The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-316-Minutes for Meeting June 26,2018 Recorded 7/27/2018u' E S CO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 1:30 PM Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2018-316 Commissioners' Journal 07/27/2018 7:44:52 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiii ii nii FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY WORK SESSION MINUTES EDNESDAY, June 6, 201 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and no representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Affordable Housing HB4079 Proposal Mayor George Endicott, Redmond City Manager Keith Witcosky, and City Planner Deborah MacMahon presented the history of the application process for an affordable housing pilot project. As part of that process, they request a partnership with Deschutes County for conveyance of a county -owned 40 - acre parcel. The plans for development were reviewed. The City is also requesting a letter of support from Deschutes County for the application. Discussion held on the need of a master developer/project manager. The City requests a County representative to be a part of the selection process for the project manager. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 6 To proceed, the letters of interest would be included with the application and if selected a request for proposals will be sent out for the project manager. The Board expressed support for the application. Commissioner Henderson suggested to include three bedroom homes in the single family mix of the development. The concept of housing affordability and workforce housing was discussed. The project itself is meant to be mixed income. A resolution will be brought before the Board for consideration and adoption. County Administrator Anderson inquired on the process of the land annexation and UGB expansion. The Department of State Lands rules are not specific but the anticipation is to go through the process if selected and then meet the requirements of approval. The applications should be reviewed by the State during the fall of 2018 and if approved the land use requirements would need to be processed to expand the urban growth boundary. 2. Letter of Support to Apply for ODOT Grant to Update County Transportation System Plan Peter Russell, Community Development Department Transportation Planner presented this letter of support for the Board's consideration. This is a statewide competition. Mr. Russell reported on the current and future plans for the transportation plan. HENDERSON: Move approval BANEY: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3. Harper Bridge Discussion Chris Ogren, Administrative Intern presented his findings of the area of the Harper Bridge. The issues surrounding Harper Bridge are due to its BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 6 popularity for river access and traffic congestion, safety and parking issues on Spring River Road. Mr. Ogren reviewed the history of the Harper Bridge concerns. Mr. Ogren spoke of the concerned residents of Sunriver. The Road Department installed warning signs, rumble strips, parallel parking signs and reduced speed limits. Mr. Ogren presented several options for consideration: status quo, partial closure with limited parking or loading zone only, complete closure, or continue to pursue launch facilities with other landowners. The general safety of the area was discussed. Commissioner DeBone noted the importance of road improvements. This isn't a designated recreation facility but Deschutes County needs to be cognizant of safety. Discussion held on the concerns of litter, environmental degradation, lack of restrooms, and trespassing concerns. Commissioner Henderson wonders if we have ever looked at the possibility of buying land from Sunriver Owners Association (SROA). The surrounding land may be an item to consider again. There was a property in a cluster development that has created an open space. Discussion held on land use. Commissioner Baney suggested a public hearing. Community Development Director Nick Lelack will contact the SROA to let them know of the plans for a hearing. Commissioner DeBone suggested including the Chamber of Commerce and other partners in that area to consider road improvements and safety areas. Commissioner Baney suggested a work session to review the community and safety concerns. Commissioner Henderson agrees that the discussion with SROA could be at a work session. The key stakeholders will be asked for their input. Commissioner DeBone explained input from the audience could also be provided to the Board. A written comment period is open through Thursday, dune 28th at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Ogren will compile the written comments and forward to Road Department Director Chris Doty. Commissioner DeBone inquired on safety concerns in the area with the foot and bicycle traffic activity with the new food trucks. Mr. Doty reported on the traffic study and plans for safety improvements. By the end of this month a draft report will be brought to the Board for consideration. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 6 RECESS: At the time of 3:16 p.m. a recess was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 3:32 p.m. 4. Preparations for Deliberations Related to KCDG/Tanager Surface Mining, Plan Amendment, Recreation -Oriented Facility and Subdivision Applications This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner reported there have been 2,000 additional documents added to the record. Mr. Raguine prepared a matrix for the Board to use as a guideline of the record. Based on staff and Board availability, the deliberations will be scheduled July 11. Mr. Raguine reviewed the deliberation process and matrix. Commissioner DeBone requested clarification of the definition of surface mining. Commissioner Baney suggested having the matrix on the screen during the deliberations and Mr. Raguine will place each decision issue on a separate slide. Commissioner Henderson inquired on information on groundwater rights and Mr. Raguine will research that information. Commissioner Baney asked the County Legal Counsel to review. Commissioner Henderson asked for compiled data on the issue of compatibility and noise. Discussion held on the property lines. Mr. Smith will review the boundary and property information and if it is not in the record if it is feasible to add that information to the record at this point. Mr. Raguine will also pull information from the record regarding the open space standard. COMMISSIONERS UPDATES: None were reported BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 6 EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 5:00 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session under 5:28 p.m. to make the following motion: BAN EY: Motion to direct staff as discussed in Executive Session HENDERSON: Second VOTE: BAN EY: Yes HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried At the time of 5:29 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:37 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: James Lewis Property Manager reported on the homeless camp situation in Redmond. The Sheriff's Office has given notice and no citations were given. The goal was to give people until 12 noon today. There is a fenced in area where any left behind personal property will be collected. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 5:40 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:57 p.m. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 6 ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. DATED this Day of— Commissioners. AAA— RING SECR ARY BOCC WORK SESSION 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of T ON tl DEBONE. CHAR PHILIP ENDERSON, VICE CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, JUNE 6, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 6 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff. Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Affordable Housing HB4079 Proposal - Presented by Keith Witcosky - Tom Anderson, County Administrator 2. Letter of Support to Apply for ODOT Grant to Update County's Transportation System Plan - Peter Russell, Senior Planner 3. Harper Bridge Discussion - Chris Ogren, Administrative Intern 4. Preparations for Deliberations Related to KCDG/Tanager Surface Mining, Plan Amendment, Recreation -Oriented Facility and Subdivision Applications -Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 2 Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (i) Employee Evaluation At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.5660(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 public. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. ADJOURN Deschutes 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. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Allen Room at 1300 NW Wall St. Bend unless otherwise indicated. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 2 WORK SESSION (PLEASE PRINT) ,.; r - ( ° ) 1 'e' ) •L- C, >- ,,,, (e- --.-,• LCD' 'kr\ < 1 - 7 .)..„ v) Aet ---4, ( r v) , 6 --e. / • ..r. . , 0 . . L i , P LcS' L.1 U U.1 < W < Z CL. PLEASE RETURN TO BOCC SECRETARY off, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ DATE: AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 6, 2018 FROM: Tom Anderson, Administrative Services, 541-388-6565 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: City of Redmond Housing Project Update ATTENDANCE: Keith Witcowsky, City Manager of Redmond and Deborah McMahon, Redmond Planning Manager CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON SUBMITTAL - HB4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 100 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PILOT PROJECT A new neighborhood containing mixed -income affordable and market rate housing Skyline Village CITY OF REDMOND 411 SW Ninth Street Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-7711 www.ci.redmond.or.us DATE: May 31, 2018 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: City of Redmond RE: City of Redmond Proposed Affordable Housing Pilot Project: Skyline Village Thank you for the opportunity to present the City of Redmond's vision for a new neighborhood, in partnership with Deschutes County, as part of an application to the State of Oregon Affordable Housing Pilot Project. This report provides background on the initiative; the affordable housing situation in Redmond, Oregon; the City's proposal for Skyline Village; and the status of the application process. We look forward to advancing this proposal with your assistance and leadership. Background: In 2016, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 4079 (HB 4079). This bill aims to boost affordable housing by allowing two Oregon cities to develop affordable and market rate housing on lands currently outside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) without going through the normal UGB expansion process. The law directed the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to set up a process and select two pilot projects, one for a city with a population up to 25,000, and one for a city with a population greater than 25,000. Pilot project sites can be up to 50 acres, cannot be on high value farmland, and must meet other requirements. Applicants must ensure the affordable housing on the sites remains affordable for the next 50 years, and must demonstrate efforts to accommodate and encourage needed housing within their existing UGBs. Since the passage of the bill LCDC adopted rules to implement HB 4079 and solicited applicants. Initial submissions were due November 1, 2017. Final applications are due in August 2018. Two cities are vying for the designation: Bend and Redmond. Affordable Housing Efforts in Redmond: Across Central Oregon the price of housing continues to escalate at levels that far outpace wages. Over the last few years housing prices have increased more than 52% and over that same timespan wages have only grown by an average of 2 to 3 percent per year. The average sales price of single family home in Redmond is currently approximately $289,000 (Source: Beacon Report); and the average annual wage in Redmond is around $40,000 (the average median family income for a family of four is $69,900). The City's poverty levels hovers around 30 percent. Currently, residential land costs in Redmond range from $40,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre. In addition to this initiative, the City is actively taking steps to address housing/job trends on multiple fronts by: Deploying Redmond's Housing and Community Development Committee and the Planning Commission to examine opportunities for expanding our financing tools to decrease costs of affordable housing while also examining ways to reduce the regulatory barriers. - Investing more than $110,000 annually in organizations such as Redmond Economic Development, Inc. to help increase the number of family -wage jobs through traded sector business development and recruitment. - Actively using urban renewal and tax increment financing to partner with developers to increase the supply of housing within the urban renewal area; as well as using the tool to recruit companies. Conducting monthly meetings with the Central Oregon Builders Association to identify regulatory efficiencies in the development of housing. These efforts all advance existing City Council goals for increasing the availability of affordable housing while investing in the growth of family wage jobs. Tangible results will take time. Meanwhile the expansion of the economy continues to leave people behind and therefore the City must seize other opportunities as they arise. The 4079 initiative provides another important tool for the City toolkit. Wage The 40 -Acre Site/Existing Characteristics: Redmond is seeking a strategic partnership by identifying a 40 -acre County - owned property that is within Deschutes County's Eastside Framework Plan (see Exhibit 2). Defining characteristics include: • The property is currently zoned EFU (Exclusive Farm Use). The property will be rezoned to the R5, High Density Zone. • The property is in the Redmond Urban Area Reserve, has never been farmed and is not within any irrigation district (see Exhibit 5). • Public utilities exist along its frontage and expansion will benefit future development of the Eastside Framework Plan. • The property is adjacent to the High Desert Sports Complex, Missing Link Family Golf Center and numerous public trails. • The site abuts developed employment lands and is a short distance from shopping. • Views from this site include the Cascades, Smith Rock, and other terrain. • The site is accessed from both Kingwood and Maple/Negus Streets. The design of the Kingwood Street entry plaza anchors the project and defines its character. • All City requirements for urban design, street trees, active modes of transportation, public utility construction, and land use requirements will be met. • Redmond requires all new neighborhoods to develop as complete neighborhoods following the Great Neighborhood Principles which are contained in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. (see Exhibit 1.) Redmond currently utilizes a Design Review process for residential structures and this will be implemented on the subject property. (see Exhibit 6.) Alignment with DLCD Application Objectives: The Redmond proposal both meets and exceeds the minimum DLCD objectives by providing 50% affordable housing and 50% market rate housing in a mixed -income, mixed-use setting. This means the housing will not be separated by income but rather designed for a range of incomes. This strategy is proven to lead to socially interconnected and healthy neighborhoods consistent with Redmond's Great Neighborhood Principles (a guiding set of development requirements unique to Redmond). 3IPage In addition to providing 40 acres of new mixed -income housing with half being affordable to 80 % AMI or less, this project's location benefits both the City and the County by serving as a catalyst to kick-off development in the Eastside Framework Plan. This meets Redmond's Comprehensive Plan's objectives by accommodating future growth patterns as planned. The DLCD program requires a minimum of 50 years of affordability. The use of profit caps on the non -market rate housing to retain appreciation for long-term affordable housing and site maintenance requirements will help maintain the quality and integrity of the neighborhood. The City will also use rent controls and tools such as deed restrictions, and HOA/CCR's. Development Partnerships: The City has assembled a team of experienced developers. (see Exhibit 4.) We are confident a team of capable developers can be assembled to deliver on the City's and County's expectations for Skyline Village. To date, we have received seven letters of interest from housing developers who wish to pursue various development concepts. Our partners include: Creations Northwest, Hayden Homes, Hunter Renaissance, HousingWorks, Lawnae Hunter Investments, Pahlisch Homes, and The Wasserman Group. If selected for the pilot project the City plans to pursue a master developer approach to building out Skyline Village. A formal RFP process will be used to select both development partners and an overall master developer/project manager to carry out the City's vision for the constructing the neighborhood. As a key stakeholder in this effort, the involvement of a Deschutes County representative in the selection process would be welcomed. Project Goals and Objectives: In addition to the innate positive impact of developing more affordable housing, Skyline Village will bring the following benefits: • Provides taxable value on land that is currently tax exempt. • Increases the overall number of affordable homes and rental properties in Redmond. • Provides workforce housing needed to support the region's Large Lot Industrial properties. • Offers a new, unique housing alternative to east Redmond. • Jump-starts the Eastside Framework Plan Neighborhood. • Provides additional housing diversity that complements the eclectic make-up of the existing area. • Creates both construction jobs and long-term employment opportunities. • Encourages use of multi -modal transportation options. 4IPage Residential Unit Mix: The 485 -unit (12 units per acre) Skyline Village anticipates attracting families, singles, professionals, empty nesters and active seniors. The units will include a variety of features and amenities, access to a primary multi -modal transportation corridor and trails and existing recreational opportunities abutting the site. The unit type and count may vary due to the flexibility needed in this type of development and at this early stage. Units Bedrooms Low 4-Plex Townhome Cottage Studio above and Baths Rise 66 units Commercial Apt. 10 1/1 50 1/1 Yes 75 2/1 Yes 40 2/2 Yes 30 3/2 Yes 75 2/1 14 2/1.5 (x4) 149 Yes 2/2 Yes Yes Yes Area Median Income (AMI) The area median income of $69,600 is based on data from HousingWorks (see Exhibit 7). This figure is used to determine the maximum rent a family of four can afford (rent burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of net income). Many Redmond households experience rent burden. AMI served — median is 69,600K 80% 55,680 x 30% = $16,704/12 = $1,392 for rent per mo. 60% 41,760 x 30% = $12,528/12 = $1,044 for rent per mo. 50% 34,800 x 30% = $10,440/12 = $870 for rent per mo. 30% 20,880 x 30% = $6,264/12 = $522 for rent per mo. SJPage Current Status/Next Steps: In addition to the actual substantive content, the application requires a series of partnership resolutions which demonstrate support for the project, this includes: The governing body of the qualifying city (the City of Redmond) stating that if the pilot project is selected, the city shall: Implement the proposed concept plan; and annex the pilot project site within two years of an acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment which includes the site. This is scheduled for City Council action June 26, 2018. Resolution of support for the pilot project adopted by the governing body of the county (Deschutes County) in which the pilot project site is located. Briefing scheduled for June 6, 2018. Resolutions of support from entities such as the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council/Cascades East Transit (complete in May 2018 see Exhibit 3), Redmond Fire (scheduled for June 13), and Redmond Parks and Recreation (scheduled for June 12) confirming levels of service should the project be developed. The City intends to submit the complete application for Skyline Village to DLCD no later August 1, 2018; and a decision by the State is expected to occur by end of calendar year 2018. 61 Page r J Scale 1".150(When printed on 11'x17 paper) H C `.< Z -0 — --, * 1Z) 0) (/) CO (1) —1 77 m CD 0 0 CO (/) X 5+ (D co 0, — -o o_2) cn m -) CS Cf) 0 CD m 0 m z Exhibit 1 Great Neighborhood Principles Master Development Plans shall address applicable Redmond Great Neighborhood Principles described below. In instances where the property proposed for a Master Development Plan is located within the boundary of an adopted Area Plan, the Master Development Plan shall also address the Great Neighborhood Principles according to the specificity provided in the Area Plan. a. Transportation. Connect people and places through a complete grid street network and trail system that invites walking and bicycling and provides convenient access to parks, schools, neighborhood service centers, and possible future transit stops. Traffic calming techniques and devices may be required to slow vehicles. Curves streets are encouraged to provide interest and variety in neighborhood design. Trails shall be provided to link with other pedestrian facilities existing, or planned in the future. b. Housing. A mix of housing types and densities shall be integrated into the design of new neighborhoods unless a variance is approved. Housing developments containing more than five attached units must be designed to be consistent with the Higher Density Multifamily Design Guidelines. c. Open spaces, greenways, recreation. All new neighborhoods shall provide useable open spaces with recreation amenities that are integrated to the larger community. Central parks and plazas shall be used to create public gathering places where appropriate. Incorporate significant geological features such as rock outcroppings, stands of clustered native trees, etc. into the design of new neighborhoods. Neighborhood and community parks shall be developed in appropriate locations consistent with policies in Redmond's Parks Master Plan. d. Integrated design elements. Streets, civic spaces, signage, and architecture shall be coordinated to establish a coherent and distinct character for the Master Development Plan. Plans may integrate design themes with adjacent developed or planned areas. e. Diverse mix of activities. A variety of uses is encouraged in order to create vitality and bring many activities of daily living within walking and biking distance or a short drive of homes. Amenities including, but not limited to, trails, recreation areas, open spaces, shall be constructed before occupancy of any residential unit, unless a phasing plan is approved. Commercial service areas must be supported by a market analysis and phasing program which will be used by the City to determine construction timing. f. Public art. Places for the installation of public art is required at the gateways to neighborhoods and/or in and around the center of neighborhoods to provide focal points. g. Scenic views. Identify and preserve scenic views and corridors of the Cascade Range, Ochoco Mountains, and Smith Rock where practicable such as in street view sheds or park areas. Streets and common or public open spaces should be located and oriented to capture and preserve scenic views for the public. Minimize visual clutter from signs and utilities within scenic corridors. h. Urban — rural interface. Urban development shall interface with rural areas through landscaped open space buffers at least 100 feet wide and the length of the urban development, excluding public streets, or shall be transitioned from higher density development to lower density development at the urban - rural interface, or utilize other appropriate and equivalent transitional elements. i. Fully developed "pocket parks" or "tot lots" shall be incorporated into medium and high density zoned residential subdivisions and site plans. These areas shall be developed for every twenty-five lots/units, a minimum of 3,000 square feet and privately maintained. Park amenities shall, at a minimum, include turf areas, benches, trees, and decorative features. k. Canal trails. If canals or laterals are present, multi -use trails at least 10 feet wide shall be provided, subject to the Central Oregon Irrigation District's review and approval. Pedestrian amenities such as benches and trash receptacles shall be provided at appropriate locations. I. Green Design. Environmentally friendly and energy efficient design is encouraged for public and private infrastructure, architecture and building orientation, open spaces and natural areas and transportation facilities. In addition, the planting of native, drought -resistant trees is encouraged to provide shade and to minimize water usage. Eastside Framework Plan Legood V] PAM Spare / Wirral Residential eitzed Usa • Ernplannamt Juanita -121 Ceetral Business Dishict Como andel Limited Service Commercial j215 ActR County Parcel Exhibit 2 • I r 3.0.400024 9 ...... 1. l'ublic Space,/ ' •,...,...., ''''.. 14'.11' I , School 1 1 v; " ,...,..; ', .-- ...:,',....7:.:9 i , 4,..,.• , . . 4.'' Neigilbpril0d,titCrItCT 7 i ''• i ,-.1 PublicSpace ., ..., 1 , 0/ Linkages I moantrasc4S J , ' . . & ,1 it"'"Variety of Housing, i I 1 A "I 4 ,, 4‘ - 1 --' i ....... ' '.. ' - - . 4 97 HB 4079 SITE I, ., and Future Pidilk 2.iisting Recreation m : ..i- 4 . S ace p.,.,....,..- / School , . . LS,, .1 ' - i `i • a- 1 . Transfer Station, ' ,.... 12- 0 (,lijililic pce/,. d - ' School' ,., ,,IIII_ ,,,,,_ 4_, , 3- .21,, . 0— 3 2 i J 1 ,,, z . , Extension of " 1 .44.4r.• t!' ! ..........44.....4 .4 . . Desei-t Rise 00 ..v' ...v„...,' .,,.' NC e, nigthebv o,, r, •.o. , od t l'''1 -.; r . -1 j:::i-,.,.0 Ii: t., 1.1 istc4i4.44 f i I `i 1 ; , r... ----r.........;.„.,,,„ -- -..- - • . - - -,-: . Service Commercial 1 . ,..i .. i J „, ,. 4144441444 • I ,,,,‘ , 1 .., ,, ,, . 1 7 4 • ,Ii I- II I'II-Iir' -Ir'III'•-., „..,,,I• d d . ,) . ( .2 , , Additional --I•4' I d :l 4.___e_..........v..„.a. „v_,. • j/ . , • . ' ' jri •-; r r - 'j ., . ;j4 . Community r'i.."..o ....ii--, ici ::_la fi .7,0 ril 1,,.$1 ., j -Gateway . , ',:'°—‘,..-, 0 04 , c e ' ; ott.44.1.4 4 Eastside Framework Plan Redmond, Oregon 0 00. HWY 126 Re•Alignment Service Commercial Center. 00 00 Modified Hybrid Transit Service Resolution Exhibit 3 Council Board Resolution # 295 CENTRAL OREGON t>j5-r: INTEOUOVEUNMENTAL COUNCIL Everywhere Central Oregon Works A resolution recognizing a partnership between Cascades East Transit and the City of Redmond to work towards providing transit service to a proposed Affordable Housing Pilot Project being submitted by the City of Redmond to the Oregon Department of Land Conversation and Development (DLCD) WHEREAS, Cascades East Transit (CET) provides transportation services across Central Oregon; WHEREAS, CET connects people to places through high-quality bus service which include fixed -routes within Bend, city connectors throughout Central Oregon, recreational shuttles, and rural Dial -a -Ride service for the public and Dial -a -Ride service for qualifying persons with disabilities and seniors who qualify as low-income; WHEREAS, CET services in Redmond, Oregon include the Community Connector fixed -schedule service to Bend, Terrebonne, Prineville, Madras, Culver, Metolius, Warm Springs, La Pine and Sisters; a dial -a -ride service (5 days per week, etc.) and the capital investment of a new transit hub/bus transfer center; WHEREAS, access to reliable and affordable transit is an important choice for commuters and Central Oregonians to have; WHEREAS, the City of Redmond is competing to be selected for an Affordable Housing Piot Project program managed by DLCD; WHEREAS, the land specified in the City proposal is a 40 -acre parcel on Redmond's eastern border just outside the City limits, owned by Deschutes County; WHEREAS, the application requires the City to provide an official resolution or other action of the governing body providing mass transit stating that, if selected, mass transit service with at least eight weekday trips in each direction within three-quarters of a mile of the project site, will be provided concurrently with the development of affordable housing units; WHEREAS, the application is due June 1, 2018 and a decision by the State is expected to occur in late summer 2018; WHEREAS, if selected for the pilot project the City shall have two years to annex the proposed property into the Urban Growth Boundary; 334 NE Hawlhm tie Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 548.8163 — Fax: (541) 923-3416 Office Locations: Bend, Klamath Falls, Lakeview, La Pine, Madras, Prineville, Redmond WHEREAS, CET and the City agree to work towards meeting the transit service requirements required for the Redmond Pilot Project application; WHEREAS, furthermore, should a fixed -route system become a part of the Redmond transit system then a stop on the route will meet the frequency and distance requirements identified in the Pilot Project application; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1.Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council in its role as the transportation service provider for Redmond, operating as Cascades East Transit, resolves to work with the City in assuring the provision of public dial -a -ride service to the proposed 40 acre parcel and align with the current level of service, upon the City annexing the parcel into the urban growth boundary and additionally work with the City to assure required levels of service are met should a fixed route system be created in Redmond. This Resolution adopted this 3rd day of May, 2018. Attest: -4\ Karen Friend, Executive Direc or Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Signe: � I Wayne Fading, Chairman �—j Central Oregon Intergovernmehtl Council Exhibit 4 Developer Statements of Interest — See attached on next page Ne know the way home. 405 SW 6th Street Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-1018 (541) 923-6441 www.housing-works.org - May 7, 2018 Deborah McMahon City of Redmond Community Development Department 716 SW Evergreen Avenue Redmond, OR 97756 Re: Letter of Interest to Partner with City of Redmond to Develop Affordable Housing through the HB4079 Affordable Housing Pilot Program Dear Ms. McMahon, It is with pleasure that we submit this letter of interest to the City of Redmond to be considered a potential partner in the development of affordable housing under the HB4079 Affordable Housing Pilot Program. As you know, Housing Works is the most experienced affordable housing developer and operator in Central Oregon. With 28 properties and over 900 affordable units in our portfolio, we have the experience, stability and reputation needed to help make the Redmond Affordable Housing Pilot Program a success. Established over 40 years ago as Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, rebranded Housing Works is known for the quality and upkeep of its portfolio and partnering with experienced players in development and management to create affordable housing opportunities for the communities we serve. Housing Works' has an experienced team that has built a whole spectrum of affordable housing types throughout Central Oregon, including 1-3 story garden type apartments, 4-5 story mixed use buildings, townhomes, single family homes, and duplexes, triplexes and 4-piexes. This impressive portfolio serves people with incomes ranging from 30% AMI to 80% AMI and has been financed with an extensive list of complicated funding sources. Currently, Housing Works owns and operates 194 units of affordable housing within the Redmond UGB. The City of Redmond has been a strong partner in the development of these units. Most recently, Housing Works constructed a four-story, mixed-use building housing 48 low-income senior households and providing space for non-profit Mosaic Medical to construct a new, state-of-the-art medical facility. The City of Redmond was supportive, responsive and adaptive to the special circumstances of the construction of this new development on an urban -infill site. We are confident that, if the City of Redmond's HB4079 Affordable Housing Pilot Program is selected, we will garner our expertise, experience, resources and financial knowledge and pursue the development of affordable housing units on the pilot project site. Very truly yours, Geoff Wall CFO & Interim Executive Director I lousing Works is the assumed business name of Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority Development Experience Housing Works is one of the most experienced affordable housing developers and operators in the State of Oregon. Established in 1977 as Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and rebranded as Housing Works in 2006, we currently have 28 properties in operation, with over 900 units, and 3 properties under construction (119 new units). Housing Works is the largest affordable rental housing operator in Central Oregon. Housing Works is known for the quality and upkeep of its portfolio and partnering with experienced players in development and management. Housing Works' staff has over 20 years of combined experience in single and multi -family affordable dove/opnnenL Most inlportont. Housing Works is about the mission of providing more than just housing to the residents of its properties: Housing Works provides extensive services to its resident populations both directly and through service partners such as Mosaic Medical, Cascade East Transit, OSU Extension and the Boys and Girls Club. Housing Works leads the affordable housing market in Central Oregon and has been an active player in the development and operations of affordable housing since its inception in 1977. The following list of affordable housing communities were either developed or acquired and recapitalized by Housing Works and are currently operated by our organization: • Ariel Glen, Bend — Three-story, garden -type apartments: 70 units, family, 50'6096 of area median income (AMI) ° Ariel South, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 96 units, family, 60% AMI • Aspen Villas, Redmmond—Tvvo-atnry. garden -type apartments: 40 units, family, 50'6096 AMI • Barbara's Place, Redmond — garden -type: 6 units, special seeds adults/homeless, 50% AMI • Brentwood Manor, Redmond — One-story, garden -type apartments: 8 units, senior housing with prject-based vouchers • Canyon East, Madras — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 24 unitm, agricultural workers, fully subsidized * Casa Sotiada, Madras —5 single-family homes: agricultural workers, 80% AMI • Centennial Point, Bend—Oup|ax: 4 units, homeless, 50% AMI • Chennai Landing, Madras — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 24 units, family, 50- 60% AMI Cook Crossing, Redmond — Mixed use: 48 units, Senior, 50% AMI, over 9,875 of Mosaic Medical Redmond Clinic � Daggett Townhomes, Bend — Townhomes: 24 units, family, 60% AMI • Eastlake Village, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 56 units, family, 30'8096 AMI (Building aBetter Central Oregon 2O05Outstanding MuI(i-Famlly Housing Project, Cnfral Oregon Assoc!ation of Realtors; Nationa/ Award: 2004 NAHRO, Merit Award—Project Design2004 Bend Beaufjficafjor, Award, Arts Beautification and Gulture Commission of Bend) • Emma's Place, Bend — Two-story, garden style: 11 un|ts, special -needs adults, 50'80Y6 AMI (Building a Better Central Oregon 2001 Speciai Community Outreach Development,Central Oregon Associa(ion ef Realtors; Featured in Design Cost Data Magazine (May -June, 2001) * Fairhaven Vista, Redmond — Two-story townhomes: 19 units, family, 5U-BO96AMI o Ground Lease Homes — 16 single family homes for homeownership by families below 80% AMI Healy Heights, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 70 units, family, 40-60% AMI • Horizon House, Bend — garden—type: 14 units, transitional, special needs adults, 5O-0096AMI * Independence Place, Redroond—Dup|ex: 2 units, homeless/veterans preference, 50% AMI p Menta Park, Madras — Single family and plexes: 20 units, Agricultural Workers, fully subsidized " Moonlight Townhomes, Bend — Townhomes: 29units, family, 60% AMI) • Prairie House, Prineville — , garden type: 8 units, sial needs adults, 50% of median income m Putnam Pointe, Bend — Five -story, mixed-use, elevator building: 44 units, family, 5O- 6U96AKX|.over 9.00Uofufretail and underground parking facility w Reindeer Meadows, Redmond — Three-story elevator building: 50 units, Seniors, 50- 60% AMI o Riverside Apartments, Prineville — One-story, garden -type apartments: 40 units, seniors, 50-60% AMI ° Spencer Court, Redmond — One-story, garden -type apartments: 16 units, seniors & disabled, 80Y6 AMI * Summit Park, Bend — Two-story garden type: 88 units, family, 80% AMI (Nationaf Award: 1994 NAHRO, Merit Award -Program Innovation -Economic Impact) ^ Tamarack Village, Sisters — Three-story, garden -type apartments: 33 units, family, 40- 6096 AMI (2005 NAHRO, Merit Award -Project Design) • The Parks at Eastlake, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 40 units, family, 50Y6'80Y6 AMI o Quartz Apartments, Redmond — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 5 units, intellectually developmentally disabled (IDD), 50% AMI Financing Experience: The Housing Works development team has managed development pjectnofabrVadncope- fronnomaUar2O-unhgardenapartmenbato|arge'SO-unit.bwo-etnrygondenpropertieotnmid- rise, mixed-use buildings with complex building and finance structures, with retail and housing over subterranean parking, to rehabs of multifamily properties, with a financial range from $3 million to $1 3 million. Housing Works is expert at financing. It has a depth in construction expertise with hands-on oversight of the contractors and building process and a proven track record successfufly deploying state resources for affordable housing. The Hoi Works development team has considerable experienceinUUTC(both 4% and • Fairhaven VistaRadrnond—Two-storytownhomes: 19 units, family, 50-80% AMI ° Ground Lease Homes — 16 single famiiy homes for homeownershp by famiiies beTow 80% AMI • Healy Heights, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 70 units, family, 40-60% AMI * Horizon House, Bend — Two-story, garden -type: 14 uD|te, transitional, special needs adults, 5O-GUY6AMI O Independence Place, Redmond — Duplex: 2 units, homeless/veterans preference, 50% AMI Menta Park, Madras — Single family and plexes: 20 units, Agricultural Workers, fully subsidized • Moonlight Townhomes, Berid — Townhomes: 29 units, family, 60% AMI) • Prairie House, Prineville — Two-story, garden type: 8 units, special needs adults, 50% of median income Putnam Pointe, Bend—Five'atory. mixed-use, elevator building: 44 units, family, 50- 60% AMI, over 9,000 sf of retail and underground parking facility Reindeer Meadows, Redmond — Three-story elevator building: 50 units, Seniors, 50- 60% AMI • Riverside Apartments, Prineville — One-story, garden -type apartments: 40 units, seniors, 50'6096 AMI • Spencer Court, Redmond — One-story, garden -type apartments: 16 units, seniors & disabled, 80Y6/\KU1 • Summit Park, Bend Two-story nd type: 88 units, family,80Y6AM1 (National Award: 1994 NAHRO, Merit Award-Prograrn Innovafion-Econoin!c Impact) • Tamarack Village, Sisters — Three-story, garden -type apartments: 33 units, family, 40- 60% AMI (2005 NAHRO, Merit Award -Project Design) * The Parks at Eastlake, Bend — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 40 units, family, 50%-60% AMI • Quartz Apartments, Redmond — Two-story, garden -type apartments: 5 units, intellectually developmentally disabled (IDD), 50% AMI Financing Experience: The Housing Works development team has managed development projects nfabrnad000pe- from smaller 20 -unit garden apartments to large, QO'unit, two-story garden properties to mid - rise, mixed-use buildings with complex building and finance structures, with retail and housing nid'hoe.rnixed'uoabuiid/ngowithcomp|exbui|dingandfinonoeotructures.withotmi|andhousing over subterranean parking, to rehabs of multifamily properties, with a financial range from $3 million to $13 million. Housing Works is expert at financing. It has a depth in construction expertise with hands-on oversight of the contractors and building process and a proven track record successfully deploying state resources for affordable housing. The Housing Works development team has considerable experience in LIHTC (both 4% and 9Y6\. HOME funds, VVem0hehzatinn gnante, mortgage financing, and other state and local gap funding including GHAP, OHCS LIFT, Trust Fund, SDC exemptions, CDBG, RD funding, and private investment capital. Housing Works was the first developer in Oregon to use short-term bonds with HUD financing to recapitalize Ariel Glen and Healy Heights. Putnam Pointe involved three partnerships (two involving LIHTC LLCs) with multiple sources of financing, including two layers of LIHTC equity, a city grant, HOME funds, Weatherization funding, three layers of first mortgage financing, Sponsor loan, deferred developer fee, nonprofit loan funding and commercial investment equity capital on a $13.2 million project in downtown Bend. In 2017, Housing Works successfully completed Cook Crossing, another mixed use development of a 4 story building, with a condominium involving the new construction of 48 units of senior housing along with a full service medical clinic in the ground floor, and an additional 8 units of acquisition rehab down the street. Year after year, this experienced team has continued to navigate some of the most complex and financially complicated deals to the finish line. Photos on next page: Clockwise: Moonlight Townhomes, Bend; Cook Crossing, Redmond; Skygate Homes, Sisters; The Parks at Eastlake, Bend; Ariel Glen, Bend; Eastlake Village, Bend; Aspen Villas, Redmond; Tamarack Village, Sisters. Center: Putnam Pointe, Bend. Mali V471, C71 SA1 :6111 _I %lull Pahl�chHomes May 8, 2018 Gordon Howard Community Services Division Manager Oregon Dept, of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol St. NE, #250, Salem OR 97301 Direct: (503)-934-0034 gordon.howard@state.or.us 1www,oregon.gov/LCD Dear Mr. Howard, For nearly 35 years, Pahlisch Homes has provided the Pacific Northwest with quality homes and lasting communities, Since 2003, Pahlisch has called Central Oregon home and continues to provide a level of excellence and value for the community. Our company is a multifaceted development company, specializing in land development, home building, along with multifamily developtnent and construction. Our building experience includes single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily apartments, and mixed-use commercial. Along with this, our development team has a broad experience base for developing and executing large-scale master planned communities. Pahlisch Homes is known for producing high-end communities at a variety of price points, Calling the Pacific Northwest home for over 35 years, we have seen the ebbs and flows of the market and understand that in each of our markets, particularly Central Oregon, there is a great need for attainable and affordable housing. In 2018, our company is working to establish new building criteria to offer the community more affordable homes. Our home building and production teams are currently working with local trades to find innovative ways to save money on construction and labor costs that will allow us to produce Pahlisch quality homes at a more attainable price. It is no secret that most Oregon cities are experiencing an affordability crisis. The amount of developable land within the Urban Growth Boundaries is limited, prices for land is climbing, making it difficult for developers to make both market rate and affordable development feasible. Oregon's House Bill 4079 Pilot Program is essential to allow communities, such as Redmond, boost affordable housing development. Redmond is conveniently located between Prineville, Madras, Bend, and Sisters, and is a, hub for workforce level families to access work in surrounding cities. As the area becomes more desirable for singles, growing families, and retirees, home prices continue to soar as developers and builders cannot keep up with the pent-up demand. This is creating an even tighter market for families that cannot afford market -rate housing, pushing these families to cities further from employment and services, dampening Redmond's local economy, Pahlisch Homes is currently building a subdivision on the southern portion of Redmond, Triple Ridge. The subdivision is a four-phase master planned development consisting of single-family homes, detached cottage -style homes, attached townhomes, and multifamily. Pahlisch is currently completing home building in the first phase of this development and will commence infrastructure construction on the second phase this Summer. Though homes are discounted $50,000+ from homes in nearby Bend, our sales team is still seeing a need for more affordable housing in Redmond, particularly with access to Highway 97 so families can easily access other Central Oregon cities. Pahlisch domes, Inc. 1 210 SW Wilson Ave. Suite 100 1 Bend, OR 97702 o: 541.385.6762' f: 541.385.6742 1 pahlisehhomes.com PahlischHomes The City of Redmond is currently working diligently to find ways to accommodate this need for affordable housing, both for -sale and for -rent. The Skyline Masterplan concept would offer local developers the opportunity to add to the supply of both single-family and multifamily housing in Central Oregon without the large price tag on the land. By providing a mix of housing types and services near a major thoroughfare, the Skyline Masterplan will undoubtedly become a desirable location and ideal for households in search of a more affordable way of living. Palilisch Homes supports the City of Redmond in their efforts to obtain acceptance into the HB 4079 Pilot Program. By accepting the City of Redmond, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development will be helping the Central Oregon housing market and offering local families the opportunity to obtain housing out a more affordable price in a centrally located area, close to major highways and services. Please see attached for project summaries of a few of our recent projects that illustrate the type of work we do. If you have any questions or would like to discuss Pahlisch Homes' stance of support further, please contact me by phone at 541-385-6762 x 166 or by email at chadb(`a. pahlisch.com. Director of Land Development and Acquisitions Pahlisch Homes, Inc. Pahlisch 1-ionues, Inc. 1 210 SW Wilson Ave, Suite 100 Bcud, OR 9770.2 o: 541,385%6762 l 1: 5-11.385.67421 pa lilisclrhnme,.com Pahh hHomes Exhibit A Project Summaries 1. Triple Ridge — Master Planned Community & PUD - Redmond, OR — 36.20 acres — 300 units Single -Family 86 units Detached Cottage 42 units Townhome 28 units Multifamily 144 units Amenities Community pool, walking trails, public park Community Features Across from new high school, developing area with potential for high -use conunercial ,,l(MO7£14.I nC4&I PHASE 1 NO CNANGENNDCR CONSTRUCTION 5 A A PHASE 2 NOCHANGEINDCA CONSTRUCTION Pahlisch homes. Inc. 1 210 SW iVilson Ave. Suite 1110 1 Bend, OR 97702 o: 541.385.97621 f: 541.335.674?. 1 pa hlischhoroes.com Pahlischtiomes 2. The Bridges — Planned Unit Development - Bend, OR — 78.66 acres — 387 units 1 Single -Family I Amenities 1 Community Features 387 units Community pools, basketball court, fitness center, walking trails, clubhouse Across from 39 -acre park and site of new Bend high school (coming 2021) Pahlkch 1lowes, Inc. 12.10 S\\' Wilson Ave. Suite 1001 Bend. OR 97702 o: :-.;-11.38.5.016211: 5-11.385.67-121 pahlischhomes.com PahlischHomes 3. Butternut Creek — Master Planned Community - Hillsboro, OR — 177.63 acres — 1,246 units 1 Single -Family 1 Detached Cottage 1 Townhome 1 Multifamily Community Features 269 units 133 units 168 units Approximately 676 units Part of larger South Hillsboro concept plan, adding parks, commercial, schools, and over 20,000 homes to Hillsboro 1. Ilf 4i a�—�r;��...-J 1° gl 1 P1�!II t4f'�SI rT Er nEuz sl I 4114E rAIY 1T1"^ . p 1!� i I /r�i3111tirr`{ j{ y/ i1J f t�gill�a�gy, I..1.1.1.1.1. •1.1.1 8E EURER1l0 Pit ,c,x n l'ahlisch Homes, Inc. 1 210 SW Wilson ;tve. Suite 101) Bend, OR 1)77(12 o: 5-11,335.0762 1 f: -11.33$.(7-12 pahlischllomcs.com May 10, 2018 Ms. Deborah McMahon Planning Manager City of Redmond City Hall 411 SW 9'1' Street Redmond, Oregon 97756 Re: Memorandum of Interest Skyline Affordable Housing Project Dear Ms. McMahon: On behalf of The Wasserman Group, LLC, ("TWG")1 am pleased to provide the City of Redmond, Ore- gon (together with its affiliates, "Redmond") with this non-binding memorandum of interest ("MOI"), which outlines the high-level and general terms and conditions of a proposed public/private partnership with Redmond for the HB 4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 0100 affordable housing pilot program (the "Project"). This MOI does not constitute or create, and shall not be deemed to constitute or create, a legally binding or enforceable obligation, joint venture, partnership, or other business relationship on the part of any of the parties hereto, and should not be construed as a commitment to provide an equity investment in, or a loan to, the Project. Project Description The Project will be located in Redmond on approximately 40 acres of currently un- developed land. TWG will work with Redmond to develop a master development plan, which shall include such items as the Project concept and design, financing and tax -credit options, construction, and management and operations of a mixed -in- come residential community (with an emphasis, for a minimum of 30% of the units created, on residents who earn no more than 80% of AMI). Project Costs While the Project's total costs cannot be determined at this time, we believe that as the master development plan evolves we will be in a position to provide an accurate budget and estimate of costs. To accomplish this we anticipate that TWG and Red- mond will work together to create a scope of work that will allow us to produce an accurate budget. Proposed Public Notwithstanding other provisions of this MOI, Redmond and TWG will work coop - Private Partnership eratively in a quasi-public/private partnership ("PPP"), whereby Redmond will con- tribute the land at no cost as well as other potential subsidies, including, but not lim- ited to, water, sewer, streets, and other components needed to the build -out the Pro- ject infrastructure. TWG will provide its expertise, capital sources, overhead, and development knowledge to coordinate and complete all aspects of the Project, as well as pre -development costs needed to bring the Project to fruition. Timing To -be -determined and mutually agreed upon by both parties. The overall develop- ment will likely be completed in phases and developed as the parties hereto may agree. While the phases may be arbitrarily set by Redmond and TWG, they may also be influenced by data collected in a 3`d party market/feasibility analysis. TWG will be responsible for sourcing all debt and/or tax credit equity required to develop and support the Project. Tax Credits and Permanent Debt Predevelopmenil Subject to a mutually agreed upon budget and litnitation, TWG shall be responsible Due Diligence Ex- for all predevelopment costs relative to the buildout of the Project. penses THE WASSERMAN GROUP, LLC By: Stephen M W4S'serman, Managing Member AGREED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON By: Its The Wasserman Group, LLC Management Team and Experience THE WASSERMAN GROUP, LLC & AFFILIATES: Stenhen M. Wasserman Over his business career Steve Wasserman has been involved in virtually every aspect of real estate. A Certified Public Accountant and graduate of the University of Illinois (Urbana), he came to the real estate industry after serving as an auditor and tax accountant for PricewaterhouseCoopers (then Price Waterhouse & Co.) and having completed one of the country's most rigorous and prestigious corporate management development programs at Illinois Bell (now AT&T). He later served as Executive Vice President/Controller of the real estate division of a Wheelabrator/Frye, a then NYSE company, where he was responsible for a multi -family development and property management company with approximately 50,000 apartment units and a significant number of commercial properties under management. During the REIT crisis of the mid-to-late 1970's Steve was an officer of First Wisconsin National Bank (now US BANK), where he managed a diverse multi -hundred million dollar (1970's dollars) "work-out" portfolio of troubled real estate and loans. As a bank officer he was directly involved in borrower negotiations, bank swaps, construction completion, asset and property management, and virtually every other real estate/banking related activity on properties throughout the U.S. He moved from Denver to Atlanta to finalize the Bank's asset completion and disposition process in the Southeast and remained with the Bank until late 1977, when he formed The Wasserman Group, Inc. (TWG). It is a specialist in government financed programs and has completed numerous tax-exempt bond transactions as a consultant and fee developer. In addition to asset and property management (including contracted development relationships with MGIC and AMBAC), over its 40+ year existence TWG developed offices (award winning), apartments, condominiums (award winning), and single-family houses nationally. In recent years TWG has concentrated on tax credit housing and other affordable housing. Steve is a founder of two not-for-profit housing companies whose missions are the acquisition and long-term preservation of affordable housing nationally — Affordable Housing America, Inc. and American Covenant Senior Housing Foundation, Inc. Over his career Stcvc has been the developer, owner, consultant, and/or asset or property manager of over 8,500 multi -family units and single family homes nationally. Peter H. Wasserman Peter has been involved in the developrnent, construction, brokerage, and asset management of low and moderate -income multifamily real estate since 2002. Between 2002 and 2005 Peter managed approximately $65rnrn in new construction tax exempt bond transactions as a fee-based developer with The Wasserman Group, Inc. The rated bonds on these transactions utilized a government loan guarantee program as credit enhancement to the debt. The six projccts involved in these transactions consisted of a blend of seniors housing (age/income restricted congregate care) and income restricted (non-LIHTC) family developments. These projects utilized §50I(c)(3) sponsors with whom TWG had no previous relationship. During the development of these projects Peter formed two §501(c)(3)'s that would be utilized as future sponsors of similar transactions. Those §501(c)(3)'s remained dormant for several years as the rules affecting various loan programs used by TWG slowly changed but are now quite active. In 2005 Peter switched his focus to the acquisition/rehab (or "preservation") of aged USDA Section 515 (formerly "Farmers Home") and other rural properties. Between 2005 and 2010 Peter was involved with fifteen LIHTC transactions all of which received either 9% LIHTC awards or some other form of subsidized funding. Following the credit debacle of 2008, in 2009 Peter shifted his focus to growing the non-profit organizations he co -created and managed. Since 2009 Affordable Housing America, Inc. ("AHA") has closed on 13 multifamily properties geographically scattered across the country. The properties AHA owns have been financed with a variety of diverse capital stacks which include a combination of tax credits, HUD/USDA debt, tax-exempt bonds, and soft money/grants. Peter was heavily involved in all aspects of the acquisition, finance, and development of AHA's projects. Prior to entering the real estate industry Peter spent five years with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra as Program Coordinator for the Chastain Parlc Amphitheater and the Symphony Hall "Super POPS!" concert series. During this time, he produced over 200 live concert events (ranging from pop acts such as Hootie and the Blowfish to classical performances featuring the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra). Peter is a graduate of Georgia State University with a degree in Economics. David M. Perloe Through TWG, David works with qualified §501(c)(3) designated organizations, for- profit developers, brokers, and property management companies to assemble transactions that meet TWG's financing criteria. David is also an asset manager for Affordable Housing America, Inc. ("AHA"), a Georgia based non-profit affordable housing owner and developer. David's responsibilities at AHA parallel those at The Wasserman Group, leveraging his ability to bridge public §501(c)(3)'s with for profit developers. David is responsible for asset management and due diligence coordination of property acquisitions as well as asset management of existing properties in the AHA portfolio. Prior to joining AHA, David was the Off -Premise VP of Sales and Marketing for regional beverage company Whynatte Latte. David graduated from Colorado State University with a degree in Finance. David E. Wasserman Since 2010 David has been involved in the development, construction and asset management of low and moderate -income multifamily real estate as well as multiple low income housing tax credit ("LIHTC"), HUD/USDA-financed, unenhanced affordable housing and Affordable Housing Program — Federal ITome Loan Bank transactions since 2010. David is the Executive Director of Social Housing, Inc, a Georgia nonprofit organization recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization under the Code with the charitable purpose of owning and operating affordable multifamily housing. and asset manages a portfolio of 14 affordable multifamily properties for both Social Housing as well as Affordable Housing America, Inc. ("AHA"), another Georgia based non-profit affordable housing owner and developer. Since 2009, AHA and Social Housing have acquired 16 multifamily properties containing approximately 900 units. These properties have been financed with combinations of low income housing tax credits, HUD/USDA debt, tax-exempt bonds, and soft money or grants. As Chairman and Executive Director of the Sole Member, Mr. Wasserman oversees the day to day operations of the Sole Member and acts as a point of contact to the wide net of industry players who participate in the Sole Member's operational activity. Mr. Wasserman is a graduate of Hunter College in New York. John S. Gnnwert John offers construction and real estate development -related expertise to clients and partners within the multifamily industry. With over 30 years experience, his diverse and comprehensive project range includes: development, design and construction of high end condominiums, large tract garden apartments, Historic loft conversions, townhouse developments and subsidized government housing projects. John applies economic value added analysis to the design, development and production phase for new or renovated projects. John focuses on goal alignment, relational structure and cost containment to ensure optimum project results. John's firrn, Camden Management Partners, LLC, has evolved from its origins as a service provider to a full service development company with full development and general contracting capabilities. Camden is currently performing development construction and construction management services on a variety of project types including the recent historic preservation and conversion of Loray Mill in Gaston, North Carolina. James D. Miller. Architect Mr. Miller established the Miller Architecture in July, 1968, as Jaynes D. Miller, A.I.A., Architect, Ltd. Prior to opening his own office, he worked for five years for other firms in the area. Mr. Miller obtained his professional education at Clemson University, specializing in architectural design and receiving a Bachelor of Architecture Degree in 1964. He also did post graduate work toward a Master of Architecture Degree at Clemson from 1966 to 1969. Mr. Miller has been registered to practice architecture in the State of South Carolina since October of 1967. He presently has NCARB certification and is registered to practice architecture in fifteen states. Miller Architecture, LLC is a full-service mediuin-size architectural firm that has designed a broad range of projects including but not limited to apartment and dormitory complexes, assisted living facilities, medical offices, shopping centers, hotels, industrial plants, warehouses, and professional office buildings. Over half of Miller Architect's experience has been in the broad area of multi -family residential facilities. Miller Architecture has designed in excess of 150,000 living units consisting of conventional apartments, independent living apartments, assisted living facilities, timeshare condominiums, resort condominiums, HUD apartments, government family housing, condominiums, town homes, college dormitories, single- family housing, public housing, and government subsidy apartments. These units have been in buildings from one to nine stories in height using many types of materials. Presently Miller Architecture has work in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Kentucky. Construction cost range from $47,000 per unit to over $100,000 per unit. Miller Architecture also has significant experience in the area of health care and retirement elderly living facilities. These projects include medical offices and clinics, nursing homes and assisted living centers, housing for the elderly and the mentally challenged, and retirement communities containing patio homes, apartment buildings, and clubhouse/recreational facilities. Miller Architecture provides full architectural services, land planning, landscape and has a full range of consultants for structural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and civil engineering. PROPERTIES DEVELOPED, OWNED OR ASSET MANAGED BY THE WASSERMAN GROUP, CAMDEN MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, AND ITS AFFILIATES COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTS: LORAY MILL LOFTS PHASE 1, GASTONIA, NC, - 190 unit apartment community, 100,000 sq ft of commercial, historic mill conversion/ adaptive reuse (FHA financing, federal/state mill and historic credits). STERCHI LOFTS, KNOXVILLE, TN — 100 unit apartment community, historic mill conversion of 13 story high rise (FHA financing, historic federal tax credits) CJ MCL1N APARTMENTS, DAYTON, OH, - 46 unit age rcstricted community, acquisition with significant rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction/ 100% Project Based Section 8) GROVE HOUSE APARTMENTS, EAST ORANGE, NJ — 33 unit family apartment C0171711 Unity, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction/ 97% Project Based Section 8) PARK TERRACE APARTMENTS, EAST ORANGE, NJ — 39 unit family apartment community, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction/ 97% Project Based Section 8) ATHENS GARDEN APARTMENTS, ATHENS, OH — 44 unit finnily apartment community, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction/ 100% HAP, Anticipated Closing December 2015) COLONIAL VILLAGE, CINCINNATI, 011 — 66 unit finnily apartment comn7unity, acquisition with light rehab to perm (Bridge to Perm, 100% Project Based Section 8) CREEKSTONE PINES APARTMENTS, GREENVILLE, AL — 76 unit family apartment community, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction) MAGNOLIA TERRACE APARTMENTS, Tallahassee, FL- 108 unitfarnily apartment community, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction, 100% Project Based Section 8) MALCOLM KENNER APARTMENTS, Kenner, LA - 65 unit family apartment community, acquisition with light rehab (Tax exempt bond transaction, 100% Project Based Section 8) WASHINGTON GARDENS APARTMENTS, Grenada, MS - 100 unit family apartment community, acquisition with substantial rehab (HUD 221(d)(4), 9% L1HTC, 100% Project Based Section 8) THE WOODBRIDGE APARTMENTS, Nashville, IN - 220 unit apartment community (HUD 221(d) (4)) THE PINERY, Alpharetta (Atlanta), GA - 230 lot single family subdivision with additional 230 acres o vacant land (Conventional) EAGLERIDGE, Pueblo, CO - 1,000± acre, 500-1- home planned community (Conventional) STRAWBERRY HILL APARTMENTS, Colorado Springs, CO - 312 unit apartment Co177mu171ty BERKSHIRE APARTMENTS, Colorado Springs, CO - 540 unit apt. community and 100± acres of land KENSINGTON APARTMENTS, Boulder, CO - 140 unit apartment community RAMADA INN WEST, Denver, CO - 150 roo177 motel BARCELONA APARTMENTS, Tucson, AZ - 240 unit apartment community CHANDLER APARMENTS, Chandler (Phoenix), AZ - 180 unit apartment co777177ulnity LA PALMA APARTMENTS, San Antonio, TX - 180 unit apartment community THE HERMITAGE, Houston, TX - 130 unit Senior luxzny high rise apartment building ALABAMA STREET CONDOMINIUMS, Houston, TX - 65 unit condominium col77rnunity GARDEN HAUS APARTMENTS, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 252 unit apartment community CAVALIER OFFICE BUILDING, Oklahoma City, OK - Approximately 150,000 square feet office tower — INCLUDED BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (GSA) AS TENANT LARGE LAND TRACT, Tulsa, OK - 700± acre land tract LARGE LAND TRACT, Raleigh, NC - 1,000± acre multi -use land tract COUNTRY PLACE APARTMENTS, Nashville, TN - 240 unit apartnnent community SUTTON PLACE APARTMENTS, Nashville, TN - 320 unit apartment community CAMELOT CONDOMINIUMS, Atlanta, GA - 330 unit condominium comnunity 3200 CLAIRMONT ROAD CONDOMINIUMS, Atlanta, GA - 90 condominium units CEDAR CANYON CONDOMINIUMS, Atlanta, GA - 120 coladon7inizw7 units 318 WEST ADAMS STREET, Chicago, IL - 150,000 square foot 18 story office building — 221 E. ERIE STREET, Chicago, IL - 80,000 square fout office building, 80 Co17do117iniu77 units TURTLE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS, Dallas, Texas - 100 unit luxury condominium? project DESERT PALMS CONDOMINIUMS, Palm Springs, CA - 140 unit condominium project BITI'ERBRUSH CONDOMINIUMS, Incline Village (Lake Tahoe), CA - 90 unit luxury condonminiun7 FREMONT COURT APARTMENTS, Fremont, CA (San Francisco area) - 490 unit apartment Co1771777117ity PROPERTIES DESIGNED BY MILLER ARCHITECTURE Acorn Park - 300 units - Jacksonville, FL Addison Place - 160 units - Crestview, Florida AHEPA 242 - 48 Units - Greenville, SC Anderson Village (Rehab) - 98 units - Anderson, SC Appian Way - 204 Units - N. Charleston, SC Arbors At Fairview - 168 units - Simpsonville, SC Ashley Park Apartments - 172 units- Myrtle Beach, SC Ashley Park Townhomes - 65 Units - Charleston, SC Ashton Court Apartments - 70 units - LeGrange, GA Ashton Cove - 57 Units in Kingsland, GA. Austin Woods Apartments - 168 units - Pensacola, FL Allston Grove - 320 units - Raleigh, NC - d4d Auston Woods - 288 units - Charlotte, NC Autumn Woods Apartments - 144 units - Mauldin, SC d4d Bailey Gardens - 24 Units - Lake City, SC Beechwood Commons - 182 units - Athens, GA - d4d Berry Shoals - 192 units - Spartanburg, SC Butler Terrace - 56 units in Mauldin, SC Calhoun Gardens - 76 units - Calhoun, GA Cambridge Court - 64 units - Florence, SC - Tax Credit Cambridge Hills Assisted Living - Roxboro, NC Cameron at Clarkesville - 60 units - Clarkesville, GA Cameron Crossing - 134 units - Moonville, SC - USDA Cameron Crossing, Il - 64 units - Moonville, SC - USDA Carolina Crossing - 216 units - Columbia, SC Center Pointe Apartments - 132 units - Greenwood, SC - d4d Clam Farm - 62 units - Folly Beach, SC Clarion Crossing 11 - 32 Units in Raleigh, N.C. Cliffs @ Walnut Cove - 17 Units - Asheville, NC — Village Townhomes Companion @ Carter Mill - 144 units - Sumter, SC - d4d Country Wood at Blue Angel - 108 units - Pensacola, FL Cross Creek Apts. - 144 Units - Beaufort, SC Cypress Pond @ Porter's Neck - 264 units - Wilmington, NC Eastwood Village - 140 units - Asheville, NC - d4d Enclave at Deep River Plantation - 220 units - High Point, NC Forest Oaks Apartments - 168 Units, Rock Hill, SC - d4d Forest Oaks Apartments, II - 120 units, Rock Hill, S. C. - d4d Forest Pointe - 120 units - Walterboro, SC - d4d Fox Run Apartments - 120 units - Camden, SC - d4d Glen Eagles 11 - 144 Units in Winston-Salem, N.C. Greenbrier Apartments 11 - 168 units in Columbia, SC Greer Gardens - 168 Units in Greet; S.C. Greystone Loch - 192 Units in Hilton Head, S.C. Hard Scrabble Apartments - 120 units - Columbia, SC Haven at Boiling Springs - 264 units - Boiling Springs, SC Ilaven at Mountain Oaks - 24 units - Svlva, NC — Housing for the elderly Huntington Place - 192 Units in Columbia, S. C. Huntsville -Summit - 101 units - Huntsville, AL Jasmine Cove - 184 Units - Simpsonville, SC Lake Shadow @ Limestone - 96 Units - Gainesville, GA Laurel Crest - Pigeon Forge, TN - Timeshare Laurel Hill Apts. - Port Royal, SC LealStone Apartments - 232 units - Covington, GA Legacy at Anderson - 100 units - Anderson, SC' - Independent Living - USDA Legacy at Dallas - 105 units - 93 units - Dallas, GA - Independent Living - USDA Legacy at Lehigh - Lehigh, FL, -93 Units - Independent Living - USDA Lexington Place- 144 units - Centerville, GA Magnolia Lane - 48 units in Conway, SC Magnolia Manor (Rehab) - 48 units - Sumter„SC Manning Gardens (Rehab) - 50 units - Manning„SC Meadows, Phase Ill - 48 units - Asheville, NC Merchants Court - 192 Units in Dallas; GA. Meridian Place Townhomes - 100 units - Rock Hill, SC Meridian Place, II - 100 units - Rock Hill, SC Midland Terrace Apartments - 120 units - Summerville, SC d4d Mill Creek Apartments - 290 Units in Atlanta, GA Mosteller Mansion Apts. - 168 units - Hickwy, NC Mountain Loft, Phase IV - 55 Units in Gatlinburg, TN - Timeshare Oak Forest 111 Apartments - 192 Units in Spartanburg, S.C. Osprey Place - Tax Credit - 108 units - Charleston, SC Osprey Pointe - 72 units - Tax Credit - North Charleston, SC Parks At River's Edge - Condos - N. Charleston, SC Park @ River's Edge - 168 Units - 11. Charleston, SC Peaks at Conyers - 260 units - Conyers, GA - Tax Credit Peaks @ West Atlanta - 214 units - Atlanta, GA - Tax Credit Pelican Pointe - Charleston, SC Pine Terrace Villas - 24 units - Swainsboro, GA Pinnacle Ridge (renovations) - Asheville, N.C. Preston Creek Apartments - 260 units - McDonough, GA Preston Creek 11 - 74 units - McDonough, GA Preston Glenn @ Bridgemill - 300 Units in Cherokee County, GA. Preston Hills at .114111 Creek - 464 units - Gwinnett County, GA Preston Mills @ Gwinnett - 464 Units in Gwinnett County, GA, Preston Pointe Apts. -48 Units - Clemson, SC Preston Pointe at Windermere - 346 units - Forsythe County, GA Puller Place Apartments - Jacksonville, NC Riverbirch 7'ownhomes - 74 units - Greenville, SC Seven Farms Apartments - Daniel Island Shady Grove Apts. - Charleston, SC Shires Apartments - West Ashley, SC - 72 units South Tiyon Apartments - 216 units - Charlotte, NC Stonegate @ Spring Lake - 264 units - Spring Lake, NC University Center - 156 Units - Charlotte, NC Village @ Auston Woods 11- 204 Units - Charlotte, NC Village at Lake Wylie - 392 units - Lake Wylie, SC Village on the Lake - 156 Units - Fayetteville, NC Village on the Lake II - 144 units - Fayetteville, NC Vinings @ Duncan Chapel - 196 units - Greenville County, SC Vinings at ICAR - Greenville, SC Vinings at Matthews - 240 units - Matthews, SC Vinings at Roper Mountain - 208 units - Greenville, SC Vinings at Westcott - 192 units - North Charleston, SC Vinings at Wildwood - 168 units - Morehead City, NC Walden Glen Apartments - 240 Units in Augusta, GA. Walker's Crossing, Phase 11 - 72 units - Knoxville, TN The Woods @ Georgetown - 72 Units in Savannah, GA. Peter H. Wasserman p. 770.874.8800 x100 ohwki),wassermaneroun.com Team Contact information Stephen M. Wasserman p. 770.874.8800 x110 smw wassermanffoun.com David E. Wasserman p. 770.874.8800 x108 dewabwassermanaroun.com David M. Perloe p. 770.874.8800 x102 drno@wasserman.2rouo.com 1 - Creations Nor...8.pdf CR FA I IONS NOR 11IWES 1 LLC. (R 1819.81 2500 Willamette Falls Drive Suite 207 West Linn, OR 97068 503.908.0563 Ms. Deborah McMahon Planning Manager City of Redmond 411 SW 9th Street Redmond, OR 97756 Re: City of Redmond's HB 4079 Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Ms. McMahon, On behalf of Creations Northwest, LLC, I am pleased to confine our interest in partnering with the City of Redmond on your bid for an affordable housing pilot program under HB 4079 OAR 660-039-000 through 0100. Please find attached our conformation affidavit of interest along with our company background information and development experience you requested. Creations Northwest develops and owns apartment communities, self -storage facility and assisted living and memory care facilities. Creations Northwest also develops and constructs townhomes and single family lots for sale in our master plan communities. We are currently developing projects in Redmond, Bend, Albany, Salem, Milwaukie, Portland and Gresham. A list of our current and past projects is attached. We are currently constructing the first phase of a 31 -acre master plan development in Redmond called The Crossings. When completed, the project will have 49 single family homes (Residences at The Crossings), 57 townhoines (Townhomes at The Crossings), 1 80 attached apartments (Heights at The Crossings), and a mixed-use community with commercial on the first floor and 21 apartments above. 1 have included the Crossings conceptual master plan layout and renderings of some of the buildings in this letter. 1 have also enclosed plans, renderings, photos and a video of some of our completed projects. Thank you for the opportunity to be included in your HB 4079 proposal. Sincerely, Hans Thygeson -// Manager, Creations Northwest 2 - Affidavit 5-8-18.pdf CITY OF REDMOND Community Development Department Gordon Howard Community Services Division Manager Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol St. NE, #250, Salem OR 97301 Direct: (503)-934-0034 qovdon.howmnda.stohoo,uo1vmxmvumonn.00v/LCD Dear Mr. Howar: 716 SW EvergreeAvenue Redmond, OR 9775 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 It is our pleasure to submit the City of Redmond proposal for the HB 4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 0100 affordable housing pilot program. Programs such as these will help Redmond and the Central Oregon region provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries — with 50% of the 40 -acre sito dodicated to Iong-term affordable housing. H84078.animplemented byOAR 00O-830-80U0.describes how the affordable housing pilot program is intended to: (1) Encourage local governments to provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries that is dedicated to affordable housing; (2)Encourage the development of affordable housing on land dedicated to affordable housing; (3) Protect land dedicated to affordable housing from conversion to other uses before or after the development of affordable housing; (4) Enhance public understanding of the relationship of land supply to the development of affordable and needed housing; and (5) Enhance public understanding of how cities can increase the amount of affordablo and needed housing. Moreover, OAR 660- 039-0000 requires cities to identify: The identity of entities that may partner with the qualifying city in development of the pilot project site and the prior experience with the development of affordable or market -rate housing, and that of any other entity, public or private, that will be developing the pilot project site. ''_/ ^f/. '// ' T�C��R�mondoubm�(,��/.'�� '—�/i��/z.,sr/z 1. 6- as a potential partner and supplies data from thls partner showing interest and eperience with affordable and/or market rate housing as shown on Exhibit A of this document. Exhibit A provides background information and development examples of projects similar to the housing proposed on Exhibit 13. 3 - Creations Nor....docx CREATIONS NORTHWEST, LLC CONSTRUCTION RESUME Commercial, Offices: 2003 Completed extensive remodel of 8,500 square foot office building. 2004 Purchase and remodeled 3,000 square foot office Commercial, Self -Storage: 2006 Built 70,000 square feet of self -storage, Albany, Oregon 2009 Built RV storage, Albany, Oregon 2015 Built 12,000 square feet of enclosed self -storage, Albany, Oregon 2017 Build 27,000 square feet of self -storage, Albany, Oregon 2018 Building 80,000 square feet of multi -story self -storage, Milwaukie, Oregon Residential, Multi -Family (Apartments): 2001 Rehab of existing apartment community, Gladstone, Oregon 2003 Rehab of existing apartment community, Salein, Oregon 2006-2007 Built 126 -unit apartment community, Salem, Oregon 2008-2009 Built 78 -unit apartment community, Salem, Oregon 2012-2013 Built 102 -unit apartment community, Salein, Oregon 2014-2014 Built 81 -unit apartment community, Albany, Oregon 2015-2016 Built 72 -unit memory care facility, Happy Valley, Oregon 2016-2017 Built 122 -unit apartment community, Gladstone, Oregon 2017-2018 Built 121 -unit apartment community, Salem, Oregon 2018-2019 Building 60 units of apartments, Gresham, Oregon Residential, Single Family: 1999-2009 Land development and construction of subdivisions from 2 to 16 lots. 1999-2009 Built approximately 30 homes in various subdivisions. 1996-2013 Remodeled and sold 10-15 single family homes 2018 Building 17 townhomes, Redmond, Oregon 2018-2019 Building 12 townhomes, Gresham, Oregon 2018-2019 Building 12 cottages, Gresham, Oregon 2018-2019 Land development and construction of 49 lot subdivision, Redmond, Oregon Assisted Living Facilities: 2002 -2005 Partnered in development of three Assisted Living Facilities in the Northwest 2014-2015 Remodel of 64 -bed assisted living & 17 bed memory care, Idaho 2001-2015 Developed two Residential Care Facilities from existing properties 2016 Built 72 -unit memory care facility, Happy Valley, Oregon RV Park: 2001-2003 Partner in Development of 400- unit Senior RV Resort with 9 Hole Golf Course NO0380'ONOW038 0ll'S311i13d0bd I1H NVId 2131SVW 3dVOSONV1 A2IVNIWI1R1d PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN OBSIDIAN MASMR PLAN DEVEL 4 - Crossings Mas...R.pdf ttW^t9 ,.,t1 5 t.0 9 1 w i• _,y,W9 ,9± M: AIMS ilut1:19 el 1 .:37Tt'P-laJ 31 -1 ag i a? aY 31 7- IJt `.1,L;tit 2I I!I _ i. �9 . 66� -r``43;114: N„t u IIrnts a. Letter of Interest Skyline Affordable Housing Project REF: The City of Redmond's proposal for the HB 4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 0100 affordable housing program Prepared for: Ms. Deborah McMahon Planning Manager City of Redmond City Hall 411 SW 9th Street Redmond, OR 97756 Presented by: Lawnae Hunter, CRB, GR! Lawnae Hunter Investments 695 SW Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 541-389-2486 (o) 541-389-2449 (Fax) shunter@plusmanagementnet ay zoi8 By Hand 11m May 2018 Ms. Deborah McMahon Planning Manager City of Redmond City Hall 411 SVVgth Street Redmond, OR 97756 Dear Ms. McMahon: By Hand Re: Letter of Interest - Skyline Affordable Housing Project We are pleased to respond to the City of Redmond's proposal for the HB 4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 0100 affordable housing program (the "Project"). Lawnae Hunter Investments r with all affiliates, collectively "Hunter") offers the City of Redmond, Oregon (together with its affiliates, "Redmond") this non-binding letter of interest ("U}|''), which outlines the very general terms and conditions of a proposed public-private partnership with Redmond. This LOI does not constitute or create, and shall not be deemed to constitute or create, any legally binding or enforceabie obligation, joint venture, partnership, or other business relationship on the part of any party hereto and should not be construed as a commitment to provide an equity investment in, or a loan to, the Project. Project Description The 4o acre Project site is located at the end of KingwoodAvenueinRednnnnd,0regonon currently undeveloped land. Hunter will work with Redmond to refine the proposed Project concept to design, finance, construct and operate a mixed income community with an emphasis on targeting residents making 8o% of AMI for 3o% of units created. Project Costs The total projects costs are yet to be determined. However, it is anticipated that Hunter and Redmond will work together to come to some reasonable final conclusion on project costs once the final scope of work is complete. Proposed Public Private Partnership Notwithstanding the conditions of this LOl stated above, Redmond and Hunter wffl work together in a quasi public private partnership ("PPP") whereby Redmond will contribute the land and make other possible contributions including, but not limited to, water, sewer, streets and other components relative to the build out of the Project infrastructure. Hunter LownueHunter Investments - Redmond Mg407gRFP Response -11mMay zo1x Page 1 of 9 Timing will provide its expertise, capftal and other sources and development knowledge to coordinate and complete all aspects of the Project, as well as predevelopment costs needed to bring the Project to frultion. To -be -determined and mutually agreed upon by both parties. The overall development wiU likely be completed in phases and developed as the parties hereto may agree. The phases may arbitrarily agree upon between Redmond and Hunter, and/or be influenced by data collected in a 3rd party market feasibility analysis. Predevelopment/ Due Diligence Expenses Subject to a mutually agreed upon limit, Hunter shall be responsible for its own predevelopment costs relative to the build out of the Project. Tax Credits and Permanent Debt Hunter will be responsible for sourcing any and all debt and/or tax credit equity required to support the Project. Attached are various supporting Exhibits: EXHIBIT A Lawnae Hunter - CV EXHIBIT B Lawnae Hunter Investments, LLC - Sample Projects EXHIBIT Recent letter of support from AIice M. Patino, Mayor of Santa Maria, CA sent to Redmond Oregon City Manager Keith Witcosky EXHIBIT D Recent letter of support from Robert A. Ogden, CPA, CFP sent to Redmond Oregon City Manager Keith Witcosky EXHIBIT E Keysite 30/ Bradley Village - Santa Maria, CA - Conceptual Site Plan 8o -acre site approved for 352 units. EXHIBIT F Betteravia Business Plaza - Santa Maria, CA Conceptual Site Plan 32,000 SF Class A Office Building Thank you for your consideration. By:( Investments Lawna Hunter LuwnuwHunter Investments - Redmond H13fu7qRFP Response -/1mMay zu^0 Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT A Lawnae Hunter 695 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 (541) 388-0404 Lawnae 15 former Principal Principa! Broker/Co-Owner of Windermere Central Oregon Reat Estate in Bend, Oregon and Prudential Hunter Reality in Santa Barbara, CA. She has over thirty-five years' experience in general real estate brokerage including land development, new home sales, property management and general resale. She is knowledgeable in all phases of real estate. Lawnae thrives in a dynamic and competitive sales environment with a strong understanding of the market forces affecting Central Oregon. In addition to her development activities she is currently Principal Broker/Owner of PLUS Property Management of two offices in Central Oregon managing over 900 units and four offices in Santa Barbara County, California, managing well over1,100 units. Qualifications & Summary of Experience • Sold in excess of 300 million dollars in land, lots, and subdivisions. A total of 59 projects and subdivisions. • Residential Resale, Commercial Sates/Leasing. • Consulting on Troubled Assets. • Consulting with Builder/Developers in the planning & marketing of new communities. • Managed & owned multi -office regional real estate firm, recognized for numerous sales awards. m Creative, problem solving thinking. Selected Accomplishments • Developed and owned the largest regionalrea|estatecompanyonthe[entna|Cnast, consisting of six offices and 17o sales staff D.B.A. Prudential Hunter Realty. This company was acquired by a Berkshire Hathaway affiUate iri 2003. • Founded Centrai Oregon Economic Forecast Project in 2009. • Conference Co -Chair of Center for Economic Forecasting (CERF) Annual Business Meeting Featuring noted economic speakers Andrew Sorkan and BiU Watkins. • Central Oregon Rental Owners Association- 2009/2010 President. • Woman of the Year 2009, 33rd Assembly District. • 2004 Entrepreneur of the Year, Santa Maria Sun. • 2n11VVonnanoftheYear,Bend0na8nn;TheSourceWeek/y • Honorary Professor- Kazakh American Free University (Kazakhstan) -Invited to speak to women graduate students at Kazak American University 1r 2014. • Founding Chair of Woman's Fund of Santa Barbara County — Raised over a million dollars to date • Founding Chair of North Santa Barbara Economic Alliance. Emphasizing job creation in the local community and education on vibrant job markets. LownueHunter mvestment Redmondm��y2018 ,- -�� Page 3mf9 Organizations & Boardof Director � Rotary International, Past President/Board of Directors of the Santa Maria Rotary South in 2004, current member Greater Bend Rotary. • 2009/2010 President, Central Oregon Rental Owners Association. • Secretary & Board Member, Innovation Theatre Works (non-profit, Bend). • Central Oregon Economic Forecast Project (co-chair) 2009 and 2010. • City ofSanta Maria Planning Commission -zno3tozoo6. • Board Member and Vice -Chair 2018 of Oregon Real Estate Agency (OREA)- Governor appointed position. • Co -Founder and Treasurer of Stroke Awareness Oregon (SAO) - 2018 Education & Training • Graduate Realtor's Institute (GRI) • Certified Residential Brokerage Manager (CRB) • California Real Estate Brokers License • Oregon Real Estate Principal Brokers License Page�mf9 LmwnueMun/e,/nvestmen�-NedmmndMB4o79nppnasponsa-11mMmyzo1V EXHIBIT B Lawnae Hunter Investments, LLC Sample Projects Keysite 30/ Bradley Village - Santa Maria, CA 8o -acre site approved for 352 units. A planned community including senior housing, apartments, and single-family homes. Old Mill Run - Santa Maria, CA 48 lots Casa Serena - Lompoc, CA 48 unit tax credit senior apartments Copperleaf Village- Bend, OR 28 unit lot, multi -family units Mira Oaks - Lompoc, CA 19 single family custom homes Sandalwood - Bend OR 40 lot subdivision Hillside Park - Solvang, CA Custom homes Betteravia Business Plaza - Santa Maria, CA 32,000 class A office building Hunter Commercial Center - Santa Maria, CA 17,000 sq. ft. Hacienda style office building Lawnae Hunter Investments - Redmond HB4o79 RFP Response - 11th May 2018 Page 5 of 9 EXHIBIT C Recent letter of support from Alice M. Patino, Mayor of Santa Maria, CA sent to Redmond Oregon City Manager Keith Witcosky Sa,at 'Maria All -America Gay 1 1' CITY OF SANTA MARIA OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 110 EAST COOK STREET. ROOM 1 „ SANTA \dARL\. CA 93454-5190 305-925-0951 3 FAX 805-349-0657 i www.city'ot'sturitmiaria.org October 16, 2017 Keith Witcosky City Manager 411 SW 9th Street Redmond, Oregon 97756 Re: Letter of Reference for Lawnae Hunter Dear Mr. Witcosky: Lawnae Hunter was very civic -minded and did a lot for our community of Santa Maria during her 30 years here. Beyond being active with civic groups, she developed real estate projects and her buildings are an asset to Santa Maria. She served four years as an excellent appointee to the City of Santa Maria Planning Commission. Her reputation here was that of including the community in decision-making and working together to find common ground. Lawnae has an eye for architecture and landscaping. As she branched out from real estate and began to develop her own projects, she built them to high standards. Sincerely, ALICE M. PATINO Mayor of Santa Maria Lawnae Hunter Investments - Redmond HB4o79 RFP Response - tith May 2018 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT D Recent letter of support from Robert A. Ogden, CPA, CFP sent to Redmond Oregon City Manager Keith Witcosky 411 East Betteravia Road, Suite 101 Santa Maria, CA 93454 Phone: (805) 739-0455 Toll Free: (866) 533-0455 Fax: (805) 739-5509 www.OgdenWealth.com October 10, 2017 Keith Witcosky City Manager Redmond Oregon Ogden Wealth MANAGEMENT & PLANNING SERVICES, LLC A REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISOR‘ 1 am writing this letter in behalf of Lawnae Hunter at her request. Robert A. Ogden, CPA, CFP' LPL Registered Principal CA Insurance Lic. #0058057 David M. Ogden Financial Advisor CA Insurance Lic. #0L04761 Steven R. McCone Financial Advisor Lawnae has a been a friend of mine for nearly twenty years. She was also a fellow Rotarian in my club in Santa Maria, CA. Lawnae has been an exceptional business person for as long as I have known her. She has owned multiple real estate offices, continues to own real estate management businesses and continues to own rental properties. In fact, I have been a tenant in a prime office complex owned by Lawnae in Santa Maria for the last fifteen years. This building has been one of the best located and best run complexes in Santa Maria for some time. Lawnae and her management staff have done an exceptional job over the years of maintaining my offices in the property. In addition, the complex as a whole is well maintained and I have always been pleased to be a tenant. I would say that 1 know of no one who has a greater knowledge of real estate than Lawnae. This comment relates to real estate management, development, sales as well as any other aspect of the real estate business I can think of. I want to also make an important additional comment regarding Lawnae as a person. For as long as I have known her she has been a very community minded person. One excellent example of this that immediately comes to mind is the primary role she played in the construction of Rotary Park, a very nice public park in Santa Maria. This is only one example. I will conclude by saying that I have the highest regard for Lawnae, both as a business person and as a person actively involved In her community. Sincerely, Robert A Ogden, CPA, CFP® email: robert.ogden@ogdenwealth.com • david.ogden@ogdenwealth.com • steven.mccone@ogdenwealth.com The Financial Advisors with Ogden wealth Management & Planning Services, LLC are Registered Representatives with, and securities offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC EXHIBIT E Keysite 3o/ Bradley Village - Santa Maria, CA - Conceptual Site Plan 8o -acre site approved for 352 units. A planned community including senior housing, apartments, and single-family homes. Lawnae Hunter Investments - Redmond HB4o79 RFP Response - tit" May 2018 Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT F Betteravia Business Plaza - Santa Maria, CA - Conceptual Site Plan 32,000 SF Class A Office Building Lawnae Hunter Investments - Redmond HB4o79 RFP Response - itch May 2018 Page 9 of 9 m 3 O 9- s• brO .---1 o '7. kb o vo t a o 0 0 1 0 4- yw N C�6 o N C o .ol N Q so. o E O d G 0 -6 Y ts- C.00 3CD 0- 0 0 -0 s d c. Z °o° ° v 3 d n L) Cd C T. QY t) 0 o Izt co 5._ 4-. `^ o o w U3 '` p pD a0 '� co �• -'v. ` °' N -a N ". Q. CO &'..1 p c� o 0) @� m `s' $ o y p 0 tinS. > a� w ��' o o 3° CA V. -,'_.-Si .--='' 03 S1 t�16 3 3 'F',3 0 C Q p= d 2 c •. ) 0 0 0 ) G d 03 Q ,r.'ti) (0 - d �, m Y J o, d s i; o ° 0 n T fry co o G cfla N 0 N loos 1.0 o Y � ys V "6 o 0 4-4 7Q e ..... e e "0 0 0 0 0 'cis c. cs, o o 53 )C 6 -o S % .ci.. S ''.— 3 a) .6 %.6 ...c. • — - • ..8 ,e. '6 '6 c 0 %-6. , ,t,-.0. .5.,.. , .tt• o . -..C., .5. -0 '.... C 0 0 e ..-i-, ....Q.. (D.,. 'ts-e..(5 0 -- -. 6-0 co )C� 3 -61')O 0 c...... 0 '6. % -r) 7- -0 -0 -° •—• e .c. 0 '3) 00%5 010,, -so cc. 0 ‘. 0. c.) 0 -,-. 0. — 0 ccs .-,7) . 0 ..Q 9.. ..... a) u) cc ) -. (1 9 ' 'Ca - 0 d) 46,.)* ,-(4,zs .8 a) .o -a E o o 00 06 S .C. 6) 0 "- 0 0 0 • 4 i MASTER 12-6" x 9'-4" BEDROOM 2 10.2"x9'•0" 'B'ATM n KITCHEN: BEDROOM 3 9-10" x 9'-0" 1 r ILAUND. GREAT 13-6"x 11'-0" • 20' -Cr DINING 9'-11" x 8'-0" NTRY PORCH © Hayden Hornes LLC & Simplicity Homes LLC SIMPLICITY BY HAYDEN HOMES -HAYDENI4HOMES \,) MASTER LAUN. 12.-10P x 9'-0" BATH KITCHEN --- BEbROOM 2 12'-0" x 9'-0" 11 GREAT 12'-0" x 9-4 ,1 ENTRY/ PORCH 0 ) ; ( ' DINING 12'-5" x 9'43" J irittAY11;1 of SIMPLICITY H 0 M E BY HAYDEN HOMES © Hayden Homes LLC & Simplicity Homes LLC 0 a *I Pi KITCHEN 1„®; BEDROOM GREAT 10'-0” x 9'-6" 10'-0" x 9'-2" 20'-0" PORCH 'HAYDEN SIMPLICITYBY HAYDEN HOMES HOMES © Hayden Homes LLC & Simplicity Homes LLC HUNTER RENAISSANCE DEVELOPV1ENT LLC May 30, 2018 Deborah McMahon Planning Manager City of Redmond City Hall 411 SW 9th Street Redmond, Oregon, 97756 Re: HB4079, Redmond, Oregon Dear Ms. McMahon: As the Managing Member of Hunter Renaissance Development, LIC (HRD), I wish to express our interest in participating with the City of Redmond in providing the most essential market segment of housing; middle income, workforce, multi -family housing. As experienced residential and mixed used developers for the past thirty (30) years, we feel very comfortable that we have the necessary qualifications as well as company structure to be a reliable city partner in creating Redmond's vision. We have included information on the partners of HRD as well as information on our current townhouse development at 2650 NW Elm Street in Redmond, which is our prototype for a new and exciting workforce rental housing option. We look forward to this exciting and visionary city plan as we continue to work toward addressing the dearth of reasonably priced housing. Sincerely, HUNTER RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT LLC The 27 Elm Townhomes * Redmond, OR 2 HUNTER RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT LLC HRD Design is a creative concept presented by Hunter Renaissance Development LLC. It marries a creative, fresh approach to housing design and construction with a fundamental belief in containing costs and delivering returns to investors. It is readily adaptable to market forces, allowing us to provide affordable essential worker developments, mid -priced options, and customized high-end products, as well as focusing on 55+ consumers. Hunter Renaissance Development LLC is a venture between the principals of Hunter Investments, LLC and The Renaissance Companies, whose combined experiences range from urban infill to small town Main Street resurgence to industrial rail projects. With developments across the Midwest and in the Pacific Northwest, the members bring a depth and variety of knowledge and expertise to HRD Design that is exciting and new. We believe we create neighborhoods, grow communities, and act as the catalyst for a renaissance of design and construction. All images are representative of design intent; finishes and floor plans are subject to change and adjustment. THE MATERIALS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND FOR PRELIMINARY INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTES AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICIATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY SECURITIES. The 27 Elm Townhomes Interiors 4 5 6 PROJECT SUMMARY Redmond, Oregon A total of 58 rental townhomes in fifteen 4 -unit buildings, conveniently located just minutes from Redmond city center, just north of Hwy 126, with easy access to the tri -county area FEATURES & AMENITIES Three different 2 -story floor plans two bedroom/two bath two bedroom/two & half bath/garage three bedroom/three bath Private patios and decks Fully-applianced stainless steel kitchens with quartz tops Matching cabinetry & quarts tops in bathrooms Vinyl plank flooring in living/dining/kitchen; carpeted bedrooms In -unit washer/dryer Energy-efficient design utilizing best practices High -efficiency individual heat/cool (heat pumps) Large windows including blinds throughout Private off-street driveway parking (in addition to garage units) Pre -wired with Ethernet cable for phone/data Water/sewer/trash included in rent Close to downtown Redmond, and near the Dry Canyon NV. L. , t3iCd' A, "4. ti,:q4'le: NW Cute A'n :•1 E.; IMASAMO tn Llarnba °Cork E. Shaver, LMT NW Elm A.c 11; Ceda, Ave NW Cedar AVC, KV•, Cedar Av& W Antl4r 'M. Arelvr Ave 1001.PI eArvt 1.4W Elm Ave. EIIII • ••.. NW 30 A... le 1.4, NW Cede t's" !(?.. I!! o Dr.byt4:Tglh".269 N'2 Coda. ka: 7 W Antler Ave 4^, Antle. Ave 111 Anew Avn V," AnIlr, Ave VI Pele, Avn V. Aide, A, """.*:" ....,`^ .S. P , ▪ MWart, e2017 Gavle Tains Seal 'admit ZOOM- The Renaissance Companies We Can Make A Difference In Your Neighborhood What We D We foster the creation of sustainable neighborhoods. Each Renaissance property has an impact that goes well beyond the individual building or site. We raise the bar with every property we develop. Each one stands apart; it becomes the yardstick against which others are measured. Our name on a project means quali 11,,V 1\1 Id tit • 11'1H[' i111:y.,1101.1H /vv[/(i 1V1 -0/o) IL i\if 1,141 8 9 Our rich history includes 6 section 42 affordable housing • condominium conversion ® condo/townhouse new construction ® mixed-use projects O property management ® multi -state development We create our own developments, and we also provide turnkey services for those entities seeking development guidance. We inspire collaboration and promote individual creativity in the development process, and we bring together our team of experts in architecture and construction to strategize from the moment the spark of an idea hits. PORTFOLIO) SAMPLE 11 12 The Renaissance Companies We Can Make A Difference In Your Neighborhood Who We Are Two generations of Kapp women, Nancy and Jeanmarie, lead a diverse team of dedicated people who enjoy being part of the Renaissance family. kLd 1iU, swic,Ird I wiL UI Hy), " ;(21,,)ifj/ ( 11.,:.‘..;101IL-.:1, CW1, (if ( /011.':iiI0 1 13 14 We have employees who've been with us 15-20 years and longer, helping us build, create and operate housing and commercial projects that define neighborhoods. Hunter Investments, Delivering Solutions To A Challenging Marketplace What We Do We focus on the unique challenges within the real estate development environment. By mitigating market demands with environmental and regulatory policies, equities in the development decisions are created to provide beneficial results. Services include land assembly, master planning, entitlement management, and more. The Bakken Magazine profiled Neil Amondson and Hunter Investments, in 2014. "Neil Amondson has the eye of a developer, of someone with the ability to envision future large-scale projects on the huge flat wheat fields of North Dakota that exist today." "His immersion into the local Bakken scene of Williston and the surrounding communities helped him understand what it would take to build a massive project." With a hands-on understanding of the land -use arena from both a regulatory and developer perspective, we work with business to develop and manage various types of ventures. Dedicated to positive outcomes, and maximizing investor dollars, we pursue projects that bring value and creative opportunities to corporate, individual and municipal entities. We move the deal forward. 15 16 Our portfolio of success • industrial park and rail development • medical/professional buildings • retail/commercial plazas • RV park development We're a regional developer of industrial and commercial real estate properties. Whether you have a project idea or specific land use need, we can help you entitle property for a successful business venture. We will assist you in developing your vision to garner project equity financing. 17 Hunter Investments, Delivering Solutions To A Challenging Marketplace Who We Are 3 ,h.11;W: r�•1:.;.1i E„ Ilnt Neil Amondson, principal and founder of aka Developers and Hunter Investments„ has been involved in all aspects of the real estate development spectrum for more than two decades. Amondson is a former Washington state senator (1987- 1994) and works to bring people together to share in opportunities from the first meeting. •�. rri'i;>il l", i: iii I11;; itl li-1\`a1=(_'lilt:'.. i.l\ i l it lfllli:, ilc: SN:.t:',:,;I71C III itVi:'t't;lYfsl+.. €ilr:if]I ;ri ;.. `!%?i ,i�'a %il =;;:11111!; ..i !!,I-�:�;j l •it lel Ii'lil;tl Oi:lllt(t. Illi`l :•'i<tic 111(1 1(',ir:1-41 IIit:I(,-,di !E / ,rf Ill It ii'; `, i. al',I iji 111 !i{ i, sC kii i lt';t I r;II( ',! 1,01,10 IIIA hiii,*1 iliH t.;1:111rirl' i (i/jii1 BRUCE STERLING, Construction Manager Bruce Sterling studied at University of Illinois— Chicago, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Structural Engineering. He's been in construction since he was a teenager, and has had his own family -run contracting and construction management firm since 1977. 18 In 2005, Bruce and his family transitioned the firm into an LLC, now called Sterling Renaissance Inc., specializing in multi -family, mixed-use and commercial building projects. With a solid core team working with him, Bruce divides his time between project management and estimating, along with business development and customer relations. The family approach is to ensure each and every Sterling project is successful and exceeds client expectations. As a trained engineer, Bruce capably integrates his technical abilities with an attention to detail, resulting in an impressive portfolio of success—commercial, industrial and residential. His high level of integrity and vast knowledge add incalculable value, most especially on plan review and in the bidding process. Regardless of the project size, Bruce immerses himself in the job, takes his commitment to everyone on the team very seriously, and conducts himself in a manner that lends credibility to his construction management skills and his firm. Bruce and his wife, Debbie, co-owners at Sterling, have built systems allowing them to specialize in government -financed projects (requiring certified payrolls, Davis -Bacon wage rules, etc.), as well as privately -financed commercial and residential deals. They're adept at satisfying the various layers of financing requirements, no matter the source. 19 RRG Development, Inc. (a Renaissance company) is certified as a woman - owned business enterprise in the state of Illinois, Cook County and city of Chicago. Renaissance properties are models for mixed -income, mixed -profile housing developments. The rental portfolio serves people within 30-60% of area median income, and also serves market -rate income levels. One of the Renaissance properties also includes public housing replacement units, side- by-side with market rental units. Renaissance has successfully worked with housing, zoning and planning departments in Chicago, Davenport, Iowa and Williston, North Dakota, along with the states of Illinois, Iowa and North Dakota. Renaissance has established solid, long-term relationships with regional and national lenders and are long- time clients of well-recognized attorneys and financial advisors. References Bruce A. Sterling, EVP Sterling General Corporation 430 East Route 22 Lake Zurich, Illinois 60047 847-307-4400 x223 bruce@buildwithsterling.com Vicki Carney, CPA RSM US One South Wacker Drive, 8th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 312-634-5013 vicki.carney@rsmus.com William Eager, Vice President Former Deputy Commsr City of Chicago Preservation of Affordable 77 West Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 312-658-0666 beager@poah.org Katherine Mazzocco, Senior Vice President BMO Harris 115 South LaSalle Street, - 20W Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-461-2797 katherine.mazzocco@bmo.com Glenn Graff, Attorney at Law Applegate & Thorne -Thomsen PC 626 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60661 312-491-4400 ggraff@att-law.com John D. Bernhard JP Morgan Chase 21 South Clark Street, Mail Code IL1-0953 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-325-5045 john.d.bernhard@chase.com 20 Neil Amondson (Hunter Investments, LLC) has been involved in all aspects of the real estate development spectrum, with a hands-on understanding of the land use arena from both developer and regulatory perspectives. Experienced in civil construction throughout the western United States, Amondson also served as manager for Sovran Development Group in providing one of the largest Urban Growth Area expansions in Washington state history. References Thomas Rolfstad Regional Economic Director for Williston Basin, Williston, North Dakota 701-770-2536 tomr@rolfstadgroup.com Brad Arntson, President North Dakota Knife River 763-286-0700 brad. a rntson @km ife rive r. com Bill Baird, President US Land Solutions FT. Myers, Florida 646-533-2887 whbaird@mvcci.com John Sawicki, Manager Business Development BNSF Dallas Ft. Worth, Texas john.sawicki@bnsf.com 817-897-2879 Scott Fraser, Broker Kidder Matthews Portland, Oregon 503-515-8888 sfraser@ccimsior.com 21 Presented by Hunter Renaissance Development LLC !The Renaissance Companies 2001 West Churchill Street Chicago, Illinois 60647 www.therenaissancecompanies.com Nancy J. Kapp, CEO/President njkapp@renaissancecos.us 773-278-8448 x211 773-968-8448 Jeanmarie Kapp, COO jmkapp@renaissancecos.us 773-278-8448 x202 773-490-3805 Hunter Investments, LLC PO Box 1735 Redmond, OR 97756 www.hunterlight.net Neil Amondson, President nail@hunterlight.net 701-580-5884 COM • Exhibit 5 No Farm Use/No Irrigation • • • • -*J. „.• •.• 0•,;.•;,',4••":„ • .• ,*-3;7:, • ; * f • :1/4, !, . • , , ; • ; • ••• , •, • 1/44•-•-.„ • • • . • :1 ',IT -; -• • NE KINGWOOD AVEZ fitiNtr•-••••• • RAL („) EC, N 1GATIO N Exhibit D (1:9 3.1.1, 1,4 \ tr A Site REDMOND Diamon'd;Bar e Ranch Parka".w NNE Neg e Exhibit 6 City of Redmond Development Code (Over 330 pages and not replicated here due to size). Please see http://www.cisedmond.orus/home/showdocument?id=3426 FY 2018 Income Limit Area Median Income Exhibit 7 FY 2018 Income Limits Summary Effective 04/1/2018 Deschutes County $69,600 Crook County $53,700 Jefferson County $52,800 FY 2018 Income Limit Category Extremely Low Income (30%) Very Low Income (50%) Low Income (80%) Extremely Low Income (30%) Very Low Income (50%) Low Income (80%) Extremely Low Income (30%) Very Low Income (50%) Low Income (80%) Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14,650 16,750 20,780 25,100 29,420 33,740 38,060 42,380 24,400 27,850 31,350 34,800 37,600 40,400 43,200 45,950 39,000 44,600 50,150 55,700 60,200 64,650 69,100 73,550 12,140 16,460 20,780 25,100 29,420 31,750 33,950 36,150 19,150 21,900 24,650 27,350 29,550 31,750 33,950 36,150 30,650 35,000 39,400 43,750 47,250 50,750 54,250 57,750 12,140 16,460 20,780 25,100 29,420 31,750 33,950 36,150 19,150 21,900 24,650 27,350 29,550 31,750 33,950 36,150 30,650 35,000 39,400 43,750 47,250 50,750 54,250 57,750 Note: Effective July 1, 2014 the definition of extremely low-income is the greater of 6056 of the Section 8 very low- income limit OR the poverty guideline as established by DHS, provided that this amount is not greater than the Section 8 50% very low-income limit Consequently, the Ell income limits may equal the very low income limits. (ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REOUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 6, 2018 DATE: May 31, 2018 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Letter of Support to Apply for Grant from ODOT to Update County's Transportation System Plan RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff respectfully recommends the Board consider signature of the letter. ATTENDANCE: Peter Russell SUMMARY: Planning Division and the Road Department are applying for a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to update the County's Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TGM application requires a letter of support from the Board. At an earlier work session this month, the Board had supported the grant request. The grant is for approximately $150,000 in TGM funds and a 12% local match, which can be in cash, in-kind services, or a mixture of the two. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 6, 2018 DATE: May 31, 2018 FROM: Chris Ogren, Administrative Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Harper Bridge Discussion ATTENDANCE: Chris Ogren, Administrative Intern TO: Board ofCommissioners FROM: Chris Ogren, Administrative Services Intern DATE: June 6, 2018 SUBJECT: Harper Bridge For decades, South Count/sHarper Bridge river access has been a popular destination for Iocals and visitors to access and float the Deschutes River. Its popularity, combined with a lack of formal established parking, has caused traffic congestion and parking issues on Spring River Road and has created concern over pedestrian safety, degradation of the riverbank and trespassing on nearby private property. This memorandum and attached report provide a comprehensive history of the site, including previous efforts to address public safety concerns and offers a number of alternative courses of action for the Board's consideration in moving forward. BACKGROUND Harper Bridge is Iocated on Spring River Road, southwestof Sunriver. It spans the Deschutes River as ft flows north toward Bend. Watercraft launch on the east side of the bridge from the county - owned right of way on both the northern and southern edges. Trailers launch from the unimproved ounty`mwnedrightofwayonboth<henorthernandsouthernedges.Trai|ers|aunchfromiheunimproved area on the southern edge on land made available by Crosswater as part of its 1994 land use approval. Outside ofthe right ofway, and ownership is privately held on both sides ofthe bridge and on both sides of Spring R ver Road - see map below. Parking occurs along the shoulder right of way on both sides of Spring River Road, often in an uncontrolled and haphazard manner. After parking, pedestrians walk along the road to the river carrying their watercraft and/or accessories, and occasionally cross the road to the launch area on the other side. The combination of high volumes of pedestrians, uncontrolled parking, and traffic have created a dangerous situation, Although there have been no known fataflties or njuries, there have been anecdotal accounts of near -misses. The danger is more acute on busy summer weekends, when more than 00 parked vehicles have been counted in the area. PREVIOUS EFFORTS In 2009\he[bmmunityOevc|npmentOepartment([D[)began|ookingforalternativesitesfor people to access the river near Harper Bhdge. At the request of the Board, CDD convened Iocal stakeholders, who formed the Harper Bridge Citizen Committee. The committee conducted stakeholder interviews and reviewed seven alternative launch sites (Exhibit 1). Shortly after the committee's review began, Sunriver Resort closed their boat launch to the public. The Harper Bridge boat Iaunch experienced an immediate increase in use. The committee presented their findings to the Board of Commissioners in 2011: w The review committee recommended a nearby private property known as the Brynwood site as a viable option for an alternative launch point. However, CDD, ODFW and DSL staff identified numerous permitting and land use challenges related to potential development of the site, including but not Iimited to: (1) a restriction on additional development due to the approved cluster development; (2) a conservation easement; (3) mapped wetlands, The property owner offered to build a public boat launch in exchange for county approval to build an RV park on the property. Developing a public boat Iaunch and RV Park would require amending Deschutes County Code and modifying this cluster development approval or pursuing another regulatory approach. Any land use path toward approval of these uses would be a matter of first impression for an approved cluster development in Deschutes County. The Federal Endangered Species Act may also apply due to the spotted frog habitat impacts. ° The stakeholder committee also rev ewed other sites, including three locations within Deschutes River Recreation Homesites (DRRH) and three public sites. The alternative locations also presented challenges. The DRRH launch would require approval by DRRH homeowners, and manyvoiced concern about the potential project. Developing the public sites (Spring River or Besson) would be difficult since the U.S. Forest Service owns the land and parking facilities at each location are not large enough to accommodate the number of cars parked at Harper Bridge. Accessing these more remote sites is also a challenge. In 2012, the Sunriver Owner's Association (SROA) discussed with the County a concept whereby the County would lease land on the northeast side of the bridge for development of an improved parking Iot/Iaunch facility. In Iieu of lease payments, SROA proposed that the County build a second boalaunch exclusively for Sunriver residents and guests. An agreement on this concept ultimately was not achieved. More recently, the Road Department has worked to improve safety on Spring River Road by installing warning signs, rumble strips, parallel parking only signs and by implementing seasonal reduced speed limits with radar -activated 'your speed' displays. While these steps have helped reduce the risk for pedesthanvehideinteractiun.theconhnuedincreasein1hepopo|arityofHarperBridgemakesitvery difficult to completely eliminate the potential for a serious incident. The sound generated by the permanent (groove cut) rumble strips is of concern to the Crosswater Homeowners Association, both in terms of impact on nearby residents as well as possible impacts on an eagle nest in the area. Local stakeholders, such as the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce and the Upper Deschutes River Coalition, continue to be involved in possible solutions, and recently have asked for the Countys participation in discussions with Deschutes National Forest on a concept for a new launch facility west of Spring River. County staff have continued to work cooperatively with any individuals or groups that have ideas to provide a safe boat aunch. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The following options are presented for discussion, with the request that the Board provide direction to staff on next steps, 1. StatusOuo Take no further steps at this time. This option recognizes the popularity of the Harper Bridge site, and the benefit it provides for recreation. By preserving the current status, the Board would find that public safety risks are adequately addressed by the traffic safety measures that have been implemented. 2. Partial Closure - Limited Parking This option would involve constructing improved but limited parallel parking on both sides of Spring River Road, along with an established loading zone. Pavement would be widened in order to establish safer areas for parking and pedestrian traffic. A bike line on each side would provide a buffer between traffic movement and parking areas. Although the number of spaces to be built is flexible, staff have created a concept for 50 parking stalls, which would limit the number of people who can use the site at one time. A slope easement may be required from the Crosswater HOA in order to fit the concept in the existing right pfway. Parking beyond the improved area would be strictly prohibited with signage, and enforcement assistance would be sought from both the Sheriffs Office and Sunriver PoIice. Expected cost is approximately $200,000. Funding could come from the County's Park Developrnent Fund. 3. Partial Closure - Loading Zone Only With the exception of improved loading zones adjacent to Harper Bridge, parking on Spring River Road would be strictly prohibited with signage, and enforcement assistance would be sought from both the Sheriff's Office and Sunriver Police. Users would need to find parking elsewhere, likely in adjoining neighborhoods, at the Sunriver Business Park or elsewhere. Estimated cost is $30,000 to $50,000 for improved (paved) loading zone areas on both sides of the road and associated signage. For unimproved loading areas (signage only), cost is estimated at $5,000. One potential idea is for the County to work with a private vendor to operate a shuttle service between a designated parking area (e.g., Three Rivers School in summer) and Harper Bridge. 4. Complete Closure While likely to be very unpopular with river users, tourism groups, and others, complete closure of the Harper Bridge launch site would severely limit the possibility of a tragic pedestrian accident. In pursuing this option, the Board would recognize that no other options exist for mitigating public safety risks. This option would force users to use other launch sites, including Big River Boat launch upstream, the Forest Service Besson site downstream on the west side of the river, and the Sunriver Resort and SROA facilities downstream on the east side. Some users may attempt to access the river illegally on private property. Parking anywhere on Spring River Road near Harper Bridge would be strictly prohibited with signage (estimated at $5,000) and potential physical barriers. Enforcement would be essential for this option to succeed, and assistance would be sought from both the Sheriffs Office and Sunriver Police. 5. Continue to Pursue Launch Facilities with Other Landowners. As detailed in the report, public launch facilities have been discussed in the past with SROA , Crosswater, the Brynwood property ownership, and many others. For varying reasons including cost, land use and environmental regulations and the lack of a willing or interested landowner(s), these efforts have not been successful. However, if the Board is willing to make funding and staff resources available to explore and reach out to additional landowners to explore opportunities, staff can pursue this option further. BOARD DIRECTION Staff seeks Board direction at this meeting on one of the following options: • Pursue one of the listed options above • Continue discussion to a later date - the Board may request additional information • Schedule a public hearing - a number of stakeholders are keenly interested in the future of Harper Bridge, and the Board may desire to allow public input on these or other options for consideration The Harper Bridge Project Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 6, 2018 DRAFT 2 Table of Contents Abstract 3 History .5 Current Status 13 Promotion 17 Floodplain & Wetlands ..18 Recreational Immunity .....20 Discretionary Immunity 22 Funding 23 Right of Way ..26 Enforcement 27 Americans with Disabilities Act 28 Parking Solutions 30 Pedestrian Solutions.... 47 Other Considerations.... 50 Attachments 53 DRAFT 3 Abstract: The following report has been prepared at the request of Deschutes County Administrator, Tom Anderson, in order to evaluate the hazards surrounding Harper Bridge. The Deschutes River is an increasingly popular recreation site. As the population of Deschutes County continues to rise, along with Central Oregon seeing an overall increase in tourism, this area is bound to see continued growth, as well. The Harper Bridge problem is twofold: (1) Cars currently park in a hazardous fashion which creates congestion and confusion and (2) pedestrians run across the road throughout the day to access the river. There is also another issue to keep in mind: at what point is the county taking on the responsibility of operating a publicly owned recreational facility instead of merely trying to make a hazardous area safer? The goal of this report is to educate the Board of County Commissioners on the issue in order to remediate traffic and congestion issues caused by recreational activities in the area. The following is, not only, an analysis of alternatives to the current site, but also, an analysis of foot traffic DRAFT 4 implications in the area and options on how to mitigate them. This report analyzes possible solutions to the problem and compares them on a number of issues, including, but not limited to: cost, effectiveness, and feasibility. The report also offers some guidance as to possible funding avenues, ADA requirements, and other important information surrounding the issue that the Commissioners ought to be aware of. DRAFT 5 History: The area surrounding Harper Bridge along Spring River Road south of Sunriver has fallen victim to the increase in demand for Deschutes River access. This specific stretch of river is relatively calm, with clear water, and plenty of natural shade along the way. It is surrounded by vast wetlands, as well as being one of the highest density areas for the Oregon Spotted Frog, which is classified as a threatened species by Oregon Fish & Wildlife. The Harper Bridge access is also one of few public entrance points into the Deschutes River in that area. These factors make the trip to or from Harper Bridge very enticing to tourists and locals alike, but also particularly sensitive to other parties involved. A major issue is that this area sees heightened use during the summer, which necessitated a seasonal speed limit of 30 MPH, meaning that locals are used to driving through the area at much higher speeds during the majority of the year. Efforts to mediate the problem have been implemented. Rumble strips have been placed on the east and west portions heading toward the bridge in order to alert pedestrians and DRAFT 6 drivers alike. However, the rumble strips have been an issue of contention between the county and residents of Crosswater and Sunriver near the bridge in the past, because residents have complained to the county of the strips' tendency to create too much noise. There is no solution that will placate all parties. This issue has been addressed but unsolved for nearly 25 years. There is no quick fix. Today's problem stems from a decision made in 1994, when Crosswater golf course (owned by Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership) was required to dedicate a portion of its land closest to Spring River Road, adjacent to the river, for a public -use area. This was one of the requirements from the County as a condition for Crosswater golf course's Conditional Use Permit approval. At the time, the County wanted to maintain public river access in the area. However, continued access intensified the issue, as continued river access only served to fuel rising popularity. Use is overwhelming during peak season and the launch ramp on the south side is deteriorating. While Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership (SRLP) was required to set aside land for public use DRAFT 7 in the area, there were no requirements that they improve, maintain, or monitor the area whatsoever. Prior to July 2009, SRLP owned and operated a public boat launch in the marina within Sunriver. But, days before the 4th of July in 2009, SRLP closed the boat launch to the public, citing concerns of drunk floaters, environmental degradation, and liability (fig. 1). Because the public could no longer launch from within Sunriver, a spokesman for SRLP suggested launching from Harper Bridge. This only added to Harper Bridges' popularity. Along the Upper Deschutes, there are boat launch sites similar to Harper Bridge, which have the potential to replace it (figs. 2 & 3). In 2011, staff presented the Commissioners with information gathered by the Harper Bridge Citizen Committee (HBCC). The report ranked and listed 7 options varying from Deschutes River Recreation Homesites' (DRRH) private launch points to Besson Boat Launch or Spring River Road owned by the Forest Service. Each identified replacement for the Harper Bridge launch point lacked in some manner. For instance, DRRH sites DRAFT 8 would require a vote of all homeowners in the neighborhood; assembling all homeowners would be difficult enough, but the majority would have to approve of the plans for it to go forward. Ultimately, the HBCC's recommendations to the board were developing the private property to the northwest of Harper Bridge, now commonly known as the Brynwood property. This recommendation failed to take into account the numerous permitting and land use challenges identified by staff, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, and the Department of State Lands. The Commission concluded that if development on private property was the best recommendation, that the process could not be county -driven and the property owner and stakeholders would have to facilitate development and approval themselves. The owner of Brynwood LLC has persistently suggested that the county grant them permits to develop an RV park and public boat launch on their 17.27 acre plot of wetlands on the northwest corner of the bridge site. However, the property owner has not formally applied for any permits or RV Park approval. The county has addressed the suggestion DRAFT 9 many times. Ultimately, the owner has a lot of work to do in order for the county to even be able to conceivably allow the permit. These improvements include: amending state regulations, text amendments to the Deschutes County Code, addressing the fact that their property maintains a cluster development with the remaining area (proposed RV park and boat launch) platted as open space with a restriction on development, addressing the fact that there is a conservation easement on the property, and addressing sewage and flood plain issues. Alternatively, there is land owned by the Sunriver Owner's Association (SROA) that could remedy the issue. Creating a parking lot on the northeast side of Harper Bridge has been suggested in the past. However, because SROA's Consolidated Plan prohibits the sale of "common area", this lot would require a long-term lease. This option has been explored in the past and SROA published a report outlining what they would like in exchange for the land. Instead of paying for the lease, SROA requested Deschutes County build a boat launch to accommodate the public, and also a private boat launch exclusively for SROA DRAFT 10 residents. SROA also requested the county vacate the John Peter's Road Right of Way. 1908 CENTERLINE UPJOHN PETERS ROAD, BRIDGE SPUR ND SPAN 1908 NORTH R/W LINE PER SUNRIVER PLATS (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) RIVER BANK 1908 Start of 1908 Peters Rood Bridge Alignment. Held Record Distance from Intersection of °Sliver Lake Rood (Spring River Road) of 42.63 chains (2813.58 Feet). SOUTH R/W LINE PER CROSSWATERS PLATS (APPROXIMATE LOCATION While costs of the parking lot are unknown at this time, the cost of building the two boat launches would be about $250,000 according to a SROA report created in 2012. However, representatives from SROA have recently stated that it is unlikely they would be willing to lease the property at this point for a variety of reasons. There has also been talk about going across the road from SROA, and developing on the southeast corner of the bridge. This property belongs to Crosswater golf course (SRLP), and also maintains a conservation DRAFT 11 easement. This location would be difficult to create a lot on because of the easement and also the fact that there is not much space between the golf course and the road. These previously suggested improvements have all failed to address the county's desires on some level, whether cost, accessibility, or feasibility. The area surrounding Harper Bridge remains the most widely used and well-known launch site. Harper Bridge has the capability to maintain a parking area for many users and is easily one of the most accessible locations along the Upper Deschutes. Additionally, the county retains a 66.5 -foot wide Right of Way in the area. DRAFT 12 This Right of Way is still intact and able to be maintained for road access. Utilizing the excess Right of Way for a parking area would serve to expedite the process. This is due to the fact that the county would only require an easement (with complete indemnification by the county) from SROA, Crosswater HOA, and SRLP in the area for the banks of the road and storm water drainage to build parking facilities within the Right of Way, as opposed to purchasing land to build on. DRAFT 13 Current Status The current status of the Harper Bridge launch site requires action, in some capacity. Today, Harper Bridge looks like a bustling tourist destination. With a formal boat launch on the south side of Spring River Road, and parking areas on both sides of the road, heavy pedestrian traffic is commonplace on a summer day. On top of this, due to lack of established parking, vehicles of river goers line the road east of the bridge. Some people park haphazardly, whether due to crowding or unstable parking terrain. Regardless, congestion in this area creates distractions and increased risk for drivers and pedestrians alike. DRAFT 14 An informal boat launch has manifested on the north side of the road, as there are shallow embankments that make entering and exiting the water comparable to the physical boat launch on the south side. Oftentimes, the boat launch on the north side (pictured below) is more crowded than the physical concrete boat launch on the south side. As this area was not designed for heavy pedestrian traffic, it degrades annually. While it has been an issue in the past, it continues to present problems today. A spokesperson for SROA noted that while degradation and trespassing decreased recently, as long as people continue ignoring the established pathways to the water, the degradation will continue to some extent. DRAFT 15 Because of the heightened traffic, Deschutes County has taken measurable steps to improve safety in the area. Rumble strips line the road at both the east and west portions of road leading in to Harper Bridge. The county has chip sealed over the rumble strips recently, which has lessened the severity of vibrations and noise in the area. The Road Department has future plans to paint the rumble strips as well, in order to alert drivers in the area of their presence even more than the signs that DRAFT 16 are currently there. Along with this, radar driver feedback signs have been placed during peak season, and "parallel parking only" signs have been put in place as well in order to address cluttered parking areas. DRAFT 17 Promotion While Harper Bridge was never intended to be a formal recreation site, in recent history it has begun to become one. What was once a hidden gem, is now a popular day use area for everyone from locals to people visiting Central Oregon for the first time. This is due to promotion from various entities throughout Central Oregon. A simple internet search will provide copious references to Harper Bridge as an established boat launch site. From VisitBend, to Sunriver Owners Association, to even the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce (and about a dozen more) everyone is encouraging river goers to enter the river at Harper Bridge (figs. 4, 5, & 6). This promotion has undoubtedly increased popularity of the area. DRAFT 18 Floodplain & Wetlands Much of the area adjacent to the Deschutes River is designated floodplain and wetlands. Floodplain is best described as an area of low- lying ground that is prone to flooding as regional water levels rise. Wetlands can be best described as "saturated lands" or an area that is swampy. Developing near these areas creates some implications. First and foremost, wetlands begin at the river bank and extend 10 feet laterally from the edge of the water. Any development in an area zoned as wetlands requires a conditional use permit, which costs $2,798 at minimum and has a 150 day decision-making timeline. A conditional DRAFT 19 use permit is required for any earthmoving, structures, or vegetation changes in the wetlands. A conditional use permit would likely require a public hearing, which would serve as a forum for opponents to comment on the idea, creating a more time consuming and costly process. The process could result in an appeal, which would further increase the time and cost to process the application. The same permit can cover floodplain as well. DRAFT 20 Recreational Immunity Recreational Immunity's purpose is to protect landowners that provide their land to the public for recreation, in the hopes they continue to do so. ORS 105.682 lays out rules and regulations of Recreational Immunity. The Public Use of Lands Act created Recreational Immunity, and when implemented, drastically increased the availability of land for free recreation by protecting those that allow use on their property from tort liability. But, a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision changed the way that Recreational Immunity operated in the State of Oregon. Johnson v. Gibson (2016) effectively increased liability and risk for property owners of recreational areas. Before Johnson, employees acting on behalf of the landowner were also protected from liability. In Johnson, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that based on the wording of the statute, Recreational Immunity was not intended to extend to the employee of the landowner. The effects of this decision drastically increased liability to landowners offering public recreation. Where Recreational Immunity shielded most landowners from liability, the DRAFT 21 Johnson decision allowed plaintiffs to pursue damages based on suing the employee of the landowner, and each employee was indemnified by their employer, which meant that while the landowner couldn't be sued directly, their employees could be sued as proxy and they would still have to pay. In 2017, the Oregon Legislature and Governor Brown recognized the effects of the Johnson decision and passed an amendment to fix the problem. Recreational Immunity is back in full effect, but recent events surrounding it should be noted in order to understand the possible changes to liability in the future. DRAFT 22 Discretionary Immunity Discretionary Immunity shields governments from liability hen deciding which objectives to act on. ORS 30.265 (6)(c) specifies that employees and agents that are acting within the scope of their employment are immune from liability against any claim based on their discretionary actions. An excellent example of this is snow plowing. The county can not be held liable for failing to clear one street instead of another, as long as they proved they took everything possible into account and had rationale for why they took one action instead of another. Similarly, the county can not be held liable for improving one area of Harper Bridge instead of another. For example. If the county chose to improve the parking area parallel to Spring River Road instead of Brynwood, and later on a river goer was injured and sued the county based on the belief that Brynwood was safer, the county would claim discretionary immunity. DRAFT 23 Funding Transient Room Tax Fund — Taxes are collected from every transient room rented in the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. The proceeds from the Transient Room Tax are split several ways. The first iteration of the tax was implemented in 1975 at a rate of 5%. By 1980, the county voted to raise the tax rates by 1% to 6% total. 80% of that would go to the Sheriff's office and the remaining 20% was destined for the Central Oregon Visitors Association (COVA). By 1988, the voters had approved an additional 1% increase with the proceeds going solely to COVA for the promotion of tourism. A new statute, ORS 320.350, was passed in 2003 limiting the use of future Transient Room Tax revenues. ORS 320.350 (6) states that from July 2', 2003 on, 70% of new Transient Room Tax revenues would be spent on the promotion of tourism or on tourism -related facilities, with the remaining 30% being used generally. This change in statute applied when voters implemented an additional raise of 1% to the Transient Room Tax rate in 2014 of which 70% goes to the Fair & Expo (which always counts as tourism DRAFT 24 according to statute) and the remaining 30% to the General Fund. The Transient Room Tax Fund has about $800,000 of reserve cash that is usable for developing in the Harper Bridge area as long as the county can show it is being used for the promotion of tourism or for tourism related facilities. Parks Fund — The fund maintains about $200,000 of usable capital. The source of this funding comes from State RV registration fees and is required to be used on "the acquisition, development, maintenance, care and use of county park and recreation sites," according to ORS 390.134 (5)(a). These funds do not have to be spent on a formalized county park or recreation site, merely a place within the county where people recreate is sufficient to satisfy the requirement. The facilities department has access to this fund for improvements within their department as well, but the Facilities Director, Lee Randall, has explained that he does not have any upcoming plans for those funds, should they be necessary to complete the project. According to the County Finance Director, DRAFT 25 Wayne Lowry, the Park Fund is the preferred method of paying for improvements to the area. General Fund — The general fund has a number of revenue sources, but there are no requirements or restrictions as to where this money can be used, up to this point. There is approximately $10 million of capital in reserve, however there are several plans by the Facilities Department to use this fund for projects. Using this fund should be the last resort as it would result in county residents using their tax dollars to improve an area that primarily benefits south county residents and tourists. DRAFT 26 Right of Wav A Right of Way is a type of easement that allows, in this case, necessary access to an area in case improvements are necessary. In the area of Spring River Road, the county maintains a 66.5 foot Right of Way with the median line of the road being the middle point of the Right of Way. According to Chris Doty and David Doyle, the county has complete control over the property, while the county does not technically have possession of the property. Building within the Right of Way will expedite the process, as well as limit public input and appeal in the area. Up to this point, David Doyle and Chris Doty are unaware of any limits as to what can be developed within the Right of Way along Spring River Road. DRAFT 27 Enforcement No matter the chosen option, enforcement is key to successful implementation of any proposed solution. The two key law enforcement agencies in the area are Sunriver Police Department (SRPD) and the Sheriff's Office. While the Sheriff's Office is currently the only enforcement agency with jurisdiction at Harper Bridge, that jurisdiction can be expanded to include SRPD, if the Sheriff's Office chooses to do so. Regardless, assurances from both parties will need to be obtained in order to provide the best service to river -goers in the area. DRAFT 28 Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act's purpose is to provide relatively equal access to areas for people with disabilities. Disabled Access is required in almost every circumstance, with very few exceptions. In the case of Harper Bridge, some options will require ADA access while others may not. One exception to building ADA access is cost. If the cost of building the expanded access is 20% or more of the total budget for the project, then according to 28 CFR 35.151(b)(4)(iii)(a), it is disproportionate and not required (fig. 7). The 20% takes into account not only the cost of materials and labor, but also the cost of purchasing additional property or entering into a lease agreement or easement. If the county chose to build the parking facility in an area with relatively small space, it may not be able to build appropriate ADA access, and that is acceptable within the eyes of the law. According to County Counsel, regulations can not force the county to purchase or take other people's property. With this, while it may be possible to build a portion of an accessible walkway, if land boundaries prevent walkway completion, the DRAFT 29 county would not be required to build anything at all. However, in order to prevent increased liability, it is recommended that the county initially pursue a lease agreement or easement with surrounding property owners in order to see a cost estimate and make a decision from there. DRAFT 30 Parking Solutions Because of the possible implications created by Harper Bridge's Boat Launch, some action may be necessary. There are many choices available to solve this issue overall, but in terms of the Harper Bridge site there are 7 options: DRAFT 31 Completely block off access to Harper Bridge along Spring River Road. This would involve placing physical barriers to parking along the road with the possibility of leaving a small, open space as a loading zone. Benefits regarding this option are plenty. Because there will be substantially less people parked along Spring River road, trespassing issues on adjacent property will likely decline. Following that trend, with decreased traffic, physically degraded areas along the riverbank will receive some relief from traffic. Implementing this option will take little time and will involve very little cost. With this option, it is possible to only have a loading zone on one side of the road, either to the north or south of Spring River Road, which would hopefully decrease foot traffic across the road, but would still serve to allow public use of the area, just not to the current extent. While there are many benefits to this option, there are also drawbacks. First and foremost, preventing the majority of public use in the area would likely create some public outcry and some backlash to all parties involved. With this option, there is also the possibility that since DRAFT 32 this area is currently so popular, physically blocking parking at Spring River Road will only prevent parking there, meaning that people may try to park elsewhere nearby. DRAFT 33 2. Three Rivers School parking lot. Three Rivers School 8rynwaod SW Wetlands Ss, no Rve Ro JI Ji Crosswater This option would use the Three Rivers School parking lot during the summer and involve shuttling river -goers to a loading zone along Spring River Road. This option would also include blocking all parking in the area and creating a loading zone for the shuttle. The drawbacks with this option likely outweigh the benefits. On the one hand, this option would decrease parking in the area and contain river -goers to a loading zone area. Another benefit is that DRAFT 34 the shuttle operator serves to educate river -goers on proper etiquette and things to avoid doing in the area to increase safety. Furthermore, not having a parking area at Harper Bridge will decrease time spent in the launch area, which would hopefully decrease litter and environmental degradation. Nevertheless, on the other hand, this option would require some up front costs - in terms of either contracting with a shuttle company or purchasing a county shuttle and hiring an employee to operate it, but some costs could be recuperated by charging a shuttle fee. A foreseeable problem with this option is that people may potentially park illegally to avoid the shuttle fee. This option could be difficult to implement because of the multiple stakeholders involved, being: Three Rivers School, the Bend -La Pine School District, SROA, and a shuttle contractor. Another issue is the school year - meaning that "prime season" for Harper Bridge often begins before school is out and ends after school has begun. This creates a dilemma during the school year because it is unlikely that the Three Rivers parking lot can facilitate student and river -goer traffic. DRAFT 35 3. Lease northeast property from SROA to build a parking lot. Three Rivers,School There are obvious benefits to this system, but also notable drawbacks that may prevent fruition. On the one hand, this option maintains public use. Using SROA's property would allow plenty of extra space to develop walkways and physical barriers to prevent pedestrians from crossing the road. The parking area on SROA's property would be distanced from the road, which would increase safety, with people no longer emptying their vehicles in DRAFT 36 the immediate vicinity of Spring River Road. However, on the other hand, this option has been explored in the past, and SROA's list of requests has pushed the cost out of reach and made the project infeasible. Firstly, only the estimated cost of the boat launches, according to SROA's 2012 Executive Summary regarding Harper Bridge, is $241,500. That does not include the cost of the parking facility. Secondly, per the report, SROA would prefer Deschutes County build a private boat launch for SROA residents only in exchange for the long term lease as opposed to paying for the lease. This preference has far reaching implications as building a new boat launch would disturb wetlands and would involve a lengthy Conditional Use Permit process that is subject to appeal. Furthermore, in 2016 SROA expressed concerns over cutting down the trees in the proposed parking area for a variety of reasons, including: decreased noise buffering, decreased visual buffering, increased crime, and decreased shade for their members. DRAFT 37 4. Lease southeast property from Crosswater HOA and SRLP., Three Rivers '• School Land use barriers as well as golf course proximity to Spring River Road create substantial hurdles to this project. On the one hand, the proposed parking area on the southeast side would be closest to the already constructed public boat launch. If this option came to fruition, SROA could conceivably block off their property to the north side to mitigate current trespassing issues. But, on the other hand, there is currently a conservation easement on a section of the property that would be leased/sold to the county. This is paired DRAFT 38 with the fact that there is not much space between Spring River Road and Crosswater golf course in the first place, which makes building the parking facility on the proposed lot difficult and unlikely, especially one that will be able to facilitate an appropriate number of vehicles. Not only this, but the parking facility would be in incredibly close proximity to wetlands which may have implications of its own. Finally, the last issue involves driver safety. If the parking area were to be on the south side of the road, travelers coming from the east would either have to u -turn right before the bridge to properly park or go past the bridge and u -turn in a parking lot down the road. Furthermore, for people to exit the area going further west, they would be forced to cross the southern eastbound lane which creates a heightened possibility of vehicular collision and area congestion. DRAFT 39 5. The Brvnwood property concept. --7171)ree Rivers SchooI , s A '1; This option's potential to remedy the situation is dwarfed by immense regulatory hurdles. The Brynwood property is on the northwest side of Harper Bridge, not adjacent to SROA or Crosswater land. The owner maintains 17.27 acres in the area, of which 10 acres are undisputed wetlands and the remaining 7 acres maintain an old lodge pole pine forest. The landowner has suggested building and maintaining a parking lot and RV park on DRAFT 40 their own dime and having parties involved simply pay a lease for public use. However, the proposed property is not only designated wetlands, but also has been platted as cluster development — meaning that, in 1990, the property owner at the time applied for and obtained a density bonus for an additional dwelling unit in the subdivision in exchange for the designated open space with a conservation easement (17.27 acres). In order to lift these restrictions, the current owner would require a legislative amendment to the existing Deschutes County zoning code, followed by a quasi-judicial reapplication for the cluster subdivision under revised code that allows for the use. The problem here is that amending County Code requires a public notice, hearings, and potential appeals. It is unknown whether these legislative amendments would withstand legal challenges, according to Planning Manager, Peter Gutowsky. To top it off, amending the Code to allow Brynwood development would create implications for other properties in the county that fit the same specifications, which could create unforeseen consequences. Not to DRAFT 41 mention, even if the owner were able to surpass the cluster development hurdle, the whole property is designated RR -10 (Rural/Residential with a 10 acre lot size per parcel) meaning that Code prohibits development for public use in that zone. A substantial portion of the Brynwood property is also designated as floodplain, which means in order to develop anything, a conditional use permit would be required, which costs an additional $2,800 and has an appeal process as well. Furthermore, the owner of Brynwood has offered to build a public boat launch on their parking facility in exchange for Deschutes County allowing them to build an RV park on the property (fig. 8). Building an RV park would not only violate current County Code, but building septic facilities would be a major hurdle due to wetlands in the immediate vicinity. According to concerns directed towards Associate Planner, Cynthia Smidt in 2011, the owner proposed tapping into Boondock's septic system (now The Wallow Bar & Grill). A citizen cited their belief that the bar's septic system lacks the capacity to hold waste from 80 RVs and a public DRAFT 42 restroom as a reason for concern. The only alternate would be building a septic system for the site on the north side of Spring River Road, which is not feasible due to wetlands, and likely State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations. If successful, the RV park would likely create further popularity and travel to the area which would only exacerbate the Harper Bridge issue even further. To close, in 2011 over a dozen letters of opposition were submitted to the County in regards to Brynwood's RV park without an application even being submitted or public notice provided. DRAFT 43 6. Lease southwest property from Sunriver Resort (SRLP). ,Three Rivers School This option has relatively few benefits compared to substantial regulatory hurdles to overcome. While it has been argued that the west side of the river in this area is preferred for entering due to a strong current on the east side, the strong current on the east side is by no means unmanageable. The fact that entering the river on the east is so popular up to this point is a testament to that fact. However, much like Brynwood, the area is both designated DRAFT 44 wetlands and within the floodplain. A recent article in the Bulletin outlines how this region typically floods with water in the summer, which can remain stagnant for months at a time (fig. 9). Along with that, it is also designated as RR -10. What differentiates the southwest and northwest (Brynwood) properties is the fact that SRLP owns the southwest portion of property and has not suggested to the county that they plan to put any money into developing the area into a parking facility or public boat launch, as Brynwood has. DRAFT 45 7. Parallel parking along the Spring River Road Right of Way. hit: t e� P/.RNI l 1'ANnIYC: ur�r� s.r DI<E n'AVE I. A'IL I TRAVEL _AYE t tXI°.,IVG SOA7 -.. St- lost A -A 5.C• 'V''IDLN =Uii - "— rA1tKIYG SHOULDER ( :i---.aen The total Right of Way in the area spans 66.5 feet. Currently, the county only has road on 31 feet of the right of way meaning there are about 16 feet on either side that can be developed. It is within these 16 feet that the county could build a parallel parking area. The benefit to building within the Right of Way is that while the county technically does not own the land, it has exclusive and unlimited ability to develop the land. When building within the Right of Way there are no public appeals processes. Another benefit of building within the Right of Way is that the county will DRAFT 46 only have to acquire access to minimal property in order to build the parallel parking, because a slope easement may be required according to Community Development and the Road Department. Storm water will need a place to drain, and that may require a drainage easement as well. These easements would be necessary from SRLP, SROA, and Crosswater HOA. This option keeps river goers parking where they are used to parking which will limit confusion, as opposed to creating a new parking location. Because a lease agreement or land purchase is not required, the cost of building in the Right of Way is relatively low compared to other options that require a lease. However, this option will not solve the congestion issue. The road will remain relatively narrow and travel through this area will not be inhibited, additionally, with parking on both sides of the road, foot traffic across the road will continue to be an issue. The prevalence of trailer use in the area will also create further congestion as they attempt to parallel park in the area, as well. DRAFT 47 Pedestrian Solutions The current configuration results in heavy foot traffic across Spring River Road. Allowing river goers to launch from either side of the bridge will perpetuate the problem of pedestrian travel across the road, regardless of where they park. Furthermore, maintaining parking in the area will always present some level of pedestrian risk. The following options address this issue: 1. Remain with status quo. This option maintains the rumble strips in the area, which serve to alert drivers and pedestrians paired with signs that alert oncoming drivers as well. While residents nearby initially complained about the noise caused by the rumble strips, those complaints have dissipated recently. The rumble strips are an inexpensive fix to the problem that also does not add any additional congestion or confusion to the area. While the rumble strips do alert people in the area, there is nothing that physically prevents or discourages river goers from crossing the road. However, remaining with the status quo is an unlikely option if the DRAFT 48 County pursues an easement with Crosswater, as they will likely require removal of the rumble strips as a condition. 2. Add a crosswalk. While a crosswalk would theoretically serve to help funnel people through one spot on the road in a very inexpensive fashion, just because there is a crosswalk in the area doesn't mean people are actually going to walk through it. 3. Median in the center of the road. The median in the center of the road would serve to physically prevent some people from crossing it. But, it would not physically prevent all people from crossing, which has the potential to create an even more dangerous dynamic where people try to hop over a concrete wall with a floatation device or kayak. Placing the physical barrier in the middle of the road could allow the county to remove the rumble strips. However, this option requires 3 feet of clearance on either side of the median for a buffer zone which would limit the size of the parallel parking zone. Furthermore, this issue would create a substantial hazard for snow plows in the winter as their blades often catch on medians DRAFT 49 and cause damage. This option would also prevent u -turns in the area which could have unforeseen implications where river goers head somewhere else to turn around. The medians would cost substantially more than rumble strips, as well as increased maintenance costs. 4. Limit access to either the north or south side of Spring River Road., If parking and access were limited to one side of the road, the pedestrian traffic issue would be substantially decreased. There would still be limited risk in terms of river goers preparing for their excursion on the side of the road, but to some extent that is unavoidable if the county maintains access at Harper Bridge. DRAFT 50 Other Considerations There remains one final issue the Board should consider, which is whether or not the county should develop facilities to improve floating/launching from this site, as well. The question is, at what point is the county doing more than simply diminishing hazards in the area, but instead developing a more permanent recreational amenity? Some additional things to consider: 1. If the county develops parking spaces for 40-60 vehicles, does the county also provide restrooms? If so, what kind? This may require the county to lease more property and take on additional rent and maintenance costs. 2. Does the Board want to create a sidewalk or develop a trail down to the waterfront on either side to encourage pedestrians to use those paths to get down to the river? The county would be required to build ADA access in some instances - depending on the parking solution implemented. DRAFT 51 3. Does the Board want to improve the current public boat launch facility on the southeast side? Reports show that the condition of the launch is deteriorating, however it is still usable. 4. Does the Board want to take actions to mitigate trespassing into SROA, SRLP, and Crosswater HOA property? Nick Lelack suggested a "way finder" sign or kiosk that could include appropriate and inappropriate places to dismount, warnings about water, information about wetlands/spotted frogs, history, etc. There is currently a sign like this on the southeast side (fig. 10), but more information could be helpful. 5. SROA is very interested in the county vacating the 1908 John Peter's Road Right of Way, which crosses over the Deschutes River just north of Harper Bridge. According to SROA, this is essential in order to garner their participation. 6. SROA also suggests a green bike lane from Harper Bridge to the Sunriver Business Park. DRAFT 52 7. Crosswater HOA would like the rumble strips along Spring River Road to be removed. 8. Crosswater HOA is fortunate to be the home to an active eagle's nest. The eagle's presence is very enjoyable to Crosswater HOA members. As such, they are sensitive to any disruptions to the eagles nest, mainly frequent loud noises. 9. Should trash cans be provided? If so, who is responsible for emptying trash cans/maintaining littering in the area? Fig. 1 3,412018 Puallc'rlll lose access to papular boat T3rrfa In Sunrtver, Publislted.Tuly 2, 2000 at O5:00.46i Public will lose access to popular boat ramp in Sunriver Suerilrer Marina Goat rung closing <_n•nv p.; Pt u na D:1 rrrn FS :1 IV u111te' tr.9:rrr hth IJ Ca" ell Ia7r'3t tm1 , Ell SataxYrau Cx►rd Okmitup Saartir N manna trairo an", .iJ lade vile9et iII hese Sak'n..t it" $,tIse 4; DRAFT 53 The boat ramp at the Sunriver Resort Marina will be off limits to the public starting Friday evening, and staff with the resort will instead be directing floaters and paddlers to public boat launches this holiday weekend and beyond. Environmental damage at the site, liability concerns, intoxicated boaters and people crowding the parking lot all led to the decision, said Rob Macgowan, the director of recreation with Sunriver Resort. Members of the Sunriver Homeowners Association will still be able to use the river access site with a homeowner identification card, he said. But most of the people launching boats and other watercraft don't live in Sunriver and aren't paying customers at the marina, Macgowan said. "We're having a lot of people floating the river, and they park their car in our facility," he said. "So how much space are we losing for our business?" elvineew.tkentlauietln.oomInewst1472e14-1511putekrMlNose-axEss-Go-poplaar-aoal-rarnp 1!3 DRAFT 54 3J8t2618 Pubis x111 lose mess to popular boat ramp In Swifter, Tom Hamilton with the marina said that on any given day, about half of the parking lot spots are taken by people not using the marina facilities, which include rentals and a restaurant. Foot traffic around the boat launch has also trampled and destroyed the nearby riverbank, he said, so the closure to the public is also a test to see if fewer people at the site can allow it to bounce back, he said. And there seems to be more people using the Sunriver Resort Marina launch since alcohol was prohibited on the Deschutes River through Bend, he said. "That's when we really noticed the surge in activity," Macgowan said. There were "a lot more funky flotation devices, a lot of weird stuff like (air) mattresses, kiddie pools and jumping apparatuses, and lots and lots of alcohol." Sunriver Resort promotes a family -friendly river experience, he said, and that doesn't mesh with people who have spent a day drinking on the river getting out at the marina. "We're trying to give our guests a quality experience," he said. People can still rent watercraft at the marina and use the resort's dock, he said, adding that the dock system doesn't impact the riverbank. And those who want to use their own inner tubes, kayaks, rafts and other boats can use public launches at other sites along the Upper Deschutes. "It's not like the river has now been restricted to public use, that isn't the case at all," Macgowan said. "It's just a private landowner trying to do the right thing." People can launch at the Big River Campground, Harper's Bridge, Besson Boat Launch, the Benham Falls day use area and La Pine State Park, he noted. hSp:/lwwm¢bendbuleln.com'news'142814-1511pu in-wil -boat-ramp 213 DRAFT 55 3,0/2818 PIM WWII 61II lase access to popular Goat rano In Slnnver, Sunriver Resort staffers will be at the parking lot this weekend, he said, checking vehicles with watercraft to see if people have homeowner identification cards and handing out maps of the alternate sites to those without them. Macgowan said he's already received complaints from people saying the change is unfair but added that some callers don't realize there are other nearby options. The marina is getting too much use, said Geoff Frank, the owner of Alder Creek Kayak and Canoe in Bend, and the closure could cause confusion at first. "People are so accustomed to using that, I think they're going to have a little bit of an issue until they educate people and get the word out," Frank said. 'However, it is a private site." Employees at his store usually recommend other places to kayak or float, he said, adding that the stretch of the Deschutes River by the marina gets crowded. "There's 40 other miles of flat -water sections of the river," he said. nttp.Mmw.bendbutelln.carnInews'1472814-1511puWkr+6111lose-ar s-to-papiLa-Goaliarnp a'3 Fig. 2 Boat Launch Sites DRAFT 56 DRAFT 57 Fig. 3 (Nf-41/Conklin Rd. to Cardinal Bridge) Fig. 4 38/2018 Canoeing aid Kayaking Se•sto ewe Crapes HOTELS, MOTELS Ni -11., a FLAY H " MU Viol I a ri WE'LL FIND Y7,- A N.A.c E RBC -AR 3 E avy DR 'fox) ALE THRIL NIMH RNA 'WINTER kiACATION CA,, BEI CANOEING Bi KAWLIONG IN BEND, OREGON 'W'hetirer you're craving a lasy canoe nor. on calm a thrdi ing kayak ride rhrough churning whitewate.r, Or so rnething in between, we promise you' fIrd heaquatic adventure of your dreams in Bend. The- r,evY state-of-the-art Bend Whitewater Park offers a unique experience for paddler: of all skh la.yels Three dist Inc, channels offer 2 S2fe passage for -floaters, a habitat, and a w hitev,a T.? r park wrth lour diqindt ranging fro Fl beginner to e:pert. '6',.,ave coaditic.ris are. ire, uence.d by electrc nical concre!led pneumatic bladd,ers that influence wave shape., size, and comp ,eity The park is free and Coen co. the The Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway offers ood'es of lakes perfect 'or exp ,or ing by can or kayak. Oeyils and Sparks ,..akes are t,vazpctye here non -motorized boats ere al,ov.,ect, so oIeg aon.e the lake and enjoy she scenery nd resh mountain arr. a guided outing is ,..,hat you pre'er, Wanderlust Tours offers dally half-day canoe and kayak tours car the serene lakes of the Cascade 'Range 'rou' ilbe p-cked up in town and your gear is inc!uded on every tour„ 2,011,a with a knowledgeab:e naturalist guide. ‘For an extraordinary experience., •:ry one of ',,,anderlusfs starlight canoe tours or a inoonleit canoe tour 1111priahvinicialstlberolcorottlIngs4D-ciciattrrner-Funitanceing-arttl-Kayalulng? Mkt: LA-MiLSI IRA aEaI- L 11'1 HE WEST Eltikiii A 3 ill A A1U Lil fis gallin 4 DRAFT 58 1,3 DRAFT 59 nf ?said hat her 0 it aMne, Tumalo Cr: Kayak & Canoe rs a great place to rept all the gear yOu need. Then co21 out this map of the Cascade Likes to get the scoop on navigating your high lake adyenture: The Sunriver area is another bre atiftakrng destination or 3 ka yak or canoe trip along the Ere:chute: Rin4ar Make an (lire day ID' it by Putti ng In as the Farp,er's Fridge and be prepared to float 'oh 3-4 hours tc, the pul,out at Benham Birte. yciu -v,-ant ashor.er ride or reed a pace to take a break dor lunch, hop cut at the Sunriyir Marina orirr. a 1 1/2 hoar float "ro Mi Harpers Bridge. YOU can eer, rent V -51.1r canoe:, kak,aks and rafts a: the frunriverlklarina located within Sunriyer Rer:orz. For those reeking .onger adventures., che Bend Paddle Trail Alliance offers the "Deschutes Paddle 'Frei liver Guides,' which inclardes a separate fold -out map of the Cascade takes. The guide proles deal -ed look at 25 miles of the Little De.schute.s ftorn La Pine to Sunriwer It also features 95 rfr-es o' the big Deschutes 'horn ltslicklup creserwir to the very last take-out in Deschutec County at LOWel Fridge There's etren infornat ion 011 C.0.11-1'.2Viaabla, pectiorts cd the river as we I as rwer hirstovp, and 2 guide to wild ire and plants. Pick up your cop for 115 at -urrialo Creek .r.lavak & oe or at the send k.lrsrfter Crecte.r in do wrftcker. Sen:. kslhitewater tahyrs sill love the :or I of the First Street Pa pide on the Deschutes 5ir irr ire ntidp e of Bend. P en: -v of bou der.: are scattered skFOL ter, fa st-mccoing water be oss the Fa pid.s Creating perre.ct spots for etds.. peel outs, rol practice., and fer ana back and forth idehween shore hen: f vcu l re looking ter improve your whitesya ter al. -I Is check out the classes offered by Tumalo Creek Kayak & Canoe. irrvo on-..vhitewater rafting, adventures on the De:chutes Fiver, cisft our schrtewater rating page here. • Aerial TOW'S & Scenic Flights a Bend Ale Trail Beer Tour Bicyc e Cab Si Carriage Ride Tours Biking Bird Vriatching Boating Canoeing El Kayaking Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway' • Culture Tours Crater Lake Nationa Park Cumary 701.115 Disc Coif Equestrian Polo Fic.hing Gclf Courses Hiking History Tours Hist:onc Cemetery TOW'S Horseback Riding Mr. Bachelor in the Surrin-ier Motor Sports Museums Pickleball Rock Climbing Rock Hounding Sightseeing Standup Paddle Boarding Spas • 1peunking Er Caving Star Gazing • Swimn-ing Tenniis i; Trail Running Wa king 'Tours • Water P ay & Recreation i.Vtrite Water F.afting Fig. 5 3'712018 SuritverOwners As acIa1Am-AreaRecreaben _search DRAFT 60 1.FNiit Jlll:(:l.1115t'.h.371 H1JIIt.S Channel 3 on BendBroadband will bo offline around March t and remain offline until further notite for upgrades. Area Recreation RCA Fare �R 3A Recreation yi1ti1 �5 It 11 -ti'! R ,stable t''er:ion A four -season recreational community Below we've included general descriptions and links as applicable to activities available in Sunriver and the surrounding area. A variety of equipment is available for rent from businesses in The Village at Sunriver- to help you enjoy your favorite sport or activity. BICYCLING: Sunriver boasts 33+ miles of paved pathways for bicycle and pedestrian use. For safety reasons, rollerbladirrg, skates and skateboards are not allowed on pathways or road_. Please follow Sunriver's natnv.ay r„'piand respect the delicate vegetation by staying an the pavement. Maps are available at pathway kiosk, bike rental agencies, vacation rental management companies and at the SROA office. Try the Sun Lava 6 -mile paved route to reach Benham FaUs and Lava Lands Visitor Center off East Cascade Road near Circle 7. BOATING, CANOEING, KAYAKING, RAFTING: Floating or paddling the Deschutes River can be relaxing, scenic and great exercise. Boats, canoes, kayaks, paddle boards, tubes and rafts are available at the marina or other area rental shops in the Village at Sunriver. Anyone can use the public watercraft launch at Harper Bridge, located on the southwest side of Spring River Road and take out just before Benham Falls. Or Launch farther upstream at Big River Campground and take out at Harper Bridge (the Harper Bridge launch is rustic and most suitable for hand -launching canoes/ kayaks/ tubes/rafts only)_ NOTE: ACCESS to the Resort's marina launch/take out ramp is restricted to hand - launching only if you rent from the marina and pay a parking/shuttle fee for access_ The SROA boat launch is for SROA property owners with a Member Preference ID card, and those who participate in the Recreation Plus program with valid ID cards. You must have a card to access the site via a swipe gate_ DISC GOLF: SHARC has a disc golf course open during the summer months. The course is available free to owners with their 2018 Member Preference ID card, Recreation Plus cardholders and is included with SHARC daily admission_ Players must check-in at the SHARC front desk. A mid-range disc is included and disc putters are available upon request. lttiviAvaw. sunrArerawners.onypagel1304..-1635d7fArea-Ftecreallon tl4 Fig. 6 3/712018 Sunrhter Water Sports About The Cham&, 1 lood&f Alseator 1 Gorily Hoy 1 lboolptiepCootarts 1 Mips 1 Jotrptts When summer heats up, many Sunriver visitors and residents take to the Deschutes River to cool off. On the hottest days., expect to see flotillas of inner tubes, rafts, canoes, kayaks and stand-up paddleboards. The Deschutes River in the Sunriver area runs wide and gentle through gorgeous mountain F. every, with gowd'wildlife viewing opportunities. This part of the river is rated Class 1 roving 'nater with riffles, minor waves and few or no obstructions. As inviting as it looks, the river's current is deceptively strong. and the water is .much colder than most people expect- th,e Deschutes River is spring fed and water temperatures rarely exceed 60 degrees- A quick dunk in the river feels good for a few moments on the hottest days, but hypothermia is a real concern for anyone unable to get out of the water. Life vests, appropriate clothing, food and water, knowing in advance the distances and float times and safe boating practices are important to keep the focus on tura. Popular floats between publicly accessible launch and takeout points in the Sunriver area include: • Big River (R4er hf a 199.2) to Harper 6-idge (Rtd 191.7). Caster _e 7.5 miles. Haat line: 3.5 hours depending on tsind direction arid paddle effort. Note: access at harper Bridge is cn the souln side of the bridge next to the gal` core. hrlp-i/ww.stn r1 reren an ibex oorn WateHiecreaitom 1 RENTALS & OUTFITTERS Four Seasons Recreational Outfitters 541-593-2255 600d26o 541-593-0339 Sunriver Marina 541-593-3492 Sunriver Sports 541-593-8369 Sunriver Toy House Rentals 541-647-4433 rumalo Creek Kayak& Canoe 541-647-1640 Village Bike & Ski 541-543-2453 DRAFT 61 10 DRAFT 62 3/812018 Sunriver Viaipr Webs ▪ Harper Brite (RM 191.7)10 Eesson Day Use Area (RM 189.9). 'Distance: 1.8 miles. Float tiznet 45 min.:tes. Nate:Access at Harper Bridge is an the south Sde rate bridge next to the gal course. • Harper Bridge (RM 19/ .7) To Stittrir R.ort's Canoe Takeout (TIM IBM:Distance.: 8.6 me.s.Float time:4-6 Fours deperifrg DTI ward direction arid paddlTort. Note:Access at Hater Bridge is ori the south side oF the bridge next to the. golf coase. • Bemon Day Use Area (RM 189.9)7o Stinnver R.r.ort's. Canoe Takeout iRM 189.21. Distance: 6.8 rMes. Float time: 2-4 hours deperidtlig on wird direacon and pad,the Wart. • Belson Day Use Area (RM 189.9170 Eerillarr, Falls Day Llse Area at River Mile 182.0. Dinar 7.4 Hoot time: 3-4 ha.irs depending on wind d:reCtiCATT and path:le effort. ir • • • • e,• ",•.:.: CVO Clf4 = SECO 4: •, 4:4 4' :47 (Click on image to enlarge or print) Sunriver Resort operates a commercial marina at River Mile 1882 off River Road_ The general public and guests of the ReOOTt must rent boats from the marina to utilize this facility. goat rental fees include a shuttle ride back frons the Canoe Takeout at River Mile 182.0. Sunriver Owners Association opened a private launch and parking area in 2015 at River Mile 18.8.2. Access to this facility is restricted to Sunriver homeowners arid their guests. Only those with updated Member Preference and Recreation Plus access cards issued by the homeowner's association will be able to utilize this facility. Information: 541-585- 3147, Several shops in lhe Village at Sunriver and the Sunriver Business Park rent watercraft, life vests and other necessary items. State LTA' requires life i.iests for all watercraft occupants, whether you are in a float tube. kayak, canoe or boat. For a complete list of public boat launches on the upper Deschutes River between Sunriver and Wickiup Dam visit: tiatEllthroncsufirtrettlarnbet.comffliaffier-Recreakete 2/3 Fig. 7 3132618 2010 ADA Standards larAecessttle Design Charrler 10 Recreation Facilities (a] Design and construction. (1). Each Witty or part of a tadtty Constructed by, on behalf of, or to the use of a prtrllo entity shall be dee$gled and constructed to such manner that the gadfly or part dr the! Wily is ready acceseibte to aid usable by Inoltilduais with dfsadltUe s. If the construction was commenced alter January 26, 1992. (2) Exception for atructcrral impracticebflty. (I) Full compliance with the regUrernents of this section Is not required where a pudic entity can demonstrate Mat 61 is stn, tuially Impracticable to meet the requirements. Ful con -chance WI be considered structurally impracticable only In those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics or terrain preen! the Incorporation of acceselbilly Matures. (II} Pf iut compliance with this section would be sbvdrraiiy firiaractIcale compliance with this section Is required to the extent that It Is not simwtaraIy impracticable. 11 that case, any portion of the Tacitly that car be made accessible slvl be made accessible to the extern ihat it Is not structurally lnQracbcable. proking acc esslbtlty In conformance with INS section to Indhiduas with certain dlsani tties (e.g., Mose stn use wheelchairs) would be structurally Imprackable, accessbltty shal nonettleiess be ensured to persons Wtti other types of dis11BtIes, (e.g., those stn use auleties or who have sight, hearing, or mental Impannems) h aocardance xtth this section. (b) Alterations. (1 } Eactt Witty or pat of a faddy alased Dy, on Cellar of, mho( the use of a putullc may In a manner that artects Mr could anent the usabilty or 1115 facility Cr part of the tadttty ID the matdmun extent feasible, be afiered In such numa fiat the ahered portion of the randy Is really accessible to and usable by Individuals with dlsabllCes, it'd* Aeration was commenced alter January 25. 1992. (2p The pan 0t travel requirements Mt § 35.151(bk4) shall apply any to aheratans undertaken Way Sr purposes other than to meet the Rogan accessddihy requirements of § 35.150. (3) (I) Alteration to hismllc popenles rel comply, to the maximum Merl feasible, with the p D %io s app4Cable to historic properties In the design standards specified In § 35.151(4 (II) If 11 Is not feasible to provide physical access to an historic property In a manner that All not threaten or destroy the historic slgiVicente of !nettling a tadllty, alternative methods or access shat be prorlded pursuant la the tegUre"nent6 of g 35.150. (4) Path of travel. An alteration that affects or could affect the usabltty d or access to an area of a Talley total contains a prrnary Mellon shat be made so as to ens1ae that to fie maximum extent teastlle the path of travel to tie Awed area and the resbaoms, telephones. and Toting fourrtalne serving the allered area are really acceasele r3 ant usable by Incieduas with disablttee, Including IndMdrlots Mx) use Wheelchairs, unless itte cost aid scope afsueh alterations Is dapropcMonate 1M the cost of the o.'erall alteration. (I) Primary ?unction. A'primary function- Is a ma(cr acUvlty Por Witch she facility is !mended. Avers fiat corrtaln a primary archon hdude, but are not Imbed to, the rtrung area of a cahe1113, fie metre] morns In a conference center, as well as cenoes and Mier work areas In wNch the alMUes Chine pudic entity using the Tacitly are carried out (A) Mecbattical mans,11O551 rooms, apply storage rooms, employee larges or locker rooms, Janitorial closets, entrances. and corridors are not areas coetai iing a primary luxtlon. Restrooms are hal areas cdntating a primary Mictlan unless the provision ar restroans Is a primary purpose of the area e.g., In ivrjiway rte stops. (B) Fa the purposes of this section, alleratans to windows, Ila :Mare, contacts, elec irlca Musks, and signage shat not be deemed to be Iteration tial affect the usability az or access to a1 area contalllrg a primary Motion. (II) A 'path of travel' Includes a conlnuous, unabsaurted way or pedestrian passage by means of Alert the tiered area may be approached, entered, and exiled, and MOM connects the altered area vAoi an exterior approach (Including side/rats, streets, and puling areas), an entrance to the Wily, and other parts of the tacitly. (A)An accesslOe pain or travel may consist of walks and sidewalks, curb ramps and otter titenor or exterior pedesblan ramps; clew floor paths through lobbies, corridors, morns, and other Improved areas; parking access awes; elevators and IitIs; or a combination of these elements. 1 DRAFT 63 hCps:dims.atia.goolregs2G1012D1GADASiaidards2610ADAslanlards.htn 3,167 DRAFT 64 10,2018 2010 ADA Standards tor,4xesstile Design {B) For vie purposes c lIs section, the bon 'path of haver aso induces the reshoorns, telephones, and drinting tourrtans serving the altered area {C) Sago halter. ti a pubic entity has constructed or a'teted required elements ofa pall or travel In accordance with She specifications In ether the 1991 Standards or the Unborn Federal Aooesstnhty Standards be'bre bard" 15, 2012, the prone entity Is not refired to retorft such Elements to reflect Incremental changes In the 2010 Standards sorely because of an alteration to a primary function on area served by that path of travel. (11)Disproportionality. {A) Alterations made to provide an aoxeslde path of travel to Me altered area wit be deemed Ileproporlonale to the overat alteration Mien the cost exceeds 20 % of the cost of the aeration to Ile plimary funeral area. {B) Costs that may 1* counted as ex(endtures required to prhnfde an accessltke path or travel may Include: { 1) Costs associated wWM providing an accessiite encs ice.and an accessltie route to the altered area, for example, the cost otxldenng doorways or Installing ramps; {2) Costs associated want malting resboans accessbie, such as Installing grab Mals, e9largng tenet stalls, Insttating pipes, or nctatrng accessible faucet controls; {3) Cors associated with pro tdelg accessible telephones, suet as relocaring the telephone to as accessible height installing artp1tilcatiern devices, or installing 3 text telephone (ITV); and {4) Costs associated v 1th reiceating.an Inaccessible 0lnking fountain (w) Duey to provide aceebemle Matures In the event of derwoportbnalrty. {A) when the cost of alterations necessary to mate the pan of travel to tie altered area fury ac essltxe is dwpropcxtionatre to the cost of the overall alteralan, tie path of travel anal be made accessi ee to the extent that t1 can be made accessible wvnhout incurring disproportionate costs. {B} In choosing Vice accessible elements to pntvkle, priority Maud be gven 3a those elements Mat x111 pantie the greatest access, In She foaming order { 1) An accessible entrance; {2) An accessible route to Me altered area; {3) At least one accessttle restruorn for each sex or a single unisex restroom; {4) AoeesslbIe telephones; {5) Accessible drinking forrllalrw; and ;6) When possible. ad115109al accessble elements such as parting. storage, and alarms (V) saner of smaller altxationa. {A) The obligation to ponce an accessible path of travel may not be evaded by perramng a series of anal aneratons 10 are area served by a singe path of travel If those aleraton& coati have teen performed as a ange undertaking. {B) {1) r an area 00031911g a primary Motion has been altered xltrnout providing an ao0esslble path of travel to that area, and subsequent alera ons 0f prat area. or 3 dmener4 area on be sante pain of trarvel, are undertaken wttNn three years of the original alteration. Tie Mal Inst of alterations to fife primary !Unction areas on that path ct travel during tree preceang three -yew paned shat be onnsudered In determining whether the cost of making that pati or travel accessble Is dsproporlonate. (2) Crory aerations trhdertaben on or artier March 15,2011, Mal be oonsldened n determining IT the cost of prowling 31 accessible pa or travel is disproportionate to Me overall cost nitre alterations. {c) Acceeedtty standards and compliance data. {1) ir physical consbixron or alteration commence alter Jury 26, 199Z but prior to the September 15, 2010, Tien new construction and alteration sro)ectto 91545 section must comply haffi either tete UFAS or he 1991 Standar % except that ire elevator exemphtbn ecxttaned at section 41.3(5) and section 4.1.6(1 Kit) of the 1991 Standards shall not apply. Departures from panlcular requirements of either standard by the use of other methods Sial be permitted when it is dearly evident lrtat equivalent access to the !wilily or part or the 1acliny Is trtereby provided. {2) x physical ccnsbhxaon or alterations commence on or after Septen,ter 15, 2010, and before Mach 15, 2612, men new consbue1on and alterations subject 10 1115 section may comply uviol one of the following: tie 2010 Standards, UFAS, or the 1991 Standards except mal the elevator exemption contarled a1 section 4.1.3{5) and seclloo 4.1.6{ 1) (t) of the 1991 Standards anal not apply. Departures from pa hllxlar rapirenhen s of either standard by tete use or Otter methods snail be permitted Oren it Is dearly evident that eluvalen 1 access to the fealty or pan or the radlty I5 thereby prbvt5etl. h1tp5:,INN.ada.gowregs2o10?201DADAStandardsno1aA0Asharxlards.htn 4187 Fig. 8 DRAFT 65 liEn2418 Sulrtver area Coat lam an ongoing worry; lCealous efforts to MOS a replacement have stalled Published Sept. 4, zntq 111 t2:nLAM Sunriver area boat launch an ongoing worry Various efforts to build a replacement have stalled A getup u( people load kayaks and inflatables into the Irachmles River at the !brims. Bridge banal ramp in Sunriver kind week (Jo-Klinr; Tiu: bulletin) Buy photo Sunriver Police Chief Marc Mill' was shopping in Bend recently when a fellow shopper struck up a conversation, asking Mills about floating the Deschutes River through Sunriver. The long, lazy float sounded great, Mills recalled the man saying, but for one thing: Where are you supposed to park? Through much of the summer, lines of parked cars stretch along Spring River Road, on the east approach to Harper Bridge. On either side of the bridge, well-worn dirt paths lead down to the water's edge, where canoeists, kayakers and inner -tube floaters have launched their craft for years. Safety around the informal boat launch concerns the chief and others. "It's a problem. I think it's a problem for all law enforcement and anybody that has to do with public safety," Mills said. hdlg:Nroxbendbuletln.canincalstata'2362178-1 51nri pr area-twat-laaneb-an-ongoing-xrorry 119 DRAFT 66 a'8/2D18 Slsntve7 area boat !aura an ongoing worry; Various Marls to bulk) a replacement have smiled Ron Sures, an area resident who's proposed building a public boat ramp on a slice of the 171 acres he owns northwest of the bridge in exchange for the right to build an RV park, said the congestion from people parking near Harper Bridge gets worse each summer. As a condition of approving the plan for Crosswater, a golf community directly south of Sunriver across Spring River Road, the county required the developers to dedicate new land for a formal boat launch, according to county documents provided by Sures. The documents suggest the county was aware the informal launch at Harper Bridge was inadequate for such a facility, but in the end, the developers were allowed to dedicate the Harper Bridge site to meet the county's conditions. Peter Russell with the county's Community Development Department said even if the county erred by not requiring Crosswater to identify a suitable public launch site, it's too late to revisit that decision. Developing a boat ramp is not an urgent priority for the county, he said. "We would not prevail in a court of law if we went back to Crosswater and said we need more land," Russell said. Molly Johnson, spokeswoman for Sunriver Resort, which owns the golf course and real estate development arm at Crosswater, said she's unaware of any serious discussions of future boat ramps among resort management. Sunriver Resort owns the land south of Spring River Road immediately adjacent to the river. Because Deschutes County doesn't have a parks and recreation department or budget, Russell said, it would look to the Oregon Marine Board for grant funding if it were to build a boat launch. However, as the Marine Board is focused largely on providing amenities to larger, trailered boats, Russell said, it would require more land than is currently available to build a facility that meets the board's standards. t11 1Mnwx.bendbutetin.00mnocatstatel23621T8-1511wai tverarea-boat-Iaunotl-at g -worry 214 DRAFT 67 318t2618 StrvIver area boat lau ab an ongoing worry; Various efforts to bulli a replacement have Mailed Wayne Shuyler, boating facilities section manager for the Oregon Marine Board, said Harper Bridge is a challenging site, but could potentially be developed to accommodate a boat ramp that meets Marine Board standards. A few years ago, the Marine Board designed some possible layouts for a ramp and parking area at Harper Bridge, Shuyler said. All of the designs would have required the Sunriver Owners Association to commit some property to the project, he said, but the Marine Board was unable to get any partners to sign on. "It was kind of left with, unless there was a change of heart with the county or the homeowners association having some funds, nobody was going to move forward with that," Shuyler said. Brooke Snavely, spokesman for the owners association, said Shuyler's version of events was a fair representation of the issue. The land just north of Spring River Road is a common area, collectively owned by members of the owners association. "We had a lot of feedback from neighbors who lived next to the proposed area, and they hated it, they hated it,' he said. "And I can't blame anyone who lives next to a proposed boat ramp." Mills said an improved boat launch near Harper Bridge could solve some of the parking problems, but it could exacerbate others. Sunriver police have often observed floaters exiting the water downstream of the bridge, Mills said, dragging their boats across common areas and private property. Launching or pulling out of the water outside of a designated boat launch is officially prohibited in Sunriver, Mills said, while the Sunriver Marina is restricted to lodge guests only and the next -closest takeout is miles farther downstream. trtipcllormv.bencltutelln.oom'lacalstate12as21M-151/stnrteerareaboat-launch-an-a9gahgworry 3,14 DRAFT 68 3'8 18 Sumt er area boat launch an ongc rg vinery; %Wou6 Mitts be MU a repracement have staled "If you float from Harper Bridge and you take out clear down at the canoe takeout, or on down to Benham Falls, it's anywhere from a four -to -six -hour -plus float," Mills said. "It's a long float, and people figure out a way to get out of the river." — Reporter: 541-383-0387, shammers@bendbulletin.com Mx/lima benitttietln.cornfloalstatet2362178-1515srhar-areaboat-laundrair golig-worry 4,4 Fig. 9 DRAFT 69 3.8/2D18 Mats bent% flooding an the Upper Deschutes?: Wanm unealher, water managernert It IR, all named as outwits Published Sept. IS, 201.7 ai 02:01AM What's behind flooding on the Upper Deschutes? Warm weather, water management, plant life all named as culprits A muddy area raw in the backyard of Nancy Capell`m inane after it wan Bonded. (Ryan Brenneckey Bulletin photo) Buy photo SUNRIVER — Water levels along the Upper Deschutes River have slowly receded over the first couple weeks of September, which means life is finally returning to normal for Nancy Capell and her garden. Capell, 65, saw water from the Deschutes River rise up over its normal banks into the backyard of her home in the Three Rivers subdivision in July, flooding her grass and drowning many of the pea and potato plants in her enclosed garden. The rising water transformed her yard, and others on her street, into a water wonderland, complete with geese, great blue herons and kayaking neighbors. "IATe couldn't use it for two months," she said Thursday. But we did have our own lake." While the water volume during the summer was not record-setting, the experiences of property owners like Capell underscore some of the problems along the Upper Deschutes caused by flows that vary dramatically between winter and summer months. hep:/Awm.bendltutetIn.correlocaistate/5539823-1511whals-tehlnel-tondtv-on-the-upper-deschutes 1M DRAFT 70 3,t8t2©18 1Mtat s behnd llaoding an the upper Deschutes?: Warm wether, water management, plant ere all named as culprits "It's a fantastic river of the West. Living on it is an honor and a privilege," Capell said. "I just think it isn't healthy for the river." While Capell said the flooding was far worse than during her two previous summers in the neighborhood, the raw stream flow totals upriver were not much higher than usual. During July and August, the river tends to flow at up to 1,600 cubic feet per second at the gauge downriver of Wickiup Reservoir, and at up 2,100 cubic feet per second near Benham Falls, according to data from the Oregon Water Resources Department. While the flow stayed at 1,600 cfs for longer than it had during many recent years, it was not measurably higher at its peak, according to the department's data. Tod Heisler, executive director of the Deschutes River Conservancy, a nonprofit group that focuses on restoring stream flow in the Deschutes Basin, emphasized that flooding along the river was due to a variety of factors, ranging from summer temperatures to ongoing litigation an the river. "This is highly variable," he said. "It has been a problem in the past, and it will likely be a problem in the future.' Flows on the Deschutes are low during the winter and spring, when much of the water gets retained in large reservoirs, according to Mathias Perle, project manager for the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, a nonprofit that handles habitat restoration in the Deschutes Basin. However, water levels along the Upper Deschutes River rise during the summer every year like clockwork, a consequence of farmers and other customers of Central Oregon's irrigation districts needing water from the reservoirs as the weather gets hotter and drier. As that water is released, the river rises. http:ttewx.bencdbuienn.corn/lotate15535823-1StuYAaala-t>eriInrl=dootllig-an-ate-apper-d lle9es ltd DRAFT 71 a49(1{118 Vitars henna loading on the Upper De ides?: Waren weather, wags management, plant ltte all named as cu itI Kyle Gorman, south central region manager for the Oregon Water Resources Department, added that hot, dry summers tend to result in the diversion of more water to irrigation canals. Bend had its warmest August on record this year, while receiving just a trace of rainfall during the month, according to the National Weather Service. "We had big snow (this winter), but we haven't had a lot of rain," Heisler said. Despite the weather, North Unit Irrigation District, one of eight irrigation districts operating in Central Oregon, has had a relatively normal year for irrigation, according to General Manager Mike Britton. In a typical year, the district, which gets a vast majority of its water from the Deschutes River, begins diverting water in mid-April and continues into October. Thus far, the year has proceeded according to plan. Britton pointed to increased vegetation along the river as a reason it might be flooding despite relatively normal water flows. Gorman added that plants can cause the river to slow and spread out, spilling over its banks. However, Patricia McDowell, professor of geography at University of Oregon and a member of the university's river research group, said a wetter -than -normal winter wouldn't be enough to affect the river. Unless there were massive re -vegetation efforts in the affected areas, the impact would likely be small. The overall effect of the seasonal rise and fall of the river depends on whom you ask. While Britton said he's heard about the flooding along the Upper Deschutes, living in a floodplain means dealing with occasional floods. Perle said the ebb and flow can cause problems for the Upper Deschutes' ecosystem as well. He said fish can get stranded on land and die once the water recedes. Additionally, he said riverbanks can lose vegetation from the cycle of rising and falling water, which contributes to erosion. "Those banks are pretty raw during the freeze -thaw cycle during the winter," he said. http:l.Mww.bendbuletln.cam lacedstate 5539823-151)Whalsfienlnd loadhg-on thehupper-decc1uts as DRAFT 72 311/2018 wears benina madding on the Upper Deadlines?; Warm weather, Hater management, plant Ire all named as cu H1% Several planning efforts, including a habitat conservation plan from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are intended to help irrigation districts stay in business, while reducing the change to water flow along the Upper Deschutes. Bridget Moran, head of the Bend field office for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the conservation plan is expected to be finalized by 2019. think most people realize we can't go back to pre -dam, pre -history management of the river," Perle added. "But we're trying to find the middle ground." — Reporter: 541-617-7818, shamway@a bendbulletin.corn ht p:llwww.bendbuletln.corMo afstatJ5534923-151J ats-behlnd-tocdng-on-the-upper-lesehutes 444 Fig. 10 Deschutes Paddle Trail DRAFT 73 Welcome! The Upper Deschutes River became a National Wild 8 Scenic River as well as an Oregon Scenic Waterway in 1988. This corridor Is known for its austanding natural features and a myriad of recreational opportunities. Some stretches of the river lend themselves to calm waters suitable fa everyone while others require specialized whitewater equipment and advanced skills. Before venturing downstream, please check the map to identify hazards and determine ifyou have the propel skills and equipment for this particular stretch. River Safety Rives are inherently dangerous. River travel requires planning, proper equipment and experience for the diffiarlty of the lira section being traveled. U. • Wear a properly filling Coast Guard approved personal mul floatation device. • Dress appropriately for expected weather. • Whitewater secuo05 require specialized equipment and skills. • Carry a river map fon more spedfic infomha0on. • Know the location of all rapids and hazards. • When In doubt, scant it Dull rif • Let someone know where you are going. • Avoid boating alone. Hazards 8 Difficulty • I is critical to understand the difficulty of the river section ban launching. See section descriptions, map night. • Oven flat water presents dangers. Always be alert for downed wood and other unknown hazards. • Only the most difficult rapids are marked on the map. • Hazards marked on the map are very dangerous and regime portaging or expert wl itewater skills to negotiate. Respect the River • Ilse only dr5ignaled river access points and parking areas. • 00 not tread on 1Iparran vegetation • Carry out hash, foal and liter. • An Oregon Invasive Species Permit Is required for all boats longer than 10 feet ✓ CLEAN ✓ DRAIN leave ✓ DRY tl Signifies may result in� ishap. River Access Now that you've found Harper Bridge river access, you'll 1101xe there is heavy use, traffic and a lack of parking associated with this location. Yon may find that using the Brisson Day Use Area, which 6 Tess than 100 miles downstream, lis numerous advantages including ample parking, toilets, picnic tables and an easy to use boat ramp. To get there continue west on Spring River Road approximately 18 miles and turn right on Forest Road 41. In a Iwilanile bear right onto forest Road 200 and you will arrive at Brisson Day Use Area in another 14 miles. A Northwest Forest Pass is required May 1 -Sept. 30, and is available fon purchase at Sureiverarea vendo s. Water Levels The Deschutes Paddle Trail includes 95 miles of the Desdmles Reser, 26 miles of the Little Deschutes and a signifxant number of high Cascade Lakes The water level in the Deschutes k seasonal because a is a source for agrkmllwal irrigation in Central Oregon. Generally, river sections south of Bend can be paddled between April and October, while section north of Bend can be paddled between October and April The Little Deschutes Rive also his minimal flows in winter. LEGEND 950010 . ,.r ut •••••••• •�•- Bend Paddle 11011 Alliance developed Ole Deschutes Paddle Trail with major funding from Oregon Mate Packs and in pautrrership with the following agencies: A 8 N 2 /ROW PROTECT EXISTING-, TREE IN PLACE 60' LOADING ZONE 120' NO PARKING (5) PARKING SPACES 3 -PROPOSED SAWCUT 4' OFF EXISTING INTERIOR BIKE LANE STRIPE ESCHUTES COUNTY FIRE ACCESS AND GATE EMOVE EXISTING SIGN _��fgrn' 10.00 00 _ 12+00 u 0 4 480' (20) PARKING SPACES. X � * x- --�-v --9--:_1,..9 —30T'rre _ _ 1 T - - - 1,00 181 0i I --SPRING RIVER ROAD ■ _ �»0 r1-1 12 e [Pv- 100NO ' 10501N6ZONLX PARKING DELINEATE BIKE LANES WITH DIFFERENT COLOR SURFACING, TYPICAL NSTALL BIKE STENCIL (BS), 1 Y NSTALL 8" WIDE WHITE STRIPE, TYP s•a 23Y--24 T- 3� T -;r 201-00 192' ' `_I \ (8) PARKING SPACES (8) PARKING SPACES 2FLP IfitG INSTALL RISER 0 EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE TO MEET FINISHED GRADE 10 00 11+00 12100 4175 ' 4170- 4165— - 170--- 4165-- ------ 4160- 4155 CROSSWATER ACCESS AND GATE OW SPRING RIVER RD PLAN, STA 10+00 TO 23+00 SCALE1" = 20' ROPOSED 10' SLOPE / UTILITY EASEMENT 13+00 14100 15+00 16 00 17+00 i_ _. _ _.______ .- - - _- - gBrt7''''-'-1-84::: 1919 4:tt.8D- 1 — — — — 'ISP 20' (5) PARKING SPACES ELOCATE TELEPHONE RISERS INSIDE PROPOSED SLOPE/ UTILITY EASEMENT 0 5 10 20 30 40 SCALE- 1"= 50' 60 - 2300 - I (4) PARKING SPACES OHP - — 2 0 ory 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 2200 23 00 1175 4 /-EXISTING GROUND / AT 4 OF ROADWAY 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 LEGEND 3 ASSESSOR'S TAX LOT LINE (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) 000— - OVERHEAD POWER -u..v UNDERGROUND POWER COMMON TRENCH - TV.PHONE,POWER GAS UNDERGROUND GAS LINE ss- ----- UNDERGROUND SEWER LINE -as UNDERGROUND SEWER FORCE MAIN 55 - UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN ,L, UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE ry UNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINE UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Ga--- - GRADE BREAK FENCE ' WIRE o FENCE- CHAIN LINK O FENCE - WOOD ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE 05e CATCH BASIN C} LIGHT 4 E GUY POLE/ANCHOR -0- UTILITY POLE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER B CONC. PAD p ELECTRIC SERVICE O CABLE TV SERVICE/RISER T( TELEPHONE RISER p TELEPHONE MANHOLE ROAD SIGN 6 MAILBOX 3620- - CONTOUR LINE. 1' INTERVAL LODGEPOLE PINE TREE, SIZE NOTED TREE TO BE REMOVED ROW SLOPE EASEMENT 1' SHOUT DER SPRING RIVER RD PROFILE, STA 10+00 TO 23+00 SCALE HORIZONTAL 1"=50' / VERTICAL 1" = 5' 15' ROADWAY WIDENING \- 3" LEVEL II 1/2" DENSE GRADED ASPHALT 8" COMPACTED AGG. BASE LAWCUT 16' 9 EXISTING ROADWAY /.. ROW WIDTH VARIES ROAD CL 16'9 EXISTING ROADWAY EXISTING ROADWAY, DEPTH OF AC AND AGG. BASE ARE UNKNOWN I I 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20000 20+50 21+00 21+50 ROADWAY WIDENING TYPICAL SECTION SCALE 1 "=5' 15' ROADWAY WIDENING 1 2 1 3 1 4 20% ROW SLOPE EASEMENT 1. SHOULDER r-97/ 3" LEVEL II 1/2" DENSE GRADED ASPHALT 8" COMPACTED AGG. BASE 11 22+00 0 ROPOSED AGG SHOULDER, DISTANCE BETWEEN ROW VARIES FROM 0' MIN - 5' MAX ROPOSED EP ---TRAVEL LANE 24 t 5 OW CENTERLINE - 11' TRAVEL LANE -- - 4170 4165 — 4160 . 1155 22+50 23+00 PARKING NOTES: • 25 PARKING SPACES EACH SIDE OF ROAD PROPOSED 8" WHITE STRIPE, TYPICAL 5' I 1 gU }3. T ROPOSED EP (:El] 1 3' 24' '' OW ROADWAY WIDENING DETAIL SCALE, 1".5' 5 ROPOSED AGG SHOULDER. DISTANCE BETWEEN ROW VARIES (0' MIN - 0.75' MAX) 6 6 c [ COPYRIGHT 2018 u n HA, mb.. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED O0 O cc W oc W ON I I� CLL Z C7 Ec• 00 MZ PLAN & PROFILE REVISIONS DESGNED BY DRAWN BY DWL CHECKED BY MPD SCALE AS SHOWN FILE CD-180112-PPOO.dwg D 2018.04.06 SHEET HWA# C2.0 180112 Z 0 U DESCHUTES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 6, 2018 DATE: May 31, 2018 FROM: Anthony Raguine, Community Development, 541-617-4739 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion Related to KCDG/Tanager Surface Mining, Plan Amendment, Recreation - Oriented Facility and Subdivision Applications RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:. Staff provides a memo summarizing relevant issue areas raised during the Board's appeal hearing and open record period, along with Board decision points. As noted in the memo, the memo is not intended to replace the information contained in the record. Attached to the memo is the record developed during the open record period. Staff also includes a decision matrix as a tool to guide the Board's future deliberations. As directed by the Board, staff will schedule a deliberation date. ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Adam Smith, Assistant Counsel MEMORANDUM DATE: May 30, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners (Board) FROM: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner RE: Work Session Prior to Deliberations; Land Use File Nos. 247 -17 -000627 -CU, 629 -PA, 636 - CU, 637 -TP, 639 -CU, 640 -SP, and 641 -LM As requested by Commissioner Baney at the public hearing, staff scheduled a work session on June 6, 2018, in preparation for Board deliberations on the subject applications. This memo and the attached Decision Matrix are intended to identify issue areas and summarize relevant findings and testimony. These documents are not intended to replace the information contained in the record. For the Board's review is the record developed since the Public Hearing. At various points in this memo, staff highlights Board decision points. I. BACKGROUND KCDG/Tanager applied for land use approval for two projects. • Land use file nos. 247 -17 -0000627 -CU and 629 -PA are for surface mining in conjunction with an Irrigation District ("Surface Mining") and an amendment ("Amendmennto add the subject property to the "Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory"' in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Land use file nos. 247 -17 -000636 -CU, 637 -TP, 639 -CU, 640 -SP, 641 -LM are for a recreation - oriented facility ("ROF") and 10 -lot planned unit development ("PUD") subdivision. The ROF will include both the North and South Ponds. II. RECORD At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board established the following deadlines for the open record period to allow submittal of evidence, testimony and final legal argument. • New evidence and testimony ("First Round"): April 20, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.; Exhibit A 1 Table 5.8.2. • Rebuttal evidence and testimony ("Second Round"): April 27, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.; Exhibit B • Applicant's final legal argument ("Final Legal Argument"): May 4, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.; Exhibit As the Board is aware, the timeline for Final Legal Argument was suspended by the county to address the record objection submitted by the Trustees of the Bishop Family Trust ("Bishops"). Pursuant to Board Order 2018-037, the Board denied the Bishops' request to reject new evidence and set a deadline of May 17, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. for submittal of Final Legal Argument. III. RECORD CLARIFICATION On May 1, 2018, staff received an email and attachment (Exhibit D) from Bradaigh Holt ("Holt") for the record. The Holt submittal was submitted after the April 20, 2018 deadline for the First Round. Staff asks the Board to determine whether the Holt should be excluded from consideration in the Board's decision. Staff recommends the Board exclude the Holt email and attachment from consideration. IV. PRELIMINARY MATTERS A. Code Violations and Ability to Process Applications The Hearings Officer ("HO") addressed the issue of potential code violations on the subject property and the ability to process the land use applications. Specifically, in her decision on the Surface Mining/Amendment project the HO made the following findings, A number of comments were received arguing that the county cannot process the subject applications because the current applications do not resolve the previous unpermitted actions to create the reservoirs. Specifically, in her letter dated August 17, 2017, Bishop legal counsel Jennifer Bragar points out that under DCC 22.20.015(D)(1)2, permits or other approval may be authorized only if it results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. Ms. Bragar goes on to state that the subject applications do not contain approval of the surface mining activity in conjunction with an irrigation district. (footnote added) The purpose of the current applications, along with concurrent applications 247 -17- 000627 -CU and 247 -17 -000629 -PA, is to legitimize all previous reservoir -related work and seek approval for the contested water ski lake. The Hearings Officer determines that it is appropriate to consider the applications pursuant to the Procedures Ordinance in DCC Title 22. Pursuant to letters received from KCDG and TID in 2016, KCDG agreed to cease all water skiing activity on the South Pond and TID agreed to cease their use of the Ponds for water 2 Chapter 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use D. A permit or other approval, including building permit applications, may be authorized if: 1. It results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, or local laws, and Deschutes County Code, including sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a voluntary compliance agreement; storage. For these reasons, the county previously determined that no code violation exists OO the subject property. Consequently, the county continued to process the current applications. BOARD DECISION Does a code violation exist on the subject property related to the ROF and/or Surface Mining? B. TU -14-8 Code Vioation In a related matter, opponents claim the applicant is in violation of land use approval TU - 14 -8, which allowed crushing of rock on the subject property for road maintenance and landscaping. As a condition of approval, TU -14-8 required the applicant to remove excavated and crushed materia! within 60 days after projectject completion. The applicant responds that the stockpiled excavated and crushed material awaits approval of the associated subdivision application for use in road creation and landscaping. BOARD DECISION Does a code violation exist with respect to stockpiling of excavated and crushed material on-site? BOARD DECISION If a code violation exists, do the present Surface Mining and ROF CUPs have the potential to resolve the code violations such that it is appropriate for the Board to continue processing the applications? C. Agricultural Use VsRecreation-Oriented Facility Requiring Large Acreage In response to concerns raised by opponents regarding mosquitos, the applicant proposed to stock both Ponds with fish. The applicant also indicated that both Ponds wouJd also be available for recreational fishing. The HO in the present applications did not identify recreational fishing as a modification of the ROF CUP. Opponents object that adding recreational fishing to the ROF CUP is an amendment to the proposal which requires the applicant to apply for a Modification of Application pursuant to DCC 22.20.055. "Agricultural use" means any use of land, whether for profit or not, related to raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof not specifically covered elsewhere in the applicable zone. Agricultural use inciudes the preparation and storage ufthe products raised on such land for human and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. Agricultural use also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species. Agricultural use does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees, 4 Under DCC 18.60.030(G), a CUP is required for a "Recreation -oriented facility requiring large acreage." The applicant responds that recreational fishing faUs under the use categoryofAgricultural Use, which is allowed outright and, therefore, does not require an amendment to the ROF [UP. BOARD DECISION Does recreational fishing constitute a modification of the ROF CUP? V. SURFACE MINING A. Surface Mining Definitions At the outset, opponents argue the Deschutes County Code definition of surface mining is preempted by the statutory definition of surface mining under ORS 517.750. Opponents claim this preemption is authorized by ORS 51 7.780(1). The HO in the present applications agreed. The applicant argues the definition of surface mining under ORS 517.750 is, by its terms, only applicable toORS 517.7O3to517.989s. As noted at the public hearing, staff's review of the referenced statutes appears to apply to mining and subsequent reclamation of identified significant Goal 5 mineral and aggregate resources. The surface mining for the present applications was not completed at a Goal 5 site. The property was rezoned from Surface Mining to Rural Residential because no significant mineral and aggregate resources remained on-site. BOARD DECISION Is the DCC definition of surface mining preempted by the statutory definition in ORS 517.750? B. Surface Mining or Exemption Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18~04.030 provides the following definition of surface A. Includes: 1. All or any part of the process of mining by removal of the overburden and extraction ofnatural mineral deposits thereby exposed by any method including open pit mining operations, auger mining operations, processing, surface impacts of underground mining, production of surface mining refuse and the 5 'The provisions of ORS 517.702 (Legislative findings) to 517.989 (Rules applicable to consolidated application) and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder do not supersede any county zoning laws or ordinances in effect on July 1, 1972. However, if the county zoning laws or ordinances are repealed on or after July 1, 1972, the provisions of ORS 517.702 (Legislative findings) to 517.989 (Rules applicable to consolidated application) and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder are controlling." The county's definition of "surface mining" was not in effect on July 2, 1972, but was adopted in 1979. »^S1775ODefinitions for ORS 517.702 to 517.989. As used in ORS 517.702 to 517.989, unless the context requires otherwise:" construction of adjacent or off-site borrow pits, except those constructed for access roads; and 2. Mining which involves more than 1,000 cubic yards of material or excavation prior to mining of a surface area of more than one acre. B. Does not include: 1. The construction of adjacent or off-site borrow pits which are used for access roads to the surface mine. 2. Excavation and crushing of sand. ffravel. clay, rock or other similar materials conducted by a landowner. contractor or tenant on the landowner's property for the primary purpose of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of access roads and excavation or grading operations conducted in the process of farming or cemetery operations, on-site road construction and other on-site construction, or nonsurface impacts of underground mines; and ... (emphasis added) The applicant argues the excavation, grading and contouring that occurred is not surface mining because the work performed is more correctly characterized as "other on-site construction" in association with the creation both the North and South Ponds. In a prior proceeding for a permit signoff', the HO determined the county clearly intended to regulate the creation of reservoirs associated with irrigation districts pursuant to DCC 18.60.080(W), as detailed above. For this reason, the HO in the permit signoff proceeding found a CUP is required for surface mining in conjunction with an irrigation district. The Board later affirmed this determination on appeal. In the present applications, the HO found the applicant's earthwork does not fall within the exemption for "other on-site construction" because: • The Board has already determined in the permit signoff proceeding that the creation of the reservoirs should be characterized as surface mining in conjunction with an irrigation district requiring a conditional use permit; • The excavation and rock crushing performed by the applicant was not for the primary purpose of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of access roads, regardless of the fact that some material was used on an access road; and • The county's definition of surface mining is preempted by state law under ORS 517.780(1). Opponents further argue that some of the crushed material was transported off-site to a neighboring property, which precludes taking advantage of the "other on-site construction" clause. The applicant responds that the exemption language includes a de minimus provision. Because the language states that the "primary purpose" of the earthwork be associated with "other on-site construction", the language contemplates that some minor amount of material can be used off-site. 247 -14 -000238 -PS BOARD DECISION Is the excavation, grading and contouring necessary to create the North and South properly characterized as surface mining? Or, is this on-site work exempted from the definition of surface mining as "other on-site construction?" If the Board determines the on-site work is exempted from the definition of surface mining because the earthwork falls within the exemption for "other on-site construction", then the Surface Mining CUP and Amendment are unnecessary. If the Board affirms their previous determination that the applicant's earthwork is not exempted from the surface mining definition, the Board must determine if the work conforms to the surface mining use category in the RR10 Zone, detailed below. C. Rural Residential (RR10) Zone 1. Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.60.030(W) In the Rural Residential (RR10) Zone, a CUP is required pursuant to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.60.030(W) for the following use: W. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off-site use, storage, and sale of excavated material. Opponents argue that only the "operation and maintenance" of irrigation systems is allowed under this criterion and, therefore, the applicant cannot create the Ponds as reservoirs for use by TID. The HO in Ski Lake I found the ordinance8 that added this use category to Title 18 clearly intended to allow irrigation districts to create water impoundments. Additionally, DCC 18.128.280(C) specifically contemplates creation of "man-made lakes"' in conjunction with surface mining of a non -Goal 5 site. BOARD DECISION Per DCC 18.60.030(W), can the applicant request CUP approval to surface mine to create reservoirs in conjunction with an irrigation district? 2. In Conjunction With An Irrigation District DCC 18.60.030(W) requires the surface mining to be completed in conjunction with an irrigation district. 8 Ordinance 2001-038 9 C. If the surface mining actively involves the maintenance or creation of man made lakes. water impoundments or ponds, the applicant shall also demonstrate, at the time of site plan review, that the following conditions are or can be met... (emphasis added) Prior to the present applications, KCDG and TID jointly applied for CUP approval to establish the two reservoirs. Concurrently, KCDG separately applied for a CUP to establish the ROF. These projects together are referred to as Ski Lake I10. For Ski Lake I, KCDG and TID were co -applicants with an irrigation contract in place between KCDG and TID which detailed the use of the Ponds for water storage. In her review of the contract, the HO in Ski Lake I found there were several provisions which clearly gives TID control over the water stored in the Ponds. Additionally, the HO in Ski Lake I noted that both TID's Operations Manager and Field Manager testified that TID had been interested in for some time in finding a site for another reservoir. Consequently, TID found a partnership with the applicant beneficial to TID's goal of establishing another reservoir. For these reasons, the HO in Ski Lake I found the surface mining completed on the property was in conjunction with an irrigation district. The HO in the present applications disagreed with the decision in Ski Lake I. Specifically, the HO in the present applications found: • KCDG performed the work alone; • Excavation of the Ponds occurred in March 2014, with the agreement between KCDG and TID entered into after the fact in June 2014; • In the present applications, unlike in Ski Lake I, TID is not a co -applicant; and, • At the time of the present applications, no agreement existed between KCDG and TID concerning the storage or use of TID water in the Ponds. For these reasons, the HO in the present applications found KCDG's surface mining was not done in conjunction with an irrigation district. Opponents agree with this finding. Opponents also point to an excerpt from a deposition by TID's Manager indicating TID was not involved with the design and construction of the Ponds. The applicant points out that an irrigation contract is currently recorded against the property. Further, although some provisions of the contract were temporarily suspended in 2016, the contract was not terminated and has existed since Ski Lake I. The applicant states it is currently burdened with liabilities under the contract. For these reasons, the applicant argues the work performed to create the Ponds was done in conjunction with an irrigation district. BOARD DECISION Was the on-site surface mining done in conjunction with an irrigation district? D. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.015, General Standards If the Board determines the surface mining was completed in conjunction with an irrigation district, the Board must now determine if the surface mining activities complied with applicable approval criteria. For the purposes of this memo, staff identifies those criteria which are contested. 90 247 -15 -000226 -CU, 227 -CU, 228 -LM, 383 -MA, 384-5P, 385-V 1. DCC 18.128.015(A)(1) A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Siting, design and operating characteristics of the use; Siting The applicant argues the site of a former surface mine makes the subject property uniquely suited for the creation of the Ponds. Additionally, the proximity of the TID canal enhances use of the Ponds for water storage and re -regulation. The HO in Ski Lake I and the HO in the present applications agreed. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Additionally, proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Opponents argue a large excavation project which removed vegetation is not appropriate to the property given the property's location in the Wildlife Area ("WA") Combining Zone. Opponents and ODFW express concern regarding wildlife impacts. Design The HO found the design of the South Pond is not suitable to the site given its large size, and its unusual shape and appearance, in comparison to typical rural irrigation ponds. Additionally, the design of the South Pond includes unnaturally steep slopes, which are unlike the natural steep slopes associated with Tumalo Creek. Finally, the HO found the design of the South Pond is clearly for a ski lake and not appropriate for re -regulation use. Opponents state significant excavation and grading was necessary to achieve the final design of both Ponds, but in particular the South Pond and, therefore, the site was not suitable to the design of the Ponds. Further, the appellants argue the shallow depth of the South Pond does not promote water conservation because it results in high evaporation rates. Therefore, the Ponds are a poor design for water storage and re -regulation. The applicant argues the design is suitable to the site because it takes advantage of the prior surface mining pits. The Ponds are lined to limit water loss from seepage. The applicant indicates a pump will be installed to allow transfer of water from the Ponds to the TID canal, should the Surface Mining CUP be approved. The applicant points to other large and/or unusually shaped irrigation ponds in the county to argue that the South Pond is appropriate to the site. Operating Characteristics The operating characteristics of the Ponds includes the capacity to hold 125 -acre- feet of water in addition to the 55 acres of irrigation water right appurtenant to the subject property. The applicant indicates a pump and piping will be installed if the Surface Mining/Amendment pject are approved to allow water to be transferred to the TID canal. The HO in the present applications did not rule on the suitability ofthe operating characteristics to the site, stating the use of the Ponds for storage and re -regulation was not before her because TID is not an applicant and an agreement between KCDG and TID to use the reservoirs no longer exists. BOARD DECISION Is the subject property suitable to the siting, desiand operating characteristics of the proposed water storage and re -regulation Ponds? A. The site undeshall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: The natural and physical features ofthe site, including,but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. The HO in Ski Lake | found the surface mining activities so altered the landscape, including the removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat, that the Ponds are not suitable to the natural and physical features of the property. The HO in the present applications adhered to these findings and recommended a condition of approval requiring the applicant to re -contour the steepest banks of the South Pond to make them more natural looking. The HO in Ski Lake | found that if the Surface Mining CUP was approved, the applicant should be required to develop and implement awildlife habitat mitigation plan, including the retention of existing vegetation and leaving the area between the two Ponds free of fencing and other barriers. The HO in the present applications reviewed the Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan ("WHMP") and recommended a condition of approval requiring compliance with the WHMP. Additionally, the HO recommended a condition of approval requiring soil to be used for revegetation to be sourced from off-site, rather than on-site as proposed by the applicant. With respect to natural hazards, the HO in Ski Lake I found water in the Ponds were made available and used for wildfire suppression during a recent fire. The HO in the present applications agreed and further found the Ponds will be a significant benefit to wildfire suppression. Similar to the HO findings, opponents argue the natural and physical features ofthe property were so altered that the Ponds are not suitable to the site. Opponents In response to the HO's findings in Ski Lake I, the applicant submitted the aforementioned WHMP. Additionally, the applicant submitted a Landscape Plan which illustrates revegetation around the north and south ends of South Pond, between the proposed residential Tots. Rather than source topsoil from off-site, the applicant proposes to use soil from the northwestern portion of the property for their proposed revegetation efforts. The area of topsoil removal is then proposed to be re -seeded and maintained. The applicant argues use of the Ponds was instrumental in suppressing recent wildfires, mitigating natural wildfire hazard. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Additionally, proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Proponents argue for the value of the Ponds considering recent fires in the county. BOARD DECISION Is the subject property suitable to the water storage and re -regulation use of the Ponds considering the natural and physical features of the site? 3. DCC 18.128.015(B) states, B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). In Ski Lake I, the HO found use of the South Pond as a water storage and re - regulation facility is not compatible to rural residential uses on surrounding land because of the size and appearance of the South Pond. The HO in the present applications adhered to these findings, despite the applicant's proposed WHMP and Landscape Plan. Opponents agree with the HO findings. Opponents also argue that because the applicant is seeking after -the -fact approval, impacts associated with the creation of the Ponds cannot be accurately analyzed. As noted above, the applicant states the county already includes large and unusually shaped water bodies. The applicant points out that in comparison to the slopes associated with the South Pond, the area includes significantly steeper slopes associated with Tumalo creek. The applicant argues the property was once the site of a surface mine and that the re -contouring of the pits into the Ponds and their subsequent use for water storage is appropriate. Proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the area, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Proponents also testify there are no noise impacts associated with motorized boating. BOARD DECISION Is the proposed use of the Ponds as water storage and re -regulation facilities compatible with existing rural residential uses? U. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.28K]Surface Mining ofNon-Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Resources 1. DCC 18.128.280(B) states, 8i A conditional use permit shall not be issued unless the applicant0em0nstrates at the time of site plan review that the following conditions are or can be met... The criterion goes on to Iist a number of requirements that must be met, including proving that surface mining isnecessary for the use; abilityto control erosion; ability to meet DEQ noise and air quality standards; availability of sufficient water for dust control; and proving no adverse impacts on adjacent resources or uses. Opponents point out that this criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance at the time of site plan review. Because the Ponds have already been constructed, opponents argue that the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance. For this reason, opponents state the Board cannot approve the Surface Mining CUP. Both the HO in Ski Lake | and the present applications found the applicant either can meet all of the required standards via the imposition of conditions, or likely met them based on the lack of complaints and open code enforcement cases. BOARD DECISION Has the applicant met their burden of proof with regard to these criteria? 2. DCC 18.128.280(C)(1) states, C. lf the surface mining actively involves the maintenance or creatiom'man made lakes, water impoundments or ponds, the applicantshmY also demonstrate, at the time of site plan review, that the following conditions are or can be met: 1. There is adequate water legaily available to the site to maintain the water impoundment and to prevent stagnation. The HO in Ski Lake | found that there is no evidence to suggest that TID is legally prohibited from obtaining a permit to store water in the Ponds. Therefore, this HO imposed a condition of approval requiring the applicant to obtain an Oregon Water Resources Department ("[)VVRD")permit. The HO in the present applications disagreed with this approach and instead found there was no evidence indicating that there is adequate water legally available to the site to maintain water impoundment and prevent stagnation. Opponents further point to OWRD's withdrawal of its limited license that temporarily allowed TID to deliver a small amount of water to the Ponds. Opponents conclude the applicant has no legal right to hold water in the Ponds. The applicant states a groundwater permit has been filed to supply adequate water met" provision, an application for a groundwater permit is sufficient to meet this standard. Additionally, the applicant points out that TlD and OWRD recently settled litigation ("TID/OWRD Litigation") resulting in a stipulated judgement which allows the delivery of irrigation water sufficient to protect the liners. Opponents disagree with the applicant's interpretation of the TID/OWRD Litigation and argue the judgement specifically calls out TID's lack of authorization to store water in the Ponds. Both sides point to excerpts from the judgement to bolster their arguments. BOARD DECISION Is the application of a groundwater permit and the aforementioned TID/OWRD Litigation sufficient to prove that adequate water is legally available to maintain the Ponds and to prevent stagnation? 3. DCC 18.128.280(C)(3) states, 3. Where the impoundment bank slope is steeper than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, or where the depth is six feet or deeper, the perimeter of the impoundment is adequately protected by methods such as fences or access barriers and controls. The HO in Ski Lake I found that because access controls are in place - i.e., private ownership of the Ponds and their location of private property not accessible to the public - fences or access barriers and controls are not necessary. The HO in the present applications adhered to this finding. Opponents argue this criterion requires fences or access barriers and controls. Should the Board determine that fences or other barriers are required, opponents further argue that such controls are not suitable to the WA Combining Zone. BOARD DECISION Are fences or access barriers and controls mandatory to comply with this criterion? VI. AMENDMENT Per DCC 18.128.280(D)(2)11 , surface mining of the subject property can only occur if the property is included on the County's "Non -Significant Inventory - Mineral and Aggregate" ("Non -Significant 11 18.128.280. Surface Mining of Non -Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Resources. These uses are subject to the following standards: D. Limitations 2. A permit for mining of aggregate shall be issued only for a site included on the County's non- significant mineral and aggregate resource list. Inventory"). Consequently, the applicant was required to apply for Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment ("PAPA") to add the subject property to the Non -Significant Inventory. A. Non -Significant Inventory - Mineral and Aggregate Sites 1. Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 660-023-000 OAR 660f023'000 implements Statewide Planning Goal 5 and the protection of significant resourcesOpponents argue OAR 66U-0Z3'O0Oonly allows jurisdictions to create inventories of significant mineral and aggregate resource sites and no provisions exist in this statute to allow jurisdictions to create non-significant inventories. The county amended its Comprehensive Plan to create a non-significant mineral and aggregate inventory specifically because the sites included on the list could not likely meet the statutory definition "significant" in the OAR. It is undear to staff how OAR 660-023-000 applies to the Non -Significant Inventory since those statutes apply only to significant sites. The HO in both Ski Lake I and the present applications found that adding the subject property to the Non -Significant Inventory was necessary to comply with DCC 18.128.280(0)(2). Neither HO identified any conflict between the Non -Significant Inventory and OAR 68O'O33'00U. BOARD DECISION Does OAR 660-023-000 preclude the county from having and amending its non-significant inventory? 2. Goal 5 and Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) Analysis OAR 660-23-250, Applicability, includes the following: (3) Local governments are not required to apply Gocil 5 in consideration of o PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (b) The PAPA aliows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or The applicant argues the surface mining is not subject to subsection (b) above. First, the applicant states that surface mining is a historic use of the property, not a new use. Second, while deer winter range is a Goal 5 resource, the range itself is not an acknowledged Goal 5 resource site. Finally, even if deer winter range were a listed Goal 5 resource site, surface mining is not identified as a conflicting use in the ESEE analysis for deer winter range. The HO in the present applications agreed with the applicant. For these reasons, the HO determined that Goal 5 did not apply and, therefore, an ESEE analysis was not required. Opponents state the HO erred in her findings. Opponents contend that the surface mining completed by the applicant is new surface mining which requires compliance with subsection (b) above. Deer winter range is, in fact, a Goal 5 resource that must be addressed under this criterion. For this reason, Goal 5 does apply and an ESEE analysis is required. Opponents also point to testimony from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW")12 indicating the need to prohibit intensive uses, such as recreation facilities, in the WA Zone. BOARD DECISION Is the subject surface mining activity a "new" use? If yes, is this surface mining activity a conflicting use with respect to the WA Zone? If yes, is deer winter range a listed Goal 5 resource site? 3. Statewide Planning Goal 2 Opponents argue that Goal 2 requires a review of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, rather than just a search for approval criteria. Opponents further argue that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has not been demonstrated by the applicant and, therefore, the PAPA cannot be approved. The county has previously determined that the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan do not contain mandatory approval criteria. Rather, the goals and policies are implemented via the specific approval criteria in the Zoning Code. For this reason, the county has historically found that compliance with the Zoning Code is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. BOARD DECISION Is the applicant required to demonstrate consistency with all relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the PAPA review? Or, is conformance with the relevant approval criteria sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan? 4. Statewide Planning Goal 10 Goal 10 addresses housing need. Opponents argue the PAPA effectively reduces available lands for residential use and, therefore, an analysis of Goal 10 must be completed. The subject property is approximately 105 acres in size. The PUD proposes 10 residential lots, which equates to approximately 1 residence per 10 acres. The minimum lot size in the underlying RR10 Zone is 10 acres. The HO in the present applications found that the applicant met the equivalent density requirement of the RR10 Zone. 12 Amendment to Comprehensive Plan to add churches as a conditional use in the WA Zone. BOARD DECISION Does the PAPA require an analysis of Goal 10? VII. RECREATION -ORIENTED FACILITY ("ROF") Because many of the areas of concern and contention are the same for the Surface Mining CUP, ROF, and Planned Unit Development, staff will note those similarities and not reiterate the arguments below. A. WA Combining Zone DCC 18.88.040(C) states, C. Subject to DCC 18.88.040(E), the following uses are permitted in that portion of the WA zone designated as the Bend/La Pine Deer Migration Corridor as conditional uses: 4. Playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization; Opponents argue that the ROF is a recreation facility prohibited in the WA Zone by this provision. Staff has historically read subsection 4 to apply only to those playgrounds, recreation facilities and community centers owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization. The HO in the present applications found the ROF proposal is allowed in the WA Zone. BOARD DECISION Does this provision prohibit the establishment of the ROF in the WA Zone? B. Site Plan Review Criteria: DCC 18.124 1. DCC 18.124.060(A) states, Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. The applicant argues the ROF will comply with this criterion. The Ponds were constructed in areas previously disturbed by the prior surface mine. No views or natural features will be impacted by the ROF. Boating activity would be limited to daylight hours, with specific restrictions on the types of boats that can be used to further minimize noise impacts. Per the noise study, noise impacts would be minimal, particularly after the construction of dwellings associated with the PUD. Proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the area, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Proponents aiso testify there are no noise impacts associated with motorized boating. Finally, proponents argue the ROF has not impacted wildlife by virtue of their continued use of the property, in particular the available water. In Ski Lake [ the HO found the unnatural look of the South Pond and the lack of vegetation around it, contrasts unfavorably with the surrounding natural environment. The HO went on to recommend re -contouring the South Pond's steepest banks and revegetating the area between the banks and the surrounding forested areas in a manner consistent with ODFW's habitat mitigation policies. The HO further found that the proposed potential duration of water skiing, during daylight hours, is out of scale and character with surrounding residential uses. Regarding noise impacts, the HO found the noise study submitted by the applicant constitutes credible evidence that there would be little, if any, impact from motorized boating activities. However, the HO indicated that because the noise study measured sound between 1O:0Oa.rn.and 5p.nn.'boating activities should be similarly limited. The HO in the present applications agreed with these findings, and ultimately denied the ROF because the Ponds were not created inconjunction vv/th an irrigation district. Opponents argue the ROF does not comply with this criterion. Opponents state their concern regarding the impact of the Ponds and ROF use on wildlife and habitat, particularly considering the location of the Ponds in the WA Zone, removal of previously existing vegetation, and the disturbance of boating activities and increased vehicle movement on wildlife. Opponents testify that despite the conclusions of the applicant's noise study, boating noise can still be heard around and within existing dwellings. Further, opponents submitted a letter from a retired sound engineer refuting the applicant's noise study, and noting that from a tonal perspective, the constant boating noise is different from other noises, Opponents agree with the HO regarding the size, appearance, and steep slopes of the ROf. Opponents argue that use of water for the private recreational use is irresponsible and a waste of water. Opponents also argue the lined Ponds will prevent groundwater recharge. In response to concerns regarding loss of habitat and preservation of deer winter range, the applicant submitted the WHMP to address these issues. Consequently, the applicant proposes revegetating the north and south ends of the South Pond and preserving more than 80 percent of the subject property as open space. Concern was expressed by the HO in the present applications regarding use of topsoil from the subject property to revegetate the South Pond. The HO recommended requiring the applicant to obtain topsoil from off-site. The applicant responds that the Landscape PJan includes a provision to re -seed and maintain the area oftopsoil removal to promote additional wildJife forage and habitat. BOARD DECISION Has the applicant demonstrated that the ROF will be harmonious with the natural environment and existing development? 2. DCC 18.124.060(B) states, Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. The applicant submitted a letter from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries ("DOGAMI") indicating that all slopes associated with the South Pond meet DOGAMI standards. The HO in Ski Lake I found the slopes to be too steep when compared to the previously existing slopes, and recommended the steepest slopes of the South Pond be re-contoured. The HO in the present applications agreed and further noted that this standard is not associated with any DOGAMI slope standard. The HO in Ski Lake I also recommended a condition of approval requiring preservation of remaining trees and shrubs. BOARD DECISION Did the applicant preserve the existing landscape and topography to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints? If no, should the applicant be required to re -contour the steep slopes associated with the South Pond? 3. DCC 18.124.060(C) states, Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. The applicant proposes a number of safety measures to address this criterion. Access to the ROF will be private and not open to the public. The ROF is designed for 1 boat at a time, with a harbor that separates the active boat from the dock area where loading and unloading can be accomplished safely. Alcohol use by boaters is not permitted. The boat ramp will be engineered to a specific grade and textured for safe entry and exit. The ROF parking area will be separated by at least 100 feet from the ROF waters. The parking lot itself meets all county standards for parking spaces and vehicular movement. The HO in both Ski Lake I and the present applications found the applicant's safety measures were sufficient to ensure a safe environment. Both HOs also found that because of the private use nature of the ROF, there were no true transitions from public to private spaces. Opponents expressed concerns regarding potential drowning and safety to the public. Opponents recommend fencing around the Ponds. BOARD DECISION Is the ROF designed to provide a safe environment? C. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.015, General Standards 1. DCC 18.128.015(A)(1) states, Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; The arguments on both sides regarding the siting and design of the Surface Mining, detailed previously, are the same for the ROF. For this reason, staff does not reiterate them here. The significant difference between the Surface Mining and the ROF is the use of the Ponds for recreational activities. The North Pond is intended for low intensity recreation such as swimming, kayaking and paddle boarding. The South Pond is intended for motorized boating activity and is specifically designed for such use. Opponents argue the operating characteristics of the ROF are not suitable to the site considering potential impacts to wildlife, especially impacts to deer winter range. ODFW expressed similar concerns. Additionally, opponents argue the terms of the Easement Management Agreement ("EMA") impermissibly allow the applicant to add properties to the EMA13, effectively increasing usage of the ROF with no additional review. The applicant notes that the operating characteristics of the ROF will prohibit motorized boating activity during the deer winter range season. The HO in Ski Lake 13 The application materials include an EMA which details use restrictions of the ROF, along with maintenance responsibility of associated ROF improvements. Section 3.1 of the EMA, "...KCDG shall have the right to unilaterally amend this EMA one or more times to add additional real property and/or improvement to the Easement Area and/or to add additional property as a beneficiary of the Easement..." I found that prohibiting motorized boating during the deer winter season eliminates any conflicts between boating and deer wintering. Proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Proponents also testify there are no noise impacts associated with motorized boating. Finally, proponents argue the ROF has not impacted wildlife by virtue of their continued use of the property, in particular the available water. BOARD DECISION Are the siting, design, and operating characteristics of the ROF suitable to the site? 2. DCC 18.128.015(A)(2) states, Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and As noted above, opponents argue the terms of the EMA allow, without restriction, additional properties to be added the EMA, thereby increasing usage of the ROF. For this reason, opponents question whether the traffic study accurately analyzes potential traffic impacts. The traffic study was premised on the estimated traffic generated by 17 single- family dwellings14 and application of the "county park" use category to the 15 acres surrounding the South Pond. The HO in the present applications found the traffic study was sufficient to address traffic impacts and found that no traffic impacts would result from the ROF. BOARD DECISION Does the traffic study adequately analyze potential traffic impacts associated with the ROF? 3. DCC 18.128.015(A)(3) states, Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: t4 10 PUD residential lots, 6 additional lots associated with currently vacant properties included within the EMA, and 1 existing single-family dwelling already located within the EMA. A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. The arguments on both sides regarding the suitability of the Surface Mining considering the natural and physical features of the site, detailed previously, are the same for the ROF. For this reason, staff does not reiterate them here. The significant difference between the Surface Mining and the ROF is the motorized boating activity proposed for the South Pond. Opponents argue this activity is not suitable to the property considering the WA Zone and potential impacts to wildlife, particularly during the deer winter season. ODFW expressed similar concerns regarding impacts to wildlife and recommended a number of measures to mitigate impacts including: • No fencing or barriers to wildlife movement between the two Ponds; • All fencing should comply with the fencing standards of the WA Zone; • Development of an off-site mitigation plan to offset loss of deer winter range; • Native landscaping should comprise greater than 50 percent of each residential lot, with a de -emphasis on turf; • CC&R's should be amended to prohibit wildlife harassment by domestic animals and that domestic animals must be leashed; • Topsoil used to revegetate the areas around the South Pond should come from off-site, rather than from within the property boundaries; and • The wildlife audit required by the WHMP should be submitted to ODFW for review In Ski Lake I, the HO noted that the applicant's proposal to prohibit motorized boating activity during the deer winter season will eliminate conflicts between the ROF and wintering deer. In the present applications, the HO recommended including conditions of approval to address each of ODFW's concerns. The applicant and proponents point out that wildlife continue to use the property and Ponds. BOARD DECISION Is the subject property suitable for the ROF considering the natural and physical features of the site, including natural resource values? If approved, should the ROF incorporate conditions of approval to address impacts to wildlife? D. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.090, Grounds and Buildings for Games or Sports DCC 18.128.090(C) states, C. Building and site design provisions, including landscaping, that will effectively screen neighboring uses from noise, glare, odor and other adverse impacts. As noted previously, opponents argue the ROF will result in noise impacts from the motorized boating activity. The record includes conflicting testimony from noise experts. Another issue raised by opponents is the potential traffic impact from users of the ROF. In the present applications, the HO found the ROF will not result in any noise or traffic impacts. Proponents testify that there are no noise impacts associated with motorized boating activities. BOARD DECISION Does the design and siting of the ROF effectively screen neighboring uses from noise and traffic impacts? VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("PUD") FOR 10 -LOT SUBDIVISION A. OAR 660-004-0040, Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas OAR 660-004-0040(7)(e)(A) states, (7) (e) A local government may authorize a planned unit development (PUD), specify the size of lots or parcels by averaging density across a parent parcel, or allow clustering of new dwellings in a rural residential area only if all conditions set forth in paragraphs (7)(e)(A) through (7)(e)(H) are met: A. The number of new dwelling units to be clustered or developed as a PUD does not exceed 10. The PUD application requests approval to divide the subject property to create 10 new residential lots. If staff understands opponents' argument, opponents submit that because the terms of the EMA allow additional properties to use the ROF beyond the 10 PUD lots, the PUD actually is much larger than a 10 -lot subdivision. For this reason, the PUD exceeds the Rule limit of 10 residential lots. The HO in the present applications found the PUD requests a land division which will result in 10 new residential lots and, therefore, complies with the Rule. BOARD DECISION Does the PUD application exceed the 10 -lot limit provided for in the Rule? B. WA Combining Zone 1. Open Space Standard DCC 18.88.050(D)(2) states, In a WA Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: D. Residential land divisions, including partitions, in deer winter range where the underlying zone is RR 10 or MUA 10, shall not be permitted except as a planned development or cluster development conforming to the following standards: 2. The planned or cluster development shall retain a minimum of 80 percent open space and conform with the provisions of DCC 18.128.200 or 210. Opponents state that the residential Tots and both Ponds encompass 32 acres, of which the majority is occupied by the Ponds. Opponents argue the Ponds should not be considered open space and, consequently, the PUD cannot meet the minimum 80 percent open space requirement. As shown on the applicant's tentative plan, no portion of the Ponds is used to comply with the 80 percent open space standard. The HO in the present applications found the applicant's proposal complies with this criterion. BOARD DECISION Does the PUD comply with the 80 percent open space standard. 2. Siting Standards For Dwellings DCC 18.88.060(B) states, B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that... The record contains conflicting evidence and testimony regarding the existence and location of the so-called "westerly road", including current and historic aerial photographs. Based on her review, the HO in the present applications found the "westerly road" exists in substantially the same location as the road identified as the "Proposed Private 60' Road and Utility Easement" and depicted on the applicant's tentative plan. Although the HO did not make specific findings regarding the existence of the "westerly road" as of August 5, 1992, the HO ultimately found this criterion to be met. Staff assumes from this determination that the HO also concluded that the "westerly road" existed as of August 5, 1992. BOARD DECISION Does the record support a finding that the "westerly road" existed substantially in its current location as of August 5, 1992? Habitat Values Should the Board find the "westerly road" did not exist as of August 5, 1992, DCC 18.88.060(B)(1) offers the opportunity to site dwellings beyond the 300 -foot standard. B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992 unless it can be found that: 1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; The PUD application includes the aforementioned WHMP, prepared by Dr. Wendy Wente, to address potential impacts to wildlife and habitat. Dr. Wente states the residential lot locations were chosen to maintain a concentration of home sites around the South Pond and prevent additional disturbance to wildlife habitat. Dr. Wente further notes that the PUD design preserves the larger contiguous area of mule deer winter range as open space and, therefore, protects wildlife habitat values and migration corridors to a higher degree than alternative plans. The HO in the present applications agreed with Dr. Wente's analysis. Although ODFW submitted comments to the record, none of the comments appear to address Dr. Wente's analysis of habitat value. Similarly, although opponents certainly object to the development as a whole, staff was unable to find any comments or objections specific to Dr. Wente's habitat value analysis. BOARD DECISION if the Board determines that the "westerly road" did not exist as of August 5, 1992, does the design of the PUD afford equal or greater protection of habitat values? C. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.015, General Standards 1. DCC 18.128.015(A)(1) states, Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; An issue raised by operators of the Cake Mine to the east, is the compatibility of dwellings so close to their mining site. Consequently, the Cake Mine operators request a condition of approval requiring the applicant to record a Waiver of Remonstrance ("Waiver") for each residential lot in the PUD. The Cake Mine is subject to the provisions of Title 19. Title 19 does not include a SMIA Combining Zone and the Title 18 SMIA Combining Zone does not apply to any surface mines which are regulated by Title 19. For this reason, the HO found there are no provisions in the SMIA Combining Zone which would afford the Cake Pit any protections via the Waiver. Although not required by any provision in the Zoning Code, the applicant agreed to record a Waiver. BOARD DECISION Should a Waiver of Remonstrance be added as a condition of approval for the PUD? 2. DCC 18.128.015(B) states, Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). An issue raised by opponents relative to the design of the PUD is the potential nuisance of bicycle, pedestrians, and vehicles traveling along the "westerly road" and through the access point onto Buck Drive. In particular, opponents are concerned with trespass and vehicle headlight impacts to nearby residents. The HO in the present applications found that the overall volume of vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian trips along this road will be low, such that the proposed PUD road in this location does not alter the overall compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. Staff notes that the proposed access through private property onto Buck Drive was agreed to by that property owner. BOARD DECISION Is the use of the "westerly road" and the proposed access onto Buck Drive compatible with surrounding residential uses? D. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: DCC 18.128.210, Planned Development 1. Cluster Development vs Planned Unit Development At the outset, opponents argue that the proposed subdivision is, in fact, a phased development. Opponents suggest that the Ponds are the first phase, the subdivision is the next phase, and the ability to add properties to the EMA being the following phase. Additionally, opponents site the EMA and CC&R's language which directly link the ROF and the PUD. Opponents point to the Cluster Development standard under DCC 18.128.200(E), which specifically mentions phased development. Conversely, opponents point out that the provisions of a PUD under DCC 18.128.210 do not mention phased development. For these reasons, opponents contend that the appropriate application type for the proposed subdivision is as a Cluster Development rather than a PUD. The applicant argues that the development is not a phased subdivision because the Ponds are not the first phase of the development. Separate CUPs were applied for: 1 for ROF and 1 for PUD. Each can be approved or denied separately from the other. Additionally, the applicant points out that under Sections 17.16.050 and 17.16.080, the Subdivision Ordinance contemplates phasing of any subdivision, and not just Cluster Developments. The HO in the present applications found the proposed subdivision met the PUD standards and did not identify the project as a phased development. BOARD DECISION Is the applicant's proposed subdivision a phased development that requires the applicant to apply for Cluster Development approval rather than PUD approval? 2. DCC 18.128.210(B)(7) states, B. The conditional use may be granted upon the following findings: 7. Sixty five percent of the land is to be maintained in open space. As discussed above, opponents argue the Ponds should not be considered open space and, consequently, the PUD cannot meet the minimum 65 percent open space requirement. As shown on the applicant's tentative plan, no portion of the Ponds is used to comply with the 65 percent open space standard. The HO in the present applications found the applicant's proposal complies with this criterion. BOARD DECISION Does the PUD comply with the 65 percent open space standard? IX. NEXT STEPS The first available date for Board deliberations is Monday, June 11, 2018. If the Board would like additional time to review the record, the next available deliberation date is July 9, 2018.15 EXHIBITS A. First Round of Evidence and Testimony B. Second Round of Rebuttal Evidence and Testimony C. Applicant's Final Legal Argument D. Holt email E. Decision Matrix 15 Staff will be on vacation from the afternoon of June 11 to July 6, 2018. Issue 1. Code Violations and Ability to Process Applications 2. TU -14-8 Code Violation 3. Surface Mining Definitions EXHIBIT E Decision Matrix Description The Hearings Officer addressed the issue of potential code violations on the subject property and the ability to process the land use applications. Pursuant to letters received from KCDG and TID in 2016, KCDG agreed to cease all water skiing activity on the South Pond and TID agreed to cease their use of the Ponds for water storage. For these reasons, the county previously determined that no code violation exists on the subject property. Consequently, the county continued to process the current applications. Opponents claim the applicant is in violation of land use approval TU -14-8, which allowed crushing of rock on the subject property for road maintenance and landscaping. Applicant responds that the stockpiled excavated and crushed material awaits approval of the associated subdivision application for use in road creation and landscaping. Opponents argue the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") definition of surface mining is preempted by the statutory definition of surface mining under ORS 517.750, which does not include an exemption for "other on-site construction." The HO in the present applications agreed with opponents. Applicant argues the definition of surface mining under ORS 517.750 is, by its terms, only applicable to ORS 517.702 to 517.989. Staff agrees with the applicant. Decision Does a code violation exist on the subject property related to use of the South Pond as a recreation - oriented facility (ski lake) and/or use of the South Pond as a reservoir in conjunction with an irrigation district? 1. If no, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. 2. If yes, then the Board must determine if the present applications can cure the violations. a. If no, then the Board must cease reviewing the present applications to allow the applicant to cure the violations. b. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. Does a code violation exist with respect to stockpiling of excavated and crushed material on-site? 1. If no, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. 2. If yes, then the Board must determine if the present applications can cure the violations. a. If no, then the Board must cease reviewing the present applications to allow the applicant to cure the violations. b. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. Is the DCC definition of surface mining preempted by the statutory definition in ORS 517.750? 1. If no, then the Board can determine if the earthwork to create the Ponds falls within the exemption of "other on-site construction." (see item 4) 2. If yes, then the Board cannot exempt the earthwork to create the Ponds as "other on-site construction" from the definition of surface mining. Issue 4. ROF: Surface Mining or Exemption 5. Operation and Maintenance or Creation of Reservoirs 6. In Conjunction with an Irrigation District Description Excavation of more than 1,000 cubic yards constitutes surface mining. However, the Zoning Code provides an exemption if the primary purpose of the mining is for "other on-site construction." Applicant argues the earthwork is not surface mining because it falls under the "other on-site construction" provision. In the permit signoff decision, the HO agreed and the Board affirmed. Opponents argue that some of the crushed material was transported off-site to a neighboring property, which precludes taking advantage of the "other on- site construction" clause. The applicant responds that the exemption language includes a de minimus provision. Because the language states that the "primary purpose" of the earthwork be associated with "other on-site construction", this code provision contemplates that some minor amount of material can be used off-site. In the Rural Residential (RR10) Zone, a CUP is required for Surface Mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off-site use, storage, and sale of excavated material. Opponents argue Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.60.030(W) only allows the "operation and maintenance" of existing irrigation systems, not the creation of new reservoirs. The Hearings Officer ("HO") in Ski Lake I found the implementing ordinance clearly intended to allow irrigation districts to create water impoundments. The Board affirmed this on appeal. Additionally, DCC 18.128.280(C) specifically contemplates creation of "man-made lakes" in conjunction with the surface mining of a non -Goal 5 site. Opponents argue the surface mining was not completed in conjunction with an irrigation district. The HO in the present applications agreed siting the lack of an existing agreement between the applicant and Tumalo Irrigation District ("TID") and the fact that the work was initiated prior to TID's involvement. Applicant argues that only certain provisions of the irrigation contract were suspended in 2016, and that the contract has existed since Ski Lake I. The applicant states it is currently burdened with liabilities under the contract. Decision Is the applicant allowed to use some of the excavated material off-site and still fall within the "other on- site construction" provision and, therefore, be exempted from the definition of surface mining? 1. If yes, then continue reviewing the ROF CUP. 2. If no, can the issue off-site material be resolved? Per DCC 18.60.030(W), can the applicant request CUP approval to surface mine for the purpose of creating reservoirs in conjunction with an irrigation district? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the Surface Mining CUP and Amendment. Was the on-site surface mining done in conjunction with an irrigation district? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the Surface Mining CUP. Issue 7. Surface Mining Site Compatibility 8. ROF Site Compatibility Description Decision The HO in Ski Lake I and the HO in the present applications found that the design of the Ponds, given their large size and steep slopes, is not compatible with the site. Opponents agree. Further, opponents argue siting the Ponds on the subject property is not compatible because of impacts to wildlife in the Wildlife Area ("WA") Combining Zone. The applicant argues the Ponds are compatible to the property. The Ponds are uniquely suited to the property given the prior surface mining on-site. Large, unusually shaped, ponds already exist in the county. Steep slopes associated with Tumalo Creek exist in the area. The Wildlife Habitat Management Plan ("WHMP") addresses impacts to wildlife. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Additionally, proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. In addition to the above concerns, opponents argue the terms of the Easement Management Agreement ("EMA") allow the applicant to add an unknown number of properties to the EMA. Consequently, the applicant can increase usage of the ROF without further land use review. Opponents also argue the operating characteristics of the ROF are not suitable to the site considering potential impacts to wildlife, especially impacts to deer winter range. ODFW expressed similar concerns and recommended a number of mitigation measures. In the present applications, the HO recommended including conditions of approval to address each of ODFW's concerns. The applicant notes that the operating characteristics of the ROF will prohibit motorized boating activity during the deer winter range season. The HO in Ski Lake I found that prohibiting motorized boating during the deer winter season eliminates any conflicts between boating and deer wintering. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Additionally, proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Is the subject property suitable to the siting, design and operating characteristics of the proposed water storage and re -regulation Ponds? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or b. Deny the Surface Mining CUP. Are the siting, design, and operating characteristics of the ROF suitable to the site? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or b. Deny the ROF CUP. Issue 9. Natural and Physical Features Compatibility 10.Surface Mining Compatibility with Existing Residential Uses Description The HO in Ski Lake I and the HO in the present applications found the landscape and vegetation was so altered by the Ponds that the Ponds are not suitable to the natural and physical features of the site. If approved, the HO in the present applications recommended including conditions of approval requiring: 1) Compliance with the WHMP; 2) Re -contouring the steepest slopes of the South Pond; 3) Topsoil used for revegetation to come from off-site; and 4) Compliance with ODFW's recommendations. Decision Is the subject property suitable to the Ponds considering the natural and physical features of the site? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the applications. The applicant argues the South Pond slopes meet Department of Geology and 2. If no, then the Board can either: Mineral Industries ("DOGAMI") standards and that steep slopes associated with Tumalo Creek already exist. The applicant states the area of topsoil a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or removal on-site will be re -seeded with a native mix that will be maintained for wildlife habitat. Therefore, topsoil need not be sourced from off-site. b. Deny the Surface Mining CUP and the ROF CUP. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. Additionally, proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. In Ski Lake I, the HO found size and appearance of the South Pond is not compatible to rural residential uses. The HO in the present applications adhered to these findings. Opponents agree with the HO findings. Opponents expressed concerns regarding public safety because the Ponds are not secured from public access. Opponents also argue that because the applicant is seeking after -the -fact approval, impacts associated with the creation of the Ponds cannot be accurately analyzed. The argues the applicant states the county already includes large and unusually shaped water bodies. Steeper slopes associated with Tumalo creek already exist in the area. The property was once the site of a surface mine and that the re -contouring of the pits into the Ponds and their subsequent use for water storage is appropriate. The HO in Ski Lake I and the HO in the present applications found the Ponds do not present a safety issue to the public. Proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the neighborhood, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Is the proposed use of the Ponds as water storage and re -regulation facilities compatible with existing rural residential uses? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or b. Deny the Surface Mining CUP. Issue 11. Recreation - Oriented Facility ("RO F") Compatibility with Existing Residential Uses 12. Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Compatibility with Existing Residential Uses 13.Surface Mining Site Plan Review Description In addition to the compatibility issued raised in item 9, opponents argue the ROF is not compatible with existing residential uses because of noise impacts and unanalyzed traffic impacts. The HO in Ski Lake I and the HO in the present applications found the ROF will not result in noise impacts. The HO in the present applications found the ROF will not result in traffic impacts. Proponents testify there are no noise impacts associated with motorized boating. Opponents argue use of the "westerly road" and the proposed access unto Buck Drive will result in nuisance impacts associated with trespass and vehicle headlights. The HO in the present applications found that the overall volume of vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian trips along this road will be low, such that the proposed PUD road in this location does not alter the overall compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. Staff notes that the proposed access through private property onto Buck Drive was agreed to by that subject property owner. DCC 18.128.280(B) requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with a number of standards at the time of site plan review. Opponents argue that because the Ponds have already been constructed, the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance. Both the HO in Ski Lake I and the present applications found the applicant either can meet all of the required standards via the imposition of conditions, or likely met them based on the lack of complaints and open code enforcement cases. Decision Is the proposed ROF compatible with existing rural residential uses? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or b. Deny the ROF CUP. Is use of the "westerly road" and the proposed access onto Buck Drive associated with the PUD compatible with surrounding residential uses? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compatibility; or b. Deny the PUD CUP. Has the applicant met their burden of proof with regard to these criteria? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the Surface Mining CUP. Issue Description 14. Legally Available Water The HO in Ski Lake I found that there is no evidence to suggest that TID is legally prohibited from obtaining a permit to store water in the Ponds. Therefore, this HO imposed a condition of approval requiring the applicant to obtain an Oregon Water Resources Department ("OWRD") permit. The HO in the present applications disagreed with this approach and instead found there was no evidence indicating that there is adequate water legally available to the site. Opponents conclude the applicant has no legal right to hold water in the Ponds by pointing to OWRD's withdrawal of its limited license. The applicant states a groundwater permit has been filed to supply adequate water to the Ponds. The applicant argues that because this criterion includes a "can be met" provision, an application for a groundwater permit is sufficient to meet this standard. Additionally, the applicant points out that TID and OWRD recently settled litigation ("TID/OWRD Litigation") resulting in a stipulated judgement which allows the delivery of irrigation water sufficient to protect the liners. Opponents disagree with the applicant's interpretation of the TID/OWRD Litigation and argue the judgement specifically calls out TID's lack of authorization to store water in the Ponds. Both sides point to excerpts from the judgement to bolster their arguments. Decision Is the application of a groundwater permit and the aforementioned TID/OWRD Litigation sufficient to prove that adequate water is legally available to maintain the Ponds and to prevent stagnation? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the Surface Mining CUP. Issue 15. Impoundment Bank Slope 16.Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 660- 023-000 and the County's Non - Significant Inventory Description The HO in Ski Lake I found that because access controls are in place - i.e., private ownership of the Ponds and their location on private property not accessible to the public - fences or access barriers and controls are not necessary. The HO in the present applications adhered to this finding. Opponents argue this criterion requires fences or access barriers and controls. Should the Board determine that fences or other barriers are required, opponents further argue that such controls are not suitable to the WA Combining Zone. Opponents argue OAR 660-023-000 only allows jurisdictions to create inventories of significant mineral and aggregate resource sites and no provisions exist in this statute to allow jurisdictions to create non-significant inventories. The county amended its Comprehensive Plan to create a non-significant mineral and aggregate inventory specifically because the sites included on the list could not likely meet the statutory definition "significant" in the OAR. It is unclear to staff how OAR 660-023-000 applies to the Non -Significant Inventory since those statutes apply only to significant sites. The HO in both Ski Lake I and the present applications found that adding the subject property to the Non -Significant Inventory was necessary to comply with DCC 18.128.280(D)(2). Neither HO identified any conflict between the Non -Significant Inventory and OAR 660-023-000. Decision Are fences or access barriers and controls mandatory? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compliance; or b. Deny the Surface Mining CUP. Does OAR 660-023-000 preclude the county from having and amending its non-significant inventory? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Amendment. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the Amendment. Issue 17.Goal 2 18.Goal 5 Description Decision Opponents argue that Goal 2 requires a review of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, rather than just a search for approval criteria. Opponents further argue that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has not been demonstrated by the applicant and, therefore, the Amendment cannot be approved. The county has previously determined that the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan do not contain mandatory approval criteria. Rather, the goals and policies are implemented via the specific approval criteria in the Zoning Code. For this reason, the county has historically found that compliance with the Zoning Code is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant argues the surface mining is not subject to Goal 5. First, the applicant states that surface mining is a historic use of the property, not a new use. Second, while deer winter range is a Goal 5 resource, the range itself is not an acknowledged Goal 5 resource site. Finally, even if deer winter range were a listed Goal 5 resource site, surface mining is not identified as a conflicting use in the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy ("ESEE") analysis for deer winter range. The HO in the present applications agreed with the applicant and, therefore, determined an ESEE analysis was not required. Opponents argue the surface mining completed by the applicant is new surface mining, which requires compliance with Goal 5. Deer winter range is, in fact, a Goal 5 resource that must be addressed. For this reason, Goal 5 does apply and an ESEE analysis is required. Opponents also point to testimony from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ("ODFW") indicating the need to prohibit intensive uses, such as recreation facilities, in the WA Zone. Is conformance with the relevant Zoning Code approval criteria sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Amendment. 2. If not, then either: a. The applicant addresses all relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; or b. The Board deny the applications. Is the subject surface mining activity a "new" use? 1. If no, then Goal 5 does not apply. 2. If yes, then is this surface mining activity a conflicting use with respect to the WA Zone? a. If no, then Goal 5 does not apply. b. If yes, is deer winter range a listed Goal 5 resource site? 1. If no, then Goal 5 does not apply. ii. If yes, then Goal 5 applies and the applicant is required to complete an ESEE analysis. Issue 19.Goal 10 20.Goal 14 21 . Ar Combining Zone and Recreation Facilities 22.Adequacy of Transportation Access to ROF Description Decision Opponents argue the Amendment effectively reduces available lands for residential use and, therefore, an analysis of Goal 10 must be completed. The subject property is approximately 105 acres in size. The PUD proposes 10 residential lots, which equates to approximately 1 residence per 10 acres. This matches the equivalent density of the RR10 Zone. The PUD application requests approval to divide the subject property to create 10 new residential lots. Opponents argue that because the terms of the EMA allow additional properties to use the ROF beyond the 10 PUD lots, the PUD actually is much larger than a 10 -lot subdivision. For this reason, the PUD exceeds the Rule limit of 10 residential lots. The HO in the present applications found the PUD requests a land division which will result in 10 new residential lots and, therefore, complies with the Goal. In a deer migration corridor, DCC 18.88.040(C) prohibits a playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization. Opponents argue that the ROF is a recreation facility prohibited in the WA Zone by this provision. Staff has historically read subsection 4 to apply only to those playgrounds, recreation facilities and community centers owned and operated by a government agency or a nonprofit community organization. The HO in the present applications found the ROF proposal is allowed in the WA Zone. Opponents argue the terms of the EMA allow, without restriction, additional properties to be added the EMA, thereby increasing usage of the ROF. For this reason, opponents question whether the traffic study accurately analyzes potential traffic impacts. The traffic study was premised on the estimated traffic generated by 17 single- family dwellings and application of the "county park" use category to the 15 acres surrounding the South Pond. The HO in the present applications found Does the Amendment require an analysis of Goal 10? 1. If yes, then the applicant must complete a Goal 10 analysis. 2. If no, then the Board can continue reviewing the Amendment. Does the proposed PUD comply with the 10 -lot maximum authorized under Goal 14? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose a 10 -lot limit to the EMA; or b. Deny the PUD. Does DCC 18.88.040(C) prohibit the proposed ROF? 1. If yes, then the Board must deny the ROF CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. Does the traffic study adequately analyze potential traffic impacts associated with the ROF? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. 2. If no, then what options are available to address this issue? a. The applicant can modify the ROF CUP and Site Plan to address additional traffic impacts; or the traffic study was sufficient to address traffic impacts and found that no b. The Board can restrict use of the ROF to the 17 residential properties referenced in the traffic traffic impacts would result from the ROF. study. Issue Description 23. Preservation of Landscape and Topography 24. Safe Environment The applicant points out that the existing landscape and topography were the pits associated with the prior surface mine. Additionally, the applicant submitted a letter from DOGAM indicating that all slopes associated with the South Pond meet DOGAMI standards. The HO in Ski Lake I found the slopes to be too steep when compared to the previously existing surface mine slopes, and recommended re -contouring. The HO in the present applications agreed and further noted that this standard is not associated with any DOGAMI slope standard. The HO in Ski Lake I also recommended a condition of approval requiring preservation of remaining trees and shrubs. The applicant proposes a number of safety measures to address this criterion. Access to the ROF will be private and not open to the public. The ROF is designed for 1 boat at a time, with a harbor that separates the active boat from the dock area where loading and unloading can be accomplished safely. Alcohol use by boaters is not permitted. The boat ramp will be engineered to a specific grade and textured for safe entry and exit. The ROF parking area wiii be separated by at least 100 feet from the ROF waters. The parking lot itself meets all county standards for parking spaces and vehicular movement. The HO in both Ski Lake I and the present applications found the applicant's safety measures were sufficient to ensure a safe environment. Both HOs also found that because of the private use nature of the ROF, there were no true transitions from public to private spaces. Opponents expressed concerns regarding drowning and safety to the public. Opponents recommend fencing around the Ponds. Decision Did the applicant preserve the existing landscape and topography to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the Surface Mining CUP and ROF CUP. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose a condition of approval requiring the applicant to re -contour the steep slopes associated with the South Pond; or b. Deny the CUPS. Is the ROF designed to provide a safe environment? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure a safe environment; or b. Deny the ROF CUP. Issue 25. ROF Site Plan Review - Relate Harmoniously Description Decision The applicant argues the Ponds were constructed in previously disturbed areas. No views or natural features will be impacted. Boating activity limited to daylight hours, with specific boat restrictions. Noise impacts would be minimal, particularly after the construction of dwellings. Proponents argue the Ponds will provide a beautiful amenity to the site, particularly in contrast to the previous surface mining pits. Proponents testify there are no noise impacts associated with boating. In Ski Lake I, the HO found the unnatural look of the South Pond and the lack of vegetation does not relate harmoniously. The HO recommended re - contouring steep banks and revegetating the area. The HO further found duration of boating activities not harmonious with residential uses. The HO found there would be little, if any, noise impact. However, boating activities should be limited to 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., the hours of the noise study. The HO in Has the applicant demonstrated that the ROF will be harmonious with the natural environment and the present applications agreed with these findings. existing development? Opponents state their concern regarding impacts to wildlife and habitat. Boating noise can be heard around and within existing dwellings. Opponents' sound engineer refutes applicant's noise study. Use of water for the private recreational use is irresponsible and a waste of water. Lined Ponds will prevent groundwater recharge. In response to concerns regarding loss of habitat and preservation of deer winter range, the applicant submitted the WHMP to address these issues. Consequently, the applicant proposes revegetating the north and south ends of the South Pond and preserving more than 80 percent of the subject property as open space. Proponents testify that wildlife continues to use the property, in part due to the availability of water in the Ponds. The HO in the present applications recommended requiring the applicant to obtain topsoil from off-site. The applicant responds that the Landscape Plan includes a provision to re -seed and maintain the area of topsoil removal to promote additional wildlife forage and habitat. 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the ROF CUP. Issue Description Decision 26.Grounds and Buildings for Games or Sports 27. WA Zone 80 Percent Open Space 28. Westerly Road Opponents argue the ROF will result in noise impacts from the motorized boating activity. The record includes conflicting testimony from noise experts. Another issue raised by opponents is the potential traffic impact from users of the ROF. In the present applications, the HO found the ROF will not result in any noise or traffic impacts. Opponents state that the residential lots and both Ponds encompass 32 acres, of which the majority is occupied by the Ponds. Opponents argue the Ponds should not be considered open space and, consequently, the PUD cannot meet the minimum 80 percent open space requirement. As shown on the applicant's tentative plan, no portion of the Ponds is used to comply with the 80 percent open space standard. The HO in the present applications found the applicant's proposal complies with this criterion. The record contains conflicting evidence and testimony regarding the existence and location of the so-called "westerly road", including current and historic aerial photographs. Based on her review, the HO in the present applications found the "westerly road" exists in substantially the same location as the road identified as the "Proposed Private 60' Road and Utility Easement" and depicted on the applicant's tentative plan. Although the HO did not make specific findings regarding the existence of the "westerly road" as of August 5, 1992, the HO ultimately found this criterion to be met. Staff assumes from this determination that the HO also concluded that the "westerly road" existed as of August 5, 1992. Will the Building and site design provisions, including landscaping, effectively screen neighboring uses from noise and traffic impacts? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF. 2. If no, then the Board can either: a. Impose conditions of approval to ensure compliance; or b. Deny the ROF CUP. Does the PUD preserve at least 80 percent open space as required in the WA Zone? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the PUD. Does the record support a finding that the "westerly road" existed substantially in its current location as of August 5, 1992? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. 2. If no, then do the locations of Lots 1-3 afford equal or greater protection of habitat values and migration corridors? (see item 29) Issue 29. Equal or Greater Protection of Habitat Values and Migration Corridors 30.Cake Mine Description The PUD application includes the aforementioned WHMP, prepared by Dr. Wendy Wente, to address potential impacts to wildlife and habitat. Dr. Wente states the residential lot locations were chosen to maintain a concentration of home sites around the South Pond and prevent additional disturbance to wildlife habitat. Dr. Wente further notes that the PUD design preserves the larger contiguous area of mule deer winter range as open space and, therefore, protects wildlife habitat values and migration corridors to a higher degree than alternative plans. The HO in the present applications agreed with Dr. Wente's analysis. Although ODFW submitted comments to the record, none of the comments appear to directly address Dr. Wente's analysis of habitat value. Similarly, although opponents certainly object to the development as a whole, staff was unable to find any comments or objections specific to Dr. Wente's habitat value analysis. An issue raised by operators of the Cake Mine to the east, is the compatibility of dwellings so close to the mining site. Consequently, the Cake Mine operators request a condition of approval requiring the applicant to record a Waiver of Remonstrance ("Waiver") for each residential lot in the PUD. Decision Do the locations of Lots 1-3 afford equal or greater protection of habitat values and migration corridors? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the PUD. The Cake Mine is subject to the provisions of Title 19. Title 19 does not include Should a Waiver of Remonstrance be added as a condition of approval for the PUD? a SMIA Combining Zone and the Title 18 SMIA Combining Zone does not apply to any surface mines which are regulated by Title 19. For this reason, the HO Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval. found there are no provisions in the SMIA Combining Zone which would afford the Cake Pit any protections via the Waiver. Although not required by any provision in the Zoning Code, the applicant agreed to record a Waiver. Issue 31. Planned Development vs Cluster Development 32. PUD 65 Percent Open Space Standard Description Opponents argue that the proposed subdivision is, in fact, a phased development. Opponents suggest that the Ponds are the first phase, the subdivision is the next phase, and the ability to add properties to the EMA being the following phase. Additionally, opponents site the EMA and CC&R's language which directly link the ROF and the PUD. Opponents point to the Cluster Development standard under DCC 18.128.200(E), which specifically mentions phased development. Conversely, opponents point out that the provisions of a PUD under DCC 18.128.210 do not mention phased development. For these reasons, opponents contend that the appropriate application type for the proposed subdivision is as a Cluster Development rather than a PUD. The applicant argues that the development is not a phased subdivision because the Ponds are not the first phase of the development. Separate CUPs were applied for: 1 for ROF and 1 for PUD. Each can be approved or denied separately from the other. Additionally, the applicant points out that under Sections 17.16.050 and 17.16.080, the Subdivision Ordinance contemplates phasing of any subdivision, and not just Cluster Developments. The HO in the present applications found the proposed subdivision met the PUD standards and did not identify the project as a phased development. Opponents argue the Ponds should not be considered open space and, consequently, the PUD cannot meet the minimum 65 percent open space requirement. As shown on the applicant's tentative plan, no portion of the Ponds is used to comply with the 65 percent open space standard. The HO in the present applications found the applicant's proposal complies with this criterion. Decision Is the applicant's proposed subdivision a phased development that requires the applicant to apply for Cluster Development approval rather than PUD approval? 1. If yes, the applicant must apply for a Cluster Development CUP and address relevant approval criteria. 2. If no, the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. Does the PUD preserve at least 65 percent open space? 1. If yes, then the Board can continue reviewing the PUD. 2. If no, then the Board must deny the PUD. Issue 33. Recreational Fishing Description Decision In response to concerns raised by opponents regarding mosquitos, the applicant proposed to stock both Ponds with fish. The applicant also indicated that both Ponds would also be available for recreational fishing. The HO in the present applications did not identify recreational fishing as a modification of the ROF CUP. Does recreational fishing constitute a modification of the ROF CUP? Opponents object that adding recreational fishing to the ROF CUP is an 1. If yes, then the applicant must apply to modify the ROF CUP. amendment to the proposal which requires the applicant to apply for a Modification of Application pursuant to DCC 22.20.055. 2. If no, then the Board can continue reviewing the ROF CUP. The applicant responds that recreational fishing falls under the use category of Agricultural Use, which is allowed outright and, therefore, does not require an amendment to the ROF CUP.