The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-287-Minutes for Meeting June 07, 2021 Recorded 7/1/2021vfES 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2021-287 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 07/01/2021 3:23:08 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lII 1:00 PM MONDAY June 7, 2021 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, BOCC Executive Assistant (via Zoom conference call). Attendance was limited in response to Governor's Virus orders. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION ITEMS: 1. Legislative Update: Communications Director Whitney Hale introduced the item and PAC West lobbyist Phil Scheuers presented the update and current activity in the state legislature. Ms. Hale inquired on the Board's intent of future legislative update meetings. The next scheduled legislative update meeting will be held on Friday, June 18 at 8:00 a.m. BOCC MEETING JIJNE 7, 2021 PAGE 1 OF 5 2. 2" 1 Reading: Ordinance No. 2021-006, Amending Sections of the Deschutes County Code 9.20 Relative to Bridges. County Counsel Dave Doyle presented the Ordinance for the second reading. Commissioner DeBone stated he doesn't see bridge jumping as an issue. Commissioner Chang commented on a situation witnessed over the weekend. Commissioners Adair and Chang commented on the safety concerns. ADAIR: Move approval of Ordinance No. 2021-006, by title only CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes no. Motion Carried ADAIR: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2021-006 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes no. Motion Carried This ordinance will be effective in 90 days since the 2-1 vote precluded emergency adoption. 3. Update on Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell attended. Via Zoom conference call were Road Department Director Chris Doty and Matt Kittelson, Kittelson & Associates. Presentation of the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan. Staff recommendation is to have the Planning Commission act as the advisory committee to review the proposed updates to the TSP. The Board expressed support. Mr. Doty commented on the public process that will be scheduled for virtual open house events. BOCC MEETING JUNE 7, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 5 4. Update on ODOT/City of La Pine Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell attended. Via Zoom conference call were Road Department Director Chris Doty and Matt Kittelson, Kittelson & Associates. Presentation of the Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan. 5. Preparation for Public Hearing: The Applicant Proposes Text Amendments to the Westside Transect Zone (DCC 19.22) to Clarify the Slope Setback Requirements for All Development Within the Zone Kyle Collins, Community Development Department Planner, presented the item in preparation for a public hearing scheduled for June 16. Board discussion. 6. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual Update and Proposed Amendments to the Deschutes County Code Community Development Department staff: Nick Lelack, John Griley, Angie Havniear, and Dan Smith presented the update in preparation of the public hearing that is scheduled for June 30, 2021. 7. Consideration of Board Approval to Accept St. Charles Prevention Grant Award Jessica Jacks, Health Services, presented the grant award of $5,170 via Zoom conference call. This funding will cover expenses of two student internships. ADAIR: Move acceptance of grant award CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING JUNE 7, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 5 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Chang commented on a letter from a Bend City Councilor in the newspaper "challenging" the Commissioners to provide funding towards a managed camp for homeless people. Commissioner DeBone wants to see this funding request defined in terms of services. Commissioner Adair spoke on the dangers of community wildfire due to homeless camps and the need to install a sprinkler system if creating a managed camp and to ensure services with showers, bathrooms, and trash. 8. Consideration of Board Acceptance of Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant Award Laurie Hubbard and Barrett Flesh, Health Services presented via Zoom conference call and noted that the grant award is half of what was applied for. The award is in the amount of $183,975. The funding will provide services for opioid response. Commissioner Adair expressed concern that the use of the grant award includes purchase of a new vehicle and questions that use of funds when drug treatment should be more critical as a service to the community instead of a department vehicle. She recommended the department consider alternate resources for vehicle options. CHANG: Move acceptance of grant award DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Yes, with restrictions DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried OTHER ITEMS Continued: • The Board commented on the completion of the Budget hearing last week. BOCC MEETING JUNE 7, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION: None scheduled ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m. DATED this 3Day of Commissioners. TTEST: RECORDING SECETARY 2021 for the Deschutes County Board of ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PHIL CHANG, VICE CHAIR PATTI ADAIR. CO MISSIINER BOCC MEETING JUNE 7, 202.1 PAGE 5 OF 5 1ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:00 PM, MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021 Live Streamed Video - 1300 NW Wall Street - - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. 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. 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 (later enacted as part of HB 4212) directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings. Since May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners have been conducted primarily 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/meetings. In Person Attendance: Limited due to Virus restrictions. Please contact Sharon Keith at sharon.keith@deschutes.org prior to the meeting to request in person attendance. 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 Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, June 7, 2021 Page 1 of 3 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 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 ACTION ITEMS 1. 1:00 PM Legislative Update - Whitney Hale, Communications Director 2. 1:30 PM 2ND READING: Ordinance No. 2021-006, Amending Sections of Deschutes County Code 9.20 Relative to Bridges - David Doyle, Legal Counsel 3. 1:45 PM Update on Deschutes County Transportation System Plan - Peter Russell, Senior Planner 4. 2:30 PM Update on ODOT/City Of La Pine Wickiup Jct. Refinement Plan - Peter Russell, Senior Planner 5. 3:15 PM Preparation for Public Hearing: the Applicant Proposes Text Amendments to the Westside Transect Zone (DCC 19.22) to Clarify the Slope Setback Requirements for All Development Within the Zone - Kyle Collins, Associate Planner 6. 3:45 PM Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual Update and Proposed Amendments to Deschutes County Code - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director 7. 4:15 PM Consideration of Board Approval to Accept St. Charles Prevention Grant Award - Jessica Jacks, Health Services Supervisor 8. 4:30 PM Consideration of Board Acceptance of Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant Award - Barrett Flesh, OTHER ITEMS Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, June 7, 2021 Page 2 of 3 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. ADJOURN Earg t\ 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 Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, June 7, 2021 Page 3 of 3 ICES 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 Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: May 28, 2021 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Legislative Update BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff will coordinate with the Board of Commissioners on upcoming legislative priorities and/or hearings. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: PhD Scheuers, Pac/West Lobby Group; Whitney Hale, Communications Director (ES Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Update on Deschutes County Transportation System Plan RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: None; this is an informational item only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Road Department and Planning Division with the assistance of Kittelson and Associates have begun updating the County's 20-year transportation system plan. The 2020-2040 TSP will include a list of projects and policies to address the transportation needs of bicyclists„ pedestrians, motorists, transit users, and freight, among others. The TSP will prioritize projects, provide planning -level cost estimates, and anticipated funding. KAI is also reviewing the County's transportation system development charge (SDC) methodology and road moratorium as part of this project. The TSP includes public outreach and advisory committees. Staff seeks direction of using Planning Commission as an advisory committee.. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Dept. Director, Peter Russell, Senor Transportation Planner, Matt Kittelson, KAI MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2021 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: June 7, 2021, work session on Deschutes County Transportation System Plan The Deschutes County Road Department and the Planning Division along with Kittleson & Associates Inc. (KAI) have begun to update the County's 2010-2030 (2012) Transportation System Plan (TSP) to 2020-2040. The work focuses on County facilities in unincorporated areas, including Terrebonne and Tumalo. KAI will also review the County's transportation system development (SDC) methodology as part of the project. Staff is providing an update to the Board and also seeks direction regarding public involvement as described below. I. BACKGROUND The Deschutes County Road Department has funded the 2020-2040 TSP. The intent of updating the TSP is to assess existing and future traffic volumes and needs, including County roadway segments, intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking routes, transit, and transportation safety. The TSP builds upon the 2016 Deschutes County Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP), recommendations from the Deschutes Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), recent ODOT studies and refinement plans, and other local jurisdictions' TSPs. Additionally, the TSP has had, and will continue to have, extensive public outreach programs to gather public input. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q (541) 388-6575 @cy@ cdd@deschutes.org ¢ . www.deschutes.org/cd As part of the public involvement, the County held an online public open house from April 27th to May 14th, including an online public meeting on May 4 and a briefing of the Planning Commission on May 13th. The online open house allowed participants to read through a story map about the purpose of the TSP, review memos on Existing Conditions, and provide comments on a virtual map for items they wish the TSP would include. The online open house concluded with a slide seeking members of the public interested in serving on an advisory committee. The County has gone through two conventional public recruitments and the online recruitment with marginal success. While those who responded were interested in the project, all resided in or near Bend while staff was seeking candidates distributed around various areas of the rural County. II. NEXT STEPS Staff seeks a more broad geographic presentation and proposes to use the Planning Commission (PC) as the TSP Advisory Committee. The PC has members from throughout the County; already functions as a body to receive public invite; and holds public meetings. Staff awaits Board direction on this approach. Staff and the consultant, based on technical analysis and public input, will generate projects and programs to address identified needs in roadway segments, intersections, safety issues, and bicycle and pedestrian system for the next 20 years. The TSP will also include planning -level cost estimates for project costs and anticipated revenues. Finally, the TSP update will include a review of the County's road moratorium and SDC methodology and calculations. A second online open house will occur in late summer/early fall for public input on the draft 2020-2040 TSP. After the online open house and advisory committee meetings, the intent is to have public hearings before the Planning Commission and then the Board in late 2021/early 2022. Attachments: 1. PowerPoint on Deschutes County TSP datedJune 7,2021 Page 2 of 2 0 z < 0 • 4J 0 4J 0 c 4J E 4J . i C ro 4-) "V CU O Ca- CU rD V 1 O 4J .-J 1- O N . . . V , ^ro W L.- ro QJ 4-4 ro 0 0 QJ 0 0 0 4- N V rc ro eL N ro L 0 cL no dJ V 0 ro N a) •1� L O 0_ ro ni O O •eL O ro QJ O N O •O 0 CU ro QV) -0 O_ O eL • 3 1 i i 1 ; 1 i ; 1 i ) , I I . • U. 1 1 i :.•. ! i ';''':• i 1 t /6 5 ; I %-.., 0 . • " '',:-:•. = = . ,.„.. = - - h C]j a. TO 0 0 LJ CU :JO ze 11) IL r - Committee Meeting oa - Public Open House fe are here 0 0 0 473 0 0 0 z 5- < . . . . . C 131) O C t eL ^ Vl I-n C c ra -L L. QJ = Q) 4--- V c 4- ra a) N in Vi .- C X .0 O QJ -N '4 -- V -I J� VI ® C kJ 0 C CD 4-1 ry .� cv VI > a) aU 0 O C o CC . -I' QJ - ro 0 ro t 0 ry L. 4-+ 73 r0 ^ n 0 0 @ 0 co) 0 00 •-•"4,-; c J D o u o c3 CD 4) U + o C r C E N a) c Q! U c DESCHUTES COUNTY -I-J a) ro l!1 TRANSPORTATION and severe crashes • Focused on fata ' 3 County Bikeway CoumtyBikeway-PmpuomdAdditinn Oregon Scenic Bikeways Oregon State Park Trails Bend Parks and Recreation District Trails Paved Shoulders 8F\nrGreater ',. J , . ---`- -- ' '- , 4 ro E c CU .. I" '1-"," AV )406,.-.) . . tt, UJ A3'1;,J Cl!.),E2.)!,,q3 a) 0) c ',ft; Planned Sidewalk • �W • = v, L... 4--ro- 5 4-jc V__ 2 (Y) .4..a > 2 a) o Cl- E __ 151) ca. 4-- ft$O ro > V '� 'O O ry c ou c _ -O cu ✓ o &-- b.. 0" te 8 Le-n) O `}' p 4J Ri > 4-' > 1 0 / C U 5 a mi . rt 31 le • v 0) ry a 4- c .l O = •Q 0u ca. 00 C O v' E o >. >, 0 ZN *-1-) ' co O f0 c ( `F" 4� V O •- *_,_ -10 (1) rC3 .4-0>% 132 C " 2 = c 0 C 02 ° O O ' v O O< M INC •, 0 V) V . • . ro O c cu 'V cu 110 0 0 W 00) . _C • ® tJ O ro • Uri O dJ 0 . Transit Master Plan Oregon Breeze c v V ,O - lam to,n lam) a) ai rU • • fa • • > V • • AMTRAK • • Hosted from Tuesday, Apri • Feedback Now that you've reviewed the identified existing and future needs for the County, please take a moment to provide your perspective on any needs additional needs that you would th the project team. Please do so via the Interactive Commenting Map like to share 5 0 U 0 currently lack dedicate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Many of the roadways adjacent to schools 0 0 connections, rural commercial areas, etc.) Terrebonne and 3 0 w co) cu .N 5 � u y71 2 of � it, v o, 1 destinations within the communities. O 4- 0 ro �V O VI O i rn u 0 V rD u E ry E • • V r6 CU 4- to CU a O i S1. 0 -10 O CU fp 46 _ O O tnCU � ( c L. O Recommendation: . V 7.3 CU ra O a) cU E O •� r6 C ••- CU c L% -Q V rC3 0 cn .-' E ry to cLO .O u cu .- O eL O •• aJ'0 C • r0 ro O cc • V • 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Update on ODOT/City Of La Pine Wickiup Jct. Refinement Plan RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: None; this in is an informational items and no Board action is requested BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: None. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and City of La Pine with input from Deschutes County have prepared a refinement plan for Wickiup Junction. (The County has authority over numerous roads in La Pine and is also a major land owner.) The study area was roughly bounded by Drafter Road on the north; Darlene Way on the east, 1st/Reed on the south, and Huntington Road on the west. The 20-year plan addresses access issues, local circulation, freight movements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, railroad crossing, and future land use changes. The refinement plan identifies improvements in terms of short, medium, and long term and provides rough cost estimates. The refinement plan will be adopted by the City of La Pine. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Dept. Director, Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, and Matt Kittelson, KAI lead consultant MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2021 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: June 7, 2021, work session on Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of La Pine, and Deschutes County along with Kittleson & Associates Inc. have prepared a refinement plan for the area known as Wickiup Junction. This is a node of businesses on the east side of US 97 between Burgess Road to the south and Drafter Road to the north and Darlene Way to the east. The planning area also extended south to the 97/1st-Reed intersection and west to Huntington Road. I. BACKGROUND Wickiup Junction lies roughly three miles north of the US 97/1st-Reed intersection. Although within the City of La Pine, the roadside culture is rural in nature and thus traffic is moving at high speeds. The 97/Burgess and 97/Rosland intersections see a large amount of turning movements both on and off the highway. These movements can be challenging due to high volumes of high speed traffic on US 97, the amount of freight traffic, proximity to the BNSF railroad track, and the skew of the intersections. The commercial businesses and services on the east side of the highway attract traffic from the residential neighborhoods on the west side of the highway. Crossing is especially difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians. As the vacant land between Burgess, US 97, 1st, and Huntington develops, the roadside culture on this segment of highway will shift from rural to urban, offering the opportunity to enhance opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit in this area. The refinement plan's goals were to enhance community livability, mobility, safety and health, and economic vitality. The plan included technical assessments, input from the 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 5\ (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd public, advisory committees containing local residents and business owners, and agency members. The plan contains transportation improvements to US 97 and La Pine's streets prioritized by need and with planning cost estimates. This includes signals at 97/Burgess, 97/Rosland, turn lane improvements on 97, and new local roadways to provide better circulation. A multi -use path system is also identified to help better knit the Wickiup junction area into La Pine. II. NEXT STEPS The City of La Pine will hold a series of public hearings (Planning Commission and City Council) to adopt the refinement plan. As the area is completely within the City of La Pine, the Board is not required to hold a hearing. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) may also adopt the refinement plan. Attachments: 1. Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan 2. PowerPoint on Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan dated June 7,2021 Page 2 of 2 Wic14up Junction REFINEMENT PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of La Pine, Deschutes County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation acknowledge the many members of the community that contributed to the development of this Refinement Plan. Everyone who provided input, feedback, expertise, including many members of the public who participated in workshops, open houses, and provided comment, have helped produce a community -driven plan that will guide investments in the area's transportation system into the future. Special gratitude is due to the volunteer committee members, decision -makers, and staff who contributed countless hours to the development of this plan: Project Advisory Committee: ® Jake Obrist, City of La Pine Public Works • Chris Doty, Deschutes County • Cody Smith, Deschutes County • Mike Harper, La Pine City Council • Russ Smith, La Pine Planning Commission is Tone DeBone, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners • Hugh Palcic, Deschutes County Planning Commission Project Management Team (PMT) • Devin Hearing, Oregon Department of Transportation • Melissa Bethel, City of La Pine (former) Agency Staff ■ Alexa Repko, City of La Pine • Kacey Davey, Oregon Department of Transportation ▪ Bob Townsend, Oregon Department of Transportation C«nsultant Team ® Matt Kittelson, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ▪ Miranda Barrus, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ® Julia Kuhn, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • Scott Asla, Business Representative • Charlie Every, Every Trucking • Kusum Katyal, Timber Crest Inn • Bob Krohn, Gordy's Truck Stop/Restaurant • Scott Morgan, BPAC Representative is Karen Miller, La Pine Parks & Recreation • Tina Bandy, Bend -La Pine School District Transportation District • Geoff Wullschlager, City of La Pine • Peter Russell, Deschutes County ▪ Mark Barrett, Oregon Department of Transportation • Dave Hirsch, Oregon Department of Transportation • Jessica Pickul, JLA is Nicole Metildi, JLA a Chris Carpenter, Cornforth Consultants, Inc. Table of Contents PLAN OVERVIEW5 LONGER -TERM VISION FOR WICKIUP JUNCTION .,..,,9 HOW WAS THE PLAN DEVELOPED? 13 WHAT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS DOES THIS PLAN WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS? .,... .., .. 19 WHAT'S NEXT?.,.37 The Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan provides a clear vision and implementation strategy for how the transportation system within the Wickiup community can be changed to support area growth while maintaining local and regional mobility on US 97. The Refinement Plan is intended to help prioritize near and mid-term transportation projects that support the area while maintaining forward compatibility with the Wickiup Junction Overcrossing project and long-term vision for US 97 through the area. This Refinement Plan was developed through a robust process of technical review, policy assessment, and public engagement that informed the needs and confirmed the projects identified to meet those needs. The resultant Plan includes changes to the transportation system that support people walking, cycling, driving and the movement of freight on the City streets and along US 97. These outcomes were discussed and informed by various community engagement events and feedback from agency partners. Because of these efforts, the Refinement Plan represents a community -supported vision for the future of the transportation system within and through the Wickiup Junction area. Figure 1 provides an overview of key Refinement Plan recommendations. Table 1 summarizes the recommended projects. Planning level cost estimates and recommended priorities are also noted. Each project is described in more detail in the following sections. The remainder of the Refinement Plan details the long-term vision for the Wickiup Junction area, provides an overview of how the Refinement Plan was developed, outlines the specific needs identified, expands on the solutions identified to address those needs, and outlines next steps to implement the vision presented. 5 Figure 1 - Summary of Refinement Plan Projects 'BURGESS RD CaGDHELL-DR o Proposed Intersection Control Improvement ®i Proposed Multi -Use Path Crossing at Existing Railroad Crossing a a a Pave Roadway F ,§ Future Collector Road Multi -Use Path , Proposed Roadway Realignment <.' Review Passing Lane Local Circulation Improvements REED RD Table 1. Summary of Key Projects IMPROVEMENT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE Realign Burgess Road and construct intersection changes at US 97/Burgess Road Multi -use Path from Crescent Creek to northern City limits Passing Lane Removal Pave Darlene Way from Rosland Road to Reed Road North -South Collector: Burgess Road to Crescent Creek Drive East-West Collector: Huntington Road to US 97 Pam Lane Extension to Rosland Road East -west road from Pam Lane Extension to Drafter Road Access consolidation "backage" road US 97/Rosland Road US 97/Burgess US 97/Pam Lane Huntington Road/Burgess Road Address identified safety, capacity, and local connectivity Support regional connectivity for those walking or riding bikes Support urbanization of La Pine community To be determined and reduce speeds based on future design $3,300,000 Support regional connectivity Support regional connectivity Support regional connectivity Support local circulation within the Wickup Junction Business District $2,400,000 $5,300,000 $6,200,000 $2,600,000 Subtotal: $19,800,000 Support local circulation within the Wickup Junction Business District Support local circulation within the Wickup Junction Business District and reduce conflict points on US 97 Subtotal: Address identified congestion and safety needs Address identified congestion and safety needs Support access to/from Wickiup Junction Business District Address rear -end collision crash history US 97/Frontage Road (Wendy Road) Reduce conflict points and route vehicles to improved intersections US 97/Drafter Road US 97/1st Street/Reed Road Provide long-term access Provide long-term capacity at intersection $2,200,00 $600,000 $3,400,000 $6,200,000 $3,000,000 Included in Burgess Road Realignment $2,300,000 $2,700,000 (long- term solution) $350,000 $800,000 To be determined based on future design Subtotal: $9,150,000 Total: $35,150,000 TI US 97 crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line within the Wickiup Junction area at a skew just to the north of Burgess Road. This existing intersection alignment creates challenges for people driving, freight traffic, and school buses, particularly in periods of inclement weather. The rail crossing serves 8-12 trains per day. The Wickiup Junction Overcrossing project is intended to provide a grade -separated crossing of the BNSF rail line. Soil conditions prevented completion of the construction of the highway overcrossing in 2017. Since construction was halted, ODOT has continued its monitoring efforts to gauge the appropriate time to re- start the Wickiup Overcrossing construction. Ultimately, completion of this overcrossing represents the long-term vision for US 97 in the Wickiup area. In recognition of the future completion of this project, ODOT, Deschutes County and the City of La Pine are committed to implementing needed changes to US 97 and to the City streets that can support future economic growth in the region, be completed in the next 5 to 15 years, and be compatible with ultimate construction of the Wickiup Junction Overcrossing. 9 The recommended changes to US 97 respond to the following identified needs: Rail Crossing Considerations Walking and Cycling Needs Recognizing the Changing Urban Environment The existing rail alignment and at -grade crossings will remain in -place until the Wickiup Junction Overcrossing project is viable. Changes to the existing skew of the rail line would be overly costly to construct and would have significant impacts to adjacent properties within the City and were not deemed a viable option. Today, there are no sidewalks or bike lanes along the highway within Wickiup Junction. There are also no facilities that provide convenient and comfortable crossing options of US 97 for people walking and cycling between the homes, schools, civic uses, recreational areas, and businesses located to the east and west of the highway. The Wickiup Junction area is quickly developing and transitioning from a rural environment to one that provides a wide range of urban services. This Plan recognizes that shift and identifies several changes that support a more urban roadside culture while providing for the movement of freight and vehicles along US 97, which is and will remain a critical north -south route for Oregon. The Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan does not identify the need within the planning horizon to provide additional vehicular capacity for through movements on US 97 within the study area. ODOT will monitor if or when additional vehicular capacity could be needed along US 97. If such a need is identified, ODOT, the County, and the City would consider a potential alternative to provide additional north -south mobility and capacity options to US 97 by utilizing the existing ODOT owned right-of-way east of Drafter Road to construct a new roadway. It is important to note that no planned or funded options have been identified at this point to construct a new roadway within this right-of-way corridor (ROW) and it is not recommended as part of the Wickiup Junction Plan. For illustrative purposes, Figure 2 provides a conceptual rendering of a potential reroute option that would utilize this ROW. Figure 2 - Long Term Concept The recommended projects included in this Plan reflect those that could potentially be funded and constructed prior to the Wickiup Junction Overcrossing project. Concepts that would be overly costly or have significant property impacts were eliminated by the City, County, ODOT, and the project team as not being viable projects. 11 The Wickiup Refinement Plan was developed through technical and policy analysis as well as a robust community outreach and engagement effort. Specific activities and groups that contributed to the Plan development include: PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Comprised of the City of La Pine, ODOT, and Deschutes County staff. This group provided regular input and day- to-day direction to the project team. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Included representatives from the community. This group met four times throughout the Plan development to provide input and feedback on key project COMMUNITY MEETINGS The community was solicited at three points in the project to hear feedback from those who live, work, or recreate in the project vicinity. AGENCY AND BUSINESS PARTNER COORDINATION Included broad coordination and input from Bend - La Pine School District, Cascades East Transit, local businesses, and other stakeholders with interests in the Refinement Plan area. 13 An overview of the needs for people driving, walking, riding bikes and for freight movement along US 97 and the City street network is provided below. These needs were identified and confirmed through input from the community, Project Advisory Committee, and agency partners. HIGH AY MOBILITY US 97 plays an important role in moving people and goods within the West Coast and Canada, the state of Oregon, and the City of La Pine. In recognition of these roles, ODOT classifies US 97 as a "statewide, expressway freight route." US 97 is also classified as a Tier 1, Phase 1 Lifeline Route and considered vital for rescue and recovery operations in case of a natural catastrophe. Near the Wickiup Junction, US 97 generally parallels the BNSF railroad. Both the rail line and the highway serve as barriers to people walking, riding bikes and driving east -west within the City. In recognition of the many roles that US 97 serves, this Plan closely considers the following: • Mobility for regional freight and vehicular traffic; • Facilities for walking and riding bikes; ■ Connections to the City's street system; and, ® Roadway "features" that reflect an urban context (i.e., appropriate lane widths, pedestrian, bicycle facilities, and turning lanes) per policy guidance provided within ODOT's Blueprint for Urban Design. This includes consideration to reduce speeds through the study area as roadway context changes. 15 REGIONAL & LOCAL CONNECTIONS The City and County street system provides options for people to walk, ride bikes, and drive between the homes, businesses, civic uses, and recreational areas near the Wickiup Junction. This Plan identifies changes to the existing street system that provide: • Sidewalks, bike lanes, and pathways that connect people walking and riding bikes within the areas adjacent to and crossing US 97; we Pathway and trail connections to the regional trails planned by the ODOT and the City of La Pine to the north and south, respectively; • Vehicular access to, and improved circulation within the business area east of US 97; • Increased vehicular capacity and treatments to help people cross the highway at key City street intersections with US 97; • Additional north -south and east -west streets on both sides of the highway to reduce reliance on US 97 for local traffic circulation; and, • Access to transit, including retaining access for drivers as well as people walking to the existing Cascades East Transit (CET) park-n-ride. INTERSECTION NEEDS Several of the intersections near or within Wickiup Junction will likely need to be modified in the next fifteen years to address capacity and/or safety needs. These changes may include modifications to the number and/or type of travel lanes, traffic control devices (i.e., stop signs versus signals, etc.), and/or the walking and cycling facilities provided at the intersection. The following intersections were identified to have higher than expected crash rates, require additional vehicle capacity, or require changes to reflect the City's vision for the local transportation system in the study area: er US 97/Rosland Road - concepts address capacity and safety needs; O US 97/Burgess Road - concepts address capacity and safety needs; • US 97/1st Street/Reed Road - concepts address capacity and safety needs; N US 97/Frontage Road Access - concepts address capacity needs; e Huntington Road/Burgess Road - concepts address safety needs as well as changes that can address the City's vision for the intersection. 17 T The projects that comprise this Refinement Plan are intended for implementation in the next 5 to 15 years. These projects address both the needs identified as well as allow compatibility with the Tong -term vision for US 97 within the Wickiup Junction area. Specific elements of these projects will be further refined as each is advanced to the design and project delivery phase. Changes to US 97 may require future coordination and approval by the State Traffic Engineer. The following sections document implementation strategies and specific solutions to address the identified needs. HOW WILL THE PLAN E IMPLEMENTED? Each project included in the plan has been prioritized to help provide clarity to La Pine, ODOT, and Deschutes County as to which are most effective at meeting identified goals, useful at stimulating other system changes, and/or reflect how future funding resources could be allocated. It is important to note that these are planning -level recommendations and subject to refinement and change over time. Factors that could change include local and regional economic activities and priorities, City Council and/or ODOT goals, budgets, and the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Other variables include the ability to partner with other privately or publicly funded projects; annual fluctuations in revenue collections; and potential grants or non -local funding opportunities. The scope and scale of projects may also be revised as each is more fully developed through a specific design process. 19 For planning purposes, the projects are categorized into the categories listed below. High Priorities Medium Priorities ram" Low Priorities Development Driven These projects address a key need, provide an essential link or connection that facilitates economic development and/or other transportation projects, and have been highly supported by community and project stakeholders. These projects support the high priority projects and continue to move the community towards the identified goals of the Refinement Plan. These projects are unlikely to be needed until 15 to 20 years into the future. In general, these projects implement the La Pine Comprehensive Plan. The timing for these projects is tied to adjacent land development. The types of projects in this category may address both localized access needs as well as adding collector facilities to connect people walking, cycling and driving to the arterial system and to the highway. Some of these projects may be jointly funded using both public and private funding sources, such as Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC) funding, Development Agreements, or an area -planning process. Specific timing for implementation is dependent on market conditions related to the pace of development in specific areas. These projects contribute to the overall multimodal system and are an important component of the Refinement Plan. HIGH AY PLAN US 97 serves as a key route to, through, and within the Wickiup Junction area. Any future changes to the highway will consider the needs of those traveling through the City as well as providing access to the City street system for those walking, riding bikes, and driving. The US 97 and local circulation changes included in the Plan are consistent with the overall vision of the Oregon Highway Plan to: ■ Provide a state highway system that is safe, attractive, efficient, and dependable. ■ Serve people, goods, services, and all modes of travel. ■ Support economic opportunity, livability, and a sustainable environment. ■ Strike a balance between local accessibility and through movement of people and goods in urban and rural communities. In addition, the presented projects are supported by ODOT's recently published Blueprint for Urban Design. This document provides guidance for the design of state highways considering the specific context of each roadway. Per this policy guidance, the Wickiup Junction area is best defined as a "rural community " which would suggest the following roadway elements for US 97: • Narrower lane widths to reduce pedestrian crossing distances at intersections and to manage vehicular speeds along the highway; and • A multiuse path located adjacent to US 97 for walking and cycling in the corridor. 21 Figure 3 - Potential changes to US 97 within the Wickiup Junction area Additional details related to how the Blueprint for Urban Design will shape changes to US 97 will be addressed when the Wickiup Junction alternatives are funded for design and construction. With the location of the BNSF rail line to the west and existing development to the east, the right- of-way for US 97 varies between 60 and 70 feet in the Wickiup Junction area. Based on this ROW and considering ODOT policy guidance, Figure 3 identifies how US 97 could look in the future. The changes to the highway may include: • Separated multi -use path, including a buffer area. This path would be provided in lieu of on - street bicycle lanes and curb tight sidewalks along the highway. The path could occur on the west side of US 97 to the south of Rosland Road and the east side to the north. A traffic signal that meets traffic signal warrants and is approved by the State Traffic Engineer could provide an enhanced crossing of the highway and could be considered as part of the path network. • Narrower lane widths to reduce pedestrian crossing distances at intersections and to manage travel speeds along the highway. ■ Variable median or center turn -lane to provide for vehicles turning on or off the highway. ■ Dedicated Shoulders to allow for highway maintenance, accommodation of vehicle over tracking, and snow storage. These modifications to the highway create a more urban context that supports lower vehicle speeds on US 97. The highway is currently posted 45 miles per hour (mph) through much of the Wickiup Junction area. Reduced speeds would promote a "lower stress" environment for those walking or riding bikes, and potentially modify crossing requirements for buses and other large vehicles at the BNSF rail line. Currently, large vehicles such as school buses must travel out of direction to avoid the US 97 rail crossing due to high speeds on the highway and a lack of a wide shoulder to stop at the rail crossing in conformance with state law. ODOT and the City of La Pine will continue to monitor appropriate posted speeds limits as modifications to the highway are implemented. REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN The following describes key projects that would support regional circulation for all users traveling to or through Wickup Junction. Specific elements of the plan are reflected in Figure 4. Projects are shown in Table 2. P destr'i n and BicyciConnections The City is planning a multi -use path on the west side of US 97 that would connect people walking and riding bikes between downtown and Burgess Road. ODOT is also in the early stages of planning a regional trail system that would extend from Bend south to La Pine. MULTIUSE PATHWAY Consistent with the City and ODOT plans, the Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan includes a multiuse pathway that: • Extends from Burgess Road to downtown on the west side of US 97; ■ Requires changes to the existing at -grade rail crossing to include signing, pavement markings, crossing devices and channelization, and other treatments needed to facilitate at -grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings; these changes will require close coordination with BNSF, ODOT Rail, and other applicable rail stakeholders. Future evaluation will determine if a crossing order associated with modifications to the rail crossing is required; 23 si Crosses US 97 in the vicinity of Rosland Road and continues to the north on the east side of US 97 to provide access to the Wickiup Junction business area. Extension of the westside pathway to the north of Rosland Road is not feasible due to the distance between the existing BNSF line and US 97 as well as the lack of any rail crossings into the neighborhoods on the west side of US 97. The lack of any access to the Cagle Subdivision to the west or any trails connections further to north limits the effectiveness of any trail that would be sited along US 97 to the north of Rosland Road. • North of Rosland Road, the design and location of the multiuse path on the east side of US 97 could follow the highway alignment or utilize local circulation roads, such as Pam Lane. The specific alignment will be determined through future design efforts. ® Is located a comfortable distance away from US 97 to provide a low - stress environment for those walking and riding bikes. The multi -use path alignment along Burgess Road and Huntington Road may be refined through further planning of the area, including changing the alignment and timing of the planned collector roads. The multi -use alignment illustrated in Figure 4 allows for its simultaneous construction with the planned collector roads, which may reduce right-of-way needs, improve connectivity, and reduce costs. Planned Local Roadway Improvements The City's street system plays an important role in providing access to homes, businesses, and civic uses as well as linking to US 97. A number of changes to the City street system are included in the Plan. Varies by Location PROVISIONS OF NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS AL _NC US 97 The need for future traffic signals at Rosland Road and possibly other locations would support long-term economic vitality within the City and Region. ■ The provision of signals at these locations will need to be reviewed and approved by the State Traffic Engineer. A preliminary review of potential traffic signal progression along the US 97 corridor between Burgess Road and Rosland Road if traffic signals were installed revealed that queuing along the corridor and overall mobility can be provided if these signals are added along the highway in the future. For reference purposes, detailed findings of the progression analysis are included in Alternatives Analysis conducted previously in this planning process. NEW NORTH-S,rUTH COLLECTOR STREET This street could extend from Crescent Creek Drive to Burgess Road. In addition to providing a parallel route to both US 97 and Huntington Road, this street could serve the developable lands on the west side of the highway. Traffic control at the new intersection with a realigned Burgess Road should be further evaluated based on future land uses planned along the collector street and the proximity of the intersection to the US 97/ Burgess Road intersection. 25 NEW EAST -WEST COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN HUNTINGTON ROAD AND US 97 This new street could provide a new connection between Huntington Road and US 97 approximately 1,500 feet north of Findley Drive. This street would also intersect with the new North -South Collector. This new street would provide for a new city street intersection with the highway. Today, no intersections are provided on US 97 between Burgess Road and 1st Street/Reed Road, a distance over 2 miles. Accordingly, providing the new east -west connection could reduce the potential traffic volumes at theist Street/ US 97 and Burgess Road/US 97 intersections and provide additional options for localized travel in the future. This new intersection with US 97 would require approval from ODOT. DARLENE WAY IMPROVEMENTS This is a dirt/gravel roadway maintained by Deschutes County and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Paving this roadway and adding bike lanes and sidewalks between Reed Road and Rosland Road could provide a north -south connection for people driving, walking, riding bikes and moving freight on the east side of US 97. The timing and need for these changes will be coordinated with future development of the properties adjacent to the roadway. BURGESS ROAD REALIGNMENT The US 97/Burgess Road intersection is approximately 400 feet south of the BNSF rail crossing of the highway. Realigning Burgess Road from Pine Drive to a new location south on US 97 would provide more distance between the rail crossing and a future traffic signal at the US 97/Burgess Road intersection. This increased separation would be necessary to accommodate queuing if traffic control at the intersection is necessary. Additional considerations include: • Moving Burgess Road to the south should be coordinated with the potential new traffic signal at US 97/Rosland Road. Future capacity needs at US 97/Burgess may be affected by gaps in traffic on US 97 that could result from a traffic signal to the north. • As plans for relocating Burgess Road are further refined, ODOT will perform a detailed intersection control evaluation in collaboration with the City and County. This future evaluation will refine the need for modifications to the intersection based on the long-term vision for US 97 through the study area, including the Wickiup Overcrossing project. • Constructing the new segment of the street would require ROW from lands owned by Deschutes County. • The potential for re -zoning of the new parcel that would be created between the existing and future realignment of the roadway could be further evaluated by the County and City. Based on a preliminary review by the two agencies, the potential for allowing commercial uses adjacent to the highway could help to provide retail opportunities west of US 97 in an area where limited options are provided today. In addition, the property could provide expanded function for the existing park-n-ride facility located at the US 97/Burgess intersection. REVIEW PASSING LANE Today, there are intermittent passing lanes along the highway between the Wickiup Junction area and downtown La Pine. ODOT and the City of La Pine may coordinate the future removal of these passing lanes. Some of the key considerations of the passing lane's removal include: ■ These were constructed prior to La Pine's incorporation as a City and are reflective of a more rural highway environment; ■ The presence of these lanes suggests to the driver an expectation of higher vehicular speeds, which are not compatible with the existing and future urbanization of La Pine; ■ The speed differential that is inherent to vehicles utilizing passing lanes could conflict with future City street intersections added along the highway to support continued economic growth and adjacent land development; ■ The Blueprint for Urban Design (ODOT, 2020) has no provisions for stand-alone passing lanes within cities; and • A two-lane cross-section on US 97 will serve the mobility and capacity needs over the next twenty years within La Pine. If the passing lanes are removed, the City and ODOT will coordinate on the reallocation of ROW that would become available due to the narrower highway cross-section to promote a more urban context for the community. Specific uses of the existing pavement and ROW could include: • Gateway features; ■ Traffic calming elements, such as landscaping or visual cues for vehicles to slow; and/or • Incorporation of the planned multi -use path along US 97. Specific plans to remove these passing lanes will require a design process and future review from ODOT mobility advisory groups and possible consideration by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). 27 Table 2. Regional Connection Projects IMPROVEMENT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY Realign Burgess Road and construct intersection changes at US 97/Burgess Road Multi -use Path from Crescent Creek to northern City limits Passing Lane Removal Pave Darlene Way from Rosland Road to Reed Road North -South Collector: Burgess Road to Crescent Creek Drive East-West Collector: Huntington Road to US 97 $3,300,000 Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes plus addition of a traffic signal at the intersection Includes 10-foot wide path construction only; does not include costs of $2,400,000 associated railroad crossing needs; as part of project development, these costs will need to be further refined. Re -stripe US 97 between downtown La Pine and Wickiup Junction to remove passing lanes. The existing pavement To be determined and associated right-of-way (ROW) can based on future design be reallocated to other transportation needs. Specific roadway details will be determined based on future ODOT and City of La Pine design processes. $5,300,000 $6,200,000 $2,600,000 Subtotal $19,800,000 Includes two vehicular lanes but no curbs, sidewalks, or bike lanes Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes Medium High Medium Low Development Driven Development Driven Figure 4: Regional Connections *'BURGESS RD oQ Proposed Intersection Control Improvement ® Proposed Multi -Use Path Crossing at Existing Railroad Crossing o e e Pave Roadway , <, Future Collector Road Multi -Use Path Proposed Roadway Realignment Review Passing Lane Local Circulation Improvements AeroGRID, IGN. and the GIS User Community , 29 L L k tI Connections between the Wickiup Junction business area and US 97 are provided by Rosland Road, Pam Lane, and an access to the north -south frontage road. Several changes could occur to the City streets and intersections that could improve circulation within the business area and provide for better coordinated access to US 97. Conceptual changes to the local circulation and access are described below. Specific elements are shown in Figure 5. Projects are shown in Table 3. Business District Circuiation Access to businesses and vacant parcels within the Wickiup Junction business district currently rely on Rosland Road, Pam Lane, and the north -south frontage road. Not all streets are paved, some abruptly end without connecting to other streets, and the overall circulation system can be confusing for drivers unfamiliar with the area. These conditions can result in an overreliance on US 97 for local circulation. To provide for better access to the businesses and reduce reliance on the highway, the following changes are recommended: PAM LANE EXTENSION TO ROSLAND ROAD ■ Added turn lanes and a proposed traffic signal at the US 97/Rosland Road intersection. ■ Added southbound left -turn lane at the US 97/Pam Lane intersection. ■ Extending Pam Lane south to Tracy Road. This extension would ideally occur between the properties adjacent to the frontage road and Drafter Road. Extending Pam Lane would allow for existing and future business to conveniently access US 97 at the Rosland Road and Pam Lane intersections. The specific alignment of the Pam Lane extension and connection to Tracy Road (or Rosland Road) will require additional ROW and coordination with property owners. The specific design of the Pam Lane extension should be further evaluated based on available ROW and specific roadway features that should be included. Figure 6 shows a conceptual rendering of a possible cross-section based on 62 feet of ROW, which is typical of minor collector standards within the City. EAST -WEST ROAD FROM PAM LANE EXTENSION TO DRAFTER RIAD • Provision of an east/west roadway between the Pam Lane extension and Drafter Road. This new street would also require ROW acquisition and should be coordinated with property development. Today, some businesses rely on "informal" connections and cut -through routes via private properties/parking areas in lieu of a public street system. • Added turn -lanes at US 97/Drafter Road, if needed to support future land development Figure 6 -- Conceptual Pam Lane Cross-section � h So th Frontage Road The existing north -south frontage road plays a key role in providing access to the local businesses today. However, the existing ROW is narrow and the roadway has been constructed only 40 feet east of the highway. This can lead to queuing interactions on the highway as well as on the frontage road itself. These constraints limit the long-term potential of this roadway to serve new businesses and, at the same time, provide safe and convenient access to US 97. ACCESS CONSOLIDATION Most of the properties north of Pam Lane have direct access to US 97 via private driveways today. Use of the highway for local circulation between parcels and for direct property access is inconsistent with regional and State policy guidance. In the short-term, consolidating these access points may be pursued and coordinated with ODOT. In the long-term, the City, County, and ODOT can collaborate on the design and construction of a "backage road" that would extend between properties located adjacent to US 97 and Drafter Road. This facility would help support continued economic development in the business district. Some considerations related to creation of this new roadway include: ■ Increased access and visibility can be an incentive for future development along Drafter Road. ■ The paving of the Drafter Road connection to US 97 and construction of a backage road will be coordinated to prioritize access to businesses. The local circulation that can be created by these connections is shown in Figure 5. • Construction of the backage road will require ROW and coordination with property owners. 31 Figure 5: Local Connections el?ROPOSEL ,CIRCULATI Long -Term Capacity Improvemen Turn Lane Improvements Right -In/ Right -Out Traffic Control f' Improvement i P LONG -;TERM ` r ^ACCESSPf �. °CONSOLI DATION1 ROAD, Retain Frontage Road for Local Connection f • The north and south terminus of the backage road will need to be further refined in the context of changes to the Drafter Road and Pam Lane intersections with US 97. • As properties develop/redevelop along Drafter Road and the backage road is completed, the potential to eliminate direct access to US 97 should be prioritized. Table 3. Local Connection Projects IMPROVEMENT PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY Pam Lane Extension to Rosland Road East -west road from Pam Lane Extension to Drafter Road Access consolidation "backage" road $2,200,00 $600,000 $3,400,000 Subtotal $6,200,000 Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes Includes two vehicular lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes Medium Medium Development Driven 33 1 To support continued growth and development, several of the intersections near Wickiup Junction will require changes in the number and/or type of travel lanes, traffic control devices (i.e., stop signs versus signals, etc.), sidewalks, bike lanes, and treatments that help people walking and riding bikes across the intersections. A description of the types of changes anticipated at each intersection and recommended implementation priority are presented in Table 4 and discussed below. improved access to the k up J nc on ch ess area US 97/ROSLAND ROAD Proposed Traffic Signal at US 97/Rosland to address vehicular congestion and the difficulty of turning onto and off of US 97 and help to address existing and future intersection safety. Future evaluation and design of the traffic signal should consider: • The intersection modification should provide enough space for northbound vehicles on US 97 to not block the rail crossing to the south when waiting for the traffic signal to turn green; ■ The traffic signal should be designed to be compatible with the final construction of Wickiup Junction Overcrossing Project, including providing adequate sight lines; • Adequate infrastructure for those walking and biking to cross the intersection; and, Interconnect with BNSF railroad to the south, including needed railroad crossing upgrades. US 97/PAM LANE Adding turn lanes at US 97/Pam Lane to increase the comfort, convenience and safety for motorists to turn onto and off of US 97. These changes would: Be consistent with the City's local circulation plan; Better identify the space for people driving, riding bikes and walking on Pam Lane both approaching the US 97 intersection as well as along the street itself; and Help connect people to the businesses as well as to Drafter Road to the east and the Frontage Road to the south. US 97/FRONTAGE ROAD (WENDS ROAD) Restricting movements at the Frontage Road/US 97 to allow drives to only turn right onto and off of US 97. Motorists wishing to turn left onto or off of the highway could do so at the recommended future traffic signal to the south at Rosland Road/US 97 and/or to the north at the US 97/Pam Lane. US 97/DRAFTER ROAD Adding a left -turn lane and right -turn lane on Drafter Road at US 97 to support economic development. US 97/ URGESS ROAD Realignment of Burgess Road/US 97 intersection and possible capacity increases to address vehicular congestion and safety for all users by address the difficulty of turning onto and off of US 97. Project should consider: • Future alignment and capacity additions should be consistent with the Wickiup Junction Overcrossing project; • The timing, need for, and specifics of the project should be coordinated with master planning of the Deschutes County property east of US 97 and south of the current Burgess Road alignment; and, ■ The need for capacity additions at US 97/Burgess Road should be monitored in conjunction with other system changes, including at Rosland Road and improved network connectivity. US 97/REED LANE/1ST STREET Adding left -turn lanes on Reed Road and 1st Street at the US 97 intersection to increase the capacity of the intersection consistent with current ODOT plans. HUNTINGTON ROAD/BURGESS ROAD Near -term and long-term changes at the Burgess Road/Huntington Road signal. These include: • Near -term: Providing systemic safety improvements to address crash history, including increasing the visibility of the signage and "signal heads." ■ Long-term: Consider installation of a roundabout to provide flexibility for increased economic growth. Recommended changes at each location are preliminary and subject to further refinement through detailed alternatives analysis and design. in addition, all changes to the highway, including proposed traffic signals, will need to be reviewed and approved by the State Traffic Engineer. More detailed information on the needs at each intersection and the effectiveness of the recommended changes are included the Alternatives Analysis Memorandum included in the appendix. 35 Table 4 - Summary of Intersection Improvement Plan PLANNING LEVEL IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE NOTE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY US 97/Rosland Road US 97/Burgess Road Huntington Road/ Burgess Road US 97/Pam Lane US 97/Frontage Road Wendy Road) US 97/Drafter Road US 97/Reed Lane/1st Street Install traffic signal, including interconnect with railroad crossing $3,000,000 and traffic calming measures to support signal operations and reduce approach speeds. Included in Burgess Realign intersection south, Road Realignment install traffic signal $50,000 $2,700,000 $2,300,000 $350,000 Improve existing signal with systemic safety treatments. Construct single lane roundabout Add turn lanes Restrict side -street to right - in, right -out movements $800,000 Add southbound left -turn lane To be determined based on future design efforts Subtotal 9,200,000 Add eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes High Medium High Low Medium Medium Development Driven M Medium HAT'S NEXT? The Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan provides a comprehensive framework intended to improve the transportation system. This Plan includes recommendations to increase the comfort, convenience and safety for all users and improve access to local businesses and residences. Implementation of this plan will require ongoing coordination between the City of La Pine, ODOT, and Deschutes County. The following describes key steps the partner agencies will pursue to adopt and implement this plan: ■ Adoption of Refinement Plan: This may include action by the La Pine City Council to incorporate the plan into the La Pine TSP by reference and consideration of the plan by the Oregon Transportation Commission; ■ Identification of Future Funding Sources: The partner agencies will collaborate to identify and secure funding sources to design and construct various plan elements. This may include public funding sources, grants, or future private partnerships, including the development review process; and ■ Continued Public Engagement and Project Development: The partner agencies will continue to engage with area businesses, residents, and stakeholders to refine and further develop specific elements of the identified projects, including roadway alignment, multi -use pathway alignment, and intersection design. 37 �� t z� �, i{, y 3, s' 3s_a"`�w'n�?'� s1 `ram. ,��ib . <�,.,:sw� �:. (7) CN LU LU 1Pd z 0 0 VI CT 0 Cfl • ram ` mtwo o 0) a) C7)) (:). C.) --1-J D (S. 0 „ a L.„._.) 0 (D, • „ ED, sp.,P 0 o (A) 0 61-: "0-9 • C rn a W cto 0 C E. 0 n 0 C"..: ID 0 'C'1) 6 ..30 c: 6°5 c 0 ci) c) Gm 0) c S. (:j-) E.1 P (D c It"E 0_ rl c, Q.) ›, 0 0 c) c (...) E-:.. L 0 ::"") 01 E 0.) 0 0 (E, O t0 0 0 ,65 r)::.. r._ 0, s3 ,,_, °E. q•-••• 0 M CY. (2,),. (7) ...•:' , li c.5) ID <4 en.i:: ID , 03 ...c o o EZ rw, U 0 0 P (1, 0 0) al) o 0 ID (3 oa'-)) 3 ,0..) 0) 5 (.) 0Es cs: ,..._ U ID '-' 1:-( -:1<:I ,c2z cs P ' v) cr 6 E 6 ) (..) 0E5 00 :: 0) 0 Z 7.D 0 i.,) Q.) 0 - < 6 6 :5 -a-5 • cz a ...,,,..‘ 9 --.555 cp . a) .0 0 ,,4c,,,,,,, 0 ._-'?, 0 0 0 6 ...‘ 0 ,... — ,:„.)..)).. u (D ID ID v> u ID ID 0) ID ID E ID 0 65 (,) C,/ 5_ az z gr.) E C) d wz •-• z 1-1 a 0) ,0 o '1- 0, C4 0 0) U 0 0) 0 .40 00 0 If 6 a 64 0: rz u 2 t .. w u w o E •- z C E C) E u 19 t z E o (1) (I) qzt o c o L �w^ `ry j C3 lo 0 404 C 0 rs cr: t,t) 0 0 0„) 0 co _ Cr rr , 0 () Ltt (3) -„,c3 e rHeeve, eeeee. 1„72 fl rrrirr- rir(rrr 0 0 0 a tJ 0 ), 0 0 00 11 a 0 ft N 4- 0 o 13 L. d.t) 0 CD %1 o • (3) 0 • 0 (.0 CA 7-7 (5) Cr) 0 TO 0 04--- .7.7): ,r.,:, ' )2, .-`,. 7 „...„., ("I CL) ff.EAMI (1) th 01,) fl • ' • , . , • 8 z Th C3' CD 0 0 co C.) 0:-) 0 4-7 0 o .Cm VI : „,„C D aj ) :- 0 C 0 Za - 0 0 ) 0 > 0 rile. ,;- -.11 0 af Cil 0--- Lij L. 0 Dev. Driven c a) a a) a CD CD CD CD ® 0 ® ® 0 D a ® Q cD 6 co ® Q o H- co co C\1 °,c) or? L7 O (Ni b - .EA - .i.i t Er.1 1.) CD CD 0 CO 0 4400000000000000000000•006000.0000000,0000000000000200000ue0000f ,))e 03 0 0 0,„) Z: 0 0 0 kj ,4-6 w eiLIJ z Lu ail road St REFINEMENT PLAN 0 0 5) 0 0 0 1, d C Cu , %le 0 L�!��_, Cam? Cyr) a sue® I— Z w *FA w w 1 E S a Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Kyle Collins, Community Development, 541-383-4427 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparation for Public Hearing: the Applicant Proposes Text Amendments to the Westside Transect Zone (DCC 19.22) to Clarify the Slope Setback Requirements for All Development Within the Zone Staff will present proposed text amendments at a Board of County Commissioners work session on June 7, 2021, prior to a June 16 public hearing. The amendments concern an applicant initiated proposal to alter the slope setback requirements identified in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 19.22.050(H) for the Westside Transect Zone (WTZ). MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner DATE: June 2, 2021 SUBJECT: Discussion: Westside Transect Zone (WTZ) Text Amendments (File No. 247-21-000020- TA) Staff will present proposed text amendments at a Board of County Commissioners (Board) work session on June 7, 2021, prior to a June 16 public hearing. The amendments concern an Applicant initiated proposal to alter the slope setback requirements identified in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 19.22.050(H) for the Westside Transect Zone (WTZ). Staff submitted a 35-day Post -Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on March 4, 2021. Staff has provided the Proposed Amendments, Application Materials, and Draft Legislative Findings as attachments to this memo. The Deschutes County Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed the proposed legislative amendments at a public hearing on April 22, 2021. The Commission provided recommendations to the Board concerning the proposed amendments at a deliberation session on May 13, 2021. Those recommendations are summarized below as part of this memo. 1. BACKGROUND The WTZ was originally proposed to provide for a transition area between urban areas within the City of Bend (to the east) and Shevlin Park, Tumalo Creek, and forest zoned lands (to the west). In total, the WTZ contains approximately 685 acres of land. The lands containing the WTZ were originally composed of several properties which have been grouped and labeled into a respective "North Property" and "South Property" for additional clarity. Figure 1 below displays the North Property, Figure 2 displays the South Property, and Figure 3 illustrates the full extent of the WTZ in relation to surrounding features and the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). 0 @ 0 s! Figure 1: WTZ "North Property" Isv , m ,; t7 + 6 vArt- z r . A k: 17-1 : ,>, r «e «Aa ,>, w & : 17-i - .« 40 E ,« / z.. 40 \ P xma< we er. rur x,« >r! ?at wit ww : St' i< Zr Page 2 of 13 / / / / Figure 2 WTZ"South Property" p-- / / ! &11EVfZN pa£{ -aRrw ( 114). rE 3j1) Aa&( • ZON): ) z . t I £ b 4 40 A L + / ?-1,-400` .PA ZONE) SOUTH PROPER T Y 307—ACRES +j— (UAR10 ZONE) !t-1l-00-0000 {29& A_r_, +/-) v« ♦ !' ; < ,. . v Ga Page 3 of 13 Figure 3: Complete WTZ The original application to establish the WTZ was submitted on August 1, 2018 (file nos. 247-18- 000612-ZC, 247-18-000613-PA and 247-18-000614-TA). At the recommendation of a Deschutes County Hearings Officer, the Board approved the Applicant's request for text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 23) and the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19), to add a new zone ("Westside Transect Zone") and a zoning map amendment to change the zoning on the Subject Property from Surface Mining and Urban Area Reserve ("UAR-10") to the Westside Transect Zone ("WTZ"). The WTZ was ultimately established pursuant to Ordinance No. 2019-0011. 1 A copy of the ordinance has been included for reference. Page 4 of 13 Based on the included conditions of approval, all future development within the WTZ will include rural residential subdivisions with dedicated open space and resource management corridors. Since adoption of the WTZ, the "South Property" identified above has been divided into the 85-lot Westgate subdivision pursuant to file nos. 247-19-000500-MP and 247-19-000501-TP. Additionally, a portion of the "North Property" identified above has been divided into the 60-lot Skyline Ranch subdivision pursuant to file nos. 247-20-000004-TP and 247-20-000005-MP2. Two primary points of contention brought up during the initial zone adoption process were related to the Oregon State Scenic Waterway Provisions and wildfire protection standards for any future development. Specifically, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department ("OPRD") expressed concern that the WTZ failed to address the scenic and recreational resources of the designated Deschutes River State Scenic Waterway. OPRD speculated that changing the amount and type of development could change the character of that stretch of the waterway and the classification category "recreation river area". However, with some additional code modifications, the Board generally agreed with the Applicant's proposal and the final approval for the WTZ requires any future development to comply with the State Scenic Waterway regulations, as applicable. Additionally, several members of the public expressed concern about development in a wildfire - prone area. However, the Board agreed with the Applicant and acknowledged that the development proposal contained ample evidence of the measures to which fire danger for the WTZ had been studied. Further, with some code modifications, the Board found the requirements under DCC 19.22.060(A-C) ensure fire mitigation measures will be implemented, monitored and maintained prior to and in perpetuity for any development in the WTZ. The current WTZ code requires the creation and adoption of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan during any land division process. All Wildfire Mitigation Plans must be prepared by a professional forester and must identify and include enforceable measures to prevent the ignition and spread of wildfire. These Mitigation Plans are also required to contain provisions for deed restrictions and/or restrictive covenants, enforced by a homeowners association (HOAs) to ensure mitigation measures are followed in the future. Funding to ensure continued management is to be provided by present and future HOAs. At this time, two Wildfire Mitigation Plans have been accepted and approved in the WTZ. The first plan is associated with the Westgate subdivision in the southern half of the WTZ, and the second is associated with the Skyline Ranch subdivision in the northern half of the WTZ. Review and acknowledgement of the Westgate Wildfire Mitigation Plan was undertaken through file nos. 247-19-000500-MP and 247-19- 000501-TP and review and acknowledgement of the Skyline Ranch Wildfire Mitigation Plan was undertaken through file nos. 247-20-000004-TP and 247-20-000005-MP. In addition to the standards imposed by the relevant Wildfire Mitigation Plans, staff notes that at least one further wildfire mitigation component was included in the finally adopted version of the WTZ. Specifically, the Lot Requirements of DCC 19.22.050 include a provision requiring slope setbacks from certain areas onsite. That provision states the following: "H. Slope Setback. There shall be a minimum setback of 30 feet from the edge of any slope which exceeds 20%" 2 Copies of the tentative and final plat maps for the subdivisions have been included for reference. Page 5 of 13 Slope setbacks are broadly acknowledged by fire protection officials as an effective way of reducing certain wildfire risks, as fires frequently affect areas of steep topography which can channel flames towards development at higher elevation points. II. PROPOSAL The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the slope setback provisions of DCC 19.22.050(H) referenced above. Based on the discussion by the Hearings Officer captured in the final decision for file nos. 247-19-000500-MP and 247-19-000501-TP3, staff summarizes the two primary issues related to slope setbacks in the WTZ: 1) The Applicant contends that all required slope setbacks were only intended to be implemented for those properties adjacent to the Tumalo Creek Corridor/Canyon. The Applicant believes this interpretation is made clear through the submittal of various wildfire mitigation reports and expert testimony during the original establishment of the WTZ, and the subsequent establishment of subdivisions such as Westgate. 2) The Hearings Officer points out that no explicit legislative history can be gathered which supports the Applicant's interpretation of the slope setback standards pertaining only to those properties adjacent to the Tumalo Creek Corridor/Canyon. Without amendments, all development occurring in the WTZ will be required to observe the 30-foot setback from any slope exceeding 20%. Without major grading changes, the implications of the code language as presently written are likely to impact or reduce development on certain lots adjacent to sloped topography, regardless of their proximity to the Tumalo Creek Corridor/Canyon. To remedy this situation, the Applicant has proposed an amendment to DCC 19.22.050(H), to establish what they believe is the original intent of the slope setback language. The proposed amendments are shown below in strikeout for language to be deleted, and underline for language to be added: 19.22.050. Lot Requirements. The following requirements shall be observed: H. Slope Setback- Tumalo Creek Canyon. There shall be a minimum setback of 30 feet from the edge of the rimrock creating the Tumalo Creek Canyon. any -shape -which -exceeds 209/eT 3 A copy of this final decision is provided as an attachment to this memo. Reference pages 14-20 for the discussion concerning slope setbacks in the WTZ. Page 6 of 13 "Rimrock" means any ledge, outcropping or overlying stratum of rock, which forms a face in excess of 45 degrees and which creates or is within the canyon of Tumalo Creek. For purposes of DCC 19.22, the edge of the rimrock is the uppermost rock ledge or outcrop of rimrock that is within the Tumalo Creek canyon. Based on the evidence submitted during the WTZ adoption process and the supplementary evidence presented during the Westgate subdivision review, staff believes that the Applicant's contention that the slope setbacks were intended to apply only to those lots adjacent to Tumalo Creek Corridor/Canyon is at least plausible. Ultimately, staff finds that this interpretation is plausible for two reasons: 1) The slope setback standards were originally intended as part of a suite of wildfire mitigation measures for all development in the WTZ. However, staff notes that the primary wildfire mitigation measures are those ultimately outlined in each individual subdivision's Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which must be acknowledged, reviewed, and approved prior to the development of any land divisions in the WTZ. As presently written, it is unclear if the slope setback standards would create significantly greater wildfire mitigation conditions than those items specifically outlined in individual Wildfire Mitigation Plans. 2) The Applicant's testimony from wildfire protection experts illustrates that the primary wildfire risk to properties in this area is likely to arise from Tumalo Creek Canyon. For example, the Singletree Wildfire Mitigation and Forest Health Plan (attached as Exhibit C to County file 247-18-000614-TA, which established the WTZ) provides the following analysis: 'Drainages with significant canyons such as Tumalo Creek typically can vector wind patterns away from prevailing free -air wind flow...accelerated rates of fire spread from canyon -bottom ignitions should be expected. Consequently, structures should be located well away from the mouth at the top side drainages and well setback from rim -rock edge and/or steep slopes above drainages and canyon walls." It must be stated that while the fire risk associated with this area is most likely to arise along the western boundary associated with the Tumalo Creek Canyon, there will be some irreducible risk from wildfire impacts across the entire WTZ given the climate, vegetation patterns, and history of fire for the region. Additionally, staff notes that it is unlikely the Applicants intended the broader interpretation of the slope setback requirements as presently written, given the development challenges for certain lots created by that standard. Staff also points out that development within the Westgate subdivision is already buffered from sensitive natural areas and public resources to the west such as Shevlin Park and Tumalo Creek by platted open space tracts separating residential development from the Park and its associated wildlife corridors. Based on the originally adopted code language and the WTZ Comprehensive Plan amendments, any future subdivisions in the WTZ will be required to adopt similar buffering methods between residential development and sensitive natural resources. Page 7 of 13 Finally, the applicant has submitted findings summarizing the amendments and stating that the text amendments are in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable policies of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. III. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell reviewed the application and findings concerning Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule, and provided the following comments: "I have reviewed the application materials and agree that the proposed amendments will not change the number of approved residential units, meaning the trip generation rates and numbers remain the same as already approved for the Westside Transect Zone. The proposal is consistent with Goal 12 and has no adverse effects, thus complying with OAR 660-012-0060." IV. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS As of the submission date of this memorandum (June 2, 2021), no written comments have been received from the public. The Applicant did provide a number of comments from property owners in the WTZ as attachments to the original application materials. All provided comments expressed support for the proposed amendments. Scott Edelman, the Central Oregon Representative for the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) provided several questions to staff regarding the proposed amendments and the impact to development in the WTZ4. Ultimately, Mr. Edelman provided testimony during the April 22, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing stating that DLCD had no further concerns regarding the amendments after conversations with staff and the presentations made during the public hearing. During the Planning Commission public hearing, one citizen (Nunzie Gould) provided testimony expressing dissatisfaction regarding modification of the existing slope setback standards in the WTZ, particularly with regards to possible environmental and wildfire impacts. It is unclear to staff what the individual's specific concerns for environmental and wildfire impacts were as they relate to the proposed text amendments. However, staff provides the following statements for context: No portion of the proposed amendments will allow additional development beyond what is currently permitted in code within the Westgate subdivision, the Skyline Ranch subdivision, or any other portions of the WTZ. - Based on the submitted Wildlife Management Plans for both the Westgate and Skyline Ranch subdivisions, as well as discussion during the WTZ adoption process, the primary wildlife habitat and environmental resources in the WTZ are associated with Tumalo Creek and the 4 A copy of that correspondence is attached for reference. Page 8 of 13 corresponding canyon. The Tumalo Creek canyon is buffered in both subdivisions through multiple legal actions, including: o Platted open -space tracts separating the canyon from residential development parcels. o Covenants and deed restrictions for parcels adjacent to the open -space parcels which further prohibit development in certain areas of those lots. o A condition of approval in both subdivision master plan and tentative plan approvals that the provisions of the individual Wildlife Management Plans be evaluated and reviewed on an annual basis to ensure compliance is maintained. This includes an additional provision that each subdivision must establish an HOA or similar organization, which will levy fees from property owners to maintain both the Wildlife Management and Wildfire Management Plans for each development. Staff believes the proposed text amendments will have no effect on the wildlife management conditions and objectives listed above. Regarding increased wildfire risk, staff references the comments and discussion from the Applicant's forestry consultant during the Planning Commission public hearing, as well as follow-up comments from Ed Keith, the Deschutes County Forester. Both of these parties have provided testimony stating that along with increased defensible space standards for properties currently affected by the existing slope setback standards in the Westgate subdivision, no increased wildfire risk is expected from the proposed text amendments in those areas. However, neither staff nor the Applicant are able to provide a more detailed slope analysis for other properties within the WTZ, such as the Skyline Ranch subdivision. The property owners within those areas of the WTZ have not yet performed detailed topographic analysis for existing and proposed lots. As such, there is some uncertainty regarding the effect of the proposed amendments on other properties in the WTZ outside of the Westgate subdivision. However, all property owners in the WTZ, including the representatives for the Skyline Ranch subdivision, were provided legal notice of the April 22 public hearing and the upcoming June 16 public hearing before the Board. Additional correspondence from County Staff to the representatives for the Skyline Ranch subdivision was also provided to gather any impressions or input regarding slope setbacks in the WTZ. No comments have been received regarding the proposed text amendments from representatives of Skyline Ranch or other property owners in the WTZ at this time. V. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following deliberations on May 13, 2021, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendments (4 Commissioners in favor, 2 Commissioners abstaining). However, staff notes that the Commissioners raised numerous issues which they believed should be seriously considered by the Board. The Commission highlighted the following items in particular: Page 9 of 13 Concerns over remaining wildfire impacts along the eastern boundary of the WTZ, where a majority of the known properties currently affected by the slope setback standards are located. - The lack of available slope and wildfire impact information for properties in the WTZ, but outside of the Westgate subdivision. - The viability of other solutions to slope setback affected properties, such as significant grading and earthen fill to alter existing grades. - A possible lack of housing opportunities within the WTZ given the large demands for future development. - Concerns about the lack of a unified measurement methodology for evaluating slopes. Some Commissioners continued to have reservations about possible wildfire impacts to properties which could have slope setbacks altered or removed by the proposed amendments. The Commissioners reservations were particularly acute when discussing properties that have yet to perform detailed surveying work. Without detailed surveying work, the slope measurements for a number of properties in the WTZ are unknown at present. The issues above were outlined further as Commissioners expressed concern that wildfires could potentially originate along the eastern boundary of the Westgate subdivision, and possibly other areas of the WTZ. The Commissioners raised these concerns despite testimony from forestry professionals hired by the Applicants stating that the primary wildfire risk in the immediate area arises from the western WTZ boundaries along the Tumalo Creek Canyon due to the following characteristics: Prevailing wind patterns in the area which primarily flow from west to east. Increasingly steep topography associated with the canyon itself as well as the presence of heavily forested properties to the west of Tumalo Creek. - The presence of physical development associated with the City of Bend along the eastern WTZ boundary, including denser residential development, roadways, and firefighting infrastructure such as fire hydrants, etc. Staff notes that the Commissioners concerns are not unwarranted, as wind patterns do not perfectly predict individual weather events and wildfires can affect and emanate from more urbanized areas. However, staff points out that the Applicants have not made any attempt to state that wildfires can never propagate along the eastern WTZ boundary, but simply that given the available evidence, the highest risk from wildfires is likely to occur on forested lands to the west and the Tumalo Creek Canyon. Page 10 of 13 To alleviate some of the Commissioner's concerns, the developers of Westgate (the Applicants) have proposed additional defensible space standards for those properties which are affected by the existing slope standards. Staff notes that the Board will need to consider these additional defensible space standards proposed for the Westgate subdivision, while recognizing that other properties within the WTZ have not proposed similar adjustments and any increase in standards may alter development plans for other properties in the area. Ultimately, the current defensible space plans and any proposed adjustments would need to be addressed through an individual property's master plan and tentative plan review process as the parcel prepares for a land division. As noted previously, all land divisions in the WTZ are required to submit a professional Wildfire Mitigation Plan which details defensible space standards for all proposed parcels. Finally, during the initial public hearing, staff noted at least one possible challenge related to slopes as generally defined. Specifically, staff made the following points in the April 15, 2021 memorandum to the Commission: "Staff notes that as written, the code language for the WTZ establishes a very broad implementation standard for slope setbacks as numerous slopes within the zoning district may exceed the 20% threshold. Additionally, the current code does not provide clarity concerning how slopes within the zone should be measured and evaluated when determining the need for setbacks. For example, it is unclear what linear distance should be used in determining whether a specific slope exceeds the 20% standard outlined in the code. As presently applied, multiple lots within the Westgate subdivision and the broader WTZ are effectively rendered undevelopable without significant variance proceedings or physical grading of individual sites due to the slope setback requirements and ambiguity in how the standards were originally intended to be applied." In addition to the previous concerns referenced above, citizen Nunzie Gould provided comments which addressed the challenges of slope measurement methodology. Specifically, Nunzie Gould stated that the Commission and/or Board should consider adopting a similar framework for measuring slopes as that currently utilized by the Deschutes County Building Safety Division. Staff points out the following items to address these public comments: The current text amendments have been proposed by the Applicant, Empire Westgate LLC. County staff has no authority to mandate alterations or additions to the proposed amendments. Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), which includes the WTZ, currently has no specific criteria or methodology for evaluating slopes on properties. Additionally, DCC Title 15, which addresses buildings and construction standards, also has no specific criteria or methodology for evaluating slopes on properties. The Deschutes County Building Safety Division relies on specific language in the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC R403.1.5, R403.1.9.1, and R403.1.9.2) to determine building foundation clearances from slopes. Unfortunately, even this specific ORSC does not appear to provide a clear methodology for when and how to apply Page 11 of 13 slope measurements, and what linear distances are appropriate for determining an adequate evaluations. While no portion of the Deschutes County Code expressly outlines a measurement methodology for determining slopes, in practice, slope measurements are generally undertaken by professional licensed surveyors. Barring specific complications or concerns, County staff typically accept results provided by professional licensed surveyors during the development review process. VI. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS Staff notes that should the proposed amendments be adopted, it will have implications for existing subdivisions in the WTZ that have received master plan and tentative plan approval. As noted previously, only two subdivisions have received master plan and tentative plan approval in the WTZ: the Westgate and Skyline Ranch subdivisions. Each of the master plan approvals for these subdivisions includes specific findings and conditions of approval for the current slope setback requirements utilizing the 20% slope standard. If the text amendments are adopted as proposed, and property owners within these two approved subdivisions wish to utilize the modified slope setback standards, they will be required to modify the master plan and tentative plan conditions of approval through a formal land use process with the Deschutes County Planning Division. Additionally, as referenced during the public hearing, the Applicants have proposed to increase the defensible space standards for certain properties within the Westgate subdivision to counter any possible wildfire mitigation impacts from the altered slope setback standards. If the proposed amendments are adopted, to capture these new defensible space requirements the Applicants will be required to further modify the master plan and tentative plan conditions of approval for the Westgate subdivision through a formal land use process with the Deschutes County Planning Division. This modification may require alterations to the Westgate Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which was originally acknowledged, reviewed, and approved during the master plan and tentative plan process. However, it is unclear at present if the Applicants intend for increased defensible space standards to serve as a comparable mitigation measure for all properties within the WTZ, or simply the Westgate subdivision. Should the Board determine that increased defensible space standards are a necessary component of the proposed amendments, they will also need to determine how those modified standards will be enforced and monitored for all development moving forward. This may require additional amendments to the WTZ code expressly outlining increased defensible space standards for properties falling within a 20% slope threshold area. The criteria governing modifications of approval are outlined in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 22.36. 5 This ORSC language and associated figures have been attached to this memorandum for reference Page 12 of 13 Finally, staff points out that there is at least one possible option for properties owners in the WTZ to reduce the impacts of the current slope setback standards. As Deschutes County does not have an adopted grading ordinance, property owners have the ability to grade or place fill in lots with 20% slopes to remove topographic relief and consequently any slope setback requirements. However, the Applicants claim that this solution is undesirable for a number of reasons, including impacts to natural and scenic resources on the properties themselves, additional costs borne by property owners, and possible erosion issues for surrounding parcels. VI1. NEXT STEPS A public hearing with the Board is scheduled for June 16, 2021. Attachments: 1) 2021-06-02 Draft Legislative Findings 2) 2021-05-21 Bulletin Publishing Receipt 3) 2021-05-21 020-TA Notice of Public Hearing (BOCC) 4) 2021-05-06 Planning Commission Deliberations Staff Memo 5) 2021-05-06 Draft Text Amendments 6) 2021-05-05 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) R403.1.9.1 and ORSC R403.1.9.2 7) 2021-05-05 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) R403.1.5 8) 2021-05-03 E Keith (County Forester) Comments 9) 2021-04-29 M Conway Comments and COLW Letter 10) 2021-04-23 M Conway and C Letz Comments and Public Hearing Materials 11) 2021-04-21 S Edelman Comments (DLCD) 12) 2021-04-15 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Memo 13) 2021-04-15 P Russell (Senior Transportation Planner) Comments 14) 2021-04-09 K Collins (Staff Planner) Comments and Topographic Maps 15) 2021-04-07 M Conway Comments- Topographic Slope Maps 16) 2021-04-03 M Conway Comments- Revised Text Amendments 17) 2021-04-02 S Edelman Comments (DLCD) 18)2021-04-02 Bulletin Publishing Receipt 19) 2021-04-01 Planning Commission Discussion - WTZ Amendments Memo 20) 2021-03-30 020-TA Notice of Public Hearing (Planning Commission) 21) 2021-03-04 Confirmation of PAPA Online Submittal to DLCD 22) 2021-01-11 Proposed Text Amendments 23) 2021-01-11 Application Materials and Draft Findings 24) 2020-09-15 Westgate Subdivision Final Plat Maps 25) 2020-01-03 Skyline Ranch Subdivision Tentative Plat Maps 26) 2019-08-28 247-19-000500-MP, 501-TP Hearings Officer Decision 27) 2019-01-16 Ordinance No. 2019-001 28) 2017-12-19 Singletree Wildfire Mitigation and Forest Health Plan Page 13 of 13 Staff Legislative Findings- File No. 247-21-000020-TA (Westside Transect Zone Text Amendments) Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures Section 22.12.010. Hearing Required. No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless otherwise required by state law. FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing was held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Section 22.12.020. Notice. A. Published Notice. 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. FINDING: This criterion will be met as notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on April 2, 2021 for the Planning Commission public hearing, and on May 25, 2021 for the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. FINDING: This criterion will be met as notice was posted for each hearing on the bulletin board in the lobby of the Deschutes County Community Development Department, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend. C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. FINDING: This criterion will be met as notice for each hearing was mailed to all property owners located in the Westside Transect Zone (WTZ). D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: As stated previously, notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on April 2, 2021 for the Planning Commission public hearing, and on May 25, 2021 for the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing. This criterion has been met. Section 22.12.030. Initiation of Legislative Changes A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission. FINDING: The application was initiated by the Applicant, Empire Westgate LLC. The Applicant has paid the relevant application fees to the Deschutes County Community Development Department. This criterion has been met. Section 22.12.040. Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order: 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The Deschutes County Planning Commission held the initial public hearing on April 22, 2021. The Board then held a public hearing on June 16, 2021. These criteria will be met. Section 22.12.050. Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance. FINDING: The proposed legislative changes included will be implemented by Ordinance 2021-009 upon approval and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. This criterion will be met. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual Update and Proposed Amendments to Deschutes County Code MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Angela Havniear, Coordinated Services Manager Code Enforcement Team DATE: June 2, 2021 RE: Update on the Code Compliance Program Review and Potential Amendments Purpose The purposes of this work session are to: 1. Provide an update to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on the Code Compliance Program review and potential amendments; 2. Present and request final feedback on the draft Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual Update; 3. Present and request feedback on draft County Code text amendments to DCC 1.08, 1.16, 13.12, 13.36; and 4. Discuss next steps, including the tentatively scheduled public hearing in late June. This project is included on the Community Development Department (CDD) 2020-21 Work Plan, and implements the Board's Safe Communities Goal. Summary CDD initiated a review of the Code Compliance Program with the Board in January, 2021. Three Board work sessions on this item have occurred on January 27, 2021, February 10, 2021, and May 5, 2021. This Code Compliance project began with a comprehensive program review, including major 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org , www.deschutes.org/cd program elements and minor updates since the most recent review in 20141. A key focus in this review has been the Community Development Department's code enforcement procedures manual (Manual) which establish both policy and procedures for program operation. An additional focus proposed in early work sessions was staff recommended potential amendments to the County's Nuisance Code with respect to solid waste Code violations, and development of a prescriptive abatement code2. In the February, 2021 work session, the Board decided to make no changes to existing major program elements, while deciding to adopt minor program updates proposed by staff. The Board further supported a CDD proposed changes to the program and position titles emphasizing Code Compliance. In the May, 2021 work session, staff presented a draft Manual update for Board review and comment. Staff obtained additional input from the session. Board Discussion The purpose of this final work session is to: 1. Review the final draft Manual; and 2. Review staff recommended draft text (code) amendments. Staff will present the final draft Manual inclusive of changes to date. Staff will then incorporate any changes from this work session and prepare the Manual for the public hearing. Code Compliance staff will also discuss its research and development of draft text amendments. Staff seeks Board comments, questions, or changes to the draft Manual update and staff recommended draft text amendments. Next Steps 1. If the Board is supportive of, moving forward on these items, staff will prepare materials and schedule a public hearing on June 30, 2021. or 2. If the Board has any changes to either/both of these items, staff will present the changes a follow up work session. 1 Key topics covered in the review have included the following: 1. Whether the Board recommends changes to existing major program elements (e.g., complaint policy, compliance policy, and policy on citation and penalty).; 2. Whether the Board affirms or proposes changes to amendments enacted since 2014, such as: a. Amending the complaint policy to specifically allow anonymous marijuana complaints; and, b. A Board approved amendment to (Deschutes County Code 22.20.015) to restrict land use and development permits on properties with code violations. 2 When code enforcement cases are not resolved by way of voluntary compliance and administrative proceedings, it is occasionally necessary for jurisdictions to coordinate with the courts to obtain a warrant of abatement. The warrant authorizes a jurisdiction to enter onto private property, abate the nuisance, and hold the property owner responsible for all of the abatement costs. A prescriptive abatement code would codify this process with inherent procedural efficiency. eschutes County Community eveIopment department Co e Co pliance Prey ra Policy and Procedures anual Adopted XXXX, 2021 1 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 3 Mission 4 II. Purpose 4 III, Interpretation 4 IV. Code Compliance Philosophy 4 A. Enforcement Levels 4 B. Sequence of Enforcement 5 C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement 5 V. Priorities for Code Enforcement 5 A. Priority Cases 5 B. Lower Priority Cases 5 C. Solid Waste 6 VI, Applicability 6 Vll. Initiation of Code Enforcement 6 A. Resident Complaints 6 B. Observation by Code Compliance Staff 7 C. Proactive Code Enforcement 7 D. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring by CDD Staff 7 E. Report by County Staff 8 F. Report by County Commissioner 8 G. Information from Official County Records 8 VIII. Recording Complaints 8 IX. Notice of Investigation 8 X. Investigation 8 A. Preliminary Matters 8 B. Establishing the Elements of a Violation 9 C. Assignment of Investigation and Enforcement Responsibility 9 D. Field Investigation 10 E. Report of Field Investigation 11 XI. Enforcement Procedures 11 A. Voluntary Compliance 11 B. Pre -Enforcement Notice 12 C. Citation and Complaint 13 D. Injunctions 14 E. Permit Revocation 14 F. Nuisance Abatement 14 G. Dangerous Building Abatement 15 H. Investigative Fees 15 I. Assisting Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies 15 J. County Cost Recovery 16 K. Liens 16 XII. Resolution of Code Complaints 16 XIII. Amendments 17 2 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update PREFACE Code enforcement in Deschutes County is a high priority for the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). The Board believes the policies and procedures in this manual will enhance code compliance and thereby the quality of life in Deschutes County. In August 1994, the Board established the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Task Force to study County Code Enforcement, to recommend improvements to the program and to identify statutory or County Code changes that may be required to increase the effectiveness of County Code enforcement. The task force included citizens, representatives of the construction and real estate industries, representatives of the state court system and law enforcement, County Legal Counsel, managers of the County's Community Development Department ("CDD") and the County's Code Enforcement staff. The task force met three times during 1994. In January of 1995, they presented a report to the Board containing their recommendations. The Board accepted those recommendations, and directed County staff to begin to implement them. Among the recommendations was the development of a County Code Enforcement policy and procedures manual. The key task force recommendation in 1995 was the implementation of a more "proactive", or County -initiated, Code Enforcement program. Such a program would begin simultaneously with adoption of the manual and would apply to County Code violations occurring on or after the effective date of the manual. This recommendation effectively created a two -pronged approach to code enforcement— somewhat different policies and procedures for violations occurring before, and after, the effective date of the manual. The intent of this approach was both to increase code enforcement after giving the community ample notice of the County's new, "tougher" enforcement policy, as well as to set enforcement priorities and manage the County's Code Enforcement workload in a manner that is realistic, clear and credible to the community. The original policies and procedures manual reflected this new approach. The County amended the manual in 1997 to reprioritize the criteria in Section IV and to reclassify and add enforcement staff. Since then, the County added Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 1.17 to adopt the required administrative hearings process required by ORS 455.157 adopted by the State Legislature in 2009 for building and specialty code violations. The County also amended Chapter 1.16 to add an additional injunctive remedy once a violation is cited into Circuit Court. In 2014, CDD staff reviewed the manual and suggested changes to the Board, which reviewed the staff -proposed changes and made additional revisions. In 2021, CDD staff reviewed the manual again and suggested changes to the Board. A noteworthy recommendation from this review was an option to change the title of the Community Development Department program from Code Enforcement to Code Compliance. The concept behind this change, which was ultimately adopted by the Board, was to better align the program title with its objective. This manual update is reflective of this and other minor operational updates approved by the Board. By the guidance of this 2021 manual and integration of the County's "Every Time Standards", the Community Development Department Code Compliance Program will continue protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Deschutes County. 3 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update 1. MISSION The mission of Deschutes County's Code Compliance Program is to protect the health and safety of the County's residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the County's land use, environmental and construction codes. The County will assure County Code compliance both by encouraging voluntary compliance and by sanctioning code violators who do not comply. II. PURPOSE The purpose of the Deschutes County Code Compliance Program Policy and Procedures Manual (hereafter "manual") is to provide written guidelines for: A. The prioritization of code enforcement cases; B. Initiation and investigation of code violation complaints; C. Enforcement of the County Code through voluntary compliance; D. Prosecution of code violators who do not comply; E. Sanctioning of code violators and the assessment of fines and penalties; and F. Recovery of the County's investigation and enforcement costs. These written guidelines are intended to increase consistency and predictability within the County's Code Compliance Program, and to educate the County's residents and property owners about code compliance and the consequences of violating the County Code. Ill. INTERPRETATION This manual describes the standard policies and procedures for code compliance, and should be interpreted so as to maximize both the efficiency of the program and operations as well as compliance with County Code. This manual should be followed unless otherwise directed by the CDD Director or designee, the County Administrator or designee, or the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). IV. CODE COIVIPLIANCE PHILOSOPHY Policy: The County's policy is to achieve compliance with County Code in all cases of reported and verifiable code violations. However, the County has limited code compliance resources. Consequently, the County has established, through this manual, both a priority ranking for code enforcement and procedures designed to maximize available code compliance resources. The Code Compliance Program should endevor to follow the priority ranking set forth in Section V of this manual. It also should be flexible enough to allow the level of enforcement that best fits the type and circumstances of the code violation(s), within clear and objective criteria set forth in this manual and consistent with the priorities. A. Enforcement Levels. The levels of enforcement available to the County are: 1. Mediated settlement of code violation complaints; 2. Pre -Enforcement Notice (hereafter "PEN"); 3. Investigative fees on permits required for code compliance; 4. Obtaining voluntary compliance; 5. Warning letters; 6. Citation and prosecution of violation in state court or Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (hereafter "NOV") through County administrative hearings; 7. Petition for injunction in circuit court; 8. Nuisance or dangerous building abatement; 9. Permit revocation 4 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update B. Sequence of Enforcement. The levels of enforcement are not mutually exclusive, and may be used alone or in sequence or combination with other levels. However, in most code violation cases, the County will use the code enforcement levels in the sequence they appear in Paragraph A. C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement. Some code violation cases may have aggravating circumstances requiring a different sequence for enforcement activity than that set forth in Paragraph A. The County may choose a different sequence if one or more of the following circumstances is present: 1. The code violation is severe (e.g., deviates greatly from the Code); 2. The violation poses a significant threat to public health and safety, or to the environment as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; 3. The violation may cause economic harm to residents or to the County as a whole; 4. The physical size or extent of the violation is significant as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; 5. The violation has existed uncorrected for a significant period as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; 6. There is a previous history of complaints and code enforcement on the subject property and/or with the alleged code violator; 7. There is good potential for combining enforcement action on the violation with other violations; B. There is little likelihood of obtaining voluntary compliance. V. PRI•RITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT Policy: County staff shall attempt to investigate and resolve all code violations within budget and staffing resources. However, because of limited code compliance resources, there may be times when all code violations cannot be given the same level of attention and some code violations may receive no attention at all for a period of time as determined by the Community Development Director or designee. In circumstances where not all code violations can be investigated, the most serious violations, as determined under the priorities set forth in this section and the criteria for enforcement in Section IV(C) of this manual, shall be addressed before the less serious violations are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. However, complaints alleging both priority and non -priority violations should be processed together to maximize efficiency. A. Priority Cases. The Board has established the following priorities for CDD code violations: 1. Violations that present an imminent threat to public life, health and safety; 2. Violations which impact rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands, 3. Solid Waste Code violations, Environmental Soils violations, and Building Code violations consisting of ongoing non -permitted construction or failure to obtain permits; 4. Land use violations. B. Lower Priority Cases Policy: Complaints alleging code violations that do not fall within the priority ranking above should be processed in the order in which the complaints are received, and as code enforcement resources allow. Exception. At the discretion of Code Compliance Specialists and in consultation with the Community Development Director or designee staff, complaints may be processed in any order that maximizes the efficiency of enforcement. Procedure: All complaints concerning a particular type of code violation (e.g., non -permitted manufactured homes in manufactured home parks), or all complaints of violations occurring in a particular geographic area, may be processed together, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. C. Solid Waste. The County Solid Waste Department may engage any other County Department/ Office to administer its code compliance program for County solid waste code violations. 5 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update VI. APPLICABILITY Policy: This manual applies to all code compliance administered by CDD, its employees and agents. Except as otherwise provided, the policies and procedures in this manual apply to all alleged code violations whether or not they existed or were known by the County on the effective date of this manual. The policies and procedures in this manual supersede any conflicting County policies and procedures. Non -Applicability to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Many subdivisions and planned communities are subject to private, recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs). The County's policy is not to enforce private CC & Rs. Non -Applicability to Private Legal Action. Residents may undertake private legal action to enforce County Code, including civil litigation against the alleged code violator, as well as personally filing citations and prosecuting County Code violations in court. The policies and procedures in this manual do not apply to private legal action to abate violations. Neither should they be interpreted to suggest that the County will participate in such private legal action. Vll. INITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Code enforcement may be initiated by any of the following methods: A. Resident Complaints. Any person may make a complaint to the County alleging one or more code violations. 1. Form, A resident may initiate a complaint by submitting a letter o r e m a i I, complaint form (available online), or by contacting CDD in person or by telephone. If a resident submits a complaint by phone or written communication other than a completed complaint form, County staff shall complete the complaint form. If the County receives a written complaint other than the County -approved complaint form, the written complaint shall be attached to a complaint form completed by County staff. To be investigated, a resident complaint must contain all information required on the complaint form. Z. Anonymous Complaints Policy: The County's policy is to not accept anonymous County Code violation complaints. The County believes that anonymous complaints are not as reliable as those made by complainants who are willing to identify themselves. In addition, in many cases, the complainant's identification and testimony in court may be necessary for successful prosecution of Code violators and code enforcement. Exceptions. The County recognizes there may be cases justifying an exception to this policy. These are cases where the nature of an anonymous complaint reliably suggests the existence of code violations presenting an imminent threat to public life, health and safety or to the environment, which threat easily may be verified by County staff. In such cases, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, County staff shall accept the anonymous complaint for investigation. 3. Confidentiality Policy: The County's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and computer records, including the identity of the complainant, to the extent legally possible. The County believes it is important to maintain this confidentiality to assure effective investigation and prosecution of code violations. In addition, the County recognizes that some complainants do not want their names disclosed to the alleged code violator for fear of retaliation. However, in some cases it may be necessary for successful prosecution and enforcement for the complainant to be identified and to testify in court. 6 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update Exceptions. In cases where the County chooses to cooperate with, or defer to, federal or state agencies for code enforcement, the contents of the file may be disclosed, as necessary, to the other agency. Procedure: In order to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and the identity of the complainants, while assuring effective prosecution and enforcement and compliance with state law, the following procedures apply: a. Code enforcement files will be maintained as confidential files throughout investigation, violation prosecution and/or other types of code enforcement to the extent legally permissible. b. The contents of code enforcement files will not be disclosed to anyone other than County staff who have a reason to know about and who are involved in the investigation, or to similar staff of an agency with which the County is cooperating. The contents of the file will not be disclosed to any other person absent court order, until: 1) the investigation is complete and a citation discovery request is made; or 2) the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law. B. Observation by Code Compliance Staff. Code enforcement staff often observe additional potential County Code violations while conducting complaint investigations. Such observations may form the basis for additional investigation and enforcement action. Policy: The County's policy is that code enforcement staff document any potential code violations the staff observes on property that is the subject of their current investigation. Code enforcement staff shall investigate documented additional potential violations. If substantiated, staff may address noted additional violations. Staff may also document and address code violations observed on any property adjacent to the subject property, which violations are observable from the subject property. C. Proactive Code Enforcement. Within available code enforcement resources, the County may undertake a number of County -initiated procedures for proactive code enforcement. These procedures may include: 1. Investigations and prosecutions of code violations in particular geographic areas; 2. Investigations and prosecutions of code violations of a particular type throughout the County; 3. Timely and regular follow-up by CDD staff for compliance with conditions and requirements for permits and approvals; 4. Reporting by County staff of code violations observed while conducting County business; S. Examination and comparison of County files for evidence of code violations; 6. Revocation of permits and approvals for failure to comply with requirements or conditions; 7. Cooperation with code compliance by other regulatory and licensing agencies; and 8. Cooperation with utility companies to terminate service, to the extent authorized by law, to non - permitted uses on property. D. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring by CDD Staff. The County routinely issues land use, environmental and construction permits with a variety of requirements and conditions, and timelines for meeting them. For example, a land use approval may require landscaping the site by a certain date, and building permits expire if construction progress and inspections are not made within periods set by state law. Code violations occur when these permit and approval conditions are not timely met. Policy: The County's policy is that CDD staff may conduct timely and regular monitoring of conditions of approval and similar permit requirements for all permits and approvals. Procedure: 1. All persons issued permits or approvals shall be given written notice of the consequences of failure to comply with requirements and conditions, including potential code enforcement. 2. If any permits and approvals are found not to be in compliance with conditions of approval or other permit requirements, staff in the appropriate CDD division assigned to the permit or approval monitoring shall undertake appropriate action to obtain compliance. 7 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update 3. If the assigned CDD staff are unable to obtain compliance within a reasonable time established for that purpose, they shall report the violation and any enforcement action already taken to Code Compliance staff for further code enforcement action. E. Report by County Staff. In many cases, County staff may be in a unique position to observe potential code violations. For example, a property appraiser in the Assessor's office may be the only person able to observe new construction for which there is no permit. Policy: Any County staff member may report to code enforcement staff possible Code violations observed while conducting County business. Procedure: Reports by County staff under this subsection shall be made on a complaint form provided by CDD Code Compliance Staff. F. Report by County Commissioner. A County Commissioner may report a potential code violation, or request that code enforcement staff investigate a resident report of a potential code violation by submitting a complaint form or in any other written form or requesting CDD staff to submit a complaint form on behalf of the Commissioner, along with necessary information to initiate an investigation. G. Information from Official County Records. Potential code violations may be discovered by examining the County's own official records. For example, cross-referencing between the Assessor's records and CDD's records may reveal construction or land use activity without necessary permits or approvals. CDD staff may also discover code violations by comparing the County's own land use, environmental health and construction permit records with each other. Policy: CDD staff may regularly compare all pertinent County records to identify potential Code violations. Procedure: Code violations discovered through comparison of information in County files shall be reported to Code Compliance on.a complaint form. VIII. REC3RDING COMPLAINTS All complaints received by the Code Compliance Program shall be recorded in CDD's computer system. The Complaint Record is the official record of the complaint and its investigation and resolution. The Complaint Record shall include the following minimum information: 1. An assigned complaint number; 2. The tax map number and tax map for the subject property; 3. Which code enforcement staff is assigned to the case; 4. The complaint form; S. Documentation of investigation; 6. Assessor's information on the subject property. IX. NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION When Code Compliance staff initiates an investigation, they may provide notice to any CDD division, other County department, or federal or state agency that may have an interest in the alleged code violation. X. INVESTIGATION A. Preliminary Matters. At the beginning of each investigation, the following shall be established: 1. Jurisdiction. The property upon which the alleged code violation exists must be in the County's code enforcement jurisdiction. 2. Zoning. The zoning of the subject property shall be determined. 8 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update 3. Permit Status. The status of any land use, environmental soils, building, electrical, construction (including, but not limited to structural, mechanical, plumbing) or other similar permits on the subject property shall be determined. 4. Property Ownership. All persons with a recorded legal interest in the subject property should be identified. These persons should include the owners, contract purchasers, lessees and Iienholders or other security interest holders. 5. Other Potentially Responsible Persons. In addition to the persons listed in subparagraph 4 of this paragraph, any other persons potentially responsible for the alleged code violation(s) should be identified. These persons could include tenants, construction and landscape contractors and excavators. 6. Identification of Applicable Code Provisions. Code Compliance staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, shall identify the pertinent provisions of the County Code that may have been violated according to the complaint. 7. Prior Complaint History. Code Compliance staff shall examine CDD records to determine the existence and status of any prior or existing code violation complaints on the subject property or concerning the alleged violator. Establishing the Elements of a Violation. Before a Pre -Enforcement Notice ("PEN") is sent, it must be determined whether the complaint establishes a code violation. If it does not, the case will be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. Code Compliance staff may, in some instances, make mediation referrals where such referral is anticipated to protect safety or livability. Code Compliance staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, and after any necessary field investigation, shall determine if the following elements have been established. 1. Responsible Person. The person or persons who are reasonably believed to have committed the code violation, or who are or may be legally responsible for the alleged code violation, have been identified. 2. Alleged Violation Occurred or is Occurring. A complaint may allege a code violation that occurred in the past (e.g., construction without a permit) or that occurs only intermittently (e.g., surfacing sewage from a drain field, or periodic non -permitted commercial activity in a residential zone). Code Compliance staff shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to find the alleged violation occurred or is occurring. Such grounds may be established either by personal observation by Code Compliance staff or by reliable evidence from a complainant. If Code Compliance staff determines that reasonable grounds do not exist, no enforcement action will be taken until the complainant or the Code Enforcement staff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop such grounds. If no reasonable grounds are developed within a reasonable period, the case will be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. 3. Relevance of Statute. In some instances, a complaint may allege a code violation on property subject to other protections. A common example is the State's prohibition on local laws governing forest and farm practices (ORS 30.934 and 30.935). Code Compliance staff shall, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, consider the relevance of statutes in substantiating a County Code violation. If Code Compliance staff verifies conflicting relevance under the law, the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. C. Assignment of Investigation and Enforcement Responsibility Policy: The responsibility for field investigation and code enforcement should be assigned to the CDD staff most able and qualified to conduct the investigation and undertake appropriate enforcement action. For example, alleged violations of environmental soils/health codes may best be investigated and resolved by County Environmental Soils Specialists. However, all code enforcement activity should be coordinated with Code Compliance staff and all PEN's and Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCA's) will be drafted by Code Compliance staff. Procedure: 1. Assignment. Assignment of field investigation and code enforcement responsibility shall be made by the CDD Director or designee, on a case -by -case basis or pursuant to standing policies in this manual or elsewhere. The following criteria shall be used for assignment of responsibility: 9 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update a. The nature of the code violation(s) alleged in the complaint; b. The knowledge and expertise needed to investigate the alleged violation; c. The history of prior code enforcement on the subject property or with the alleged violator; d. The status of permits and approvals on the subject property; and e. The workload of the relevant CDD division staff and the projected timeline for investigation and resolution of the complaint. 2. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for code enforcement activity is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff, such staff shall consult with Code Compliance staff and keep them advised of their activities. When CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff is assigned to investigate a code violation complaint for which a Complaint Record has been created, such staff shall enter into the record a report of any action undertaken to investigate or to obtain compliance. D. Field investigation 1. Purpose. The purposes of code enforcement field investigation are to: a. Verify the existence and severity of code violations; b. Document code violations by means of written notes, photographs, witness interviews, etc.; and c. Obtain supporting evidence such as photographs, measurements, names and statements of potential witnesses, etc. 2. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for field investigation is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff, the coordination and notification described in Paragraph C (2) of this section shall occur. 3. Preparations and Precautions Policy: Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff, as well as members of the public, should not be exposed to unreasonable risks of violent confrontation or injury during the course of field investigations. Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff shall take whatever actions are reasonable and necessary to minimize the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to themselves or others in conducting their field investigations. Procedure: a. Law Enforcement Assistance. When appropriate, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff should contact the Sheriff's Office to determine if there have been previous criminal complaints or investigations concerning the subject property or alleged code violator, and whether, in the opinion of the Sheriffs Office, a field investigation would present any threat to the safety of Code Compliance staff, other staff, the alleged code violator or other persons present during a field investigation. Code Compliance staff or another assigned CDD staff person may request law enforcement assistance in conducting the field investigation, and may postpone such investigation until law enforcement assistance is available. b. Announced/Unannounced Field Visits. At the discretion of Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff, a field visit to the vicinity of the subject property may be conducted with or without prior notice to the property owner, occupant or alleged code violator. The determination of whether or not to give prior notice shall be made on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The nature of the alleged violation; 2. Whether or not prior notice will make detection and documentation of the alleged violation more difficult; and 3. Whether or not prior notice will unnecessarily increase the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff. c. Entering Upon Property or Premises Policy: It is the County's policy that Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff shall not enter upon private property or premises to conduct a field investigation without authority to enter. Procedure: Code Compliance staff may enter unposted property to seek permission to investigate on the premises. Unless permission is granted, the investigation shall be conducted from public roads or property where permission to enter has been granted. If Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD 10 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update staff does not have permission or other authority to enter upon property or premises, and entry upon the property or premises is necessary to conduct the investigation, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff shall consult with County Legal Counsel about obtaining a search warrant. E. Report of Investigation Report. Upon completion of the initial investigation, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff shall complete a report of investigation in the Case Record. The Field Investigation Report should be completed as soon as reasonably possible after the date and time of the field visit to ensure a complete and accurate report. 1. The report shall include at least the following information: a. Name of investigator; b. Date, time and place of field visit; c. Code violation(s) observed; d. If no code violation(s) observed, an explanation; e. Witnesses, if any, interviewed and other persons present, if known, on site at the time of the investigation; f. Evidence, if any, obtained (e.g., photographs); g. Discussion, if any, of violation with owner, occupant or other responsible person; h. Action necessary, if known, to correct violation; and i. Recommended enforcement action. 2. Complainant Notification. Upon completion of the initial investigation, Code Compliance staff shall notify all resident and other agency complainants of the status of complaint investigation. This notification should include information on whether a case will be opened, the reason a case will or will not be opened, and name and contact information of the staff member assigned the code enforcement case. XI. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Voluntary Compliance Policy: The primary objective of the CDD Code Compliance Program is voluntary compliance. Staff encourages voluntary code compliance by providing code violators and other responsible persons with information about the County Code and an opportunity to comply with the County Code within reasonable timeframes and with little or no penalty. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. Notwithstanding this objective, the County believes that allowing Code violators the opportunity to voluntarily comply any time during code enforcement, or outside reasonable time limits for such compliance, may actually result in abuse of this opportunity in order to delay compliance. Therefore, it is the County's policy to limit the time frame during which Code violators may come into voluntary compliance with little or no penalty. Procedure: The following procedure shall apply whenever a Code violator brings his or her property into compliance during the code enforcement process: 1. Compliance Timing and Staff Response Timing of Compliance Disposition After complaint/ before citation or NOV. File closed. Application of permit investigative fees where applicable. After citation/before trial or hearing before hearings officer CDD recommends dismissal of citation, no cost recovery, application of permit investigative fees where applicable. 11 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update At time of trial or hearing before hearings officer CDD recommends prosecution, conviction or guilty plea, fine or civil penalty, injunction, cost recovery, application of permit investigative fees where applicable. 2. Limited Time Frames, Opportunities for voluntary compliance, where provided, shall be of limited duration. The facts in each case differ. Therefore, Code Compliance staff shall consider the appropriate time frame for compliance on a case -by -case basis. 3. Time Extended by Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Following the issuance of a PEN, if the alleged violator admits the violation(s) and requests extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator shall sign a "Voluntary Compliance Agreement in a form acceptable to the County." County Legal Counsel will determine what is acceptable to the County. The agreement shall provide that, in exchange for the extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator agrees to abate the violation(s) by a specified time, and, if voluntary compliance is not obtained during this extended time, to waive hearing in any subsequent violation proceeding and consent to entry of judgment and imposition of penalties, costs, injunction, and/or such other relief as is deemed appropriate. R. Pre -Enforcement Notice (PEN) 1. Timing. When Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff determines there are reasonable grounds to find a violation did or does occur, based upon the information in the complaint and any field investigation, an PEN shall be sent on a standard form approved by the CDD Director or designee in a letter or notice sent by the appropriate CDD division staff. 2. To Whom Sent. A PEN shall be sent to all persons liable for the violation under Deschutes County Code. 3. How Sent. PENs shall be sent by certified mail or by other method of delivery as approved by the CDD Director or Designee to the best available address for the persons described in Subsection 2 above. Email may be used in addition to certified or other mail delivery options to expedite the notification process. 4. Follow Up. If, within 15 days of the mailing of the PEN, the liable persons have not contacted Code Compliance staff, staff shall determine the next step in the code enforcement process, including warning and/or citation. S. Compliance. If the Code Compliance staff determines that the required corrections have been made or the liable persons have provided evidence that no violation exists, the date and method of compliance shall be noted in the Complaint Record and the case shall be resolved by file closure pursuant to section XII of this manual. 6. Corrective Action. In some cases, corrective action may consist of both applying for and obtaining necessary permits or approvals. In such cases, the permit or approval application alone will not be sufficient to assure compliance. The liable person must complete the application process, including all appeals, within a reasonable time and not allow the application to expire. Once permit approval is obtained, the liable person must complete all permit conditions prior to the expiration of any permit approval. Policy: All code violation cases shall remain open until all permit conditions and other required corrective measures are completed. Procedure: 1. Where the required corrective action consists of both applying for and obtaining permits or approvals, Code Compliance staff, in consultation with other appropriate CDD staff, shall determine a reasonable time frame for applying for and obtaining the necessary permits or approvals. 2. If at any time during the process for obtaining necessary permits or approvals the alleged violator fails to meet the reasonable timelines established by Code Compliance staff and such failure does not result from the actions of others, Code Compliance staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section. 3. If the alleged code violator is not granted the necessary permits or approvals, Code Compliance staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section unless (a) the alleged code violator enters into a written agreement with the County to comply with the County Code within a time frame established 12 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update by Code Compliance staff, or (b) a lender has begun foreclosure proceedings and, in the opinion of Code Compliance staff, is likely to address the violation within a reasonable time after the foreclosure. C. Citation and Complaint 1. Non -Compliance. Where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained by CDD within a reasonable timeframe, Code Compliance staff may cause a citation to issue or may issue a Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (NOV) and initiate administrative enforcement hearing proceedings in accordance with County Code. 2. Investigation Required. No citation to state court or NOV shall be prepared unless and until an investigation has verified the existence of a Code violation. 3. Form. All citations to state court shall be on a uniform citation which conforms to ORS 153.045 through ORS 153.051. NOV's for administrative enforcement hearing proceedings shall be on the form required by County Code. 4. Issuance of Citation. Any person authorized by County Code Section 1.08.025 may issue a citation or NOV. The person issuing the citation or NOV must verify the conduct or circumstances constituting a violation. 5. Service. All citations to state court shall be served in accordance with ORS 153.154. NOV's shall be served in accordance with County Code. 6. Setting Arraignment/Administrative Hearings. For citations to state court, the officer serving the citation shall set the date for arraignment. For NOV's, Code Compliance Staff shall set the date for the hearing in accordance with the County Code. 7. Arraignment in State Court a. Purposes: The purposes of arraignment are to: 1. Allow the defendant to enter a plea to the citation; 2. Resolve any jurisdictional issues; 3. Set a trial date if the plea is not guilty; and 4. If the plea is guilty, allow the defendant, the Sheriff's Office Deputy and other County Code Compliance staff the opportunity to provide information to the court regarding penalties and related matters. b. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at arraignment unless the defendant has legal counsel at arraignment. 8. Failure to Appear at Arraignment in State court. If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, Code Compliance staff may request that the court enter a default judgment in favor of the County and impose penalties against the defendant. 9. Trial. If the defendant pleads not guilty to the allegations in the citation, Code Compliance staff shall request that the court set the matter for trial at the earliest available date. a. Burden of Proof. The County has the burden of proving at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations in the citation. b. Responsibility of Code Compliance Staff. At trial, the responsibility of Code Compliance staff is to prosecute the case by presenting evidence, calling witnesses and offering any relevant documents and other exhibits in support of the citation. c. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at trial unless the defendant is represented by legal counsel at trial. 10. Fines a. Schedule. The schedule of maximum fines for County Code violations is set forth in DCC 1.16.010. b. Amount. If the defendant is convicted, Code Compliance staff shall request that the court impose a fine in an amount consistent with the County Code. 11. Suspension of Fines. The Circuit Court has authority to suspend the imposition of all or a portion of a fine. In some cases, the court may wish to suspend imposition of a fine or a part thereof on the condition that the defendant comply with County Code within a specified time period. a. Policy: It is the County's policy to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement activity and the incentives for code compliance by discouraging any suspension of fines in County Code violation cases. 13 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update b. Procedure: If a defendant is convicted, Code Compliance staff and/or County Legal Counsel shall advise the court of the County's policy against fine suspension and shall ask the court not to suspend imposition of fines. 12. Collection and Distribution of Fines. Fines imposed by the state court for County Code violations are collected by the State Court Administrator and are remitted in part to the County. Fines imposed from civil penalty hearings are remitted to the County Treasurer. a. Policy: It is the County's policy that all fines imposed for County Code violations and remitted to the County should be used to pay the costs of County Code enforcement. b. Procedure: All fines imposed by the court or the Code Enforcement Hearings Officer for County Code violations and remitted to the County shall be deposited in the CDD Revenue Fund for budgeting and expenditure in the Code Compliance program. D. Injunctions Policy: Code Compliance staff shall seek injunctions from the court in cases where other methods of code enforcement may be inadequate or have been unsuccessful. Procedure: 1. When Sought. Code Compliance staff may request County Legal Counsel to obtain/ coordinate injunctions in any case in which: a. Code violation(s) present an imminent threat to the public life, health and safety or to the environment; or b. Code violations have not been corrected within a reasonable time after a defendant was found by the court or County Hearings Officer to be guilty of a code violation. 2. By Whom. Pursuant to DCC 1.16.040, Code Compliance staff (or County Legal Counsel if appearing in the case) may request that the court order injunctive relief and/or abatement as part of the penalty in a code enforcement proceeding. Alternatively, County Legal Counsel may initiate a separate legal action for injunctive relief and/or abatement of a violation. 3. How Enforced. After issuance of an injunction, if the defendant fails to comply within the time period specified in the injunction, the Sheriffs Office or CDD staff shall request that County Legal Counsel initiate civil contempt proceedings against the defendant. E. Permit Revocation. Certain County Codes authorize the revocation of permits or approvals for failure to comply with their requirements or conditions. Policy: To maximize code compliance, the County shall revoke permits and approvals to the extent authorized by law in appropriate cases. Revocation of permits are particularly appropriate in cases in which corrective action may not be effective in bringing the subject property into code compliance due to the nature of the violation and the deliberateness of the code violator's actions in violating the Code. Procedure: 1. Report to Code Compliance Staff. If the County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit determines that the conditions or requirements of a permit or approval have not been met, that staff member shall inform Code Compliance staff of such violation, and Code Compliance staff shall enter the information in the code enforcement electronic files. 2. Revocation Procedure. The County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit shall determine whether to undertake permit revocation proceedings as authorized under the applicable County Code provisions. The following factors shall be considered: a. Whether the criteria for permit revocation set forth in the applicable County Code provisions exist; b. The severity of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; c. The deliberateness of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; and d. Whether compliance can be achieved more effectively through other code enforcement methods. F. Nuisance Abatement. Chapter 13.36 of the Deschutes County Code (hereafter "Code") authorizes the abatement of County Code violations that are defined as "public nuisances." 14 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update Policy: County Code violations constituting public nuisances may be abated pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure: When County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of a code violation that may constitute a "public nuisance," staff shall provide the information to Code Compliance staff who shall enter the information into the code enforcement file. Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff may consult County Legal Counsel to initiate nuisance abatement proceedings pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code. O. angerous Building Abatement. Chapter 15.04 of the Code authorizes the abatement of buildings containing violations rendering them "dangerous buildings" as defined in the Code. Policy: County Code violations that may render a structure a "dangerous building" shall be abated pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure: When Code Compliance staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of code violations in a structure that may render the structure a "dangerous building," the staff shall provide the information to Code Compliance staff, who shall enter in the information into a Complaint Record. The Deschutes County Building Official (hereafter "building official") shall be notified and shall promptly consult with County Legal Counsel to initiate abatement proceedings under chapter 15.04 of the code. H. Investigative Fees. Certain provisions of the state building code allow municipalities administering and enforcing a building inspection program to charge investigative fees for work commencing without the required permit. Policy: To maximize the incentives to comply with County Code, the County shall charge investigative fees, to the extent authorized by law, for permits sought for non -permitted construction or installation. Procedure: Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of non -permitted construction or installation, the information shall be submitted to Code Compliance staff, who shall enter the information into the Code Compliance Complaint Record. To the extent allowed by law, the County shall charge investigative fees for the permit(s) necessary to comply with the County Code. io Assisting Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies. In some cases, County Code violations also may constitute violations of federal and/or state statutes or administrative rule. For example, surface mining without County land use approval may also violate state statutes and administrative rules governing mining, and performing building construction without necessary permits may also constitute violations of state statutes and administrative rules governing the conduct of licensed contractors. Policy: To maximize code enforcement and the incentives for compliance, County staff shall promptly advise the appropriate federal and/or state agency of County Code violations reported or discovered that may also violate the statutes or administrative rules of that agency. The County shall also cooperate with federal or state agencies, to the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, to obtain voluntary compliance or to punish violations. The County may defer investigation and prosecution to the appropriate federal or state agency in cases in which, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, the federal or state agency enforcement procedure will result in more effective correction of the violation(s). Procedure: 1. Reporting. Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint regarding a County Code violation that may also constitute a violation of federal or state statute or administrative rule, the staff shall advise the appropriate federal or state agency. 2. Cooperation. To the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, County staff shall cooperate with the federal or state agency to obtain voluntary compliance or to prosecute and punish violations. That cooperation may include sharing information, conducting joint investigations, appearing as witnesses and/or providing evidence in enforcement proceedings, and coordinating the timing of investigations and/or enforcement proceedings to maximize their effectiveness. 15 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update 3, Deferral to Other Agency. The County may defer some or all code enforcement to a federal or state agency, and forego County Code enforcement, where the Board, CDD Director or the Director's designee determines that the federal or state enforcement activity will be more effective than County Code enforcement. In making the determination to defer to other agencies, the following factors shall be considered: a. The nature of the violation and necessary corrective action; b. The comparative severity of the penalties available to the federal or state agency and to the County; and c. The comparative time frames required for enforcement by the federal or state agency and by the County. J. County Cost Recovery. The County incurs costs investigating code violations and enforcing codes. They include the cost of personnel and equipment, legal advice and representation, service of citation, and administrative expenses. Policy: It is the policy of the County to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incentives for code compliance by recovering its reasonable code enforcement costs from code violators. Procedure: In determining whether to cite a code violator to court or to engage in the administrative hearings process, Code Compliance staff may consider which process will prompt code compliance and/or result in the maximum cost recovery to the CDD. K. Liens. In many cases, the most effective way for the County to recover its code enforcement costs, as well as to collect any civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, is to file a legal claim for those costs or penalties against the property subject to code enforcement, or against other property owned by the code violator. Policy: It is the County's policy to assure recovery of its costs, as well as the collection of civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, by filing claims for those costs and penalties in the form of liens on property subject to code enforcement, or upon other property owned by code violators. Procedure: In the appropriate cases, the County staff will explore with County Legal Counsel the means by which liens may be placed against the real property of the code violator for the collection of code enforcement costs and civil penalties assessed through County administrative hearings. XIl. RESOLUTION OF CODE COMPLAINTS Policy: It is the County's policy to attempt to reach final, satisfactory resolution of all code violation complaints. However, the County recognizes that not all complaints may be resolved successfully, due to factors outside the County's control. These factors can include the indigence of the code violator, the lack of County or other resources to assist the violator, statutory limitations on potential fines or other penalties for code violations, and the large number of complaints to be resolved. Therefore, the County shall focus its code enforcement resources on the code violations that meet the priorities set forth in Section V of this manual, and attempt to resolve those violations within a reasonable period. It is the County's policy not to close a case until it is resolved. Procedure: A. File Closure. A code violation complaint will be resolved by file closure in the following cases: 1. When no code violation is found after investigation; 2. After there is voluntary compliance; 3. After the property owner and/or other responsible person has been found guilty of a violation and has corrected the violation(s); 4. After an injunction has been issued and the property owner or other responsible person has corrected the violation(s); 16 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update 5. After investigation and prosecution of the violation(s) have been completed by a federal or state agency to which the County deferred code enforcement; 6. When the property on which the violation exists is sold or transferred and a new Code Enforcement case is opened in the name of the new owner. B. Notice of Resolution. The County shall notify complainant when the complaint is resolved, describing the resolution. C. Alternate Methods of Resolution. The County may explore alternate methods to resolve Code violations including mediation. XIII. AMENDMENTS This manual may be amended when deemed necessary by the CDD Director or designee, County Administrator, or the Board. Amendments may be proposed by County staff, Board members and other interested persons. 17 06.02.2021 DRAFT Manual Update Chapter 1.08. COUNTY POWERS * * * 1.08.025. Code Enforcement Powers; Designation. In addition to the authority and powers granted to the County by ORS Chapter 153, and any other provisions of the Deschutes County Code, and upon authorization of the supervising department head/elected official, the county job classifications listed below shall be deemed a "civil code enforcement officer" for purposes of DCC and ORS, and shall have full authority to issue and prosecute any and all citations for violations of the Deschutes County Code: A. Field Law Enforcement Technician; B. Code Enforcement Compliance TcchnicianSpecialist; C. Building Official; D. Assistant Building Official; E. Forester; F. Sanitarian/Environmental Health Specialist; G. Community Development Director; H. Planning Manager/Planning Director/Planner; I. Legal Counsel; and J. Assistant Legal Counsel (Ord. 2021-010, §1, 2021; Ord. 2020-005 2020; Ord. 2014-105 2014) Chapter 1.16. CODE VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT Violations Deemed Class A or B Classification -Penalties. A. Violation of a county ordinance shall be punishable, upon conviction, by fine or by the specific remedies specified within the County Code, including but not limited to equitable and injunctive relief ordered by a County Hearings Officer, Justice Court, or Circuit Court. B. Each county ordinance specifying a county offense shall classify the ordinance violation as a Class A or Class B violation. C. A sentence to pay a fine for a violation of a county ordinance shall be a sentence to pay an amount not exceeding the Maximum Fines provided in ORS 153.018. D. Notwithstanding this section and DCC 1. 16.030, for violations of Chapters 13.04, 13.08, 13.36, 15.04 and 15.10 and Titles 17 18 and 19, the Presumptive and Minimum fine amount shall be the Maximum Fine amount described in DCC 1.16.010(C). E. For violations of County Code provisions not listed in DCC 1.16.010(D), the Presumptive and Minimum Fine amounts shall be as provided in ORS Chapter 153. F. A land use application for a property with an existing code violation will be accepted, but may not be processed by the County based on application of DCC 2220.015. G. Notwithstanding DCC 1. 16.010(D), the court or the hearings officer may (but is not required) impose a fine lower than the fine provided in those two sections, upon an identified finding of mitigating factors including, but not limited to, indigence of the defendant, severity of the violation, number of times the defendant has been previously cited for Deschutes County Code violations; length of time the violation has existed; and reason(s) the violation has not been cured. (Ord. 2021-010, $2, 2021; Ord. 2020-001 §1 2020; Ord. 2015-020 §1, 2015; Ord. 2014-003§1, 2014; Ord. 2013-015 §1 2013; Ord. 2008-026 §1, 2008; Ord. 2003-021 §3, 2003; Ord. 2002-016 §1, 2002; 86-076 §1, 1986) * * * 1.16.035. Search warrants -Statutory Provisions Adopted. A. The definition of "offense" as set forth in ORS 161.505 is adopted: B. An offense is conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state. An offense is a crime or a violation. C. ORS 133.535 (3), which allows for property that has been used, or is possessed for the purpose of being used, to commit or conceal the commission of an offense to be the subject of search and seizure is adopted hereby by reference. D. Unless otherwise specified in DCC or ORS, t4he procedure established for obtaining search warrants as set forth in ORS 133.545 through 133.703 is adopted hereby by reference. (Ord. 2021-010, §2, 2021; Ord. 2003-021 2003; Ord. 96-025 §1, 1996) Chapter 1. 1 6 (12/2020) 1.16.040. Other Remedies Not Precluded injunctive Relief/Abatement. A. The procedure established by DCC 1. 16.010 through DCC 1. 16.060 shall be the exclusive procedure for imposing a fine; provided, however, such sections shall not prohibit, in any manner, alternative remedies, including but not limited to injunction, nor shall the County be prohibited from recovering any expense incurred in any injunction action including abatement. B. In addition to a fine, any citation for a violation of a county ordinance may include a request for injunctive relief and/or abatement of the violation. C. The county's representative may also request injunctive relief and/or abatement at the time of arraignment or trial. D. Upon entering judgment against a person for violating a county ordinance, the court may, in addition any other penalty imposed by law, enter orders for injunctive relief and/or abatement, requiring the person to cease and desist and to correct the violation(s). (Ord. 2021-010, §2, 2021; Ord. 2013-015 §1, 2013; Ord. 86-076 §4, 1986) *** Chapter 1. 16 2 (12/2020) ABATEMENT 1.16.100 Unenumerated nuisances. 1. The acts, conditions or objects specifically enumerated and defined within DCC and as applicable, are declared public nuisances and such acts, conditions or objects may be abated by any of the procedures set forth in Sections 1.16.115 and 1.16.140, et seq. 2. In addition to the nuisances specifically enumerated in this DCC, every other circumstance, substance or act which is determined by the Community Development Director or the County Administrator to be injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the County is declared a nuisance and may be abated as provided in Sections 1.16.115 and 1.16.140 et seq. 1.16.110 Continuing Violation. Each day that a nuisance continues to exist constitutes a separate violation and a separate penalty may be assessed for each day the violation continues. 1.16.115 Summary Abatement. The procedure(s) provided by DCC Chapter 1.16 are not exclusive, but are in addition to procedures provided by other sections of DCC. The Community Development Director or designee may proceed summarily to abate a health or other nuisance which unmistakably exists and which imminently endangers health or property. The cost of the summary abatement shall be paid by the property owner and shall be a lien on the property where the nuisance was abated. 1.16.120 Remedies Not Exclusive. The abatement of a nuisance is not a penalty for violating the nuisance provisions of DCC, but is an additional remedy. The imposition of a civil infraction fine or administrative penalty does not relieve a person of the duty to abate the nuisance. 1.16.130 Notice of Public Nuisance and Abatement Procedure. 1. If the Community Development Director or designee is satisfied that a public nuisance exists, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause a Notice of Abatement to be posted on the premises, or at the site of the nuisance, directing the person or persons in charge of the property to abate the nuisance. 2. At the time of posting, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause a copy of the Notice of Abatement to be forwarded by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the person or persons in charge of the property and the owner of the property, if different than the person in charge of property, (or registered agent) at the last known address of such person(s) as shown on the tax rolls of Deschutes County. 3. If the property is unimproved, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause a Notice of Abatement to be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the person or persons in charge of the property and the owner of the property, if different than the person in charge of property (or registered agent), at the last known address of such person(s) as shown on the tax rolls of Deschutes County. 4. If the registered/certified Notice of Abatement is returned as undeliverable or is unclaimed by the property owner, nothing shall preclude the County from exercising its option to abate the nuisance as specified herein in Section 1.16.140. 5. The Notice of Abatement to abate shall contain: A. A description of the real property, by street address or otherwise, on which the nuisance exists. B. A direction to abate the nuisance within 10 days from the date of notice. C. A description of the nuisance. D. A statement that unless the nuisance is removed, the County may abate the nuisance and the full cost of abatement including administrative charges will be charged to the person responsible and shall become a lien on the property. E. A statement that failure to abate a nuisance may warrant imposition of a fine or administrative penalty upon the person responsible for the nuisance. The fine or administrative penalty may be issued at any time there is a violation of this code. F. A statement that the person responsible may protest the order to abate by giving written notice to the Community Development Director or designee within 10 days from the date of the notice, together with a written statement as to why a nuisance should not be declared. 6. If the person in charge of the property is not the owner, an additional Notice of Abatement shall be sent to the owner at the time of posting of the Notice of Abatement stating that the cost of abatement not paid by the person responsible shall be assessed to and become a lien on the property. The notice to the owner shall be sent to his or her address as last shown on the Deschutes County tax rolls. 7. On completion of the posting and mailing, the persons posting and mailing shall execute and file with the Community Development Director or designee certificates stating the date and place of the mailing and posting. 8. The County shall use all reasonable means to provide notice to the person responsible. Failure to provide actual notice to the person responsible shall not void the procedure to abate the nuisance, however. 1.16.140 Abatement. 1. Abatement by the Owner or Person in Charge of Property. A. Within 10 days after posting and mailing the notice, as provided in this code, the owner or person in charge of the property shall remove the nuisance, present a plan to remove the nuisance or show that no nuisance exists. B. A person in charge of the property, disputing the declaration of nuisance shall file within ten (10) days with the Community Development Director or designee a written statement which shall specify the basis for the protest. C. If after review of the statements, the Community Development Director again determines that a nuisance in fact exists, the person responsible shall abate the nuisance within 10 days after the Community Development Director's final determination. D. If the person in charge of the property disagrees with the final determination of the Community Development Director, that person may appeal that determination to the County Administrator by filing a written statement within ten (10) days of the Community Development Director's final determination specifying the basis for the appeal. E. The County Administrator shall either affirm, overturn or modify the Community Development Director's decision. The decision of the County Administrator shall be the final action of the County. 2. Abatement by the County — Without Warrant. If the violation for which a Notice of Abatement has been issued is not corrected within the specified timeframe (within ten (10) days of the posting and/or mailing of the Notice of Abatement, or within ten (10) days of the Community Development Director's final determination of a dispute, or within ten (10) days of the decision of the County Administrator, and is considered an immediate public health and safety hazard, the Community Development Director may cause the nuisance to be abated without a warrant. 3. Abatement by the County — Nuisance Abatement Warrant Authorized. The Deschutes County Justice Court shall have the authority to issue warrants authorizing any County official authorized by the Community Development Director to enforce provisions of the Deschutes County Code to make searches and seizures reasonably necessary to enforce any provision of the Deschutes County Code pertaining to nuisances. A. Every warrant authorized by this section shall be supported by affidavit or sworn testimony establishing probable cause to believe that a nuisance violation has occurred, describing: 1. The applicant's status in applying for the warrant; 2. The ordinance or regulation requiring or authorizing the removal and abatement; 3. The building or property to be entered; the basis upon which cause exists to remove or abate the violation; 4. A statement of the violation to be removed or abated; and 5. A statement that consent to enter onto the property to abate the violation has been sought and refused or the facts and circumstances that reasonably justify the failure to seek or inability to obtain such consent. B. Cause shall be deemed to exist if there is reasonable belief that a code violation exists with respect to the designated property, and that the property owner and person in charge of the property have been given notice and an opportunity to abate the violation and has not responded in a timely fashion. C. The Justice Court may, before issuing an abatement warrant, examine the applicant and any other witness under oath and shall be satisfied of the existence of grounds for granting such application. If the Justice Court is satisfied that cause for the removal and abatement of the violation(s) exists and that the other requirements for granting the application are satisfied, the Justice Court shall issue the abatement warrant, particularly describing the person or persons authorized to execute the warrant, the property to be entered, and a statement of the general types and estimated quantity of the items to be removed or conditions abated. D. In issuing an abatement warrant, the Justice Court may authorize any peace officer, as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes, to enter the described property to remove any person or obstacle and to assist in any way necessary to enter the property and, remove and abate the violation. E. Execution of Abatement Warrants 1. Occupied Property. In executing an abatement warrant, the person authorized to execute the warrant shall, before entry into the occupied premises, make a reasonable effort to present the person's credentials, authority and purpose to an occupant or person in possession of the property designated in the warrant and show the occupant or person in possession of the property the warrant or a copy thereof upon request. A copy of the warrant shall be left with the occupant or the person in possession. The warrant is not required to be read aloud. 2. Unoccupied Property. In executing an abatement warrant on unoccupied property, the person authorized to execute the warrant need not inform anyone of the person's authority and purpose, but may promptly enter the designated property if it is at the time unoccupied or not in the possession of any person. In such case a copy of the abatement warrant shall be conspicuously posted on the property. 3. Return. An abatement warrant must be executed within 14 working days of its issue and returned to the Justice Court by whom it was issued within 14 working days from its date of execution. After the expiration of the time prescribed by this subsection, the warrant, unless executed, is void. 4. If an abatement warrant to secure entry onto the property subject to the notice of violation has been obtained, no property owner, occupier, or other person in charge of the property, shall refuse, fail or neglect, after proper request, to promptly permit entry by authorized persons to abate the violation(s). It shall be unlawful for any property owner, occupier, or other person in charge of the property to refuse to permit entry by authorized persons to abate the violations for which an abatement warrant has been obtained. Violation of this subsection is a Class B Violation. 4. The Community Development Director or designee shall have the final authority to decide whether or not to enter onto property to abate a violation in each particular case. 5. Joint Responsibility. If more than one person is a person in charge of the property, they shall be jointly and severally liable for abating the nuisance or for the costs incurred by the County in abating the nuisance. 1.16.145 Abatement Cost, Notice, and Collection. 1. The property owner and all persons in charge of the property shall be jointly and severally liable for all costs associated with the abatement of a nuisance or violation, including administrative costs, warrant costs, and attorney fees. 2. The Community Development Director or designee shall keep an accurate record of the expense incurred by the County for abatements. After the violations have been determined by the County to be corrected, the Community Development Director or designee shall mail to the owner and persons in charge of the property an Abatement Costs Notice which includes: A. The total costs of abatement; B. Notification that the costs of abatement shall become a lien against the property; and C. Notification that if the owner objects to the Abatement Cost Notice: 1. The owner may request a quasi-judicial hearing with the Hearings Officer by delivering to the County a written protest and request for a hearing within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notification to the owner was mailed. 2. If a written protest and request for a hearing was not submitted for a quasi-judicial hearing with the Hearings Officer within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the notification to the owner was mailed, then a written protest and request for a hearing before the County Administrator may be submitted up to six months the date the notification was mailed to the owner. The decision of the County Administrator is final. 3. Collection and Abatement Costs. A. The costs listed in the Abatement Costs Notice shall be delinquent if not paid within thirty (30) days from later of the date of the notice or from the date on which the County Administrator makes a final decision on a protest. B. If the abatement costs are delinquent, the amount due may accrue interest at 10% per annum. C. The abatement costs shall be entered in the docket of county liens with the County Clerk, and shall constitute a lien upon the property that was in violation of the county code. In addition, the Abatement Costs Notice shall constitute a personal obligation of the owner and persons in charge of the property. The County may seek a money judgment against the owner and/or persons in charge of the property through the Justice Court. 1. The lien may be enforced in the same manner as liens for assessments for local improvement districts. Failure to pay may result in foreclosure in any manner provided by law. 2. An error in the name of the owner shall not void the lien, nor shall a failure to receive the notice render the lien void, but it shall remain a valid lien against the property. D. The Community Development Director shall have the final authority to decide what form of remedy the County will pursue for collecting abatement costs. 1.16.150 Habitual Nuisance Property. Any property within the unincorporated County which becomes habitual nuisance property as defined in this subsection or elsewhere in county code or as declared by the Deschutes County Sheriff, is in violation of this chapter and subject to its remedies. Any person who permits property under his or her ownership or control to be a habitual nuisance property shall be in violation of this chapter and subject to its remedies. No person shall allow a residential dwelling to become a habitual nuisance property. A. Definition. Habitual Nuisance Property means property upon which three (3) or more incidents of any of the below listed behaviors occur, or whose employees, residents, owners or occupants engage in three or more incidents of any of the below listed behaviors within 50 feet of the property, during any 30 day period as a result of three or more separate and documented incidents. ("Incidents" shall be defined as any citation, report, arrest, and/or conviction.) 1. Harassment as defined in ORS 166.065. 2. Intimidation as defined in ORS 166.155. 3. Disorderly conduct as defined in ORS 166.025. 4. Discharge of a firearm as defined in DCC. 5. Noise disturbance as defined in DCC. 6. Minor in possession of alcohol as defined in ORS 471.430. 7. Assault as defined in ORS 163.160, or ORS 163.165 to 166.185. 8. Sexual abuse as defined in ORS 163.415 or 163.427. 9. Public indecency as defined in ORS 163.465. 10. Trespass as defined in ORS 164.245 to 165.265. 11. Criminal mischief as defined in ORS 164.345 to ORS 164.365. 12. Child Abuse and neglect as defined in ORS 163.535 to ORS 163.547 and ORS 163.665 to ORS 163.695. 13. Possession of a Controlled Substance as Defined in ORS 475.992. 14. Delivery of a controlled substance as defined in ORS 475.005. 15. Manufacture of a controlled substance as defined in ORS 475.005. 16. Frequenting a place where controlled substances are used as defined in ORS 167.222. Abatement Procedure for Habitual Nuisance Property: Notice. A. When the Sheriff or designee believes in good faith that property within the unincorporated County has become habitual nuisance property, the Sheriff or designee shall notify the owner and the occupant, if known, in writing that the property has been determined to be habitual nuisance property. The notice shall contain the following information: 1. The street address or description sufficient for identification of the property. 2. That the Sheriff or designee has found the property to be habitual nuisance property with a concise description of the conditions leading to his/her findings. 3. A direction to notify the Sheriff or designee in writing within 15 days from the date of mailing the notice of the actions the owner intends to take to abate the nuisance. 4. A direction to abate the nuisance, or show good cause to the Sheriff or designee why the owner cannot abate the nuisance, within 60 days from the date of mailing the notice. 5. That if the nuisance is not abated and good cause for failure to abate is not shown, the Community Development Director may order abatement, with appropriate conditions. The Community Development Director may also employ any other remedy deemed by him/her to be appropriate to abate the nuisance, including but not limited to authorizing a civil complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction which may include seeking closure of the property. 6. That the owner may be required to pay to the County a civil penalty for each day the nuisance continues after the Community Development Director orders abatement. 7. That the above remedies are in addition to those otherwise provided by law. B. Service of the notice is completed upon mailing the notice first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: 1. The owner at the address of the property believed to be a habitual nuisance property, and to such other address as shown on the tax rolls of the county in which the property is located or such other place which is believed to give the owner actual notice of the determination by the Sheriff or designee. 2. A copy of the notice shall be served on occupants of the property, if different from the owner. Service shall be completed upon mailing the notice by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to "occupant" or each unit of the property believed to be a habitual nuisance property. 3. The failure of any person or owner to receive actual notice of the determination by the Sheriff or designee shall not invalidate or otherwise affect the proceedings under this chapter. 1.16.155 Abatement Procedure for Habitual Nuisance Property. 1. Notice by Sheriff. A. Within 15 days of the posting and mailing of the notice, the owner shall notify the Sheriff in writing of the actions that owner intends to take to abate the nuisance. B. Within 60 days of the posting and mailing of the notice, the owner shall abate the nuisance or show good cause to the Sheriff or designee why the owner cannot abate the nuisance within that time. C. If the owner does not comply with subsection A or B of this section, the Sheriff or designee may refer the matter to the County Administrator for a hearing. The Community Development Director or designee shall give notice of the hearing to the owner and occupants, if different from the owner. At the time set for hearing the owner and occupants may appear and be heard by the County Administrator. The County Administrator shall determine whether the property is habitual nuisance property and whether the owner has complied with subsection A and B of this section. 2. Remedies by County Administrator. A. In the event the County Administrator determines that property is a habitual nuisance property and the owner has failed to comply with Section (1) above, the County Administrator may order that the nuisance be abated. The order may include conditions under which abatement is to occur. The County Administrator may also employ any other remedy deemed by it to be appropriate to abate the nuisance, including but not limited to authorizing a civil complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction which may include seeking closure of the property. B. If the person in charge of the property disagrees with the final determination of the County Administrator, that person may appeal that determination to the County Hearings Officer by filing a written statement within ten (10) calendar days of the County Administrator's final determination specifying the basis for the appeal and paying applicable appeal fees or deposits per the Community Development Department's Fee Schedule. C. The Hearings Officer shall either affirm, overturn or modify the County Administrator's decision. The decision of the Hearings Officer shall be the final action of the County. D. The remedies in this section are in addition to those otherwise provided by law. 3. Assessment of Costs for Habitual Nuisance Property. A. The Community Development Director or designee, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, shall send to the owner and the person in charge of property a notice stating: 1. The total cost of abatement, including the administrative overhead. 2. That the cost as indicated will be assessed to and become a lien against the property unless paid within 30 days from the date of the notice. 3. That if the owner or person responsible objects to the cost of the abatement as indicated, a notice of objection may be filed with the Community Development Director no more than 10 days from the date of the notice. B. On the expiration of 10 days after the date of the notice, the Community Development Director shall hear and make a decision on the objections to the costs assessed. C. If the costs of the abatement are not paid within 30 days from the date of the notice, the assessment of the costs shall be entered in the docket of the county liens with the County Clerk. When the entry is made it shall constitute a lien on the property from which the nuisance was removed or abated. D. The lien shall be enforced in the same manner as liens for improvement districts and/or street improvements are enforced and interest shall begin to run from the date of entry of the lien in the lien docket E. The County shall use all reasonable means to provide notice of the assessment to the person responsible. However, an error in the name of the owner or person responsible shall not void the assessment, nor will a failure to receive the notice of the proposed assessment render the assessment void, but it shall remain a valid lien against the property. 1.16.160 Appeal of Code Compliance Interpretation. 1. Any reporting party who disagrees with a Code Compliance Specialist decision may appeal this decision to the Community Development Director by making application on forms provided by the County and paying the required fees. The appeal application shall include: A. The name and address of the person(s) submitting the appeal. B. The street address or a description sufficient for identification of the property upon which the alleged violation has occurred or is occurring. C. A detailed description of the alleged violation and a reference to the specific laws, regulations, County Code, or permit conditions that has allegedly been misinterpreted or applied. D. Additional burden of proof as to why the Code Enforcement Officer's decision is incorrect demonstrating why the decision should be reversed or modified. 2. Upon receiving an appeal application, the County shall schedule a hearing with the Community Development Director within thirty (30) days. Notification of the hearing shall be made to both the person(s) appealing the decision and person(s) or property owner directly impacted by the decision no less than twenty (20) days prior to the hearing by certified mail, return receipt requested. 3. The following hearing procedures shall apply to the hearing before the Community Development Director: A. Subject to requirements of County Code, the Community Development Director may adopt additional procedures to conduct of the hearing. B. Evidence, including rebuttal evidence, may be presented at the hearing and shall be limited to that which is relevant to the alleged interpretation. C. If the appellant fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Community Development Director will enter an order finding that the Code Enforcement Officer's decision was valid and assessing the cost of the hearing against the appellant. D. The Community Development Director has the authority to administer oaths and take the testimony of witnesses. E. The parties shall have the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify. F. The Community Development Director shall determine whether the appellant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Code Enforcement Officer's decisions should be reversed or modified. G. The Community Development Director shall hear the appeal de novo. The decision of the Community Development Director is final. H. The County shall mail a copy of the decision to the appellant, applicable department director, Code Enforcement Officer and all parties of record within ten -working days of the hearing. If the Community Development Director determines that the appellant is correct, the County shall pursue correction or abatement as provided in County Code. 1.16.170 Penalties. 1. Any person or person who shall be found to be an owner and/or a person in charge of property for a nuisance, or otherwise guilty of a violation of any of the provisions of the County Code shall be subject to the penalty provisions set forth herein. 2. All persons responsible shall be liable for any injuries resulting from a violation of the County Code. 3. Any violations of this Section 1.16 shall be deemed a Class B Civil Infraction. 1.16.180 Separate Violations. 1 1. For habitual nuisance property, a nuisance continues to exist if there is any further single occurrence of a behavior listed in the definitions of habitual nuisance property upon the property or by any employee, resident, owner or occupant within 50 feet of the property. 2. The abatement of a nuisance is not a penalty for violating this ordinance, but is an additional remedy. The imposition of a penalty does not relieve a person of the duty to abate the nuisance; however, abatement of a nuisance within ten (10) days of the date of notice to abate, or if a written protest has been filed, then abatement within ten (10) days of the Community Development Director's determination that a nuisance exists will relieve the person responsible from the imposition of any or administrative penalty under these code provisions. Chapter 13.12. GENERAL PROVISIONS *** 13.12.041. Definition -Abandoned Vehicle * ** 13.12.126. Definition -Inoperable Vehicle * * * 13.12.041. Definition -Abandoned Vehicle. "Abandoned Vehicle" means any vehicle which reasonably appears to be inoperable, wrecked, discarded, abandoned or totally or partially dismantled. (Ord. 2021-010 §3, 2021) 13.12.126. Definition -Inoperable Vehicle. "Inoperable Vehicle" means any vehicle that has broken or missing windows, windshield, inoperative wheels or tires, lacks an engine or has an inoperable engine or lacks a transmission or has an inoperable transmission. (Ord. 2021-010, §3, 2021) * ** 13.12.205. Definition -Solid Waste. "Solid Waste" means all useless or discarded putrescible and non-putrescible materials, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, refuse, ashes, paper and cardboard, sewage sludge, septic tank and cesspool pumpings or other sludge, useless or discarded commercial, industrial, demolition and construction materials, discarded or abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi -solid materials, dead animals and infectious waste, or other discarded solid material. _"Solidwaste" means all putrescible and nonputresciblc waste, whether in solid or liquid form, except liquid carried industrial waste or sewage or sewage sludge hauled as an incidental part of a septic tank or cesspool cleaning service, but including garbage, rubbish, ashes, paper, cardboard, sewage sludge, street refuse, industrial waste, infectious waste, swill, demolition and construction waste, inoperative and/or unlicensed or dismantled or partially dismantled vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home or industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid waste, dead animals or other discarded solid material. (Ord. 2021-010, §3, 2021; Ord. 92-071 §1, 1992; Ord. 91-004 §1, 1991; Ord. 85-037 §4.01, 1985) * ** 13.12 1 (05-21) Chapter 13.36. NUISANCES AND ABATEMENT 13.36.010. Creation of Nuisance. Except as otherwise authorized under DCC 13.36, no person shall create or maintain a nuisance on private property. Such nuisances are declared to be public nuisances which may be abated as provided under DCC 15.04.070, DCC 1.16, or by instituting iudicialcourt proceedings. (Ord. 2021-010, §4, 2021; Ord. 95-002, §1, 1995; Ord. 85-037 §12.01(1), 1985) 13.36.012. Definition -Nuisance. A. "Nuisance" includes: 1. All open holes, wells, cisterns, cesspools, or unsanitary septic tanks, foundations or non - operating refrigerators, freezers, or iceboxes with attached doors; 2. Accumulations of solid waste on private property in such a manner as to create a nuisance, hazard to health, or condition of unsightliness; Solid Waste defined under DCC 13.12.205SeI 4 waste; as defined under DCC 13.12.205; 3. Those definitions of nuisance pursuant to DCC 1.16.100, DCC 1.16.150, DCC 12.35.160, DCC 15.04.190, and DCC 18.144.040; or 4. Land that as a result of grading operations, excavation or fill causes erosion, subsidence or surface water drainage problems of such magnitude as to be injurious or potentially injurious to adjacent properties or to the public health, safety and welfare. B. Except as to regulations allowed by ORS 475B.486, and/or ORS 4758.928, generally accepted, reasonable and prudent farming and forest practices as described in ORS 30.930 to 30.937 and DCC 9.12 do not constitute nuisances under DCC 13.36.012. (Ord. 2021-010, §4, 2021; Ord. 2020-005 §1, 2020; Ord. 95-024 §13, 1995; Ord. 95-002 §4, 1995) 13.36.020. Disposal Site -Board Approval- Nuisances. Except as provided in DCC 13.16.020 and in the definition of "disposal site" in DCC 13.12.040, no person shall use or permit to be used any land within the County as a public or private disposal site without approval of the Board. The disposal of waste or solid waste in or upon such land is declared to be a public nuisance which may be abated as provided in DCC 1.16, DCC 13.36.050, or any other applicable provision of law. (Ord. 2021-010, §4, 2021; Ord. 85-037 §12.01(2), 1985) * ** 13.36.050. Abatement of Nuisances. A. Except as otherwise authorized under Deschutes County Code, the condition of a building or land which has been determined to constitute a nuisance is in violation of this code, and may be abated Chapter 13.36 1 (05/2021) 1 by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the procedures provided under DCC 1.16, DCC 15.04.070 (Abatement of Dangerous Buildings). B. Nothing in DCC 1.16 or DCC 13.36 shall be deemed to limit or otherwise modify the ability of the Board and/or any person who has suffered special damage from the nuisance, to abate nuisances through alternative remedies as provided for under the law. (Ord. 2021-010, §4, 2021; Ord. 95-002 §2, 1995; Ord. 88-002 §1, 1988; Ord. 85-037 §12.02, 1985) Chapter 13.36 2 (05/2021) TES 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Jessica Jacks, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Approval to Accept St. Charles Prevention Grant Award RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request permission from the Board to accept the St. Charles Foundation Community Benefit Grant for Alcohol Misuse Prevention. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The St. Charles Foundation Community Benefit Grant for Alcohol Misuse Prevention in the amount of $5,170 will support two paid high school student internships in order to further the work of our youth -driven committee, Teen Community Health Advocates (TCHA). TCHA strengthens County prevention efforts by incorporating youth leadership to ensure the efforts are local and effective for our community's young people. High school student interns are supervised by County staff. The role of our two paid youth positions will be focused on the following: • Co -facilitate Youth Leaders meetings • Set meeting agendas and prepare materials • Work alongside community professionals • Represent youth perspectives at local coalition in partnership with County staff • Assist with carrying out County staff action plans related to alcohol and other substance use prevention • Develop and conduct presentations to public officials and key community leaders • Recruit 5-7 additional Youth Leaders to assist with advocacy and youth perspectives FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: St. Charles Foundation Community Benefit Grant for Alcohol Misuse Prevention award of $5,170 will be spent as follows: • Materials and Services $4,700 • Indirect $470 Students will be hired through a temporary staffing agency; hourly rate is $16.32 inclusive of agency service fee of 25%. ATTENDANCE: Jessica Jacks, Prevention Programs Supervisor - via Zoom E S Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of June 7, 2021 DATE: June 2, 2021 FROM: Barrett Flesh, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Acceptance of Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant Award RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request approval to accept funds awarded for a Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On April 28, 2021, the Board approved Deschutes County Health Services' (DCHS) request to apply for Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant funds. The Oregon Health Authority has awarded a Measure 110 Grant to the DCHS Public Health/Behavioral Health Harm Reduction Program. The grant application requested $367,950.00 and OHA awarded half that amount, with a possibility of augmenting the award in the future. We are requesting approval to accept grant funds in the amount of $183,975.00. These funds will be used to: • Expand harm reduction services -syringe exchange, Naloxone distribution and viral testing - to people who are fragilely housed or completely unhoused and cannot access regularly scheduled outreach events. • Pilot a Hepatitis C testing program specifically for this population and for others who access DCHS' harm reduction services. • Collect data to design a Hepatitis C outreach treatment program for people identified as Hepatitis C positive who cannot access traditional treatment facilities. • Provide peer support services, outreach and engagement, and client supports for temporary housing, transportation and basic needs to increase engagement and connect with Naloxone training and treatment resources. The project will contract with a direct service worker (temporary part-time contracted staff) for six months to help with testing and reporting at all Syringe Exchange Program sites. In addition, a Behavioral Health Opioid Peer Support Specialist will continue to coordinate efforts with the Syringe Exchange Program to distribute Naloxone, provide basic needs supports, and increase outreach to injectors for engagement in treatment. The remainder of the funds will be used to purchase an outreach vehicle, Hepatitis C rapid tests, and harm reduction and basic needs supplies. The long-term goals are to use the data collected in 2021 to propel an ongoing, sustainable Hepatitis C testing and treatment program for high -risk patients through a field outreach program, and to increase engagement in treatment services via harm reduction strategies. This project aligns with DCHS Strategic plan goal: Identify and develop harm reduction and prevention strategies for at risk populations to reduce substance abuse and communicable disease transmission (e.g., syringe exchange). Harm reduction (including syringe exchange) is an evidence based model that reduces injury and death from viral transmission, bacterial infections, and overdose. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The awarded funds will be used as follows: Temporary help -one direct service worker (contractor) part-time for six months Purchase one outreach cargo/passenger vehicle Purchase harm reduction supplies Purchase Hepatitis C rapid tests Purchase Naloxone Purchase client supports (e.g., housing and transportation vouchers, tents, sleeping bags, hygiene supplies, etc.) Indirect (10% de minimis) TOTAL $ 20,000.00 45,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 52,250.00 15,000.00 16,725.00 $183,975.00 ATTENDANCE: Laurie Hubbard, Communicable Disease Prevention Coordinator; Barrett Flesh, Outpatient Complex Care Services Program Manager -- Via Zoom