Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-465-Minutes for Meeting October 17,2018 Recorded 11/2/2018
0-c E S (- 00 BOARD OF D `"c COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-465 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' ,journal 11/02/2018 9:59:03 AM 2018-465 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 2:00 PM WEDNESDAY, October 17,2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone, Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Wildfire Mitigation Standards Community Development Department staff Zechariah Heck, Nick Lelack, Randy Scheid, and County Forester Ed Keith presented the item for discussion. Representatives from local fire agencies were also present in the audience. Mr. Zech explained two items pertaining to wildfire mitigation standards including a Planning Division work plan and the opportunity to discuss and update the Oregon Building Codes Divisions proposed Appendix W to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5 Commissioner DeBone commented on finding ways of making our community resilient and safe in a wildfire prone area. Commissioner Baney stated we have a responsibility of protecting our community and is leaning toward a small committee of discussing the safety components and potential, costs involved. Mr. Lelack suggested Planning Commission involvement where recommendations that could be made to the Board. Commissioner Henderson commented on the multitude of building codes. Randy Scheid, Building Official reported on Appendix W as a locally adoptable appendix regarding building codes that includes items that will add expense to building permits but due to substantial fire events these items need to be considered. Ed Keith, County Forester explained the laws are key to the issues that we are faced in losing homes in the wildland urban interface and the need of what can be done to mitigate those risks and should this be mandatory or best practice? Commissioner Baney suggested conversations of the pros and cons and include community involvement. Commissioner Henderson stated there has always been a wildfire risk and a committee will need to look at the cost to the homeowner and wants to know the cost impacts before making a decision. Mr. Lelack stated one question to ask is if the rural county can opt in or opt out. Commissioner Baney wants to be flexible to pick through the building options and acknowledge the uniqueness of our community and to also remember the importance of safety for people fighting fires as well. Commissioner DeBone supports development of a decision matrix for each item of the recommendations. Mr. Lelack suggested the items could be brought to a Work Session in January. Commissioner Henderson suggested a committee of representatives in fire agencies, insurance, and building to be formed based on the current draft of Appendix W. Comments were raised from the audience from several fire agencies regarding not only impacts but the risk of losing entire towns. BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 2. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Quarterly Update for Calendar Year 2018, Quarter 2 Health Services Department staff Dr. George Conway, Janice Garceau, Tyler Nass, Dave Inbody and Daniel Emerson presented the update. Ms. Garceau reported on a success story for one client. Staff reported on the CCBHC dashboard. The expansion grant was awarded and services will be expanded to target needed areas of health issues of our community. The 19 positions that were created will be maintained. Dr. Conway requested lifting the hiring freeze. Commissioner Henderson feels it best to wait until the outcome of the contract with PacificSource. The Board prefers to fill vacancies as they need to be filled due to a replacement and then staffing could be reviewed during the next budget cycle. Dr. Conway spoke on the stress on staff with the unfilled vacancies. County Administrator Anderson reiterated the Board's desire for vacancies and spoke on the budget meeting in December and the extensive meetings for next budget cycle for the Health Services Department. 3. Deschutes County Employee Health Plan Updates for 2019 Plan Year Human Resources staff Kathleen Hinman and Trygve Bolken presented. Ms. Hinman reported on the update on the health plan changes which will require signing authority to be considered for County Administrator Anderson. The update includes recommendations from the Employee Benefit Advisory Committee. EBAC is in agreement with HR staff recommendations. The HR staff recommendations were to increase stop loss deductible and update plan language to align with current plan interpretation. Other considerations include physical therapy benefit change to the deductible model to copay, addition of foot orthotics as covered durable medical equipment, and add bariatric surgery as an eligible covered expense. Ms. Hinman suggested a need for employees needing a coverage for mental health issues for therapy or counseling services. A new mail order company for prescription drugs had to be sourced out. The recommended changes to the Deschutes County Employee Benefits Plan for the 2019 plan year hadsbeen reviewed by the Christopher Bell in the Legal department. A redline version of the plan document will be shared with the Board at a business meeting under the Consent Agenda. Commissioner BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 Baney suggested to add historical data as well. November 1 begins open enrollment. COMMISSIONER UPDATES • Commissioner DeBone went to Washington DC last week for a dinner with National Association of Counties and a White House Conference with commissioners from Washington and Oregon. Commissioner DeBone was able to have discussions on wildland urban interface and sage grouse. • Commissioner DeBone stated there is a Deschutes Basin Summit meeting at Eagle Crest on October 22. OTHER ITEMS: • County Administrator Anderson reported that the maps for the DAQ testing were sent out for the City of Bend regarding the 911 radio system. The after action consultant review is set for tomorrow. The Bulletin received the testing results but has not reported on the findings. The new Technical Manager will start this month. The Joint Meeting with the City of Sisters will be rescheduled. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None scheduled BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 7 '- AtStk j Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34- p.m. DATED this � Day of Ce- /W 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: <S.« :ri�. z.,.. 101161 .., i6 i,( 1' f €` R TA k i f PHOP G. ® VICE CHAIR LJl TAMMY BANEY,��MMISSIONER BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2018 PACE 5 OF 5 c�01 E s C-oG o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2018 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff. Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Consideration of Wildfire Mitigation Standards - Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner 2. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Quarterly Update Calendar Year 2018, Quarter 2 -Janice Garceau, Interim BH Deputy Director 3. Deschutes County Employee Health Plan Updates for 2019 Plan Year - Kathleen Hinman, Human Resources Director COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.5660(2)(e); real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h) litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b); personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however ,with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the public. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Page 1 of 2 OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 2 cl, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of October 17, 2018 DATE: October 10, 2018 FROM: Zechariah Heck, Community Development, 541-385-1704 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Wildfire Mitigation Standards ATTENDANCE: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner; Randy Scheid, Building Official; Nick Lelack, Community Development Director; Ed Keith, County Forester; et al. SUMMARY: Staff will discuss several opportunities concerning wildfire mitigation for the Board's consideration. NOW MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner Randy Scheid, Building Official RE: Consideration of Wildfire Mitigation Standards COMMUNITY DEVELOMMENT A. FY 2018-19 Work Plan - Land Use Regulations B. Oregon Residential Specialty Code - Appendix W I. SUMMARY This memorandum addresses two Board of County Commission (Board) work session agenda items pertaining to wildfire mitigation standards. One agenda item addresses a Planning Division Fiscal Year 2018-19 (FY 18-19) Work Plan project to consider land use regulations. The second agenda item provides an update and opportunity to discuss the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) proposed Appendix W to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. Several officials involved in these efforts will attend this work session. Attachments: 1. Deschutes County Large Fire History 2. University of Oregon Community Service Center's (CSC) Deschutes County Natural Hazards Plan and Code Audit 3. Draft Appendix W II. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN Per the FY 2018-2019 Work Plan, the Board directed the Community Development Department to: • Consider implementing the recommendations from the University of Oregon Community Service Center's (CSC) review of County codes and policies regarding wildfire mitigation beginning with a Board briefing on the study, potential amendments, and impacts in the Wildland Urban Interface (Attachment 1).' 1 This work plan task is also supported by the County's Project Wildfire program team. 111. OVERVIEW Deschutes County remains the fastest growing county in Oregon. According to the Portland State University Population Research Center, the rural population is expected to grow from approximately 62,000 today to nearly 80,000 in 2043. At the same time, wildfire impacts threaten the entire county. As population increases, more development occurs in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).2 Development within the WUI increases the risk to property and human life because of the threat of wildfire. The history of wildfire in Deschutes County is well documented. Most recently, in 2017, the Milli Fire Complex burned a total of 24,000 acres between the City of Sisters and the foothills of the Cascades costing in excess of $15 million to suppress. In 2014, the Two Bulls Fire burned approximately 7,000 acres near the City of Bend and cost an estimated $5.7 million to suppress. The Skeleton Fire, circa 1996, consumed 22 homes, burned 3,500 acres and cost an estimated $9 million in damages. Deschutes County has several programs in existence to address wildfire, some regulatory and others focused on education and outreach. Regulatory • Zoning code standards address wildfire mitigation. Consistent with state law, such standards are found in the Forest Use 1 and 2 Zones and regulate defensible space, access, and water supply. Destination Resorts are also required to incorporate wildfire mitigation standards as part of their master plan. Additionally, Conditional Use Permit criteria have recently been applied to Miller Tree Farm, a cluster development, requiring defensible space in perpetuity. • In 2001, the Board declared Deschutes County a Wildfire Hazard Zone in its entirety (Ordinance 2001-024), consistent with ORS 93.270(4) in order to require class A or B roofing. This was largely in response to home loss in the Awbrey Hall and Skeleton Fires and the fact that many HOA's were requiring cedar shake roofs at the time, leading to increased structural vulnerability to wildfire. • Deschutes County began regulating open burning on unprotected lands in 2009 (Ordinance 2009-009), which enacted Chapter 8.20 of the Deschutes County Code. • Deschutes County began requiring defensible space on unprotected lands in 2011 (Ordinance 2011-011), which enacted Chapter 8.21 of the Deschutes County Code. Non -Regulatory • Comprehensive Plan policies provide direction for natural hazard mitigation and natural resource management. Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 sets County policies regarding 2 The Healthy Forests Restoration Act defines the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) as an area within the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development that is at -risk of wildfire. Deschutes County identifies WUI areas within Community Wildfire Protection Plans. natural hazards and references the Deschutes County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP). Specifically, Policy 3.5.1 requires regular review of the Natural Hazards component of the Comprehensive Plan. Note: the last update of the Natural Hazards element of the Comprehensive Plan was in 2011. • Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which is updated every five years, identifies hazards that may threaten the County. Wildfire is noted as a high risk. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) for Greater Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Sunriver, Upper Deschutes River, Greater La Pine and East and West Deschutes County identify local priorities for community protection and resource management.3 • Adopted into Deschutes County Code in 2003, Project Wildfire is the community organization that facilitates, educates, disseminates and maximizes community efforts toward effective fire planning and mitigation .4 Project Wildfire is the result of the County's effort to create long-term wildfire mitigation strategies and provide for a disaster -resistant community.' • Deschutes County residents are able to recycle theiryard debris at discounted prices during certain times of the year as part of Fire Free events to encourage creation and maintenance of defensible space around structures.b IV. NATURAL HAZARDS CODE AND PROGRAM REVIEW The Planning Division contracted with CSC in 2015 to review the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning code as they pertain to natural hazards. The assessment was limited to wildfire and flooding mitigation standards in Titles 15 (Building and Construction), 18 (County Zoning) and 19 (Bend Urban Area Ordinance).' The CSC team worked closely with the County's Certified Floodplain Manager, County Forester, and Project Wildfire Coordinator. For the purposes of this discussion, staff will focus on the audit of Deschutes County's wildfire mitigation components. The CSC conducted a national review of model ordinances and best management practices as part of their study. The final report highlighted potential changes to update the zoning code; recommendations included the following. • Wildfire Hazard Combining Zone: Utilize a combining zone to broadly regulate land uses regarding wildfire hazards in areas beyond the Forest Use Zones. The combining zone could include provisions that regulate building materials, defensible space, and developable slopes. 3 https://www.projectwildfire.org/cwpps/ 4 Deschutes County Code (DCC) 8.24, Project Wildfire Steering Committee. https://weblink.deschutes.org/public/O/doc/4186/Pagel.aspx ' https://www.projectwildfire.org/ 6 https://www.firefree.org/firefreeevents/ ' Pertinent portions of the zoning code were identified as the floodplain and forest zone standards, in addition to requirements for subdivisions. The Board recently adopted a Flood Plain Combining Zone, implementing CSC's flood plain recommendations. • Roofing Standards: Specifically prohibit shake roofs in wildfire -prone areas. Currently, DCC allows shake roofs if they are Class B or higher, which means the shake roof is treated with fire-resistant material. However, the CSC study found the treatment deteriorates quickly in the County's climate and it is uncommon for homeowners to retreat their homes as often as necessary. • Steep Slopes: Lower maximum slope grade to 25%. If permitted, require greater defensible space for structures built on slopes in excess of 25%. The CSC report references "Steep Slopes in Rancho Bernardo, CA a report that indicates increased slope equals increased destruction during a fire event. • Defensible Space: Establish a 100-200 foot zone around the home. The most effective way to reduce the risk of structural loss from wildfires is defensible space free from flammable materials, according to the CSC team. • Firewise Recognition: Use the Firewise Recognition Program to create an ongoing neighborhood action plan. • Fire Apparatus Access: Establish three points of access in large developments, minimum requirements for all weather roads, minimum width and height, and turning radius. • Wildfire Mitigation Plans for Subdivisions: As an approval criterion, require a wildfire mitigation plan for all subdivisions. Such standards should include road access, building separation, water supply, fire sprinkler systems, fire-resistant landscaping, in addition to a mitigation and maintenance plan. • Required Fire Protection from District: Before a development is permitted, a written statement from a fire district indicating they will serve the property would be required. If a property is not within a fire district, a contract with a district would need to be established indicating fire protection will be provided for the life of the structure. • Wildfire Mitigation Plan for Single -Family Homes: A wildfire mitigation plan should be part of the review process for new residences to ensure homeowners are mindful of and take an active role in mitigation of risks associated with development within the WUI. Wildfire mitigation plans could include a site plan depicting the location of structures, defensible space management, driveway access for emergency vehicles, water supply for firefighting, and other pertinent information. Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment: Including specific review requirements as part of a conditional use permit would identify mitigation measures to be implemented for the proposed use. Requiring such an assessment prior to development would identify the level of risk to a property and ensure that mitigation standards are obtained before construction. Standards for Road Identification Signs: Standardized protocols regarding road identification signs and addresses can help emergency responders quickly find their destinations. V. OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE -APPENDIX W The City of Ashland has requested the BCD to consider allowing municipalities to locally adopt building code standards that address wildfire mitigation. The proposal is referred to as Appendix W and it aims to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of structures to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers presented by fires. As currently written, the scope covers new dwellings and their accessory structures located in a wildfire hazard zone. The appendix addresses allowed types of construction materials and specific requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior walls, siding, overhanging projections, porches, exterior ceilings, decking surfaces, windows/skylights and doors. The state BCD is currently holding stakeholder meetings regarding Appendix W. Topics include whether the appendix is appropriate for the state building code as a local option, specific issues of mapping or code standards, and impacts such as increased costs of construction. The Board may provide comments on the proposed Appendix W as it stands today, i.e., not adopted by the BCD. Nonetheless, if Appendix W is adopted at the state level, the Board will need to determine whether to adopt the appendix locally. This determination has impacts beyond the rural county because the Deschutes County Building Division is responsible for building permit reviews in both the City of Sisters and City of La Pine. VI. NEXT STEPS & BOARD DIRECTION The purpose of this memorandum is to begin a discussion with the Board concerning wildfire mitigation in the County. As mentioned, the CDD Work Plan contains a task to consider implementation of various best practices aimed at reducing losses from wildfires. Staff seeks Board direction to either: 1. Develop a decision matrix of CSC's recommendations for Board consideration. The Board could decide which recommendations to pursue and direct staff to initiate amendment(s) to County Code; or 2. Develop a work group to consider the CSC recommendations. Report the work group's recommendations to the Board. The Board will then determine next steps; or 3. Do not move forward, and continue to apply existing zoning regulations discussed above; or 4. Pursue another option not mentioned above. Lastly, staff seeks Board direction on whether to provide comments to BCD on the draft Appendix W. If yes, staff seeks Board direction on the comments to submit. ATTACHMENT 1 Deschutes County Large Fire* History 0 5 10 20 Miles FIRE OCCURENCE BY DECADE O O O O O O O O O O O O El *fires over 100 acres Map Prepared by Deschutes County u. . `~ Natural Resources G Ed Keith 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 541-322-7117 0 5 10 20 Miles FIRE OCCURENCE BY DECADE O O O O O O O O O O O O El ATTACHMENT 2 Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review Prepared for: Deschutes County Prepared by: Community Planning Workshop A Program of the Community Service Center csc.uoregon.edu/cpw UNIVERSITY OF OREGON CPWo�kSM1op SPECIAL THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Community Planning Workshop wishes to thank Nick Lelack, (Community Development Director), Peter Gutowsky (Planning Manager), Peter Russell (Senior Transportation Planner), and Matt Martin (Associate Planner) for their assistance with this project. Deschutes Staff Working Group Alison Green, Project Wildfire Coordinator William Groves, Senior Planner Ed Keith, County Forester Matt Martin, Associate Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Community Planning Workshop Team Robert Parker, AICP, Director Michael Howard, AICP, CFM, Program Specialist Drew Pfefferle, Project Manager Michael DeHart, Research Assistant Erin Horan, Research Assistant Maureen Jackson, Research Assistant Brett Setterfield, Research Assistant Page I ii Community Planning Workshop About the Community Service Center The Community Service Center (CSC), a research center affiliated with the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon, is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. About Community Planning Workshop Community Planning Workshop (CPW) is an experiential program within the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. Students work in teams under the direction of faculty and Graduate Teaching Fellows to develop proposals, conduct research, analyze and evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for possible solutions to planning problems in Oregon communities. The CPW model is unique in many respects, but is transferable to any institution that desires to link pedagogy with community service. About the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) is a coalition of public, private, and professional organizations working collectively toward the mission of creating a disaster -resilient and sustainable state. Developed and coordinated by the Community Service Center at the University of Oregon, the OPDR employs a service -learning model to increase community capacity and enhance disaster safety and resilience statewide. Page iii I..,- Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................II TABLEOF CONTENTS..................................................................... IV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................1 CHAPTER 2: STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING RISK .......................3 CHAPTER 3: WILDFIRE HAZARDS...................................................9 CHAPTER 4: FLOOD HAZARDS......................................................26 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................46 APPENDIX A: WILDFIRE CASE STUDIES......................................49 APPENDIX B: FLOOD CASE STUDIES...........................................56 Page I iv Community Planning Workshop CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Floods and wildfires are two natural hazards that impact Deschutes County. The Deschutes County Development Code has several provisions that specifically aim to mitigate the effects of these hazards; reduce risk to property, environmental quality, and human safety; and improve recovery time. The code chapters with hazard -specific elements are Title 17: Subdivisions, Title 18: County Zoning, and Title 19: Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance. This report includes analysis of the Deschutes County Development Code and the county's comprehensive plan, how they are interpreted and applied to development, and the implications for natural hazard preparedness. Case studies and model ordinances providing examples of wildfire and flood best management practices are used to support the report's recommendations. Background Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) contracted with the University of Oregon's Community Planning Workshop (CPW) to conduct a review of the Deschutes County Development Code consistent with direction provided in Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 (Rural Growth/Natural Hazards). The review focused on improving development regulations that address wildfires and flooding. The intent of this work is to help Deschutes County understand the implications of land -use regulations on development in areas affected by natural hazards and to develop a set of programmatic options on how to best manage those impacts. The project focused on researching best practices for mitigating the effects of wildfire and flood on development. Strategies to reduce or mitigate risk associated with development in hazardous areas are important to Deschutes County, as the county continues to be the fastest growing in Oregon. Between 2000 and 2013, the population in Deschutes County increased 41% (47,158 people). According to Deschutes County's population forecast, by 2025 the population is anticipated to grow by 48% (78,300 people), a total population of 240,811. The City of Bend is expected to account for 40% of the population increase, while the rural unincorporated areas of the county are expected to account for 33% of the population increase. Purpose and Methods The purpose of this report is to identify and review a range of regulatory standards that Deschutes County can utilize to reduce risk to flood and wildfire hazards. To identify potential strategies, CPW reviewed flood and wildfire ordinances, best practices used to reduce natural hazard risk, and ordinances and programs implemented by other jurisdictions. CPW also identified model ordinances and case studies that include elements applicable and relevant to Deschutes County based on the comparable aspects of the communities and relative similar hazard I:- Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 1 danger. The CPW team then worked with County Staff to target sections of the Deschutes County Development Code where it could incorporate higher development standards and best practices. Organization of Report The report is organized into five chapters, including Chapter One, and two appendices. Chapter 2: Strategies for Mitigating Risk provides an overview of the nature of risks related to development in hazardous areas. Chapter 3: Wildfire Hazards identifies the extent of wildfire risk in Deschutes County, the rate and location of development within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), existing wildfire programs, model ordinances and standards, and presents policy options to strengthen the Deschutes County Development Code as it relates to wildfire hazard. Chapter 4: Flood Hazards identifies the extent of flood risk in Deschutes County, the rate and location of development within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) defined floodplain, existing flood programs, model ordinances and standards, and presents policy options to strengthen the Deschutes County Development Code as it relates to flood hazard. Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations presents a brief review of the project, summarizes the policy options, and prioritizes the recommended policies options. This report includes two appendices. Appendix A provides case studies related to wildfire. Appendix B provides case studies related to flood. Page 12 Community Planning Workshop CHAPTER 2: STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING RISK Chapter 2 frames the role that land use planning has in hazard mitigation and underscores the importance of focusing on flood and wildfire hazards by describing federal and state policies that support and promote mitigation strategies. The Federal and State Policy Framework Federal Emergency Management Agency The pre -disaster mitigation role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to provide support and assistance to all communities across the nation to preemptively mitigate and respond to emergencies. FEMA offers financial assistance in the form of grant money through programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)' for long-term hazard mitigation following a major disaster, Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM)' for hazard mitigation planning and projects, and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)' for projects to reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings that are insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In the event of a wildfire disaster, the State can request emergency federal assistance from FEMA. FEMA will provide 75% of firefighting costs as part of the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program." Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that state, local, and Indian tribal governments develop and maintain a natural hazards mitigation plan to be eligible to receive mitigation grant assistance. The stated purpose of the act is to "amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program for pre -disaster mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other purposes.i' ' " Hazard Mitigation Grant Program." Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program ' "Pre -Disaster Mitigation Grant Program." Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program 3 "Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program." Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-mitigation-assistance-grant-program 4 "Fire Management Assistance Grant Program." Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/fire-management-assistance-grant-program . 5 Public Law 106-390 106th Congress Oct. 30, 2000 [H.R. 707] i ' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 13 State Policy Oregon Senate Bill 360 The Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, commonly referred to as Senate Bill 360, enlists property owners in turning fire -vulnerable urban and suburban properties into less -volatile zones where firefighters may more safely and effectively defend homes from wildfires. The law requires property owners in identified forestland -urban interface areas to reduce excess vegetation around structures and along driveways. In some cases, it is also necessary to create fuel breaks along property lines and roadsides.' Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 7 Planning for natural hazards is an integral element of Oregon's statewide land use planning program, which began in 1973 with the passage of Senate Bill 100. All Oregon counties and cities have comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances that are required to comply with the 19 statewide planning goals that direct the state's policies on land use issues. Statewide land use planning Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards, calls for local plans to include inventories, policies, and ordinances to guide development in, or away from, hazard areas in order to protect life and property from natural hazards. Natural hazards considered for purposes of Goal 7 are: wildfires, floods (coastal and riverine), landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, and coastal erosion. Local governments may identify and plan for other natural hazards as they apply. Overview of Natural Hazards in Deschutes County Table 1 below displays the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan hazard analysis matrix for Deschutes County (updated 2015). The hazards are listed in rank order from high to low. The table shows that hazard scores are influenced by each of the four categories combined. With considerations for historical events, the probability or likelihood of a particular hazard event occurring, the vulnerability to the community, and the maximum threat or worst-case scenario are listed in the table. Wildfire events rank as one of the top hazard threats to the county (top tier), while flood events are listed as one of the lower -ranked hazards in the county (bottom tier). For local governments, conducting the hazard analysis is a useful step in planning for hazard mitigation, response, and recovery. The method provides the jurisdiction with sense of hazard priorities, but does not predict the occurrence of a particular hazard. Both floods and wildfires are considered a top priority by Deschutes County and can be directly mitigated through land use. 6 "Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act." Oregon Department of Forestry. Accessed June 8, 2015. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/sb360/sb360.aspx Page 14 Community Planning Workshop Table 1 Hazard Analysis Matrix — Deschutes County Winter Storm Wildfire Earthquake (Cascadia) 20 20 2 50 50 40 90 80 100 70 70 49 230 220 191 Windstorm 16 20 80 63 179 Volcano 2 50 100 21 173 Drought 8 15 70 56 149 Flood 8 10 40 56 114 Earthquake (Crustal) 2 5 80 7 94 Landslide 2 5 40 7 54 Source: Deschutes County NHMP Steering Committee, 2015 Flooding results when rain and snowmelt creates water flow that exceeds the carrying capacity of rivers, streams, channels, ditches, and other watercourses. In Oregon, flooding is most common from October through April when storms from the Pacific Ocean bring intense rainfall. Most of Oregon's destructive natural disasters have been floods.' Flooding can be aggravated when rain is accompanied by snowmelt and frozen ground; the spring cycle of melting snow is the most common source of flood in the region. The principal types of flood that occur in Deschutes County include: spring/snow melt flooding, warm winter rain -on -snow flooding, ice jams, flash floods, and dam failure. Regular floods have occurred and the principal sources for flood risk in the county include the Deschutes River, the Little Deschutes River, Paulina Creek, Whychus Creek, and Spring River. Fire is an essential part of Oregon's ecosystem, but can also pose a serious threat to life and property particularly in the state's growing rural communities. Wildfires occur in areas with large amounts of flammable vegetation that require a suppression response due to uncontrolled burning. Overgrown forests possess dense fuel loads that burn more intensely and spread more rapidly. Compounding the risk posed by increased fuel loads due to fire prevention efforts is the population growth occurring in forested areas of Deschutes County. As population in the county grows, more residential development is locating in forested lands known as the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Understandably, development within the WUI is associated with significant risk to property and human life in the event of a wildfire. Climate Change Current climate models project warmer, drier summers and a decline in typical level of summer precipitation in Oregon. As climate change occurs, lower elevation pine ecosystems in Deschutes County will become increasingly susceptible to the 7 Taylor, George H. and Chris Hannan. The Oregon Weather Book. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 1999 C" -PW -i=--' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page effects of changing precipitation patterns. The lower edges of dry pine vegetative zones are expected to be the first to show impacts of long-term changes in available precipitation. Coupled with projected decreases in mountain snowpack due to warmer winter temperatures, Deschutes County is expected to have more frequent wildfires. National Marine Fisheries Service and Endangered Species Recent developments between federal agencies could mean significant changes in the way that local communities implement the NFIP. FEMA and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have begun consultations to assign new regulations to floodplain development with respect to endangered species. FEMA has been sued in several states, including Oregon, for failing to consult with the NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding endangered species listed as under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The lawsuit deals with certain policies that FEMA promotes, specifically policies regarding development in their Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), can negatively impact certain endangered species. As a result of a 2010 settlement approved in federal court, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is consulting with NMFS and drafting new rules for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and have waterways bearing salmon or steelhead. In 2005, the Deschutes River was designated by NMFS as a critical habitat for Middle Columbia River Steelhead8. This designation will factor into the ongoing revision of Deschutes County floodplain development ordinances. Strategies for Risk Mitigation: Regulatory and Non - Regulatory Programs and policies discussed in this report can be divided into two major subgroups: regulatory (non -voluntary), or non -regulatory (voluntary). This section describes the functional differences between regulatory and non -regulatory risk mitigation strategies and provides high-level summary of strategies currently employed by Deschutes County. Regulatory Regulatory strategies are written instruments containing enforceable rules. They create and constrain rights, duties, and responsibilities. In the case of the Deschutes County Development Code, developments within County jurisdiction must gain regulatory approval and abide by the constraints put forth within. Enforcement can be either proactive — requiring a development plan to meet 8 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. 5 -Year Review: Summary & Evaluation of Middle Columbia River Steelhead. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prZpdfs/species/middlecolumbiariver steelhead 5yearreview.pdf Page 16 Community Planning Workshop certain standards before construction may begin; or reactive — requiring an inspector to ensure that a development is compliant with relevant regulations. The broad goal of development codes is to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to provide developers and landowners with transparent rules that reduce the risks associated with development. Regulatory natural hazards mitigation strategies discussed in this report are enforceable elements of the Deschutes County Development Code that dictate the location and characteristics of future development activity. Regulatory policy options presented in this report are based upon model ordinances, best practices, and case studies from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the National Institute for Standards and Testing (NIST), and relevant sections of development codes from jurisdictions that have addressed natural hazard risks similar to those of Deschutes County. The role of land use planning in hazard mitigation Land use planning guides and regulates land use so as to ensure land development is efficient, ethical, and prevents land -use conflicts. By regulating the actions of property owners and developers, land use planning has a decisive influence on development patterns. Often, the most desirable lands for residential development are also the most hazardous. Development along riverbanks is popular for its favorable views and convenient water access. However, it places homes at a greater risk for flood damage. Likewise, wildland-urban interface areas are ideal for residents seeking privacy and access to forested areas, but there is an elevated risk of wildfire damage. Land use planning can shape development in ways that mitigate risk by prescribing regulatory provisions to types of land that are exposed to the risks of natural hazards. Development codes can prohibit development in dangerous locations or regulate development in a manner that minimizes risk. A key consideration is that land use plans and their implementing ordinances come into effect at the time of a land use action. The implication is that they only apply to development that is subject to the regulation. Most ordinances do not apply retroactively; existing uses are "grandfathered" in and are often not subject to new regulation. That will likely be the case in Deschutes County where thousands of existing structures in the WUI will not be affected by any code amendments. Non -Regulatory Non -regulatory tools serve as guidance rather than law, and are often used to complement regulatory policies. These tools rely on voluntary efforts and public support and participation. They can increase awareness and buy -in to programs and are often developed to increase the effectiveness of regulations through education, outreach, incentives, or interagency coordination. Non -regulatory strategies to mitigate natural hazards are not dependent upon government oversight, but are achieved primarily through public and community 1,=-I Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 17 participation. Non -regulatory strategies may rely on the county government for financial and structural support. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans are a planning requirement for local governments to access funds from the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Although the plan is required for pre -disaster funding, its contents are non -regulatory in nature. Rather, it sets forth voluntary goals, objectives, and actions that can increase disaster preparedness or decrease recovery time. The aim of the Deschutes County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards. This can be achieved by increasing public awareness, documenting the resources for risk reduction and loss -prevention, and identifying activities to guide the county towards building a safer, more disaster resistant community.9 The Deschutes County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is intended to serve many purposes. These include the following: • Provide a methodical approach to mitigation planning; • Enhance public awareness and understanding of natural hazards; • Create a decision-making tool for policy and decision makers; • Promote compliance with state and federal program requirements; • Assure coordination of mitigation -related programming; • Create specific hazard mitigation initiatives that can be incorporated into Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan to assist with implementation; • Document resources for risk reduction and loss prevention.10 9 Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 Update. 10 Ibid Page 18 Community Planning Workshop CHAPTER 3: WILDFIRE HAZARDS This chapter identifies the risk wildfire poses to Deschutes County, the extent of risk, and the rate and location of development affected by wildfire hazard. Following are policy options the county can consider to strengthen the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Policy options are presented with descriptions of best practices, identification of the applicable county code sections, and details of economic, administrative, health, or environmental impacts of implementing the policy. Wildfire risk in Deschutes County Extent of Wildfire risk areas Wildfires are a natural and necessary component of many ecosystems across the country. Central Oregon is no exception. Historically, wildfires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. These ecosystems are significantly altered due to fire prevention efforts, modern suppression activities and a general lack of large-scale fires, resulting in overgrown forests and wildland- urban interfaces (WUI) with dense fuels that burn more intensely than in the past. Wildfires can be divided into three categories: interface, wildland, and firestorms. Interface fires are the most common wildfires in Deschutes County.' interface fires occur where wildland and developed areas meet (the wildland-urban interface). In these locations, both vegetation and structural development combine to provide fuel. The wildland-urban interface can be divided into three categories: classic wildland-urban interface, mixed wildland-urban interface, and occluded wildland-urban interface.' 1. Classic wildland-urban interface exists where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open expanses of wildland areas. 2. Mixed wildland-urban interface is found in areas of exurban or rural development: isolated homes, subdivisions, resorts and small communities situated in predominantly wildland settings. 3. Occluded wildland-urban interface where islands of wildland vegetation exist within a largely urbanized area. Population growth has occurred in interface areas. The growth in residential development in interface areas increases the risk of wildfires. Fire has historically been a natural wildland element and can sweep through vegetation adjacent to combustible homes. New residents in rural areas are often surprised to learn that ' Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 Update. ' Ibid G Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 9 moving away from urban areas puts them more at risk of wildfires since there are fewer readily available fire services in rural areas. Rate and Location of Development The majority of people across Deschutes County resides in Bend or within the unincorporated areas of the county. Between 2000 and 2013, Deschutes County experienced a 41% increase in population. The County Coordinated Population Forecast projects that by 2025 Deschutes County's population will increase by about 78,300 people, a 48% increase3. In 2000, 48,898 people lived in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. By 2013, that number had grown by 10.2% to 53,870. Forecasts estimate that the population in currently unincorporated areas will grow to nearly 80,000 by 2025. Unprotected residential development is an important issue for Deschutes County. There are several examples of residential developments that do not have structural or wildland fire protection. These include the Lower Bridge area east of Sisters, and the Brothers and Hampton areas along Highway 20 on the eastern edge of the county (Figure 1). In addition, there are approximately 100,000 acres of privately owned, largely unimproved rangeland east of Bend that do not have wildland fire protection.4 In 2013, an additional fire district for the unincorporated community of Alfalfa was created and will be running by the end of 2016 (not shown in Figure 1). 5 This region will cover 64 square miles of unprotected development. Since a large portion of the county has no fire protection and due to abundance of the fuel types present in some areas, wildland fires can grow quite large, often spreading and becoming threatening to protected areas. Deschutes County developed County Code Section 8.21 outlines a system for private landowners in unprotected areas to respond to the wildland fire threat with defensible space and firebreaks. Emergency response to wildland fire incidents incurs substantial resource commitments and fiscal costs. The impact on local organizations is demonstrated each fire season. Notable incidents that exemplify the impact on local organizations are Pole Creek (2012), Burgess Road (2013), and Two Bulls (2014). The costs associated with multiple day mobilization of law enforcement, search and rescue, structural fire assets and state fire resources can quickly deplete local and state agency budgets. Depending on the scope and specifics of an individual fire, additional agency and non-governmental support organizations may also be mobilized to help mitigate the impact on citizens and community infrastructure. 3 Deschutes County Community Development Department, 2014. 4 Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 Update. 5 Dylan, Darling. "Fire District Has Trucks, but No Firefighters or Fire Station." The Bulletin. April 21, 2015. Accessed June 8, 2015. htt : _/www.bendbulletin.com localstate 3068284-151 rowing a fire= district -in -alfalfa#. Page 1 10 Community Planning Workshop LL p I �5 Existing wildfire programs There are several wildfire mitigation programs at the National, State, and County level that are in effect within Deschutes County. While non -regulatory in nature, they provide useful guidance to the County's decision makers, residents, and developers. These programs provide frameworks for outreach, education, and coordination regarding the mitigation of wildfire risk. This section outlines the general programs, state programs, and county programs that are in effect in Deschutes County. National Programs Healthy Forests Restoration Act: Community Wildfire Protection Plans In 2003, the US Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act that directed federal agencies to collaborate with communities in the wildland urban interface to create Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). CWPPs allow communities to identify and prioritize areas needing hazardous fuels treatment. As of 2015, Deschutes County has seven CWPP's adopted: Greater Bend, Greater La Pine, Greater Redmond, Greater Sisters Country, Sunriver, Upper Deschutes River Coalition, and East and West Deschutes County.' Communities with CWPPs are given priority for funding of hazardous fuels reduction projects carried out under the auspices of the HFRA. These CWPPs provide consistent analysis of existing fuels and WUI conditions along with recommendations and priorities for hazardous fuels reductions treatments on public and private lands. Community Wildfire Protection Plans allow communities to set wildland urban interface (WUI) boundaries and conducted risk assessments for each community. Table 2 Deschutes County Community Wildfire Protection Plans CWPP Area Year Updated Next Expected Revision Greater Bend 2011 2016 Greater La Pine 2015 2020 Greater Redmond 2011 2016 Greater Sisters Country 2014 2019 Sunriver 2015 2020 East and West Deschutes County 2012 2017 Upper Deschutes River Coalition 2013 2018 Source: Project Wildfire ' Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Project Wildfire. n.d. Accessed June 8, 2015 Available at: http://www projectwildf ire. org/index php/cwpp/list of cwpp plans/ Page 1 12 Community Planning Workshop Firewise Communities Firewise Communities USA is a program that nationally recognized communities that have taken an organized approach to wildfire preparedness. Firewise Communities educate community members on how live with the threat of wildfire and encourage neighbors to work together and take action to prevent loss of property and life. Typically, Firewise Communities have defensible space, well - marked evacuation routes, and community cohesion. State Programs Oregon Senate Bill 360 Implementation The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) supplies information about fuel reduction standards to property owners. ODF mails each property owner a certification card, which may be signed and returned to ODF after the fuel reduction standards have been met. Certification relieves a property owner of liability of fire suppression costs if a fire were to occur on the property.' If a certification card has not been received by OFD, the state of Oregon may seek to recover certain fire suppression costs from a property owner if a fire originates on the owner's property, the fuel reduction standards have not been met, and ODF incurs extraordinary suppression costs. The cost -recovery liability under the Oregon Forestland Urban Interface Fire Protection Act is capped at $100,0003. For more generalized information regarding Oregon Senate Bill 360, see page 4 of this document or visit the Oregon Department of Forestry's website: http•//www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/sb360/sb360.aspx. Oregon Ready, Set, Go! Oregon Ready, Set, Go! is an online wildfire assessment tool that provides awareness and educational materials to property owners in Wildland Urban Interface. The website allows property owners to enter their home address and identify structural and vegetative information to calculate a wildfire risk score. Based on the score, information will be provided to help reduce the home's risk including building materials or outside landscaping. This is an educational tool for homeowners that can help protect their life and property as well as keep First Responders safe when fighting fires." ' Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act Property Evaluation and Self -Certification Guide. July 2006. Oregon Department of Forestry. State of Oregon. Available at: htt : /www.oregon.gov/ODF/FIRE/SB360 docs uide uide 0106.pdf 3 Oregon Forestland -Urban Interface Fire Protection Act Property Evaluation and Self -Certification Guide. July 2006. Oregon Department of Forestry. State of Oregon. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/FIRE/SB360/docs/guide/guide_0106.pdf 4 Ready, Set, Go! > Home. Accessed June 8, 2015. http://www.wildlandfirersg.or C>I:_�' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 13 Deschutes County Programs Project Wildfire Project Wildfire is a long-term wildfire mitigation strategy that provides for disaster -resistant communities. Its mission is to prevent deaths, injuries, property loss and environmental damage resulting from wildfires in Deschutes County. Created by Deschutes County Ordinance 8.24.010, Project Wildfire is the community organization that facilitates, educates, disseminates and maximizes community efforts toward effective fire planning and mitigation. Project Wildfire organizes community events that help educate the community about wildfire protection strategies and techniques.' FireFree Program Project Wildfire coordinates the FireFree program, which is an educational program that teaches residents how to protect their homes from wildfire.6 The FireFree program and fuels reduction projects yield over 40,000 cubic yards of woody debris each year. Existing Wildfire Model Ordinances and Standards The following model ordinances and standards were used in the process of reviewing the County's development code in addressing wildfire hazard mitigation. National Fire Protection Association The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a national non-profit organization that sets national fire safety codes and standards. The codes that NFPA provides are standards that range from building, process, service, design and installation. Besides providing national fire safety codes and standards, the NFPA provides training and education about fire safety and standards. NFPA 1 141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas This standard provides guidance on the development of the community infrastructure necessary to eliminate fire protection problems that result from rapid growth and change. http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/document-information- pages?mode=code&code=1141 ' Project Wildfire and 2015 Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 6 FireFree.org. Accessed June 8, 2015. http://www.firefree.org . Page 1 14 Community Planning Workshop NFPA 1144: Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire This standard provides guidance on individual structure hazards. It requires a new spatial approach to assessing and mitigating wildfire hazards around existing structures and includes improved ignition -resistant requirements for new construction. http•//www nfpa org/codes-and-standards/document-information- pages?mode=code&code=1144 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (2012) This comprehensive wildland-urban interface code establishes minimum regulations for land use and the built environment in designated wildland-urban interface areas using prescriptive and performance -related provisions. It is founded on data collected from tests and fire incidents, technical reports and mitigation strategies from around the world. http•//shop iccsafe org/2012-international-wildland-urban-interface-code-soft- cover.html Policy Options for Deschutes County This section presents a review of the County's Comprehensive Pan in regards to land use and wildfire mitigation and identifies potential actions to strengthen current policies. The existing comprehensive plan policy language is shown in italics followed by our comments. Model development code language is shown in italics and underlined. Review of County Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.1 1(g): Policy 3.5.11(g) Review and revise County Code as needed to: Require new subdivisions and destination resorts to achieve FireWise standards from the beginning of the projects and maintain those standards in perpetuity. Comment: The Firewise program is inherently flexible since it is a national recognition program; it is not a certificate program and does not have standards to be met. Deschutes County should consider modifying the comprehensive plan to reflect this distinction. The Firewise Program is, however, guided by NFPA Standards 1141 and 1144. These standards provide specific mitigation actions that bear relevance to the County Development Code. Rather than including NFPA 1141 and 1144 in the Comprehensive Plan, Deschutes County can look to the following review of County Development Code, which is informed by NFPA standards. trail-_ ' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 15 Review of County Development Code This section presents a review of the County's current development code in regards to land use and wildfire mitigation policies and programs and identifies potential actions to strengthen current codes. In the following section the existing development code language is shown in italics followed by our comments. Model development code is shown in italics and underlined. Implement a Wildfire Hazard Combining Zone A wildfire hazard combining zone eliminates the need to individually prescribe wildfire provisions for each base zone. The combining zone could include a number of provisions such as building materials, defensible space, developable slopes, and other mitigation requirements. Best Practice: Given the prevalence of wildfire risk within Deschutes County, applying development standards to individual base zones may not efficiently regulate development in hazardous areas. Several wildfire -affected cities and counties in the country, such as Ashland, OR and Jefferson County, CO, have adopted combining zones to broadly identify lands potentially at risk for wildfire and require mitigation measures as part of the land planning and development process. By implementing a combining zone in Deschutes County, development standards that mitigate wildfire risk could be more easily interpreted and applied. Applicable County Code: Title 18 Zoning, 15.04.085 Building and Construction Codes and Regulations in Wildfire Hazard Zones Implications: Implementing a combining zone would eliminate the need to individually prescribe wildfire provisions for each base zone. Wildfire Hazard Zones are currently depicted on the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Areas map, and County Code 15.04.085 already implements this map to apply roofing standards in a manner identical to the function of the proposed combining district. Developers and property owners will benefit from clear, consistent requirements that could be found in a single location within Deschutes County Code Title 18. This combining zone would also have implications that include higher wildfire mitigation measures being addressed to the majority of the county instead of only in Forest Zones. Prohibit Wooden Shake Building Materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones Wooden shake building materials pose a serious risk to residents in the event of a wildfire. Combustible wooden building materials can burn from catching a single ember from an upwind fire. Scientific evidence has shown that a home's structural characteristics are a primary factor in determining ignitability in wildland-urban Page 1 16 Community Planning Workshop interface fires'. Prohibiting wooden shake building materials can reduce the likelihood of structural ignition for homes in wildfire hazard zones. Best Practice: Currently the Deschutes County Code allows wooden shake roofs if they are Class B or higher. To attain a Class B rating, a shake roof must be treated with a fire-resistant material. However, this treatment deteriorates relatively quickly in the county's climate conditions, and it is uncommon for homeowners to retreat their homes as often as is necessary. The simplest way to address this issue is to prohibit wooden shake building materials in areas of the county identified as Wildfire Hazard Zones. This practice would ideally be included as a provision applied within a Wildfire Hazard Combining Zone. Applicable County Code: 15.04.085 Building and Construction Codes and Regulations in Wildfire Hazard Zones Implications: Although wooden shake building materials can be treated and re- treated to meet Class B standards, explicitly prohibiting new structures from using shake building materials is the most direct form of addressing the hazard inherent to flammable roofing material. Existing structures could be exempted from this requirement unless a homeowner undertook a significant home improvement project. Regulatory or incentive -based approaches could be considered as a means to replace combustible materials with non-combustible materials. Requirements for Defensible Space Along with a home's structural characteristics, a home's surroundings are the other most important factor in determining home ignitability in wildland-urban interface areas'. Defensible space is the most effective way to reduce the risk of structural loss from wildfires that spread into residential areas. Although there are voluntary measures that encourage defensible space in Deschutes County, there are currently no efforts to enforce the practice on a countywide scale. Best Practice:. Defensible space requirements can currently be found in a handful of places throughout Deschutes County Code. Forest Use Zones 1 and 2 require three zones of defensible space ranging from nonflammable materials in the immediate vicinity of dwellings and structures, to fuel management tactics between 20 and 100 feet. Defensible space is crucial element of wildfire mitigation, and would ideally be included as a provision applied within a Wildfire Hazard Combining Zone. Applicable County Codes: 17.16.030 Subdivision Information Requirements, 17.16.050 Master Development Plan, 18.113 Destination Resorts, 18.36.70 Fire Siting Standards in Forest Use Zones 7 Cohen, JD. "Home Ignitability in the Wildland—urban Interface." Journal of Forestry, 2000. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs.2000 cohen i002.pdf? ' ibid l: ' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 17 Implications: Proper implementation and maintenance of defensible space could significantly decrease risk to residential development. However, if specific requirements were applied to all structures and dwellings within the County's Wildfire Hazard Overlay Zone, defensible space inspections could become very time consuming for County Inspectors. Regulate Development on Steep Slopes Development on steep slopes puts homes at risk to be in the path of fast-moving wildfires. By either restricting development on steep slopes or requiring additional mitigation measures for homes built on steep slopes, the County can reduce the risk posed to lives and property by wildfire. (See Appendix A: Steep Slopes in Rancho Bernardo, CA). Best Practice: Topography plays a significant role in the spread of wildfire. Fire spreads much more rapidly up slopes than flat ground, which poses a threat to structures situated on steep slopes. Currently, single-family dwellings are allowed on slopes as steep as 40%. The International Code Council's Wildfire Hazard Severity Form lists any slope greater than 30% as the maximum risk category. The best practice in regards to development on steep slopes is to regulate development above a certain slope threshold. To be consistent with existing code language the county could set this threshold at 25%, the maximum developable slope in Destination Resort Zones. Applicable County Code: 18.36.070(C) Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures in Forest Use Zone 1, 18.40.070(C) Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures in Forest Use Zone 2, 18.113.070 Destination Resorts Zone Implications: This best practice option, when combined with defensible space measures, can achieve enhanced resilience to wildfires without impinging on private property rights. Landowners and developers should be encouraged to develop on flat terrain to the greatest degree possible, but providing sensible regulations considers the inevitability of development on slopes. Wildfire Mitigation Planning for Subdivisions and Destination Resorts By requiring wildfire mitigation plans before allowing the subdivision of land or placement of a destination resort, the county can ensure that NFPA Standards 1141 and 1144 guide development from its earliest stages. Best Practice 1: National Fire Protection Association 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas are nationally approved model standards for development of fire protection and emergency services infrastructure in wildland-urban interfaces. These standards include requirements for road access, 30 feet of separation between buildings, adequate levels of water supply, and fire sprinkler systems. Best Practice 2: National Fire Protection Association 1144: Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire are nationally approved model standards for assessing wildfire ignition hazards around existing structures. The Page 1 18 Community Planning Workshop standards provide requirements for new construction such as wildfire hazard assessments, mitigation and maintenance plan, and defensible space standards. Best Practice 3: Achieve Firewise Standards or Firewise Recognition. Firewise is a non -regulatory program managed by the NFPA that provides principles or standards that include many NFPA 1141 and 1144 standards. They reflect standards to reduce wildfire ignition to the home through building materials and defensible space around the structure. Communities can receive Firewise Recognition by following five steps that include: a wildfire hazard assessment, creating a community task force, holding an annual Firewise Day, spending $2 per capita on Firewise projects, and submitting an annual report to Firewise documenting the community's progress. Best Practice 4: City of Ashland Municipal Code 18.62.090 requires subdivisions to submit a Fire Prevention and Control Plan with any application for an outline plan, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application to partition land when in areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas. Plans include the following items: analysis of the fire hazards on site influenced by existing vegetation and topography, a map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation, a map of areas that will be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees, tree management plan, areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks, and roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access, including the slope of all roads and driveways (See Appendix A: City of Ashland, OR). Applicable County Code: Title 17.16.030 Subdivisions: Informational Requirements, 17.16.050 Master Development Plan, and 18.113 Destination Resorts. Implications: The County Code does not address specific wildfire mitigation requirements for Subdivisions or Destination Resorts. Chapter 18.113 for Destination Resorts does require a wildfire prevention, control and evacuation plan but does not include any specifications regarding that plan. The county could decide to include regulations from NFPA 1141 and 1144 to address adequate access for emergency responders, water supply, non-combustible building materials, defensible space, fire-resistant landscaping, and requirements for a mitigation plan as well as maintenance plan. Implementing standards identified from Firewise, or achieving Firewise recognition, would help ensure that communities prepare for wildfire mitigation prior to development and have a maintenance plan to continue to prevent wildfire risk to homeowners and their properties. These additional wildfire mitigation requirements could be viewed as restrictive and cause higher costs to developers. However, achieving these standards can also be used as a successful marketing tool. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan would ensure that subdivisions have clear plans in place before development. Clear standards and requirements for this plan would assist developers in the project planning process and ensure that maintenance of these standards remain in perpetuity. Require Fire Protection Proof for Subdivisions Requiring proof of fire protection ensures that a fire district will be able to serve new subdivisions before they are permitted. Although this is not a currently I Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 19 pressing issue, continued population growth into unincorporated areas could exceed the capacity of rural fire districts. Best Practice: Proof of Fire Protection is a best practice found in the Jefferson County, CO Land Development Regulation Section 4.C.18. It requires a written statement from the appropriate fire district indicating that they will serve the property. If the property is not within a fire district, a contract with the district would need to be established indicating that fire protection to the property will be provided. Applicable County Code: Title 17.16.030 Subdivisions: Informational Requirements Implications: The Deschutes County Code does not currently require proof of fire protection for subdivisions. Requiring proof of fire protection from a fire district to serve the development will help ensure that emergency responders will adequately be able to service the property. If a property is not currently provided fire protection service a contract, or annexation into a fire district, will help ensure fire protection can be provided. This policy could be restrictive to developers and cause service problems for fire districts however; it will ensure that adequate protection can be provided before property is developed. Wildfire Mitigation Plan for Single -Family Homes Including wildfire mitigation plans as part of the site plan review process for single- family homes ensures that homeowners and developers are mindful of and take an active role in mitigating the risks associated with locating in the wildland-urban interface. Best Practice: Due to the frequency with which homes are being built in wildland areas of Deschutes County, requiring Wildfire Mitigation Plans may be a useful addition to the site plan review process. Including Wildfire Mitigation Plans as required contents for the site plan review process could minimize the loss of lives and property from wildfires. A sample Wildfire Mitigation Plan from Kane County, Utah is as follows: A site plan, showing 1) the location and extent of structures and other improvements, the defensible space management zones around the structures, the driveway access for emergency vehicles, emergency water supply for fire fighting, and the locations of other specific natural and human created features, and 2) a narrative that describes in detail these same features.' Another sample of code language from Boulder County Land Use Code Article 4- 804.C.12 (See Appendix A: Boulder County, CO): ' Kane County Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Available at: htjkane.utah. ov att 38 store/M ildfire- Mitigation-Plan.pdf. Page 120 Community Planning Workshop A Wildfire Mitigation Plan demonstrating the appropriate site location of structures, construction design and the use of ignition resistant building material, defensible space and fuel reduction around the structures, driveway access for emergency vehicles, and an emergency water supply for firefighting. Applicable County Code: 18.36.050(A) Standards for Single -Family Dwellings in Forest Use Zone 1 and 2, 18.124.040 Site Plan Review: Contents and Procedure, and 19.76 Site Plan Review. Implications: Wildfire Mitigation Plans would ensure an action and maintenance plan in regards to wildfire be developed prior to construction and occupancy. This would ensure that the homeowner considers wildfire mitigation planning and maintenance before development and in perpetuity. The Plan would ensure the development is built to NFPA standards. It would require additional effort from homeowners and developers prior to development along with the continued maintenance as well as create restrictions to design. Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment A wildland fire hazard assessment determined through SB360 could be put to use by informing conditional use development in wildland-urban interface areas. If specific mitigation measures should be taken, they would be taken into consideration prior to development. Best Practice: This code does not indicate how the increase in fire hazard, fire suppression costs, or risk to fire suppression personnel would be measured. We suggest the county consider including language stating the fire hazard risk would be determined by a wildland fire hazard assessment. Wildland Fire Hazard Assessments have already been determined through 56360, which could be used to measure the hazard rating and applicable requirements necessary for each parcel. Other examples of this language and assessment can be found in NFPA 1144 Chapter 4, and the ICC International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Applicable County Code: 18.36.40(8) Conditional Use in Forest Use Zone 1 and 2 Implications: A Wildland Hazard Assessment initiated before development would identify the level of risk to a property and ensure adequate mitigation standards are obtained before construction and occupancy. The assessments could require additional staff time; however, they would also provide and educational opportunity to discuss specific mitigation action items for the property to address before development. Standards for Road Identification Signs Standardized protocols regarding road identification signs and address markers can help emergency responders quickly find their destinations. As population growth into unincorporated areas continues, explicit language can standardize the location and appearance of road and address markers. i:.-, Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 21 Best Practice: The Code does not include language to address road identification signs or markers. Proper signage is important for emergency responders to quickly locate and identify a residence. We recommend the County consider including policies on road and address marking. The International Wildland-Urban Interface Code section 403.4 and 403.6 provide specific language addressing road and address marking.- The International Wildland-Urban Interface Code section 403.6 includes specific standards for address identification signs that could help emergency responders quickly and easily locate a residence in danger. An example of this Language includes: "All buildings shall have a permanently posted address, which shall be placed at each driveway entrance and be visible from both directions of travel along the road. In all cases, the address shall be posted at the beginning of construction and shall be maintained thereafter, and the address shall be visible and legible from the road on which the address is located." Applicable County Code: Title 18.36.080 Fire Safety Design Standards for Roads Implications: Clearly identifiable signage for roads and residences helps emergency responders quickly locate and identify residences in time -sensitive situations. Wildfire Policy Options Matrix The following matrix lists each policy options listed in this document, with a condensed breakdown of applicable county code, a description of the policy option, the issues each policy option addresses, the applicability for Deschutes County, and the implications on the county if it were to adopt the option. Sections that are highlighted in gray are areas that the county may want to initiate its code update review process. Page 1 22 Community Planning Workshop Table 3 Wildfire Policy Options Matrix Source: Community Planning Workshop I`-� Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June zu io Planning Commission Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description Issues Addressed Applicability Implications of Adoption Commission was interested to W1 Wildfire Hazard 15.04.085 Building and Given the prevalence of wildfire risk within Adoption of the Wildfire Hazard Areas map All new development on private land in Eliminates the need to individually Combining Zone Construction Codes and Deschutes County, applying transparent and implements the provisions of the Wildfire Hazard Deschutes County prescribe wildfire provisions for each base see a potential hazard tiering Regulations: Wildfire effective standards to each individual base zone Mitigation Section of the Oregon Residential zone. Provides clear, consistent system. Hazard Zones may not be the most effective means of Specialty Code requirements for developers and property regulating development. By implementing an owners. Will require most of the County to Title 18 - County Zoning overlay district in Deschutes County, now follow higher wildfire regulation development standards for mitigating wildfire standards instead of only the Forest Zones. risk could be more easily interpreted and applied. W2 Building Materials 15.04.08515.04.085 In order to maintain fire resistance of shake Wooden shake building materials pose a serious New construction; roof replacements. Would Although wooden shake building materials Commission was very interested Building and roofs and siding, frequent retreatments are risk to residents in the event of a wildfire. require Class A fire rated materials. can be treated and re -treated to meet Class in this topic. Construction Codes and required. Since it is unlikely that homeowners Current County Code allows wooden shake roofs B roofing standards, explicitly prohibiting Regulations in Wildfire will treat their homes as often as necessary, we and siding if they are Class B or higher. To attain new structures from using wooden shake Retroactive application was a Hazard Zones recommend the County consider specifically a Class B rating, a shake roof must be treated building materials addresses the hazard topic of conversation, citing prohibiting shake building materials within with a fire-resistant material. However, this inherent to combustible building materials. Sunriver's mandatory Class A fire 18.36.070(E) Structural 15.04.085. treatment deteriorates relatively quickly in the Existing structures could be exempted from rated materials for roofing. Standards in Forest Use County's climate conditions, and it is uncommon this requirement unless a homeowner Zone for homeowners to retreat their homes as often undertook a significant re -roofing or siding as is necessary. project. Requires Class A materials. W3 Steep Slopes 18.36.070 Fire Siting Set a slope grade threshold above which Fire spreads much more rapidly up slopes than Applicable to new developments. There are not This best practice option, when combined No comments were provided. Standards for Dwellings development requirements, such as augmented flat ground, which poses a threat to structures many developable properties with slopes with defensible space measures, can and Structures in Forest defensible space, must be met. To be consistent situated on steep slopes. Currently, single-family greater than 25%; a full analysis has yet to be achieve enhanced resilience to wildfires Use Zone with existing code language, the County could dwellings are allowed on slopes as steep as 40% completed. without impinging on private property set this threshold at 25 percent. This threshold in Forest Use Zones. The best practice in regards rights. Landowners and developers should and its requirements would ideally be included to development on steep slopes is to regulate be encouraged to develop on flat terrain to as a provision applied within a Wildfire Hazard development above a certain slope threshold. the greatest degree possible, but providing Combining Zone. sensible regulations considers the inevitability of development on slopes. W4 Defensible Space 17.16.030(C)(12) Requirements currently stated in 18.36.070. Defensible space standards are not mentioned Applicable to new developments. Decreased risk to residential development, Commission voiced concern Informational Suggestion to include requirements in for Subdivisions and Destination Resort however, an increase of staff time to about the 100 to 200 foot buffer Requirements for Subdivisions and Destination Resorts as well as requirements. Defensible space standards listed County inspector. Homeowners will be zone. Subdivisions include requirements for fire-resistant in 18.36.070 for Forest Zones do follow NFPA and responsible for maintenance of their Commission was also interested landscaping. Firewise standards but do not include fire- defensible space. in including defensible space 17.16.050 Master resistant landscaping requirements which is a key requirements for Subdivisions Development Plan proven factor in maintaining effective defensible and Destination Resorts and space. wanted fire-resistant landscaping to be addressed. 18.113.060 Destination Resorts W5 Subdivision Fire 17.16.030(C)(12) The County may want to consider including a Standards would address national best practices Applicable to new developments. Provides additional protection from wildfire No comments were provided. Protection Informational provision for Subdivisions and Destination for emergency access requirements, road grades, risk. Could require additional costs to (NFPA 1141) Requirements for Resorts that requires areas at risk of wildfires to building separation to reduce the spread of developers, however, can also be used as a Subdivisions achieve specific NFPA 1141 standards. wildfire, water supply, building materials, and useful marketing and real estate tool. wildfire mitigation planning before development. 17.16.050 Master Standards include requirements for subdivision Development Plan access, building separation, fire protection, and water supply. 18.113.060 Destination Resorts Source: Community Planning Workshop I`-� Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June zu io Table 3 Wildfire Policy Options Matrix (continued) Source: Community Planning Workshop Page 124 Community Planning worKSnop Planning Commission •. .. . f Adoption Comments W6 Structure Ignition 17.16.030(C)(12) The County may want to consider including a Standards would address national best practices Applicable to new developments. Provides additional protection from wildfire No comments were provided. Fire Protection Informational provision for Subdivisions and Destination for emergency access requirements, road grades, risk. Could require additional costs to (NFPA 1144) Requirements for Resorts that requires areas at risk of wildfires to building separation to reduce the spread of developers, however, can also be used as a Subdivisions achieve specific NFPA 1144 standards, wildfire, water supply, building materials, and useful marketing and real estate tool. wildfire mitigation planning before development. 17.16.050 Master Standards include requirements such as Development Plan reducing structure ignition through defensible space zones, non-combustible construction 18.113.060 Destination materials, hazard mitigation assessments, and Resorts wildfire mitigation action and maintenance plans. W7 Firewise 17.16.030(C)(12) Firewise Recognition or becoming a Firewise Requirement would address consistent standards Applicable to new developments. Earns neighborhood national recognition, Commission said this translates Recognition Informational Community would help subdivisions create for all Subdivisions and Destination Resorts to can reduce insurance premiums, protects well to increased property values Requirements for neighborhood action plans to mitigate wildfire create wildfire mitigation plans before community from wildfire risk. Could require and increased safety. Subdivisions from the beginning of development. development and maintain standards in additional costs to developers, however, perpetuity. can also be used as a useful marketing and 18.113.060 Destination real estate tool. Resorts W8 Fire Protection 17.16.030(C)(12) In addition to requiring a proposed fire This requirement would address assurance that a Applicable to new developments. Requiring applicants to prove they are No comments were provided. Proof Informational protection system it would be beneficial to fire district could have the capability to service protected by a fire protection district Requirements for include Fire Protection Proof. Fire Protection the property. If adequate level of service could appears to place extra administrative Subdivisions Proof requires the applicant to show proof that not be provided, this would alert the fire districts pressure on rural fire districts. However, the property is located within a fire protection to plan which department could provide the requiring fire protection information prior district that will serve the property. (Jefferson service or if annexation or a new district would to subdivision approval can shed light on County, CO) need to be created. potential issues that could arise as a result of overloading a rural fire district. W9 Firewise 17.16.030(C)(12) Firewise standards include: nonflammable Standards would ensure developments follow Applicable to new developments. Provides additional protection from wildfire No comments were provided. Protection Informational roofing materials, requirements for windows, national best practice models to reduce wildfire risk. Could require additional costs to Standards Requirements for vents, and attachments, Firewise plants, risk by using non-flammable construction developers, however, can also be used as a Subdivisions defensible space, and landscape maintenance. materials and fire-resistant landscaping. useful marketing and real estate tool. 18.113.060 Destination Resorts W10 Fire Apparatus 17.36.260 Fire Hazards The Deschutes County Code currently requires a These requirements would explicitly state higher Applicable to new developments. The costs associated with providing Commission wanted to clarify Access minimum of two points of access to a access requirements to be addressed for additional points of access can be that this applies to subdivision in a fire hazard area. ICC Subdivisions as listed in the ICC code and in considered by developers as barriers to developments with over 600 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code 18.36.260. development. However, higher standards dwelling units. Staff will includes additional standards for fire apparatus for access help prevent the loss of determine the appropriate scale access in subdivisions. We recommend The structures and ensure the safe ingress and of development to apply this County consider these higher standards to egress of fire crews, emergency personnel, standard. ensure adequate access in future subdivisions. and residents. Requirements currently found in 18.36.080. We suggest these same requirements be applied to 17.36.260 Source: Community Planning Workshop Page 124 Community Planning worKSnop Table 3 Wildfire Policy Options Matrix (continued) Source: Community Planning Workshop ! _ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 25 Applicability Implications of Adoption Planning Commission Comments Ref. # Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description Issues Addressed Road/Address The Code does not include language to address This requirement would include requirements for Applicable to new developments. Increases visibility and correct W11 18.36.080 Fire Safety Creates accessible signage for emergency Identification Signs Design Standards for road identification signs or markers. Proper proper signage fore emergency responders that responders to quickly locate and identify address identification and Roads in Forest Use signage is important for emergency responders currently does not exist and would help identify residences. location in time -sensitive Zone 1 & 2 to quickly locate and identify a residence. We locations in need of emergency. emergency responses. Desire to recommend the County consider including include same requirement on policies on road and address marking. The long private driveways with International Wildland-Urban Interface Code multiple residences. section 403.4 and 403.6 provide specific language addressing road and address marking. W12 Wildland Fire 18.36.40(B) Conditional This section does not indicate how the increase A Wildfire Hazard Assessment imitated before Applicable to new single-family dwellings. Additional staff time for individual No comments were provided. Hazard Use in Forest Use Zone in fire hazard, fire suppression costs, or risk to development would identify the level of risk to a assessments, provides specific mitigation Assessment 1&2 fire suppression personnel would be measured. property and ensure adequate mitigation action items for property to address before We suggest the County consider including standards are obtained before construction and development language stating the fire hazard risk would be occupancy. determined by a wildland fire hazard assessment. Examples of this language and assessment can be found in NFPA 1144 Chapter 4 and the ICC International Wildland-Urban Interface Code W13 Wildfire Mitigation 18.36.050(A) Standards Due to the frequency with which homes are Wildfire Mitigation Plans would ensure an action Applicable to new single-family dwellings. Creates a wildfire mitigation plan at the No comments were provided. Plans for Single -Family being built in wildland areas of Deschutes and maintenance plan in regards to wildfire be time of development. Builds and develops Dwellings in Forest Use County, requiring Wildfire Mitigation Plans may developed prior to construction and occupancy. land to NFPA standards. Requires additional Zone 1 & 2 be a useful addition to the site plan review This would ensure that the homeowner effort from homeowners and developers as process. We recommend the County consider considers wildfire mitigation planning and well as restrictions to design. 18.124.040(D) Site Plan Including Wildfire Mitigation Plans as required maintenance before development and in Review contents for the site plan review process could perpetuity. minimize the loss of lives and property from wildfires. (Kane County, UT; Boulder County, CO, NFPA 1144 Chapter 4.3) W14 Fire Prevention Section 17.16.050 The Master Development Plan does not include Fire Prevention and Control Plans address Applicable to new developments. Provides clear expectations for developers, No comments were provided. and Control Plans Master Development a requirement for wildfire treatment in the Subdivisions that did not have clear wildfire wildfire planning considered in early phases Plan wildfire hazard zone. Fire Prevention and prevention plans in place before development. of planning Control Plans address water supply, access, Clear standards and requirements for this plan building ignition and fire -resistance factors, fire would help developers with their design plan and protection systems and equipment, defensible ensure that maintenance of these standards space, and vegetation management. (City of remain in perpetuity. Ashland / International Wildland-Urban Interface Code) Source: Community Planning Workshop ! _ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 25 CHAPTER 4: FLOOD HAZARDS This chapter identifies the risk flood poses to Deschutes County, the extent of the risk, and the rate and location of development affected by flood hazard. Following are policy options to strengthen Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. The policy options have been made by cross-referencing the existing development code against the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP), and based upon best practices, case studies and model ordinances. Policy options are presented with descriptions of best practices, identification of the applicable county code, and details of economic, administrative, health, or environmental impacts of implementing the policy. Flood risk in Deschutes County The geological makeup and arid climate of Deschutes County makes it less susceptible to flooding than surrounding counties. Due to underlying porous volcanic rocks that have a large capacity for water storage, flooding has not been a serious problem in Deschutes County. Total precipitation in the Pacific Northwest region may remain similar to historic levels but climate projections indicate the likelihood of increased winter precipitation and decreased summer precipitation.' Increasing temperatures affects hydrology in the region. Spring snowpack has substantially decreased throughout the Western part of the United States, particularly in areas with milder winter temperatures, such as the Cascade Mountains. In other areas of the West, such as east of the Cascades Mountains, snowfall is affected less by the increasing temperature, because the temperatures are already cold, and more by precipitation patterns.2 Deschutes County has assessed the probability of a flood event to be high (at least one flood event within the next 10 to 35 years) and the vulnerability to the population and property to be low (less than 1% of population and property expected to be affected by any one event).' Extent of flood prone areas Flooding in Deschutes County mainly occurs from prolonged warm rain on snow, snowmelt flooding, or frazil ice and ice jams near Mirror Pond.' There is also a potential flood hazard due to a moraine dam at Carver Lake near the Three Sisters ' Climate Impacts Group, "Climate Change," http://cses.wash.i.ngton.edu/cig/pnwc/"`cc.shtml#anchor6 z Mote, Philip W., et. al., "Variability and trends in Mountain Snowpack in Western North America," http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/`moteetaIvarandtrends436.pdf ' Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 Update 41bid Page 126 Community Planning Workshop and Broken Top that could fail due to seismic activity, avalanches of rock and ice, or the unstable nature of the dam material. Historically, a few significant flooding events have affected the county. Two noteworthy floods occurred in 1909 and 1964 along the Deschutes River downstream of the Little Deschutes River at the gauge near Benham Falls. The principal sources of flooding occur from the Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, Whychus Creek, Paulina Creek, and Spring River. These locations can potentially threaten the communities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters, and Tumalo. The annual flood season for these regions occurs approximately between October through July.' Rate and location of development Deschutes County has approved roughly 50 land use permits for some type of development in the 100 -year floodplain since 2005. Approximately 20 of these permits were conditional use permits that allowed for development of new residential structures in the floodplain. Most of the approved conditional use permits were located between Sunriver and La Pine along the Deschutes River. A majority of people in Deschutes County reside in Bend or within the unincorporated areas of the county. Deschutes County experienced a 41% increase in population between 2000 and 2013. The County Coordinated Population Forecast projects that by 2025 Deschutes County's population will increase by 48% to about 78,300 people. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of people residing in unincorporated areas grew by more than 10%, totaling 53,870 people. Forecasts estimate this number to grow to nearly 80,000 people by 2025. Existing Flood Programs in Deschutes County The National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers affordable flood insurance to property owners in communities that adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management regulations set by FEMA. Deschutes County participants in the NFIP and continues to maintain compliance with the program's minimum standards. Homeowners with federally backed mortgages located in the floodplain zone are required to purchase flood insurance. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) are maps which identifies the special flood hazard area and the risk premium zones for a community. Deschutes County's current FIRMs were digitally updated in 2007. In 2012, based upon data from the U.S. Census, the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a division ' ]bid ;�. Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page of FEMA, reported that approximately 15% of Deschutes households were eligible for the NFIP had policies been in force.' Existing Flood Model Ordinances and Standards The following model ordinances and standards were used in the process of reviewing the County's development code in addressing flood hazard mitigation. FEMA Model Washington National Floodplain Insurance Program: Endangered Species Act Ordinance Provides guidance on ways to improve floodplain management practices while assisting communities to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act within FEMA Region 10. http://www.fema.gov/media-Iibrary-data/1383597893424- 4747f7O23 10a 2 b bc7eO4ea83 d66f73f5/N F I P—ESA—M od eI_Ord inance.pdf Oregon Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance The model ordinance includes required, and recommended, standards and provisions that ensure sound floodplain management practices to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the state of Oregon.' Review of Existing Policy Options for Deschutes County This section presents a review of the County's Comprehensive Pan in regards to land use and flood mitigation and identifies potential actions to strengthen current policies. The existing comprehensive plan policy language is shown in italics followed by our comments. Model development code language is shown in italics and underlined. Review of County Comprehensive Plan Policies Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5. 10 (a): National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Participation The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. When a community participates in the CRS, flood insurance rates are discounted to reflect ' Community Development Department: Deschutes County. 2015 . http•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/1189/ memo re review of policies re fires and floods.p 7 Cregon.gov,. 2015. 'DLCD Natural Hazards Floods: Local Government'. http•//www oreaon aov/LCD/HAZ/panes/localpov aspx Page 128 Community Planning Workshop the reduced flood risk resulting from the community actions meeting the three goals of the CRS: 1. Reduce flood damage to insurable property; 2. Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP, and; 3. Encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. Best Practice: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.10 (a) states that the county will: Regulate development in designated floodplains identified on the Deschutes County Zoning Map based on Federal Emergency Management Act regulations. Participate in and implement the Community Rating System (CRS) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). CRS standards go beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Adoption of CRS strengthens and supports the insurance aspects of the NFIP and encourages a comprehensive approach to floodplain management. Applicable County Code: County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.10 (a) Implications: According to County Development Department staff, "based on coordination with Department of Land Conservation (DLCD), staff believes that the above -and -beyond programs of the Community Rating System (CRS) would present a low return on investment of staff time and resources." CPW recommends that the County periodically review participation in the Community Rating System. The County may choose to implement the CRS program if there is a significant increase in participation by county residents in the NFIP flood insurance program, increasing the value of reduced insurance rates, or if basic CRS activities were pre-packaged for easy deployment by DLCD, reducing the cost. Due to the County's lack of participation and implementation of the CRS program it is recommended that Comprehensive Plan Policy, 3.5.10 (a), be repealed. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5. 10 (a): Improving Flood Damage Insurance and Human Health Alongside the benefit of reduced insurance rates, CRS floodplain management activities enhance public safety, reduce damages to property and public infrastructure, avoid economic disruption and losses, reduce human suffering, and protect the environment. Best Practice: Community Rating System (CRS) standards go beyond the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Implementation of CRS supports and strengthens the insurance aspects of the NFIP and fosters a widespread approach to floodplain management. Deschutes County Community Development staff has stated that opting into the CRS would not be worth the effort involved in participation at this time. However, the following specific CRS higher standards are worth consideration to reduce damages to property and public infrastructure, enhance public safety, reduce human suffering, avoid economic disruption and losses, and protect the environment: • 432.e - Lower Substantial Improvements Threshold (See Lower and Cumulative Substantial Improvements) 432.d - Cumulative Substantial Improvements 431.a - Protecting Critical Facilities (See Critical Facilities) I _' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 29 • 432.a.(3) - Development Limitations (See Hazardous Materials) Utilizing these higher standards would add more clarity to the Deschutes County Code purposes section. This section of the code currently doesn't provide enough detail on the financial impacts or human health aspects of flooding. Additionally, the Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance has sample code language that provides an emphasis on human health and financial impacts. Applicable County Code: Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.10; 18.96.040(B) County Zoning, Conditional Uses Permitted; 18.96.040(1) County Zoning, Conditional Uses Permitted; 18.96.050 County Zoning, Prohibited Uses. Implications: As stated, opting into the CRS may not be worth the effort involved in participation at this time. However, implementing identifiable higher standards that are particularly relevant to Deschutes County will add targeted improvement to flood hazards. Roseville, CA, is one community that currently participates in the CRS and is the only one in the country to receive a Class 1 CRS rating and it has benefited property owners and developers alike (See Appendix B: Case Study: Roseville, CA). Deschutes County can choose not to participate in the CRS while still implementing several of the program's higher standards that will have a direct benefit to residents. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.1 1 ft Floodplain Combining Zone Converting a base zone to a floodplain combining zone allows for each property within the zone to be appropriately designated based on the neighborhood. It would indicate restrictions and conditional development that are subject to the flood hazard in accordance with FEMA regulations. Best Practice: Deschutes County Code has three sections that include floodplain regulations (two of which are combining districts): 1. Chapter 18.96 County Zoning, Flood Plain Zone, 2. Chapter 18.108 County Zoning, Urban Unincorporated Community Zone — Sunriver (in particular 18.108.190 Flood Plain Combining District), and 3. Chapter 19.72 Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance, Flood Plain Combining Zone. Repeal of the existing floodplain zones (18.96 and 18.108.190) and creation of one Floodplain Combining Zone for Title 18 County Zoning and one for Title 19 Bend Urban Growth Boundary would reduce redundancy and eliminate the increased zoning legalities (See Case Study: Marion County, OR). Applicable County Code: Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.11 (f): Review and revise Deschutes County Code as needed to: Make the Floodplain Zone a combining zone and explore ways to minimize and mitigate floodplain impacts. Implications: Creation of a floodplain combining zone would reduce the redundancy of two sections of Chapter 18 with floodplain regulations, help to Page 1 30 Community Planning Workshop eliminate code interpretation challenges, and remove potential code enforcement errors. The Floodplain Zone (18.96) is currently a base zone, meaning that it has its own list of allowed uses, restrictions, and special provisions, like the Rural Residential Zone (RR -10) or Exclusive Farm Use Zone (EFU). Many properties have some Floodplain Zoning near the river with the majority of the property in a different zone. This "split -zoning' presents a number of code interpretation challenges. Creating a floodplain combining zone would help to reduce code interpretation challenges and potential code enforcement issues. REVIEW OF COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CODE This section presents a review of the county's current development code in regards to land use and flood mitigation policies and programs and identifies potential actions to strengthen current codes. In the following section the existing development code language is shown in italics followed by our comments. Model development code is shown in italics and underlined. Definitions Explicit definitions for specific words and terms utilized throughout county code assists understanding and fluidity at a common level. Best Practice: There are several definitions provided in the Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, Section 2.0 Definitions, that the County may choose to consider adding to the Code, including: "Below -tirade Crawl Space" means an enclosed area below the base flood elevation in which the interior grade is not more than two feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade and the height measured from the interior grade of the crowlspace to the top of the crawlspace foundation, does not exceed 4 feet at any point. Note: See comment under 18.96.080(D)(4) for more information regarding below -grade crawl spaces. "Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)" means a letter from FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would meet the minimum NFIP standards or proposed hydrology changes. "Critical Facility" means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to schools, nursing homes hospitals police fire and emergency response installations installations which produce use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. "Elevated Building" means for insurance purposes a non -basement building which has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls shear walls post piers, pilings, or columns. C�,I._._ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 age "Substantial Damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Applicable County Code: 18.04 Definitions Implications: Adopting specific definitions of commonly used words or phrases will reduce ambiguity. Clear definitions make standards more transparent for developers and homeowners. Purpose Statement A purpose statement is a declarative sentence or list that summarizes the specific topic and goals near the beginning of a document to give readers an accurate, concrete understanding of what will be covered in the text. Best Practice: The Deschutes County Code does a good job of addressing environmental impacts, but only has a broad scope of addressing human health. There is also no focus on the financial impact of flooding; from money for flood control projects to economic impacts on business interruptions. The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, Section 1.3 Statement of Purpose, provides specific language that illustrates the potential financial impact from flooding ranging from mitigation efforts to loss of business interruptions. Section 1.3 Statement of Purpose: 1) To protect human life and health; 2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; 3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public• 4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions, 5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric telephone and sewer lines streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard, - 6) To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; 7) To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and, 8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. Applicable County Code: 18.96.010 Purposes Implications: Expanding the purpose statement to include economic impacts will directly support Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, Goal 1 "Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards." Page 132 Community Planning Workshop Designation of Local Floodplain Administrator The duties of the local floodplain administrator are varied and include several tasks including: Review and evaluate development permit applications, issue permits, and maintain required records according to NFIP regulations. Best Practice: The designation of the local floodplain administrator and their duties and responsibilities are covered in 18.96.020 and 18.96.070. The duties, however, could be more explicit and ensure that the elevation certificate, base flood elevation, and substantial damage requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program are explicitly referenced. The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, Section 4.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the Local Administrator, provides more explicit language: 4.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the Local Administrator Duties of the local administrator shall include, but not be limited to: 4.3-1 Provide Base Flood Elevation and Freeboard When base flood elevation has been provided in accordance with Section 3 2 Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard and the local administrator shall provide it to the Building Official along with any freeboard requirements established in Section 5.2 Specific Standards. When base flood elevation data has not been provided (A and V Zones) in accordance with Section 3.2 Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard the local administrator shall obtain review, and provide any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source, in order to administer Sections 5.2 Specific Standards, and 5.3 Floodways and the Building Codes. Applicable County Code: 18.96.020 Designated Areas; 18.96.070 Application for Conditional Use Implications: Adoption of Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, Section 4.3, will address changes in 2014 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, which removed NFIP duties from building code. Hazardous Material The storage of hazardous material in the floodplain poses a serious threat to residents in the event of a flood. Stored materials can become debris during flooding when river currents dislodge and move materials across the floodplain. Best Practice: The Deschutes County Code does not explicitly prohibit storage of hazardous materials in the floodplain. Prohibiting storage of hazardous materials in the floodplain is critical in reducing the damage caused by floods. The Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance, Section 5.3 Hazardous Materials, offers explicit language for prohibiting hazardous materials in the floodplain: I'.=--' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 133 Section 5.3 Hazardous Materials: A. No new development shall create a threat to public health, public safety, or water quality. Chemicals explosives gasoline propane buoyant materials animal wastes fertilizers flammable liquids pollutants or other materials that are hazardous toxic, or a threat to water quality are prohibited from the Special Flood Hazard Area. This prohibition does not apply to small quantities of these materials kept for normal household use. This prohibition does not apply to the continued operations of existing facilities and structures reuse of existing facilities and structures, or functionally dependent facilities or structures. Applicable County Code: 18.96.040 (B) Conditional Uses Permitted Implications: Utilizing more specific language for hazardous materials will add to the safety and health of the public during and after a flood. Adoption of hazardous materials storage prohibition in the floodplain supports Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Guidelines: "Local governments should consider measures that exceed the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) such as: prohibiting the storage of hazardous materials in floodplains or providing for safe storage of such materials." Implementation of this policy may require additional staff time for monitoring. Lower Substantial Improvements Threshold A substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure that will cost 50% of the market value of the structure before improvements begin. Best Practice: The National Flood Insurance Program minimum requirement treats any construction that will incur improvements totaling more than 50% of the market value of the structure as a new structure. This means the structure will need to be elevated above base flood elevation and meet other flood protection measures specified by the NFIP. A lower substantial improvements threshold (example 25%, 40%, etc.) standard allows improvements valued at up to 50% of the building's pre -improvement value to be permitted without meeting the flood protection requirements for buildings located in the special flood hazard area. Applying this would require structures to comply with NFIP requirements if improvements met the lower threshold. Applicable County Code: 18.96.040(1) Conditional Uses Permitted Implications: Adoption of the standard applies to expansion or substantial improvement of an existing dwelling, an agricultural related structure, a commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure, or an accessory building in a floodplain. Implementation of the standard would increase the minimum requirement of the NFIP and treat any structure that incurs improvements totaling the new threshold standard (25%, 40%, etc.) of the market value of the structure as a new structure. Adoption of the policy may require additional staff time for permit assessment. Page 134 Community Planning Workshop Cumulative Substantial Improvements A substantially improved structure must be brought into compliance with NFIP regulations and other requirements in the local ordinance for new construction. This will include cumulative damages incurred over time to the structure. Best Practice The National Flood Insurance Program minimum requirement treats any construction that will incur improvements totaling more than 50% of the market value of the structure as a new structure. This means the structure will need to be elevated above base flood elevation and meet other flood protection measures specified by the NFIP. Different from a lower substantial improvement threshold, cumulative substantial improvement ensures that the total value of all improvements or repairs permitted over time does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure. According to FEMA's Higher Floodplain Management Regulatory Standards, some communities have begun to track these improvements over time (i.e., the structure must be elevated if they received flood damage two times over the past 10 years, of which the cost to repair after each flood equals 25% of the market value on average). In addition, applying the standard to cumulative substantial improvement would apply the NFIP regulation for improvements over the lifetime of the structure. Applicable County Code: 18.96.040(1) Conditional Uses Permitted Implications: Adoption of the standard applies to expansion or substantial improvement of an existing dwelling, an agricultural related structure, a commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure, or an accessory building in a floodplain. Adoption of the standard would increase the minimum requirement of the NFIP and treat any structure that incurs improvements totaling more than 50% of the market value of the structure over the lifetime of the structure, as a new structure. Implementation of the policy would require additional staff time for assessment and management of permits over time. Critical Facilities Critical facilities are vital to flood response activities or critical to the health and safety of the public before, during, and after a flood, such as a hospital, emergency operations center, electric substation, police station, fire station, nursing home, school, vehicle and equipment storage facility, or shelter. Facilities that, if flooded, would make the flood problem and its impacts much worse, such as a hazardous materials facility, power generation facility, water utility, or wastewater treatment plant. Given this, it is prudent to require these facilities to be sited outside of the floodplain unless no viable alternative exists. Best Practice: The Deschutes County Code does not define critical facilities or prohibit development in the special flood hazard area. The Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance, Section 5.4 Critical Facility, defines and provides language specific to critical facilities: I' -' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 135 Critical facility: A structure or other improvement that,because of its function size, service area or uniqueness has the potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage or disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed or damaged or if its functionality is impaired. Critical facilities include health and safety facilities utilities, government facilities, and hazardous materials facilities. For the purposes of a local regulation, a community may also use the International Codes' definition for Category III and IV buildings. 5.4. Critical Facilities A. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible located outside the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area. B. Construction of new critical facilities in the Special Flood Hazard Area shall be permissible if no feasible alternative site is available, provided 1. Critical facilities shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above the base flood elevation or to the height of the 500 -year flood, whichever is higher. If there is no available data on the 500 -year flood the permit applicants shall develop the needed data in accordance with FEMA mapping guidelines. 2. Access to and from the critical facility shall be protected to the elevation of the 500 -year flood. An additional provision regarding hazardous materials facility, power generation facility, water utility, or wastewater treatment plant located in the floodplain is provided by the Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, Section 5.7 Critical Facility: Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Applicable County Code: 18.96.050 Prohibited Uses Implications: Adoption of critical facilities prohibition in the floodplain supports Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.6: "Critical facilities (schools, churches, hospitals and other facilities as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) should be located outside high risk natural hazard areas, where possible." Implementation of this policy may require additional staff time for permit assessment. Below -grade Crawlspaces Crawlspace foundations are commonly used in some parts of the nation to elevate the lowest floors of residential buildings located in Special Flood Hazard Areas above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Crawlspaces that have their floors below BFE Page 136 Community Planning Workshop must have openings to allow the equalization of flood forces. Crawlspaces should be constructed so that the floor of the crawlspace is at or above the lowest grade adjacent to the building. Best Practice: Defining below -grade crawlspaces is important for both developers and property owners to ensure that flood damage is kept to a minimum. The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance section 4.3.3(1) explicitly lists "below -grade crawl spaces" in addition to the requirements of 18.96.070(E). It's recommended that the county consider specifically listing "below -grade crawl spaces" in relation to elevation of the lowest habitable floor. A definition for below -grade crawl space has been offered in the section on Definitions (18.04). Applicable County Code: 18.96.070. Application for Conditional Use. Implications: Adoption of the policy would require that each applicant enter into a non -conversion deed declaration for construction within flood hazards areas or equivalent. The deed would be recorded and in a form that the Floodplain Administrator finds acceptable. This may require additional staff time for the permit process. Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) A CLOMR is FEMA's comment on a proposed project that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations, or the Special Flood Hazard Area. The letter does not revise an effective NFIP map, but rather it indicates whether the project, if built as proposed, would be recognized by FEMA. Best Practice: The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance section 4.3.4(4) provides specific language requiring an applicant to obtain a CLOMR from FEMA before encroachments are permitted. Deschutes County Code does not currently explicitly require this. It's recommended the County adopt similar language to the following: (4) Applicants shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA before any encroachment including fill, new construction, substantial improvement or other development, in the regulatory floodway is permitted The applicant shall be responsible for preparing technical data to support the CLOMR application and paying any processing or application fees to FEMA. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(B) Criteria to Evaluate Conditional Uses Implications: Adoption of the policy would require that any applicant prepare technical data to support the CLOMR application and pay processing or application fees to FEMA prior to any encroachment. This will prevent the alteration or relocation of water course without prior approval or notification to adjacent communities. This may require additional staff time for permit assessment. 1:.=' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 37 Density and Provision of Open Space Designating open space in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and limiting the density of development in this area allows for flood waters to overrun natural land uses, while protecting the more densely developed areas outside the SFHA. Best Practice: The Deschutes County Code currently requires all subdivision and partition proposals to "be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage." However, the code fails to address the density of development or adds a provision for open space. Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance provides an example of open space use requirements to manage density in the floodplain: Section 5.1 Subdivisions: B. The proposed subdivision must have one or more new lots in the Special Flood Hazard Areas set aside for open space use through deed restriction, easement subdivision covenant or donation to a public agency. 1. In the Special Flood Hazard Area outside the Protected Area, zoning must maintain a low density of floodplain development. 2. In the Special Flood Hazard Area outside the protected area in which the current zoning is less than 5 acres must maintain the current zoning. 3. The density of the development in the portion of the development outside the Special Flood Hazard Area may be increased to compensate for the amount of land in the Special Flood Hazard Area preserved as open space in accordance with (section of the community's zoning or other development ordinance that allows PUDs and/or transfers of development rights). C. 1 a parcel has a buildable site outside the Special Flood Hazard Area, it shall not be subdivided to create a new lot tract, or parcel within a binding site plan that does not have a buildable site outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. This provision does not apply to lots set aside from development and preserved as open space. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(E) Subdivision and Partition Proposals Implications: Adoption of density restriction and allocation of open space in the floodplain supports Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Guidelines: "In adopting plan policies and implementing measures to protect people and property from natural hazards, local governments should consider: the benefits of maintaining natural hazard areas as open spaces, recreation and other low density uses." This could require additional costs to developers; however, it can also be used as a useful marketing and real estate tool. This may require additional staff time for permit assessment. Access Roads An access road that is built at or above the floodplain elevation provides an evacuation route for residents, as well as an emergency response route for emergency responders. Page 138 Community Planning Workshop Best Practices: Providing access roads that can be utilized during a flood event is critical for emergency response and the evacuation of residents. Current Deschutes County code does not provide regulations to ensure subdivisions are accompanied by access roads that are both connected to land outside the floodplain and above the floodplain elevation. There is specific language listed in the Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance Section 5.1(E) that addresses evacuation safety of residents in the event of a flood. Section 5.1 Subdivisions E. All proposals shall ensure that all subdivisions have at least one access road connected to land outside the Special Flood Hazard Area with the surface of the road at or above the FPE wherever possible. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(E) Subdivision and Partition Proposals Implications: Adoption of this policy supports Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Guidelines: "Local governments should give special attention to emergency access when considering development in identified hazard areas." This may require additional staff time for permit assessment. Filed Notice on the Final Recorded Subdivision Plat The final plat is the legal document that is recorded with the County Recorder's office. The sale of subdivided lots can only proceed after this recording. Adding a field notice to the final plat meets the requirements for Community Rating System credits. Best Practices: Current county code does not require subdivisions located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (floodplain), a channel migration area, or a riparian habitat zone to be accompanied by field notice on the final recorded subdivision plat. If the county were to include this requirement, Deschutes County would qualify for Community Rating System (CRS) credit. The Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance utilizes notification language for the county to consider: G. The final recorded subdivision plat shall include a notice that part of the property is in the SFHA, riparian habitat zone and/or channel migration area, as appropriate. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(E) Subdivision and Partition Proposals Implications: Adoption of this policy supports Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Guidelines: "Local governments should evaluate the risk to people and property based on the new inventory information and an assessment of the types and intensities of land uses to be allowed in the hazard area." This may require additional staff time for the permit process. Maintenance Plan or Emergency Action Plan A Maintenance Plan ensures that a building maintains floodproofing protection measures and outlines how the plan will be executed. An Emergency Action Plan details the facilitation and organization of individuals during an emergency, while :—, Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 139 also outlining where people will go based on the emergency, what triggers the implementation of the plan, and who is responsible for executing the plan. Best Practices: Implementing a comprehensive Maintenance Plan or an Emergency Action Plan provides community assurance that floodproofing protection measures are preserved and that building operators implement a plan of action for the installation and sealing of the structure for nonresidential construction prior to flooding. Deschutes County Code does not currently have any provisions addressing either of these plans. The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance has specific language that the County may consider: 5.2.2(6) Applicants shall supply a comprehensive Maintenance Plan for the entire structure to include but not limited to: exterior envelope of structure; all penetrations to the exterior of the structure, all shields, gates, barriers, or components designed to provide floodproofing protection to the structure• all seals or gaskets for shields, gates, barriers, or components; and, the location of all shields gates, barriers, and components as well as all associated hardware and any materials or specialized tools necessary to seal the structure. 5.2.2 (7) Applicants shall supply an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Installation and sealing of the structure prior to a flooding event that clearly identifies what triggers the EAP and who is responsible for enacting the EAP. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(G)(2) Nonresidential Construction Implications: Adoption of this policy may require additional staff time for individual assessments, provides specific mitigation and response action items for property owner to address. Manufactured Homes A manufactured home is a structure that is transportable in one or more sections that is built on a permanent chassis and designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to required utilities. Anchoring these structures to a permanent foundations helps to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement during a flood event. Best Practices: Deschutes County Code does not currently state that manufactured homes must be anchored to prevent them from serious damage in the event of a flood. Utilizing specific language addressing this will reduce damages during and after a flood event. Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance 5.2.3(1) has specific language for the County to consider: (1) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved sites on: (i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision (ii) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, (iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or Page 140 Community Planning Workshop (iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage" as the result of a flood; (v) shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the finished floor of the manufactured home is elevated to a minimum 18 inches (46 cm)2 above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately designed foundation system to resist flotation collapse and lateral movement. Applicable County Code: 18.96.080(G)(3) Manufactured Homes Implications: Adoption of this policy supports the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, Goal 1: "Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards." This will require additional staff time for individual assessment. Flood Policy Option Matrix The following matrix lists each policy option listed in this document, with a condensed breakdown of applicable county code, a description of the policy option, the issues each policy option addresses, the applicability for Deschutes County, and the implications on the county if it were to adopt the option. Sections that are highlighted in grey are areas that the county may want to initiate their code update review process. —, �;,;;�I.__ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page Table 4 Flood Policy Options Matrix Source: Community Planning Workshop Page 142 Community Planning Workshop t Implications of Adoption Planning Commission Comments Ref. # Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description Issues A ddressed Applicability Adopt higher standards in accordance with The minimum requirement of the NFIP treats any Adoption of the standard applies to expansion Adoption of the standard would increase No comments were provided. F1 Lower Substantial 18.96.040(1) County Improvements Zoning, Conditional Community Rating System (CRS) 432.e Lower structure that will incur improvements totaling or substantial improvement of an existing the minimum requirement of the NFIP and Threshold Uses Permitted Substantial Improvements Threshold with more than 50% of the market value of the dwelling, an agricultural related structure, a treat any structure that incurs FEMA's Higher Floodplain Management structure, as a new structure — meaning the commercial, industrial or other non-residential improvements totaling the new threshold Regulatory Standards language. structure will need to be elevated above base structure, or an accessory building in a standard (25%, 40%, etc.) of the market flood elevation and meet other flood protection floodplain. value of the structure as a new structure. measures specified by the NFIP. Applying a lower May require additional staff time for permit substantial improvements threshold (example assessment. 25%, 40%, etc.) standard would require structures to comply with NFIP requirements if improvements met the lower threshold. F2 Cumulative 18.96.040(1) County Adopt higher standards in accordance with The minimum requirement of the NFIP treats any Adoption of the standard applies to expansion Adoption of the standard would increase Commission questioned number Substantial Zoning, Conditional Community Rating System (CRS) 432.d structure that will incur improvements totaling or substantial improvement of an existing the minimum requirement of the NFIP and of properties this policy would Improvements Uses Permitted Cumulative Substantial Improvements with more than 50% of the market value of the dwelling, an agricultural related structure, a treat any structure that incurs apply to. An analysis will need to FEMA's Higher Floodplain Management structure, as a new structure — meaning the commercial, industrial or other non-residential improvements totaling more than 50% of occur to document affected Regulatory Standards language. structure will need to be elevated above base structure, or an accessory building in a the market value of the structure over the properties. flood elevation and meet other flood protection floodplain. lifetime of the structure, as a new measures. Currently the standard is applied at structure. Requires additional staff time for each permit and does not account for cumulative assessment and management of permits improvements over time. Applying the standard overtime. to cumulative substantial improvement would apply the NFIP regulation for improvements over the lifetime of the structure. F3 Critical Facilities 18.96.050 County Adopt higher standards in accordance with Critical facilities are crucial to flood response Adoption of this policy applies to development Adoption of critical facilities prohibition in Commission interested in this Zoning, Prohibited Uses Community Rating System (CRS) 431.a activities, as well as to the health and safety of of new critical facilities to ensure they are sited the floodplain supports Deschutes County policy regards to Waste Water Protecting Critical Facilities with Model the public before, during, and after a flood event. outside the floodplain, unless no alternative Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.5.6: "Critical Treatment Plant located in South Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance (section 5.4, p. exists. facilities (schools, churches, hospitals and County. 39). other facilities as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) should be located outside high risk natural hazard areas, where possible." May require additional staff time for permit assessment. F4 Hazardous 18.96.040(8) County Adopt higher standards in accordance with Prohibiting storage of hazardous materials in the According to the Model Washington NFIP-ESA Adoption of hazardous materials storage Commission concerned that Materials Zoning, Conditional Community Rating System (CRS) 432.a.(3) floodplain is critical in reducing the damage ordinance language; the "prohibition does not prohibition in the floodplain supports policy as written does not cover Uses Permitted Development Limitations as demonstrated in caused by floods. Stored hazardous materials can apply to small quantities of materials kept for Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 7 existing structures. Question Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance that become debris during a flood event, and move normal household use. This prohibition does Implementation Guidelines: "Local regarding if policy would apply to offers explicit language for prohibiting across the floodplain causing contamination. not apply to the continued operations of governments should consider measures golf courses. hazardous materials in the floodplain. existing facilities and structures, reuse of that exceed the National Flood Insurance existing facilities and structures, or functionally Program (NFIP) such as: prohibiting the dependent facilities or structures." storage of hazardous materials in floodplains or providing for safe storage of such materials. Requires additional staff time for monitoring. Source: Community Planning Workshop Page 142 Community Planning Workshop Table 4 Flood Policy Options Matrix (continued) Ref. # Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description Issues Addressed Applicability Implications of Adoption Planning Commission Comments F5 Floodplain 18.96 County Zoning, Create a flood plain zone a combining zone. Many properties near the river have some Make standards more transparent for Reduce the redundancy of two sections of Commissioners raised concern Combining Zone Flood Plain Zone; There are currently three sections in the Floodplain Zoning with the property in various developers and homeowners for new Chapter 18 with floodplain regulations, and that policy would limit 18.108 County Zoning, Deschutes County Code that include floodplain zones. This "split -zoning" presents a number of development and improvements on private create one combining zone would help to development. Discussion Urban Unincorporated regulations (two of which are combining code interpretation challenges. land in Deschutes County. eliminate code interpretation challenges included the need to balance Community Zone - districts): Chapter 18.96 County Zoning, Flood and remove potential code enforcement health and welfare with property Sunriver (in particular Plain Zone, Chapter 18.108 County Zoning, errors. rights. 18.108.190 Flood Plain Urban Unincorporated Community Zone — Combining district); Sunriver (in particular 18.108.190 Flood Plain 19.72 Bend Urban Combining District), and Chapter 19.72 Bend Growth Boundary Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Flood Plain Combining Zone. In order to reduce Flood Plain Combining redundancy and eliminate the increased zoning Zone legalities, merge the two zones within Chapter 18 to eliminate these issues. F6 Definitions 18.04 County Zoning, Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Adoption of definitions specify meaning of Policy applies to applicable standards in order Adoption of this policy will make standards No comments were provided. Definitions language that defines; "Below -grade Crawl commonly used words or phrases and reduce to be more transparent for developers and more transparent for developers and Space," "Conditional Letter of Map Revision ambiguity. homeowners for new development and homeowners. (CLOMR)," "Critical Facility," "Elevated Building," improvements on private land in Deschutes and "Substantial Damage." County. F7 Purpose 18.96.010 County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Expansion of the purpose statement illustrates Policy applies to county staff and Expansion of purpose statement to include No comments were provided. Statement Zoning, Purposes Section 1.3 Statement of Purpose to address the Deschutes County's recognition of potential administrative efforts to make financial impacts economic impacts supports the Deschutes economic impacts. financial impact from flooding hazard ranging of flood hazards and mitigation efforts more County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, from mitigation efforts to loss of business transparent in Deschutes County. Goal 1 "Protect people, property, interruptions. infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards." F9 Local Floodplain 18.96.020 County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Explicitly designate local floodplain administrator Policy applies to local floodplain administrator Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance, No comments were provided. Administrator Zoning, Designated Section 4.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the and define duties and responsibilities to ensure duties and responsibilities. Section 4.3, to address changes in 2014 Areas; 18.96.070 Local Administrator to ensure that the that the elevation certificate, base flood Oregon Residential Specialty Code which County Zoning, administrator's duties and responsibilities are elevation, and substantial damage requirements removed NFIP duties from building code. Application for explicitly designated. of the NFIP are referenced. Conditional Use F8 Below -Grade 18.96.070(E) County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Enclosed areas below the lowest floor are not Adoption of this policy applies to conditional Adoption of the policy would require such No comments were provided. Crawl Spaces Zoning, Application for Section 4.3.6 Non -Conversion of Enclosed Areas intended for human habitation and conversion of use permits for any dwelling unit or structure in applicants to enter into a "Non -conversion Conditional Use below the Lowest Floor to ensure that below- these areas to habitable space increases the risk a floodplain. deed declaration for construction within grade crawl spaces are identified as to public health and safety. flood hazard areas" or equivalent. The deed uninhabitable. declaration would be recorded and be in a form acceptable to the Floodplain Administrator. May require additional staff time for permit process. Source: Community Planning Workshop Imo_ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 143 Table 4 Flood Policy Options Matrix (continued) Ref. # Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description issues Addressed Applicability Implications of Adoption Planning Commission Comments ], F9 Conditional Letter 18.96.080(B) County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Prevent alteration or relocation of water course Adoption of this policy applies to criteria to Adoption of the policy would require the No comments were provided. of Map Revision Zoning, Criteria to section 4.3.4(4) that states "applicants shall without prior approval or notification to adjacent evaluate conditional uses before any applicant to prepare technical data to (CLOMR) Evaluate Conditional obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision communities. encroachment, including fill, new construction, support the Conditional Letter of Map Uses (CLOMR) from FEMA before any encroachment, substantial improvement, or other Revision (CLOMR) application and pay including fill, new construction, substantial development in the floodplain. processing or application fees to FEMA improvement, or other development, in the prior to any encroachment. May require regulatory floodway is permitted." additional staff time for permit assessment. F10 Crawl -Space 18.96.080(D)(4) County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance The Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance sections Adoption of this policy applies to criteria to Adoption of this policy regulates Commissioners raised concern Zoning, Criteria to section 5.2-6 Below -Grade Crawl Spaces that 5.2-6 explicitly lists specific requirements that evaluate conditional uses for below -grade development in a floodplain "because of that reference of FEMA bulletin Evaluate Conditional defines and specifies appropriate development creates more transparency for developers and crawl spaces in a floodplain. hydrodynamic loads, crawlspace for policy option creates Uses ordinance if below grade crawlspaces are homeowners for new development and construction is not allowed in areas with confusion when FEMA modifies allowed. improvements on private land in Deschutes flood velocities greater than five feet per regulations. Referencing third - County. second unless the design is reviewed by a party documents risks becoming qualified design professional, such as a outdated. registered architect or professional engineer." May require additional staff time for permit assessment. F11 Access Roads 18.96.080(E) County Adopt Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance, The Deschutes County Code currently lacks Adoption of this policy applies to subdivisions Adoption of policy supports Oregon's No comments were provided. Zoning, Criteria to Section 5.1(E) Subdivision, proposes regulations to ensure subdivisions have access development in a floodplain. Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Evaluate Conditional subdivisions "have al least one access road roads that are both above the floodplain Guidelines: "Local governments should give Uses connected to land outside the Special Flood elevation and connect to land outside the special attention to emergency access Hazard Area with the surface of the road at or floodplain. when considering development in above the flood plain elevation wherever identified hazard areas." May require possible." additional staff time for permit assessment. F12 Density and Open 18.96.080(E) County Adopt Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance, The Deschutes County Code requires all Adoption of this policy applies to subdivision Adoption of density restriction and Commissioners raised concern Space Zoning, Criteria to Section 5.1 Subdivision, that proposes subdivision and partition proposals to "be and partition proposals in a floodplain. allocation of open space in the floodplain that the policy option is Evaluate Conditional subdivisions "must have one or more new lots in consistent with the need to minimize flood supports Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal impractical. Further discussion Uses the Special Flood Hazard Area set aside for open damage" but fails to address density of 7 Implementation Guidelines: "In adopting indicated that Deschutes County space use through deed restriction, easement, development or adds a provision for open space. plan policies and implementing measures Flood mitigation regulation was subdivision covenant, or donation to a public to protect people and property from not commensurate with FEMA. agency." natural hazards, local governments should The policy presented is proposed consider: the benefits of maintaining at the local and federal standard natural hazard areas as open space, levels. recreation and other low density uses." Could require additional costs to developers, however, can also be used as a useful marketing and real estate tool. May require additional staff time for permit assessment. Source: Community Planning Workshop Page 144 Community Planning Workshop Table 4 Flood Policy Options Matrix (continued) Source: Community Planning Workshop ;�, Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 45 Implications of Adoption Planning Commission Comments Ref. # Policy Option Deschutes County Code Description Issues Addressed Applicability Adopt Model Washington NFIP-ESA Ordinance, F13 Filed Notice on 18.96.080(E) County Deschutes County Code does not currently Adoption of this policy applies to subdivision Adoption of policy supports Oregon's No comments were provided. the Final Zoning, Criteria to Section 5.1(G) Subdivision, that proposes that require subdivisions located within the special development in a floodplain. Statewide Planning Goal 7 Implementation Recorded Evaluate Conditional "the final recorded subdivision plat shall include flood hazard areas (floodplain), a riparian habitat Guidelines: "Local governments should Subdivision Plat Uses a notice that part of the property is in the zone, or a channel migration area to be evaluate the risk to people and property Special Flood Hazard Area." accompanied by a filed notice on the final based on the new inventory information recorded subdivision plat. and an assessment of the types and intensities of land uses to be allowed in the hazard area." May require additional staff time for permit process. F14 Maintenance Plan 18.96.080(G)(2): Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Assure flood proofing protection measures are Adoption of this policy applies to nonresidential Adoption of policy requires additional staff No comments were provided. or Emergency County Zoning, section 5.2.2(6) and 5.2.2(7) proposes applicants maintained and that the operators of the building construction in a floodplain. time for individual assessments, provides Action Plan Nonresidential supply a comprehensive Maintenance Plan and exercise a plan of action for the installation and specific mitigation and response action Construction Emergency Action Plan (EAP) to assure flood sealing of the structure prior to a flood event for items for property to address. proofing protection measures are maintained nonresidential construction and that the operators of the building exercise a plan of action for the installation and sealing of the structure prior to a flood event. F15 Manufactured 18.96.080(G)(3): County Adopt Oregon Model Floodplain Ordinance Include additional standard for the elevation of Adoption of this policy applies to manufactured Adoption of policy supports Deschutes No comments were provided. Home Zoning, Manufactured section 5.2.3(4) states that manufactured electrical crossover connections to be at least 12- homes located in the floodplain. County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, Homes dwellings shall be anchored to prevent flotation, inches above base flood elevation Goal 1 "Protect people, property, collapse, and lateral movement during the base infrastructure, the economy and the flood and electrical crossover connections shall environment from natural hazards," but be a minimum of 12 -inches above base flood requires additional staff time for individual elevation. assessment. Source: Community Planning Workshop ;�, Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 45 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review of current Deschutes County Code, CPW identified several areas where language can be expanded upon, language from model ordinances can be added, and language can be condensed to reduce redundancy. The intent of the code review and identification of policy options was to identify code amendments that can enhance the county's ability to prepare for and recover quickly following a hazard event. For many issues, CPW identify multiple options. The county should carefully examine each option determine which option is most appropriate. All of policy options identified in this report reflect areas that will add safety measures not explicitly seen in current language. This chapter presents CPW's recommendations regarding policy options. Our recommendations were informed through two work sessions with the Deschutes County Planning Commission and one work session with the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners. We also discussed and reviewed the options with Community Development Department staff. Because the code amendments are legislative changes, the county will be required to conduct public hearings for any amendment. Amendments are also subject to review and acknowledgement by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Recommendations To assist county staff in evaluating the policy options presented in this report, we grouped our recommendations into three areas: (1) combining zones; (2) higher standards; and (3) code requirement clarity. At the direction of staff and the Planning Commission, the recommended policy options are prioritized. Adopt Wildfire and Flood Combining Zones To more efficiently regulate development in hazardous areas and consistently apply development standards, CPW recommends that the county draft and adopt a wildfire combining zone. We also recommend the county consolidate the Title 18.96 Flood Plain Zone, Title 18.108.190 Flood Plain Combining District, and Title 19.72 Flood Plain Combining Zone into a single Flood Plain Combining Zone within Title 18 of the County Code (County Zoning). Implementation of a wildfire combining zone will make interpretation and application of development standards easier when mitigating wildfire risk. The creation of a wildfire hazard combining zone would eliminate the need to individually prescribe wildfire provisions for each base zone. Many of the wildfire - specific best practices and standards presented in this report can be included within a combining zone. Consolidation of the floodplain zone will help to reduce redundancy in the development code, help to eliminate code interpretation challenges, and reduce the potential for code enforcement errors. Furthermore, developers and property Page 1 46 Community Planning Workshop owners benefit from clear, consistent requirements that can be found in a single location within Deschutes County Code Title 18. Adopt Higher Standards CPW recommends the County review adopt the recommended wildfire and flood standards to increase the safety and well-being in Deschutes County. Wildfire policy options include adoption of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations 1141 and 1144 and from the International Code Council. These options include: NFPA 1144 and ICC Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment. We recommend the county adopt standards that require an assessment be initiated before development to identify the level of risk to a property and ensure adequate mitigation standards are obtained before construction and occupancy. NFPA 1141, NFPA 1144, and ICC's Fire Prevention and Control Plan. We recommend the county adopt standards that require subdivisions address water supply, access, building ignition and fire -resistance factors, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. • ICC International Fire Code. We recommend the county adopt standards for road identification signs to improve visibility for emergency responders to locate properties in danger. CPW recommends the county adopt elements of the NFIP's Community Rating System as standards. The CRS standards presented to the Board of County Commissioners and county staff include: • 431.a Protecting Critical Facilities. Protecting critical facilities is vital to reducing damages caused by flood and improves the county's ability to respond to the needs of residents during a disaster. • 432.a.(3) Development Limitations (prohibit hazardous materials). Prohibiting storage of hazardous materials in the floodplain also reduces adverse impacts by removing materials that may cause contamination during a flood event. 432.d Cumulative Substantial Improvements. Adoption of a substantial improvements policy reduces the future of flood damage by requiring homeowners to bring existing structures into compliance with NFIP regulations. Instead of tracking improvements annually, cumulative substantial improvements track the improvements over the lifetime of the structure. 432.e Lower Substantial Improvements Threshold. The lower substantial threshold standard recommends that the county lower the cost of improvement to less than 50% of the market value structure. Lowering the threshold provides a mechanism that ensures an increased investment in flood hazard areas will receive the needed protection from flood risk. I w" Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 47 Increase Clarity in Code Requirements Increasing clarity in policy requirements for developers and homeowners will reduce potential misinterpretation of the code and ease the process of complying with development requirements. Wildfire policies that increased clarity include wildfire mitigation plans for subdivisions and single-family homes. Specific wildfire mitigation plans would include requirements such as a wildfire hazard assessment, defensible space standards, emergency vehicle access, and water supply that are clear to developers and homeowners. Lucid policy language for wildfire management plans would help reduce time and costs to prepare the plans and reduce risk to property and lives. Explicit requirements for defensible space and road identification signs are also examples of increasing clarity for developers and homeowners. These policies would also ensure that all applicants consistently comply with the same requirements. Flood policies that increase transparency include flood definitions. Clear definitions for critical facilities and below-grade-crawlspaces help identify these terms and make standards more transparent for developers and homeowners. Prioritized Policy Recommendations This report identifies a range of policy and programmatic options for the county to consider based on model ordinances, best practices, and case studies. Based on input from the Deschutes County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, CPW prioritizes the policy options in the following order (the policy option is identified within parentheses as found in Tables 3 and 4 above): • Adopt higher wildfire standards from NFPA 1141, 1144 and the ICC (W5, W6, W14) • Adopt higher CRS standards: lower substantial improvements threshold, cumulative substantial improvements, protecting critical facilities, and development limitations (F1, F2, F3) • Implement floodplain and wildfire combining zones (F5, W1) • Prohibit wooden shake building materials in wildfire hazard zones (W2) • Require defensible space standards in wildfire hazard zones (W4) • Apply additional regulations to development on slopes greater than 25% (W3) • Require Wildfire Mitigation Plans for subdivisions and single-family homes in wildfire hazard zones (W13) • Require fire protection proof from subdivisions before development (W8) CPW believes these options will have the biggest impacts in terms of reducing risk from natural hazards of flood and wildfire to property and lives. These model policies, best practices, ordinances, and case studies across the nation and will help the county improve the development process, save costs on rescue efforts, and most importantly reduce risk to the community. Page 148 Community Planning Workshop APPENDIX A: WILDFIRE CASE STUDIES This appendix summarizes case studies from communities around the West that have novel approaches to addressing the wildfire hazard. The following case studies from Boulder County, CO, Ashland, OR and Rancho Bernardo, CA all serve as evidence to support the best practices presented in the body of this document. Case Studies Ashland, OR This case study presents evidence supporting the usefulness of Fire Prevention and Control Plans in hazardous areas. As it is in the same state as Deschutes County, Ashland could serve as a useful example of implementation in Oregon. Boulder County, CO This case study describes and evaluates Boulder County's implementation of Wildfire Mitigation Plans, as well as documents how residents have responded by maintaining defensible space. Rancho Bernardo, CA This case study documents the aftermath of a wildfire in Southern California, and demonstrates the dangers of development on steep slopes. I: Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 149 Case Study: City of Ashland, OR The purpose of this case study is to describe and evaluate the City of Ashland's use of a Wildfire Hazard Area Zone and Subdivision Fire Prevention & Control Plan. This case study provides a brief background on Ashland's history of wildfire, describes Ashland's Wildfire Hazard Area Zone and Subdivision regulations, evaluates the significance of the case study and identifies its relevancy to Deschutes County's goal of natural hazards mitigation. Background Ashland is located in Jackson County in Southern Oregon and is situated in an area of high risk to wildfire. After the region experienced severe losses during the 1987 fire season, the city decided to assess their wildfire risk and develop regulations to mitigate the risk. A site-specific survey was conducted by Ashland's fire department and Oregon Department of Forestry to map the wildfire hazard areas within the Urban Growth Boundary. It was determined that 1,100 acres in Ashland is categorized as a wildfire hazard area. Some key criteria in the survey included: connectivity of fuel, roofing material, density of vegetation, and slope. Increased development pressure led to a policy change in the wildland urban -interface to their land use code starting in the 1980's. Current Regulations/Program As a result of the wildfire hazard rating mapping process described above, a Wildfire Hazard Zone Overlay was defined in 1992 in land use Chapter 18.62: Physical and Environmental Constraints. The goal of this policy is to provide clear and objective standards regarding wildfire mitigation to property owners. Property owners know exactly what size fuel break they need to install and how to maintain it as well as clear building code requirements. The subdivision code outlines a clear Fire Prevention & Control Plan stressing the need of cooperation between the planning department and fire/emergency management agencies. Example regulations in Ashland's Municipal Code 18.62.110 Physical & Environmental Constraints: Development standards for Class E lands (wildfire hazard areas) include: Ashland Municipal Code 18.62.090 Physical & Environmental Constraints: Development Standards for Wildfire Lands includes subdivision requirements for a Fire Prevention & Control Plan. Elements of this plan include: A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application to partition lands that contain areas designated as Wildfire Hazard areas. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when, in addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, Page 150 Community Planning Workshop balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants or erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. Significance Since the Wildfire Hazard Zone and Fire Prevention & Control Plan have been in place, there has not been any loss of property or life to wildfire in that region. However, this designated wildfire hazard zone is only currently mapped in a small portion of the city, which is surrounded by many other assessed hazardous areas without regulation. The City is now requesting for the Wildfire Hazard Area Zone to be extended to be City-wide so that the entire city would be subject to regulations such as a ban on wooden shake roofs and use of defensible space and fire-resistant landscaping. In 2009, the Siskiyou Fire evacuated 109 home and a school all of which were not inside the Wildfire Hazard Zone. Again in 2010, the Oak Knoll Fire burned 11 homes, which were also outside the Wildfire Hazard Zone. These wildfires did not cause any damage inside the Wildfire Hazard Zone, however, were just outside the border and had the potential to damage other homes. This is the reason why the City would like to expand this zone to ensure that wildfire does not spread due to homes not required to follow wildfire prevention measures such as prohibiting wooden shake roofs and keeping fire-resistant landscaping. Relevance Deschutes County currently has stated that the entire county is in a Wildfire Hazard Zone. The Wildfire Hazard Zone has been defined in the development code in Title 15.04.085, however, there aren't any regulations associated with it. A Wildfire Hazard Zone with regulations such as the City of Ashland could be a useful measure to ensure protection of life and properties from wildfire risk before development occurs. The County also does not require wildfire mitigation plans prior to development for subdivisions such as the Fire Prevention & Control Plan with the City of Ashland. A specific plan requirement with explicit criteria to address would help developers understand expectations and proactively prevent wildfire risk. Citations "City of Ashland, Oregon - Fire — Wildfire Hazard Zone Expansion." City of Ashland, Oregon — Fire. September 25, 2014. Accessed May 28, 2015. http•//www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=16530 Community Planning Workshop & Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development, "Planning for Natural Hazards: Wildfire TRG." Technical Resource Guide, Salem, Oregon, 2000. June 2015 Page (51 Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review Case Study: Boulder County, CO The purpose of this case study is to describe and evaluate Boulder County's use of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan. This case study provides a brief background on Boulder County's history of wildfire, describes Boulder County's regulations, evaluates the significance of the case study and identifies its relevancy to Deschutes County's goal of natural hazards mitigation. Background Boulder County has been facing an increase of population pushing development into the wildland-urban interface. These forested lands have very high risk for wildfire due to fire suppression policies allowing vegetation density to grow to 10- 100 times its normal state, steep terrain, drought, high summertime temperatures and high winds. These dangerous conditions along with the increase of population into the wildland-urban interface have increased the challenging ability for emergency responders to protect lives and properties. A devastating fire, the Black Tiger Fire on Sugarloaf Mountain in 1989, burned 2,100 acres, destroyed 44 homes, caused losses of $10 million, and required 500 firefighters to contain the fire. To help reduce the risk of wildfire to lives and properties, Boulder County implemented a requirement in 2000, to all new homes being built in wildfire hazard areas, to include a Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Current Regulations/Program The Wildfire Mitigation Plan requirement is for all new homes built in wildfire hazard risk areas. The Plan is to ensure that the home is properly sited before development, creates adequate defensible space, provides for emergency access and water supply, and requires the homeowner to continue routine maintenance around the property to help protect and prevent the spread of wildfire. This Plan is to be submitted with a Building Permit Application and will be part of the review process before a permit is issued. Significance Since the implementation of the requirement for Wildfire Mitigation Plans in wildfire hazard risk areas, a 2007 survey found that 97% of residents in Boulder County maintain defensible space. Since the Wildfire Mitigation Plan requirement has been in place, residents have become more aware of the importance of defensible space; and take an active role in mitigating the risks associated with living in wildfire hazard areas. Relevance Boulder County and Deschutes County face similar conditions in terms of population change, topography and climate. Like Boulder County, Deschutes County is also facing an increased population moving to the wildland-urban interface into wildfire hazard areas. These hazardous areas contain dense vegetation and sometimes steep slopes. A warmer climate with high summertime Page 1 52 Community Planning Workshop temperatures as well as a newly declared drought has threatened the risk of wildfire. Currently, Deschutes County does not require homeowners to have a Wildfire Mitigation Plan before development and has only relied on non -regulatory projects from Project Wildfire to reduce dense vegetation. Requiring a Wildfire Mitigation Plan before development with maintenance requirements will help ensure that homes and homeowners are aware and protected in the event of a wildfire. Citation Boulder County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 2011. http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/forest/cwppbooklowres.pdf Boulder County Land Use Department Publications, Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Boulder County. March 14, 2013. http://www..bou Id e rcou nty. org/d oc/forest/w02wil cIf i rem itigationplan. pdf "The Black Tiger Fire." The Black Tiger Fire. Accessed June 8, 2015. http•//www bouldercounty.org/property/forest/pages/blacktigerfire.aspx I: _ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 53 Case Study: Steep Slopes in Rancho Bernardo, CA The purpose of this case study is to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of developing on slopes less than 20% in wildfire hazard areas. This case study provides a brief background on the Witch and Guejito wildfires, describes the correlation between structural loss and slopes greater than 20%, and provides reason for this concept's relevance in Deschutes County. The evaluation of this wildfire event bears direct significance to wildfire mitigation practices in Deschutes County. Background The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) was invited by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) to collect post - incident data from fires occurring in October 2007. The case study is focused on the Trails development at Rancho Bernardo, north of San Diego. There were 270 homes in the Trails community, 242 of which were within the fire perimeter. Of those, 74 homes were completely destroyed and 16 were partially damaged. Field measurements included roof type, defensible space, exposure to steep slopes, and several Firewise treatment techniques. The majority of the hazard mitigation treatments evaluated at the Trails Community appeared to be applicable even if they were not all individually effective. Effects of Development on Steep Slopes Among the numerous landscape and structural traits observed after the fires, the NIST found a significant pattern of increased destruction to residential structures with increased exposure to slopes greater than 20%. Increasing slope was associated with an increased likelihood for structural damage or destruction. Table 5 Statistics on Structural Damage/Destruction during the 2007 Witch and Guejito Fires. 0-10% 12 1 8.3% 10-20% 117 29 24.8% 20-30% 74 31 41.9 30-40% 37 27 73.0% 40-50% 2 2 100.0% Source: National Institute for Standards and Technology Relevance Deschutes County currently regulates development on slopes in Title 18.113 Destination Resorts, as well as Title 18.36 and Title 18.40 Forest Use Zones. Page 154 Community Planning Workshop Development in Destination Resort development zones is limited to occur on slopes less than 25%. Development in Forest Use Zones is limited to slopes less than 40%. Development in all other zones appears to be unregulated in regards to steep slopes. Given that much of the residential development in Deschutes County's unincorporated areas occurs in the wildland-urban interface, preemptive measures should be taken - to the greatest extent possible- to reduce the risk of structural damages or destruction resulting from wildfire events. This case study serves as direct evidence that structures exposed to slopes greater than 20% are more likely to be damaged or destroyed in a wildfire event. Citation National Institute of Standards and Technology. U.S. Department of Commerce. Last modified May 2013. http://nvipubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1796.pdf. Deschutes Count Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 55 cwv,-- Y g APPENDIX B: FLOOD CASE STUDIES This appendix summarizes case studies from communities around the West that have novel approaches to addressing the flood hazard. The following case studies from Marion County, OR and Roseville, CA all serve as evidence to support the best practices presented in the body of this document B.I Case Studies F ,`� 'NkF yJ 4ry � W tY't e!II�I Marion County, OR This case study explains the use of a floodplain overlay �4 zone by Marion County, OR and how the policies in place 0 R I G 0 N have helped prepare for and recover following a flood event. Roseville, CA This case study examines the policies put in place by Roseville, CA that have made it the only community with a Class 1 CRS rating from the NFIP. Page 156 Community Planning Workshop Case Study: Marion County, OR The purpose of this case study is to describe and evaluate Marion County, OR use of a floodplain overlay zone. This case study provides a brief background on Marion County's history of flood hazard, and describes the county's floodplain overlay policy, evaluates the significance of the case study and identifies its relevancy to Deschutes County's goal of mitigating flood hazard. Background Marion County, located in the Willamette River basin, has many streams and rivers that are subject to flooding. Properties in and near floodplains are subject to flooding events almost annually due to spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, or rapid runoff from snow melts. Damage to critical facilities such as, public water and sewer systems, transportation networks, flood control facilities, emergency facilities, and government offices can hinder the ability of the county to deliver services. Infrastructure susceptible to flood damage includes: bridges on county roads and highways, sewage treatment plants, recycling centers, and a major landfill located beside the Willamette River (Marion County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan). Populations, private property, businesses, and manufactured homes along the western border of the County are at particular risk due to their close proximity to the Willamette River. Current Regulations Due to the pervasive flood problem, many residents purchase insurance through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to help recover from losses. Marion County's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) offers residents a savings of up to 20% on flood insurance premiums. The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Marion County's Floodplain Overlay Zone, Chapter 178 of the Marion County Rural Zoning Ordinance, contains higher regulatory standards than NFIP regulations (Marion County Floodplain Program). Significance Marion County's Floodplain Overlay Zone, ordinance Chapter 178, regulates floodplain development. The overlay zone serves many purposes, some include; dangerous uses in the floodplain, minimize expenditure of public money, control the alteration of natural floodplains, control development, and regulate construction of flood barriers. The ordinance defines and prohibits development of new critical facilities within the floodway. The ordinance also defines and prohibits storage of materials and equipment that are hazardous to persons or property within the floodway. The Floodplain Overlay Zone regulations also contribute to CRS standards and improve the County's flood insurance programs. Implementing these regulations can benefit Deschutes County as well, adding safety standards and potentially making participation in the CRS more realistic financially. I:-' Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 1 57 Relevance Marion County's zoning code, Title 17 Chapter 178, is an example of how Deschutes County can implement a Floodplain Overlay Zone to easily and effectively regulate floodplain development. Marion County's ordinance applies to all unincorporated lands in identified floodplains as shown graphically on county zoning maps. The ordinance is applied consistently county wide, increasing transparency for developers and homeowners. Deschutes County may consider adopting higher "substantial improvement" and "substantial damage" standards, but will want to apply a policy appropriate for the county. In July 2014, Marion County defined substantial damage as "flood related damage costs that equal or exceed 20% of the original market value." This means if any structural flood damage exceeds 20% of its market value, then the dwelling must be brought up to flood resistance standards before it can be reoccupied (Board of Commissioners Minutes). In July 2014, Marion County adopted the NFIP 50% standard to be consistent federal law. Citations FEMA. "National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System." Accessed May 19, 2015. http•//www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program- com munity-rating-system Marion County, OR. "Board of Commissioners Minutes: Regular Session Wednesday, July 23, 2014." Accessed May 19, 2015. http://www co marion.or.usZNR/rdonlyresZD3C63C32-060C-46C8-83B3- A605C0964988/57962/07232014Board Session Minutesdocpdf.pdf Marion County, OR. "County Zoning Code Title 17, Chapter 178 — Rural Floodplain Overlay Zone." Accessed May 19, 2015. http://www.codepublishing.com/OR/marioncounty Marion County, OR. "Marion County Floodplain Program." Accessed May 19, 2015. http://www co marion.or.us/PW/Planning/Floodplain+Program.htm Marion County, OR. "Marion County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. Volume II: Hazard Annex Flood." January 2011. Accessed May 19, 2015. http://www co marion.or.us/NR/rdonlyres/CA5BF063-9BF6-4595-BBF4- 2AAD3AF11838/34986/9Flood.pdf Page 158 Community Planning Workshop Case Study: Roseville, CA The purpose of this case study is to describe and evaluate Roseville's use of the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System. This case study provides a brief background on Roseville's history of flood, describes Roseville's strategies for averting damages caused be flooding, and evaluates its how Roseville's practices can be incorporated into the review of Deschutes County's land use code. Background There have been two large century floods that have struck Roseville in the last 30 years. In 1986, 209 homes and businesses were damaged as the result of winter flooding. On Jan. 10, 1995, Roseville was hit with another 100 years flood event sending a deluge of water cascading over neighborhoods and intersections. More than 300 homes were damaged, a number of which were submerged in more than 6 feet of water. The 1995 flood event prompted a Presidential Disaster Declaration. After the flood incidents of 1986 and 1995, the City of Roseville vowed to never let another flood incident cripple the community again, and the city set forth investing in the National Flood insurance Program's Community Rating System. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers a voluntary incentive program called the Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS recognizes and rewards communities that exceed the minimum requirements for floodplain management as identified in the NFIP. The CRS provides premium insurance discounts, ranging between 5% and 45%, for communities that go beyond the minimum requirements. To participate in the CRS, a community must implement additional CRS management activities and earn CRS credit points for each activity. A community rating number is assigned to a community based on the number of CRS credits they have earned. The community rating scale ranges from 1 to 10. One is the highest rating available and offers a 45% flood insurance discount; 10 is the lowest rating available and offers no insurance discount. Examples of CRS activities range from providing citizens with information regarding flood insurance and ways to reduce flood damage, increase protection to new development, reduce flood risk to existing development, and provide early flood warning. Current Program Following the 1986 flood, the city created the Placer County Flood Control District which included regional storm water detention basins. This project allows for the area to drain without causing any flood damage to homes. If the storm drain were full or plugged, all the water in the residential area would escape without causing damage to the homes. The project also ensures that any developments adjacent to the floodplain will have building constructed above the 1% (formerly 100 year) flood -water surface elevation. The city also introduced a 5 -year, $20 million flood control improvement project that involved buying out properties that were damaged on a repetitive basis, elevating buildings in flood risk areas, building berms and flood walls, and replacing culverts. Early warning systems have been installed using rain gauges and auto -dialer systems to alert the community members of rising creek levels. ;_. C�,I•-_ Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review June 2015 Page 159 Significance The most noticeable impact of these programs is the financial benefits for property owners and policyholders in the Roseville floodplain area. With the Class 1 designation comes a 45% reduction in flood insurance eligibility for community members. Plus, the reduction in damage costs will allow for individuals to recover from flooding in a much quicker fashion. Safety may be the biggest effect these programs have on the community. With a community that is more prepared for flooding events, people are better equipped to respond to rising floodwaters and avoid potential danger from fast moving rivers and streams. First responders are also in less danger because they don't have to be sent into the flood areas to evacuate people. The early warning system put in place gives residents the opportunity to prepare or evacuate themselves before the situation becomes too dangerous. Relevance Despite the differences in geography and climate between Roseville and Deschutes County, the desire to go above the minimum standards is an important action that would improve current conditions in Deschutes County and support goals stated in the county's Comprehensive Plan policy 3.5.10. Citation "DHS FEMA NFIP Services - First -Rate Community." DHS FEMA NFIP Services- First - Rate Community. Accessed April 17, 2015. http://www.nfipiservice.com/watermark/firstratecomm.html Page 160 Community Planning Workshop ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix W Wildfire Hazard Mitigation (Not adopted by the State of Oregon, but may be adopted by local municipalities) The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance. SECTION W101 GENERAL W101.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new dwellings and their accessory structures located in a wildfire hazard zone. W101.2 Objective. The objective of this chapter is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of dwellings and their accessory structures located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject to wildfires, to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers presented by such fires. W101.3 Wildfire Hazard Zone Determination. A wildfire hazard zone is an area legally determined by a jurisdiction to have special hazards caused by a combination of combustible natural fuels, topography and climatic conditions that result in a significant hazard of catastrophic fire over relatively long periods each year. Wildfire hazard zones shall be determined using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. SECTION W102 DEFINITIONS W102.1 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for purposes of this appendix, have the meanings shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 of the International Building Code for general definitions. Heavy Timber. For the use in this Section, heavy timber shall be sawn lumber or glue laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Heavy timber walls or floors shall be sawn or glue -laminated planks splined, tongue - and -grove, or set close together and well spiked, Ignition -Resistant Material. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently so as to reduce losses from wildland-urban interface conflagrations under worst- case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames. Such materials include any product designed for exterior exposure that, when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723 for surface burning characteristics of building materials, extended to a 30 -minute duration, exhibits a flame spread index of not more than 25, shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion, and whose flame front does not progress more than 101/2 feet (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burner at any time during the test. Wildfire. Any uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels that threatens to destroy life, property, or resources, Wildfire Exposure. One or a combination of circumstances exposing a structure to ignition, including radiant heat, convective heat, direct flame contact and burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire to a structure and its immediate environment. Wildland-urban interface area. That geographical area where structures and other human development meets or intermingles with wildland or vegetative fuels. SECTION W103 APPLICABILITY W103.1 Wildfire hazard zone requirements. Dwellings and their accessory structures shall be protected against wildfire in accordance with the requirements of Appendix W in addition to other requirements of this code. Exceptions: 1. Buildings of an accessory character having a Class A or B roof and not exceeding 120 square feet in floor area, when located at least 30 feet from the applicable building. 2. Buildings of an accessory character of any size having a Class A or B roof and located at least 50 feet from an applicable building. 3. Buildings classified as an Agricultural Building, having a Class A or B roof and when located at least 50 feet from an applicable building. 4. Additions to and remodels of buildings originally constructed prior to the adoption date of this code where the addition or remodel increases the total square footage of the structure by less than 100%. SECTION W104 ROOFING W104.1 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accordance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in accordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in accordance with Section R905.3 or other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. Wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted in a wildfire hazard zone as defined by Section W 103. Where the roof profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the spaces shall be constructed to prevent the intrusion of flames and embers, be firestopped with approved materials or have one layer of minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced nonperforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Where valley flashing is installed, the flashing shall be not less than 0.019 -inch (0.48 mm) No. 26 gage galvanized sheet corrosion -resistant metal installed over not less than one layer of minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced non -perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 at least 36 -inch -wide (914 mm) running the full length of the valley. W104.1.1 Reroofing or repair of roofing of existing buildings. When 50 percent or more of the roof covering of any building is repaired or replaced within one year, the roof covering shall be made to comply with Section W104.1. W104.2 Roof gutters. Roof gutters shall be constructed of noncombustible materials and be provided with the means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter SECTION W 10 5 VENTILATION W105.1 Ventilation. Where provided, ventilation openings for enclosed attics, enclosed eave soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters, and underfloor ventilation shall be in accordance with Sections R408.1 and R806 and be designed to resist building ignition from the intrusion of burning embers and flame through the ventilation openings. Ventilation openings shall be fully covered with noncombustible corrasion -resistant metal wire mesh, vents, other materials or other devices. The dimensions of the vent screening shall be a minimum of 1/16-inch_(1.6mm);and a maximum of 1/8 -inch (3.2mm). ; W105.1.1 Ventilationopening on the underside of eaves and cornices. Vents shall not be installed on the underside of eaves and cornices. Exceptions: 1. The Building Official may accept or approve special eave and cornice vents that resist the intrusion of flame and burning embers. 2. Vents complying with the requirements of Section W105.1 may be installed on the underside of eaves and cornices if the exterior wall covering and exposed underside of the eave are of non- combustible material or ignition resistant material and the vent is located more than 12 feet from the ground or walking surface of a deck, porch, patio or similar surface. SECTION W106 EXTERIOR WALLS W106.1 Exterior vertical walls. The exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall comply with one of the following requirements: 1. Noncombustible material 2. Ignition -resistant material 3. Heavy timber exterior wall assembly 4. Log wall construction assembly 5.. Wall assemblies that have been tested in accordance with the test procedures for a 10 - minute direct flame contact exposure test set forth in ASTM E2707 with the conditions of acceptance shown in Section W106.2. Exception: Any of the following shall be deemed to meet the assembly performance criteria and intent of this section: 1. One layer of 5/8 -inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering or cladding on the exterior side of the framing 2. The exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly designed for exterior fire exposure including assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. W106.1.1 Extent of exterior wall covering. Exterior wall coverings shall extend from the top of the foundation to the roof, and terminate at 2 inch (50.8 mm) nominal solid wood blocking between rafters at all roof overhangs, or in the case of enclosed eaves, terminate at the enclosure. W106.2 Conditions of acceptance when tested in accordance with ASTM E2707. The test shalt be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance in 1 and 2 below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be run. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. 1. Absence of flame penetration through the wall assembly at any time. 2. Absence of evidence of glowing combustion on the interior surface of the assembly at the end of the 70 -min test. SECTION W 107 OVERHANGING PROJECTIONS W107.1 Overhanging projections. All projections (exterior balconies, carports, decks, patio covers, porch ceilings, unenclosed roofs and floors, overhanging buildings and similar architectural appendages and projections) shall be protected. W107.1.1 Enclosed roof eaves and roof eave soffits. The exposed underside of enclosed roof eaves having either a boxed -in roof eave soffit with a horizontal underside, or sloping rafter tails with an exterior covering applied to the underside of the rafter tails, shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material 2. Ignition -resistant material 3. One layer of 5/8 -inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter tails or soffit 4. The exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the rafter tails or soffit including assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual 5. Boxed -in roof eave soffit assemblies with a horizontal underside that meet the performance criteria in Section W107.2 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957 Exceptions: The following materials do not require protection: 1. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly projections beyond an exterior wall other than at the lower end of the rafter tails 2. Fascia and other architectural trim boards W107.1.2 Exterior porch ceilings. The exposed underside of exterior porch ceilings shall be protected by one of the following: 1. - Noncombustible material 2. Ignition -resistant material 3. One layer of 5/8_inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering on the underside of the ceiling 4.The exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the ceiling assembly including assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual 5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a_horizontal underside that meet the performance criteria in Section W107.2 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957 Exception: Architectural trim boards. W107.1.3 Floor projections. The exposed underside of a cantilevered floor projection where a floor assembly extends over an exterior wall shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material 2. Ignition -resistant material 3. One layer of 5/8 -inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor projection 4. The exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor projection including assemblies using the gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual 5. The underside of a floor projection assembly that meet the performance criteria in Section W107.2 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957 Exception: Architectural trim boards. W107.1.4 Underfloor protection. The underfloor area of elevated or overhanging buildings shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of this chapter or the underside of the exposed underfloor shall consist of one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material 2. Ignition -resistant material 3. One layer of 5/8 -inch Type X gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor projection 4. The exterior portion of a 1 -hour fire resistive be constructed with one of the following materials: 1. Material that complies with all of the performance requirements of Section W108.2 when tested in accordance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726. 2. Ignition resistant material that complies with the performance requirements of Section W102 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. 3. Exterior fire retardant treated wood 4. Noncombustible material 5. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of Section W108.3 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and when attached exterior wall covering is also either noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. 6. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of ASTM E2632 when attached exterior wall covering is also either noncombustible or ignition -resistant material exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor including assemblies using the Exception (to items 6): Wall material may be of gypsum panel and sheathing products listedin any material that otherwise complies with this the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance chapter when the decking surface material Design Manual complies with the performance requirements 5. The underside of a floor assembly that meets ASTM E 84 with a Class B flame spread rating. the performance criteria in Section W107.2 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957 Exception: Heavy timber structural columns and beams do not require protection W107.2 Conditions of acceptance when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance in 1 through 3 below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be run. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. 1. Absence of flame penetration of the eaves or horizontal projection assembly at any time. 2. Absence of structural failure of the eaves or horizontal projection subassembly at any time. 3. Absence of sustained combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 -minute test. SECTION W 10 8 DECKING SURFACES W108.1 Decking Surfaces. The walking surface material of decks, porches, balconies and stairs shall W108.2 Requirements for type of ignition -resistant material in Section W108.1, item (1). The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and in accordance with ASTM E2726 and shall comply with the conditions of acceptance shown below. The material shall also comply with the performance requirements of Section W103 for ignition resistant material when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. W108.2.1 Conditions of acceptance for ASTM E2632: The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance in 1 through 3 below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be run. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. 1. Peak heat release rate of less than or equal to 25 kW/ft2 (269 kW/m') 2. Absence of sustained flaming or glowing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 -min observation period. 3. Absence of falling particles that are still burning when reaching the burner or floor. W108.2.2 Conditions of acceptance for ASTM E2726: The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance in 1_and 2 below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be run. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. 1. Absence of sustained flaming or glowing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 -min observation period 2. Absence of falling particles that are still burning when reaching the burner or floor. W108.3 Requirements for type of ignition -resistant material in Section W108.1,' item (6): The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and shall comply with the following condition of acceptance. The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the peak heat release rate shall be less than or equal to 25 kW/ft2 (269 kW/m2). If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be run. All of the additional tests shall meet the condition of acceptance. SECTION W 10 9 WINDOWS, SKYLIGHTS, AND DOORS W109.1 Windows and skylights. Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilayered glazed panels, glass block, or have a fire resistance rating of no less than 20 minutes. W109.2 Doors. Exterior doors shall comply with one of the following: 1. Shall have an non-combustible or ignition -resistant exterior surface material or cladding, or 2. Shall be constructed of solid wood core with a minimum 1 3/8 inch thickness of stiles and rails and a minimum 1 '/A inch thickness of raised panels, except for the exterior perimeter of the raised panel that may taper to a tongue not less than 3/8 inch thick, or 3. Shall have a fire -resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested in accordance to NFPA 252. 'A'F , Deschutes County Board of Commissioners �UP 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of October 17 2018 DATE: October 9, 2018 FROM: Janice Garceau, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Quarterly Update Calendar Year 2018, Quarter 2 RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: This is a status report for information only; there is no staff recommendation. ATTENDANCE: Health Services staff: Daniel Emerson, Management Analyst; Tyler Nass, Management Analyst; Cheryl Smallman, Business Intelligence Program Manager; Janice Garceau, Interim Behavioral Health Deputy Director; David Inbody, Administrative Services Deputy Director SUMMARY: Health Services staff will provide a status report about CCBHC operations for the second quarter of calendar year 2018 and an update on the recently awarded CCBHC Expansion Grant. V i C ai NIn In D. n F N �'SZXS a%.1ilJ,iy .. ..,^v��;.fSK�.�✓J�'"�i lil 7 U r Yn C, z 1�J �trIi V a `G Istme , a t1 v 4 < d') �J a cl C".7 C) C) Q Cl 0 ..10 I n O Q P �F K V �'SZXS a%.1ilJ,iy .. ..,^v��;.fSK�.�✓J�'"�i ;Pi Istme , Gggg zc'r��2 d�F''"c ata T n O Q P �F K V 3 \>\yy =\\z±}9\»)\9(\ \//(\® ©�m°°1—) 00 % 5£\\[5}-ZVol S/SSy2322/2S2 «,w:2»2222212 W q R \ � \ co q R a) E O W V 00 `.0 momir V � a-+ � a, �— u �- a, CL > <C a) a) u Ln E 0) O V = al Q '—' N a 7 a, _ c V Ln a _ V a, _ W x V �1^ CD W V 2 0 Q n M N •-• - CJ 4J CJ C- CULn W V momir 76 m O 0 o E V al co W V CD O V V Ln Ln rr W y ^Y^' V V L / cE C O 0 C V U O] u V U V V 17 00 OD OD co 00 OD a co > _ )( ( \} co co 75 E 4-J $ {( / \) oel, 17 17 „:..,,,,,,,,,,,a„ m/ . Ix► j z--o 49 L e \/ 12 )\\\}\\\\§{)}2 6 & � m � � 2 & CL q \ 2 \ V $ � ) m 2 E Eo � \ '5 7 � a � 5 < / . ° Z m U V � r � e E / E^ � } .§ { � t � \ < / U ® r / m e U ` V / LA O CL 8 LL LO Lj- - C� C> C> C> C3 C> C� CC� � C) P- C� Pt O C:t O P O cw;� O C) CD ID 0 C, �o C) 0 'N 0 00 ID 11 (D r-- co co C14 o ol `0 CN LL u a: 00 r - u4(1) y z u ul C) r - C4 LO Lci u u 14 V-- ul > E co t,q co Nu CD CD 0 0 CD CD 0 0 ID (D 0 0 0 CD (D 0 C, 0 c5 0 9 C) 6 ::� 0 0 ID 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 C� CD O W O O C� C� C;� lzm� C� C> C> C> C3 C> C� CC� � C) P- C� Pt O C:t O P O cw;� O C) CD ID 0 C, �o C) 0 'N 0 00 ID 11 (D r-- 0) E F- > C 0 0 Lu LL - u V 0 CC )E -0 D z E z 0 0 I -- O ILI ti O m C> O m CD U - U- Oo u 7- CN 00 0 0 CQ CL C: 0 0 E ol Co ov co Y, Ln C- 0 0 m .0 0 > V) 2 0 0 .7 ) 0 0 r W E z CO U 0 0 E z O 0 `4 0 CQ Q) ol Co co O C� Q) 0 u Cl) co co > co ol o C>vi C� 0 CD 61 m 00 00 0 Q) ol Q) LO u ol o C>vi C� 0 CD 61 m 00 00 4. E Q) u V) V) LA < 0 L) C:) c .2 > U-iE r— Q) a) U V) 0 L) u ro 0 cc s co Ti E LA VI) Q) V) V) LL o 0 2 - 0 V) Ln OR 0 00 OR 0 QD OQ 0 rN 1. Adult Major Depressive Disorder Suicide Risk Assessment (SRA -A): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with a suicide risk assessment completed during the visit in which a new diagnosis or recurrent episode was identified • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Minimal 2. Unhealthy Alcohol Use Screening & Brief Counseling (ASC): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older who were screened at least once within the past 24 months for unhealthy alcohol use using a systematic screening method AND who received brief counseling if identified as an unhealthy alcohol user • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/2017 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); clients declining to answer count against the metric 3. Tobacco Use Screening & Cessation Intervention (TSC): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older who were screened for tobacco use one or more times within 24 months AND who received cessation counseling intervention if identified as a tobacco user • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/2017 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); clients declining to answer count against the metric 4. Time to Initial Evaluation (I-Eval): Percentage of new consumers with initial evaluation provided within 10 business days of first contact • Collection Frequency: Once at initiation of services • Metric Challenges: Does not account for clients who select appointment dates beyond 10 business days for scheduling preference; does not account for "no shows" or cancelations 5. Body Mass Index Assessment for Children and Adolescents (WCC -BH): Percentage of consumers ages 3 to 17 who had an outpatient visit and who had evidence of BMI percentile documentation during the measurement year • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/2017 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of 11/21/17 demonstration year); clients who decline count against the metric; height/weight collection is difficult for clients seen in the community 6. Body Mass Index (BMI) Screening & Follow -Up for Adults (BMI-SF): Percentage of consumers aged 18 years and older with a BMI documented during the current encounter or during the previous six months AND with a BMI outside of normal parameters, a follow-up plan is documented during the encounter or during the previous six months of the current encounter • Collection Frequency: At initial assessment and then every 6 months • Metric Challenges: Existing clients prior to 4/1/2017 implementation date will be screened at their annual assessment (may not have occurred yet but will be accounted for by end of demonstration year); height/weight collection is difficult for clients seen in the community 7. Screening for Clinical Depression and Follow -Up Plan (CDF-BH): Percentage of consumers aged 12 and older screened for clinical depression using an age-appropriate standardized depression screening tool and, if positive, a follow-up plan is documented on the date of the positive screen • Collection Frequency: Metric is based on results from most recent visit; therefore, screening expected at every visit • Metric Challenges: Frequent screening can be burdensome for clients seen multiple times per week or month 8. Child and Adolescent Major Depressive Disorder Suicide Risk Assessment (SRA -BH): Percentage of consumer visits for those consumers aged 6 through 17 years with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an assessment for suicide risk • Collection Frequency: Every visit • Metric Challenges: Risk assessment is expected to be completed for every type of service delivered even during groups and family therapy sessions, which may not be clinically appropriate. Made the decision not to systematically assess suicide risk in groups but to attend to screening during other services. If a clinician observes concerning signs it is addressed outside of the group. Clinicians have discretion in assessing at family appointments. Licensed Medical Providers (LMP) conduct suicide risk assessments but the data cannot be queried from the EHR at this time. 9. Depression Remission at Twelve Months (DEP): Percentage of consumers 18 years of age or older with major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder who reached remission 12 months (± 30 days) after an index visit • Collection Frequency: At first treatment appointment and then annually • Metric Challenges: Some clients will discharge prior to 12 months (± 30 days). These cases will not meet the metric. 11/21/17 CCBHC Demonstration and Expansion Grant Update October, 2018 CCBHC Demonstration Grant (April 1, 2017 through March 30, 2019) • Original Positions Funded: The original grant allowed for the addition of 29 positions. These included Behavioral Health Specialist IIs, Behavioral Health Specialist Is, Peer Support Specialists, Senior Secretaries, Nurse Practitioners and Psychiatrists as well as critical front desk and administrative roles. Not all positions were filled; and during the 2019 budget process, many of those not filled were eliminated for cost savings. • Demonstration Grant Accomplishments: CCBHC implementation was a significant lift. Here's why it was worth it: o We added excellent clinicians to many teams. o We added Peer and Case Management services to outpatient settings, an important move toward team based care for complex individuals. o We successfully embedded primary care into every site. o We doubled the number of veterans we serve. o We added capacity to serve older adults. o We added the ability to see uninsured and underinsured people that we used to have to turn away. o We improved key clinical practices such as screening for depression, suicide risk, tobacco use and health issues. o We brought in significant additional revenue during a period of time when our OHP capitation revenue was decreased. This helped save jobs. CCBHC Expansion Grant (October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2020) Deschutes County Health Services is one of two sites in Oregon that received the expansion grant (others applied but were not awarded). We believe we were selected because of our performance on key grant expectations and the success we had integrating with primary care. What is new/different in the CCBHC Expansion Grant? • Of the 29 original CCBHC Grant funded positions, we were able to keep 19. Those include nearly all of our clinical positions – 3 Behavioral Health Specialist IIs, 2 Behavioral Health Specialist Is, 3 Peer Support Specialists plus a new Peer Support Specialist position, 1 Public Health Nurse on the Behavioral Health side, four of our five Senior Secretary roles, and key administrative roles that support EHR, CCBHC data analysis, front desk and fiscal screening for non -OHP clients. • The expansion grant is a more traditional grant, so we will no longer receive the wrap payment revenue. This is a change in that CCBHC revenue is now a finite amount. • We will continue to have to report on the metrics of the original grant—BMI, select screenings, etc. This includes 90 -day updates to service plans, though review of this requirement is still happening at the federal level. • New metrics will be present. We hope these are more high-level items that will not be tracked at the clinician level. • Outcomes will also be tracked, this time with the help of the PSU Center for Improvement of Child & Family Services. These include beginning to look at actually reducing depression, diabetes risk and other high-risk health conditions linked to mental health disorders. • Last, the CCBHC expansion grant continues to keep Deschutes County Health Services on the cutting edge of improving health outcomes for people with serious mental illness. \)`C E S CO Deschutes County Board of Commissioners r� <, 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of October 17, 2018 DATE: October 11, 2018 FROM: Kathleen Hinman, Human Resources, 541-385-3215 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deschutes County Employee Health Plan Updates for 2019 Plan Year RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: HR Staff recommends review and consideration of the Employee Health Plan updates for the 2019 plan year. ATTENDANCE: Kathleen Hinman, HR Director. Trygve Bolken, HR Analyst. SUMMARY: Annual review and consideration of the Employee Health Plan updates for 2019 plan year. 0T ES 50 4.Q CO z -A M EUC Interoffice memorandum Delivered via BOCC Work Session Date: 10/11/2018 To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Trygve Bolken, HR Analyst Re: Changes to Deschutes County Employee Health Benefits Plan for 2019 Plan Year The recommendations listed below were presented to the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee (EBAC) on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 and EBAC supported the presented recommendations to the Deschutes County Health Plan. A list of recommendations were presented by Davidson Benefit Planning (Davidson) after completing their financial review of the plan. Recommendations that do include a plan change are scheduled to take effect when the plan renews on January 1, 2019. 1 have provided a more detailed explanation below on the recommendations. EBAC motion made for recommendation: Motion was made to accept HR staff recommendations as written, and to research the alternative care and physical therapy benefits as part of the follow up initiatives for 2020 Plan Year. Motion passed with 13 members voting in favor, and one member against. HR staff changes recommended: 1. Increase Stop Loss deductible to $450K. Currently, our stop loss insurance Individual Specific Deductible is $400,000 and there is no Aggregating Specific Deductibles. Staff recommended and EBAC supported increasing the Individual Specific Deductible to $450,000 to minimize premium increase for 2019 plan year. A "Status Quo" 12 month renewal is projected to be a 21% increase. Staff reviewed 3 different options and recommend a change to the deductible, to $450,000, which is projected to be a 2% increase. Update plan language to align with current plan interpretation. In partnership with PacificSource over the past year, we discovered a few housekeeping items that need to be corrected and/or clarified in our Health Plan documents to align with intended plan design. Staff Recommended and EBAC support making the corrections and clarifications on the attached plan change sheet. These changes reflect clarifications and corrections to the plan document not changes in benefit coverage. 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541 ) 388-6553 1 hr@deschutes.org www.descliutes.org other considerations evaluated by HR staff and reviewed by EBAC: 3. Physical Therapy benefit: Change from deductible to copay model. Currently, physical therapy visits are subject to deductible then coinsurance applied. When benchmarked, this benefit design is split 50%-50% between the deductible and co -pay model. Staff considered changing the benefit to a $25 copay per visit and maintain the limit of 30 visits per plan year. After must discussion, HR Staff Recommended and EBAC supported not making a change at this time, however EBAC recommended further review of this benefit design in coordination with the plan's claim analytics. HR Staff will work with the benefit consultant and PacificSource on potential pilot program. The estimated cost impact for this change is +$81,500 annually or $6.50 Per Employee Per Month (PEPM). 4. Add Foot Orthotics as covered Durable Medical Equipment (DME). Currently, foot orthotics (prescribed shoe inserts) are an exempt DME under our plan. Members have requested adding foot orthotics, specifically prescription shoe inserts, to our plan coverage. Staff considered adding foot orthotics as a covered item. Staff recommended and EBAC supported not making a change at this time. The estimated cost impact for adding this change is +$52,000 annually or $4.15 PEPM. 5. Add Bariatric Surgery as an eligible covered expense. Currently, bariatric (weight loss) surgery is excluded from our health plan. Members asked that we consider adding bariatric surgery as a covered expense under the health plan. When benchmarked, this benefit was not a standard covered benefits on most plans. Staff recommended and EBAC supports not making a change at this time as there the surgery has high risk side effects and there is limited evidence of long term reduction in health costs at this time. A conservative estimated cost impact for adding this change is +$2,850,000 annually or $207.42 PEPM. 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541 ) 388-6553 hr@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org Recommended changes to Deschutes County Employee Benefits Plan for 2019 Plan Year Changes effective 1/1/2019 Plan Change Recommended Change Reason For Change County has not had a paid stop loss claim since 15/16 plan year. Stop Loss Increase the specific deductible from $400k to $450K Raising deductible Insurance would manage the cost increase to +2% or $8,775 annually. Waiting Period for New Employees: First day of the month following 30 days. Standard, High -Due to the month of February being a short month, if hired on Deductible and February 1St, the effective date will Be March 1st. Dental Plan -In the case of weekends and holidays, if the Employee starts Clarification Benefit on the first business day of the month, he or she will be treated Summary as having been hired on the first day of the calendar month or the first shift of the month for certain classes of Employees. Service Standard and Correction on co - High Deductible insurance from 88% to Plan Benefit Maternity Services** 12% Summary Physician/Provider Not 12% co- Deductible services (global Available insurance* then charge) 40% co- insurance Standard and Other Covered Services High Deductible Chiropractic Not $15 co- $15 co- Correction on co -pays. manipulations and Available pay* pay* For massage — plan Plan Benefit acupuncture care covers $45 after co -pay Summary Massage therapy Not $15 co- $15 co - Available pay* pay* Vision Benefits Service/Supply Summary Enrolled Members Age 18 and Younger Contacts in lieu Not No Charge* No Charge* Clarification of glasses Available for a 12 for a 12 month month supply of supply of disposable disposable contact lenses contact per calendar lenses per year calendar year Enrolled Members Age 19 and Older Contacts in lieu Not No charge No charge up of glasses Available up to $190 to $190 per per calendar year* calendar ear* Vision Benefits Limitations: One pair of glasses (frames and lenses) or a 12 month supply enrolled of disposable contact lenses in lieu of glasses per calendar Clarification members age 18 year. and younger Vision Benefits Limitations: Contact lenses: A 12 month supply of disposable contact Clarification enrolled members lenses every calendar year, in lieu of glasses. age 19 and older Becoming Eligible (Medical To be eligible, the family or household member must permanently Clarification and Dental reside within the United States Plans) Continuation When You Retired employees must elect Retiree coverage within 30 days of the Retire (Medical date of their retirement or loss of other Deschutes County coverage Clarification and Dental to be eligible for this coverage. Plans) Immunizations The bullet point for the Shingles vaccine has been amended to Remove age limits to Preventative read as follows: allow the plan to Services -Shingles vaccine for recommended adult age groups; or follow CDC guidelines Temporomandibular joint syndrome (TMJ) • Medically necessary services for care and treatment of temporomandibular joint syndrome (TMJ). Benefits for the Professional treatment of TMJ and all related services are subject to the deductible, co -payment, and/or co-insurance stated in the Clarification Services Medical Benefit Summary under'Other Covered Services— Temporomandibular Joint'. Benefits are limited to a lifetime maximum benefit of $2,000 per person. Only expenses for durable medical equipment, or prosthetic Correction -The bullet and orthotic devices that are provided by a PacificSource point was amended to Durable Medical contracted provider or a provider that satisfies the criteria of the remove the exclusion of Equipment Medicare fee schedule for Suppliers of Durable Medical Mail order or Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, Supplies (DMEPOS) and Internet/Web based Other Items and Services are eligible for reimbursement. providers. Correction — Foot Excluded Foot orthotics are not covered. orthotics are currently Services not covered Maternity charges incurred by a covered person acting as a Surrogate Mother are not covered charges. For the purpose of The bullet point has been Excluded this Plan, the newborn of a Surrogate Mother will not be removed, it is no longer a Services considered an eligible dependent if the Surrogate Mother has Plan exclusion to comply entered into a contract or other understanding to which they with ACA guidelines relinquish the newborn to intended parents following the birth. The Plan Sponsor is entitled to reimbursement for any paid claims out of the compensation a member receives or is entitled to receive under a surrogacy agreement. A member who enters into a Third Party surrogacy agreement must reimburse the Plan Sponsor for covered Language added to Liability — expenses related to conception, pregnancy, delivery, or postpartum comply with ACA Surrogacy care that are received in connection with the surrogacy agreement. A guidelines Services member who enters into a surrogacy agreement must inform PacificSource, on behalf of the Plan Sponsor, of that agreement within 30 days of entering that agreement and provide a copy of the agreement to PacificSource. Third Party Correction -The bullet Liability — On the point has been removed job Illness or This Plan exception will also be waived for self-employed from this section, there is no waiver of/or Injury and WC spouses or domestic partners. exception made for self- employed spouses or domestic partners The definition was removed to comply Definitions The definition of Surrogate Mother has been removed. with state and ACA guidelines The Mail Order Pharmacy Kelley -Ross Union Center Pharmacy Benefits have been 2324 Eastlake Ave E, Suite 405 amended, all references Prescription Seattle, WA 98102 to WellPartner and mail Drug Benefits Phone: 206/800 441-9174 order contact Fax: 206 448-4406 information will be www.kelley-ross.com/union-center replaced with the new mail order service. Correction — Plan also Service included language Dental Benefit stating that sedation Summary Class II Services Nitrous oxide and $25 co -pay $25 co -pay must be medically oral conscious necessary to be sedation covered. Class II Services -Core build-ups are covered. -Benefits for general anesthesia (including nitrous oxide and oral Covered Dental conscious sedation) and its administration in connection with Clarification Services complex oral surgery, major periodontics procedures, fractures or dislocations, or due to a concurrent medical condition. Class 111 Services -Benefits for crowns and other cast or laboratory -processed restorations are limited to the restoration of any one tooth in a 60 month period. Drugs and medications that are prescribed drugs and take - Benefits home medicine or supplies distributed by a provider for any Limitation and member. As well as premedication drugs, analgesics (for Correction —To match Excluded example, nitrous oxide or non-intravenous sedation), and any existing plan language Services (Dental other euphoric drugs, or any take-home medicine or supplies Plan) distributed by a provider (other than as specifically noted under the Covered Expenses — Covered Dental Services section). Benefits The following bullet point has been removed, it is no longer a Limitation and Plan exclusion: Correction — Removed Excluded -Core build-ups are not covered unless used to restore a tooth to match existing plan Services (Dental that has been treated endodontically (root canal). language Plan)