The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-93-Minutes for Meeting February 24,2021 Recorded 3/16/2021Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2021 93 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 03/16/2021 8:35:26 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 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 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2021 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 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 MEETING FORMAT In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-16 directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings. Beginning on May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will be conducted in a virtual format. Attendance/Participation options include: Live Stream Video: Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetines. Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by submitting an email to: citizeninput@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. Citizen input received before the start of the meeting will be included in the meeting record. Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Page 1 of 5 providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room until the time of testimony, staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited for testimony. Detailed instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be announced at the outset of the public hearing. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT (for items not on this Agenda) [Note: Because COVID-19 restrictions may limit or preclude in person attendance, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizen input@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by 8:00am on the day of the meeting.) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-003, a Resolution Regarding Right of Way for Construction of Road Improvements on NE Negus Way and NE 17Th St 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-007, Initiating Road Legalization Proceedings for Portions of NE Negus Way and NE 17Th Street 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-008 Authorizing Participation in the 2021-23 Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grant Program 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-009 Increasing Appropriations and Increasing FTE's Within the 2020-21 Deschutes County Budget. 5. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-010 Increasing FTE Within the 2020-2021 Deschutes County Budget 6. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-170, Amendment to Oregon Health Authority Agreement #159809-20 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Documents No. 2021-189 and 2021-190, Acceptance Deeds for Dedication of Right of Way for 6Th Street and Stationmaster Way 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document 2021-192, a License Agreement with D.P.K Enterprises, LLC for the Operation of a Food Truck Known as Burrito Sunrise on County -Owned Property Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 9. Consideration of Board Signature to thank Rick Wright of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 10. Consideration of Board Signature to thank Clair Kunkel of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 11.Consideration of Board Signature to appoint Mike Taylor to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 12. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Carey Kraybill to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 13.Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Shon Rae to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 14.Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Cris Converse to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 15. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Nancy Gilbert to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 16.Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Chuck Newport to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 17. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Michael Fisher to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 18.Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Jason Gritzner to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 19.Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Scott Asla to the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District Board #1 20.Approval of Minutes of the February 5 2021 Legislative Update Meeting 21.Approval of Minutes of the February 10, 2021 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS 22. Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) Annual Report - Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 23.Other Items\Commissioner Updates 24. 10:00 AM COVID19 Update 25. Pandemic Financial Assistance Update LUNCH RECESS: The meeting will Reconvene at 1:00 PM 26.Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-128, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the Gribbling Rd Bridge Project - Cody Smith, County Engineer 27.Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-191, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the Baker Road Interchange Area Management Plan - Cody Smith, County Engineer 28.Staff Report: Update Regarding Possible Code Amendments Related to Wildfire Mitigation and Next Steps - Kyle Collins, Associate Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION 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. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) h) Litigation ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 �G�vTES C�G� o �s� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 • i1 Wednesday, February 24, 2021 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (via Zoom conference call); and Samantha Pepper, BOCC Administrative Assistant (via Zoom conference call). Attendance was limited due to Governor's Virus Orders. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda Commissioner Adair pulls item #1 and #4 for further discussion. Move approval of Consent Agenda. Move Item #1 and #4 to action items. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 1 OF 7 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: CHANG: DEBONE: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-007, Initiating Road Legalization Proceedings for Portions of NE Negus Way and NE 17Th Street 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-008 Authorizing Participation in the 2021-23 Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grant Program 5. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-010 Increasing FTE within the 2020-2021 Deschutes County Budget 6. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-170, Amendment to Oregon Health Authority Agreement #159809-20 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Documents No. 2021-189 and 2021- 190, Acceptance Deeds for Dedication of Right of Way for 6Th Street and Stationmaster Way 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document 2021-192, a License Agreement with D.P.K Enterprises, LLC for the Operation of a Food Truck Known as Burrito Sunrise on County -Owned Property 9. Consideration of Board Signature to thank Rick Wright of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 10. Consideration of Board Signature to thank Clair Kunkel of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 11. Consideration of Board Signature to appoint Mike Taylor to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 12. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Carey Kraybill to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 13. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Shon Rae to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 14. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Cris Converse to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 15. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Nancy Gilbert to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 16. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Chuck Newport to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 7 17. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Michael Fisher to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 18. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Jason Gritzner to the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Board 19. Consideration of Board Signature to reappoint Scott Asla to the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District Board #1 20. Approval of Minutes of the February 5 2021 Legislative Update Meeting 21. Approval of Minutes of the February 10, 2021 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-003, a Resolution Regarding Right of Way for Construction of Road Improvements on NE Negus Way and NE 17Th St Commissioner Adair mentions her concern for high fencing costs for the right of way property acquisitions. County Engineer Cody Smith mentions that this is for negotiation purposes and could change if property owners decide to do their own fencing. ADAIR: Move approval of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-003. CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 4. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-009 Increasing Appropriations and Increasing FTE's Within the 2020-21 Deschutes County Budget Commissioner Adair mentions her concerns for hiring staff by the projected March 1 st. County Treasurer and CFO Greg Munn states that the planning for these positions started a month ago. County health leadership believes they have a resolution for funding which will not involve county general fund dollars. Funds would come from FEMA and CDC. Funds are expected to end September 2021. Public Health Director Nahad Sadr- Azodi mentions that 50 BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 7 to 55 of 76 public health staff are deployed to COVID response currently. ADAIR: Move approval of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-009. CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 22. Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) Annual Report Tanya Saltzman introduces BPAC Chair Dave Thomson and Vice Chair Chris Cassard and they explain the annual report. Commissioners thank the group for all the work they are doing. 24. COVID19 Update Public Health Director Nahad Sadr- Azodi and Health Services Director Dr. George Conway update Commissioners on the COVID19 pandemic in Deschutes County. Commissioner Chang asked what the turnout for local COVID testing is. Mr. Sadr- Azodi states that event participation has been lower. Commissioner Adair asked about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Dr. Conway mentioned that this vaccine does not require extreme cold refrigeration and only requires one dose. Commissioner Chang asked if there will be a booster shot in the future. Dr. Conway believes so. Commissioners agree to continue the weekly update for the community until the county risk level drops lower at which time they will reconsider. 25. Pandemic Financial Assistance Update County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn briefly mentions that he is tracking Federal and State COVID Pandemic funds. No other updates. Commissioner Adair asks to discuss the COIC Board appointment in other items later in the meeting. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 7 LUNCH RECESS: At the time of 11:06 p.m. the Board went into Lunch Recess and reconvened at 1:02 p.m. 26. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-128, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the Gribbling Rd Bridge Project County Engineer Cody Smith explains the Gribbling Road Bridge Project in partnership with ODOT. The project is planned to be completed September 2022. Commissioners are interested in learning more about timber bridges relevant to the current practice of cement bridges. Administrator Anderson asks about the right of way at the bridge location. Mr. Smith states that this is a good opportunity to clean up the right of way. ADAIR: Move approval of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-128. CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 27. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-191, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the Baker Road Interchange Area Management Plan County Engineer Cody Smith explains the Baker Road Interchange Area Management Plan in conjunction with ODOT. ODOT is funding this project in partnership with the County and City of Bend. The MPO is the steering committee involved in the project. CHANG: Move approval of Board Signature of Document No. 2021-191. ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 5 OF 7 28. Staff Report: Update Regarding Possible Code Amendments Related to Wildfire Mitigation and Next Steps Associate Planner Kyle Collins updates the Board on Wildfire Mitigation Code Amendment work to date. Commissioners agree on the importance of planning for wildfire events. Commissioner DeBone asks what the state is expecting from the county. Forester Ed Keith adds that several current legislative bills address defensible space. Community Development Director Nick Lelack suggests that the wildfire hazard map not change right now. Discussion will follow to a future meeting. 23. OTHER ITEMS/ COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Commissioner DeBone notes the idea of exploring establishment of a Diversity and Inclusion committee for Deschutes County. The Board agrees to formally discuss this important issue at a later meeting. • Commissioner Adair recommends the Appointment of James Lewis to the COIC Board. Commissioners agree to proceed with the appointment of Mr. Lewis at the BOCC Meeting March 3ra RECESS: At the time of 2:50 p.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 2:54 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 2:55 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:09 p.m. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 6 OF 7 Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. DATED this V Day of V��h2021 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. " /IM � t-1, Z- � P IL CHANG, VICE CHAP PATTY ADAIR, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2021 PAGE 7 OF 7 w1 E S CO o� 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 Wednesday Meeting of February 24, 2021 DATE: February 18, 2021 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) Annual Report Representatives from BPAC (Dave Thomson, Chair, and Chris Cassard, Vice Chair) will present the committee's annual report, which summarizes recent accomplishments and future goals. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) DATE: February 24, 2021 SUBJECT: BPAC Annual Report I. Overview The mission of Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County. The committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the cities of Bend, LaPine, Redmond, and Sisters, as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation. As a citizen committee, BPAC provides information on best practices for walking and bicycling infrastructure as well as on community needs and interests. The committee encourages bicycling, walking, and public transit as viable means of transportation in Deschutes County. BPAC is comprised of 13 volunteer citizen members with regional representation from across Deschutes County. The committee holds monthly meetings to discuss current bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs, provide input, and advise local agencies concerning bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and include agency representatives as non -voting participants. II. Goals Since our last report BPAC has continued to focus on the three goals we set in 2019: 1 — Lower Stress Connecting Routes Between Municipalities: Research the potential for low -stress routes between Bend, Sisters, Sunriver, Redmond, and LaPine that might serve to take bikes and/or some vehicle traffic off higher -stress routes. The rapidly growing population of electric bikes will make these routes accessible to average commuter and recreational cyclists. An example would be a bike route from Sisters to Bend avoiding Hwy 20. 2 — Trail Systems Connecting for Transportation: Encourage linking trail systems so they are more effective parts of the county -wide bicycle and pedestrian transportation system. Work with entities such as BPRD, Redmond Area Parks District and other city parks authorities, and the BLM and Forest 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 k� (541) 388-6575 c+ bpacCodeschutes .org @ www.deschutes.org/bpac Service as appropriate. Examples would be encouraging BPRD trails as alternative bicycle and pedestrian commuter routes in Bend; and supporting the non -motorized path from Bend to Lava Butte along the Hwy 97 corridor, completing a Bend to Sunriver connection. 3 — In addition, maintain a continuing but secondary focus on the following: ➢ Engage more directly with CET and become more attuned to mass -transit issues in the county. ➢ Do more organized and comprehensive outreach to community groups concerned with active non -automotive routes and infrastructure, particularly for pedestrians. ➢ Develop more interaction and collaboration with county transportation planners to better understand transportation planning requirements (by jurisdiction) for new development projects. 111. Challenges The COVID-19 pandemic affected the committee's work in multiple areas. We were able to transition to virtual meetings (thanks to our Community Development liaison Tanya Saltzman) but a lot of the informal communication between members and agencies has been curtailed. We had to cancel our annual Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit eliminating a popular forum for agencies and individuals in Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties to share accomplishments and ideas. Our subcommittees focusing on connectivity between and around Deschutes County communities put their meetings with agencies and organizations on hold. IV. BPAC Awards Since 1996, BPAC has presented the Big Chainring Awards annually to honor individuals, businesses, and public agencies that have made significant contributions in the support of better bicycling and walking in Central Oregon. In addition, the Peter Hanson Memorial Award specifically recognizes individuals in the community who have provided outstanding voluntary contributions. The 2020 Big Chainring awards were presented at the November 23rd meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Since 2006, the Safe Sidewalks Awards have recognized those businesses and property owners who not only fulfill, but also often exceed, the legal requirements to remove snow, ice and debris from sidewalks. BPAC did not receive any nominations for the Safe Sidewalks Award in 2020. V. Accomplishments and Future Focus Since our last report to the Board of County Commissioners BPAC has continued to leverage the expertise and enthusiasm of our members and our relationships with agencies and organizations across Deschutes County and Central Oregon to improve conditions for people who walk, ride bikes, and utilize transit. The public interest in these activities has continued to Page 2 grow as evidenced in June when we received 29 applications for three openings on the committee. Our continued work to understand the needs and possibilities for connections between communities and connecting existing trail systems has provided a strong foundation for the committee's input to this year's county Transportation Systems Plan update. Our goal is for the revised TSP to include a significant focus on bicycling and walking as key transportation options reasons as well as recreational purposes. To that end, your BPAC has engaged with County transportation managers and the TSP consultant and is providing ongoing input to that process. The committee provided input to the Bend Transportation Plan process through our seat on the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization's Technical Advisory Committee. Bend has since passed a transportation bond that has a strong focus on pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety. We look forward to working with the city on these projects. Deschutes County completed a Transportation Safety Action Plan in 2019 that identified both location -specific and countywide opportunities to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes for all transportation modes. We hope to work with the county in 2021 to build and begin implementation of plans to address these issues. We now have a committee member from Cascades East Transit that gives us a strong connection to public transportation issues as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle access. Your BPAC provided a representative to a Forest Service sponsored study of safety issues on the Cascade Lakes Highway. Late last year the county road department installed their first motion -activated Bicycles on Roadway signs at two locations identified in the report. We will continue to work with the county to identify opportunities to address other items from the report. Attachments 1. BPAC 2019-2020 Annual Report 2. BPAC Awards Announcement 2020 Page 3 Deschutes County Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee BPAC Report to the Board of County Commissioners October 2019 - December 2020 Page left blank intentionally BPAC Activities Report February 2021 BPAC Mission The mission of Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County. Its goals include: • The development of a coordinated system of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways • The stimulation of public awareness • The examination of current and future financing options and budget strategies for bicycle and pedestrian projects The Committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, and ODOT in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and matters pertaining to existing and proposed road construction and signing. The Committee is a source of current information relating to the use of bicycle and walking as a means of transportation and strives to support them as a viable means of transportation in Deschutes County. BPAC Membership & Meetings BPAC is comprised of 13 volunteer county resident voting members (appointed by the Board of County Commissioners) with regional representation from all parts of Deschutes County. BPAC holds monthly meetings to discuss and provide input and advise local agencies concerning bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and include government agency representatives as non -voting participants. Most meetings are held in Bend although effort is made to also schedule at least three BPAC meetings in other cities (on a rotating basis). BPAC also presents a yearly "Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit." The summit is held in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson County on a rotating basis to ensure wider Central Oregon region involvement, input and participation in bicycling and walking issues. Due to the effects of COVID-19, all BPAC meetings went virtual beginning in May of 2020. The "Summit' was also cancelled due to the pandemic. In May of 2020, BPAC solicited applications for four open positions, three at -large and one from Redmond, and received a staggering twenty-nine applications. A subcommittee interviewed seven of those applicants and recommended three for the at - large appointments. The full BPAC voted on those and all were accepted and then confirmed by the Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. The new members at -large are David Green, Mason Lacy, and Rachel Zakem. The new Redmond member is Ken Piarulli. The new members will serve three year terms, expiring in 2023. The officers for the 2020/2021 term were selected by the committee in September as follows: • Chair: Dave Thomson • Vice Chair: Chris Cassard • Secretary: Rachel Zakem COVID-19 Notice In March of 2020 the global pandemic of COVID-19 made its way to Oregon. As a result social distancing was enforced whenever possible. Starting in May, all BPAC meetings went virtual and still remain virtual. Due to the fact that meetings were virtual, BPAC was not able to hold regional meetings throughout the county as it usually does. The committee decided that it would still hold regional meetings virtually, and that the discussion topics would focus on that region. BPAC holds several regional meetings throughout the year. BPAC Activities Summary Period: October 2019 thru December 2020 o BPAC Subcommittees As presented in the last previous report to the BOCC, BPAC has several standing and ad hoc subcommittees to provide community recognition, support and input for more focused discussion on bike and pedestrian (B/P) issues. There are also several transportation -related standing Advisory Committees that have BPAC representation, including: the Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Cascades East Transit (COIC/CET), and the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization. BPAC members have volunteered for duty on these supplementary subcommittees as well: o Trail Connections Subcommittee: ■ Purpose: This committee is formed to engage with various parks departments, BLM, forest service, other relevant groups or agencies, etc. to help nudge projects forward that potentially enhance use of trails as an important component of the greater transportation network. ■ The committee had six focused interviews with productive engagement. These were with Bend and Redmond parks districts, Deschutes County Roads Dept, ODOT, city of La Pine, and COIC/CET. The effort was interrupted/deferred in April 2020 due to COVID. In each of the meetings the potential of non -motorized connection trails in existence and in future concept were discussed. o Community Connections Subcommittee ■ Purpose: This committee is to research the potential for low -stress routes between Central Oregon communities that might serve to take bikes and/or some vehicle traffic off higher -stress routes. ■ The goal of the committee is to subjectively rate each community route from a low -stress standpoint. ■ Deschutes County expressed concern about publishing gravel routes since there could be variations in quality and/or safety. ■ Consensus was that the most desired lower -stress connector route is Sisters to Bend. ■ ODOT is the key agency with a number of these community connections. o Consensus is that a vision statement including the work of both these committees (and/or specific recommendations) for lower -stress connections should be and presented for possible inclusion in the County TSP update that is underway. o Deschutes County TSAP: ■ Purpose: The state of Oregon has developed a statewide Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and set a goal of zero fatal and incapacitating injuries on Oregon's transportation system by 2035. The Deschutes County TSAP is a specific action plan developed to help the County work towards the state's goal by identifying and addressing safety issues specific to Deschutes County (excluding the Bend MPO). ■ Federal grants supporting the development of Transportation Safety Action Plans (TSAPs) were awarded respectively to Deschutes County and the Bend MPO. BPAC was represented on the Project Advisory Committee to ensure bicycling and pedestrian safety goals would be fulfilled. o Big Chainring Awards Subcommittee: ■ Purpose: BPAC presents "The Big Chainring Awards" once a year, to recognize outstanding individual (citizen and business) efforts at furthering bicycling and walking causes. ■ BPAC voted to present three awards that were recommended by the awards subcommittee: Ariel Mendez (Individual), Sunriver Police Department Bike Patrol (Public Agency), and Lucas Freeman (Peter Hanson Memorial Award). These were presented at the Board of County Commissioners virtual meeting on Monday, November 23. o BPAC Ad hoc Subcommittees (participation in the following efforts): o Smith Rock Park — State Parks effort to evaluate possible improvements to the parking and transportation issues around the park. This group has been inactive for some time.Pilot Butte Park - State Parks effort to evaluate possible improvements to Park. A draft report was published. o Safe Sidewalks Awards: ■ There were no nominations this year, so there were no awards. o TSP Advisory Committee — The county's effort to update its TSP o Local Updates BPAC is a county -wide organization with committee members representing all areas of Deschutes County. Members provide updates on Bend, Redmond, Sisters, South County, and Sunriver as well as Deschutes County at every meeting. The following are many of the topics covered in BPAC's monthly meetings: o City of Bend ■ TSAP concluded and the MPO is implementing some of the actions identified in the TSAP. Bike detection signals will be installed in six locations. ■ The MPO is working on the 2nd phase of transportation long range planning. ■ Bend MPO TAC is developing a strategy to upgrade traffic signals in Bend (which have very old controllers), and are working with the state to do so. They're also looking at converting to photo/video detection. ■ City council approved $190M transportation ballot measure which will include intersection and bike boulevard improvements. ■ The city with the assistance of community members identified eight neighborhood safety projects for $800,000. The selected projects include two neighborhood greenways and lots of crosswalks. • The city has plans to improve Newport near 12tn Street with two small roundabouts (aka dog bone). ■ The Bend MPO solicited for projects for a portion of the MPO's annual allocation of 2021-2024 Surface Transportation Block Grant funds. o City of Redmond ■ Held Vision 2040 Summit which included a connected transportation system and a goal of getting more people walking and biking, while increasing the network. ■ The Quiet Street Network (4tn St.), uses existing streets to connect northern and southern trails. It has provided an opportunity to support the next Quiet Street on 4tn Street. Quiet Streets incorporate wayfinding, stencils, and sidewalk decals where necessary. ■ Trails Master Plan: The city is trying to fill in gaps of three major north -south trails: Homestead Trail, Dry Canyon, BPA Powerline Trail. The city has engaged in partnerships with agencies/districts (Parks, Urban Renewal, etc.) to help fund adjacent areas of the trail. ■ Some Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) canals are slated to be piped, which presents a potential opportunity for trails. The city has an agreement with COID, to consider trail placement as a canal is piped, though this is complex involving numerous stakeholders. ■ The city was not able to hold its annual Open Streets day due to COVID-19. ■ The city's education initiatives include Quiet Streets signage, and a paper and digital bike map. Redmond is teaching teachers how to conduct bike education classes for 3,d-5m grade, for which they have a dedicated bicycle fleet. ■ Annual bicycle and pedestrian count day is conducted by volunteers. This year's annual bicycle/pedestrian count was unfortunately cancelled due to the severe smoke conditions in the region. ■ Mile markers were added to some trails in the city. • Redmond would like to design a few more 'quiet streets' connecting the Homestead and Dry Canyon trails. o City of Sisters ■ Did not receive the grant for a multipurpose path, so instead they are working more on general safety issues for bicycles and pedestrians ■ The city will create a Quiet Street on Washington. ■ The city was potentially going to construct two multi -use paths, but no funding was available. Instead, the city will install two roundabouts at Routes 126/20 and by the turn to City Hall. ■ The new trailhead to Three Creeks Lake is almost complete. ■ The city began its Comprehensive Plan update process, which will include transportation issues. ■ The roundabout at Locust is nearly at 30% design. o Sunriver Resort ■ Sunriver recognizes the bike paths as an amenity that draw people to Sunriver. ■ New tunnels have been installed that will allow bikes to ride through instead of dismounting (as required with existing older tunnels). ■ The community does not have parking to access trailheads. This causes traffic jams and some safety concerns when streets are flanked with parked cars. Sunriver has 12 percent occupancy throughout the year. One of the main focuses of the HOA is to get people to/from the SHARC (apx. 3,000 a day in the summer) via biking/walking. There are 50 full time employees and 160 seasonal employees in the summer. Employment and visitors at the SHARC were less than usual due to COVID-19. o Deschutes County ■ Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner with the County, took over the staff liaison role for BPAC. ■ The Terrebonne couplet is off the table. Instead, ODOT will build a grade -separated interchange at Lower Bridge Way/97, which is already in the TSP. ■ The Westgate subdivision has been required to install a paved multi -use path. ■ The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 27 to amend the Deschutes County TSP to add the Tumalo and Old Bend Redmond roundabouts on US 20. ■ The Road Department issued an RFP for an update of the County TSP — this work has since been awarded, and BPAC is sending a representative to meetings with the consultant and others on the project team. The County and the consultants expect the resulting TSP will include updating of bicycle -pedestrian elements, with a focus on unincorporated communities. As stated earlier, BPAC through its representative will contribute its subcommittee vision and specific concepts to that effort. ■ Board approved adding US 20/Cook-O.B. Riley and US 20/Old Bend -Redmond roundabouts to the County TSP. ■ Onsite construction work has begun on the Siemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. The project includes repair and strengthening of the historic Bull Creek Bridge on Sisemore Rd. The project was completed November 25, 2020. ■ The County applied for and was awarded a TGM grant totaling $75,000 to 1) Update Tumalo Community Plan ($50K), including looking at bicycle, sidewalk, and transit aspects and 2) implement Deschutes County portions of Sisters Country Action plan regarding equestrian, bicycling, and hiking trails ($25K) as they relate to the Deschutes County TSP. ■ Deschutes County TSAP: The county completed a safety plan; there is a second round of potential grant funding in the fall for a committee for safety implementation ■ The Board of County Commissioners approved Kittelson & Assoc. to be the contractor for the Deschutes County TSP Update. ■ Deschutes County received two TGM grants from ODOT/DCLD to update the Tumalo Community Plan and to work with stakeholders to amend the bicycle and pedestrian section of the Deschutes County TSP to include rural equestrian, bicycle, and pedestrian trails identified in the Sisters Country Vision Action Plan. BPAC will be involved with both of these efforts. BPAC will establish a subcommittee to provide input to the County TSP update, but there will be one official BPAC Citizen Advisory Committee representative. o South County ■ New share the road signs were installed by the County. ■ "Bicycles on roadway" signs are up on Burgess, Spring River Road, and by the fire station on South Century. ■ An east -west sidewalk connection was completed near Finley Butte. ■ The newly paved shoulder on South Century is excellent for cyclists. o Agency Coordination and Updates o Bend MPO TAC: ■ US 97 projects: This encompasses two projects: First, the state is initiating a study of a new interchange approximately 1 to 1.25- miles north of Cooley Road; second, a study of the entire parkway corridor —which should include crossing improvements —has been completed and sent to the Oregon Transportation Commission for approval. ■ The MPO submitted an application for a TGM grant for mobility hubs. ■ In the ODOT study evaluating interchange location ideas and how it would connect to Juniper Ridge, the plan also includes evaluating separated trail connections from new interchange down to Cooley Road, likely on the west side of the railroad. ■ The surface transportation block grant will be offered via the MPO, offering almost $800,000 of funding. o CET CET hosted a new program called, "Try Transit", which offered free bus fares on Tuesdays October 8 and 15. The program provided 4600 rides on free transit Tuesdays. The Transit Master Plan was adopted on September 3 by the COIC Board. CET introduced Saturday service on February 1 for regional community connector routes. This service was suspended with the temporary cancellation of Saturday services system -wide due to COVID-19 0 ■ Due to COVID-19, weekday bus service switched to a Saturday schedule and weekend service was suspended from April 20 through June 1. The weekend suspension is still ongoing. ■ Crews are doing extra cleaning throughout the day, utilizing social distancing, and buses are utilizing rear boarding only to minimize contact, as well as requiring face masks as of April 20. ■ Service has been fareless since March 21. ■ CET is working on two new Bend routes in the Northeast and Southeast. • A Transit Feasibility study is almost complete for the city of Redmond. In the meantime, two flex -routes will be operational in Redmond in the summer of 2021. ■ Federal Lands Access program between Mt. Bachelor and Elk Lake is moving forward and planned for 2022 ■ The La Pine-Sunriver route launched on June 1st and operated through September 7. ■ Ridership throughout COVID-19 has been down anywhere from 90- 50 percent of pre-COVID numbers. ■ CET is operating Mt. Bachelor service with enhanced safety measures for COVID-19. Increased frequency has been added to make up for the maximum occupancy limits. ■ STIF committees will meet in December and January to organize the next round of projects. o COACT: ■ County Commissioner Patti Adair is now the chair. ■ An update on transportation funds throughout the state was provided and Central Oregon will receive the same amount of funding as the previous year. o Commute Options ■ On Monday, October 7, the Get There Challenge began. The challenge coincided with CET's Fare Free Tuesday Events. This year, the challenge was a bit different, owing to the changes in commuting and work patterns. Participants could log trips and also unlock achievements, skill builders, and quizzes to gain points to be entered to win prizes ■ Jeff Monson retired as Executive Director in December, and was succeeded by Brian Potwin. ■ Commute Options ran a telework perks contest in April, in which 218 new people signed up via Get There. ■ Commute Options explored policies that can encourage employers to encourage teleworking even after restrictions due to COVID are lifted. 10 ■ The Oregon Friendly Driver Course transitioned to an online format last fall. BPAC members attended a dry run of the online training in August and provided feedback. o Redmond BPAC Update ■ Redmond BPAC members expressed interest in getting a route from Redmond to Smith Rock. ■ Irrigation canal in the area will be piped soon, which could be good timing with respect to development of a path/trail ■ Redmond BPAC is developing a concept of trails on east side of Redmond and potential extensions to river outside of UGB, County & BLM property o ODOT ■ US 20: Mervin Sampels — Greenwood project ❖ There will not be green crosshatching across the intersection for bicycles, as the state was not in favor of giving bicycles the option of going straight through the intersection at full speed. Instead, bikes will have to turn slightly and proceed through a cut through the median alongside pedestrians. ❖ This is a specific treatment for this intersection given the greenway, and is not intended to function as a template for all intersections. ❖ There will be buffered bike lanes, and a 2-stage left turn at the OB Riley intersection. ❖ Mervin Sampels to Division: ❖ Narrowed the travel lanes to 12' on outside, 11' on inside; buffered bike lanes from Mervin Sampels almost all the way to Division; and will be completing the entire pedestrian network where sidewalks are missing. ❖ Division to Underwood: ❖ Same 12' and 11' lanes as above, but there is not enough width for a bike lane so this segment will contain all shoulder bicycle facilities for less than one mile. ❖ Underwood to Greenwood: ❖ 11' travel lanes throughout and shoulder bicycle facilities as there is not enough width for anything more. The sidewalk network will be completed. •3 An interim solution to crossing US 97 and US 20 is for northbound bicycle traffic on US 20 to get a bike lane and a buffer where it allows. Southbound, ODOT is fixing the island at Mount Washington and US 20. ❖ There will be additional fixes to US 20 and River Mall Drive, including a two-step left turn and no right on red for vehicles. ❖ 6m Street crossing updates: 11 ❖ There will be a painted island to position turning cars behind bikes at Greenwood, and the bike lane striping and stencil will be removed on 6tn Street southbound. ❖ ODOT revealed newly -released Blueprint for Urban Design. ODOT is switching from standard roadway classifications to a more narrative urban design guidance in decisions. This will apply to new projects going forward. ❖ ODOT Blueprint for Urban Design Overview ❖ The new blueprint has six land use contexts: Traditional Downtown/CBD, Urban Mix, Commercial Corridor, Residential Corridor, Suburban Fringe, and Rural Community. ❖ It provides more options and flexibility for design elements (such as curb, buffer zones, bike lanes, travel lanes) within each cross section realm (pedestrian, transition, travelway, etc. ❖ Decision framework —how to make decisions on appropriate modal integration. Ideally, this should help bike-ped decisions and environments. ❖ The Blueprint will be rolling out on new projects in urban areas ❖ Should apply to North Corridor project ❖ The multiuse path between Mount Washington and Division has been bumped to Phase 2 of the overall project. ❖ U.S. 97 Terrebonne Lower Bridge Way construction to begin in 2022. ❖ Potential Sisters to Smith Rock bicycle route. ❖ OR 242 McKenzie Pass: Paving project will widen and add bicycle parking. Construction slated for 2022. ❖ OR 126 Redmond -Powell Butte: Primarily a paving project with some sidewalk infill. ❖ Bend North Corridor (between Cooley and OB Riley): interchange realignment, future roundabouts, and a future multi -use path. ❖ US 97 Nels Anderson -Romaine Village: Primarily repaving and general cleanup. ODOT is looking into potentially using Nels Anderson as a bicycle route. ❖ US 20 Tumalo-Cooley: New roundabout in Tumalo plus repaving; there is potential for a below -grade multi -use path but this part of the project lacks funding ❖ US 20 3ra Street -Purcell: Paving, enhanced crossing at 4tn Street, realigning the 12tn Street RRFB ❖ US 20 Ward -Hamby Roundabout: safety project, replacing the intersection with a roundabout; widening of shoulders with potential for sidewalk ❖ Bend -Lava Butte multi -use path: In planning, will narrow down potential alignments. 12 ❖ Lava Butte -La Pine multi -use path: Currently has planning funding only ❖ ODOT asked BPAC to provide representatives for the US 97 N interchange project. Rick will be the primary rep and David will be the alternate ❖ Oregon Community Paths Program: This program has between $14 and $19M to distribute for projects statewide ❖ TGM grant was awarded [in addition to Deschutes County] to the Bend MPO for mobility hubs ❖ ODOT Roundabout Design Changes ❖ Issues raised included: o Side ramps [for bicycles] to the sidewalk — it isn't always clear if the bicycle is using it or will stay in the road o There can be an issue when a bike takes the ramp and then uses the crosswalk to cross. o A completely separated bike lane around the roundabout would be preferred, as often done in Holland. o Sometimes art and landscaping can adversely affect sightlines o All problems are exacerbated in two-lane roundabouts o Safety concerns fall into two categories: 1) cars versus bikes; 2) bikes versus pedestrians o Potential improvements include the sidewalk pulled back from the perimeter of the roundabout. ❖ US 97 S. Century to USFS boundary: primarily repaving. ❖ ODOT Active Transportation Program and Funding Opportunities ❖ ODOT's aims are to provide safe and reliable multimodal transportation system ❖ The primary funding program is Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF). Within that, there are required and discretionary programs. ❖ 1 % of state gas tax goes to bike-ped ODOT projects; Safe Routes to School Infrastructure; Multimodal Active Transportation Fund ❖ Discretionary: Active Transportation Leverage; Safe Routes to School Education; Off -System Bicycle and Pedestrian fund; ADA curb ramps ❖ OR Bike Bill ❖ Recipients must spend a minimum of 1 % of state highway funds on pedestrian and bicycle projects... walkways and bikeways must be provided every time a public road is "constructed, reconstructed, or relocated." ❖ ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program ❖ Plan was adopted in 2016, includes 2040 vision 13 ❖ State Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, which is Governor -appointed, advises ODOT and OTC ❖ The Blueprint for Urban Design provides a new framework that can be helpful for planning bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Notably, projects now start with maximum protection level for bikes/peds for that scenario, and then must work backwards from that if those protections need to be reduced Safe Routes to School program ❖ Advisory committee - wrote rules to clarify legislation, assists in the selection of projects for infrastructure program ❖ Construction, planning assistance, and education are all components of the program. Community Paths Program ❖ Funding is provided by the Multimodal Active Transportation Fund (which is comprised of 7% of Connect Oregon fund and the bicycle excise tax) plus other fund sources (taxes, lottery, etc.) ❖ The program funds projects that develop, construct or reconstruct of paths, focusing on critical links, regional paths, and path crossings. ❖ Program will open next winter to accept applications for grants. Approx. $14M total available. Transportation Options program ❖ This program focuses on all of the elements that help people drive less (information, assistance, encouragement); includes grants, sponsorships, trip planning Innovation Grants: supports implementation of Transportation Options Plan o Kevin English of Dirty Freehub (an organization supporting gravel riding) provided an update on gravel routes and trails leading out of town as well as an explanation of the potential of gravel routes to connect communities. He shared demographics for gravel biking. Kevin clarified that a gravel route has pavement and unimproved routes and is not technical like mountain biking. One of the draws to gravel biking is the social aspect of it (riding side by side). Many of the routes published by Dirty Free Hub have options for a bikes. o Bend MPO Multimodal Count Program ■ Count data was not collected between 2009 and 2016, but efforts began in 2013 to get it started again. ■ There are three types of counters: 1. Tube counters (vehicles), which are counted every May at several locations, providing volume, speed, and classification for vehicles 2. Temporary counters in certain areas for a week at a time (vehicle, bike, ped) and 3. Permanent counters (Eco 14 Counters —vehicle, bike, ped) on bridges and the Franklin undercrossing, which get seasonality data. o Bend North Corridor Project ■ The primary focus of the project is the US 97 corridor ■ Specifically to reduce congestion on US 97 and US 20, reduce overall crash rate and severity, and reduce truck -related crashes as well as to increase travel time reliability and improve bike-ped access ■ Ultimately the project will realign US 97 to the east, with improvements addressing US 20, Robal and Cooley, among other intersections. ■ INFRA (Infrastructure for America) grant is providing $60.4 million in funding; matches from ODOT, Bend, Deschutes County, and private funds will bring total funding to $133.4 million. ■ There will be money set aside for bicycle -pedestrian issues, but no specific plans exist yet. ■ Bicycle and pedestrian issues were workshopped to determine goals (for instance, where to emphasize connectivity). ■ Overall project will utilize a design -build contract, which is relatively rare in this region. It will take into consideration not the low bid but the best value, and will shorten the timeline ■ A draft concept map of the latest North Corridor update was submitted and feedback for additional items to consider was requested. ❖ Potential consideration of: o Multi -use path from Juniper Mobile Homes to Empire along the railroad o Between Empire and Cooley, potential for path on west side of new 97 (east of old 97). ODOT won't have the final alignment for the path for a while due to coordination with multiple jurisdictions. ❖ Construction potentially can start 2022-23 o Safe Passing Laws for Bicyclists: Oregon vs Washington ■ Sam Handelman spoke to the committee about Oregon vs Washington laws. Oregon law regarding the safe distance for vehicles to pass cyclists is very convoluted and badly written. ■ As of January 1, Washington updated its law (SB 5723) to require vehicles to pass with three feet between them and the cyclist, and allows vehicles to go into other lane if possible. o Forest Service Paved Path - US97 Knott/Baker interchange to Lava Lands Visitor Center ■ Several BPAC members drafted a letter to the Board voicing support for the project; if the Board agrees, BPAC will formally submit the letter as a public comment to the forest service. 15 0 2020 Central Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit was planned to take place in west county/Sisters. However, due to COVID-19, this event did not take place. o BPAC sent two letters of support: 1) To Deschutes County for a TGM grant to add trails to the TSP map as part of the implementation of the Sisters County visioning; and 2) To COIC/CET supporting the Bend MPO for a TGM grant for a mobility hub feasibility study. o Carol Fulkerson, community member, presented information on Snow Removal and the ADA community ■ For years, COCA has been advocating for the city of Bend to step up its enforcement efforts for snow removal —there is an ordinance regarding snow removal requirements but very little enforcement. People who have mobility issues or who prefer to use public transit are dependent on adequate snow removal on sidewalks and bus stops. Last year the city issued a few citations but this was a small number compared to actual violations. COCA recommends developing some sort of program that can engage HOAs, businesses, as well as area with vacant/undeveloped land to clear snow, as it is currently extremely piecemeal ■ David from the city of Bend noted that last year they hired three additional seasonal employees to assist with snow removal; while COVID has greatly affected this year's budget by approximately 25 percent, the city will still keep those 3 temporary staff. The new Bend TSP recommends improvements in snow removal response. ■ Keeping bus pads and the connections around them to sidewalks clear is critical —people cannot use transit if they have no way of getting to/from the bus stop. 16 Big Chainring Awards 2020 Since 1996, the BPAC has presented the Big Chainring Awards annually to honor individuals, businesses, and public agencies that have made significant contributions in the support of better bicycling and walking in Central Oregon. In addition, the Peter Hanson Memorial Award specifically recognizes individuals in the community who have provided outstanding voluntary contributions. The Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) are pleased to announce their selections for the 2020 Big Chainring Awards. Lucas Freeman — Peter Hanson Memorial: Lucas began his bicycle advocacy with a blog covering active transportation. In 2013, he joined with Brian Potwin from Commute Options and Pam Hardy to form Bend Bikes, an all -volunteer advocacy organization. Lucas brought the strength of relationship building with City staff, Commute Options, and other organizations to advocate for people who bike in Bend. This led to collaboration on Open Streets events and city adoption of Neighborhood Greenways. Lucas continues as a volunteer with the Bend Bikes advocacy team and as a mentor. Ariel Mendez — Individual: Ariel Mendez is the former President of the Board of Bend Bikes and currently serves our community on the Bend Parks & Recreation Board. As a member of the Bend Citywide Transportation Advisory Committee, he pushed for a 20- year vision for transportation policy for people who bike, walk, and roll. Ariel's voice has always challenged local leadership to have truly equitable and sustainable transportation planning, one that prioritizes our transportation systems' most vulnerable users. Most recently, he successfully advocated for the Stay Healthy Streets as the COVID-19 pandemic affected our community. His visible and vocal leadership has informed and inspired others to advocate for people who bike in our community. Sunriver Police Department Bike Patrol Team — Public Agency: The Bike Patrol consists of nine seasonal officers who work full time during the summer promoting safe bicycling along the 32 miles of pathways in Sunriver. Sunriver hosts thousands of visitors riding bikes each summer. In 2020, despite the pandemic, the Bike Patrol made over 15,000 contacts with community members providing education and enforcement. Due to their proactive efforts, Sunriver PD received less than 15 crash reports. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 e541)388-6575 Cacrbpac@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/bpac L m pc' oo� 'it o Ln �r00 JS�Q mrq/I 6 r m 0o 00 N `� il'��w� ��rro Ln N 00 4��t�;r�1'�,�ro �r','I �� cn Ln ro Ln or c/Ln Ln 00 0 lMINIM �/ ll/ v E o OI pr ra 6' <<'i ro 0000 s/6r-I� /6 �/� Ln m ��, u Ln /cf? 9j v .N ro n �Ln10 NEW/<1 C O Ln v, �9,1-4 ru r�/9 3 o I Ali Ln N 'n I 9 Off, / v ro W � `^ s N 00 li /S 9 � ro 00 O Ln o S, s 9 %00 j �l �/� Ln � Ln Ln 00 C,l/lS �/ o O N Ln sl/ O Cj v, :c 0 o 0 O® ® m ® m o 0 a o o 0 ® Ln ® m ® m lid, O m d et m m N cv saseD 0 N m N �f1 O d m N Ln 14 O 00 d' cn N m O O N N N O N � I � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 00 lD d' N Oc, 01 O�, �l Oc, OC, filer l Or, O�, Sri Ol Oc, i0 Or, Oc, sli cA 0 Oe,/r OF, Oc, �9 Oc, S OC, Or,/r s� Oe, ®�/l 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 co y-+ v N J N w Z C O u Ln N O C- u V) v r) m t0 Sri ON Lrf r\ 00 It I� O 00 m m N N Vi Ln �b0 tLo �bA 2 = 2 4 c � c `� o� o T rV o N d' N � fY1 � � N S Q a; O u O r6 v O. ro C V) O N L O b.0 41 4- v Ln b.0 T v 4- c Ul ro a +.J L u C O u V) u a 0 N C) ON rn ry� co cpl LA to IN C4 en Ln 0 4-J 4-J CO f6 u c u u ro u u u > 0 i 4-1 CL (1) LnN -a NV1Q 0 0 0 0 (3) t:LO 0- 0 N a- I a) b-O O. 0 0 0- 4* CL Ln QJ b.0 O ul O ro u u CL u I'd i f }'I ul I �i �i I 1 N j a) "a 1 O >_ N N -O N � , CA- i :i I ii r>> rrl (J i raj 1 rl I N � +-J C.J 4-1 O L O 4- E Q (A 4-1 ro 0) L �0�^ +, + 4J v C i v 0 v, W E L O CO �~ G 4J "O b00 > L � � Q � f0 Q v v > 4 N L^ u •O 2 v _0 C ca — vi (A O 0-0 M m V) u V) o t)U• o •• • • 0 LL • • • • JN� Y 0,;,. wn r-- '� �yJ; s� a V) w r U u LA l,J > a) E to a) E ul 4za/ZO/WvzV 5£VHO a o m v> > O O O E O@ Op y L_ y m° N a N� �, W fl. .� O) W o L 3 0 0 o co T •ti E o L c Q7 rn 'O a N U cz p c °� O ], N' "a p 0 C13 = O N N O ` O L C cu cc 0 ro .7 CM C '<j C Co O (O Q y I = U@ Q O -p C cd p7 C D. O C O [c N ] VI O- CU d N X ': to C ,� .Q 61 C i O .� O C ctea p O yy @ �qq O _C _ �._ = N N. H N v "� 'O d cc, E L d •r!� C yY a = N O= O 2 U in ca cz 'C Q L 'OD � CID 6) Co n am .c ® e a o d� N LO N O -p cc O N N N _ �,s ,S p N C cc co N L N N QJ p _ � 2 . Y -0 i a 2 -o ? -o s a y L a a =:LO Lon. CA o ,o� o rn o am 3 o rn-? cn CLJ CU W 2 L7.! d W d W CL W n w o � h C C O lS :2U a> L .O C O n- O) O) Q1 d d m N U U GJ U O p Q C C 'O u) Q1 OaL-+ S n. ,C N c = m E o' c o a -mooys co o o a� o o �` o 2 E C-D S9 � c O =o 0 z a Q E 'S Q L C, <t O :.c S -�' @ C-U 0 m a� caa = w e o n vi c c cc � o L c cc o_ °-' I I c E h E C. m Lu o is is E a3 E L (CS O) O O. "O p C "[1 E 'O N S7 N E `J C Y Q C E .@ O) U 1 CO i ca '.' U R3 c@.i "C L_ 5 _ E t6 O 3: N C O � U C L C O O Crn C C '00 .-. = N .O U d Q> 'D .0 'O w d to O _N � L N S c.� O cJ7 •.� co 1- W Q Q ..-cn O .65 — x, 9 6 6 15 A C: 0 E 0 cD 0 > 0 m o6 C4 o N Ln 0 E E cD ON ob O vi Ln rn CD CO tA o -W N M 0 CD o Ln • C) m o V) Ln kJo (U 4-J Ln Ln m u 0 2! L�\)I ES c�G Q 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 Wednesday Meeting of February 24, 2021 DATE: February 18, 2021 FROM: Kyle Collins, Community Development, 541-383-4427 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Staff Report: Update Regarding Possible Code Amendments Related to Wildfire Mitigation and Next Steps Staff is updating the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding possible code amendments related to wildfire hazard mitigation. This staff report is broadly grouped into the following categories: 1) Next Steps and Decisions: This section identifies the next steps the Board may take regarding this project over the near and medium term. 2) Amendments Discussion and Existing Standards: This section addresses background information for each proposed set of amendments, including exceptions, applicable geographic areas, a discussion of the County's current defensible space standards, and programmatic examples from other jurisdictions. STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Kyle Collins, Associate Planner DATE: February 18, 2021 RE: Next Steps for Wildfire Mitigation Amendments Staff is updating the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding possible code amendments related to wildfire hazard mitigation. This staff report is broadly grouped into the following categories: 1) Next Steps and Decisions: This section identifies the next steps the Board may take regarding this project over the near and medium term. 2) Amendments Discussion and Existing Standards: This section addresses background information for each proposed set of amendments, including exceptions, applicable geographic areas, a discussion of the County's current defensible space standards, and programmatic examples from other jurisdictions. In addition, staff has created reference documents in conjunction with this report that provide context and detail regarding the Board's decision options. These documents include: 1) State Legislature and Implementation Challenges: This section describes possible examples of how the programs themselves might be implemented. Some major unknowns include which departments or agencies would be tasked with implementation, conflicts with other comprehensive plan priorities, and methodologies for selecting appropriate areas to apply the standards. This section also addresses a list of pending state -level legislative bills, which may affect local efforts to reduce wildfire hazard risks. 2) Background and Public Outreach: This section includes a brief summary of the actions taken to date regarding wildfire mitigation amendments and the public outreach efforts completed by the Community Development Department (CDD). Staff presented an initial draft of the 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 (cry cddLcodeschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd County's public outreach report to the Board on January 20, 2021. Some minor updates to the outreach report have been included based on comments from the Deschutes County Planning Commission and staff will apprise the Board of those changes'. 1. Next Steps and Decisions With the initial public outreach process complete, the Board may consider next steps at this meeting or a subsequent meeting regarding the future of any wildfire mitigation amendments. At this time, the Board's decision options fall broadly into the following categories: 1) Discuss initiating processes to: a. Affirm or amend the Wildfire Hazard Zone; b. Develop R327 text amendments, followed by public hearings and an adoption process; and c. Develop Defensible Space Standard text amendments, followed by public hearings and an adoption process. 2) Monitor the Oregon State Legislature before proceeding 3) Direct staff to collect additional information on any outstanding questions Each of the Board's decision options is described in the decision matrix below, which provides a general description of the approaches and a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each. Following the matrix is a more thorough discussion of each decision option. ' A copy of Public Outreach Report is attached for reference Page 2 of 17 Options I Description I Pros j Cons Option 1: Monitor Oregon 2021 Legislative Session Option 2-A: Fire Resistant Building Codes / Wildfire Hazard Zone County - Wide The Oregon Legislature will consider a number of bills in 2021 addressing wildfire mitigation. Lawmakers are expected to examine how the state can reduce the impact of wildfire on its landscape and residents. Many of the same issues discussed in 2020 are expected to resurface. The governor's 2020 proposal called for creating "defensible spaces" around homes to reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Bills introduced to date related to wildfire are summarized at the end of the matrix. Update the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require dwellings and their accessory structures in a Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. Staff can schedule a follow-up meeting with the Board to discuss in greater detail the number of rural vacant properties that would be affected, and the cost estimates for R327 including an updated breakdown based Administration: Waiting until the 2021 Legislative Session finishes allows Deschutes County to understand if the State of Oregon initiates a top - down approach related to fire-resistant building materials and defensible space. Cost: The State of Oregon may appropriate funding to help local governments with implementation. Flexibility: Applying R327 to a countywide WHZ replaces or alters the County's existing WHZ that currently prohibits wood - shake roofing material. R327 does have two mandatory exceptions: Infill exception: Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. Accessory structure exception. Nonhabitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at Timing: Proposed wildfire mitigation legislation may not get adopted or provide local governments with adequate funding for implementation. State of Oregon may convene a working group to further evaluate wildfire mitigation measures and report back to the Legislature in 2022 or later. Timing: R327 does not apply to existing rural development for a period of 3 years from the date of adoption. Cost: Applying the new standards county -wide would potentially increase the cost of all new residential development moving forward. However, applying property or development specific exemptions may reduce certain costs. Page 3 of 17 Option 2-B: Fire Resistant Building Codes / Customized Wildfire Hazard Zone on the most recent building cost estimates. Update the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require dwellings and their accessory structures in a tailored Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot do not need to comply with R327.4. The County can apply additional exemptions: [i.e. - additions (with or without a size limit), remodels, certain zoning designations, properties of a certain size, etc.] Administration: The Building and Safety Division can implement R327 without additional staffing. Flexibility: Applying R327 to a customized WHZ can be justified as a pilot project. Applying R327 to a customized WHZ replaces or alters the County's existing WHZ that currently prohibits wood -shake roofing material. R327 does have two mandatory exceptions: Infill exception: Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. Accessory structure exception: Nonhabitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at Risk: An amended WHZ may exclude large portions of Deschutes County. Additionally, the County could no longer prohibit untreated wood shake/shingle roofs outside of the WHZ. Timing: R327 does not apply to existing rural development for a period of 3 years from the date of adoption. Implementation: Selecting a more refined methodology for how to alter the WHZ may be a laborious process and could invite contention from various parties throughout the County. A large portion of community members are supportive of maintaining the WHZ as it currently exists. Cost: Applying the new standards to a customized WHZ would potentially Page 4 of 17 Option 3-A: Defensible Space / New Development / County Zoning Defensible space is the buffer created between a building and the grass, trees, shrubs, or any wildland areas that surround it. This space is needed to slow or stop the spread of wildfire and helps protect structures themselves from catching fire. Deschutes County's zoning code can be amended to require new rural development and accessory structures to document prior to the issuance of building permit or prior to final inspection, that the rural fire protection district (or appropriate authority) has evaluated and approved any required defensible space. least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot do not need to comply with R327.4. The County can apply additional exemptions: [i.e. - additions (with or without a size limit), remodels, certain zoning designations, properties of a certain size, etc.] Administration: The Building and Safety Division can implement R327 without additional staffing. Administration: Deschutes County Code in Forest Use Zones (F1 and F2) requires new residential development and accessory structures document prior to issuance of building permit that the rural fire protection district has approved the defense space. The Planning Division can implement this concept to other zones without additional staffing. increase the cost of all new residential development in those remaining areas moving forward. However, applying property or development specific exemptions may reduce certain costs. Risk: Defensible space would not apply to existing rural development. Administration: Including additional defensible space standards in the Deschutes County Zoning Code may significantly increase resources necessary to ensure compliance [i.e.- a possible increase in code enforcement proceedings]. Cost: Additional costs and possible development review for affected community members implementing new standards. Page 5 of 17 Option 3-B: Defensible Space / Existing Development / County Zoning Option 3-C: Defensible Space / Existing Development / Rural Fire Protection Districts Option 4: Additional Information Deschutes County's zoning code can be amended to require new and existing rural development and accessory structures to document that the rural fire protection district (or appropriate authority) has evaluated and approved any required defensible space. Explore applying defensible space to existing development based on Title 8 through a partnership with rural fire protection districts. Staff, based on direction from the Board can engage rural fire protection districts to discuss such a concept. Direct staff to collect additional information regarding the proposed amendments, implementation scenarios, and/or costs. Risk: Ensures the maximum level of risk reduction if compliance can be maintained. Administration: Would allow the Community Development Department to place some administrative duties with fire protection officials and experts in the field [i.e.- more likely to see compliance if enforcement comes from fire protection officials] More widespread monitoring to identify problematic areas and delinquent property owners. Administration: The Planning Division can gather additional information without additional staffing. Administration: Likely to establish significant staffing resource needs. Code enforcement complaints are likely to experience a significant increase, particularly during the earlier phases of implementation. Implementation and compliance may take significantly more time to achieve given the very large number of parcels and structures in the rural County Costs: Additional costs and possible development review for affected community members. Administration: Unclear if fire protection districts would have interest in administering these standards. If no partnership is established, implementation may fall exclusively on the Community Development Department or the County Forester, which already has limited resources. Costs: Additional costs and possible development review for affected community members. Timing: Waiting may increase implementation challenges or costs in the future. Page 6 of 17 Monitor the State Legislature A number of bills are pending in the 2021 state legislative session relating to wildfire recovery and mitigation. Monitoring the Oregon Legislature has its advantages, as any statewide bills may supersede local efforts. Waiting until the 2021 Legislative Session finishes allows Deschutes County to understand if the State of Oregon initiates a "top -down" approach related to fire-resistant building materials and defensible space and whether there is funding to help local governments with implementation. Conversely, waiting for the Oregon Legislature to finish its regular session has disadvantages. Any proposed wildfire mitigation legislation may require subsequent State agency mapping, rulemaking, or staffing a committee, delaying local wildfire hazard mitigation measures for one or more years. For example, it is possible that the State of Oregon will convene a working group to further evaluate wildfire mitigation measures and report back to the Legislature in 2022 or later. In addition, legislation may not provide local governments with adequate funding for implementation. Additionally, in 2020, many Oregonians expressed frustration with a delayed response from the State. According to State Forester Peter Daugherty, waiting is not the best option: "A lot of people would say, we've been waiting a number of years with fuel build ups and have known about the conditions for almost a decade and of the need for fuel reductions and restoration on federal lands"z Adoption of R327 If the Board directs staff to initiate a process to develop and adopt R327 into DCC, staff will provide the Board with options to develop and initiate the text amendments. Affirming or Altering the Wildfire Hazard Zone The Board may affirm or consider updating the existing Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ). Altering the WHZ would affect implementation of R327 as well as the fire resistant roofing standards. Drafting and Adopting Defensible Space Requirements The Board can amend sections of DCC to require new rural development and accessory structures to implement defensible space standards. The Board would need to determine if defensible space standards would apply to all development, or only new development. When applied only to new development (as with current County defensible space standards in the Forest Zone) these requirements would be evaluated prior to the issuance of building permit or prior to final inspection for any proposed development. 2 https://mailtribune com/news/top-stories/some-oregon-legislators-want-to-wait-until-2021-to-consider-wildfire-bills Page 7 of 17 If the Board directs staff to initiate a process to develop and adopt defensible space standards, staff will provide the Board with options to develop and initiate the text amendments. Additional Information Collection Beyond the outlines identified above, the Board may request staff to collect additional information regarding any outstanding concerns. Electing to gather additional information does not preclude the Board from moving forward with the other possible decision options described above. r • 4 The following section provides a greater level of detail for the proposed amendments, including outcomes for altering the Wildfire Hazard Zone, existing County defensible space programs, defensible space programs from other communities, and the level of local control possible in adopting building code amendments. The section consists of the following discussion categories: 1) R327: Exceptions and Administration 2) Wildfire Hazard Zones 3) Existing Defensible Programs: Deschutes County and Jackson County R327: Exceptions The State Building Codes Division (BCD) amended ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation in January 201 93 . Local governments now have the option of adopting R327 into their regulatory framework. Cities within Deschutes County's building jurisdiction, such as La Pine and Sisters, may locally adopt or opt -out of such rules independently from the County. For the purposes of this project, the focus will remain on unincorporated areas of the County. The amendments require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to use certain types of materials and incorporate specific requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. No individual construction elements can be amended by local governments if R327 is adopted (i.e. - all R327 standards most be applied to relevant properties). R327 includes the following mandatory exceptions that do not allow local control: • Infill Exception: Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. Accessory Structure Exception: Non -habitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the 3 A copy of ORSC R327 is attached to this report for reference Page 8 of 17 lot do not need to comply with R327.4.R327 allows some flexibility in where new standards may be applied. • Initial Exemption: Existing lots in the rural County would be broadly exempted from R327 for a period of three years from the date of adoption. This would establish a more phased -in approach to the new amendments, and would allow local residents and property owners a grace period to prepare for how R327 might affect any proposed development. Perhaps most important, R327 includes the following language: "Nothing in the code or adopting ordinance prevents a local municipality from waiving the requirements of Section R327.4 for any lot, property or dwelling, or the remodel, replacement or reconstruction of a dwelling within the jurisdiction" As written, R327 could allow for exceptions on a property -by -property basis, (or development -by - development) basis. For example: • jurisdictions can exempt parcels which are over or under a certain size. • jurisdictions can exempt parcels which are located in certain zoning designations. • jurisdictions can determine whether additions (with or without size limitations) and remodels of existing structures would be subject to the proposed standards. • jurisdictions can elect whether to apply these standards to individual lots or subdivisions, etc. If adopted and the Board elects to pursue a more targeted implementation of R327, it should outline a specific selection process and applicable criteria for property or development exceptions, such as zoning designations, parcel sizes, etc. The code also requires that the local municipality include a process for resolving disputes related to the applicability of the local ordinance and R327 more broadly. R327: Administration If adopted, implementation of the R327 standards should likely have no major administrative challenges. The Building and Safety Division can implement R327 without additional staffing and these standards would be evaluated along with existing building requirements at the time of residential permit review, provided the exceptions summarized above are minimal and efficient to administer. Of course, the Board would ultimately need to address certain items before proceeding with implementation, such as residential additions and parcel exemptions. Wildfire Hazard Zones If adopted, the provisions of R327 would only apply in designated Wildfire Hazard Zones (WHZs). The County may also elect to apply any new defensible space programs to those areas located in WHZs. Utilizing WHZs as the geographic basis for defensible space programs is an approach which Page 9 of 17 has been utilized by other jurisdictions such as Jackson County, Oregon, whose program is discussed in subsequent sections. WHZs are defined in OAR Chapter 629, Division 44, and are determined by specific Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) criteria. Those criteria are based on the following characteristics4: Weather • Topography • Vegetative Fuel Type • Vegetative Fuel Distribution Each factor is assigned a value from 0-3, with three (3) the most hazardous value. WHZs are those areas where the cumulative value of the hazard rating of all four factors is seven (7) or above. In the present case, all of Deschutes County has an aggregate hazard value of 7.27. In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a WHZ based on these criteria to prohibit untreated wood shake -roofs'. The current WHZ, adopted in 2001, encompasses the entire rural County. As discussed previously, during the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) discussions, committee members fell broadly into two possible categories regarding adoption of R327 and Wildfire Hazard Zones6: 1) The Wildfire Hazard Zone should continue to apply to the entire rural County. 2) The Wildfire Hazard Zone should apply only to Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions which met the applicable ON wildfire hazard criteria. a. In addition, these members recommended the following exemptions to R327: i. Only apply the updated standards to properties within the Forest (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR10) Zones. ii. Only apply the updated standards to newly created lots in the WHZ. b. In essence, these recommendations would not apply R327 standards until a new lot was created in F1, F2, or RR10 zoning districts, which are also located within a designated WHZ. For WMAC members who supported maintaining the status quo, their rationale was: • The current WHZ best depicts the actual hazard threat across the entire County based on the aggregate hazard value. 4 OAR 629-044-0220 5 Ordinance 2001-024 adopted a WHZ 6 A copy of the WMAC final report is attached for reference Page 10 of 17 • The other approaches are based on arbitrary standards (i.e. -no reasonable basis to exempt certain areas, such as CWPP sub -regions). • Altering the existing WHZ would have cascading effects, losing one of the only wildfire mitigation code requirements in place today (i.e. - the prohibition of untreated wood shake - roofs). For WMAC members who supported altering the WHZ, their rationale was: • Increased costs to implement R327 across the entire County. • Diminishing returns from requiring these standards in areas of the County that may have significantly lower wildfire risk than other more vulnerable regions (i.e. - agricultural parcels with irrigated pasture lands, versus heavily forested parcels). As described in the Public Outreach Summary Report, a majority of the respondents in the online survey process favored maintaining the existing WHZ rather than limiting the district to only properties in the Forest and Rural Residential Zones. A plurality, but not a full majority, of the respondents through the phone survey process favored maintaining the existing WHZ rather than limiting the district to only properties in the Forest and Rural Residential Zones. These trends held true across both rural and urban residents; however, there was slightly less support for maintaining the current WHZ when only accounting for rural residents. It should be noted that the public was not asked about the specific approach proposed by one subset of the WMAC, namely reducing the WHZ based of Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions, and then further exempting all remaining properties not within the Forest or Rural Residential Zones from the standards of R327. Due to the complexity of that specific process and the risk of confusing respondents, staff opted to reframe the question into a simpler choice: 1) Maintain the current WHZ 2) Reduce the WHZ to include only Forest and Rural Residential Zones 3) Implement no additional wildfire related building standards There are advantages and disadvantages to both possible approaches recommended by the WMAC. Maintaining the current WHZ would mitigate the need for further code amendments and the additional process that entails. Additionally, it would ensure the broadest possible wildfire mitigation. Altering the WHZ could possibly reduce the overall cost of implementation as a smaller number of parcels would ultimately be affected. However, as described above, altering the current WHZ would create some secondary consequences. The principal impact would be the loss of untreated wooden shake -roofing prohibitions which have been in place County -wide since 2001. Finally, the County may implement more refined WHZ standards than the two general options outlined above. However, the Board should be aware that electing to move forward in this manner will require the County to create a clear methodology for establishing the modified WHZ. A more targeted approach to the WHZ may also create uncertainty for community members regarding Page 11 of 17 whether their specific properties, or portions of their properties, are located within a designated hazard area. As local municipalities have broad exemption latitude under R327, the County may elect to maintain the WHZ as is, while citing property specific exemptions through the local building code adoption process. Defensible Space Programs: Deschutes County Standards Deschutes County currently has existing defensible space standards in place for properties located in Forest Zones (F1 and F2 zoning districts), outlined in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapters 18.36 and 18.407. Under the current program, defensible space standards are required for all new dwellings and permanent structures developed within a Forest Use Zone, including replacement dwellings. The specific standards include (DCC 18.36.070(B) and DCC 18.36.40.070(B)): Firebreaks. The owners of dwellings and structures shall construct and maintain the following firebreaks on land surrounding the structures that is owned or controlled by the owner: 1) Primary Firebreak. Prior to use of the structure, a primary firebreak, not less than 10 feet wide, shall be constructed containing nonflammable materials. This may include lawn, walkways, driveways, gravel borders or other similar materials. 2) Secondary Firebreak. A secondary firebreak of not less than 20 feet shall be constructed outside the primary firebreak. This firebreak need not be bare ground, but can include a lawn, ornamental shrubbery or individual or groups of trees separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. 3) Fuel Break. A fuel break shall be maintained, extending a minimum of 100 feet in all directions around the secondary firebreak. Individual and groups of trees within the fuel break shall be separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Small trees and brush growing underneath larger trees shall be removed to prevent spread of fire up into the crowns of the larger trees. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. The fuel break shall be completed prior to the beginning of the coming fire season. 4) No portion of a tree or any other vegetation shall extend to within 15 feet of the outlet of a stovepipe or chimney. Conformance with the firebreak standards is confirmed through a land use application and decision process. In practice, the applicable fire protection district or a certified fire protection consultant verifies the firebreak standards described above prior to the final inspection of the development by the Building and Safety Division. These same standards are generally upheld in perpetuity through the recording of a Conditions of Approval Agreement. Should the firebreak standards be violated at Copies of DCC 18.36 and 18.40 are attached for reference Page 12 of 17 some point, the property owners may be subject to code enforcement proceedings in order to reestablish compliance. Additionally, the Board adopted defensible space requirements for unprotected lands in 2011, pursuant to DCC Chapter 8.218. Unprotected lands are defined as "...those privately owned wildlands in Deschutes County located outside the boundaries of any forestland protection district, fire protection district, city or the Oregon Department of Forestry." DCC 8.21 requires that owners of unprotected lands shall comply with the applicable defensible space standards. However, certain property owners have discretion for whether or not to apply the defensible space standards: • Developed lands classified as High, Extreme or High Density Extreme under ORS 477.015 to 477.061, which are subject to fire protection by the Oregon Department of Forestry • Vacant lands classified as High Density Extreme under ORS 477.015 to 477.061, which are subject to fire protection by the Oregon Department of Forestry Lands within the city limits of Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters • Lands subject to fire protection from a rural fire protection district or from a county service district Many of these unprotected lands also fall within the Forest Use Zone, and thus have a corresponding planning review component under DCC 18.36 or DCC 18.40. However, there are certain areas of the County outside of Forest Use Zones that also constitute "unprotected lands" as defined in DCC 8.21. For properties that must complywith DCC 8.21, property owners shall provide primary and adjacent secondary fuel breaks for the following areas: 1) For driveways that are longer than 150 feet immediately adjacent to driveways, for a distance of at least 10 (ten) feet on each side of the centerline of the driveway, or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. Including the driving surface, a fuel break shall result in an open area which is not less than 13.5 feet in height and 12 feet in width or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. 2) Adjacent to structures: a. Remove any portion of a tree which extends to within 10 feet of the outlet of a structure chimney or a stove pipe. b. Maintain the portion of any tree which overhangs a structure by removing substantially dead plant material. 8 A copy of DCC 8.21 is attached for reference Page 13 of 17 c. Maintain the area under decks substantially free of firewood, stored flammable building material, leaves, needles, and other flammable material. d. During times of the year when wildfire may be a threat, place firewood, flammable building material, and other similar flammable material at least 20 feet away from a structure or in a fully enclosed space. 3) On vacant lands less than five acres in size, the landowner shall provide fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 and which are immediately adjacent to all: a. Property lines, for a distance of at least twenty (20) feet or to the nearest adjacent property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. b. Roads, for a distance of at least thirty (30) feet from the center of a road, or to the nearest adjacent property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. The specific requirements for primary and secondary fuel breaks are defined in DCC 8.21.060. For those property owners without discretion, all unprotected wildland which does not comply with the standards of DCC 8.21 can be declared to be a hazard and a public nuisance. Nuisance properties are those defined as having inadequate fire protection and the property owner's or occupant's failure to comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21 endangers life, forest resources, or property. If the County Forester learns of a nuisance property, the Forester shall advise the owner or occupant to take proper steps to correct the nuisance condition. If the owner or occupant fails or refuses to correct the nuisance condition within a specified time, then the Forester may undertake work necessary to abate and correct the nuisance condition. Additionally, the owner or occupant of property is liable for the cost of remediation work and any patrol rendered necessary by the failure of the owner or occupant to remedy the nuisance condition. Violations of DCC 8.21 constitutes a Class A violation. The County Forester is authorized to issue citations that charge a person with a violation of DCC 8.21. A person liable for prosecution for a violation of DCC 8.21 is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $720.00 per day the violation exists. Finally, DCC 8.21 also grants the County Forester the authority to reduce or waive any standards or requirements if the Forester finds that specific conditions warrant that approach. Defensible Space Programs: Jackson County Standards To provide some context for how other jurisdictions have addressed defensible space standards, staff has outlined an example from Jackson County, Oregon. Jackson County currently maintains fuel reduction standards under a similar program as Deschutes County's Forest Zone defensible space requirements. Specifically, Section 8.7 of the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance' outlines mandatory standards for all new and existing structures located in areas subject to wildfire hazard as identified on the County's "Hazardous Wildfire Area Map." While broadly similar 9 A copy of Jackson County Land Development Ordinance Chapter 8 is attached for reference Page 14 of 17 to Deschutes County's Forest Zone standards, the Jackson County program is tailored more directly to regions of the County most subject to wildfire hazards, regardless of the underlying zoning district. The general standards of Jackson County's Land Development Ordinance dealing with defensible space include: • A minimum 100-foot fuelbreak must be developed and maintained around all new structures in areas identified on the County's "Hazardous Wildfire Area Map." • Any required fuelbreaks maybe extended onto an adjoining property with a recorded fuelbreak easement. • Fuelbreaks are not required on the side of a property that abuts a county, state or federally improved and maintained road right-of-way, but are required on all other sides. • No riparian habitat may be removed in order to establish fuelbreak. If required fuelbreaks are located within a protected riparian area, a fuelbreak reduction is required for that portion of the required fuelbreak. • Any required fuelbreaks are measured from a structure's outermost walls, combustible decks, or other combustible attachments. The development code contains the following fuelbreak characteristics: Primary Fuelbreaks: o A minimum 50- foot primary fuelbreak is required for all lands identified as a wildfire hazard. o Vegetation within the primary fuelbreak may include grass maintained at less than six (6) inches in height and low fuel volume, fire resistant shrubs. Highly combustible shrubbery, such as juniper, is prohibited. o Trees will be horizontally spaced with more than 15 feet between the trunks, and will be pruned to remove branches that are dead or that are less than 10 vertical feet above the ground. o A 10-foot clearance between branches and stove pipes or chimney outlets must be maintained. Deciduous tree branches must be no closer than 10 feet from the roof, evergreen branches must be no closer the 25 feet from the roof. Accumulated leaves, needles, limbs and other dead vegetation must be removed. o Flammable groundcover materials (i.e. - bark mulch) may not be used in landscaping within 12 inches of buildings. Page 15 of 17 o Firewood piles, slash piles, and woodsheds will be placed at least 30 feet from all structures. Secondary Fuelbreaks: o A minimum 50 foot secondary fuelbreak is required which extends in all directions around the primary fuelbreak. o An additional 50 feet, for a total of 100 feet, will be added to the secondary fuelbreak when the natural slope of the area within 100 feet of the proposed structure exceeds 20 percent. This additional 50 feet is added to the area below and to each side of the proposed structure. o Trees will be spaced with more than 15 horizontal feet between the trunks, and will be pruned to remove branches that are dead or that are less than 10 vertical feet above the ground. Ornamental and fruit trees are excluded from the spacing standards, provided they are kept green and free of dead material. Small trees and brush growing underneath larger trees should be removed. o Dead plant material must be removed, which includes pruning dead branches from trees and shrubs. Understory vegetation may include grass or groundcover maintained at less than 12 inches in height and low fuel volume, fire resistant shrubs. Compliance of all fuelbreak standards are verified through a Fire Safety Inspection as coordinated through Jackson County Development Services and occurs prior to issuance of building permits for a proposed development. Jackson County has specific exemptions to the standards outlined above. Those exemptions include: • Interior remodels are exempt from the wildfire safety requirements. Existing structures that have been lawfully constructed and were in compliance with the permit and regulations in effect at the time of construction are exempt from the fuelbreak distance requirements, and may be expanded or replaced within a lawful nonconforming fuelbreak if: o The expansion/replacement is less than 50% of the square footage of the existing originally approved and constructed building floor plan or 1,000 square feet whichever is less. o Any expansion/replacement is not placed further inside a lawful non -conforming fuelbreak than what currently exists. Page 16 of 17 • Non -habitable structures less than 400 square feet in size, which are not located in a forest zoning district, are exempt from the wildfire safety requirements. Transmission and Utility Towers, which are not located in a forest zoning district, are exempt from the wildfire safety requirements. The fire district having jurisdiction or the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) if not in a fire district may authorize or make the determination that existing trees can remain if it is found that they do not pose a significant wildfire hazard. Beyond these exemptions, Jackson County allows reductions to the fuelbreak standards outlined above in certain scenarios, such as when fuelbreaks are required in a designated riparian habitat area. The County, upon receipt of a written authorization from a designated fire protection district, or the Oregon Department of Forestry, shall approve a reduction in the width of the fuelbreak as prescribed by the controlling agency. While not comprehensive, the summary of the Jackson County standards above illustrates how an Oregon jurisdiction has adapted defensible space requirements into its local development program. Numerous other examples exist from Colorado counties and around the country. This summary may provide useful to the Board when discussing how a Deschutes County defensible space program may be implemented and how certain conflicts and administrative challenges could be addressed. Reference Document Attachments: Document Item No. Jackson County Land Development Ordinance - Chapter 8 10 Deschutes County Code (DCC) - Chapter 8.21 9 Deschutes County Code (DCC) - Chapter 18.40 8 Deschutes County Code (DCC) - Chapter 18.36 7 Wildfire Hazard Zone Maps 6 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation 5 Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Public Outreach Report 4 Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) Final Report 3 Background and Public Outreach Reference Document 2 State Legislature and Implementation Reference Document 1 Page 17 of 17 Jill I ill This reference document consists of the following general categories: 1) A discussion of proposed 2021 legislative bills, which may affect local efforts to reduce wildfire hazard risks. 2) A discussion of the implementation challenges which may affect a County -directed program to reduce wildfire impacts related to development. State Legislature Certain bills pending before the Oregon State Legislature may have a direct effect on County - led wildfire mitigation amendments. Pending bills applicable to Deschutes County may': • Direct the Housing and Community Services Department to study issues relating to building in areas affected by wildfires. • Require local governments to approve reconstruction of manufactured dwelling parks after wildfire. • Require the Director of Department of Consumer and Business Services to prescribe in appropriate specialty codes standards, safeguards and guidelines for incorporating fire prevention and fireproofing or fire resistance measures into construction, repair, renovation, rehabilitation, retrofitting or maintenance of buildings and other structures that are located in areas of this state that are subject to or susceptible to wildfires. • Exempt from construction taxes residential housing being constructed to replace residential housing destroyed or damaged by fire or other emergency event or situation. • Allow temporary siting for up to 24 months of recreational vehicles on properties with dwellings that natural disasters have made uninhabitable. Require a comprehensive statewide map of wildfire risk. Require the establishment of statewide minimum defensible space standards. • Require the Office of Emergency Management to include wildfire in statewide emergency plans and coordinate with cities, counties, and certain facilities. 1 A list of relevant legislative bills, including the relevant bill numbers, involved committees, and sponsors is attached for reference • Require regional analysis of wildfire risks and possible risk reductions. • Require cooperation with federal agencies regarding wildfire and providing for forestland and rangeland fuel load treatment on public and private lands. • Require that all areas have baseline level fire protection. • Establish a Land Use and Wildfire Policy Advisory Committee to recommend how to implement the Governor's Council on Wildfire Response recommendations. Many of the proposed bills are broadly related to recovery from the 2020 wildfire season, and may not have a direct bearing on wildfire mitigation programs undertaken by Deschutes County. These bills are not summarized in this list. However, at least two items are likely to have broad impacts on any local decisions if adopted: • House Bill (HB) 2234: This legislation may have a direct bearing on the County's programs related to fire hardening and defensible space standards for new development. If passed, HB 2234 would require owners of buildings and structures located in areas of Oregon that are susceptible to wildfires to obtain and maintain a fire insurance policy that would enable owners to rebuild or replace buildings or structures. As a condition of this insurance coverage, the buildings or structures themselves would be required to implement specific fire prevention or resistance measures, including, but not limited to, maintenance of space between buildings or structures and sources of combustion that would be sufficient to reduce likelihood of fire damage and increase effectiveness of firefighting efforts. • Senate Bill (SB) 287: This legislation may have a direct bearing on many County programs related to fire hardening and defensible space standards for new development. Among the many items this legislation would establish: o A comprehensive statewide map of wildfire risk. o Minimum defensible space requirements statewide and funding for local facilitation of requirements. o Regional analysis of wildfire risks and possible reduction options including priorities for forestland and rangeland restoration. o An analysis of wildfire risk mitigation and response capacity. o A baseline level fire protection state for all areas. The question for the Board is whether to: 1) Initiate a local process now to affirm or revise the Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) and/or to implement fire hardening or defensible space codes; or 2) Wait until the 2021 Legislature concludes to initiate a local process, recognizing that Legislative actions may result in subsequent mapping or administrative rulemaking processes or committees that may take up to a couple of years to conclude; or 3) Wait until the state processes resulting from Legislative actions conclude to initiate a local process, likely in 1-3 years. Implementation Challenges: R327 and Building Codes The following section attempts to list the major implementation challenges of adopting R327 at the local level: Location: • The primary challenge when implementing R327 is tied directly to the selection area when applying these standards. o As described in preceding sections, R327 can only be applied to those areas of the County formally identified as WHZs, which currently includes the entirety of rural Deschutes County. o Implementation of R327 can be directed in a smaller scale, more refined approach, but this would require a separate process, and may broadly fall into one of the following categories: 1) Reducing the WHZ based on the WMAC recommendations, or a separate proposal. 2) Retaining the existing WHZ, but utilizing the broad local exemption authority in R327 to remove certain properties or developments from the adopted standards. Exemptions could be tailored on a variety of characteristics such as property size, new versus existing parcels, zoning designations, or geographic characteristics of the property itself. • Should the Board elect to alter the existing WHZ, they should be aware of the following outcomes: • The County has existing requirements for fire-resistant roofing which are directly tied to the WHZ, so any alteration of this zone would remove this requirement for certain properties. Selecting a more refined methodology for how to alter the WHZ may be a laborious process and could invite significant contention from various parties throughout the County. This is especially pertinent given that the public outreach process shows that a large portion of community members are supportive of maintaining the WHZ as it currently exists. Exemptions: • R327 allows for municipalities to create targeted exceptions on a property -by - property (or development -by -development) basis. • Adopting R327 with tailored local conditions would need to outline a specific selection process and applicable criteria for property or development exceptions, such as zoning designations, parcel sizes, vegetation/slope considerations, etc. Outside of the geographic location issues for the WHZ and a list of possible exemptions, which may be significant, general administration of the R327 standards is not likely to encounter major challenges. The new standards would be reviewed and evaluated by the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division. Compliance with these standards would be confirmed through the standard building permit review process. Implementation Challenges: Defensible Space The following section identifies major implementation challenges of the proposed code amendments related to adopting defensible space standards. As the program does not have a specific structure or administrative authority, implementation of new defensible space standards is likely to be much more complex than implementation of the R327 standards. At a minimum, the following issues must be considered: Location: • The County will need to identify locations or a location methodology for selecting which areas would be subject to any proposed defensible space standards. • One possible option would follow the Jackson County defensible space program and require fuelbreak treatments for properties located in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. Other options exist. Costs: • The process to consider implementing defensible space standards should factor in costs, resources, partnerships, timing (i.e., phased approaches), wildlife habitat and natural resources, and other factors when weighing implementation options. • Defensible space treatment cost varies widely based on several factors, including density and type of vegetation, and whether or not work has been completed in the past and needs to be maintained or work has not been completed for many years. The following estimates were provided by the Deschutes County Forester based on recent projects completed by the County in cooperation with private landowners: ■ New work in areas that have seen no recent treatment can range in cost from $600 - $3000 per acre. $1200 per acre would be an average cost for a forested area and $800 per acre would be an average cost in a juniper sage steppe setting. ■ On properties that have previously implemented defensible space standards which need to be maintained, the cost of maintenance is estimated to be $125 - $200 per acre on an annual basis. • Given i� the wide diversity of individual properties, the estimates cited above could vary greatly depending on the specifics of the landscape being treated or maintained. For example, it should be noted that some treatments may require extensive removal of existing landscaping such as flammable shrubbery and may incur much higher costs. Conflicting Priorities: • In addition to considering the factors above, conflicts between land use priorities such as wildlife habitat, wetland/riparian areas, and visual buffering will be addressed when evaluating defensible space programs. • As one example, jackson County's defensible space program explicitly requires a fuelbreak reduction process when defensible space areas overlap with riparian zones. • Amore thorough discussion of some possible conflicts can be included as part of the County's forthcoming Wildlife Inventory update project. ■ During the public outreach process for the Wildlife Inventories, the County may engage community members how overlapping interests such as habitat management and defensible space should be addressed. Administration: • Important decisions will be to determine (1) the appropriate section(s) of DCC to amend to include the defensible space requirements; and (2) depending on the section of DCC to amend, identify an administrative entity (i.e., County department / staff or a partner organization) to administer and enforce the code(s). • As described, the County has some existing defensible space requirements for Forest Zoned properties as well as "unprotected lands", defined in DCC 8.21. • Under the present program, the Planning Division administers the defensible space requirements related to zoning districts, while the health and safety defensible space standards (DCC 8.21) are primarily administered by the Deschutes County Forester. • Should the County elect to implement new defensible space standards based on zoning districts, it would require alterations to specific chapters within the Deschutes County Zoning Code (DCC Titles 18 and 19). • Under this scenario, the County may elect to take a very similar approach to existing Forest zone standards, which require defensible space as a condition attached to all new development proposals, including replacement structures. ■ If the County opts to follow this approach, it may have a significant impact on the number of administrative land use decisions, as all new development proposals may be subject to administrative review through the Planning Division to ensure compliance. • Alternatively, provided implementation of the standards does not require discretion, the County may elect to administer a defensible space program in a ministerial manner. In theory, this might require property owners to submit reports from fire protection districts or other certified fire protection officials that all required defensible space standards have been met. These required reports would likely be required during the development review process, possibly prior to final inspection of the proposed structure. • It should be noted that this programmatic structure may require significant compliance resources. Like all land use standards, property owners who fail to comply with defensible space requirements which are codified in the Zoning Code may be subject to code compliance. • Given the large number of developed parcels and residential structures in the rural County, this structure may create an unprecedented number of code compliance complaints and concerns from community members related to defensible space violations. • Conversely, should the County elect to implement new defensible space standards through the established Health and Safety ordinances (DCC Title 8), administration and compliance could become the responsibility of the County Forester, another County department, or a partner organization through contracts or agreements. • The County may elect to engage local fire protection districts to begin a partnership program to implement any standards included under Title 8: • Positively, engaging the fire protection districts for certain administrative duties could reduce upfront review periods for property owners, and would place those duties in line with experts working in wildfire management. In addition, fire protection districts can establish relationships with property owners to both initially establish defensible space and maintain it overtime. • Negatively, if defensible space standards are not tied to specific development proposals (i.e. - building permits), implementation and compliance may take significantly more time to achieve given the very large number of parcels and structures in the rural County. In this scenario, the County may wish to engage fire protection districts and related organizations in public outreach and education efforts to achieve compliance. Exemptions: • The process to establish defensible space standards will also need to identify any possible exemptions, and establish a clear set of standards for determining when exemptions can be granted. C O m ha aJ m aJ 3 m C O hD a) O ri N O N D d v c c -p c .N O J (v to y J O I L tio °�3W°°�3 IA U o. C'O�`a ac'ov o c c m C C J f0 m C C J f0 CD C 4) +O+ iy m X O a! z D c w O f0 C > O C p O v G O aj � tr_ V O W ra L C o t3J +O Z t%f (C •�U-, cu > c v v m 'a i]. Y v v) a)m u m 'in C t0 O 0- 6 in C > O O N' 0 w O c O u 3 D/ Na) +' .a O' C .0 t C O N C 41 �' C C O CL t O O yam. m s c m cca O w- p COD N C O O .-I p CL en CO 1 ; � O M U a M C/ O .Y+ '�>-,, ri >O O. i C C�0 V) N a. .0 a, `� y O O w O C a7 - N N� T m u u C T O U -p C: •_ O -p u 41 C Ocr L •� O p L a -- �� , � to O p� '� Q N C DJ C 4- 'OD � p u ` O U� O u O C d T f6 C 'C + a 0 u, 3 C CD O L 6 C Oc O m C yr 7 °D O O O a e o 0 vi L O O a -p a -O 4, a C 3 +'� v O v CL v m O `�- O `" O c L /a' Q O :a OC > u V1 L C L o o o r W— N m m Cf7 . c v 3 'Y �' p• U o c °' c on Z' �i c 'm CC m +� 3 aci a°i m o aci A .� m> v 40 a a 'cu o- 2 m m c r o E E" o E c a� > c E C O@ ar •� T c c o f °�' adDi O C �_ `_� o o Z C O • L O E L ,n f0 O �- '+� O u 3 y L y V1 -p c O T a O 0 C GJ (D O 'O O C 'O c u O C �- 'i 'C C �«- O m E 0 0 0 p CD �- O O '- C: U U UJ C N :p L '7 Q a iC C �_ O Ou "a6 cr `� O +, C L 7 Y L O O. N O. C OU 7 O' O O 'a N Dl ` U O 'O "O 'O L L N O W N O" Q m �' m °'p O o E a v �' v oOc 3° w 3 ccD m �° v° oN z Dvc 3 aci a` v C 3 C A to to u d CD v C G/ O 2' -O W 0 O V In 4- O u O. 7 Y C IA C7 d > m �O s v 3 0 +� > .+ O O N 0 < cc O .0 E n Z � N m m ri N O N d M m 3 C m c O L O v 4a r.. 'c c O. T C O O u a) W v kn D� a d A d c a c o c U c •� ON y J U aJ J U' a) J V .0 O" 7 O In O �— O O a-0 m a c a v `° c, c '0 v m C C J m m C C C m H O C C m (600 C L a) M M X a! Z a E v d E > �a C >O m C v° a0 u ao a+ En V N E N E u o E :° o f 'S = u = u C m O N C t' �- C C U in Y N O al ' � o N 'O o C a' O O d - O 'o m o O Z a) v Y o u L a� E CA CA M o..n " w o o d c v w `0 aci a� > v"i O -oa 'A a) a> > c> m a -O m a .o E- O �, o o t v v- ` un m oa m d> •`- c u E� a m u o E s m� v '0 m n c a a a r a o. E �, v o 0 0 E 3� aoi d` m m 0 v v, = :.- o W CU v a) u o `° C" O c ul N ©'i "6 d C8.^. U O N 0 a) ,6 v r' W �` -0 N '�� a�� ry C! OU tA L 0 a) ON a m p O a) W C Oma 4a 'a "O N C C Ln OOA C {n LA a m 3 C c m o w n 0o ; a—ci c M 0 3 E 3 y A f° 0 a u t a s m u o 3 -0 +� m E c E •� 4 a �' a, o p o a Ln tn� o oa m v v bo> v o v �' d v m a ' E v> '3 C m m to C al O z E O `� L ++ 2 w O` U m m 4. U C _ E Y � O � m 7. O a `- in a m a) ++ in m 'O al al � 7 -0 p, a! w cr m C U U }, in v Z m 3 E 'pa a 7 O O' a N 'a. W OU O N m E Cy O` w p a p i� OU J to m CD OC m N m m to -0 C tw Oa C U O U m u aJ ha 4.. dA w a) @ m f° M a) a� U a) m 3 cc� v °'a aEi V w a u0i a Cy-i c v o v oc c u M >a d c c w mCL OcrO O V1 i-+ +� E wO p C� 2 m c� W ,�, av mac•` E m` aO.a*' m ` N cc _° Q u c cr- d 0 Z N N c0 cc m 2 2 v cu a a E ° O dS C m coC:ra � �_ O m O m CL CL N w CL)N u a a - > Im > F O � °O iii * iii O.0 U C o O C o O vi cO 4) 4) o2i 0 o?S C m CD bD l]0 L) w `J N J u 41 d d �..r d C V L C u t. ,�,� C V C O O C ;� C _ 3 a c= CL C v v a>° >� ° o O C C Oco C C m e 2 O✓ _cc> co C !0 4) w = m Z u 4) C 4) V (U `o £ a) E u o u 0 C c °v u 0 u v 0 4) () N C O. Q] Eel) N N 4) 4) C= 4) 4) O 4) N .w 1a la aj i 4) E m tw Z+ E N E u a 7 m u c a' E D O E ? u° > 3 x u = u° ` o L O O w 4) tA u N C ate,, d ) E N i� 0 ` C C OO 4-1CO c c° °• CL tn v M a o w °1 u •° °c° o o > to c E O C Q of � p0 L O C d '' C U v 4) ° •d L a C c m .0 ° O �. y n] O '� 47 >O 3 .0 O c� N O` OV 1 3 Oo 4) `n CD m w p y E T � 0 Z• m a f0 (A co. ;� .Q .0 m N C m a_ C 4) C m 0 E O y 4) O u—> O E CO m 0L ° 3 m O u O C 6 C •O 4) C +L 4) `� 4) a 4) E L ad 4) 4) m y 0 .0 M C w w L Ln y E Y O O` O O O 4) cY0 �,,, _0N �,, 4 + O. °_ 4) a O yL,, 4) ++ Q Q cr C N a .6 4) ,n C L m ,n 4) ,n `' �^ L O O ,mi, w O. z E 3 w 0 z u 0 7 y 0 y a u w a u w- ++ L O E ,n ,, ,n X N O W 4' w- Z a 0 Q E a =o m u — v 41 m C C C ^ v oD w x O CL O w CL ,; v .mm C y E ) m 0 ,n C C C •6 C ° 3 m '^ C aJ O c m C m O OD a o� o U °• C c •° v E obD W a c 00 c O ,- o v-0 0 W m a m N ? • a n U @ uc0 V 41 v, a o E v v E v o v v4�'i L 4>i aui mamma 4) 4vi w as a) o` u av o`'� > 3a� L c " CC N oD v= O. a m �•_ O. L C iii `) -0 CO wCC N O —_ m .N m cm G N W 4) O C7 N J OD vvi o v Q °_ � a d � a p m z o d a � m o 0 Z N N N ONO m m m m m 2 S S 2 (U § Ln © Ul k 0 e �7J I to § A §: =«e\ Rkk� � k � 2 / k � @ § � k u » ± � \f : a R dtn otA § 0 { E 6 E °2>-0± W o $ E ©w m 2 2 £fkn 2 ��W$ y c o s o ( k § 2 k 5 E u m c cre2e2 J 8 2 k § E \ j § E cc /c \ / w 2 E0� E�d2 § ( § e % m 7 ¢"§7($ IA mY 0 to cc & $ ) E / § \ f k A � z G _ « a 9 J I I III Fill 1111111111111111111111111111111111 111111 ;;Ill 11111, Project History CDD staff and the Board began discussing a 2015 University of Oregon Community Service Center (CSC) code audit in the fall of 2018. The timing coincided with the State Building Codes Division's (BCD) consideration of an amendment to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to prescribe fire hardening standards (i.e. - building codes to increase resiliency to fire). The Board directed staff to track these standards and revisit options in 2019. The Board appointed the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) in September 2019 to undertake the following objectives: 1) Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629- 044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution). 2) Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards (i.e. - ORSC - R327) in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction in the unincorporated County. 3) Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the CSC audit of Deschutes County Code (DCC) and best practices from other jurisdictions. The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. Staff provided a draft WMAC report to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020 and a final report on April 17, 2020.' The WMAC made two recommendations pertaining to the WHZ and two recommendations in determining where R327 should apply: Six (6) members recommended the WHZ continue to apply to the entire County. • Five (5) members recommended the WHZ be updated based on a landscape approach informed by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions. • Six (6) members recommended R327 apply to the entire County and all existing and new lots, regardless of zone. • Five (5) members recommended utilizing the WHZ based on CWPP sub -regions to inform where R327 should be implemented. From there, the group recommended A copy of the final WMAC report has been included as an attachment R327 apply to newly created lots and replacement dwellings in the Forest Use (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. A majority of the WMAC also recommended requiring throughout the County's jurisdiction: • Defensible space, steep slope setbacks, and access standards for all new development. • Defensible space for all properties, vacant and developed. Establishing a program that shares best practices of wildfire mitigation to the public. Subsequently, Deschutes County received an 18-month, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) Grant to incorporate the WMAC recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. This TA Grant provides a basis for the County to evaluate rural growth and development through a multi- faceted lens, taking into consideration its effect on resource lands, wildlife, natural hazards, economic development, housing, transportation, public facilities, and rural communities. Staff structured the grant tasks so that they will give Deschutes County the resources to evaluate land use interrelationships as part of a future Comprehensive Plan update. These grant tasks included a multi -month period of public outreach to assess public opinion on t`v'Vo possible code changes related to ;q/ildfira mitigation: 1) An update to the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation) which would require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. 2) An update to the Deschutes County Code requiring Defensible Space for all rural residential properties. Public Outreach Results The code amendment proposals described above were outlined in the context of Deschutes County's wildfire history, locations for where these standards may apply, and cost estimates associated with implementation. Deschutes County undertook a multi -pronged outreach approach to address the recommendations provided by the CSC and WMAC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020, public outreach opportunities were limited, and the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildfire mitigation. To ensure the greatest possible opportunity for public involvement, the County considered multiple options for gathering input and ultimately decided on the following options: 1) Communications Plan: Press releases, social media, the department's electronic newsletter and the NextDoor social network to announce a project website, ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based maps with text and photos) and an online survey to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. 2) Open Houses: Two virtual open houses with the Deschutes County Planning Commission on November 19 and December 3, 2020 to discuss the project's history and specifics regarding the proposed mitigation standards, and to raise awareness of and increase participation in the online surveys. 3) Statistically Valid Survev: A statistically valid survey conducted via telephone by Nelson Research, Inc. of residents across Deschutes County to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. The primary public outreach campaign occurred in Fall and early Winter of 2020. Despite the challenges[ presented by the pandemic, these outreach initiatives were quite successful with nearly I,LVV survey respondents across the two iter atiOnIS, over 1,vvv individual viewings of the virtual open -house events, and large numbers of comments submitted through other communication channels. As described to the Board on January 20, 2021, residents appear to be broadly supportive of both possible code amendments. This support also broadly held true for both rural and urban residents, with slightly greater support among urban residents. However, the County also recognizes and respects that depending on the specific proposal, between 21 and 44 percent of residents appear to be not supportive, continue to have questions, or are uncertain. In addition, residents generally appear comfortable with a range of possible cost increases that may be incurred through the implementation of the building code measures. To provide relative cost context for the proposed building materials standards, residents were asked how much they would be willing to add to the construction cost of a 2,400 square - foot home to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Residents were given a total range of between $0 and over $6,000. The range of proposed estimates was based on a wide variety of resources, including the local building official, the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), and various real estate agencies working in the region. The largest number of respondents were willing to spend up to $6,000. When combined with respondents willing to spend $6,000 or more, a majority of the total respondents were willing to incorporate the proposed building code changes. Again, this level of support held relatively steady across both urban and rural residents, with slightly greater support among urban residents. After conversations with the Planning Commission, staff incorporated some additional context to the public outreach report, including: A formal description of the methodology employed by Nelson Research when conducting the statistically valid phone survey. A more thorough discussion of the discrepancies between the online County survey results and the phone survey results from Nelson Research. A discussion of the limitations in the public outreach process. To provide an overview of these additional items, staff includes the following items: • Uncertainties: A number of respondents (generally between 10 and 20 percent) to both surveys were uncomfortable stating their support or lack of support for any proposed wildfire mitigation amendments without additional information in how these items would be implemented. • Unfortunately, the specific mechanics of how certain items (such as defensible standards) would be implemented could not be provided to respondents at this time, as those variables would need to be decided at a future date by the Board. However, it is important to note that even if all undecided respondents ultimately elected not to support possible mitigation amendments, a majority of respondents would still be supportive of both updated building material and defensible space standards. Survey Discrepancies: Staff notes that there were some differences between the two survey processes and outcomes, which are worth describing: A much greater share of the online survey respondents stated that they perceive themselves as being "somewhat' or "extremely" vulnerable to wildfire impacts. It is unclear why phone survey respondents perceived a lower level of vulnerability than online survey respondents, but staff highlights two possible explanations: 1) The online survey was coupled with the County's StoryMap feature, which provided an overview of Deschutes County's wildfire history and current mitigation initiatives. This feature may have provided respondents with a more informed understanding of wildfire trends within the region, as opposed to personal anecdotes and experiences which may establish a skewed perspective of wildfire risks for certain residents. 2) Based on the County's preference, Nelson Research weighted the selected sample size to account for rural residents much more heavily than urban residents (25 percent urban, versus 75 percent rural). During the phone survey process, the selected sample population created a much larger share of older residents whose perceived vulnerability may be based on a time -period (30+ years) with a relatively low prevalence of wildfire events. In parallel, some rural residents may already participate in voluntary wildfire mitigation actions such as FireFree2 and perceive their overall risks as lower. • Support for all proposed amendments was slightly lower among phone survey respondents versus online survey respondents, including slightly less support among phone survey respondents for preserving the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone and for expending any additional resources to implement new standards. Again, it is unclear what exactly accounts for the discrepancy between the two surveys. However, staff again points out that the phone survey did have a greater weighting towards rural residents versus urban residents (75 percent rural for the phone survey, and 62 percent rural for the online survey). This unequal distribution may account for some of the difference between the two surveys. It is important to note that even when accounting for the difference between the surveys, a majority of respondents across both methods were supportive of the proposed amendments. • Non -Developmental and Educational Factors: A number of comments and concerns were raised by community members throughout the outreach process related to items such as public education on safe fire practices (such as when/how to burn yard debris) and the role of outdoor recreation in wildfire ignition. z https://www firefree oZdirefreeevents/ The County acknowledges the significant role that educational programs may have in reducing human caused wildfire ignition within the Central Oregon region. Many agencies, such as local fire protection districts and the United States Forest Service frequently undertake public education campaigns to reduce human caused fire ignition, particularly during periods of high fire danger. The County may consider expanding partnerships and collaboration with these and related organizations to increase public and property owner outreach and education. The possible mitigation measures referenced herein are an attempt to reduce wildfire risks associated with new and existing development, neighborhoods, and communities. Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee Final Report April 17, 2020 Prepared By: Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97703 E TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 II. Overview & Background.................................................................................................................... 2 III. Wildfire Hazard Zone Background...................................................................................................................................... 4 Oregon Dept. of Forestry Criteria - Hazard Rating Factors & Values ........................................ 5 Oregon Dept. of Forestry - Geographic Area............................................................................... 7 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 7 IV. Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Background...................................................................................................................................... 9 CostImpacts.................................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 10 V. Land Use Background...................................................................................................................................... 11 KeyIssues......................................................................................................................................... 12 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 12 Implementation............................................................................................................................... 13 List of Tables Table1.............................................................................................................................................. 3 - ---- - ..................................... Table 2................................................... == = --------.---.------------ 5 Table3.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table4.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table5.............................................................................................................................................. 8 List of Figures Figure1............................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure2............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure3............................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure4............................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure5............................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure6............................................................................................................................................. 14 Attachments A. Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones B. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - Entire County (status quo) C. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - CWPP Sub -regions (raw values) D. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - CWPP Sub -regions (rounded values) E. Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) - R327 F. Recommended R327 Implementation Map (for newly created lots) - With Exception Areas G. Recommended R327 Implementation Map - Entire County, No Exceptions H. Summary of R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation I. Hazard Map - Raw Data (by color) I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Board of County Commissioners (Board) appointed the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) in September 2019 to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. The WMAC made two recommendations pertaining to the WHZ and two recommendations in determining where R327 should apply: • Six (6) members recommended the WHZ continue to apply to the entire County; and r • •L%AIU7 ho tnrl haenrl nn a landscape approach rive (5) members recommended the vv1 IL tJcupuatcu "U- vrinformed by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions.' • Six (6) members recommended R327 apply to the entire County and all existing and new lots, regardless of zone. • Five (5) members recommended utilizing the WHZ based on CWPP sub -regions to inform where R327 should be implemented. From there, the group recommended R327 apply to newly created lots and replacement dwellings in the Forest Use (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. A majority of the WMAC also recommended requiring throughout the County's jurisdiction: • Defensible space, steep slope setbacks, and access standards for all new development; • Defensible space for all properties, vacant and developed; • Establishing a program that shares best practices of wildfire mitigation to the public. ' Several CWPP sub -regions would not be within the WHZ because the hazard level score was below the prescribed threshold. See Attachments C & D for more details. - 1 - II. OVERVIEW & BACKGROUND Community Development Department (CDD) staff and the Board began discussing a 2015 University of Oregon Community Service Center (CSC) code audit in the fall of 2018. The timing coincided with the State Building Codes Division's (BCD) consideration of an amendment - referred to as Appendix W - to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to prescribe fire hardening standards, i.e., building codes to increase resiliency to fire. The Board directed staff to track Appendix W and revisit options in 2019. Possible options were: • Comment on any proposed wildfire hardening measures considered by BCD Adopt the CSC's recommendations resulting from their code audit Create a working group to review and recommend options for the County to mitigate the risk of wildfire losses Appendix W officially became part of ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation once it was approved by the BCD in January 2019. The BCD structured the amendments of R327 to permit jurisdictions the flexibility to decide whether and how to implement the new wildfire hardening regulations. The following outcomes occurred in 2019: • January - BCD revises R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation in ORSC. • February - Board directs staff to explore how and where the updated R327 might be implemented and to identify potential impacts and issues. • March / April - Staff obtains data and creates various maps based on ODF criteria. • May - Staff conducts a stakeholder meeting with fire districts, building officials, and County planning commissioners, in addition to building and real estate associations. • June - Staff shares WHZ data, potential maps, and stakeholder feedback with the Board. • July - One of the Board's Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Goals was to "Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services."An objective to achieve this goal was to "Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters." Based on this input, CDD's 2019-20 Work Plan included an action item to: "Consider implementing wildfire mitigation recommendations from the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) code audit, coordinate with the Deschutes County Forester, and consider adopting a new Wildfire Hazard Zone." Board agrees to create a working group to review and recommend if the County's WHZ should be updated and where/how it should apply. 2 The Board submitted comments to the BCD to encourage local jurisdiction's the option to implement Appendix W instead of such regulations being mandated by the State. -2- • August -Staff initiates an open recruitment for working group, i.e., WMAC, volunteers. • September - Board appoints WMAC and sets objectives. October - WMAC convenes biweekly meetings. Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee Table 1 lists the WMAC membership: Table 1 - Membership Name Organization / Background Region Brent Landels Realtor - Re/Max Bend Brian Braddock Farmers Insurance (Retired) Bend Geoffrey Reynolds Home Owner Bend Jim Beeger Planning Commissioner Bend Jim Figurski Landscape Architect Bend Joe Foran Fuels Management - BLM (Retired) La Pine Karna Gustafson Central OR Builders Association Bend Ken Kehmna Redmond Fire and Rescue Redmond Martha Meeker Home Owner Sisters Matt Van Coutren Hayden Homes Redmond Roger Johnson Sisters -Camp Sherman Fire Dist. Sisters Tyler Neese Central OR Assoc. of Realtors Bend The WMAC met a total of nine (9) times between October 2019 and January 2020. General information, meeting agendas, minutes and supporting documents were available online at a project specific website: www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. Figure I - Initial WMAC meeting. County Legal Counsel summarizes public meeting laws. -3- III. WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONE BACKGROUND WHZs, defined in OAR Chapter 629, Division 44, are determined by specific ODF criteria.3 In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a WHZ based on these criteria to prohibit shake-roofs.4 The WHZ encompassed the entire County, as depicted in Figure 2. DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS Exhibit "B" � �',, l �, �H � tl n .a. 6Uigtiahra NiaWty Mr a 1 Xs Figure 2—Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone (in light pink), adopted in 2001. The BCD revised R327 on January 24, 2019 to allow jurisdictions the ability to require additional wildfire hardening measures for residential structures. These standards apply to qualifying lots of record as defined in the rule using the ODF criteria. This caused the County to consider updating the WHZ to inform where R327 may be implemented.' This section summarizes the ODF criteria, including the: 1. Hazard rating factors and values necessary to establish WHZs; and 2. The geographic area for the WHZ. 3 OAR 629-044-0220. 4 Ordinance 2001-024 adopted a WHZ. 5 R327 can only be implemented within a designated Wildfire Hazard Zone. -4- ODF CRITERIA - HAZARD RATING FACTORS & VALUES OAR Chapter 629 Division 44 prescribes specific hazard rating factors that determine how a WHZ shall be established. The "Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones," Attachment A, describes each factor. The criteria are: • Weather • Topography • Vegetative Fuel Type • Vegetative Fuel Distribution Each factor is assigned a value from 0-3, with three (3) the most hazardous value. Wildfire hazard zones are those areas where the cumulative value of the hazard rating of all four factors is seven (7) or above. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) served as a tool to collect and map federal/national data, assign values to each factor, display information at a variety of geographical scales, and summarize the information into an overall hazard value. Fire Weather Hazard Factor The State assigns each county a fire weather hazard value, from 0-3, with the three (3) the highest value. Deschutes County is assigned a score of three (3).6 Topography Hazard Factor United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps are assigned points based on slope percentage: Table 2 - Topography Hazard Values Slope Value 0-3 % 0 3-12% 1 12-20% 2 >20% 3 Natural Vegetative Fuel Type Hazard Factor Vegetative fuel type values are assigned based on fuel type(s) existing across a landscape.' Fuel hazards are categorized generally into grass, shrub, and timber and further divided into fuel types. Of the 13 total fuel types described in the General Technical Report INT-122, OAR 629-044-0250 6 For comparison, Columbia County, northwest of Portland, is categorized as a two (2) for weather hazard. ' 'Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior" published by the Forest Service, USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1982 as General Technical Report INT-122 was used as the reference for establishing the natural vegetative fuel hazard factor. Staff acquired the latest data for the fuel models from LANDFIRE. -5- considers fuel types 1-6 and 8-10. Fuel type 7 is not present in Oregon and fuels types 11-13 are slash fuel types. Natural Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Factor Fuel distribution varies throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel distribution as a percent of cover:' Table 3 - Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Values Percent of Cover Value 0-10% 0 10-25% 1 25-40% 2 40-100% 3 Figure 3 is a composite map that overlays each criterion.9 The red areas indicate a hazard area, i.e., combined score of seven (7) and above. 4� -20 +. M � t y eYY75,11t, S � � L � �{t 4 !{ sp£ y .�. �+ K3"9 � :e^•:1�p4 kD 1 tr ,i{ ✓ 1_ e 01 r= �, �� "'��+ �� "�? :t�, `� ° `✓a M-lif� Figure 3 - Wildfire hazard throughout County according to prescribed ODF criteria. 8 Landfire data was used for fuel distribution analysis. 9 Figure 3 is also provided as Attachment I for easier readability. -6- ODF - GEOGRAPHIC AREA OAR Chapter 629-044-0200 sets forth the fire hazard factors (above) while allowing jurisdictions to determine the "appropriate geographic areas and associated hazard values." The geographic area may be the entire jurisdiction or a smaller segment based on natural geographic features,10 land features" or another landscape approach.92 The OAR defines: "'Geographic Area' [as an] area which results from the partitioning of all or portions of a jurisdiction into smaller segments, based on the presence of differing values." The WMAC considered seven (7) potential geographic areas based on landscape approaches as the basis for determining the WHZ. The hazard values depicted in Figure 3 could be structured to provide a hazard level for any number of landscape approaches. The Committee reviewed the following options to determine an appropriate landscape approach: • School districts • Fire districts • Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) boundaries • CWPP Sub -regions • County boundary In addition, members considered the appropriate methodology to establish values for each area, i.e., raw numbers or rounding. For example, 23 CvvrP sub -regions have hazard values above seven (7), meaning they qualify as a WHZ. Alternatively, if values are rounded up from a half point (0.5) to the next full value, a total of 33 CWWP sub -regions would qualify as WHZs. RECOMMENDATIONS Table 4 lists the WMAC's votes on seven (7) landscape approaches. Voting options for each map included: green - support; yellow - unsure; red - do not support. Table 4 - Votes on Seven Landscape Approaches 10 The OAR defines "Natural Geographic Features" as "streams, ridge lines and other features naturally occurring." 11 The OAR defines "Land Features" as "roads, jurisdictional boundaries and other features created by human activity." 12 The OAR does not define "landscape approach". -7- Fire District Boundaries (rounded 5 3 4 values) Fire District Boundaries (raw 5 3 4 values) CWPP (with no Sub- 11 0 1 regions) School District 12 0 0 Boundaries Status -quo (entire 5 2 5 County as WHZ) The top three (3) landscape approaches were: 1. Status quo - entire County (7.27 hazard value) 2. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Sub -regions -raw values 3. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Sub -regions -rounded values The WMAC voted a second time on the top three (3) landscape approaches. Table 5 summarizes the second round of votes. Table 5 - Votes for Top 3 Draft WHZ Maps Vote Map Type Yellow Green CWPP Sub -regions 7 3 1 (rounded values) CWPP Sub -regions 5 1 5 (raw values) Status -quo (entire 4 1 6 County as WHZ) Keeping the status quo for the WHZ landscape approach, where the entire County is considered a wildfire hazard, received the most votes (Attachment B), followed by the CWPP Sub -regions (raw values) approach (Attachment Q. The CWPP Sub -regions (rounded values) approach received the least amount of support (Attachment D). WMAC members supporting the status quo said: • It best depicts the hazard threat across the entire county; • The other approaches are based on arbitrary standards (no reasonable basis to exempt certain areas, such as the CWPP sub -regions); and • Concern of losing one of the only wildfire mitigation code requirements in effect today, i.e., prohibition of shake roofs.13 13 Deschutes County's existing prohibition of wood shake roofs may be compromised if the WHZ is amended to exempt some areas. The ordinance prohibiting shake roofs (2001-024) is tied to the WHZ. -8- IV. ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation BACKGROUND The BCD amended ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation in January 2019 (Attachment Q. R327 is optional for local governments to implement; it is not mandatory. The amendments require new construction in a WHZ to use certain types of materials and incorporate specific requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors.14 Political subdivisions within Deschutes Figure 4-Staff utilizes live GISto facilitate a discussion. County's building jurisdiction, such as the cities of La Pine and Sisters, may locally adopt or opt -out of such rules independently from the County. The WMAC recommendations on R327 were focused on the unincorporated areas of the County. A primary objective of the WMAC was to review and recommend whether and how to apply R327 construction standards in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction. R327 has several built-in exceptions and allows local control to implement wildfire hardening standards. For example, subdivisions more than 50-percent built out are automatically exempted from the requirements. Further, a jurisdiction can exempt parcels over/under a certain size or limit the new standards to specific zoning districts. COST IMPACTS WMAC members discussed cost impacts to implement R327 throughout the process. Project Management Team members and WMAC members shared information on the potential costs of requiring specific construction materials and hardening standards. Comparing costs from a standard single-family residential dwelling to one built to comply with the R327 standards ranged from $0 to $15,000.15 The WMAC recognized that building a single-family residence to R327 standards would likely increase construction costs, but did not agree on how much it would cost. The WMAC was split in determining whether added construction costs outweighed the increase in public safety, which resulted in two recommendations on the WHZ and R327 implementation standards. 14 In addition to the actual ORSC R327 code, a written summary of the requirements was provided to the WMAC (Attachment H). 15 Cost estimates from BCD, Headwater Economics, County staff and WMAC members can be found on the project website: www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. -9- RECOMMENDATIONS WMAC members separated into two groups based on the preferred WHZ recommendation (the CWPP Sub -regions or the entire County) to recommend exceptions to the R327 standards:16 1. The CWPP Sub -region WHZ group recommended R327: a. Apply to newly created lots in the Rural Residential (RR-10), Forest Use 1 and Forest Use 2 zones. Attachment F depicts the area where newly created lots would be subject to R327. b. Exclude all existing lots County wide, and new lots in the zones not mentioned above.17 The entire County WHZ group recommended applying R327 to all existing and new lots under the County's building jurisdiction.18 Attachment G depicts the existing and new lots subject to R327. t6 For information regarding the decisions and factors WMAC members considered in developing the recommendations, see the December 16, 2019 meeting materials: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/11797/w mac meeting packet 2019-12-02.pdf 17 Initially, the group considered implementing R327 to a certain buffer around a UGB, as well as a set distance from unincorporated communities. However, the group decided not to pursue this option due to the shortcomings and complications of such an approach because UGBs are expected to expand. 18 This group explained that using an arbitrary distance from a UGB would be meaningless. There was some consideration of exempting the requirements in the County's resource zones (Exclusive Farm Use and Forest Use), but the group determined such areas are also hazardous. -10- V. LAND USE BACKGROUND Deschutes County utilizes several regulatory programs to address wildfire hazards. The following list summarizes the County's current approach to wildfire mitigation: • Consistent with State law, the Forest Use 1 and 2 zones require compliance with defensible space, access, and water supply standards (DCC 18.36.070 - 18.36.080 / 18.40.070 - 18.40.080).' 9 • Destination resorts are required to implement a wildfire management plan to ensure safe evacuations and that hazards are minimized 18.113.070(H).20 • The Board declared Deschutes County a WHZ in its entirety in 2001, consistent with ORS 93.270(4) in order to require a minimum Class C roofing and to prohibit the use of untreated wood roof coverings (Ordinance 2001-024).21 • Defensible space requirements for unprotected lands were adopted in 2011, in DCC Chapter 8.21 (Ordinance 2011-011).22 • In October 2016, conditional use permit criteria were applied to Tree Farm, LLC, a cluster development, requiring wildfire mitigation standards including defensible space and residential sprinklers (file nos. 247-14-000242-CU / 243-TU / et 0/).23 • The Westside Transect Zone, approved in January 2019, requires all land divisions to submit a master plan that contains a wildfire mitigation plan (file nos. 247-18-000612-ZC / 613-PA / 614-TA).24 In 2015, CDD contracted with the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) to conduct a review of the Deschutes County Code consistent with direction in Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 (Rural Growth/Natural Hazards). The review focused on improving development regulations that address wildfire and flooding. The intent of the work was to help the County 19 https://weblink deschutes org/Public/DocView.aspx?id=4021&dbid=0&repo=LFPUB 20 httpss•//weblink deschutes off/Public/DocView.aspx?id=4006&dbid=0&repo=LFPUB 21Ordinance 2001-024 is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/ord inance 2001-024.pdf 22Ordinance 2011-011 is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/ord inance 2011-011.pdf 23 The Board's decision on the Tree Farm proposal is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/boc c approval tree farm 1.pdf 24 The Board's decision on the Westside Transect Zone is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/20 19-40-ordinance no. 2019-001 recorded 1222019.odf -11- understand the implications of land use regulations on development in areas affected by natural hazards and to develop a set of programmatic options on how to best manage those impacts. The project focused on researching model ordinances and best management practices for mitigating the effects of wildfire and flood on development.25 The final report highlighted potential changes to update Deschutes County's zoning code.26 Best practices have evolved since the report's completion in 2015. The WMAC considered updated best practices from a variety of sources, including jurisdictions across the West, to supplement the 2015 CSC report. KEY ISSUES The WMAC evaluated establishing new or strengthening existing land use code provisions pertaining to: • Defensible space • Steep slopes • Access • Water supply • Signs / property addresses • Gate requirements Figure 5 - Staff explains implementation options. The WMAC determined that several options were adequately addressed in the Oregon Fire Code and/or the ORSC, i.e., water supply, signs / property address, gate requirements. Additionally, the WMAC considered potential costs associated with implementing each land use approach. For example, defensible space treatment costs vary widely ($125 - $3,000 an acre) based on density and type of vegetation, and whether or not annual maintenance is regularly completed. Cost estimates for other possible land use regulations were either not available or not discussed in detail. 25 DCC was amended in 2019 in part to implement recommendations pertaining to flood hazards (reference file nos. 247-19-000530-TA / 532-TA / 533-PA). 26 The CSC Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review is available online at www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. -12- RECOMMENDATIONS A majority of the WMAC recommended the following land use regulations to the Board for further consideration. Defensible Space Expand defensible space requirements beyond unprotected lands as currently required by DCC 8.21 to all lands throughout the County, with some exceptions. Further details of a potential defensible space regulation are summarized below: • Standards should be applied to all new and existing structures.27 • Vacant properties less than five (5) acres in size should be subject to defensible space requirements.28 • Fuel break requirements should apply to driveways greater than 150 feet in length. The WMAC also recommended the County educate (not require) property owners to use non- combustible fencing attachments to structures and locate other combustible items such as firewood, building materials, furniture, etc. away from residential structures. Steep Slopes A majority of WMAC members recommended an ordinance that would require building setbacks fromf r lopes and limit r4mininnment nn clnncc in PYrPcc of a cnarifir ararie 29 Detail- should II sleep-1Vr./CJ u11u III III ua..v�.IvN ��+-•+ "1"••••-- O• be determined at a later date with feedback from the public and fire representatives. Access The WMAC unanimously supported requiring wildfire -safety specific access requirements to all new developments. Such standards should include specific surface(s) capable of supporting a minimum gross vehicle weight, minimum widths, maximum grade, road clearance, and turnaround options. The WMAC did not support requiring access standards to existing developments, but did support the County encouraging such standards as best practices. 27 The WMAC supported the concept of an implementation grace period and recommended the County explore incentives and/or an outreach program. 28 There was less support for requiring defensible space to all vacant lots, regardless of size (5 in favor - 3 unsure - 2 opposed). 29 Four (4) members supported such a standard throughout the County, three (3) opposed, and two (2) voted for such a standard to be advisory only. -13- IMPLEMENTATION The WMAC discussed the following implementation strategies for the three (3) recommended land use approaches summarized above: • Regulations should be easily understood by the average property owner. • Application costs for County review should be kept to a minimum. • Property owners should not be required to hire a professional, e.g., land use consultant, attorney, engineer, to complete and/or submit an application demonstrating compliance with the standards. In addition, hand -drawn site plans should be acceptable. • Regulations should have an inspection component to ensure compliance. • Establish a process that can only be appealable by the applicant and no other parties. • Seek education and voluntary compliance prior to enforcement penalties. • Seek grants and other financial aid to help property owners with limited incomes comply with the regulations. Figure 6 - WMAC group photo. (Committee member Brian Braddock not pictured.) -14- ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones 1) Overview Determination of wildfire hazard zones are based on four criteria. Each of the four factors is ranked 0-3 with 3 being the most hazardous value. Wildfire hazard zones are those areas where the sum of all the hazards totals 7 or more. The four factors are: - Fire weather hazard - Topography hazard - Vegetative fuel hazard - Fuel distribution hazard We can use a Geographic Information System (GIS) to collect this data into layers, assign the related points to each factor, display it at a variety of scales and summarize it into an overall hazard score. Deschutes County has done preliminary work to acquire and summarize this data in GIS. This data can be displayed in committee meetings. Before we look at the actual data and how it could be summarized the committee should first have an understanding of each factor and how they interact to create potential wildfire hazard zones. ATTACHMENT A 2) Wildfire Hazard Zones 629-044-0220 (1) For the convenience of administration, when practical, a jurisdiction may utilize nearby natural geographic features or land features to delineate the boundaries of Wildfire Hazard Zones. (2) It is not the intent of OAR 629, division 044 that Wildfire Hazard Zones be determined on a tax lot or an ownership specific basis, but rather that a landscape approach be used. Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on what is the appropriate scale (using a landscape approach) and what geographic features or land features should be used, considering the administration of the associated rules the map will be related to (e.g. do not split tax lots, neighborhoods). 3) Fire Weather Hazard Factor 62-044-0230 Deschutes County is assigned one factor, 3, for the entire County. This is assigned by statute. A factor of 3 is the highest risk level for weather hazard. For comparison, Columbia County, northwest of Portland, is categorized as a 2 for weather hazard. 4) Topography Hazard Factor 629-044-0240 Slopes vary throughout the County, USGS topography maps are used to assign points based on the steepness of slopes. • Slopes 00-03%= 0 • Slopes 03-12%= 1 • Slopes 12-20% = 2 • Slopes 20+% = 3 5) Natural Vegetative Fuel Hazard Factor_629-044-0250 Fuel types vary throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel type(s) present, as described beginning on the next page. The reference for establishing the natural vegetative fuel hazard factor shall be the "Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior" published by the Forest Service USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1982 as General Technical Report INT-122. The County has acquired the latest LandfireTm data for the fuel models described in INT-122. This data is available at a 30 meter resolution, meaning there is a fuel model estimated for every 30 meter square across the entire county. This data can be summarized over a larger geographic area. This is likely the most consistent and objective data available for use and can be used to inform this hazard factor. "LANDFIRE (LF) delivers vegetation, fuel, disturbance, and fire regimes geospatial data products for the entire nation. Methods are based on peer -reviewed science from multiple fields. LF products are consistent, comprehensive, and standardized, resulting in multiple applications to fire, fuel, and natural resources." Link to metadata ATTACHMENT A Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on if this data set should be used. If so, how should it be summarized consistent with the decision called for under section 2? If not, what alternate data should be used? Points are assigned by fuel type. Fuel hazards are categorized generally into grass, shrub, and timber and further divided into fuel types. Of the 13 total fuel types described in INT-122, OAR 629-044-0250 considers fuel types 1- 6 and 8-10. Fuel type 7 is not present in Oregon and fuels types 11-13 are slash fuel types. • Little or no natural vegetative fuels present — 0 points • Grass. Very little shrub or timber is present, generally less than one-third of the area. Main fuel is generally less than two feet in height. Fires are surface fires that move rapidly through cured grass and associated material. (Fuel model 1) — 3 points Photo T. Western annual grasses such as cheatgrass, rnedusahead ryegrass,and fescues" Photo 2" Lave oak savanna of the South- west on the Coronado Nabonak Forest. Photo 3. Open pane --grasslands on the Lewis and Clark National Forest" .`s,J i'i1 II ..:...}, of A/ iC.l 41 E. i o-a%a' /o, 1`1 �:..''s H°t ,F.. i.. i <,%E:'- 3 C'. 8 ATTACHMENT A Grass. Open shrub lands and pine stands or scrub oak stands that cover one-third to two-thirds of the area. Main fuel is generally less that two feet in height. Fires are surface fires that spread primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. (Fuel model 2) — 3 points. Photo 4. Open ponderosa prase stand wAh annual grass understory. Photo a. Scattered sage wathrn grass. lands on the Payette National Forest. Grass. Beach grasses, prairie grasses, marshland grasses and wild or cultivated grains that have not been harvested. Main fuel is generally less than four feet in height, but considerable variation may occur. Fires are the most intense of the grass group and display high rates of spread under the influence of wind. (Fuel model3) — 3points. Photo 7. tOeadow (oxtaal an Oregon prairie and: mea+dowland. 5 C7 rii c.i }( of Wldif-H> ), .e f ` I cri'i('c i WA!_. of 8 ATTACHMENT A • Shrubs. Stands of mature shrubs have foliage known for its flammability, such as gorse, manzanita and snowberry. Main fuel is generally six feet or more tall. Fires burn with high intensity and spread very rapidly. (Fuel model4) — 3 points. Photo 10. Chaparral cornposed of man= tan to and chamise near the Inaja Fire Memorial, Cahf. • Shrubs. Young shrubs with little dead material and having foliage not known for its flammability, such as laurel, vine maple and alders. Main fuel is generally three feet tall or less. Fires are generally carried in the surface fuels and are generally not very intense. (Fuel model 5) — 1 point. Photo 13. Green, to-w shrub Fields within tirnber stands or wsthout over - story are typic.aL Example is Douglasvfi,,-snowbeuy haba - tat type. (photo t4. Regenerataon shrublands after fire or other drstufbances have a large green fuel component, Suridance Fire, Fuck River Area, Waho. t.Jri-ffrna, ry'°'I WiIdfiw If.,7<iil( /'o''I"1e (ilGiil:., ij' c: IP ATTACHMENT A • Shrubs. Older shrubs with foliage having a flammability less than fuel model 4, but more than fuel model 5. Widely spaced juniper and sagebrush are represented by this group. Main fuel is generally less than six feet in height. Fires will drop to the ground at low wind speeds and in stand openings. (Fuel model 6) — 2 points. y,, e Photo 1:5. Pinionatuniper with sagebrush tear By, Nev.: understory mainly sage with some grass intermixed. • Timber. Areas of timber with little undergrowth and small amounts of litter buildup. Healthy stands of lodgepole pine, spruce, fir and larch are represented by this group. Fires will burn only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidities and high winds. (Fuel model 8) —1 point. Photo 22. Surface litter fuels in western hemlock stands of Oregon and Washington. Photo 2:3. Understory of inland Douglas= hr has little fuel here to add to dead down litter load. Photo 24. Closed stand of birch aspen with leaf €fitter compacted. cz� (t�'fl'lj / U.r:l <) �fr f"l (r,c i IN ��6... I e3P !I C ATTACHMENT A • Timber. Areas of timber with more surface litter than fuel model 8. Closed stands of healthy ponderosa pine and white oak are in this fuel model. Spread of fires will be aided by rolling or blowing leaves. (Fuel model 9) — 2 points. Photo 27. Long needle Brest floor litter in ponderosa pane stand near Aluerton, N4,unt. • Timber. Areas of timber with heavy buildups of ground litter caused by overmaturity or natural events of wind throw or insect infestations. Fires are difficult to control due to large extent of ground fuel. (Fuel model 10) — 3 points. Photo 29. Mixed conder stand with dead. domrn woody fuels. Photo 30� Spruce habitat type where successson or natural distur- bance can produce a heavy downed suet toad. ` (,4t?k na,r ( of \Njid',i! C i .Z%. 3 /Ci(l i @ iE\Ad, ATTACHMENT A 6) Natural Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Factor 629-044-0260 Fuel distribution varies throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel distribution as a percent of cover as follows. • 0 to 10% of the area = 0 • 10 to 25% of the area = 1 • 25 to 40% of the area = 2 • 40 to 100% of the area = 3 The County has acquired the latest LandfireTm data for fuel distribution. This data is available at a 30 meter resolution, meaning there is a fuel distribution estimated for every 30 meter square across the entire county. This data can be summarized over a larger geographic area. This is likely the most consistent and objective data available for use. "LANDFIRE (LF) delivers vegetation, fuel, disturbance, and fire regimes geospatial data products for the entire nation. Methods are based on peer -reviewed science from multiple fields. LF products are consistent, comprehensive, and standardized, resulting in multiple applications to fire, fuel, and natural resources." Link to metadata Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on if this data set should be used? If so, how should it be summarized consistent with the decision called for under section 2? If not, what alternate data should be used? '("ii id� j' "'.I lit/! YIII" i ,._aI``� / nes 11 f/1i. ,e 8 :"I. Ul ci 0 N z�@=p9 .. azpFFa:� W N 12 Ull 1 v Nin .2 c c a a = �N O U) 0 w� N W alr r 4- "D U V: O 4+ N N N 'O L °c O (D Cl) N N �U) N O x � � Q O 3 � � y o N Cx _ o b s u 2 CZ LU G R: a � m F a _ y e k E a ;mac w x E ATTACHMENT E BUILDING PLANNING Effective: January 24, 2019 SECTION R327 WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION R327.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum standards for dwellings and their accessory struc- tures located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject to wild- fires, to reduce or eliminate hazards presented by such fires. R327.2 Scope. The provisions of this section shall apply to all dwellings required to be protected against wildfire by a jurisdiction which has adopted wildfire zoning regulations. The additional provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply when a local municipality has adopted .. -a local ordinance specifically recognizing Section R327.4 and consistent with Sections R327.4 through R327.4.8. R327.3 Determination. Wildfire hazard zones shall be determined using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. R327.3.1 Wildfire hazard zone requirements. Dwell- ings and their accessory structures shall be protected against wildfire by the following requirement in addition to other requirements of this code. The provisions of Sec- tion R327 4 apply only to qualifying lots identified in Sec- tion R327.4.L Exception: Nonhabitable detached accessory struc- tures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot. R327.3.1.1 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accordance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in ac- cordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in accordance with Section R905.3 and other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class C rated roof covering. Untreated wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted when the con- struction site is in a wildfire hazard zone as determined by Section R327.3. R327.3.1.2 Reroofing or repair of roofing of existing buildings. When 50 percent or more of the roof cov- ering of any building is repaired or replaced within one year, the roof covering shall be made to comply with this section and attic ventilation shall be made to com- ply with this code. Ventilation openings shall be pro- tected with corrosion -resistant wire mesh, not greater than 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) or less than 1/8-inch (3.2 mm) in any dimension. R327.4 Scone of additional wildfire hazard mitivation requirements. The provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply to new dwellings and their accessow structures located in a wildfire hazard zone on a qualifying lot of record created on or after the effective date in the local adopting ordinance. R327.4.1 Qualifying lots of record. Qualifying]ots of record shall meet all the followina: 1 Be located in a wildfire hazard zone as identified by the local mmnicipalih� using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. The local mu- nicipality is not required to include all areas identi- fied by the Oregon Department of Forestry as wild- fire hazard zones. The zone shall be detailed in the local adopting; ordinance. 2. The local municipality shall determine in the adopt- ing ordinance whether qualifying lots of record shall consist of individual lots or whether qualifying lots must be part of a development that contains a minimum number of lots. 3. The local municipalih) shall make a determination that the lot of record is either located within the identified wildfire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction or that it is located outside of the Nvild- fire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction. Notification shall be provided in conjunction with the land use approval under ORS 197.522. 4. Application: 4.1 Lots created prior to the effective date of the local ordinance that would otherwise qualify under the local adopting ordinance, are ex- empt from the requirements of the ordinance for a period of three years from the creation date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522. 4.2 For a lot created after the effective date of the local ordinance that receives notification un- der this section the determination in the noti- fication shall be valid for three years from the date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522. At the expiration of the three years, a lot of record shall be re-evaluated under the current version of the adopting ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit. Infill exception: D1i,ellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. Nothing in the code or adopting ordinance prevents a local municipality from waivingthe he requirements of Sec- tion R327.4 for any lot property or dwelling, or the re- model replacement or reconstruction of a dia,elling with- in the jurisdiction. The local niunicipalit3) must include a process for re- solving disputes related to the applicability of the local ordinance and this section. R327.4.2 Definitions. The following words and terms shall for purposes of Section R327.4, have the meanings shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 for general definitions. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE Insert Facing Page 86 BUILDING PLANNING ATTACHMENT E Heavy Timber. For the use in this section, heavy timber shall be sawn lumber or glue laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Heave timber walls or floors shall be sawn or glue - laminated planks splined tongue- and -grove or set close together and well spiked. Ignition -Resistant Material. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion suffi- ciently so as to reduce losses from wildland-urban inter- face conflagrations under worst -case weather and fuel con- ditions with ivildirre exposure of burning embers and small flames. Such materials include any product designed for exterior exposure that when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723 for surface burning characteristics of building materials extended to a 30-minute duration, exhibits a flame spread index of not more than 25 shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion and whose flame front does not progress more than 10'/2 feet (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burner at an time during the test. Noncombustible Material. Any material that in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite burn support combustion. or release flam- mable vapors when subjected to fire or heat in accordance with ASTM E136. Wildfire. Any uncontrolled fire spreading through vegeta- tive fuels that threatens to destroy life, property, or re- sources. Wildfire Exposure. One or a combination of circumstanc- es exposing a structure to ignition_ including radiant heat. convective heat direct flame contact and burning embers being, projected by a vegetation fire to a structure and its immediate environment. R327.4.3 Roofing. Roofing_shall be asphalt shin leg s in accordance with Section R905.2 slate shingles in accord- ance with Section R905.6. metal roofing in accordance with Section R905 4 the clay or concrete shingles in ac- cordance with Section R905.3 or other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. Wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted in a wildfire hazard zone. Where the roof profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking the spaces shall be constructed to prevent the intrusion of flames and embers, be fire - blocked with approved materials or have one layerof minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced nonperfo- rated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Where valley flashing is installed, the flashing shall be not less than 0.019-inch (0.48 mm) No. 26 gage galva- nized sheet corrosion -resistant metal installed over not less than one laver of minimum 72 pound 32.4 kg) mineral - surfaced non -perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 at least 36-inch-wide (914 mm) running the full length of the valley. R327.4.3.1 Gutters. When required, roof gutters shall be constructed of noncombustible materials and be pro- vided with a means to prevent accumulation of leaves and debris in the ug tter. R327.4.4 Ventilation. Where provided, the minimum net area of ventilation openings for enclosed attics, en- closed soffit spaces enclosed rafter spaces and under- floor spaces shall be in accordance with Sections R806 and R408. All ventilation openings shall be covered with non- combustible corrosion -resistant metal wire mesh vents designed to resist the intrusion of burning embers and flame or other approved materials or devices. Ventilation mesh and screening shall be a minimum of "; inch (L6mm) and a maximum of r/8-inch (3.2mm) in any dimension. R327 4.4.1 Eaves soffits and cornices. Ventilation openings shall not be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices. Exceptions: 1 The buildil?g official may approve special eave soffit or cornice vents that are manu- factured to resist the intrusion of flame and burning embers. 2 Ventilation openings complying with the requirements of Section R327.4.4 mU be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices where the opening is located 12 feet or greater above grade or the surface below. R327.4.5 Exterior walls. The exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall comply with one of the following requirements: 1. Noncombustible material. 2 Ignition -resistant material. 3. Heavy timber assembly. 4. Log wall construction assembly. 5. Wall assemblies that have been tested in accord- ance with the test procedures for a 10-minute direct flame contact exposure test set forth in ASTM E2707 complying with the conditions of acceptance listed in Section R327.4.5.2. Exception: Any of the following shall be deemed to meet the assembly_ performance criteria and intent of this section: 1. One layer of 5/g-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior wall cover- iW or cladding on the exterior side of the fr•am- ir 2. The exterior portion of a I -hour fire resistive exte- rior wall assemblv designed for exterior fire expo- sw•e including_ assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gyp- sum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. R327.4.5.1 Extent of exterior wall covering. Exterior wall coveruLigs shall extend f-om the top of the founda- tion to the roof and terminate at 2 inch (50.8 mm) nomi- nal solid wood blocking between rafters at all roof over- hangs or in the case of enclosed eaves or soffits, shall terminate at the underside of the enclosure. 86,2 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE ATTACHMENT E R327.4.5.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2707 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of flame penetration through the wall assemblyat t any time during the test. 2 Absence of evidence of lg owing combustion on the interior surface of the assembly at the end of the 70-minute test. R327.4.6 Overhanging projections. All exterior projec- tions (exterior balconies, carports, decks, patio covers, porch ceilings, unenclosed roofs and floors overhanging buildings and similar architectural appendages and pro- jections) shall be protected as specified in this section. R327.4.6.1 Enclosed roof eaves, soffits, and cor- nices. The exposed underside of rafter or truss eaves and enclosed soffits where any portion of the framing is less than 12 feet above grade or similar surface be- low, shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter tails truss tails or soffit. 4 The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wa// assembly pplied to the underside of the rafter tails or soffit including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. Soffit assemblies with an underside surface that meets the performance criteria in Sec- tion R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance ASTM E2957. Exceptions: The following materials do not require protection required by this section: 1. Eaves and soffits where all portions of the framing members are 12 feet or greater above grade and 2-inch nominal eave fireblocking is provided between roof framing members from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. 2. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly pro- jections beyond an exterior irall other than at the lower end of the rafter tails. 3. Fascia and other architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.2 Exterior patio and porch ceilings. The exposed underside of exterior patio and porch ceilings greater than 200 square feet in area and less than 12 feet above trade shall be protected by one of the fol- lowing: 1. Noncombustible material. BUILDING PLANNING 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering on the underside of the ceiling. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive ex- terior wall assembly applied to the underside of the ceiling assembly including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing_ products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. 5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal under- side that meet theperformance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.3 Floor projections. The exposed under- side of cantilevered floor projections less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be protected by one of the following. 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor projection. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior ia,al/ assembly applied to the underside of the floor projection including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.4 Underfloor protection. The underfloor area of elevated structures shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of Section R327 4 or the underside of the exposed underfloor shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor assembly. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor, including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 Nvhen tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: Heavy timber structural columns and beams do not require protection. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE 86.3 BUILDING PLANNING ATTACHMENT E R327.4.6.5 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2957 tests shall be conducted in triplicate, and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1 Absence of flame penetration of the eaves or hori- zontal projection assemblyat t any time during the test. 2. Absence of structural failure of the eaves or hori- zontal projection subassembly at any time during the test. 3 Absence of sustained combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 minute test. R327.4.7 Walking surfaces. Deck, porch and balcony walking surfaces located greater than 30 inches and less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be con- structed with one of the materials listed below. Exception: Walking surfaces of decks, porches and balconies not greater than 200 square feet in area, where the surface is constructed of nominal 2-inch lumber. 1 Materials that comply with the performance require- ments of Section R327.4.7.1 when tested in accord- ance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726. Z ignition resistant materials that comply with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. 3. Exterior fire retardant treated wood. 4. Noncombustible material. 5 Any material that complies with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.7.2 where tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 where the exterior wall covering of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. (i Any material that complies with the performance requirements of ASTM E2632, where the exterior wall coverinz of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material Exception: Wall conerin- material may of an material that otherwise complies with this chapter when the decking surface material complies with the performance requirements ASTM E84 with a Class B flame spread rating. R327.4.7.1 Reauirements for R327.47, item 1. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726 and shall comply with the conditions of acceptance below. The material shall also comply with the performance requirements of Section R327 4 2 for ignition resistant material when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. R327.4.7.1.1 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2632 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the fol- lowing conditions of acceptance: I. Peak heat release rate of less than or equal to 25 kW/ft2 (269 kW/m`) 2. Absence of sustained flaming; or lg owine combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 3. Absence of falling particles that are still burn- ing when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.1.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2762 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of sustained flaming or glowing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 2. Absence of falling particles that are still burn- ing when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.2 Requirements for R327.4.7, item 6. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and shall comply with the following condition of acceptance. The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the peak heat release rate shall be less than or equal to 25 kW/ft2 (269 kW/m2). If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. R327.4.8 Glazing. Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilavered glazed panels, glass block, or have a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes. 86.4 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE k agi�� 3 W ai O 3 `) O W NM Gt \-/ O1 O C N O O V C l00 U r E CC C �- a. O CL ca V c ` P c � LL i c 2 (. v " f t E ' 14s&� y.• m RB 4 �X' s Q $ ° i m S lot{ it an Ee4 CIVa$ 66 •F`�2 sYp�ES O ,V EiZ t C N O 3��'•e o�E�S�• O a E C a u c d m c E M N o Q E ,N ' a � 3 Y. X Qi W E� E O N% Y .e. t d k d � F a •e m t�n Q ? n S ' E a e z � JE ATTACHMENT H Summary of Oregon Residential Specialty Code R327.4-Wildfire Hazard Mitigation 1) Introduction In 2018, the Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) engaged stakeholders from the fire service, local government, and homebuilders to develop wildfire mitigation code standards that have a consistent and predictable application. BCD amended the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation) in January 2019 and made it available for local adoption. 2 Scope If adopted by a local jurisdiction, the new provisions of UKbL KSZ/ 4 snap appiy to new awenings ana tneir accessury structures, with some exceptions, located in a wildfire hazard zone on a qualifying lot of record. What is a qualifying lot of record? R327 4 1 requires qualifying lots of record to meet all of the followinp,: 1. Be located in a wildfire hazard zone as identified using Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) criteria (OAR 629-044-0200 through OAR 629-044-0260). 2. The local municipality shall determine if qualifying lots of record consist of individual lots or lots that must be part of a development that contain a minimum number of lots. 3. The local municipality shall determine whether a lot of record is either located within or outside of a wildfire hazard zone. Notification of the finding shall be provided in conjunction with a land use approval. 4. Lots created prior to the effective date of the local ordinance are exempt from the requirements for a period of 3 years from the date of the land use approval. 5. Requirements for lots created after the effective date of the local ordinance shall be valid for 3 years. After 3 years, the lot shall be re-evaluated under the current provisions of the adopting ordinance prior to issuing a building permit. Exceptions: Dwellings and accessory structures constructed in a subdivision, do not need to comply with R327.4 when at least 50% of the lots have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with R327.4. The municipality may waive the requirements of R327.4 for any lot, property or dwelling, or the remodel, replacement or reconstruction of a dwelling within the jurisdiction. The municipality must include a process for resolving of disputes related to the applicability of R327.4. ATTACHMENT H 3) Overview of code requirements Adoption of ORSC section R327.4 will provide additional wildfire hazard mitigation provisions that affect the following construction materials and/or methods of construction: (A) Roofing/Gutters R327.4.3 - Roofing shall be asphalt shingles, slate shingles, metal roofing, tile, clay, or concrete shingles or other approved roofing which is equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. WOOD SHINGLE AND SHAKE ROOFS ARE NOT PERMITTED. - Roof gutters, when required, shall be constructed of non-combustible materials and be provided with a means to prevent accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. ATTACHMENT H (B) Ventilation R327.4.4 - Openings shall be covered with non-combustible corrosion resistant metal wire mesh (openings 1/16"- 1/8") or approved alternate. - Ventilation openings shall not be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices. Exceptions: Special vents manufactured to resist intrusion of flame and burning embers OR vent openings located at least 12' above grade or surface below. Now Offering °� �rr� '•� Ventsl i�f�r�t�s �RIM CnWEndWni — - {}�t4"1amm� fVnnt` 6i,e P,--.,• lug y �'? Q k`: 0S Cave ffi t � NilVnnt w c�ux�fstio�a Vmn�a �_ ATTACHMENT H (C) Exterior Walls R327.4.5 - Exterior wall coverings shall comply with one of the following requirements: • Non-combustible material • Ignition -resistant material • Heavy timber assembly • Log wall construction assembly • Wall assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E2707 and ORSC section R327.4.5.2 Exceptions: Install one layer of 5/8" Type X exterior gypsum sheathing behind the exterior wall covering on the exterior side of the framing OR install the exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly. ALL L:tIEH# ='^'MALL SN= L t; 2 HV U't LSIS I.,IMf RIATA hOI U; � c d i • e i d � ATTACHMENT H (D) Overhanging proiections (e.g. exterior balconies carports, decks, patio covers porch ceilings, unenclosed roofs and floors, overhanging buildings, and similar Proiections) R327.4.6 1. Enclosed roof eaves, soffits, and cornices shall be protected by one of the following: • Non-combustible material • Ignition -resistant material • One layer of 5/8" Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter/truss tails or soffit • Exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the rafter/truss tails or soffit • Assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E2957 and section R327.4.6.5 Exception: Protection not required when all framing members are at least 12' above grade. 2. Exterior patio and porch ceilings • Exposed underside of exterior patio and porch ceilings greater than 200 sq. ft. in area and less than 12' above grade shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. 3. Floor projections • The exposed underside of cantilevered floor projections less than 12' above grade or surface below shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. 4. Underfloor protection • The underfloor area of elevated structures shall be enclosed to grade OR the underside of the exposed underfloor shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. Exception: Heavy timber columns and beams do not require protection. ATTACHMENT H (E) Walking surfaces R327.4.7 1. Deck, porch, and balcony walking surfaces located greater than 30" and less than 12' above grade or surface below shall be constructed with one of the materials listed below. • Exterior fire retardant treated wood • Noncombustible material • Materials that comply with the performance requirements of specific nationally recognized testing standards. See code section for details. Exception: Decks, porches, and balconies not greaterthan 200 sq. ft. where the walking surface is constructed of nominal 2-inch lumber. ATTACHMENT H (F) Glazing R327.4.8 • Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilayered glazed panels, glass block, or have a 20 minute fire rating. Tum�i:r«d z'as5 ofk!akoq,5 Pallc'�� Hc;j- .Itt ,--(r —. f;I tic) s l�. Pis11i�'Il a 4) Housing cost impact Oregon Building Codes Division estimates the increased provisions in section R327.4 will add approximately $2,500-$3,000 to the existing cost of a typical 1,200 square foot single family home.' 1 See BCD's Housing Cost Impact Statement—12/18/19 (Available at www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee) Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Public Outreach Report Photo: Lionshead Fire, September 2020 Prepared by. - Deschutes County Community Development Department www.deschutes.org/cd Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Chair Phil Chang, Vice Chair Patti Adair, Commissioner Community Development Department Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Kyle Collins, Associate Planner Tim Berg, Applications/Systems Analyst Ines Curland, Applications/Systems Analyst Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official Deschutes County Planning Commission Dr. Leslie Hudson, Chair Jessica Kieras, Vice Chair Maggie Kirby, Commissioner Steve Swisher, Commissioner Susan Altman, Commissioner Scott Asla, Commissioner Dale Crawford, Commissioner Deschutes County Natural Resources Ed Keith, County Forester Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator -1- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. -2- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Table of Contents PURPOSE................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................. 4 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND WILDFIRERISK..................................................................................................... 7 WildfireHistory ........................................................................................................ 7 PopulationChanges................................................................................................ 9 Current Wildfire Mitigation Measures............................................................... 11 SECTION 2: FUTURE MITIGATION PROPOSALS PUBLICOUTREACH............................................................................................. 15 Process and Methodology.................................................................................... 15 Limitations............................................................................................................. 17 Communications Plan and County Survey........................................................ 17 StatisticallyValid Survey...................................................................................... 26 VirtualOpen Houses............................................................................................ 31 GeneralPublic Comments....................................................................................32 SECTION 3: CONCLUSION Appendix: • Deschutes County Survey Summary • Nelson Research, Inc. Survey Executive Summary • Virtual Open House Q&A Summaries • General Public Comments • Fire Protection District Comments -3- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Wildfire is a natural and necessary component of ecosystems across the world. Central Oregon is no exception. Historically, wildfires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. However, these landscapes are now significantly altered due to fire prevention efforts, warming climatic trends, and modern suppression activities, resulting in overgrown forests with dense fuels that burn more intensely than in the past. In addition, the recent increase in Central Oregon's population has led to greater levels of residential development in forested landscapes, specifically in the wildland urban interface (WUI). These developments have created an incentive to review local land use and building codes which have a direct effect on wildfire mitigation and risk within Deschutes County. Since 2018, the Deschutes County Planning Division, with support from state and local partners, has been evaluating possible code changes explicitly dealing with building materials for rural residential development as well as land use requirements for properties located in high wildland fire danger. This report summarizes those proposed code changes, responses to the proposal from public outreach initiatives, and perspectives from fire protection professionals and development interests throughout the region. r,. � Wildfire is a major threat to communities throughout the Western United States, and Central Oregon is among those areas grappling with how to diminish some of that underlying risk and maintain the values which define our region. Throughout 2020, Deschutes County has gathered public input concerning possible code amendments which can reduce the threat of wildfire in the community. Specifically, the county has gauged public opinion on two possible code provisions dealing with wildfire mitigation: 1) An update to the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. 2) An update to the Deschutes County Code requiring Defensible Space for all rural residential properties. Evaluating public outreach efforts undertaken by the County, which are detailed in this report, it appears a majority of residents within Deschutes County generally support greater building code and defensible space requirements to mitigate wildland fire impacts. This -4- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report trend holds true for both rural and urban residents, despite these provisions being limited to those areas outside of incorporated cities. Even factoring in the additional costs which may be incurred through more stringent building and land use standards, a plurality of residents feel that these changes are necessary to maintain safe, productive communities into the future. Numerous challenges and details still remain for how these items could be implemented in practice. While generally supportive, the public has expressed some concerns regarding the cost of new requirements for lower income residents, potential impacts to wildlife habitat, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure the amendments have their intended effect. However, the general theme appears to show that Deschutes County residents are acutely aware of the risk posed by wildfire in their communities and would like to see proactive measures put in place to reduce those risks where appropriate. Community Development Department (CDD) staff and the Board began discussing a 2015 University of Oregon Community Service Center (CSC) code audit in the fall of 2018. The timing coincided with the State Building Codes Division's (BCD) consideration of an amendment to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to prescribe fire hardening standards (i.e., building codes to increase resiliency to fire). The Board directed staff to track YhPGP ct?nrlarric and revisit nptinns in 2019. The Board appointed the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) in September 2019 to undertake the following objectives: 1) Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629- 044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2) Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3) Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. -5- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020, and a final report on April 17, 2020.1 The WMAC made two recommendations pertaining to the WHZ and two recommendations in determining where R327 should apply: Six (6) members recommended the WHZ continue to apply to the entire County; • Five (5) members recommended the WHZ be updated based on a landscape approach informed by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions. • Six (6) members recommended R327 apply to the entire County and all existing and new lots, regardless of zone. o Despite the reference to "all existing and new lots," R327 does have two possible exceptions: • An included exception for infill development which states: "Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in ...J ..... .:4L. Section n77% n 1I accordance with Sec ion fXJG/.'-F. • An included exception for some accessory structures which states: "Nonhabitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot." • Five (5) members recommended utilizing the WHZ based on CWPP sub -regions to inform where R327 should be implemented. From there, the group recommended R327 apply to newly created lots and replacement dwellings in the Forest Use (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. A majority of the WMAC also recommended requiring throughout the County's jurisdiction: Defensible space, steep slope setbacks, and access standards for all new development; Defensible space for all properties, vacant and developed; 1 The report was finalized on April 17, 2020. https://www deschutes.org/cd/oage/wildfire-mitigation-advisory-committee. -6- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report • Establishing a program that shares best practices of wildfire mitigation to the public. Subsequently, Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) grant to incorporate the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. This TA Grant provides a basis for the County to evaluate rural growth and development through a multi -faceted lens, taking into consideration its effect on resource lands, wildlife, natural hazards, economic development, housing, transportation, public facilities, and rural communities. Staff structured the grant tasks so that they will give Deschutes County the resources to evaluate land use interrelationships as part of a future Comprehensive Plan update. The following sections of this report summarize the wildfire hazard risk for Deschutes County, the proposed mitigation code amendments based on the WMAC recommendations, as well as public responses to those proposals from the various outreach events. The following subsections provide an overview of the wildfire risk posed to Deschutes County, the recent population trends for the region, and current wildfire mitigation strategies undertaken by governments, non -governmental agencies, and private citizens in the aYea. Like many regions in the Western U.S., Deschutes County has a long and complicated relationship with fire. Historically, the dry ponderosa pine forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains experienced low -severity fires every 0-35 years, while other forest types such as lodgepole pine would have typically experienced high -severity fire events every 35-100 years.2 However, fire management techniques shifted beginning in the early 201h Century, which saw a massive effort to suppress all fires on the landscape as quickly as possible to reduce losses to personal property and timber supply. The previous century of fire suppression has created unprecedented conditions outside of the historic fire regimes which have drastically increased the probability of high -severity fires and the resultant damage caused by these events.3 In addition, long-term climatic trends have established warmer weather, reduced snowpack, and longer lasting drying periods during the summer months which significantly affect both the frequency and scale of wildland fire events.4 To illustrate, the table below summarizes 2 https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/101916_FSPLT3_4291822.pdf 3 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/home/?cid=stelprdb5300193 ° https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/publications/climate-change-vulnerability-and-adaptation-south-central-oregon -7- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report major fire events in Deschutes County from 1990-2020, and the graph below illustrates acreage affected by wildfire events in Deschutes County from 1900-2010: Table 1, Major Fire Events in Deschutes County, 1990-2020 Date Fire Name Acres Burned 2020 Rosland Road 393 2019 McKay Butte 164 2018 Tepee 2026 2017 Milli 24,042 2017 McKay 1,222 2016 Sheridan 191 2014 Two Bulls 6,908 2013 Burgess Road 168 2012 Pole Creek 26,795 2011 Shadow Lake 10,402 2010 Roster Rock 6,120 2009 Black Butte II 569 2008 Summit Springs Complex 1,973 2007 GW 8,570 2006 Lake George 5,652 2006 Black Crater 9,412 2005 Park i39 2003 Davis 21,123 2003 Link 3,716 2003 18 Road Fire 3,811 2003 B & B Complex 90,769 2002 Eyerly 23,573 2002 Cache Mountain 4,421 2001 Crane Complex 713 2000 Hash Rock 18,500 1998 Elk Lake 252 1998 McKay 1,150 1996 Little Cabin 2,400 1996 Ashwood U Donnybrook 100,000+ 1996 Smith Rock 300 1996 Skeleton 17,794 1996 Evans West 4,231 1995 Cinder Butte 11,132 1994 Four Corners 1,524 1992 Sage Flat ODF 1,106 1992 Horse Butte 1,629 -8- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report 1991 Stevens Canyon 1,080 1990 Awbrey Hall 3,500 1990 Delicious 2,042 1990 Finley Butte 1,320 Total 320,832 The significant story here is that Central Oregon has experienced high -intensity wild land fires on 37 percent more acreage in the last 15 years than in the previous 100 years combined. This trend of escalating large wildland fires in Deschutes County is likely to continue and will create greater impact on the citizens, economic and cultural values -at -risk, and infrastructure of the county. Understanding the future population of Deschutes County informs wildfire risk and related mitigation strategies. Since the enactment of state legislation in 2013 to centralize population forecasts with consistent methodology across Oregon, population forecasts have been conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University (PSU). Population forecasts are performed on a four-year cycle by region; the most recent forecast for Deschutes County was published in 2018.5 It is important to note that these population figures for 2018 and beyond may differ slightly from estimates provided by the United States 5 https:Hondeck.pdx.edu/population-research/sites/g/files/znldhr3261/files/2020-07/Deschutes_Report_Final.pdf -9- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Census due to different base year estimates and forecast methodology; for cities' geography, PRC uses Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) rather than city limits, which can differ slightly. The PRC 2018 Final Forecast Report notes that the total population of Deschutes County will likely grow at a faster pace in the near -term (2018-2043) compared to the long-term (2043- 2068). This is largely due to an eventual decrease in birth rates versus death rates -owing to an aging population as well as a smaller population of women in their childbearing years - despite increases from in -migration. As shown in Table 2, Deschutes County's total population (including cities) is forecast to increase by more than 114,000 over the next 25 years (2018-2043) and by more than 245,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2018- 2068). Average Average Annual Annual Table 2, Deschutes County and 2018 2043 2068 Growth Growth Sub -Area Population Forecasts6 Rate 2018 - Rate 2043 - 2043 2068 Deschutes County 187,621 301,999 432,930 1.9% 1.5% Bend UGB 91,373 162,362 255,291 2.3% 1.8% Redmond UGB 29,364 51,625 82,575 2.3% 1.9% Sisters UGB 2,691 5,169 8,431 1 2.6% 2.0% La Pine UGB 1,833 3,594 5,894 2.7% 2.0% Outside UGB 62,360 79,248 80,739 1.0% 0.1% (Unincorporated County) 1 I 1 1 i The growth rate for unincorporated Deschutes County, however, does not directly mirror that of the county as a whole or its cities. While the growth rates for the county as well as its cities are all projected to slow down between 2043 and 2068, the growth rate slows more dramatically for the unincorporated county as shown in Table 3. As a result, the population of the unincorporated county becomes a smaller proportion of the county as a whole by 2043 and 2068. Table 3, Deschutes County and Sub -Areas Share of County Forecasts' Share of County 2018 Share of County 2043 Share of County 2068 Deschutes County n/a n/a n/a Bend UGB 48.7% 53.8% 59.0% Redmond UGB 15.7% 17.1% 19.1% Sisters UGB 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% La Pine UGB 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Outside UGB (Unincorporated County) 33.2% 26.2% 18.6% 6 https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/Deschutes_Report_Final.pdf [bid. -10- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Despite the lower share of community members residing in the rural county relative to cities, approximately 20,000 additional people are projected to reside in unincorporated areas over the next 50 years. This is significant, as those areas of the County are likely to be at the greatest risk to wildland fire impacts; and population increases in those regions will have a disproportionate influence on wildfire mitigation strategies as the county continues its rapid growth over the coming decades. Additionally, a significant portion of wildland fire events are caused by human activities, such as individuals recreating on state and federal lands. As such, larger general populations in Deschutes County are likely to increase the numbers of people recreating within wildland areas, with a commensurate increase in ignition risk for human -caused wildfires. ponly u"`3Y There are a number of actions currently under way within Deschutes County and the larger region to address wildfire hazards. Some of the measures are being undertaken by county departments, while others are carried out by state and federal agencies, or private citizens. The following is a list of some of the current activities undertaken to reduce wildfire risk in the County: Wildfire Hazard Zone • In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a Wildfire Hazard Zone, requiring a minimum of Class C roofing and grohibitinR the use of untreated wood roof coverings. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan • Deschutes County's first Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP), adopted in 2006, was the first pre -disaster plan, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Oregon. • NHMP proposed actions recommend reviewing and upgrading existing building and land use codes to address landscaping, fuel amounts, and structural details that reduce the incidence or spread of wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interactive (WUI). Project Wildfire • Project Wildfire is a long-term wildfire mitigation strategy that provides for disaster - resistant communities. Its mission is to prevent deaths, injuries, property loss, and environmental damage resulting from wildfires in Deschutes County. • Created by Deschutes County Ordinance 8.24.010, Project Wildfire is the community organization that facilitates, educates, disseminates, and maximizes community efforts toward effective fire planning and mitigation. Project Wildfire organizes -11- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report community events that help educate the community about wildfire protection strategies and techniques. Community Wildfire Protection Plans • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) are the result of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 20038 which, as part of a historic bipartisan legislative effort, calls for communities to collaborate with state and local agencies to determine priorities for hazardous fuels projects on federal and private lands in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). • It also allows communities to develop and list priorities that affect their abilities to survive a wildland fire in their areas. Egress, education, and water availability are some of the other issues that communities may address in their plans. Across Central Oregon, each community has been collaborating with forest and fire management agencies to identify risks and outline strategies to address them. • Project Wildfire acts as the caregiver to seven unique Community Wildfire Protection Plans within Deschutes County. Each plan is revised on a 5-year cycle to ensure it's relevant to the partners involved in its development. FireFree • FireFree is both an event and a program. The FireFree message is a year-round effort to educate community members about how they can be prepared for wildfires. Along with the education, FireFree provides events where residents can recycle yard debris for free or a reduced price. • Project Wildfire coordinates the FireFree program, which is an educational program that teaches residents how to protect their homes from wildfire. The FireFree program and fuels reduction projects yield over 40,000 cubic yards of woody debris each year. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan • Few counties have wildfire hazard maps in their Comprehensive Plans, but Deschutes County is an outlier. The Deschutes County Fire Hazard map is included in Chapter 3: Rural Growth Management of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and identifies wildfire hazard throughout the county. In total, 96 percent of the land in Deschutes County is identified as being located in a fire hazard area. 8 http://www.projectwiIdfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hfra.pdf -12- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report • Policy 3.5.11(b) addresses wildfire concerns to and from development, through consideration of site location, building construction and design, landscaping, defensible space, fuel management, access, and water availability. Defensible Space • Defensible space is the buffer created between a building and the grass, trees, shrubs, or any wild land areas that surround it. This space is needed to slow or stop the spread of wildfire and helps protect structures themselves from catching fire. • Deschutes County utilizes several regulatory programs to address defensible space. The following list summarizes the County's current approach to wildfire mitigation: o Consistent with State law, the Forest Use 1 and 2 zones require compliance with defensible space, access, and water supply standards. o Destination resorts are required to implement a wildfire management plan to ensure safe evacuations and that hazards are minimized. o Defensible space requirements for unprotected lands were adopted in 2011. o In October 2016, conditional use permit criteria were applied to Tree Farm, LLIr'., a cluster development eve1opwC+ consisting of ,_;V approxIiImI lately 4VVi v-U�ro i c residential lots located west of the City of Bend. The conditional use criteria require wildfire mitigation standards including defensible space and residential sprinklers. o The Westside Transect Zone (WTZ), consisting of approximately 717 acres and located west of the City of Bend and East of Shevlin Park and Tumalo Creek, was approved in January 2019. The WTZ Zone requires all land divisions to submit a master plan that contains a wildfire mitigation plan. • County Forester o The County Forester helps private land owners create defensible space around their homes and helps coordinate fire adapted communities throughout Deschutes County. The County has undertaken a public outreach program to gauge support for additional wildfire hazard mitigation measures relating to residential development. Specifically, the -13- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report County approached residents in our region to evaluate their opinions on the following programs: 1) An update to the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. 2) An update to the Deschutes County Code requiring Defensible Space for all rural residential properties. These proposals were outlined in the context of Deschutes County's wildfire history, locations for where these standards may apply, and cost estimates associated with implementation. Through the TA Grant process, Deschutes County undertook a multi -pronged outreach approach to address the recommendations provided by the CSC and WMAC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020, public outreach opportunities were limited, and the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildfire mitigation. To ensure the greatest possible opportunity for public involvement, the County considered multiple i__._:�_ .J Imo...,.. ....,.I.. decided ,J ...J �h.. 4:-1 .....'v, +;__,. options for gathering' input and ultimately decided on the follo following optical IJ. 1) Communications Plan. Press releases, social media, the department's electronic newsletter and the NextDoor web application to announce a project website, ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based maps with text and photos) and an online survey to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. 2) Open Houses. Two virtual open houses with the Deschutes County Planning Commission on November 19 and December 3, 2020, to discuss the project's history and specifics regarding the proposed mitigation standards. 3) Statistically Valid Survey. A statistically valid survey conducted via telephone by Nelson Research, Inc. of residents across Deschutes County to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. The following sections outline the results of those public outreach actions and the public's general assessment of additional wildfire mitigation measure in Deschutes County. -14- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report FIVUXM_11� Ma 1 As described above, the County requested Nelson Research, Inc. to conduct a statistically valid phone survey in addition to the County conducted online survey. This secondary survey was undertaken for the following reasons: 1) To provide an independent, scientifically accurate public outreach process to achieve greater confidence in the County's findings. 2) To cross reference and validate findings from the County -directed internet survey through an additional outreach method. To achieve statistically valid results, Nelson Research, Inc. conducted the survey under the following methodological standards: A randomized telephone sample of 20,000 Deschutes County residents was chosen for the survey, among which a smaller sample was chosen based on geographic parameters set by the County. A total sample of 383 residents was ultimately chosen to conduct the survey. O HS the County was primarily II ILCI CJICU iii� r espoiiseJ 11 of i i u lust Li iaL vvouiu be most impacted by the new requirements (rural residents), the chosen sample was weighted towards residents outside of incorporated cities. o 75 percent of the sample came from rural areas of the County and 25 percent from Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine. o The total sample size is a +/- 5 percent margin of error at the 95 percent level of confidence. o However, due to the oversampling of rural residents, results coming from the Bend/Redmond/Sisters/La Pine geographic area likely have a higher error rate, while results from the rural parts of the County have a lower error rate. o Initially, the County discussed breaking out Sisters and La Pine separately, but since these two cities make up only 1 percent each of the County's total residents, a separate sub -sample would have been too small to achieve any meaningful data. -15- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report o Due to the large oversampling of rural residents, Nelson Research did not set up any other demographic quotas besides the geographic quota outlined above. • All surveys were conducted by telephone and all calls were randomized so all parties within the sampling parameters had an equal opportunity of being called. o All calls were monitored and recorded to ensure all survey protocols were followed and to ensure the quality of each call. o A qualifier question was included that asked each respondent prior to participation if they were 18 years of age or older and currently living in Deschutes County (If respondents answered no to either portion, they were excluded from participating in the survey). • All information regarding their geographic location was taken from the list provided by the Deschutes County Clerks office Clerk's Office based on voting precinct designated census tracts and was not asked directly of respondents. • The final demographic samples were as follows: Sex Percentage Males 449.3v/0 Females 49.9% Other 0.3% Refused 0.5% Age Percentage 18-29 3.4% 30-44 14.6% 45-59 27.2% 60+ 53.8% Residency Percentage 0-5 Years 14.9% 6-10 Years 12.5% Over 10 Years 71 % Refused 1.6% Geographic Location Percentage Bend/Redmond/Sisters/La Pine 25.1 % Other/Rural 74.9% -16- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report While the County has taken appropriate measures to ensure that the results of the public outreach process accurately reflect the perspectives and opinions of the community, there are a number of limitations to the process which must be summarized. Specifically, a not insignificant number of respondents to both surveys were uncomfortable noting their support or lack of support without additional information and specifics of how individual proposals might be implemented. Community members have raised numerous concerns, many of which are addressed in this report, regarding how possible mitigation measures would interface with existing development regulations, differing County comprehensive plan priorities, and parcels with pre-existing development patterns which may challenge implementation on a property -by -property basis. While all of these concerns are valid, the purpose of this outreach process is to gather a generalized sense of public opinion on wildfire mitigation measures that the County may have the option of pursuing in the near to medium term. To the extent possible, the County has attempted to provide a clear picture of what these programs might mean for Deschutes County residents writ large, such as projected costs and geographic locations which would be affected. More specific implementation issues would ultimately be addressed and reviewed further at future work sessions and public hearings should the County elect to move forward with these proposals. Additionally, a number of comments and concerns were raised by community members throughout the outreach process related to items such as public education on safe fire practices and the role of outdoor recreation in wildfire ignition. The County acknowledges the significant role that educational programs can play in reducing human caused wildfire ignition within the Central Oregon region. However, while these issues are important and should be addressed, ultimately that authority and responsibility lies outside of the Community Development Department, which principally deals with physical development of properties throughout Deschutes County. The possible mitigation measures referenced herein are an attempt to reduce wildfire risks associated with new and existing development. Public education on proper fire safety and risk management are distinct issues which can be addressed through a variety of state, federal, and local agencies which are not directly related to physical development of property. Finally, staff points out that many of these agencies, such as local fire protection districts and the United States Forest Service, frequently undertake public education campaigns to reduce human caused fire ignition, particularly during periods of high fire danger. Communications Plan and County Survey As described previously, the County's communication plan involved a number of online press releases, a public -facing web page specific to the wildfire mitigation project, an ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based maps with text and photos), and an online survey. The primary information gathering tool through this process was the online survey, which -17- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report proposed a series of six questions to understand the public's desire to see additional mitigation measures brought forward at a County level. Those six questions were outlined as follows: 1) Are you a resident living within Deschutes County? 2) How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? 3) The County's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire- resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? 4) If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? 5) If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? 6) Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural rr%, mtvi In total, the County received 801 individual responses to the online survey, with 498 of those responses coming from people living within rural Deschutes County (outside of an incorporated city). of the total responses, 86.6 percent of community members feel that their homes are somewhat vulnerable or extremely vulnerable to wildfire damage. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 88.9 percent of respondents feel that their homes are somewhat vulnerable or extremely vulnerable to wildfire damage. -18- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q2 How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? 1 f: Soniev:llat iE E= vulnel all Extl elYi! vu nel'ab undFdded ^i 0?+' 20?." 30._ 40?' @,C•^.i 6U?:;, ?G?... SG?a 90 . 1l'C?.;- All County Residents C)9 How vulnerable is vour home to wildfire? Somev<hat `.ulnel'abt Extrerel, I In CI eG ICI ed 0?1 10ap I . 30?4 41'4.z. SG?.. GC', 1 -1Mic 80,116 9M3 1C.ODx Rural County Residents Regarding whether residents support additional requirements for fire-resistant building materials when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County, 67.3 percent were -19- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report supportive, 22.7 percent were not supportive, and the remaining 10.0 percent were undecided. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 61.5 percent were supportive, 27.8 percent were not supportive, and the remaining 10.7 percent were undecided. Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Undecided..... C^.S Mt:-C;, K6c 4C?': 5c?l (Q?._ 7r>,_ 301.1 90'F. 1cc?c All County Residents Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Undecided C";a le°, 2c?.: 30@0 4c%: 5c9, We 7C4:. ec?:.. 9cg; iMc Rural County Residents Regarding whether residents support expanding defensible space requirements to all existing and new development in rural Deschutes County, 60.9 percent were supportive, 24.1 -20- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report percent were not supportive, 10.3 percent were undecided, and the remaining 4.8 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 55.1 percent were supportive, 29.9 percent were not supportive, 10.3 percent were undecided, and the remaining 4.6 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. The provided supplementary answers covered a wide range of perspectives and concerns; however, certain themes did emerge, including:9 How to implement defensible space standards for smaller properties Cost of maintenance for lower -income residents How defensible space measures will impact wildlife habitat Visual buffering between neighboring property owners Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? NO I j Undecided Other (0Iease SPecrt, ).:.�,;.:.: All County Residents 9 The full list of supplementary comments is attached as an appendix to this report for additional information -21- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? YES NO Undecided Cther (please Speclfv C'c IC'.z: 20'1 1101'a 40`sc 50? K3? ?G', 8G'' 90' 100,,J Rural County Residents As presently written in State Building Code, any fire-resistant building materials can only be required in designated Wildfire Hazard Zones. Currently, the entirety of rural Deschutes County is designated as a Wildfire Hazard Zone. As discussed previously, during the 2019- 2020 WMAC meetings the committee discussed updates to the County's Wildfire Hazard Zone based on more recent information. Ultimately, the committee members were split regarding the need for zone updates, or whether the Wildfire Hazard Zone should continue to apply across the entirety of Deschutes County. The public outreach process was intended to vet these recommendations against public perceptions to help guide any future decisions on how zone changes, if any, are enacted. When answering where fire-resistant building materials (and hence the Wildfire Hazard Zone) should apply, 57.5 percent believe the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone should remain as is, 17.2 percent believe the Wildfire Hazard Zone should be reduced to only include Forest and Rural Residential Zoned properties, 21.5 percent believed no additional fire-resistant building materials should be required at all, and the remaining 3.8 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 53.6 percent believe the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone should remain as is, 17.3 percent believe the Wildfire Hazard Zone should be reduced to only include Forest and Rural Residential Zoned properties, 25.5 percent believed no additional fire-resistant building materials should be required at all, and the remaining 3.7 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. -22- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Those supplementary answers covered a wide range or perspectives and concerns; however, certain themes did emerge, including:" • How wildfire hazard mitigation actions should be implemented inside incorporated city limits Cost of implementation for lower -income residents Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? Existing dfil'e Haz... Reduce the Wildfire Haz... im I do not support. other (please speclf, ) All County Residents io The full list of supplementary comments is attached as an appendix to this report for additional information -23- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? Existing V0tdfire Hae... RedUceethe ;Vildfire Hax,., I do not eulzpcn t... Other (ptease Specify), C.I 1l K. ' 4C: 501.CI J("S 8C0 Jc 1C.0".c. Rural County Residents To provide relative cost context for the proposed building materials standards, residents were asked how much they would be willing to add to the construction cost of a 2,400- square-foot home to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Residents were given a total range of between $0 and over $6,000. The range of proposed estimates was based on a wide variety of resources, including the local building official, the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), and various real estate agencies working in the region. Regarding how much additional expense residents would be willing to incur to implement new wildfire building standards, 22.8 percent stated they would not expend any additional money, 46.4 percent stated they would expend up to $6,000, and the remaining 30.8 percent of respondents stated they would expend more than $6,000. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 27.5 percent stated they would not expend any additional money, 45.3 percent stated they would expend up to $6,000, and the remaining 27.3 percent of respondents stated they would expend more than $6,000. -24- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q5 If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? $0 Up to Y6,C0 on MMO Tatomc All County Residents CA ME 2Co 304 JC% 505 601 No BOA 90A Mm" Q5 If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing g to add to the construction �rtion crest to incorporate measures that may reduce the rich of VVIIIII Il, lV CIIIII LV the {.o11Jlt IA I.LIVI 1 I.VJt to incorporate Gltr. I nva�w �..� that guy 1 a aaanvv the risk v. wildfire damage to your home? U„ to se,ec: Caen HMO Rural County Residents -25- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Deschutes County employed the services of Nelson Research, Inc. to conduct a statistically valid phone survey to gauge the public's perception of wildfire threat to homes in the County, requiring certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing new homes in the Wildfire Hazard Zone, and expanding defensible space for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County. The survey was carried out between December 1 and December 4, 2020. A total of 383 respondents were interviewed during that time. As stated previously, to account for the primary community who would be effected by these proposals, the sampling for this survey was heavily weighted in the rural areas of the County (75 percent rural, 25 percent urban). Due to the significant weighting, the survey results are not necessarily representative of the community at large, but they are representative of those living in rural Deschutes County. The questions posed through the survey process were as follows: 1) In Deschutes County, wildfires have significantly increased over the last 40 years. Deschutes County is currently considering measures to help reduce the risk of catastrophic damage to homes in high risk areas in the County. These homes are located in what is called the Wildfire Hazard Zone. On a scale of one to four with "-i" representing VERY VULNERABLE and "4" representing "NOT VULNERABLE AT ALL," please tell me how vulnerable you believe your home is to wildfire? 2) Deschutes County currently requires fire-resistant roofing materials only. The County is considering a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. This requirement would increase the cost of building a new 2,400-square-foot home by approximately $5,00046,000 including labor costs and materials. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the County enacting these requirements for new construction? 3) If you had to choose, where would you prefer the County require additional fire- resistant materials — in the EXISTING Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes ALL OF RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY, or reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include FOREST AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONLY, or do you OPPOSE requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether? 4) Currently, Deschutes County requires Defensible Space in Forest Use Zones. Defensible space is an area around a building where vegetation, debris and other -26- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire to and from the building. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE expanding these requirements so residents would need to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County? The following trends and conclusions were provided in the executive summary prepared by Nelson Research: 1) Vulnerability: Well over half of respondents do not believe their home is vulnerable to wildfire; however, nearly half of rural residents (47 percent) believe their homes are vulnerable. A large majority of older residents 45-59 years old (61 percent) and 60+ years old (57 percent) do not believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire. 2) Fire-resistant building materials: Well over half of respondents favor a proposal that would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. It is important to note that a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group (including rural areas) favor this proposal. 3) Wildfire Hazard Zone: Respondents are nearly split with slightly less than one-third that prefer fire-resistant materials be required in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and slightly fewer that prefer to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. it appears that slightly more rural residents prefer enacting these requirements on all of rural Deschutes County (32 percent), over reducing the Wildfire Hazard Zone (30 percent). Additional education and communication about why this is a necessary option (enacting the requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone) could significantly increase support, should the County choose to move forward with implementation. 4) Cost: Slightly less than one-third of respondents would be willing to pay between $1 and $6,000 more to build a new home with fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones. However, it is important to note that when accounting for those who would be willing to expend more than $6,000, a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more for these fire-resistant materials, including those currently living in rural areas of the County. These numbers are consistent with the number of respondents that favor requiring fire-resistant materials. 5) Defensible Space: A very large number of respondents favor expanding Defensible Space requirements so new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County would need to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of wildfire. It is significant that a large majority of respondents in every demographic group support this proposal. -27- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report The following pages illustrate the range of responses across the various questions from the statistically valid survey: Vulnerability of Home to Wildfire w 60 50 40 44 4040 � ' 30 40 F+ 20 10 r, V .;✓- .Z �.., a, _`'4 '. s S ..�..ob� .1 �a?, �:, y = `� � „r >�; K� ,.x.:; '�34 �`C�:�.,, . `..,: '"� _?.,a �„�',:a • Vulnerable Not Vulnerable --- -28- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Where to Require of Fire -Resistant Materials }S �G 30 oExioin5 .All Rtual i 13 ForestfRml Zones 23 ❑oppm Requiraneut 3 4 ®lot Sure i 06 10' 5 How Much Afore Residents are Willing to Pay for Fire -Resistant Materials 35 ry 32 a 25 22 a ❑SI-S6.000 20 d � I c 2 13Over $6,000 a ONut Stitt 10 $ a r -29- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Based on the summary above, both proposals appear to have widespread community support in nearly every demographic group. There are some discrepancies between the online survey and the phone survey administered by Nelson Research. The primary differences related to where additional building standards should be applied (the Wildfire Hazard Zone) and how much additional money residents would be willing to spend to implement new standards. There was slightly less support among phone survey respondents for preserving the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone and for expending any additional resources to implement new standards. However, even when accounting for those divergences, a majority of residents across both surveys were supportive of including additional building requirements in at least some areas of the County and a majority of residents were willing to expend at least some additional resources to implement the additional standards. Additionally, despite the similarity of the questions, it is interesting to note the difference in perception of wildfire risk between the Nelson Research survey and the County produced survey. It is not entirely clear what accounts for this specific discrepancy. However, it may be that the StoryMap and associated wildfire history information leading into the County survey provided a more grounded education concerning wildfire risk in Deschutes County, rather than simply relying on personal anecdotes and observations. If this is the case, it would seem to support Nelson Research's conclusion that additional communication and education may have a significant effect on community support for either of these proposals. -30- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Vlr ua�, Open Houses Due to the public gathering restrictions in place from the COVID-19 pandemic, the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildfire mitigation. To account for these challenges, County planning staff facilitated a series of virtual open houses in conjunction with the Deschutes County Planning Commission, staff members from the Deschutes County Building Department, the Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator Boone Zimmerlee, and the Deschutes County Forester Ed Keith. The open house events occurred on November 1911 and December 2012, 2020. The purpose of the open houses was to give the public and the Deschutes County Planning Commission an opportunity to ask County staff and fire protection experts additional questions concerning the proposed wildfire mitigation measures. These sessions were intended to introduce community members to the StoryMap feature and associated survey, while also allowing for more clarification and inquiry into details which may not have been captured by the other outreach features. The open house sessions were conducted via Zoom web -meeting platform and each was simultaneously streamed and recorded via Facebook Live through the Countys social media account. Participants were encouraged to submit questions through either of these channels, with corresponding answers provided in real time by facilitators and presenters. As of January 12, 2020, the recorded November 19 event has been viewed a total of 626 times and the recorded December 3 event has been viewed a total of 445 times. These open house events covered a wide range of topics, including the following major themes that appeared during both open house sessions: • How defensible space standards will be monitored and enforced if implemented • How the new building code requirements would apply to additions or replacements of existing development • How defensible space standards would be balanced against various other land use goals such as wildlife habitat preservation • How the new building code requirements differ from the standards that are in place presently • Whether similar code provisions have been adopted in other Oregon jurisdictions 11 https://www.facebook.com/Deschutes.County/videos/wildfire-mitigation-open-house/380763246530718/ 12 https://www.facebook.com/Deschutes.County/videos/wildfire-mitigation-open-house/387548885807657/ -31- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Whether the new building code requirements can be modified beyond what was adopted by the State Building Codes Division • Whether the County will provide additional resources for property owners to establish the defensible space standards should they be adopted How the County intends to navigate challenges such as absentee landlords and second -home owners in implementing the proposed code changes How the defensible space standards will be implemented on properties with limited space/development area The full list of community member questions and answers during the open house meetings has been included as an appendix to this report. Genera11" P ub[ic C or inn,e is In addition to the data gathered through survey outreach and both virtual open houses, the County has received over 30 public comments from private citizens, professional organizations, and advocacy groups concerning the proposed wildfire mitigation code amendments. _i ,...,.L in particular, the County has received comments r.i r_ ofiiii i iui i ier vuS i ii e pr vLc�uoi i agei �UeZ' throughout the region including the Alfalfa Fire Protection District, the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, the Sunriver Fire Protection District, Bend Fire and Rescue, the Sisters - Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District, and the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District. The agencies were unanimous in their support for the proposed wildfire mitigation code amendments and strongly pressed the County to adopt them into the current land use and building safety programs. A full copy of the public comments has been included as an appendix to this report. n.rlki ' S O Based on the outreach undertaken by the County and described above, it appears that a majority of residents within Deschutes County are generally supportive of greater building code and defensible space requirements to mitigate wildland fire impacts to the community. Of course, there are numerous technical and pragmatic questions regarding how these standards would be implemented on a case -by -case basis and these items would need to be addressed in greater detail when considering next steps. However, the common theme appears to be that Deschutes County residents are acutely aware of the risk posed by wildfire -32- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report to their communities and would like to see proactive measures be put in place to reduce those risks. -33- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Appendix Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Deschutes County Survey Summary Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q1 Are you a resident living within Deschutes County? Answered:799 Skipped: 2 I live with rural Deschu I live with the city Urn I five outside of Deschutes... I Live outside of Deschutes...' 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES I live within rural Deschutes County, outside of a city. 62.33% 1 live within the city limits of Bend, Redmond, Sisters or La Pine. 28.79% 1 live outside of Deschutes County but own property within Deschutes County. 7.63% 1 live outside of Deschutes County and do not own property in the area. 1.25% TOTAL 498 230 61 10 799 1/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q2 How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? Answered:801. Skipped:0 Not vulnerabl Somewhat vutnerabl Extremely vulnerable Undecided 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Not vulnerable 10.61% Somewhat vulnerable 61.30% Extremely vulnerable 25.34% Undecided 2.75% TOTAL 85 491 203 22 801 2/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Answered:798 Skipped:3 Yes No Undecided 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 67.29% 537 No 22.68% 181 Undecided 10.03% 80 TOTAL 798 3/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? Answered:790 Skipped: 11 Existing Wildfire Haz... Reducethe Wildfire Haz... I do not support... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone (entire rural county) Reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include only Forest (F1 & F2) and Rural Residential (RR10) zoning I do not support requiring additional fire-resistant materials Other (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 57.47% 454 17.22% 136 21.52% 170 3.80% 30 790 4/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Require in F1 and F2, strongly recommend in the whole county 12/13/2020 5:15 PM 2 All new construction -- both rural and city limits -- within Deschutes County 12/7/2020 5:11 PM 3 ??? 12/7/2020 4:35 PM 4 The entire county is at risk (including inside city limits.) If anyone thinks the city is not at risk, 12/6/2020 11:12 PM they should probably talk to residents of Talent and Phoenix to get their take on wildfire. 5 unfair to target rural areas. All homes in the county should be effected. 12/5/2020 7:16 PM 6 The entire County. Sadly, Deschutes Cnty has grown and continues to grow too rapidly. Why 12/5/2020 8:47 AM band aid this issue? Plan for the future, and do it right; make this applicable in the ENTIRE County. 7 1 would leave existing requirements as is, but add new requirements to F1, F2, RR10. 12/3/2020 5:14 PM 8 Utilize higher resolution modelling to determine risk. Consider ember travel beyond fuel beds 11/27/2020 3:23 PM 9 Anywhere that has many pine trees 11/26/2020 9:25 AM 10 Use F1 & F2 and RR10 as a starting point, but modify based on a landscape wildfire risk 11/23/2020 10:08 AM assessment. 11 would not want this to apply to replacements on existing homes anywhere 11/18/2020 11:26 AM 12 1 support requiring large housing developments to use all fire resistant materials, but not 11/16/2020 2:43 PM individuals who want to build a home outside of a development. 13 Everywhere in the County not just unincorporated. All Cities. 11/14/2020 6:43 AM 14 1 would prefer an expert to do the math on cost of upgrades vs saving/rebuilding and projected 11/12/2020 12:47 AM risk per home in each zone. 15 Only require it where it is truly needed. I don't know if any of the above options meet that. May 11/9/2020 7:54 AM require a new map. 16 Extreme High Risk WUI - but the answer is not building code but development code/pattern 11/8/2020 3:17 PM 17 All new construction within the county - INCLUDING cities. 11/6/2020 10:37 AM 18 Please explain (again?) F1, F2 and RR10 zoning 11/5/2020 2:28 PM 19 1 don't believe the new codes and requirements should apply only to Uralic new construction. 11/3/2020 8:57 AM Where we have wildfires the homes are typically areas out in Uralic areas. I believe especially with all the fires in past and this last year has shown, wildfires can happen both in Uralic and urban areas where the density of homes and buildings. With wind driven wildfire like we had a few months ago everyone is susceptible. With that said, I don't believe it is fair that the new codes and requirements be applied to just rural new homes or or remodels so the the City of Bend is exempt making the rural communities only pay these new construction fees. The City of Bend is building more and more homes and this new proposal would exclude home owners and contractors to pay. I believe if these code and restrictions should apply to all of Deschutes County be it living in Urban or Rural. Share the cost across the board. 20 there may be areas in the RR10 zones that should not be included, F1 and F2 seem 11/2/2020 10:46 AM appropriate. 21 F1, F2, RR10 and resort zones such as Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch. And any limited 10/30/2020 11:01 AM portions other zones that are within a stipulated distance from a F1 & F2 zone. For example the south end of Sisters is zoned R but borders national forest 22 1 am undecided on this. There are already a lot of homes in the Three Rivers area and I think 10/29/2020 4:21 PM the concern is to enforce a defensible space for existing homes. The Three Rivers area has a lot of people living in trailers and leaving the lot with trash and clutter. I say start at where the issue lies now. Even, if you require new homes to have a fire-resistant material. This doesn't really make us any safer, with other homes out of compliance. 23 Let the homeowner decide if they want additional fire-resistant material, and future owners can 10/28/2020 9:27 AM decide if they want to choose to purchase only homes with additional fire resistant materials 5/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey 24 Entire county not just outside city but city as well 10/27/2020 7:29 PM 25 Both in the existing wildfire hazard zone and I'd like to see a collaborative effort for the City 10/27/2020 2:09 PM Governments to adopt a similar code/policy 26 All houses in the county. Embers can travel miles and don't care about UGBs. 10/27/2020 12:18 PM 27 There should be no new development allowed in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (yes I realize that is 10/27/2020 11:01 AM the entire rural county) 28 Local and county government should offer significant property tax credits to property owners 10/26/2020 10:30 PM who voluntarily create defensible space. Additionally, metropolitan Bend should encourage low density development bordered by agricultural fields and pastures, golf courses, sports fields, and pasture parks developed voluntarily by citizens. 29 All areas. Fire is random with what was shown in talent/Phoenix Oregon. Commercial 10/26/2020 9:02 PM structures where lost due to extreme weather and available fuels. Preparations on all structure construction as well as fire resistant barriers. 30 Everywhere - wildfire can be unpredictable, it'd be great to have as many protection measures 10/23/2020 8:53 AM in place as possible. 6/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q5 If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? Answered:797 Skipped:4 $0 Up to $6,000 Over $6,000 2%to 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $0 22.84% Up to $6,000 46.42% Over $6,000 30.74% 2% to 3% 0.00% TOTAL 182 370 245 0 797 7/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? Answered:800 Skipped:1 Yes Im Undecided other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 60.88% No 24.13% Undecided 10.25% Other (please specify) 4.75% TOTAL 487 193 82 38 800 8/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 only new 12/21/2020 5:59 PM 2 This should apply to areas within the City that are also vulnerable and not just rural areas. It 12/7/2020 2:24 PM should also apply to remodeling. 3 Yes defensible space is absolutely needed but a 200 ft requirement should be considered. As 12/7/2020 12:31 PM the urban area pushes out further into the wildland this would be provide a better defensive area for firefighting operations. As a retired firefighter from a urban wildland area this required space truly allowed us the chance to save more homes during firefighting. 4 Expand to new development, consider requirements for undeveloped areas and their 12/7/2020 9:32 AM boundaries against developments 5 Yes. But not 100 foot of space. That'd basically leave me with zero trees between my property 12/6/2020 11:12 PM and the neighbors. 6 Redmond has more BLM land around us. Fire breaks and people keeping their yards fire safe 12/5/2020 8:20 AM is important. 7 We need more wildlife friendly 'defensible space' rules that better consider long term impacts 12/5/2020 6:13 AM on habitat rather than just clearing areas. 8 The fire retardants often use chemicals detrimental to water quality, human health and wildlife - 12/4/2020 12:36 PM - and alternatives are often regrettable (think pfas/pfoa), so please analyze from multiple perspectives. I live in Sundance subdivision near Horse Butte. We have one way in and one way out ... I would urge the County to consider retrofits to ensure multiple ways to leave an area in case of wildfire. The CCRs in terms of number of buildings are not being held to either so there are more lifestock and people that would need to leave quickly out the one road. Outreach to federal agencies for a second way out by means of a fire road have not been successful despite easements. Also there are not hydrants out here. As a county, I would focus on ensuring multiple routes of escape, hydrants and adequate water supplies; and because a lot fo fires start with sparks in the gutters/under eaves per your fire free experts improved options there. Then continue education on fire free products etc. but the analysis should include all the environmental and health risks/impacts. 9 Firewood storage exempted. Where will we keep the firewood? Almost everyone in our 12/4/2020 9:16 AM neighborhood has a pile near the house. Lots are not big enough to move firewood away 100': older subdivision with 1/2 acre lots. 10 My opinions are based upon repeated trips through the infamous Carr wildfire on the edge of 12/4/2020 7:37 AM Redding, CA. The devastation is unimaginable, but those risk are on our doorsteps today. 11 New developments need buffer zones between the development and the forest. The Tree Farm 12/4/2020 2:14 AM has a park area on the east side of the development and it should be on the west side next to Shevlin Park. We need better development planning for fires. Brooks Resources should be doing this for their new development along Skyliner Road as well! 12 In Sisters, many in -city homes border on NFS. Of the 100' defensible space, perhaps only 20 12/3/2020 4:30 PM feet of backyard is private property within city limits. NFS refuses to let homeowners modify their property. What good is 20' of defensible space when NFS won't deal with their 80'? Your regulations must take this into account. 13 For existing property, it should be up to the property owner to assume increased fire risk if not 12/3/2020 10:53 AM implemented. Many may not be able to afford upgrades which is also a reason many live outside the cities. 14 1 endorse all these measures on the condition that fire insurance premium reductions are 12/3/2020 10:18 AM commensurate with the calculated efficacy of these measures. 15 Yes ... but some flexibility is needed based on an on -site review. For example, if trees are 11/23/2020 10:08 AM spaced and lirnbs pruned appropriately they might be OK within the 100' zone. And stacked firewood could be allowed conveniently close to homes during winter/non-fire season but not allowed during fire season. If wildfire risk reduction measures are implemented there should be some flexibility in the guidelines . 16 Should be required in high -risk areas only. For example, areas east of Hamby Road are much 11/18/2020 3:12 PM lower risk than areas south of Knott Road. 9/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey 17 Yes, with assistance ($ or otherwise) for existing development 11/14/2020 7:00 PM 18 Who would enforce? There appears to be no active enforcement of other zoning codes. 11/13/2020 5:12 PM 19 The requirements should include only areas of actual forest, they should not be "peanut- 11/13/2020 1:45 PM buttered" across the county without consideration for actual fire risk. 20 all depends on what would need to be done. I would not want to be required to cut down the 11/13/2020 1:38 PM trees adjoining my house 21 This seems like a question for experts. Does a rural home surrounded by dirt fields or lava 11/12/2020 12:47 AM fields have the same risk from fires and need to get rid of the tree and garden beds next to their house? 22 Expand it to where it makes sense, which is not necessarily all of the rural county. 11/9/2020 7:54 AM 23 The fire boundaries are vital for human saftey but creating larger altered space in rural 11/9/2020 5:19 AM residential areas increases the human footprint in places that are vital for wildlife. Cutting bitterbrush and mowing sage is not the simple answer. 24 The proposal to require 100' of diminished vegetation vs the staged 50 and 100' criteria seems 11/8/2020 3:17 PM excessive 25 I do say Yes on above and also much less development needs to be allowed near all these 11/7/2020 8:39 AM forest areas! 26 1 am not sure "required" for existing development but I agree with "highly recommended" for 11/5/2020 2:28 PM existing development. Is there some kind of incentive to give existing development if they comply with the new requirement? 27 Need more specific requirement from the County before I can answer this question. 11/3/2020 12:11 PM 28 1 support defensible space but am concerned about requirements to remove excessive number 11/2/2020 3:54 PM of trees. Mature trees are not the same fire danger as other materials and I would not have to remove them if they were within 30 feet of my home as this would mean losing a significant number of healthy trees and make any rernodel cost prohibitive. 29 Yes but have a waiver process for unforeseen circumstances 10/29/2020 11:18 PM 30 It depends on definition and extent of space. Le., would I have to turn my yard into a desert or 10/29/2020 12:37 PM concrete slab? 31 Stop trying to legislate common sense 10/28/2020 8:12 AM 32 As long as it doesn't require clear cutting the trees, all for cutting under brush and low limbs 10/27/2020 11:03 AM 33 Better & more sensable forest management 10/27/2020 8:50 AM 34 Again, citizens who voluntarily create defensible space around their homes and other 10/26/2020 10:30 PM structures should be given a worthy property tax credit. Too much fuel is Oregon's problem! Citizens need to be rewarded for significantly eliminating volatile plant fuel on their private property. After all, for decades we have been encouraged to plant more trees and shrubs. Now it is time for us happily, voluntarily to create low density towns and cities with defensible space both inside and around the perimeters. And we will ! No wise person wants to see life and property unnecessarily lost in a preventable wildfire! 35 Any new construction would need a site evaluation. This would include site adjacent fuels 10/26/2020 9:02 PM available (vegetation/structures) to make a decision on needed for fire resistance materials/ sprinkler systems. 36 1 would like to know more about situations where existing lot size does not allow these 10/26/2020 4:32 PM dimensions 37 The cost of creating defensible space could impact some families significantly. I would support 10/26/2020 3:10 PM expanding and searching for grants to help offset costa for low/medium income families. 38 Yes, but thought must be given to providing help to those not able to do this on their own (i.e., 10/26/2020 2:25 PM elderly, physically impaired, etc). 10 / 10 Nelson Research, Inc. Survey Executive Summary Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report .h Ib ■ Q ■ A 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDFIRE SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 6, 2020 The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding the public's perception of wildfire threat to homes in the county, as well as two proposals: 1) require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing new homes in the Wildfire Hazard Zone, and 2) expand Defensible Space for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County. This report should assist Deschutes County in its decision -making process regarding these proposals. Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher percentage rate than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion; however, they are the ones that hold that opinion most strongly. Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NNZ A total of 383 respondents were interviewed between December 1 and December 4, 2020. While the total number of respondents participating in this research reflects a +/-5.0% at the 95% level of confidence, the sampling has been heavily weighted in the rural areas of the county (75% rural, 25% urban). The reader must understand that due to the significant weighting, these results are not necessarily representative the community at large, but they are representative of those living in rural Deschutes County. In addition, it should be noted that a very small percentage of respondents participating in the survey, (3%), were in the 18-29 age group. This is likely due to the 75/25 split between rural and urban residents. Furthermore, not all responses total 100%. This is not due any error, but because fractions of percentages have been rounded up or down. All responses not totaling 100% total 99% or 101 %. PERCEPTION OF WILDFIRE THREAT TO HOMES Respondents were given the following information and question: "In Deschutes County, wildfires have significantly increased over the last 40 years. Deschutes County is currently considering measures to help reduce the risk of catastrophic damage to homes in high risk areas in the county. These homes are located in what is called the Wildfire Hazard Zone. On a scale of one to four with "I" representing VERY VULNERABLE and 114" representing "NOT VULNERABLE AT ALL," please tell me how vulnerable you believe your home is to wildfire?" Well over half of respondents, 56%, did not believe their home was vulnerable to wildfire (3-26%, 4-not vulnerable at all 30%), while 44% believed their home was vulnerable to wildfire (I-veryvulnerable 17%, 2%-27%) 2 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Key groups that did not believe their homes were vulnerable to wildfires were males (60%), other genders (100%), 45-59 years old (61%), 60+years old (57%), 6-10 year residents (58%), over 10 year residents (57%), and urban (66%). Key demographics that believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfires were females (48%), 18-29 years old (77%), 30-44 years old (50%), 0-5 year residents (55%), and rural (47%). In a key cross tab, 54% of respondents that later strongly favored a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (21 % of all respondents), believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. In another special cross tab, 70% of respondents that strongly opposed a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (16% of all respondents) did not believe their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR In yet another important cross tab, 46% of respondents that later strongly favored expanding Defensible Space requirements in rural Deschutes County (24% of all respondents) believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. FAVOR/OPPOSE: REQUIRING CERTAIN FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS WHEN CONSTRUCTING A NEW HOME IN THE WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONE Next, respondents were read the following information and question: "Deschutes County currently requires fire-resistant roofing materials only. The county is considering a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. This requirement would increase the cost of building a new 2,400 square foot home by approximately $5,00046,000 including labor costs and materials. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the county enacting these requirements for new construction?" Well over half of respondents, 57%, favored requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (strongly favor-39%, somewhat favor-18%), while 32% opposed the proposal (somewhat oppose-9%, strongly oppose-23%). Another 12% were not sure, as reflected in the following chart. Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR Key demographics that favored requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in Wildfire Hazard Zones were females (61%), 18-29 years old (77%), 60+years old (61%), 0-5 year residents (68%), and rural (58%). Key groups that opposed requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in Wildfire Hazard Zones were other genders (100%), males (34%), 45-59 years old (41%), over 10 year residents (34%), and urban (33%). In a special cross tab, 72% of respondents that later strongly favored expanding Defensible Space requirements in rural Deschutes County (37% of all respondents) also favored certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. 5 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Next, respondents were asked the following question: If you had to choose, where would you prefer the county require additional fire- resistant materials — in the EXISTING Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes ALL OF RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY, or reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include FOREST AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONLY, or do you OPPOSE requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether? Respondents were nearly split, with 32% that preferred requiring fire-resistant materials in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and 30% that preferred to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. Another 23% opposed requiring fire-resistant materials altogether and 15% were not sure. Where to Require of Fire -Resistant Materials 35 30 30 ElExistiuglAlt Rural d 25 a \ 1 ❑Forest/Rural Zones a 23 e 20 ❑Oppose Requirement y E £ ®Not Sure ,e ,. 15 z S 04 E 10 4y E \ 5 F t'\t 6 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Key demographics that preferred a requirement for fire-resistant materials in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone were females (34%), 18-29 years old (62%), residents of 6-10 years (35%), and residents of 0-5 years (33%). Key groups that preferred to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zone only were other genders (100%), males (33%), 60+ years old (34%), and residents of 0-5 years (33%). Key demographics that opposed requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether were males (25%), 30-44 and 45-59 years old (30%), residents of over 10 years (26%), and urban (25%). Next, respondents were asked how much more they were willing to pay to build a new home in Deschutes County to reduce the risk of wildfire damage to their home. A slight plurality of respondents, 32%, were willing to pay $1,00046,000 more for a new home with fire-resistant materials, while 23% were not willing to pay anything more. Another 22% were willing to pay over $6,000 and a relatively high 24% were not sure. It is interesting to note that 54% of all respondents were willing to pay more for a new home using certain fire-resistant materials ($1-$6,000+). These numbers are consistent with the percentage of respondents that favor this requirement. 7 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR How Much More Residents are Willing to Pay for Fire -Resistant Materials 35 . 2 30 b 25 ONothing d� 22 w 20 w 0$1-$6,000 bv0 OOver $6,000 a 15 ONot Sure 'r z 10 c 4 Fz Q Key demographics willing to pay $146,000 more were females (33%), 18-29 years old (46%), 0-5 year residents (40%), and rural (33%). Key groups that were not willing to pay anything more were males (24%), 45-59 years old (33%), 30-44 years old (25%), over 10 year residents (26%), and rural (24%). Key groups willing to pay over $6,000 more were males (23%), 30-44 years old (27%), 0-5 year residents (26%), and urban (27%). Key demographics that were not sure how much they would be willing to pay for fire- resistant materials were other genders (100%), 18-29 years old (39%), 60+ years old (27%), and 6-10 year residents (31%). 8 Nelson I2esear°ch I Deschutes County Wildfire I December• 6, 2020 , wm FAVOR/OPPOSE: EXPANDING DEFENSIBLE SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY Next, respondents were given the following information and question: "Currently, Deschutes County requires Defensible Space in Forest Use Zones. Defensible space is an area around a building where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire to and from the building. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE expanding these requirements so residents would need to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County?" A very large percentage of respondents, 70%, favored expanding Defensible Space requirements so residents would have to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County (strongly favor-52%, somewhat favor-18%), while 21% opposed the proposal (somewhat oppose-6%, strongly oppose-15%). A relatively high 9% were not sure. Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR Key demographics that favored expanding Defensible Space Requirements were females (74%), 18-29 years old (77%), 60+ years old (73%), residents of 6-10 years (73%), and urban (76%). Key groups that opposed expanding Defensible Space Requirements were males (25%), other genders (100%), 30-44 and 45-59 years old (27%), over 10 year residents (23%), and rural (22%). 10 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 CONCLUSIONS 1. Well over half of respondents do not believe their home is vulnerable to wildfire; however, nearly half of rural residents, (47%), believe their homes are vulnerable. A large majority, of older residents 45-59 years old (61%) and 60+ years old (57%), do not believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire. 2. Well over half of respondents favor a proposal that would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. It is important to note that a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group (including rural areas) favor this proposal. 3. Respondents are nearly split with slightly less than one-third that prefer fire-resistant materials be required in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and slightly fewer numbers that prefer to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. It appears that slightly more rural residents prefer enacting these requirements on all of rural Deschutes County (32%), over reducing the Wildfire Hazard Zone (30%). Additional education and communication about why this is a necessary option (enacting the requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone) could significantly increase support, should the County choose to move forward with. 4. Slightly less than one-third of respondents would be willing to pay between $146,000 more to build a new home with fire resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones. It is important to note that a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more for these fire-resistant materials ($1-ab,000+), including those currently caving -in rural areas of the County. These numbers are consistent with the number of respondents that favor requiring fire-resistant materials. 5. A very large number of respondents favor expanding Defensible Space Requirements so new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County would need to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of wildfire. It is significant that a large majority of respondents in every demographic group support this proposal. 11 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 6. While most Deschutes County residents do not currently believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire, a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group favor a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials on new construction. A slight plurality favor this requirement be enacted in all of rural Deschutes County. If the County chooses to enact this requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone, additional communication and education would likely increase community support for this option. In addition, a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more to build a home with fire-resistant materials ($1-$6,000+), including those currently living in rural areas of the County. A strong majority of respondents in every demographic group favor a second proposal that would require new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire. Both proposals appear to have wide -spread community support in nearly every demographic group. 12 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Virtual Open House Q&A Summaries Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: November 12, 2020 SUBJECT: Wildfire Mitigation Open House I. Wildfire Mitigation Open House On November 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. the Community Development Department (CDD) is inviting residents and stakeholders to hear experts discuss wildfire mitigation measures and to share their own opinions and questions regarding the issue.' This is the first virtual open house hosted by the Planning Commission that will rely exclusively on Zoom, Facebook Live, and by phone. The second open house will be held on December 3, 2020. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could increase the cost of new construction and some remodels due to new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. III. Background Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant to —among other tasks —incorporate Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. Last year, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discussed approaches to updating the Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) / Map and potential building and land use standards to mitigate wildfire hazards and improve wildfire safety. Ultimately, the Board established a WMAC to provide ' The Planning Commission will convene a second open house on December 3 at 6:00 p.m. More information is available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation. recommendations.Z The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020 and a final report on April 17, 2020.3 III. Online Survey In addition to the discussions with staff at the open houses, CDD invites residents to provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wiIdfiremitigationsurvey. The deadline to respond is December 22, 2020. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. 2 The WMAC was charged to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. 3 https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation-advisory-committee. -2- NOVEMBER 19, 2020, 6:00 PM Questions and Answers 1. Is the town Redmond rural area or not? The City of Redmond and its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are not included in this proposal. This proposal only applies to rural Deschutes County, which is lands outside of the cities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond and their respective UGBs. 2. Are there resources that I can find more information on what defensible space should look like? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.proiectwildfire.org Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. How did the $2000 grant program go over the summer? This grant was associated with Firewise Communities funded by Deschutes County. It went well. Many communities requested funding. Prioritization of grant applications has been completed. All communities that applied for a grant have been notified as to whether or not they have been awarded a grant. For more information, contact Boone Zimmerlee. 4. Does defensible space mean I have to remove all trees within 100' around my home? No. The key is understanding what is going to contribute to ember production. For trees within the defensible space of a structure, the emphasis is on removing ladder fuels. Alternatively, trees or vegetation that are up against the home or under the eaves should be significantly trimmed and if necessary, removed. 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q) (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org 0 www.deschutes.org/cd 5. Can you choose to adopt only some of the new regulations, but not others (e.g. roofing and siding only)? No. If R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) is adopted, all building codes pertaining to ventilation, siding, decking, etc. will apply. There are exceptions related to where geographically the building codes can apply. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports updating the County building codes. 6. I've seen an option between having this apply to the current wildfire risk area or having it encompass the entire rural Deschutes County. Is this still optional, or has the decision to expand coverage already been made? This decision has not been made. In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a wildfire hazard zone that prohibited untreated wooden shake roofs in the rural county. Under this new building code provision, R327.4, Deschutes County can revisit its wildfire hazard zone based on four factors (weather, topography, vegetative fuel type, and vegetative fuel distribution). There are two options based on the work of a Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee to consider. The first is to keep as it is today and apply the wildfire hazard zone to the rural county. The second is to focus on sub -areas based on Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and the four factors. Some areas were eliminated through that analysis. The law allows a jurisdiction to focus on a region, but it doesn't define what a region means. Staff will have a conversation with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this option in early 2021. 7. Does that include wood stoves? No. 8. How much fuel reduction has been done on State and Federal lands in the county? It varies from year to year depending on funding. Approximately 800-1,000 acres are treated annually for fuels reduction by the state. USFS generally has a target of approximately 38,000 acres annually, in 2020 the Deschutes National Forest completed 26,752 acres that received treatments such as thinning, mowing, pile burning, broadcast burning or other treatment. CWPPs track fuel treatments across the county on a five year basis. 9. 1 understand that the majority of fires that burn homes come from embers landing on roofs. Do some roof types offer better protection and why not require them on new construction or reconstruction? Wooden shakes and wooden shingles are the most susceptible to embers. Deschutes County's existing wildfire hazard zone already prohibits those types of materials. Any new construction is required to meet existing roofing standards. Asphalt shingles and metal roofing are effective materials. 10. Many of our neighboring overgrown properties are owned by absentee landlords whose attitudes apparently are "out of sight -out of mind." How are we going to address these issues? There isn't an enforcement mechanism today to compel absentee landlords to implement defensible space. It's important to continue to try to maintain relationships with those individuals. One approaches is offering incentives like grant funding that assist in fuels reduction and improving defensible space. As an additional incentive, as woody debris is removed, evidence shows property values generally increase. It is important to emphasize that maintaining 100' of defensible space can greatly improve structure survivability. 11. If I add a room to my house, will I need to modify my existing deck to be covered underneath? No. R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) would only apply to new rural residential construction and potentially to new accessory structures. 12. Do these regulations apply to commercial structures as well? M 13. Extending some of the county forestry recommendations for 100' from structures will change the landscape considerably in the rural 2.5 acre subdivisions - even if the space is gradated. What is the flexibility for those who have met 5B 760 (360) standards - out to 50' - it is a little less rigorous? Senate Bill (SB) 360 (not 760) does have requirements for defensible space. Based on the latest science, 50' is not always enough and a property owner that decides to rely on that separation distance needs to recognize the risk they are accepting by not working out to 100'. Ember fallout occurs in the 100' area. 14. Are these new code requirements unique to Oregon or have other states adopted similar requirements? California has adopted similar regulations. In Oregon, the City of Medford applied R327.4 to a portion of their jurisdiction. 15. What did they restrict the venting size to? Current regulation allows a maximum opening of a 1/4 of an inch, R327.4 would allow a maximum opening of a 1/8 of an inch. 16. Can you briefly describe what makes a vent opening "ember resistant"? Certain types of vents are manufactured and tested by a third party to prevent ember intrusion. They rely on a heat activated material similar to those firework snakes. They char over and seal the opening. 17. Is there a rural map? The map that applies today was adopted in 2001. Adopted in 2001, it prohibits wooden shake roofs. 18. What triggers the building code portion for remodels: anything requiring a permit (inside or outside)? Any improvement to the exterior - requiring permit or not? Normally all work that is not considered exempt from building permits would be required to comply with the adopted code requirements. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports adopting the increased construction standards (R327.4). General building code questions can be referred to Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official, Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org. 19. If one has questions about building materials and grant funds, who are appropriate contacts? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.pro*ectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. A fairly comprehensive list of approved building materials can be found at: http•//osfm fire ca gov/divisions/fire-engineering-and-investigations/building-materials-listing/bml- search-building-materials-listing/ 20. How does one select fire resistant plants in the defensible space area, especially near a house? Any thoughts about water conservation and xeriscaping? There are plants that don't use a lot of water but are still flammable. There is a guide to fire-resistant plants available. The guide can be found on FireFree.org, contact Boone Zimmerlee for more information. 21. 1 want to clear up a misunderstanding. Does SB 360 require 100' of defensible space onto a neighboring property as well as theirs? Under SB360 the fuel break distance depends on type of roof material. The required fuel break distance under SB360 will only extend to the property line and does not extend beyond the property line. 22. Are there certain trees that apply a reasonable fire break around a property? Yes. Some trees like aspen are more resistant to wildfires. Many deciduous trees are fire-resistant as well since they hold a lot of moisture, their leaves are green and they don't have a lot of lower limbs creating ladder fuels. 23. If I have a fire hydrant on the street in front of my house, outside a UGB, will this still apply to my house? This has not been determined yet. However, the presence of fire hydrant should not exclude a homeowner from their responsibility of doing defensible space. This would be a transfer of risk to firefighters under the homeowner's assumed safety of a having a hydrant, which likely would not be working during a wildfire event as power is often shut off especially in areas outside of Urban boundaries and larger municipalities. There are a couple of communities around Sisters that have hydrants, but wildland firefighting agencies recognize and plan for these to likely not be working during a wildland event. 24. Will absentee landlords with property but no dwelling be responsible to provide defensible space on their side of the property line? This has not been determined yet. The Board of County Commissioners, if they direct staff to develop defensible space regulations will need to determine if absentee property owners with no structure are Still rPnllirPfi to undertake vegetation management. 25. How many people participating/watching tonight? 571 people. 24 people participated through Zoom. 547 were reached through Facebook Live. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: November 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Wildfire Mitigation Open House 1. Wildfire Mitigation Open House On December 3, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. the Community Development Department (CDD) is inviting residents and stakeholders to hear experts discuss wildfire mitigation measures and to share their own opinions and questions regarding the issue. This is the second virtual open house hosted by the Planning Commission.' It will rely exclusively on Zoom and by phone. Questions received and answered during the first open house are attached as a reference. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could increase the cost of new construction and some remodels due to new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. III. Background Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant to —among other tasks —incorporate Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. Last year, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discussed approaches to updating the Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) / Map and potential building and land use standards to mitigate wildfire hazards and improve wildfire safety. Ultimately, the Board established a WMAC to provide ' The Planning Commission's first open house occurred on November 19 and relied exclusively on Zoom, Facebook Live, and by phone. More information is available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation. recommendations.Z The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020 and a final report on April 17, 2020.3 III. Online Survey In addition to the discussions with staff at the open houses, CDD invites residents to provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigationsurvev. The deadline to respond is December 22, 2020. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. Attachment: November 19, 2020 Open House Questions & Answers Z The WMAC was charged to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone based on the Oregon Department of Forestry s criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC- R327, in areas under Deschutes Countys building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. 3 https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation-advisory-committee. -2- WILDFIRE MITIGATION OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 19, 2020, 6:00 PM Questions and Answers 1. Is the town Redmond rural area or not? The City of Redmond and its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are not included in this proposal. This proposal only applies to rural Deschutes County, which is lands outside of the cities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond and their respective UGBs. 2. Are there resources that I can find more information on what defensible space should look like? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.projectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. 3. How did the $2000 grant program go over the summer? This grant was associated with Firewise Communities funded by Deschutes County. It went well. Many communities requested funding. Prioritization of grant applications has been completed. All communities that applied for a grant have been notified as to whether or not they have been awarded a grant. For more information, contact Boone Zimmerlee. 4. Does defensible space mean I have to remove all trees within 100' around my home? No. The key is understanding what is going to contribute to ember production. For trees within the defensible space of a structure, the emphasis is on removing ladder fuels. Alternatively, trees or vegetation that are up against the home or under the eaves should be significantly trimmed and if necessary, removed. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 �Q (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@)deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd 5. Can you choose to adopt only some of the new regulations, but not others (e.g. roofing and siding only)? No. If R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) is adopted, all building codes pertaining to ventilation, siding, decking, etc. will apply. There are exceptions related to where geographically the building codes can apply. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports updating the County building codes. 6. I've seen an option between having this apply to the current wildfire risk area or having it encompass the entire rural Deschutes County. Is this still optional, or has the decision to expand coverage already been made? This decision has not been made. In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a wildfire hazard zone that prohibited untreated wooden shake roofs in the rural county. Under this new building code provision, R327.4, Deschutes County can revisit its wildfire hazard zone based on four factors (weather, topography, vegetative fuel type, and vegetative fuel distribution). There are two options based on the work of a Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee to consider. The first is to keep as it is today and apply the wildfire hazard zone to the rural county. The second is to focus on sub -areas based on Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and the four factors. Some areas were eliminated through that analysis. The law allows a jurisdiction to focus on a region, but it doesn't define what a region means. Staff will have a conversation with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this option in early 2021. 7. Does that include wood stoves? No. 8. How much fuel reduction has been done on State and Federal lands in the county? It varies from year to year depending on funding. Approximately 800-1,000 acres are treated annually for fuels reduction by the state. USFS generally has a target of approximately 38,000 acres annually, in 2020 the Deschutes National Forest completed 26,752 acres that received treatments such as thinning, mowing, pile burning, broadcast burning or other treatment. CWPPs track fuel treatments across the county on a five year basis. 9. 1 understand that the majority of fires that burn homes come from embers landing on roofs. Do some roof types offer better protection and why not require them on new construction or reconstruction? Wooden shakes and wooden shingles are the most susceptible to embers. Deschutes County's existing wildfire hazard zone already prohibits those types of materials. Any new construction is required to meet existing roofing standards. Asphalt shingles and metal roofing are effective materials. 10. Many of our neighboring overgrown properties are owned by absentee landlords whose attitudes apparently are "out of sight -out of mind." How are we going to address these issues? There isn't an enforcement mechanism today to compel absentee landlords to implement defensible space. It's important to continue to try to maintain relationships with those individuals. One approaches is offering incentives like grant funding that assist in fuels reduction and improving defensible space. As an additional incentive, as woody debris is removed, evidence shows property values generally increase. It is important to emphasize that maintaining 100' of defensible space can greatly improve structure survivability. 11. If I add a room to my house, will I need to modify my existing deck to be covered underneath? No. R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) would only apply to new rural residential construction and potentially to new accessory structures. 12. Do these regulations apply to commercial structures as well? M 13. Extending some of the county forestry recommendations for 100' from structures will change the landscape considerably in the rural 2.5 acre subdivisions - even if the space is gradated. What is the flexibility for those who have met SB 760 (360) standards - out to 50' - it is a little less rigorous? Senate Bill (SB) 360 (not 760) does have requirements for defensible space. Based on the latest science, 50' is not always enough and a property owner that decides to rely on that separation distance needs to recognize the risk they are accepting by not working out to 100'. Ember fallout occurs in the 100' area. 14. Are these new code requirements unique to Oregon or have other states adopted similar requirements? California has adopted similar regulations. In Oregon, the City of Medford applied R327.4 to a portion of their jurisdiction. 15. What did they restrict the venting size to? Current regulation allows a maximum opening of a 1/4 of an inch, R327.4 would allow a maximum opening of a 1/8 of an inch. 16. Can you briefly describe what makes a vent opening "ember resistant"? Certain types of vents are manufactured and tested by a third party to prevent ember intrusion. They rely on a heat activated material similar to those firework snakes. They char over and seal the opening. 17. Is there a rural map? The map that applies today was adopted in 2001. Adopted in 2001, it prohibits wooden shake roofs. 18. What triggers the building code portion for remodels: anything requiring a permit (inside or outside)? Any improvement to the exterior - requiring permit or not? Normally all work that is not considered exempt from building permits would be required to comply with the adopted code requirements. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports adopting the increased construction standards (R327.4). General building code questions can be referred to Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official, Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org. 19. If one has questions about building materials and grant funds, who are appropriate contacts? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https:/Zwww.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.prodectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. A fairly comprehensive list of approved building materials can be found at: http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/fire-engineering-and-investigations/building-mate rials-listing/bml- search-building-mate rials-listing/ 20. How does one select fire resistant plants in the defensible space area, especially near a house? Any thoughts about water conservation and xeriscaping? There are plants that don't use a lot of water but are still flammable. There is a guide to fire-resistant plants available. The guide can be found on FireFree.org, contact Boone Zimmerlee for more information. 21. 1 want to clear up a misunderstanding. Does SB 360 require 100' of defensible space onto a neighboring property as well as theirs? Under SB360 the fuel break distance depends on type of roof material. The required fuel break distance under SB360 will only extend to the property line and does not extend beyond the property line. 22. Are there certain trees that apply a reasonable fire break around a property? Yes. Some trees like aspen are more resistant to wildfires. Many deciduous trees are fire-resistant as well since they hold a lot of moisture, their leaves are green and they don't have a lot of lower limbs creating ladder fuels. 23. If I have a fire hydrant on the street in front of my house, outside a UGB, will this still apply to my house? This has not been determined yet. However, the presence of fire hydrant should not exclude a homeowner from their responsibility of doing defensible space. This would be a transfer of risk to firefighters under the homeowner's assumed safety of a having a hydrant, which likely would not be working during a wildfire event as power is often shut off especially in areas outside of Urban boundaries and larger municipalities. There are a couple of communities around Sisters that have hydrants, but wildland firefighting agencies recognize and plan for these to likely not be working during a wildland event. 24. Will absentee landlords with property but no dwelling be responsible to provide defensible space on their side of the property line? This has not been determined yet. The Board of County Commissioners, if they direct staff to develop defensible space regulations will need to determine if absentee property owners with no structure are still required to under tole ve�etation mana aomont 25. How many people participating/watching tonight? 571 people. 24 people participated through Zoom. 547 were reached through Facebook Live. General Public Comments Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:56 AM To: Tanya Saltzman; Kyle Collins; Peter Russell Subject: FW: My two cents and more FYI. s Peter Gutowsky, AICP ( Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 006 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:55 AM To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: My two cents and more Commissioner, Thank you for sharing the message with us. Peter will include it in our record of public comments and survey results for this project. Nick Lelack, AICP Director 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Cell: (541) 639-5585 Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey From: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 202011:23 AM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: My two cents and more Good morning Nick, This is feedback from our community regarding raising the costs of building... Catherine was thinking we need to do a better job cleaning around home sights... Most sincerely, Patti IL Patti Adair Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 206 1 Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 388-6567 1 Cell: (541) 904-5378 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: catherine Caudle <caudlecatherine@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 7:04 PM To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair deschutes.org> Subject: My two cents and more [EXTERNAL EMAIL] The proposed building code changes for Deschutes County is not necessary. What is necessary is Dechutes County enforcing fire debris removal and clean up. The proposed building code changes will cost lower income families, a great amount live in the rural areas of Deschutes County, from improving their homes. Many purchase mobile homes and place those on land, most or some are used, and this new rule would prohibit this cheap form of living from occuring. I oppose the buidling changes being proposed and wish to have this item removed from further discussion. Deschutes county residents pay for homeowners coverage some at a higher rate simply because the fire hydrants are not available and they are too far away from the closest fire department. Perhaps the county could look at reducing fire by placing fire hydrants in the neighborhoods or requiring internal extinguishers in future home builds rather than prohibiting cheaper forms of living and further injuring those living cheaply in rural Deschutes County. Catherine Caudle 2187 NW Quince Place Redmond, Oregon 97756 5418487121 Tanya Saltzman From: Matt Martin Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:29 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman Subject: FW: Form submission from: Land Use Planning Peter and Tanya - I assume this is related to the proposed wildfire regulations. Please let me know if there is any action necessary on my part as planner on duty. -Matt From: Do Not Reply <donotreply@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:51 AM To: CDD Planning <planning@deschutes.org> Subject: Form submission from: Land Use Planning ****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY**** Incoming Land Use Planning Submission from Website Submitted on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 -11:50am Submitted values are: Name cheryl Phone Number 541-225-7185 Email Address cherylierryhoskins@gmaii.com Subject Property Address 7015 NW River Springs Rd, Redmond OR Subject Property Taxlot Number Relationship to the Property Details of your Inquiry When is the deadline for public comment on the proposed TAX on new construction in rural Deschutes County to require fire retardant materials to be used in any new construction? Please send email with pertinent information. Phone calls to get information isn't working & we aren't on facebook. Thank you! From: Peter Gutowsky To: "James Lewis" Subject: RE: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:48:32 AM Attachments: image001.ona image002.ono image003.pna image004.ono James, Thanks for the email. Everything right now is conceptual. We'll convey the results of the survey to the Board in the New Year. If the Board supports R327 and/or defensible space, we'll draft language and share with it you and others as we prepare for inevitable public hearings. Of course, Tuesday's election could also impact whether there's Board support for additional wildfire mitigation measures. I haven't heard from any other community association. Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: James Lewis Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:30 AM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: RE: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter: Thanks for thinking of me and sending this. I did see this — I am going to discuss this with our Community Development department staff. Our primary concerns will be if this is adopted by the County, what provisions included therein will conflict with our design manual regulations — and to determine if we will request changes to the County document or need to change our design manual (or a combination of both). Curious — have you heard from the managers of any other community associations (Black Butte, Eagle Crest, etc...)? Overall, it is hard to argue against any construction provisions for fire safety— especially in Sunriver. Overall, in the past, SROA has changed it's requirements for fire prevention (i.e. no shake roofs, defensible space, etc.). We have to review the drafts first — haven't had an opportunity to do that yet. In your estimation, is there something in particular that we should be looking? Ultimately, I would like to support the changes formally, but we need to get a pulse on what this would mean for construction in Sunriver and how it affects our owners (ahhh, the politics of it all ..... LOL). Thanks, James From: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 8:24 AM To: James Lewis <iames1@srowners.or�> Subject: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input James, If you haven't seen the press release, FYI. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could make new construction and some remodels more expensive because of new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Deschutes County Community Development Department invites residents to learn more about the proposed changes and provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wildfiremiti2ationsu.[vLey The Deschutes County Planning Commission will host two virtual meetings to provide residents a chance to learn more about the proposed changes and ask questions. Meetings will be held on: • Thursday, November 19, at 6 p.m. • Thursday, December 3, at 6 p.m. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board of County Commissioners in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. For more information on how to participate in the virtual community meetings, please visit www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigation,. For questions, or more information, please contact Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager, 541-385-1709, pe er utowskyPdeschutes org; or Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner, 541-388-6528, Tanya SaltzmanPdeschutes org. Please visit www deschutes org/wiIdfiremiti ag tion for current project information, and to sign up for project updates. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning (Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in o cost-effective manner. Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 4:46 PM To: 'Bill Inman'; Tanya Saltzman Cc: Ed Keith Subject: RE: Fire risk reduction Your question is a good one. Should defensible space apply to vacant lots? It's one we can discuss with the Board in the New Year. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Bill Inman <inmanoutdoor@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 3:52 PM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith@deschutes.org> Subject: Fire risk reduction [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter & Tanya, Thanks for the presentation and survey. My question is regarding vacant lots, especially in south county where it doesn't take long for the lodgepoles to take over and create a tinderbox. As you may have heard, there was a fire on Hermosa on Labor Day that came within minutes of crowning, in which case the whole DRRH neighborhood would likely have gone up. In addition to the changes for homeowners, is it possible for the county to consider requiring landowners to do fuel mitigation on vacant lots? It is required when a lot is purchased at the county auction, but that does nothing for the 100s of privately owned lots that will explode with the slightest spark or ember. I'm happy to share pictures of some of the lots adjacent to my property that are overgrown and crisscrossed with downed trees. I know Ed is well aware of the issue as we have discussed it in the past. While this is not part of the purview of the the road district, it has come up in our meetings as well as in numerous conversations with neighbors. Thanks, Bill Inman Special Road District #1 Commissioner cell: 503.709.1492 Tanya Saltzman From: Oregon: Living with Fire <coordinator@oregonlivingwithfire.org> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 3:08 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman Cc: Ed Keith; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: Fwd: New Blog -- Deschutes County is seeking resident input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi There Peter & Tanya, Please see the feedback I received from our blog post we sent out this morning. I did respond back to Craig to invite him to put his feedback in the survey. I will make sure to pass along any other feedback I receive to you all. Thanks! Take care, Afton Green Coordinator Oregon: Living with Fire 9 I AIQ 11, coordinator(cb.oregonlivingwithfire.org www.oregonlivingwithfire.org Facebook: @Oregon1-ivingwithFire Begin forwarded message: From: Craig Renkert <hike4fun77(ab-gmail. com> Subject: Re: New Blog -- Deschutes County is seeking resident input Date: November 2, 2020 at 12:10:50 PST To: Alison <coordinatoraoregonlivingwithfire.org> Allison With the recent fire damage it is great that the county is taking action to reduce future risks. My new home is less than a mile east of the August Juniper Ridge fire with nothing between us and the fire except juniper trees. We were very concerned that we could louse our home less that 6 months after completing it. In building the home we include many fire mitigation construction techniques, with some resistance from the builder and sub -contractors. More education of the construction trades on fire mitigation is needed to get their buy -in on the best practices and so they can develop procedures that will minimize any additional costs of construction. As a rural county resident that has recently built a new home I would be willing to assist the county develop an update set of codes and procedures to reduce wildfire risk. We will all benefit from reducing fire risk and we will all pay for it is we don't. The short term additional cost during construction of fire mitigation will pay long term benefits for the owner as well as others. Thanks Craig Renkert hike4fun77a,gmail.com (541) 797-3598 On Nov 2, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Alison <coordinator(&ore ong livingwithfire.org> wrote: View this email in oy ur browser Deschutes County seeking input on proposed defensible space, fire rules. The county acknowledged that updating local building codes to make homes more fire-resistant could make new construction and some remodels more expensive because of new requirements decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of the county. Deschutes County Community Development Department invites residents to learn more about the proposed changes and provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigationsurvey. The deadline for residents to provide their input is December 21st... Read More in Copyright © 2020. Oregon: Living With Fire, All rights reserved. Our ernail address is: coordinator@oreaonlivinciwithfire.org Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. This email was sent to hike4fun77@gmail.com why did I get this unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Oregon: Living with Fire • 61150 SE 27th St - Bend, Oregon 97702 � USA Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:19 AM To: 'Jeff Scheetz' Cc: Harry Ward; Sean Hartley; carl.harbour@crookedriverranch.com; garyw@crrfire.org; Nick Lelack; Ed Keith; Tanya Saltzman; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: RE: Residential WUI Building Code Thanks Jeff for your comments. If you haven't done so already, please complete Deschutes County's survey: • www.deschutes.org/wiIdfiremitigationsuLyey Peter Gutowsky, AiCP j Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 no ID Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Jeff Scheetz <jscheetz@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:58 PM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Cc: Harry Ward <harry.ward@crrfire.org>; Sean Hartley <seanh@crrfire.org>; carl.harbour@crookedriverranch.com; garyw@crrfire.org Subject: Residential WUI Building Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter, As a firefighter having performed many lot inspections for wildfire safety at Crooked River Ranch, I can say that a very common recommedation is to improve the foundation (crawl space) vent screening found on almost all residential structures. Typical construction uses 1/4 inch spacing wire screen, presumable designed to prevent animal intrusion. Tested with artifically-driven embers (Institute for Business & Home Safety, 2013 Demonstration) has shown that 1/4 inch screen is too coarse for ember protection, and 1/8 to 1/16 inch spacing performs better in blocking embers. Also, field reports from the Camp Fire in California several years ago reached the same conclusion after surveying residences for survivability. Accordingly I recommend the county adoption of mandatory building code requirements (R327) for new residences in the wildfire -urban interface. I believe the additional cost in such implementation will produce a large return in public safety. Respectfully, Jeff Scheetz Crooked River Ranch Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:45 PM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: FW: Yes on fire resistant homes FYI Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Anderson <Tom.Anderson@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:20 PM To: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith@deschutes.org>; Boone Zimmerlee<Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Yes on fire resistant homes FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Debra DeWeese <deweese3@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:27 AM To: Board <board@deschutes.org> Subject: Yes on fire resistant homes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] I urge you to vote to require homes in Deschutes County to be built to be fire resistant - and do not allow the City of Bend to opt out of this. In addition, I encourage you to do an educational campaign on how current homeowners can retrofit their homes to be fire resistant. Do not let this area burn like Paradise, California! Thank you. Deby DeWeese Sent from my Wad Air 2 Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:32 AM To: Kyle Collins; Tanya Saltzman; Peter Russell Subject: FW: Wildfire Mitigation Just a fyi for us to collectively remember to include these of types observations in the summary report. ATS Peter Gutowsky, AICP Penning Manager _ 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 DOG Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:31 AM To:'TA Humphrey' <tbkodie@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Wildfire Mitigation Mr. Humphrey, Thanks for your email. We'll share your comments about outdoor burning with the Board of County Commissioners in 2021. Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: TA Humphrey <tbkodie@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:27 AM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: Wildfire Mitigation [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter - It looks like the upcoming virtual meetings will focus on defensible space and construction requirements. Thank you for pursuing these important actions. Please also consider: 1) mirroring city requirements for open burning. We frequently see neighbors burning toxic trash to avoid paying for garbage service; 2) enhancing the no -cost fire free cleanup frequency. Burning yard debris greatly impacts our air quality throughout Central Oregon. Thank you. - - Terry Humphrey From: Jennifer To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: fire mitigation Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:54:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Peter While I know we all live in a fire danger area surrounded by trees and brush in high desert, I think it is prudent to avoid the natural tendency to overreact based on unfounded fear. It is true that most Oregon forest fires are human caused. We now have more and more humans coming to Bend engaging in reckless behavior with no restrictions in camping, length of stay and fire (mostly non adherence) with no one to enforce this. This would seem to be a necessary issue to address. High density housing which has been a priority of Bend, on the city limits is also fraught with lack of foresight. The truth is, because of the lack of planning and city management, we now have a sprawling city that will engender much more fire danger. Rather than deferring to the same poor planning that gave birth to this trend, it should be up to the individual home owners to make this decision since they are the ones taking on this risk. Our city leaders have shown very poor judgement on the sustainable to controlled growth of this city, I certainly don't want them making any additional choices that changes the lives of all of us who live here without firm data and support from the community. Jennifer Gunnell From: Laura Skundric To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Wildfire mitigation - social media comments Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:23:32 AM Attachments: imaQe00I.ono lmaae003.pno Hi Peter, Over the weekend, we shared Facebook and Twitter posts about the proposed building codes and land use regulations for protecting communities from wildfire, and the upcoming virtual open house. The posts received several comments that I wanted to forward to you just for your visibility, below. Thanks! Toby Rey Fou ntaing rove 11 in Santa Rosa CA was a Firewise neighborhood destroyed by the Tubbs Fire in 2017. All the latest urban-wildland interface fire and building codes'were used, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and thousands of tons of fuel -,vere removed creating fire breaks and defensible spaces. The new fire station 'was even lost to the fire. Uke Reply Klessage i d V -1 46, chin Azril Ahhh... goo,,-ernrnent regulations that increase costs to builders and homeowners. Nothing better than the government requiring you to spend time/money for sornething that `rnay",vvork. Not as if prices of houses aren't already sky rocketing. Like Reply Message Id Beverly Michaelis Time to fol loo; the example of Paradise, California. Many changes to landscaping specifications post -fire. Ukt,, Reply message "d Megan Noblitt How about -we manage the forest around us! What a fantastic iclj_4. Like Reply Message 1,3, E�`teC '.Write a. comi-nent.- ty t. 11 a � I- t- o 1,c., repail �!-,J to View Thread ... `) Q> (2) p <� From: Robin Vora To: Peter Gutowskv; Tanya Saltzman; Deschutes County Commissioners; Planning Commission; Nick Lelack Subject: Building codes and wildfire Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:31:40 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] The Deschutes County Wildlife Survey is well done. I would have added an opportunity in the survey to make other specific suggestions. I think the county needs to adopt all the additional defensive measures listed to increase public and firefighter safety, and reduce losses due to wildfire. Catastrophic wildfire will happen in Deschutes County; it is just a matter of when. It is best to be better prepared. Most people constructing new homes outside of cities are spending hundreds of thousands on them; they can afford a few thousand extra and it will be to their benefit in the long -run. At some point they will likely have lower insurance rates and higher resale value if their houses are constructed or upgraded to these proposed standards. It will also save the taxpayer money on wildfire response and generally increase public and firefighter safety. These building codes should also apply to homes being upgraded (e.g., new roof or siding). I suggest starting out with the Forest Use and Rural Residential Zones. I am not convinced some of the more open parts of eastern Deschutes County have the same wildfire risk, especially if the property has irrigated land around the house. I also suggest requiring Class A roofs (concrete or clay tiles, fiberglass asphalt composition shingles, metal roofs). Class B (pressure treated shakes and shingles) are more flammable. My understanding is that most houses that catch on fire do so because of embers igniting the roof. Proper roof vents with metal mesh and openings less than 1/8" will help in the event of wildfire. I encourage the County to adopt the proposed construction code in relation to wildfire. We don't need a repeat in Deschutes County of the Camp Fire, or this year's fires in the Ashland - Medford corridor or Detroit Lakes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Robin Vora 1679 NE Daphne Ct Bend, OR 97701 Tanya Saltzman From: Susan T. Springer <susan@susantspringer.com> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:45 PM To: Tanya Saltzman; Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack Subject: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello Nick, Tanya and Peter, Thank you for working to keep our county safer by considering additional fire prevention measures. It seems obvious that any discussion of fire mitigation would include stopping yard debris burning. Afterall, escaped debris burning is the leading cause of human -caused fires in our state. Given the increased risks your county report describes, this needs to be considered. Is this outside the scope of your department? Do you know other officials who are considering this? And do you have any say in it? In our 18 years in our neighborhood (outside Sisters), I've lost count of the number of times I've called the fire department because of yard debris fires unattended by the homeowner or fires still burning after dark. Having safer roofing materials is a great step - but we need to stop one of the main causes of fire in the first place. Please let me know if this is an issue you can address or if you know others who can. Thank you, Susan 541-549-1928 From: Mike Benefield To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Wildfire Mitigation Date: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:39:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Mr. Gutowsky, My name is Mike Benefield, I am a retired Bureau of Land Management Fire Management Officer. I spent over 35 years serving in wildland fire management, including a decade within Deschutes County (Central Oregon Fire Mtg Service). I sat in on your Zoom Meeting on 12.03 and listened intently to all present. I applaud your efforts in this important initiative, however I was somewhat dismayed at how one respondent could steer the whole conversation off track. I will simply refer to this particular individual as the bird woman. While I have a great deal of respect for wildlife biologists and I love birds, I believe that it is important to stay focused upon the issues that will impact all life in Central Oregon. Wildfires. Wildfires have been an important agent of change in Central Oregon for thousands of years. Climate change will result in more frequent and larger wildfires. Until we manage it, all life will be negatively impacted by wildfire. What we saw at Paradise, CA and in Western Oregon will be Deschutes County's fate, if we don't get out ahead of it. What you are now engaged in with planning is the best way to fight wildfires, that is before they start. The Bird Woman spoke of toxic chemicals in fire resistant building products, while ignoring the tons of toxic materials that are found in the average home itself. Stuff burns. Limit the wildfires strategically and wildlife will benefit. One other point that I would like to make concerns the fire danger that exists within Bend itself. I understand your focus on the rural areas of the county, however there are areas within the city that are extremely hazardous from a wildfire stand point as well. Don't ignore it. Think of a dry day with extreme winds and an ignition in the worst place possible within the urban growth boundary. How will you evacuate a lot of people quickly? What constitutes defensible space and the proper type of vegetation in those circumstances? That's my two cents worth. Please don't let political expediency, or special interests deflect your attention from this important issue. It could end up being the most consequential issue in Band's history. Thank You Sincerely, Mike Benefield 3560 Ice Ave. Terrebonne, OR. 541.419.7418 PS Let me know if I can be of further service to my county. Say hello to Ed Keith for me. From: brett hue To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: WUI codes Date: Friday, December 4, 2020 5:20:18 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Mr. Gutowsky, I read the article on KTVZ regarding updating the wildfire protection codes and wanted to reach out and say I think it is a great idea to proactively take this on. My background is in wildland fire and arboriculture, I mention that only to set a tone- I do not think I know it all. I would like to be clear on that. Since 2015, I have been involved with the fires in California on large scale vegetation management projects and the ovelwhehning takeaway from these catastrophic wildfires is that there needs to be a significant focus on home hardening measures in addition to fuel reduction in the home ignition zone. From my experience, home hardening is often overlooked. On many of these fires that I have been on recently, there are only foundations and chimneys left adjacent to vegetation that has only been minimally scorched. Our homes are often the fuel source during wind driven fires. As you are likely aware the NFPA has lots of resources available. In the link below is something I am currently working on and feel it is likely going to be a common certification in the future for all vegetation management professionals. bttn •//n pa org/Training-and-Fventc/Certification/Certification/Certified-Wildfire-Mitigation-Specialist If there is anything I might be able to assist with or provide a perspective on, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Regards, Brett Huet Certified Treecare Safety Professional #02477 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # RM-7448-BUM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified OSHA Outreach Instructor NCCER Crane Operator 2272801 From: Susan T. S rg_Inge To: Ed Keith Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman; Nick Lelack; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: Re: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk Date: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:48:07 PM Attachments: image001.g_ng image002.pna imaoe003.ona image004.ona [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Ed and all, Yes, thanks, I do know whose jurisdiction it is and I am communicating with the fire districts. However, when the county is attempting to address fire mitigation, it seems such a missed opportunity to solve only part of the problem. Fire resistant building materials are helpful - yet so much more effective when paired with reducing one of the main causes of fire in our state. So communication from you to those in charge of yard debris burning would offer a more complete solution to reducing fire risk. Also, several years ago, the City of Sisters banned yard debris burning. Thanks, Susan On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ed Keith <Ed.Keithndeschutes.org> wrote: Hi Susan, Deschutes County does not have jurisdiction over debris burning, that is under the jurisdiction of the 9 individual fire districts located throughout the County. We do offer FireFree each year as an alternative way for people to get rid of their debris for free instead of burning, but that is of course voluntary. To date the only area within the County that does not allow burning is the area within the City of Bend. Ed Keith I County Forester 61150 SE 27th Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Tel: (541) 322-7117 1 Cell: (541) 408-8862 Ed KeithPoleschutes.org www.deschutes.oLg From: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:59 PM To: 'Susan T. Springer' <susanl@susantspringer.com>; Tanya Saltzman <Tanya Saltzman(@deschutes.=>; Nick Lelack <Nick,Lelack(@deschutes.org> Cc: Boone Zimmerlee <Boone.ZimmerleeC@deschutes.org>; Ed Keith <Ed. Keith(@ desch utes.org> Subject: RE: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk Susan, Thanks for email. I'm cc'ing Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator and Ed Keith, County Forester. They may have additional thoughts. Your comments will be shared in our summary report to the Board of County Commissioners early in the New Year. Peter Gutowsky, AIC:P I Planning Manager t, 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: 541) 385-1709 no G Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Susan T. Springer <susanC@susants r�inger.com> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:45 PM To: Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter. Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack(@deschutes.org> Subject: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello Nick, Tanya and Peter, Thank you for working to keep our county safer by considering additional fire prevention measures. It seems obvious that any discussion of fire mitigation would include stopping yard debris burning. Afterall, escaped debris burning is the leading cause of human -caused fires in our state. Given the increased risks your county report describes, this needs to be considered. Is this outside the scope of your department? Do you know other officials who are considering this? And do you have any say in it? In our 18 years in our neighborhood (outside Sisters), I've lost count of the number of times I've called the fire department because of yard debris fires unattended by the homeowner or fires still burning after dark. Having safer roofing materials is a great step - but we need to stop one of the main causes of fire in the first place. Please let me know if this is an issue you can address or if you know others who can. Thank you, Susan 541-549-1928 From: Rimrock West To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Please add codes for landscaping Date: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:14:18 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello, We have had several landscaping companies plant utterly ridiculous shrubs and trees in terms of wildfire prevention. All landscapers should be required to take a wildfire mitigation course and be required to use non or less flammable shrubs and trees. Thank you, Martita Marx Rimrock West, A Firewise Community s�nkm war [.,m,m anne,n. ma. wM,em.v,o�ms.rs. zoxo a:u:xa vm (EXTERNAL LMAIL] Thanks for the wildfire "open house" discussing the proposed rags. Sorry about SB 760 instead of 360. R has been a long time Attached is an event that I watched on Oregon's 2020 wildfnes. 1 have been unable to find any link to a recorded version of the meeting. I have not checked with Bea Gordon at COLW. Both Ralph and Tim pointed out that the spread ofthese fees and the destruction they did in towns was similar to what was seen in Pamobaa< CA - ember ignition or contact from adjacent home conflagrations, not a continued vegetation derived or crown fires. Ikfensible space relative to vegetation proximity helped only if there was not a nearby building bunting. So I lmow you know this -and I am assuming that the new proposals are patterned to be coupled with some development design criteria in WUIs to space buildings, provide multiple access/egress routes and adequate water supplies to handle more than one structure fire simultaneously. I also remember some ofthe outbuildings we looked at for the marijuana BFU ordinance - a number ofthom were constructed -or being constructed - at the minimal setback distance from a lot line to an adjacent parcel with an existing residence already in place. Lots of opportunities ifyour planning goes far coough. I have not seen any data related to building size - I found it ironically typical for this area that the first application for one of the transect zone parcels was for a 15,000 sq R residence (maybe my memory is bad here a At any rate, what you are trying to accomplish is laudable. The devil will be in the details. Hope you have a peaceful holidays LANDWATCH NEWS NOVEMBER 15.2020 Next Wednesday, the Great ON Broads for Wilderness v.+.l heal a Broadohat that you won't I ill to miss Maldng Sense of the 2020 Wildfires will fees on till most recent wildfires -a v+hit we oan tlo to protect our communities, our forests, and the face of unprecedented change. (making Sense of the 2020 IN11,10 s Wednesday, November 18th I4pm-5.30ptn Vi:tuzl mcel_'inq,yir, ZO.pn; This multimedia conversalior, moderead by Courtney .lehnsen, Executive Direolo, cf Sr 7 ,Sr 41',...o., on yeas of wonc-h It .. and n the forests. and -forma!'ian f,o top v+,:In,, and clJ o, t entists Panehs! irodode o Dr. Tim Inge!sbee. Executive D—tor of Fvefig Fters 1,,iled for Safety. Ethics, and Ecology Ralph Blaa—S, Same, Stan Attcrney at Crag Lary Center LandWatch'I Executive D'-1c,. Ben Gordon. r+','.:join al the — 1!1:11 of the presentation to —cuss our work to prevent development in f.re prone areas and how v c use land use planning to keep Central Oregon safe. [MUT1I11\1A3:4�� Deschutes County reeortly ihli-ii dell l 1,S9 t; ac G 1{ ',,_I C Si fltT11_ tck':t4 R54 tPI his Prolect's our chance to prof our communities against the increasing risk of extreme ri— The first da,p in DI-11d, C—y S pnal, --h Tna sd,,ay p,,s,,!, information In a series of maps and then asks a fl, q—tolls about potent a; land use and building code changes. Read over talking pants below, and dft,,Ldf t n—da .T-uaq, FIRE SURVEY TALKING POINTS B,I,d do our decades If IF to PlIt"t PlIpIl item I (fire..:. and Watch ball...s that any m, land use and b,nl,,,g and, changes Inlaid ldfl- the following. tol, ldfre p,dtddllon to, -I,nq fill nal,dtan, retrofts and landscaping, should be pladta,do C —. Ih.-. and drought have Increasetl the ndl. of v,Afl- and d, Il,,g h.an- vninoui Ilde-rda-W relrofta ere —It It IaI Thinning If b1ldl1 and d.11l I!a1dd If Y.Llng (r-d that all wi6'ti d one-half '. I, a proposed or .-bag II,Il.pn,.Il should be regal red on I I.nt.o. bass. No further urban d,,.I.p,—nt expansion should be alb— in fand,,d "'danly borcenng urban gr,,Ah boundaries. • D,,ol,p,ent -nad urban gr,,Ih boundaries that b,,d,, high fire risk br,,,I!,ndo And forests dh-d use fill resistant materials and I-d—p ng All new ., apl-andlat na— cgnetruclion Iha,,[I use Ind --al —dI,dII and landscaping In addition to Iles, p,n.dia, it , also dl,�,,dl for the County to 11'ale aAi Sang 'Iles 1 —d, cl..l.pnn.dt in fine prone aodd when I, -Id cradle I I gn,fda.dl inessasa in f,l as4, I I cant in in In, d- off,glt ig f,,, and a significant risk to firlfghtlll TAKE D�E.5..RVEY ITY OF SISTERSP® Box 39 - Sisters, Or 97759 1 ph: 541-549-6022 1 www.cii.sisters.orms December 09, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager Community Development Dept. Deschutes County RE: Wildfire Mitigation — Building Codes and land Use Proposed Measures Peter, The City of Sisters would like to strongly support and encourage the consideration of updates to the County building codes and land use regulations to the most current national wildfire standards and best practices. Following several recent wildfire events in close proximity to the City of Sisters, we are grossly aware of the increase in frequency, intensity, and size of wildfire events and accompanying hazardous smoke. These events have significant impact on our residents and business community and can often have long term impacts on health and our local economy. In consultation with the Sisters Camp Sherman Fire District, we have learned that there are two initiatives that will greatly increase our community's ability to mitigate risk due to wildfire and also increase resilience following an event if it were to occur in or adjacent to city limits. The first County initiative, the addition of wildfire resistant building codes is key to ensuring that new homes or substantial remodels are being built to reduce spread of wildfire and the loss of homes for our residents. As the County oversees the City's building permitting division, we are supportive of these additional building codes being adopted to ensure long term affordability of quality homes in a wildfire prone environment. The second initiative, to increase defensible space through land use requirements is also key to reduce the spread of wildfire through a relatively simple and inexpensive measure. The City of Sisters is also considering the addition of defensible space requirements and landscaping requirements to our development code. Having both the City and Codes align on this measure will help to reduce the size, spread, and intensity of wildfire for our urban and rural residents. We appreciate your consideration of these measures. ce y, Chuck Ryan Mayor To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: County wildfire mitigation Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:00:11 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter, I just took the Deschutes County Wildfire Survey, it's a wonderful storymap, kudos to whoever put it together! One thing I wanted to note about some of the measures being considered related to fire retardant treated materials & requirements, there is a lot of research about the hazards of fire/flame retardant chemicals (they are major endocrine disruptors) and actually can cause more smoke when burning therefore making it harder and more toxic for firefighters. See Green Science Policylnstitute for more information about hazards of flame/fire retardants. While I am in support of most of the mitigations proposed, I would recommend not including any requirements that involve the required use of flame retardants. Thanks, Allison Platt alliekatplatt(c gmail.com "Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished." -Lao Tzu From: Frank Soiecker To: Peter Cutowskv Subject: 100 R. defensible space mandate Date: Monday, December 21, 2020 3:17:50 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Today's wildfires can bum right through defensible space, prescribed burns, thinning, tree farms, clearcuts, prior burns, everything in their path. Climate change is the critical issue with wildfire, creating dryer fuels and hotter fires. Mandated defensible space of 30ft., 100ft. or more will not prevent a wildfire from raging through our land. There are 76 Junipers within 100ft. of our house. Most are ancient, the oldest around 800yrs. They shade & cool the house in summer, temper it in winter, provide nesting, shelter, food for a myriad of wildlife and screen us off from our neighbors. They are also efficient windbreaks as are all the Junipers on our 27 acres. We consider ourselves very fortunate to be able to live in one of the oldest desert woodlands in existence, among some of the oldest living things on earth. 80 to 90% of fires are human caused. We feel a major effort toward halting all human caused sources of ignition needs to take place immediately. There is no time to waste. We can't afford to make any mistakes. So lets make a list: burn barrels, target shooting, OHV's, burning of debris, burning ditches, field burning, campfires, cigarettes, etc. All these activities have and can start fires. They also pollute, contributing to climate change. Trees work hard to sequester pollution that we create. Stringent restrictions and regulations are now necessary, including closures of public lands during extreme fire danger as fire season extends at both ends. Many old timers, like ourselves, who built their houses in rural Deschutes county back in the 80's, built here because we love the land. The defensible space mandate does not address the causes of wildfire. It seems almost a diversion away from what could actually work.......... prevention. Cutting dozens of ancient trees from around our house will not prevent one wildfire. They don't start fires, people do. Trees aren't the problem. They're the answer. Civility has rapidly declined in this country. No longer can agencies rely on the public to be careful on red flag days. Many are simply not listening. Hell, many won't even wear masks in a deadly pandemic! As for all the ancient Junipers on the land we manage as wilderness, they will remain, respected, loved and untouched. We love our house. We built it with our own hands. And we love the land. Together, they make a home. Hundreds of trees will come down with this mandate. Please focus your efforts on ways the county can mitigate climate change and on preventing human caused fires. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Frank Spiecker, Gabriele Mimler www.colw.org December 22, 2020 sent via email: Planning(,oninrission a deschute.s. org, Peter. Gutowsk)(a�deschutes. org Deschutes County Planning Commission Attn: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Wildfire Mitigation Project Dear Chair Hudson and Planning Commissioners: Thank you for hosting the two recent open house sessions on wildfire mitigation. Central Oregon LandWatch is pleased that the County is taking proactive steps to protect its residents from the ongoing threat of wildfire in our region. We understand that after this current public input gathering stage, the County will explore specific changes to its building and land use codes. We provide the following high-level input to inform those changes. Oregon is blessed with what is likely the most important tool a local government can wield to mitigate Vie 'threat of wildfire: strong land use planning. Oregon land use law directs development into urban areas while limiting development in the rural areas and the wildland- urban interface that are most at risk of wildfire. In Deschutes County's high fire frequency environment, this has prevented putting thousands of homes and families in danger. Deschutes County can strengthen this existing land use planning framework by adopting additional protections against wildfire for development and redevelopment. Those protections should reflect the following: • Wildfire protection for existing development, including fire-resistant retrofits and landscaping, should be prioritized. Climate change and drought have increased the risks of wildfire and existing homes without fire-resistant retrofits are most at risk. • Thinning of brush and dense stands of young trees that are within one-half mile of a proposed or existing development should be required on a routine basis. • All new or replacement home construction should use fire-resistant materials and landscaping. • No further urban development expansion should be allowed in forests currently bordering urban growth boundaries. In addition to these principles, it is also crucial for the County to enforce existing rules at DCC 18.36.040(B) that limit development in fire prone areas when it would create a significant increase in fire risk, a significant increase in the cost of fighting fire, and a significant risk to 2 firefighters. Through this code section, the County already has a strong tool to protect new development from wildfire and protect first responders from unnecessary hazards. It is simply a matter of proper interpretation and enforcement. Wildfire risk is present throughout Deschutes County. The public health and safety of the entire county depends on enforcing existing rules limiting development in the most high -risk areas, and fireproofing all existing and future development elsewhere. Thank you for your attention to these considerations. We look forward to participating in the next stages of the County's efforts to mitigate the threat of wildfire. Regards, I ��. �►y�vtX� U Rory Isbell Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 roryncolw.org (541) 647-2930 Fire Protection District Comments Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report December 7, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Subject: ORSC R-327 Peter, The Deschutes County Rural Fire District #2 serving the area surrounding Bend is very concerned about the growing wildfire problem in Deschutes County. The fuels within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) both vegetation and homes are of great concern. The wildfire season is now 30-60 days longer than it was decades ago. The cost of fighting these wildfires are a burden to fire department budgets. Within our Fire District we have had several wildland fires that have been devastating to our communities, particularly the 1990 Awbrey Hall fire that destroyed 21 homes and 3,500 acres, in addition to the 1996 Skeleton Fire that consumed 19 homes and 17,000 acres. Since the 1990's the Fire District has created new ordinances, fire prevention programs and has continued to partner with other agencies to minimize the loss from wildland fires. Some of those programs being used today are: FireFree; 1997 Senate Bill 360; Wildfire Fuel Reduction Grants; Oregon Fire Code; Fireworks Sales Prohibition Ordinance; Fire Resistive Wood Shake Ordinance; and Project Wildfire to name a few. While the Deschutes County Natural Hazards Plan has identified wildfire as the greatest risk to our constituent's way of life, we know there is more that can be done prior to the wildfire incident to save homes. Science has demonstrated if structures are built and maintained with fire resistive construction materials coupled with fire resistive vegetation within the adjacent surroundings, the risk can be reduced by more than 80% from ember and flame ignitions. Eliminating ignitions to structures will reduce exposure to residents and firefighters enhancing evacuation and firefighting strategies. The Fire District's Standards for Response Plan is designed for routine fires, once there are more than two to three homes burning we don't have enough resources to protect the rest of the neighborhood without mutual aid support. Therefore it will take more than fire suppression agencies to reduce the number of homes burning. The District believes to enhance our firefighter's chances to save life and property within the WUI it is necessary to introduce additional fire resistant construction features to homes such as Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327. The District also recognizes that additional building code requirements may be not as successful to eliminate ignitions without reducing the amount of flammable vegetation within the immediate area around the home. Respectfully Submitted: Deschutes County Rural Fire District #2 Board of Directors 51590 Huntington Rd. Post Office Box 10 La Pine, OR 97739 Phone 541.536.2935 Fax 541.536.2627 www.lapinefire.org December 8, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development Director P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 REF: Wildfire Mitigation - Building Codes and Land Use Proposed Updates Mr. Gutowsky: The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District would like strongly support and encourage the Deschutes County consideration of the proposed updating county building codes and land use regulations to the most current national wildfire standards and best practices. This county is in the wildfire bullseye. The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District has lost two homes and multiple structures to wildfire in just the last three years despite the fire district's quick responses and best efforts. This community was extremely fortunate the late afternoon of September 7th of this year that a fast-moving wildfire in the DRRH neighborhood did not become the 11th major wildfire disaster in the state of Oregon that day. As we are seeing these fires are not only affecting individual families and the lives of the most vulnerable, they destructively affect the whole community - for years. Populations exit, most businesses close permanently, hospitals and schools close, and local agencies - once there to help the community - themselves are decimated. Wildfire in our communities affects everyone. As major wildfires are increasing in frequency, intensity and size, there is some good news. We are now learning what can make these events survivable and those solutions are rather simple: 1. Hardened homes; and 2. Fire resilient landscapes. We currently have codes and regulations to protect our homes from wind, rain, and snow, and to keep our drinking water, electrical, and heating systems safe. These codes did not come out of thin air - they became national standards through common sense experiences on what is working to protect our communities. We have now learned if we provide fire resilient landscape in the close proximity of our homes - that lowers the fire intensity and the direct transfer of flames to the home. We have also learned if we harden our homes from the snowstorm of sparks a wildfire produces - that will prevent Pride Service Dedication—_, ignition. Last, we have learned that suitable building materials can prevent the spread of fire from home to home when they are built in close proximity. The La Pine Rural Fire Protection knows the County is on the right path in upgrading the county building codes and land use regulations to match the most current adopted standards for in the wildfire hazard zone and strongly supports that effort. Not to do so would be irresponsible to the citizens we all serve. Sincerely, LA PI RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Mike Sup kis Fire Chief 1212 SW Simpson Ave Bend, Oregon 97702 (541)322-6300 FAX 322-6321 December 15, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: Community Development Bend, OR 97708-6005 Subject: County Wildfire Standards Mr. Gutowsky, Todd Riley Fire Chief We have seen firsthand the devastating effects of wildfire when it impacts a community. Even though Deschutes County made it out of the historic 2020 wildfire season without a major fire, Bend Fire & Rescue sent crews across the state to help fight the fires that surrounded our county. The last major Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fire in our area was in 1996 when the Skeleton Fire burned 17,000 acres as well as 19 homes. Prior to that, the 1990 Aubrey Hall Fire burned 3,500 acres and destroyed 21 homes. Several effective steps were taken after these two fires to increase our community's resilience to wildland fire. The efforts to encourage defensible space around homes resulted in the FireFree initiative, which is still successful today. Communities that meet specific fuels reduction and defensible space can be recognized through the Firewise USA program as a nod to their collective efforts to protect their neighborhood. It is recognized that a homeowner's fuels reduction efforts can directly affect adjoining properties if a fire enters the community. Fire season is getting longer and the destructive nature of these events is increasing. Additionally, much of our community is built in the WUI, which increases our desire to be proactive with preventative measures. Preventing house -to -house ignition is an important component of being able to contain a fire once it enters a community. With enhanced building codes and required defensible space, firefighters have a much better chance to safely evacuate residents, operate on the fire more effectively, and prevent catastrophic fire spread. There is an opportunity to adopt a stricter landscape ordinance that requires defensible space and prohibits the placement of materials that will carry fire next to a home. These improvements can be made more effective with enhancing the building code to address the use of fire resistive materials as siding and soffit finishes. We currently have an ordinance in place that addresses roofing materials, as this was identified as a major contributor to home ingitions. It is acknowledged that an enhanced building code has the potential to increase building costs, but many builders in the area are already using fire resistive materials in construction today. Bend Fire & Rescue provides fire protection to both the city limits of Bend and the surrounding fire district. The City of Bend and Deschutes County are both actively engaged in the wildfire resiliency conversation. Even though the two entities are at different phases of this work, it is an issue that is equally important to both. With a community that is resilient to wildfire, we stand a better chance of keeping residents in their homes after a fire. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted by natural disasters, and wildfires are no exception. There are several examples of communities that never recover from a devastating WUI fire. Without sufficient economic resources to rebuild, many residents never return. By reducing flammable vegetation around homes, increasing the defensible space next to a structure, and using fire resistive materials on a home, our community stands a better chance to minimize the devastation of a WUI fire. Respectfully, Todd Riley, Fire Chief Bend Fire & Rescue Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District "Protecting Life and Property through Quality Service" December 8, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky The Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District (District) supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. The District provides fire suppression services to 55 square miles of area in Western Deschutes county, including the City of Sisters. Wildfires are a common occurrence in the District, and we work closely with the US Forest Service, Oregon Department of Forestry and other local fire districts to minimize the impacts of wildland fire on our community. Even with this level of coordination and response, wildfires create a significant risk to our community. The fire district's request to adopt enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements are in alignment with the tenets of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy is a national approach to work collaboratively among stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards three goals: 1. Resilient Landscapes 2. Fire Adapted Communities 3. Safe and effective wildfire response. While there is great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response, the building code element of fire adapted communities hasn't been addressed. Addressing only two of the three strategies will result in increased risk for Deschutes County residents. Communities that have implemented the tenets of the Cohesive Strategy have seen reductions in the loss of life and property as a result. 301 South Elm Street, PO Box 1509 Sisters, Oregon 97759 Phone 541-549-0771 Fax 541-549-1343 Lastly, 1 would like to address the significant wildfire season our state endured this summer. A perfect alignment of extremely dry fuels, fires on the landscape and high winds resulted in catastrophic losses of life and property in Oregon. These losses have demonstrated that there is more work to be done, and we must take action to prevent a similar event from impacting our communities. Adopting defensible space standards and enhanced wildfire resistant building codes is a logical, measured approach, supported by national standards and industry best practices. Sincerely, C..-- Chuck Newport President, Board of Directors Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District. Black Butte Ranch R.F.RD. PMB 8190, POB 8000 13511 Hawks Beard, Black Butte Ranch, OR 97759 (541) 595-2288 Bus 9-1-1 Emergency (541) 595.6867 Fax December 16, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky, Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District (District) supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. Our District provides fire suppression services to the 3+ square miles of Black Butte Ranch. As you are likely aware, wildfires threatening our community have been a common occurrence for many years causinq multiple evacuations as well as the destruction of two homes in 2002 from the Cache Mountain Fire. We work very closely with the US Forest Service, Oregon Department of Forestry, and other local fire districts to minimize the impacts of wildland fire on our community. Even with this level of coordination and response, wildfires continue to create a significant risk to our community. As others have mentioned, the support to adopt enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements are in alignment with the tenets of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy is a national approach to work collaboratively among stakeholders and across all landscapes, using the best science, to make meaningful progress towards three goals: 1. Resilient Landscapes 2. Fire Adapted Communities 3. Safe and effective wildfire response. This District agrees with other districts in that while there is and has been great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response, the building code element of fire -adapted communities hasn't been addressed. We also agree that addressing only two of these three strategies would Professional w Competent** Integrity •• Respectful • Compassionate result in increased risk for Deschutes County residents. We also add that this increased risk is inherently transferred to the many first responders called upon to protect those communities and the citizens within. The losses demonstrated from the recent fires throughout Oregon shows us that there is more work that can and needs to be done to prevent similar events from impacting our communities. Adopting defensible space standards and enhanced wildfire resistant building codes is a logical, measured approach supported by national standards and industry best practices. Sincerely Dan Tucker Fire Chief Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District. Professional • Competent •• Integrity •• Respectful • Compassionate v PO Box 2108.Sunriven 97707~2108 PeterGuUmvky Petergutoaoky@deschutesorg Planning Manager 117NVVLafayette Avenue Bend, OR977O3 RE: Defensible Space and Enhanced Building Codes Mr.Gutowky, The Sunriver Service District, which includes both the Police and Fire Departments, is supportive of the proposed new ordinances on defensible space and enhanced building codes (13327A). The Sunriver Owners Association is very proactive in the prevention of wildfire, The rules and programs in place in Sunriver are reflective of what R-327 could provide for all of Deschutes County. 8umriverOwner Association program/rules examples include: • Spark arrestors shall beinstalled onall chimneys • Roofs are required to be Class "A" fire rated Individual properties and common ground have ladder fuel reduction requirements It is time to eliminate the threat of wildfire to our communities and provide safety to our citizens and firefighters by supporting the proposed defensible space and enhanced building codes in Deschutes County. C-?W-Vo-p 14 <' Bill Hepburn, Choir *Alfalfa e District 541-382-2333 25889 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend, Or 97701 Dec 21, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Subject: ORSC R-327 Peter, The Alfalfa Fire District would like to discuss the growing concerns of past, as well as future wildfire concerns in our district. As a relatively new district we have seen our fair share of close calls with fires in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). As a district that is surrounded by BLM land we have an extreme amount of fuels that could cause catastrophic loss to our district. As someone who has spent over 30 years in the construction industry I have seen what building codes can do for homes. Codes that can allow for homes to be built with more fire resistive material as well as creating a defensible space around the home, this can lead to less fire spread in the event of a wildland fire. Up to 70-80 percent reduction can be maintained according to recent studies. This allows for a more substantial initial attack from a suppression standpoint, and the possibility of reduced resources if managed early. While our response plans are geared for a smaller scale response, if we cannot manage the fire in its initial stage, it will require a large scale response in the form of mutual aid from surrounding agencies. This mutual aid response then draws down resources for those agencies to respond to incidents within their respective districts. Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-237 would allow for new structures being built within our districts to maintain standards for fire resistive construction reducing the STREET ADDRESS, CITY, ST 'LIP CODE T (123) 456-7890 U WWW.COMPANY.COM potential for fire spread. This code, coupled with a distinct plan for defensible space will allow our fire district to reduce resource needs in the event of a wildfire. As a rural department, we have our work cut our for us as the codes for building during the majority of construction for our two major subdivisions did not allow for defensible space, or the construction using fire resistive material. It is with great concern that as a small agency with limited resources we ask that this residential code get passed and with careful consideration to the resources it takes to mitigate wildfire in the WUI in its current state. Respectfully Submitted, Chad LaVallee- Fire Chief Alfaifa Fire visirict Cloverdale Rural Fore Protection District 67433 Cloverdale Rd., Sisters, OR 97759 PH: (541) 389-2345 Burn Info: (541) 548-4815 www. cloverda lefi re. corn December 21, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky, The last few years have proven to be particularly catastrophic for properties in Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District. Due to our rural geography (the 50 square mile triangle between Bend, Redmond and Sisters), ingress to properties can at times make it difficult to access fire related incidents. As a result of this and the fact that many of our constituent's homes are surrounded by large amounts of fire fuels, the Board of Directors strongly supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. While Cloverdale RFPD works closely with our partnering agencies, wildfires continue to be a significant risk to our community. We recognize and appreciate the great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response. However, the building code element of fire adapted communities would further enhance our community's ability to survive a conflagration. It is with utmost urgency that Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District Board of Directors requests that Deschutes County adopt defensible space requirements and wildfire resistant building codes in order to further protect the life safety and property losses of our community. Thank you, Jerry Johnson, President Cloverdale RFPD Board of Directors CROOKED RIVER RANCH FIRE & RESCUE 6971 SW Shad Road, Crooked River Ranch, OR 97760 Phone: (541) 923-67761 Fax: (541) 923-5247 www.crrfire.org Peter Gutowski Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: Community Development Bend, OR 97708-6005 DEAR PETER GUTOWSKY, Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District is mainly in Jefferson County, but the lower part of our fire District is in Deschutes county. We pride ourselves in having an active community that is willing to keep their properties cleaned up and try their best to meet the defensible space standards. But that is not all of them. For some property owners, their neighbors do not abide by the defensible space standards. With more and more properties being developed in our district it would be nice to have enhanced building codes for improved safety. r_ rnnnrl _---- t_-� -_ '7 .]C___ :� F_'__ A*-, _a Tl_�a r_ 7cn In May of GVV / was our last mdjor wildfire ll1 VU1 flle drsUICL. 111aL 1rre Vumed over 350 acres and no homes were destroyed. With the assistance of tri-county fire departments and federal fire agencies there where no homes lost. It might not be that way again. There are more houses are being built in the same area of this fire. With last summer's fire season still very fresh in people's minds our community members are asking about defensible space and how they could protect their homes if we had another large fire. This is a great time to have building codes put in place. Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue is in support of enhanced building codes that would save lives and property. It will also save the lives of those firefighters who will be fighting the fire. These codes combined with good defensible space standards will help to make our and more fire resistive community. Respectfully, Harry Ward Fire Chief Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue 0REDMOND FIRE & RESCUE 341 NW Dogwood Avenue, Redmond, OR 97756 '"'` Phone: (541) 504-5000 Fax: (541) 526-1254 www.redmondfireandrescue.org December 22, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Subject: ORSC R-327 Mr. Gutowsky, As the Fire Chief of Redmond Fire & Rescue, I am writing to offer my support for the adoption of Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327 and defensible space standards throughout Deschutes County. I have been a fire service professional for over 40 years, and I have seen firsthand the devastating impact of wildfire in the urban interface. Having spent the bulk of my career in California, I've sent my personnel to some of the largest wildfires in California's history including the Thomas Fire in Ventura, the Mendocino Complex, the Camp Fire in Paradise and countless more. I looked on in amazement beside the Governor's staff at the Coffee Park neighborhood which had been completely destroyed during the fires in Napa and Sonoma County by an ember cast that stretched well over a mile ahead of the actual fire line. Though some might suggest it just doesn't happen like that here, we don't have the same kind of weather, or wind patterns as in California, one need only look back a few months to see many fellow Oregonians experiencing wildfire on a scope and scale thought impossible. Having served on the Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee, I've had ample opportunity to discuss these issues with County staff, local builders, and concerned residents. Much of our time together was spend debating the merits of defensible space as well as building standards like those set forth in ORCS R-327. I assure you I fully understand there are myriad concerns and factors that must be taken into account when considering adoption of such standards. We must recognize that fire seasons are getting longer, and wildfires are becoming more destructive. We must also recognize that what may have seemed unlikely, or even impossible just one year ago, is now part of our history. I believe it is our responsibility as public servants to take a lesson from that history and adopt Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327 and defensible space standards throughout Deschutes County. Thank you, �l rz� i> ¢iG1�uZCL Ken Kehmna Fire Chief, Redmond Fire & Rescue State of Oregon Fs �; Building Codes Division Code amendment summary: 2017 ORSC Amendments January 2019 Amendments to the 2017 Oregon Residential Specialty Code Section R327 Wildfire hazard mitigation These amendments provide additional wildfire hazard mitigation provisions in Section R327 that are available for local adoption. Effective: Jan. 24, 2019 Insert page instructions: These amendments have been formatted as insert pages for the 2017 ORSC. When inserted into the code, amendments will face the page containing the existing code language. Some pages have been left blank for this purpose. 1. Print these pages double -sided in "book" format. 2. Insert the pages facing the page number in the bottom corner. 3. The amended language is depicted as follows: gtriledffeugh text represents deleted language. Underlined text represents added language. Building Codes Division ♦ Department of Consumer and Business Services ♦ State of Oregon 1535 Edgewater St. NW, Salem, OR 97304 ♦ P.O. Box 14470, Salem, OR 97309-0404 503-378-4133 ♦ Fax:503-378-2322 ♦ oregon.gov/bcd 0 This page is intentionally blank. Effective: January 24, 2019 SECTION R327 WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION R327.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum standards for dwellings and their accessory struc- tures located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject to wild- fires, to reduce or eliminate hazards presented by such fires. R327.2 Scope. The provisions of this section shall apply to all dwellings required to be protected against wildfire by a jurisdiction which has adopted wildfire zoning regulations. The additional provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply when a local municipality has adopted a local ordinance specifically recognizing_Section R327.4 and consistent with Sections R327.4 through R327.4.8. R327.3 Determination. Mlildfim hazard zone; A mild zeHe is an area legally deteffp�aed by ajuFmiefiell to hav Wildfire hazard zones shall be determined using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. R327.3.1 Wildfire hazard zone requirements. Dwell- ings and their accessory structures shall be protected against wildfire by the following requirement in addition to other requirements of this code. The provisions of Sec- tion R327.4 apply only to lots identified in Sec- tion R327.4. L Exception: Nonhabitable detached accessory struc- tures with an area of not greater than 400 square feet located at least 50 feet fi•om all other structures on the lot. R327.3.1.1 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accordance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in ac- cordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in accordance with Section R905.3 and other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class C rated roof covering. Untreated wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted when the con- struction site is in a wildfire hazard zone as determined by Section R327.3. R327.3.1.2 Reroofing or repair of roofing of existing buildings. When 50 percent or more of the roof cov- ering of any building is repaired or replaced within one year, the roof covering shall be made to comply with this section and attic ventilation shall be made to com- ply with this code. Ventilation openings shall be pro- tected with corrosion -resistant wire mesh, not greater than'/z-inch (12.7 mm) or less than 1/8-inch (3.2 mm) in any dimension. R327.4 Scope of additional wildfire hazard mitigation requirements. The provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply to new dwellings and their accessory structures located in a wildfire hazard zone on a qualifying lot of record created on or after the effective date in the local adopting ordinance. BUILDING PLANNING R327.4.1 Qualifying lots of record. Qualifying lots of record shall meet all the following: 1. Be located in a wildfire hazard zone as identified by the local municipality using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. The local nw- nicipality is not required to include all areas identi- fied by the Oregon Department of Forestry as wild- fire hazard zones. The zone shall be detailed in the local adopting, ordinance. 2. The local municipality shall determine in the adopt- ing ordinance whether qualifying lots of record shall consist of individual lots or whether qualifying lots must be part of a development that contains a minimum number of lots. 3. The local municipality shall make a determination that the lot of record is either located within the identified wildfire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction or that it is located outside of the wild- fire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction. Notification shall be provided in conjunction with the land use approval under ORS 197.522. 4. Application: 4.1 Lots created prior to the effective date of the local ordinance, that would otherwise qualify under the local adopting ordinance, are ex- empt fi•om the requirements of the ordinance for a period of three years fi•om the creation date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522. 4.2 For a lot created after the effective date of the local ordinance that receives notification un- der this section the determination in the noti- fication shall be valid for three years fi-om the date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522. At the expiration of the three years, a lot of record shall be re-evaluated under the current version of the adopting; ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit. Infill exception: Dwelhngs or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. Nothing in the code or adopting ordinance prevents a local municipality from waivingthe ie requirements of Sec- tion R327.4 for anylot property or dwelling, or the re- model, replacement or reconstruction of a dii,ellingwith- in the jurisdiction. The local municipalio� must include a process for re- solving disputes related to the applicability of the local ordinance and this section. R327.4.2 Definitions. The following words and terins shall, for purposes of Section R327.4, have the meanings shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 for general definitions. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE Insert Facing Page 86 BUILDING PLANNING Heavy Timber. For the use in this section, heavy timber shall be sawn lumber or glue laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 mm). Heavy timber walls or floors shall be sawn or glue - laminated planks splined, tongue- and -grove, or set close together and well spiked. Ignition -Resistant Material. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion suffi- ciently so as to reduce losses from wildland-urban inter- face conflagrations under worst -case weather and fuel con- ditions with ivild ire exposure of burning; embers and small flames. Such materials include any product designed led for exterior exposure that, when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or LJL 723 for surface burning characteristics of building materials extended to a 30-minute duration, exhibits a flame spread index of not more than 25, shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion, and whose flame front does not progress more than 10'/2 feet (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burner at any time during the test. Noncombustible Material. Any material that in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite burn support combustion, or release flam- mable vapors when subjected to fire or heat in accordance with ASTM E136. Wildfire. Any uncontrolled fire spreadingthrough hrough vegeta- tive fuels that threatens to destroy life, propegy, or re- sources. Wildfire Exposure. One or a combination of circumstanc- es exposing a ctrnntnre to ignition including radiant heat convective heat, direct flame contact and burning embers being projected by a vegetation fire to a structure and its immediate environment. R327.4.3 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accord- ance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in accordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in ac- cordance with Section R905.3 or other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. Wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted in a wildfire hazard zone. Where the roof profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking the spaces shall be constructed to prevent the intrusion of flames and embers, be fire - blocked with approved materials, or have one laver of minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced nonperfo- rated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Where valley flashing is installed, the flashing shall be not less than 0.019-inch (0.48 mm) No. 26 gage galva- nized sheet corrosion -resistant metal installed over not less than one layer of minimum 72 pound (32.4 leg) mineral - surfaced non -perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 at least 36-inch-wide (914 mm) running the full length of the valley. R327.4.3.1 Gutters. When required, roof gutters shall be constructed of Noncombustible materials and be pro- vided with a means to prevent accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. R327.4.4 Ventilation. Where provided, the minimum net area of ventilation openings for enclosed attics, en- closed soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces, and under- floor spaces shall be in accordance with Sections R806 and R408. All ventilation openings shall be covered with non- combustible corrosion -resistant metal wire mesh vents designed to resist the intrusion of burning embers and flame, or other approved materials or devices. Ventilation mesh and screening shall be a minimum of 16-i_IC h (1.6mm) and a maximum o8-inch (3.2mm) in any dimension. R327.4.4.1 Eaves, soffits, and cornices. Ventilation openings shall not be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices. Exceptions: 1. 'The building official may approve special eave soffit, or cornice vents that are manu- factured to resist the intrusion of flame and burning embers. 2. Ventilation openings complying with the requirements of Section 1027.4.4 may be installed on the underside of eaves soffits or cornices where the opening is located 12 feet or greater above grade or the surface below. R327.4.5 Exterior walls. The exterior iva11 covering or wall assembly shall comply with one of the following requirements: 1. Noncombustible material. 2 ignition -resistant material. 3. Heavy timber assembly. 4. Log wall construction assembly. 5. Wall assemblies that have been tested in accord- ance with the test procedures for a 10-minute direct flame contact exposure test set forth in ASTM E2707, complying with the conditions of acceptance listed in Section R327.4.5.2. Exception: Any of the following shall be deemed to meet the assembly performance criteria and intent of this section: 1. One layer of s/R-inch Type X exterior_ gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior Null coves= ing or cladding on the exterior side of the fram- in . 2. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exte- rior Wall assembly designed for exterior fire Mom sure including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gyp- sum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. R327.4.5.1 Extent of exterior wall covering. Exterior wall coverings shall extend from the top of the founda- tion to the roof, and terminate at 2 inch (50.8 min) nomi- nal solid wood blocking between rafters at all roof over- hangs, or in the case of enclosed eaves or soffits, shall terminate at the underside of the enclosure. 86.2 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE R327.4.5.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2707 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance. three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of flame penetration through the wall assemblyat any time during the test. 2. Absence of evidence of glowing combustion on the interior surface of the assembly at the end of the 70-minute test. R327.4.6 Overhanging projections. All exterior p_r•oiec- tions (exterior balconies, carports, decks, patio covers, porch ceilings unenclosed roofs and floors, overhanging buildings and similar architectural appendages and pro- jections) shall be protected as specified in this section. R327.4.6.1 Enclosed roof eaves soffits and cor- nices. The exposed underside of rafter or truss eaves and enclosed soffits, where any portion of the framing is less than 12 feet above grade or similar surface be- low, shall be protected by one of the following: 1. AToncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter tails truss tails or soffit. 4. The exterior portion of a l-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the rafter tails or soffit including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. Soffit assemblies with an underside surface that meets the performance criteria in Sec- tion R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance ASTM E2957. Exceptions: The following_ materials do not require protection required by this section: 1. Eaves and soffits where all portions of the framing members are 12 feet or greater above grade, and 2-inch nominal eave fireblocking is provided between roof framing members from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. 2. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly pro- jections beyond an exterior wall other than at the lower end of the rafter tails. 3. Fascia and other architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.2 Exterior patio and porch ceilings. 'The exposed underside of exterior patio and porch ceilings greater than 200 square feet in area and less than 12 feet above grade shall be protected by one of the fol- lowing: BUILDING PLANNING 1. Noncombustible malerial. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 51Onch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing, applied behind the exterior covering on the underside of the ceiling. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive ex- lerior wall assembly applied to the underside of the ceiling assembly including_ assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing_ products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual, 5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal under- side that meet the erformance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.3 Floor projections. 'The exposed under- side of cantilevered floor proieetions less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor projection. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor projection, including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.4 Underfloor protection. The underfloor area of elevated structures shall be enclosed to grade in accordance with the requirements of Section R327.4 or the underside of the exposed underfloor shall be protected by one of the following_, 1. Noncombustible rnalerial. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/a-inch Tvpe X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor assembly. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly pplied to the underside of the floor, including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: Heavy limber structural columns and beams do not require protection. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE 86.3 BUILDING PLANNING R327.4.6.5 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2957 tests shall be conducted in triplicate, and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of flame penetration of the eaves or hori- zontal projection assembly at any time during the test. 2. Absence of structural failure of the eaves or hori- zontal projection subassemblyat t any time during the test. 3. Absence of sustained combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 minute test. R327.4.7 Walking surfaces. Deck, porch and balcony walking surfaces located greater than 30 inches and less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be con- structed with one of the materials listed below. Exception: Walking surfaces of decks, porches and balconies not greater than 200 square feet in area, where the surface is constructed ofnominal 2-inch lumber. 1. Materials that comply with the performance require- ments of Section R327.4.7.1 when tested in accord- ance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726. 2. Ignition resistant materials that comply with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. 3. Exterior fire retardant treated wood. 4. Noncombustible material. 5. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.7.2 where tested in accordance with ASTM E2632, where the exterior Wall covering of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. 6. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of ASTM E.,2632, where the exterior wall covering of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. Exception: Yhall coverinz material may be of an material that otherwise complies with this chapter when the decking surface material complies with the performance requirements ASTM E84 with a Class B flame spread rating. R327.4.7.1 Reauirements for R327.4.7, item 1. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726 and shall comply with the conditions of acceptance below. The material shall also comply with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.2 for ignition resistant material when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. R327.4.7.1.1 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2632 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the fol- lowing conditions of acceptance: 1. Peak heat release rate of less than or equal to 25 kW/ft2 (269 kW/mz) 2. Absence of sustained flaming or aloe wing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 3. Absence of falling panicles that are still burn- ina when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.1.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2762 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of sustained flaming or lg owing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 2. Absence of falling particles that are still burn- ing when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.2 Requirements for R327.4.7, item 6. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and shall comply with the following condition of acceptance. The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the peak heat release rate shall be less than or equal to 25 kW/ft' (269 Mrn). If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. R327.4.8 Glazing. Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multila e�glazed panels glass block or have a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes. 86.4 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE a HIM a$p�Fi O NNE yT g W -02 W 0 _ C n� 'v W aEi 0 N U ti. 8 E C C T O. C n m V � h � r I l LL n x Z ui i f r w P' E x e` a �3 f ' ?e y ��E F 5 A CL ¢ ` a Yppp�E�gg $it's A9 C N O Q 3 a o 0 � /.� �F+ v I` E, " M L N � a N N pol ai 0 u �i o� � ui �ry cH C u 4�j Y "t a rv� � 1 d 5 Chapter 18.36. FOREST USE ZONE - F-1 18.36.010. Purpose. 18.36.020. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.36.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. 18.36.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. 18.36.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings. 18.36.060. Siting of Dwellings and Structures. 18.36.070. Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures. 18.36.080. Fire Safety Design Standards for Roads. 18.36.085. Stocking Requirement. 18.36.090. Dimensional Standards. 18.36.100. Yards and Setbacks. 18.36.110. Stream Setbacks. 18.36.120. State Law Controls. 18.36.130. Rimrock Setbacks. 18.36.140. Restrictive Covenants. 18.36.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Forest Use Zone is to conserve forest lands. (Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.36.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to applicable siting criteria set forth in DCC 18.36 and any other applicable provisions of DCC Title 18. A. Forest operations or forest practices including, but not limited to, reforestation of forest land, road construction and maintenance, harvesting of a forest tree species, application of chemicals and disposal of slash, subject to the Forest Practices Act (ORS Chapter 527) and Goal 4. B. Temporary on -site structures, that are auxiliary to and used during the term of a particular forest operation, subject to the Forest Practices Act (ORS Chapter 527) and Goal 4. As used here, temporary structures are those which are portable and/or not placed on a permanent foundation, and which are removed at the conclusion of the forest operation requiring its use. For the purposes of this section, including DCC 18.36.020(B) and (C) "auxiliary" means a use or alteration of a structure or land, that provides help or is directly associated with the conduct of a particular forest practice. An auxiliary structure is located on site, temporary in nature, and is not designed to remain for the forest's entire growth cycle from planting to harvesting. An auxiliary use is removed when a particular forest practice has concluded. C. Physical alterations to the land auxiliary to forest practices including, but not limited to, those made for purposes of exploration, mining, commercial gravel extraction and processing, landfills, dams, reservoirs, road construction or recreational facilities, subject to the Forest Practices Act (ORS Chapter-527) and Goal 4). Gravel extraction and processing not covered by DCC 18.36.020 is governed by DCC 18.52. D. Uses to conserve soil, air and water quality and to provide for wildlife and fisheries resources. E. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203. F. Local distribution lines (e.g., electric, telephone, natural gas, etc.) and accessory equipment (e.g., electric distribution transformers, poles, meter cabinets, terminal boxes, pedestals), or equipment that provides service hookups, including water service hookups. G. Temporary portable facility for the primary processing of forest products. The facility shall not be placed on a permanent foundation and shall be removed at the conclusion of the forest operation requiring its use. Chapter 18.36 1 (10/2020) H. Exploration for mineral and aggregate resources as defined in ORS 517. I. Towers and fire stations for forest fire protection. J. Widening of roads within existing rights of way in conformance with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan including public road and highway projects as described in ORS 215.283(1). K. Water intake facilities, canals and distribution lines for farm irrigation and ponds. L. Uninhabitable structures accessory to fish and wildlife enhancement. M. Alteration, restoration or replacement of a lawfully established dwelling that: 1. Has intact exterior walls and roof structure; 2. Has indoor plumbing consisting of a kitchen sink, toilet and bathing facilities connected to a sanitary waste disposal system; 3. Has interior wiring for interior lights; 4. Has a heating system; and 5. In the case of replacement, is removed, demolished or converted to an allowable use within three months of completion of the replacement dwelling. N. An outdoor mass gathering as defined in ORS 433.735 or other gathering of fewer than 3,000 persons that is not anticipated to continue for more than 120 hours in any three-month period is not a "land use decision" as defined in ORS 197.015(10) or subject to review under OAR 660-006. (Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 2003-007 § 1, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §8, 1991) 18.36.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.36.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. A. Private hunting and fishing operations without any lodging accommodations. B. Caretaker residences for public parks and fish hatcheries. C. Temporary forest labor camps limited to the duration of the forest operation requiring its use. D. Exploration for and production of geo-thermal, gas, oil and other associated hydrocarbons, including the placement and operation of compressors, separators and other customary production equipment for an individual well adjacent to the well head. E. Log scaling and weigh stations. F. A disposal site which includes a land disposal site which the Department of Environmental Quality has granted a permit under ORS 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. G. Private parks and campgrounds. 1. Campgrounds in private parks shall only be those allowed by OAR 660-006-0025. 2. Except on a lot or parcel contiguous to a lake or reservoir, campgrounds shall not be allowed within three miles of an urban growth boundary unless an exception is approved pursuant to ORS 197.732 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 4. 3. For the purpose of DCC 18.36.030 a campground is an area devoted to overnight temporary use for vacation, recreational or emergency purposes, but not for residential purposes -and is established on a site or is contiguous to lands with a park or other outdoor natural amenity that is accessible for recreational use by the occupants of the campground. 4. A campground shall be designed and integrated into the rural agricultural and forest environment in a manner that protects the natural amenities of the site and provides buffers of existing native trees and vegetation or other natural features between campsites. 5. Campsites may be occupied by a tent, travel trailer or recreational vehicle. 6. Separate sewer, water or electric service hookups shall not be provided to individual campsites except that electrical service may be provided to yurts allowed for by OAR 660-006-0025(4)(e)(C). Chapter 18.36 2 (10/2020) 7. Campgrounds shall not include intensively developed recreational uses such as swimming pools, tennis courts, retail stores or gas stations. Overnight temporary use in the same campground by a camper or camper's vehicle shall not exceed a total of 30 days during any consecutive 6 month period. 8. A private campground may provide yurts for overnight camping. a. No more than one-third or a maximum of 10 campsites, whichever is smaller, may include a yurt. b. The yurt shall be located on the ground or on a wood floor with no permanent foundation. c. As used in this rule, "yurt" means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hook-up or internal cooking appliance. H. Mining and processing of oil, gas or other subsurface resources, as defined in ORS 520.005, and not otherwise permitted under DCC 18.36.030(D). I. Television, microwave and radio communication facilities and transmission towers. J. Fire stations for rural fire protection. K. Commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power. A power generation facility shall not preclude more than 10 acres from use as a commercial forest operation unless an exception is taken pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 4. L. Aids to navigation and aviation. M. Water intake facilities, related treatment facilities, pumping stations and distribution lines. N. Reservoirs and water impoundments. O. Cemeteries. P. New electric transmission lines with right-of-way widths of up to 100 feet as specified in ORS 772.210. New distribution lines (e.g. electrical, gas, oil, geothermal, telephone, fiber optic cable) with rights of way 50 feet or less in width. Q. Temporary asphalt and concrete batch plants as accessory uses to specific highway projects. R. Home Occupations, subject to DCC 18.116.280. S. Expansion of existing airports. T. Public road and highway projects as described as ORS 215.283(2) and 215.283(3). UT Private accommodations for fishing on a temporary basic suhieet to other applicable sPctions of DCC Title 18 and the following requirements: 1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code; 2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; 3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of fishing during fishing seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; and 4. Accommodations must be located within one -quarter mile of fish bearing Class I waters. V. Forest management research and experimentation facilities as described by ORS 526.215 or where accessory to forest operations. W. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland, subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270. X. An existing building, or a manufactured dwelling in conjunction with an existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283. For the purposes of this section, "existing" means the building was in existence on or before March 29, 2017. 1. As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons. 2. The use shall be subject to the review criteria in DCC 18.116.090, as well as DCC 18.36.040 and 18.36.060 of this chapter. 3. The manufactured home shall use the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing dwellings if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling. 4. If the manufactured dwelling will use a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be required. Chapter 18.36 3 (10/2020) 5. A temporary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR 660-006-025. Y. Single-family dwellings or manufactured homes as specified in DCC 18.116.070, as pursuant to DCC 18.36.050. Z. Public parks including only those uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-0040, whichever is applicable. AA. Private seasonal accommodations for fee hunting operations may be allowed subject to DCC 18.36.050 and the following requirements: 1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code; 2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; and 3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of hunting during game bird and big game hunting seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. BB. An Extended Outdoor Mass gathering subject to review by a county planning commission pursuant to DCC Chapter 8.16. DD. Permanent facility for the primary processing of forest products. EE. Firearms training facility. (Ord. 2020-007 §10, 2020; Ord. 2018-006 §6, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 2007-020 §3, 2007; Ord. 2004-002 §5, 2004; Ord. 2000-033 §1, 2000; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-068 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §28, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §8, 1986) 18.36.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. A use authorized by DCC 18.36.030 must meet the following requirements. These requirements are designed to make the use compatible with forest operations and agriculture and to conserve values found on forest lands. A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farming or forest practices on agricultural or forest lands. B. The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel. C. Prior to final approval of the uses listed in DCC 18.36.030(G), (N), (R), (U), (X), and (Y) the land owner shall sign and record in the County Clerk's office a written statement recognizing the rights of adjacent and nearby land owners to conduct forest operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules. (Ord. 2018-006 §6, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.36.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings. A. General provisions. 1. Dwellings listed as a conditional use under DCC 18.36.050 shall meet the following standards: a. One of the alternative tests set out in DCC 18.36.050(B) (lot of record dwelling), (C) (large tract dwelling), or (D) (template dwelling); b. If the lot or parcel is part of a "tract," the remaining undeveloped lots or parcels of the tract shall be consolidated into a single lot or parcel, or the applicant shall sign and record with the County Clerk covenants, conditions and restrictions (on a form substantially similar to that set forth in DCC 18.36.140) prohibiting the siting of a dwelling on the undeveloped portions of the tract. Such covenants, conditions and restrictions are irrevocable, unless a statement of release is signed by the County Planning Director, or his authorized representative. c. No other dwellings shall be located on the tract. d. The applicant shall provide evidence that any domestic water supply is from a source authorized in accordance with the Department of Water Resources Oregon Administrative Rules for the appropriation of ground water (Oregon Administrative Rules 690, Division 10) or surface water Chapter 18.36 4 (10/2020) (Oregon Administrative Rules 690, Division 20) and not from a Class II stream as defined in the Forest Practices Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 629). i. For purposes of DCC 18.36.050, evidence of a domestic water supply means: a) Verification from a water purveyor that the use described in the application will be served by the purveyor under the purveyor's rights to appropriate water; or b) A water use permit issued by the Water Resources Department for the use described in the application; or c) Verification from the Water Resources Department that a water use permit is not required for the use described in the application. If the proposed water supply is from a well and is exempt from permitting requirements under ORS 537.545, the applicant shall submit the well construction report to the County upon completion of the well. e. If road access to a dwelling is by a road owned and maintained by a private party or by the Oregon Department of Forestry, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service, then the applicant shall provide proof of a long-term road access use permit or agreement. The road use permit may require the applicant to agree to accept responsibility for road maintenance. 2. In addition, dwellings listed as a conditional use under DCC 18.36.030(Y) shall be subject to the following standards or conditions: a. The conditional use standards set forth in DCC 18.36.040; b. The siting criteria set forth in DCC 18.36.060; c. The fire siting standards set forth in DCC 18.36.070; d. The fire safety design standards for roads set forth in DCC 18.36.080; e. The stocking requirements set forth in DCC 18.36.085, if applicable; and f. Any other provisions made applicable by DCC Title 18 or the comprehensive plan. 3. Dwellings in forest zones shall not be subject to conditional use standards. 4. Approval of a dwelling in the forest zone under DCC Chapter 18.36 shall include a condition of approval requiring that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the landowner sign and record in the deed records fnr the County a document binding the landowner and the. lnnd�w11 ner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forestry practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. B. Lot of Record Dwelling. For approval under DCC 18.36.050(B), a single-family dwelling shall meet the following requirements: 1. The lot or parcel on which the dwelling would be sited was lawfully created prior to January 1, 1985 and was acquired and owned continuously by the present owner either prior to January 1, 1985 or by devise or by intestate succession from a person who acquired the lot or parcel prior to January 1, 1985. 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.36.050(B), "owner" includes the wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, step-parent, step -child, grandparent or grandchild of the owner or a business entity owned by any one or combination of these family members. 3. The dwelling must be located on a tract that is composed of soils not capable of producing 4,000 cubic feet per year of commercial tree species and is located within 1,500 feet of a public road as defined under ORS 368.001 that provides or will provide access to the subject tract. a. The road shall be maintained and either paved or surfaced with rock and shall not be a: i. United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) road, or ii. a United States Forest Service road unless the road is paved to a minimum width of 18 feet, there is at least one defined lane in each direction, and a maintenance agreement exists between the United States Forest Service and landowners adjacent to the road, a local government or a state agency. 4. For the purposes of DCC 18.36.050, "commercial tree species" means trees recognized for commercial production under rules adopted by the Oregon Department of Forestry pursuant to ORS 527.715. Chapter 18.36 5 (10/2020) C. 0 5. The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on November 4, 1993, no dwellings exists on another lot or parcel that was part of the tract. 6. When the lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited is part of a tract, the remaining portions of the tract shall be consolidated into a single lot or parcel when the dwelling is allowed. 7 For lots or parcels located within a Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone, siting of the proposed dwelling would be consistent with the limitations on density as applied under the applicable density restrictions of DCC 18.88. Large Tract Dwelling. A dwelling not allowed pursuant to DCC 18.36.050(B) may be allowed if the subject property consists of at least 240 contiguous acres or 320 acres in one ownership that are not contiguous but are in the same county or adjacent counties and zoned for forest use and does not include an existing dwelling. 1. A deed restriction shall be filed pursuant to DCC 18.36.140 for all tracts that are used to meet the acreage requirements of this subsection. 2. A tract shall not be considered to consist of less than 240 acres because it is crossed by a public road or a waterway. Template Dwelling. For approval under DCC 18.36.050(D), a single-family dwelling shall meet the following requirements: 1. The lot or parcel is predominantly composed of soils that are: a. Capable of producing zero to 20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if: i. All or part of at least three other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. b. Capable of producing 21 to 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if: i. All or part of at least seven other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. c. Capable of producing more than 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber i£ i. All or part of at least 11 other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. d. Lots or parcels within urban growth boundaries shall not be used to satisfy the template requirements under this subsection. 2. Requirements of Applying Template a. If a tract 60 acres or larger described in DCC 18.36.050(D) abuts a road or perennial stream, the measurement shall be made by using a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-fourth mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible aligned with the road or stream. b. If a road crosses the tract on which the dwelling will be located, at least one of the three required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road as the proposed dwelling. However, one of the three required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road or stream as the tract and: i. Be located within a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-fourth mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible aligned with the road or stream; ii. Be within one -quarter mile from the edge of the subject tract but not outside the length of the 160-acre rectangle, and on the same side of the road or stream as the tract. c. If a tract reviewed under DCC 18.36.050(D) abuts a road that existed on January 1, 1993, the measurement may be made by creating a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-fourth Chapter 18.36 6 (10/2020) mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible, aligned with the road. (Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 2003-007 §1, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.36.060. Siting of Dwellings and Structures. A. All new dwellings and structures approved pursuant to DCC 18.36.030 or permitted under DCC 18.36.020 shall be sited in accordance with DCC 18.36.060 and DCC 18.36.070. B. These criteria are designed to make such uses compatible with forest operations and agriculture, to minimize wildfire hazards and risks and to conserve values found on forest lands. C. These criteria shall include the following such that the dwellings and structures shall be sited on the parcel so that they: 1. Have the least impact on nearby or adjoining forest or agricultural lands; 2. Ensure that adverse impacts on forest operations and accepted farming practices on the tract will be minimized; 3. Minimize the amount of forest lands used to site the dwelling and structures, road access and service corridors; 4. Are consistent with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.36.070, minimizes the risks associated with wildfire. D. Siting criteria satisfying the above may include setbacks from adjoining properties, clustering near or among existing structures, siting close to existing roads and siting on that portion of the parcel least suited for growing trees. (Ord. 2012-007 §3, 2012; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992) 18.36.070. Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures. The following fire siting standards shall apply to all new dwellings and permanent structures (including permitted uses), except as otherwise noted: A. Access 1. If a water supply, such as a swimming pool, pond, stream or lake, is available and suitable for fire protection or is required under DCC 18.36.070, then road access to within 15 feet of the water's edge shall be provided for pumping units. The road access shall be constructed and maintained to accommodate the maneuvering of fire fighting equipment during the fire season. Permanent signs shall be posted along the access route to indicate the location of the emergency water source. 2. Road access to the dwelling or structure shall meet the road design standards described in DCC 18.36,080. B. Firebreaks. The owners of dwellings and structures shall construct and maintain the following firebreaks on land surrounding the structures that is owned or controlled by the owner: 1. Primary Firebreak. Prior to use, a primary firebreak, not less than 10 feet wide, shall be constructed containing nonflammable materials. This may include lawn, walkways, driveways, gravel borders or other similar materials. 2. Secondary Firebreak. A secondary firebreak of not less than 20 feet shall be constructed outside the primary firebreak. This firebreak need not be bare ground, but can include a lawn, ornamental shrubbery or individual or groups of trees separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. 3. Fuel Break. A fuel break shall be maintained, extending a minimum of 100 feet in all directions around the secondary firebreak. Individual and groups of trees within the fuel break shall be separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Small trees and brush growing underneath larger trees shall be removed to prevent spread of Chapter 18.36 7 (10/2020) fire up into the crowns of the larger trees. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. The fuel break shall be completed prior to the beginning of the coming fire season. 4. No portion of a tree or any other vegetation shall extend to within 15 feet of the outlet of a stovepipe or chimney. C. Caretaker residences and private accommodations for fishing shall not be located on hillsides steeper than 30 percent and containing flammable fuels. A single family dwelling shall not be sited on a slope greater than 40 percent. D. The applicant for a single-family dwelling, caretaker residence or private accommodations for fishing shall obtain an address from the County address coordinator and shall display that number in a location of the property that is clearly visible from the road used as the basis for numbering. The numbers shall not be less than three inches in height, shall be painted in a contrasting or visible color and shall comply with all other applicable standards for signs. E. Structural Standards. 1. All dwellings and structures shall use noncombustible or fire resistant roofing materials. This means roofing material identified as Class A, B or C in the Oregon Uniform Building Code. Roof sprinklers are not an acceptable alternative to this standard. 2. If the dwelling or structure has a chimney, it shall have a spark arrester. F. Fire Protection. Single-family dwellings, caretaker residences and private accommodations for fishing shall be located upon a parcel for which fire protection services are available or where alternative protective measures are authorized by DCC 18.36.070(F). l . For the purposes of DCC 18.36.070 fire protection services are available if the parcel is located within the boundaries of a fire protection district or residential fire protection service is provided by contract, as evidenced by a written, signed contract. 2. If the dwelling or structure is not within a fire protection district, the applicant shall provide evidence that the applicant has asked to be included in the nearest such district. 3. If the parcel is not located w.th.n a fire protection district and itis determined, following application for inclusion within the nearest such district, that inclusion in the district would be impracticable, alternative means of fire protection shall be allowed, consistent with the following standards: a. The dwelling or structure shall be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system. For caretaker residences or single-family residences, such a sprinkler system shall be installed to the minimum requirements of NFPA 13D "Standards for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two -Family Dwellings." b. The dwelling shall have on -site water storage capability from a swimming pool, pond, lake, or similar water body of at least 4,000 gallons or a stream having a continuous year round flow of at least one cubic foot per second. The applicant shall provide verification from the Water Resources Department that any permits or registrations required for water diversions have been obtained or that such permits or registrations are not required under state law for the use. (Ord. 2004-013 §3, 2004; Ord. 2003-007 §1, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992) 18.36.080. Fire safety Design Standards for Roads. The following standards apply to all roads and driveways, except for private roads accessing only commercial forest uses, which access uses permitted under DCC 18.36.020 or approved under DCC 18.36.030. A. Roads, bridges and culverts shall be designed and maintained to support a minimum gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 50,000 lbs. If bridges or culverts are involved in the construction of a road or driveway, written verification of compliance with the 50,000 lb. GVW standard shall be provided by a Professional Engineer, registered in Oregon. B. Access roads shall have an unobstructed horizontal clearance of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13.5 feet, and provide an all-weather surface. Chapter 18.36 8 (10/2020) C. Turnarounds shall have a minimum of 50 feet of turn radius with an all-weather surface and be maintained for turning of fire fighting equipment. D. Road grades should not exceed eight percent, with a maximum of 12 percent on short pitches. Variations from these standards may be granted by the fire service having responsibility for the area when topographic conditions make these standards impractical and where the local fire protection district states their fire fighting equipment can negotiate the proposed road grade. (Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992) 18.36.085. Stocking Requirement. All dwellings approved under DCC 18.36.050 shall be subject to the provisions of DCC 18.36.085. A. Stocking Requirement. 1. Dwellings approved under DCC 18.36.050 shall include a condition requiring the owner to plant a sufficient number of trees on the tract to demonstrate that the tract is reasonably expected to meet Department of Forestry stocking requirements specified in Department of Forestry administrative rules in force at the time the approval is granted. 2. If the lot or parcel is more than 30 acres, the property owner shall submit a stocking survey report to the county assessor and the assessor will verify that the minimum stocking requirements have been met by the time required by Department of Forestry rules. B. Reporting Requirements. 1. The Planning Director or his designee shall notify the County Assessor of any stocking requirement condition at the time the dwelling is approved. 2. The property owner shall submit a stocking survey report to the County Assessor and the Assessor shall verify that the minimum stocking requirements have been met by the time required under Department of Forestry rules. The assessor shall inform the Department of Forestry in cases where the property owner has not submitted a stocking report or where the survey report indicates that minimum stocking requirements have not been met. 3. Upon notification by the Assessor, the Department of Forestry shall determine whether the tract meets minimum stocking requirements of the Forest Practices Act. That decision shall be solely the decision of the Department of Forestry. If the department determines that the tract does not meet those requirements, the department shall notify the owner and the Assessor that the land is not being managed as forest land. The assessor shall then remove the forest land designation pursuant to ORS 321.359. The tax penalty imposed by the Assessor under DCC 18.36.085 shall be the only sanction for failure to meet stocking requirements. (Ord. 2003-007 §1, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994) Chapter 18.36 9 (10/2020) 18.36.090. Dimensional Standards. In an F-1 Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: A. The minimum lot size is 80 acres; or B. Land divisions creating parcels less than 80 acres in size may only be approved for uses listed in DCC 18.36.030(D) through (0), provided that those uses have been approved pursuant to DCC 18.36.040. Such division shall create a parcel that is the minimum size necessary for the use. C. Building Height. No nonagricultural building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as approved under DCC 18.120.040. (Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-055 §4, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 83-037 §10, 1983) 18.36.100. Yards and Setbacks. A. The front yard setback shall be 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial. B. Each side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except a parcel or lot with a side yard adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum side yard of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum rear yard of 100 feet. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. (Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §18, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 83-037 §11, 1983) 18.36.110. Stream Setbacks. All sewage disposal installations such as vault toilets, septic tanks and drainfield systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams and lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. (Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992) 18.36.120. State Law Controls. Forest operations are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. Whenever a use allowed by DCC 18.36 conflicts with or is prohibited by the Oregon Forest Practices Act or regulations promulgated thereunder, state law shall control. (Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992) 18.36.130. Rimrock Setbacks. Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160. (Ord. 86-053 §8, 1986) 18.36.140. Restrictive Covenants. Restrictive covenants required under DCC 18.36 shall substantially comply with the form set forth below: "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions: Whereas, the undersigned hereinafter referred to as "Declarant," is owner in fee simple of the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; and Chapter 18.36 10 (10/2020) Whereas, the Declarant desires to declare his/her intention to create certain covenants, conditions and restrictions in order to effectuate and comply with the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-06-027; Declarant hereby declares that all of the property described on Exhibit A shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions: It is not lawful to use the property described in this instrument for the construction or siting of a dwelling or to use the acreage of the tract to qualify another tract for the construction or siting of a dwelling. These covenants, conditions and restrictions can be removed only and at such time as the property described herein is no longer protected under the statewide planning goals for agricultural and forest lands or the legislature otherwise provides by statute that these covenants, conditions and restrictions may be removed, and the authorized representative of the County or counties in which the property subject to these covenants, conditions and restrictions are located executes and records a release of the covenants, conditions and restrictions created by this instrument. In witness whereof, the undersigned, being Declarant herein, has heretofore set their hand this day of " (Ord. 94-038 § 1, 1994) Chapter 18.36 11 (10/2020) Chapter 18.40. FOREST USE ZONE - F-2 18.40.010. Purpose. 18.40.020. Uses Permitted Outright. 18.40.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. 18.40.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. 18.40.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings. 18.40.060. Siting of Dwellings and Structures. 18.40.070. Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures. 18.40.080. Fire Safety Design Standards for Roads. 18.40.085. Stocking Requirement. 18.40.090. Dimensional Standards. 18.40.100. Yards and Setbacks. 18.40.110. Stream Setbacks. 18.40.120. State Law Controls. 18.40.130. Rimrock Setback. 18.40.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Forest Use Zone is to conserve forest lands. (Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.40.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to applicable siting criteria set fnrth in DCC 1 8 ,10 anal any nther applicable prnvicinnc of nCC Title 18: A. Forest operations or forest practices including, but not limited to, reforestation of forest land, road construction and maintenance, harvesting of a forest tree species, application of chemicals and disposal of slash, subject to the Forest Practices Act (ORS Chapter 527) and Goal 4. B. Temporary on -site structures that are auxiliary to and used during the term of a particular forest operation, subject to the Forest Practices Act (ORS Chapter 527) and Goal 4. As used here, temporary structures are those which are portable and/or not placed on a permanent foundation, and which are removed at the conclusion of the forest operation requiring its use. For the purposes of this section, including DCC 18.36.020(B) and (C) "auxiliary" means a use or alteration of a structure or land that provides help or is directly associated with the conduct of a particular forest practice. An auxiliary structure is located on site, temporary in nature, and is not designed to remain for the forest's entire growth cycle from planting to harvesting. An auxiliary use is removed when a particular forest practice has concluded. C. Physical alterations to the land auxiliary to forest practices including, but not limited to, those made for purposes of exploration, mining, commercial gravel extraction and processing, landfills, dams, reservoirs, road construction or recreational facilities, subject to the Forest Practices Act -(ORS Chapter 527 and Goal 4). Gravel extraction and processing not covered by DCC 18.40.020 is governed by DCC 18.52. D. Uses to conserve soil, air and water quality and to provide for wildlife and fisheries resources. E. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203. F. Local distribution lines (e.g., electric, telephone, natural gas, etc.) and accessory equipment (e.g., electric distribution transformers, poles, meter cabinets, terminal boxes, pedestals), or equipment that provides service hookups, including water service hookups. G. Temporary portable facility for the primary processing of forest products. The facility shall not be placed on a permanent foundation and shall be removed at the conclusion of the forest operation requiring its use. H. Exploration for mineral and aggregate resources as defined in ORS 517. I. Towers and fire stations for forest fire protection. Chapter 18.40 1 (10/2020) I Widening of roads within existing rights of way in conformance with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan including public road and highway projects as described in ORS 215.283(l). K. Water intake facilities, canals and distribution lines for farm irrigation and ponds. L. Uninhabitable structures accessory to fish and wildlife enhancement. M. Alteration, restoration or replacement of a lawfully established dwelling that: 1. Has intact exterior walls and roof structure; 2. Has indoor plumbing consisting of a kitchen sink, toilet and bathing facilities connected to a sanitary waste disposal system; 3. Has interior wiring for interior lights; 4. Has a heating system; and 5. In the case of replacement, is removed, demolished or converted to an allowable use within three months of completion of the replacement dwelling. N. An outdoor mass gathering as defined in ORS 433.735 or other gathering of fewer than 3,000 persons that is not anticipated to continue for more than 120 hours in any three-month period is not a "land use decision" as defined in ORS 197.015(10) or subject to review under OAR 660-006. (Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 2003-007 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §21, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §9, 1991) 18.40.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the Forest Use Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.40.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18: A. Private hunting and fishing operations without any lodging accommodations. B. Caretaker residences for public parks and fish hatcheries. C. Temporary forest labor camps limited to the duration of the forest operation requiring it use. D. Destination Resorts where mapped in a DR zone and subject only to the provisions of DCC 18.113 and other applicable provisions of DCC Title 18 and the Comprehensive Plan not contained in DCC 18.40. E. Exploration for and production of geothermal, gas, oil and other associated hydrocarbons, including the placement and operation of compressors, separators and other customary production equipment for an individual well adjacent to the well head. F. Log scaling and weigh stations. G. A disposal site which includes a land disposal site which the Department of Environmental Quality has granted a permit under ORS 459.245, together with equipment, facilities or buildings necessary for its operation. H. Private parks and campgrounds. 1. Campgrounds in private parks shall only be those allowed by OAR 660-006-0025. 2. Except on a lot or parcel contiguous to a lake or reservoir, campgrounds shall not be allowed within three miles of an urban growth boundary unless an exception is approved pursuant to ORS 197.732 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 4, 3. For the purpose of DCC 18.36.030 a campground is an area devoted to overnight temporary use for vacation, recreational or emergency purposes, but not for residential purposes and is established on a site or is contiguous to lands with a park or other outdoor natural amenity that is accessible for recreational use by the occupants of the campground. 4. A campground shall be designed and integrated into the rural agricultural and forest environment in a manner that protects the natural amenities of the site and provides buffers of existing native trees and vegetation or other natural features between campsites. 5. Campsites may be occupied by a tent, travel trailer or recreational vehicle. 6. Separate sewer, water or electric service hookups shall not be provided to individual campsites except that electrical service may be provided to yurts allowed for by OAR 660-006-0025(4)(e)(C)._ 7. Campgrounds shall not include intensively developed recreational uses such as swimming pools, tennis courts, retail stores or gas stations. Overnight temporary use in the same campground by a camper or camper's vehicle shall not exceed a total of 30 days during any consecutive 6 month period. Chapter 18.40 2 (10/2020) 8. A private campground may provide yurts for overnight camping. a. No more than one-third or a maximum of 10 campsites, whichever is smaller, may include a yurt. b. The yurt shall be located on the ground or on a wood floor with no permanent foundation. c. As used in this rule, "yurt" means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hook-up or internal cooking appliance. I. Mining and processing of oil, gas or other subsurface resources, as defined in ORS 520.005, and not otherwise permitted under DCC 18.40.030(E). J. Television, microwave and radio communication facilities and transmission towers. K. Fire stations for rural fire protection. L. Commercial utility facilities for the purpose of generating power. A power generation facility shall not preclude more than 10 acres from use as a commercial forest operation unless an exception it taken pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rules 660, Division 4. M. Aids to navigation and aviation. N. Water intake facilities, related treatment facilities, pumping stations and distribution lines. 0. Reservoirs and water impoundments. P. Cemeteries. Q. New electric transmission lines with right-of-way widths of up to 100 feet as specified in ORS 772.210. New distribution lines (e.g. gas, oil, geothermal, telephone, fiber optic cable) with rights of way 50 feet or less in width. R. Temporary asphalt and concrete batch plants as accessory uses to specific highway projects. S. Home Occupations, subject to DCC 18.116.280. T. Expansion of existing airports. U. Public road and highway projects as described as ORS 215.283(2) and 215.283(3). V. Private accommodations for fishing occupied on a temporary basis subject to other applicable sections of DCC Title 18 and the following requirements: 1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, 2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; 3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of fishing during fishing seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission; and 4. Accommodations must be located within one -quarter mile of fish -bearing Class I waters. W. Forest management research and experimentation facilities as described by ORS 526.215 or where accessory to forest operations. X. Single-family dwellings or manufactured homes as specified in DCC 18.116.070, pursuant to DCC 18.40.050. Y. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland, subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270. Z. An existing building, or a manufactured home in conjunction with an existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as defined in ORS 215.283. For the purposes of this section, "existing" means the building was in existence on or before March 29, 2017. 1. As used in this section, "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons. 2. The use shall be subject to the review criteria in DCC 18.116.090, as well as DCC 18.40.040 and 18.40.60. 3. The manufactured home shall use the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing dwellings if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling. 4. If the manufactured dwelling will use a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be required. 5. A temporary residence approved under this subsection is not eligible for replacement under OAR 660-006-025. Chapter 18.40 3 (10/2020) AA.Public parks including only those uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-0040, whichever is applicable. BB. Private seasonal accommodations for fee hunting operations may be allowed subject to DCC 18.36.050 and the following requirements: 1. Accommodations are limited to no more than 15 guest rooms as that term is defined in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code; 2. Only minor incidental and accessory retail sales are permitted; and 3. Accommodations are occupied temporarily for the purpose of hunting during game bird and big game hunting seasons authorized by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission CC. An Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering subject to review by a county planning commission pursuant to DCC Chapter 8.16. DD. Permanent storage and repair of logging equipment. EE. Permanent facility for the primary processing of forest products. FF. Firearms training facility. (Ord. 2020-007 §11, 2020; Ord. 2018-006 §7, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 2007-020 §4, 2007; Ord. 2004-002 §6, 2004; Ord. 2000-033 §1, 2000; Ord. 94-038 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-068 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §28, 1990; Ord. 86-018 §8, 1986) 18.40.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. A use authorized by DCC 18.40.030 must meet the following requirements. These requirements are designed to make the use compatible with forest operations and agriculture and to conserve values found on forest lands. A. The proposed use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest lands; B. The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel. C. Prior to final approval of the uses listed in DCC 18.40.030(H), (0), (S), (V), (X) and (Z), the landowner shall sign and record in the County Clerk's office a written statement recognizing the rights of adjacent and nearby landowners to conduct forest operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules. (Ord. 2018-006 §7, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.40.050. Standards for Single -Family Dwellings. A. General Provisions. 1. Dwellings listed as a conditional use under DCC 18.40.030(X) shall meet the following standards: a. One of the alternative tests set out in DCC 18.40.050(B) (lot of record dwelling), DCC 18.40.050(C) (large tract dwelling), or DCC 18.40.050(D) (template dwelling); b. If the lot or parcel is part of a "tract," the remaining undeveloped lots or parcels of the tract shall be consolidated into a single lot or parcel, or the applicant shall sign and record with the County Clerk covenants, conditions and restrictions (on a form substantially similar to that set forth in DCC 18.36.140) prohibiting the siting of a dwelling on the undeveloped portions of the tract. Such covenants, conditions and restrictions are irrevocable, unless a statement of release is signed by the County Planning Director, or his authorized representative. c. No other dwellings shall be located on the tract. d. The applicant shall provide evidence that any domestic water supply is from a source authorized in accordance with the Department of Water Resources Oregon Administrative Rules for the appropriation of ground water (Oregon Administrative Rules 690, Division 10) or surface water (Oregon Administrative Rules 690, Division 20) and not from a Class Il stream as defined in the Forest Practices Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 629). For purposes of DCC 18.40.050, evidence of a domestic water supply means: Chapter 18.40 4 (10/2020) i. Verification from a water purveyor that the use described in the application will be served by the purveyor under the purveyor's rights to appropriate water; or ii. A water use permit issued by the Water Resources Department for the use described in the application; or iii. Verification from the Water Resources Department that a water use permit is not required for the use described in the application. If the proposed water supply is from a well and is exempt from permitting requirements under ORS 537.545, the applicant shall submit the well construction report to the County upon completion of the well. e. If road access to a dwelling is by a road owned and maintained by a private party or by the Oregon Department of Forestry, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service, then the applicant shall provide proof of a long-term road access use permit or agreement. The road use permit may require the applicant to agree to accept responsibility for road maintenance. 2. In addition, dwellings listed as a conditional use under DCC 18.40.030(X) shall be subject to the following standards or conditions: a. The conditional use standards set forth in DCC 18,40.040; b. The siting criteria set forth in DCC 18.40.060; c. The fire siting standards set forth in DCC 18.40.070; d. The fire safety design standards for roads set forth in DCC 18.40.080; e. The stocking requirements set forth in DCC 18.40.085, if applicable; and f. Any other provisions made applicable by DCC Title 18 or the comprehensive plan. 3. Dwellings in forest zones shall not be subject to conditional use standards. 4. Approval of a dwelling in the forest zone under DCC Chapter 18.40 shall include a condition of approval requiring that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the landowner sign and record in the deed records for the County a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. B. Lot of Record Dwelling. For approval under DCC 18.40.050, a single-family d:x,elling shall meet the following requirements: 1. The lot or parcel on which the dwelling would be sited was lawfully created prior to January 1, 1985 and was acquired and owned continuously by the present owner either prior to January 1, 1985 or by devise or by intestate succession from a person who acquired the lot or parcel prior to January 1, 1985. 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.40.050, "owner" includes the wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother -in- law, father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, step-parent, step -child, grandparent or grandchild of the owner or a business entity owned by any one or combination of these family members. 3. The dwelling would be located on a tract that is composed of soils not capable of producing 4,000 cubic feet per year of commercial tree species and is located within 1,500 feet of a public road as defined under ORS 368.001 that provides or will provide access to the subject tract. a. The road shall be maintained and either paved or surfaced with rock and shall not be: i. a United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) road; or ii. a United States Forest Service road unless the road is paved to a minimum width of 18 feet, there is at least one defined lane in each direction and a maintenance agreement exists between the United States Forest Service and landowners adjacent to the road, a local government or a state agency. 4. For the purposes of DCC 18.40.050, "commercial tree species" means trees recognized for commercial production under rules adopted by the Oregon Department of Forestry pursuant to ORS 527.715, 5. The lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on November 4, 1993, no dwellings exists on another lot or parcel that was part of the tract. Chapter 18.40 5 (10/2020) 6. When the lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited is part of a tract, the remaining portions of the tract shall be consolidated into a single lot or parcel when the dwelling is allowed. 7. For lots or parcels located within a Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone, siting of the proposed dwelling would be consistent with the limitations on density as applied under the applicable density restrictions of DCC 18.88. C. Large Tract Dwelling. A dwelling not allowed pursuant to DCC 18.40.050(B) may be allowed if the subject property consists of at least 240 contiguous acres or 320 acres in one ownership that are not contiguous but are in the same county or adjacent counties and zoned for forest use and does not include an existing dwelling. 1. A deed restriction shall be filed pursuant to DCC 18.40.140 for all tracts that are used to meet the acreage requirements of this subsection. 2. A tract shall not be considered to consist of less than 240 acres because it is crossed by a public road or a waterway. D. Template Dwelling. For approval under DCC 18.40.050(D), a single-family dwelling shall meet the following requirements: 1. The lot or parcel is predominantly composed of soils that are: a. Capable of producing zero to 20 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if: i. All or part of at least three other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. b. Capable of producing 21 to 50 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber if- i. All or part of at least seven other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. C. Capable of producing core than 50 cubic feet perpe. acreper year of vsvood fiber if: i. All or part of at least 11 other lots or parcels that existed on January 1, 1993, are within a 160 acre square centered on the center of the subject tract; and ii. At least three dwellings existed on January 1, 1993, and continue to exist on the other lots or parcels. 2. Requirements of Applying Template a. Lots or parcels within urban growth boundaries shall not be used to satisfy the template requirements under this subsection. b. Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, if the tract described in DCC 18.40.050(D) abuts a road that existed on January 1, 1993, the measurement may be made by creating a 160- acre rectangle that is one mile long and 1/4 mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is to the maximum extent possible, aligned with the road. c. (A) If a tract 60 acres or larger described in DCC 18.40.050(D) abuts a road or perennial stream, the measurement shall be made in accordance with subsection (b) of this section. However, one of the three required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road or stream as the tract, and; i. Be located within a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one -quarter mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and that is, to the maximum extent possible aligned with the road or stream; or ii. Be within one -quarter mile from the edge of the subject tract but not outside the length of the 160-acre rectangle, and on the same side of the road or stream as the tract. (B) If a road crosses the tract on which the dwelling will be located, at least one of the three required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road as the proposed dwelling. (Ord. 2018-006 §7, 2018; Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 2003-007 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) Chapter 18.40 6 (10/2020) 18.40.060. Siting of Dwellings and Structures. A. All new dwellings and structures approved pursuant to DCC 18.40.030 or permitted under DCC 18.40.020 shall be sited in accordance with DCC 18.40.060 and DCC 18.40.070. B. These criteria are designed to make such uses compatible with forest operations and agriculture, to minimize wildfire hazards and risks, and to conserve values found on forest lands. C. These criteria shall include the following such that the dwellings and structures shall be sited on the parcel so that they: 1. Have the least impact on nearby or adjoining forest or agricultural lands; 2. Ensure that adverse impacts on forest operations and accepted farming practices on the tract will be minimized; 3. Minimize the amount of forest lands used to site the dwelling and structures, road access and service corridors; 4. Are consistent with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.40.070, minimizes the risks associated with wildfire. D. Siting criteria satisfying the above may include setbacks from adjoining properties, clustering near or among existing structures, siting close to existing roads and siting on that portion of the parcel least suited for growing trees. (Ord. 2012-007 §4, 2012; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992) 18.40.070. Fire Siting Standards for Dwellings and Structures. The following fire siting standards shall apply to all new dwellings and permanent structures (including permitted uses): A. Access. 1. If a water supply, such as a swimming pool, pond, stream or lake, is available and suitable for fire protection or is required under DCC 18.40.070, then road access to within 15 feet of the water's edge shall be provided for pumping units. The road access shall be constructed and maintained to accommodate the maneuvering of fire fighting equipment during the fire season. Permanent signs shall be posted along the access route to indicate the location of the emergency water source. 2. Road access to the dwelling or structure shall meet the road design standards described in DCC 18.40.080. B. Firebreaks. The owners of dwellings and structures shall construct and maintain the following firebreaks on land surrounding the structures that is owned or controlled by the owner: 1. Primary Firebreak. Prior to use, a primary firebreak, not less than 10 feet wide, shall be constructed containing nonflammable materials. This may include lawn, walkways, driveways, gravel borders or other similar materials. 2. Secondary Firebreak. A secondary firebreak of not less than 20 feet shall be constructed outside the primary firebreak. This firebreak need not be bare ground, but can include a lawn, ornamental shrubbery or individual or groups of trees separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. 3. Fuel Break. A fuel break shall be maintained, extending a minimum of 100 feet in all directions around the secondary firebreak. Individual and groups of trees within the fuel break shall be separated by a distance equal to the diameter of the crowns adjacent to each other, or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Small trees and brush growing underneath larger trees shall be removed to prevent spread of fire up into the crowns of the larger trees. All trees shall be pruned to at least eight feet in height. Dead fuels shall be removed. The fuel break shall be completed prior to the beginning of the coming fire season. 4. No portion of a tree or any other vegetation shall extend to within 15 feet of the outlet of a stovepipe or chimney. Chapter 18.40 7 (10/2020) C. Caretaker residences and private accommodations for fishing shall not be located on hillsides steeper than 30 percent and containing flammable fuels. A single family dwelling shall not be sited on a slope greater than 40 percent. D. The applicant for a single-family dwelling, caretaker residence or private accommodations for fishing shall obtain an address from the County address coordinator and shall display that number in a location of the property that is clearly visible from the road used as the basis for numbering. The numbers shall not be less than three inches in height, shall be painted in a contrasting or visible color and shall comply with all other applicable standards for signs. E. Structural Standards. 1. All dwellings and structures shall use noncombustible or fire resistant roofing materials. This means roofing material identified as Class A, B or C in the Oregon Uniform Building Code. Roof sprinklers are not an acceptable alternative to this standard. 2. If the dwelling or structure has a chimney, it shall have a spark arrester. F. Fire Protection. Single-family dwellings, caretaker residences and private accommodations for fishing shall be located upon a parcel for which fire protection services are available or where alternative protective measures are authorized by DCC 18.40.070(F). 1. For the purposes of DCC 18.40.070 fire protection services are available if the parcel is located within the boundaries of a fire protection district or residential fire protection service is provided by contract, as evidenced by a written, signed contract. 2. If the dwelling or structure is not within a fire protection district, the applicant shall provide evidence that the applicant has asked to be included in the nearest such district. 3. If the parcel is not located within a fire protection district and it is determined, following application for inclusion within the nearest such district, that inclusion in the district would be impracticable, alternative means of fire protection shall be allowed, consistent with the following standards: a. The dwelling or structure shall be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system. For caretaker residences or single-family residences, such a sprinkler system shall be installed to the minimum requirements of 'NFPA 13D "S+,andards for the Insttallat:on of Spripkler Systems :n One and Two -Family Dwellings." b. The dwelling shall have on -site water storage capability from a swimming pool, pond, lake, or similar water body of at least 4,000 gallons or a stream having a continuous year round flow of at least one cubic foot per second. The applicant shall provide verification from the Water Resources Department that any permits or registrations required for water diversions have been obtained or that such permits or registrations are not required under state law for the use. (Ord. 2004-013 §4, 2004; Ord. 2003-007 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992) 18.40.080. Fire Safety Design Standards for Roads. The following standards apply to all roads and driveways, except for private roads accessing only commercial forest uses, which access uses permitted under DCC 18.40.020 or approved under DCC 18.40.030. A. Roads, bridges and culverts shall be designed and maintained to support a minimum gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 50,000 lbs. If bridges or culverts are involved in the construction of a road or driveway, written verification of compliance with the 50,000 lb. GVW standard shall be provided by a professional engineer registered in Oregon. B. Access roads shall have an unobstructed horizontal clearance of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13.5 feet, and provide an all-weather surface. C. Turnarounds shall have a minimum of 50 feet of turn radius with an all-weather surface and be maintained for turning of fire fighting equipment. D. Road grades should not exceed eight percent, with a maximum of 12 percent on short pitches. Variations from these standards may be granted when topographic conditions make these standards impractical and where the local fire protection district states their fire fighting equipment can negotiate the proposed road grade. (Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992) Chapter 18.40 8 (10/2020) 18.40.085. Stocking Requirement. All dwellings approved under DCC 18.40 shall be subject to the provisions of DCC 18.40.085. A. Stocking Requirement. 1. Dwellings approved under DCC 18.40 shall include a condition requiring the owner to plant a sufficient number of trees on the tract to demonstrate that the tract is reasonably expected to meet Department of Forestry stocking requirements specified in Department of Forestry administrative rules (Oregon Administrative Rules 629 in force at the time the approval is granted. 2. If the lot or parcel is more than 30 acres, the property owner shall submit a stocking survey report to the county assessor and the assessor will verify that the minimum stocking requirements have been met by the time required by Department of Forestry rules. B. Reporting Requirements. 1. The Planning Director or his designee shall notify the County Assessor of any stocking requirement condition at the time the dwelling is approved. 2. The property owner shall submit a stocking survey report to the County Assessor and the Assessor shall verify that the minimum stocking requirements have been met by the time required under Department of Forestry rules. The Assessor shall inform the Department of Forestry in cases where the property owner has not submitted a stocking report or where the survey report indicates that minimum stocking requirements have not been met. 3. Upon notification by the Assessor, the Department of Forestry shall determine whether the tract meets minimum stocking requirements of the Forest Practices Act. That decision shall be solely the decision of the Department of Forestry. If the department determines that the tract does not meet those requirements, the department shall notify the owner and the assessor that the land is not being managed as forest land. The Assessor shall then remove the forest land designation pursuant to ORS 321.359. The tax penalty impoCed by the Assessor tinder DCC 18.40.085 shall be the only Sanction for failure to meet stocking requirements. (Ord. 2003-007 §2, 2003; Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994) 18.40.090. Dimensional Standards. In an F-2 Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: A. The minimum lot size is 80 acres; or B. Land divisions creating parcels less than 80 acres in size may only be approved for uses listed in DCC 18.40.030(D) through (P), provided that those uses have been approved pursuant to DCC 18.40.040. Such division shall create a parcel that is the minimum size necessary for the use. C. Building Height. No nonagricultural building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as approved under DCC 18.120.040. (Ord. 94-038 §2, 1994; Ord. 92-055 §5, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.40.100. Yards and Setbacks. A. The front yard setback shall be 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial. B. Each side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet except: 1. All parcels or lots with a side yard adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum side yard of 100 feet; and 2. Tracts 1-58 located in Haner Park, located in Township 22, Range 09, Section 09BB and Section 04CC, and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall have a minimum side yard of 25 feet as long as the side yard abuts the Forest Use 2 zone. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except: Chapter 18.40 9 (10/2020) 1. All parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum rear yard of 100 feet; and 2. Tracts 1-58 located in Haner Park, located in Township 22, Range 09, Section 09BB and Section 04CC, and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall have a minimum rear yard of 25 feet as long as the rear yard abuts the Forest Use 2 zone. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. (Ord. 2016-006 §2, 2016; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 § 19, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 83-037 §11, 1983) 18.40.110. Stream Setbacks. All sewage disposal installations, such as vault toilets, septic tanks and drainfield systems shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams and lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. (Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991) 18.40.120. State Law Controls. Forest operations are governed by the State Forest Practices Act. Whenever a use allowed by DCC 18.40 conflicts with or is prohibited by the Oregon Forest Practices Act or regulations promulgated thereunder, state law shall control. (Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992) 18.40.130. Rimrock Setback. Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160, (Ord. 93-043 §5, 1993; Ord. 86-053 §8, 1986) Chapter 18.40 10 (10/2020) Chapter 8.21 HAZARDOUS VEGETATIVE FUELS 8.21,010. Definitions. 8.21.020. Purpose and Intent 8.21.030 Lands Subject to the Standards 8.21.040 Standards 8.21.050 Standard Waivers and Reductions 8.21.060 Fuel Break Requirements 8.21.065 Inadequately protected wildland declared nuisance; Hazard abatement 8.21.070 Duty of owner and operator to abate fire; Abatement by County 8.21.075 Recovery of Fire Suppression Costs 8.21.080 Violation; Liability for Cost of Suppression 8.21.085 Violation; Penalty 8.21.010. Definitions. A. The following words and phrases, when used in DCC 8.21, shall mean the following, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Developed land" means land which contains a structure. 2. "Driveway" means the primary, privately -owned vehicle access way that is not a dedicated public road, serves one or more dwellings, subject to control of the owner or occupants of the dwelling(s), and which is longer than 150 feet when measured along the centerline from the nearestintersecting public road to the dwelling. 3. "Dwelling" means a detached building containing one dwelling unit and designed for occupancy by one family only, not including temporary structures such as tents, teepees, travel trailers and other similar structures. 4. "Fire resistant roofing" means roofing material that has been installed and is maintained to the specifications of the manufacturer and which is currently rated by Underwriter's Laboratory as Class A, Class B, Class C, (UL 790, ASTM E108) or is equivalent thereto in terns of fire resistance. 5. "Forester" means the County Forester or the forester's designee. 6. "Forestland" means any woodland, chaparral, timberland, grazing land or clearing that, during any time of the year, contains enough vegetation to constitute, in the judgment of the Forester, a fire hazard, regardless of how the land is zoned or taxed. As used in this paragraph, "clearing" means any grassland, improved area, pond, meadow, mechanically or manually cleared area, road, rocky area, stream or other similar terrain that is surrounded by or contiguous to woodland or timberland and that has been included in areas classified as forestland under ORS 526.305 to 526.370. 7. "Fuel break" means a natural or a human -made area immediately adjacent to a structure or a driveway, where material capable of allowing a wildfire to spread does not exist or has been cleared, modified, or treated to: Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) a. Significantly reduce the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire; and b. Create an area alongside the driveway or the structure in which fire suppression operations may more safely occur. 8. "Ladder fuel" means tree branches, leaves, needles, and other combustible vegetation that may allow a wildfire to spread from lower growing vegetation to higher growing vegetation. 9. "Land" means real property encompassing one or more tax lots. 10. "Non -fire resistant roofing" means roofing material that is not fire resistant roofing, including, but not limited to, cedar shakes. 1 l . "Road" means a public road. 12. "Standards" and "Defensible Space Standards" mean the distance from the structure and alongside a driveway where wildland fuel is removed and/or treated to meet the requirements of this chapter, based on the hazard ratings of the area i.e. High, Extreme, or High Density Extreme. 13. "Structure" means a permanently sited building, a manufactured home, or a mobile home that is either a dwelling or an accessory building to a dwelling, which occupies at least 500 square feet of ground space. 14. "Unprotected land" means those privately owned wildland in Deschutes County located outside the boundaries of any forestland protection district, fire protection district city or the Oregon Department of Forestry. 15. "Vacant land" means land which does not contain a structure. 1.6. "Wildfire" means an uncontrolled fire within or adjacent to a forest] and -urban interface and which is damaging, or is threatening to damage, natural vegetation or structures. 17. "Wildland" means a geographic area within the County that is classified as unprotected land and contains mainly native vegetation and does not include agricultural, urban, or industrial areas. 18. "Wildland Urban Interface" means an area of transition between unoccupied land and developed land. Communities may be included in a wildland urban interface. These lands and communities adjacent to and surrounded by a wildland urban interface are at risk of wildfires. B. Except as otherwise defined in this section, terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning given under the provisions of ORS 477.015 to 477.061, as constituted on the date of adoption of this chapter, or as may be amended by the Oregon Legislature from time to time. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) 8.21.020 Purpose and Intent. A. Defensible Space Standards set forth in this chapter are designed to minimize or mitigate wildland fire hazards and risks which arise due, singly or in combination, to the presence of structures, or to the arrangement or accumulation of vegetative fuels. B. Property owners in forestland and wildland urban interface have a variety of objectives to achieve while applying defensible space standards, including aesthetics, dust mitigation, protection of fish and wildlife habitat, gardening, soil stabilization, sound barriers, and visual barriers. It is the intent of the standards to allow owners to meet such objectives, provided they satisfy the standards and thereby mitigate wildfire hazards and risks. C. The standards are considered to be minimum measures which are intended to improve the survivability of structures during a wildfire, but which will not guarantee survivability. D. The defensible space standards supplement the requirements of ORS 477.015 to 477.061. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.030 Lands Subject to the Standards. A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section, Owners of unprotected lands shall comply with the standards set forth in this chapter. B. Owners of the following lands may comply with the standards set forth in this chapter: 1. Developed lands classified as High, Extreme or High Density Extreme under ORS 477.O15 to 477.06i, 1v'iireii are su Jeei - fire protection by the Oregon Department of Forestry. 2. Vacant lands classified as High Density Extreme under ORS 477.015 to 477.061, which are subject to fire protection by the Oregon Department of Forestry. 3. Lands within the city limits of Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. 4. Lands subject to fire protection from a rural fire protection district or from a county service district. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.040 Standards. A. For unprotected areas classified as "High" pursuant to ORS 477.015 to 477.061 provide and maintain primary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 immediately adjacent to structures, for a distance of at least 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope and fi-orn the furthest extension of the structure, including attached carports, decks, or eaves. B. For unprotected areas classified as "Extreme" pursuant to ORS 477.015 to 477.061 provide and maintain primary and immediately adjacent secondary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 immediately adjacent to structures, for a distance of at least 50 feet, or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope and from the furthest extension of the structure, including attached carports, decks, or eaves. Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) C. For unprotected areas classified as "High Density Extreme" pursuant to ORS 477.015 to 477.061, provide and maintain primary and adjacent secondary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 immediately adjacent to structures, for a distance of at least 100 feet, or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope and from the furthest extension of the structure, including attached carports, decks, or eaves. D. For unprotected areas classified as "High," "Extreme," and "High Density Extreme" pursuant to ORS 477.015 to 477.061, provide primary and adjacent secondary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 for the following areas: 1. For driveways that are longer than 150 feet immediately adjacent to driveways, for a distance of at least 10 (ten) feet on each side of the centerline of the driveway, or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. Including the driving surface, a fuel break shall result in an open area which is not less than 13% feet in height and 12 feet in width or to the property line, whichever is the shorter distance. 2. Adjacent to structures: a. Remove any portion of a tree which extends to within 10 feet of the outlet of a structure chimney or a stove pipe. b. Maintain the portion of any tree which overhangs a structure by removing substantially dead plant material. c. Maintain the area under decks substantially fire,- of firewood, stored flammable building material, leaves, needles, and other flammable material. d. During times of the year when wildfire may be a threat, locate firewood, flammable building material, and other similar flammable material at least 20 feet away from a structure or in a fully enclosed space. 3. On vacant lands less than five acres in size, the landowner shall provide fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.21.060 and which are immediately adjacent to all: a. Property lines, for a distance of at least twenty (20) feet or to the nearest adjacent property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope; and b. Roads, for a distance of at least thirty (30) feet from the center of a road, or to the nearest adjacent property line, whichever is the shorter distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.050 Standard Waivers and Reductions. The County Forester may, in writing, reduce or waive any standard or requirement of this chapter if the Forester finds that conditions so warrant. Reductions or waivers made under this provision: Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) A. May be made only after a written request from the owner; B. Shall be justified by one or more site specific conditions and a conflict between this chapter and the requirements of another code, law, ordinance, or regulation. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.060 Fuel Break Requirements A. The purpose of a fuel break is to: 1. Slow the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire; and 2. Create an area in which fire suppression operations may more safely occur. B. A fuel break shall be a natural or a human -made area where material capable of allowing a wildfire to spread: 1. Does not exist; or 2. Has been cleared, modified, or treated in such a way that the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire will be significantly reduced. C. A primary fuel break shall be comprised of one or more of the following: 1. An area of substantially non-flammable ground cover. Examples include asphalt, bare soil, clover, concrete, green grass, ivy, mulch, rock, succulent plants, or wildflowers. 2. An area of dry grass which is maintained to an average height of less than four inches. 3. An area of cut grass, leaves, needles, twigs, and other similar flammable materials, provided such materials do not create a continuous fuel bed and otherwise complies with the intent of subsections A. and B. of this section. 4. An area of single specimens or isolated groupings of ornamental shrubbery, native trees, or other plants, provided they are: a. Maintained in a green condition; b. Maintained substantially free of dead plant material; c. Maintained free of ladder fuel; d. Arranged and maintained in such a way that minimizes the possibility a wildfire can spread to adjacent vegetation; and e. Otherwise complies with the intent of subsections A and B of this section. D. A secondary fuel break shall be comprised of single specimens or isolated groupings of ornamental shrubbery, native trees, or other plants, provided they are: 1. Maintained in a green condition; Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) 2. Maintained substantially free of dead plant material; 3: Maintained free of ladder fuel; 4. Arranged and maintained in such a way that minimizes the possibility a wildfire can spread to adjacent vegetation; and 5. Otherwise complies with the intent of subsections A and B of this section. (Ord. 2011-011 §1, 2011) 8.21.065 Inadequately protected wildland declared nuisance; Hazard abatement A. All unprotected wildland that by reason of inadequate fire protection and the property owner's or occupant's failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter endangers life, forest resources or property and is hereby declared to be a hazard and a public nuisance. B. Whenever the Forester learns of a condition described in subsection A of this section, the Forester shall advise the owner or occupant to take proper steps to correct the nuisance condition. If the owner or occupant after having been so directed in writing by the Forester fails or refuses to correct the nuisance condition within the specified time, then the Forester may undertake such work as the Forester considers necessary to abate and correct the nuisance condition. C. The owner or occupant of property shall be liable for the cost of work under subsection B of this section and the expense of any patrol rendered necessary by the failure of the owner or occupant to remedy the nuisance condition. The Forester may institute appropriate proceedings to recover iiie cost of work described subsection u f tl" section deserl e In subsection B ol. L111J seeLl Vtl. D. The remedies provided in this section are in addition to and not in lieu of penalties and remedies provided elsewhere in DCC 8.21. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.070 Duty of owner and operator to abate fire; Abatement by County A. Each owner and occupant of unprotected wildland on which a fire exists or from or across which a fire has spread, notwithstanding the origin or subsequent spread thereof, shall immediately proceed to control and extinguish such fire when its existence comes to the knowledge of the owner or operator, without awaiting instructions from the Forester, and shall continue to control and extinguish same until the fire is extinguished or until relieved of such obligation by the Forester. B. If the Forester determines the fire is either burning uncontrolled or the owner or occupant does not then have readily and immediately available personnel and equipment to control or extinguish the fire, the Forester, or any forest protective association or agency under contract or agreement with the County for the protection of unprotected wildland against fire, and within whose protection area the fire exists, shall summarily abate the nuisance thus constituted by controlling and extinguishing the fire. C. An owner may request in writing that the Forester employ alternate fire prevention and suppression strategies or techniques on the owner's property. The Forester may employ some or Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) all of the requested strategies or techniques when, in the judgment of the Forester, conditions warrant the use of the alternate strategies or techniques. D. The cost of work under subsection B of this section and the expense of any patrol rendered necessary by the want of adequate protection of such wildland shall be recoverable from the owner by an action prosecuted in the name of the County. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.075 Recovery of Fire Suppression Costs A Any person 1. who negligently, or in violation of the law, sets a fire, allows a fire to be set, or allows a fire kindled or attended by him or her to escape onto any public or private property, 2. other than a mortgagee, who, being in actual possession of a structure, fails or refuses to correct, within the time allotted for correction, despite having the right to do so, a fire hazard prohibited by law, for which the Forester properly has issued a notice of violation respecting the hazard, or 3. including a mortgagee, who, having an obligation under other provisions of law to correct a fire hazard prohibited by law, for which the Forester has issued a notice of violation respecting the hazard, fails or refuses to correct the hazard within the time allotted for correction, despite having the right to do so, is liable for both of the following: a. The cost of investigating and making any reports with respect to the fire. b. The costs relating to accounting for that fire and the collection of any funds pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the administrative costs of operating fire suppression cost recovery program. The liability imposed pursuant to this paragraph is limited to the actual amount expended which is attributable to the fire. B. In any civil action brought for the recovery of costs provided in this section, the court in its discretion may impose the amount of liability for costs described in subsection A. C. The burden of proof as to liability shall be on the Plaintiff and shall be by a preponderance of the evidence in an action alleging that the defendant is liable for costs pursuant to this section. The burden of proof as to the amount of costs recoverable shall be on the Plaintiff and shall be by a preponderance of the evidence in any action brought pursuant to this section. D. The liability constitutes a debt of that person and is collectible by the person, or by the federal, state, county, public, or private agency, incurring those costs in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.080 Violation; Liability for cost of Suppression A. It is a violation of this chapter to be the owner of land designated to be within an unprotected wildland who fails to meet the applicable standards established under this chapter. Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) B. The owner or operator of land designated to be within an unprotected wildland is liable to the County for the costs of suppressing a fire that occurs on the owner's land if - chapter; The owner has failed to meet the applicable minimum standards established under this 2. The fire originates on the owner's land; 3. The ignition or spread of the fire is directly related to the owner's failure to meet the applicable standards established under this chapter; and 4. The fire requires action by the County pursuant to Section 8.21.70 C. The actual cost incurred by the Forester or the County in controlling or extinguishing the fire shall be paid by the owner or occupant within 90 days after the date on which the first written demand for payment of the actual cost is mailed by the Forester to the owner or occupant. If the actual cost is not paid within such 90-day period, such amount shall bear interest at 10 percent per year from the date on which the first written demand for the payment of the actual costs was mailed by the Forester and the actual cost together with such interest may be recovered from such owner or operator by an action prosecuted in the name of Deschutes County. D. An itemized statement of the actual cost incurred by the Forester the County, certified to by the Forester, and shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of the actual cost in any proceeding authorized by this section. E. The actual cost in cases covered by this section shall constitute a general lien upon the real and personal property of such owner or occupant. A written notice of the lien, containing a description of the property and a statement of the actual cost, shall be certified under oath by the Forester and filed in the office of the County Clerk within 12 months after the calendar year within which the fire originated, and may be foreclosed in the manner provided by law for foreclosure of liens for labor and material. In any proceeding to foreclose a lien created under this subsection, recovery shall include, in addition to the amount of the actual cost, interest on such amount at the rate of 10 percent per year from the date of the filing of the written notice of the lien. F. Upon request of the Forester, County Legal Counsel shall prosecute such action or foreclose the lien in the name of Deschutes County. Liens provided for in this section shall cease to exist unless suit for foreclosure is instituted within 12 months from the date of filing under subsection E of this section. G. In any action under subsection C of this section to recover actual cost and in any proceeding to foreclose any lien created by subsection E of this section, the court shall award, in addition to costs and disbursements, reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal to the prevailing party. H. The liability of an owner of land under subsection B of this section may not exceed $100,000. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) 8.21.085. Violation; Penalty. A. Violation of any provision of this chapter is a Class A violation. The County Forester is authorized to issue citations that charge a person with a violation of DCC 8.21. Chapter 8.21 (07/2011) B. A person liable for prosecution under DCC 1.16.015(C) for a violation of this chapter is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $720.00 per day the violation exists. Proceedings to assess a civil penalty for a violation of the fire code may be instituted by the County Forester. (Ord. 2011-011 § 1, 2011) Chapter 8.21 (07/2011)