The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-159-Minutes for Meeting April 22,2019 Recorded 5/23/2019BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2019-159 Commissioners' Journal 05/23/2019 10:00:56 AM 1101,1111111111111111111111111111 BOCC MONDAY MEETING MINUTES 1:00 PM MONDAY, April 22, 2019 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, 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 Henderson called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations Judith Ure, Management Analyst presented along with Andrea Brent, Cascades East Transit; Michelle Rhodes and Derek Hofbauer, COIC; Gary Farnsworth and Theresa Conely, ODOT. Further information from the STIF Advisory Committee was presented to the Board regarding project prioritization. Commissioner DeBone defined the services provided to the community and those agencies involved. Commissioner Adair expressed concern on hours and span of service proposed for the La Pine to Sunriver service and feels they should be increased. Commissioner Henderson explained his view of the Advisory Committee for the future. An outline of BOCC MEETING APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 6 vehicle purchase requests was reviewed. The Advisory Committee ranked the projects. Commissioner Henderson pointed out the Advisory Committee was appointed the same week the public forums were scheduled and feels they did not have much opportunity to review the recommended projects. Commissioner DeBone commented on density for transit riders for the future based on population growth. There are 56 buses currently in the system. Commissioner DeBone acknowledges the level of work done into the process and supports expanding services with transit dollars that are available. Commissioner Adair suggested hours of service from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the Sunriver to La Pine bus route. Commissioner Henderson would also support adding money to that project. Commissioner Henderson recommends a list of projects be submitted to the Board prior to a presentation for consideration of approval. The project plan is due for submittal by Tuesday. Gary Farnsworth, ODOT, recommended that COIC provide a review of the decision making process for the fleet. This item will be included for consideration on the Board's agenda of Wednesday April 24 at 1:30 p.m. in the Allen Conference Room. 2. Deschutes County Stabilization Center ® Progress Update Health Services staff presented an update on the project design and a list of the service projections for the proposed stabilization center. Commissioner Henderson reported on a meeting scheduled April 23 with representatives of St. Charles. Dr. Conway stated when the stabilization center is open, the hope is for 24/7 coverage for services for mental health respite. Lee Randall, Facilities Director spoke on parking needs in the public safety campus master plan. RECESS: At the time of 2:42 p.m., the Board took a recess and reconvened the meeting at 2:49 p.m. BOCC MEETING APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 6 3. CDD Marijuana Items: Code Enforcement Follow Up and Planning Division Annual Inspection Policy Community Development Department staff Nick Lelack, Tanya Saltzman, Lori Furlong, and Angie Havniear presented regarding the code enforcement and inspection process for marijuana production facilities. Eleven code enforcement cases were referred to the Sheriff's Office and six were found to not have marijuana on the premises. Commissioner DeBone inquired on anonymous complaints. Ms. Furlong reported most complaints received are not anonymous. The annual reports are on hold currently. A site inspection checklist was drafted which gives certainty to the property owner to inform them what will occur during the inspection. A draft checklist was presented to the Board for additional input. Commissioner Henderson recommended the inspections occur during the time of mature canopy. County Administrator Anderson inquired on the department's procedure if during an annual inspection they view another code enforcement issue on the property. CDD staff would report the violation if it concerns public health/life safety. Commissioner Henderson recommended inclusion of the identified type of odor control system on the property. DEBONE: Made motion to approve the Annual Site Inspection Checklist as Modified. ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried The Board strongly recommended the site inspection forms should be submitted by the property owner in February and inspections done during July, August, and September. 4. Repealing of Ordinance No. 2018-005: Flood Plain Amendments Community Development Department staff Nicole Mardell, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky along with Adam Smith Assistant Legal Counsel presented a BOCC MEETING APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 6 brief background of the text amendments relative to flood plain and the concern on findings and evidence. The amendments were withdrawn from the LUBA process. The next step is to formally issue a decision prior to May 22. A public hearing is scheduled for May 8. Ms. Mardell recommended to hold the public hearing and deliberations on the same date. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 3:36 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Pending Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:47 p.m. 5. Preparation for Bend UGB Amendment Public Hearing Community Development Department staff Zechariah Heck and Nick Lelack reviewed the application requesting approval to adjust the Bend UGB and amendments to Deschutes County comprehensive plan and zoning maps. The Board supports the May 17 date for emergency clause on the draft ordinance. COMMISSIONER UPDATES • Regarding the fire lab event of April 18, "Can Central Oregon be the next Paradise", Commissioner Henderson recommended a debrief with Emergency Manager Nathan Garibay and Road Department Director Chris Doty • Commissioner Henderson will attend a meeting with Health Services and St. Charles tomorrow regarding the crisis stabilization center. • Commissioner Adair reported on last week's AOC County College session in Salem. BOCC MEETING APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 6 • Commissioner DeBone attended the La Pine Chamber Breakfast on Friday. He also participated in several food inspections with the Environmental Health department. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 4:11 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.600 (2) (e) Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:06 p.m. OTHER ITEMS: • County Administrator Anderson presented the agenda for the point Meeting with the BOCC and City of La Pine on Wednesday, April 24 at 4:30 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 5:10 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Pending Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:16.p.m. At the time of 5:17, the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Pending Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:23 p.m. At the time of 5:23 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Pending Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:27 p.m. BOCC MEETING APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 6 ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. DATED this /(---> Day of -�' a' - _ 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY BOCC MEETING PHILIP G. HENDERSON, CHAIR (9_,_ecA PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, CMIISSIONER APRIL 22, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 6 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:00 PM, MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, and allows 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. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. 1:00 PM 2. 1:45 PM 3. 2:15 PM 4. 2:45 PM 5. 3:00 PM Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations - Judith Ure, Management Analyst Deschutes County Stabilization Center - Progress Update - Dave Inbody, Deputy Director CDD Marijuana Items: Code Enforcement Follow Up and Planning Division Annual Inspection Policy - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner Repealing of Ordinance 2018-005: Flood Plain Amendments - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Preparation for Bend UGB Amendment Public Hearing - Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, April 22, 2019 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Sessions under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Property Negotiations, ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations, ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Pending Litigation and ORS 192.660 (2) (i) Employee Evaluation OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.or/meetin:calendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, April 22, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Please return to BOCC Secretary. -v Co as CD oqCD s iTi \\ ) Name Agency /2 Work Session / -1 (Please Print) E 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of April 22, 2019 DATE: April 17, 2019 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review and approve recommendations of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Advisory Committee and authorize staff to prepare and submit the County's Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund grant application to the Oregon Department of Transportation. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: State legislation passed during the 2017 session created a new funding mechanism designed to expand public transportation service in Oregon Communities. Rules governing how these funds may be distributed and administered were adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and became effective July 1, 2018. STIF rules require that Deschutes County, as a Qualified Entity (QE) conduct a public process to develop and select eligible projects for funding. In early 2019, the Board of Commissioners entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) to administer this process. The Board also appointed a STIF Advisory Committee (STIFAC) and adopted governing by-laws for the group as required by the rules. Since that time, COIC has identified a list of eligible projects, held a series of community forums, and facilitated a STIFAC process to review and rank applications. The next step in this process is for the Board of Commissioners to review the rankings and determine in which order the applications should be recommended for funding by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). PLEASE NOTE: This is a continuation of Board of Commissioners discussions in public meetings held on April 15 and April 17. Staff is currently compiling Information in response to Commissioners' questions raised during those meetings. That documentation will be made available and distributed on Friday, April 19, 2019. In addition, staff from COIC and ODOT will be present during the April 15, 2019 work session to answer additional questions. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: A total of $7,566,000 is available for Deschutes County projects as follows: $1,271,000 in FY 2019, $2,932,000 in FY 2020, and $3,363,000 in FY 2021. The FY 2019 and FY 2020 funds are expected to be awarded by ODOT in October 2019 and will be included in Deschutes County's FY 2020 budget. ATTENDANCE: Derek Hofbauer, COIC Outreach and Engagement Administrator; Michelle Rhoads, COIC Transportation Manager; Andrea Breault, COIC Senior Transit Planner; Theresa Conley, ODOT Region 4 Transit Coordinator; and Judith Ure, Deschutes County Management Analyst. OUTLINE OF VEHICLE PURCHASES REQUESTS Q 0 Q Project 2 2 ADA stations Project 17 2 ADA stations Project 23 2 ADA stations Project 28 2 ADA stations Project 30 2 ADA stations 2 ADA stations SEATS 35 Seats 34 Seats 18 Seats 35 Seats 18 Seats 18 Seats LENGTH J Bo CO 35' Length 24' Length 38' Length b J -.- N 24' Length MODEL Defender Standard 0 LII LU Defender 0 Lt1 UJ 0 Li) w 111 c O _ 0. E to 0 c O _ 0_ -CU O U- 0 N 0 0 0 -l} 0 O 0 h N i!} O 0 L i/}. O 0 Ln tn- 00S'L8$ O 0 Ln :/} STIF PROJECT NUMBER Purchase Vehicle for Route 24 Increased Frequency Purchase 3 Gillis for Increased Frequency on 1, 4, 7 Purchase Vehicle for La Pine to Sunriver Limited Service Purchase split with Crook County for interlined service between Bend and Prineville Purchase two vehicles for limited deviated/flex service for City of Redmond To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst Date: April 18, 2019 Subject: Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations — Supplemental Information The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners met on April 15 and April 17 to review recommendations for regional projects proposed for approximately $7.5 million in Statewide Transportation Improvement Funds (STIF). During those meetings, the Board raised several questions related to the STIF program and to the projects included in the recommendation forwarded by the County's STIF Advisory Committee (STIFAC). The attached binders include the following documents in response to the Board's questions and concerns as well as other background information that may be useful for further discussion about the STIF program and proposed projects: Binder 1: 1. Background Information 2. La Pine / Sunriver Project 3. City of Redmond Request 4. ODOT Response to Board Questions 5. STIF Administrative Rules 6. Deschutes County / Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Intergovernmental Agreement 7. STIF Advisory Committee Information 8. 2013 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 9. 2018 Central Oregon Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. 10. 2013 Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Public Transit Plan and Transit Corridor Land Use Assessment Binder 2: 1. Table of Contents 2. Project Summary / Matrix 3. STIF Projects by Type 4. STIF Projects by Location 5. Bend Fixed Route System 6. Community Connector System 7. Rural Dial -a -Ride 8. Cascades East Transit Fleet Inventory 9. Draft STIF Application (projects 1 through 35) Staff from COIC, and ODOT will be in attendance at the Board of Commissioners meeting scheduled for April 22, 2019. However, if Commissioners have further questions or would like additional information in advance of the meeting, please let me know. To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst Date: April 10, 2019 Subject: Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations Background State legislation passed during the 2017 session created a new funding mechanism called the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) which was designed to expand public transportation service in Oregon Communities. Rules governing how these funds may be distributed and administered were adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and became effective July 1, 2018. STIF rules require that Deschutes County, as a Qualified Entity (QE) conduct a public process to develop and select eligible projects for funding. In early 2019, the Board of Commissioners entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) to administer this process. The Board also appointed a STIF Advisory Committee (STIFAC) and adopted governing by-laws for the group as required by the rules. Funding Funding for the STIF program was established through HB 2017 passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2017. The legislation enacted a .001%, or $1 per $1,000, payroll tax on the wages of employees working in Oregon. The tax is collected by the Oregon Department of Revenue and distributed back to the communities in which it was collected for the purpose of expanding and enhancing transportation services. Current projections for Deschutes County estimate that proceeds from the payroll tax will amount to $1,271,000 in FY 2019, $2,932,000 in FY 2020, and $3,363,000 in FY 2021 for a total of $7,566,000 during the three-year period. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has indicated that these estimates are conservative and may be subject to change as actual receipts are realized. In fact, the original forecast issued in April 2018 was adjusted upward by approximately 10% by December 2018. Initial information provided to the Board of Commissioners was focused on the 2019 funding allocation. However, since that time, COIC has learned that the deadline for applying for all three years of funding is May 1, 2019. As a result, projects totaling close to the three-year total of $7,566,000 were presented to the STIFAC for ranking and are included in the recommendation being forwarded to the Board for consideration. Advisory Committee On January 2, 2019, the Board of Commissioners approved a set of by-laws which formed the basis for appointing STIFAC members, including designating 11 members and 2 alternates. By state law, the STIFAC must include at least one person who is a low-income individual, one person who is disabled or is age 65 or older, and one public transportation service provider or non-profit public transportation service provider. Other criteria adopted by the Board of Commissioners included representation by any one or more of the following: • Local governments, including land use planners. • Employers. • Public and private health, social and human service providers. • Transit users. • Transit users who depend on transit for performing daily activities. • Residents representing different geographic areas of Deschutes County. • Transportation logistics representatives. • Commerce and/or business community. • Social equity advocates. • Environmental and energy efficiency advocates. • Bicycle and pedestrian advocates. • People with limited English proficiency. • Educational institutions. • Major public transit destinations. COIC issued a public notice to solicit interest in the STIFAC and received 49 applications. A scoring committee made up of seven individuals including public agency staff from ODOT, the City of Bend, Deschutes County and COIC and a private business owner, a realtor, and a local economist evaluated and scored the applications based on the established criteria. This information was forwarded to the Board of Commmissioners on March 6, 2019 and following discussion, the Board appointed the STIFAC members. A list of the current STIFAC is attached. The STIFAC met for the first time on March 21, 2019 and for a second time on April 5, 2019. During the first meeting, the group selected a Chair and Vice Chair. In addition, one committee member resigned at the conclusion of the first meeting and an alternate substituted for his position during the second meeting. Projects A list of all 35 projects submitted is included in the materials attached to the "Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Recommendations" agenda item. Eligible projects must enhance or expand transportation services and to some degree must address the needs of low- income populations, students, and the elderly and people with disabilities. The proposed list includes a variety of service, capital purchase, technology, infrastructure, operations, and administration projects which range in cost from approximately $14,000 to $1,735,000. The cost of some projects, as noted on the list, are shared between more than one agency (such as neighboring counties). These projects require approval by each agency in order to be feasible. Public Process Beginning in January 2019, COIC began identifying the list of eligible projects to be included in a STIF plan as required by STIF rules. These projects, which are described in a separate attachment, were presented to the public for input through a series of community forums in which individuals were invited to vote for specific projects using a high, medium, and low scoring system. That information was then forwarded to the STIFAC and used during a further ranking process. The next step in this process is for the Board of Commissioners to review the rankings and determine in which order the applications should be recommended for funding by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Recommendations The attached chart titled "draft Deschutes County Proposed STIF Public Transportation Service Provider Projects, FY 2019-2021 details the outcome of both the public forums and the STIFAC ranking process. The Board of Commissioners is being asked to review these rankings and determine how they want them included in the final Deschutes County application for STIF funding. Sufficient funds are available to fund all applications, with a small balance remaining that may be either expended as determined by the Board or carried over to be used during the 2021-23 biennium. Other Considerations Following the conclusion of the public forums and the STIFAC process, the City of Redmond and Cascades East Transit requested consideration of additional funding to support public transit services in the Redmond community. That request is not part of the current STIF proposal, but, if submitted, will be provided to the Board of Commissioners prior to the April 15, 2019 work session in which the rankings will be discussed for possible inclusion in the final application. More information will be distributed to the Board at such time as it is submitted. Next Steps Once the Board has determined the final project list and rankings, staff will prepare and submit an application for funding to ODOT by or before the May 1, 2019 deadline. ODOT anticipates reviewing the application during the next several months with a goal of awarding funds by October 2019. Following the award, Deschutes County will enter into formal agreements with both ODOT and sub -recipients receiving project funds which will specify terms for completion of the projects. To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst Date: April 18, 2019 Subject: Project 23: Proposed Transit Route Serving the Communities of La Pine and Sunriver During a meeting held on April 17, 2019, Commissioner Adair requested additional information outlining Project 23 on Deschutes County's proposed Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) project list. Project 23, if funded, will create a new transit service between the communities of La Pine and Sunriver. It is titled "Small City Local Service Enhancements — La Pine", estimated to cost $161,320 between FY 2020 and FY 2021, and currently ranked 28 on the list of recommended projects. In response to Commissioner Adair's questions, staff from the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) provided the following details in regard to Project 23 as it is currently planned. Project 23 was developed in conjunction with representatives of La Pine and Sunriver (see below) and was specifically designed to address local concerns regarding work sites and labor. As such, it currently reflects the greatest area of need for employment-related commutes. However, the proposed routes and frequency can be adapted over time as conditions demand. Project Description If approved and implemented, funds for Project 23 will: • Purchase an 18 -passenger shuttle for service from La Pine to Sunriver in FY 2020 at a cost of $85,000. • Provide a total of 720 hours of service from Memorial Day to Labor Day in FY 2021 at a cost of $76,320. • During this period, the service will be offered 8 hours per day, 7 days each week. • Buses will operate on a schedule of half-hour frequencies, with 2 runs per hour — 14 runs a day (allowing for driver breaks and other operational requirements). • The current service model does not include revenue expected from rider fares. With the addition of fare revenue, hours and days can potentially be expanded over time. Local Coordination COIC encouraged representatives of the Sunriver Resort, business community, elected officials, and residents to participate in the STIF planning process. Coordination between COIC and the La Pine and Sunriver communities took place between 2018 and 2019 and included the following: • Introductions were made to Senior Planner Andrea Breault via Community and Economic Development Manager Scott Aycock of COIC to area representatives (i.e. Chambers of Commerce, Mayor of La Pine, and Resort Operators). • Andrea attended a Sunriver-La Pine Economic Development (SLED) meeting to introduce herself and explain the master plan process and STIF funds. • Andrea sent survey questions to Sunriver representatives to gauge demand of services needed. However, she did not receive any response or feedback. • Cascades East Transit (CET) staff contacted Sunriver representatives to encourage participation in a Master Plan Committee and STIF Advisory Committee. • Local resident Ken Thorpe indicated an interest in applying for the STIF Advisory Committee. He was selected by Deschutes County Commissioners but did not attend either of the two meetings held. • Dan Youmans of the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce attended the Local Master Plan meeting in La Pine and expressed interest in possible transit service to Sunriver. • Dan Youmans worked closely with Andrea to gather employment statistics, information regarding work shifts, and other labor -related data to help tailor the proposed new service to need. He continues to collaborate with Andrea in developing ideas for how the proposed service can succeed and creating opportunities for future coordination with the Resort. Andrea Breault will be available at the April 22, 2019 Board meeting to answer additional questions and provide further information if needed. To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analy�,�r''"� Date: April 10, 2019 Subject: City of Redmond Request for Additional Transit Service Funding Included in the agenda packet for the Board of Commissioners meeting scheduled for April 15, 2019, you will find materials outlining recommendations for allocating approximately $7.5 million in Statewide Transportation Improvement Funds (STIF). The project list that was forwarded to you with that information was developed by the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) which was contracted to help administer the STIF program on the County's behalf. Those projects were subjected to public review through a series of six community open house meetings and were ranked by the STIF Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Commissioners. Following the conclusion of the STIFAC review process, the City of Redmond and Cascades East Transit requested consideration of additional funding to support public transit services in the Redmond community. Specifically, the proposal requests funding for a fixed -route service as opposed to the deviated fixed-route/on demand service originally proposed, included in the review process conducted to date, and shown on the ranked project work sheet that you received. The additional cost to amend the deviated fixed-route/on-demand project to a fixed -route project is $294,817. That request is attached. At this time, all of the projects included on the project work sheet have been recommended for funding and there are sufficient funds within the County's STIF allocation to fully support the costs, including the City of Redmond's original proposal at $565,000, with approximately $117,000 remaining to be carried over into the next STIF funding cycle which begins in FY 2021. As a result, the current project list represents a nearly 100% funding recommendation. However, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has indicated that the original funding projections are conservative and may be adjusted upward as the tax receipts supporting the STIF program are received and distributed. For this reason, ODOT has asked each Qualified Entity (QE), which in this case is Deschutes County, to provide a 130% project list to allow for additional projects to be implemented if funds allow. At the time the STIF project list was developed, insufficient projects were identified to create a 130% project list. If the Board wishes to consider the additional request from the City of Redmond, Deschutes County could designate the project within a 130% list. At this time, no other projects have been solicited and the County has not received other requests for additional funds. As a result, the City of Redmond request would be the only project on that list, unless further amended by the Board of Commissioners. Please let me know if you have any questions about this request or would like additional information prior to the April 15 meeting. CITY OF REDMOND 411 SW Ninth Street Redmond, OR 97756 DATE: April 12, 2019 TO: Judith Ure, Management Analyst, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Members of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Advisory Committee FROM: Jon Bullock, Redmond City Councilor Zach Bass, Redmond Airport Director RE: Request for Additional Transit Service for Redmond, Oregon We appreciated the opportunity to partner with you in the prioritization of the Deschutes County STIF projects. The $7.6 million in transit funding will bring great benefit to the region. A more robust public transit system gives Central Oregon the opportunity to help our residents reduce costs associated with singular reliance on automobiles. We are also aware that Cascades East Transit (CET) is optimistic that the allocation of transit revenues to Deschutes County could be more than the $7.6 million projected. From our understanding this information will be known this summer. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the committee that Redmond will be requesting the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) consider an oversubscription of STIF resources in order to increase the level of service for our growing community. We will not be asking for a re -prioritization of the rankings set by our committee; and will in fact urge them against such steps if it becomes a consideration. Redmond currently has one project funded at a cost of $565,000. The funded project provides limited deviated fixed route/on demand service with one bus and approximately 10 hours of weekday service. Our oversubscription request will be to provide funding for a total of two fixed routes, which is served by two 18 -seat buses, with 30 -minute headways. This level of service will cost approximately $859,817. This sum includes the $565,000 above. This will assist in Redmond assuring critical transit services connect our population to medical providers, major employers, schools, residential neighborhoods, and the new affordable housing pilot project recently approved by the State Legislature this spring. The BOCC is scheduled to approve the STIF project list at their worksession meeting at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 15. We will be requesting their consideration of this investment at the worksession. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact either of us at .on.bullock(d ci.redmond.or.us or Zach Bass at zacharv.bass(iNvrdm,com or you can also contact Zach by phone at 541-504-3085. Thank you for your attention to this memorandum. April 19, 2019 regon Kate Brown., Governor Judith Ure Deschutes County Administrative Services 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, OR 97703 Dear Ms. Ure, Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit Division 55513th ST NE Salem OR 97301-4179 Public Transit Phone: (503) 986-3300 Rail Phone: (503) 986-4321 Transit Fax: (503) 986-4189 Rail Fax: (503) 986-3183 I appreciate your diligence in implementing the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) program in Deschutes County, particularly the robust effort to select STIF Advisory Committee members and your efforts to ensure compliance with STIF Rules and guidance provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit Division. In response to questions arising from the Deschutes County STIF process, I have provided information below about carrying forward funds, changes to the recommended project list, flexibility while implementing projects, quarterly reporting requirements, and fund disbursement. Gary Farnsworth, ODOT Region 4 Manager, and myself plan to attend the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners meeting on April 22, 2019 in order to be a resource to you and the Commissioners and to answer any additional questions that may come up. Is there a period after which a Qualified Entity (QE) may lose funds? Yes, if a QE does not apply for funds for two biennial funding cycles, ODOT may release funds accumulated for redistribution to other QEs. This is described in OAR 732-042-0030. If a QE includes a 'carry forward' project in its STIF Plan those funds should not be lost. Carry forward projects identify funds for use in a future fund cycle and only require a basic project description — further detail will be required in the future STIF Plan when the funds are proposed for expenditure. What changes can a QE governing body make to the recommended project list? The QE governing body has the authority to add, remove, change or re -prioritize the project list recommended to them by the STIF Advisory Committee. A QE governing body may deviate from Committee recommendations provided that: 1. An explanation for the changes is provided and the public transportation providers are notified of all modifications and reasons for those modifications. 2. ODOT must be notified in the STIF Plan that the QE deviated from the Committee's recommendations. 3. The project list complies with STIF requirements. This includes but is not limited to: projects being identified in adopted local plans, allocation of 1% of funds per year for student transportation, sharing of funds among PTSPs, enhancement of service, and meeting STIF funding criteria such as increasing service to low income households. Additional useful questions to consider when finalizing the project list are: • Do the projects enhance existing public transportation services? • Are the projects in an adopted local plan or policy? When the Cascades East Transit Development Plan update is adopted in 2020, that can plan drive the next round of projects. • Will removal of a project have an impact on a regional project proposed as jointly -funded? • Are there potential impacts on long term transit ridership and public perception of transit services if there is a discontinuation of services and loss of reliability? • Would a pilot project be appropriate to test run a service and build on it based on lessons -learned? How much flexibility does the QE have in how the projects in the STIF Plan are implemented? The STIF Plan will serve as both the application and the grant agreement. This document cannot be amended. Projects should be implemented with `reasonable consistency' with what was proposed. Guidance on what will be considered 'reasonably consistent' is being developed. Although forthcoming RPTD guidance will supersede this, a useful frame of reference for discussion purposes may be - if a project is proposed to add two round trips per day between Bend and Redmond but the County instead implements two round trips per day to Prineville, that may not be seen as `reasonably consistent'. However, if the County instead implements three round trips per day between Bend and Redmond due to cost -savings within the project, that could be seen as 'reasonably consistent'. What kind of reporting is anticipated? There will be a reporting mechanism in OPTIS and the first quarterly report will be due on August 14, 2019. The primary purpose of the quarterly report is to evaluate that a QE is expending STIF funds consistent with its STIF Plan. QEs and their subrecipients will be required to report on project progress, expenditures and outcome measures. Outcome measures are a required component of all projects. ODOT will require back-up documentation similar to documentation currently required with reimbursement requests. The OPTIS reporting template is being designed so that subrecipients can input data directly to the form for review and submittal by the QE. When and how will funds be disbursed? The first round of STIF Formula funds are scheduled to disburse on May 15, 2019. If a QE submits their STIF Plan on May 1, those funds will accrue until October 2019 and will be received in a lump sum along with the first `regular' disbursement. The approved STIF Plan triggers the payments to begin. QEs do not need to submit anything additional. After the first payment, additional payments will occur automatically on a quarterly basis similar to the Special Transportation Fund formula payments. The funding will be sent to the Qualified Entities by the type of payment designated in the system (check, ACH, etc.) and the amount will vary based on the actual taxes collected. Each quarter ODOT calculates the payment amount based on the available balance, up to the approved STIF plan maximum. ODOT plans to publish disbursement amounts prior to the transfer of funds. I will continue to be available as a resource to the County during this process and can be reached at Theresa.L.Conlevodot.state.or.us or (541) 514-7995. Additionally, I am interested in hearing feedback about how to improve the process for the next FY21-23 funding cycle. Sincerely, Theresa Conley, Region 4 Transit Coordinator ODOT Rail and Public Transit Division Cc: Gary Farnsworth, ODOT Region 4 Manager Bob Townsend, ODOT Region 4 Area Manager Marsha Hoskins, ODOT RPTD Transit Section Manager Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund Formula Fund Guidance SUPPLEMENT: Project Details for Carry Forward Projects October 8, 2018 ODOT staff made a few refinements to the STIF Plan Template to better account for projects that are not part of a multi -phase project, but propose to carry funds forward into the next biennium. This change affects data entry for all projects. Please review the amendment to Formula Fund guidance, below, and direct any questions to your Regional Transit Coordinator. New data entry question: Project Details When entering Project Details in section 6.1 of the STIF Plan Template, Qualified Entities are now required to specify whether the project proposes to expend funds during the current STIF Plan period, July 1, 2018 -June 30, 2021, or a future plan period. A new question has been added: "Do you plan to expend funding in a future STIF Plan period?" If funding is proposed to be expended during the current plan period, select "no" and continue with Project Details data entry. Qualified Entities that have already started Project Details data will need to revisit each project and select "no" as applicable. How to Enter Project Details for a carry forward Project Applicants may propose to expend STIF Formula Funds during a future STIF Plan period. Qualified Entities proposing to expend funds during a future STIF Plan period provide fewer project details during the current plan period because they are requesting authorization to carry that funding forward to a future plan period. At such time as the funding is proposed to be expended, the Qualified Entity is required to provide full project details in a STIF Plan template. To enter a project that proposes to carry forward STIF Formula Funds to a future plan period, select "Yes" in response to the question, "Do you plan to expend funding in a future STIF Plan period?" Specify the expenditure amount requested to be carried forward to a future plan period. Select the applicable project types that the funding is anticipated to support (select all that apply). Mass transit and public transportation districts must then specify the percentage of the project budget that is planned to be expended within the district boundaries. Section 6.1 Project Detail Entry Do you plan to expend funding in a future STIF Plan. period?* (#) Yes No If yes, what is the expenditure amount?* S500,000..00 This wr)l te added to the total amount of STIF &tnds re led. What is the project type that you are carrying forward funds for?* Holding funds for financial stability Capital 111-00 Bus Rolling Stock J Capital 112-00 Bus Transitways Lines j Capital 113-00 Bus Stations / Stops / Terminals Capital 114-00 Bus Support Equip Facilities Capital 115-00 Bus Electrification / Power Distribution Capital 116-00 Signal and Communication Equipment i Capital 117-00 Other Capital Items (Bus) Operations 300-00 Planning 442-00 Administration 620-00 Percent of project budget in district* 50% L co E - a c a u. .44c Iv E a 0 L Q. E c o o t co o Q. 0 N 0 O N i 01 H a -I 3 0 "- CD mo• o uo� > o o • a 0. RI gg Q t o • N c ao VI c =a C o c L Et m u1 O • :a 0 ba w c I- O V u0. c- Oz • z z 0 • Indicators • Does not meet minimum number of members • Committee does not include three required constituencies • A QE that is a mass transit or transportation district fails to include members from both within and outside district boundaries • Lack of publicly available documentation that demonstrates the required meetings occurred, such as public notice, meeting agenda and minutes • Recipient or sub -recipient accountability methods fail to address one or more of the programmatic areas specified in OAR 732-040-0015(3), which includes program management; financial management; operations management, procurement, use and maintenance of equipment; records retention; compliance with state and federal civil rights laws; and compliance with ADA. • Form is incomplete, despite ODOT staff and Public Transportation Advisory Committee requests for additional information M , U V1 N O o OAR 732-042- 0025(5)(b) A O - M n n < O o OAR 732-042- 0025(5)(d) Reason to Reject 1. The Qualified Entity (QE) did not establish an Advisory Committee or established one inconsistent with membership requirements in these rules 2. QE failed to confer with its Advisory Committee 3. The STIF Plan is incomplete or does not adequately explain how the QE will accomplish the goals of the Projects in the STIF Plan, including Recipient Accountability Methods, Sub -Recipient Accountability Methods, or Remediation Strategies, if applicable 4. The STIF Plan does not contain the sections and elements listed in OAR 732-042-0015(1), (2) and (3) [NOTE: This refers to all STIF Plan content requirements] Potential Mitigation • It is determined it is not Practicable, as defined by OAR 732-040-0005, to provide student transit services for grades 9 through 12 in the QEs Area of Responsibility a) 0 0 z • • None • QE's that only receive minimum allocation propose planning and/or administrative staffing projects during first funding cycle • Continues a pilot operations project • One-time discretionary funding ended • Maintains a project that was a STIF Formula Fund expansion or improvement project during a previous funding cycle • Advisory Committee recommendation failed to adequately consider the selection criteria specified in OAR 732-042- 0020(5) Indicators • STIF Plan does not allocate 1%each year for student transit for students in grades 9 through 12 • The QE has substantive audit or compliance review findings, especially in the areas of financial management and use and maintenance of vehicles and equipment • STIF Plan that includes a project requesting funding for a light rail project other than light rail operations • STIF Plan fails to include at least one project that would improve service to low income households • Project was previously funded by local funds that are being re -allocated for non -transit purposes • A QE's Advisory Committee recommends funding a PTSP's project, the QE's governing body makes a contrary decision using rationale that is inconsistent with statute or administrative rules, such as the QE substantially retains Formula funding for itself when its sub -allocation method and Advisory Committee would indicate otherwise Basis OAR 732-042-0010(9) Legislative intent of increased accountability N Legislative intent to serve low income households Legislative intent to prioritize expansion or improvement of services [NOTE: Solicitation guidance specifies potential cause for rejection] 10. QE's STIF Plan fails to fund one or more • Legislative intent projects proposed by a Public that QEs share Transportation Service Provider (PTSP), funding despite a QEs Advisory Committee • Administrative recommendation to do so rules sub - allocation requirement Reason to Recommend Rejection 5. The QE failed to allocate 1% each year for student transit services for students in grades 9 through 12 6. The QE failed to substantively adhere to STIF accountability requirements during a previous funding cycle 7. QE proposes light rail project other than operations 8. QEs STIF Plan fails to expand or improve service to low income households 9. STIF Plan proposes to use STIF funds to maintain existing services, rather than expand or improve services Potential Mitigation • QE attempted to collaborate with PTSP by sending meeting invitations or other correspondence and PTSP did not respond • The PTSP's application was incomplete and did not include sufficient information for Advisory Committee evaluation Indicators • Lack of documentation (meeting agenda and minutes) indicating that collaboration occurred • Lack of evidence that a QE's Advisory Committee had the opportunity to review complete Project proposals submitted by a PTSP to a QE' 4 a .45 � • W 1:0"' aU �, • cU. a O 0 W O I., VD w U O. N czt0 o 0.) b0 4-1 • OAR 732-042- 0020(3) requires Advisory Committees to meet as needed to advise the QE and review Project proposals a cz a a `< > ea CG , 11. QE failed to collaborate with PTSPs when developing the sub -allocation method 12. A QE's Advisory Committee failed to substantively consider one or more PTSP's project proposal(s) m 45 m tO to a DRAFT STIF Plan Projects - Deschutes County STIF Advisory Committee Ranking for Review by Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ESCHUTES COUNTY - 4/22/19 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING roposed STIF Public Transportation Service Provider Projects, FY 2019-2021 April 19, 2019 Page 1 asp.. Administration $14,049 ffi $14,049 FY2019-2021 N/A . t N/A Deschutes toy 1 35 Deschutes County Program Administration Covers costs associated with Deschutes County STIF program administration. 1 Sustainable Funding for Route 30 (La Pine - Bend) Secure sustainable funding source to replace 5311(f) discretionary funds, which CET applies for to cover portions of the cost of Route 30. Service $44,553 $44,553 FY 2020-2021 X La Pine 2 9 Community Connector Weekday Frequency: Routes 24 & 26 Add 2 weekday trips on Routes 24 & 26 (interlined), with Deschutes and Crook Counties each paying 50% of the cost. Includes service to Redmond Airport and COCC. Service $74,962 $37,482 FY 2021 X Deschutes & Crook 3 33 Implement Reduced Fare Program Implement Reduced Fare Program for low-income individuals or pilot first -last mile program for low-income individuals. Programs $100,000 $100,000 FY 2021 N/A N/A Systemwide 4 21 Bend Service Coverage - Northeast Create new local route serving northeast Bend, specific service design (e.g., new fixed- route, existing route extension, flex -route, or on -demand) to be identified based on TDP service plan. Includes allowance for a vehicle and bus stops and secondary transit/mobility hub improvements. Service, Buses, Bus Stops/Stations $810,370 $810,370 FY 2020-2021 X Bend 5 10 Community Connector Weekday Frequency / Additional Trips - Route 22 Add 3 weekday trips (e.g., 2 midday and 1 afternoon) on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond) with Jefferson County paying 2/3 of the operating costs. Additional stops to be determined to meet medical and shopping needs. Service $202,545 $55,502 FY 2020-2021 X Madras & Redmond 4 Community Connector Saturday Service - Route 24 Introduce five Saturday round trips on Route 24 (Redmond -Bend). Service $57,134 $57,134 FY 2020-2021 X Redmond & Bend 7 12 Community Connector Evening Trips - Route 22 Add one additional later evening weekday trip on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond), to better serve commuter needs, with Jefferson and Deschutes Counties each paying 50% of the cost. Service $73,520 $36,761 FY 2020-2021 X Madras & Redmond 8 30 Redmond Local Circulator Implement limited deviated fixed-route/on-demand service in Redmond. Assumes 1 bus with approximately 10 hours of service per weekday. Service, Bus, Shelters $565,000 $565,000 FY 2020-2021 X Redmond 9 22 Bend Service Coverage - Southeast Create new local route serving southeast Bend, specific service design (e.g., new fixed- route, existing route extension, flex -route, or on -demand) to be identified based on TDP service plan. Includes allowance for a vehicle and bus stops and secondary transit/mobility hub improvements. Service, Buses, Bus Stops/Stations $810,370 $810,370 FY 2020-2021 X Bend 10 17* Bend Primary Transit Network Fixed -Route Frequency Provide up to 15-20 minute peak hour service on select routes. Assumes additional peak buses for Routes 1, 4, 7, and a short route between Hawthorne Station and downtown Bend (either standalone or interlined with other routes). *This service will increase frequency Service, Buses $1,734,107 $1,734,107 FY 2021 X Bend 11 29 Sustainable Funding for Route 24 (Redmond - Bend) Secure sustainable funding source to replace 5311(f) discretionary funds, which CET applies for to cover portions of the cost of Route 24. Service $44,553 $44,553 FY 2020-2021 X Redmond & Bend 12 3 Community Connector Evening Trips - Route 24 Add one additional later evening weekday trip on Route 24 (Redmond -Bend). Service $37,482 $37,482 FY 2021 X Redmond & Bend 13 2 Additional Vehicle for Route 24 Purchase vehicle (or matching funds) for Route 24 to increase frequency between Redmond and Bend. Buses $175,000 $175,000 FY 2020 X Redmond & Bend 14 7 Community Connector Weekday Frequency / Additional Trips - Route 29 Add 1 morning, midday, or afternoon trip on Route 29 (Sisters -Bend) for medical and shopping needs, with additional stops to be determined. Service $55,502 $55,502 FY 2020-2021 X Sisters & Bend 15 28 Additional Vehicle for Route 26/24 Purchase vehicle (or matching funds) for Routes 24/26, with Deschutes and Crook Counties each paying 50% of the cost, to increase frequency between Prineville, Redmond, and Bend (interlined) and add stops at Redmond Airport and COCC. Buses $175,000 $87,500 FY 2020 X Redmond, Bend, & Prineville 16 6 Community Connector Saturday Service - Route 30 Introduce 3 Saturday round trips on Route 30 to meet medical, shopping and employment needs, with additional local stops to be determined. Service $34,280 $34,280 FY 2020-2021 X Bend & La Pine 17 14 Community Connector Saturday Service - Route 26 Introduce three Saturday round trips on Route 26 (Prineville -Bend), with Crook County paying 2/3 of the cost and Deschutes County 1/3 of the cost. Service $73,521 $24,507 FY 2020-2021 X Prineville & Redmond 18 13 Community Connector Saturday Service - Route 22 Introduce three Saturday round trips on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond), with Jefferson County paying 2/3 of the cost and Deschutes County 1/3 of the cost. Service $73,548 $24,507 FY 2020-2021 X Madras & Redmond 19 16 Transit -supportive capital improvements program Develop and fund a program to fund (or match other local funds) for ongoing transit- supportive capital improvements including bus stop amenities, stop accessibility, and bicycle/pedestrian access/crossings. Bus Stops/Stations $100,000 $100,000 FY 2021 N/A N/A Systemwide 20 April 19, 2019 Page 1 DRAFT STIF Plan Projects - Deschutes County STIF Advisory Committee Ranking for Review by Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 15 3rd Street Speed & Reliability and Access Improvements Work with partners to plan and implement access, speed, and reliability improvements on 3rd Street for CET Routes 1 and 4. Transit Priority $150,000 $150,000 FY 2021 X Bend 21, 11 Community Connector Evening Trips - Route 26 Add one additional later evening weekday trip on Route 26 (Prineville -Redmond), to better serve commuter needs, with Crook and Deschutes Counties each paying 50% of the cost. Service $64,51 1 $27,751 FY 2020-2021 X Redmond & Prineville 27 Vehicle Replacement Program (Local Match) Replace aging vehicles, including acquiring low -floor and/or low -emission vehicles. Assumes 20% matching funds for anticipated grants. Buses $421,000 $421,000 FY 2020 N/A N/A Systemwide 23 31 Small City Local Service Enhancements - Sisters Provide one additional day of Dial -A -Ride service in Sisters (currently only 1 day per week). Service $28,662 $28,662 FY 2021 X Sisters 24 19 Bend Saturday Service Hours Extend Saturday service hours in Bend to 7am - 7pm (fixed -route and ADA). Existing Saturday service hours are 7:30 or 8:00 am until 5:00 or 5:30 pm. Service $227,150 $227,150 FY 2020-2021 X Bend 25 20 Bend Saturday Frequency Provide 30 -minute Saturday frequency on select routes in the city of Bend. Existing frequency is every hour. Service $200,000 $200,000 FY 2021 X Bend 26 26 On -Demand Dispatch Technology Procure dispatch system, including capabilities to support on -demand scheduling and mobile device capabilities; currently demand -response scheduling is done manually. Technology $200,000 $200,000 FY 2021 N/A N/A Systemwide 27' 23 Small City Local Service Enhancements - La Pine Add local circulating service in La Pine, also serving Sunriver, including purchase of a vehicle Service, Bus $161,320 $161,320 FY 2020-2021 X La Pine & Sunriver 28 8 Community Connector Weekday Frequency / Additional Trips - Route 30 Add 1 morning, midday, or afternoon trip on Route 30 (La Pine -Bend) for medical and shopping needs, with additional stops to be determined. Service $55,502 $55,502 FY 2020-2021 X La Pine & Bend 29 32 CET Expansion Support Additional operations staff and materials to support enhanced transit service (customer service, safety & security, ADA certification, travel training & system maintenance) Operations $776,000 $776,000 FY 2020-2021 N/A N/A Systemwide .30 25 Marketing, Communication, and Outreach Provides funds to conduct marketing, communications, and outreach and travel training related to new and expanded services. Programs, Information $167,839 $167,839 FY 2020-2021 N/A N/A ' Systemwide 31 • 5 Community Connector Saturday Service - Route 29 Introduce 3 Saturday round -trips on Route 29 to meet medical, shopping and employment needs, with additional new bus stops added in Bend. Service $34,280 $34,280 FY 2020-2021 X Bend & Sisters 32 18 Hawthorne Station Access, Safety, and Operational Improvements Work with partners to design and implement station, pedestrian access, and transit operational improvements at Hawthorne Station. Bus Stops/Stations $50,000 $50,000 FY 2020 X Bend 33 •. 34 Employer Vanpool Program (Promotion and Subsidy) Contract services to promote and subsidize an employer vanpool program to encourage transportation demand management polices within Deschutes County. Programs $70,000 $70,000 FY 2021 N/A N/A Systemwide 34 24 Real -Time Information Technology Provide real-time information signage at secondary transit hub locations outside of the Hawthorne Station and Redmond Hubs. Technology, Bus Stops/Stations $30,000 $30,000 FY 2020 N/A N/A Systemwide 35 TOTAL Total Estimated Funds Remaining: $117,837 April 19, 2019 Page 2 0 rt !v i/I• N t0 V N V in Project #22 - Identify Service Needs in southeast Bend ($810,370) Project #21- Identify Service Needs in northeast Bend ($810,370) Project #15 - 3rd Street Speed/Signalization Project ($150,000) Project #14 - Introduce three (3) weekend roundtrips from Prineville to Redmond ($24,507) Project #13 - Introduce three (3) weekend roundtrips from Madras to Redmond ($24,507) Project #30 - Local Circulator service in the City of Redmond ($565,000) Project #28 - Purchase vehicle or vehicle match funds for RT 24/26 interline expansion ($87,500) Project #9 - Introduce two (2) direct trips from Route 26 through COCC, the airport, then to Bend ($37,482) Project #4 - Introduce five (5) round trips on Route 24 Redmond to Bend ($57,134) Project #2 - Purchase Vehicle or Vehicle Match Funds to heavily expand Route 24 Redmond to Bend ($175,000) Project #23 - Limited Service from La Pine to Sunriver ($161,320) Project #5 - Introduce Saturday Service via Route 29 ($34,280) Project #6 - Introduce Saturday Service via Route 30 ($34,280) New Expansion Projects - Deschutes County Deschutes County STIF Projects Categorized by Project Type 0 Project #31 - Enhance Dial -A -Ride services in Sisters ($28,662) - Direct Service in Sisters Total - $118,444 Project #7 - Midday Run and Added Stops via Route 29 ($55,502) Project #5 - Introduce Saturday Service via Route 29 ($34,280) City of Sisters Projects Project #1- Secure Sustainable Funding Source/Remove 5311(f) grant ($44,553) Total - $295,655 Project #23 - Limited Service from La Pine to Sunriver ($161,320) Project #8 - Add Midday Weekday Run and Added Stops via Route 30 ($55,502) Project #6 - Introduce Saturday Service via Route 30 ($34,280) City of La Pine Projects Deschutes County STIF Projects Categorized by Location Total - $344,817 DRAFT Project #37 - Fixed Route Services ($227,817) 130% List DRAFT Project #36 - Planning Feasibility Study for Fixed Route Service ($50,000) 100% List *DRAFT Project #30 - Additional Funding for Deviated Service ($67,000) 100% List - Direct service in Redmond City of Redmond DRAFT project proposal request to Deschutes County on 4/5/19 Total $1,173,179 Project #14 - Introduce three (3) weekend roundtrips from Prineville to Redmond ($24,507) Project #13 - Introduce three (3) weekend roundtrips from Madras to Redmond ($24,507) Project #12 - Additional evening weekday run from Madras to Redmond ($36,761) Project #11 - Additional evening weekday run from Redmond to Prineville ($27,751) Project #10 - Additional three (3) weekday runs from Madras to Redmond ($55,502) * Project #30 - Local Circulator service in the City of Redmond ($565,000) - Direct service in Redmond (see additional $ request below) Project #29 - Secure sustainable funding source for RT 24 operations (remove dependency from 5311(f) discretionary grants) ($44,553) Project #28 - Purchase vehicle or vehicle match funds for RT 24/26 interline expansion ($87,500) Project #9 - Introduce two (2) direct trips from Route 26 through COCC, the airport, then to Bend ($37,482) Project #4 - Introduce five (5) round trips on Route 24 Redmond to Bend ($57,134) Project #3 - Addition Evening Run Route 24 ($37,482) Project #2 - Purchase Vehicle or Vehicle Match Funds to heavily expand Route 24 Redmond to Bend ($175,000) City of Redmond Projects Deschutes County STIF Projects Categorized by Location (Continued) Raw Empire Ave Outer Market Rd Buhr Minket ountaln Revere Ave Portland Ave Olney Ave NW Grossing Or MewSx Ave sl Galveston Ave PIIntBUBn State Park induslnal Bear Creek Rd ALlbrary SYSTEM MAP LEGEND South 3rd St Brookswood Newport North 3rd St Wells Acres / Reed Mrkt Reed Mrkt/ Wells Acres Greenwood Colorado Galveston / 14th © Transfer Point CascadeMSe Powers twat Mahogany Mk Meadow EMm Poplar St for Ceeteri SNOW SCHEDULES Weather and road conditions may require Cascades East Transit to declare a "Snow Schedule." Riders will be alerted to snow schedules via the media, by texting to "CET" to 313131 to opt into updates, going to www.cascadeseasttransit.com and by alert boards placed at Hawthorne Station and other significant stops. 0 Madras —Warm Springs Rt. 20 x Redmond — Madras) 1 Rt. 22 Bend — Sisters Rt. 29 MT. BACHELOR Tomato SKI RESORT 26. Terrebonne PRINEVILLE REDMOND Redmond — Prineville Rt. 26 1 Bend — Mt. Bachelor Rt. 18 La Pine — Bend Rt. 30 0 0 1 AM PM kO ONO 'Cr In q N R CO 7r Cri o I IN1 0 mo CO 0 Cd. NcOrLflN 1/4.6 R (;,i 7r ki3 . 0 Z i „44,41,74k 4351Wfr vAffsalta&i., CN1 Bend-Redmond 111.11.11.011111111111.11111.11.11111111111111111111111,11116I ;. 1 RI 111 11 a) uJ z0 11 b tr) 0 z L1J AM PM -cs o E cc -c C 0 CC @.) CU E c 00 rt, cu E o o (r.s Lrl C:11 >, 0 CC @,) 0 _Ca E cc N r— CY) R m 0 M ki3 CO 6 co rn 4- 4- 0 1".." rn 9 rn NLnN c5k R 0 d- 0 R Lf) N I.flNlfl LflN.cO rn `5".. r— Pei Cr) R N N N ON r- rn in CA in in V) (NI N 9.0i0mLn r— r;rCci II) m L-r)LflCNN d- 1/4.0 in 7rinmNN r¼or rn NrncDOO c•Ni N r"."' r- r;ri Monday - Friday only / No Saturday or Sunday service qs LIT-fr rN e -Redmond • MULTI -ZONE ROUTE SINGLE RIDE rn Adult &Youth Senior/ Disabled* $3.00 DAY PASS -UNLIMITED (NI Adult & Youth Senior/ Disabled* $5.00 AM PM re) 0 N.00 oo co m in •in ,v-; .7r 0 oo LflrI "kb co Ln kb• m Qrnroc') rr; '71: 1/4° 0 rnrfl° 0 (Ni • 1/40 •U -I ----'::,g-•:D_•-.--,,„•'„:mN 1 „,„••„. ...... .. •.. . .. .. .. . ,,,, . . .. . . . . „..... , ...... .. -,:.:•.:::::4,:„.•,..,. ,,,,.,,,:,,„„,,,!•,:.,•:5,,,..„,,.,:•.,•.„?..,..•,:„.::::,,,,.,..,,,,,,,,,,,._..,,,,_,, , ........, 777 SW Kalama Ave. S L119 MS E 0 0 Sisters -Redmond N0 UJ 0 N J N MULTI -ZONE SINGLE RIDE 06 Q DAY PASS - UNLIMTED RIDES -o N 0 "c":3 00 'E0 cn v 4-0 ir oaf z Q c,_ +�(1) .- 73 CI- 0 , ,raCU°"qJ C na k.o0 4J ; X 'C > cn U L co Q C -,i C .Q 6 Q Q C 'F^t V' 73 N , � � Q;==.), L , L �, ct) cu o :_2 , W uLa. c"c v i ra 41 C 'c tq ra c60' A`- w 15 2 4J t v L ",N 1 c v,0 C..Q.u Jj O p u '1.:-',0 ON �'. F., O a22''ai �;":phi AM PM 'TS ,9 9 MS (NI Sisters -Bend a, c .E. .73 •=7 a) 2113)=(i) ' Jo 1 a) t.p -(:$ L.) ..:.- (D , 4.,•Llta .1:1 ag'c-c-3 cs) • x 3 0 :S. 1 -32 .3,'I' Ij lc- ,- 'T 0 0) a, a, -Ej .F. •c -5; rOs °2 E3 E g E g ,_. 0 „, t 61 •4 la EL! 12 Si tu 0 •7 @147-,22 42 ,-1,i t 2 c „i• le 2•8<L3 45 co * , * AM PM • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • ••• • • • • •-• • •• • • •• • • ••••• • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • . • . • • • • • , • • • • • • , • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • . • , • . , • ,,,,,,i;-,•,•,•,:••, • _,...„. i:1,:•.:•.,,..:.":•''.-tit::;:,„4:;', ,- . , . . , , . ......, ." • 7 06 (13 c .... tr) 0 • tk-''.• '' • , . . '' , • • ••• ,•• , § © -. : 1::' .q, 7 -•!,':'•,::.', - 00 „'•,, ,i:::. :::: ,S) .: , : . , c 03 00 0 1...., 01 re') = 13 - '” ' ' ' , O. ,i. ; . •,, , - ---- ,r,',Z.,.••::::: ,,,i Lc, @) ,"i• . .:,,, -„,',:,:, • , • :, , ,•••",; ! :, , :i.,:,1.: (I) C c 8.2 "5 -,>,- as ro i 0 Cc> 0 Ln L tn n >- cuJc (1) Lfl ij (Y: CY)cu • .14-Vikazgri, o' Lu co g il (.L3 1 (.\1 (71 , 66 .t:' Ca 0 7:1 1 1 IP'dr•\! ,-- ?, i Ci ,..., N 1 I ii m > 8 z1 1 I 'il, 7t Lrl N ',1 m r, • • 1 11 ,.i GO 0 ra i E •cj- I e•il m • • • m L.r),1 ,1 . H aJ aJ & u c 1 ,... c ? • >— ..c L.r) :i, Qcei , _ o 0 I \I g a, ,) • 1-'(3 , I.:: ' fIrl Lrl' • (t$ i i >, E r ,1 ri i c 2 ..4.(?, L"r1 ,....r ` 9 N C'S r;, -i ii $ 1o , ,J >, ,..r1... e5c)° cr:lir_ Lc.r)i.7t. q crs 1 11 • el I I 1 0 kJ h SI: g 7C3 1 M II -rt 1 ss. CL. = (13 -1 , v 0 , >, 2.c.I.' co in r\• ol r''l 1 I Pi -C3 s7 as c il I ol il t-- CO m 1 _c3f13 - (Net( -NI c CC) $5. CO; N.t.• 1 0 A114 PM InisMIZIKINS11111111f , . Youth $6.25 Senior 111111101111111111111k 0 0 a) b. 4S Lilt EltaW4011. P11444,4411 (-2 11: hpu uo46uiluntl 0 rs1 N Monday - Friday Only N at 40 Io thaleI0 a y C _ nI 6 G en V PN O to as d O d R is Ulti 0�0 . H w O O m I o t 1 TS :1,all 0 POEMS • '� CD Ct.o 0 -a 0 = 5/)'8 ��e 'o T E "PL, j= Il 0 k /\ A A n. Cd 0 00 l O ED W A m M 'O p V vl co En V M 6 - M N M O In 63 pi N 5 O M 'O F-, W N LO N IA CO N NJ VCOV Q1 N N U1A NJ N COCN N) FA F-`CO00 FA F' J A IA FA W NJ F-, N Q1 IA W U'1 N LO 0 (O F-` (000 F-, A 01 01 01 01 01 Ui Q1 Cr, 0N Q1 al FA0(D00 V1 LO CO U1 V O) U1 (1I(1 U1.p U1 ( N Ut U1 F-�O(O IA A Co A A V U1.p A A UJ A A N I --,(O NJ V 01 (ft 840 501 836 839 834 835 00 00 0 LU N 830 831 824 829 819 823 814 815 CO CONJ FA N00 CO 0 838 502 825 807 504 808 703 704 1701 702 17787 7788 7785 7786 7783 7784 7781 7782 V V OO 7777 7778 7775 7776 7770 7772 7773 7774 V V 0001 7762 17763 507 837 505 506 E269072 E269096 E257990 E269094 E257988 E257989 E256271 E259358 E253881 E256257 E249869 E253882 E248711 E249868 E241189 E241190 E249867 E231626 E269098 E248712 E269070 E269097 E249870 E241163 E269100 E241167 E269068 E269073 E269066 E269066 E269065 E269064 E266061 E266062 E253892 E262893 E253891 E253894 E253879 E253893 E248977 E249851 E248720 E253880 E248975 E248976 (E243669 E243670 mm N N 01 V O O Ut 31 00 0 U1 LV E270601 E270602 N N 0 0 N F-' 0101 2012 2016 2012 2012 2011 2013 N N 0 0 F-` 1-' IA IA 2010 2011 N N 0 0 F-` 0 0(O 2009 2009 2010 2004 N N 0 0 0 F -I 001 2016 2016 2010 2006 2016 2007 N 0 F' V 2017 2017 J 2016 2016 2016 2016 N N 0 0 I-` F-, 01 co 2015 2015 2011 2015 N N 0 0 f' F' I- F'N N N 0 0 F-` FI i 2009 2009 2009 2011 2009 2009 '2008 2008 2016 2006 2016 2016 FREIGHTLINER Ford Ford FREIGHTLINER Ford Ford FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER T T 00 o. o.o.0.0 T -fl 0 0 79900 0 0 0 000099 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 Ford Ford Ford Ford GILLIG GILLIG GILLIG GILLIG FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER FORD FORD FORD FORD FREIGHTLINER] FORD FORD FORD FORD FREIGHTLINER FORD FORD FORD FORD Ford FORD Ford Ford GHTLINER GHTLINER 000C'00000000000000000,0000000000000000000000000000000000000010> Champion Champion Champion Champion Champion Champion Champion Champion S O_ '1)000 3 04 �. Q0.Q 5 0 3 D_ D_ 0 9) 0 0 Champion Eldorado Accubuilt Accubuilt Accubuilt Champion » n n O O C C o -o' 0 0 �.,=y, NATIONAL NATIONAL m 0 Q S 0 0 3 3 Q=.00.2. 0 0 3 0 0 S .- 0 01 3 3 0 0 3 3 S S 9, 0) DJ 3 3 D D O O 3 3 hampion hampion hampion hampion hampion hampion S Q O O 3 0) D. co_ O O 3 dorado dorado dorado dorado Q Q o o a v QQQQQ�. 0 0 O, E., o o CU CU 0 0 O. S o 0 DJ 0 0 3 S S 0 0 �. B. 0 0 3 3 Q 0_ 0 0 0) 0) QQ 0 0 ham ion dorado ILLIG ILLIG F F r - I- G) ) M2 E-450 E450 M2 mm (A1(ft 00 M2 M2 E450 M2 E450 E450 E450 E450 E450 E450 E450 E450 E-450 E450 M2 E-450 E450 E450 mm NN 00 G27B G27B G) G.) V V CO CO M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 M2 AA U1U1 00 1E450 1E450 A (n N 0 A. 000 N 00(110 000 E350 E350 E450 E450 rn 0m (nom 00 E-450 E-450 Defender Challenger Challenger Defender 00 S S D, N N N 3 3 CD cc,SSSSSSSSS� Defender Defender Aerotech Defender DDDDDDDDD0 (D (D 0 0 (o (D n n (D (o 0 0 (D (D n n (D (D 0 0 .K .4 (D (D n C) (D (D 0 0 rf .+ (D (D n C1 (D S v 0— . F N (D n Defender Challenger Aerotech Aerotech 000 (D S o— (D [D r'I S� 35 ' Low Floor 35 ' Low Floor 35 ' Low Floor 35 ' Low Floor 000000000 (o (D (D (D (D (D (D (D IAerotech (Challenger DD ro (D 0 0 N (D Cl n SS ,Defender Aerotech Shuttle Shuttle Shuttle (Defender Shuttle Shuttle AEROTECH AEROTECH Challenger AEROLITE 210 Challenger Challenger 31 Counci Body Model 1 �A,�A,�-h-h� (D (D 3 3 QQQQQQQ(0 N N CD (o 3 3 (D (D (D 3 3 N N N CD 3 3 N N 1FVACW DT8GI 1FDFE4FS8GD( 1FDFE4FS8CDE 1FVACW DT8GI 1FDFE4FS4CDE 1FDFE4FS6CDE 1FVACWDU5C1 1FVACWDT9DI 1FDFE4FS3AD 1FVACW DU1CI 1FDFE4FSOAD'. 1FDFE4FS6AD''. 1FDFE45SX9D 1FDFE4FS7AD 1FD4E45S28D 1FD4E45S48D 1FDFE4FS9AD 1FDXE45S14H 1FDFE4S6GDC: 1FDFE45S19D 1FVACW DT8GI 1FDFE4FSXGD( 1FDFE4FSOAD 1FDXE45S76H 1FDFE4FS6G D( 1FDXE45S46D 15GGB2711H3 15GGB2710J3', 15GGB2713H3 15GGB271XH3 1FVACW DT8G 1FVACW DT8G 1FVACWDTOG 1FVACWDT8G 1FVACW DTOG 1FVACWDT2G 1FVACWDT7FF 1FVACWDT7FF 1FDFE4FS2AD 1FDFE4FS6FDP 1FDFE4FSOADE 1FDFE4FS2AD 1FVACWDU4C 1FDFE4FSOAD 1FTSS34L09D 1FTSS34L49D 1FTSS34L69D 1FVACWDU4C 1FTSS34L49D 1FTSS34L99D 1FDXE45S07D 1FDXE45S27D 1FDFE4FS3G D( I1FDWE35L26F 1FDFE4FSXGD( 1FDFE4FS1G D( rri- W 00 V W F-, V CI N 1--1 CT Q) W NNIA CO(O(O CO IA I-1 CO CO IA F-, 00CO F-1 F-1 0000 F+ IA A CO IA I" CO CO IA 0 00 V F-' IA A IA IA (4., UJ AA W LULO000000LOLO AA V V V V V V V V F' I" CO 000o0o00 I" I" IA N V N.4 vi U1 Ul V U1(n 1.-1 F Cf 01 (O F-` 000000 1-1 N co, S ri (o v1 D) N 0. (D 0. Unleaded Diesel Unleaded Unleaded 00000000000000 fD 0) N N rD ib- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 0000 N N v, v, (D (D iii N tel v, (D (D Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded Diesel Unleaded 0000000000 3 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 leaded lead - d leaded sel 0) 0) D) 0) Q 0) D) CI. 0QQ 0) 0) vt (D o D) — CI. rD 0_Q0_0_QQQ00. ( (D D) (1) Q0. (D (D (D (D D) D) Q Q (D (D (D (D co D) QQQQQ0 (1) rD 0 (D D) D) !D rD (D (D 0) 00) (D (D O.0. sel leaded 3/30/2016 5/10/2016 11/26/12 5/6/2016 IATA IA IA F -,F -s NN 01 CF) �� 1-s 1-s(.1(4 N N 12/20/11 01/22/13 IA0 001 W N I-, VD �� N F-` 1-, F-' 02/23/10 06/29/11 04/23/09 02/04/10 F -,F-, N N 00 I-, 1-s 00 00 00 00 02/04/10 01/01/04 5/11/2016 04/23/09 3/25/2016 5/11/2016 02/23/10 01/01/06 0(n 1-' 0 W F-`'---- ON 00 V F-' Ql 10/23/2017 6/12/2018 11/7/2017 10/30/2017 3/23/2016 3/30/2016 3/21/2016 3/25/2016 3/21/2016 3/21/2016 00000000 W W UJ UJ00 000000000 �� ) 01 0101 UJ W 01 01 UJ NJ 'I08/13/09 L08/13/09 00 F-` F' 00 1-s 1-s 00 00 V V 6/8/2016 1/1/2006 5/19/2016 6/8/2016 F' 1-'01 U1 (n }- U1 F-, I- F -` I" F -s F-, F-` F-` F-, )9 )9 )9 1.1 Community DAR no 0> 3Po 3 c 3 DAR DAR Community Community DAR Community Community DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR DAR Community DAR 00 >> 70 7J DAR DAR T T R'R'x'R'R.R.R'R'R'x'x'x' N (D 0O.0000QQQQQQ T T (D (D T T (o CD T T CD CD T T (D ID T T (D (D (DAR DAR DAR DAR 00 7 Dx 77 (o Q DAR DAR DAR Fixed DAR DAR DAR DAR Fixed DAR T T R. >7 (D (D 0.Q 00 73 co (D Q Q 70 00 (D (D Q Q 737O7J2333 (D (D Q Q (D (D Q Q 73 (D co Q Q 7073 (D (D Q Q 70991 () (D o.. Q 7373 (D (D Q Q 7393 (D -< Q 3 Madras Prineville La Pine Madras La Pine LaPine COOD (D (D 3 3 O- O- C0070300 (D (D 3 3 O- O (D (D 3 3 O- O C0CO03 (D (D 3 7 O- Q. 03CO (D (D 7 3 0- 0- CO (D (D 7 7 °- 0.0- C003 (D (D 3 3 0- COCO (D (D 3 3 O- 0- COCOCOCO (D (D 3 3 D- D- (D (D 3 3 O- 0_ COCO CO CO (D (D (D (D 3 3 3 3 D- O- O- O- CO COCO (D (D 3 3 D- Q DO (D (D 3 3 a. O- CO CO co (D 3 3 a. o. CO 03 (D (D 3 3 Q. 0- 3 3 000000000000000005. :0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0— 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active (0(0 Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active (0 (D Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active I Active Active Active (D(omm 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of April 22, 2019 DATE: April 17, 2019 FROM: Dave Inbody, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deschutes County Stabilization Center - Progress Update RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Progress Report At this time, staff would like to provide the Board with a progress update regarding the Deschutes County Stabilization Center project construction. Programs Building Remodel Design - Project stakeholders from Deschutes County Health Services and Facilities Department have developed a draft floor plan of the proposed remodel of the Programs Building located on the Public Safety Campus for use as the Deschutes County Stabilization Center. Cost Estimates - Utilizing a draft floor plan, cost estimates have been calculated to provide the Board with additional detail regarding the cost implications of the Programs Building Remodel. Timeline - The projected timeline for building design and construction has been updated for consideration by the Board. Updates reflect the current status of the project including key milestones and estimated duration of activities under the traditional Design/Bid/Build contracting method. ATTENDANCE: Dr. George Conway, Dave Inbody, Janice Garceau, Holly Harris Deschutes County Stabilization Center Financial estimates based on data as of 4/19/2019 Capital RESOURCES Limited Hours 24hr/7day PacificSource - Strategic Investment Funds $ 504,606 $ 504,606 WEBCO Dissolution Payment $ 510,428 $ 510,428 CCBHC Grant $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Sheriffs Office Contribution $ 570,000 $ 570,000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 1,935,034 $ 1,935,034 REQUIREMENTS Limited Hours 24hr/7day Remodel Expenses $ 861,905 $ 861,905 Other Construction Expenses $ 176,052 $ 176,052 Furniture & Security Equipment $ 268,300 $ 268,300 Other Capital Expenses $ 300,000 $ 300,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 1,606,257 $ 1,606,257 Revenue Tess Requirements 1 $ 328,777 $ 328,777 Operations RESOURCES Limited Hours 24hr/Ida Health Services $ 2,581,297 $ 2,581,297 Sheriffs Office* $ 374,291 $ 374,291 TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,955,588 $ 2,955,588 REQUIREMENTS Limited Hours 24hr/Ida Personnel Expenses $ 1,982,892 $ 3,184,519 Contracted Services (Security) $ 273,006 $ 546,012 Materials & Services $ 674,690 $ 919,251 Facility Operational Expenses $ 25,000 $ 30,000 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 2,955,588 $ 4,679,782 Revenue less Requirements $ - $ (1,724,194) FTE 20.00 31.00 SERVICE PROJECTIONS • Estimated additional 3,592 total individuals served by Crisis programs annually or approximately 10 people per day, based on annual projections for the DCSC. • Estimated 110 individuals per year diverted from jail. Awaiting additional data from St. Charles • Estimated 692 individuals per year, or 2 persons a day, will be appropriate to divert from the St. Charles Emergency Department for 23 -hour respite. • Estimated 367 individuals taken to the St. Charles Emergency Department on a Police Officer Custody could be diverted to a stabilization center, or approximately 1 person per day. • Number of individuals that present to the St. Charles Emergency Department for mental health concerns? • Number of individuals brought to the St. Charles Emergency Department on a police officer hold that are released? Preliminary estimates suggest that DCSC will serve 4,761 individuals or approximately 13 individuals per day (24/7). 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of April 22, 2019 DATE: April 17, 2019 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CDD Marijuana Items: Code Enforcement Follow Up and Planning Division Annual Inspection Policy Two discussion items: Code Enforcement follow-up information regarding cases classified as "unfounded," and Planning Division annual marijuana site visit policy and revised inspection checklist. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Angie Havniear, Administrative Manager Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner DATE: April 17, 2019 E V E i'<,H P E .. . SUBJECT: CDD Marijuana Topics: Code Enforcement Follow Up and Marijuana Annual Inspection Policy The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will meet on April 22, 2019 to discuss two Community Development Department (CDD) items pertaining to marijuana. The first is a brief follow-up from Code Enforcement regarding the status of "unfounded" Code Enforcement cases. The second is a discussion item from the Planning Division regarding the County's approach to annual marijuana site inspections as codified in DCC 18.116.330(D). Staff seeks Board approval of a revised site visit checklist (Attachment A) for the marijuana annual reporting requirement. Following Board approval, it is staffs intention to recommence marijuana annual site inspections beginning in May 2019. I. CODE ENFORCEMENT CLARIFICATION In the April 9 Board work session, Code Enforcement presented statistics from marijuana -related cases to date. The Board expressed further interest in the cases categorized as "unfounded." Staff presents the following additional information: CASES CLASSIFIED AS "UNFOUNDED" SINCE 2016 Referred to DCSO: 11 Verified no MJ at site: 6 Unable to verify if MJ was present onsite: 18 • Of these 18 complaints, 10 were submitted anonymously Personal Use: 3 Medical Grow: 7 Complaint received after harvest was completed: 2 Hemp: 3 Permitted grows/no violation: 5 II. ANNUAL REPORTING AND SITE INSPECTION OVERVIEW Deschutes County Code requires annual reporting documents to be submitted by the applicant or licensee by February 1St of each year to report on the previous calendar year. The annual reporting form, which is mailed at the end of December to all property owners/applicants/licensees with land use approval for marijuana production, processing, or retail, requires the applicant to document items including approval date, OLCC license and status, mature canopy size, SDC payment status, and verification of noise and odor systems and water supply. Upon receipt of this form (and fee when applicable), CDD schedules a site visit, utilizing a checklist that was developed and reviewed by the Board in 2018. This checklist verifies the observed conditions of land use approval, including setbacks, structure type, mature canopy size, lighting, and odor and noise control systems. For sites that have land use approval but the OLCC license is pending, staff performs site visits to verify that the use has not yet been initiated. For the reporting year 2018, Deschutes County had 16 properties with OLCC licenses for production or retail (one additional license has since been received in January 2019, and two others are for wholesale), 23 properties with land use approval but OLCC license pending, and 8 properties that are in the process of converting from medical grow to recreational production, for which the OLCC license is pending. This totals 47 site visits. III. INSPECTION STATUS Annual inspection visits were scheduled beginning in early March 2019. Staff conducted nine site visits before adverse weather conditions began to create logistical complications. The snowstorms of March 2019 eventually caused staff to cancel all remaining visits after March 8. Winter weather caused multiple issues: staff members were not able to drive safely to most of the sites; many of the sites were inaccessible for the owners themselves, particularly those that were not yet in operation and therefore had no people or vehicles entering or exiting the property for some time; lastly, a few sites suffered damage to their property due to the snow, such as collapsed greenhouses and other structures. While this year's winter conditions may seem unprecedented, staff recommends considering conducting annual inspections at a later time of year in the future, which will ensure the most efficient use of Planning Division resources as well as applicants' time. IV. REVISED SITE VISIT CHECKLIST The forced pause in site inspections afforded staff and legal counsel an opportunity to refine the site visit checklists based on experience thus far. Staff recognizes that while the inspections are clearly noted in Deschutes County Code as well as land use approval and annual reporting documents, they are unique to this type of land use and as such should be as straightforward and unambiguous as possible for both applicant and staff. Currently the annual site inspections are conducted by Long Range Planning staff members, who traditionally are not trained to perform in-depth site inspections. Recognizing this, members of the Page 2 of 3 Planning and Legal staff held two meetings in March and April with representatives from Building Safety, Code Enforcement, and Law Enforcement to provide feedback on the checklist as well as best practices for site visits. Inherent in this annual inspection process is recognizing the limitations of a land use approval inspection and identifying potential triggers that a planner could readily detect for a site to be referred to a specialist department such as Code Enforcement. The revised checklist seeks to minimize discretion in favor of an objective checkbox-style format wherever applicable, with room for notes to provide context, as well as clear criteria for escalating a property to another department. V. NEXT STEPS Staff seeks Board direction on the revised site visit checklist as well as the remainder of the annual inspections. Attachments A. Draft Revised Site Inspection Checklist B. Current (2018) Site Inspection Checklist Page 3 of 3 Attachment A: Draft Revised Site Inspection Checklist Application No. Applicant Date Approved Situs Address Staff Reviewer(s) Inspection Date/Time Type of Use corvodtumT AVELOPMENT SITE VISIT CHECKLIST Is Use Initiated? Approved Observed Setbacks MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N Structure MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N Canopy Size MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N Hemp Present? Lighting Screening/Fencing Security Cameras OBSERVED CANOPY SIZE: N/A Y N COMMENTS: MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N 1 Secure Waste Disposal Building Code Compliance Odor MEETS APPROVAL CRITERIA: Y N N/A BUILDING/STRUCTURAL ISSUES Y N WIRING/ELECTRICAL ISSUES Y N COMMENTS: DETECTED AT PROPERTY LINES? NORTH Y N (HOW FAR? FT) SOUTH Y N (HOW FAR? FT) EAST Y N (HOW FAR? FT) WEST Y N (HOW FAR? FT) WIND DIRECTION: CANNABIS OBSERVED IN SURROUNDING AREA? IF SO, NOTE LOCATION: ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM (CIRCLE): NOT INSTALLED INSTALLED/NOT OPERATIONAL INSTALLED/OPERATIONAL COMMENTS: 2 Noise Water Source DETECTED OUTSIDE STRUCTURE? Y N IF YES: DETECTED AT PROPERTY LINES? NORTH Y N (HOW FAR? SOUTH Y N (HOW FAR? EAST Y N (HOW FAR? WEST Y N (HOW FAR? COMMENTS: INFRASTRUCTURE OBSERVED (CIRCLE): WELL HAULED WATER IRRIGATION COMMENTS: OTHER FOLLOW UP WITH OTHER DEPARTMENT REQUIRED FOR ANY CRITERIA? DEPARTMENT Y N Notes: 3 4 Attachment B: Current (2018) Site Inspection Checklist Application No. Applicant Date Approved Situs Address Staff Reviewer(s) Inspection Date/Time Type of Use Is Use Initiated? COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT SITE VISIT CHECKLIST Approved Setbacks Canopy Size Structure NONE SLIGHT SIGNIFICANT Screening/Fencing Security Cameras Secure Waste Disposal Notes: 2 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of April 22, 2019 DATE: April 11, 2019 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Repealing of Ordinance 2018-005: Flood Plain Amendments BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will conduct a work session on April 22, 2019 in preparation for a public hearing on May 9, 2019 to consider an ordinance repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005, relating to the 2017-2018 Flood Plain Amendments. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager MEMORANDUM CO M . -Y DEVELOPMENT TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager DATE: April 15, 2019 SUBJECT: Repeal of Ordinance 2018-005: Flood Plain Amendments - Work Session The Board will conduct a work session on April 22, 2019 in preparation for a public hearing on May 8, 2019 to consider an ordinance repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005'. 1. BACKGROUND Between March 2017 and September 2018, Deschutes County planning staff initiated a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance relating to the Flood Plain Zone. The County held four open houses, five Planning Commission public hearings, two citizen involvement group meetings, and one Board of County Commissioners public hearing during this process. On September 19, 2018, the Board adopted Ordinance 2018-005, reflecting changes to the Flood Plain Zone, including a proposal to change the Base Zone to a Combining Zone, and proposed text changes to clarify procedures on cluster developments and land divisions on property zoned Flood Plain. The ordinance was then appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), on the basis that the findings were incomplete and did not adequately address State Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, among other less substantial issues. One of the Petitions for Review filed with LUBA included new arguments and evidence that had not been 'Ordinance No 2018-005: An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning, and Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Changing the Flood Plain Zone to a Combining Zone and Incorporating Related Text Amendments and Declaring an Emergency. presented during the County hearing process. Prior to the LUBA hearing and in consultation with County Legal Counsel, the Board directed staff to withdraw the ordinance formally from the LUBA process, and initiate a new legislative amendment process. This process will allow the County to begin anew and provide a response to the new arguments and evidence presented in the Petition for Review. It will also allow the County to refine findings and evidence to more effectively demonstrate the need for the proposed amendments and likewise develop a record that demonstrates compliance with state and local regulations. 1I. TIMELINE OAR 661-010-0021(A) allows for jurisdictions to withdraw decisions from the LUBA process for reconsideration, but there is a time limitation. Jurisdictions must provide a copy of the decision on reconsideration within 90 days of submitting the LUBA Notice of Withdrawal. Based on the County Commissioner's direction, staff filed the Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 21, 2019. Therefore, the Board must provide its decision on reconsideration to LUBA by May 22, 2019. This short time frame is not sufficient for County staff to develop and propose alternative amendments, nor is it sufficient for the entire public process to begin anew. County staff recommends as an intermediate step that the County Commissioners adopt an ordinance formally repealing the previous Ordinance No. 2018-005. The new ordinance repealing the previous ordinance will serve as the Board's "decision on reconsideration" and will be provided to LUBA as required by the aforementioned OAR rule. Likewise, this intermediate step will provide the flexibility and time needed to begin the public process anew. Once the previous ordinance is repealed, staff is prepared to initiate the new Comprehensive Plan and Text Amendment process, as early as May 9, 2019 with the first evidentiary hearing with the Planning Commission occurring in late June or early July. III. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold a public hearing on this matter on May 8, 2019. Notice of the public hearing will be posted in the Bend Bulletin newspaper and will be mailed to parties with standing. Attachments: 1. Ordinance No 2019-010: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2018-005 and Declaring an Emergency. Page 2 of 2 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Repealing Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005 and Declaring an Emergency. * * * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 WHEREAS, on September 19, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 2018- 005 amending both the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to change the Flood Plain Zone from a primary zone to a combining zone; and WHEREAS, two petitioners appealed Ordinance No. 2018-005 to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"), and LUBA consolidated the two cases into one matter (LUBA Nos. 2018-123/124); and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Petitions for Review filed with LUBA and the new arguments and evidence contained therein, the County Commissioners directed staff to withdraw for reconsideration Ordinance No. 2018-005 pursuant to ORS 197.830(13)(b); and WHEREAS, based on the County Commissioners' direction, staff filed a Notice of Withdrawal with LUBA on February 21, 2019, and LUBA subsequently issued an order acknowledging the withdrawal on February 26, 2019; and WHEREAS, OAR 661-010-0021(1) provides the County only 90 days to reconsider a withdrawn decision; and WHEREAS, following a noticed public hearing on May 8, 2019, and in order to provide more time for a robust public process, the County Commissioners preferred alternative is to repeal Ordinance No. 2018-005 in its entirety and to start the amendment process anew, now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-005 is repealed in its entirety. /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 Section 2. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption. Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ANTHONY DeBONE, Commissioner Date of 1St Reading: day of , 2019. Date of rd Reading: day of , 2019. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Effective date: day of , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-010 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of April 22, 2019 DATE: April 17, 2019 FROM: Zechariah Heck, Community Development, 541-385-1704 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparation for Bend UGB Amendment Public Hearing BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a work session on April 22, 2019 in preparation for a public hearing on May 1, 2019 to consider an Urban Growth Boundary adjustment and amendments to Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps. The amendment removes 4.02 acres of land from the Bend UGB and adds approximately 8.18 acres. The applicants request approval to adjust the UGB in order to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary. The request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB and a corresponding zone change to Urban Area Reserve -10 and Westside Transect to match the zoning of adjacent properties. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner - CDD. 541-385-1704 TV DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: Bend UGB Amendment - Miller Tree Farm, Brooks Resources, Rio Lobo, et al (247 -18 -000957 -PA and 958-ZC) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on April 22, 2019 in preparation for a public hearing on May 1, 2019 to consider an Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") adjustment and amendments to Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps. The amendment removes 4.02 acres of land from the Bend UGB and adds approximately 8.18 acres. The applicants, Brooks Resources Corporation and Rio Lobo Investments, LLC request approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adjust the Bend UGB in order to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary. The request includes a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB and a corresponding zone change to Urban Area Reserve -10 and Westside Transect to match the zoning of adjacent properties. The applicants have also submitted an amendment to the City of Bend Comprehensive Plan Map and Transportation System Plan (TSP) for the same reasons. Bend City Council adopted the proposal unanimously on April 3; second reading is scheduled for April 17. I. BACKGROUND In 2016, Bend City Council adopted several amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Among them was a UGB amendment adding 2,380 acres of land for needed housing, employment opportunities and other urban uses. At that time, preliminary layouts identified roadway alignments in association with housing units to be constructed in each area being brought into the UGB. Based on updated topographical information, the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road was not depicted accurately on the City's Transportation System Plan map. An updated alignment now efficiently follows the contour lines of the area. One adjustment occurs through a land exchange between Brooks Resources and their land holdings inside the UGB and The Tree Farm common areas located just outside it. The other adjustment applies to Rio Lobo's land holdings in the Westside Transect and land inside the UGB. 117 NW La(ayerte Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, 00 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @cdd(deschutes .org OD www.deschutes.org/cd It is important to note that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change does not alter any housing unit requirements or allowed uses in these areas, i.e., the number of required housing units for each area remains as adopted in the Bend Comprehensive Plan. Nor does it result in or allow an increase in sewer, water or transportation demands. II. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Ajoint public hearing was held by a Deschutes County and City of Bend Hearings Officer on February 12, 2019. The Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change on March 7, 2019. III. BOARD CONSIDERATION & NEXT STEPS Bend City Council is scheduled to consider second reading of the applicants' proposal on April 17, 2019. City staff anticipates an adoption date of May 17, 2019. Staff seeks the Board's direction on adoption by emergency to align the date with the City of Bend. There have been no formal public comments to date. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Draft Ordinance and Exhibits Exhibit A: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction Exhibit B: Legal Description Text Exhibit C: Legal Description Map Exhibit D: Zone Change Map Exhibit E: DCC Chapter 4 - Urban Growth Management Exhibit F: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History Exhibit G: Hearings Officer Decision Page 2 of 2 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to Adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary and Comprehensive Plan Designations for Certain Properties, and Title 19, the Bend Urban Growth Area, to Adjust Zoning for Certain Properties and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-011 WHEREAS, NWX2, LLC, Tree Farm, LLC, and Rio Lobo Investments, LLC, applied for amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary, to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of "Urban Area Reserve" for those lands leaving the UGB and a corresponding zone change to Urban Area Reserve 10 and Westside Transect; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on February 12, 2019, before a Deschutes County and City of Bend Hearings Officer and, on March 7, 2019, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone change; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Bend approved the first reading of its ordinance consistent with the Hearings Officer's recommendation on April 3, 2019, and, subsequently approved a second reading on April 17, 2019; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on May 1, 2019, before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to reflect the legal description of the new UGB described in Exhibit "B" and to designate areas of land leaving the Bend UGB as Urban Reserve Area as depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 19, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation for certain property depicted on the zoning map set forth in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-011 herein, from Urbanizable Area (UA) to Urban Area Reserve — 10 Acre Min. (UAR-10) and Westside Transect Zone (WTZ). Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 5. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "F" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 6. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "G," and incorporated by reference herein. Section 7. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect days from adoption. Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice -Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Date of 1 s` Reading: day of , 2019. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2019. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Effective date: day of , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-011 EXHIBIT A Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive and found on the Deschutes County Communit by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 y Development Department website, is incorporated Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-011 EXHIBIT A V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein. CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein. EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein. FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein. GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein. HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by 2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein. by the Board in Ordinance by the Board in Ordinance by the Board in Ordinance by the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance the Board in Ordinance (Ord. 2019-011 § 1. 2019. Ord. 2019-004 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 §1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 §1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-011 DOWL EXHIBIT B UGB Amendment Legal Description An alignment of land located in the Southwest one-quarter (SW1/4), the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), and the Northeast one-quarter (NE1/4) of Section 35, Township 17 South, Range 11 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North right-of-way line of Skyliners Road, said point bears N 86° 22' 37" W, 1176.62 feet from the South one-quarter corner of said Section 35; thence leaving said northerly right of way line of Skyliners Road, N 18° 58' 33" W a distance of 21.17 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a 211.53 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 05° 29' 17", an arc distance of 20.26 feet (the chord of which bears N 16° 13' 55" W, 20.25 feet) to a point of non -tangent compound curvature; thence along the arc of a 619.98 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14° 34' 27", an arc distance of 157.70 feet (the chord of which bears N 05° 46' 42" W, 157.28 feet) to a point of non -tangency; thence S 89° 21' 50" E a distance of 4.29 feet to a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along the arc of a 482.17 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 28° 03' 57", an arc distance of 236.19 feet (the chord of which bears N 18° 44' 34" E, 233.84 feet) to a point of non -tangent reverse curvature; thence along the arc of a 524.82 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 26° 54' 28", an arc distance of 246.47 feet (the chord of which bears N 16° 54' 10" E, 244.21 feet) to a point of non -tangency; thence S 78° 33' 23" W, a distance of 204.00 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of the plat of Tree Farm, recorded in Plat Cabinet I, Pages 260 through 278, and as Instrument Number 2016-44585 of the Deschutes County Official Records; thence along said easterly boundary for the following eight courses; thence S 63° 19' 11" W a distance of 175.65 feet; thence N 89° 47' 06" W a distance of 117.96 feet; thence N 85° 21' 59" W a distance of 351.80 feet; thence N 79° 44' 20" W a distance of 111.35 feet; thence N 48° 08' 56" W a distance of 158.31 feet; thence N 29° 30' 12" W a distance of 36.61 feet; thence N 14° 48' 33" W a distance of 55.05 feet to a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along the arc of a 3556.55 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 23° 20' 34", an arc distance of 1448.98 feet (the chord of which bears N 16° 47' 22" E, 1438.98 feet) to a point of non -tangent curvature; thence leaving said easterly boundary, along the arc of a 400.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 59° 31' 52", an arc distance of 415.61 feet (the chord of which bears N 770 43' 52" E, 397.16 feet) to a point on the easterly boundary of said plat of Tree Farm and a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along said easterly boundary, along the arc of a 3256.41 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 07° 03' 54", an arc distance of 401.55 feet (the chord of which bears N 36" 36' 40" E, 401.29 feet) to a point of non -tangency; thence leaving said easterly boundary, N 59° 27' 16" E a distance of 152.73 feet; thence N 49° 03' 46" E a distance of 84.77 feet to a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along the arc of a 2548.38 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 17° 55' 37", an arc distance of 797.35 feet (the chord of which bears N 69" 14' 47" E, 794.10 feet) to a point on the westerly right of way of Sage Steppe Drive, as defined by said plat of Tree Farm, and a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along said westerly right of way, along the arc of a 230.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 30° 48' 03", an 541-385-4772 ` 800-865-9847 (fax) , 963 SW Simpson Avenue, Suite 200 w Bend, Oregon 97702 www.dowl.com Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B arc distance of 123.64 feet (the chord of which bears S 16° 17' 47" E, 122.16 feet) to a point on the easterly boundary of said plat of Tree Farm and a point of non -tangency; thence along said easterly boundary, N 58° 16' 15" E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way of said Sage Steppe Drive and a point of non -tangent curvature; thence leaving said easterly boundary and along said easterly right of way, along the arc of a 170.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 13° 37' 43", an arc distance of 40.44 feet (the chord of which bears N 24° 52' 16" W, 40.34 feet) to a point of non -tangency; thence leaving said easterly right of way, N 71° 34' 07" E a distance of 242.04 feet; thence N 75° 12' 26" E a distance of 146.27 feet; thence N 77° 56' 29" E a distance of 146.19 feet; thence N 80° 40' 32" E a distance of 146.19 feet; thence N 83° 24' 36" E a distance of 146.23 feet; thence N 86° 32' 47" E a distance of 199.14 feet to a point of non -tangent curvature; thence along the arc of an 285.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14° 45' 53", an arc distance of 73.44 feet (the chord of which bears N 12° 41' 04" E, 73.24 feet) to a point of tangency; thence N 20° 04' 00" E, 71.45 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a 1885.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 17° 20' 04", an arc distance of 570.29 feet (the chord of which bears N 28° 44' 02" E, 568.12 feet) to a point of reverse curvature; thence along the arc of a 1465.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 05° 51' 09", an arc distance of 149.65 feet (the chord of which bears N 34° 28' 29" E, 149.58 feet) to a point on the north line of said plat of Tree Farm, being a point on the north line of the South one-half of the Northeast one-quarter (S 1/2 NE 1/4) of said Section 35; thence leaving said north line along the arc of a 1465.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 04° 33' 52", an arc distance of 116.71 feet (the chord of which bears N 29° 15' 59" E, 116.67 feet) to a point of curvature; thence N 26° 59' 03" E, 456.39 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a 1965.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 08° 41' 23", an arc distance of 298.02 feet (the chord of which bears N 22° 38' 22" E, 297.73 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 18° 17' 40" E, 203.99 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a 585.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 12° 28' 33", an arc distance of 127.38 feet (the chord of which bears N 24° 31' 57" E, 127.13 feet) to a point of tangency; thence N 30° 46' 13" E, 120.44 feet to a point of curvature; thence along the arc of a 515.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 14° 22' 54", an arc distance of 129.27 feet (the chord of which bears N 23° 34' 46" E, 128.93 feet) to a point of non -tangency on the north line of said section 35; thence along said north line N 89° 54' 58" W, 73.56 feet to the terminus of this alignment, said terminus bears S 89° 54' 58 E, 229.22 feet from the Southeast corner of Lot 4 of Anderson Ranch PUD. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVOR OREGON JULY 28, 1958 LYNN J BRUNO 02335 RENEWAL DATE: 12-31-1 Q:'22\14142-01\70Survey\Legal Descriptions\Discovery West Tree Farm UGB legal desc.docx EXHIBIT C 500 tiN 0 500 SCALE IN FEET L23 UGB AMENDMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW1/4), THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SE1/4 NW1/4), AND THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 11 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, STATE OF OREGON SAGE STEPPE DRIVE C10 l SEC110N IJNE C6 C7 L12 LINE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION 11 21.17' N1658'33'W L2 4.29' 589'21'50"E L3 204.00' S78'33'23"W L4 175,65' 5631911"W 15 117,96' 689'47'06"W L6 351.80' N85'21'59'W L7 111.35' 679'44'20"W 18 158.31' N4808'56"W L9 36.61' 629'30'12"W 110 55.05' 914'48'33"W 111 152.73' N59'27'18'E L12 84.77' N49'03'46"E L13 80.00' 8581615"E L14 242.04' 871'34'07"E 115 146.27' 67512'26"E 116 146.19' 877'56'29'0 L17 146.19' 880'40'32"0 118 146.23' 1483'24'36'0 119 199.14' N8612'47"E L20 71.45' 620'04'00"E L21 456.39' 526'59'03"W L22 203.99' 51817'40'W L23 120.44' S30'48'13'W L24 73.56' N89'54'58"W L25 229,22' 889'54'58"W CURVE TABLE CURVE # RADIUS DELTA LENGTH CHORD CHORD LENGTH CI 211.53' 57917- 20.26' 51613'55"E 20,25' C2 619.98' 14'34'27" 157.70' 55'46'42"E 157.28' C3 482.17' 26'03'5? 236.19' 518-44'34"W 233.84' C4 524.82' 26'54'28' 246.47' N165410"E 244.21' C5 3556.55' 23'20'34' 1448.98' 516'47'22'W 1438.98' C6 400.00' 59'31'52" 415.61' 57743'52"W 397,16' 07 3256.41' 703'54" 401.55' 536'35'40'W 401.29' 08 2546.38' 17'55'37" 797.35' 569'14'47"W 794.10' C9 230.00' 30'48'03" 123.64' 51617'47"E 122.16' 010 170,00' 1337'43" 40.44' S24'52'16'E 40.34' 011 285,00' 14'45'53" 73.44' 512'41'04"W 73.24' C12 1885.00' 17'20'04" 570.29' 528'44'02"W 568,12' 013 1465.00' 5'5110' 149.65' N34'28'29"E 149.58' 014 1465.00' 4'33'52' 116.71' 529'15'59'W 116.68' C15 1965.00' 8'41'23" 298.02' 022'38'22'W 297.73' 016 585.00' 12'28'33" 127.38' 524'31'57'W 127.13' C17 515.00' 14'22'54' 129.27' 523'34'46"W 128.93' C4 C3 L10 C2 C1.0 �0 O LEGEND EXISTING UGB LINE EXISTING TAXLOTS PROPOSED UGB LINE DOWL 083 SW Smpson, 0252 0 d- Oregm 07702 541-3854772 Mill 11, EXHIBIT D LAND ADDED TO AND REMOVED FROM UGB (PROPOSED) LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 11 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 1000 FEET LEGEND: EXISTING UGB LINE PROPOSED UGB LINE EXISTING TAX LOTS PROPOSED LAND ADDED TO UGB PROPOSED COUNTY WESTSIDE TRANSECT ZONE '+!. ':' * *. PROPOSED COUNTY ZONING UAR 10 ha tit 1.1 27 26 rm 17-11-26DD 11 700 UA 26 minima 35 35 1 17-11-00 71 6000 UAR 10 0 74 AC +1- 17-11-35AC TL 100 UAR 10 17-11-00 71. 6000 UA 3.97 AC +1- 0.39 AC +1- 2 25 AC +/- 17-11-35 TL 100 UA 1 89 AC 4/- 17-11-35 TL 200 UA 0 07 AC +1- 17-11-35 TL 300 UA 17-11-35 7L 400 UA 17-11-35 TL 500 UA 0.49 AC +/- 17-11- 35 l- 17-11-35 11. 700, UAR 1 0.02 AC • TI S R11E W TI;S R11E W DATE: 12/18/2018 SCALE: 1"=1000' DRAWN BY: JLB PROJ: 17013 BECON CIVIL ENGINEERLNG & LAND SURVEYING EXHIBIT E ‘Sect'ot& 4.2 RYbavUzati,ow Background This section describes the coordination between the County and the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters on Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Statewide Planning Goal 2 recognizes the importance of coordinating land use plans. "City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268." Oregon Revised Statute 197.015(5) goes further to define comprehensive plan coordination. "A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible." Population An important basis for coordinating with cities is adopted population projections. Having an estimate of anticipated population is the first step to planning for future growth and conservation. ORS 195.025(1) requires counties to coordinate local plans and population forecasts. The County oversees the preparation of a population forecast in close collaboration with cities. This is important because the population of the County has increased significantly in recent decades and a coordinated approach allows cities to ensure managed growth over time. Table 4.2.1 — Population Growth in Deschutes County 1980 to 2010 Sources 1980 1990 2000 2010 Population Research Center July 1 estimates 62,500 75,600 116,600 172,050 US Census Bureau April 1 counts 62,142 74,958 1 15,367 157,733 Source: As noted above In 1996 Bend, Redmond, Sisters and the County reviewed recent population forecasts from the Portland State University Center Population and Research Center (PRC) and U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Transportation, Woods and Poole, Bonneville Power Administration and Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis. After reviewing these projections, all local governments adopted a coordinated population forecast. It was adopted by Deschutes County in 1998 by Ordinance 98-084. The results of the 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared by the PRC revealed that the respective populations of the County and its incorporated cities were growing faster than anticipated under the 1998 coordinated forecast. The cites and the County re-engaged in a coordination process between 2002 and 2004 that culminated with the County adopting a revised population forecast that projected population to the year 2025. It was adopted by Ordinance 2004-012 and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals on March 28, 2005. The following table displays the 2004 coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County and the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E Table 4.2.2 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025 Year Bend UGB Redmond UGB Sisters UGB Unincorporated County Total County 2000 52,800 15,505 975 47,320 116,600 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 166,572 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 189,443 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 Source: 2004 Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop the 2000-2025 coordinated forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Findings in Support of Forecast." The fourth city in Deschutes County is the City of La Pine. Incorporated on November 7, 2006, the City of La Pine's 2006 population estimate of 1,590 was certified by PRC on December 15, 2007. As a result of La Pine's incorporation, Deschutes County updated its Coordinated Population Forecast with Ordinance 2009-006. The purpose of this modification was to adopt a conservative 20 year population forecast for the City of La Pine that could be used by city officials and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to estimate its future land need and a UGB. The following table displays the coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and La Pine from 2000 to 2025. By extending the growth rate to the year 2025, La Pine's population will be 2,352. The non -urban unincorporated population decreases by 2,352 from its original projection of 81,951, to 79,599. Table 4.2.3 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025, Including La Pine Year Bend UGB Redmond UGB Sisters UGB La Pine UGB Unincorporated County Total County 2000 52,800 15,505 975 - 47,320 116,600 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 - 53,032 143,053 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 1,697 57,430 166,572 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 1,892 64,032 189,443 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 2,110 71,392 214,145 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 2,352 79,599 240,811 c..... -tea• 9nne r'.,nr.hnarr,d Panuh,Nnn Fnrerast far Deschutes County - undated 2009 2030 Population Estimate This Comprehensive Plan is intended to manage growth and conservation in the unincorporated areas of the County until 2030. Because the official population forecast extends only to 2025, County staff used conservative average annual growth rates from the adopted population forecast to estimate population out to 2030. The following table estimates Deschutes County population by extending the adopted numbers out an additional five years. 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E Table 4.2.4 — Deschutes County 2030 Population Forecast Year Bend UGB Redmond UGB Sisters UGB La Pine UGB Unincorporated County Total County 2030 119,009 51,733 4,426 2,632 88,748 266,538 Som -re: County estimates based on the 2004 Coordinated Population Forecast as shown below Bend's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 1.70% Redmond's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.50% Sisters' based their population on forecasted rates of building growth, residential housing units, and persons per dwelling unit La Pine's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20% Deschutes County's unincorporated area average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20% As the pie chart below indicates, if population occurs as forecasted, 67% of the County's population will reside in urban areas by 2030. In 2030 Sisters 2% Unincorporated — Area 33% Bend 45%— Estimated Population Figure 4.1 Deschutes County 2030 La Rne 1% Rednond — 19! Such growth will undoubtedly require strategically managing the provision of public services and maintaining adequate amounts of residential, commercial and industrial lands. Growth pressures will also require programmatic approaches to maintain open spaces, natural resources, and functional ecosystems that help define the qualities of Deschutes County. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Bend The City of Bend legislatively amended its UGB as part of a periodic review acknowledgment in December 2004. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted concurrent ordinances that expanded the Bend UGB by 500 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for industrial land. In July 2007, the Bend -La Pine School District received approvals to expand the City of Bend UGB to include two properties for the location of two elementary schools, one at the Pine Nursery, the other on Skyliner Road. In 2014, the Bend -La Pine School district received approval to include a 33 -acre site within the UGB near Skyliners Road to facilitate the construction of a public middle school. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved a legislative amendment to the Bend UGB in September 2016. The adopted amendment added 2,380 acres of land intended to satisfy a 20 -year land need for needed housing, employment, and public uses from 2008 to 2028. The adopted UGB amendment also satisfied the terms of a 2010 Remand Order from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (I 0 -REMAND - PARTIAL ACKNOW-001795). DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 3 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E The City of Bend UGB amendment identified 5 existing neighborhood typologies within the City, with the "Transect" being the defined neighborhood typology which "provides a transitional residential development pattern from urban to rural using a variety of housing types integrated with the surrounding natural landscape to minimize the impact on sensitive ecosystems, wildlife and to reduce the risk of wildfire." The City applied this Transect concept to specific areas added to the UGB identified as the "Shevlin Area" and the "West Area" and created area -specific policies for those areas to recognize the unique characteristics of the area and create a transition from higher densities within the city to lower densities extending westward to the City of Bend UGB . In coordination with the city, Deschutes County has continued this concept for the areas in the county on the west side of Bend adjacent to the "Shevlin" and "West Area" in its Rural Housing elements and policies found in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved an applicant - initiated, quasi-judicial application to adjust the Bend UGB in 2019. The adjustment removed 4.02 acres of land from the Bend UGB and added approximately 8.18 acres for a net increase of 4.16 acres. The adjustment accommodated the Skyline Ranch Road right-of-way because the previous alignment was deemed topographically infeasible. Sisters The City of Sisters legislatively amended its UGB in September 2005 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Sisters UGB expansion covered 53 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential, commercial, light industrial, and public facility land. In March 2009, Sisters amended their UGB to facilitate the establishment of a 4 -acre fire training facility for the Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District. Redmond The City of Redmond legislatively amended its UGB in August 2006 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Redmond UGB expansion covered 2,299 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential and neighborhood commercial land. In February 2019, Redmond amended its UGB through a joint process when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. This expansion covered 949 acres in total: 789 acres was designated for large lot industrial development in accordance with the Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Lands Program, and 160 acres allowed for the expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. La Pine In 2012 La Pine adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. La Pine established a UGB that matches the city limits, because the City contains sufficient undeveloped land for future housing, commercial and industrial needs over a 20 -year period. The Plan map includes land use designations intended to provide an arrangement of uses to ensure adequate and efficient provision of public infrastructure for all portions of the City and UGB. Urban Reserve Area 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E Redmond In December 2005, Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted a 5,661 acre URA for the City. It is the first URA in Central Oregon because most cities find planning farther into the future than the 20 -year UGB timeframe, challenging. Coordination As noted above, Statewide Goal 2 and ORS promote land use planning coordination. The purposes of the urbanization goals and policies in this section are to provide the link between urban and rural areas, and to provide some basic parameters within which the urban areas of Deschutes County can develop, although the specific comprehensive plan for each community remains the prevailing document for guiding growth in its respective area. These policies permit the County to review each city's comprehensive plan to ensure effective coordination. The Redmond and Deschutes County Community Development Departments received the Oregon Chapter o f American Planning Association's (OAPA) Professional Achievement in Planning Award in 2006 for the "Redmond Urban Reserve Area / Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Project.". The following quote taken from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's 2006 Awards Program shows why the Redmond Community Development Department was chosen for this award. "An outstanding effort to address Redmond's rapid population growth, including the successful designation of an Urban Reserve and the imminent designation of an Urban Growth Boundary, a "Framework Plan" with a requirement for master planning, and the establishment of "Great Neighborhood Principles." Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis During the 1990s, the Central Oregon region experienced a dramatic transformation from an economy concentrated largely in wood products into a service based economy serving a growing and diverse tourism and household base. Accelerated in -migration and tourism growth gave way to rapid economic expansion, escalation in home prices, and a systematic shift in the local economy from goods producing activities to service oriented industries. While initially representing a diversification of the local economy, this shift led to an over -reliance upon these types of industries. During the recent recession, the regional economy's vulnerabilities became apparent. Suitable land for today's industrial development forms emerged as one of Oregon's most severe development challenges. In 2010, 201 1, and 2012, Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties and their respective cities, undertook an unprecedented regional evaluation of the economic opportunities and constraints associated with users of large industrial parcels in the Central Oregon region. The purpose of this evaluation was to aid in providing a more diversified economic base for the region that would accommodate industrial uses with a need for larger lots than possibly may be currently available in any of the Central Oregon cities. As part of that evaluation, Deschutes County hired a consultant to draft an analysis of Central Oregon's opportunities, competitiveness, ability, and willingness to attract more basic industries. The analysis focused specifically on industries that require large lots. The result was a document called the Central Oregon Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, and was the basis for Ordinance 2011-017, dated May 31, 2011. Ordinance 201 1-017 was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by 1,000 Friends of Oregon ("1,000 Friends"). The appeal was stayed in early 2012 to allow Deschutes County, the DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I 1 5 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E Governor's Office, and 1,000 Friends to explore a settlement, which was ultimately reached in April, 2012. The settlement consisted of policy concepts focusing entirely on Central Oregon's short-term need for large -lot industrial sites as well as a commitment from the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") to initiate rule-making that summer. The three counties, their respective cities, 1,000 Friends, and DLCD staff then engaged in drafting a proposed rule. In August, the final draft of that rule was then sent to the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"). As a result, in November, the LCDC adopted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-0045. That rule provides that that the large lot industrial land need analysis agreed upon by all of the parties, once adopted by each of the participating governmental entities, would be sufficient to demonstrate a need for up to nine large industrial sites in Central Oregon. Six of the sites will be made available initially. Three more sites may be added under the rule as the original sites are occupied. After the adoption of the new OARs, Deschutes County voluntarily repealed Ordinance 201 1-017 and adopted a new ordinance, Ordinance 2013-002, in accordance with the OARs. Utilizing the new OARs, Ordinance 2013-002 emphasized Central Oregon' short term need for a critical mass of competitive and diverse vacant, developable industrial sites. An additional necessary component is an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the region's jurisdictions and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC"). Through the IGA, COIC will provide oversight of the short-term land supply of large -lot industrial sites to enable the region to become competitive in industrial recruitment. Once each of the three counties and their respective cities adopt similar ordinances and enter into an IGA with COIC, the large lot sites will enable industrial recruitment opportunities to attract potential industrial users to consider the region that may not have otherwise without the availability of these large lots. The IGA between COIC and the region's cities and counties was executed on April 9, 2013. Participating local governments will review the program after all nine sites have been occupied or after ten years, whichever comes first. In February 2019, Deschutes County adopted Ordinance No. 2019-003, which implemented the large lot industrial policies defined by Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-0045. The ordinance amended the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map to allow for 789 acres of a 949 -acre parcel owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands to be incorporated into the City of Redmond's UGB (the remaining 160 acres were transferred into the UGB pursuant to different criteria). This site, referred to as the South Redmond Tract, was submitted to the Large Lot Industrial Lands program by the City of Redmond in 2015 after an extensive analysis of several potential sites utilizing the criteria of the adopted Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Lands Needs Analysis ("the Analysis"). COIC accepted the property into the Large Lot Industrial (LLI) program on May 7, 2015. Subsequently, the City of Redmond amended its zoning code to add a Large Lot Industrial Zone, which addresses the requirements of the LLI program and ensures that properties with this zoning designation are to be utilized solely for large lot industrial or directly related purposes. 6 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E Sect .ov& 4.2 tA.rbavazati-oK, Pot.I-cf-es Goals and Goal 1 Policy 4.2.1 Policy 4.2.2 Policy 4.2.3 Goal 2 Policy 4.2.4 Policy 4.2.5 Policy 4.2.6 Policy 4.2.7 Policies Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. Review the idea of using rural reserves. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban growth boundaries but outside the incorporated cities. Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use inside urban growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities. Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and location of public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans. Adopt by reference the comprehensive plans of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as the policy basis for implementing land use plans and ordinances in each city's urban growth boundary. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive Plan Map and regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone in Deschutes County Code, Title 18. In cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent with their respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0050 or its successor. The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA. a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are brought into the urban growth boundary. b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres. c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that Goal 3 Policy 4.2.8 Policy 4.2.9 Policy 4.2.10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 1 7 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES Policy 4.2. I 1 Goal 4 Policy 4.2.12 Policy 4.2.13 Policy 4.2.14 Policy 4.2.15 Policy 4.2.16 Policy 4.2.17 Policy 4.2.18 EXHIBIT E generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the RURA. d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law and the County Zoning Ordinance. e. New arterial and collector rights-of-way in the RURA shall meet the right-of- way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards. f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights- of-way, as designated on the County's Transportation System Plan. g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted before the RURA designation. Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800 acres in the RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's urban growth boundary. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. Deschutes County supports a multi -jurisdictional cooperative effort to pursue a regional approach to establish a short-term supply of sites particularly designed to address out -of -region industries that may locate in Central Oregon. Deschutes County recognizes the importance of maintaining a large -lot industrial land supply that is readily developable in Central Oregon. The Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis ("Analysis"), adopted by Ordinance 2013-002 is incorporated by reference herein. Within 6 months of the adoption of Ordinance 2013-002, in coordination with the participating local governments in Central Oregon, Deschutes County shall, execute an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC") that specifies the process of allocation of large lot industrial sites among the participating local governments. In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant sites. Deschutes County supports Economic Development of Central Oregon ("EDCO"), a non-profit organization facilitating new job creation and capital investment to monitor and advocate for the region's efforts of maintaining an inventory of appropriate sized and located industrial lots available to the market Deschutes County will collaborate with regional public and private representatives to engage the Oregon Legislature and state agencies and their 8 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT E commissions to address public facility, transportation and urbanization issues that hinder economic development opportunities in Central Oregon. Policy 4.2.19 Deschutes County will strengthen long-term confidence in the economy by building innovative public to private sector partnerships. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I I 9 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES EXHIBIT F secti,ow 5.12 Legisl,ati,ve I-tistoru Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2011-003 8-10-11/11-9-11 All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 Comprehensive Plan update 2011-027 10-31-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 I 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, 4.6,5.3,5.8,5.11, 23.40A, 23.40B, 23.40.065, 23.01.010 Housekeeping amendments to ensure a smooth transition to the updated Plan 2012-005 8-20-12/ I I - 19- 12 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), 3.7 (revised), Appendix C (added) Updated Transportation System Plan 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Housekeeping amendments to Destination Resort Chapter 2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13 4.2 Central Oregon Regional Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.1 1 Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I I CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT F 2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 20 14-0 12 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3. I I Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2015-021 11-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. 2015-029 11-23-15/11-30-15 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5 -Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2 EXHIBIT F 2015-010 12-2-15/12-2-15 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County 2016 -005 11-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non - resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning 2016-022 9-28-16/11-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Comprehensive plan Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2016-029 12-14-16/12/28/16 < 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2017-007 10-30-17/10-30-17 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-002 1-3-18/1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone 3 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT F 2018-006 8-22-18/11-20-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9 Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources 2018-011 9-12-18/12-11-18 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-005 9-19-18/10-10-18 23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo Community Plan, Newberry Country Plan Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, removing Flood Plain Comprehensive Plan Designation; Comprehensive Plan Amendment adding Flood Plain Combining Zone purpose statement. 2018-008 9-26-18/10-26-18 23.01.010, 3.4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing for the potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial 2019-002 1-2-19/4-2-19 23.01.010, 5.8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Surface Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area; Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; Modifying Non - Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Comprehensive Plan and Text Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 4 EXHIBIT F 2019-003 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 2019-004 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 2019-011 05-01-19/TBD Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the Large Lot Industrial Program Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of Oregon Military Department National Guard Armory. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. 5 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FILE NUMBER: HEARING: EXHIBIT G HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 247-18-000958-ZC February 12, 2019 - 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 APPLICANTS/OWNERS: NWX2, LLC Managing Partner: Brooks Resources Corporation 409 NW Franklin Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Tree Farm, LLC Managing Partner: Brooks Resources Corporation 409 NW Franklin Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Rio Lobo Investments, LLC 95 SW Scalehouse Loop, #100 Bend, OR 97702 AGENT FOR APPLICANT: Retia Consult, LLC Tammy Wisco, PE, AICP P.O. Box 831 Bend, OR 97709 PROPOSAL: HEARINGS OFFICER: STAFF REVIEWER: The applicants have requested an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 (NWX2 properties, also named Discovery West) boundary. The request also includes a Comprehensive Plan designation amendment to Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB and a zone change for land being removed from the City of Bend UGB. The request is to rezone the subject lands to match the zone of the adjacent properties within the County. No additional living units will result from the UGB amendment. No additional water, sewer, or transportation infrastructure impacts are proposed. Will Van Vactor Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner zechariah.heck@deschutes.org 1 541-385-1704 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Deschutes County Code, Title 19, Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 247-18-000958-ZC Rio Lobo Investments, LLC, et. al. EXHIBIT G Section 19.116, Amendments, Appeals and Procedures Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance Section 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions Deschutes County Code, Title 23, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included within Urban Growth Boundary II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION: There are four areas under three ownerships that are impacted by the proposed UGB and plan designation amendment, i.e., file no. 247 -18 -000957 -PA. West Area Master Plan Area 1— NWX2, LLC The NWX2 properties consist of 245 total acres, all currently within the Bend UGB. The Area 1 property is identified as tax lots 1711350000100, 1711350000200, 1711350000300, 1711350000400, 1711350000500, and 171135D000400. The development of these NWX2 properties will occur under the name of Discovery West, West Area Master Plan Area 3 - Rio Lobo Investments, LLC This area contains roughly 31 acres currently within the Bend UGB and is identified as a portion of tax lot 1711000006000. Tree Farm Open Space Tree Farm, LLC owns two parcels for open space, currently adjacent to the UGB line, totaling approximately 43 acres. These parcels are identified as tax lots 171135AC00100 and 1711350000700. Transect South - Rio Lobo Investments, LLC This Westside transect area is approximately 304 acres of tax lot 1711000006000, under Deschutes County jurisdiction. There are two areas under two ownerships that are subject to the zone change application, i.e., file no. 247-18-000958-ZC. West Area Master Plan Area 1— NWX2, LLC The NWX2 properties consist of 245 total acres, all currently within the Bend UGB. The Area 1 property is identified as tax Tots 1711350000100, 1711350000200, 1711350000300, 1711350000400, 1711350000500, and 171135D000400. Each of these tax lots include a proposed zone change for small portions of the lot, except 1711350000500, which is not affected by this application. West Area Master Plan Area 3 - Rio Lobo Investments, LLC 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 2 of 30 EXHIBIT G This area contains roughly 31 acres currently within the Bend UGB and is identified as a portion of tax lot 1711000006000. 27 /LEGE 55 H.4., �� / XISNGDUGR LINE �� . Amin 111� .,. PROFUSED UGR LINE -�1 1 ,4i EXISTING TAX LOTS ` iiia �I PROPOSED LAND ADDED: imaimaitV 1:IIIIIII � 44 PROPOSED COUNTY (' TRANSECT ZONE I"*'7'+''''-'•':1 MMus 17-11-26DD 71 700 S m�....1111107Z2 WESTSIDE PROPOSED CQUNTY ZONING UAR 10 � UA 28 E :I.= it 'ghee, Ip 26 34 35 35: ( 7q AC.,. 71 6000 UAR 0 17-11-00 00 UA 17-11-35AC TL 100 UAR 10 37 AC +.- w NA, , , ',• i st- tit li L M 1 2.9AC. h. MILLER '„ /% 15 *il79ACii: 440J IL ♦ 0 07 4C .1. 17-11-35 7LU3A00 17-11-35U 710400 17-11-35 iL 800 s1 Ac: . 5 71200 UA 1 *v 0g0 w a E ir- — 34 03 oA 17.49 AC >; 1 1700.5 ti ,,,,,L?SKY 7L UAR 1 ��A// 35 �� 02002 AC 17_11.3 71 1000 • T7:SR11EW_all. BECON B. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits. B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone – F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone – F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40); b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment; d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on-site sewage disposal 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 3 of 30 EXHIBIT G system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone; In the Powell/Ramsey (PA -14-2, ZC-14-2) hearings officer decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior zone change decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. This Hearings Officer agrees. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the pending applications. C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The subject properties are within the jurisdiction of both Deschutes County and City of Bend. Below is a list of existing zoning and plan designations of the subject properties. West Area Master Plan Area 1— NWX2, LLC Comprehensive Plan Designation - Low Density Residential (RL), Commercial Limited (CL), Mixed Employment (ME) Zoning - Urbanizable Area (UA) West Area Master Plan Area 3 - Rio Lobo Investments, LLC Comprehensive Plan Designation - Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning - Urbanizable Area (UA) Tree Farm, LLC Comprehensive Plan Designation - Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) Zoning - Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) Transect South - Rio Lobo Investments, LLC Comprehensive Plan Designation - Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) Zoning - Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) D. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Nearby lands generally consist of residential uses, both rural and urban. Several public schools are located to the south of the subject properties. Most of the surrounding lands are undeveloped. Shevlin Park is located to the north of the subject area and Skyliners Road is to the south. Surrounding zoning districts include UAR-10, Rural Residential — 10 Acre Minimum (RR -10), UA, Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) and Residential Standard (RS) density. E. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject property contains three different soil types, as described below. 72C, Laidlaw sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 85 percent Laidlaw soil and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. Laidlaw soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability. The available water capacity is about 8 inches. The major use of this soil is woodland and livestock grazing. Laidlaw soils have an agricultural capability rating of 6E, which is not considered a high-value soil. 155D, Wanoga sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 85 percent Wanoga and similar soils and 15 percent minor components. Wanoga soils are found on hillslopes and contain a parent material of volcanic ash over tuff or basalt. There is typically 20 to 40 inches of top soil to a restrictive feature. The available water storage is 4.9 inches. The land capability classification is 6e, either irrigated or unirrigated. 157C, Wanoga-Fremkle-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of 35 percent Wanoga soils and similar inclusions; 30 percent Fremkle soils and similar inclusions; 20 percent 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 4 of 30 EXHIBIT G rock outcrop; and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Wanoga and Fremkle soils are well drained, with a moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about two to four inches. The major use of this soil complex is livestock grazing and woodland. The agricultural capability rating for the Wanoga and Fremkle soils is 6e with irrigation and 4e without irrigation. The rock outcrop is rated at 8E, with or without irrigation. Section 18.04.030 of the DCC does not consider this soil type high-value farmland when irrigated. F. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCY COMMENTS: On January 11, 2019, the Planning Division mailed notice of the application and notice of the public hearing to several agencies. One comment was submitted. Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner I have reviewed the submitted materials for 18-957-PA/958-1C regarding a Bend UGB adjustment related to a minor realignment for the future Skyline Ranch Road and refine the western boundary of Northwest Crossing 2 (NWX2). This also requires a plan amendment and zone change to ensure consistency with the recently approved Westside Transect for around 2,380 acres in this area. Approximately a net 4 acres in the County are affected by this current application. The history of Skyline Ranch Road and its latest alignment due to topography as well as the transportation grid are discussed in the burden of proof on pages 7-8. Goal 12, Transportation, and compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, are discussed on pages 12-13. I agree with the applicant's findings. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Bend Growth Management Department, Bend Metro Parks & Recreation Department, Bend Public Works Department, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County Surveyor, ODOT Regional 4 Planning, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Parks and Recreation, Region 4. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On January 11, 2019, the Planning Division mailed a notice of public hearing to all property owners within, 250 feet of the subject property. No written comments were received as of the date the staff report was released. H. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated January 1, 2019, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on January 3, 2019. As stated above, on January 11, 2019, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject lands. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on January 19, 2019. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on January 7, 2019 (DLCD File No. 001-19). I. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on December 21, 2018. The application was deemed complete on January 18, 2019. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150 -day review period. J. LAND USE HISTORY: The application materials provide background on the subject properties and the applicants' request. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 5 of 30 EXHIBIT G "In 2016, the City of Bend Council proposed several amendments to the text and maps of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Bend Development Code (BDC). Among these amendments was an expansion of the Bend UGB to add 2,380 acres of land for needed housing, employment opportunities and other urban uses. In addition, the 2016 UGB amendment was accompanied by amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to direct the future development of the subject west side properties." Previous land use actions associated with the subject properties are provided below. Tax Lot File Nos. 1711000006000 • MJP-85-3 Approval of major partition to create three parcels • MJP-88-7 approved 330 -acre parcel • LR -05-14 lot of record determination for the subject property • CU -05-17 & TP -05-958 - Hearings Officer denial of 34 -lot subdivision • 247 -17 -000420 -LL incomplete application to adjust property line • 247-17-001013-ZC, 1014 -PA, 1015 -TA withdrawn plan amendment, text amendment, zone change for the Westside Transect Zone • 247 -18 -000400 -LL property line adjustment approval • 247-18-000612-ZC, 613 -PA, 614 -TA approved plan amendment, text amendment, zone change for the Westside Transect Zone. 1711350000100 • PS -08-8 Land Use Information Form re: water -right transfer • 247 -LL -14-16 approved property line adjustment 1711350000200 • LL -14-18 approved property line adjustment (associated with LL -14-16 through LL -14-26) 1711350000300 • 247 -LL -14-19 approved property line adjustment (associated with LL -14-16 through LL -14-26) 1711350000500 • SP -91-124 approval of site plan for water reservoir • LR -14-5 lot of record findings • LL -14-22 approved property line adjustment (associated with LL -14-16 through LL -14-26) • 247 -14 -000244 -CU, 245 -TP, 247-15-000166-A, 167-A, 247 -16 -000504 -FPA files associated with the approval of the Tree Farm subdivision 171135D000400 • PA -97-2 and ZC -97-2 approval of zone change and plane amendment • MA -97-6 modification of PA -97-2 and ZC -97-2 • PA -04-9 and ZC-04-7 approval of plan amendment and zone change (Surface Mining to Urban Area Reserve) • PA -07-7 approval of a plan amendment to expand UGB • MP -07-34 partition approval • LL -13-50 property line adjustment • PA -13-4 approval of a plan amendment to expand Bend UGB • 247 -LL -14-16 and 247 -LL -13-50 approval of property line adjustments 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 6 of 30 EXHIBIT G 171135AC00100 • No previous land use decisions associated with this file no. 1711350000700 • No previous land use decisions associated with this file no. 1711350000400 • 247 -LL -14-20 and LL -14-22 (associated with LL -14-16 through LL -14-26) 171126DD00700 • ZC-00-5, TP -00-916, CU -00-112 approval of a zone change and four -lot PUD III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TITLE 19 — THE BEND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 19.116, Amendments, Appeals and Procedures Section 19.116.010. Amendments DCC Title 19 may be amended by changing the boundaries of zones or by changing any other provisions thereof subject to the provisions of DCC 19.116. A. Text changes and legislative map changes may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners on its own motion, by the motion of the Planning Commission, upon payment of a fee, by the application of a member of the public. Such changes shall be made pursuant to DCC 22.12 and ORS 215.110 and 215.060 FINDING: The aforementioned property owners have requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change. The applicants have filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposals. The applications will be reviewed under the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. B. Any proposed quasi-judicial map amendment or change shall be handled in accordance with the applicable provisions of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The applicants are seeking a quasi-judicial zoning map amendment under the applicable provisions of DCC Title 22. Section 19.116.020. Standards for Zone Change The burden of proof is upon the applicant. The applicant shall in all cases establish: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the change is consistent with the plan's intent to promote an orderly pattern and sequence of growth. FINDING: The following provisions of Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the applicants' proposal and should be considered in reviewing the proposal to change the zone changes. However, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) found in Save Our Skyline v City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004), that: "Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use permit applications." As the application materials state, the proposed zone change is associated with a concurrently submitted UGB adjustment which results in some land being added to the UGB and some land being removed from the UGB. There are approximately four acres that are proposed to be rezoned, from City zoning to County Zoning, e.g., Low 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 7 of 30 EXHIBIT G Density Residential (RS) to UAR-10 and Westside Transect Zone (WTZ). The county zones allow a lower residential density than under the current RS zoning.' The applicants suggest, "The decrease in residential density along the UGB edge provides for the implementation of the transect concept, supporting an orderly pattern and sequence of growth, from low density to higher density when entering into the UGB." The applicants' proposal is to modify the Bend UGB in order to accommodate a feasible alignment of the future Skyline Ranch Road and to refine the western border of West Area Master Planned Area 1. There will be no increase in sewer, water or transportation demands. In total, approximately four acres are proposed to be removed from the Bend UGB and approximately 8.18 acres are proposed to be added to the UGB, with a net increase of 4.16 acres into the UGB. This increase in land added to the UGB is solely to accommodate the Skyline Ranch Road right-of-way. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's intention to promote an orderly pattern and sequence of growth because the subject properties are not designated resource lands, there is no change in housing density, and there is no impact on urbanization or consequences of resource management. Additional Comprehensive Plan policies are addressed later in this Decision. B. That the change will not interfere with existing development, development potential or value of other land in the vicinity of the proposed action. FINDING: The applicants addressed the criterion by stating their request asks for a zone change to match the adjacent zoning districts, thereby "providing a seamless connection between the county lands, with no zoning line between them." The Hearings Officer finds this statement adequately addresses this criterion. The proposed zone change for both the subject areas would simply allow the land to conform to the existing zoning of the adjacent County lands. If the change in classification is approved, the subject lands will be required to develop in a way that provides a transitional development pattern and maintains open space, wildfire, and wildlife management. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the proposed change will interfere with existing development, development potential or value of land in the vicinity of the subject properties. C. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: The applicants have proposed to amend the Bend UGB to accommodate a realignment of Skyline Ranch Road and to refine the western border of the West Area Master Planned Area 1. The associated plan designation amendment is to provide County designations for the land being removed from the UGB. The stated purpose of the WTZ is: To accommodate and provide standards for land located between urban and rural, forested, park or federal areas that provides a transitional residential development pattern with densities ranging from one unit per 2.5 to 10 acres to guide development of communities which are designed and managed to protect wildlife habitat and establish and maintain wildfire mitigation and prevention strategies. The stated purpose of the UAR-10 Zone is: ' Existing city zoning allowed density: 1.1-4.0 units/gross acre. Proposed zoning, UAR-10, allows 0.1 units/acre and WTZ allows 0.4 units/acre. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 8 of 30 EXHIBIT G To serve as a holding category and to provide opportunity for tax differentials as urban growth takes place elsewhere in the planning area, and to be preserved as long as possible as useful open space until needed for orderly growth. Both the WTZ and UAR-10 zones are intended to be transitional areas between urban and rural lands. The proposed zone change for both the subject areas would simply allow the land to conform to the existing zoning of the adjacent County lands. With the change, the subject lands will be required to develop in a way that provides a transitional development pattern and maintains open space, wildfire, and wildlife management. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning classifications. D. That the change will result in the orderly and efficient extension or provision of public services. Also, that the change is consistent with the County's policy for provision of public facilities. FINDING: The application materials summarize the proposed change as having two general areas of land: 1) land entering the County at The Tree Farm open space; and 2) land entering the county and joining the Transect South area owned by Rio Lobo Investments, LLC. According to the applicants' burden of proof, the land proposed to join The Tree Farm will not be developed and will be kept as open space in perpetuity. Therefore, no public facilities or services are necessary for this land. The land proposed to enter the County under the new zoning designation of the WTZ, is anticipated to become part of future development.2 Any new development that occurs within this area, approximately 0.74 acres, will be subject to the development requirements of the WTZ, which were found to be in compliance with this criterion in Ordinance No. 2019-001. The application materials also state, "[t]his zone change request in the Transect South area is a result of concurrently submitted UGB and TSP amendments to realign Skyline Ranch Road, for the timely, orderly and efficient development of a west side north -south collector road, a City public facility that will serve both City and County residents." The Hearings Officer finds applicant's proposal complies with this criterion. The change will result in the orderly and efficient extension or provision of public services and the change is consistent with the County's policy for provision of public facilities. Specifically, the realignment of Skyline Ranch Road acknowledges the property owners are agreeable to improvements on their land in order to achieve an orderly and efficient extension of the city's transportation systems plan. All other public facilities can reasonably be accommodated for developments within the subject areas. Moreover, the proposal does not inhibit extension of public facilities through the subject properties in any foreseeable way. Finally, the Hearings Officer notes that development in the subject areas will need to comply with applicable requirements of the DCC, including land use permits, building permits, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. E. That there is proof of a change of circumstance or a mistake in the original zoning. FINDING: The applicant addressed this criterion in their burden of proof, stating the following. "The purpose of the requested zone changes is to accommodate a Bend UGB adjustment (include removal of some land from the UGB) for two refinements along the west side of Bend: 1. To accommodate a City TSP amendment for the realignment of Skyline Ranch Road, and 2 This zone was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on January 16, 2019 and becomes effective, if not appealed, on April 16, 2019. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 9 of 30 EXHIBIT G 2. To refine the western border of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 (NWX2 properties, Discovery West). Skyline Ranch Road Alignment History In 2016, the City of Bend Council adopted several amendments to the text and maps of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Bend Development Code (BDC), including the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Among these amendments was a TSP amendment to shift the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road, a north -south major collector. Included in Exhibit C [of application materials] are original maps created by NWX2 as a part of a long-range conceptual planning study several years ago regarding the Tree Farm and Discovery West properties, which were then under one ownership. NWX2 used the best information available at the time to layout conceptual roadway alignments and project boundaries. This included unrefined topographical information and over-estimates on the required number of housing units for the NWX2 properties. When the City of Bend was wrapping up work on its 2016 UGB expansion, it utilized the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road as depicted on Exhibit C in its TSP map as the best available information at the time. Through recent further design and detailed topographical surveys in 2018, it was determined that the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road was not depicted on the City TSP map in a feasible location, due to topographical challenges of the area. The City TSP amendment is submitted to the City in a concurrent application and simply refines the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road to better reflect the physical features and topography of the area. With detailed topographical surveys of the subject properties, the roadway alignment has been improved based upon reasonable profiles and better connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This roadway realignment through the north portion of the NWX2 properties and through the Rio Lobo Investments property results in a proposal for some land to enter the UGB and some land to leave the UGB. This zone change application addresses those lands proposed to leave the UGB and return to County jurisdiction. The proposed alignment refinement and associated UGB adjustment and zone changes remedy a "mistake" in the location of the alignment originally placed on the map, which did not fully consider the topographical challenges of the sites. West Area Master Plan Area 1 (NWX2 properties) Boundary Adjustment History The current boundary between Tree Farm and the Discovery West property was arrived at through a conceptual master planning effort completed in 2011 for all of the Miller Tree Farm property (see Exhibit C [of application materials]). This master planning effort was conducted prior to the City reinitiating its UGB expansion process that wrapped up in 2016, and it was assumed at the time that the urban portion of the master plan (which became West Master Plan Area 1) would be much higher density than the 650 residential units that were ultimately assigned to it. As such, the street pattern on the western portion of what became Discovery West assumed a much finer grained roadway network designed to serve smaller urban residential lots. The irregular "saw tooth" pattern of the Tree Farm/Discovery West property boundary was based on this concept plan, which was then memorialized through a lot line adjustment to establish the project boundary and ultimately, the final plat of Tree Farm. The City's UGB simply followed these established property lines. When the UGB was approved in 2016, it included a "transect concept" for the West expansion area that specified a de -densification of residential development from east to west towards the UGB line, and a limit on the total number of housing units that was roughly 1/3 of what had been anticipated in 2011. This has led to larger lot sizes on the westernmost portion of the Discovery 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 10 of 30 EXHIBIT G West Master Plan for the NWX2 properties, and therefore the need for fewer streets to serve the larger lots. The proposed zone change in this area is the result of the subsequently submitted UGB amendment for a more regular shaped boundary that eliminates the majority of the small "saw tooth" angles that had been designed to work around the smaller lots and street network. The amended boundary will result in a more efficient development pattern to accommodate the larger lots. The land leaving the UGB in this area is proposed in this application to be re -zoned to UAR- 10 and included as a part of the Tree Farm open space. A subsequent land use application to Deschutes County will modify the Tree Farm 1 PUD approval (247 -14 -000242 -CU. 247 -14 -000243 - TP) to remove and add the adjusted areas to Tree Farm open space. Again, the zone change proposed herein for those lands leaving the UGB is to remedy a previous "mistake" due to incorrect assumptions made at the time of long-range planning of the subject properties. The above statements from the applicants constitute sufficient evidence explaining why the applicants have requested the proposed UGB amendment and zone change, most notably that the original layout of the Skyline Ranch Road did not take into consideration the challenging topography of the land, as well as the lot -layout assumptions made for the West Area Master Plan properties. The City and County simply did not have the information available in 2016 that is now available. The new information demonstrates that in 2016 a mistake was made in the regard to the proposed alignment of Skyline Ranch Road. Alternatively, the applicants' evidence proves that the new information constitutes a change of circumstances from 2016, where such information was not available. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants have demonstrated compliance with this criterion. Section 19.116.030. Record of Amendments. The signed copy of each amendment to the text of Title 19, including the legal description of all lands rezoned legislatively or quasi judicially, shall be maintained on file in the office of the County Clerk. A record of such amendments shall be maintained in a form convenient for the use of the public by the Planning Director, including a map showing the area and date of all amendments hereto. The County Clerk shall keep the map of DCC Title 19 as originally enacted. Every five years after the enactment hereof, a map showing the cumulative amendments hereto for that period shall be filed with the County Clerk In case of inconsistencies, the controlling record shall be first the original map filed with the County Clerk, and its five year updates, if any. The Planning Director's map shall control as to map amendments not shown on the original for changes less than five years old. FINDING: Staff recommended that if the applicants' proposal is approved, this should be made a condition of approval. The Hearings Officer agrees and adopts the following condition of approval: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall comply with DCC 19.116.030 by recording a signed copy of this approved amendment, including the legal description of the lands rezoned hereunder, with the Deschutes County Clerk. Such document shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the Planning Director. Section 19.116.040. Resolution of Intent to Rezone. If, from the facts presented and findings and the report and recommendations of the Hearings Officer, as required by DCC 19.116.040, the County Commission determines that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be best served by a proposed change of zone, the County Commission may indicate its general approval in principal of the proposed rezoning by the adoption of a "resolution of intent to rezone." This resolution shall include any conditions, stipulations or limitations which the County Commission may feel necessary to require in the public interest as a 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 11 of 30 EXHIBIT G prerequisite to final action, including those provisions which the County Commission may feel necessary to prevent speculative holding of property after rezoning. The fulfillment of all conditions, stipulations and limitations contained in said resolution, on the part of the applicant, shall make such a resolution a binding commitment on the County Commission. Such a resolution shall not be used to justify spot zoning or create unauthorized zoning categories by excluding uses otherwise permitted in the proposed zoning. Upon completion of compliance action by the applicant, the County Commission shall, by ordinance, effect such rezoning. The failure of the applicant to substantially meet any or all conditions, stipulations or limitations contained in a resolution of intent, including the time limit placed in the resolution, shall render said resolution null and void automatically and without notice, unless an extension is granted by the County Commission upon recommendation of the Hearings Officer. A. Content of Site Plan. Where a site plan is required pursuant to DCC 19.92, it shall include location of existing and proposed buildings, structures, accesses, off street parking and loading spaces and landscaping; existing and proposed topography; mechanical roof facilities, if subject property is so oriented as to become part of the view from adjacent properties; architectural perspective, layout and all elevations drawn without exaggerations, except where noted, including locations, area and design of signs and all landscaping. B. Resolution on Intent Binding. The fulfillment of all conditions, stipulations and limitations contained in the resolutions of intent on the part of the applicant shall make the resolution binding on the County Commission. Upon compliance with the resolution by the applicant, the County Commission shall, by ordinance, effect such reclassification. FINDING: This criterion is not applicable at this time. The Board of County Commissioners can revisit this criterion after conducting a public hearing and deliberations. TITLE 23 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning, Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. FINDING: The applicants have requested a County Comprehensive Plan amendment to adjust the Bend UGB in order to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary. The request includes a Comprehensive Plan designation amendment to Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. The applicants also request a zone change for land being removed from the UGB to match the zone of the adjacent properties within the County. The applicants have also submitted an amendment to the Bend Comprehensive Plan Map and Transportation System Plan for the same reasons. The County intends to follow procedures outlined in Title 22, the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, in order to ensure a land use process that is open and based on objective evaluation of facts. At a minimal, the Hearings Officer has already conducted one public hearing, and the Board of County Commissioners will conduct at least one hearing before making a final decision. The County has and will provide the required notice to these hearings to the public. The Hearings Officer finds that the process is open and public and will likely be based on an objective evaluation of the facts. Goal 2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 12 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The proposal requires review from both the City of Bend and Deschutes County. The applicants have submitted concurrent applications to both jurisdictions. The two concurrent application were presented at a joint public hearing before a Hearings Officer that will review the county and city applications simultaneously. Furthermore, the applicant has met with County and City staff to discuss their proposal. Given the structure of the UGB amendment process and the applicants' willingness to engage both the County and the City, the Hearings Officer concludes this proposal is based on a cooperative partnership process for regional planning and is consistent with this goal. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Section 3.3, Rural Housing Policies Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. FINDING: The proposed UGB adjustment results in approximately 8.18 acres being added to the Bend UGB and 4.02 acres being removed from the UGB. The requested zone change application addresses the 4.02 acres proposed to be removed from the Bend UGB and placed back into Deschutes County jurisdiction. The applicants contend, "The proposed zone change of a small amount of land returning to County jurisdiction does not impact the County's housing policies." The Hearings Officer finds that this application will not adversely impact the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County, as the proposal is not planned to be used for housing. The 0.74 acres that are proposed to be taken out of the Bend UGB and zoned changed to the WTZ will not have an impact on housing because the zone has a density cap of 187 units. The approximate 3.67 acres to be taken out of the Bend UGB and zoned changed to UAR-10 is proposed to be added to the Miller Tree Farm subdivision as open space. Based on the above planning provisions and the applicant's burden of proof, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal complies with rural housing Goal 1. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Section 4.2, Urbanization Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. FINDING: As stated above, the proposal requires review from both the City of Bend and Deschutes County. The applicants have submitted concurrent applications to both jurisdictions. The proposed UGB amendment and subsequent zone changes were selected to accommodate a feasible alignment of Skyline Ranch Road and refinement of the border of the West Area Master Plan to allow for a more efficient development pattern. Staff scheduled a joint public hearing before a Hearings Officer that is reviewing the county and city applications. Furthermore, the applicant has met with County and City staff to discuss their proposal. Notice of the application and public hearing was mailed to property owners within 250 feet of the subject area. There were no public comments before the public hearing or at the public hearing. Lastly, the hearing scheduled for February 12 will be open to the public and the public will be encouraged to provide testimony. The Hearings Officer concludes there has been adequate coordination with cities, special districts and stake holders to provide an orderly and efficient 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 13 of 30 EXHIBIT G transition between urban and rural lands. The Hearings Officer finds compliance with applicable urbanization policies has been demonstrated. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: The proposed UGB amendments and associated zone change complies with the actions required by the Deschutes County Development Code, including two public hearings—first with a Hearings Officer, then with the Board of County Commissioners—and notice of the hearing published in a newspaper (The Bulletin) at least twenty days in advance.' Public agencies affected by this amendment were involved throughout the development of the proposal. In accordance with the Deschutes County Code, property owners potentially affected by the amendment (in this case, within 250 feet of the applicant property) were provided notice of the proposed amendment and hearing. In addition, the applicants state they held a public meeting on November 12, 2018, to inform property owners in the vicinity of their application proposal. This goal is met. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: This goal is met because ORS 197.610 allows local governments to initiate post acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPAS). A Department of Land. Conservation and Development (DLCO) 35 -day notice was initiated on January 7, 2019. This proposalsatisfies this goal because the applications were handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to plan amendments in the county's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The applicants have submitted evidence supporting the UGB amendment, plan designation amendment and zone change. The Hearings Officer will review all application materials and public comments, then compose findings associated with the applicable criteria. Therefore, the County will utilize an adequate factual base to make a decision on this application. This goal is met. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Goal 4, Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. FINDING: There are no agricultural or forest lands within the subject area. Therefore, Goal 3 and 4 are not applicable. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. 3 Affidavit of Publication contained within record – published in The Bulletin on January 19, 2019. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 14 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: In summary, the applicants' burden of proof, provided below, concludes the subject property does not include any significant historic or natural resources. It does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. It contains no significant historic or cultural resources. Therefore, the requirements of Goal 5 are met. The Bend City Council found in the 2016 UGB expansion decision that the subject properties do not include any of the following Goals resources: riparian corridors, wetlands, Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, State Scenic Waterways, groundwater resources, approved Oregon Recreation Trails, natural areas, wilderness areas, mineral and aggregate resources, energy sources and cultural areas. Those findings note that the City relied on the inventory included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and available information from State and Federal sources to make this determination. The Council also found that the big game winter range (BGWR) is included in the West and Shevlin areas, based upon a 2009 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) map of big game (deer and elk) winter ranges (see Exhibit E [in application materials]). The subject properties of this application are within this area, however, none of the subject properties are within the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone. As there are no Safe Harbor provisions to guide the creation of a wildlife protection program, the City used an economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE) analysis process and requirements of OAR 660-023-0040 and 660-023-0050 to guide the development of a protection program (see Exhibit E [in application materials]). Through this analysis, Council found that the BGWR values in the West Area could be protected by applying a combined "Limit" and "Allow" approach through transect concepts and master planning. To address this approach, the City adopted the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 11-54 The City will consider applying the concept of a "transect" to appropriate areas. The transect is a series of zones that transition from urban to rural which can reduce the risk of wildfire and provide an appropriate transition from urban uses to national forest lands and other resource areas, such as wildlife habitat, that will not be urbanized within the long-range future. 11-101 For the West Area, shown on Figure 11-4, the central planning concepts are to: provide a limited westward expansion that complements the pattern of complete communities that has begun with Northwest Crossing due to the existing concentration of schools, parks, commercial and employment lands; and create a transect from higher densities along Skyline Ranch Road to lower density and open space along the western edge in this area which approaches National Forest land and park open spaces, in order to provide buffers for wildlife and wildfire. The proposed UGB amendment for the realignment of Skyline Ranch Road and refinement of the western boundary of NWX2 does not change the density or use requirements the Comprehensive Plan sets for each of the subject properties. The Applicants will apply a transect concept to appropriate areas, as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Master planning of the subject properties will continue to be required to ensure implementation of the transect concept and other requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Bend Development Code. For all the forgoing reasons, the requirements of Goal 5 are met. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 15 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The applicants' burden of proof provides the following. Air and water quality are regulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. For areas within the Bend UGB, the Bend Development Code includes regulations for the Waterway Overlay Zone (WOZ) and Areas of Special Interest (ASI), which has been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The subject properties are not located within the WOZ nor do they contain an ASI. The Applicant is not proposing an exception to compliance with Goal 6. Maintaining or improving the quality of the community's air, water and land resources will be assured through enforcement of state and local regulations. Noise levels will not exceed DEQ noise regulations. Through the 2016 Bend UGB expansion, the City found that the UGB expansion satisfied Goal 6 for several reasons: • "The proposal does not include new areas along the Deschutes River or Tumalo Creek; the proposed efficiency measures and areas for expansion direct growth away from these areas. • The proposal will maintain and improve the quality of air resources because it has been designed to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which will help in limiting or avoiding new greenhouse gas emissions from auto and truck traffic. • The planned housing mix makes a shift from single-family detached, to more attached housing types, which studies have shown typically consume less energy than single-family dwellings." The proposed amendments in this application do not change any of the findings in the 2016 UGB expansion decision, as there is no increase in required/permitted housing units. Additionally, the proposal does not result in additional water or sewer impacts. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal will not impact air, water and land resources quality due to the extent of the amendments. This goal is met. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. FINDING: The applicants' state the City of Bend adequately addressed Goal 7 during the 2016 UGB Expansion and that the current proposal does not change any wildfire management regulations or increase the amount of development on the subject properties, which were assessed during the 2016 UGB analysis. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 7. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: The applicants' response suggests Goal 8 is met because the property owners have coordinated with the Bend Parks and Recreation District (BPRD) and have determined the impacted subject lands will not negatively impact recreational space nor land currently owned by or planned to be owned by BPRD. Furthermore, the applicants' also state there are no Goal 8 Destination Resorts within the vicinity and none of the property owners plan on establishing a destination resort. The applicants provided a table, provided below, listing the subject properties and the planned uses for each area. Tax Lot, Owner Planned Use 1711350000400, Rio Lobo Investments, LLC Land within UGB = Mixed housing, per Bend 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 16 of 30 EXHIBIT G The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is compliant with Goal 8 for the reasons articulated by the applicant. Goal 9, Economy of the State. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The applicants contend the proposed amendments will not impact the amount of employment lands identified during the 2016 UGB expansion process and the associated 2016 Bend Economic Opportunities Analysis. The reason being that the current proposal is limited to approximately eight acres that are or will be dedicated to residential or open space designations. Furthermore, a reason for the proposed amendments is to accommodate a more feasible and effective alignment for Skyline Ranch Road, which will serve the west -side neighborhoods, including the commercial and mixed employment areas. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants have adequately addressed compliance with Goal 9. Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the proposal to be consistent with Goal 10 based on the applicants' response, provided below. Goal 10 imposes obligations on local governments to provide an adequate supply of housing for all income. levels. In fact, the City's 2016 Urban Growth Boundary expansion and related set of efficiency measures will ensure the City has an adequate supply of buildable land for needed housing. The 2016 UGB expansion process included a Housing Needs Analysis and a Buildable Lands Inventory to establish a need for housing land in the Urbanization Report. From these reports, Council found that the additional land added to the UGB and the land already in the UGB will provide a supply of buildable land that the City has shown will help meet the City's needed mix of housing in both the existing boundary and those areas added through the expansion. Through the UGB expansion process, the City's Comprehensive Plan was amended to assign a specific required number of housing units for the subject properties. This currently proposed amendments simply refine the boundary of the UGB and plan designations along the edges of the subject properties; they do not change the number of housing units required (or allowed) for the subject properties. Based on the UGB expansion findings and the fact that these amendments will not change those findings or the number of housing units, the requirements of Goal 10 are met. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 17 of 30 Comprehensive Plan policies Land outside UGB = Currently, an application for a zone change to Westside Transect Zone is being reviewed by the County. 1711350000100 (portion), NWX2, LLC 1711350000200(portion), NWX2, LLC 1711350000300 (portion), NWX2, LLC 1711350000400, NWX2, LLC 1711350000500, NWX2, LLC These parcels are all planned for largely residential development with discreet housing unit requirements set by the City of Bend Comprehensive Plan, in addition to some limited commercial and mixed employment areas. 1711350000700, Tree Farm, LLC 1711350000100, Tree Farm, LLC These parcels are preserved as open space for The Tree Farm development. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal is compliant with Goal 8 for the reasons articulated by the applicant. Goal 9, Economy of the State. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: The applicants contend the proposed amendments will not impact the amount of employment lands identified during the 2016 UGB expansion process and the associated 2016 Bend Economic Opportunities Analysis. The reason being that the current proposal is limited to approximately eight acres that are or will be dedicated to residential or open space designations. Furthermore, a reason for the proposed amendments is to accommodate a more feasible and effective alignment for Skyline Ranch Road, which will serve the west -side neighborhoods, including the commercial and mixed employment areas. The Hearings Officer finds the applicants have adequately addressed compliance with Goal 9. Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the proposal to be consistent with Goal 10 based on the applicants' response, provided below. Goal 10 imposes obligations on local governments to provide an adequate supply of housing for all income. levels. In fact, the City's 2016 Urban Growth Boundary expansion and related set of efficiency measures will ensure the City has an adequate supply of buildable land for needed housing. The 2016 UGB expansion process included a Housing Needs Analysis and a Buildable Lands Inventory to establish a need for housing land in the Urbanization Report. From these reports, Council found that the additional land added to the UGB and the land already in the UGB will provide a supply of buildable land that the City has shown will help meet the City's needed mix of housing in both the existing boundary and those areas added through the expansion. Through the UGB expansion process, the City's Comprehensive Plan was amended to assign a specific required number of housing units for the subject properties. This currently proposed amendments simply refine the boundary of the UGB and plan designations along the edges of the subject properties; they do not change the number of housing units required (or allowed) for the subject properties. Based on the UGB expansion findings and the fact that these amendments will not change those findings or the number of housing units, the requirements of Goal 10 are met. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 17 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds compliance with Goal 11 is met based on the analysis completed by the City as part of the 2016 UGB Expansion, the signed development agreement—as discussed in the application materials — and the applicants' assertion the proposed amendments will not change the findings or results of these documents. Rural development will be subject to onsite wastewater treatment systems. Goal 12, Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation program. FINDING: The applicants contend their proposal is exempt from compliance with Goal 12 because of a provision in OAR 660-024-0020(d), provided below. (d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary; The proposed UGB amendment does add land to the UGB that is currently zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10). The applicant acknowledges, "While the zoning of the land will ultimately be changed through master planning and annexation processes, no additional development is proposed nor allowed as a result of these proposed UGB and plan designation amendments." The applicant goes on to state that while the proposal should be considered exempt from the TPR, the proposal is actually supportive of Goal 12 by accommodating the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment to better utilize existing topography. Comments from the Deschutes County Transportation Planner affirm this statement. The applicants suggest the refined alignment will be more economical to construct and maintain, as well as more convenient for multi -modal users. The Hearings Officer agrees and finds if compliance with Goal 12 is mandatory, the reasoning for the amendment is in compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. FINDING: The applicant states the proposed amendments support the City's previous Goal 13 findings pertaining to the 2016 UGB expansion by better aligning the Skyline Ranch Road and amending the UGB along the West Area Master Plan Area 1; both reasons, conserve energy through efficient design and connectivity of neighborhoods. The applicants' proposal is compliant with Goal 13 because the UGB amendment and zone change will allow for a more efficient transportation corridor and neighborhood design. Goal 14, Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The Hearings Officer adopts the below from the applicants and finds it is sufficient to comply with Goal 14. Moreover, findings below regarding OAR 660-024 further demonstrate that the proposal will ensure an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. During the City's 2016 UGB expansion process, the City demonstrated a need to amend the UGB to accommodate future urban population and job growth within the Bend UGB, through several analyses, including the Urbanization Report and the UGB Scenario Evaluation Report. The City inventoried its buildable lands in the previous UGB for both housing and employment and forecasted future needs for housing and employment based on the 20 -year population forecast, determining that a UGB expansion was necessary. This UGB expansion was adopted in 2016. The currently proposed UGB amendment refines the UGB to improve the constructability of the previously planned neighborhoods and roadways, but does 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 18 of 30 EXHIBIT G not change the amount of housing and employment units. As such, the proposal is consistent with Goal 14. Goals 15 through 19: These goals, which address the Willamette Greenway, estuarine, coastal, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources, are not applicable to the proposal because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. OAR 660-024, Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries OAR 660-024-0020, Adoption or Amendment of a UGB (1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows: a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR chapter 660, division 4, is not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a particular goal requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660-004-0010(1); FINDING: These provisions are not applicable to this application since this proposal is not seeking a goal exception. b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable. FINDING: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable. c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR chapter 660, division 23, apply only in areas added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660-023-0070 and 660-023-0250; FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the applicants' response, provided below, and finds it is adequate given the statements that the proposed amendment does not affect the inventory of buildable lands and that the subject lands have no Goal 5 resources. There are no Goal 5 resources identified on the subject lands, but the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife did identify big game winter range on some of the subject lands. Goal 5 is addressed below under the section for Statewide Planning Goals. Per OAR 660-024- 0020(c), Goal 5 is only addressed for the area proposed to be added to the UGB. This proposed UGB amendment does not affect the inventory of buildable lands, so OAR 660-023-0070 is not applicable. Per OAR 660-023-250, "a local government is not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource." The Bend City Council found in the 2016 UGB expansion decision that the subject properties do not include any of the following Goal 5 resources: riparian corridors, wetlands, Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, State Scenic Waterways, groundwater resources, approved Oregon Recreation Trails, natural areas, wilderness areas, mineral and aggregate resources, energy sources and cultural areas. Those findings note that the City relied on the inventory included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and available information from State and Federal sources to make this determination. It is the Applicants' understanding that no new Goal 5 resources have been identified or inventoried on the lands proposed to be added to the UGB. The Council also found that the big game winter range (BGWR) is included in the West and Shevlin areas, based on a 2009 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) map of big game (deer and elk) winter ranges (see Exhibit E [of application materials]). The small amount of land (a net of 4.1 acres) proposed to be added to the UGB in this application is within this BGWR area, however, none of the subject properties are within the Deschutes County Wildlife Combining Zone. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 19 of 30 EXHIBIT G The Goal 5 findings later in this narrative address the BGWR as related to the areas proposed to be added to the UGB, in compliance with this section. d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary; FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the subject lands are currently zoned urbanizable. The application materials indicate approximately 0.74 acres are proposed to be taken out of the Bend UGB and zoned changed to the Westside Transect Zone. This land will arguably not generate more vehicle trips because the zone has a prescribed density cap of 187 units, regardless of the size of the zone. Additionally, the application states the approximate 3.67 acres to be taken out of the Bend UGB and zoned changed to UAR-10 is proposed to be added to the Miller Tree Farm subdivision as open space. Likewise, this land will not generate more vehicle trips than the zone currently assigned. It should be noted that there is 8.18 acres being added to the Bend UGB, which the County does not necessarily have jurisdiction over in determining if TPR requirements are applicable. However, the applicants have submitted a concurrent application with the City, which is also before the Hearings Officer. As noted in the concurrent decision issued by the Hearings Officer, the TPR requirements do not need to be met because of the unique situation of this application — land being added/removed from the UGB will keep a similar zoning designation whether the land is coming into or out of the UGB: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' response, provided below, is adequate for the application before the county. The proposed UGB amendment includes the addition and removal of property to and from the current UGB limits, in order to refine the western boundary of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 (NWX2 properties, Discovery West) and to refine the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road. All land proposed to be added or removed from the UGB is currently zoned as urbanizable land (UAR-10 in the County or UA in the City). The proposed UGB amendment will not result in new uses or changes in the number of residential or commercial units in the associated master planned areas. Further, the owners of the subject properties have entered into a development agreement with the City of Bend (Ordinance NS -2316) for the guarantee of water, sewer and transportation infrastructure mitigation for the future urban development for the West and Shevlin UGB Expansion Areas (all the subject properties are included in these areas). The development agreement provides for the timing, construction and funding of infrastructure necessary to support the urban development of these properties. The transportation study that was completed in conjunction with the development agreement was based on the Skyline Ranch Road alignment that is the basis for this UGB amendment. This proposed UGB amendment does not change the requirements of this development agreement and does not increase transportation infrastructure needs. As such, the proposed UGB amendment will not generate more vehicle trips than the limits of the existing UGB. Therefore, the transportation planning rule, OAR 660-12-0060, is not applicable. e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary; f) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within a coastal shorelands boundary; g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 20 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The above three provisions are not applicable to the proposal. The subject property is not within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary or within a coastal shorelands boundary, and the proposal is a UGB amendment. (2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the city and county plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels are included in the UGB. Where a UGB does not follow lot or parcel lines, the map must provide sufficient information to determine the precise UGB location. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' response below is sufficient to address this criterion, with the exception that legal descriptions will be required prior to the Board of County Commission's consideration of adoption. The attached UGB refinement map in Exhibit C [application materials] shows the property to be added to and removed from the UGB. Following approval of the UGB amendment and through individual master planning processes, the Applicants will apply to the City and County for appropriate lot line adjustments of the existing legal lots to revise the lots such that the new UGB boundary aligns with property boundaries and/or right of way dedications. Legal descriptions will be provided when the Applicants submit the lot line adjustment applications and/or right-of-way dedications. Additionally, the Applicants will provide GIS mapping files to the City and County to identify the exact location of the proposed UGB line. If legal descriptions are not provided to the Board to ensure that the required maps can be prepared, the Board will need to consider whether it is feasible to ensure compliance through a condition of approval. In such case, the Hearings Officer encourages the Board to include in the condition of approval a deadline to ensure that County maps can be updated promptly. OAR 660-024-0040, Land Need (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 -year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660, div 32, and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 - year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. Local governments in Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties may determine the need for Regional Large -Lot Industrial Land by following the provisions of OAR 660-024-0045 for areas subject to that rule. FINDING: The applicants provided the following response to this criterion. In 2016, the City of Bend completed a legislative UGB amendment process that included an evaluation of all of the above -referenced needs. That legislative UGB expansion was adopted to address the identified needs. This application is for a quasi-judicial, site-specific UGB adjustment request and does not change the amount of housing or employment to be provided or needed within the UGB. The adoption of the 2016 Bend UGB expansion included Comprehensive Plan amendments that set specific housing unit numbers for each of the subject properties that were added to the UGB; those requirements are not proposed to be changed with this application. As such, this proposal does not affect sewer or water capacities or demands, and it proposes to improve the street layout (Skyline Ranch Road). As a quasi-judicial application to refine the UGB line for specific properties to enable the properties to better meet the requirements of the 2016 UGB and Comprehensive Plan amendments, the review of a 20 -year population forecast for the urban area is not applicable to this application. (emphasis added) 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 21 of 30 EXHIBIT G The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicants' argument and finds that no further analysis of a 20 -year population forecast is necessary. This finding is underscored by the fact that the proposal will not change the amount of housing or employment lands within the UGB. (2) If the UGB analysis or amendment is conducted as part of a periodic review work program, the 20 -year planning period must commence on the date initially scheduled for completion of the appropriate work task. If the UGB analysis or amendment is conducted as a post -acknowledgement plan amendment under ORS 197.610 to 197.625, the 20 -year planning period must commence either: (a) On the date initially scheduled for final adoption of the amendment specified by the local government in the initial notice of the amendment required by OAR 660018-0020; or (b) If more recent than the date determined in subsection (a), at the beginning of the 20 -year period specified in the coordinated population forecast for the urban area adopted by the city and county pursuant to OAR 660024-0030, unless ORS 197.296 requires a different date for local governments subject to that statute. FINDING: This criterion does not apply as the application is for a quasi-judicial UGB amendment and is not part of periodic review. (3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need) without a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of land need (for example, employment need). FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the applicants' response to this criterion, provided below, is sufficient because analysis of land need was addressed in the 2016 Bend UGB and Comprehensive Plan amendments, of which the current application is asking to comply with. The Applicant requests a quasi-judicial, site specific UGB adjustment, to refine the western border of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 and West Area Master Plan Area 3 through a combination of lands entering and leaving the Bend UGB. The proposed amendment simply refines the UGB line to enable the subject properties to better meet the requirements of the 2016 UGB and Comprehensive Plan amendments. The proposed UGB amendment accommodates a feasible alignment of Skyline Ranch Road (net increase in land added to UGB of approximately 4.1 acres, see Exhibit H) and refines the western border of the West Area Master Plan Area 1. The proposed amendment supports Goals 10, 12 and 14 (housing, transportation and urbanization), but does not address an identified deficiency or specific planning goal need. There is no change in the number of required/allowed housing units, nor a change in the employment lands. As such, this application is not required to address a specific land need, which were addressed in the 2016 UGB and Comprehensive Plan amendments. (4) The determination of 20 -year residential land needs for an urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20 -year coordinated population forecast for the urban area, and with the requirements for determining housing needs in Goal 10, OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and applicable provisions of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490. FINDING: This criterion does not apply because the proposed UGB amendment is not for the purpose of meeting residential land needs, it is to accommodate a feasible alignment for the future Skyline Ranch Road and to refine the western border of the West Area Master Planned Area 1. The applicants do not propose to amend any housing unit requirements determined in the 2016 UGB and Comprehensive Plan amendments. (5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS 197.015(14), the determination of 20 -year 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 22 of 30 EXHIBIT G employment land need for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 660, division 9, and must include a determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment uses consistent with OAR 660-009-0025. Employment land need may be based on an estimate of job growth over the planning period; local government must provide a reasonable justification for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that job growth estimates necessarily be proportional to population growth. FINDING: This criterion does not apply because the proposed UGB amendment is not for the purpose of meeting employment land needs. As stated above, it is to accommodate a feasible alignment for the future Skyline Ranch Road and to refine the western border of the West Area Master Planned Area 1. The applicants do not propose to amend any employment land requirements determined in the 2016 UGB , and Comprehensive Plan amendments. (7) The determination of 20 -year land needs for transportation and public facilities for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR 660, divisions 11 and 12, and public facilities requirements in ORS 197.712 and 197768. The determination of school facility needs must also comply with ORS 195.110 and 197296 for local governments specified in those statutes. FINDING: The applicants' response, provided below, is adequate considering the application is not a legislative amendment to address a 20 -year land need. "This proposed UGB adjustment is a quasi-judicial application for a boundary refinement to provide for a more feasible implementation of recent City Comprehensive Plan amendments, not a legislative application to address 20 -year land needs. However, relevant portions of Goal 11 and 12 will be addressed in more detail below. ORS 197.712 and 197.768 require an analysis of general public facilities such as sewer and water to be included in the Comprehensive Plans of cities and counties. Both the City of Bend and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plans include such analyses. Additionally, the Applicants are all parties in the Westside Infrastructure Group (WIG), which has entered into a development agreement with the City (Ordinance NS -2316, effective November 16, 2018) to guarantee sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure mitigation in a timely, orderly and efficient manner for the future urban development for the West and Shevlin UGB expansion areas, within which the subject properties are included. This development agreement provides for the timing, construction and funding of infrastructure necessary to support the urban development in the above mentioned areas, including the subject properties, meeting the requirements of Goal 11 and 12. This proposed quasi-judicial UGB adjustment does not change the demand for water, sewer or roadways, as the number of required/allowed housing units does not change and no new land uses are introduced." OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency (1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20 -year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the buildable land inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute. For employment land, the inventory must include suitable vacant and developed land designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 23 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The present proposal does not impact or change the City's 2016 legislative process to ensure a 20 -year land supply for all needs. Consequently, as demonstrated in the City's 2016 Buildable Land Inventory, this standard is met. (4) If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 -year needs determined under OAR 660-024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. If the local government determines there is a need to expand the UGB, changes to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with Goal 14 and applicable rules at OAR 660-024-0060 or 660-024-0065 and 660-024-0067. FINDING: The applicants' response, provided below, is a sufficient response to this criterion. Under the applicants' proposal, there are no changes to the identified land need within the City of Bend. "Prior to the 2016 UGB expansion, the City identified that land inside the UGB was insufficient to accommodate estimated 20 -year needs and expanded its UGB to correct this insufficiency. The City's UGB expansion process involved an analysis of alternative boundary locations to comply with ORS 197.296. This quasi-judicial site-specific application seeks to refine the UGB along the subject properties in the West Area of Bend, to facilitate a feasible alignment for Skyline Ranch Road, a TSP -designated major collector, and to refine the boundary of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 for improved implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's required transect and density requirements. This proposal is not intended to specifically respond to identified land need deficiencies. The proposal does not change the number of housing units or employment lands, nor does it impact sewer, water or transportation demands." (5) In evaluating an amendment of a UGB submitted under ORS 197.626, the director or the commission may determine that a difference between the estimated 20 -year needs determined under OAR 660-024- 0040 and the amount of land and development capacity added to the UGB by the submitted amendment is unlikely to significantly affect land supply or resource land protection, and as a result, may determine that the proposed amendment complies with section (4) of this rule. FINDING: This section does not apply to the current proposal because the UGB adjustment is not submitted under ORS 197.626, nor is it subject to ORS 197.626. (6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination and the requirements of section (7) of this rule, if applicable. The local government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned urban development. The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB. FINDING: The applicants' response, provided below, is a sufficient response to this criterion. The applicants have submitted a zone change application concurrently with the UGB amendment to assign an appropriate plan designation to the subject lands. "A net of approximately 4.1 acres will be added to the UGB through this proposed UGB adjustment (approximately 4.3 acres are proposed to be removed from the UGB, while approximately 8.4 acres are 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 24 of 30 EXHIBIT G proposed to be added to the UGB, see Exhibit H). These lands are currently zoned urban area reserve (UAR- 10) in Deschutes County. The lands being added are not to respond to a specific need determination. Regardless, upon entering the UGB, the City will assign an urban plan designation to the properties, equal to those of the land currently adjacent to the land being added to the UGB (designation = Low Density Residential, RL). Both of the subject areas inside the UGB are required to be master planned to meet the required densities and uses defined within the Bend Comprehensive Plan. Upon approval of the master plans, the subject properties are expected to be annexed into the City, at which time the properties will be rezoned to match the Comprehensive Plan and/or approved master plan designations. This application is a quasi-judicial site-specific UGB adjustment, not a legislative periodic review; as such, ORS 197.296 does not apply to this application." OAR 660-024-0060, Metro Boundary Location Alternative Analysis (1) When considering a Metro UGB amendment, Metro must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative urban growth boundary locations. For Metro, this determination must be consistent with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows: (a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, Metro must determine which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050. (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, Metro must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the Metro UGB. FINDING: The subject property is not under Metro's authority. Furthermore, the proposed UGB adjustment is a quasi-judicial site-specific refinement and not a legislative amendment to address a need deficiency. Due to the nature of the proposed quasi-judicial refinement, a boundary location alternatives analysis considering "priority lands" is not applicable. (2) Notwithstanding OAR 660-024-0050(4) and subsection (1)(c) of this rule, except during a legislative review of the Metro UGB, Metro may approve an application under ORS 197.610 to 197625 for a Metro UGB amendment proposing to add an amount of land less than necessary to satisfy the land need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4), provided the amendment complies with all other applicable requirements. (3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent criteria. When the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the Metro UGB location, Metro must show that all the factors were considered and balanced. (4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS 197298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is not limited to those lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency. (5) If Metro has specified characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need, Metro may limit its consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298. FINDING: The subject property is not under Metro's authority. Nonetheless, the proposed UGB adjustment is a quasi-judicial site-specific refinement and is not a legislative amendment to address a land need deficiency. Therefore, these sections do not apply. (6) The adopted findings for a Metro UGB adoption or amendment must describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis. If the analysis involves more than one parcel or area within a particular priority category in ORS 197.298 for which circumstances are the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and evaluated as a single group. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 25 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: The subject property is not under Metro's authority. This application is a refinement of the UGB line, to provide a feasible alignment due to topography of the future Skyline Ranch Road and to refine the border of West Area Master Plan Area 1 to accommodate the mandated development patterns and housing densities. Due to the nature of this adjustment, alternative locations are neither feasible nor applicable. (7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation facilities. (8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires evaluation and comparison of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative Metro UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. This evaluation and comparison must be conducted in coordination with service providers, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) with regard to impacts on the state transportation system. "Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the consideration of evaluation methodologies recommended by service providers. The evaluation and comparison must include: (a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the Metro UGB; (b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the Metro UGB; and (c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways, interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit service. FINDING: The application materials indicate the property owners have entered into a development agreement with the City for development of water, sewer and transportation infrastructure necessary to support the urban development of the West and Shevlin Areas, within which the subject, properties are included. According to the applicant, the proposed UGB adjustment does not impact the development agreement or the water, sewer, or transportation infrastructure needs or capacity. This proposal facilitates a feasible alignment for Skyline Ranch Road, as well as revisions to the western border of West Area Master Plan Area 1 to facilitate implementation of the transect concept and mandated housing densities for the subject properties. This application is not a legislative amendment to address a need deficiency. Due to the nature of the proposed quasi-judicial refinement, a boundary location alternatives analysis is not applicable. OAR 660-024-0065, Establishment of Study Area to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB OAR 660-024-0067, Establishment of Study Area to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB; Priorities FINDING: The above provisions of OAR 660, Division 24, are not applicable to this proposal; they apply to UGB amendments for the purpose of meeting a land need identified under the process defined in OAR 660-024-0040, Land Need. As previously noted, this application is not a legislative amendment to address a need deficiency. Due to the nature of the proposed quasi-judicial refinement, an evaluation of land for inclusion in the UGB is not applicable. OAR 660-024-0070, UGB ADJUSTMENTS (1) A local government may adjust the UGB at any time to better achieve the purposes of Goal 14 and this division. Such adjustment may occur by adding or removing land from the UGB, or by exchanging land inside the UGB for land outside the UGB. The requirements of section (2) of this rule apply when removing land from the UGB. The requirements of Goal 14 and this division (and ORS 197.298) apply when land is added to the UGB, including land added in exchange for land removed. The requirements of ORS 197.296 may also apply when land is added to a UGB, as specified in that statute. If a local government exchanges land inside the UGB for land outside the UGB, the applicable local government must adopt appropriate rural zoning designations for the land removed from the UGB prior to or at the 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 26 of 30 EXHIBIT G time of adoption of the UGB amendment and must apply applicable location and priority provisions of OAR 660-024-0060 through 660-020-0067. FINDING: The applicants provided the following response to this criterion. In December 2016, the Bend UGB expansion was acknowledged by the Oregon DLCD, adding 2,380 acres of land to address identified housing and employment needs. Included in that expansion were two of the subject properties (NWX2's West Area Master Plan Area 1, Rio Lobo's West Area Master Plan Area 3). This proposed UGB adjustment is a quasi-judicial application, not a legislative amendment lead by a local government. Nonetheless, the purpose of the proposed UGB adjustment is to better achieve the purposes of Goal 14 for the westside of Bend and proposes to add a net of approximately 4.1 acres to the UGB, including some exchanges of land inside and outside the UGB. The proposed UGB adjustment would allow the refinement of the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road, a [City of Bend] TSP -designated north -south major collector. The current TSP alignment for this roadway is topographically infeasible, creating an inefficient use of land. The UGB refinement also includes the western border of the NWX2 properties, to more efficiently implement the transect concepts while meeting the density requirements and required number of housing units outlined in the Bend Comprehensive Plan. Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 are addressed below. In summary, the proposed UGB amendment refines the UGB to improve the constructability of the previously planned neighborhoods and roadways, but does not change the amount of allowed/required housing units and employment lands that will be achieved through the master planning process. This refinement ensures more efficient use of land while achieving the neighborhood requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Approximately 4.3 acres are proposed to be removed from the UGB and designated UAR-10, to match the adjacent rural lands. A concurrent zone change application is being submitted to the County for those lands, requesting the adoption of County zoning to match the zoning of the adjacent County lands. This criterion is met. (2) A local government may remove land from a UGB following the procedures and requirements of ORS 197.764. Alternatively, a local government may remove land from the UGB following the procedures and requirements of 197.610 to 197.650, provided it determines: Finding: Staff asked the Hearings Officer to consider whether this rule applies to this case. Specifically, staff noted: Although land is proposed to be removed from the UGB, the proposed adjustment will actually increase the lands within the UGB. Approximately 4.02 acres are proposed to be removed from the Bend UGB and approximately 8.18 acres are proposed to be added to the UGB, with a net increase of 4.16 acres into the UGB. The applicants contend the proposed UGB adjustment will not change the allowed/required number of buildable housing units, nor does it increase impacts on the public facilities. While the applicant suggests this section is not applicable, staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings as to whether it is or not. The Hearings Officer believes that, notwithstanding the net gain of 4.16 acres to the UGB, the fact that 4.02 acres will be removed, triggers the application of this criterion. To meet this criterion, there are two optional tracts. The Hearings Officer finds the first one (compliance with ORS 197.764) is met as described below. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 27 of 30 EXHIBIT G ORS 197.764 (1) A local government may approve an application to remove a lot or parcel from within an urban growth boundary if: (a) The application is submitted by the owner of the lot or parcel; FINDING: The applications are submitted by the owners of the subject properties. (b) (A) The lot or parcel is adjacent to the edge of the urban growth boundary; or (B) The lot or parcel is adjacent to another lot or parcel that is removed under this section; FINDING: The portion of the subject properties that will be removed from the UGB are adjacent to the edge of the UGB. Again, the purpose of this application is to adjust the UGB to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road and the West Area Master Plan Area. (c) The lot or parcel is assessed under ORS 308A.050 (Legislative intent) to 308A.128 (Certain district assessments inapplicable to exclusive farm use zone farmland) for its value for farm use; FINDING: This statute applies to tax assessments for farm land, which is not applicable in this case. (d) The lot or parcel is not within the boundaries of a city; and FINDING: The subject properties are not within the boundaries of the City. (e) The lot or parcel is not included in an area identified for urban services under ORS 197.754 (Land identified for urban services). (2) A local government, in deciding whether to approve an application under subsection (1) of this section, shall consider: (a) The projected costs and other consequences of extending urban services to the affected lot or parcel; FINDING: As the applicants have demonstrated, it will be more efficient to extend urban services to the refined UGB because of the topography. The removal (and ultimately net gain) of land from the UGB will allow for the feasible implementation of the City's 2016 UGB Amendment. (b) The potential value in the investment of providing urban services to the affected lot or parcel; FINDING: Given the applicant's description of the area to be removed from the UGB, it will be left as open space. And given the topography, development of the removed area seems unlikely. The value of providing services to the area to be removed is nominal. (c) Any requirement for expanding the urban growth boundary in other areas to compensate for any loss in buildable lands; and FINDING: As noted throughout this decision, there will be no loss of buildable lands as the result of the removal approximately 4.02 acres from the UGB. Instead, there will be a net gain of lands to the UGB and no impact on the buildable lands. Therefore, there is no need to require an expansion of the UGB in other areas. (d) The projected costs and other consequences of providing urban services to other areas brought in under an expanded urban growth boundary. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 28 of 30 EXHIBIT G FINDING: As noted throughout this decision, the cost for providing urban services to the land being removed from the UGB will be greater. The realigned Skyline Ranch Road will be made feasible through the TSP amendment and will cost less to construct. (3) (a) Land that is removed from within an urban growth boundary pursuant to an application approved under this section shall be removed from any inventory of buildable lands maintained by the local government. FINIDNG: The City will remove the 4.02 acres, as identified by the applicants as the land to be removed from the UGB, from its buildable lands inventory. (b) A local government that approves an application under this section shall either expand the urban growth boundary to compensate for any resulting reduction in available buildable lands or increase the development capacity of the remaining supply of buildable lands. FINDING: As noted throughout this decision, there will be a net gain of 4.16 acres to the UGB as the result of this application and there will not be any resulting reduction in available buildable lands. Therefore, this requirement is met. (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government considering an exchange of land may rely on the land needs analysis that provided a basis for its current acknowledged plan, rather than adopting a new need analysis, provided: (a) The amount of buildable land added to the UGB to meet: (A) A specific type of residential need is substantially equivalent to the amount of buildable residential land removed, or (B) The amount of employment land added to the UGB to meet an employment need is substantially equivalent to the amount of employment land removed, and (b) The local government must apply comprehensive plan designations and, if applicable, urban zoning to the land added to the UGB, such that the land added is designated: (A) For the same residential uses and at the same housing density as the land removed from the UGB, or (B) For the same employment uses as allowed on the land removed from the UGB, or (C) If the land exchange is intended to provide for a particular industrial use that requires specific site characteristics, only land zoned for commercial or industrial use may be removed, and the land added must be zoned for the particular industrial use and meet other applicable requirements of ORS 197A.320(6). FINDING: The proposed UGB adjustment and associated Plan designation amendment do not affect the amount of buildable residential land in terms of housing units, as the required number of housing units for the subject properties are established in the Comprehensive Plan and are not being amended. Additionally, the applicants' proposal does not change the amount of employment land to be included in the subject property master plans, nor is the intent to provide for a particular industrial use. The applicant suggests the land needs analysis that provided a basis for the current acknowledged plan is still relevant and is not affected by this proposal. According to the applicant, their proposal is not to address a specific land need, but rather to improve the efficiency and feasibility of the implementation of the Bend Comprehensive Plan requirements for the subject properties.' 4 In accordance with 660-24-0070 (3)(b), the Applicants have submitted a concurrent application to the City of Bend for the amendment of the City's UGB and amendment of the comprehensive plan designations for the land entering the UGB. The Applicants have also submitted to the County an application for a zone change for the land being removed from the UGB. 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 29 of 30 EXHIBIT G The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicants; the land needs analysis performed during the 2016 Bend UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendments is satisfactory for the present applications. Furthermore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicants' proposal to apply the UAR/UA comprehensive plan designations is appropriate because the change in designation allows for the equivalent residential uses and housing density. IV. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer recommends that the proposed zone change and plan amendment be approved subject to the following condition of approval: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall comply with DCC 19.116.030 by recording a signed copy of this approved amendment, including the legal description of the lands rezoned hereunder, with the Deschutes County Clerk. Such document shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the Planning Director. The applicants submitted concurrent applications with the City of Bend (file nos. PZ -18-1006 and PZ -18-1007). The Hearings Officer reviewed the applications in front of the City concurrently with the applications in front of the County. The City applications inform the County applications and vice -versa. For the record, the Hearings Officer also recommended that the City's related applications be approved. DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER: Dated this 7th day of March, 2019. Will Van Vactor, Hearings Officer 247 -18 -000957 -PA, 958-ZC Page 30 of 30 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council APPENDIX H COMMUNITY CONNECTOR ONBOARD SURVEY RESULTS COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-1 N OC N O 0 � c U 0 - E 0 og > m c a c g rn g 0 c = H 0 0( p0 O 0 {..1 Community Connector: Trip Purpose by Trip Origin -Destination (Q4 x Q1-3) O 0 a 2 0 U 6 J 0 6 a VI a a 1` M) NI a is O F e O O O V e O O O 0 o O O O V � O O O M N e O O O ,- e 0 O O N e q O O V o O O O [t o O O O N e O O O - e O O O Q4_Purpose_CLEAN 0 o O e O O e O -- e tD a - _e !. O e O O e O O e O a- e O 0) N O e O O e q O e 0 O Shopping/Errand s/Personal Business '.. O e O N e O N 0 e • N e M N eO rr O e O O N N e O N .- e O N 0 e O 0 e 0 0 Medical/Dental Appt O e O 0 e O •- e ?JD N 0 e O - e M 4 0 e O 0 e O 0 e O N e O a N 0 e 0 0 e O 0 College/School O e O O e O t` e 0 M O e V i.:.:M c0v W - e O O N e q V O e O •- e O N .- e O aa O O .t - Recreation/Social I Visit O e O O e 0 N e O e 0 •t e VO r, O e 0 O O O O e O O e 0 O e 0 O IN O a' e O O N e O N r e n M f- e N. O e co M O e O N e o aN •- e O O e- O --°- O ap e o O 0 U .(0 a 1- C.)1 NI 0 a a 1- I M N 0 t e U a m 2' c 00 a .a H I M I N 0 L e U . v1 c 00 a a F- M I N a L e .. U m c a1 c CO a a F I M I N a t e U E v1 c m a a H I M I N a .0 e U m v1 c m J a a F` I M 1 N a L e U 0 0 d v vl c 00 a a F co N a L e 5 U rn E `m 2' c m a a V- M N a L e U c a cc a n 1- I M I N a .0 e U > UI v M a a F M I N a L e 30 N1 m '`0 M a a F I M I N 0 L e m C y ~I Lu '0 g COIC - Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associate e 0 o o 0 e 0 0 0 0) e 0 o 0 - e 0 O 0 0) ") e 0 O 0 N e 0 O 0 o e 0 O 0 7 e 0 O 0 e. 0 O 0 0 O 0 W o O 0 e 0 ,- e 0 e o 0 e 0 M e P--0 N 0 e e o o 0 e O 0 e. 0 0 e. i 0 0 N Z.'-' 0 2 22.2% O a° 0 O o° 0 0) e r 0 0 o 0 a° 0 O e 0 O 0 O 0 ( e o o O e 0 e0 0 0 - e to 0 e O ••- e O o 0 e 0 0 e • 0 e 0 r e 0- a e O o O e O 0 e.. 0 %0'OOL O " e M h Nf0 O o e O o M e O n �- e 0 o O e O e N a e O c e O e O 0 e O 0 e O 00 O e O 0 e O 0 e O 0 e O n t'. O V ;I.^ a c') e O 0 O o O N 0 a0 M 0 o q N 3 O N 1- 3) O N 0 . O .- o O 0 47 31.8% a a HI Mf N C L .§ e o U N c // € m � I c` � aa 0. ~I M aI C L .§ e o 0 N win c a a ~1 M1 a 0 L .§ e o 0 > 3 VI 0 'Eo I a a ~I CO1 a C L .§ e .. o V N O m 2I21a a 0 E l a 0. F- M' a C L .§ e o 0 H vo 0 a ie a a ~I M a C L .§ e c U = C .c l 0 E 1 a a ~I M� a L .3 e 0 U y w N I o E a a ~I M� a C L .§ e o 0 y c• c ` ~ yI I' O E c2 it a ~I MI a C L .. e o 0 0) C N € m 1l o E 12 it a V - I M' a C L .§ e Total Count within Q2_3_Trip Pair COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting A Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan I Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Figure H-2 Perception of CET Service by Trip Origin and Destination (Q9 x Q1-3) Q2_3_Trip Pair * Q9.a On -Time Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-1 Q9.a On -Time Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 1 1 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 9 6 2 1 0 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 33.3% 11.1% 5.6% .0% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 11 2 1 0 0 14 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 78.6% 14.3% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 15 6 1 0 1 23 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 65.2% 26.1% 4.3% .0% 4.3% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 4 1 0 0 0 5 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 80.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 4 0 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 1 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 1 0 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 4 3 2 0 0 9 % within Q2_3_Tnp Pair 44.4% 33.3% 22.2% .0% .0% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 3 0 0 0 0 3 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 17 18 4 1 0 40 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 42.5% 45.0% 10.0% 2.5% .0% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 0 2 %within Q2_3 Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 9 2 0 0 0 11 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 81.8% 18.2% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 2 2 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 85 48 14 2 1 150 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 56.7% 32.0% 9.3% 1.3% .7% 100.0% COIC - Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-1 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume 11: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3_Trip Pair " Q9.b Transfer Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 -1-2 Q9.b Transfer Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 5 11 1 1 0 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 27.8% 61.1% 5.6% 5.6% .0% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 10 3 1 0 0 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 71.4% 21.4% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Redmond Count 9 7 3 0 3 22 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 40.9% 31.8% 13S% .0% 13.6% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 5 0 0 0 0 5 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 3 0 1 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Madras Culver Count 1 0 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Terrebonne Count 0 0 0 0 1 1 %within 02_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 3 3 1 0 2 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 22.2% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Culver Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Madras Count 13 16 8 0 1 38 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 34.2% 42.1% 21.1% .0% 2.6% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 0 2 % within 02_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 7 3 0 0 0 10 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 70.0% 30.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 0 1 1 0 2 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 66 51 17 1 11 146 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.2% 34.9% 11.6% .7% 7.5% 100.0% COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 -1-2 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan I Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3_Trip Pair * Q9.c Maps Crosstabulation COIC • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-3 Q9.c Maps Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Total 02_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within 02_3_TripPair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 6 8 3 0 1 18 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 44.4% 16.7% .0% 5.6% 100.0% Bend_Prineville Count 11 2 1 0 0 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 78.6% 14.3% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 12 6 2 1 1 22 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 54.5% 27.3% 9.1% 4.5% 4.5% 100.0% Bend_Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 4 1 0 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 80.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 2 1 1 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 0 1 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 5 2 2 0 0 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 55.6% 22.2% 222% .0% .0% 100.0% Prinevilie_Sisters Count 0 2 1 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 66.7% 33.3% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 15 8 13 4 0 40 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 37.5% 20.0% 32.5% 10.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Metolius Count 0 1 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Prineville Count 7 1 2 0 1 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 63.6% 9.1% 18.2% .0% 9.1% 100.0% Redmond_Sisters Count 0 2 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 71 36 32 5 5 149 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 47.7% 24.2% 21.5% 3.4% 3.4% 100.0% COIC • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-3 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan I Volume Il: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3_Trip Pair * Q9.d Easy Crosstabulation COIC - NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-4 Q9.d Easy Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25M% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 7 7 3 0 1 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 38.9% 38.9% 16.7% .0% 5.6% 100M% Bend Prineville Count 8 5 1 0 0 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 57.1% 35.7% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 10 8 4 0 0 22 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.5% 36.4% 18.2% M% .0% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 3 2 0 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 60.0% 40.0% .0% .0% M% 100M% Bend_Wann Springs Count 3 0 0 0 0 3 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 1 0 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_TripPair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 1000% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% M% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 4 3 1 1 0 9 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% 11.1% .0% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% M% M% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 12 12 12 3 0 39 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 7.7% .0% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 7 2 2 0 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 63.6% 18.2% 182% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 1 1 0 2 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 25.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100M% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 66 45 27 6 3 147 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 44.9% 30.6% 18.4% 4.1% 2M% 100.0% COIC - NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-4 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume Ii: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council 02 3 Trip Pair * Q9.e Clean Crosstabulatlon COIC - Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.! H-5 Q9.e Clean Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 2 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 9 8 0 1 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 44.4% .0% 5.6% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 10 4 0 0 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 71A% 28.6% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 13 8 1 0 22 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 59.1% 36.4% 4.5% .0% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 3 2 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 60.0% 40.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 4 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 4 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 1 0 1 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 5 3 1 0 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 18 20 2 0 40 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.0% 50.0% 5.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Metolius Count 0 0 2 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 7 4 0 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 63.6% 36.4% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 1 3 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 75.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100M% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 81 59 8 1 149 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 54.4% 39.6% 5.4% .7% 100.0% COIC - Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.! H-5 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume 11: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2 3 Trip Pair * Q9.f Seats Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-6 Q9.f Seats Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3 Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 4 0 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 7 6 4 1 18 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 38.9% 33.3% 22.2% 5.6% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 7 7 0 0 14 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Redmond Count 10 10 2 0 22 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% .0% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Terrebonne Count 2 3 0 0 5 within Q2_3 Trip Pair 40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Wann Springs Count 4 0 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 4 0 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Culver Count 1 0 1 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3 Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Wann Springs Count 5 3 1 0 9 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 100.0 Prineville Sisters Count 3 0 0 0 3 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Culver Count 0 0 0 1 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% Redmond Madras Count 14 14 10 2 40 within 02_3_Trip Pair 35.0% 35.0% 25.0% 5.0% 100.0% Redmond Metotius Count 0 1 1 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 8 2 1 0 11 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 72.7% 18.2% 9.1% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 4 0 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 76 48 21 4 149 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 51.0% 32.2% 14.1 % 2.7% 100.0 COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-6 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3_Trip Pair * Q9.g Driver Crosstabulatlon COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 11-7 Q9.g Driver Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 2 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 12 5 0 1 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 66.7% 27.8% .0% 5.6% 100.0% Bend_Prineville Count 12 2 0 0 14 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 85.7% 14.3% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 15 6 1 0 22 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 682% 27.3% 4.5% .0% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 5 0 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 4 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 4 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 1 0 1 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Wann Springs Count 5 2 2 0 9 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 55.6% 22.2% 222% .0% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 3 0 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 30 8 2 0 40 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 20.0% 5.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Metolius Count 2 0 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 9 2 0 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 81.8% 18.2% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 2 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 111 31 6 1 149 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 74.5% 20.8% 4.0% .7% 100.0% COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 11-7 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume 11: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3_Trip Pair • Q9.h Dispatch Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I H-8 Q9.h Dispatch Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 1 1 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 7 5 2 1 3 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 38.9% 27.8% 11.1% 5.6% 16.7% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 9 1 0 1 2 13 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 69.2% 7.7% .0% 7.7% 15.4% 100.0% Bend Redmond Count 8 6 3 1 3 21 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 38.1% 28.6% 14.3% 4.8% 14.3% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Terrebonne Count 3 1 1 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 2 2 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 1 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras Culver Count 1 0 1 0 0 2 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% .0% l00.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 4 3 1 0 1 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 11.1% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 0 0 2 0 1 3 % within 02_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% Redmond Culver Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Madras Count 11 16 9 3 0 39 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 28.2% 41.0% 23.1% 7.7% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Metolius Count 1 1 0 0 0 2 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 8 2 0 1 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 72.7% 18.2% .0% 9.1% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 1 1 2 0 0 4 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 62 41 26 7 10 146 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 42.5% 28.1% 17.8% 4.8% 6.8% 100.0% COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I H-8 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume 11: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2_3Trip Pair * Q9.i Stops Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-9 Q9.i Stops Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_La Pine Count 1 0 0 2 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% .0% .0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 6 6 5 1 0 18 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 33.3% 33.3% 27.8% 5.6% .0% 100.0% Bend_Prineville Count 6 3 5 0 0 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 42.9% 21.4% 35.7% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 6 10 4 1 1 22 % within 02_3_Trip Pair 27.3% 45.5% 18.2% 4.5% 4.5% 100.0% Bend_Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 2 1 1 1 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 2 2 0 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 0 0 0 1 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Sisiers Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 4 4 1 0 0 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 44.4% 44.4% 11.1% .0% .0% 100.0% Prineville_Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 13 10 13 2 1 39 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 25.6% 33.3% 5.1% 2.6% 100.0% Redmond_Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 0 2 %within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Prineville Count 6 5 0 0 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 54.5% 45.5% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Sisters Count 1 1 2 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 0 0 1 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3 Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 55 47 33 7 5 147 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 37.4% 32.0% 22.4% 4.8% 3.4% 100.0% COIC - Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-9 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan Volume 11: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2 3_Trip Pair * Q9J Bikes Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-10 Q9j Bikes Total Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0 Bend La Pine Count 0 0 0 3 1 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 4 5 4 3 2 18 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 22.2% 27.8% 22.2% 16.7% 11.1% 100.0 Bend Prineville Count 4 4 4 1 1 14 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 7.1% 7.1% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 4 8 3 5 2 22 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 18.2% 36.4% 13.6% 22.7% 9.1% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 1 2 0 1 1 5 within C12_3 Trip Pair 20.0% 40.0% .0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 3 1 0 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 0 0 0 3 1 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0 Madras Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3 Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0 Madras Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0 Madras_Warm Springs Count 2 4 1 0 2 9 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 222% 44.4% 11.1% .0% 22.2% 100.0 Prineville Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0 Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 0 0 1 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair M% .0% .0% .0% 100M% 100.0 Redmond_Madras Count 13 15 7 0 4 39 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 38.5% 17.9% .0% 10.3% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 1 1 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 5 6 0 0 0 11 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.5% 54.5% .0% .0% M% 100.0 Redmond Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 1 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 50.0% .0% M% 25.0% 100M% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 0 0 0 1 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% M% 100.0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 40 51 23 16 17 147 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 27.2% 34.7% 15.6% 10M% 11.6% 100.0 COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-10 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Q2 3 Trip Pair * Q9.k Overall Crosstabulatlon COIC - Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-11 Q9.k Overall Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 1 3 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 75.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 6 9 2 1 18 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 50.0% 11.1% 5.6% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 8 6 0 0 14 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 57.1% 42.9% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redrnond Count 9 11 1 0 21 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 42.9% 52A% 4.8% .0% 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0 Bend_Terrebonne Count 3 2 0 0 5 within Q2_3 Trip Pair 60.0% 40.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 3 1 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 3 1 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 1 0 1 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50.0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 1 0 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warrn Springs Count 6 2 1 0 9 %within 02_3 Trip Pair 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% .0% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 1 2 0 0 3 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Madras Count 13 18 8 0 39 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 46.2% 20.5% .0% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0 Redmond Prineville Count 9 2 0 0 11 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 81.8% 18.2% .0% .0% 100.0 Redmond Sisters Count 1 2 1 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 67 64 15 1 147 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 45.6% 43.5% 10.2% .7% 100.0% COIC - Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-11 How would you have made this trip if CET service was not available by Trip Origin -Destination (Q6 x Q1-3) N H r o O O yc0 O O O e O O e O O O M N e O O O �- e O O O N e. O O O V e O O O V' e O O O N e O O O - e O O O - e O O O 01 Q6_Not Available_Cleaned U) 0. o e O O 0 0 e O 0 e O V d' ti 0 O 0 O 0 e O 0 O 0 e O 0 e O 0 e O 0 Taken Taxi o e 0 o e 0 o0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- v d if, 0 e 0 0 e 0 0.<7. 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e o 0 e O o Carpooled/Dropp ed Off ON O O O N )- 4)04)4)404)4)04)4)04)4)4)4 t0 )[)O O N N O 0 e 0 N 0 e 0 N e 0 O O 0 e q 0 e O p Y ,- e O O 0 e O e- e c0 0 e 0 0 e 0 O O 0 e O 0 e O N e O N O e O O e O 0 e O 0 O o c 0 •- e 0 N 0 e 0 00 - e M O e O 0 e 0 0 e O �- e O N 0 e O O e O O e O co Driven a car o e O O e O 0) e 0 O N O t0 O N m 0 mO O e 0 M 0 (D - e O N N O e O O e O - e O O O - e O O O N Would not have made this trip O O 0 e o f,- 38.9% 0 e v 0 e N V 0 e 0 N O 0 7L6 0 e 0 '- O 40 0 e 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 N O O - e O N N O e O O O O O - e O 0 O O e O - e O N N O O O O O O O O Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count '',% within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair U % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count m a a .0 h mi cV1 0 G L_ 3 e Count a n .0 F ml N1 0 C L_ 3 o Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair U I% within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .) U Bend_La Pine Bend_Madras Bend Prineville Bend_Redmond Bend Sisters Bend_Terrebonne Bend_Warm Springs La Pine Madras_Culver Madras Sisters Madras_Terrebonne Madras_Wann Springs COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Ass 0 0 M 0 0 0 �- 0 0 0 o v e 0 0 a o 0 - 0 0 0 a e 0 0 - 0 0 0 �- 0 0 0 O ,_ e o 0 O O e O O e O O O O e 0 e 6 O e O O a O O e O N M C) e O e O OO 0 e q O q O O O e q O e O O O e D. oO 0 o O O o O - e N N O 0)00)00)00)00)0 0 0 e O O e O 0 e O 0 n O 00 0 .--e 0 OO 32.5%I N a o V e Zr co M e 0 n 7 0 O 0 -0 0 ti "' e r - N O 0)00)00)00)0- O O O O e 0) 0 e O 0 e O 0 e O 0 e M M cO M 0) e O O e O O e O O e O O e O O e O O i O O e O O O Ti 22.2% M %0'001 0)0)00)0)0-)00- ,e, -,z, N M O O O N N 0 %0'001 4 e 0) 04 22.2% 0)00)0)00)0)00)00)00)0 O 0 N 0 N O O C M O O q 47 o M M c O e 0 O e- o 0o fV O e O e 0 O 0 O e 0 O e,, 0 e n N % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair C O U l% within Q2_3_Trip Pair G O % within Q2_3_Trip Pair C O U 0 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 1% within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Count m a 1 - mi Mf N1 0 0 L_ §' e° '.,.Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 1Prineville_Sisters Redmond_Culver Redmond_Madras Redmond Metolius Redmond Prineville Redmond Sisters Redmond_Terrebonne Redmond_Warm Springs To 0 COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 H-2 O W a IN)) O U C 0 n E a a a I M N1 0 Figure H-4 Most Important Improvement Priority by Trip Origin -Destination (Q10 x Q1-3) 3 0 H V cNO O O 0 o O 0 O O 0 e 0 O 0 •.. e O O 0 M e O O 0 M e O O 0 lV e O O 0 - e- O O 0 e 0 O 0 N e O O 0 N Q11_Important Restrooms and/or Shelters o e 0 OO o e n o o M e 20 •-- -o 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 None - Service Meets my Needs o e 0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 — e M co 0 30 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 43 C 0 p e 0 o 0 0 0 e 0 0' O 0 0 0 — 0 M M 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Park & Ride O e 0 0 e O O e O 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e O 0 co 3 m z O O O e O O e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 O e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 O e O 0 e O 0 e 0 0 New Service 0 e 0 .- 0 rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e 0 — 4 0 0 0 e 0 0 30 0 o Weekend Service ra 0 N e O M O O co e 0 to O e O 1 33.3% ,- e M M .- e 0 O o O �- e 0 O N e 0 V 0 Later Evening Weekday pn- O e m M e 0 N 0 e O O O ( e co 0)) 0 e 0 0 e 0 O e 0 0 e O — e O N Earlier Morning 0 e O ' e - O) 0 e 0 •- a M 0 0 e O 0 e O — 30 M M 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e O 0 , •O ON O e N m �- e M W N e In c- O O O 0 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e O 0 e O 0 .4.V O More Frequent M e 0 r N e N W 0 e 0 ,- e 0) co ,' e O Vco O O e O 0 e O .- e 0 N 0 e 0 0 e 0 N e O 0 0 U a �I A .i, a a ~I MI 0 a a h M N 0 c L '3 0 .- g 0 U m MI m a n H 1I M N 0 L .3 e .. g 0 U °� 91 m a a 1-- M N1 0 c L 3 o 0 U 9 m �I m co a a N M N 0 c L 0 g 0 U h �I m a 0. F (01 N 0 c L 3 e g 0 U c 0 m �I m1 a a 1- I M 1 N 0 c 3 o 0 U N 0 C rn m 1 a o. 1- I M I N 0 c L 3 o g 0 U c a. . a a F I M I N 0 c L e 0 U = U 1 m i a a 1 M N 0 c L _ 0 g 0 U E ol 'm 3 a o. 1`- M N 0 L -.0 0 U C co E 3 1 m m i a o. 1- 1 M 1 N 0 c L 3 0 g 0 U �' I . a` COIC - Nelson\ u 0 OC N O f 0 0 4, d t 0 0 E c e � a•' c E � O c c e 1- U O 0 O 0 C Om N 0 d V o O o •,:,,,:, O O O CO " eNoOoNo O O O O o O O o O - o O ,- O O V 0 o O e O 0 e O 0 i O 0 o O O e o N 0 e O 0 e 0 0 0 O 0 a V 0. e O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 , O o e O 0 e O O e O 0 e O - e O e O 0 e O 0 0 O 0 e 0 0 0 O 0 e O 0 0 0 0 e O N e 0 e O 0 e O N o_ r 0 0 O 0 e O 0 0 O 0 e O 0 o O N o 0 e O 0 e 0 0 \ 1- O O e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 OO O e 0 0 e O) N e O o...;?.,,O O 0 0 0 e O 0 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 N 0 e O O e O n O N N N e 0 0 O 0 e O N e O o O 0 e O 0 e 0 30 28.8% e0 O O e O '0 0) O 0 e 0 0 e O 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 I n e 0 0 e o 0) e e...0 oo -- 0 e 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 ,- e 0 o n e 4- 40 e.0 O in e O o co e (O N 0 O �') e N 0) 0 O 0 e O 0 O 0 e C) s- O 0 e q V e o V 0 e O • 0 N <V 0 e O %0'001. 0 e O 0 e Zr '0 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Redmond_Culver Count % within 02_3_Trip Pair Redmond_Madras Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Redmond Metolius Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Redmond Prineville Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Redmond Sisters Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Redmond_Terrebonne Count % within 02_3_Trip Pair Redmond Warm Springs Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair Total Count % within Q2_3_Trip Pair COIC - NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I H-4 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan 1 Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Figure H-5 How often do you ride CET buses by Trip Origin -Destination (Q13 x Q1-3) Q2 3 Trip Pair * Q13 Often Crosstabulatlon COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 11-5 013_Often Total 5 or more days per week 2 to 4 days per week 1 to 4 days per month Less than 1 day per month 02_3_Trip Pair Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend La Pine Count 0 1 1 2 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Bend Madras Count 1 9 6 2 0 18 % within Q2_3_TripPair 5.6% 50.0% 33.3% 11.1% .0% 100.0% Bend Prineville Count 1 2 10 0 1 14 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 7.1% 14.3% 71.4% .0% 7.1% 100.0% Bend Redmond Count 1 10 7 2 3 23 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 4.3% 43.5% 30.4% 8.7% 13.0 % 100.0% Bend Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend Terrebonne Count 0 1 4 0 0 5 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 20.0% 80.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 0 0 4 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 0 1 1 2 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Madras Culver Count 0 0 1 0 1 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% Madras Sisters Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 0 2 3 2 2 9 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 22.2% 33.3% 22.2% 22.2% 100.0% Prineville Sisters Count 1 1 1 0 0 3 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Culver Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Madras Count 2 19 13 6 0 40 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 5.0% 47.5% 32.5% 15.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Metolius Count 0 2 0 0 0 2 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Prineville Count 1 5 4 1 0 11 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 9.1% 45.5% 36.4% 9.1% .0% 100.0% Redmond Sisters Count 0 3 1 0 0 4 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Total Count 7 61 58 17 7 150 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair 4.7% 40.7% 38.7% 11.3% 4.7% 100.0% COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1 11-5 Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan ( Volume II: Surveys and Market Research Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Figure H4 How long have you been riding CET buses by Trip Origin -Destination (Q13 x Q1-3) Q2_3_Trip Pair ` Q14Long Crosstabulation COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I H-6 Q14_Long Total More than 4 years 1 to 4 years Less than 1 year First time Q2_3_Trip Pair Count 0 0 0 1 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0 Bend_La Pine Count 0 4 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Madras Count 1 5 12 0 18 within Q2_3_Tnp Pair 5.6% 27.8% 66.7% .0% 100.0% Bend_Prineville Count 1 4 9 0 14 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 7.1 % 28.6% 64.3% .0% 100.0% Bend_Redmond Count 1 9 10 3 23 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 4.3% 39.1% 43.5% 13.0% 100.0% Bend_Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Terrebonne Count 0 2 3 0 5 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 40.0% 60.0% .0% 100.0% Bend_Warm Springs Count 0 1 3 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 25.0% 75M% .0% 100.0% La Pine Count 2 2 0 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 50M% 50.0% .0% M% 100.0% Madras_Culver Count 0 0 2 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100M% .0% 100.0 Madras_Sisters Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100M% .0% 100.0 Madras_Terrebonne Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Madras_Warm Springs Count 0 2 7 0 9 within Q2_3_Tdp Pair .0% 22.2% 77.8% .0% 100.0% Prineville_Sisters Count 0 2 0 1 3 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 66.7% .0% 33.3% 100.0% Redmond_Culver Count 0 0 1 0 1 % within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% M% 100M% .0% 100.0 Redmond_Madras Count 2 4 33 1 40 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 5.0% 10.0% 82.5% 2.5% 100.0 Redmond_Metolius Count 0 0 2 0 2 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% .0% 100.0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Prineville Count 0 1 8 0 9 within Q2_3_Trip Pair M% 11.1% 88M% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Sisters Count 0 1 3 0 4 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 25.0% 75.0% .0% 100M% Redmond_Terrebonne Count 0 1 0 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair .0% 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% Redmond_Warm Springs Count 0 0 1 0 1 within Q2_3_Trip Pair M% .0% 100M% .0% 100.0 Total Count 7 38 97 6 148 within Q2_3_Trip Pair 4.7% 25.7% 65.5% 4.1% 100.0% COIC - Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I H-6