The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-429-Minutes for Meeting August 20,2018 Recorded 10/15/2018TE c. �� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-429 Nancy Blankenship: County Clerk 10/15/2018 4:41:33 PM Con�rnissioners' Journal itIlLIIIIfIIlIIIlIIIlIlILI 1111 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM MONDAY, August 20, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS 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. No identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson requested to pull Consent Agenda Item 1 for discussion and noted for Item 7 he was asking for an intern's research experience around the "country" not "county." Commissioner DeBone noted doe Blaschka's name had a few different spellings within the minutes. BAN EY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7 VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-590, an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street 2. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2018-592, VOCA Grant Award 3. Approval of Minutes of the May 16, 2018 Work Session 4. Approval of Minutes of the June 25, 2018 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the June 27, 2018 Work Session 6. Approval of Minutes of the July 18, 2018 Business Meeting 7. Approval of the Revised Minutes of the July 23, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS Consent Agenda Item 1 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-590, an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street Commissioner Henderson inquired on the soil being suitable for farming and wondered if the findings of the soil condition should be included as well. The Board requested this item be brought to the Work Session after revision. 8. Q4 2018 Performance Measure Update Judith Ure, Management Analyst presented this item. The 2018 Goals and Objectives are used as the current report process. Suggestion made for a report from each department reflecting full year assessment/progress at a Work Session. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 Community Justice: Tanner Wark, Community Justice discussed the department's dashboard for real time information (the actual dashboard could not be displayed due to technical issue with projection equipment in the BS Conference Room). This quarter's report was based on the goals and objectives for Safe Communities and Service Delivery. Sheriff's Office: Sgt. Bill Bailey presented on behalf of the Sheriff's Office regarding the objective of Safe Communities. Sgt. Bailey reported on two multi -agency coordination activities regarding a wildfire event and an active threat exercise at the Sisters schools. Community Development Department: Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky presented on the objective of Healthy People and Economic Vitality. Mr. Lelack and Mr. Gutowsky reported on the Transect application in coordination with the City of Bend, coordination with the City of Redmond regarding multiple urban growth boundary amendments, and coordination with the City of La Pine on future development phases in the New Neighborhood. Mr. Gutowsky spoke on the draft scope of work for non - resources lands. Commissioner Baney suggested coordinating with other counties in the state for wording on naming these lands. 9-1-1: Sara Crosswhite, Interim Director, presented on the objective of Service Delivery. Ms. Crosswhite reported Deschutes County 911 has successfully received the Accreditation of Alliance and a plaque will be presented this fall. Human Resources: Kathleen Hinman reported on the Finance/HR/Payroll project on the objective of Service Delivery. Solid Waste: Chad Centola and Sue Monette reported on Service Delivery objectives. An on-line survey has been prepared regarding recycling and composting habits. Commissioner Henderson feels the survey questions should be considered further in a scientific way prior to a decision made. Commissioner Baney suggested a discussion at a Work Session BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 Given the fact the meeting start time was changed one hour early to allow for the size of the agenda, Commissioner DeBone offered to allow for Citizen Input for any topic that is not on the agenda. CITIZEN INPUT: • Barb Campbell lives in the City of Bend and is speaking as a City Councilor of the City of Bend. She spoke on the recent Septic to Sewer Listening Session in response to informing citizens they need to hook up to our City Sewer system. Ms. Campbell spoke on Commissioner Henderson's presence at the Septic to Sewer meeting and his comments on state law and the same comments were heard from the citizens blaming the City. Commissioner Henderson had explained he had stated he was going to research the topic and report back and explained he was present as a citizen not as a County Commissioner. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendment Nicole Mardell, Community Development Department outlined the public hearing procedures. Commissioners DeBone and Baney stated this topic has been a thread of topic throughout their time as a Commissioner but everything is on the record. Commissioner Henderson noted he is familiar as well. Upon hearing no conflicts or challenges, Commissioner DeBone opened the hearing. Ms. Mardell provided background on the proposed text amendment and explained there are 21 parties in support and one in opposition. Ms. Mardell reported on the requirements for notifications of the public hearing. Commissioner Henderson inquired on the notifications for the hearing. Commissioner Baney suggested a conversation on the procedural ordinance. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 Tony Aceti presented testimony and noted his support of the text amendment. He noted the resources available and present at this hearing and thanked the Board for this opportunity. Pat Kliewer presented testimony. She applauded the County on the on-line meeting packets are great for information in preparing for the meetings. She pointed out the language on the proposed text amendment and the need for further clarification and suggested a revision. Commissioner Baney inquired on Goal 13 and energy conservation issues and wondered if it is necessary to list under both Goal 13 and 14. Carol MacBeth presented testimony on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch. Ms. MacBeth stated she did not know of the public hearing until this morning. She spoke on the exception process. Daniel Terrell, represents Tony Aceti and_presented testimony. Mr. Terrell presented the Board with materials and spoke on the authority of the Board based on the comprehensive plan. Mr. Terrell commented that the default presumption in counties is all land will be agricultural or forest. Comprehensive plans need to respond to the changes that occur in the county. Mr. Terrell requested the record remain open for some time. Commissioner Baney spoke on the guidance and definition of urban and rural. Ms. Mardell explained the zoning code section shows the uses permitted in each zone. Commissioner Henderson commented on the issue of clustering of lands. Mr. Terrell noted the Planning Commission recommendations relative to compatibility. At this time, Commissioner DeBone closed the oral portion of the hearing. The written record will remain open for 7 days and the time for rebuttal for 7 days. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 RECESS: At the time 11:26 a.m., the Board took a recess and the meeting was reconvened at 11:35 a.m. 10.CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Briteside's Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road Anthony Raguine, Community Development Department presented explained the deliberations were initiated last week and two issues were outstanding. Mr. Raguine summarized the matrix discussion since Commissioner Baney was not able to attend that meeting due to other obligations. Commissioner Henderson spoke on traffic safety concerns and suggested a traffic study and possibly reconfiguring the location of the access road. Commissioner DeBone suggested a requirement of a turnaround for safety. Commissioner Baney suggested the applicant meeting with our traffic engineer. Commissioner DeBone suggested for this application he supports traffic study and possible improvements. Peter Russel, Senior Transportation Planner responded on the traffic studies over approximately three to five years. Commissioner Henderson commented on the number of employees stated in the record and inquired how we would know if the employees increased. Commissioner Baney suggested a condition. Commissioner DeBone noted this application is to be denied (2-1) due to concerns about noise. Mr. Raguine will draft a decision. OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:38 p.m. DATED this (p Day of Commissioners. ATTES 111/4-- ;40' OR 'i NG SECRETARY BOCC BUSINESS MEETING 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR r PHILIP G. H DERSON, VICE CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, CO MISSIONER AUGUST 20, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 o% : ,-< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9:00 AM, MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2018 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. 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 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-590, an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street. 2. Consideration of Chair Signature Document No. 2018-592, VOCA Grant Award Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 20, 2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Approval of Minutes of the May 16, 2018 Work Session 4. Approval of Minutes of the June 25, 2018 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the June 27, 2018 Work Session 6. Approval of Minutes of the July 18, 2018 Business Meeting 7. Approval of the Revised Minutes of the July 23, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 8. Q4 2018 Performance Measure Update -Judith Ure, Management Analyst 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendment - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 10.CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Briteside's Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road - Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 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 Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony ntv, eAf..f AL"( _ Date: r'zD'la i e\Tbrel i9 ( 41a21 (J60Co. JPss► f Sri1140d 0-5 7`j 7F 3-75t).1-ftPAG -\-- Sc,�k j % Vie- 97u01 Phone #s 5 L(' I` ?'i 4_ I, 3 7 2 E-mail address AAvt+e--(Ye Fr; ; Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? u Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Date: Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony r� Subject: Name Address CGEg '6 Phone #s Date: C,2 972e7 X51/ 6/7 6'f6s. E-mail address In Favor 7> k/i�✓v�'u��}� Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? A Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Page 1 of 1 Ton v Aceti MingleGame.com From: "Pat Kliewer" <pkliewer@hotmail.com> Date: Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:07 PM To: "Tony Aceti" <tony@minglegame.com>; "Dan Terrell" <danterrell@me.com> Subject: odd wording I think Hi! I read the BOCC packet for tomorrow morning. It looks very good except on one page. On page 123, top paragraph, I think it needs work to be clear. I think it should say, Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial In Deschutes County some properties are zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. The initial application of the zoning designations recognized uses that predated State land use laws. However, it is in the best interest of the County to designate new Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial land when it is appropriate and regulations are met. Zone change requests to re -designate property as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial zoning are determined by the Board of County Commissioners and controlled by State and local regulations. 8/20/2018 Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Phone #s E-mail address S/a; ' In Favor C:64V /a Cle;)' Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Subject• Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Date: Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS G 0 "'-< 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 Business Meeting of August 20, 2018 DATE: August 10, 2018 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-590, an Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends signature of Document No. 2018-590. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On July 23, 2018, the Board deliberated on this matter and instructed staff to draft an approval in response to the appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision approving a nonfarm dwelling. The decision is now presented to the Board for consideration of signature. The original file number is 247 -17 -000220 -CU, and the appeal file numbers are 247-17-000852-A (appeal of the administrative Findings & Decision) and 247-18-000410-A (appeal of the Hearings Officer Decision). FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner. For Recording Stamp Only DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS: 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A OWNER/APPLICANT: Megan & Todd Omlid 3179 SW 28th St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT'S Shannon McCabe ATTORNEY: Lynch Conger McLane, LLP 1567 SW Chandler Ave., Suite 204 Bend, OR 97702 APPELLANT: Central Oregon LandWatch Carol Macbeth, Staff Attorney 50 SW Bond Street Bend, OR 97702 PROPOSAL: An appeal of an approved Conditional Use Permit to establish a nonfarm dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ISSUED: May 3, 2018 APPEAL FILED: May 14, 2018 HEARING DATE & RECORD CLOSED: June 27, 2018 2.1.8 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 e (541) 388-6575 cdcsideschutes,org www.des.utes.org/cd I. SUMMARY OF DECISION: In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") considers the appellant's appeal of the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247-17-000852-A; "Hearings Officer Decision"), which was an appeal of the October 3, 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file no. 247 -17- 000220 -CU; "Administrative Decision"). The Board exercised its discretion to hear the appeal de novo. The Board received a Memorandum on the appeal from Senior Planner Jacob Ripper, dated June 19, 2018 ("Staff Memorandum") that identified and summarized the appellant's objections, the applicant's materials, and the Hearings Officer's findings in regard to the issues raised in the appellant's Notice of Appeal submittal. The Board's Decision in this appeal will refer to and incorporate the Administrative Decision, the Hearings Officer's Decision, and the summary of issues in the Staff Memoranda. A public hearing was held before the Board on June 27, 2018, after which the Board closed the public hearing. The applicant then requested that the record be closed as well. The appellant, while acknowledging that it had no additional materials to place in the record, requested that the Board hold the record open for one day. The Board noted no new evidence was submitted at the hearing and that this de novo public hearing was the second of two public hearings for the subject application. The Board denied the appellant's request and then closed the record. The Board deliberated on the matter on July 23, 2018. After reviewing the record, receiving testimony from the applicant, the appellant, and the public, and deliberating on the matter, the Board found that the applicants met their burden to prove that the proposal satisfied all applicable criteria. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and criteria as set forth in the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247-17-000852-A) in Section III. BASIC FINDINGS: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision in Section II. Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), B (Lot of Record), C (Zoning), D (Proposal), E (Site Description), F (Surrounding Land Uses), G (Soils), H (Public Agency Comments), I (Public Comments), J (Review Period), K (Land Use History), L (Approval and Appeal), M (Comment Re Findings), with the addition of the following: Procedural History: The subject parcel was created as part of an approved nonfarm partition (file no. MP -04-26) with two associated nonfarm dwelling approvals (file nos. CU -04-89 and CU -04-90). The partition was completed but the nonfarm dwelling approval for the subject property expired. Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-590 File Nos. 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A Page 2 of 5 The applicants submitted a new application for a conditional use permit fora nonfarm dwelling on March 27, 2017. The application was deemed complete on April 26, 2017. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on October 3, 2017, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria. The decision was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on October 13, 2017. A public hearing was held and a County Hearings Officer's decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was issued on May 3, 2018. The Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on May 14, 2018. The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is August 24, 2018. The applicant has requested to extend the 150 -day decision period at several points throughout the process. The combined extensions cannot exceed 215 days per ORS 215.427, unless the applicant chooses to waive the time period limitations. August 24, 2018, is 150 days from the date the application was deemed complete, plus the maximum 215 -day extension. The Board decided to hear the appellant's appeal de novo in the Board's Order 2018-038 dated May 21, 2018. A public hearing was held on June 27, 2018. The applicant was represented by Shannon McCabe of Lynch Conger McLane, LLP and the appellant was represented by Carol Macbeth of Central Oregon LandWatch. The Board heard testimony from the applicant, the appellant, and the public. The record closed on June 27, 2018. The Board's review included the record below before staff and the hearings officer as well as the record, testimony, and written submissions in the proceedings on appeal before the Board. The Board conducted deliberations at the regular Business Meeting on July 23, 2018. IV. FINDINGS: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the record, code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247-17-000852-A) in Section III. Findings, except for the additional findings related to the DCC Sections identified below, which are amended as follows: A. Soil Study. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b): ... A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed predominantly of Class I VI soils ... The Board agrees with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in Williams v. Jackson County (LUBA No. 2007-103), where LUBA explains that it is proper for a county to rely on a detailed soil study when the other soil evidence is an NRCS map. The Board finds that the applicant's soil study is allowed and the building envelope is predominately composed of Class VII soils. B. Irrigation. DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii): The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-590 File Nos. 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A Page 3 of 5 merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. The record includes materials and testimony regarding the availability of irrigation water, the costs associated with obtaining irrigation water rights and installing irrigation equipment, arguments from both the applicant and appellant regarding irrigation and how it may apply to this criterion, and findings from the Hearings Officer regarding irrigation. One Board member found the lack of or difficulty in obtaining irrigation should be considered as part of this criterion. Two Board members found irrigation is not a characteristic to be considered under this criterion and the associated ORS 215.284(2)(b), but in the case that a further reviewing body does find irrigation is a land characteristic to be considered regarding suitability, then the Board finds the property and the building envelope are unsuitable, in addition to the other findings regarding unsuitability, due to infeasibility and unreasonableness of acquiring irrigation rights and equipment. C. "In Conjunction" Standard. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2): For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land ... b. A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." The Board agreed with the Hearings Officer's determination that the building envelope was generally unsuitable for reasons entirely not based on the size or location of the property, therefore, found this "in conjunction" criterion did not apply to the proposal. The Board agrees with the Hearings Officer's findings as to why the property could not reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land (Hearings Officer Decision pp. 26, 27), regardless of if these criteria apply. D. Appeal Fee. The appellant claimed the fee for an appeal of the Hearings Officer Decision was unreasonable and exceeded the actual cost of service. The Board stated this land use application is not the appropriate venue for challenging the county fee schedule, that the fee schedule has been updated as of July 1, 2018 to charge an actual cost rather than the average cost of service for appeals to the Board, and that the appellant had participated in the most recent annual county budget process. The Board also noted that the appeal fee is not an approval criterion for a nonfarm dwelling. Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-590 File Nos. 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A Page 4 of 5 V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the conditions contained in the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (file no. 247-17-000852-A) set forth in Section VI. Conditions of Approval. VI. DECISION: Based on the findings set out above, the Board hereby APPROVES the applicant's nonfarm dwelling application and affirms on appeal the May 3, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision, which approved the application. Dated this 20th day of August, 2018 Mailed this 21St day of August, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY Anthony DeBone, Chair Philip G. Henderson, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Commissioner THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL WHEN MAILED. PARTIES MAY APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THIS DECISION IS FINAL. Board of County Commissioners Decision, Document No. 2018-590 File Nos. 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-18-000410-A Page 5 of 5 -VE 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 Business Meeting of August 20, 2018 DATE: August 15, 2018 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Q4 2018 Performance Measure Update RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: None, informational only. CONTRACTOR: N/A AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: N/A INSURANCE: Insurance Certificate Required: N/A Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Selected departments will provide updates on progress made toward Board of Commissioners goals and objectives during the fourth quarter of FY 2018. Written documentation of the highlighted measurements and of all department reports submitted is attached. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure and representatives of the Community Justice, Sheriff's Office, Community Development, 9-1-1, Human Resources, and Solid Waste Departments. Deschutes County FY 2018 Goals and Objectives Mission Statement: Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. Safe Communities: Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services. • Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. • Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. • Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations, Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. Economic Vitality: Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality. Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. Administer land use programs that promote' livability and sustainability. Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. • Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism and recreation. Service Delivery: Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. • Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. Promote community participation and engagement with County government. • Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. • Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. vi 0 E ' c ago a) _ bi cd CI o ss, a) c) ter" 0 bb'' U O O a9 c *aU O+"O 0. bn C a) a) O cd cd U W O m,4-' V) U O N ^� O O •_, , 0 •o Oo U -0 cd 0 ,, 5 ct O +� O cn O -ri • U y O � o0 .o as 0 4 a' Q, 0 5 50 o as O 'd _1 Q,• S, -0 cn r"' a al . 0 a) by O aa) ) 0 ›', > ,o s, D 74 "d • c) U cp 45, Oo 5 4, - �O 0 Z" 0 'd a) 0, U o 0 O -d I) 01)4-,oa0d it' a) aIZ ° dad 0�� zi o N .�Q .? 0 0 C4 Co CI N ( ( a) A A ;1.(E-1 Q, Oo rf :fl are detailed below. Safe Communities: Protect the community through planning, preparedness, and delivery of coordinated services. 0 0 0 v 0 0 E i.i td 0 0 0 O a) o 5- 0 0 Q, 5 U U O cn s. OA ;." cd a .� U a" cO N O bA 0 0 O cd '0 O w4 m a) y 0 bA to ,. 0 t U •0 Aa, ¢ O a) N 'nO ,0 0 •• 5., . 4 o cd 0 E 0 o i 6 z 71 • . E 0 cd.� • U ¢ v' 0 0.0. - O ,Ua) -O > ,a, 2• Uc .0 ;bD cd isk assessment. Cf, r, U • O ti O 0 bA s' cc 0) O 4-S, .. • a) U O 0 0 U a) 5 OU 4, — ct o, r 0 Cd 4 . v U /D U 0 0 .2 cd O o b U• �� 0 'Ft, bUA cd • 0 •E cn cd 0 v 0 O O 0 0 4-1CZI0 O a) a)cd -d cd01 U rd O bbJ -0 a) c ® N U o 5 0 in c�. 0 cd Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. O aT r---- (=> Pa z E �F�T•/ v) 0 VI E - 0 S'' E a) O P., O r o O-0") /a/.11 1 o a) o -CIE -- cip up a) P.,=4 3-5 �) fai "0 U 0 .o 0 0 cD O O � �� 0 N .2 t. o, a; o, 0 U 1 0 U 0 o 0 .�0 - + E :: O 0 0 o a) 'd a U E O 'd y o P O O O °0 , , ›, U Q c.+-, ›, U U U o 0 3 8 3 0 4 U O H o 0 R% 00 00 0 0 i��UUU4 7r C> � • • • Economic Vitality: Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality. 0 a) O U a) bA • • 0 v) E � 0 U 0 cd '0 O a) a) •- '• � bA C/) s0., 0 0 E 0 U o 0 0 o 0 - c9o y• -y Nd 2 0 0 bA� 0 H 0 O •0 — , 4 ••~-0 0 • U 4 p, 0 . p.,0 U ,0 .� F u tit) .N C -d 0 o0m� o 0 c O P 0 r. .� (� 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 0 ,� 0o o o j bA U c to •� Cf)O .- 0 0 U 0 'b .* •0, ct Q. 0 a) o C .� 0 4. '... 0 0 0�.�b Service Delivery: Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. • 0 a) O 0 0 0 ba O � ct o CV) 0 0 0 • � U ;- 0 � O •... E Q4 Status: 9-1-1 has successfully received OAA accreditation. •0 4-4 DO O 0 oN 0o E 4-4 cd :yam° .5 0 0 q f-1, U E" o U ti 4-, 0 0 0 o ani 'd U bbl 0 a) � U 0 O 0 .P. E0.4 IL a O v U• 4 ~ O 'd ai O0 •y O U 5�•- .f'•+ O a U o C o a0CD 03 5 0 o O d " O O O Q U -Oc O cd a) c w 0 U ate-+ + (124 2_5! 0 0 O '.O O +-+ o• Ct , • r5 - 0 OU •- —� p , 7, E cc:1 a H a> s-+ •O '� cit:,,„ � X78 o�a; by a, U o OH.o a> a) elw bA b 0 o c 0 0 a) v) o a) O 45. g � U a� N Oti c U ° 0 O 4-, O a) 0 o 70 cat 0 Uboo 0 � U ° 71 a) U, 4c-71 0 5 0 4-4 0 cn a) o 0 •� 0 cnb • o 0 v • a) o Z 0 5 O 8 oc ct 0 ¢+ • ' cd CC/ o vOi 0 a) czs0 0 x c$ , O y O 'O O N ) • 0 ° a0i • 0 Ep NTi 0 mt O 0 Ti; 0 8 � a + a) 0 a) cl a).4- >, O 0 0 0 o O (tN +0 cd 5 bQ H ° 0 a) �'0 0 U, 0 0 ( p, a) o RS Develop a Solid Waste Management Plan to determine disposal methods to be developed as Knott Landfill reaches capacity. The plan will identify capital needs for new disposal methods as well as needed modification to other system facilities to ensure effective integration. Objective Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. r.+ a) E 5' a 0 A Solid Waste 4-4 0 0 .ct � cal g • (�00 bD o 0 0 O 0 0 4� -, cd E 0 - o cd -0 0 - a) O cd C - U Q ° O a)-0 U S", 0 'd 0 0 .C)cip 4~ • '" 0 0 0 ID 0 cd cipc , H U cd 0+. 0 0 0 0 3 CI, bA O U N 00 0 � c cn cc! 0 a, 0 - H •~ U 5 t o 5 b a) S3, 0 _.o .--i m0 • •� �H c 0 (7 o •.-c-5 l bpO - 0. o � .--O O O" 00c cn O 0 0 U o 0 ms 0 0 Z bA czt ,"' - 0 v� -, _ ' `4 0 3 U � 3 Deschutes County Performance Measures Q4 Report 04/01/2018 - 06/30/2018 9-1-1 Service District County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Meet the 9-1-1 call answering standard established by the National Emergency Number Association by answering all 9-1-1 calls within 10 seconds, 90% of the time during the average busiest hour. Q1: Goal met at 90.6%. Q2: Goal metat90.3%. Q3: Goal met at 92.48%. Q4: Goal met at 994.6%. 2. Make high priority calls ready for dispatch with location information within 12 seconds. Q1: Goal met at 10 seconds. Q2: Goal met at 10 seconds. Q3: Goal met at 10 seconds. Q4: Goal met at 1.0 see oz ds 3. Staff two fire dispatchers 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and 365 days per year. Q1: Goal met. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: No new progress rep -ted 4. Staff supervisory positions for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. 1 Q 1: Goal met through expansion of the Acting in Charge (AIC) program. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: No new progress reported. 5. Staff a law enforcement data channel 12 hours per day. Q1: Goal dependent on full staffing. Only 2 of the District's 44 line positions remain unfilled. Q2: No change. 2 positions are still unfilled. Q3: No change. 2 positions are still unfilled. Q4: Since last report we have lost three dispatch employees. Wel ave 6 positions ��lfiiied. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 6. Complete the Computer Aided Dispatch system replacement project. Q1: This goal has slipped to FY19 because the vendor was unable to meet the original March 2018 target date. Deployment is now scheduled for October 2018.' Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Information of suhmitted. 7. Complete the digital trunked radio system replacement project. Ql: Goal met for law enforcement. The fire service has begun deployment. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Informaation not sup pitted. 8. Secure agreements with government agencies interested in receiving service from the new radio system. 2 Q1: In progress. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: These are being revised now and will be sent to the agencies for review by June 1'. Q4: 'These service agreements will go to legal next week for users currently on the system. 9. Achieve Oregon Accreditation Alliance accreditation. Q1: In progress. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: On site completed by OAA waiting on final review and certification. Q4: Successfully received OAA acereditatioz 10. Improve the retention rate for new line employees. Q1: In progress. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: No new progress reported. Administrative Services Department County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. 10 -day or fewer wait time for an appointment at the Veterans' Service Office. Q1: The veteran's service office is maintaining a less than 10 -day waiting period for client appointments. Q2: The veteran's service office is maintaining a less than 10 -day waiting period for client appointments, and in some cases, we are able to take walk in clients. Q3: The veteran's service office is maintaining a less than 10 -day waiting period for client appointments, and in some cases, we are able to take walk in clients. 3 Q4: The Service Office has maintained fewer than a 10 -day wait time for client appointments and have been able to have same week, and in some cases, same day appointments. 2. Work with IT to update the County's website, making information easy to access and navigate. Ql: No progress to report (due to leave). Project will resume in October. Q2: The website is complete and will be presented to the Board of Commissioners in early January. Veteran's Services project will begin within Q3. Q3: The veterans' page has been changed to reflect more distinct separation of services, and provide and updated look. This project is complete. Q4: The project is complete. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support of County operations. 3. Achieve 95% rating of overall quality of internal audit reports as compared to national average for association of local government auditors. Q1: No progress to report during Q1 as no new performance audits were issued. Q2: No progress to report during Q2. Q3: Survey responses from the Solid Waste audit report released rated the report at 93% (4.6/5). The benchmark average is currently 85%. Q4: Survey responses from the Sheriffs Office audit report released rated the report at 96% (4.8/5). The benchmark average is currently 85%. 4. Number of workplace accidents that require days away from work, restricted, or transferred workers per 100 employees (DART Rate). Q l : No progress to report during Ql. Q2: No progress to report during Q2. Q3: FY 2017-18 year-to-date DART Rate: 2.12. Q4: FY 2017-18 DART Rate: 1.27. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 4 5. Maintain Risk reserve at the 80% confidence level of adequacy, based on actuarial study. Ql : No progress to report during Q1. Q2: At the end of FY 2016-17, the Risk reserve was funded at 85% confidence level of adequacy. Q3: No progress to report during Q3. Q4: No progress to report during Q4. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. 6. Work with non-profit agencies to increase the supply of affordable housing. Ql : Continuing to monitor on-going affordable projects (Housing Works and Habitat for Humanity) which are being planned and underway (the land use planning application review process has begun) on properties donated by the County in La Pine during the previous year. Q2: Housing Works has received their land use approvals for their affordable housing project in La Pine. Deschutes County conveyed ownership (deed) to HW in December. Q3: Housing Works has broken ground on the subdivision (water, sewer and street improvements). Housing will follow when all improvements complete. Q4: 1) Housing works is in the middle of construction to develop infrastructure and begin building their proposed townhomes in La Pine. 2) Sunriver La Pine Habitat for Humanity has submitted Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications to the City of La Pine for their affordable housing project. Review and approval by the City is expected during Q1 of FY 2018/19. 7. Continue to identify asset or foreclosure properties that may be appropriate for housing and/or social services and assist the developer in bringing projects to fruition. Q1: No progress — such property review occurs in Q2 (November) following the acquisition of tax foreclosure properties through the recordation of the annual Tax Deed. Q2: Only 6 properties were acquired through the 2017 tax deed. Of the properties acquired, none were appropriate for consideration for affordable housing consideration due to their inability to be developed with housing projects. Q3: Two properties (single family residential lots) were identified for donation to Redmond Area Habitat for Humanity — located on Reservoir Drive and Volcano Avenue, in the City of Redmond. 5 Q4: No progress — such property review occurs in Q2 (November) following the acquisition of tax foreclosure properties through the recordation of the annual Tax Deed. 8. Seek opportunities to partner with other jurisdictions to stimulate affordable housing projects. Q1: In discussions with the City of Redmond regarding their interest in County property on the east side of the Redmond City Limits for possible UGB expansion for affordable housing as authorized under HB 4079. A formal request for participation via support and/or land from the City would be expected in Q2. Q2: Deschutes County issued a letter to the City of Redmond supporting their application to the State for the affordable housing pilot program under HB4019. County agreed to consider utilizing 40 acres on Redmond's east side for the project in some manner. Q3: Continuing to work with the City of Redmond regarding their request for donation of 40 acres of County owned property and their application process to the State of Oregon. The City was notified of the County desire for greater detail about the project development to be provided. Q4: County worked with the City of Redmond to draft a Resolution of Support for the City of Redmond Application for the State (DLCD), H.B. 4079 affordable housing/UGB expansion pilot program. The Resolution is expected to be approved by the County Board of Commissioners early in Q1 of FY 2018/19, with the City submitting the formal application to the State in July 2018. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 9. State and federal funds secured on behalf of local public transit providers from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for the purpose of providing transportation services to seniors and people with disabilities. Q1: No progress to report during Ql. Q2: $916,721 approved by ODOT for the 2017-19 biennium in Special Transportation Formula and Discretionary grants to support transit services to seniors and people with disabilities. Services will be provided by Abilitree, Opportunity Foundation of Central Oregon, and Cascades East Transit through sub -agreements. Q3: This project is complete for FY 2018. Q4: This project is complete for FY 2018. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism and recreation. 10. Contribute to economic stability and growth by leveraging funds for job creation and business recruitment, support and diversification. Q1: Worked with the City of La Pine and Sunriver La Pine Economic Development to amend and repeal covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCR's) in the La Pine Industrial Park to remove redundant and superfluous regulations affecting industrial/economic development therein. Q2: No specific update. Working with City of La Pine and SLED as they entertain offers for use/purchase of County owned Industrial land. Q3: A single Industrial Zoned lot in the Newberry Business Park was donated to the City of La Pine for a City subsidized economic development project. Q4: No specific update. Assessor's Office County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Accounts managed per FTE compared to other Oregon counties. Q 1: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q2: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q3: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime hopefully late spring. Q4: Yearly measurement; other county information is not currently available from the Oregon Department of Revenue. 7 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Deschutes County 2,569 2,591 2,711 2,709 2,835 2,624 2,901 7 County Average 2,545 2,742 2,795 2,784 2,924 2,919 3,061 ,...are Ccur;y 3,006 3,850 3,350 3.739 3,735 • 3,808 3,831 Jackson' County 2, 23 2,353 2,986 2,988 2,925 3,055 3,082 Cackarmas County 2,740 2.749 2,758 715 2,758 2,828 2,941 Doug:as County 2 716 2,744 2,315 2:316 3.'49 3,673 4,659 :'!aron Count; 2,474 2.480 2,471 2,499 2 554 2,612 2,664 L nn Count,, 2,114 2.359 2,302 2,270 2,355 L,207 2,3 2,309 Denton County 2,042 2.162 2,381 2,-63 2,395 2,249 2,340 7 2. Written approval by the Department of Revenue for the Assessor's Certified Ratio Study. Q 1: Received full approval for FY 17/ 18 tax year. Q2: Received full approval for FY17/18 tax year. Q3: Received full approval for FY17/18 tax year. Q4: Received full approval for FY17/18 tax year. 3. Percentage of tax statements mailed by October 25. Ql : Progress will be reported during the second quarter. Q2: 100% of tax statements mailed on or before October 25. Q3: 100% of tax statements mailed on or before October 25. Q4: 100% of tax statements mailed on or before October 25. 4. Written certification from the Department of Revenue approving the County Assessment Function Assistance (CAFFA) program. Q 1: Yearly process that occurs in May, so won't have until May 2018. Q2: Yearly process that occurs in May, so won't have until May 2018. Q3: Yearly process that occurs in May, so won't have until May 2018. Q4: Received certification approval from Oregon Department of Revenue. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Cost per account managed compared to other Oregon counties. Q 1: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q2: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q3: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q4: Yearly measurement; other county information is not currently available from the Oregon Department of Revenue. 6. Administrative expenses as a percentage of taxes imposed compared to other Oregon Counties. Ql: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q2: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q3: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q4: Yearly measurement; other county information is not currently available from the Oregon Department of Revenue. FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Deschutes County 543.04 544.46 542.58 546.48 551.23 $51.15 551.71 7 County Average 543.91 542.69 543.53 543.11 543.42 542.27 543.15 - Douglas County 528,94 528.96 528.55 530.20 529.31 525.09 523.46 Lane County 537.96 529.91 537.88 533.08 535.16 533.85 535.13 Jackson Co-urty 539.67 540.99 539.96 539.64 540.4 538.51 540,62 Clackamas County 541.88 542,58 541.62 545.08 546.35 545.88 546 84 Ln n County 553.16 549.18 551.21 552.05 553.34 556.06 557.77 Varlor County 548.01 550.57 549,24 545.82 547.95 543.12 544.98 Benton County 55775 556,57 556.26 550.86 581.42 553.29 553.23 6. Administrative expenses as a percentage of taxes imposed compared to other Oregon Counties. Ql: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q2: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q3: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this spring. Q4: Yearly measurement; other county information is not currently available from the Oregon Department of Revenue. 9 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 Deschutes County 1.70% 1.76% 1.62% 1.66% 1.71% 1.65% 1.57% 7 County Average 2.02% 1.96% 1.94% 1.87% 1.78% 1.66% 1.62% Clackamas County 1.16% 1 18% 1.12% 1 13% 1,10% 1.09% 1.05% Lane County 1 69% 1.32% 1.55% 1.67% 1.3125 1.24% .2525 jacksor COLlnty 1.88% 1 9525 1 8325 1 6725 1.64% 1.59% Marlon Courtly 19825 20025 1.9225 17225 1.7125 15825 1.57% Benton County 2.05% 2 0125 1 98% 1 6825 1.66% 1.59% i .53% Jr County 2.38% 2 27% 2.31% 2,225 2.1725 2.1625 2.0725 Douglas County 3.03% 2.99% 2.8925 2 99% 2.8525 2.39% 2.2225 9 Clerk's Office 1. Monitor the volume of voter registrations, adjusting workflow accordingly. on on • • N C1 N t0 ei !t 01 m N 00 e m m 0 e-1 tD N Vf 00 V1 m 00 Q) a�-t N O 00 Cr O e"l 0 N 00 m m N oo N ti0 CO 0If 1 0 00 LNlf 001 t0 00 I. M ei N tOi1 (.0 t0�0 co est a N etN co -I N O0 N an t0 01 t0 .-1 N est est tLA t^0 OO (N0 N m t(0 N CO0N N 01 ON1 O e-1 W O Voo to 0o e-1 V CO .-1 m rn -1 CO CO to N 00ifs O 00 m t�0 n N O 1� 01 01 Q1 N m N Oml O O co cn (-I Om1 N N 00 0 est tR 01 t0 u1 0 O m n 00 e -I to O O N m tD N m t0 1-1 01' cr 0 t/1 l0 N Cr to t0 co O .-t N O N t0 00 01 ▪ 1 coin l0 00O 01N Nm i.. N1 M 00 N co N M NN t0 c-1 CI O M N 00 nr nt 511 U 00 ClM rn 00 01 cori O^ 00 in M N M Above is the 15t & 2nd Q's data. Staff accommodated Q2 workflow activity without adjustment. a ,4 N rI M O N M M M T N M 01 M 11.1 a -t 01 t!1 I� N tto M M N 0 N M co t-4 to r® Ls m to co f® t® t® M P® ao N t-4 N en co N 2. Percentage of customers rating levels of service as very good to excellent. (14 . ... ....... . , .., .. ...,-...... , , , . . , , . . . . „ . .. . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . , Is 0 1- 0 a. 0 0 o z0 Z 0 0 0 Q 0 0o 0 o 0 *). 0 8 ( vi NO OPINION 00 0 0 0 0 I0 a Includes 26 responses in Elections .. .. . .. .. .. , . . . , . . . . . . , .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 POOR " NO OPINION o0 VERY GOOD EXCELLENT 0 0 3. Election personnel cost comparison per 1,000 ballots tallied for countywide elections. See Table 3 below. Ql: No progress to report during Q1. Q2: No progress to report during Q2. Q3: No progress to report during Q3. Total Voter Registration 0 0, 0 0, CO co 0, 0 00 •0 ,--- c`l N ,.- Personnel Cost/1,000 tallied ballots -,t N. b43- N.ND N. ',JD (>9- $436 sO •0 b9 - Ballots tallied/1,000 55.262 34.210 CO 00 C6 -,1- N g Personnel Costs N. 0 'd- b4 NI -,,t N tfl- -1- NI ki.r CO 00 '1) 69- Date of Election -.0 -....., N. ....,_ Lo NI — ........ '0 — -........ LO 00 0 ........ 0 N ...., ,.0 •0 — -......, 00 ---- ..-- r-- Type of Election Presidential Primary 97,335 0 CV O, N — o O, 88,551 CO P O• 0 U a 0 N VN-' O'- O, i� 0O O, CV 0O O, N. CO c0 88,568 90,394 C0 64 $527 co 64 V c dN' rPr NI- 64 CO CO 64 N 64 $477 0 et? $336 CO 64 N b9. 0 b9, 80.391 47.426 0 N ON- N LO 0) N n N LO ' 36.789 (0 L0 O N, V MO CO <1N' M 0 N CO n M 17.345 N 69- $42,379 V O OS H} — CO ori 64 O ,— r\ tPr $32,291 4V r`N N b9- O W rn t'9' c� W O O rsi M N - b9- N. O tPr ( N O 64 co rn 69. N O 4 00 4 V O 0 CO <t 4 0 ` N, '0 (0 N ( CO \ (0 N 10 = � 0 O 2_ CO O P L Presidential General Gubernatorial Primary Gubernatorial General w C ® v+ U rd 1:3 Ts 13 75 0 Q i V) Community Development Department County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in code enforcement cases. Q1: During the 1St quarter, 85% of code enforcement cases were voluntary compliance. Q2: During the 2nd quarter, 86% of code enforcement cases were voluntary compliance. Q3: During the 3`d quarter, 76% of code enforcement cases were voluntary compliance. Q4: During the 4t1' quarter, 89% of code enforcement cases were voluntary compliance. 2. Resolve 75% of code enforcement cases within 12 months. Q1: During the 1" quarter, 86% of cases were closed within 12 months. Q2: During the 2nd quarter, 85% of cases were closed within 12 months. Q3: During the 3`d quarter, 89% of cases were closed within 12 months. Q4: During the 4th quarter, 75% of cases were closed within 12 months. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. 3. Coordinate with cities for growth management. Q1: Preliminary discussions with Bend, Redmond and Sisters regarding implementing HB 4079 Pilot Program for Affordable Housing Q2: Bend, Redmond and Sisters all submitting applications to the state to implement HB 4079 Pilot Program for Affordable Housing. However, Sisters notified the CDD that the city has withdrawn its application due to the property owner deciding against participation. CDD continues to coordinate with Bend and Redmond on their applications. In addition, CDD is closely coordinating with Redmond on two UGB amendments and corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendments, both involving County -owned lands (see the large lot industrial site update below). Redmond expects to submit one or both amendment packages over the next month. CDD is also coordinating with Bend staff on the pending "Transect" application on Bend's west side. The application is currently incomplete. While the lands are completely under County jurisdiction, the proximity to the City, infrastructure impacts, and more, are leading to close City -County coordination on this proposal. Q3: Bend and Redmond have active applications to the state to implement HB 4079 Pilot 18 Program for Affordable Housing. CDD continues to coordinate with Bend and Redmond on their applications. In addition, CDD is closely coordinating with Redmond on two UGB amendments and corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendments, both involving County -owned lands (see the large lot industrial site update below). Redmond expects to submit one or both amendment packages in FY 2018-2019. CDD is also coordinating with Bend staff on the "Transect" application on Bend's west side. The application remains incomplete as the applicants continue to coordinate with Paul Dewey. Q4: The Board of County Commissioners approved a resolution supporting Redmond's proposal to implement HB 4079. In addition, CDD continues to: ® Coordinate with the City of Bend on the "Transect" application on the city's west side. ® Coordinate with the City of Redmond on multiple UGB amendments. • Coordinate with the City of La Pine, the County's Property Manager, and developers on future development phases in the New Neighborhood. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Administer land use programs that promote livability and sustainability. 4. Coordinate with the City of Bend to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. QI : The City of Bend has not applied for the proposed amendments. It is unknown if/when the City will initiate such amendments at this time. Q2: City and CDD staff have been meeting regularly on this project as the City's interest in moving this project forward has increased significantly over the past few months. CDD staff reviewed and submitted comments to the City on its initial draft text amendments (a new zoning district to consolidate three zoning districts into one). The conversations will continue over the next couple of months. In addition, the FAA and City have been in conversations about updating the BAMP to address economic development, the airport, and potential FAA grants. Q3: Conversations between CDD and City staff are continuing. The FAA and City remain in conversations about updating the BAMP to address economic development, the airport, and potential FAA grants. Q4: No new information to report. County staff is awaiting City submittal of an application. 5. Coordinate with City of Redmond to entitle large lot industrial site. QI : The City of Redmond has not initiated a UGB amendment. The City continues to proceed with evaluating transportation impacts with ODOT and County transportation staff. Q2: CDD and Redmond staff have been meeting regularly as the City is anticipating submitting this application by March. CDD is coordinating with County Legal Counsel to determine whether the application(s) will be quasi-judicial or legislative; legislative amendments provide the opportunity for the City and County Planning Commissions to conduct joint hearings to expedite the process. 19 Q3: CDD and Redmond staff continue to coordinate as the City is anticipating submitting this application in FY 2018-2019. Q4: No new infonnation to report. Continuation of Q3 above. CDD is awaiting City submittal of the application(s). The City, County, and Department of State Lands are all seeking a decision from the State Land Board to approve a commitment to funding necessary infrastructure to serve the large lot industrial site. 6. Staff is engaged in conversations with the City of Bend regarding Regional Problem Solving. Q1: County staff is waiting for a response from the City on whether or not it will be a partner in this effort. Q2: The Board directed CDD to begin a local non -resource lands program in spring 2018. The project will include lands around the City of Bend, but it is unclear if the City will participate in this effort. CDD is also tracking SB 1502 in the short session to address non -resource lands in Eastern Oregon; while the bill is not expected to move forward in the short session, it is expected to serve as a springboard to an interim work group to draft non -resource lands legislation for the 2019 Legislative Session. Q3: The Board directed CDD to begin a local non -resource lands program in spring 2018. The project will include lands around the City of Bend, but it is unclear if the City will participate in this effort. CDD is also tracking SB 1502 in the short session to address non -resource lands in Eastern Oregon; while the bill is not expected to move forward in the short session, it is expected to serve as a springboard to an interim work group to draft non -resource lands legislation for the 2019 Legislative Session. Q4: Staff is preparing a draft scope of work for Non -Resource Lands to share with the Board in late July, early August. A proposed phase of this project is to achieve the same outcomes as the Regional Problem Solving project, which is to change agricultural land designations on the City's east side to a non -resource lands designation (for lands that meet adopted criteria). The result will provide the City greater choices in determining which lands to include in its next UGB amendment. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 7. Achieve 6-10 inspection stops per day. Q1: During the 1' quarter, CDD achieved 10 inspection stops per day. Q2: During the 2nd quarter, CDD achieved 11 inspection stops per day. Q3: During the 3'd quarter, CDD achieved 9 inspection stops per day. The Building Safety Division's new field inspector will start 5/1/2018. 20 Q4: During the 4th quarter, CDD achieved 10 inspection stops per day. We have a new field inspector starting 7/16/18 which will assist us in maintaining our performance measures. 8. Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days. Ql : During the 1' quarter, the average turnaround time on building plan reviews was 12.8 days. The Building Safety Division is recruiting for 1 approved (unfilled) FTE and 1 on-call staff. Q2: During the 2nd quarter, the average turnaround time on building plan reviews was 20 days. The Building Safety Division is recruiting for 1 approved (unfilled) FTE and 1 on-call staff. Q3: During the 3`d quarter, the average turnaround time on building plan reviews was 23 days. The Building Safety Division's new residential plans examiner will start 6/4/2018. Q4: During the 41h quarter, the average turnaround tinge on building plan reviews was 32 days. The Building Safety Division's new residential plans examiner started 6/4/2018, and another position is approved for the new fiscal year. These positions are intended to reduce the building plan review turnaround time to meet this standard. In addition, the Housing Works projects in Sisters and La Pine consumed significant resources, contributing to the slower turnaround tines. 9. Issue land use administrative decisions with notice within 45 days and without notice within 21 days of completed application. Q1: During the 1St quarter, land use administrative decisions with notice were issued within 42 days and land use decisions without notice were issued within 28 days. Q2: During the 2"d quarter, land use administrative decisions with notice were issued within 30 days and land use decisions without notice were issued within 29 days. Q3: During the 3'd quarter, land use administrative decisions with notice were issued within 35 days and land use decisions without notice were issued within 27 days. Q4: During the 4111 quarter, land use administrative decisions with notice were issued within 43 days and land use decisions without notice were issued within 46 days. 10. Issue onsite septic system permits within 15 days of complete application. Q1: During the 1St quarter, onsite septic permits were issued within 10 days of completed application. Q2: During the 2"d quarter, onsite septic permits were issued within 11 days of completed application. Q3: During the 3''d quarter, onsite septic permits were issued within 13 days of completed application. 21 Q4: During the 4th quarter, onsite septic permits were issued within 10 days of completed application. Community Justice County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 1. No more than 10% of low-risk youth referred for first-time alcohol and other drug violation recidivate within one year of initial referral. Q1: Will be measured in quarter four. Last measurement reported in quarter 4 of FY17 was 9%. Q2: Will be measured in quarter four. Last measurement reported in quarter 4 of FY17 was 9%. Q3: Will be measured in quarter four. Last measurement reported in quarter 4 of FY17 was 9%. Q4: 10% of low risk youth with first time marijuana and alcohol violations with a new/additional criminal referral within 12 months. 308 youth were analyzed; two years' worth of data. 2. 75% of supervised adult offenders have up to date criminogenic risk assessments that drive case plans. Ql : Baseline level established in first quarter is 52.2%. The division has begun planning for a 2/1/18 implementation of an intake/assessment process that utilizes additional staff to conduct assessments in order to meet the goal of timely and accurate risk assessment that guides offender case management. Q2: 57.6%, compared to 52.2% in the first quarter. The division has begun planning for implementation of an intake/assessment process that utilizes additional staff to conduct assessments in order to meet the goal of timely and accurate risk assessment that guides offender case management. Estimated implementation by July 1, 2018. Q3: 66%, compared to 57.6% in the first quarter. The division has begun training additional staff for implementation of an intake/assessment process to conduct assessments in order to meet the goal of timely and accurate risk assessment that guides offender case management. Staff were trained in the effective method of interviewing called Motivational Interviewing. They will be trained in the state's risk assessment tool in June and will begin implementation by July 1, 2018. Q4: 69.1%, compared to 57.6% in the first quarter. Additionally, on July 1, 2018 the division implemented a pilot "Risk Assessment Unit" to conduct assessments within 10 days of intake in order to meet the goal of timely and accurate risk assessment that guides offender case management. Parole & Probation Specialists will conduct the assessments in this unit. They have been trained in the effective method of interviewing called Motivational Interviewing, and in 22 conducting the state's Level of Service / Case Management Inventory (LSCMI) risk assessment. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 3. Identify and work with criminal justice and substance abuse partners to provide effective treatment for supervised medium and high-risk offenders. Q 1: Progress was made on this front during the first quarter. In the Juvenile division, administrative staff work regularly with substance abuse treatment providers to obtain, track and analyze participation and completion of juveniles involved in treatment. In the Adult division, recruitment is underway for a Parole & Probation Specialist to conduct quality assurance activities with substance abuse treatment providers to ensure compliance with state standards of care and effective practices. Q2: Progress continues on this performance measure. The Juvenile division continues to work with providers to receive monthly attendance and service reports for clients. It implemented and continues to utilize the Juvenile Justice Information System to track numbers of youth and service hours occurring. By the end of the second quarter, tracking procedures in place indicated that 78% youth ordered to drug and alcohol treatment successfully completed. Treatment attendance/no-show data is also now available. The Parole & Probation division has progressed on its priority to institute quality assurance protocols for treatment providers it contracts with. A fourth Specialist was hired and will begin work in January 2018, allowing .5-.75 FTE to be repurposed to review case plans, attendance, group sessions and treatment outcomes. Q3: Progress continues on this performance measure. The Juvenile division continues to work with providers to receive monthly attendance and service reports for clients. It implemented and continues to utilize the Juvenile Justice Information System to track numbers of youth and service hours occurring. By the end of the second quarter, tracking procedures in place indicated that 78% youth ordered to drug and alcohol treatment successfully completed. Treatment attendance/no-show data is also now available. The Parole & Probation division has progressed on its priority to institute quality assurance protocols for treatment providers it contracts with. A fourth Specialist was hired and began work in January, 2018, allowing .5-.75 FTE to be repurposed to review case plans, attendance, group sessions and treatment outcomes. Q4: Progress continues on this performance measure. The Juvenile division continues to work with providers to receive monthly attendance and service reports for clients. It implemented and continues to utilize the Juvenile Justice Information System to track numbers of youth and service hours occurring. Treatment attendance/no-show data is also now available. The Parole & Probation department has progressed on its priority to institute quality assurance protocols for treatment providers it contracts with. Staff began quality assurance activities during fourth quarter, including observing cognitive behavioral treatment groups, conducting file reviews and conducting client interviews. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems 23 and provide collaborative internal support for county operations. 4. Complete initial implementation of Community Justice Dashboard by June 30, 2018. Q1: Progress made during the first quarter includes continuing investigation of the most cost- effective and useful dashboard platform to utilize. Activities were attending training provided by county IT on BI, a new dashboard / data management platform being investigated, continuing talks with other state community corrections divisions utilizing the Tableau platform, and a meeting with the SCRAM company, which has a new digital case management platform with potential capability of providing dashboard performance measurement assistance. Q2: Progress made during the first quarter includes continuing investigation of the most cost- effective and useful dashboard platform to utilize. Activities were attending training provided by county IT on BI, a new dashboard / data management platform being investigated, continuing talks with other state community corrections divisions utilizing the Tableau platfonn, and a meeting with the SCRAM company, which has a new digital case management platform with potential capability of providing dashboard performance measurement assistance. Q3: After continuing delay with the statewide dashboard process, county IT has made progress with by automating two weekly reports that provide caseload numbers for all adult parole and probation officers, and the LSCMI status of all offenders. We are in the process of working with IT to create a pilot dashboard based on just these two reports that can be drilled down to the offender level. Once we find the most efficient and successful manner to automate and provide these dashboards we will expand the data elements available in this type of platform. Q4: After yearlong delay in a statewide initiative to create dashboards, Parole & Probation has moved forward with county IT to utilize the "Power BI" software to create dashboard platforms to monitor caseload activity. One dashboard is now operational and being used by P&P Supervisors. We will continue to participate in any possible future statewide initiative, but cannot delay our work further. Evidence -based practices require immediate and real-time data to inform decision-making. We are excited and grateful for the willingness and capability of county IT to assist at this time. District Attorney's Office County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Participate in Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC), Central Oregon Law Enforcement Services (COLES), Multiple Disciplinary Teams (MDTs), and other public safety organizations. Ql: ® LPSCC- Aug 1st • COLES- Jul 13th, Sept 14th • MDT's- Jul 19th, Aug 2nd, Aug 9th, Aug 16thSept 6th Sept 13th, Sept 14th, Sept 20a', Sept 27th 24 Q2 • LPSCC- Oct 11th • COLES- Dec 14th • MDT's- Oct 4th, Oct 11th Oct 18th, Nov 1St, Nov 8th, Nov 9th Nov 15th Nov 22nd, Nov 29th Dec 6th Q3: • LPSCC- Feb 6th • COLES- Jan 111h, Feb 8th • MDT's- Jan 101h, Jan 11th, Jan 2411', Feb 711)Feb 21s1, Mar 7th Mar 8th, March 21s1 Q4: • LPSCC- Apr 3`d • COLES- May 10th, Jun 14th • MDT's- Apr 411)Apr 181h, May 2nd, May 0, May 10th, May 16th, Jun 6111, Jun 13thJun 2011) County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 2. Implement Goldilocks drug recidivism reduction program Q1: Over the last 3 months (Jul 1 — Sep 30) related to implementing the Goldilocks project we have: • Hosted numerous group and individual program meetings with partner sites to discuss program plans and to establish specific program responsibilities for each organization. • Established program workflows. • Worked with Pacific Source to receive approval and determine process to direct program participants to primary care providers at Mosaic or La Pine Community Health Center only. • Contacted other OHP primary care providers within the community to inform them of the program. • Researched substantial compliance and measurement tools. • Received approval to adjust our grant budget to hire a substance use disorder counselor and rent space. • Identified and secured rental space at Central Oregon Collective. • Ordered program materials (i.e. laptops, bus passes). • Drafted the position description and posted the position opening for the substance use disorder counselor. • Developed a training plan, and began training law enforcement. • Finalized partner MOUs for signatures. • Developed program materials to be used during the orientation meetings. • Worked with a graphic design firm to develop the program materials that will be used by law enforcement to promote the program. • Hosted focus groups to help refine those materials. 25 • Finalized and printed the Clean Slate information cards. • Scheduled presentations to inform local city councils about the program. • Conducted bi-weekly grant progress meetings with the Urban Institute. • Submitted a quarterly grant report to the Urban Institute/MacArthur Foundation. Q2: Between Oct 1— Dec 31 through the Goldilocks project, we: • Conducted 17 Goldilocks trainings for our law enforcement partners. • Executed our partner MOUs. • Developed webpages on the DA's website for DeschutesSafe, Goldilocks and Clean Slate. • Launched the Goldilocks program on November 10, with law enforcement identifying individuals that would be eligible for Clean Slate, and held our first Clean Slate meeting on November 17. • Promoted the program through four city council meeting presentations, a press release, multiple interviews with local media sources and a live media event where both the DA's Office and partners presented. • Hired the substance use disorder counselor. • Conducted trainings for the healthcare and drug treatment partners. • Held seven Clean Slate program orientation meetings: o 20 people have attended the orientation meetings - nine at Level 1 and 10 at Level II. • One was moving out of state and decided not to participate. o 17 (89%) of the meeting attendees are officially enrolled in Clean Slate. • One individual's medical appointment was still pending as of January 1. • One participant chose to miss his appointment and not reschedule, so was not enrolled in Clean Slate. • Delivered all the needed program materials (Clean Slate cards and bus passes) to our law enforcement partners. • Continued to research additional funding opportunities. • Finalized our substantial compliance and assessment tools. • Hosted Goldilocks Partner meetings. • Met with Goldilocks partners individually to address and solve new program challenges. • Conducted monthly grant progress meetings with the Urban Institute. • Submitted a quarterly grant report to the Urban Institute/MacArthur Foundation. • Participated in the MacArthur Foundation bi-annual convening. Q3: Between Jan 1 — March 31, 2018 • Hosted an additional 10 Goldilocks Clean Slate Orientation meetings (18 meetings to date from program start) • Held seven Clean Slate program orientation meetings: o 38 individuals have attended the Clean Slate meetings. ■ 79 individuals were considered eligible for Clean Slate during this time - period. o Since the program started - 27 individuals have participated at Level 1, and 31 individuals at Level 1I. 26 • Worked with our internal team to expand the ways individuals can appropriately enter the program. • Conducted follow-up trainings for our Goldilocks medical and law enforcement partners • Hosted Urban Institute staff for a funder site visit o Coordinated meeting with the team and program partners • Managed all program participant files and forward appropriate materials to program partners. • Enter potential participants in to the DA's data management system and into a program spreadsheet to track additional measures. • Conducted initial analysis to determine program progress. • Coordinated and facilitated Goldilocks partner meetings. • Sent regular emails to partners to keep them abreast of program activities. • Hired a new Substance Use Disorder Counselor. o Secured volunteers to facilitate half of the meetings during the transition o Developed detailed protocols for program activities and responsibilities during the meetings and in the office for new team members. • Purchased additional program materials • Applied for a local grant to continue the program for an additional 12 months. • Submitted and received approval to extend the current grant on a no -cost extension until early June 2018. • Continued to research additional funding opportunities. • Met with Goldilocks partners individually to address and solve new program challenges. • Participated in monthly grant progress meetings with the Urban Institute. • Submitted quarterly grant report. • Managed the program budget. • Met with community members to provide them with more information on the program • Called potential participants each week to remind them to attend the meetings on Friday. • Updated our data collection procedures to not only track arrest drug, but also drug of choice. Q4: Between Apr 1 — June 30, 2018 • Identified and entered 76 potential eligible participants into Karpel (199 eligible participants to date) o Called to remind these individuals to attend the meeting the Clean Slate orientation meeting. o Held 13 additional Clean Slate program orientation meetings (33 total meetings to date) o 27 individuals (35%) of the eligible participants this quarter attended the Clean Slate meeting. o Since the program started — 33 individuals have participated at Level 1, and 47 individuals at Level II. • Received Central Oregon Health Quality Alliance grant funding from the Central Oregon Independent Practice Association, to run Clean Slate through May 2019. • Worked with internal team to refine program operations to run more efficiently. • Trained a new DeschutesSafe volunteer. 27 • Interviewed and offered a position to the new administrative support specialist for the Clean Slate program. • Interviewed evaluators to assist us with our upcoming McArthur Capstone grant proposal to assess the impact of Clean Slate. • Managed all program participant files and forwarded appropriate materials to program partners. • Entered potential participants in to the DA's data management system (Karpel) and into a program spreadsheet to track additional measures. • Conducted initial analysis to determine program progress. • Presented to the Central Oregon Health Council during their June meeting. • Sent regular emails to partners to keep them abreast of program activities. • Hired two new on-call Substance Use Disorder Counselors. • Purchased additional program materials • Purchased additional bus pass booklets for law enforcement and the orientation meeting • Applied to the Cambia Foundation for grant funding. • Submitted final report to McArthur Foundation for the Innovation Fund grant. • Continued to research additional funding opportunities. • Participated in monthly grant progress meetings with the Urban Institute. • Submitted quarterly grant report. • Managed the program budget. • Secured an OHP enroller to attend the weekly Clean Slate orientation meetings. • Shared information about Clean Slate with a number of regional non -profits and health care related organizations — GOBI, OHP CPOP, and Central Oregon CCO • Attended the bi-annual Safety & Justice Challenge Convening in Pittsburgh • Met with Pacific Source to provide them with an update on Clean Slate 3. Total cases filed, broken down by felony, misdemeanor, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, and civil commitment. Average of annual cases filed per Deputy District Attorney (DDA) will be documented each quarter on a chart. Q1: Cases Filed Qtr. 1 July 1, 2017 — September 30, 2017 Total Cases Filed Felony 375 Misdemeanor 776 Juvenile Delinquency 50 Juvenile Dependency 27 Civil Commitment Hearings 4 Total: 1232 Per DDA: 65* 28 *Accounts for 3 Deputy District Attorney's being out on TML and leave. Q2: Cases Filed Qtr. 2 September 1, 2017 — December 30, 2017 June 30, 2018 Total Cases Filed Total Cases Filed Felony 281 Misdemeanor 710 Juvenile Delinquency 35 Juvenile Dependency 24 Civil Commitment Hearings 0 Total: 1050 Per DDA: 55* Q3: Cases Filed Qtr. 3 January 1, 2018 — March 31, 2018 June 30, 2018 Total Cases Filed Total Cases Filed Felony 365 Misdemeanor 1037 Juvenile Delinquency 52 Juvenile Dependency 29 Civil Commitment Hearings 0 Total: 1483 Per DDA: 67* Q4: Cases Filed Qtr. 4 April 1, 2018- June 30, 2018 Total Cases Filed Felony 282 Misdemeanor 785 Juvenile Delinquency 37 Juvenile Dependency 28 Civil Commitment Hearings 7 Total: 1139 Per DDA: 57* *Accounts for 3 Deputy District Attorney's being out on TML and leave. *Accounts for 2 Deputy District Attorney's being out on TML and leave. 4. Driving under the influence of intoxicants trial conviction rate. Q1: Our conviction rate is 100% for this quarter. We have had 18 trials with 0 acquittals. 29 Q2: Our conviction rate is 81.5% for this quarter. We have had 27 trials and 5 acquittals. Q3: Our conviction rate is 78% for this quarter. We have had 9 trials and 2 acquittals. Q4: Our conviction rate is 85.7% for this quarter. We have had 14 trials and 2 acquittals. 5. Average elapsed time to final disposition (in days) for adult misdemeanor cases. Q1: The average elapsed time to final disposition in adult misdemeanor cases is 37 days. Q2: The average elapsed time to final disposition in adult misdemeanor cases is 37.5 days. Q3: Data unavailable this quarter due to case management software transition. Q4: Data unavailable this quarter due to case rnazragemei t sofware transition. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 6. Support Sheriff and Behavioral Health with implementation of crisis receiving center program. Q1: Project is on hold as Sheriff and Director of Behavioral Health work on funding issues. Have had three informal discussions with the Sheriff about the project, I continue to speak out publicly in support of the project, and I stand ready to assist with next steps when the Sheriff and the Director of Behavioral Health are ready. Q2: The Director of Behavioral Health and the Sheriff have advanced this project to the next phase of development and we continue to be supportive of their efforts. Q3: We stand ready to assist the Sheriff and the Health Services Director as needed. Q4: We stand ready to assist the Sheriff and the Health Services Director as needed. Recently we alerted the Health Services Director to a grant opportunity we thought would be a good fit for the crisis -receiving center and it is our understanding that as a result they submitted an application. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for county operations. 7. Provide Civil Commitment legal representation to behavioral health and provide administrative oversight of the Medical Examiner program. Q1: 30 Mental Hold, Civil Commitment & ME Cases Qtr. 1 July 1, 2017 — September 30, 2017 Type Total Cases Mental Hold 65 Civil Commitment 4 ME Cases 62 Q2: Mental Hold, Civil Commitment & ME Cases Qtr. 2 October 1, 2017 — December 31, 2017 Type Total Cases Mental Hold 62 Civil Commitment 8 ME Cases 58 Q3: Mental Hold, Civil Commitment Qtr. 2 January 1, 2018 March Type & ME Cases 31, 2018 Total Cases Mental Hold 40 Civil Commitrent 1 Y e1 "II a ivil Commitment & ME Cas 30, 20T8 Total Cases Qtr. 4 April 1, 2018- June Type Mental Hold 60 Civil Commitment 3 ME Cases 68 Facilities Department Q4: County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Participate in the update of the County Emergency Operations Plan. Q 1: No progress to report during Q 1. Q2: Participated in table top exercise with Emergency Services on Friday, December 8. Q3: No new progress to report. 31 Q4: No new progress to report. 2. Continue to improve the resiliency of County facilities through the retrofit and installation of seismic restraints and shutoff valves. Q1: Staff are currently evaluating additional facilities for the installation of seismic restraints and shutoff valves in FY 2018. Q2: Staff have identified (2) buildings for further review of fire sprinkler pipe seismic restraints and (4) buildings for installation of seismic gas shutoff valves. Staff will solicit and review proposals in Q3 with work to be performed in Q3 and Q4. Q3: Upgrades to the fire sprinkler system seismic restraints were completed on the Facilities/Information Technology Warehouse. Additional seismic and gas shutoff projects are under consideration for Q4. Q4: Reviews of fire sprinkler system seismic restraints were completed at Health Services - Courtney and at the Deschutes Services Building. Deficiencies were noted at the Courtney facility and additional restraints were installed as needed. The Deschutes Services Building meets current standards. Installation of seismic gas shutoff valves is planned for the Annex (DCDC), Wall Street Services Building, Community Development, and Mike Maier Services Building for Ql of 2019. The fire sprinkler at the Courthouse complex is also slated for inspection and review. To date, fire sprinkler reviews and upgrades have been completed at (3) facilities and seismic gas shutoff valves have been installed at (4) locations. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 3. Provide improved pedestrian access to County facilities and services through the repair, replacement and construction of new sidewalks (DSB, WSSB, NOCO, and Courthouse). Q1: Paver reset and tree well removal was completed in August 2017 along Bond Street at the Courthouse complex. Minor sidewalk repairs were completed at various locations throughout the downtown campus. Q2: Construction on two additional projects has been postponed for the winter. Both projects are anticipated to be underway in Q3 and Q4. Q3: Two sidewalk replacement projects were completed at the downtown campus along Lafayette Street and on the west side of the Deschutes Services Building. Additional projects are under consideration for Q4. Q4: The accessible ramp at the Community Development building was reconfigured and replaced along with adjacent connecting sidewalk. 32 County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 4. Develop and implement a County -wide facility asset management and replacement plan. QI : Staff anticipate that facility condition assessments for Phase II of the Facilities Master Plan will take place during Q2. Q2: Facility condition assessments for Phase II have been completed. Consultant and staff are preparing reports. Final Phase II assessment reports are expected to be completed in Q3. Q3: No progress to report during Q3. Q4: No progress to report during Q4. Fair & Expo Center County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with County and community partners in preparing for and responding to natural and man-made disasters. 1. Continue working with law enforcement and community partners on the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Q1: Worked very closely with all emergency groups including law enforcement, FEMA, and Forest Service during Eclipse/Milli Fire. Showed how facility can handle situations. Q2: No new progress to report. Q3: Met with FEMA, due to sign new MOU. Q4: No change. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. 2. Achieve $45 million in economic impact generated from Fair & Expo events and facilities. This measure utilizes economic multipliers established by Travel Oregon and updated with Travel Industries of America travel index. Q 1: $17,217,000 economic impact. Q2: $2,297,903 Total - $19,514,903. 33 Q3: $11,376,840 Total - $30,891,743. Q4: $12,451.00. 3. Have more than 283,000 visitors attend this year's Fair. Q1: Due to excessive heat/smoke goal not reached — 245,000. Q2: No new progress to report. Q3: No new progress to report. Q4: No change. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 4. Achieve 90 percent customer satisfaction (or greater). Q1: 93%. Q2: 96%. Q3: 100%. Q4: 100%. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Work closely with Property & Facilities to develop a long-term replacement program for Fair & Expo facilities. Q 1: Ongoing. Q2: No new progress to report. Q3: No new progress to report. Q4: No change. 6. Increase business with use of TRT funding and development of overall strategic marketing plan. Q1: Feasibility study almost complete with plan moving forward. 34 Q2: Feasibility study should be done in Q3. Q3: Final phase due 4/30/18. Q4: Complete staff report due 9/1/18. Finance Department County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Complete financial system implementation by June 30, 2017. The Financials Phase of the project was substantially completed and went live on July 1, 2017. Q 1: There are several functions that will be implemented when time allows including purchasing cards and employee reimbursements. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Information not submitted. 2. Complete HR/payroll systems implementation by January 1, 2018. Q1: This project will not go live in January 2018. The new go -live date will be established once several implementation issues are worked out. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Information not submitted. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 3. Complete the transition to the MUNIS budget module for use in the FY 2019 budget process beginning in January 2018. Q1: This project is on track. We expect that departments will use the new budget entry functionality in the upcoming FY 2019 budget process. Q2: Information not submitted. 35 Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Information not submitted. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 4. Implement new software for use by County staff and lodging operators to report and collect room taxes online by December 31, 2017. Q1: This project will move forward as time allows but will not be implemented by December 31, 2017. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Information not submitted. Health Services Department County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 1. Report semi-annually on implementation of forensic diversion program including numbers and types of individuals served. Q1: The forensic diversion program has served 35 individuals since its inception. Thirty-two of those individuals had a total of 161 arrests in the 18 months prior to their first contact with the forensic diversion program. Post forensic diversion, the same 32 individuals have only accounted for 31 arrests and the total recidivism has reduced to 80.74%. A few highlighted individuals from the program: Jane Doe #1 was homeless and arrested 7 tunes in the year prior to entering the forensic diversion program. She is now a year out from her initial engagement with forensic diversion and she is housed with a foundations grant, attending school, and has had no arrests. Jane Doe #2 was arrested a total of 15 times over a two year period, since forensic diversion she has had no arrests. John Smith #1 was arrested a total of 16 times over a two year period, post forensic diversion he has had no arrests. 36 Q2: This is a semi-annual measure that was reported during Q1 and will again be reported in Q3. No information to report. Q3: The forensic diversion team has served 48 individuals since its inception. Those 48 individuals had a total of 217 arrests prior to their first contact with the forensic diversion program. Post forensic diversion, those same individuals have had a total of 58 arrests and the total reduction of recidivism within those 48 people is 58.67%. Q4: This is a semi-annual measure that was reported during Q1 and Q3. No information to report. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 2. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: As a part of a quality improvement project, the Health Services preparedness program restructured the satisfaction survey process in spring 2018. Rather than conducting an annual satisfaction survey, the preparedness program will now invite partner agencies to participate in the after action review process and conduct a satisfaction survey related to the specific event or exercise. The two preparedness events in FY 17-18, the eclipse and wildfire smoke response, occurred prior to this change. Partners agencies were invited to the after action review for both events, and 100% of partners participated and verbally reported satisfaction. 3. 80% of preparedness partners responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: See response to measure #2 above. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 4. 61% of the 94 new National Public Health Reaccreditation standards will be achieved by June 37 30, 2018. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: Mid -Point Update - We have completed 34% of the National Public Health Reaccreditation standards. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: 69% of the 94 new National Public Health Reaccreditation standards were achieved by June 30, 2018. 5. 58% Foundational Capability Score will be achieved by June 30, 2018. Ql: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: Capacity increased from 54.31% (277/510) during the initial assessment to 58.43% (298/510) for FY 18. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: A Foundational Capability Score of 58.43% was achieved by June 30, 2018 (annual assessment occurred during Q2). 6. 72% Foundational Expertise Score will be achieved by June 30, 2018. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: Expertise increased from 70.39% (359/510) during the initial assessment to 71.76% (366/510) for FY 18. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: A Foundational Expertise Score of 71.76% was achieved by June 30, 2018 (annual assessment occurred during Q2). 7. Reduce outbreaks and spread of disease by completing 95% of communicable disease investigations within 10 days, as defined by the Oregon Health Authority. Ql : This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q2: 98% of communicable disease investigations were completed within 10 days. 38 FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 89 91 98% Q3: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q4: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 8. Reduce outbreaks and foodborne illness by inspecting a minimum of 95% of licensed facilities (e.g. restaurants, pools/spas/hotels, etc.) per state requirements. Ql : This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q2: 96% of licenses facilities were inspected. Q3: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q4: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 9. Achieve measurable progress toward state aspirational goal of zero suicides. Q1: This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q2: Deschutes County has facilitated two public presentations from statewide resource experts on zero suicide through the Central Oregon Suicide Prevention Alliance (COSPA). A result of the presentations produced a verbal commitment from St. Charles Medical Center to pilot zero suicide in one division for the upcoming year. At this time, St. Charles is awaiting funding, to hire a trainer, to implement the model of zero suicide focusing on the element of training staff of the pilot division. Additionally, future meetings have been set up for the upcoming year to mobilize medical organizations and school based health center representations to create a team to attend a state-wide sponsored zero suicide academy in 2018. Q3: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. Q4: This measure was reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 10. Reduce teen pregnancy rates to < 3.5 per 1,000 women 10-17 years of age. Ql: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 39 Q4: Preliminary data for 2017 show teen pregnancy rates were 3.4 per 1,000 women 10-17 years of age. The preliminary rolling rate for 2018 is 2.4. 11. 90% of participants in the Nurse Family Support Services (NFSS) program report having a patient -centered primary care home. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: 87% of participants in the Nurse Family Support Services (NFSS) program report having a patient -centered primary care home. 12. 90% of the pregnant women in Central Oregon receive prenatal care beginning in their first trimester. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: This measure was canceled due to challenges in data collection. 13. 60% or more of eligible pregnant women are enrolled in WIC within their first trimester. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: 6O% of eligible pregnant women were enrolled in WIC within their first trin7.ester, County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 14. 82.7% of individuals discharged from a psychiatric hospital receive an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. Q1: 91% of individuals discharged from a psychiatric hospital received an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. 40 FY18 Quarter 1 Numerator FY18 Quarter 1 Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 58 64 91% Q2: 96% of individuals discharged from a psychiatric hospital received an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 24 25 96% Q3: This metric is on hold due to a change in reporting practices. A three-month lag will be implemented within the reporting cycle to account for the change in reporting practices. Performance for January to March will be reported with Q4 data. Q4: 93% of individuals discharged from. a psychiatric hospital received an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. [Previous quarter reported to alloy,/ for data lag time] FY18 Quarter 3 1Nurnerat lr '18 Quarter 3 nominator FY 3 Outcome 40 46 93% 15. Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients seen within state timelines as specified in the following categories: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours and 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. Ql : 100% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours. FY18 Quarter 1 Numerator FY18 Quarter 1 Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 52 52 100% Q2: 100% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours. 41 FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 26 26 100% Q3: 100% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours. FY18 Quarter 3 Numerator FY18 Quarter 3 Denominator FY18 Q3 Outcome 15 15 100% Q4: 100% of Behavioral 1iealth Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours. FY18 Quarter 4 Numerator FY18 Quarter 4 € )enoMill atr F'Rt= Q4 Outcome 18 18 100% Ql : 99.5% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. FY18 Quarter 1 Numerator FY18 Quarter 1 Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 398 400 99.5% Q2: 100% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 460 460 100% Q3: 99.8% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. 42 FY18 Quarter 3 Numerator FY18 Quarter 3 Denominator FY18 Q3 Outcome 548 549 99.8% Q4: 99.8% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. FY18 Quarter 4 Numerator FY18 Quarter 4 Denominator FY18 Q4 Outcome 664 665 99.8% 16. 90% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) receive a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification*. Q1: 71.4% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification*. *"Notification" is a Department of Human Services (DHS) related concept and does not reflect the timeline between DHS requesting a Behavioral Health assessment appointment and the provided appointment. Q2: FY18 Quarter 1 Numerator FY18 Quarter 1 Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 5 7 71.4% FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 5 5 100% Q3: 91% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification. FY18 Quarter 3 FY18 Quarter 3 FY18 Q3 Outcome Numerator Denominator 43 10 11 91% *"Notification" is a Department of Human Services (DHS) related concept and does not reflect the timeline between DHS requesting a Behavioral Health assessment appointment and the provided appointment. Q4: 100% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification. 'Y1. Quarter 4 Numerator FY18 Quarter 4 Denman. for FY18 Q4 Outcome 10 10 100% *"Notification." is a Department of Human Services (DHS) related concept and does not reflect the timeline between DHS requesting a Behavioral Health assessment appointment and the provided appointment. 17. Provide semi-annual update on Behavioral Health System Transformation (mental health/substance use disorders and intellectual and developmental disabilities), including implementation of Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q2: Health Services — Behavioral Health Division's system transformation efforts have included both local and State level contributions. The Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) program has supported State level system improvement efforts including providing needed program data, providing subject matter experts for workgroups, and advocacy to increase I/DD Encounter Rates. These rates are critical to Deschutes Counties' ability to pursue Federal Match dollars, which support services to the community. Funding for the Regional Program, which facilitates access to higher levels of care for I/DD individuals, was discontinued leaving local programs to absorb the workload. Deschutes County's I/DD program has successfully implemented this change. Despite funding challenges, the I/DD program continues to provide services across our communities and meet State required deliverables. • 567 enrolled clients, including 286 clients in Redmond and 51 clients in La Pine • 100% of service plans have been renewed on time • 100% of protective service screening reports have been submitted within required timeframes Q3: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 44 Q4: No new information to report. The behavioral health division has provided quarterly updates to the Board of County Commissioners during FY18. Additionally, the division submitted a CCBHC extension grant proposal to SAMHSA. The outcome of the proposal is unknown at this time. 18. 75% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients will remain housed for 6 months or more. Q1: 100% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. FY18 Quarter 1 Numerator FY18 Quarter 1 Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 16 16 100% Q2: 100% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 16 16 100% *5 clients were excluded from this metric because they have not been housed for 6 months yet. Q3: 95% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. FY18 Quarter 3 Numerator FY18 Quarter 3 Denominator FY18 Q3 Outcome 18 19 95% Q4: 100% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. 45 FY18 Qu rter 4 Numerator 1+Y1 Quarter 4 enonxinitor FY18 Q4 utconae 19 19 100% County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 19. > 99% of WIC clients responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q2: 100% of WIC clients reported they were satisfied with the services they received FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 42 42 100% Q3: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q4: The frequency of this satisfaction survey has been reduced to once per year. No information to report. 20. > 95% of Environmental Health inspection services customers responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q2: 93% of Environmental Health inspection services customers reported they were satisfied with the services they received. FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 68 73 93% Q3: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 46 Q4: The frequency of this satisfaction survey has been reduced to once per year. No information to report. 21. 100% of reproductive and public health clinical services customers responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q2: 95% of reproductive and public health clinical services customers reported they were satisfied with the services they received. Q3: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q4: The frequency of this satisfaction survey has been reduced to once per year. No information to report. 22. > 93% of respondents to a Behavioral Health client survey are satisfied with their experience. Ql: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q2: 92% of Behavioral Health client respondents reported they are satisfied with their experience. FY18 Quarter 2 Numerator FY18 Quarter 2 Denominator FY18 Q2 Outcome 398 433 92% Q3: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. Q4: 95.8% of Behavioral Health client respondents reported they are satisfied with the services they received. 23. 85% of Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities surveys reflect an answer of "yes" to the question "Does your Service Coordinator give you the help you need?" Q l : This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q2: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 47 Q3: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. Q4: 88.4% of Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities surveys reflected an answer of "yes" to the question "Does your Service Coordinator give you the help you need?" County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 24. Increase the number of site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information" (Baseline: 50, quarterly measure). Q1: There were 288 site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Infonnation." Q2: There were 547 site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information." Q3: There were 369 site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information." Q4: There were 264 site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information." 25. DCHS will disseminate accurate, timely and culturally appropriate public health information on at least four seasonal health topics via Epidemiology newsletter, media release and/or website. Ql : DCHS is currently disseminating a weekly flu report which can be viewed at https://www.deschutes.org/health/page/local-flu-surveillance. This report is a comprehensive look at the influenza virus within our region, including regional influenza statistics and demographics. Q2: DCHS disseminated the Regional Health Assessment (RHA) midpoint report, which can be found online at the following URL link. https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/health services/page/11305/rha mi dpoint update final.pdf Q3: DCHS disseminated the Central Oregon Public Health Quarterly, which provided a communicable disease year in review for 2017. The issue can be found online at the following URL link. https://www. deschutes.org/health/page/central-oregon-publi c-health-quarterl y Q4: DCHS disseminated a Communicable Disease Quarterly focused on the 2017-2018 flu season. The report was sent out to local providers and is available online at the following URL link. https://www.deschutes.org/health/page/central-oregon-public-health-quarterly Human Resources Department County Goal: Service Delivery 48 Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Continue to partner with all stakeholders to ensure that the finance/HR project is progressing according to the project plan. Q1: HR staff have been meeting regularly with software implementation team to design foundation of the new HR system. HR staff identified a few County Departments/Offices to provide input on existing processes as well as upcoming needs and will continue to partner with more stakeholders as the process evolves. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: The IOSS project has picked back up and HR has completed the foundation of the new HR system. Next steps include setting up security roles and workflows with the department liaisons to test functionality. HR is planning on rolling out pieces of the new system to departments and employees incrementally. Recent work with the software implementation team focused on the partnership between payroll processing and HR employee set up and personnel action maintenance. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 2. Evaluate and re -design the existing classification and compensation structure. Ql : HR staff received the final reports and recommendations from classification and compensation project consultant. HR staff reviewed recommendations with steering committee, drafted new pay grade structure, classification structure, and compensation philosophy. HR staff met with all County Department/Office leadership to review recommended outcomes and impact of the project. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: The classification and compensation changes for AFSCME and non -represented employees was adopted by the Board and implemented January 2018. HR is working with departments to now update job descriptions for the classifications involved in the study. Q4: HR worked with the vendor and steering committee to create the template for the new job description details. The template includes language that is compliant with state and federal regulations and will be a useful tool in recruiting and classifying employee work. HR and the vendor began working on job descriptions in the Assessor's Office and will roll out the process to other departments. County Goal: Service Delivery 49 Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 3. Provide training to department supervisors and managers on human resource policies and procedures. Q1: HR staff drafted updates to County practices to comply with two legislative changes; Oregon Paid Sick Time Law, and the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: HR staff attended a webinar on the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017. HR staff will develop a work plan for implementing the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017. Q4: HR partnered with the Public Sector Partner Training program to offer the Essential Leaders and the Supervisor Tool Chest programs. HR staff organized a County wide training for all staff focusing on creating a Respectful Workplace and educating staff on the County's non - harassment and non-discrimination policy. This training included a session specific to supervisors. Information Technology County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Complete the modernization of the County's finance, human resources and payroll systems. Q1: The financial portion of the project went into production on July 1St. Electronic time collection has been released for use, however it not completely implemented. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: The Time and Attendance software "NovaTime" has been implemented for all departments. It is in production (actively collecting time records) for all departments except Road, Solid Waste and 9-1-1 as of April 2018. Q4: 1) All county department's July payroll timesheets were process using the NovaTime time and attendance software. This is an indicator of a completed, successful implementation of the NovaTime system. 2) IT assisted the HR and Finance departments with running mock payrolls in the Munis ERP software. We will continue to assist in these efforts over the next several months in support of the planned January go -live on the Munis HR/Payroll software. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 50 2. Promote the expansion of the use of the County's Open Data effort by enlisting the participation of Health Services, Public Safety or Finance. Q1: No progress to report during Q1. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: The IT Department published a new data reporting software application for the creation of interactive reports. Health Services and Adult Corrections are actively creating reports for internal use. This same platform will be used to publish reports to the public and is a step towards growing our Open Data effort. Q4: The IT Department made an investment in a Microsoft -based report publishing platform. The investment totaled approximately $15,000. The goal was to provide departments with consolidated services for the presentation of data collected by various business systems. The focus is publishing internal reports for employee use, however the software dovetails with an on- line product for publishing data for public consumption. The internal reporting site is located at http://reports.deschutes.org. It is currently used by several county departments. New data is being published daily. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 3. Complete the redesign of the DIAL website user interface. Q1: No progress to report during Q1. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: No new progress to report. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 4. Develop a restitution tracking application for Community Justice — Juvenile. Q1: This application went into production for Community Justice on October 3011). Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: No new progress to report. 51 County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 5. Develop informational dashboards for Adult Parole and Probation with data from the State and County systems to assist service providers in delivering services adjusted to appropriate levels. QI : No progress to report during Ql. Community Justice has decided not to pursue completion of this project in its original form. Information Technology continues to assist the department with detennining appropriate tools for tracking and reporting on service data. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: No new progress reported. Q4: No new progress to report. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. 6. Provide GIS support for the 2020 Census Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA). Q 1: The required registration paperwork to participate in LUCA has been completed. Internal personnel resource to perform the work has been identified. Q2: No new progress reported. Q3: Requisite materials have been received from the Census Bureau. Staff is currently analyzing the data to determine if submitting an update would be a beneficial effort. Q4: The IT Department has completed and submitted an update of the address data to the Census Bureau. There were notable updates to the address data. IT is preparing a report to be presented at a future Board meeting. Justice Court County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Increase compliance with traffic laws and ordinance codes. Q1: No progress to report. Q2: No progress to report. 52 Q3: No progress to report. Q4: New distracted driver law, citations and avoidance course is creating awareness and increased compliance in Deschutes County. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 2. Conduct evening court sessions in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. Q1: No progress to report. Q2: Evening court is held in each location. Q3: Evening court is held in each location. Q4: Attendance is at an all-time high for evening court sessions in La Pine and Sisters. Legal Counsel County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Increase department capacity by achieving 50% electronic case file creation/maintenance. Ql : The Legal Department now creates/maintains approximately 70% of its case files in an electronic format. This reduces paper usage and file storage needs. Q2: Legal is now opening 100% of new case files electronically; legal is now maintaining approximately 90% of all open files electronically. Q3: No new progress to report. Q4: No new progress reported. 2. Increase staff efficiency by fully implementing new case management system. Q1: The Legal Department (as of 10/1/17) has implemented the Legal Files case management system. The system is complex, and we all continue to learn and work out some of the bugs. The system affords all of the attorneys with 24/7 real-time access to all case file materials. The increase in efficiency will be gradual due to the steep learning curve associated with the case management system. Q2: Legal continues to implement Legal Files. We are a little behind schedule due to Connie's 53 retirement at the end of October; her replacement began working on 1/2/18. Q3: Implementation continues. All staff are becoming more proficient which increases department productivity and capacity. Q4: Developing Proficiency with Legal Files software. Increased real-time communication enhancing collaborative processes. Natural Resources County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Continue implementation of the FEMA pre -disaster mitigation grant treating approximately 1300 acres of hazardous fuels over a three year period. Q1: 517 total acres treated to date. 5 other projects are under contract or are in the planning stages. Q2: 550 total acres treated to date. 4 other projects are under contract and another two are in the planning stages. Q3: 733 total acres treated to date. 3 other projects are under contract and one more is in the planning stages. Q4: 799 total acres treated to date with 1 project remaining for completion. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. 2. Maintain or increase public participation in Fire Free events as measured by yard debris collected. Q1: No update, fall Fire Free will be in Q2. Q2: Fall FireFree collected 14,857 cubic yards. Q3: No update, spring FireFree is scheduled for Q4. Q4: Spring FireFree collected 30,635 for a total of 45,492 for the year. 3. Maintain or increase the number of communities participating in the Firewise Communities Program. Q1: Two new Firewise communities were added in the last quarter, Sage Meadow in the Sisters area and Hillside Park in Bend. The total number Firewise communities is 21. 54 Q2: One new Firewise community was added in the last quarter, Oregon Water Wonderland #1 in the greater La Pine area was added bringing the total number to 23. Q3: No Firewise communities were added, total remains at 23. Q4: No Firewise communities were added, total remains at 23. Road Department County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 1. Sustain the Pavement Condition Index at 80. Q1: The maintenance treatments and overlay program delivered in 2017 resulted in an overall Pavement Condition Index of 82 — which is an increase of one point from 2016 and two points from 2015. Q2: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q3: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q4: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. 2. Achieve 96% of roads rated good or better (Pavement Condition Index above 70). Q 1: Approximately 96.1% of the County's paved network is rated "good" or better. This is a 0.1% increase from 2016. Q2: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q3: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q4: No update, the PM reportir g is complete for FY 18. 3. PCI Sustainability Ratio at 100%. (Reports the ratio of pavement maintenance investment divided by systems needs per the Pavement Management Program.) Q1: The County's Pavement Management and Budget Options report identifies a 5 -year need of approximately $19.0M on pavement maintenance and preservation projects. The current program budget estimates approximately $20.9M in expenditures such that the ratio of budgeted investment versus the estimated requirement exceeds 100% (110%). This will allow the County to sustain the PCI at the existing, optimal level (low to mid 80s). Q2: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. 55 Q3: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q4: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 4. Provide a maintenance treatment or resurface 14% of the County's road pavement asset. Ql : To be calculated in upcoming quarters. Q2: In the calendar year 2017 maintenance program, approximately 8.8 miles of new pavement was placed (new, overlay, inlay) and 90.7 miles of chip seal was performed. This combined mileage equates to a treatment delivered on approximately 14.3% of the County's pavement asset — which meets the goal/measure of 14%. Q3: No update, the PM reporting is complete for FY 18. Q4: No update, the PM reporting is compiete for 1.-Y 18. Sheriff's Office County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Participate in multi -agency coordination activities (meetings, plans and trainings). Q1: No progress to report in Ql. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Total = 33. Detail for July 1 through March 30: • 9 — Emergency Preparedness Presentations (Over 1200 persons reached not including social media activities) • 1 — Online/Social Media Preparedness Campaign (Make a Kit Monday) • 11 — Trainings attended (Volz and Garibay) • 3 — Training Classes Conducted (All -Hazards ICS Position Specific Courses) • 2 — Exercises: Emergency Operations Plan-- tabletop exercise with County Staff and tabletop Exercise with community partners addressing functionality and access. • 4 — Planning Projects Completed or Conducted (Emergency Operations Plan Update/Revision, Continuity of Operations Plan started, Disaster Fuel Distribution Plan started, and Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ongoing) 56 • 3 — Recovery Activities (completed application for 2017 January Winter Storm FEMA Public Assistance, Milli Fire Management Assistance Grant Application, Milli Small Business Administration Economic Damage Declaration) Q4: Total = 11. Detail for April 1 through June 30: • 3 — Emergency Preparedness Presentations (Over 160 persons reached not including social media activities) • 3 — Trainings attended (Volz and Garibay) • 3 — Training Classes Conducted (All -Hazards ICS Position Specific Courses, EOC Management, and Engaging Faith Based Organizations) • 2 — Exercises: Central Oregon Fire Management Simulation (tabletop exercise) & Sisters Active Threat Full Scale Exercise 2. Number of emergency preparedness activities. Q1: Participated in two events — the Eclipse and the Milli fire. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: One additional event — the Nash Fire. Q4: Participated/coordinated two events — Fire Simulation and Active Threat Exercise. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 3. Respond to 35,500 patrol calls for service. Ql : Responded to 10,491 calls. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Responded to 15,046 dispatched calls. Q4: Responded to 9,355 dispatched calls. 4. Initiate 39,000 patrol calls for service. Ql: Initiated 11,575 calls. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Initiated 19,077 calls. Q4: Initiated 10,898 calls. 57 County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Replace 10 existing HVAC units in the older section of the jail. Q1: No progress to report. Q2: Information not submitted. Q3: Replaced 10 HVAC units. Q4: Complete. Solid Waste County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 1. Develop a Solid Waste Management Plan to determine disposal method to be developed as Knott Landfill reaches capacity. Plan will identify capital needs for new disposal method as well as needed modification to other system facilities to ensure effective integration with new disposal method. Q1: Information not submitted. Q2: A consultant firm has been contracted to develop the solid waste management plan. A Solid Waste Advisory Committee has been seated. Our first meeting of the SWAC will be held in January, 2018. Drafts of the first two chapters of the plan have been produced. Q3: Information not submitted. Q4: Work on the Solid Waste Management Plan continues. We have made significant progress in the areas of waste reduction, recycling and collection. A public meeting was held on those chapters and we have developed a survey for those areas and are receiving an encouraging number of responses. The drafts of those chapters continue to be refined, but efforts will now move to the transfer and disposal components of the system. This will take us through September and October. We expect to have a second public meeting in October focusing on transfer and disposal, and a final document after the first of the year. 58 G o TES -< 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 Business Meeting of August 20, 2018 DATE: August 13, 2018 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendment BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will conduct a public hearing on August 20, 2018 to consider Ordinance 2018-008, a text amendment relating to the potential designation of new properties as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner. "[ S c, COM UN ' DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner DATE: August 15, 2018 SUBJECT: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendment - Public Hearing The Board will conduct a public hearing on August 20, 2018 to consider Ordinance 2018-008, a text amendment relating to the potential designation of new properties as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The amendments and one public comment from Dan Terrell, were provided to the Board at their August 6, 2018 work session'. I. OVERVIEW The proposed text amendments were initiated by the Board of County Commissioners in response to a ruling by the Land Use Board of Appeals and affirmed by the Oregon Court of Appeals. The ruling, involving a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application initiated by property owner Tony Aceti, determined that the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is worded in such a way that the designation applies only to seven existing exception areas, thereby expressly prohibiting any new properties from being designated as Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial. The proposed text amendment adds language to the Comprehensive Plan section to acknowledge new properties may be designated if they are compliant with all other applicable state and local laws. Compliance with these laws will be reviewed on an individual basis during the land use application process. II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2018 and deliberated on July 12, 2018. The Commission voted to approve the proposed text amendment with a recommendation to the Board to consider the study of clustering rural commercial and rural industrial properties to increase efficiency and decrease adverse environmental impact. As a courtesy, public comment 1 http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1 &ID=1906&Inline=True received during the Planning Commission public hearing process is included as an attachment. The written testimony is organized alphabetically: Twenty-one in Support: • Aceti • Fagan • Carsey • Kliewer • Central Oregon Association of Realtors • Reed (COAR) • Terrell • Employees of V Works Mobile Mix • Three Sisters Adventist School Concrete and Millwood, LLC (12 • Verheyden signatures) One in Opposition: • Central Oregon Landwatch III. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2018-008 and Corresponding Exhibits 2. Public Comment Received to Date 3. Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Zoning Chapters Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1: Ordinance 2018-008 and Corresponding Exhibits For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to Allow for the Potential of New Properties to be Designated as Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) initiated amendments (Planning Division File No. 247 -18 -000404 -PA) to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management to allow for the potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on July 12, 2018 and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a recommendation of approval, with the consideration of a study of when new rural commercial and rural industrial properties could be concentrated to increase efficiency and decrease adverse environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2018, and concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, and Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 23; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in ctrikethrough. Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in 6trikethrough. Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5.12, Supplementary Section — Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough. /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 Section 4. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "D", attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner Date of 1" Reading: day of , 2018. Date of 2' Reading: day of , 2018. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Anthony DeBone Philip G. Henderson Tammy Baney Effective date: day of , 2018. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive and found on the Deschutes County Communit by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 y Development Department website, is incorporated Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006 V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. adopted by the Board in Ordinance adopted by the Board in Ordinance adopted by the Board in Ordinance adopted by the Board in Ordinance adopted by the Board in Ordinance (Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018, Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 §1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-006 Se ti -ow 3.4 R itral, oo,ov u.j Background Economic development is critically important to maintaining quality of life. When the Statewide Planning system was initiated, farming and forestry were strongly protected because they were the State's primary economic drivers. Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic Development and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-009 apply to areas inside urban growth boundaries and are intended to ensure an adequate land supply for business and employment growth. The Rule defines the preparation of Economic Opportunity Analyses (EOA) to identify and promote a diverse economy. Rural Economy 2008-2009 Source: Economic Development for Central Oregon website • The top three economic sectors in 2009 were: retail trade, leisure and hospitality, educational and health services • Median income for a family of four in 2008 was $63,500 • A 2009 list of top private employers shows Sunriver at #3 and Eagle Crest at # 12 and Black Butte Ranch at #I5 • 2009 unemployment ranged from approximately 13%-16% - up from 5.3% in 2000 Source: Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife Viewing and Shellfishing in Oregon, 2008, May 2009, Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by Dean Runyan Associates • A total of $78 million was spent in Deschutes County in 2008 on fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing Source: Oregon State University Extension Oregon Agricultural Information Network, Deschutes County Agricultural Commodity Sales for 2008 and 2009 • Over $26 million in crop and livestock sales in 2008 (revised estimate) • Over $19 million in crop and livestock sales in 2009 (preliminary estimate) Source: County GIS • There are 5 developed Rural Commercial lots • There are 3 developed Rural Industrial lots Economic Trends Deschutes County's economy was initially built around farming and logging. As those sectors declined, recreation and tourism increased as people were drawn to the beauty and opportunities to recreate on public lands. The high quality of life became a draw for employers and employees alike. Until recently, the building sector boomed as new housing was built to meet both increased housing demand and the real estate speculation that followed. Housing prices rose so high that workforce housing became a limiting factor in economic growth. The period of strong growth ended with the national recession that began in late 2007, leading to falling housing prices and rising unemployment. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.4 RURAL ECONOMY A partner for the County in promoting a healthy economy is Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). This private non-profit organization is dedicated to diversifying the tri -county regional economy by attracting new investment and jobs. This organization also tracks the local economy. As noted above, statewide land use goals and rules direct growth primarily in urban areas. Still, there are economic opportunities that can be supported by the County. Farming and forestry and related businesses • Economic opportunities in these sectors are discussed in the Agriculture and Forest sections of this Plan. Recreation and tourism • These sectors include revenue from hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing that are discussed in the Wildlife section of this Plan. Also included here are Mt Bachelor ski resort and other area resorts. This sector is anticipated to continue growing. Unincorporated Communities • New commercial and industrial uses are permitted in unincorporated communities. These uses are limited in size. See Chapter 4 for more information. Home-based businesses • Although not a major economic player, for many rural residents the opportunity to run a small business out of their home provides extra income. Home businesses are regulated tightly on agricultural land by the state, and by the county through the home occupation code. Green Employment • New initiatives for green energy take advantage of the local abundance of resources. See the Energy section of this Plan. Bend Airport • The Bend Airport is owned and managed by the City of Bend as a municipal airport with supporting aviation associated businesses. Aviation industries are also a major focus of EDCO. As of 2010 the City of Bend and Deschutes County are working to create a new master plan for the area that will promote future aviation related business while protecting the nearby rural residences from aviation -related impacts. Coordination • The County can support and coordinate with agencies, organizations and juridictions in promoting economic development such as coordinating on the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis for Un -Met Large -Lot Industrial Sites due to be completed in 201 1. • The County can support farming as a contributor of the economy by promoting a diverse, sustainable, revenue -generating agricultural sector, including emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Environment • Deschutes County's quality of life is increasingly recognized as an important factor in economic development and can be viewed as a strategic resource to be managed for its long-term contributions as a tourist destination, to employee retention, and locational decisions for industrial recruitment. 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.4 RURAL ECONOMY Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial In Deschutes County there are a hanelfulsmall number of properties zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These initial application of these designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws. Approval of these designations for nNew commercial or industrial sites is aee-controlled by State and local regulations,, and additional development is anticipated to be minimal and only for specific sitcs properties. such as around the Bend Airport. Rural Commercial The county may apply the Rural Commercial plan designation applies to property within specific existing exception areas or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change as set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The rural commercial uses and services in these areas are limited in size and scope to those that are less intensive than uses allowed in Unincorporated Communities. The uses and densities are limited by the zoning, thereby maintaining rural integrity. The county has applied the Rural Commercial designation -ries to the following acknowledged exception areas: • Deschutes Junction • Deschutes River Woods Store • Pine Forest • Rosland • Spring River As a part of State required Periodic Review, a Rural Commercial designation was applied to Deschutes Junction, Deschutes River Woods Store and Spring River. These areas had previously been designated Rural Service Centers, but a new Unincorporated Communities Rule (OAR 660-022) defined "rural service centers" in such a way that these areas no longer matched the criteria. The Rural Commercial plan designation and zoning brings each of these three areas into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. The County recently applied a new Rural Commercial plan designation to Rosland (2002) and Pine Forest (2007) commercial centers which historically were committed to commercial uses prior to the adoption of zoning regulations. Existing Rural Commercial Designated Exception Areas The Deschutes Junction Rural Commercial boundary includes 1.77 acres, bounded by Tumalo Road on the South, Highway 97 on the East, with the remainder surrounded by Agricultural (EFU) and Rural Residential (MUA-I0) lands. The Deschutes River Woods Store Rural Commercial boundary includes 4.99 acres bounded by Baker Road on the North, Highway 97 on the East, railroad tracks and Cheyenne Road on the West and Morningstar Christian School on the South. The surrounding land is zoned Rural DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.4 RURAL ECONOMY 3 Residential (RR -10). The Deschutes River Woods residential subdivision is adjacent to this property. The Pine Forest Rural Commercial boundary includes approximately 2.0 acres bounded by Pine Forest Drive and Burgess Road. The remainder is surrounded by exceptions land zoned RR -10. The Rosland Rural Commercial boundary includes approximately 4.5 acres near the intersection of Burgess and River Pine Roads. The remainder is surrounded by exceptions land zoned RR -10. The Spring River Rural Commercial boundary includes 9.16 acres bounded by Spring River Road on the North, Lunar Drive on the East and additional commercial and residential uses on the South and West. The surrounding land is zoned Rural Residential (RR -10). Rural Industrial The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific property within existing Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. The county originally applied the Rural Industrial designation dies to the following acknowledged exception areas. ■ Redmond Military • Deschutes Junction • Bend Auto Recyclers Existing Rural Industrial Designated Exception Areas The Redmond Military site consists of tax lot 1513000000116 and is 35.42 acres, bounded by the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary to the west and agricultural lands (EFU) surrounding the remainder of the property. The Deschutes Junction site consists of the following tax lots: 161226C000107 (9.05 acres), 16126C000 106 (4.33 acres), 161226C000102 (1.41 acres), 161226C000 114 (2.50 acres), portions 161226C000300 (12.9 acres). 161226C000301 (8.93 acres), 161226A000203 (1.5 acres) and those portions of 161226C00011 I located west of the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe railroad tracks (16.45 acres). Generally, the Deschutes Junction site is bordered on the west by Highway 97, on the east by the Burlington Northern Railroad, on the north by Nichols Market Road (except for a portion of 1612226A000111), and on the south by EFU-zoned property owned by the City of Bend. Bend Auto Recyclers consists of tax lot 17120300001 1 1 and is 13.41 acres, bounded by Highway 97 to the west, and Rural Residential (MUA-10) lands to east, north and south. 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.4 RURAL ECONOMY Future of Deschutes County Economy A key to economic growth in Deschutes County is to recognize and protect the natural resources that contribute to the quality of life that draws both employers and employees as well as tourists to the area. A 2010 report on Deschutes County's economy by Headwaters Economics and Economic Development for Central Oregon outlined a number of recommendations to increase economic diversity and resiliency. Areas where the County can consider focusing its attention are: promoting housing diversity, local amenities, better transportation access and higher education. According to the report, public incentives are also helpful. Given the State emphasis on economic development inside cities, the County's primary role is to cooperate with cities and EDCO. Coordinating with cities, agencies and organizations that are actively promoting economic development can be an effective use of resources. As an example of local partnering, in 2010 the County initiated a Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis to identify the need for large -lot industrial sites. From a rural perspective, working with the agriculture and forest sectors to encourage new uses as discussed in those sections of this Plan is anothcr option to supplement the otherwise minimal growth expected in rural commercial and rural industrial uses. Others arc options include supporting sustainable recreation, tourism and commercial alternative energy projects. Finally, home based businesses that minimize impacts on rural neighbors can also be encouraged. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 3.4 RURAL ECONOMY 5 Secti,ovi, 3.4- Ru.Yal, ecov ovvuj PoL'G'es Goal and Policies Goal I Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.1 Policy 3.4.2 Policy 3.4.3 Policy 3.4.4 Policy 3.4.5 Policy 3.4.6 Policy 3.4.7 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home-based businesses, that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic development opportunities. Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment. Support a regional approach to economic development in concert with Economic Development for Central Oregon or similar organizations. Support regional educational facilities and workforce training programs. Support renewable energy generation as an important economic development initiative. Support and participate in master planning for airports in Deschutes County. Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited local -serving commercial uses in higher -density rural communities. Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Commercial Policy 3.4.8 Update the policies for lands designated Rural Commercial as needed. Policy 3.4.9 Rural Commercial designated lands located outside of urban growth boundaries shall allow uses less intense than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Rural Commercial zoning shall be applied to any new properties that are approved for Rural Commercial designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 3.4.10 Rural Commercial zoning shall be applied to Deschutes Junction, Deschutes River Woods Store, Pine Forest, Rosland and Spring River. Policy 3.4.1 1 In Spring River there shall be a Limited Use Combining Zone. Policy 3.4.12 County Comprehensive Plan policies and land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized on Rural Commercial designated lands do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding areas. Policy 3.4.13 Zoning in the area shall ensure that the uses allowed are rural as required by Goal 14, Urbanization, and less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-22. New commercial uses shall be limited to those that are intended to serve the surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. 6 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES Policy 3.4.14 Policy 3.4.15 Policy 3.4.16 Policy 3.4.17 Policy 3.4.18 Policy 3.4.19 Policy 3.4.20 Policy 3.4.21 New commercial uses shall be limited in size to 2,500 square feet or if for an agricultural or forest -related use, 3,500 square feet. A lawful use existing on or before November 5, 2002 that is not otherwise allowed in a Rural Commercial zone, may continue to exist subject to the county's nonconforming use regulations. An existing lawful use may expand up to 25 percent of the total floor area existing on November 5, 2002. The Rural Commercial zoning regulations shall allow a mixed use of residential or rural commercial uses. Residential and commercial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on-site sewage disposal systems. Residential and commercial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems. Community sewer systems, motels, hotels and industrial uses shall not be allowed. Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to travelers shall be permitted. Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Industrial Policy 3.4.22 Policy 3.4.23 Policy 3.4.24 Policy 3.4.25 Policy 3.4.26 Update the policies for lands designated Rural Industrial as needed. To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands, land use regulations in the Rural Industrial zones shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660- 22 or any successor. Limited Use Combining zones shall be applied to the Redmond Military (Tax lot 1513000000116), Deschutes Junction (Tax lot 161226C00030 I, Tax lot 161226C000300, Tax lot 161226C0001 1 1 and Tax lot 161226A000203) to ensure permitted uses are compatible with surrounding farm and forest lands. To ensure that the uses in Rural Industrial zone on tax lot 16-12-26C-301, as described in Exhibit "C" and depicted on Exhibit "D" attached to Ordinance 2009-007 and incorporated by reference herein, are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Industrial zoning on that site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone which will limit the uses to storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. To ensure that the uses in the Rural Industrial Zone on Tax Lot 300 on Assessor's Map 16-12-26C-300 and Tax Lot 203 on Assessor's Map 16 -I2 -26A- 300 and portions of Tax Lot III on Assessor's Map 16 -12 -26C -I 1 1 as described in Exhibit 'D' and depicted in Exhibit `E' attached to Ordinance 2010-030 and incorporated by reference herein, are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Industrial zoning on the subject parcel shall be subject to a Limited Use DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES 7 Policy 3.4.27 Policy 3.4.28 Policy 3.4.29 Policy 3.4.30 Policy 3.4.31 Policy 3.4.32 Policy 3.4.33 Policy 3.4.34 Policy 3.4.35 Policy 3.4.36 Combining Zone, which will limit the uses to storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals, subject to conditional use and site plan approval. Land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Rural Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation. A lawfully established use that existed on or before February 2, 2003 not otherwise allowed in a Rural Industrial zone may continue to exist subject to the county's non -conforming use regulations. A lawfully established use that existed on or before February 2, 2003 may be expanded to occupy a maximum of 10,000 square feet of floor area or an additional 25 percent of the floor area currently occupied by the existing use, whichever is greater. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on-site sewage disposal systems. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems. Community sewer systems shall not be allowed in Rural Industrial zones. A 2009 exception (Ordinance 2009-007) included an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 and a reasons exception to Goal 14 to allow rural industrial use with a Limited Use Combining Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. A 2010 exception (Ordinance 2010-030) took a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use Combing Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. Properties for which a property owner has demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered for Rural Industrial designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is approved for the Rural Industrial plan designation. 8 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES sectf,ow 5.12 Legf,statwe History Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table 5.1 1.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2011-003 8-10-1 1/1 1-9-1 1 All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 Comprehensive Plan update 2011-027 10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 I 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5. I I , 23.40A, 23.40B, 23.40.065, 23.01.010 Housekeeping amendments to ensure a smooth transition to the updated Plan 2012-005 8-20-12/11-19-12 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), 3.7 (revised), Appendix C (added) Updated Transportation System Plan 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Housekeeping amendments to Destination Resort Chapter 2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13 4.2 Central Oregon Regional Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.11 Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County Page I of 4 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 20 14-0 12 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3. I I Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2015-021 1 1-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. 2015-029 1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5 -Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. Page 2 of 4 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 2015-010 12-2-15/12-2-15 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County 2016 -005 11-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non - resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning 2016-022 9-28-16/11-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Comprehensive plan Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2016-029 12-14-16/12/28/16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2017-007 10-30-17/10-30-17 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-002 1-3-18/1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone Page 3 of 4 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 2018-008 8-20-18/8-20-18 23.01, 3.4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing the potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial Page 4 of 4 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-008 FINDINGS I. PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed amendments to Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan are described in Ordinance 2018-008, Exhibit A. Added language is underlined and deleted language is shown in strikethrough. BACKGROUND In 2015, property owner Tony Aceti submitted applications for a comprehensive plan designation change and zone change on his property to allow rural industrial uses on his property planned and zoned for agricultural use. While located at the intersection of Tumalo Road and Highway 97, the property is not within the Deschutes Junction exception area identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) Section 3.4 Rural Industrial Designated Areas. The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners approved those applications. Central Oregon LandWatch appealed those decisions to the Land Use Board of Appeals. LUBA sustained the county's determination that the property was not resource land, but remanded a Goal 14 exception approval, with instructions that the exception was necessary only if the county wished to approve urban uses on rural land. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2016-012, August 10, 2016). On remand, the Board of County Commissioners again approved the applications. In its decision, the Board of County Commissioners interpreted the DCCP and concluded that it could approve the applications even though the subject property was located outside of the Deschutes Junction exception area identified in the plan. Central Oregon LandWatch appealed again. On appeal, LUBA concluded that the county's interpretation of the DCCP was inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan and reversed the decision. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017)(Slip Op. at 12-13, 15-16). The county and the applicant appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and filed a joint brief. Affirming LUBA's decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that the county's interpretation of the DCCP conflicted with the plan's express language, which the court held, applied the Rural Industrial plan designation to only three enumerated exception areas. The court further held that the county did not have the authority to approve the Rural Industrial plan designation for properties located outside the three listed exception areas. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 288 Or App 378, 379-80, _ P3d _ (2017). The Court of Appeals quoted two passages from the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.4. Those passages are: And, "In Deschutes County there are a handful of properties zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws. New commercial or industrial sites are controlled by State regulation and additional development is anticipated to be minimal and only for specific sites, such as around the Bend Airport." 288 Or App at 379: DCCP, Chapter 3, p. 10. "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the following acknowledged exception areas. "Redmond Military "Deschutes Junction "Bend Auto Recyclers" 288 Or App at 380; DCCP, Chapter 3, p. 11. The fundamental issue raised by the Court of Appeals decision is its holding that the language of the DCCP expressly prohibits the county from approving a request for the Rural Industrial plan designation on any property outside the three listed exception areas, even if a property otherwise meets all state and local land use requirements for the Rural Industrial plan designation. That holding is contrary to the Board of County Commissioners' prior understanding of its authority under the DCCP and with its interpretation of the DCCP conducted during the remand proceedings discussed above. As explained by LUBA in its opinion, the Rural Industrial designation is not necessarily limited to the three exception areas listed in DCCP Section 3.4, however, the county must first amend DCCP Section 3.4 to remove the language that limits application of the Rural Industrial designation to the three identified exception areas or otherwise expressly broaden application of the designation to other sites deemed eligible under DCCP Section 3.4. Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017)(Slip Op. at 15). PAGE 2 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Consequently legislative amendments to the DCCP are needed to grant the county the authority it believed it had, authority that every other county in Oregon has, when it interpreted the DCCP. The proposed amendment language will need to address, at the minimum, the language the Court of Appeals concluded limited the application of the Rural Industrial plan designation. One other aspect of LUBA's analysis compels these legislative amendments to include amendments to the language used in the Rural Commercial provisions of the DCCP. In its opinion, LUBA compares the similarities between the language used in DCCP Chapter 3.4 for the Rural Commercial designation and that for the Rural Industrial designation in reaching its conclusion about the plan language limiting use of the designation only within the identified exception areas. There is no reason to believe that the similar Rural Commercial language would not be interpreted in the same manner that LUBA and the Court of Appeals interpreted the similar Rural Industrial plan language. PURPOSE The purpose for the proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is to plainly and unequivocally establish that Deschutes County has the authority to approve, throughout the county, an application for a comprehensive plan designation change for a specific property to Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial so long as the plan designation change is consistent with State Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and the Deschutes County Code. Following approval of the proposed amendments, the county's authority to approve such comprehensive plan designation changes will not be limited to the existing exception areas currently identified in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are intended only to grant the county the authority to make decisions on future comprehensive plan designation change applications for properties located outside of the existing exception areas, and to make those decisions consistent with state and local land use regulations. The proposed amendments do not change the plan designation of any property within Deschutes County, or otherwise authorize any development or land use changes in the county. 11. REVIEW CRITERIA Ordinance No. 2018-008 amends the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Titles 18, 22 or 23 for reviewing a legislative plan amendment. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is initiating one, the County bears the responsibility for satisfying that the amendments are consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and the existing Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. PAGE 3 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 The findings are organized as follows: • Section (1) — Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement • Section (2) — Oregon Revised Statutes • Section (3) — Other Statewide Planning Goals • Section (4) — Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section (1), Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Goal: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The citizen involvement program shall incorporate the following components: 1. Citizen Involvement — To provide for widespread citizen involvement. 2. Communication — To assure effective two-way communication. 3. Citizen Influence — To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 4. Technical Information — To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. 5. Feedback Mechanisms — To assure that citizens will receive a response from policy -makers. Finding: While Goal 1 is a directive to the county to develop a citizen involvement program that insures opportunities for public participation in land use planning and is not directly applicable to this decision, the county has complied with its citizen involvement program in its consideration of the proposed amendments. Goal 1 will be met through this adoption process because this amendment will receive two public hearings, one before the County Planning Commission, the County's citizen review board for land use matters, and one before the Board of County Commissioners. Section (2), Oregon Revised Statutes * ORS 197.175 (2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, each city and county in this state shall: (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission; (b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans[.] Finding: The proposed amendments represent the proper exercise of the county's planning authority to revise its comprehensive plan because the amendments are PAGE 4 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 evaluated below for consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals. There is no need to enact additional land use regulations to implement these amendments because the amendments only authorize the county to make certain types of decisions, and the Deschutes County Code Titles 18 and 22 already provide the procedural and substantive requirements for that decision-making. The proposal is consistent with this statute. * ORS 197.610 (1) Before a local government adopts a change, including additions and deletions, to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or a land use regulation, the local government shall submit the proposed change to the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall specify, by rule, the deadline for submitting proposed changes, but in all cases the proposed change must be submitted at least 20 days before the local government holds the first evidentiary hearing on adoption of the proposed change. The commission may not require a local government to submit the proposed change more than 35 days before the first evidentiary hearing. Finding: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments have been submitted to LDCD in the manner prescribed by ORS 197.610. Notice to the Director of DLCD was provided on May 10, 2018. * ORS 197.712 (1) In addition to the findings and policies set forth in ORS 197.005, 197.010 and 215.243, the Legislative Assembly finds and declares that, in carrying out statewide comprehensive land use planning, the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities throughout the state is vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of all the people of the state. (2) By the adoption of new goals or rules, or the application, interpretation or amendment of existing goals or rules, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall implement all of the following: (a) Comprehensive plans shall include an analysis of the community's economic patterns, potentialities, strengths and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends. (b) Comprehensive plans shall contain policies concerning the economic development opportunities in the community. (c) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations and service levels for industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies. (d) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for compatible uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses. ***** (g) Local governments shall provide: (A) Reasonable opportunities to satisfy local and rural needs for residential and industrial development and other economic activities on appropriate lands outside urban growth boundaries, in a manner consistent with conservation of the state's agricultural and forest land base[.] PAGE 5 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Finding: These amendments help provide for the provision of adequate opportunities for economic development in the county as provided by subsection (1) of this statute. LCDC has acknowledged the county's comprehensive plan as consistent with the requirements of subsection (2)(a) through (d) and the proposed amendments do not change or otherwise affect those provisions. These amendments will provide a reasonable opportunity to satisfy arising needs for commercial or industrial development on rural lands consistent with conservation of the state's agricultural and forest land base as identified in ORS 197.712(2)(g)(A) by requiring that any proposal for the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation in rural areas of the county demonstrate why the resource goals do not or should not apply to the property. * ORS 197.713 (1) Notwithstanding statewide land use planning goals relating to urbanization or to public facilities and services, a county or its designee may authorize: (a) Industrial development, including accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development, in buildings of any size and type, subject to the permit approval process described in ORS 215.402 to 215.438 and to applicable building codes, in an area planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004, subject to the territorial limits described in subsections (2) and (3) of this section. (b) On-site sewer facilities to serve the industrial development authorized under this section, including accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development. (2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, a county or its designee may consider the following land for industrial development under this section: (a) Land more than three miles outside the urban growth boundary of every city with a population of 20,000 individuals or more; and (b) Land outside the urban growth boundary of every city with a population of fewer than 20,000 individuals. (3) A county or its designee may not authorize industrial development under this section on land within the Willamette Valley as defined in ORS 215.010. (4) A county or its designee may not authorize under this section retail, commercial or residential development in the area zoned for industrial use. Finding: This statute is not directly applicable to the proposed amendments because they do not authorize any development or land use changes. Any future decisions made under the proposed amendments will have to be made consistent with the requirements of ORS 197.713 if applicable. * ORS 197.714 (1) Notwithstanding the authority granted in ORS 197.713 to allow industrial development, including accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development, in areas zoned for industrial use, when a county or its designee considers action under ORS 197.713 (1) for land within 10 miles of the urban growth boundary of a city, the county or its designee shall give notice to the city at least 21 days prior to taking action. (2) If the city objects to the authorization of industrial development under ORS 197.713, the city and county shall negotiate to establish conditions on the industrial development or changes in the development necessary to mitigate concerns raised by the city's objection. PAGE 6 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Finding: This statute is not directly applicable to the proposed amendments because they do not authorize any development or land use changes. Any future decisions made under the proposed amendments will have to be made consistent with ORS 197.714. Section (3), Other Statewide Planning Goals The parameters for evaluating specific amendments to the comprehensive plan are that the amendments are based on an adequate factual base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide Planning Goals. * Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Finding: See Section (1) above. * Goal 2, Land Use Planning Finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 2's mandate to make decisions consistent with the established land use planning process. ORS 197.610 allows local governments to initiate post acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPA). DCC 22.12.030 also provides for Board of Commissioners' initiation of legislative changes to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. An Oregon Land Conservation and Development Department 35 -day notice was initiated on May 10, 2018. This FINDINGS document and analysis identifies the issues, problems, and basis for the proposed amendments as required by Goal 2. The public and affected governmental units have been notified of the proposed changes and have been provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments. The amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan will be adopted by ordinance, as required by Goal 2, Part I. * Goal 3, Agricultural Lands and Goal 4, Forest Lands Finding: These resource goals are not applicable to the proposed amendments because they propose no plan designation changes, zoning map changes, development or land use changes on agricultural or forest lands. The proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to make decisions that may implicate Goals 3 or 4 in the future. Any future applications for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goals 3 and 4 or demonstrate that the subject property does not meet the definition of Agricultural Land as denoted in OAR 660-004-0005. * Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the PAGE 7 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed that might impact Goal 5 protected natural resources, scenic and historic areas, or open spaces. Any future applications for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 5. * Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed that impact air, water and land resource qualities. Any future applications for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 6. * Goal 7, Natural Hazards Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed that impact natural hazards. Any future applications for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 7. * Goal 8, Recreational Needs Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed on recreational resources. Any future applications for a site-specific comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 8. * Goal 9, Economic Development Finding: The proposed amendments most directly concern Goal 9. While the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan contains policies intended to contribute to a stable and healthy economy in the county and LCDC acknowledged the plan as consistent with Goal 9's planning and implementation guidelines, the recent LUBA and Court of Appeals decision eliminated one of the primary implementation measures that the county previously believed it had. As a result of those decisions the county lost the "land use control" implementation measure of having the authority to approve comprehensive plan designation changes to Rural Industrial for properties outside the existing exception areas when approval of a requested change was otherwise allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. The basis PAGE 8 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 behind the two decisions was an interpretation that the Comprehensive Plan expressly limited all such plan changes to the existing exception areas. Given the similarity in language used in DCCP Section 3.4 for the Rural Commercial plan designation with the language for the Rural Industrial plan designation, it is reasonable to conclude that LUBA and the Court of Appeals would interpret the DCCP Rural Commercial provisions similar to how they interpreted the Rural Industrial provisions to hold that the DCCP expressly limits Rural Commercial plan designation changes to the existing exception areas identified in the plan. As discussed below in Section (4), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan expresses the county's intention to pursue the full range of economic opportunities that are available to the county so long as such activity would continue to maintain the integrity of the county's rural character and natural environment. Just as important, the comprehensive plan does not categorically exclude any particular type of economic development or exclude economic development at any particular location. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 9 because they safeguard the land use control implementation measure that allows approval of comprehensive plan designation changes that promote economic development so long as the requested change meets all state and local land use requirements for that change. The Goal 9 rule does not apply to comprehensive plans for areas outside urban growth boundaries. See, OAR 660-009-0010(1). These amendments only affect land in rural parts of the county. Consequently, the Goal 9 rule is not applicable to these amendments. * Goal 10, Housing Finding: This goal is not applicable because, unlike municipalities, unincorporated areas are not obligated to fulfill Goal 10 housing requirements. Furthermore, no development or land use changes are being proposed that relate to or impact housing. Any future site-specific applications for a comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 10. * Goal 11, Public Facilities Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed that require public facilities or services. Any future site-specific applications for a comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 11. PAGE 9 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 * Goal 12, Transportation Finding: The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires local governments to determine whether an amendment to a comprehensive plan will "significantly affect" an existing or planned transportation facility. The TPR identifies three ways in which an amendment to a comprehensive plan could "significantly affect" a transportation facility. OAR 660-012-0060(1). (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Results in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed at this time that impact local or state transportation facilities. This goal can be met with site specific review conducted during the application process, in compliance with the Deschutes County Code requirements. Because no development or land use changes are being proposed at this time that will result in a significant impact to a state transportation facility or that would amend an adopted transportation system plan, the Goal 12 rule (OAR 660, Division 12) will be analysis on an individual site basis during the land use application process. PAGE 10 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 * Goal 13, Energy Conservation Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed amendments only grant the county the authority to approve applications to change a property's comprehensive plan designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rule and the Comprehensive Plan. No development or land use changes are being proposed that raise energy conservation issues. Any future site-specific applications for a comprehensive plan designation change will have to demonstrate consistency with Goal 13. * Goal 14, Urbanization Finding: The purpose of Goal 14 is to direct urban uses to areas inside urban growth boundaries. The proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 14 because not only must any application for the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation demonstrate it is consistent with Goal 14, but, as DCCP Policy 3.4.9 and Policy 3.4.23 direct, land use regulations for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660 Division 22, and are consequently not urban uses. Furthermore, no development or land use changes are being proposed that raise energy conservation issues. *Goals 15 through 19 Finding: These goals are not applicable to any amendments to the County's comprehensive plan because the county has none of those types of lands. Section (4), Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan * Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2 Agricultural Land Goal 1 Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Finding: The introductory statement to DCCP Section 2.2 discusses the county's agricultural sub -zones, irrigation districts, the state and future of farming in the county, recent legislative activity at the state level, and the future of farm designations and uses in the county. PAGE 11 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Significant to these amendments, the introductory statement also identifies a range of potentially conflicting concerns regarding farm lands. However, the statement concludes: "The goals and policies in this Section are intended to provide the basis for evaluating the future of agriculture in the County over the next twenty years. They are intended to provide, within State guidelines, flexibility to the farming community. County farm lands will be preserved by ensuring a variety of alternative paths to profitability." DCCP, Section 2, p. 10. Agricultural Land Goal 1 recognizes the importance of preserving agricultural lands and of supporting the agricultural industry in Deschutes County. However, Policies 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 recognize, as does the discussion in the introduction, that there are properties in the county where land that is designated for agricultural use is not suitable for or necessary to support agriculture. Policy 2.2.3 expressly allows for comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels. Given the prevalence of agricultural land in the county, it is possible that any applications for a plan change to Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial could involve land designated for agricultural use. The proposed amendments are consistent with this policy because, like Policy 2.2.3, the amendments allow for plan designation changes only if they are permitted under State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and the Comprehensive Plan. The express reference to state statutes and the OARs by the amendments invoke the demanding standards established by those provisions, which will preclude most properties currently designated for agricultural use from being converted to the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation. This is consistent with Policy 2.2.4. Furthermore, existing Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 provide that land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. Implementing regulations for those policies have been incorporated into DCC Title 18. The proposed amendments are consistent with DCCP Section 2.2. Section 2.3 Forest Land Goal 1 Protect and maintain forest lands for multiple uses, including forest products, watershed protection, conservation, recreation and wildlife habitat protection. Policy 2.3.9 Support economic development opportunities that promote forest health. PAGE 12 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Finding: The introductory statement to Section 2.3 Forest Lands discusses the county's forest designations, provides background data, current trends, future uses and the significance of key forest resources in the county. The statement notes that, while much of the county land is in forest designation, 92% of it is owned by the federal government. The focus of the introductory statement is on retaining forest land in larger blocks and protecting the Skyline Forest. The introductory statement also notes the development pressures on forest land comes primarily from the desire for residential use. The goal of protecting and maintaining forest lands presented in the introductory statement is reinforced by Section 2.3 Goal 1. The desire to promote multiple uses of forest lands is reinforced by Policy 2.3.9, which encourages pursuing economic development opportunities that promote forest health. The proposed amendments provide the county with an additional implementation measure to promote economic development that will support forest lands if the requisite state and local land use requirements are met. Furthermore, existing Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 provide that land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. Implementing regulations have been incorporated into DCC Title 18. The proposed amendments are consistent with DCCP Section 2.3. * Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Section 3.4 Rural Economy Goal 1 Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.1 Promote rural economic initiatives, including home-based businesses that maintain the integrity of the rural character and natural environment. a. Review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic development opportunities Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Commercial Policy 3.4.8 Update the policies for lands designated Rural Commercial as needed. Policy 3.4.9 Rural Commercial designated lands located outside of urban growth boundaries shall allow uses less intense than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. PAGE 13 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Lands Designated and Zoned Rural Industrial Policy 3.422 Update the policies for lands designated Rural Industrial as needed. Policy 3.4.23 To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands, land use regulations in the rural Industrial zones shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660-22 or any successor. Finding: The introductory statement for DCCP Section 3.2 Rural Development recognizes the potential for limited economic development in rural areas of Deschutes County. The statement notes that state law greatly restricts rural commercial and rural industrial uses in rural areas, so consequently the economic growth in those areas is not anticipated to be significant. DCCP Chapter 3, p. 3. However, the economic trends portion of the introductory statement for DCCP Section 3.4 Rural Economy states: "As noted above, statewide land use goals and rules direct growth primarily in urban areas. Still, there are economic opportunities that can be supported by the County." DCCP, Chapter 3, p. 9. The DCCP then discusses a variety of economic opportunities the county can pursue. Furthermore, the final component of the introductory statement, addressing the future of Deschutes County economy, discusses the county's attractiveness for employers and employees, and a range of economic opportunities — both urban and rural — that the county can pursue to promote economic growth. Each of those passages express the County's intent to pursue the full range of economic opportunities available, while at the same time recognizing that Oregon's statewide land use planning program imposes severe limitations on the types and intensity of economic activity that can occur on rural land. While the expectation is that future rural commercial and industrial growth in the county will be extremely limited, those provisions leave little doubt that the County wishes to pursue whatever opportunities exist to promote rural economic development. The proposed amendments provide the county the authority to pursue economic opportunities that meet the stringent requirements of state and local land use regulations. This is consistent with the intent expressed in the introductory statements discussed above. The proposed amendments are also consistent with DCCP Section 3.4 Rural Economy's Goal 1, which seeks to maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy that is compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. As encouraged by Policy 3.4.1, the proposed amendments will allow the county to promote appropriate rural economic initiatives and development activities, reversing the prohibition imposed by the recent decisions on new designations that promote economic development outside of the existing exception areas. PAGE 14 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 The proposal also updates the policies for both Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial land designations as provided for under Policies 3.4.1 and 3.4.22. Again, the purpose of the updates is to ensure that any approvals to designate property with the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial designation are consistent with all state and local land use regulations. The proposed amendments also do nothing that allows urban uses on rural land, thereby implementing Policies 3.4.9 and 3.4.23. The application of DCC Title 18 to any development proposed on Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial designated land will ensure that the development approved is consistent with the requirements set forth under Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 to not adversely affect surrounding area agricultural or forest land, or the development policies limiting building size (Policies 3.4.14; 3.4.30), sewers (Policies 3.4.18; 3.4.31 and .35), and water (Policies 3.4.19; 3.4.31) intended to limit the scope and intensity of development on rural land. The proposed amendments are consistent with the parts of DCCP Chapter 3 not directly affected by the amendments. III. CONCLUSION The decisions by LUBA and the Court of Appeals in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2016-012, August 10, 2016), aff'd, 288 Or App 378, 379-80, _ P3d _ (2017), held that Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan does not give the county the authority to approve applications for the Rural Industrial designation on land that was located outside of three existing exception areas expressly identified in the plan. LUBA explained that there was nothing that inherently prohibits the county from approving such changes, but that the DCCP must be amended to allow the county to do so. Given that the DCCP language used within the section for Rural Commercial land use mirrors the language used in the section for Rural Industrial land use, the Board of County Commissioners conclude it is necessary to also amend DCCP Rural Commercial provisions. The purpose of these amendments to Section 3.4 Rural Economy is to ensure that the county can approve applications for the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation that meet the requirements of State Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County code, in order to promote economic development in the county. Based upon the above findings, the Board of County Commissioners concludes that the proposed amendments are consistent with applicable State Statutes, the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative Rules and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. PAGE 15 of 15 — EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE 2018-008 Attachment 2: Public Comment Received to Date Comp Plan Text Amendment, 247 -18 -000404 -PA June, 12th 2018 Dear Deschutes County Planning Commissioners, I would like to lend my support to amend the text to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as referenced above. Allowing the decision makers to have the authority to process and approve land use applications for rural industrial or rural commercial uses in Deschutes County is a lawful act by State law, if the criteria of State and County regulations are met. All of the protection for residences, wild life and the environment must be addressed and weighed throughout the rezone process. The Right to rezone appropriate lands by the County and the land owner must be obtainable. The intent of the Comp Plan as written beginning in the late 70's was to allow rezoning, in so far as, County Code was created with allowable uses for RIIRC with limitations and restrictions. However, the correct wording fell short when challenged at the State level according to LUBA and the Court of Appeals. I am submitting with this letter of support; a copy of an Editorial published on May, 31st 2018 from the Bend Bulletin. I believe the majority of public opinion also supports allowing qualifying rezoning, once the Comp Plan text is amended. Thank you for your time and dedication to Deschutes County. Bend Bulletin Published May 31, 2018 at 09:41PM / Updated June 1, 2018 at 09:59AM Editorial: Make the change, then change the zoning Tony Aceti's property lies at the intersection of U.S. Highway 97 and Tumalo Road. It's zoned for farm use, though Aceti says it's unsuitable for farming. He's been trying for years to have it rezoned for rural industrial uses, a move that's been opposed by Central Oregon LandWatch. Now the Deschutes County Commission, which agrees with Aceti, is preparing to try again. The change makes sense. Its last effort ended in an October 2017 decision by the state Court of Appeals that said Deschutes County's comprehensive land -use plan explicitly limits rural industrial land to three areas, none of which includes the Aceti property. it's difficult to make a convincing argument that any land in Aceti's area is really rural. The highway is dotted with businesses. As for Aceti's property, there's development nearby, everything from Willamette Graystone to a school to the Funny Farm. Allowing a change in the type of development allowed on Aceti's property would not change the complexion of the neighborhood. Nor would doing so somehow put the county on a slippery slope to commercial development everywhere. Rather, the change would simply acknowledge the reality: The area is far from rural, and development in it is a reasonable idea. Language in the comprehensive plan must be changed to give commissioners the right to allow rural industrial development outside the areas listed in the current plan. County officials need the ability to make changes to zoning when it's sensible to do so. Officials should have the ability to recognize reality and act accordingly. The county planning commission held a work session on the proposal May 24, and the planning commissioners are expected to hold a public hearing on it June 14. 1,T_Q h b ) 11 "11.4 -AA -14y t.;t ct. ctxvo 114-076-% tl l '� t.. Ct_,lA, V1 rWCt IVL Cw 7k'.1 ,-1Oi-- J kl� ou cqk '(-)1 Werwg June 14, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 Re: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments Dear Chair and Commissioners, On behalf of the Central Oregon Association of REALTORS® (COAR) — representing nearly 1,800 REALTORS® in Deschutes County — thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments. We support the amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and believe a process should exist; whereby property owners can initiate a plan/zone change to allow rural commercial and rural industrial uses on properties that can demonstrate compliance with state and local land use regulations. Currently demand is outstripping supply in the area's commercial/industrial market, and we believe it is prudent to re-evaluate agricultural lands that are not viable for farming to determine if they represent opportunities for other uses. We encourage the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the amendments be adopted. Thank you for your service to Deschutes County, as well as your consideration of the local real estate community's input. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 541-382-6027 or info@coar.com. Sincerely, Bill Bellamy President Central Oregon Association of REALTORS® & MLS of Central Oregon I Brent Landels Chair, Government Affairs Committee Central Oregon Association of REALTORS® & MLS of Central Oregon 1 ,1 LAN DWATC H June 13, 2018 Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 via email www.centraloregonlandwatch.org re: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments Dear Chair Crawford and Commissioners, The proposed amendments to the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designations are not permissible under Statewide Planning Goal 14. The current code and plan describe the historical circumstances under which existing industrial or commercial land uses, that would otherwise not have been permitted under current land use planning laws, were made "exception areas" and were designated with the titles "Rural Industrial" and "Rural Commercial." The text of the plan and code describing the historical creation of these designations cannot be altered. The history of the designations occurred as it occurred. See the comprehensive plan, section 3.4: "Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial: In Deschutes County there are a handful of properties zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws...." The proposed changes attempt to rewrite history. For example, the current comprehensive plan, section 3.4 explains: "The Rural Commercial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries." The amendments propose changing this wording to: "The county may apply the Rural Commercial plan designation to property within specific existing exception areas or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change as set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes 2 County Development Code and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries." As written, the plan is a description of how the designations were created. The uses in the designations could not have been placed where they are under current land use law. The designations are simply artifacts of past land uses that were brought into compliance through designation. Because they are only a description of the designation given to existing uses, these areas cannot be expanded. The plan and code are acknowledged because assigning a designation to exception area uses that predated the state land use planning laws is permissible under Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14. By contrast, creating a new industrial or commercial zone out of whole cloth when there is an existing supply of industrial and commercial lands within urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities is contrary to the Statewide planning goals and related laws. Therefore the proposed plan and text amendments should be denied. Thank you for your attention to these views. Sincerely, z m„iA Carol Macbeth Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch June 26,2018 JUN 2 ' 2018 Deschutes County Commissions: We are the employee from V Works Mobile Mix Concrete and Millwood, LLC. We are with James Verheyden in hoping you amend Deschutes County Comprehensive plan. To allow Mr. Verheyden to develop his property on Highway 97. It would help his companies to grow, and that would allow him to add more employees and help Deschutes county to grow too. We are strong in support for the plan to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan to allow for potential designation of new Rural industrial or Rural Commercial properties. th get, 44/14.464-61- ofnircze›-zjx.„4, F a&free.6,m--e-/z kiAtA-1.) y Se_6(kc Al c C ►/ ignd Kr,s4ot llgy J L vdiyi,3PP & tt JAIiThe,„S SUPPORT LETTER June 4th 2018 Dear Deschutes County Planning Commissioners, RE: Comp Plan text Amendment, 247 -18 -000404 -PA For the Record; We are in support of having the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amended to allow qualifying properties to be rezoned to Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial within the County. By allowing new properties to be rezone to RI or RC uses makes good sense for the people of Deschutes County for needed services and jobs, this would help with economic and plan development as Deschutes County continues to grow and develop in the rural areas. We own many properties in the rural areas, including RC and MUA 10 at Deschutes Junction. We would someday like to expand or rezone our properties, as they have been used for commercial uses for over 70 years. The built overpass, and soon to be, constructed round -a- bouts on Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place, Tumalo Road/Old Bend Redmond Hwy and other transportation improvements near Deschutes Junction lends themselves to safe access for added rural services to serve the people of the area and keep up with growth. We have attended many meetings and hearings about planning/Master Planning Deschutes Junction and have supported Mr. Aceti's rezone attempts of his property at Deschutes Junction. Amending the Comp Plan should be of highest importance for serving the citizens throughout our County. `71 Harry and Bev Fagen 53 NW Tumalo Ave, Bend, OR. 97701 Cell: 541-350-3682 Patricia A. Kliewer, MPA, 60465 Sunridge Drive Bend, OR 97702 541 — 617- 0805 Sent by Email June 26, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Commission c/o Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Re: 247 -18 -000404 -PA / Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments Dear Planning Commissioners: I support the proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP") and encourage the Planning Commission to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments as proposed. This written testimony adds some new information and commits to writing some of my oral testimony on the same topic on June 14, 2018. I have been a land use planner since 1989. After working as a planner for two engineering companies, several cites, and Deschutes County, I am presently a co-owner and Principal Planner of Kliewer Engineering and Associate. I have processed over 300 land use applications in my career and have given annual local classes on the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines for many years through Leadership Redmond. I am known for helping to successfully protect significant and irreplaceable natural and historic resources. Lest you think I am on opposite sides of COLW, let me tell you that I was awarded the 1000 Friends of Oregon Volunteer of the Year award a while ago and am proud of protecting prime farmland in the Tualatin Valley from ill advised industrial development which resulted in a landmark win at LUBA and the Court of Appeals. I appreciated being able to speak to you at your public hearing about new language that will fix outdated wording in the current County Comprehensive Plan. The current wording appears to not let the BOCC do what the state of Oregon allows them to do, what other counties are doing, and what our BOCC should have the authority to do, and what the BOCC wants to do. The problem with the Comp Plan language was identified by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. (The applicable court opinion is short and is attached at the end of this letter.) I hope this letter will increase your confidence in supporting the County's amendments. I know from my own experience as a Washington County Planning Commissioner that, in order to do your job well, that you are probably reading everything provided to you by the County staff and the public. However, reading or hearing conflicting testimony becomes "business as usual" as you serve on any commission these days. How do you decide who or what is right? I am 1 ED sure you are getting good at that. Unfortunately, it seems that common sense, serving the common good, and what is right are no longer at the top of the list of everyone involved. In this case, the LUBA, Oregon Court of Appeals, the Deschutes County attorneys, all the county planners, Central Oregon Board of Realtors, me, attorney Dan Terrell and all of the people testifying at your hearing seem to all be on the same page, except one. As planners, we know that land use is not a popularity contest. However, in this case, Central Oregon Land Watch is not right and should be partnering in this effort to improve the DCCP. 1 invite COLW to realize this is a legislative matter, not a quasi judicial matter. The County has asked for our opinions early in the process. COLW can help solve the problem. No one is proposing language that would allow rezoning of valuable agricultural or forest lands. A step in any rezone is to professionally evaluate the soil capability of the parcel in question. In the future, if the County does not protect prime farmland in any specific quasi-judicial case, COLW should take a look at being involved to protect it. However, now is the time to join others at the table to fix the problem though the legislative process. COLW is using a knee-jerk approach to oppose everything, put something in the record to become a party -of -record so it can appeal everyone's work later. Occasionally, COLW wins a case and undoes the work of dozens of people. I spent a few hours on line looking at other counties' comp plans and zoning codes about the same issue of rezoning certain rural, non -resource land to RI and RC. I am sure COLW has done or will do that as well. Collaboration, Teamwork. Can COLW try those this time? Let's all work together for the common good. Here are the facts as I see them: Many people do not know that each local government has unique Zoning Codes and Comprehensive Plans. Simply put, within the broad statewide planning goals and the more specific Oregon Revised Statutes passed by the Legislature and the Oregon Administrative Rules passed by LCDC, each local government meets its own situation and needs with its plan and codes. Obviously, as technology and the community changes, the documents need to change as well, and they do. There is more diversity and flexibility for local governments than most people think. To clarify what attorney Dan Terrell wrote to you in his June 22, 2018 letter, the LUBA decision in case # 2016-012 did affirm what the BOCC found, that Tony Aceti's land is not agricultural land. It is rock. There are no resource soils or any other resource to protect there. Every surrounding property owner was directly contacted and is in support of the amendments before you and the Aceti rezone. The school on the adjacent property provided you with a letter of support for these plan amendments. The school supported the Aceti application for a zone change. COLW does not represent them. The statement to the contrary in the Bulletin was in error. LUBA 2016-012 also said that the County does not need to take an exception to Goal 14 (Urbanization) when it rezones land from EFU to RI, if the applicant proposed a use that is on the list of outright permitted or conditional uses allowed by the RI zoning code. That is because the County's Rural Industrial code has already been approved by DLCD, is consistent with State law, and allows only those uses appropriate for and allowed in the rural area. The specific uses listed in the RI zone as outright permitted and conditional RURAL uses are just that, rural, not 2 urban, so no exceptions to Goal 14 for urban uses are needed. In other words, Rural Industrial uses in our code are not urban uses. LUBA explicitly rejected COLW's argument that all RI uses are urban. COLW doesn't seem to know that other county comprehensive plans and procedures for zoning changes have been allowing zone changes from non-agricultural land to RI and RC for decades. Those comp plans and codes have been acknowledged by DLCD. Zone changes to RI and RC that were granted by the counties under the other county codes, such as Lane County and Douglas County, have been upheld by LUBA. Allowing zone changes to RI and RC is rare and difficult, but it is allowed by state statutes and administrative rules. Why would the County want to rezone a parcel? There are several reasons. One is that when the zoning was initially applied across the rural county, a detailed parcel -by -parcel soils analysis or inspection of rock outcroppings and surface rock were impossible to do in the time allowed for the activity and with the County's project budget. Broad swaths of land were zoned the same based on existing soils maps, and it was only an educated guess which lands would be productive and which ones were not, and where irrigation water was available and where it was not. Now, when a particular land owner finds that a parcel is unproductive, or farming is impractical, he/she can provide the county with more site-specific information to get the zoning right for that parcel. Changes in circumstances and changes in the surrounding land uses are also reasons for a rezone. There are others. Comprehensive plans for other counties have wording that more clearly allows zone changes to RC and RI, and they have done so since the mid 1970s. A new statewide twist is that the zone changes can be also allowed in certain cases for economic development and job creation. Dan Terrell cited specific recent cases that demonstrate the County's ability to rezone rural properties to RI or RC in Lane County and Douglas County. The main point is that it is possible for the counties to rezone land to RI and RC county -wide when the criteria to do so is met. My next point is that the existing Deschutes County code has adequate criteria for any future application for a zone change to RI or RC and we do not need to change that. 1 prepared the Aceti application and it was 334 pages long, including the Soils Analysis and the Traffic Impact Study. The point is the criteria are onerous and extensive. It is right for the County to allow the zone changes when the extensive criteria are met. But, few people will ever apply for a zone change from EFU or another zone to RI or RC. Why? 1. It is hard to do because the criteria are extensive, and the applicant will have to prove the land is not agricultural land. The criteria include an expensive soils analysis, an analysis of changes in circumstances, an expensive and detailed transportation impact analysis, an analysis of compatibility with surrounding uses, and other things. It is a rare owner who can afford to apply for the zone change; and 2. It is a rare parcel that can meet all the criteria. Here is the list of applicable criteria that I had to address in the 332 pages for the Aceti Application: SECTION 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments 3 * Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications 2. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings * Section 22.24.140, Continuances and Record Extensions C. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan 1. Chapter 2, Resource Management * Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies 2. Chapter 3, Rural Growth * Section 3.7, Transportation System Plan D. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Land Conservation and Development Commission 1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process * OAR 660-004-0010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals * OAR 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas * OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part II (c), Exception Requirements * OAR 660-004-0022, Reasons Necessary to Justify An Exception Under Goal 2, Part II (c) * OAR 660-004-0028, Exception Requirements for Land Irrevocably Committed to Other Uses 2. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule * OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments 3. Division 14, Application of the Statewide Planning Goals to Newly Incorporated Cities, Annexation, and Urban Development on Rural Lands * OAR 660-014-0040, Establishment of New Urban Development on Undeveloped Rural Lands 4. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines 5. Division 33, Agricultural Land * OAR 660-033-0010, Purpose * OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions * OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land 4 By changing the comp plan now, the county can keep up with the times. The comp plan has regular updates and it can be amended whenever circumstances change, new information is presented, a pressing need is identified, and changes are needed. It is an understatement that Deschutes County is growing quickly and its character is changing with the times. To keep up with necessary rural services and to allow appropriate places for permitted rural industrial and rural commercial uses, the BOCC should clearly have the ability and authority to rezone property when it is appropriate and in the best interest of the entire county and all criteria are met. There is a whole chapter on rural economy that the County planner provided to you in your packet. It shows that the rural areas can be used for many purposes, and all of the rural uses benefit one another. It is beneficial to allow appropriate amounts of RC and RI in the rural area when they are compatible and beneficial. Ample media coverage on these amendments has been done and there has been ample time for interested parties to provide testimony to you. It is time to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners hold a hearing and adopt the amendments as proposed. Below is the Opinion of the Oregon Court of Appeals that we are dealing with. You see that it does not say anywhere that the County BOCC cannot by state statute rezone land to RI or RC. It says that the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan does not let them do it. The plan has to be amended in order to give the BOCC the flexibility to do what hearing officers, policy makers, property owners and surrounding property owners think is prudent to do and what meets the codes. Thank you. Sincerely Yours, Pat Kliewer 5 378 October 18, 2017 No. 504 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Respondent Cross -Respondent, v. DESCHUTES COUNTY, Petitioner Cross -Respondent, and Anthony ACETI, Respondent Cross -Petitioner. Land Use Board of Appeals 2017009; A165313 Argued and submitted August 30, 2017. Daniel A. Terrell argued the cause for petitioner -cross - respondent and respondent -cross -petitioner. With him on the joint brief were Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC, and David Adam Smith. Carol Macbeth argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent -cross -respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed on petition and cross -petition. Cite as 288 Or App 378 (2017) 379 PER CURIAM Petitioner Deschutes County and cross -petitioner Aceti (petitioners) seek judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), reversing a decision of the county's board of commissioners. LUBA reversed the county's decision approving a Rural Industrial comprehen- sive plan designation and related zoning for the subject property on the basis that the county's interpretation of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) as per- mitting those changes conflicts with the DCCP's express language. Petitioners jointly contend that LUBA's decision was unlawful in substance because it failed to defer to the county's plausible interpretation of the DCCP. We review LUBA's decision to determine whether it is "unlawful in substance." ORS 197.850(9)(a). LUBA. must accept the county's interpretation of the county's land use regulations unless LUBA determines, among other things, that the county's interpretation is "inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use reg- ulation." ORS 197.829(1)(a). "A LUBA decision is `unlawful in substance' * * * if, in contravention of the standard of review set out at ORS 197.829(1), LUBA substitutes its own interpretation of a local government's land use regulations for a plausible interpretation of those regulations offered by the local gov- ernment. In the face of a claim that LUBA violated that standard, [we] must determine whether the local govern- ment's interpretation in fact is `plausible.'" Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 261, 243 P3d 776 (2010) (emphasis in original). Here, we conclude that the county's interpretation of the DCCP is not plausible because it conflicts with the DCCP's express language. Section 3.4 of the DCCP explains: "In Deschutes County there are a handful of proper- ties zoned Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These designations recognize uses that predated State land use laws. New commercial or industrial sites are controlled by State regulation and additional development is anticipated to be minimal and only for specific sites, such as around the Bend Airport." 380 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County Section 3.4 then describes the Rural Industrial designation as follows: "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the follow- ing acknowledged exception areas. "Redmond Military "Deschutes Junction "Bend Auto Recyclers" The subject property in this case is not one of the three listed exception areas. Based on the text of the introductory paragraph, the county interpreted the DCCP's Rural Industrial desig- nation to apply to new rural lands outside an urban growth boundary or an unincorporated community. However, such a broad interpretation conflicts with the express language of the DCCP, which applies the Rural Industrial designation only to the enumerated exception areas. Thus, LUBA prop- erly applied its standard of review in reversing the county's decision that approved a Rural Industrial designation for a property not specifically enumerated in section 3.4 of the DCCP. Affirmed on petition and cross -petition. June 13, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 Re: 247 -18 -0004 -04 -PA To Whom It May Concern: We write this letter in support of a text plan amendment to grant the Deschutes County Commissioners the authority to make changes to the Deschutes County Comp Plan. We have lived in the Starwood subdivision for over 23 years which is within one mile of the Deschutes Junction and Highway 97. We have watched Bend and its surrounding areas grow and the traffic become more and more crowded and hectic. Highway 97 is being developed all the way between Bend and Redmond at a very fast rate. We have always said that it is a shame that Tony Aceti has not been able to develop his corner with some sort of commercial development. There are commercial developments on the other corners of this junction and along the entire stretch of highway. We, and a large portion of people that live in this area (approximately 1,800 people?), would love the opportunity to support local businesses that could be located at the Junction and stay off of Highway 97 and Highway 20 to avoid traffic and headaches. Again, we are in support of the text plan amendment and in any further actions necessary for Tony Aceti's right to the use of his property. Thank you for your time and support of this very important issue. Sincerely, RANDY REED 64708 Alcor Place Bend, OR 97703 LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4th AVENUE, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL BK: 541.343.8596 TEL DT: 541.844.6372 WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM May 30, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Commission c/o Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 BILL KLOOS BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM DAN TERRELL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON.COM Sent by Email Re: 247 -18 -000404 -PA / Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments Dear Planning Commissioners: Our firm represents Tony Aceti, the applicant in the proceeding that led to the LUBA and Court of Appeals Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County decisions that uncovered the issue that made these text amendments proposed by planning staff necessary. Mr. Aceti supports the amendments and encourages the Planning Commission to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments. The amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan proposed by 247 -18- 000404 -PA are straight -forward — they simply give the county the authority to make the types of decisions that every other county in Oregon can make. The amendments allow the county to approve applications for a plan/zone change to allow rural commercial and rural industrial uses on properties throughout Deschutes County that can demonstrate compliance with state and local land use regulations. As LUBA explained in its Central Oregon LandWatch decision, the current comprehensive plan does not grant the county the authority to say yes to such applications, even if the standards are met, and the county must amend the DCCP if it wants that authority. As LUBA also noted, nothing prevents the county from so amending the DCCP. Perhaps examples of how other counties are exercising their authority to approve plan/zone changes for rural commercial and rural industrial uses are worth noting. Just recently, Lane County approved a plan/zone change from rural residential to rural industrial to allow for the expansion of a small commercial trucking terminal and repair facility on rural land. Without the adoption of these amendments, Deschutes County will not be able to approve a similar application for property located outside of specific exception areas expressly identified in the current Comprehensive Plan. For another example, not only does Douglas County allow such changes in plan designations, the Douglas County Land Use Development Ordinance (LUDO) allows for hearings on quasi-judicial plan amendment applications "that would promote new Deschutes County Planning Commission May 30, 2018 Page 2 of 2 industries which create new employment opportunities or economic diversification" to be set outside of the normal plan change hearing schedule to expedite such applications. See, LUDO 6.300(2). Deschutes County should be able to consider and approve the types of applications that other counties can, so long as an application demonstrates that it satisfies all state and local requirements for such a change. The Planning Commission should understand that the proposed amendments allow the county to make decisions county -wide, it is not limited to a particular property or even a specific part of the county. While the problem with the plan language was identified through a particular land use application proceeding, which is often the case, the identified problem is a county -wide problem that requires a county -wide fix. The proceeding that initially flagged this issue, is over. Importantly, these amendments do not authorize a change in the plan designation or zoning for any property in the county. They are purely administrative in nature. Ultimately, a property owner will have to submit a separate application if they desire to change the plan designation and zoning for their property to allow rural commercial or rural industrial uses. That application will undergo review by the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant will ultimately have to demonstrate compliance with all applicable state and local land use regulations through a public process. What these amendments do is simply provide the county the authority to say yes to an application that demonstrates compliance with all of the mandatory approval criteria. It is also worth noting that successful applications to the rural commercial or rural industrial designation will be rare. The state and local approval standards are demanding. But the DCCP states that Deschutes County wishes to pursue opportunities for economic development throughout the county however scarce they may be. These amendments will grant the county the ability to implement that policy. The adoption of these amendments will return policy decision making back to the county so that it can pursue the full range of economic opportunities that state regulations say the county may pursue. The text amendments restore the full range of land use planning tools to the county and authorize the county to make choices about what types of uses are best suited for any given property within the limits imposed by the state and the county's own land use regulations. Mr. Aceti urges the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that these amendments be adopted. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Terrell LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4th AVENUE, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL BK' 541.343.8596 TEL DT: 541.844.6372 WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM June 22, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Commission c/o Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 BILL KLOOS BI LLKLOOS@iLANDUSEOREGON.COM DAN TERRELL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON.COM Sent by Email Re: 247 -18 -000404 -PA / Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Text Amendments Dear Planning Commissioners: Our firm represents Tony Aceti, who supports the proposal and encourages the Planning Commission to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP"). This written testimony supplements the May 20, 2018 letter previously submitted on Mr. Aceti's behalf. This letter addresses three issues that have arisen since our previous testimony was submitted. Plan and zone changes away from farm or forest designations arc difficult to obtain. 1 understand that one of the Planning Commissioners requested that staff present background about the County's plan designation change and zone change process for individual properties. Please allow me to offer an attorney's perspective, as one who often advises clients hoping to change the plan designation and zoning on their property, to supplement staff's presentation. The general presumption in rural areas is that rural land will be put to resource use — either fanning or forestry use. Under state law, there are really only four ways to take property out of a farmland or forest land designation. They are: (1) take an exception to Goal 3 and/or 4; (2) demonstrate that the land does not qualify as either agricultural land or forest land; (3) annex the property into an urban growth boundary; or (4) convert a former mill -site in certain conditions. Each of the above involve very factually intensive inquiries. For example, if your property is not a former mill -site, you can forget about approach (4). Furthermore, the approval standards under any of the above approaches are very demanding; each have different standards, but each is demanding. Which is as it should be given the state's stated intention of protecting Deschutes County Planning Commission June 22, 2018 Page 2 of 3 resource lands for future resource use. As a result, most potential clients I speak with who want to apply for a plan and zone change away from resource land do not qualify for one under any of the approaches and we advise them to not even try. But the above begs the question, "What of those very few properties that do satisfy all the factual and legal requirements that, under state law, allow them to change the plan and zone designation to something other than a resource designation?" The answer to that should simply be to allow for a plan and zone change to designations that make planning sense. The number of those properties that qualify will be low, but those property owners should be able to make reasonable use of their property in a manner that is consistent with planning and land use principles. The reason these amendments are before you is that LUBA and the Court of Appeals have said that the County has intentionally tied its hands by the language used in the DCCP. That language prohibits the county from_ approving changes to rural industrial or rural commercial designations outside of existing exception areas expressly identified in the comprehensive plan. LUBA has also said that nothing in state law requires the County to have its hands tied in this manner, but it must amend the plan to have that authority. These amendments will afford the County the full range of planning options in those few instances when a property can satisfy the stringent factual and legal requirements for such a change. The Bend Bulletin articles miss the main point of the amendments. The Bend Bulletin published an article and opinion piece prior to the public hearing. Whale I appreciate general public interest in land use matters and greater public awareness of the frustrations my client has had in trying to put his property (which has qualified under the not - agricultural land (number (2)) approach described above) to productive use under different zoning, I must repeat the main point of my previous testimony — these amendments are not about any individual property or individual land use decision. From that perspective, the Bend Bulletin articles miss the main point of these amendments. These amendments address only the County's authority and ability to say yes to a plan and zone change that allows rural industrial or rural commercial uses when an applicant demonstrates that the proposal complies with all state and local requirements for such changes. The amendments do no more than that. The Bend Bulletin articles more appropriately describe specific examples that show why these amendments are necessary. However, these amendments are about the County's authority to approve certain types of applications, not about the situation of any particular property or group of properties. The l Deschutes s County ('onipi ehe.nsive Plan is not an untouchable document. The Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") letter dated June 13, 2018, characterizes the DCCP as an inflexible, historical document and that the rural commercial and rural industrial Deschutes County Planning Commission June 22, 2018 Page 3 of 3 designations are "artifacts of past land uses" that cannot be expanded or applied elsewhere. Even worse, the COLW letter contends that creating new industrial or commercial zones in the county "is contrary to the Statewide planning goals and related laws." Both statements are wrong. Comprehensive Plans are dynamic planning documents that guide both long-term and immediate land use decision making in the county. While it is a touch stone for county planning, its provisions are not written in stone. The DCCP has been amended in the past and it will be amended in the future to reflect planning responses to situations such as employment and recreational opportunities, population growth and transportation needs that will arise in the future. The Statewide Planning Goals and related land use laws recognize and allow for counties and cities to appropriately respond to local changing needs. This is done through the amendment and acknowledgment process. COLW is wrong to suggest otherwise. COLW's position about rural industrial and rural commercial uses repeats positions that LUBA has rejected in its decisions. Underlying their rigid opposition to rural commercial and rural industrial uses is the argument that all rural industrial uses are categorically "urban" uses that require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14 in all instances. That extreme position has been rejected repeatedly in case law, most recently in the Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County decision which COLW "won" when LUBA concluded the County did not have the authority to say yes to the application, even if it met all state and local land use regulations. As LUBA and the courts have held, rural industrial uses are generally limited by the range of permitted uses and the intensity of development to therefore constitute "rural" levels of use, not "urban" levels of use. LUBA in its recent decision also rejected COLW's contention made here that new rural industrial or rural commercial uses on rural land are not permissible under the Statewide Planning Goals and related laws. LUBA expressly stated that there is nothing inherently wrong in a county approving such plan and zone changes to new rural areas so long as the appropriate standards have been met, but that if Deschutes County wants to do so for areas other than the three existing exception areas expressly identified in the DCCP, the County will have to first amend the DCCP to give the County the authority to make such a decision, because the language as it exists now prohibits the County from doing so. These amendments are simply doing what LUBA has said the County could do. COLW is wrong to say that approval of these amendments violates state law. Mr. Aceti urges the Planning Commission to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that these amendments be adopted. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Dan Terrell From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Nicole: Daniel Terrell Nicole Mardell Peter Gutowskv; Adam Smith Rural Commercial/Rural Industrial Text Amendments Monday, July 23, 2018 10:35:30 AM Aceti-Countv Board Letter - 2018-07-23 Submitted.odf ATT00001.htm Attached please find a letter and attachment for entry into the record for the Rural Commercial/Rural Industrial Text Amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan that are going to the County Board next month. Please include them in the Commissioners' packet for the work session on the matter. To let you know, I am planning on attending the hearing on August 20th. Please let me know if you have any difficulties opening the attached document or other questions about the materials. Thank you for your assistance. Best, Dan LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4th AVENUE, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL: 541.343.8596 WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM July 23, 2018 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Community Development Building 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 DAN TERRELL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON.COM BILL KLOOS BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM Re: 247 -18 -000404 -PA / Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Dear Chair and Commissioners: Our firm represents Tony Aceti, the applicant in the proceeding that led to the LUBA and Court of Appeals Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County' decisions that uncovered the issue that made these text amendments proposed by planning staff necessary. Mr. Aceti supports the amendments and encourages the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the amendments and to make them effective immediately upon adoption. The sole purpose of the amendments, as explained in the purpose statement in Section 1 of the findings, is to give the county the authority to approve site specific applications to plan designate and zone property to rural commercial or rural industrial uses so long as the application is consistent with all state and local land use regulations. The purpose statement also explains that these amendments do not change the plan designation or zoning for any property within Deschutes County or otherwise authorize any development in the county. Future plan/zone change applications will have to go through the application approval processes. While the proposed amendments are fairly straight -forward and only grant the County Commissioners the authority you thought you had prior to the recent Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County decisions, several questions were raised during the Planning Commission proceedings that warrant comment at the early stages of your deliberations. These comments are listed in bullet -points below. These amendments are lawful. • LUBA said the county can amend the comprehensive plan to give itself the authority granted by these amendments. See, Attachment 1, p. 15 (highlighted). 1 Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017), aff'd 288 Or App 378, 405 P3d 197 (2017). Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 23, 2018 Page 2 of 2 • Other counties have this authority. My submissions to the Planning Commission discuss examples from Lane County and Douglas County. There are others. • The findings explain why the amendments are consistent with the DCCP and with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and state -level land use regulations. Approval of these amendments will not result in a flood of development applications. • Under Oregon law there are only four ways to take property out of farmland or forest land designation. • Each approach has very high legal standards and require factually intensive inquiries. Very few properties can meet these requirements. • These amendments allow you to approve those few applications that can. COLW is wrong when it keeps asserting that all industrial uses are urban levels of use. • See, Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014) and Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922, 931 (1989)(rejecting the argument that industrial uses are inherently urban in nature). • Certainly, some industrial and commercial uses must locate in urban areas. Likewise, some industrial uses, primarily resource-based, must locate in rural areas. • The remaining range of industrial or commercial uses may constitute a rural level of use based on the nature and intensity of the use and development. That is what the comprehensive plan and land use regulations are intended to guarantee — that approved rural industrial and rural commercial uses keep the land as rural land. • The majority of industrial uses will still occur within urban growth boundaries. One final request. We encourage the County Commissioners to make these comprehensive plan amendments effective immediately upon adoption instead of after the exhaustion of all appeals (i.e., acknowledgment). Unfortunately, it appears as if these minor amendments will be appealed. The appeals process will take time. Implementing the amendments immediately will allow parties to prepare and submit applications for review (itself a time-consuming process). The appeals process will have either played itself out before an application decision is made, or any final decisions that implement the amendments can be made contingent upon the amendments becoming acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Dan Terrell vl I/ Attachments Attachment 1 Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017) Attachment 1 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, 5 Petitioner, 6 vs. 7 8 DESCHUTES COUNTY, 9 Respondent, 10 11 and 12 13 ANTHONY ACETI, 14 Intervenor -Respondent. 15 16 LUBA No. 2017-009 17 18 FINAL OPINION 19 AND ORDER 20 21 Appeal from Deschutes County. 22 23 Carol E. Macbeth, Bend, filed the petition for review and argued on 24 behalf of petitioner. 25 26 No Appearance by Deschutes County. 27 28 Bill Kloos and Dan Terrell, Eugene, filed the response brief, and Bill 29 Kloos argued on behalf of intervenor -respondent. With them on the brief was 30 the Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC. 31 32 HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member; RYAN, Board 33 Member, participated in the decision. 34 35 REVERSED 06/15/2017 36 37 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is 38 governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 1 Opinion by Holstun. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals a decision by the board of county commissioners 4 concerning a 21.59 -acre property located next to Highway 97, between the 5 cities of Redmond and Bend, at Deschutes Junction. The decision changes the 6 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) map designation from 7 Agriculture to Rural Industrial and changes the zoning from Exclusive Farm 8 Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI). 9 FACTS 10 LUBA remanded the county's first decision in this matter. Central 11 Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016) (COLW 12 Aceti 1).1 In that decision LUBA rejected petitioner's assignment of error that 13 challenged the county's findings that the subject property's soils do not qualify 14 as agricultural land that must be protected under Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands). 15 But LUBA sustained petitioner's other assignment of error that challenged the 16 adequacy of the county's Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) 17 exception. The county concluded that the requested Goal 14 exception was 18 justified because the subject property is irrevocably committed to urban uses. 19 In COLW Aceti 1, we concluded that the county failed to provide the required 1 There are a large number of appeals titled Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County. We insert the name of the applicant to help distinguish this case and its predecessor from the others. Page 2 1 explanation for why the subject property, surrounded by relatively low intensity 2 uses, is irrevocably committed to urban uses: 3 "That the required explanation for why the property is irrevocably 4 committed to urban uses is entirely missing is hardly surprising. 5 The subject property is located in the vicinity of a variety of farm 6 and rural non -farm uses and is bordered by Highway 97 and 7 divided by Tumalo Road. In the abstract it is difficult to see how 8 being surrounded by rural uses and roadways could ever 9 irrevocably commit rural land to urban uses, since that requires a 10 finding that 'all rural uses, are impracticable.' VinCEP v. Yamhill 11 County, 215 Or App 414, 425, 171 P3d 368 (2007), quoting 1000 12 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry County), 301 Or 447, 485, 724 13 P2d 268 (1986). We see no reason why at least some of the rural 14 uses in the vicinity of the subject property could not also be 15 developed on the subject property. In a similar vein, the 16 challenged decision applies the Rural Industrial Zone to the 17 property. As explained below, the Rural Industrial Zone was 18 adopted to allow rural industrial uses and ensure the uses allowed 19 in the Rural Industrial Zone are rural rather than urban in nature. 20 To approve a committed exception to Goal 14 to allow urban uses 21 of the property (because all rural uses are impracticable) and then 22 apply a zoning district that was adopted to limit industrial uses to 23 rural industrial uses would appear on its face to be inconsistent. 24 "Whether approving an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 25 14 to allow urban uses of rural land and then applying a zone that 26 was adopted to limit industrial uses to rural industrial uses is 27 inconsistent or not, if the county wants to approve an irrevocably 28 committed exception to Goal 14, it must supply the reasoning that 29 supports the conclusion that the rural use of the property is 30 impracticable, with the result that it is committed to urban uses. 31 That reasoning is missing, and remand is therefore required." 32 COLW Aceti 1, 74 Or LUBA at 170-71 (emphasis in original). 33 Following our remand, the applicant and county abandoned the Goal 14 34 exception, and the county again approved the requested comprehensive plan Page 3 1 and zoning map amendments, and supported that decision with findings that 2 the challenged map amendments do not authorize urban uses and therefore do 3 not require an exception to Goal 14. 4 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5 The central issue presented in the first assignment of error is whether the 6 Rural Industrial DCCP map designation, and thus the corresponding RI zoning 7 designation, is limited to certain existing exception areas that are identified in 8 the DCCP. While one of the three Rural Industrial exception areas identified in 9 the DCCP (Deschutes Junction) is near the subject property, the subject 10 property is not included in any of the three exception areas identified in the 11 DCCP. Petitioner takes the position that the Rural Industrial plan map 12 designation is limited to those three exception areas; the county's decision 13 takes the position that it is not. 14 We note that this issue appears to us to be one that could have been 15 raised in COLW Aceti 1, but was not raised in that appeal. However, intervenor 16 does not argue that this issue is one that could have and should have been 17 raised in COLW Aceti 1, or that LUBA's consideration of that issue has been 18 waived under Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992). 19 Petitioner's first assignment of error also raises other issues, as do its remaining 20 assignments of error, but because the issue described above is dispositive, we Page 4 1 limit our consideration of the first assignment of error to that issue.2 Resolving 2 that issue requires that we set out relevant DCCP text at some length. 3 Chapter 3 of the DCCP is entitled "Rural Growth Management." Section 4 3.4 of the DCCP is entitled "Rural Economy," and includes text addressing the 5 Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial plan designations. We first set out 6 portions of the text addressing the Rural Commercial plan designation, before 7 turning to the Rural Industrial text, because the Rural Commercial text 8 provides context for understanding the Rural Industrial text: 9 "Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial 10 "In Deschutes County there are a handful of properties zoned 11 Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These designations 12 recognize uses that predated State land use laws. New commercial 13 or industrial sites are controlled by State regulation and additional 14 development is anticipated to be minimal and only for specific 15 sites, such as around the Bend Airport. 16 "Rural Commercial 17 "The Rural Commercial plan designation applies to specific 18 exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and 19 urban growth boundaries. The rural commercial uses and services 20 in these areas are limited in size and scope to those that are less 21 intensive than uses allowed in Unincorporated Communities. The 22 uses and densities are limited by the zoning, thereby maintaining 23 rural integrity. 2 For example petitioner argues under the current version of Goal 14, without an exception to Goal 14, all new industrial development is limited to urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities, and the circumstances set out in ORS 197.713 and 197.714 for certain lands that were "planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004." Page 5 1 "The Rural Commercial designation applies to the following 2 acknowledged exception areas: 3 "• Deschutes Junction 4 "• Deschutes River Woods Store 5 "• Pine Forest 6 "• Rosland 7 "• Spring River[.]" Id. (Italics and boldface in original; 8 underscoring added.) 9 DCCP Section 3.4 goes on to explain that Deschutes Junction, Deschutes 10 Woods Store and Spring River exception areas previously were designated as 11 "Rural Service Centers" in the DCCP, but when the Land Conservation and 12 Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the OAR chapter 660, division 22 13 "Unincorporated Communities" administrative rule, and defined "rural service 14 centers" in a way that disqualified these three areas, the three areas were 15 designated Rural Commercial in the DCCP (and zoned Rural Commercial) "to 16 ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than 17 those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022." Id. 18 DCCP Section 3.4 explains that the other two exception areas, Rosland and 19 Pine Forest, are "commercial centers which historically were committed to 20 commercial uses prior to the adoption of zoning regulations," and were 21 designated Rural Commercial in 2002 and 2007. Id. DCCP Section 3.4 then Page 6 1 describes each of the five Rural Commercial designated areas and the 2 surrounding properties.3 3 Relevant text from DCCP Section 3.4 addressing the Rural Industrial 4 plan designation is set out next, below. The county follows the same approach 5 that it did with the Rural Commercial designation, by limiting that designation 6 to specifically identified exception areas. 7 "Rural Industrial 8 "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific 9 exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and 10 urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation 11 and zoning brings these areas into compliance with state rules by 12 adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses 13 allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated 14 communities as defined in OAR 660-022.[4] 15 "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the following 16 acknowledged exception areas. 17 "111 Redmond Military 3 We omit that description of the Rural Commercial areas for brevity, but include the exception area descriptions from the portion of DCCP Section 3.4 addressing the Rural Industrial designation below. 4 A significant area of disagreement between petitioner and the county is whether the RI zone actually limits the industrial uses allowed in the RI zone so that they are less intensive than the uses allowed in unincorporated communities under OAR chapter 660, division 22 and will not constitute "urban uses" that are generally prohibited on rural land by Goal 14. We need not and do not attempt to resolve that disagreement in this opinion. Page 7 1 "❑ Deschutes JunctionFs], 2 "❑ Bend Auto Recyclers 3 "Rural Industrial Designated Areas 4 "The Redmond Military site consists of tax lot 1513000000116 5 and is 35.42 acres, bounded by the Redmond Urban Growth 6 Boundary to the west and agricultural lands (EFU) surrounding the 7 remainder of the property. 8 "The Deschutes Junction site consists of the following tax lots: 9 161226C000107 (9.05 acres), 16126C000106 (4.33 acres), 10 161226C000102 (1.41 acres), 161226C000114 (2.50 acres), 11 portions 161226C000300 (12.9 acres). 161226C000301 (8.93 12 acres), 161226A000203 (1.5 acres) and those portions of 13 161226C000111 located west of the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe 14 railroad tracks (16.45 acres). Generally, the Deschutes Junction 15 site is bordered on the west by Highway 97, on the east by the 16 Burlington Northern Railroad, on the north by Nichols Market 17 Road (except for a portion of 1612226A000111), and on the south 18 by EFU-zoned property owned by the City of Bend. 19 "Bend Auto Recyclers consists of tax lot 1712030000111 and is 20 13.41 acres, bounded by Highway 97 to the west, and Rural 21 Residential (MUA-10) lands to east, north and south." Id. (Italics 22 in original; underscoring added.) 23 Petitioner argued to the county that the subject property cannot be 24 designated Rural Industrial because it is not included in one of the three 25 "acknowledged exception areas" specifically identified above, i.e., the 26 Redmond Military, Deschutes Junction and Bend Auto Recyclers exception 5 As we noted earlier, the subject property is located on the west side of Highway 97, in an area generally referred to as Deschutes Junction. The subject property is located across from the Deschutes Junction Rural Industrial site, which is located on the east side of Highway 97. Page 8 1 areas.6 The county adopted findings to reject that argument and interpreted 2 DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the county to apply the Rural Industrial plan 3 designation to any property, as long as it is located outside urban growth 4 boundaries and outside designated unincorporated communities, and either: (1) 5 does not qualify as agricultural or forest land or (2) is the subject of an 6 exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) or Goal 4 (Forest Lands): 7 "COLW also narrowly reads the following Comprehensive Plan 8 statement: 9 'The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to 10 specific exception areas located outside 11 unincorporated communities and urban growth 12 boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and 13 zoning brings these areas into compliance with state 14 rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain 15 rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than 16 those allowed in unincorporated communities as 17 defined in OAR 660-022.' ['] 18 "COLW focuses on the term `exception area' to contend that RI 19 uses are permitted only in exception areas, despite also arguing 20 that RI uses are permitted only in unincorporated communities. 21 The County Board reads this provision more broadly, giving 22 weight to the language that notes the role state rules have 6 Although the parties do not discuss these exceptions, we assume they were exceptions to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), rather than exceptions to Goal 14 (Urbanization), because the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone are intended to limit industrial uses to those that are rural in nature. Assuming the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone do so, an exception to Goal 14 would be unnecessary. ' This is the same DCCP language that we set out earlier, just before the detailed description in the DCCP of the three Rural Industrial exception areas. Page 9 1 regarding permitted uses. The County Board recognizes, as it did 2 in the decision affirmed by LUBA in this proceeding, that the 3 designation of land as not suitable for agricultural use does not lie 4 solely through the exception process under state rules. The County 5 Board interprets the use of the term exception area in this passage 6 broadly to include any lands that have been lawfully deemed not 7 subject to the resource goals (Goals 3 and 4) for whatever reason. 8 Consequently, the County Board interprets the above 9 comprehensive plan language as not prohibiting the designation of 10 individual properties for rural industrial uses where those 11 properties qualify for such designation because they have either 12 received an exception to Goal 3, or because the provisions of Goal 13 3 do not apply to them because they do not meet the definition of 14 `agricultural land' and are therefore nonresource land. 15 "However, for such properties, [DCCP] Policies 3.4.28, 3.4.31, 16 3.4.32 and 3.4.33 provide standards, which have been incorporated 17 into and implemented by DCC 18.100, that apply to rural 18 industrial development to help ensure that such uses are developed 19 at rural levels of intensity consistent with state rules.[8] While the 8 Those policies are set out below: "Policy 3.4.28 New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation. "Policy 3.4.31 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by [Department of Environmental Quality] approved on-site sewage disposal systems. "Policy 3.4.32 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems. Page 10 1 [DCCP] permits industrial uses in unincorporated communities 2 and in urban areas, it does not prohibit rural industrial uses at rural 3 levels of intensity on rural lands. 4 "COLW's proposed interpretations ignore the plan language and 5 plan policies that most directly address the purpose and 6 application of the Rural Industrial designation to new properties. 7 As presented in the findings, the County Board concludes that the 8 RI designation and zoning is not limited to only unincorporated 9 communities and existing exception areas as COLW asserts." 10 Record 26-27. 11 The above findings mischaracterize some of the arguments petitioner 12 made to the county, and rely on several plan policies that have nothing to do 13 with identifying what properties may be eligible for the Rural Industrial plan 14 designation to conclude that the Rural Industrial plan designation may be 15 broadly applied to any rural lands that are not planned or zoned for resource 16 protection under Goals 3 or 4 and are located outside designated 17 unincorporated communities. 18 We are mindful that our standard of review under ORS 197.829(1) and 19 Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3d 776 (2010) is deferential, and 20 we generally must affirm a county governing body's plausible interpretations 21 of its land use legislation.9 Petitioner briefly mentions Goal 14 in its argument "Policy 3.4.33 Community sewer systems shall not be allowed in Rural Industrial zones." 9 ORS 197.829(1) provides: "The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land Page 11 1 under the first assignment of error and suggests the county's interpretation of 2 DCCP 3.4 is inconsistent with Goal 14, which petitioner contends DCCP 3.4 3 was adopted in part to implement. That may be an attempt by petitioner to 4 invoke ORS 197.829(1)(d). See n 9. But petitioner does not develop that 5 argument other than to argue that all industrial development is urban in nature 6 and requires a Goal 14 exception unless located within an urban growth 7 boundary or a designated unincorporated community. We reject that broad 8 argument. 9 As the arguments are presented under the first assignment of error, our 10 standard of review of the county's interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 is set out 11 at ORS 197.829(1)(a), and the county's interpretation cannot be affirmed if it 12 "[i]s inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan * * *." 13 For the reasons explained below, the county's interpretation of DCCP Section use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government's interpretation: "(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or "(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements." Page 12 1 3.4 "[i]s inconsistent with the express language of' DCCP Section 3.4 which 2 was quoted earlier.10 Given that DCCP language, the county's broad 3 interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the Rural Industrial designation to 4 be applied to any rural lands outside an urban growth boundary or 5 unincorporated community, as long as that rural land is not agricultural or 6 forest land, is implausible and is not affirmable under ORS 197.829(1)(a). 7 It is the county's interpretation, not petitioner's interpretation, which 8 fails to give meaning to the only DCCP language that actually addresses what 9 properties are eligible for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial plan 10 designation. Petitioner emphasized the underscored language in the DCCP 11 language quoted above. See n 10. It may be that language does not expressly 12 foreclose the possibility that the county might be able to identify additional 13 areas that are built or committed to rural industrial development, take an 14 exception to the applicable resource goals, if any, and add those areas to DCCP 15 Section 3.4. However, unless and until that happens it is inconsistent with that 10That DCCP language is set out below: "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries." DCCP Section 3.4 at 11. "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the following [described] exception areas." Id. Page 13 1 DCCP language for the county to apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to 2 sites other than the three identified exception areas. 11 3 The county's reliance on Policies 3.4.28, 3.4.31, 3.4.32 and 3.4.33 as 4 authorizing application of the Rural Industrial plan designation to properties 5 other than the three identified exception areas is difficult to understand. Those 6 policies simply impose limits on development or redevelopment of uses on the 7 three Rural Industrial designated properties; they say nothing about whether the 8 Rural Industrial designation can be applied to properties other than the three 9 identified exception areas. See n 8. 10 We agree with the county that the Rural Industrial plan designation is not 11 limited to unincorporated communities, and in fact we do not understand 11 To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that the county may simply and easily amend DCCP Section 3.4 to add the subject property to the list of eligible areas for the Rural Industrial plan designation. DCCP Section 3.4, as it is currently written, limits the Rural Industrial plan designation to three exception areas that were already developed or committed to industrial uses when the statewide planning program came into existence. It seems highly unlikely that the subject 21.59 -acre property qualifies as such a property. So in addition to adding the subject property to the list of areas eligible for Rural Industrial zoning, DCCP Section 3.4 would need to be amended to broaden the type of property that is eligible for the Rural Industrial designation. Those amendments would be post -acknowledgment plan amendments, subject to a number of legal challenges under the statewide planning goals and the Department of Land Conservation and Development's implementing administrative rules. Petitioner's remaining assignments of error, which we do not reach in this decision, raise a number of legal issues that petitioner likely would raise if the county approves such a post -acknowledgment plan amendment. Page 14 1 petitioner to argue that the Rural Industrial plan designation is appropriately 2 applied within unincorporated communities. Although we need not resolve the 3 issue, we also tend to agree with the county that the Rural Industrial 4 designation is not necessarily limited to the three exception areas listed in 5 DCCP Section 3.4, provided the county first amends DCCP Section 3.4 to 6 remove language that limits application of the Rural Industrial designation to 7 the three identified sites, or expressly broadens application of the Rural 8 Industrial designation to other sites deemed to be eligible under DCC Section 9 3.4 for the Rural Industrial plan designation. But as the DCCP Section 3.4 10 language quoted earlier makes clear, the Rural Industrial designation is a 11 limited purpose map designation, in the sense it is a plan designation that was 12 expressly applied only to three identified areas that had already been built or 13 committed to rural industrial development, and nothing in DCCP Section 3.4 14 purports to authorize its application to other properties in other circumstances. 15 The county's legal theory in this case was not that the 21.59 -acre subject 16 property is already committed to rural industrial use. The county's legal theory 17 in this case is that the Rural Industrial plan designation may be applied to the 18 subject property simply because it is not agricultural land, without regard to 19 whether an exception has been approved for the property because it is built or 20 committed to industrial use and without regard to whether the subject property 21 is identified as an area eligible for the Rural Industrial plan designation in 22 DCCP Section 3.4. That interpretation is inconsistent with the "express Page 15 1 language of the comprehensive plan" that is underscored above and set out at n 2 10. Therefore the county's decision to apply the Rural Industrial designation to 3 the subject property "violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as 4 a matter of law." OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c). 5 The first assignment of error is sustained. 6 REMAINING ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 As the proposal stands under our resolution of the first assignment of 8 error, the geographically limited DCCP Section 3.4 authorization for the Rural 9 Industrial plan designation does not include the subject property. Because our 10 resolution of the first assignment of error requires that the county's decision be 11 reversed, we need not and do not consider petitioner's remaining assignments 12 of error. 13 The county's decision is reversed. Page 16 Three Sisters Adventist Christian School Letter of Support June 11, 2018 Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, 247 -18 -000404 -PA Dear Planning Commissioners, The Three Sisters Seventh Day Adventist School is in support of a Comp Plan Amendment to allow properties that qualify to be rezoned for Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial. We are located near Deschutes Junction on Tumalo Road. As the County continues to expand, so does the needs for goods and services for rural residences without having to travel into the urban areas each time for small necessities. Growth and change is inevitable. Possibly someday our property may be needed for a higher and better use as our needs may change also. Please include our support into the record for these proceedings. Sincerely, Brent Brusett School Board Chairman Nicole Mardell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: verheyden@vworksoregon.com Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:46 AM Nicole Mardell Garrett Chrostek strong support for the plan to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Dear Deschutes County Commissioners 6 24 18.docx Nicole, Please see attached for my letter of support to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, James Richard Verheyden, MD Hand & Upper Extremity Surgeon at The Center Member American Society for Surgery of the Hand Fellow American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons jverheyden@thecenteroregon.com 541-382-3344 (office The Center) President V Works — Mobile Mix Concrete, Excavation, Trucking President Millwood — Forestry, Logging, Sawmill, Firewood, Fuels Reduction verheyden@vworksoregon.com 541-280-4155 (cell) 541-213-2305 (office V Works & Millwood) Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, I am in strong support for the plan to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the potential designation of new Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial properties. Tony Aceti's land has essentially no economic value as farmland. Deschutes County lacks affordable rural industrial land. The current comprehensive plan is having a negative effect on rural Central Oregon economics, job creation, livability and quality of life for the general population, and is negatively affecting the watershed and health of our forests, while increasing the risk for catastrophic wildfire in the area. I had hoped to start a Western Juniper Processing Facility on 4.5 acres of land adjacent to Hwy 97 between Bend and Redmond, several miles north of Mr. Aceti's land in question. This land is very similar to Tony Aceti's land, and creation of this Juniper Processing Facility was halted because the current Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan would not allow a zone change to Rural Industrial. I then contacted Mr. Aceti about potentially purchasing his property a few years ago, so this Juniper Processing Facility could be built. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that the same hurdles that were preventing development of the 4.5 acres were also preventing development on Mr. Aceti's land. As noted above, the current Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan has stifled economic growth and as a result, worsened the quality of life for Central Oregonians. Please change the Comprehensive Plan to allow reasonable and necessary development. The cost for industrial land in the more urban areas of Bend and Redmond is prohibitively expensive for marginal types of businesses. In addition, a couple years ago, I sent several emails and several phone calls about purchasing land in Bend's Juniper Ridge development for this planned project. Unfortunately, the City of Bend apparently was not interested in a Juniper Processing forestry facility, instead preferring more high tech type companies, and never even responded to my emails and phone calls. Jason Yohanna, a Regional Economist noted that "the creation of one Western Juniper removal forestry job has the economic impact equivalent of 208 jobs in Multnomah County." Oregon Labor Market Information. Millwood LLC, my Juniper Removal Forestry Company, currently has 7 people on the payroll. With creation of a Juniper Processing Facility, I could easily triple or quadruple that work force. The economic potential and impact that Deschutes County is not realizing with the current Comprehensive Plan is enormous and could be similar to the creation of 6000 jobs in Portland! I have strong broad based community and bipartisan support for this planned Juniper Processing Facility with letters of endorsement from the following: • Knute Buehler MD, Oregon's potential next Governor • Senator Jeff Merkley and staff • Representative Greg Walden and staff • United States Forest Service, USFS • Central Oregon Interagency Council, COIC • Economic Development Central Oregon, EDCO • Bureau of Land Management, BLM • Oregon State University, OSU • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA NRCS • TSS Consultants • Business Oregon • Sustainable Northwest 60 years ago there were 600,000 acres of Juniper in Eastern Oregon. Now there are over 6,000,000 acres. Unfortunately, Juniper logging/removal does not pencil very well economically. Historically, Juniper trees have been more expensive to cut down than the value of the wood obtained. However, removal of these invasive, fire sensitive, and water consuming trees has numerous benefits including: • Decreases risk for catastrophic wildfire with its risk to structures, people, and the environment. This has the additional benefit of reduced sight and environmental pollution from less wildfire smoke and also saves economic and firefighting resources for higher value forests. There is also an increased wildfire risk and fire intensity behavior in Juniper forests secondary to drier surrounding fuels. • Helps the local watershed. A Juniper tree frequently consumes 40 gallons of water or more every single day! With tens of millions of Juniper trees growing in Central and Eastern Oregon, the negative impact on the watershed is enormous. Juniper removal can significantly improve stream flows and native fish habitat. • Helps the threatened Sage Grouse • Improves plant biodiversity and encourages native grass growth • Improves animal biodiversity • In the transitional forest setting, Juniper removal improves the growth and health of the fire resistant Ponderosa Pine. Please amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the potential designation of new Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial properties. This amendment would hopefully allow Mr. Aceti's land, which is basically worthless as farmland, to be used for a purpose that is beneficial to the community and hopefully, would allow consideration for zone change on similar type of property a few miles north on Hwy 97 for this proposed Juniper Processing Facility which should greatly: • Stimulate the local rural economy with creation of additional forestry and Juniper removal jobs and the creation of usable Juniper products from a tree than many consider worthless. • Decrease wildfire risk -- I am working with the owners of Skyline Forest to remove the Juniper, except for old growth, and precommercially thin this forest to protect the west side of Bend from catastrophic wildfire and hopefully prevent or reduce the risk of another 2 Bulls Fire event. Millwood is also in the earliest stages of discussions to do similar work on USFS land between Skyline forest and Hwy 26, between Tumalo and Sisters. • The above activities would maintain and improve the livability and quality of life for Central Oregon Residents by protecting the green belt of forest that runs from Bend to Sisters and hopefully help preserve that land for the enjoyment and recreation by the community. A lower risk of wildfire would also decrease the environmental, health, and sight pollution caused by wildfire smoke which when present has a significant negative effect on the Central Oregon tourism economy. • Would encourage and promote new forestry uses and improve the health of forests to supplement an economic sector where minimal growth is expected for rural commercial and industrial uses. Thank you, James Richard Verheyden, MD Hand & Upper Extremity Surgeon at The Center Member American Society for Surgery of the Hand Fellow American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons jverheyden@thecenteroregon.com 541-382-3344 (office The Center) President V Works — Mobile Mix Concrete, Excavation, Trucking President Millwood — Forestry, Logging, Sawmill, Firewood, Fuels Reduction verhevden@wworksoregon.co_ m 541-280-4155 (cell) 541-213-2305 (office V Works & Millwood) Attachment 3: Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Zoning Chapters Chapter 18.74. RURAL COMMERCIAL ZONE 18.74.010. Purpose. 18.74.020. Uses Permitted — Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River Woods Store. 18.74.025. Uses Permitted — Spring River. 18.74.027. Uses Permitted — Pine Forest and Rosland. 18.74.030. Development Standards. 18.74.050. Maps. 18.74.010. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and review procedures for development in the Rural Commercial Zone. The Rural Commercial (RC) zone provisions implement the comprehensive plan policies for rural commercial development and associated uses outside of unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. (Ord. 2003-080 §1, 2003, Ord. 2002-019 §2, 2002) 18.74.020. Uses Permitted — Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River Woods Store. B. Uses Permitted Subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116 and 18.128: 1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses. a. Restaurant, cafe or delicatessen. b. Grocery store. c. Tavern. d. Retail sporting goods and guide services. e. Barber and beauty shop. f. General store. g. Video store. h. Antique, art, craft, novelty and second hand sales if conducted completely within an enclosed building. 2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed under section B(1)(a-h), existing as of 11/05/2002, the date this chapter was adopted, shall be limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building as of said date, whichever is greater. 3. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses. a. Retail sales of agricultural or farm products. b. Farm machinery sales and repair. c. Kennel. d. Veterinary clinic. e. Automobile service station and repair garage, towing service, fuel storage and sales. f. Public or semi-public use. g. Residential use in the same building as a use permitted by this chapter. h. Park or playground. 4. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed under section B(3)(a-h), existing as of 11/05/2002, the date this chapter was adopted, shall be limited to 3,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building as of said date, whichever is greater. C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116, 18.124 and 18.128: Chapter 18.74 1 (6/2016) 1. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses. a. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. b. Utility facility. c. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B). d. Child care center. e. Church. f. School. 2. Recreational vehicle park 3. Mini -storage facilities limited to 35,000 square feet in size. 4. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. (Ord. 2016-015 §7, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §7, 2015; Ord. 2008-008 §1, 2008; Ord. 2004-002 §20, 2004; Ord. 2002-019 §2, 2002) 18.74.025. Uses Permitted — Spring River. A. Uses Permitted subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116 and18.124: 1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses: a. Fishing supplies and equipment. b. Snowmobiling accessories. c. Marine accessories. d. General store. e. Hardware store. f. Convenience store with gas pumps. g. Fast food restaurant, cafe, or coffee shop. h. Recreational rental equipment store. i. Excavation business. j. Landscaping business/service. k. Health care service. 1. Beauty shop. m. Video store. o. Post office. p. Party supply. q. Equipment sales and rental. r. Appliance store. s. Bank. t. Exterminator. u. Private mailing and packaging store. v. Bakery. 2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in section A(1)(a-v), existing as of 11/05/02, the date this chapter was adopted, shall be limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building as of said date, whichever is greater. 3. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses: a .Pet and livestock supply. b. Farm machinery sales and repair. Chapter 18.74 2 (6/2016) 4. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in section A(3)(a-b), existing as of 11/05/02, the date this chapter was adopted, shall be limited to 3,500 square feet of floor space or 25 percent of the size of the building as of said date, whichever is greater. B. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116, 18.124 and 18.128: 1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses: a. Full service gas station with automobile repair services. b. Welding shop. c. Mini-storage units d. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. 2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in section B(1)(a-c), existing as of 11/05/02, the date this chapter was adopted, shall be limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building as of said date, whichever is greater. C. Definitions. For the purposes of DCC 18. 74.120, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Landscaping business/service: Includes designing landscapes, site grading and preparation, placing boulders, planting trees and shrubbery, installing sod, installing irrigation systems and equipment, installing fencing, and landscape maintenance, but does not include on-site cultivation of plants or plant materials or any on-site retail sales. 2. Health care service: A business providing the diagnosis, treatment and care of physical and/or mental disease, injury and/or disability, but not including a hospital facility or a nursing home as defined in DCC 18.04. 3. Beauty Shop: A full service beauty salon which would include haircuts, permanents, washes, nails, etc., and the retail sales of incidental beauty supplies typical of any beauty salon. 4. Mini-storage units: Self service mini-storage units of various sizes from 5' x 10' up to 12' x 24'. 5. Video store: The sale and rental of videotapes, compact disc movies and audio books. 6. Laundry and dry cleaners: Dry cleaners, shirt laundry and laundromat with self-service washers and dryers along with the sale of detergents, bleaches, etc. 7. Post office: United States Postal Service office including mail pick-up and distribution. 8. Party supply: The sale and rental of party supplies such as balloons, streamers, costumes, dishes, linens and silverware. 9. Equipment sales and rental: The rental of construction, home repair and maintenance equipment such as ladders, mowers, saws, gardening supplies, etc., and the sales of related equipment. 10. Appliance store: The sale and service of household appliances such as televisions, ranges, refrigerators, etc. 11. Bank: Full service consumer bank for checking, savings, loans, safety deposit boxes, etc. 12. Exterminator: Exterminator of insects and other pests such as rodents, spiders, etc. 13. Private mailing and packaging store: Private mail boxes and packaging services, which would include the holding and distribution of mail, packing, mailing supplies, FEDEX and UPS pick-up, and FAX and copy machine availability. 14. Bakery: The manufacture and sale of bread, donuts and pastries. 15. Pet and livestock supplies: The sale of pet supplies such as dog and cat food, collars, grooming needs, shelters and some large animal supplies such as hay, feeds and grains. Chapter 18.74 3 (6/2016) (Ord. 2016-015 §7, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §7, 2015; Ord. 2008-008 §1, 2008; Ord. 2006-008 §7, 2006; Ord. 2002-019 §2, 2002; Ord. 97-015 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-046 §1, 1996; Ord. 96-023 §1, 1996) Section 18.74.027. Uses Permitted — Pine Forest and Rosland. A. Uses Permitted Outright. Any use listed as a use permitted outright by DCC 18.74.020(A). B. Uses Permitted subject to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116 and 18.124: 1. A building or buildings each not exceeding 2,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses that serve the surrounding rural area or the travel needs of persons passing through the area: a. Eating and drinking establishments. b. Retail store, office and service establishments. c. Marijuana wholesaling, office only. There shall be no storage of marijuana items or products at the same location. 2. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing as of 11/05/2002 shall be limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building (or portion of the building) housing the nonconforming use as of said date, whichever is greater. 3. A building or buildings each not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any combination of the following uses: a. Sales of agricultural or farm products. b. Farm machinery sales and repair. c. Kennel or veterinary clinic. d. Automobile service station, repair garage, towing service, fuel storage and fuel sales. e. Public or semi-public use. f. Residential use in the same building as a use permitted in this chapter. g. Park or playground. 4. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing as of 11/05/2002 shall be limited to 3,500 square feet each or 25 percent of the size of the building (or portion of the building) housing the nonconforming use as of said date, whichever is greater. C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116, 18.124 and 18.128: 1. A building or buildings each not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor space to be used by any of the following uses: a. Home occupation as defined in DCC 18.04. b. Utility facility. c. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B). d. Child care center. e. Church. f. School. g. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. 2. Recreational vehicle park. 3. Mini -storage facilities limited to 35,000 square feet in size. (Ord. 2016-015 §7, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §7, 2015, Ord. 2008-008 §1, 2008; Ord. 2007-007 §1, 2007; Ord. 2003-080, §1, 2003) Chapter 18.74 4 (6/2016) 18.74.030. Development Standards. A. Yard Standards. 1. Front Yard. The front yard shall be 20 feet for a property fronting on a local road right-of-way, 30 feet for a property fronting on a collector right-of-way and 80 feet for a property fronting on an arterial right-of-way. 2. Side Yard. A side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet, except a lot or parcel with a side yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm use or forest use shall have a minimum side yard of 50 feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard shall be 20 feet, except a lot or parcel with a rear yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm use or forest use shall have a minimum side yard of 50 feet. B. Existing Residential and Commercial Lots. On-site sewage disposal. For existing lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to approval of a site plan or conditional use permit. C. New Lot Requirements 1. Residential Uses. a. The minimum lot size is one (1) acre. b. On-site sewage disposal. For new lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to final approval of a subdivision or partition. c. 2. Commercial and Public Uses. a. The minimum lot size for a commercial use served by an on-site septic system and individual well or community water system shall be the size necessary to accommodate the use. b. Each lot shall have a minimum width of 150 feet. c. On-site sewage disposal. For new lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to final approval of a subdivision or partition. D. Solar Setback. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by the applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. F. Lot Coverage. 1.. Lot coverage for dwellings and accessory buildings used primarily for residential purposes shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage for buildings used primarily for commercial and industrial purposes shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal, landscaping, parking, yard setbacks and any other elements under site plan review. 3. Primary and accessory buildings to be used for purposes other than residential, commercial or industrial shall not cover more than 30 percent of the total lot or parcel. G. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. H. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions. I. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting on site shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. J. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with DCC 15.08, Signs. Chapter 18.74 5 (6/2016) (Ord. 2008-008 §1, 2008; Ord. 2007-007 § 1, 2007; Ord. 2006-008 §7, 2006; Ord. 2003-080 §1, 2003, Ord. 2002-019 §2, 2002) 18.74.050. Maps. (Ord. 2007-007 § 2, 2007) (Ord. 2003-080 § 1, 2003) (Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002) Chapter 18.74 6 (6/2016) Chapter 18.100. RURAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE - R -I 18.100.010. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.100.020. Conditional Uses. 18.100.030. Use Limitations. 18.100.040. Dimensional Standards. 18.100.050. Off-street Parking and Loading. 18.100.060. Site Design. 18.100.070. Additional Requirements. 18.100.080. Solar Setback. 18.100.090. Limited Use Combining Zone — Deschutes Junction 18.100.010. Uses Permitted Outright. In an R -I Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright except as limited by DCC 18.100.040, and unless located within 600 feet from a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. A. Farming or forest use. B. Primary processing, packaging, treatment, bulk storage and distribution of the following products: 1. Agricultural products, including foodstuffs, animal and fish products, and animal feeds. 2. Ornamental horticultural products and nurseries. 3. Softwood and hardwood products excluding pulp and paper manufacturing. 4. Sand, gravel, clay and other mineral products. C. Residence for caretaker or night watchman on property. D. Freight Depot, including the loading, unloading, storage and distribution of goods and materials by railcar or truck. E. Contractor's or building materials business and other construction -related business including plumbing, electrical, roof, siding, etc., provided such use is wholly enclosed within a building or no outside storage is permitted unless enclosed by sight -obscuring fencing. F. Ice or cold storage plant. G. Wholesale distribution outlet including warehousing, but excluding open outside storage. H. Welding, sheet metal or machine shop provided such is wholly enclosed within a building or all outside storage is enclosed by sight -obscuring fencing. I. Kennel or a Veterinary clinic. J. Lumber manufacturing and wood processing except pulp and paper manufacturing. K. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. L. Class III road or street project. M. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. N. Marijuana processing of cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid products, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. (Ord. 2016-015 §8, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §8, 2015; Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 2001-039 §12, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 93-043 §16, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991) 18.100.020. Conditional Uses. The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128: Chapter 18.100 1 (6/2016) A. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is located within 600 feet of a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. B. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which involves open storage. C. Concrete or ready -mix plant. D. Petroleum products storage and distribution. E. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into asphaltic concrete or Portland Cement Concrete. F. Commercial feedlot, stockyard, sales yard, slaughterhouse and rendering plant. G. Railroad trackage and related facilities. H. Pulp and paper manufacturing. I. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.020010, which is expected to exceed the following standards: 1. Lot coverage in excess of 70 percent. 2. Generation of any odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights or noise that is perceptible without instruments 500 feet from the property line of the subject use. J. Manufacture, repair or storage of articles manufactured from bone, cellophane, cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, glass, stone, paper, plastic, precious or semiprecious stones or metal, wax, wire, wood, rubber, yarn or similar materials, provided such uses do not create a disturbance because of odor, noise, dust, smoke, gas, traffic or other factors. K. Processing, packaging and storage of food and beverages including those requiring distillation and fermentation. L. Public Landfill Transfer Station, including recycling and other related activities. M. Mini -storage facility. N. Automotive wrecking yard totally enclosed by a sight -obscuring fence. O. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B). P. Utility facility. Q. Manufacturing, storage, sales, rental, repair and servicing of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction or similar rural activities. R. Electrical substations. S. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. T. Marijuana processing including cannabinoid extracts, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 U. Marijuana production in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. (Ord. 2016-015 §8, 2016; Ord. 2004-013, §10, 2004; Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 2001-039 §12, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-063 §3, 1997; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §38, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §15, 1986) 18.100.030. Use Limitations. In an R -I Zone, the following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses: A. Properties subject to a limited use combining zone shall be limited to those uses and conditions specified in the limited use combining zone. B. No use expected to generate more than 30 truck -trailer or other heavy equipment trips per day to and from the subject property shall be permitted to locate on a lot adjacent to or across a street from a residential dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone. Chapter 18.100 2 (6/2016) C. No use shall be permitted that generates more than 20 auto or truck trips during the busiest hour of the day to and from the premises unless served directly by an arterial or collector or other improved street or road designed to serve the industrial use which does not pass through or adjacent to residential lots in a platted subdivision or a residential zone. D. Any use on a lot adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone shall not emit odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights, noise, or similar disturbances perceptible without instruments more than 200 feet in the direction of the affected residential use or lot. E. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.100.020 010 or 030 020 shall be accommodated on the applicant's premises entirely off-street. F. No use permitted by DCC 18.100.020 010 or 030 020 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street or road right of way. G. There shall be only one ingress and one egress from properties accommodating uses permitted by DCC 18.100.020 010 or 030 020 per each 300 feet or fraction thereof of street frontage. If necessary to meet this requirement, permitted uses shall provide for shared ingress and egress. H. All uses permitted by DCC 18.100.020 or 030 shall be screened from adjoining residential uses by a sight -obscuring fence. I. No use shall be permitted to operate for business between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. if located adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling, a lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone except as is consistent with DCC 8.08. J. No use shall be permitted which has been declared a nuisance by state statute, County ordinance or a court of competent jurisdiction. No use requiring contaminant discharge permits shall be approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body prior to review by the applicable state or federal permit -reviewing authority, nor shall such uses be permitted adjacent to or across a street from a residential use or lot. K. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on-site sewage disposal systems. L. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems. (Ord. 2009-008 §2; Ord. 2004-013, §10, 2004; Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.100.040. Dimensional Standards. In an R -I Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: A. The minimum lot size shall be determined subject to the provisions of DCC 18.100.050. B. No conditional use permitted by DCC 18.100.030 that is located within 600 feet of a residential use, lot in a platted subdivision or a residential zone shall exceed 70 percent lot coverage by all buildings, storage areas or facilities and required off-street parking and loading area. C. The minimum setback between a structure and a street or road shall be 50 feet. D. The minimum setback between a structure and a property line adjoining a residential lot or use shall be 50 feet. E. The minimum rear or side yard setback shall be 25 feet unless a greater setback is required by DCC 18.100.050 C or D. F. The maximum building height for any structure shall be 30 feet on any lot adjacent to or across a street from a residential use or lot and 45 feet on any other lot. G. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. H. Maximum industrial use floor area. 1. The maximum size of a building is 7,500 square feet of floor space. The maximum square footage in a building or buildings for a single allowable use, as defined in DCC 18.100.020 and 18.100.030, on an individual lot or parcel shall not exceed 7,500 square feet. There is no building size limit for uses that are for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas. Chapter 18.100 3 (6/2016) 2. A lawfully established use that existed on or before 02/25/03 may be expanded to occupy a maximum of 10,000 square feet of floor area or an additional 25 percent of the floor area currently occupied by the existing use which ever is greater. (Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §26, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.100.050. Off-street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the provisions of DCC 18.100.070 and DCC 18.116. (Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.100.060. Site Design. All uses except farm, forest and residential uses are subject to the provisions of DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review. (Ord. 2002-126, §1, 2002; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.100.70. Additional Requirements. As a condition of approval of any use proposed within an R -I Zone, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require: A. An increase in required setbacks. B. Additional off-street parking and loading facilities. C. Limitations on signs or lighting, hours of operation, and points of ingress and egress. D. Additional landscaping, screening and other improvements. (Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.100.080. Solar Setback. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. (Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 83-037 §20, 1983) 18.100.090 Limited Use Combining Zone — Deschutes Junction A. For the property at Deschutes Junction that is described in Exhibit "C" and identified on Exhibit "D", attached to Ordinance 2009-007 and incorporated by reference herein, the storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals and their accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan review. B. For the property at Deschutes Junction that is described in Exhibit "D" identified on Exhibit "E", attached to Ordinance 2010-030 and incorporated by reference herein, the storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals are subject to conditional use and site plan approval. (Ord. 2010-031 §1, 2010; Ord. 2009-008 §2, 2009) Chapter 18.100 4 (6/2016) G <iJ o : Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ -(ES AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of August 20, 2018 DATE: August 15, 2018 FROM: Anthony Raguine, Community Development, 541-617-4739 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Board Discussion of the Appeal of Briteside's Land Use Approval, 23450 Walker Road RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: On July 11, 2018, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal of Briteside Oregon LLC's land use approval. The approval would allow Briteside to establish a marijuana production facility at 2340 Walker Road, which would include up to 20,000 square feet of mature canopy. ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner