like it is all one structure, it is actually two distinct structures, only one of which falls under the definition of the term "dock" as it is defined in the Deschutes County Code. Pursuant to DCC 18.04.030, term "dock" is defined as" ... a structure that is over or floats upon the water... ". Only 138 square feet of the structure meets the dock definition when the water level is at the ordinary high water mark. The other portion is an at -grade walkway that provides safe access to the dock, and was built on separate weight-bearing supports, though it is directly adjacent to the dock portion, making it appear as though the two are connected. Applicant has also offered to reduce the size of the dock and/or walkway as a condition of approval should the BOCC require it. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that the property was not eligible for an individual boat dock and did not provide detailed findings on this issue. Staff Comment: If the dock is viewed as a single structure, it exceeds the width and square footage allowance for an individual dock. If the dock is viewed as two structures the "dock" portion of the structure exceeds the width allowance for an individual dock. The "walkway" exceeds the width allowance for a walkway approach to an individual dock. In either case the dock structure does not conform to applicable standards. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 4 of 10 The Applicant has offered to reduce the size of the dock as a condition of approval. Even if the Board has found the dock complies with the river frontage standard under M3, above, staff believes that a reduction in size of the dock cannot be conditioned at this point. This is because such a project would involve work in the bed and banks of the Deschutes River that cannot be evaluated for compliance with DCC 18.96.080(G), 18.120.050, and/or 18.128.270 without a detailed project description and agency comments from ODFW, DSL, ACOE, and USFWS. M4 — Does the dock comply with applicable fill -removal standards? Issue Summary: Work in the Bed and Banks of the Deschutes River must comply with a variety of criteria under DCC 18.128.270. The Hearings Officer found that 18.128.270(D)(2)(e) inadequately addressed in the Applicant's materials. This section requires, "That the essential character, quality, and density of existing vegetation will be maintained. Additional vegetation shall be required if necessary to protect aquatic life habitats, functions of the ecosystem, wildlife values, aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion." Applicant: Staff was unable to locate the Applicant's briefing on this issue in the record. Hearings Officer: Evidence in the record is sparse concerning the character, quality and density of the vegetation that existed prior to construction. The aerial photos in the record do not provide sufficient detail to assess the vegetation, although, as discussed above, the dock was constructed at the terminus of the gravel driveway and adjacent to existing riprap. Photos of the dock under construction appear to have been taken during the winter and as such do not depict the nature of vegetation during the growing season when it likely is more abundant. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer agrees with staffs conclusion that the record is inadequate from which to find this criterion is satisfied. Staff Comment: Relying on available aerial photography, Staff believes that preexisting vegetation in the dock location was sparse reeds and rushes growing among the concrete rip - rap. While the construction of the dock may have reduced available light to such plants, Staff believes the dock construction did not change the essential character, quality, and density of existing vegetation at the site. Comments from ODWF and USWFS do not not recommend additional vegetation to protect aquatic life habitats, functions of the ecosystem, wildlife values, aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion. Staff recommends the Board find the applicant has complied with this criterion. M5 — Was the bathhouse lawfully established? Issue Summary: The applicant has requested verification of the Bath House as a non- conforming use under DCC 18.120.010(B). In order to qualify as a non -conforming use, the Bath House must have been lawfully established when it was constructed. This means that it needed to comply with any applicable zoning code, PL -5 in this case, and building codes effective in 1976. The Hearings Officer found that the Bath House was not one of the authorized uses allowed in the RR -1 zone under PL -5 and that the structure should have obtained building permits at that time. DCC 18.120.010(F)(3) requires that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrate that the use was lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-00011 5-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 5 of 10 Applicant: The HO misinterpreted PL -5 to only authorize two "accessory uses in the RR -1 Zone - "not more than one private garage" and "home occupation." PL -5, RR -1 zone, does not authorize accessory uses. It places limitations on specific accessory uses. If the Bath House structure does not meet the description of any of the accessory uses listed under Section 3.160, then it was unregulated by those provisions, and there were no limitations on that particular accessory use in the RR -1 Zone. The Hearings Officer also erred when she denied the verification of the Bath House as a non- conforming use on the grounds that the structure may have "potentially" required a building permit when it was constructed, due to its size. Applicant argues that it is not appropriate for the Hearings Officer to make concrete findings based on unconfirmed recollections of third party standards that are not the laws of the State of Oregon or Deschutes County, and that it is not appropriate to make concrete findings based on the potential that a structure may have required a building permit, particularly when there is substantial evidence in the actual Record that proves otherwise. Applicant has submitted undisputed evidence to the Record in the form of letters from the prior owner of the property, who also constructed the original Bath House. In his letter dated October 1, 2009, attached as Exhibit C to Applicant's original Application dated March 6, 2016 ("Application"), prior owner James Cate states that he checked with the County about building permits for the Bath House in 1976, and was told that they were not necessary, as long as the septic system to serve the Bath House was approved. There has been no evidence to the contrary of Mr. Cate's written testimony submitted to date, nor has his testimony been challenged or disputed in any way. Mr. Cate's first-hand account of the circumstances of the legal construction of the Bath House and connected septic system is substantial evidence in the Record, and is undisputed. Hearings Officer: Hearings Officer Green denied Applicant's request for verification of the Bath House as a nonconforming use because the Bath House was not lawfully established at the time it was constructed in 1976. Specifically, she found that the construction of the Bath House was not legal under the applicable zoning code in 1976, PL -5, Rural Recreational Residential Zone ("RR -1"), because the Bath House did not conform to any of the accessory use limitations listed under 3.160 of PL -5. She also found that the Bath House structure "potentially" required a building permit when it was constructed. Staff Comment: Staff believes that Recreation Vehicle use of the property was an unregulated use in 1976. This is because it is not mentioned in PL -5 and the County issued a septic permit to support that use on the property in 1976. Could the Bath House have been constructed in 1976 as an accessory structure to the RV use of the property? Staff believes that this is unclear. Staff is unaware of no other similar structures from this time period. However, Mr. Cate testified that he confirmed with the County that permits were not required to construct the structure and connect it the approved septic system and this testimony is unrebutted. Staff believes that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Bath House was lawfully established as an accessory to the RV use of the property in 1976. Since overnight occupancy of structures on the property has not been lawfully established, staff recommends a condition of any approval requiring: 1) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is otherwise lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 6 of 10 The applicant has not asked to change the extent or nature of RV camping on the property nor have they asked to establish the RV use of the property as a non -conforming use. As such, RV use of the property should be subject to DCC 18.116.095, Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot. Staff recommends a condition of any approval requiring: 2) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC 18.116.095. Alternatively, the Board could conclude, following the Hearings Officer, the Bath House was not a lawful use under PL -5 and testimony by a prior owner of the property suggesting that the County was not enforcing applicable requirements does not make the establishment of the Bath House lawful. M6 — Did the HO make a procedural error by referring to PL -5? Issue Summary: The Hearings Officer needs to make a decision based on information available on the record. The applicant objects that the Hearings Officer, in part, relied on the text of PL -5, which was not introduced to the record during the open record period. The Hearings Officer has long held that she may take notice of County Ordinances and Land Use decisions without these materials being formally introduced to the record. Applicant: At the time the Record Period closed for the Hearings Officer's proceedings for the instant applications, on October 13, 2015, neither PL -5 nor the Uniform Building Code were a part of the Record for the instant applications, and the Record was not re -opened. Applicant was not notified of the Record change, so had no chance to respond to the new evidence. The Hearings Officer unfairly raised and then relied upon the new arguments and evidence to make her Decision, without allowing Applicant to consider and respond to arguments raised for the first time by the Hearings Officer herself. This is a violation of the DCC. Staff Comment: To the extent Hearings Officer may have improperly taken notice of PL -5, that zoning code is properly before the Board and that defect, if any, is cured. The Uniform Building Code in effect in 1976 has not been introduced into the record and cannot be (and is not being) relied upon as part of this record. M7 — Can the bathhouse's expansion within the river setback be permitted? Issue Summary: Under DCC 18.96.100(B) and 18.84.090(C), new structures and additions must be set back 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Deschutes River. The Bath Hose expansion occurred, in part, in the 100 -foot river setback. To the extent the Board finds that the Bath House was lawfully established, it is unclear how the how that can expansion can be approved under the non -conforming use code. Expansions of non-conformina structures are allowed in the "...front, side or rear yard setback area..." under DCC 18.120.010(A)(3). Both Staff and the HO concur that the river setback is not a "...front, side or rear yard setback area..." and that expansions in the river setback are governed by 18.120.030(D). Expansion of "...an existina residential dwellina which is within 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark along a stream..." is allowed under 18.120.030(D). It is undisputed in the record 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 7 of 10 that neither the Bath House nor the Bunk House is a dwelling eligible for expansion under Applicant: The Bath House is a lawfully established nonconformiuse that was not subject to any setback provisions when it was constructed in 1976. and that the new addition "does not project into the required setback area at any point." Therefore, the addition of the Bunk House to the backside of the Bath House is permitted as an alteration or expansion of a non- conforming use, which is not subject to river setback provisions. Hearings Officer: Referring to 18.120.010(A)(3): "...this paragraph is not applicable because it does not expressly refer to encroachment into the river metbmck, but rather only to the front, rear andaidaoetbooko—noneofvvhiohisoo-exiatentvviththerivaraetbmck.^ Referring to18.120.030(0:"The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this exception "provides the only pathway to expand structures in the 100-hout river setback and is only afforded to residential dwellings." Because | have found neither the original bathhoume nor the bunkhouse is a dwelling, | find this exception is not available." Staff Comment: Staff and the Hearings Officer read the non -conforming structure code to intentionally disallow structural expansions in the 100 -foot river setback generally, but to make a specific exception for dwellings under 18.120.030(D). Staff is concerned that the Applicant's proposed reading of the non -conforming use code is both textually implausible and would set a policy weakening the aiQniUuantrivorfnont/riperian protects that come from the 100-fnot river setback. A text amendment is the appropriate venue for evaluating this sort of policy change. M8 — Has the apDlicant demonstrated that the exoansion will have no adverse imnmact on the neiqhborhood with reqard to wastewater? Issue Summary: DCC 18.120.018(E)(2) requires a finding that a non -conforming use alteration alteration will have no greater adverse impact on the neighborhood. The HO declined to evaluate potential wastewater imapaots, finding that this was subject to DEO regulation. Todd C|evo|ond, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Supan/isor, has testified that the existing system is almost certainly contaminating ground water and that increased use of the existing system would increase the contamination. Mr. Cleveland has also testified that the existing system should have been decommissioned in 1992, following an evaluation for residential development of the property. He also testified that other neorbv, similarly aituated, septic systems have typically degraded over time and fail to prevent groundwater contamination. Applicant: There is proothat the on-site septic system was permitted when built and has been used since that time. If the 1992 denial had intended to decommission the entire existing ovutenn, it should have said so. The letter states absolutely nothing about entirely decommissioning the existing system on the property, or denial of anything more than the opacUDnrequest toexpand the exiabngavatenn. The Applicant has argued that the RV use of the septic system was a permitted use and that the connection of the Bath House to the system is presumed lawful through Mr. Cate's unnabutted testimony. The septic system is used infrequently, and only during the 2-3 months out of the year that 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 24715-000115fNUV24715-000116-LM;24745-000670f\ Page 8 of 10 Applicant visits the property. The addition of the bedroom to the Bath House does not "change the nature or extent of the use of the property" or on-site septic system or cause further adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that the issue of the on-site septic system was not before her, and declined to make findings on the issue. The HO found the status and use of the septic system on the subject property — and in particular whether or not it has been or can be approved for use in connection with the bunkhouse -- must be evaluated and authorized by the Environmental Soils Division pursuant to the applicable DEQ regulations. In other words, the Environmental Soils Division must determine whether the addition of a bedroom to the bathhouse would result in an increase in flow to the septic system. Deschutes County Environmental Soils: There is "no indication of prior use" in the history of the on-site septic system, and that the 1992 denial for a request to expand the use of the existing septic system for a year-round expanded residence was also a notice that the entire existing system was to be decommissioned. Staff Comment: Staff believes that the Applicant has confused this issue by incorrectly assuming that the septic system is a non -conforming land use subject to DCC 18.120. Staff recommends that the Board find that the lawfulness of the installation, alteration, or continued use of the system is not subject to Title 18 (except regarding some locational requirements, whith and falls under DEQ regulation. However, staff also believes that Hearings Officer incorrectly concluded any adverse impacts stemming from changes to the use of the system are not subject to DCC 18.120.010(E)(2). The proposed alteration of the non -conforming use includes the addition of living and sleeping areas to the Bath House. If this addition results in unmitigated adverse wastewater impacts, this application should be denied for failure to comply with 18.120.010(E)(2). Increased use: The applicant has added a bedroom and neighbors have testified that guests arriving in a passenger vehicle have stayed at the site. This results in use of the septic system that is not associated with the RV use of the property. The addition of the bedroom has the potential to increase the quantity of wastewater beyond the historic RV -only use of the property. Adverse impact: Given the shallow groundwater in the vicinity, there is no septic system that could completely avoid contamination of the groundwater (See Mr. Cleveland's testimony). Increased use will result in increased contamination unless the septic treatment technology is enhanced, if this enhancement is even feasible. The applicant has not proposed use restrictions that would ensure there would be no increased wastewater discharge. The applicant has not proposed to enhance the wastewater treatment system to offset any increases in groundwater contamination. Therefore, staff believes the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the alteration of the Bath House to include a bedroom will not adversely impact the neighborhood by increasing groundwater contamination. Staff recommends the following conditions of any decision to ensure the use will not increase groundwater contamination: 3) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is otherwise lawfully established. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 9 of 10 4) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC 18.116.095. If the dock has to go, do we specify how (timing)? If the Bathhouse has to go do we specify how (timing)? Attachments 1. Decision matrix. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 10 of 10 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2015 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Deliberation on a conditional use, tentative subdivision plan, and SMIA site plan approval (247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA) to establish a 19 -lot residential planned development on three parcels totaling 157 acres, zoned RR -10, EFU, FP, LM, and SMIA, and located between the Deschutes River and Lower Bridge Way west of Terrebonne. I. Background The Applicant, Lower Bridge Road, LLC, requested conditional use, tentative subdivision plan, and SMIA site plan approval to establish a 19 -lot residential planned development on three parcels totaling 157 acres, zoned RR -10, EFU, FP, LM, and SMIA, and located between the Deschutes River and Lower Bridge Way west of Terrebonne. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on September 11, 2015 finding that the proposal does not comply with all applicable regulations. On September 23, 2015 Lower Bridge Road, LLC appealed the decision to the BOCC. By Order 2015-467, dated October 19, 2015, the Board initiated review of this application under DCC 22.28.050 through a de novo hearing. The Board conducted a de novo public hearing on January 6, 2016. The written record closed on March 4, 2016. Staff has developed a decision matrix to help the Board engage with the key decision points in this matter. II. Key Issues This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. M1 - Can a PUD application create open space lots on EFU zoned land? Issue Summary: The Hearings Officer found that PUD lots cannot be formed out of property that incudes EFU Zoned lands. The Applicant modified the application to remove 10.4 acres of EFU- zoned from the application by lot line adjustment. However, this lot line adjustment does not appear to remove the EFU-zoned portion of tax lot 1600, located at the north end of the proposed PUD, from the subject property. Quality Services Performed with Pride This issue appears not to have been directly briefed by parties. Staff has included arguments by parties directed at the 10.4 acres of EFU-zoned land, as those arguments should address the possibility of using tax lot 1600 EFU zoned land in the PUD. Applicant: The 10.4 acres of EFU zoned property is located at the southern boundary of the subdivision. See attached Tentative Plan map. The Applicant did not count the EFU zoned property in the subdivision either for density or for open space and did not propose to alter or otherwise divide the EFU zoned portion of the property. Under the Applicant's proposal the EFU zoned property boundary does not change and it remains a split -zoned property with the adjacent RR -10 subdivision. The Board could choose to agree with the Applicant that the proposal does not result in a subdivision in the EFU zone and is permissible under the code. In hearings testimony, Applicant has agreed to remove the EFU zoned portion of tax lot 1600 from the PUD prior to final plat approval. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer finds subdivisions and PUDs are not uses permitted outright or conditionally in the EFU Zone. The applicant appears to argue that because the EFU- zoned area will be included in an open space tract and may be engaged in agricultural use, it can be included in the PUD. I disagree. While agricultural use is consistent with this area's zoning, including it within a subdivision is not. Opponents: Opponents argued that EFU-zoned land could not be included in the PUD, following the Hearings Officer's findings. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that any approval be conditioned on a finalized lot line adjustment removing the EFU zoned portion of tax lot 1600 prior to final plat approval. M2 - Can a PUD application include FP zoned land? Issue Summary: This PUD application includes the creation of lots in the Flood Plain (FP) Zone, where "Planned Development" is not one of the allowed uses. The proposed use of FP zoned lands is the creation of Tots through subdivision for the preservation of open space. Both subdivision and open space are allowed uses in the zone. However, under the rules of statutory construction the exclusion of "Planned Development" from the Flood Plain Zone is assumed to be meaningful. Staff recommended the Applicant apply for a text amendment to resolve this issue prior to application. Applicant: Subdivisions and open space are both listed uses in the Flood Plain Zone but planned developments (a clustered form of subdivision) are not. The Hearings Officer acknowledged the proposal meets the purpose and intent of the Flood Plain Zone and also recognized that the drafters of that zoning ordinance could have intended to allow a project such as the Applicant's where residential Tots were clustered outside of the zone and all Flood Plain Zoned property was contained in an open space tract, but she declined to interpret the ordinance. Open space is a listed use in the Flood Plain Zone. It is not a listed use in any other zone and the Planning Division does not accept or process applications for open space as a use separate from some development of which it is a component. In fact, open space is not even listed in the Open Space and Conservation Zone. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 2 of 21 The present proposal provides more protection for the resource than a subdivision without clustering (allowed conditionally in the Flood Plain Zone) by containing all Flood Plain Zoned property in an open space tract, prohibiting development within that tract, providing for increased riparian protections and a funding mechanism for management of the resource. Finally, the proposal is consistent with exactly what the Applicant proposed and the Board envisioned when it zoned the property RR -10 in 2008. The Applicant planned a cluster development with all river frontage being protected in open space, the Applicant showed this plan to the Board and the Board approved it, allowing the Applicant to add 30 acres of riverfront property from the west side to the RR -10 zone for the eastside to be preserved as open space and make enough acreage to get a 20 lot planned development. Hearings Officer: Neither "cluster development" nor "planned development" is a use permitted outright or conditionally in the FP Zone. The Hearings Officer finds the text and context of the provisions of Title 18 defining and governing the three types of subdivisions make clear they have different characteristics and are intended to be reviewed and approved under different substantive standards. While it may seem counterintuitive not to permit use of FP -zoned land for open space within a planned development where such use would protect these areas consistent with the purpose of the FP Zone, I find the plain language of the FP Zone does not allow such development. Opponents: The Applicant proposes that the BOCC should reach the unfounded conclusion that the listing of "open space" as an outright permitted use in the FP zone means "open space associated with planned development," despite the fact that neither planned developments nor cluster developments are permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the FP zoning text (in contrast to standard "subdivision or partitioning," which are explicitly included in the FP zoning text). The Applicant's suggested interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the Flood Plain ordinance, and would improperly increase density and the number of small view lots clustered on the most sensitive lands with the greatest resulting aesthetic impact. Staff Comment: The Board is afforded deference on plausible interpretations of local code at LUBA. Staff is uncertain if the applicant's proposed interpretation is plausible, given the rules of statutory construction. Staff believes that a text amendment would be a clearer path to evaluate and formalize (or not, at the Board's discretion) the applicant's proposed interpretation. The Board will need to decide if the applicant's interpretation is plausible at this time. M3 - Can FP zoned land be counted towards PUD housing density and density bonuses?. Issue Summary: This question is only at issue if the Board concludes that a PUD application can create Tots in the FP Zone (see summary of M1, above). Planned Unit Developments are afforded a density bonus from one unit per 10 acres to one unit per 7.5 acres, increasing the number of allowed units in the development. This trade-off is given for the preservation of otherwise developable land as restricted open space area. The PUD proposal relies on FP zoned land as part of density calculation to allow for 19 residential lots. Applicant: All acreage included in the project area calculations is available for gross acreage calculations for the PUD. The approximately 30 -acre area west of the river was specifically added to the "East Area" zone change to allow its use for open space calculations in a future planned development. The Board specifically understood a planned development would be proposed with lots clustered so that open space could be preserved and site disturbance minimized. See BOCC Decision, pp. 10, 12, 16. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 3 of 21 Likewise, the gross acreage of the site, including the area to be dedicated for Lower Bridge Way can be included in the overall subdivision acreage for the planned development. See "Lot Area" definition at DCC 17.08. The portion of the property zoned Flood Plain is also available for inclusion in the overall acreage because open space and portions of residential use not containing structures are outright permitted uses in the Flood Plain Zone. Opponents: After deducting undevelopable areas, there are 95.73 acres remaining for development. At 10.3 acres per lot, nine lots would fit on this site. Applicant's proposal of 19 lots is a 111% increase over the RR -10 standards applicable to this site. Otherwise undevelopable Flood Plain Zoned lands should not be leveraged to increase the density of a rural PUD in an environmentally sensitive area. Hearings Officer: Approximately 30 acres of FP -zoned land included in the subject property cannot be included in the density calculation, leaving approximately 116 acres of developable land for the PUD. At the maximum allowed density of one dwelling per 7.5 acres, there would be sufficient developable land for only 15 dwellings and the required 65 percent open space. Staff Comment: The Board will need to decide whether to interpret the code to allow FP zoned lands to count towards the overall residential density calculation. Staff notes that dwellings are prohibited on FP zoned lands unless no alternative location exists and that these lands are not generally residentially developable. M4 - Where is the boundary of the FP zone? Issue Summary: The Applicant correctly notes that the FEMA -provided flood plain maps, adopted as the Flood Plain Zone by the County, contain obvious inaccuracies. The flood plain in the project vicinity is an "unnumbered A zone", meaning that flood areas were designated without detailed flood calculations or detailed local topographic information, due to the low density of development in the area. This issue arises nationwide and FEMA has a technical bulletin directing how to refine the flood plain in this case. The applicant was provided with this information in a pre -application meeting and declined to use any of the FEMA accepted methodologies for refining flood plain boundaries. It is unclear to Staff what the Applicant hopes the Board will do in the face of the flood map inaccuracy. Applicant: Flood Plain Zone in this area is designated Zone A, which is based on FIRM maps with no base flood elevation data. The FIRM map when applied to the significant amount of river frontage on the subject property extends vertically 60' in one area and through the middle of the river channel in another. It clearly does not represent a true flood boundary. Hearings Officer: Did not directly address this issue. Opponents: While the Applicant may have valid concerns about the accuracy of the Flood Plain mapping, the burden is upon the Applicant to present a thorough and complete application as opposed to raising generalized challenges regarding the accuracy of existing zone designations. These concerns could and should have been addressed prior to submittal of the present application, through affirmative action by the Applicant to complete a flood map amendment or similar process as recommended by County staff during the pre -application meeting. Staff Comment: The Flood Plain Zone boundary was provided by FEMA and adopted by the County. Any alteration of that boundary should be conducted in accordance with FEMA guidance and all applicable regulations. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 4 of 21 M5 - Is the "conditional use" the whole PUD or simply the changes in density and layout afforded in a PUD in excess of a conventional subdivision. Issue Summary: Planned Unit Development is a conditional use with special standards (See DCC 18.128.210) in the RR -10 Zone. These special standards place additional restrictions over single-family dwellings or conventional subdivisions. The applicant contests that these restrictions should only apply to those lots that are afforded by the PUD over a conventional subdivision. The number of additional lots afforded is a matter of debate and ranges from four to 10 lots. Applicant: The Hearings Officer erred in failing to apply the conditional use criteria to the only portion of the development that is conditional, which is not the residential use but instead the difference between 15 homesites and 19 homesites, or essentially 4 additional homesites. Hearings Officer: The general conditional use approval criteria apply to the whole application because the applicant's proposal is for a PUD and not for an individual single-family dwelling or non-clustered subdivision. Opponents: The Hearings Officer found that the conditional use criteria of DCC Section 18.128.015(A)(I) apply to this application and she found the criteria require a finding that Applicant demonstrate the suitability of the subject property for PUD development. Staff Comment: The Hearings Officer found all aspects of the PUD were part of the conditional use. Because some other similar use (non-clustered subdivision) is allowed without conditional use approval in the zone does not make some portion of the proposed conditional use not conditional. All of the proposed lots are designed and sited in a manner only allowed under the PUD standards. M6 — Are required road improvements "roughly proportionate" to traffic impacts? Issue Summary: County Code requires applicants to improve sub -standard adjacent right-of-way, in this case Lower Bridge Way, to County standards as part of any partition or subdivision approval. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer included a condition of approval requiring that Lower Bridge Way be widened by the applicant from 24 to 28 feet. Under Nollan and Dolan, required off- site improvements must be related to an impact created by the project, serve a legitimate public interest, and the requirement must be roughly proportional to the impact. The proposed PUD would add 35% to the existing traffic on Lower Bridge Way. The Applicant contends that requiring the Applicant to bear the full burden of this road improvement project is not roughly proportionate to the PUD's impacts. Applicant: The Hearings Officer erred in concluding the applicant should be required to improve the abutting segment of Lower Bridge Way to County standards. The impacts of the proposal to add traffic associated with 19 residential lots is not roughly proportional to the cost of the required improvement of approximately 3,000 lineal feet of abutting roadway, with possible relocation of power lines. The applicant is dedicating the Lower Bridge right-of-way but any additional improvements are not warranted and in violation of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Hearings Officer: Did not directly address issue. Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 5 of 21 Staff Comment: Staff believes the Applicant's argument is reasonable and that the Hearing Officer's condition should be modified in some way to limit the Applicant's obligation to 35% of the project cost. However, the entire required improvement must be completed prior to final plat approval. Hearings Officer's Condition #16 sates: 16. The applicant/owner shall dedicate right-of-way for, and improve to Deschutes County's standards for rural collector roads set forth in Table "A" of Title 17, the abutting segment of Lower Bridge Way. Staff recommends modifying Hearing Officer' Condition #16 as follows: 16a. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant/owner shall dedicate right-of-way for the abutting segment of Lower Bridge Way to Deschutes County's standards for rural collector roads set forth in Table "A" of Title 17. 16b. Prior to final plat approval, the abutting segment of Lower Bridge Way shall be improved to Deschutes County's standards for rural collector roads set forth in Table "A" of Title 17. The applicant shall be responsible for 35% of the cost of this project. A cost-sharing methodology acceptable to Deschutes County Legal Department and Deschutes County Road Department shall be agreed upon and implemented prior to final plat approval. M7 — Did the HO collaterally attack the 2008 PA/ZC approval? Issue Summary: A collateral attack is an attempt to impeach or overturn a judgment rendered in a judicial proceeding, made in a proceeding other than within the original action or an appeal from it. Here, that Applicant argues that the Hearings Officer's findings collaterally attacked the Board's findings in PA-08-1/ZC-80-1, the plan amendment and zone change for the subject property. It is unclear from the record materials, but staff believes that the applicant argues that the Board has already found that the site is suitable for residential use, provided it receives DEQ/OHA "NFA" letters prior to final plat approval, and that issues of environmental safety cannot be revisited. Applicant: The Hearings Officer erred when she collaterally attacked the BOCC's prior decision and found the BOCC improperly substituted a condition of approval for the necessary findings of compliance in the prior zone change decision. Hearings Officer: The Board's approach to deferring findings of environmental safety was likely impermissible under existing case law, but no change to the ZC/PA was imposed. Nothing precludes the Hearings Officer or Board from imposing additional restrictions, beyond those in the ZC/PA, at this point for the proposed PUD. Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Staff Comment: Staff believes the Hearings Officer's decision is not a collateral attack on the zone change/plan amendment (ZC/PA). While the Hearings Officer found that BOCC's approach to deferring findings of environmental safety was likely impermissible under existing case law, no change to the ZC/PA was imposed. Nothing precludes the Hearings Officer or BOCC from imposing additional restrictions beyond those in the ZC/PA contemplated on the proposed PUD. This is, in part, because the PUD is subject to different applicable criteria (DCC 18.128.015, general suitability criteria) than the pian amendment and zone change. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 6 of 21 M8 — Does the HO denial of the PUD represent a "takina"? Issue Summary: The "takings" issue is addressed in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Supreme Court has established clear rules that identify situations that amount to a taking. It has found "takings" where the landowner has been denied "all economically viable use" of the land. The Applicant has argued the failure to approve the PUD, as proposed, would represent such a taking. Applicant: The Hearings Officer's decision alone or combined with any one or more of the errors alleged above, leaves applicant with no viable economic use of the properly and constitutes the taking of it and entitles applicant to just compensation under Article 1, Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the right to attorney's fees under ORS 20.080 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Hearings Officer: Did not directly address issue. Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Staff Comment: The applicant has been denied by the Hearings Officer for a PUD. The applicant has not applied for the approximately 15 -lot, non-clustered subdivision on the property that is a non -conditional use. The applicant has also not also applied for the single dwelling allowed on the property without conditional use or subdivision approval. Only one use, a PUD, has been presently denied on the property. Staff notes that the Hearings Officer's denial primarily rests on the applicant designing a PUD that exceeds the number of lots in the allowed in the zone, voluntarily configuring those lots as to make them undevelopable without special exceptions, and asking for residential approvals prior to completion of environmental investigations of the property. Nothing in the present denial indicates that a properly designed PUD application could not be approved on the property. As such, the applicant's claims the property has no viable economic as a consequence of the Hearings Officer's denial use are unsubstantiated. Staff believes that were the Board to deny this application, the denial would not constitute a taking. M9 — Does sufficient financing exists to assure the proposed development will be substantially completed within four years of approval. Issue Summary: DCC 18.128.210(B)(6) requires "That sufficient financing exists to assure the proposed development will be substantially completed within four years of approval." In prior decisions subject to this criterion, the County found that the relatively small projects could be completed without a specific demonstration of project cost and available financing. The Hearings Officer found that a conclusory statement on this issue without evidentiary support was insufficient. Applicant: The Hearings Officer erred in concluding there was not sufficient evidence of financing to assure the proposed development will be substantially completed within 4 years of approval. Significant expenditures have been made and are planned. Hearings Officer: The applicant's burden of proof states, "sufficient funding is available to complete the development as proposed within four years of approval." However, the applicant did not submit any evidence supporting this statement. The Hearings Officer finds a simple conciusory statement does not constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with this conditional use approval criterion. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 7 of 21 Opponents: Applicant's counsel, Attorney Lewis, admitted in the January 6, 2016 public hearing that the owners don't have the money to clean up the site. (On a separate level, this is perplexing considering Applicant's open acknowledgement of the money spent on the legal team, the development team, and the engineering team employed in 2008's process and this one.) Applicant has described its cleanup plan consistently for a decade: let them sell lots, and they will use the proceeds from the sales to clean up the site. A decade later, the plan still makes no sense. How can Applicant use money from lot sales to clean up lots, if the lots to be sold to innocent buyers must be cleaned up before they are sold? The Applicant's approach of using lot sale proceeds to fund remediation throughout the former industrial site, would be tantamount to asking the BOCC to approve a risky "pay now, clean later" development model. The BOCC should not support a development model where lots are sold off to transfer the burdens and obligations to innocent purchasers, with the developers receiving the financial gain without assurance of performance of future conditions. This is particularly true given the poor track record of performance by the Applicant in terms of remedial efforts undertaken from 2008 to present. This is an unacceptable risk for the County and the future residents of the proposed development. Staff Comment: Staff believes that compliance with this criterion would require that the record contain 1) estimated project costs, 2) documentation that the Applicant has the financial resources to meet these costs, and 3) evidence that the development will be substantially completed within four years of approval. The Applicant did not provide information to determine compliance with this criterion. Staff is uncertain if compliance is even possible at this point, given that project costs cannot be determined until environmental investigations are complete and a scope of work for remediation is established. M10 — Does the Historic Sian render proposed lot 1 undevelopable? Issue Summary: The historic Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement sign is located near the northwest corner of the subject property. The sign is painted on rocks adjacent to Lower Bridge Way. In its 2008 decision, the board included as Condition of Approval 4 a prohibition against any development within a 100 -yard radius of the sign and a requirement that the applicant post markers near the sign to prevent trespass. Condition 4 also required the applicant to include in the CC&Rs provisions obligating PUD lot owners to protect the area within a 100 -yard radius of the sign from development and trespass and to maintain the posted markers. It is unclear from the prior condition of approval if precluded "development" includes only structures or includes septic systems, wells, or significant earthmoving projects. It is also unclear, based on documentation in the record, if Lot 1 is residentially developable, given that approximately 40% of the lot is in the area precluded for development by the sign restriction. Applicant: Did not brief this issue. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer did not directly address this issue. The Hearings Officer found that imposition of the conditions of approval will protect this historic sign to the greatest extent practical. Opponents: Expressed concerns regarding the ability to develop Lot 1, given the sign setback. Also expressed concerns about the adequacy of the conditions of approval to protect the sign. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 8 of 21 Staff Comment: The applicant has an affirmative obligation to demonstrate that the site is suitable for residential development, given known development constraints. The ability to develop proposed Lot 1 will depend on the Board's interpretation of Condition #4. Does "development" include only structures or also include septic systems, wells, or earthmoving projects. Staff believes it is plausible that Lot 1 could be improved with a residence even if roughly 40% of the lot is rendered unusable by the sign protections. However, the applicant did not provide a figure showing a septic/well/dwelling layout for Lot 1 consistent with Condition #4. M11 — Do the proposed CC&Rs adeauatelv describe the environmental history? Issue Summary: Condition of Approval (CoA) #5 of the 2008 PA/ZC requires an informational section in the CC&Rs that detail the history of the site, including the remediation efforts taken by the applicant and its predecessors in interest. There is debate in the record if the proposed documentation is adequate. Applicant: Provided draft language to comply with this criterion. Hearings Officer: Did not directly address this issue. Opponents: Provided CC&Rs do not divulge the nature, type and extensiveness of the toxic contamination known and suspected on the site and misrepresents the sites condition to potential buyers. Staff Comment: The supplied draft is a reasonable summary. However, given that testing and clean-up of the site is not complete, it is not possible to provide a full environmental history of the site at this point. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to develop a final environmental history for the CC&Rs, following DEQ and OHA final approval of the site for residential use and prior to final plat approval via the following condition of approval: To comply with PA-08-1/ZC-08-1 condition of approval (1)(5), the applicant shall include an informational section in its CC&Rs that detail the history of the site, including the remediation efforts taken by the applicant and its predecessors in interest. This informational section shall be updated prior to final plat approval to reflect the results of environmental testing, remediation activities undertaken, issuance of DEQ/OHA "NFA" letters, completion of the DEQ VCP program, as well as any ongoing environmental issues or obligations identified as part the completed VCP program. M12 — Will the proposed development adversely impact the rural character of the area? Issue Summary: DCC 18.128.210(A)(8) requires that the effect of the proposed development on the rural character of the area be considered. There is considerable debate in the record if the lots, densely clustered on the canyon rim and highly visible from the surrounding area would adversely impact the rural character of the area. Applicant: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Hearings Officer: Dwellings clustered on two -acre lots still constitute "rural" development and not "urban" development. Inclusion of over 100 acres of open space will preserve the rural character of the area. Opponents who live across the Deschutes River east of the proposed PUD object to having to look at dwellings on the subject property. However, I find that with the 2008 rezoning of the subject property to RR -10, opponents no longer had reasonable expectations that the subject property would remain undeveloped. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 9 of 21 Opponents: The view of all the houses on these crowded lots would be unavoidable from Lower Bridge Way as it begins its descent to cross the Deschutes River. The applicant's proposal is neither inconsequential nor benign. It permanently changes the rural character of the area. It does not appear that the Applicant made any effort to reduce the effect of the development on the area's rural character, to preserve existing natural features or to minimize environmental impacts. The project site has extreme visibility from Teater Avenue, Lower Bridge Way, and the Wildlife Preserve; and that the 111% density increase that would occur from the applicant's proposal is crowded along the river canyon rim on two acre lots. The rural character of the area would suffer needlessly from the applicant's proposal because they can successfully develop the property without employing a Planned Development approach. Because the proposal's density exceeds community standards and RR -10 standards by such a great percentage, it's no surprise that the visual depiction of the 19 lots in a tight row overlooking the Deschutes River is not compliant with DCC 18.128.210(A)(8). The rural character of this zone is not followed by this proposal, and no matter what environmental remediation is performed, the application should be denied. Staff Comment: The impact on the rural character of the area is a deeply subjective question. While the close proximity and high visibility of the proposed homesites are uncharacteristic of the area, the proposal includes large areas of land permanently preserved as open space. M13 — Is the site suitable for residential development aiven prior earthmoving and Geotechnical stability? Issue Summary: Soils disturbed by earthmoving and mining at the site may present difficulties for home construction. Diatomaceous Earth may also be an unsuitable material upon which to construct dwelling foundations. Applicant: The Wallace Group issued a Geotechnical Exploration Report on the subdivision site (see Exhibit PH -14). The geotechnical investigation concluded that the site was suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical perspective and that slope stability analyses will be performed on a lot by lot basis when construction/development plans are available. Mr. Wallace also notes that development of the site will have strict set -back requirements and that Civil Engineering Grading Plans for the project will incorporate berm removal/grading to mitigate slope instability and erosion risks. This report is a comprehensive on-site geotechnical report by the Wallace Group conducted by geotechnical engineers. It is substantial evidence upon which the Board can and should rely to conclude the site is suitable for the proposed use. Hearings Officer: Did not directly address this issue. Opponents: The record does not contain any substantive geotechnical study verifying that individual building sites within each proposed lot could be safely developed in light of concerns regarding waste rock fill deposits. A full geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the application is req uired. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 10 of 21 Staff Comment: This issue was not fully developed before the HO. The Applicant's geotechnical report does not evaluate each proposed lot, but finds that any historic fill or diatomaceous earth can be remedied with "...up to 4 feet of engineered fill or aggregate base course...". Staff recommends that the Board find that the applicant's geotechnical report demonstrates that any stability flaws at the building sites can be remedied with conventional soil engineering solutions. M14 — Is buried rimrock considered "rimrock"? Issue Summary: Aerial photos in record indicate that, between 1943 and 1951, overburden was pushed over the west canyon rim between lots 11 and 15. It appears that limited rimrock, near the river level, may have been buried. In the County Code, setbacks from rimrock are required to limit the visual impacts of structures from the river. Applicant: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Hearings Officer: Did not address this issue. Opponents: A thorough survey of the buried rimrock should be required in order to determine the appropriate rimrock setback requirements on those proposed Tots impacted by past dumping. Staff Comment: A finding that buried rimrock is no longer rimrock would set a precedent that would encourage earthmoving in sensitive river canyons to avoid rimrock setbacks. However, the rimrock burial in this case is over 60 years old and that work was not undertaken to circumvent rimrock setback rules. Also, from available aerial photos, it appears that the rimrock, if any, was located near the river and well over 50 feet from any potential dwelling location. Staff recommends the Board find that rimrock buried through artificial means is still subject to rimrock standards. However, the applicant -proposed rear setbacks on lots 11 through 15, ranging from 100 to 170 feet are sufficient to ensure compliant setbacks from the buried rimrock, based on available aerial photography. M15 — Should "rimrock-like" protections be imposed on the non-rockv canyon rim? Issue Summary: In the County Code, setbacks from rimrock are required to limit the visual impact of structures from the river. The subject property is unusual in that most of the top of canyon rim is not defined by an exposed rock face that would trigger rimrock setbacks. Even if the earthen surface was rocky, it would not meet the rimrock definition, as the angle of repose of the soil does not typically exceed 45 degrees. That said, without some sort of top of rim setback, the proposed development would likely have significant visual impacts on the river, even with the required vegetative screening of the Landscape Management Combining Zone. In addition, DCC 18.128.210 requires the preservation of special terrain features. Applicant: The Applicant conducted an on-site investigation to create setbacks for each individual lot to demonstrate the proximity of each proposed dwelling to the river and avoid the need for any conditions or exceptions to rimrock setbacks. The memo submitted as Exhibit PH -14 contains the proposed minimum rear yard setbacks for each individual lot based on the Applicant's on-site investigation. The proposed setbacks are designed to minimize visibility from the river and meet County and State requirements for preservation of scenic resources. These are minimum rear yard setbacks and, as discussed, each structure will be required to seek approval from State Parks that could result in a greater setback to meet State scenic waterway requirements. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 11 of 21 Hearings Officer: Did not directly address this issue. Included proposed condition of any approval, C, quoted below. Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Staff Comment: The Board will need to decide if setbacks specific to this subdivision are needed to address the unusual canyon configuration in the absence of significant rimrock. The Board could either 1) find that rimrock setbacks only apply to exposed rock faces and that no special setbacks from the canyon rim are warranted, or 2) find that development on the canyon rim would result in significant visual impacts to the Deschutes River if structures were not set back from the canyon rim. To mitigate these impacts the Board could include conditions of approval requiring: A. The height of any structure shall not exceed the setback from the edge of the canyon rim. B. No structure (including decks) shall be located closer than 20 feet from the canyon rim. The Board will also need to confirm that the Hearings Officer's proposed condition of approval is sufficient to protect the canyon slope and riparian areas, when combined with other requirements. C. The applicant/owner and its successors, including individual lot owners, shall prohibit the following activities within the river canyon below the upper bench/plateau: changes in the natural grade; construction of structures; and the alteration, removal or destruction of natural vegetation, except as part of an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife approved habitat enhancement project. M16 — Are the proposed lots developable. given applicable constraints on the building lots? Issue Summary: Although the proposed lots are approximately 2 acres in size, significant portions of the proposed lots are undevelopable due to the fact that each lot has significant lot area below the canyon rim. In addition, rimrock setbacks, special canyon rim setbacks (if imposed), and separation requirements between wells and septic systems will significantly constrain development. The Hearings Officer found that it was not possible to determine that the lots were developable, given applicable constraints on the building lots. Since then, the applicant has provided rimrock and rear setback figures showing the buildable area of the proposed lots. Applicant: To address this on appeal, the Applicant has located and mapped all rimrock on the lots, located and mapped the line on each lot for the required rimrock setback and proposed increased setbacks to demonstrate compliance. The Applicant also submitted a typical building footprint and utility facilities to demonstrate all lots can be developed with a dwelling, drainfield and well and fully comply with the rimrock setbacks in the LM zone without the need for any exceptions. This evidence constitutes substantial evidence upon which the Board can rely to conclude the size, shape and configuration of the Tots are suitable for the proposed use. Hearings Officer: Applicant has not demonstrated that each lot can be developed with a dwelling, on-site septic system and individual well in a manner that assures the dwelling is at least 50 feet from any rimrock, and that all other yard and setback requirements in the LM Zone can be met. Opponents: Opponents argue that the Board must affirmatively establish that the lots are suitable for residential development given the cumulative effect of applicable criteria. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 12 of 21 Staff Comment: Staff believes this question is focused on the ability to develop the lot based on physical constrains (well -septic separation, soil stability, topography) as well as regulatory constraints (regular setbacks, rimrock setbacks, site-specific setbacks). The applicant's geotechnical report indicates that any soil deficiencies could be remedied. The applicant's example figures show that it is feasible to develop the lots given physical and regulatory constraints. Lot specific septic evaluations are typically required as a condition of final plat. Staff believes the applicant has demonstrated that it is feasible to site residences on the proposed lots. Conversely, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating clearly that any proposed lot is undevelopable. M17. M18. M19 - Is the property a suitable location for residences, given dust concerns? Issue Summary: The greater mine site, including the east and west areas, has been a very significant generator of fugitive dust. Following Targe -scale surface disturbance, active and natural revegetation (visible in aerial photos from 2006-2014) has somewhat improved conditions. Dust above natural background levels can exacerbate health problems and the crystalline silica associated with unprocessed diatomaceous earth (DE) and processed DE (Cristobalite, a carcinogen with increased crystalline silica content) is of particular concern. Surface disturbing activities, including site preparation and surface mining, could cause significant dust problems if not adequately controlled. Applicant: The Applicant worked with DEQ to modify the dust control plan for the east side, to create a dust control plan for the west side, to create provisions in the CC&Rs for dust control compliance, and identify a dust control monitor and contact information in the event of any high wind, or other conditions which could create airborne dust. The community has a proposed on-site 10,000 gallon cistern near the intersection of proposed roads C and E, and as evidenced by the dust control plans, systems in place to ensure airborne dust is controlled and kept to a minimum. In addition to the dust control plans, the Applicant conducted on-site soil testing at locations on both the east and west side Lower Bridge Way to verify the levels of crystalline silica in the soils were not at harmful levels and in fact were no greater than what naturally occurs in the native DE. (See Applicant's 2/19/16 submission) Opponents: The Applicant's dust control plan is not evaluated by state agencies, lacks detail, is not based on verifiable science, and is wholly unreliable. Opponents were also concerned that any water use for dust control or irrigation will require a permanent water right. OHA's David Farrer testified at the January 6, 2016 public hearing as to the known harms of Cristobalite. He admitted to Commissioner Baney upon questioning that if Cristobalite is being inhaled at the site, the health hazard is no longer "indeterminate" as earlier stated. He acknowledged that OHA didn't know about the crystalline material's existence on site at the time, because none was revealed in samples. He concluded there is a lack of information about the site. The latest analysis from Wallace was submitted as PH -1 through PH -7 in Applicant's Feb. 19, 2016 Post -Hearing Submittal to the Record. That analysis concludes that the six samples taken over 565 acres, though a wholly insufficient ratio of approximately 1 sample for every 94 acres, with only 1 on the east side of the subject property, yields Cristobalite in every single sample. This carcinogen rests on the surface where the samples were taken. DEQ/OHA: Airborne dust from any source can cause short-term respiratory irritation, but more information is needed to evaluate possible long-term effects at this site. EHAP considers inhalation of airborne dust emanating from this site to be an indeterminate health hazard. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 13 of 21 • EHAP's early data review indicates there is not enough silica in the airborne dust to cause silicosis or an increased risk for lung cancer, but more data is needed to rule out the possibility. • EHAP needs more information on particle size and concentration to determine whether nearby residents are at higher risk for other, Tong -term respiratory problems. • Continue efforts to control dust, and include dust suppression plans for any future activities. Hearings Officer: Based on the foregoing discussion, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has not demonstrated the subject property is suitable for the proposed PUD considering blowing DE dust. I find the current state of SM Site 461 with large areas of exposed DE, the location of SM Site 461 west of the subject property, the potential for future mining of SM Site 461, and the presence of a significant amount of DE on the subject property, do not support a finding that blowing DE dust does not and will not present a health hazard to future PUD residents -- or that it is feasible to assure no health hazard from blowing DE dust will occur in the future through imposition of conditions of approval. I find particularly significant the evidence that re -vegetating and site watering efforts on SM Site 461 have not been successful in securing and covering the DE on the site, and that there is a significant amount of DE on the subject property. I find this evidence simply does not support imposing a condition of approval requiring further similar mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate blowing DE dust. The Hearings Officer also recommended the following condition of approval: "The applicant/owner shall provide cash or a performance bond in favor of Deschutes County, and acceptable to Deschutes County Legal Counsel, for the cost of remediating DE dust on SM Site 461 and the subject property...." Staff Comments — DE Dust Hazard: The Applicant's Environmental Consultant concludes that unprocessed DE is unlikely to represent a special hazard above other dust sources. Fugitive dust has not been adequately captured for testing for processed DE content. On 1/26/16, the applicant analyzed 6 samples of DE from the west area, including an undisturbed in -ground sample of DE. Testing concluded each sample had similar silica characteristics and that, confusingly, even the undisturbed in -ground DE sample showed low levels of processed Cristobalite. The study noted that Cristobalite and naturally occurring feldspar would be undistinguishable under the test. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what percentage of the "Cristobalite" detected was actually processed DE. While samples were obtained from likely DE processing locations, the report cautions that higher concentrations could exist on site. From reading DEQ/OHA comments, staff understands that DEQ/OHA are of the opinion that robust dust control could be adequate to mitigate dust health hazards, regardless of processed DE content. Staff Comments — West Area Current Dust Hazard (M17): The dust hazard presented to the proposed subdivision, given the current condition of the west area, is a matter of debate in the record. Following large-scale surface disturbance, active and natural revegetation has somewhat improved conditions. The Hearings Officer found that the current vegetation was inadequate to control existing dust problems. The applicant has noted that air quality complaints to DEQ have ceased, but opponents say this is because they were not getting adequate response to these complaints and gave up. The Hearings Officer envisioned a binding and bonded plan would be proposed to the Board to stabilize existing conditions across both the east and west areas of the mine. No such plan was brought forward by the applicant. Initial results on the contamination of west -area soils, and likely contamination of dust, indicate low or indeterminate levels of Cristobalite in the samples. Since no site stabilization/reclamation/remediation is proposed at this time, the Board will need to determine if the applicant has demonstrated that subject property is a suitable site for the proposed PUD given existing fugitive dust issues. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 14 of 21 Staff Comments — East Area On -Site Dust Hazard (M18): The Applicant proposes to control on- site dust by requiring project operators of Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction and Other Earthmoving Activities to submit a Dust Control Plan to the Lower Bridge Road Subdivision Homeowners Association (LBR HOA) if at any time the project involves: Residential development, Subdivision infrastructure construction, and/or Moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 10 cubic yards of bulk native soil or imported fill materials. (See Applicant's 2/19/16 submission, PH -5) The applicant proposes that the HOA review and enforce these dust control plans. The template dust control plan was reviewed by DEQ and edited to reflect DEQ comments. Staff is concerned that this approach may be the "plan to make a plan" that LUBA has repeatedly found impermissible as a condition of approval to address present or potential future non-compliance with applicable criteria. However, this problem can be avoided if a clear condition preventing off-site dust can be included. This has the added benefit of adding a County enforcement nexus, as the HOA may be unable or unwilling to enforce the requirements. As DEQ commented, "Basically it is common sense if visible emissions (fugitive dust) is observed, get water on it." Staff recommends this core goal be included in a condition of any approval as follows: On-site construction, demolition, excavation, extraction and other earthmoving activities involving residential development, subdivision infrastructure construction, and/or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 10 cubic yards of bulk native soil or imported fill materials shall comply with the following provisions: a. The operator of any such project shall adhere to the requirements of the Lower Bridge Road Residential Development Dust Control Plan submitted as PH -5, dated 2/19/16, including any future revisions of this plan reviewed and approved by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. b. The property owner shall ensure that one or more water haul trucks with access to an adequate water supply for dust suppression is on site for the duration of any such project. c. The property owner shall ensure that visible dust emissions from areas disturbed by any such project at no time cross the outer boundary of the subdivision. This provision shall apply only to those projects commenced after January 1, 2016. This provision shall apply to areas disturbed by any such project in perpetuity. Staff Comments — West Area Future Dust Hazard (M19): Earthmoving activities on the west area of the former mine site could have significant adverse dust impacts to the residents of the proposed subdivision. The applicant has agreed that no mining will take place during pendency of the Resolution of Intent to Re -zone and that any future earthmoving or mining would be required to submit and obtain DEQ/OHA approval of a dust control plan. Again, Staff is concerned that this approach may be the "plan to make a plan" that LUBA has repeatedly has found impermissible as a condition of approval to address present or potential future non-compliance with applicable criteria. However, this problem can be avoided if a clear condition preventing off-site dust can be included. This has the added benefit of adding a County enforcement nexus, as the HOA may be unable or unwilling to enforce the requirements. As DEQ commented, "Basically it is common sense if visible emissions (fugitive dust) is observed, get water on it." Staff recommends this core goal be included in a condition of any approval as follows: 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 15 of 21 Prior to Final Plat Approval for the Subdivision, the applicant shall cause to be recorded a binding agreement, running with the land, acceptable to the County, and imposing the following requirements on those lands described in County Resolution 2009-035 Exhibit A and as shown in County Resolution 2009-035 Exhibit B: On-site construction, demolition, excavation, extraction and other earthmoving activities involving residential development, subdivision infrastructure construction, and/or moving, depositing, or relocating of more than 10 cubic yards of bulk native soil or imported fill materials shall comply with the following provisions: a. The operator of any such project shall adhere to the requirements of the Lower Bridge Road Residential Development Dust Control Plan submitted as PH -7, dated 2/19/16, including any future revisions reviewed and approved by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. b. The property owner shall ensure that one or more water haul trucks with access to an adequate water supply for dust suppression is on site for the duration of any such project. c. The property owner shall ensure that visible dust emissions from areas disturbed by any such project at no time cross the outer boundary of the subdivision. This provision shall apply only to those projects commenced after January 1, 2016. This provision shall apply to areas disturbed by any such project in perpetuity. M20- Can the Board defer or delegate findinas that the site is suitable for residential use? Issue Summary: Based on review of the documents, it is unknown if significant contamination remains at the site. The Hearings Officer, Applicant, and Opponents have cited case law on the legality of deferring or delegating findings of compliance with applicable criteria. Can the Board find that yet -unidentified environmental hazards can be feasibly remediated under a yet-uncreated remediation plan and render the site suitable for residential development? Can the Board find that a requirement for DEQ/OHA "NFA" letters and Applicant completion of the VCP, prior to final plat approval, is sufficient to find that the site will be suitable for residential development at the time of final plat approval? Applicant: A requirement that an applicant obtain a permit or certification from a state agency having jurisdiction to decide the issue (sufficient water supply, for example) is not an improper deferral of compliance with a criterion. Contrary to the inappropriate discussion by the Hearings Officer, that decision did not improperly defer compliance with an applicable zone change criterion to a later date. In fact, that decision properly found the zone change criteria would be met upon completion of the VCP program through DEQ and equivalent process through DHS and imposed a condition of approval to ensure compliance. Hearings Officer: The Rhyne and Butte Conservancy decisions do not assist the applicant. The circumstances presented here are similar to those in Rhyne in which LUBA found the county's decision improperly deferred necessary findings to a stage in the proceedings for which notice and hearing were not required. I find the applicant's reliance on the Wetherell and Miller cases is misplaced because there is nothing in the PUD or subdivision approval criteria that requires either DEQ or EHAP approval or the issuance of DEQ or EHAP permits for residential development of the subject property. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 16 of 21 The Hearings Officer finds the approach in Butte Conservancy is not applicable where, as in the subject PUD application, the feasibility of demonstrating compliance with the "suitability" conditional use approval criterion does not depend on a legal interpretation. The Hearings Officer finds that under Rhyne, I do not have the option of deferring findings of compliance with the "suitability" conditional use approval criterion to final plat approval as suggested by the applicant. That is because final plat approval is not required to, and does not, provide public notice or hearing. Opponents: "When an issue is raised regarding the feasibility of conditions of approval to ensure compliance with approval criteria, the local government cannot simply ignore the issue. Nor can the local government simply impose the disputed condition as a performance standard and rely on later staff review that does not provide notice and opportunity for hearing to ensure compliance with approval criteria." Butte Conservancy Order at page 11, citing Hodge Oregon Properties, LLC v. Lincoln City, 194 Or App 50, 55 — 56 (2004) The Butte Conservancy. City of Gresham, 52 Or LUBA 550 (2006) Order cites Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992): "It is well established that a local government may find compliance with applicable criteria by either (1) finding that an applicable approval criterion is satisfied, or (2) finding that it is feasible to satisfy an applicable approval criterion and imposing conditions necessary to ensure that the criterion will be satisfied." Butte Conservancy Order at page 10. Similarly, in Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 OR LUBA 442 (1992), project opponents raised legitimate issues concerning the potential existence of hazards on the site subject to development review. Much like the present case, project opponents raised concerns regarding the existence of hazardous waste conditions on the property. The evidentiary record failed to contain substantial evidence sufficient to support County action approving the proposal based on conditions, with no provision for future notice and opportunity for hearing, and the County decision was remanded. Likewise, in Miller v. City of Joseph, 31 Or LUBA 472 (1996), LUBA concluded that the city came to conclusions that were not supported by factual findings regarding the feasibility of compliance with applicable conditions and requirements. LUBA concluded that until the city was provided with sufficient detail regarding the proposal, the city could not perform its evaluative function to determine whether it is feasible for the proposed project to operate in compliance with applicable review criteria. Miller at page 8. LUBA held that at a minimum, the city must establish that based on the evidentiary facts, compliance with applicable review criteria is feasible. While a local government is allowed to condition an approval on subsequent requirements to be met in the future, there is a point where the future compliance is too far according to Oregon law. Deschutes County has experienced this "point too far" conclusion in the Thornburgh conditional approval, referenced in case law as Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or. App. 150 (2007). As that conditional approval bounced back and forth between the County, LUBA, and the higher appellate courts, postponement of some determination by conditional approval was only allowed where it was "feasible" that the developer would comply with wildlife mitigation requirements at a later date. Staff Comment: The Board will need to determine if there is substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support County a finding that the site will be suitable for residential use, based on a condition that the applicant complete the VCP and receive DEQ/OHA "NFA" letters. Can the Board find that it is feasible to remediate the site, when the hazard identification is not complete? Can the board "delegate" this finding to the result of the VCP process? Staff and the Hearings Officer are concerned that this may be legally impermissible. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 17 of 21 M21 - Is the property a suitable location for residences, given hazardous material/radioactive material/ groundwater contamination concerns? Issue Summary: Based on review of the documents, it is unknown if significant contamination remains at the site. Historic uses of the property have included activities that utilized and/or disposed of hazardous or potentially hazardous wastes, and petroleum compounds that may have impacted the site. Investigations have been not been completed to fully evaluate all areas of potential concern. A diatomaceous earth mine and processing plant operated at the site between 1911 and 1963. The processing included crushing, drying, calcination, cooling, finish end milling, product collection, packing, and material handling. After diatomaceous earth mining operations ceased the site was used for surface gravel mining and operation of a hot asphalt plant. The site was also permitted as an industrial waste disposal facility in late 1975 to early 1976. Materials used/ stored/ disposed of at the site included: caustic sand with radioactive material; ink sludge; lead; chromium; oily wastes; petroleum products including gasoline, diesel, waste oil; asbestos containing material; PCBs, batteries; solid waste; and possibly copper wastes. The property owner has been engaged in redevelopment discussions with DEQ at the site since at least 2008 and an active participant in the DEQ's Voluntary Clean Up program since September 2014. As a part of the program, the owner has worked with DEQ's project manager and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to create an approved work plan and has been performing the items identified in the work plan and those specified in the rezone determination from 2011. On 10/9/15 DEQ stated of the investigation work plan, "Based on the plan and the progress thus far, DEQ sees no reason why the owner could not complete the work plan by the end of 2015." Applicant: The 2008 zone change decision conditioned final plat approval upon the submission of a No Further Action letter from DEQ and the equivalent letter from DHS confirming the site had been cleaned up to levels suitable and safe for residential use. That decision was not appealed and is final and binding. Contrary to the inappropriate discussion by the Hearings Officer, that decision did not improperly defer compliance with an applicable zone change criterion to a later date. In fact, that decision properly found the zone change criteria would be met upon completion of the VCP program through DEQ and equivalent process through DHS and imposed a condition of approval to ensure compliance. The Board further found there was sufficient evidence to show that it was feasible to comply with that condition and that the compliance with the condition involved at least three public processes (VCP program through DEQ, DHS equivalent program, tentative subdivision application with the County). The property owners and the Applicant have conducted water quality and water quantity testing, on-site soil testing, airborne/dust testing, subsurface soil and ground water testing. These tests have all failed to show any harmful or dangerous levels of materials. Working in coordination with DEQ and OHA the Applicant has identified additional measures, beyond what is required under the VCP, to improve the environmental investigation of the site and has indicated willingness to accept the following condition of approval. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation from DEQ and OHA that the following activities have been completed: 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 18 of 21 • Include comprehensive sampling of surface soil on both the east and west sides of Lower Bridge Road, using incremental sampling methodology. These samples will be analyzed for crystalline silica. • Collect samples from the shallower aquifer during construction of sampling/monitoring wells. While these samples would be from open borings rather than from completed monitoring wells, they would provide information on water quality in the shallower aquifer. • Conduct a scoping level ecological risk assessment for the east side property. Opponents: The record fails to establish that all land proposed for planned development has been cleaned of hazardous waste to a level safe for human occupancy. The record fails to establish that adequate investigation and cleanup of hazardous waste occurred on the planned development property or the adjacent mine property and fails to establish that present day hazardous waste standards applicable in the context of residential use are satisfied. The application fails to incorporate information regarding the actual hazardous waste conditions on all land subject to this proposal. It is impossible to draw any well-founded conclusion regarding current hazardous waste conditions. As is the case with this entire application, Applicant seeks to impermissibly defer or avoid altogether the difficult and expensive work necessary to ensure that the site is ready for high- density residential occupancy. The Applicant has not produced evidence to establish that the site is safe for human occupancy. This is a fundamental determination that should be made at the preliminary plat approval stage as opposed to being approved through imposition of conditions. Hearings Officer: "I find this evidence is sufficient to support a finding that it is feasible to make the subject property suitable for the proposed PUD through imposition of a condition of approval requiring the applicant to complete its DEQ VCP and to obtain an "NFA" letter from the agency. The board's 2008 decision required only that the applicant obtain the "NFA" letter but said nothing about completing the VCP. Therefore, I find that if the proposed PUD is approved on appeal, it should be subject to a condition of approval expressly requiring the applicant to complete the VCP prior to submitting the final subdivision plat for approval." The Hearings Officer finds the Newton Consultants' memorandum provides sufficient evidence from which I can find the subject property is suitable for the proposed PUD considering water quality. Staff Comments: It is presently unknown if significant contamination remains at the site, either on the PUD property itself or on the west area, representing a hazard to the PUD. Based on DEQ's comments, the applicant could have completed (but has chosen not to complete) environmental testing that would have significantly clarified or resolved environmental hazard concerns. This puts the Board in a difficult position of needing to determine if the site can be made suitable for residential development when the extent of the hazard and feasibility of remediation of that hazard have not been documented. However, the Hearings Officer found there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is feasible to make the subject property suitable for the proposed PUD through imposition of a condition of approval requiring the applicant to complete its DEQ VCP and to obtain an "NFA" letter from the agency. Decision item M20, above, asks if the Board can legally defer or delegate findings that the site is suitable for residential use. One conclusion is that such findings cannot be made now, deferred, or delegated. Alternatively, the Board could conclude that that completion of the VCP will be sufficient to demonstrate that the site is suitable for residential use and that the record demonstrates that completion of that program appears feasible at this point. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 19 of 21 Staff recommends that at minimum the Board, following the Hearings Officer's recommendation, include a condition of any approval requiring: Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that it has completed VCP program to the satisfaction of DEQ and OHA. Staff also recommends the Board, with any approval, include the applicant's proposed conditions of approval, listed above. M22 - Is bonding appropriate or required? Issue Summary: Bonding can be used to ensure that activities required to ensure compliance with applicable criteria are performed, regardless of the applicant's ability or willingness to perform them. Bonding is typically used to ensure performance of required activities after final government approval. For example, final plats may be recorded prior to infrastructure construction using a bond. The first question here is what, if any, post -final -plat activities are required to ensure compliance with applicable criteria. The Hearings Officer identified that dust control measures on the entire former mine property should be bonded. Staff identified that bonding for remediation of contamination discovered during construction and after final plat approval should be considered. Opponents believe that the BOCC should impose very significant financial assurance requirements in order to ensure that the Applicant or Applicant's successors in interest remain financially responsible for carrying out any required environmental investigation and remediation work. The second question is the amount of the bonding. In order to use a bond the bond must be in an amount that credibly covers the cost of the required activities. No party has submitted a plan that includes sufficient cost detail to impose a bond against. Applicant: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Hearings Officer: "I find that if the proposed PUD is approved on appeal, it should be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide cash or a performance bond in favor of Deschutes County, and acceptable to Deschutes County Legal Counsel, for the cost of remediating DE dust on SM Site 461 and the subject property, in an amount to be identified by the applicant and approved by the board, prior to any grading or construction on the subject property." Opponents: The remediation performance risks are too great to allow the proposed development to move forward. However, in the event the BOCC overturns the HO Decision it should impose very significant financial assurance requirements in order to ensure that the Applicant or Applicant's successors in interest remain financially responsible for carrying out any required environmental investigation and remediation work. Staff: Since no plan for any activity has been submitted that include cost data, it is not possible to impose bonding requirements at this time. In order to approve this application, the Board will need to determine that the proposal meets all applicable criteria without the benefit of bonding to ensure performance of post -final plat activities. Staff notes that conditions of approval, without bonding, may be adequate to address post -final plat approval concerns. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 20 of 21 M23 — Consistency with Oregon State Scenic Waterway Act / Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Issue Summary: Development along this segment of the Deschutes River is subject to the Oregon State Scenic Waterway Act / Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Opponents have argued that compliance with the visual impact provisions of these laws needs to be demonstrated at this point in the application. Applicant: The Applicant has obtained approval for the planned development subdivision from Oregon Parks and Recreation. The approval is for the subdivision infrastructure work necessary to reach final plat approval and not for the residential structures for the individual lots. Both the Applicant and State Parks understand the future structures will need to be permitted through State Parks at the time they are proposed. Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that there is nothing in OPRD's correspondence that indicates approval of the proposed PUD would result in a change in the current classification of the stretch of the Deschutes River adjacent to the subject property. Nor do his letters suggest dwellings on individual PUD lots could not receive scenic waterway approval from OPRD. To the contrary, the approval standards for new structures in the Middle Deschutes River Scenic Waterway, set forth in OAR 736-040-0072 attached to Mr. Cianella's May 21, 2015 e-mail message, are similar to those imposed through the county's LM site plan review. Opponents: The Applicant states that it has obtained "approval" for the planned development subdivision from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department ("OPRD"), but then clarifies that the "approval" is only for underground utility and infrastructure work, not for residential structures on individual lots. The Applicant acknowledges that future structures will need to be permitted through the state in the future. This will impermissibly piecemeal the development analysis and approval process by OPRD. Applicant has an obligation to obtain a comprehensive analysis from OPRD as to the impacts that the built -out development would have on scenic and natural values. It instead did the bare minimum, which in this instance is legally insufficient. Staff Comment: The Opponents' argument is primarily with OPRD's implementation of the Oregon State Scenic Waterway Act. Staff believes there is no applicable criterion under County Code that requires or allows the Board to second-guess OPRD's administration of this Act. The County implementation of protection of the Deschutes River as a visual corridor is focused on a per -structure analysis under the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone provisions. Since these requirements focus on vegetative screening, building height, and building colors, staff believes that it is feasible for the proposed lots to be developed with dwelling that would be evaluated, per -dwelling, for LM compliance prior to issuance of building permits. Attachments 1. Decision matrix. 247 -15 -000194 -CU, 195 -TP, 521-A, 689 -MA Page 21 of 21 RING DECISION MATRIX OWER BRIDG 0 O c a 0 N O a) .c o = c a c F- 0 16 Eo5 o < E LL LL co W co o C O Q 7 � v h 0 Ev oc. c o LL 0 N C N C e N f - N d O•Is O eic ca F > a_ C• to o dc O OmO O d N >` ar C @cN= cO`�Uom a 1 of • co Is �o 0 ai« oat 61 .Riw2a R � .c ca„) mm••H ia LLI CO $ O00oa = a o N . CO n� 0 acE2 yO L L 0 0O d0)-0 > 0. 0 0 lo O °. y a 0 a c r 0 O 7O" � c O 0 � V u, O 0 CO cr•V Z R d CO ~Cn' a v-0 t U w C . O V O C CO 5 aO m O « H W > OO o .0a1 o aoc0•Uc cw cO ma 0 0 . ° O O ynw0.w F c aQ O -0 •- 7 0 0`d a O O to c E op45, 48 IS Oc E U ay0O 4. wa, o 0 Ca 0 >wa 0 ,Yd Q C ry U a o 8 N 'Op c 0 S v r- al O r r. Q C 0 w O N 0.2. a « ai E >p 0 O 3 L O y c .-. Ci La LL '.g A = N '� >—.-... Lm c" a, 16 °U)000 1 C N -C I-- E� o...wya,oa� 0 m5«o a ..Ec ?9ccc v o,Eo3 0 oc-mLaa C o �a a O O W w '0 O Eaoia 001.0 ON ai ctn� U c"" 0.0 cNWC Vc«a3 al LE.c p �,,- a 0 O N 03 O o gyp 1 -D2 -062E 07 O 0 00 ,, E O S O U`a 10 ,- LL o"c.c0 ::o•w 0 `cap C -0,-LL W c L' O C c N O C N c n O O 0 of - O__ O O c@ O O C G r 0-0 20 c N 2 E1571,70 o c 8« E� z.-„, �° c 0 c oo-« O N ea 15 N 1 V> a V U N N .0 N L. 0 0> C c 00c> nd�oa 5c.>ina'� no xo0N UocE Eo-°ao.Oa,_,Ea`,c CO« rd7go 0a L� o N 0. to 2 coo E ma N o c a w o a u)O Q« 0 00. Information in Record 0 O on D .0 0 LL O O 0 3 W C • O C LL L .c ao o 0 c E .cF- c `o vE 8c o c_ui 0 va CD a c 0 00m as` 00 3`° _ -08 vN ov E CL c Nth 0LI- a, O O C a, N� E K� at N n aN Qrn a« OO_ u) LL 0 7 LL C - c Co LL W 7 N 0 N O N c .a..•5 (01 O 70 c c w c O c_ C 0 go) L L N 2 0 cLO =o O 2 03 6 O W 0) 7 a) CoNC Ca O.0 OU Cv Q 0 uO N3 O a_ DN a, n w o > 8 0 0 d= Co u) -2 > 00 cW -0`rn NO ma) aN W(5)):4 c 0 a 0 .c LL O y m N N Y aO L CO n Q 7 0 y` N - 13_O 0. O a) 'O c 2 ua 0 NpyH'T ao>o c o as 4:7130°-C Y_ . L0. c 0 O LL N 0 c o Z o >. . N 0) -W cw O.0 0. o aia _ 0 <c<- et. C Z 0 a N d c O .0 o c Q r O c a 0 N 0 O O c N m aaa o to o lu O N N N E=oo, a• -cc o E 0•C i o.°' o �j N 0. 0 0_ L LL ar c L co - O 0. c0 0 ._ L U O -0 = 0 y 7 Z m c O N T _ N C 6i L 0. O 0 d a) 3as�a, erg c a, 4? U O o c al o E 3 C N N C 0 12 0 a, O O a y L 7 •A Ou. 0. a LL u a 0 c c a � m 0 U •0 a) al U Lea N Board Options Staff Comment Info ai a) c e 'w oo. • > c o RI • T./ 1N > > • E °2 5.!g o • 03 13 O • 0 0 0 0 M c to •.-, 1). 0 a, 0 12. '0 O CD u) /.. .0 Iii •-• 07 c 2 al co 0 a) • .c 7 17 a) co a cD CD .0 73 23) 2 c ...... .... > ..• C zoo o 2 o a 74 N C > > a. fa 0 O. 0 2 ill" o u, a . J.0 o 0 0 0 ,., c 13 2 7' C 0 in ea O CS) E t 0 m c a) a) 1E a) Lo c m = o c 0 ..- "- - a. co__" -- 0 c Ulal 0 t 15 • .5 g :E 2 -r ca :.• r-- CU -0 I- go; E0 „E co E. 2c .0 .". .... 0) 0 C C C C 0.0 O 0 00 Eu ' u EU « C 0 CA 0 0 0 a) E)1) 0 0 ail g = > .... en o 03 42 .0 0 a, = a CL. a) 1- E 1.2 E x c ii H to c a. a) co co 0 u) 0 -rt ... o -a ..) -3 u) .,..,-0 4) c a.. 0 2 40 2 a) E9 2 a-, a --c- --a) a) -0 2 a) .G (>, >, -0 - • 0 0 H• c 0. T.) cD 8 ‘-' • a) 0- - - .- _a .0 c O c„ o .c .>, e ° 8 co 0. 8 .`: 0 • r, g 13 0 a3 ..- w > ID cc o _c > ta • ccs .1, .0) ..-. ..= --e- 0 t., u, -0 a) E. 8 ? to C ••-• 0- • a) . c o c 0.1 2 0 a 0 C. •,- 0 -, RI a__ ., IL 1, „ 75 ... S2 c 4- C E- 8 0_ , Eca 2 0.4 (Tia li.4 .0.0 c 0,o .0 0 II o ,. Ti• ocaatc 0.4) u4 as • co -- 0 0_ 0 a) )" 0 al ca 0.) C0 0 a) a) ° o 0 >0 -c a," 07 •L C D) '... M C W M 0 L L 0 CO -0 0 0 0 O 8 8 . m - .._5 ri) „,1, i7,- ..; 8 -iis o. a) i., E t < E°< co 0 a.) ca 2-:tc c 2 O. CLa- CCOE < Ma CEO 0 ., RI - LLI •- 0 0.) - 41) - CD CD 2 'c. .-., I a) 7aS3) 0c u,...,. :c ->a)) acaaj) o5 T,o ) I co 4me)20 Oote.om.ra c 43 P- M a) - 1.3 •°' 0 = CD c 7 O c > 4)C IA 0 2-o 0 C 0 V) C 3 3 c 0 u .0 17 Cc) 77 I"- 0 092 4) o -0 (4 c 0 - '2 o 0 E; 0 0 as a) < g B. c .g.c ... Z -o 0- ts '',. . oU ..L. U> , w§ } . 50M . 0: O. coc po: 2 o c e 13 -0 )ca co CL a -o 73=Oco-c > o .-- 40 ._ - Ct.._ 7 E 0 0. e • 8.,, . .-co 0 0 c 002cto.c c .c, 0 .2 , .2 2 -o -• 0 .0_ Ta. 0 ta.- om E i § .2 ini. rc13.'g•t 03 os E a), 2, "6 0.12 s° .c...! o ).- 3 .e to .: .. c .. .. .3 _. .i• i N = c c -c -c ., 5 i3 < .o • E 0 10 IL. a. TO ra 0 .P.. 0 : ,...., o c - 0- o 2 •G a) .0 :0• .0 Z 1 E 0 0 1-- 13 0) 04 a 0 45 0 Lt. .c Li j 3 0 0 8 0 , 0 t .. c ,,, a) a) -.-• 6 -c "olo E.o 0 :2 •.- a, L.- , o 0 at al 0 a) -2 c B 0 0 0 a) a „, E = 0 u 0 0 0) 0 .",- 43 0 0 0 (0 CD 0 0 -0 .-= CO .0 ecr 13 1:3 4) 0 -o 0 0 ca 0 .5C ..4. 49: .°2 >., as 0 43 cot- as 73 ..9 .0 0 00 E 2 (7) o ca 3 F., to > t• ...: a) o c > a) 0 1E 2 8 .5 .2 :! 6 - o • c. ' • -. E . c -,, ci. ..4 o *'4) (1g 8 t) 5 0 Cl. 2 < ,- c c 2 • sa c „..,0 c o4) t- to - os as to 0 c o D a) Q c *-c= t a; 2, <-=', . 0 ..?. - -° 7, „,0 . - - 13 . E E 2 .- 0 0.-0 a) ca o c c a, 0. o Rs' E.., .EC9,fZrE 'atEMs 7-E5. ;CL ,.. F4 -W ,- O. -O u) 3- - C CD 77 CO 0 a- LI- _a):0 ....c .9 .0 ca -cc--mEc O E -c 0- ioi 'z m 4-1 M c ca 2 .... ''' a) c5• 4)ccoet:5 o2- 2.cig-c .k ' o 0 e 0,4 0- -C .0 0 c 0 CL• 03 0. <I- .....7 0 Li 0 2 as .c C .- 0 ° 171 = 6 o 0 T.:= • a 8 o • 73 • 0 <4= E O • 0 .5 0 2 12 tc, o • 0 C E -C 0 0 0 0 CI- M = ts 0 .7c _c -o c c -0 N •- o aW "ca) .c 8 C.T3 ir) > c • E) 0 a) ca. to 0. o E E°g g- c (i c • c c CO 0 2 ,c 01 73 TII C CD 0 0)0 GO COU0a) CL ca_tts E _c -o E 73 C O 4)6 .0) • c 2 • ca **E.o a) 0 .5.12 0. Ca 13 c CO 0 4> 50.. O 43 >, 1.,1 o_• .u) co 0 T▪ o z 0 ti • o O as co > c • c = et. 00 Tu 0 710 O CO = E c • E ea -o C0)1) O 0 0 .0 Tcy C E o c • o c . 0) rto .- c 0.) 0_ .c er > ,2 o 0 o = 3 c a) a) .c a. (5 •••• a 0 0 0 2 0 co z ui 0 01 C .0 00 C 0 40 E a co 0 u) , ..„, o_ o co = 1-, u_ 'Es ca c c- z RI **0 -c ...., a) To a o o .o 2 til 4 Lei Opponents: Concur with HO. Board Options Staff Comment Information in Record HO: Did not directly address issue. 0( CO C a) .4 o 0- -0 P. a) • < 0- -c . • 0 15 C C0 CO = 1.- C O 0 0 0. >. as CO 0 oC s 0 co 0 E > 0 CD C O (0 3 q -- c _O0 E0) -0 0 rr) °- co in 00 o • .0 t .0, eL „ E 2 3' 0)8 0.0 a.= .0 < co 15 4-; 0 c*;'• c2u, E -o E 0 "a E 8 O o • 8 To 2 ▪ E EL to 0 0 0 7 >, < CO ▪ ▪ -a a) -J ▪ 43 "F) LL • ca c c c 0 0 E 71. 0. 0. 0.0 2 <0.0. 0 0 0 -e" o ,C0 C > (5 • 0 • E m e O o ra ▪ a) > 00 c ' 0 •• E G3 m >, c O a) 2 Id E -5. E E °0 CO Li) Opponents: Did not brief on this issue. c - .0 ; E.5 0 .0 = 0 0 10 • a 3 75. c o -0 c 0 <= E io -0 • C T.) c • 0.) M CO 0. 0) V) C • - C C a- .2 .0 73 c z .c 0 2 .° - O c ow o • 130. 0 0 3 3 0) c 2 a a 0. 0- 0 CD O CI- N 0 c E o - .0 4- 0 2 ca 0 0- • E g 0 co O ,-000 O O 8 0 a) z < o r..4 us E a) - E • [7 0)E 0 -o • 8 3 2 • ° ° E 7,5 O co • c • Z P. 0 .2 'a 4 >, • .0 0 • c 0. CC co a. 00 0 Jie c E. -6 CU • 0 0 'In M to 10 0) u c e 0 0 • 0 0 0, 0 C.)N n3 0 c1_,:,1 0 ° • E O E E a) 2' E 0- E c -c, CO 0 cv 0. 0 0 0.( .E 000 To 0 8 (0 w0 0 c• 0 o O cW° .c0 • 4.. 0 -5 • C -o • (50o • C - .0 as c 8 g ti 0-0 0.0 - m • 30. , c c ° .c 0. 00 .8 0 8 01 ° c E c ;• E• c 0 o. Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this i 0 0 0 ..a, 0 - >, €, .0 .= 0 7 .0 • 0 0 CD 0 .-0- ; .::: F. ,7 V) EL .3 . 0 0-. CD -- CU 0) 0 > CU 0 F 0 0 0 Pra 0 ' c i i . g 719 -.5 cm c > al .5 0 ..* ..- .c '> r>) g 7° 5 c - o 0 E 0 704 .0° ',27 ` .0 C 6. 0 C •- > 0. .o a) 0. 0 0 2 a% ifl i: 2 a -o Lg' 2 8 'Ec.) RI 61) cit ul X as 015 CL 7,„ LT, 1- co ct, „.; .0 20ov:0 co co 0- u) °0 I o . 92 - 07ci-cs cc c 0767) E c o -0 nc ).7 .2 3 7ai (0) t0 c c g 0 43 .2 En 2 ."3 (r.) .rm 8 3 .2. g 8 0 c c a) a) .- 10 0 a) .0 c z -° -ea ° • c o .C7) a. 4-- 71 • () a) o 2 o o ; 7 0• a) mac 006 po- 2 a 0- z••• 0 cu 0 - •- a) " 73. 0.- a a c • '= 0 0. C 7' "0 a) CI) • C C.8 a) ,s 0 .2 .0 -, c •?. u 12 -0 - C 0 CL 4:•C coW 0 c '000 0-t, 0 0 U) Zo..• E 2 -c 7) .c 0.0 .0 a CI3 0 z 5 o.- -c • • - (0 a - c• i) m ci HO: Did not directly address issue. 0 co -V O as 0. 17. (5 - 0.9 • M M al at C C .0 8 15 "8 C1) 0 - 'L. 8 8 0. • 2 O . 0) C 0 O (0 O (3 2 • • c c o w c B 0. as < '5 Opponents: Staff was unable to locate briefing on this issue. Board Options Staff Comment L o • o D L • c O 0 S y 3 d C O c 0 <:E y a) y a)oEa C C O y a) '> Q) > c a)°) a) •0 N - C O ti; 7 /c O fc a) a) E. E 42 V CD o w d 13 a) o "> r a 3 2 n 8 C cN o 0 0. c N U O r N fa G 0 cc U-2 U 0 • O n0 a) a) a m E H Y c U N N C = > a) E 3 0)N c E 8 C O Q.9 E ca U 10 C 0 C O a E Ea) O O a) 0 co C o O C y 0 U -o i C0 O U r •c o n `c - `u _ E -°)o o _ •N ,3 o ° )Zt C a "O a7 C •- O c 7 S y 02 c L 7 O N U O cc c = O U a) dco w O 0 N 'O .c ".e- 0 a) o m C > 0 0'aU a c > m O0 :, m m2'u 0 A9 L a) 0 a - ow 0. . 0 L M T ca yoc c2so d o m� 0 a c E c v d •-, o 'u a ti Or 0 ma a_ o o�3 O = O C d 2 E0E-. a m °) 0 0> CL 902 0 o > 0. C O 0 N y oc C 9. C a ""• 0 a) :-• as 6) c C CO 3 L 0 o- y c O a) t.4 y'4 U L pn•w a) E o n 0 Q 9 0 cO Cm._ s ai o > • mo ncn-00 6 N a)>a) oo`coy 'aoa) w.0a)icc N CI E -O N N 0O. 0. co E N O c o C 0)a0E Pm'..•Ey opjt°° 2i4 ,, ->,0N.0 >` 07. ya E p U U N d' a) o. 0 a) C C i as y c S v -C '0 y Ou ° c U arN.7Oa 0 m0n N o 0 c , nS0yUa.-. N 0> n N O C C O U co 0 o ,..:- i : S•C no 0...0 c a) N a) I!I 'a 0 d lea C a) .., C N 0c01:1•0 a) la c C 0 0 C .0c a'5m0> a.a)2wm Q a) o.° = O -So 0'm of .4) a ....6 r N ¢a) (D ••"' Z' .9 O) E U 'n ar a o o .c OL O C Q' a UL U .0 Ot= N N °) m E Uco 0066 nc:°o2w • �.T.tmcea- is 3, =° E E - ° C a7 o. ii c o o o ii 111 m aci-c 0•o aa))w0 0 a) N L O a) >. p C 3do43 -Q3 wCD o A CN Y C C ° O Z O° as _ >._ ° o mw -0 u) «, t• is " 04 -co c- 013 °y CC ,O °ai • 0. 000Q '04 O_O c)3 COo .O cCE - .CS CO o .2>o,`°� a o 61 .oa cr E nom '° E N L a `mo Eons 0c -., -Sw "s °r ° o° E c m 0La 0 0 `m C a*' °34)E2 N.O.LO ° la >,m c> o w �m 0>0) a)'i'ta E. c0 0> 3 m P. •o C .L. y G 13 0 o v C -0 a) 6 a) O O) 0 m 0 CO"!A O t+' o °-O O `m a) �o8'z=- m°«c'' w�>E 0°c..:o m.° C •0 O C O aLOti . C a C0 0>° a d N O N a) +t,,, yc�aa)0 r°a: "«Rf6 a Nw0 .2 E OS u m O° U O 0 co 0 0 mU N!A a n;=, > v o- U 0 a 0 •0 2 a) dL 3 rna �4 a` m % o `o 0- oa -a .°) N - E coN o oaa))>y0 NcCi oea� a LOZ - o Non~ � 0 = A Ti o f U) coo o V C • ° ..-.E-0 o m o r a o a E> ,c !n Z':c p E a. 0 z 0 0 2 <1- as E ° oo m 3a.0N ori .. 0ouo, ~ u),.. o0 C 'O O N 'O a1 C 0 a) a •• N t C o `C U a a) E o> 0 O° d o E N 0 w m. 5 N c c o �• a.e�� E L O oE o U j' it o f a of ID N L al 0 E w. C c„.. p R "'' w�y`°o E1°0 5 4?_>0 00.0'`20 Eiam V U O L 0 O> 0 - V V 7 c c> a) > a ct.a>c Ea.°� ai (O 0.0 (t4 - <000 U) I'04=Na C)0E ant: Staff was unable to a a mN 0 0 0.0 a r 0 O 0 a ao 10> 0C� o 0 a. O 0 .0 O O G y co E I= 0 ascw °. o) O n a) O 0 p._ NX 0> OD O o C 8 -as c.:[ o 8 g0 0 rn vi y c pc X O ,)gco C > cJCD O) CO 0 O- Cr o3 MT co 0 •c U Provided draft language to comply Hearings Officer: Did not directly address this issue. C c• O in i N 0 maic w O y C c c o c c a 0a)n c O C c o a OC CCp O a U c 0 o•52„ 6 to o5 80 w 0 to X c 0O N •O L 0 n 0 R O N cn E > O C 'y 0 ad �+ aTc0 0 o 0 is 0 O r 0.a 0.13 m 2 00 of Board Options Staff Comment Information in Record 0 o. E tra 0 o c• - TO CO = > > E o CO S -0 ....- 2 *.• to 2 9M00 ›... 2 ..S 3 0 0 0 o rM00 E To 3 a 12 if 6 0 o) 0 - CO ... ''''' • : > 0 G) = C 8 I.; 1. Li.! •- >, 0 to to to .... = d, to c 7, X C 0 CO .0 .0 7, 0 2 .T) - 0 4= 2 .8 c a) .., ...-: >„15 it -c a) I` 0 .;-'. 10 .0 0 to = as f, -0 .E E .- . .,i) ta -.- o CD -5- 0 co m ..-. .,.... ca 0 ti- 0 u) 0 o 0) E. a) co "c 8 2 -0 E co g. 2 •:. r 0 co c 2 T-: 05 00).5, c)„, .6 ... -,- 0 ..,- '5 E73- a o a 4=0)-0 co a) ..7- ',V, ai 8. E Fr? 0 0 0 0 o E 9.. 2 .c c I= F2 13 .,.. C E 0 = c E "2glift) 2 2 " ). .- 5'o 1... ...., ..... to _ co 0 as o a) .c 0 Li- o ., co o .- a co000 a >, ..- -= 0 = w.l>,1-g: =0.g. iB 5 '13 co FA 0 0 C 0 co 9 03 A 0, 0 .c .E 4_-.- a) ° c ..- c o -0 .c 0 c c 0 0 CO 0 .E 0 V 61 > 0 ii 0 .0 - W r= 0 = .4 VI' 0) 0 C .0 40 .0 .., .• .." 1112 g •(") c) .0 ••• C ' -A% 00) , 7.o2 - =O 6 E .) €4 0 0 a) 0 a) = 81 - ... 0 .0 > 0 c .- ., 0, o _ >.."6 o 0. o o , co .7...- 0 V o ,.., 0 co ..., Y., 5 0 0 c F 0 li 3%1; Pe .0 0 g 2 1:2 .6 63 „, C c 0 = 4 tirp2 ij TO 0 T.; a) _ci) 2 0 2 5, E 0 c 0 0 a) 0 '",?, g E Et -c ,..-. o_ co > o 0 2 > •-• .,..., ›.... = 0 -., 0 :=-• c 0 01 •.- cl, c 0 CD .- 0 4 aE 2 ,..„,. :c E -0 -0 E t 13 Eui•-•aso E� E w •D 0 E 0 0.) w RI 2,. 0 ,., 0 0 1:2 0 la ,-- .c .• 4) CO (1) RS = c.) as F, 0 g 0 1... (..) 0 0 a .2 .5 o. 2 as Ls -6 o ea U(C)0 o o. 11.,I 0) =12 2 5' 46' c as 0 E .= s 2 E 2 0 to = ..=. .._ _ .c coc.r. 0.4= cnO <0.0E ) 0 (3. -c-0 CO) o. i.1). U)(5 .. (41-4824.1 u) co (0 a) c 74 -0 2 a) ..c 7-C ir) 8 •w a) O.) 1- Fi _g gig 0 a ,.0 ..„ .0 o C.) 017; .ra ..c g u) >. .0 -c 0 0 = c -0 ws 5. .... 6 a.) • ‘... 0 .0 ...., ,T) Fa 3 - co 0 ,...-. 3 E ai .- c co a) --. ° > g!) -o :T. 2.) 0 8- 8, u -I a) a) (0 0 - m 0) 9 0 V) 0 .0 0 RI 5 a) 1- c c c.) -5. 0 )- 0).c .00 to ca co E E = E > 0 - co 5.a cp 0. 8 a) >. o 2 ,..--,..- ., ..1d 0 .0 .- .c ,-,'"- co ..- 0 , (0 _c •E 0 0 a 0 15 a -2 8 8 0 iii a ,..0 2 48 m 0..4 ..- >.,-6 0) 2' -5 220. 5. 4) 0 CD 0 C U3 E E ,rzi L)0 st*-4. 2,0 72 >. .0 C C 0) .5 a) ">00210-5 350.2.,=a) -0)°°'•RE o70)03-0 0 ......5 '5 .E 5 '5 0 2 mai 9 6) 0 CA - 0.000) .92 03 r_i c =„ c = _ > a) .E12 -o 0- w 2 75 IT, 0M IP ..a co T, 03 0):9. > ,..T c; CD To • J .0 o. 0. ca as 14 .0 0 0) 7..- P..) v.,. 0 0 a 2 0 .r. 0 .= 0 o ° - 0 in -0 ..-,- o_ co -0 " '- :c'- 0 0 2 6 5") g •C' - a) () 2 8 En -0 ID C 0 C 0. 2.2 3 0 15 c .0 a) x u) 0 -c) .-5 .„ a) >, c * a' -Fs m 0 .......0.) 1: 7, : >."'r5 = w 0 43 C cn ...-. .... - 0, c 5 > <•P:,- com ....., -0 Ti a) a) .= co a. 4- co o 0 4, .0 9 - CO .0 ..-• 0 .-- 0 C o. a) 0 0 Cli 1:$ 75 a 32 2 SE 0. 0 a) o. 0 as (,) ..... (L, c o c 0 5 .. .c.0,,, CI- 0 CC/ ..... 0 0 2 E 2 0 i, o o) a) 0. ....- 0. C.) = >:.,- ''' •-' -,"'" cc, -1:g CCD 2 -23 c u) '5' 46 FinD 0. ..... 0 -c 0 0 0 C z g- 0 0 • c ..,. 7,..., 0 0 4, 0 !!) 0.) 0 0 CO .0 - 0 c0c 22 g eL- -a..a. 0 A ci) go. E 73 c u :E'"' 0 LP a 2.) „T.) _v 0 Cc. 9 €20 t! .CCL18 0 0 0 -5 f.12 = 0 a > c) ai a a a) o 0) 2 a) 0- -01 a 73 0 g,- o 2 >...> g .6=' 2 -0 0 0 0 c, E 0.0 51:0 2? -Fp' 2,„ k; 7.) 2 ti; i.: 1-00 -- .o cp „C .... .4 ..... ti C .6 0 ."' = C a, > 0 0.5 co 0 0 c a) 0 0 ill c;) .2 _c _c 1._ r., • e . - 2 0 .c co u ..- := -0 = 0 - o 4-.." ,.. 0 .. •.- "6 ° 2-) c 4.; o a.) o 0 ifi 3 - c o u) = o .- ..- Z 0 0) c "E -to cc= '.i.; c 4 c t;E0ta 0 9 E ca. a) , co 0 .0 (1) C 0 c a) 0 c;..- -c., o a) 0 - c 0�C o 0 R ...?„ 0 0 .0 a) .5- cri 'ID' >" Ts 'C' 2 ° -0:6 8- EVE a ,.., . 0.= - 0. ii• a 2 o.0)>oco -m 0 o. < 0 0 < .,- 0. co 0. <ce.g.-oco<.0(V00,0.0 0 Board Options Staff Comment Information in Record • m L3 .c 00 • te o .22 ▪ o (5 0 3S. "DU CO W 0 CO5.15 • 0 ▪ C 15 (5 55, 15 00 >m 0 zr, • u 0 m 0 C O SE o to 3 ox c E O 0 0 t; E E al•-• • 1- S o. E cuctS (/) 0 0 S 1 0• 22 0.- a. Eto. co 0 ...To 0 ca = 03 .0 Ce c 7-2° c F 0 ets 0 u 0 01'12: • - c 7 • 1F4,' 0 c .0 • a) a) 12 (2) 11 2°011111 al 0 c.).=1.S 0.-E0 85o t!.E- c tu t 43 .2 0> Emcc% O. 0S EGM'9 m 0 37 .20.0 0 c co o 1- E . > E -g 2 -02 e -g. 0„,,,0,..,-.... c 2_5 .6 -6.§..s CD 0) cn > .,... o to •c 0 x cc.5 i c '•!- .,2. ..=c -6-....s , .--c E E c -0 c 1- = - E c5 sE.= m --- •2 E c,2,- .Iv9C'CCnIO) aCI . .-,0.,. 1 t1A3o •-..•3-•›"..1.>CC7oD :.>->0,c... . cC,_O 0 6 -00EE O5.„ E F0-a)0:!'s05 ) 00. 0 . t 0 L3 .0 a i::..0 - 0 0 'Cu "IE -0 ..- - torn 0,0 2- ▪ E ,_o .0- E 6„ .,..._.,>. 8 EL) c .... .0 = -2 52s.-_Jumy0ao) T'.>0.o--o E5). (5 5) G) -0 C0: . : ".6.- c -Cac e _6 22 .... asE-- - 'cW2 c ct92co . 6 .c o� . :oE7a c aa2°a7c4- a0 ,. E co N < ca ra ° a) ,:„.° 2 al* 7:1 0 ▪ 12 3 a) .„, 2 ;z _, m --F. E E 2 C it.4) 42 u) m 0 0::t8 Ls 1:1 4) = =z8EE-se E to a) < a) 2 m = « 0 o a a) c c id c cic-oo.04,..- .cm0 am- 1;111fiL24,- woEow c,o 32 2 0 7,-...,._s.E os mEmt-07).„ i=,-0›,. ,c cc0<0.c.2 0 .0 0 s N o .0 F, 0. CO 1- 0 .20,425)0Eg2 'E 0 O. a -E E rg a) -0 ars .2 '' ea a) 0. me. E o -..,•-• a) 0 a) -4-- o. 42..0,.. I' I) .9 m o < cto-oU)E-0m e setback from the a) "ci a) be located closer than 20 feet -0 0 la "6 E In in - ..x 0 ...z (5c 0 .8o 0.15 L. a) cic r' a aso-co.*-• E c ==-0S - is ca >.cZE3=g=4)....c clo-c0=Zolil 0 uc oc a) 0.0 1 ii . ... . 2 E. 0 . 0. . , s75 ,, ,T,;0 in 00. .c -z015 013 smE;--ir= 1- 0z E 1- c 0 c S m g . 0.0m§ cie-co.ts Cl) 0 .o 0 -cc Ii.c -0 .c cs, 20.cn ,o .9 a, re c a) 0c E 0-85 o 0F0m 8 -2 85 C E.61 -23,Y) .0 - 2,222-.= c 10 C • "-6 e 8 o 0 8 o c OL --000)76 4- cmc•5>m O -=8c00 03 m 4_11) 4, 2 >0 , a) '0 CO -2 0)g O 8.52 A-2.- -0 1515 15 cb > 8. -..>a052 c ▪ •-• 2 -c) . 0 2 as co °) as E-sE, -02 0 c.,c, C 51 6) 0 CO 8 2 =0 0• > m0-00 CO V cu co co- ea m ta E.) 73 S >- 2 ,73$ -0 0 • > ▪ tpc o 0.0 c.)-0 230rs 0.03- 0. (5 .0 ,• 0,0 O 0=f O ›0. -00.c <000 Board Options o 0 a) as > 4 In 0 ... 0 c 0 m -. 0 -0 0- , € z - .= 0 CO• (6 0.0 O. 0 •0WC _C ( 1) C CC Fe 13 0 E c 0 o• -0 0 0 2 2. ..E. g .8 . .... . . .., u . E -`•L' S .15 gri 5 2 to. ••=• -o o .c 4= a) t 0 -C C 75 ,... -0 W CI •E t. -a 52 > to 0 Io M o 0 .° h E- iisi 17; 8 •c co ro t E 5 ,_ 00 8E.6 = 0 43 2(71 (, c 02•- . n .2 7 a) 0 10 0 0 a......0 2 E .ei .- cocuca) a) 2 E) a) :sis ii •,7) 0) CO C'3 w 0 co 2 . - 0 5 = 3 P 0.- . 0 .i.; TA 0 .(7) 2 _rg E.2 E g 0 -E 6 '- ° c�.8 0.,.=__.0 occ ° Eo231": 0. o E Uoto.07C' EE 000 co 2 o. 2 E E '5 0 2 o o `•-•._ 6 .c = • 0 07 = c .9 -17, 8 c - 0 c ID V 0 z c .ta .0 C .0 di .5 0 = '2 5 2' a) e o .c • 0 :•-•. > c -0 = c 0 ,0 0 -c • 12 = Tii -0 0 0 3 am, -'w M 8 i ni. 2 a) . 5 I a) c < = E > 0 ir, -° 0- '0 ..'' < 44= E 2 -0 c ° 2 2 c V a) -c 0_ • 0 0 Lu -o - o c ccu (.) 2 = L1..) < a a, 0 0 •- 1-n12 S LI" c .o ti c o °,n- 0 c' 0 E -0 -§) -2 ,C2 0 0 0.42CTCCD(DCD0 us E 0) 0 0 (1) C c 0 0 31:1) 05 C-> .as o 0. 2* a) 5 c...) E 0. 25 2 m 0. a) c -r) c 0 ° _co=ocnc0 as 0. '5 ,• c .-ocCr - inc• .J°' 0.m c 0 c > C 2<o -co _ c >.° _ a) ,7) .o -c la .7, c 2 t 0 3 0 .c c„, -t go c 7 - co 0 0 ° EE .t„, • , -°>°.0m .75C1 (DE oo 0 I E c 0 co .c E< E t r° gi .0 r, 0 0 1,3 0 41 0 g e c o E 0 a 2 g 'Ts .. 0 E o E V, `C. E m 0 cis ET, 0 1:3 > roc .c • 0 13 3 2 0 11. 0) 00 Ts 0 7, co 0 o. m c > 0 "6 as • 0) 0‘.- E 8 4, -0 E E c c 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 -0 2 .1 2 ..... m ... :2 0, o .0 8 >fa3,.,, lc :a` 7, .> 42 c mo.,73.ca)--c.- •c -0 .... ....,.= ..- RS 0 D 0 C C .° - 3 ru r,' 2 113 ° ' 0 to f, 77, ,,,2 . o -0 e go 0?. g,' b.c i.- 70 Cal = . •E C - .e. - = 1 :L42i.,). 2.2 0 u") -c 0 0.C'D 5 5 tn. c o 1-- -c7i ui ° 0 2 T2 8 -0 to = cs ti . 0.s. . • E 0 72 '4= .0m 1IwEu:41!1 - -o0 L02 50_0a0m oo 0W -0o 0 II. 2: 7 al 0 -C ° a) Cn TP 0 .. 0. UJ 0 M c 0 o ',;.> .'-' - .c 0 0. O 0- E am 2 a, •-• 0 di < " 6) NC..., „, 0 -ci vi .2 '7,-. e co 0; >, ,.... a) a) •-• - -.2 0 .c= _o . = -o c ca aL,.- -,,,fr; 4 °>a ) 1 3_ 22 c49 021 ) • 05 0cc n° o = c 2 t C C ......- 2 two o o 7 0 0 .0 0 0 < a) CI) CD W ° -0 .c -2 00 c C. .`7 2 c m - -0 2 -0 c -c • : ...: o ... ° co 0 c a) 1... 7 c 75. 0 0 8 > ° 'a -3 1.7. .7...7 -Li ..c. 7 t_ woo 0: 1 0 .... 0. = ..- 0 fa E t:7) T2 2 >' ° ° (7' - u ..;" 0° E -0 2 u) g c'' .c E E a - c 0 2 0 T; liD' w c' c w m '6 (..) 0 (3 ..= 3 .4-‘c " °E 2 i .11 a ' E M § CP 0 EE 2 . 3 E 7ti 0 `5 8c 00, IL .... ,5 o 0 u) :ET a a..) 0 as o a) a) -5 .c as = • c -2 2),x II' 2 +),, g- 0 5- 8 g 8-6 g p2 E It '55 -2 c .° 5)' c g--§ ,-... - 7 -.- :c To .0 13,m '-c . :()O E a) 2 0_ 0 c7i 0 - 0 0 :B-• it' .... ... S) > .c .1.3 a a, a, c .0 i - *0 T.. a.' .0 -0 .0 Za 0, in a) -2 2 0 0- o. c 0 Fn i 8 g, a, (0, 0 .12 c.) a) u'Gr30,-11.19-c§-F-= 0 c 0, 0 -a• a) - 0 ,-, a.= ..- - 0-.- .- ‘7) 000c a) )- .....-- -c .....c _ • o 1 .-, Ct. 0 0 0 . CD E -0 .- a) -• 0 3 eL u) a c .c 0 0 CD ..-' z.., -Sc 0,0-• ca -C ?':'• .. .- m * c -- g,,-.2,6-i000.4c•-,8,c = ° 71) E 3 ti ''' ti CD .0 z...,,=•, 0 in ,,-, .... 4., a) C '5 •-• a) 0 12 al C D 'A' •C' ° ''' 8 0 = 75 :.= Ec.§0z.coa) 60?0,ffs0.20 Luo02.-,.•uc°.-0z, u0 .,, -c02,a) 10210:1 0) 0.0 .2 -'80cMC8O 0C10o0L e,rUge7 ''1'c0.0 0D‘2L .4-0F2.-)..-.. 2 .T.2 0g0 D50 E 2 m o o�0 082 - 08=.O .d 7 00 --a632) -•o',,-,'2o .r=,_dlzc•n '.7DC0- .-.7c.c-c • t.-c0crj0t.) .>-‘.- ..2 N•.,.02c"2-, Ecoc..n .-=E?.0.)...=.69,.0.c_•-,• •-c°o80e02:.,_.2L.°.•0•°c•0•0=-••' '.°-0g-_0n .'4c 0.np 86>0 4 „„ E . 2": 7 8. 0- "02,0El0c0 Z -° -0 -_00 .2 22 m c2o ( LL= .a.c_,-8 4r22p09 a70 --5_8c_ °c0c9 0.0:00 0> ia1.0C.lcc3c 0c6 <.ct,2 01,01>00l :.a:)2.0=0>CV- = 3c(0oE05 1- CL .c C >, •C), = . a) ••••• °- ta . ca 0 -• 7, 0 -0 u, .2 C .... 3 -.-• di di 0 i_ m •,,,„ _ ..„, >-,, _ ,_ m _ ._ c , 0 ,_ `.,.. - ..-. CD ...,•-• 4..= 0 .c c O. c .... 4- 7 - c ,-,. 27. 0 . 0, 0 0 P 0 0 r) 0 :2 rli 3 -I a) 0 2 °- 2. •-• 0. I: ° •0 0, a) ._ a. 0 5 i 0. -0 aj 0. (0. C 4 o 3 co -- - 3 73 c7) 13.0037-cz on. u) ca co, -13 ‘"› CS. o .0 In C C C G > ZS cn 0 0 6. o 0 0.2 c o .0 40 0 e. 0 id 1:3 ,.,••• 7 7 0 V 0 tt .2 73 C C C 0 ° - CD E c di 0 6. 0 0 0- 0 E 0 - .000 9 2.5:2VEg ...1201O 0 0 -a 3 '0 a; 0. 0 02 0 Staff Comment Information in Record 0 c o '5) Ts • -0 )=.. c 0 2 x u8 C.- 0 o <(Z E 2 m f5 73 75 'E •g" 0 7. .. 0 E ITS E c`. E ta N Ua 0 .c as '- V; j:2 •-• C C 0 0 _ 0 .0 13 "1 o X E ,.. c ... = r- 0 ..- c 8 •=1_ 0 0 . 2 .• ...,„ 0 0. -..; (7, 1 .u) ..-• ta t'ii ._ 8 CI_ CO 17., 0 a . 2 0 01 Ca• 0 0 F1 r..; C 0 E 0 • > .- r. ea E 0 .0 w 7,5 co Z a) , .c o 2ct > .c .. , a a> 0 4) .. -0 V)4)4, lc 0 , .... E 7, ° c7)E ..,. -0 - g 8 8 -0 Fo 2 3 l'a) -14) -1;5 :-. 8 2 I a) gE 2 2 •-• 0 .0 - .-• ; P. 0 CO 4)4, 1:3-c-.-c.c-c 2t2 c'ccZE o ° Ii) -c .--• -.- .-. 2 O. to c 00. , c . 6) z(.... ..) .TcC 0c - 0) •O U0 2r0..L...L 2 W.°,,.•.c0 - .1 i Z 2 8 -.-. -2 .. -c c > ... 0 0 •C .0 C.) .'' P, ,S. .5 'E co < 3 4= 8 0 .- -C ap -o 4-*" •-• 0 a) 1 , 0 2 a;0 0) e 2 Ir 6 c 6 a) o 0 CO > r. , ; E 0 as Li 2 C .• 0 . CI 0 to c a' .•.,.. (-i E -x Ts. c 0 -0 '.- 0 • a) 1• :2 To a) -• 0 0 c E ° a *6 6 ca. lu t.) . E g-15'c 2, . . , 1 3c ' -° ' -2 3: , I t). .....2 8 tr) = ... • 0 ._, 0 l'EF-.4 c E;.2 2i E 0 '.7, > c 0 - 4, 0 E43 ...>° ••;•• 0.. 0 Z.,. :••• 0 •tB• CO 0 in -.F.. 412 C.) co U).- = ;< c aw: o Is 13 o 5 t 6 0 a) a) CD •T) "' IF. co :=-• -0 0- 0 E ._ 0. o m.-• a) o. am 0.2 .5 'ciA,.-ti3.. L8- 5 X e E -c .5. .0U a a)'sd; g 0 E >NR• a? 0u 2 :5 1). .0 ., 0_ 2, ,... o.- .....- ..-• - .. a 0 a) -e• = a95 xt° .o` w 2 .2 E w 4) co o c .c a) Bocom2. ..c • . co 0.) . co a) 2 Ca CC Pc L1.1 0 CL ,_ = 0 OS 0 0 cy O 2 -,GEcw-c 2ci _, 2 c E a) -,.,. 0 8, 8. c 4.6 -"` "-c -01' 3 V '-' .., 2 2 2 3 -0 *C 0 •C 03 0 co s, „ Eo_ u) 4• 7- -.ENcN.,2 o.,fr-.,,.. „. c o. 0 0 a) c 2 a) 2 < a .LIJ -0 o a.cm__ c.r) g (7, E 2 :13 "cis , - 0 -c L' c 2 To a > cr-c 0. 2 8 a- 0 0 a$ -0 0 70.75 • E 5 143 o lb' e 8 . ,o pc c. c o at. a ..o O • 0. 0 - 0117- •-• as c cc a) 0.1- o • 0 a .2 -6 lf .5 -.6a aim tua) 41 :0 20: 0:: 2 c O • a) .02 *0....4) .2 c can, 0 RS 0, - C6 C 13 o = J. v) 1)- 2 0 c • 2(1) 0 13 DC0C00 < E .S.D. re Cry •- 0 .0 "0 0 2 :3 cal ) . 7. C • 0 t, 0 8 2 .co 4:2 c E c � -o 8 0 c • 1-4 8 • c C > • • 0 c c CD ••••.- = 10 0 • 13c E 4) 4pa) ° ° 0 • =0) ca. co -0 c cti Ak EE 0(1) 0 20)Gu oa-00G 0 0 •• 03 - • c < 13 47)CO C • C 17 0 %)C 31 12. '1-.) CL o).c 00? -0.0E2 42 e) o c o c (5 O 0 CP ••-• 0 - 0 cc o e E a) ••• o •-' ova e *a 1-4.7c, Tii o a. .z 7 m C.) 0... 0 0 V) a) .c 0)c 0GJ w y c E 0 1r) w c 0 .c.c .e 76 0.1- c„ CD cc% • < 0. CO 2 .2 CI c 0 :0 ca 0(1, o c ••„,•• • • c-- 0 c '600 MECO 0.4) .6 -a 2 1- cc). § a) 0 Tea > 10 0 _= 2 c 0 >, 8 - c). coa ,75 .43 15 0 E 0 0 2 71.15. 47) 2 g ..,_ E c E - 0 •E o c C 0 o= .c cu a) c co c) .5 1- a.) 2) a) .c :c 2 -0 = 0 4.) (13 > .0 3 0.4) 2 -6. 9 -o -o -o 0. ca.a'25(50- < -5 o. E co 00 4-7 0 Ti ,0 a) 0 , ,..,. .- -° . 0 a) a) 2 .c a. .0 - 0 3 "5 a) 0. 00 ° c cu 4-12 IR g 0 0.c • ,7) a) .D. 0 2E-• 1:3 8-8 5 = RI -.' 0 3016 ..-. ./.7. Z. c P .0 TS a) - 0 i ui t...0 - .0 413. ti3 45 173 E 12 2 "5 a) w •G 0 .5 0 E IZ w ms ms to 0 Staff Comment Information in Record 0 0 ° E % 2 - . C 43E /.4 •••• C C 0 CO 0 0 0 26)tDEE o in o 0 M C CO -0 0 131 76 C -7* E) .0 C .- 2 0> •:::' :IF_ _0( t' - 0 .(-a l'-'.. 5 , . 22 . .0 . .0 0 05 0 c . 2 Tis •- c '8 0 ..-. lc 3 a) 0 c ra „, a, 0 ..• .0 C C a' .2 c -.- ,ta ° - -.. _0 0 42 .... 0° g fp .2 70 0. o ° '= t) CL ' c E 12 .... ... CC/ 0 -CS c a, 0 o° >4) 0 2 cuN * •• , a 4 a) =°•Woo0°.c .- t; >, 2 0 ••••• tn IF_ 3; 2 ai c 2 0-. 0 E 0 0 c "..... -•-• CD s.) 0 ii 1:t), Iii to 0 = c • 0 TS m .- '0 ,_ c c >., c ,... 0 re .4 n -c ..,_. - ..F2 G) ' 0 o e g? .- 0 _0 3 8 E '- Ea --000 0 ---',,-= 0 0 15 t 2 O VI 0.00 co - .- co45 •-• - CO 0 CO > - IF-• it; -- co - 71 l'w> 0 a) -c - )- >•• 0= a) 0 0 cE.GC10=1,1cii c • C - 13 0 0 * C.) 1.2 -.0 ..L. -1..1.1000c 'CI)o 45. 73 - .0 T3 0 03 w -c -0 E a 3 g - 22c0,6,. 2CDCCo0 a) - 8 23 Fat. g 73 5 <4. g.L.-2-.3. D. 0 as-, 0, Noo>.2,cc-0 „ -0 _ 00.. c000:13 co, 2 c' . co C (NI .- 92 •-• ° C E •-• RI > o ea .c 0 :Z. •••-• -._, c "0". -0 0. E. 2 4.:ZgL,'&)g-g8tis, E 5 • CT) .13 4) Cl. ° O. c 0 < 0 o •-• 0'-- (5 0) -5 SR 1, w 0 .0 500 < 75 CI1 _C 0 COI > Cc 0 .- >, LU E ttz c 0 3 113 c E c t 0 a) 0 c E ca o 3: 0 a) 0 7;1 > To to - a) o. CO Z -C CD )- c X E (50) ts a) a E e c as -a Lu (50 0 CI c°•5 "6 111 0 0 0)00 CO = •-• 3 4, co 0 o c > c o 0 •50 > < ct. c_.) to' o • F, m ss- •;; c 00 a) 0 to. to 0 c E > EE E -0 0 to o 0,� CES 0, 0 0 .0 .e ••• a) ••••• 1- c C 0 a) ••=• a) • .- 00.72c•- c - - V0 0 o 0. 0z c •-• = < < 2 o 0 = c .0 ,... o a) -c ••-• 3,.. a) o co = Z 4- ,c, z "E • 0 7) 0 O(5 00.-00g•C01500 .r.L) CI -E 2 0 CT To 2 CO 3 ° 41 2 c .fg. .3 (..sw : _cm 4.), .,,ii..! t-.-3E00)c a) 0- o -0 c 0 ).- 5 -4"--• -o >. c c ° 2 E as 4= 0):c 0) moos, ...0.c 2) -5 12 a) -o- 2 a) o a) .c o. > U) .... P_ 43 C " 0 TO 0 2 0 r, 0 - p_ ..,„ - 0- la< 0 -• 0 a) I.--- 43 @ .0 LL 13 2, .0 -,-,, E -C .0 'ES (5aj 08 4- NICIMOC713 a) a) erg u, 0 co c -= 0 - •_„- 0 L-.1 0 2 0 '- ET C 7 ' - - .S.o. .0„, 2 •-c .c .c = -4.- -0 8 o...2 a) as 0-0,0_ 0-o 0. .... o c o_.-- -a 2 15 a _ c - a- -0 C6 1- 0 ta a) o as .- E 0 "° -a. 00 co 'el= .... - .0 17- ''''' CO C C 21 C c .0 7 0- ° *3 13 °- 0 11 0 c >. RI a) , _ • , _ 0 0 a) 0-0,4;00e. ....z 0 g -0- 2 p2 ,- m m -,.. di 15 0 :› s 413° . . 02 4; -ct Cs.".° *-07- ...; .:-7,,- irs -00 st, -s ....9- CL 4-0 0- 0C -C-1) 0C a) 0 c a) 6 a) o -o o) 0 aa c ra EaS• Z..'5.: 0 _SI oc 07 ,,,E3 -°,_ ;.,_•^5 `-,,i; -c 'a 0'(7) "c..... 8 oc g--.5. -a) Q.2 E. 8 0 ,5-',8 (.) ,,, 4.1.) - 0 $2. 0 0 c - 0.= c c 0 0 0 , -,- 0 .0_ Ls .0 o 0 0 r) 2 > a 5 2 ...- 2 '6 o a . g- - . . E 0)15 71 .... SD 0 CO I ---C CL0° 7-1>a)) .5 a) 0 0 _2 rf- 0 0c ii r.) 4?- •G 1? 0 ',.,, c 0 a) o _.,a) a) c 0 t" .2 F., 4-5 g .0 c *17) 0 0 ta 03 S -_, ea ra -5 rh v ..0 0-- 0 j. , '''' 42 .5 c a) co = m' 'as 0 0 .- 0 .•-• I- -0 •,0 - 0 c 0- 0 c 0- 0..- - • c 0 as cc - c .- ._ -0 17, c o ro -Cs 0. O. N CL N 0 @ ,...." E c..1).. E a) ••••• a) o 0-. -0 a. a) > -0 0 c 0. o. as E as y 0 ,E 5 (09'130 i_.c -5 0c- 5 0 a a) 0 -.E. as as as .c > CO (5C0) 0 > c 03 0 c 0 CC 0 - 1:$ = Board Options Staff Comment N O tT 0 c C C w as C 00 O E o c Lcn co co co w 0 O a a t6 (6 m a •o N o O o $ o. _ O O a) -aom°> O N O o CL C 0 0. - • f6 0 10 0 L E .c o ON 0 a) U 0. 0 y C C i; EEc « c E 0 ° N Jo • N 0° - " 0 c 0 C 0. O • E •a 0 N a•c o c�-0 y O C L CCS a• - 0 N e6 L 2 3o o caoc;>6) e6 0 U f6 Rc co..L-. l0 0 c'05)>.9 m fu f6 N.0, CO 0 O 0. CO •- C.0 C E•o Q)> fa Ct. E =.0 o E a 0 o 0) CD m 0 ac a C • N yC co-cco 0.� N W O y t c E d 0 0 i)n°)m~ to-sEo.3 0 To' S o 0.0• N ..,, 0 06 N 0 N N 'O c 0.0 00cic0 -o t00c2 > C • c t6 Q•7 L V c N L., 0. 0 J c n6 Yi3} >. l6 N O o5;r2;�0) p o c 0 v >«•.o O.9n 0 a 0. C N '- C C oO YfA fy >, _o (0 0. ) (n e6 fl. - N :7,1)0 o = c6 0 0 0,08900E 0 n Q 7 N -2 0s0,0 0 c 5co C E� .O N e6 o N .L-. oNc2Eca2 m.0'a 0 s- >.0 0. 7.m o 0. o o n� x N .O. U 0 a N N E 8 0 ?. G 0 iib m O L„ Z'.GEa' •V t6 C > 2 G cs a7-0 NL:_ > > C C 6 °) E 0 0 - co ` 0 t) g0 (0 O2 o C - C+0-'> O 0 c c c O 0 c 0 C 4) •y 0 o a E • 0 E2� 0 Ep20O °0 a0`n 2 ac=2T • 0C O E « o N is m O` N a Ea G E 0 r N C Y co N°• > - 0 :ep U Q U a- 0000 y OOcc 0 0 Cr -OP _ eepp C 0 C U 0 c w c16) 0.c E 0 - • (5 O A 0) E.. c c▪ C t6 N C 0 U N • .c ae N .c 0. E d o. E 3S c fu o. NC d0 0- O -E C 3 2 d.0..°.. TO 0 m E.0 ado -o - 8 U N d Ep U C N 0 N .`O LLL N 02 S NC 0 a 0 N m > 0 N w ftc3 `o0>=0J 'E rn a o U ) co .00 0 o t6 c 0 C° .L. a 0. !1) O O N N .5 0 •} U > OO OC) �' N 10 o .a 0 •O a. >.'3 I-- c c c• 2 2 .z 2 N 0 EU> c E;g c o . a• 0. 0 Q t6 N E C 0° - c 0 C- v O o o 0) -0 0, tow •8 0 c.L.•G•O Ni6O N.cNoOo00- N• O 0 'O •a C 0 N (5 'a R6 0. O) C 0 4 c O N V= O.c.00 E oO500, V N.900 O 0•0EY O i > N IL-- ''p Din ao)o c 0 U N o N- a C C d N C 0. C .¢ 0 .2 • o a n° o •o N 2 w 3 :5'1 c Q 0. C Ec' -oc7.0c0)E: O E ca. C Ec •E o. c ro 3 .9• c N2 E vw$ E y o E o 0 y o 0. 0 EUC> 52200 O N fA 4 .c • O.�OOE m u)o Eo 0. .0 N U 3 U o c m 0.y a> c d t° N v > y 0 o C+6 0 O Zf 0 ay) > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L .Cc c .c cG6 CO o c f6 0. cy N 0 O N 0 w w 62 od O - G 2 C O 0 O aa" -cc a N N� > c R •0 L m 2 m 0 5a d N O C 2 0 'a• 0 EaE O 0•C 0 C 0 O C O C 0E C_.0 .0 O '> 'a 0�. O < ca_ U .2 O e6 0 '0.y N ` 0 'O ••L-• G 0 0. S 0 (y.L O ¢c`• 0m 3 0 N L N ON 0. F t6 NO 0 0 N a U e6 C E- C CO r>. V o > t, O N ..L.• a> 002 0 Q -a 0 e6 c E N.cz c oa c o O •c tq O.GO nU y O` w U 0. p .L.. 15 U ta ea 'HD w > .) O a N c o.c 0 m om�oacc w 3 >a w o• 'a 0 o E O C o c_ c_ _, O N N 0 c 0)� c o w Ea N > o- =w o c� 3 e6 C y C >. 0 e6.0).. 0 L 0 y ~ • 0. U 0 ✓ 02 N 3 d U U �O O O N c4: L > CL 0 o x 0a to-a a 0. y 2 0 N Q E N cow O L Di .ncpo> Cm d �'Cm j I- T a N L 0 N N �p aha N Tao )0 N C°0 .E.0 c 3 L.. -0 _ G 0 0 0 C e6 E C 0= 0. o> 0 f 2 "- 3E2 p. c > N= 0. '- o T) - C v 3 '0 c N O Nroc 0 w•>O o ct o Ea .a Q G c F- N 70 N 0 N O cN a) NO ° c" 002-2 c c'S 0 ° •O 0 :° d p. E 0 c U .c N° O. O. y O w N 0 C T r N N 1--2807004°312075 C N c a) y c pI -1 > NOCc 0.500' nib c C 0 V Y 9 E _ m E o Co CCI 0 0 2 0 O7 0 c 0 c O Z. o e6 ca. fu 61) n 6>) " c O•Ca fO ° e6-c•a.c 2 m Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 1 of 6 CONSENT AGENDA 4. Board Approval of a Discretionary Grant to J Bar J Youth Services, $2,285 5. Board Signature of Letters Regarding the Deschutes County Planning Commission: Accepting the Resignation of Jim Powell, and Thanking him for his Service • Appointing Hugh Palcic to the South County Position (from At -Large), through June 30, 2017 • Appointing Leslie Hudson to the At -Large Position, through June 30, 2020 • Appointing Jim Beeger to the Bend Area Position, through June 30, 2020 6. Board Signature of Minutes: • Work Sessions: May 4, 9 and 11, 2016 • Business Meeting: May 4 and 11, 2016 • Public Hearing on Land Use Issues relating to Marijuana: May 2, 2016 • Department Update and Tour — County Forester: May 3, 2016 ACTION ITEMS 7. A PRESENTATION regarding Deschutes County's Participation in Red Cross Blood Drives and Services — Lisa Stroup, Executive Director, American Red Cross — Central and Eastern Oregon 8. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2016-007, Adopting the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Deschutes County Rural Enterprise Zone — Janet Burton, EDCO Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony, close hearing; move Board signature of Resolution No. 2016-017. 9. A HEARING on Solid Waste Franchise Exemption Request from College Hunks — Dave Doyle, County Counsel Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony, close hearing; deliberate. 10. DELIBERATIONS and a Decision regarding an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding New and/or Non -conforming Structures (Dreifuss) — Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Actions: Deliberate and provide staff guidance on a decision. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 2 of 6 11. DELIBERATIONS and a Decision on Lower Bridge Property Land Use Appeals — Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Actions: Deliberate and provide staff guidance on a decision. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 15. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 16. ADJOURN Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 3 of 6 To watch this meeting on line, go to: http://www.deschutes.ora/bcc/pace/board-meetina-videos Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. gDeschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747, or email ken.harms@deschutes.org. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Tuesday, May 17 10:00 a.m. 911 User Board Meeting, at 911 Wednesday, May 18 11:00 a.m. REDI (Redmond Economic Development, Inc.) Luncheon Meeting, at Redmond Airport Monday. May 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, Mav 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, Mav 30 Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day. Tuesday, Mav 31 — Friday, June 3 Budget Week - Presentations Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Monday, June 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Tuesday, June 7 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, June 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) June 13 and 14 Association of Counties' Spring Conference — Umatilla County Monday, June 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, June 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, July 4 Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Tuesday, July 5 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday, July 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday. July 13 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday. July 18 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday. July 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday. July 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday. August 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Tuesday. August 2 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of Public Safety Coordinating Council Wednesday. Auaust 3 Opening Day at the Deschutes County Fair Board ofCommissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, May 16, 2016 Page 6 of 6