The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-321-Minutes for Meeting July 14,2021 Recorded 7/26/20210 ESCo o G�<BOARD COMMISSIONERS F 13E10 NVV Wail Street, Ber1d, Oregon (54 1) 388-6570 9 : Co o ,� I''Af Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2021-321 Commissioners' Journal 07/26/2021 2:16:37 PM aJ�jSf.S�CG II�IIII�II"II'II�IIII'll�ll'll o L 2021-321 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES VII�i1.1Avi_ ME~f'TING PLA_7I"CRN res.-n'.t vve re C I i lri l` Io e s P J l Adair, AC, c 01"";/ De Bone, and' Phi C h a n Also P!,esent Were F riif< I '`op", )C � :)t�% 1, i\/ / atl) I�c3\hG L�01/iC', Cohn v C o nsel; an ' SI iron Keicr Board Exe, JL, AsslST nt `IV' a/00"1 CO! ° !"E rICC' id I l), "lIS i ee I .� \'b'c„` ho C,i"i0 iaec, recor"0ed and can be ac cessed .,i: thc, I esc J "_'_� C C%j f V Mieei:in� Por.ai vvebsi7,e httr)://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: The Board commented on the wildfire events that are occurring throughout Deschutes County. Sam Davis, Bend resident, provided comment on fire safety within Central Oregon. He asked the Commissioners to ban fireworks in Deschutes County until the droughts are over. He also commented on the amount of homeless encampments and the level of risk of fire that is caused and stresses the need to find a way to deal with homelessness. Mr. Davis suggests a camp development that has measures for BOC:C IVE:Im rlNG j U1-Y 14, 2021 PACE 1 OF 1/ preventing fire and to provide sanitation services. Nick Coatney, resident of Deschutes River Woods requested signs indicating river access. The Board indicated they would look into the request. Kathy Coatney, resident of Deschutes River Woods, commented on the need to improve fire safety and requests a ban on both legal and illegal fireworks. She is also concerned on overworking our firefighters and it is vital as a county we take a stand. Greg Bryant, resident of Deschutes River Woods would like to have a fireworks ban and all fires and doesn't want to see this paradise become like Paradise. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged numerous emails received through the Citizen Input line requesting a ban on fireworks. Commissioner Chang described his prior work with fuels reduction and his work to be done as a Commissioner and would hope to look at ignition sources in the County and understanding the risks associated. rnmmiccinncr Adair rAnnrtcrl RqU of firAc nrA hi imin rni icari anc d hn nrnnn-zorl `VI111I IIJJIV11�.1 , �uull 1 �NVI ��..... v,..,., �1 11....E ...1 .. .......1..... ....................... .......... `... �......�................ today the County should extend the fireworks ban to the end of August and then a review at that time. Commissioner DeBone reported the sales of fireworks halting and he is not supportive of a fireworks ban but is supportive of restrictions. Commissioner Chang feels all fire sources should be considered rather than just one ignition source. Commissioner DeBone commented on using ARPA funds to organize a managed homeless camp and optimize. Commissioner Adair wanted to go on the record to state she is supportive of the fireworks ban. She feels a comprehensive study will take too much time when we need to act now. Commissioner Adair doesn't see this is the time to delay safety with a study and she suggests that the community needs to be careful as 85% of fires are human caused. BOCC iVEFTING JULY 141 2 0 21 PAGF 2 OF 14 Commissioners DeBone and Chang would rather look at the ignition sources through data and analysis and take serious actions to address it at that time. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. ADAIR: Move approval of Consent Agenda CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Board Signature on Order No. 2021-030, for the proposed Road Name Assignment of Hedgehog Court ACTION ITEMS: 2. Consideration of Document No. 2021-624, Delegation of Authority for Grandview Fire Commissioner DeBone presented the need for the document. County Forester Ed Keith presented via Zoom conference call and reported on the need for the delegation of authority regarding the Grandview Fire. ADAIR: Move approval of Document No. 2021-624 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Discussion held on the purpose of Senate Bill 762 relative to wildfire on unprotected lands. Mr. Keith stated with the passing of the Bill the requirement is for counties to ensure those areas are fire protected by the year 2026. BOC:C ME FIN )U _Y 1/1, 2021 PAC_,E 3 OF 14 3. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-521, Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone Extended Agreement Jon Stark, Senior Director Redmond Economic Development, presented the document for consideration relative to Nosier, Inc. extended abatement of five years. Mr. Stark noted the company meets all of the criteria required and the duration of the abatement is connected to the number of jobs created and wage levels. ADAIR: Move Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-521 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 4. Discussion of Board Approval of FTE for Deschutes County Public H e.alth'ss u'`v Early Inter�_ent.on and ri itramrh 4Zar�Arac program Kathy Christianson and Amber Knapp, Health Services presented via Zoom conference call and reviewed the sexually transmitted disease services to be provided through the grant funding. The request is for an additional FTE limited duration public health nurse II for a limited duration of August 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. The Board offered support. Commissioner Adair pointed out an error on the staff report stating this was presented to the BOCC on July 12 but the Board did not meet on July 12 and was instead presented today, July 14. 5. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-054, Increasing Appropriation and Adding 1.0 Limited Duration FTE within the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2021-054 ADAIR: Second BOCC MUTING JU[" 14, 2021 'AGE: 4 0(= 1A VOTE: CHANG: ADAI R: DEBONE: Yes Yes Chair votes yes Motion Carried 6. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-538, Oregon Health Authority Intergovernmental Agreement for Local Public Health Authority Health Services staff Nahad Sadr-Azodi, Cheryl Smallman, Pamela Fergusson, and Tom Kuhn presented the services covered through the intergovernmental agreement via Zoom conference call. CHANG: Move approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-538 ADAI R: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAI R: Yes r1GRr1NF rhair writac vac Untinn (arriarl �.��....�.�. ..� ,,..�..., � �...� � ....... 7. Series 2012 Full Fair and Credit Obligation Refunding Proposal Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn presented information relative to outstanding bond issues and funding obligations. Mr. Munn reports on the option of refunding the series 2012 bonds which would save the County an estimated $2.2 million in debt interest expense over the remaining twelve years of the bond term. ADAIR: Move approval of Resolution No. 2021-056 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 13QCC: N/i! IT11NG Jlii._Y 1/, 2021 PACT 5 OF 14 8. American Rescue Plan Act Funding Discussion Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn and Budget Manager Dan Emerson presented an update on the status of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. Mr. Munn presented a list of eligible requests. The Board considered the requests and message to the community on the decisions of the investments. ADAIR: Move approval to honor the request of Bethlehem Inn, Redmond for $450,000 to complete conversion of the 1960s motel into a year round shelter with the capacity of up to 88 individuals per night. Commissioner Chang wants to be mindful there are a group of service providers that were ready to present a whole package at the City of Redmond joint meeting that had to be postponed. Commissioner Adair feels the project is worthwhile and doesn't see the issue of not approving it. ('nmmiccinnnr Arlmir r-nmmcntarl nn tha carini is nrnhlam anri the naPrl to apt \-%Jl I If I IIJJIVI 1\ 1 / �uu�� -I I n.-1— v.. -- .., �..v.... r. vv..�... ... — 1—.. 1... . 0-- the homeless out of the forest. DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Adair expressed concern about the impact to our Chambers of Commerce and businesses during the pandemic. Commissioner DeBone has also heard about the local business concerns and there may be an opportunity to define scenarios of the impacts to businesses during the COVID year. Mr. Munn will work with the Chambers to collect the data. The Board expressed general support of $1.5 million. Commissioner Adair commented on the Ronald McDonald House services for families in need that should be considered separately. Mr. Emerson noted the request could be moved into a different category. Commissioner DeBone would support the $100,000 request at this time. DEBONE: Support Ronald McDonald House Charities in the requested amount of $100,000 ADAIR: Second Discussion: Commissioner Chang sees the value but is not sure if it meets the urgent need and is worried about the flood of requests and proposals. VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Abstains DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Chang commented on the strand of business assistance and wonders if there should be an additional category for retro-active pay for employees that worked during the pandemic. Commissioner DeBone notes that this presents a situation of attempting (after -the -fact) to identify which employees were "heroic' during the pandemic (as opposed to those who apparently were not) to receive retro-payments. Commissioner Adair would I;I.o t., enn fi jrthor infnrmatinn rnmmiccinnor IIARnna mini drl lilts to caa a 11 r\C 111 .71-1- ILA 1111LI II II VI II Ito L I V I I. -I III I II -WI- vw.. ...i v.... .vv....... ...� ..v ... .� ... definition of the award criteria. The Board discussed child care needs. Commissioner DeBone pointed out a request of Little Kits Early Learning & Child Care. Commissioner Chang emphasizes the bulk of the money will be reserved for selection throughout the community. Commissioner DeBone is supportive of working with Bend Chamber and OSU Cascades for home based and registered child care efforts. Commissioner Chang would like to see a group formed to review these types of childcare options. Commissioner Adair noted the importance of child care opportunities and her support. Commissioner DeBone also expressed support. Commissioner Chang also supported but noted the lack of testing on this model of child care they are proposing. ADAIR: Move approval of the requested $1,000,000 by Little Kits Early Learning & Child Care the using the prior Board approved pool of $3,000,000 CHANG: Second BOCC ME F. s!NG IUULY 14, 2021 PAC-,E 7 OF 14 VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried DEBONE: Move approval for personal protective equipment requested $40,000 for UV sanitizer for the jail ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Chang raised the issue of the match proposal from the City of Bend for a managed camp sites. Commissioner DeBone would like to review and consider the vision and definition for the next step through possible phases. ('nmmiccinnor Arlmir ctroccorl tho noorl fnr mnro mental honith hncnitalc anri \.VIIIIIIIJJIVII\.1 / lA lA 11 ✓l.l `✓✓a.. t.1 tl Iv 1I��u Ivl Illvl .. .a..a,aw..�u.�.. .v✓�.a........i w..M permanent housing for the seriously mental ill population. ADAIR: Move approval of $500,000 towards the managed camp for the homeless Commissioner DeBone expressed support. Commissioner Chang proposed a match of $750,000. Commissioner Adair reminded everyone that the City of Bend only provided $70,000 funding for the Stabilization Center. Commissioner Chang asked the Commissioners to build a partnership with the City of Bend and challenged Commissioner Adair regarding funding by the County to support the Stabilization Center. CHANG: Move approval of allocation of $750,000 toward a managed camp partnership with the City of Bend DEBONE: Second BOC.0 NNE E IF INN JUILY I/,, 2021 PAGE 8 OF 1/i. VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAI R: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Chang requested that the Board consider regular joint meetings with the City of Bend. RECESS: At the time of 11:20 a.m. the Commissioners went into recess due to a safety concern in the building and reconvened at 11:32 a.m. Continued Discussion on Item #8 American Rescue Plan Act Funding Mr. Munn reviewed eligible COVID requests of Isolation Motel insurance expenses, Dr. Jeanne Young expenses for COVID testing, and continued support of the Veterans Village, and funding for administrative support of ARPA ADAIR: Move approval of $392,000 funding for ARPA administrative support, $100,000 funding for Bend Heroes Vets Village construction support, $15,000 funding for Dr. Young COVID testing, and $8,184 isolation motel liability insurance. CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Chang pointed out the Irrigation modernization request and commitment of dollars could stimulate work for next summer. This item was not included in the presented requests. Commissioner Chang would support $500,000. Finance will research the potential request and proposal and bring the item back to the Board. A media release will be drafted by the Communications Director. The Board will contact the organizations regarding the funding approvals. BOC:C" MEETING JUI Y 1 i, 2021 PAGE, 9 0F 141 9. SECOND READING of Ordinance No. 2021-010, An Ordinance Amending Sections of Deschutes County Code 1.08, 1.16, 13.12, and 13.36, Regarding Code Compliance John Griley, Community Development Department, presented the Ordinance for the second reading. ADAIR: Move approval of second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2021-010 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ADAI R: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2021-010 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes nr:p()KlF. ('hair wntoc zinc NAntinn r-irriarl V LLJ IN". �..11-1 VVL�...J y�..J. IYIVtIV11 �.1A I - EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 11:50 a.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property. The Board came out of Executive Session at 12:10 p.m. RECESS: At the time of 12:10 p.m. the Commissioners went into recess and reconvened at 1:04 p.m. 10.Staff Updates for Wildfire Mitigation Amendments - Senate Bill 762 Community Development Department Associate Planner Kyle Collins presented the discussion on Senate Bill 762 relative to wildfire hazard BOC:( MEETING JULY 146, 2021 PAGE: 10 OF 1/_,i. mitigation and the next item concerning Senate Bill 391 relative to rural ADUs. With SB762, there will be a wildfire programs advisory council created and a staff member will need to be appointed to represent Deschutes County. Commissioner Chang contacted ODF related to that advisory committee and there will be public meetings held for those processes. Three options were reviewed for next steps: nominating a local representative to serve on the wildfire programs advisory council, begin conversations with local fire protection districts, and comment on proposed administrative rules. Commissioner Adair commented on the hope of pre -approved ADU construction plans for an easier process for the community. 11.Discussion: SB 391 / Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation Community Development Department Senior Planner Tanya Saltzman presented the discussion on Senate Bill 391 relative to rural accessory dwelling units. An ADU cannot be used as a short term rental which will also ..J.Ja:....I . ar ri IkAs Cnlft� qiq r�r�int�r) ni it infnrmntinn nn firm r equlr e aUUIIIUI Ial c ILCI Ia. IVI... -.101 L111Q11 HUII IICU VUL II IIUI I I IUII\JI I vl I U I%.. Community Development Department webpage to provide resources for the community. Commissioner Adair thanked Community Development staff and Director Nick Lelack's work on the ADU concept. 12.House Bill 3295 / Marijuana Tax Revenue / Cannabis Advisory Panel Planning Manager Peter Gutowsky presented the conversation on House Bill 3295 and the direction on convening a Cannabis Advisory Panel (CAP) in order to receive marijuana tax revenue. The committee is required to be operative byJanuary 1, 2022 to document the County has met the obligations. The committee is required to provide recommendations based on three questions relative to use of moneys transferred to the County under ORS 475B.759, increases in public safety measures relative to marijuana use and entities, and issues presented by the production, processing, E_30CCC MEF INN JULY 14, 2021 PA(,,-,w 1 i OF 1�- wholesaling and distribution of marijuana in unincorporated areas of the county. Commissioner Chang feels to locate and retain members to serve on an advisory committee it is important to ensure that the Board gives serious consideration to recommendations of the advisory committee. Commissioner DeBone noted his ongoing disappointment that the Bill allows external interests to impose restrictions on Deschutes County relative to the use of MJ tax revenue. Commissioner Adair is supportive only because the funding is tied to the forming of the committee. Commissioner Chang expressed unconditional support for the committee. Mr. Gutowsky offered the Community Development Department could draft a list of members to be considered or whether the Board prefers a recruitment of members. Commissioner DeBone noted the water master, member of Sheriff's Office, member of EDCO, and member of the industry. Commissioner Chang suggested a member of the Chamber rather than EDCO. Commissioner Chang suggested a rural retail industry member. Commissioner Adair suggested convening the committee in October. Commissioner DeBone also recommended offering dinner at the committee i.ti r�rt A/Ir (�� to�n�c �i�i �nii�' r�rocoYll- �� I inA ntp to thin Pr-%nr l in t kia noVt- faw II IIeCUI g. IVII . l]ulV vvs, ny vvnl pF c.�ci t ain ld utj uu L.%- lV Li IL. "%Jul u II I LI Ili 1IVn I� vv weeks. 13.2021 Legislative Session Outcomes and Impacts Communications Director Whitney Hale presented the overview of legislation bills that may have fiscal or operational impact to County departments. PAC West Lobbyist Phil Scheuers was present via Zoom conference call and reported on the outcome of the legislative session. The number one priority was new circuit court judges and two judges were fully funded. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the work done by Commissioner Adair in her support of the new circuit courtjudges. Mr. Scheuers reviewed a summary of key bills. The next legislative calendar item will include a special session in September and three days of Legislative Days. There is a deadline of November 19 to have a pre -session file for any bill of interest of Deschutes County. BOCC ME ( lNG JUL.I' 14, 2021 PAGE 12 01 14 Commissioner Adair inquired on funding options for the much needed mental health housing. Mr. Scheuers noted there is money available but it is unclear of how the Oregon Health Authority will allocate that money. Interim Solid Waste Director Chad Centola presented a summary of upgrades the state's recycling system. One of the challenges in Oregon is standardized recycling and Mr. Centola reviewed items that will be seen through the rule making process. Public Health Manager Tom Kuhn gave an update on the tobacco retail licensing bill. Community Development Director Nick Lelack provided update on bills relative to land use and housing. Commissioner Chang expressed his opinion that PAC West needs to do better in providing connections with key legislators and suggested a possible change in the scope of work. Commissioners Adair and DeBone noted that the pandemic caused issues identified by Chang, noting that the Commissioners used to meet key legislators at the Capitol with the help of nAr- %n�.,� * r ...,,Y,,i� i.. ..,r !'hn,r %A,r , iifj nlc-n iiLo to coo tho ��i�il�hilit�i to r-1-%k. VVCJI. %-UIIIIIIIJJIUIICI LI101IE, VVUUIU Ui.7U nr\c LU acc uIC. UVUnUUun.y tv provide language to the proposed bills. Commissioner DeBone noted he felt the County had that opportunity. OTHER ITEMS: • Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp commented the EDCO lunch is scheduled for tomorrow. • Community Development Director Nick Lelack presented an update on Planning Commission candidate applicants and the upcoming interview process. Commissioner DeBone offered to participate in the interviews. • Mr. Kropp explained the recent Emergency Homeless Task Force discussion identified the need of having a facilitator and the City of Bend is interested in splitting the cost of the facilitator and a cost to the County would be $5,000. This need was identified for 6 meetings. Commissioner BOC:C NiEl:~ FINIIC jl. LY 14, 2021 P'AC,i::. 1:3 OF- 14 DeBone is supportive if we can find opportunities to end homelessness. The Board expressed support. AD OURN Beim; no further items to come before the Board, then Meeting \/vas adio a. ned at 3:43 p.m. DATI D % Day of 2021 for Lhe Deschutes 1-"ounty Board of _omrl"lission,ers. AL% S t>.. c i;rC ORI; 'NG SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONfit, CHAM , ,rfiE r1i AIIIIIR, COMi,v z..e51f NER � 0 S Cori COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2021 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.or 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. Effective June 30, 2021, COVID- based restrictions have been discontinued. Attendance/Participation options include: A) In Person Attendance and B) 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. 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 by 8:00a.m. before the start of the meeting will be included in the meeting record. Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are 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. For Public Hearings, the link to the Zoom meeting will be posted in the Public Hearing Notice as well as posted on the Deschutes County website at https://www.deschutes.or /g bcc/page/public- hearing-notices. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: For items not on this Agenda Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by 8:00 am on the day of the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Board signature on Order number 2021-030 for the proposed Road Name Assignment of Hedgehog Court ACTION ITEMS 2. ADD: Consideration of Document No. 2021-624, Delegation of Authority for Grandview Fire 3. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-521, Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone Extended Agreement 4. Discussion of Board Approval of FTE for Deschutes County Public Health's HIV Early Intervention and Outreach Services Program 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 2021-054 Increasing Appropriations and Adding 1.0 Limited Duration FTE within the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget. 6. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-538, Oregon Health Authority Intergovernmental Agreement for Local Public Health Authority 7. Series 2012 Full Faith and Credit Obligation Refunding Proposal 8. American Rescue Plan Act Funding Discussion 9. 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 2021-010 - An Ordinance Amending Sections of Deschutes County Code 1.08, 1.16, 13.12 and 13.36, Regarding Code Compliance LUNCH RECESS 10. Staff Updates for Wildfire Mitigation Amendments - Senate Bill 762 11. Discussion: SB 391 / Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation 12. House Bill 3295 / Marijuana Tax Revenue / Cannabis Advisory Panel July 14, 2021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING Page 2 of 3 13. 2021 Legislative Session Outcomes and Impacts OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN 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. July 14, 2021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING Page 3 of 3 Sharon Keith From: Susan Brodeur <smbrodeur@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 2:24 PM To: citizeninput Subject: Extend the Deschutes County ban on fireworks through the end of August [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Good afternoon, Today it was announced that *"The City of Bend will extend its ban on personal fireworks through the end of August, saying the continued drought conditions make the risk for fires too high:" I strongly urge Deschutes County to extend the fireworks ban through August as well. Many of us with homes outside the city limits are currently living in fear of fire, especially as our arid neighborhoods have no fire hydrants. Emergency response to fire here is more limited and difficult. At our house here in the Tumalo area, we've had our "go bags" packed and sitting by the front door since July 2nd Please extend the fireworks ban; we don't want to lose our homes or our lives to a fire. Thank you. Susan Brodeur Whispering Pines/Long Butte Resident *Source: https•//centraloregondaily.com/city-of-bend-extends-fireworks-ban-through-august/ Sharon Keith From: Taryn Reynolds -Mantel <treynoldseco@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 3:13 PM To: citizeninput Subject: Fwd: Fireworks Ban [EXTERNAL EMAIL] To Whom It May Concern, Please, please, please, ban all fireworks this year in Deschutes county. We are in a horrible drought and it does not seem right to have fireworks being set off in this incredibly dry weather. Please consider extending the ban for the rest of this year. It is the right thing to do for our county. Thank you, Taryn Reynolds Sent from my iPhone i \ I cs CMG BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: Enterprise Zone - Extended Abatement Agreement - Nosier RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the Agreement for Oregon Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement for Nosler, Inc. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: All employment lands in the City of Redmond are part of a State enabled economic development designation known as the Enterprise Zone (E-Zone). This program allows qualifying businesses and investments to receive a 100% abatement of property taxes associated with the assessed value of new qualifying capital improvements. Companies continue to pay taxes on the value of the land and any capital investments that are not eligible for the abatement. Depending upon the nature of the State program being used, E-Zone abatements can range from three (3) years; to five (5) years (known as the Extended program), to as many as (fifteen) 15 years (known as the Long -Term Rural program). The duration of the abatement is connected to the number of jobs created and wage level. The three-year abatement does not have an average wage requirement. However, the Extended and Long -Term Rural programs require wages that are certified at or above 150% of Deschutes County average annual compensation ($71,393). Compensation under the criteria includes salary, overtime, medical and retirement benefits. Not all jobs created need to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria, but rather an average of the overall compensation for all net new jobs needs to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria. Extended abatements are done through agreements by the E-Zone sponsor(s) which extend the tax abatement for either one or two years beyond the standard three-year abatement. Extended abatements need to be approved by the sponsor(s) of the E-Zone. It is the prerogative of the sponsor agency whether the approval is made by the governing body or administratively. The Greater Redmond Area E-Zone has three co-sponsors: The City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and the City of Sisters. The City of Redmond's policy is that the Redmond City Council approves all extended E-Zone agreements. Additionally, the City of Redmond waives or reduces, depending upon specific set criteria, land - use, building and permitting fees. PROJECT: Nosler, Inc has been operating its casing manufacturing facility in Redmond since 2016 and their bullet manufacturing business Bend since 1958. The company has seen tremendous growth over the past few years and is out of room at the Bend factory. Nosler purchased 60 acres of land in Redmond 2015 for the casing manufacturing operation. With current demand exceeding expectations they have determined anew state of the art 80,000 square foot facility is needed now and plan on relocating the company to Redmond. Nosler is well known in the industry for producing ammunition and handloading components and specializing in high performance hollow point and soft point hunting bullets. The current company also includes subsidiaries Nosler Custom and Nosler Reloading. Nosler also produces products for military and law enforcement agencies. Nosler submitted an application in April 2021 requesting an extended abatement. The project being undertaken is construction of a new building and new equipment, the relocation of all operations. Total project cost is estimated at $13.5 million, which includes equipment eligible for exemption, if approved for 5 years. Roughly $12 million is capital construction and $1.5 million is capital equipment. This does not include the nearly $7 million in transferred property presently on the County tax roll and not eligible for exemption. The firm will relocate 103 jobs to Redmond and will create at least an additional 14 new jobs in Redmond by the first year of exemption (estimated to be 2023). The application and wage documentation have been certified above 150% by City Manager Keith Witcosky and Enterprise Zone Manager, Jon Stark. This E-Zone Extended Abatement Agreement is for two additional years. BUDGET IMPACTS: This action will extend the property tax abatement for the qualified project by two years, impacting the County's property tax collections. The County's apportionment of the abatement is estimated to be $9,800/year. ATTENDANCE: Jon Stark, Sr. Director, Redmond Economic Development, Inc./EDCO Enterprise Zone Manager WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER REDMOND AREA ENTERPRISE ZONE SPONSORS TO EXTEND PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TO [FOUR/FIVE] CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN TOTAL FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY Nosler, Inc.] The sponsors of the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone comprising the governing bodies of [the City of Redmond, Sisters and Deschutes County] (hereinafter the "Zone Sponsor") and Nosler Inc. (hereinafter the "Firm") do hereby enter into an agreement pursuant to ORS 285C.160 for extending the period of time in which the Firm will receive a property tax exemption on its [proposed] investment[s] in qualified property in the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone contingent on certain special requirements. The Zone Sponsor and the Firm jointly acknowledge: That subject to the Finn's timely submission of an application for authorization, the satisfaction of applicable requirements under ORS 285C.050 to 285C.250 (the "Statute"), and the Zone Sponsor's approval thereof, the Firm is eligible for three years of property tax exemption on its qualified property. So long as the Firm elects to continue to receive this property tax exemption and continues to qualify, then this agreement shall have no effect on this three-year exemption. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the qualification requirements of the Statute. If the Firm loses its qualified status for any reason set forth in the Statute, then this agreement becomes null and void. The Zone Sponsor extends The Firm's property tax exemption an additional two years on all property that initially qualifies in the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise after the initial assessment year beginning on January 1, 2023 and, thus, sets a total period of exemption of five consecutive years during which statutory requirements for the standard three-year enterprise zone exemption must also be continuously satisfied. CONFIRMATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS In order to receive the additional two years of enterprise zone exemption granted herein, the Firm agrees under 285C. I 60(3)(a)(A) that for each year of the entire exemption period, including the first three years and the additional one or two years, all of the Firm's new employees will receive an average rate of compensation equal to or greater than 150 percent of the county average annual wage, as determined at the time the enterprise zone tax exemption is authorized in accordance with the specific definitions and guidelines in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 123, Division 674 (123-674-0600), the "Compensation standard" FM Only "Affected Employees" are counted. Affected Employees means persons, positions or jobs under ORS 285C.050(13) that satisfy the following criteria: (a) included as "employment of the firm" in accordance with OAR 123-674-0200; and (b) new jobs filled for the first time: (A) after the date of Application under ORS 285C.140(1), even if an individual filling the job is already employed by the eligible business firm in another position that is refilled within the zone; and (B) on or before December 31 at the end of the initial exemption year, and located within the current boundaries of the Greater Redmond Area Enterprise Zone. Only full-time, year-round and non -temporary employees engaged a majority of their time in the Firm's eligible operations consistent with ORS 285C.135 including but not limited to persons who perform eligible activities as described in OAR 123-674-1100 or 123-674-1200(3) or (4) and OAR 123-674-0200 are counted, regardless of whether such employees are leased, contracted for or otherwise obtained through an external agency or are employed directly by the Firm. LOCAL ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS The Zone Sponsor does not request any requirement of The Firm and relinquishes all rights to make the additional [one/two] years of property tax exemption granted herein contingent on additional requirements that might otherwise be reasonably requested under ORS 285C.160(a)(B).] ACCEPTING FOR THE CO-SPONSORS OF THE GREATER REDMOND AREA ENTERPRISE ZONE: Signature: Signature: Signature: George Endicott, Mayor, City of Redmond Tony DeBone, Board Chair, Deschutes County Michael Preedin, Mayor, City of Sisters Date: Date: Date: ACCEPTING FOR THE FIRM: Signature: Representative Signature Printed Name / Title Address City, State, Zip Phone /Fax Email Date: CITY OF REDMOND STAFF REPORT DATE: June 8, 2021 TO: Redmond City Council CITY HALL 411 SW 9"' STREET REDMOND, OR 97756 541.923.7710 FAX: 541.548.0706 info(a)_redmondoregon.gov redmondoregon.gov THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Five Year Enterprise Zone Abatement - Nosier Addresses Council Goal: 4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Develop and maintain an environment that promotes and supports a strong, healthy and diverse economic base. B. Maintain Redmond's reputation as "the place to do business in Central Oregon". i. Provide incentive programs that are regionally and nationally competitive and targeted towards businesses that benefit the community through the creation of family -wage jobs. Report in Brief: This action requests City Council approve an Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement Agreement (for a total of five years) for Nosier, Inc. for qualifying property tax abatement based on capital investment, new job creation and wages. Background: All employment lands in the City of Redmond are part of a State enabled economic development designation known as the Enterprise Zone (E-Zone). This program allows qualifying businesses and investments to receive a 100% abatement of property taxes associated with the assessed value of new qualifying capital improvements. Companies in this program, pay taxes on the value of the land and any capital investments that are not eligible for the abatement. There are three primary types of State Enterprise Zone Programs: - Three Year Program (granted by right for eligible applicants); - Four or Five Year Program (known as the Extended program) where years four and five are approved by the Zone Sponsor (City/County); - Seven to 15-year Program (known as the Long -Term Rural program) and approved by Zone Sponsor. The duration of the abatement is linked to the number of jobs created and wage level. The three-year abatement does not have an average wage requirement. However, the Extended and Long -Term Rural programs require wages that are certified at or above 150% of Deschutes County average annual compensation (currently $71,393). The three year program also does not require approval by the City/County where the company is located. They are approved administratively and do not require City Council action. Compensation under the criteria includes salary, overtime, medical and retirement benefits. Not all jobs created need to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria, but rather an average of the overall compensation for all net new jobs needs to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria. Extended abatements are done through agreements by the E-Zone sponsor(s) which extend the tax abatement for either one or two years beyond the standard three-year abatement. Extended abatements need to be approved by the sponsor(s) of the E-Zone. It is the prerogative of the sponsor agency whether or not the approval is made by the governing body or administratively. The Greater Redmond Area E-Zone has three co-sponsors: The City of Redmond; Deschutes County; and the City of Sisters. The City of Redmond's policy is that the Redmond City Council approves all extended E-Zone agreements. Additionally, the City of Redmond waives or reduces, depending upon specific set criteria, land -use, building and permitting fees. Discussion: Since 2016, Nosier, Inc has been operating its casing manufacturing facility in Redmond. Nosier's holdings in Redmond include a 60-acre parcel which they purchased in 2015. The bullet manufacturing business has been in Bend since 1958. The company has experienced tremendous growth over the past few years and has outgrown its Bend facility. With product demand exceeding expectations they have determined a new state of the art 80,000 square foot facility is needed and they plan on relocating the entire company to Redmond. Nosier is well known in the industry for producing ammunition and handloading components and specializing in high performance hollow point and soft point hunting bullets. The current company also includes subsidiaries Nosier Custom and Nosier Reloading. Nosier also produces products for military and law enforcement agencies. In April 2021, Nosier submitted an application to the Zone Manager, requesting an extended abatement. The investment will include construction of a new building and new equipment. Total project cost is estimated at $13.5 r_ million, which includes equipment eligible for exemption, I�:r for r o years. Of the $13.5 million, approximately $12 million is capital construction and $1.5 million is capital equipment. This does not include the nearly $7 million in transferred property presently on the County tax roll and not eligible for the tax exemption. The firm will relocate 103 jobs to Redmond and will create at least 14 additional jobs by the first year of the exemption (estimated to be 2023). The application and wage documentation have been certified above 150% by City Manager Keith Witcosky and Enterprise Zone Manager, Jon Stark. This E-Zone agreement allows for two additional years, from the Standard Program (the Three Year program). Fiscal Impact: This action will extend the property tax abatement for the qualified project by two years, impacting the City of Redmond's property tax collections. The City of Redmond's apportionment of the abatement is estimated to be $35,457/year. Alternative Courses of Action: 1. Approve the Agreement for Oregon Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement for Nosier, Inc. 2. Do not approve the Agreement for Oregon Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement for Nosier, Inc. in which the firm would still be eligible for the "Standard" abatement of three (3) years. 3. Request more information. Recommendation / Suggested Motion: "I move to approve the Agreement for Oregon Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement for Nosier, Inc.". Meeting Date: July 14, 2021, Type: Regular Meeting Subject: Five -Year Enterprise Zone Abatement-Nosler Action Requested: Staff: Misley Dept: CMO This action requests City Council approve an Enterprise Zone Extended Abatement Agreement (for a total of five years) for Nosler, Inc. for qualifying property tax abatement based on capital investment, new job creation and wages. Summary Points: All employment lands in the City of Redmond are part of a State enabled economic development designation known as the Enterprise Zone (E-Zone). This program allows qualifying businesses and investments to receive a 100% abatement of property taxes associated with the assessed value of new qualifying capital improvements. Companies in this program, pay taxes on the value of the land and any capital investments that are not eligible for the abatement. There are three primary types of State Enterprise Zone Programs: Three -Year Program (granted by right for eligible applicants); Four- or Five -Year Program (known as the Extended program) where years four and five are approved by the Zone Sponsor(s) (City/County); Seven to 15-year Program (known as the Long -Term Rural program) and approved by Zone Sponsor(s). The duration of the abatement is linked to the number of jobs created and wage level. The three-year abatement does not have an average wage requirement. However, the Extended and Long -Term Rural programs require wages that are certified at or above 150% of Deschutes County average annual compensation (currently $71,393). The three-year program also does not require approval by the City/County where the company is located. They are approved administratively and do not require City Council action. Compensation under the criteria includes salary, overtime, medical and retirement benefits. Not all jobs created need to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria, but rather an average of the overall compensation for all net new jobs needs to exceed the 150 percent average annual compensation criteria. Extended abatements are done through agreements by the E-Zone sponsor(s) which extend the tax abatement for either one or two years beyond the standard three-year abatement. Extended abatements need to be approved by the sponsor(s) of the E-Zone. It is the prerogative of the sponsor agency whether or not the approval is made by the governing body or administratively. The Greater Redmond Area E-Zone has three co-sponsors: The City of Redmond; Deschutes County; and the City of Sisters. The City of Sisters policy is that the Redmond City Council approves all extended E-Zone agreements. 52o E. Cascade Avenue - PO Box 39 - Sisters, Or 97759 1 ph.: (541) 549-6®22 I www,ci>sgsters.onus • Since 2016, Nosler, Inc has been operating its casing manufacturing facility in Redmond. Nosler's holdings in Redmond include a 60-acre parcel which they purchased in 2015. • The bullet manufacturing business has been in Bend since 1958. • The company has experienced tremendous growth over the past few years and has outgrown its Bend facility. With product demand exceeding expectations they have determined a new state of the art 80,000 square foot facility is needed and they plan on relocating the entire company to Redmond. • Nosler is well known in the industry for producing ammunition and handloading components and specializing in high performance hollow point and soft point hunting bullets. The current company also includes subsidiaries Nosler Custom and Nosler Reloading. Nosler also produces products for military and law enforcement agencies. In April 2021, Nosler submitted an application to the Zone Manager, requesting an extended abatement. The investment will include construction of a new building and new equipment. Total project cost is estimated at $13.5million, which includes equipment eligible for exemption, if approved for 5 years. Of the $13.5 million, approximately $12 million is capital construction and $1.5 million is capital equipment. This does not include the nearly $7 million in transferred property presently on the County tax roll and not eligible for the tax exemption. The firm will relocate 103 jobs to Redmond and will create at least 14 additional jobs by the first year of the exemption (estimated to be 2023). The application and wage documentation have been certified above 150% by Redmond City Manager Keith Witcosky and Enterprise Zone Manager, Jon Stark. This E-Zone agreement allows for two additional years, from the Standard Program (the Three -Year program) and was approved unanimously by the Redmond City Council on June 8t", 2021. Fiscal Impact: No impact for the City of Sisters. This action will extend the property tax abatement for the qualified project by two years, impacting the City of Redmond's property tax collections. The City of Redmond's apportionment of the abatement is estimated to be $35,457/year. Attachments: Abatement Agreement 52o E. Cascade Avenue - PO Box 39 - Sisters, Or 97759 1 Ph.. (541) 549-6o22 I www.ci.sisters.or.us ES CoG w' ?�BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: Discussion of Board Approval of FTE for Deschutes County Public Health's HIV Early Intervention and Outreach Services Program RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval to increase FTE for the HIV Early Intervention and Outreach Services grant program. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The HIV Farly Interventinn anrd ()iitrearh Servireq (F11,0) it a five-year grant nrnuram within ...-.... _.. V ...__.._.._._...,..._ ---•--•-••- ---. _-..--• ••--j--- o.-•••-r•-o._... __._..... Deschutes County Public Health that provides services to individuals with HIV who are newly diagnosed or out -of -care. The program is funded through the Oregon Health Authority, which provides support for HIV testing, referral services, health literacy/education, and access and linkage to care. The program operates on a calendar - year basis and runs through December 31, 2022. The EISO program is requesting the addition of 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) limited duration Public Health Nurse II from August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. The position will support disease investigation for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. Funding to support the position will come from unspent funds from years 1-3, approximately $371,000 of the $1,336,790 is currently unspent. The Oregon Health Authority corroborate its support to use these funds, as demonstrated in the attached email. If the Board is in support of the additional FTE, the following agenda item for Consideration of Resolution No. 2021-054 is being presented for Board consideration of approval. BUDGET IMPACTS: Increase of 1.0 FTE in Health Services Fund from August 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 and increase in appropriation to fiscal year 2022 in the amount of $108,362. ATTENDANCE: Kathy Christenson, Health Services Supervisor, Advancement and Protections. �vAESBOARD C, G F COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: American Rescue Plan Act Funding Discussion RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On June 21, 2021 staff presented an update to the Board on the status of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding including a review of federal guidance and Board priorities to establish a framework from which to assist the Board in allocation of ARPA funds. The list of potential uses of ARPA funds was sorted into broad categories based on the most current federal eligibility rules available at the time. The purpose of this agenda item is to review the project planning list in light of recently updated federal eligibility guidance and establish a funding review protocol moving forward. At the time of the due date for the submission of this staff report staff is reviewing the newly updated federal guidance and will present that information and the project planning list at the Board meeting. BUDGET IMPACTS: The County received half of the $38 million in ARPA funds in May 2021 and expects to receive the second half in May 2022. All $38 million is included in the current fiscal year adopted budget. ATTENDANCE: Greg Munn, County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Dan Emerson, Budget Manager D 'o v i o D y D ac( O O. A z A C QD .:. c cv d_ 0"�c pNN p v X:O ,5 nO 0: m E C m =D rD = n vyd rD x � 0 q:x c0m . v 0m;:0 00 m ° x oi � m • m n<h ^ m: A�.� On :v c :3 .,«M3 m < � � vte rD N 0 c 0 O "i rD o m 0 CL f° t0 rD 7 �. 3r : O O. 70 .n•. Q o pq O- O rD w o5i rD 7 °� 3 vm, = O- < °7• n l!1 — n O n, ^ N m D M 3'� 5. w< < : o o a m c 'O i� a o' Q 00 � m, n Q n n p n o m m O m W Oi' A �rD S.� _ O m N :� C N rr . rnir N^ �. rD -0 Fi,_ Oj :32, f�D n of 'd 4 rr �' O m I� < 7 (FQ QG m rl• 0* " 0 0 00 '� n �rD < rD 3 n 3 m . = . x v+ 0 w a n O 'O n lu rD in m m C. Q m = c 0 cu 7 3 cr N 030 CLiv �•', n n fl N' m m _ Q. c mc" O C S n0 < '..N O m :^ N, 'o O G c O '7 : O' A:rD : � c v °. ^ - o x a g O o < 3'm rD CL 3 nn' d w rD D o c m w °T' 0 m :O m 3 7 rD : m P. O !.; T Q O y rD fl' O: 0 `O � _ m rt o_ .. O m 00 rD O :� '. .tn+ 3 N nDjm m 3 5 m c . r m O 3 : Q r+ o o. m m m '^ � 3 0 3 - o ^ '° 3 0 0 o. o : m o z' 3 0 3 d a a m c „ m, �_ sUQA Mc ccc c S vm <o m v cn m < 3 w ET w a O 0 n0 < o. v rD ° ° g' .0 c m' m rD rDcu = N v S d' C L (D O o 0 ? n m N ? 3 * 0 n <- -0 fu m S rr; o T o rD n) -0 to rD � m w n n of w o O m s n .,• 3 fD rr : O 7z: < d0 m 0 rr rD rD 0 3 e,• 3rD CLm =r u ^ O to n 3 q N rD o rr 3 -UQ on a n Do o O rD o °° C n c ru p 0 3LD = N m N F-. : W F+ W Ln A p 'l0. :W p' In 00 p' O 0 A W+ a 0 a o c' 'o 0 0 : : o r-o m 0 O CL 'O O m 7 r+ 3 M Vf r O r+ G Yl fD CL 0 � V W N � N � m n O G m A D v D A Z r- D O_ Z Z 2 -n O cm m ! (7 n r 1 O fD n _ i m ~ 3'm n fD O p C C _ p c o.Q opn ° W rD O o o Q'm < ,� G x o c a c u' a p m Z° w c° p �' 6;3 O 5 o m'� fD X _3rD O CL cu O rD n..N �^ 3 3 "drD a 'v �'� N O 3 °- m :Q N nn = .rt. m "• ry d °� O N C O—" O GQ CL N O C N" a � C v� O O n m v� av _+ O O rD o .ne O : o� rD et J �o ' o 'C' �n �^ O_ --i N cu O_ �• >. 3 � . m 00 f+ '* n '� : O N `* C S rl rD O O '< _" Ol '.. •< O to m 0 n m a n 0 3 S m rD27 x of D- O O C m 0 (D d" O 0 O O < -G rO O p N'; m 3 rr ,< O- m -o S 3 O O_: -n '+ n: CL C � Q N < rD v ,..,, 3 = 8' p - 3 fD CC O; Q O'. O Q rD O O o" n N'O O aQ m ,< " mo d m C o O G rD y m vCi :� rD D O p •* m NN C S S d O , O_ O "_ v T7 Ocl S �n n -O N C D O_ .D W °- C :. 7 10 O d ""—' n rD O' or �.. N m m to n O. `Z ❑. m cm x -p O C `'' W : .. j O_ M O Ott O rD Di O N N (D N Q" � o N N C S ::3 c O N' (CD C < O- 7 n N I:" ,..: n C n O D O O- < Ol O 7 h rQ O OZ1 r+ m : n S 'p c p a m: Oq of O 6; O_ p CL o O 3 r<D rD + 3 m < m m _ m o m O 3 cm 3 m w 3 +; m O N 6 N O m O x 7 �0 3 0J N 3 7 rD S r1'I O_ M rD c -O N � O -O N — Q o rD rD O o 0 .< n "+ S p -p m: n: M n m tD ,�-�. n 3 !. rD C: CL D 3 s° cu* a m c. 3 N n' n x N p 3 N In O K O Qn rD ni C 7 A rD N r2 OC n f<D m p o 3 D :. 00 n C O= a rD S rD O 3 O: OC V OC S 7 (D S fD O 7 ,C.' m n d4 Q go S 3 rD CL S n p O O O of < W p N rD rN D C ry CL rD :3 - D v c 3 mO 0 3 3 O• O� .O n n N rD �n 7 p N C ` C �^ ni _ n O. '.. m rD s < rD n S 3 �_ n 3 rD O OO_O o Ln rD O _. rD COO> rD CL . O_ C O Q O S m n rD m m M rD as m CL 1n h w N p : ,.,. 7 N rr Q. p rD Oq F-+ ,O-' rD OW ° S cu -- O p a' � Op S= a 0 -0 O * Q:: n O O_ N 7C Q Q c C O C N 6 rh < a w o s m nni r N 3 tD ti, O O" n Oq O. n m, o so o 3 m 5 -{ m m m , Mm o rD cu vmi S O O .O rD rD h O O m m Oo � M H O 0-3 n : m C < � or O O— : cu o S I M rD 2 .< O S rD O 7 O_ to - O N H C or 3 .�+ Q 3 O m m Q G * m m o m v 30 m rD p Vf O_ N 0 a, N n D O' O < O rmi -0 rD .m+ ri C N OA Q -O T {o N 3 O O 0 0 0 0' wLn o 0 0 0 0 to o 0 w in 0 0 c' a9a m N m M m A 0 D D X X -o cm M w 0 -i m O c m S c Q -i 3 c -Q ° + o ° n = „ Q rs n rQ -i M H m 3 N W = S< S �- <, c O N m �, : C 3 '6 : a Q 0 :.. o' oni �• = NO m K S .Do -.. ° v m' °' a d a° 3 fD 3 s N' '^ - m m ° o Q m 3 n �_ ° N 3 p o' o =: 0 N w a w m w 3 d o 3 Un 0 3^ vv m g Q �D ° m �+ ° o p D m n- w ° = W� oa fD, O 0 a° ii �• 0 0- °N- `° r�D ° o 'o; .•, EK �'� 3 p cn o c 3 a w m 0_ o° v o °;= a n 2 m. t 3 n m m Q o 3 s 03q O m m - s n o -„ 3 o w 3 3 3, n0 � W m v N° i o 0 I c c �• m CL o' '* ri °- -0 n < Q v D v D a ao o o o o 3 m ° g 3° m n m r+ 0 n Q 3 m S D v 0 , 0 m m c vi : m •+ w m c m o_ n 0 w 3 n n �n ,+ - ,< S -' w o m w o m `C n O o w v vv c w Q �° Q n o O1* CL * m Q 3 n 3- `- D rt ° a w S m n (I o c o « o m m o a- n 3( o v' c "O o- n vND c ro o n O =t n<i a s° O = S m m ='; m UQ - O Cr 3 C. 3 "S _+ p : n 3 w v� w :3CL N O ,Y 3 m O V 3 O- 'm'� f�D O —I N p v"i CD-O ,may, vOi m ,��. f+ •< S 3 m M m Q W w 3 ID � n n m S S 90 ° ? c 3 6 _ m w, ' 3 3 o o 0 n m o w n° v fD M 3 Q v 0 rD 7 0 3 ao O n O °t C _ ° O O w 6 0 O 0o n 3 o�i O �, O 0 *< Q o< 3 O H m< o O H C H o O- 3 't m N 0M EL 'O w 0 N 3 0 Q O (� m 3 m' O 0_ w 7 v S CL to = 0 n 9' �: .-�• m n 3- _ o T.: m< m� o Q O N •< to w � ,+ M v n a 3 s C- o. c c : ro m 3: w m —I --I N c V r0r p p �± 0 -` O pj N O •-�• n m 3 3 in n S °- m �^ v0, C w c to Q. n _— h' f1• O Q S m S O M ~O : C n � n Cu m 'rt Q (pD S r O : m Q m S O twn 3 N •p c m \ �+ D s o S °-' 3 s� o r�D o w N m m o O 3 3+ w' A o cu °« m° D° Q w N: o c-u m 0• 3 w O a e+ < w m 0 — M °3° •< N p r' w m 70 m N v 3 vOi w o m O 0 0 3 s W c< m v w D m ro w o a c m m 3 n o w = oa m �o Q W F 0� m m 3 0 3 ®, o o c Q 3 °c as s 0 c .w-t of d w 00 cu (D -+, o m j w a < N Q� w w• nor Q O S d 0: O -0 0 w 7 Cu rr w O CL 0. ^ " ^ r= m 0_ S w = m m nni S n O m < 3 m m m rr ,r m m 0 0 m �; p- c„ v ° X a to m r✓ m< m Q- w w C p 0 m 0 �D 3 -0 O O m w H O_ w lu 0 � .. m oD°a o �° m r, m M M. ° 00 o C� m O o m< m CM ° '< 3� `^ 3 O : O w m w : -Q O m w ro- S o m 0 S 6 n c m fl < w m p fi O v� m w 3 rV 3 m O 7 o H < n 3 3 p 0 m w o m S N w m° p 0 m+ CL 3 c s 3 M F Q < � a oo 3 O 3 ''*y, w p p m (D of to m fl. N a. m w O O_ rr v� Pi � w n 0 m S Da w CL o. n o S c 3 w o S _ °- Q; < n S 0 3. 3 w o a -= m o ', CL ° m m 3 c a S m o Oq m0 (D O : S� v O S -< r- G) F 0' S S n n w w 0 w m- H m F n c O 0 z 0 o c 0- 0 c L m Q- p. - p m S< M fl n � �' o n= m D s 3 a m - 0 3 7r m m n 3 o O n O w Cu -p O < `o n O c p ° O- .M 3 m M h M p m� j n - o m m o �, rD < 0 0 a m m Cu 3 a ° 3 �*' m Q o 3 d v m 0 �D n m 0 0 rD p N A LU Ul Ul O O l0 LP m w H O : O O O O. 'O: lD "Wi A ALn " t o' ° x x x WO N: x S 2 D O r r. :r r m n m 7 : Vf x N =� a' S O N. 3 = -° " N 7 N * �' O) =3 <, Dq to N - m '^ 7�' N Q-'0OG a lJl o Fes-+ W : 1J1 �O ''. OT. �,,�. Cl Q CL mrD Vf �',. N N mm O< - �IOOa m �� fp C �-+ m d Q\ O C m N 7 TI n c N �^ x �. O -�, O �. O' 9^ c m p rr : N '^ 3 .7+ p ;w t�i� '^ : Ol p : r•r 3 '^ rD O rD : OA 7 : A m N .. m 'O Q .... O_ Q : r* o 2 . n o 2 n o :. 2 N rD 3 v� 'O vmi a vmi '. � M n n Cr C. Q ¢ 7 '. � r, c O 3 c O: 3 c O: O 3 3• . : 7 `< n O W 'G n _ m '< : . rD c: � s S rt m 6 o 3 a 3 a 3 cOi� ::�• °'9' C C C. C o '-�' = O_ ° ; r O ., rD v, o n' m c o o 0 D, 7 m a 7 m oa 7 D d m �, °: 3 �° n Q*' m H m m <' a G. G : m G, �.� 2 .� 'm .+ .0 rD rr pG ao 0'7 n 3 ;((DD rp fl 7 3 06 n.3 -�+. o n O c j ' � m Q 3 t rD 7 N [1 m< 7 Q 3 C N -, 7" W =r : co O C.: n C 7 �• m(D '"� 0 7" pG C 7 n 7: 7 (D N 3 3 m m m m rD fu rD Wi 5�. 's rt 7 0° m� C : � n n � O p : °� .rD 7 w 7 m : m CL d : Q m Di O .� . Ro � .L RG O_ 7 Qo �: rD 7 7: m < �^:a W Q.h•a :x:'- 7 S. S _ 5'N 7 3 < r<D :,S m a: �.. O N ��:d ,�'�. D) 7: "". °- :. N.0 S °� roD ro-:-I �< o :.0 CO v_ c O_ Q m Q.n m :a O , a .2. 3 c N a Or c ' c m -o o'< Q m 7 m g �'a .. 3 n, d w 3 n oa',v 3 n m 3 m n m n'A 7 O 0 o r, a N C E O O 7 m m rD (D (D N S Q ° o, 7 a ro 0 a o : -°o : n �' : n r+ n r7, + n L a a to A . w'a,r�p, Q:p N'm' v� °;� m (3D m m _ x V, m i7+ DOG w m m v'� S xl c `O'IN m 'N 'O n '� �N+, ON:� m o =3 - C_ o_ m s a aG 7c a �" v 3 m -o rD o o °� cu 3 3• °�-' o to o7G omG o N w a m rD I. , rD rD N m D7G 9-' r„ m 7 N : N - - :. :. n o' N : n• N Q• N O rD : F-' NO �` rD n n K v' _! d A N on 7 M co = urD ' o o, rD a m n rD m a 0-'� r rD o,a 0, O _3 7 7: in .7-t N O rD 7; 1 CL :3 p O 7 rDrD ,-r N: M .. o r- Di � D ( a C Gl 7 O_ : : N :. N < : :. + CD rD 0 rD D : N rD 7" 7 : a N - p v>' 0 7 D No QrD rD r3D o o_ p ° n lu nSL < : -n N 7 7 m O� m ,.� O 0 N S 1-+ N °�' N' � o -O -p 7 W '. m O rr m m .� v : o rD < rD. m n .-4 n S. _ G) rD rD 0 �' D =r � m � S. O a (D 0 O CL �^ < (D p O (D to 7 S "" m CL 3 ct m m: a, a 3 Q 7 rD :. m 7 m r�D '... 7 C-- O W m 7 CL CD x m rD r�•o rD rD NJ Q. O m CLrr CL m O N N 0 O a rt M 7 rD (DD rD n o m m D n o r N N n : - - 7C o' `ter N 0 : -M1 in -• rD ; ET Ul rD rD lNn 3: 7 0 M 3 o a (� N 3 = w a O c 7 m 3 o `(D CLO• *.. m M fD O1 3 0 7 0 n rD c o 0 m m 0 m =3 r3 m 3 �+ ••� a rD v 6 D, , m 3 r+ oa _ on - C a 7 DG 3 O Di 7 ,i m (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' moo' o0 00' o0 w 0 0 0 C) 0 Cl m n 0 w H 0 M rt A 9! rr+ 3 M �r O rt i r r+ C Vf fD C. fD ,4 N � N fD A O G m a r+ D v D X X C n :;h x c� 0 � v_ cn P_ z z n w ° r2 rD w< m co Q rD c <. o N 3 D rD s n A ° c c �:o S O 3 c rD �+ m d L, N d m d S 3 d O" Ln a:� O - (D rt 'D S S y rt O �• '.: (D C m 'O n o�'i < m C (D i.~^ "' °: O v Q ,di. O M - C a [� C m '.. j "* CL rD N Q. G `< o N D m = cr O O 0 m Q d .n-t ,N.' rD '.. O! .. O d n �^ rr m 0 N Q h Q O C = .'rti• .-r OA �" 0 N ',. O ,< (D w n: O d O '.. O {n _ Q O S .N+ C ,. N �' O j Ln O N UQ < o us OQ :3 s< c n rD Q o C 0 + m° o �' °— ° a . o ° n c aUQ Q < o Q r O � nn fRD x O S DG < C O v N n3i n v' � h. -1 o- rD C O < O O_ N O- .rF C n O rD m Q ,-r N O N O n 0 '�. 3 �. 0 O ;: r-F m -mi. - W O O "a0 :. N OF O Q: CO. rD S G O ... m C a aq d S r4 - C n N N DO O G Q — eT S Q N d N m OCL m 3 O ° cn CD N ct 3 c m a O CD 0)O Q N N ..3 m - Q 0 Cl O rmN-1• CL m.. W ai n -0 m 41 - �: 3 — ^� o rl• Q N o. N 0 ° a � �' D O = 3 x 0 N m $ O O ^ m Q. S m O N T� 3 O 0, cu m N c C '6 ° m m - ° m m n C m �^ s o A Q rr S m : a rD n O— o°a M. c m N. O n O �, m " N m ° O o- °' uNi O n m Q ^ Q ' O n' r C fD rD d 3 n N (D Ll 3 Dl 7D ° (D -+. o N l0 rn 3 D o m rD o m= �= m C .r p n rD < o A v 3 Q° °— m'' n 0 � 0 3 = m rD oo c o n° m m flj Q n — rox rD m. Q 3rD n (D <C 3 c m — nr c O M rD -n a O fD rD 2 rt= Q Q Q < n K a rF m 3 D< h 3 m O c rD w 09 rD m C 3 m N m N rD X' C" m C r=F fl_ '•r O " 0) A O X m rD S 3 m 7 �+ O_ C O_ O O 3 N 6 0 0-d S a C O d m m : O rr4 = O Q C 0 O m N mCL N 7.7 3 Ott 0_ N O N :.. N .•' CC O rD rD O C X S' (D C N m O 7 G d cm m " Q O_ m rD DC N 7 O� m N Q S ° m rD N 7 n iA rr to 'O rN•h E N _d S m QG .�. 7 an D fll r-, Y4 " m 7 N-0 S OO O n 7 rD 0 Q aG 3 mm rD m n , O D 'Q Q pr _ m N D n : rD r+ d °� n Oh N �p 7 v -° -O+� rD �. N 7 N O D -O d O QC C 0 d = �' < N : rD m (D 0° o or OrNy Qv C OOcr 3 ° .r DO:D, pp . ( c C: rD rD 00 CL rD n oa n S N O O- rD C O m 3 m rD : < .-t n L]. : r? rD 3 S rD o m N - rD -0o n .-« s m Q N 3^ 3 m D'a Q o ti •• 3 m O rT O Q x S O a- S CD S > Q. rD m N oLP °o Ul o c 0 o m 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D <.m v m rt! m Lri D v D X X cu OrQ m m Q -0 v r2 o, M 3 m n M �p m 0 Q 3 Q z c N 3 3 C N D) :. Q� M : m ._*. rD Doi — O -�+ 3 M .: m 7 N m (D N 7 7 N OG p r3 3, Nl QJ (D �' 0 0 3 o a s A m fD rt 0-0 N-0 j m Ln m w 3 p 3 =3 0 0 '+ 0 N (D N j rD D1 1 r+ °N N r+ FL � p � c 3 C `G N N C m 3 0, fD m M 3 !G N 0 C N m m Q M O- n p c 'O n �Or �; '^ Q or a O V o v G v °rr' c 0- M N m S w n 3 m C m m i m A m D 0 L s s o 'O G x N OU S N ,, m D 7 N ID m p CL mC- ° "O afl O IQ 0 '6 04 'O 7 0 tD W � n m O N o coy-m 3 rr O W O N rr 0 C S m n m G 0 O. rF A S n 0 m 0 Ob • C C rnt cu m ry m O m o C UQ �• C N . p' O' X a' 7 r fD p Ott m N -0 N 'D 3 3 Q — t�j 0 3 of v N 0 m O 3 " 0, m N 0 X 3 -0 N • 7 G G N 50 OA N m G ID 'O ry m F 3 D 3 m — rt �. h r� rt N N O O .* N O O GrQ M (ND Q O M a' S O 0 m (D C m N O m of -p N 0_ .Y N rD N 0 N 0 O_ m _ = i � ry � 3 n O m S m 3 : fD 0C 7 ID m _ Oil p 3 Oa m N O O C, O 0' p; W „m; 0 ` n D �? v m=; 0. ,' D D X X v (D (D N z a (D n n CL o< p< p m v c c n— N N O C m M -I O _ LA n n O O T O O (7 G� -1 O m 5. O OCL CD M :� d n3 (D 00 O ,y. '-h -n O O fD p F 0) (D 3 (D D) d O 3 0 W (D fD -0 O ,� 7 O (D O rt O 7 OC = � : 7r -C3 v Q00 0�0 'C OrD N O T 90 a �D 0 O_ m - N (D < (Dl�/1 3 rD v O 3 y O_ O_ n O D O O O_ 0 fJ p N- c O" O d O O -0 O n n L Ln L s 0 O z= o = fD 3< v� (DO O O G O 0p A 6 0J X. LA O Op �-r 0! v -' a * s d S (D 7 N' S O 3 C n 00 w C S O (-D rt m v 0 0 G n= - CL 'f m ' Q O =� O. 3 ID . -p � � . z O _ c :3 �+ < O m (D O' < d .? --_A O N O p �-r A Ln n -n rr •+ OA (D 3 Q (D OA - EA .G 7 "Q (p C .+ 0• p = 3 A n .► 0 n X O (D to rD (D 7 0) O 3 Q rt 3 n � rt ,G ((DD 3 3 n. D3i !:. 3 eD CL Et co S. O O DO O y o 3n' c n 3 dfu :r O N D7 m rr N 1 � n O fD a 3 O � rt =r (D o n < 3 p v d c 3 a (D (D m 3' (D 3 oq CD 7 n N 00 F-- In O 01 .A 00 O Ln 0 U'7 O O l0 00 O (l1 00 O O O 'O O. O O O O O N O 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 00 O 0 O O O O O O O O A 0 O O V 0 o u, rn io :O O O O O O 00 O O O 01 O O O o 0 3 O. c m �v o m A 'O r F 3 M 3. N O rr+ i rt G CL N � m A O m Ol D rt O r c 7 O ao ;x; k N O v Eg m 0 3 y aq C Z 20 M O Q C 3 � m � rD m i S S m m H = D n) s =3 Lnelrmo W ob� i vo m c m o c LA o A O 3 0 5 3 a O O O o � O O o m 0 z nD 0 mi nmi n v O. j. O. mOQ m 0. i^ M cD CDo 3 n 3 c ZL << S n• C C n .Nr :C m N O 0 m m a = N v �• v n rD m o 3 o �• m 3 z p v 3 W _mr Ln m p O 3 , ttq o0o O 0 O O C W cD ei n O w m v N rD C 90 Ro A 3 3 70 •G rtD Q_ m vai (OD h : � n : 3 - n � `'.�'. '�i, O - O m o D o. a s c .r .« Q m y D n rt m c X ;: O d N n A LA m n L, O �' O O -n O 3 Ol o s (D cm m Ul, co (D v 3 f r G m m O O m u+ Or a O (D Gl C O (D m r�Dm T •. s 0 cu 6. :r z rt ° m g LA M'A m . yOQ N C m 3 O cu 'O T : n D_ rD n 2 O -n :3 m D v o0 in 3 2 O m fD s °�° 3 m O 3 . CL A N 7 C. O +y M (D m W V7 W V1 O C9. W W V7 N O 00 O O O O 1•+: •P N (n O O l0 In O V7 O O V O 0 0 0 0 0 W O O Pp 0 0 0 0 Ln CD (p O O O O N O O : 0 CD 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0: 0 `O. O ` 0 0 0 0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 N t+ O .ul Ln W p A `DD 00 00 O O 00 00 0 N o' o; ,o `b g 0 o (p M A r+ (D A Cl r O i r+ r. D 3 C. o d N � m n O C m v v 00 m w rD z m w p cr ' o (f) cn z z z o to = 2== D rt �• fD m N, _..: Om—0' N O. O ,• . 7 N < O- G 3 00 S 7 N. O v= x-� . m r+ m s c cr c �= LA n' 3 m y CL m O 0 7D m s o- c o d 0 04 rr, " m O CU °�' . °° c _ m O O w w 7 cn p Cl -n 7 n m n m m to O m y d O •a ,K O m Q C. C O C O- 00 Q '"''. p c O O O O m 4 a ` "O _. G) n LA N N '- 0 zr O O S Q �. t� Q S 2 S S O pq C 7 m N S c O �• �• lu 7 O < 3 C C C C m m rt m c m au r+ a m o0 3 N O �N-r Zr C fD : p -, cn m 7 O v 0 CD N W W O N .•r n N m 0 N 2 �• I n -moo Q 3 -* O Q on rN•r n. A 3 c *.00 M� c o wCL 00 LA Ln O < Ol mCL r CL m C rt NC N o pa nO cW 3 Q o "� o° � moo s o mc f �' m m n D 3 O v m �* 6 m m° p m _ CL O O O m m aq O-r (gyp O _ 'O w OV : O o m y N N *' pq 3; m N N m 00 O O O •A w O In In .A O in in O O O:' O O cn 0 0 0 to 0 O O O O O CO; O O :II O O O PP O O O O 0 0 0 o to o 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 CD a O O 0 o O o 0 0 0 O 0 0 CD a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m o o `can 0 0 0 0 rn 0 o rn N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o O m r A .o r' d r+ 3 M �. Vf A G r _ r+ D m 3 M V A^`� W N � m A O C m �T ^,V W D A r"F >. c z w a D -I cn z v p O n o co z O n W o D a 3 < z z n < 8 &— O_ oa' O m OOU °�' 7 ° O a 'a -, 3 '3 , Q- C 00 rrt _q0. 3 O p�q O O �' ._O-r. 7' vCi �n O- -p 'O �. y �, ,�'y, O a�i N N G� — cu N O �O-r O v�i N' a N; O N X O .UO N m N N n, v0, c 3 et rr '07" c m X _ fD p ". �o o rD N m ��-• m (YU y, n� OO CD n T 3 O n (YG O w 0_ C L O � 'XO O n r d su X ((ML D .�0-r `< : tOi1 -1 N .�+' n O �C � C O : 0• O 3 (Op 0 C Sn O ❑. N rt O p O r0-' r3-r �G Q to 3 O rr C M ,•�, O O O (p N z N n O v D :E N N < n .O-r 3 v n.I m O O �,. < O O� rm c CA a 3 O n N• 0 7 O oc Q cu c- °� O On � 0 Q oti m O co y OM N � o• Q o � �' m n F m n ni G i-F N O i ILn W CD O O � ul W , � V O N V, V lf7 O CD Vt NJ O O O w e N V9 Ol O O O N< ,�y0 00 00 00NJ 00 V N v N O �0LM1 O O O O N O O1 Ul 0 0 0 O rd©1 Ln CIn m ,w '. O N 0 0 0 0 h) 7 a �v o M r+ A r+ 3 m �. of t'q C r+ C 3 CL o M al � N � m A O fD fl7 A �-t c\\0AES cG BOARD F COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: Staff Updates for Wildfire Mitigation Amendments - Senate Bill 762 BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff is updating the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding possible code amendments related to wildfire hazard mitigation. Staff last updated the Board concerning wildfire hazard mitigation during a work session on February 24, 2021. During that meeting, staff outlined the results of the public outreach program concerning new defensible space standards and fire resistant building codes. Staff provided the Board with background information for proposed building code and defensible space amendments including exceptions, applicable geographic areas, a discussion of the County's current defensible space standards, and programmatic examples from other jurisdictions. Finally, staff combined the information into an initial framework for establishing any new wildfire mitigation standards in rural Deschutes County. During the 2021 state legislative session, a number of bills were introduced related to wildfire mitigation. On June 26, 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 762, which has significant impacts on wildfire mitigation efforts across all jurisdictions in Oregon including Deschutes County. This report will summarize the relevant components of SB 762 related to building codes, land use/defensible space requirements, and statewide risk assessments. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner Ed Keith, County Forester Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Nick Lelack, Community Development Director STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Kyle Collins, Associate Planner DATE: July 8, 2021 RE: Updates for Wildfire Mitigation Amendments - Senate Bill 762 Staff is updating the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding possible code amendments related to wildfire hazard mitigation. Staff last updated the Board concerning wildfire hazard mitigation during a work session on February 24, 2021. During that meeting, staff outlined the results of the public outreach program concerning new defensible space standards and fire resistant building codes. Staff provided the Board with background :Inform ation for proposed building code and defensible space amendments including exceptions, applicable geographic areas, a discussion of the County's current defensible space standards, and programmatic examples from other jurisdictions. Finally, staff combined the information into an initial framework for establishing any new wildfire mitigation standards in rural Deschutes County. After reviewing the proposed next steps and possible local code amendments, the Board made two decisions regarding the project: 1) Maintain the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone at its current size and designation categories 2) Wait to see the outcome of any legislative bills from the State of Oregon that would affect local wildfire mitigation efforts During the 2021 state legislative session, a number of bills were introduced related to wildfire mitigation. On June 26, 2021, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 762, which has significant impacts on wildfire mitigation efforts across all jurisdictions in Oregon including Deschutes County. SB 762 contains a broad range of regulatory and non -regulatory approaches to address wildfire risk. Specifically, the bill focuses on the following areas: 1'I 7 NVV I .il,iycCto Avenue, f]enrl 01 _3�7�703 I h 0. Box 16005, (3c�,ii d, OR Ij 08-63 3m('4i) (,':Pi @( d(lPclelvliiiles.or; Q) WVVVV.df3Vd It It • Plans for public electricity utilities to reduce risks associated with wildfire • Statewide mapping of wildfire risks • Defensible space standards for new and existing development • Building code guidelines to reduce risks associated with wildfire • Programs to support local communities in detecting, preparing for, communicating, or mitigating the environmental and public health impacts of wildfire smoke • Emergency response and disaster recovery associated with wildfire events • Programs to reduce wildfire risk through the restoration of landscape resiliency and the reduction of hazardous fuel on public or private forestlands and rangelands and in communities near homes and critical infrastructure • The creation of an Oregon Conservation Corps Program to reduce wildfire risk to communities and critical infrastructure and to help to create fire -adapted communities • Requirements for Counties to ensure all lands have a baseline level of fire protection • Creation of a Wildfire Programs Advisory Council All of these programs and directives will have some effect on Deschutes County, but given the previous local efforts to establish new potential wildfire mitigation code amendments, this report will focus on the following components of SB 762: 1) Statewide mapping of wildfire risks 2) Statewide land use and defensible space guidelines to reduce wildfire risk 7\ _3f . -ewide " ;1,4i.... alr� g liA-Ii- to r-Ai lco %AAIf4firo ricL .�N Stat VV IUG b ding code sulUct111GJ lV 1 VuuV\.. VYIIVIII 1. I IJI\ The remaining components of SB 762 will be brought before the Board at a future date by other County Departments such as Public Health and Natural Resources when the details of those specific policies become clear. Finally, the Board should be aware that SB 762 contains numerous provisions that must occur at the state level before local governments can undertake additional actions. This report contains a timeline of important events and opportunities that may allow for County participation. The following table highlights major dates in the SB 762 implementation process, specific action items related to those dates, and information concerning whether or not local governments can participate. This table does not cover all relevant dates associated with SB 762, but targets those dates that will affect land use requirements, building codes, and other development issues: Page 2 of 14 Senate Bill 762 - Major Actions & Timeline Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement State Wildfire 1) The County may nominate appointees to the Wildfire September 1) First members of the Programs Director, President of the Programs Advisory Council 1, 2021 Wildfire Programs Advisory Senate and Speaker to advise the State Wildfire Council appointed. of the House of Programs Director on the Representatives implementation and progress of SB 762. Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement 1) State Forestry Department Report to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to wildfire, to the December State Wildfire Programs State Forestry Director, and to the Wildlife Department, Oregon None 31, 2021 Programs Advisory Council State University on the progress of the department and Oregon State University in creating a statewide map of wildfire risk. Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement 1) Local governments may 1) State Forestry Department State Forestry comment on proposed June 30, completes and publishes Department, Oregon administrative rules 2022 the statewide map of State University and/or appeal assignment wildfire risk. of risk classes, if necessary. Page 3 of 14 Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement 1) The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) will identify and complete updates to the statewide land use program, local comprehensive plans, and zoning codes that are needed to incorporate the state-wide wildfire risk maps and minimize overall wildfire risk. 2) The Department of Consumer and Business DLCD, State Fire 1) Consultation with DLCD Services will amend section Marshal, State staff to identify and October 1, R327 of the Oregon Forestry develop and updates to 2022 Residential Specialty Code Department, the Deschutes County to include standards for Department of comprehensive plan or additions to existing Consumer and zoning codes. dwellings and accessory Business Services structures and for replacement of existing exterior elements covered in section R327 of the 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. These new standards will apply to properties identified as extreme or high risk and located within a designated wildland-urban interface on the statewide map of wildfire risk. Page 4 of 14 Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement Local governments may: 1) Adopt and enforce requirements for defensible space that are greater than the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal. Any local requirements that a local government adopts for defensible space must be defensible space standards selected from the framework set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or other best practices specific to 1) The State Fire Marshal shall Oregon. establish minimum 2) Administer, consult on, defensible space and enforce the requirements for lands in requirements established nraac iriantifiarl ac avtramp State Fire Marshal, by the State Fire Marshal. December .. .� , ......... .. _..._ or high risk and located Oregon Fire Code Must periodically report to 31, 2022 within a designated Advisory Board State Fire Marshal wildland-urban interface on regarding compliance. the statewide map of 3) Expend financial wildfire risk. assistance provided by the State Fire Marshal to give priority to the creation of defensible space: • On lands owned by members of socially and economically vulnerable communities, persons with limited proficiency in English and persons of lower income as defined in ORS 456.055 • For critical or emergency infrastructure • For schools, hospitals and facilities that serve seniors. Page 5 of 14 Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement 1) Earliest date that section R327 updates to the State Forestry April 1, 2023 Oregon Residential Department, Oregon None Specialty Code may State University become operative. Date State Actions Agencies & Departments Local Government Involvement 1) The Department of Consumer and Business 1) Ultimately, local Services must update Department of governments will be October 1, section R327 of the Consumer and required to adopt state -level 2024 Oregon Residential Business Services changes to R327 into the Specialty Code to include local jurisdiction's building alterations required in SB code. 762. Mapping Process and Rule -Making A key component of SB 762 is the development and maintenance of a comprehensive statewide map of wildfire risk that displays the risk classification for properties down to a parcel level. The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) in collaboration with Oregon State University (OSU) will undertake the creation of this map. Based on a number of risk factors such as weather, vegetation, and topography, the statewide map will ultimately assign one of five different risk classifications to each property in Oregon: extreme, high, moderate, low, and no risk. Additionally, the map will be required to identify areas described as the "wildland-urban interface" which must be consistent with national risk standards. ORS 477.015 defines "wildland-urban interface" as follows: "The meaning given that term in rule by the State Board of Forestry." The definition replaces a previous definition in ORS 477.015 for "forestland-urban interface" which was defined as: Page 6 of 14 "A geographic area of forestland inside a forest protection district where there exists a concentration of structures in an urban or suburban setting." SB 762 expressly recognizes the following: "Oregon varies by condition, situation, fire hazard and risk, that different wildland-urban interface fire protection problems exist across the state because of this variability, and that these different problems necessitate varied fire prevention and protection practices." The Oregon State Board of Forestry (Forestry Board) is required to conduct the rule -making session to develop and adopt the "wildland-urban interface" definition described above no later than 100 days after the effective date of SB 762. Staff anticipates the specific definition will be adopted in late September or early October 2021. SB 762 also requires the Forestry Board to establish a process for private property owners and local governments to appeal the statewide risk map findings. The Forest Board is required to provide notice and information about how a property owner may appeal an assignment of property to the extreme or high wildfire risk classes. The specific appeals process has not been developed at this time, but staff can notify the Board at a future work session when that program is formally established. Staff notes that the statewide risk maps must also display the locations of socially and economically vulnerable communities. It is currently unclear what specific characteristics or thresholds will be ..A #-O iAentifi. "S- ;�11. onri nrnnnmirmlh/ %n iinornhio rnmmi initioc " hn1A/a\/ar ctnff nntac that thaca us�u L., lu�� Lily lully u1Iu .. ��,., u��y .-,. — u... parameters will possibly be addressed during the same rule -making session to define "wildland- urban interface." As described in the timeline above, ODF and OSU are required to finish all actions associated with the map creation, rule -making process, and the associated appeals procedures by June 30, 2022. Finally, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) must identify updates to the statewide land use planning program, local comprehensive plans, and zoning codes that are needed in order to incorporate wildfire risk maps and minimize wildfire risk. Updates may include any provisions regarding sufficient defensible space, building codes, safe evacuation, and development considerations in areas of extreme and high wildfire risk. SB 762 requires that DLCD take into account regional or local differences when requiring land use updates or revisions. Additionally, the updates will include appropriate levels of state and local resources necessary for effective implementation of any wildfire mitigation programs, but the specifics of those resources are unknown at present. DLCD must complete any proposed updates by October 1, 2022 and submit a report detailing recommended code changes to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council. Additional information concerning the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council is described later in this report. Page 7 of 14 County Implications Properties which are determined to fall within either the high risk or extreme wildfire risk categories and are located within designated wildland-urban interfaces will be required to comply with new state-wide mitigation measurements including defensible space and building code standards. While the statewide wildfire risk maps are not yet established, staff notes that based on Deschutes County's Wildfire Hazard Zone maps, it is probable that a large percentage of our local region will be defined as either high or extreme risk. As stated previously, citizens and local governments will be afforded an opportunity to appeal any mapping designations they feel were established incorrectly. While the specific appeals process has not been determined at this time, staff notes that SB 762 requires any application for appeal be based on the following characteristics: • Whether the property designation is consistent with the mapping criteria established by the Forestry Board • Any pertinent facts that may justify a change in the assignment • Any error in the data ODF used to determine the designation and if the error justifies a change risk classification Staff points out the following findings included in the the Wildfire Mitigation Outreach Summary Report', which was presented to the Board in February 2021. These findings are drawn from several public outreach events conducted by County staff to gauge public opinion regarding new wildfire mitigatinn measures: 1) A majority of residents, both rural and urban, were supportive of new building code standards to reduce impacts from wildfires (e.g. - fire hardening standards) 2) A plurality2 of residents, both rural and urban, were supportive of new defensible space standards for new and existing development 3) A majority of residents, both rural and urban, were willing to incur at least some additional cost to implement new building code standards for wildfire mitigation. The level of expenditure residents were willing to undertake varied widely, with the plurality of respondents willing to expend at least $6,000 above the average cost of a 2,400 square -foot home (representing an approximate 1 % increase) and the next largest group of respondents willing to expend more than $6,000. A more detailed breakdown of Deschutes County residents' thoughts and concerns regarding new wildfire mitigation measures is located in the full Wildfire Mitigation Outreach Summary Report. ' A copy of the Wildfire Mitigation Outreach Report is attached for reference z A plurality is defined as "the number of votes cast for a proposal which receives more than any other, but does not receive a n absolute majority" Page 8 of 14 State Actions and Process As described above, after completion of the state wildfire risk map, all properties that are determined to fall within either the high risk or extreme risk categories and are located within a designated wildland-urban interface will be required to comply with new statewide mitigation measurements including defensible space. SB 762 directs the State Fire Marshal to establish minimum defensible space requirements for wildfire risk reduction. The State Fire Marshal is required to consult with the Oregon Fire Code Advisory Board to establish any defensible space requirements. The Oregon Fire Code Advisory Board is composed several members representing a variety of interest groups and agencies, including: • The Oregon Fire Chiefs Association • The Oregon Fire Marshals Association • The Oregon Building Codes Division • A public member at large • A business or industry representative • An approved design professional The established Oregon defensible space standards must be consistent with and cannot exceed the riafancihla cnara set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code published by the _._.......,.--i--�-- - - - . -. -.. ..- - '- --"--...-- --- ---- -- - - ---- - -- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - International Code Council. Additionally, the State Fire Marshal may consider best practices that are specific to Oregon in order to establish a new program. This approach is intended to help set minimum and maximum standards for defensible space, while also allowing some local control to meet the state's various environmental conditions. Any adopted defensible space standards will be periodically reviewed to ensure local requirements still reflect best practices for defensible space wildfire mitigation. The State Fire Marshal must establish minimum defensible space requirements by December 31, 2022. County Implications SB 762 allows local governments to interact with any new defensible space programs in the following ways: • Enforcement and monitoring • Increasing local standards • Financial assistance distribution Initially, the State Fire Marshal and associated staff will provide the majority of enforcement and monitoring work regarding defensible space standards. However, local governments have the authority to administer, consult on, and enforce the requirements established by the State Fire Page 9 of 14 Marshal. More specifically, local governments have the ability to designate any fire districts, fire departments, or fire agencies to enforce the adopted state requirements. If desired, the Board may begin conversations with local fire protection districts in the coming months to discuss how enforcement and monitoring of these standards might be undertaken. Should Deschutes County elect to handle enforcement or monitoring of new defensible space standards, the County is required to periodically report to the State Fire Marshal regarding compliance. The compliance reports must include the extent of compliance for each property within the jurisdiction of the local government, any change in the degree of compliance, and any other information required by the State Fire Marshal by rule. It is unclear at present if the State Fire Marshal will implement additional reporting requirements. Additionally, SB 762 allows local governments to establish requirements for defensible space that are greater than the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal. As with the chosen state standards, any local defensible space requirements must be consistent with and cannot exceed the defensible space set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or other best practices specific to Oregon. Finally, SB 762 allows the State Fire Marshal to provide a variety or financial, technical, or other assistance to local governments specifically to handle administration and enforcement of the state defensible space requirements. Ultimately, the local government will be responsible for spending or distributing any financial assistance provided by the state, but those expenditures must give priority to the creation of defensible spaces that affect the following groups/development: • Lands owned by members of socially and economically vulnerable communities, persons with limited proficiency in English, and persons of lower income as defined in ORS 456.055' • Critical or emergency infrastructure • Schools, hospitals and facilities that serve seniors It is unclear at present when the State Fire Marshal will provide estimates concerning local government financial assistance, but staff will update the Board as more information becomes available. State Actions and Process As described above, after completion of the state wildfire risk map, all properties that are determined to fall within either the high risk or extreme risk categories and are located within a designated wildland-urban interface will be required to comply with new building code regulations to reduce wildfire damage. The new building code requirements will apply to new dwellings and the 3 "Person of lower income" or "family of lower income" means a person or a family, residing in this state, whose income is not greater than 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size, as determined by the Housing and Community Services Department using United States Department of Housing and Urban Development information. Page 10 of 14 accessory structures of dwellings, as described in section R327 of the 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. Staff has briefed the Board multiple times on the components of R327, most recently in February 2021. Section R327 requires new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to use certain types of materials and incorporate specific requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. No individual construction elements can be amended by local governments. However, SB 762 directs the Department of Consumer and Business Services to amend section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code to include standards for additions to existing dwellings and accessory structures and for replacement of existing exterior elements covered in section R327. As presently written, R327 has a number of exemptions: • Infill Exception: Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327.4. • Accessory Structure Exception: Non -habitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot do not need to comply with R327.4. • Initial Exemption: Existing lots would be broadly exempted from R327 for a period of three years from the date of adoption. Staff notes that it is unclear whether the referenced amendments to R327 undertaken by the Department of Consumer and Business Services will maintain these exemptions, alter them, or include additional exemptions not currently outlined. No more than two years after the code amendments are adopted, SB 762 requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to update section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. The amended R327 standards for existing dwellings and accessory structures must be established by October 1, 2022 and formally adopted into the Oregon Residential Specialty Code by October 1, 2024 at the latest. However, any new building code standards cannot become operative until April 1, 2023 at the earliest. In addition to the relevant code updates, the Department of Consumer and Business Services is required to develop and maintain an interactive mapping tool that displays, at the property level, wildfire hazard mitigation standards covered in section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. The department will coordinate with Oregon State University on development of the tool, and ultimately the tool will be displayed in an electronic format and available to the public at no charge. The development of the R327 mapping tool will be developed in tandem with the statewide wildfire risks maps discussed previously. County Implications As currently written, section R327 includes the following language: Page 11 of 14 "Nothing in the code or adopting ordinance prevents a local municipality from waiving the requirements of Section R327.4 for any lot, property or dwelling, or the remodel, replacement or reconstruction of a dwelling within the jurisdiction" After the final adoption of the amended R327 by the Department of Consumer and Business Services into the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, it is unclear if local governments will be given broad latitude to develop waivers or other exemptions to new building code requirements. SB 762 specifically states: "For extreme and high wildfire risk classes in the wildland-urban interface that are identified pursuant to section 7 of this 2021 Act, the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall adopt wildfire hazard mitigation building code standards that apply to new dwellings and the accessory structures of dwellings, as described in section R327 of the 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code" Staff interprets this language to mean that if a property is identified as an "extreme or high wildfire risk class," development on that parcel will be mandated to comply with the amended R327 building standards. As stated above, it is unclear if the original exemptions currently included in R327 will be maintained in the final adoption. Finally, it is unclear when local governments will be required to amend their local building codes to comply with the listed standards of SB 762. Over the coming year, staff can update the Board on ththe oa�� r.r�ments nnrl tha nrnracc fnr mAnntine thnca ctmnrlarric intn tha nncrhiitac rnimty e r� �ci a�iie� �u� i icy �w Gl lu U 1I VI WVV 1- ld ld Vr. 116 1 code. State Actions and Process SB 762 requires the Governor to appoint a State Wildfire Programs Director (Director) to oversee the implementation and monitoring of all wildfire mitigation actions required by the bill. The position will ensure compliance with all set deadlines, address the financial and equity impacts of the bill across jurisdictions, and coordinate across multiple agencies to ensure effective implementation of necessary actions. The Director is required to report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairs of relevant committees and interim committees of the Legislative Assembly at least every 60 days. These reports will discuss progress on implementing the mitigation activities, obstacles and opportunities, and catalog possibilities for future improvements. SB 762 also requires a designated 19 member Wildfire Programs Advisory Council (Council) to assist and advise the Director on wildfire mitigation issues. The Council will not serve as a decision -making body, but will provide advice, assistance, perspective, ideas and recommendations to the Director. The Council membership is required to represent the following interest groups that have specific bearing on Deschutes County: Page 12 of 14 • One member who represents county government • One member who is a land use planning director of a county that is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface Each Council member would serve a four-year appointment, with possible reappointment to subsequent Councils. The initial Council members must appointed on or before September 1, 2021. County Implications The Board and County administration may wish to pursue local nominations of County staff or other local citizens with relevant experience, such as fire protection district volunteers, to serve on the Council. It is unclear when the Council appointment process will begin. However, SB 762 requires the state to provide public notice of an opportunity for interested parties to submit names of interest for appointment to the Council. Staff will update the Board when additional information on the appointment process becomes available. The Board should be aware that Council members serve in a volunteer capacity and are not entitled to any expense reimbursements from the state. County staff and the Board have worked through numerous steps in a process to establish a suite of wildfire mitigation code amendments specific to Deschutes County. This process began by establishing the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) that held meetings from October 2019 to lanuary 2020. The WMAC provided a report that included a series of recommendations to the Board concerning updates to the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone, new building code amendments to incorporate R327 at a local level, and possible new defensible space requirements in the rural county. Subsequently, County staff conducted a series of outreach initiatives in Fall and Winter of 2020 to gather public perspective on the recommendations put forward by the WMAC and new wildfire mitigation requirements more generally. Staff presented the results of that outreach to the Board in February 2021 as part of the Wildfire Mitigation Outreach Summary Report. As referenced previously, during those discussions the Board elected to leave the currently adopted Wildfire Hazard Zone unchanged and directed staff to track state legislative efforts related to wildfire mitigation. The County may still elect to pursue new local wildfire mitigation code amendments. However, it is likely that SB 762 would supersede any local efforts unless the proposed standards exceeded those ultimately adopted at the state level. If desired, the Board can direct staff to begin drafting text amendments or outlining programmatic options to implement wildfire mitigation in Deschutes County. Conversely, SB 762 does allow local governments to adopt more stringent standards than those adopted by the state. After final establishment, the Board may elect to evaluate the state's wildfire mitigation land use/code requirements and determine if more rigorous standards are needed. Page 13 of 14 UnINERUIUMM As stated previously, Senate Bill 762 requires significant actions that must be completed by state agencies before any major efforts can take place at a local level. The Board should be aware that full resolution of the land use and building code portions of the bill might not be complete until Summer or Fall 2023 at the earliest. Staff can continue to update the Board on a regular basis when the state completes major action items and when there are opportunities for local involvement or specific County action items. Attachments: Document Senate Bill 762: Adopted Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Public Outreach Report Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee Report Item No. 2 3 Page 14 of 14 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation: Public Outreach Report Photo: Lionshead Fire, September 2020 Prepared by. - Deschutes County Community Development Department www.deschutes.org/cd ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Chair Phil Chang, Vice Chair Patti Adair, Commissioner Community Development Department Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Kyle Collins, Associate Planner Tim Berg, Applications/Systems Analyst Ines Curland, Applications/Systems Analyst Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official Deschutes County Planning Commission Dr. Leslie Hudson, Chair Jessica Kieras, Vice Chair Maggie Kirby, Commissioner Steve Swisher, Commissioner Susan Altman, Commissioner Scott Asia, Commissioner Dale Crawford, Commissioner Deschutes County Natural Resources Ed Keith, County Forester Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator -1- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon. -2- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Table of Contents PURPOSE................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................. 4 SECTION 1: BACKGROUND WILDFIRERISK..................................................................................................... 7 WildfireHistory ........................................................................................................ 7 PopulationChanges................................................................................................ 9 Current Wildfire Mitigation Measures............................................................... 11 SECTION 2: FUTURE MITIGATION PROPOSALS PUBLICOUTREACH............................................................................................. 15 Process and Methodology.................................................................................... 15 Limitations............................................................................................................. 17 Communications Plan and County Survey........................................................ 17 StatisticallyValid Survey...................................................................................... 26 VirtualOpen Houses............................................................................................ 31 GeneralPublic Comments....................................................................................32 SECTION 3. CONCLUSION Appendix: • Deschutes County Survey Summary • Nelson Research, Inc. Survey Executive Summary • Virtual Open House Q&A Summaries • General Public Comments • Fire Protection District Comments -3- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report PURPOSE Wildfire is a natural and necessary component of ecosystems across the world. Central Oregon is no exception. Historically, wildfires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. However, these landscapes are now significantly altered due to fire prevention efforts, warming climatic trends, and modern suppression activities, resulting in overgrown forests with dense fuels that burn more intensely than in the past. In addition, the recent increase in Central Oregon's population has led to greater levels of residential development in forested landscapes, specifically in the wildland urban interface (WUI). These developments have created an incentive to review local land use and building codes which have a direct effect on wildfire mitigation and risk within Deschutes County. Since 2018, the Deschutes County Planning Division, with support from state and local partners, has been evaluating possible code changes explicitly dealing with building materials for rural residential development as well as land use requirements for properties located in high wildland fire danger. This report summarizes those proposed code changes, responses to the proposal from public outreach initiatives, and perspectives from fire protection professionals and development interests throughout the region. EXECUT. IVE SLIMMARY Wildfire is a major threat to communities throughout the Western United States, and Central Oregon is among those areas grappling with how to diminish some of that underlying risk and maintain the values which define our region. Throughout 2020, Deschutes County has gathered public input concerning possible code amendments which can reduce the threat of wildfire in the community. Specifically, the county has gauged public opinion on two possible code provisions dealing with wildfire mitigation: 1) An update to the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. 2) An update to the Deschutes County Code requiring Defensible Space for all rural residential properties. Evaluating public outreach efforts undertaken by the County, which are detailed in this report, it appears a majority of residents within Deschutes County generally support greater building code and defensible space requirements to mitigate wildland fire impacts. This -4- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report trend holds true for both rural and urban residents, despite these provisions being limited to those areas outside of incorporated cities. Even factoring in the additional costs which may be incurred through more stringent building and land use standards, a plurality of residents feel that these changes are necessary to maintain safe, productive communities into the future. Numerous challenges and details still remain for how these items could be implemented in practice. While generally supportive, the public has expressed some concerns regarding the cost of new requirements for lower income residents, potential impacts to wildlife habitat, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure the amendments have their intended effect. However, the general theme appears to show that Deschutes County residents are acutely aware of the risk posed by wildfire in their communities and would like to see proactive measures put in place to reduce those risks where appropriate. SECTI "N I- BACKGROUND Community Development Department (CDD) staff and the Board began discussing a 2015 University of Oregon Community Service Center (CSC) code audit in the fall of 2018. The timing coincided with the State Building Codes Division's (BCD) consideration of an amendment to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to prescribe fire hardening standards (i.e., building codes to increase resiliency to fire). The Board directed staff to track +hoc- ef�nAnrrie mnA rn%tieif nnfinnc in ')01 Q U IC.7G .7LUI IWul 11.E ul I 1 L V I- wt.-1 - ... The Board appointed the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) in September 2019 to undertake the following objectives: 1) Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629- 044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2) Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3) Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. -5- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020, and a final report on April 17, 2020.' The WMAC made two recommendations pertaining to the WHZ and two recommendations in determining where R327 should apply: Six (6) members recommended the WHZ continue to apply to the entire County; • Five (5) members recommended the WHZ be updated based on a landscape approach informed by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions. • Six (6) members recommended R327 apply to the entire County and all existing and new lots, regardless of zone. o Despite the reference to "all existing and new lots," R327 does have two possible exceptions: ■ An included exception for infill development which states: "Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R-52 .4. • An included exception for some accessory structures which states: "Nonhabitable detached accessory structures, with an area of not greater than 400 square feet, located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot." Five (5) members recommended utilizing the WHZ based on CWPP sub -regions to inform where R327 should be implemented. From there, the group recommended R327 apply to newly created lots and replacement dwellings in the Forest Use (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. A majority of the WMAC also recommended requiring throughout the County's jurisdiction: • Defensible space, steep slope setbacks, and access standards for all new development; Defensible space for all properties, vacant and developed; The report was finalized on April 17, 2020, his://www.deschutes.orgLgd/paZe/wildfire-mit anon -advisors mittee. -6- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Establishing a program that shares best practices of wildfire mitigation to the public. Subsequently, Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) grant to incorporate the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. This TA Grant provides a basis for the County to evaluate rural growth and development through a multi -faceted lens, taking into consideration its effect on resource lands, wildlife, natural hazards, economic development, housing, transportation, public facilities, and rural communities. Staff structured the grant tasks so that they will give Deschutes County the resources to evaluate land use interrelationships as part of a future Comprehensive Plan update. The following sections of this report summarize the wildfire hazard risk for Deschutes County, the proposed mitigation code amendments based on the WMAC recommendations, as well as public responses to those proposals from the various outreach events. WILDFIRE RISK The following subsections provide an overview of the wildfire risk posed to Deschutes County, the recent population trends for the region, and current wildfire mitigation strategies undertaken by governments, non -governmental agencies, and private citizens in the area. Wildfire History Like many regions in the Western U.S., Deschutes County has a long and complicated relationship with fire. Historically, the dry ponderosa pine forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains experienced low -severity fires every 0-35 years, while other forest types such as lodgepole pine would have typically experienced high -severity fire events every 35-100 years.2 However, fire management techniques shifted beginning in the early 20th Century, which saw a massive effort to suppress all fires on the landscape as quickly as possible to reduce losses to personal property and timber supply. The previous century of fire suppression has created unprecedented conditions outside of the historic fire regimes which have drastically increased the probability of high -severity fires and the resultant damage caused by these events.' In addition, long-term climatic trends have established warmer weather, reduced snowpack, and longer lasting drying periods during the summer months which significantly affect both the frequency and scale of wildland fire events.4 To illustrate, the table below summarizes 2 https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/101916 FSPLT3_4291822.pdf 3 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/homePcid=steIprdb5300193 4 https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/publications/climate-change-vulnerability-and-adaptation-south-central-oregon -7- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report major fire events in Deschutes County from 1990-2020, and the graph below illustrates acreage affected by wildfire events in Deschutes County from 1900-2010: Table 1, Major Fire Events in Deschutes County, 1990-2020 Date Fire Name Acres Burned 2020 Rosland Road 393 2019 McKay Butte 164 2018 Tepee 2026 2017 Milli 24,042 2017 McKay 1,222 2016 Sheridan 191 2014 Two Bulls 6,908 2013 Burgess Road 168 2012 Pole Creek 26,795 2011 Shadow Lake 10,402 2010 Roster Rock 6,120 2009 Black Butte II 569 2008 Summit Springs Complex 1,973 2007 GW 8,570 2006 Lake George 5,652 2006 Black Crater 9,412 2005 Park 139 2003 Davis 21,123 2003 Link 3,716 2003 18 Road Fire 3,811 2003 B & B Complex 90,769 2002 Eyerly 23,573 2002 Cache Mountain 4,421 2001 Crane Complex 713 2000 Hash Rock 18,500 1998 Elk Lake 252 1998 McKay 1,150 1996 Little Cabin 2,400 1996 Ashwood U Donnybrook 100,000+ 1996 Smith Rock 300 1996 Skeleton 17,794 1996 Evans West 4,231 1995 Cinder Butte 11,132 1994 Four Corners 1,524 1992 Sage Flat ODF 1,106 1992 Horse Butte 1,629 -8- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report 1991 Stevens Canyon 1,080 1990 Awbrey Hall 3,500 1990 Delicious 2,042 1990 Finley Butte 1,320 Total 320,832 The significant story here is that Central Oregon has experienced high -intensity wildland fires on 37 percent more acreage in the last 15 years than in the previous 100 years combined. This trend of escalating large wildland fires in Deschutes County is likely to continue and will create greater impact on the citizens, economic and cultural values -at -risk, and infrastructure of the county. Population Changes Understanding the future population of Deschutes County informs wildfire risk and related mitigation strategies. Since the enactment of state legislation in 2013 to centralize population forecasts with consistent methodology across Oregon, population forecasts have been conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University (PSU). Population forecasts are performed on a four-year cycle by region; the most recent forecast for Deschutes County was published in 2018.5 It is important to note that these population figures for 2018 and beyond may differ slightly from estimates provided by the United States s https:Hondeck.pdx.edu/population-research/sites/g/files/znldhr3261/files/2020-07/Deschutes_Report_Final.pdf -9- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Census due to different base year estimates and forecast methodology; for cities' geography, PRC uses Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) rather than city limits, which can differ slightly. The PRC 2018 Final Forecast Report notes that the total population of Deschutes County will likely grow at a faster pace in the near -term (2018-2043) compared to the long-term (2043- 2068). This is largely due to an eventual decrease in birth rates versus death rates -owing to an aging population as well as a smaller population of women in their childbearing years - despite increases from in -migration. As shown in Table 2, Deschutes County's total population (including cities) is forecast to increase by more than 114,000 over the next 25 years (2018-2043) and by more than 245,000 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2018- 2068). Average Average Annual Annual Table 2, Deschutes County and 2018 2043 2068 Growth Growth Sub -Area Population Forecasts6 Rate 2018 - Rate 2043 - 2043 2068 Deschutes County 187,621 301,999 432,930 1.9% 1.5% Bend UGB 91,373 162,362 255,291 2.3% 1.8% Redmond UGB 29,364 51,625 82,575 2.3% 1.9% Sisters UGB 2,691 5,169 8,431 2.6% 2.0% La Pine UGB 1,833 3,594 5,894 2.7% 2.0% Outside UGB 62,360 79,248 80,739 1.0% 0.1% I (UnincorporatedCounty) I I I I I The growth rate for unincorporated Deschutes County, however, does not directly mirror that of the county as a whole or its cities. While the growth rates for the county as well as its cities are all projected to slow down between 2043 and 2068, the growth rate slows more dramatically for the unincorporated county as shown in Table 3. As a result, the population of the unincorporated county becomes a smaller proportion of the county as a whole by 2043 and 2068. Table 3, Deschutes County and Sub -Areas Share of County Forecasts' Share of County 2018 Share of County 2043 Share of County 2068 Deschutes County n/a n/a n/a Bend UGB 48.7% 53.8% 59.0% Redmond UGB 15.7% 17.1% 19.1% Sisters UGB 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% La Pine UGB 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Outside UGB (Unincorporated County) 1 33.2% 1 26.2% 1 18.60710 6 https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/Deschutes_Report_Fina1.pdf Ibid. -10- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Despite the lower share of community members residing in the rural county relative to cities, approximately 20,000 additional people are projected to reside in unincorporated areas over the next 50 years. This is significant, as those areas of the County are likely to be at the greatest risk to wildland fire impacts; and population increases in those regions will have a disproportionate influence on wildfire mitigation strategies as the county continues its rapid growth over the coming decades. Additionally, a significant portion of wildland fire events are caused by human activities, such as individuals recreating on state and federal lands. As such, larger general populations in Deschutes County are likely to increase the numbers of people recreating within wildland areas, with a commensurate increase in ignition risk for human -caused wildfires. Current Wildfire Mitigation Measures There are a number of actions currently under way within Deschutes County and the larger region to address wildfire hazards. Some of the measures are being undertaken by county departments, while others are carried out by state and federal agencies, or private citizens. The following is a list of some of the current activities undertaken to reduce wildfire risk in the County: Wildfire Hazard Zone • In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a Wildfire Hazard Zone, requiring a minimum of Cl;;-,-, C ronfing and nrohihiting the use of untreated wood roof coverings. -'-'---'--....v-. F-._..._-----v------------------------ --- -- Natural Hazards Hazards Mitigation Plan • Deschutes County's first Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP), adopted in 2006, was the first pre -disaster plan, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Oregon. • NHMP proposed actions recommend reviewing and upgrading existing building and land use codes to address landscaping, fuel amounts, and structural details that reduce the incidence or spread of wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interactive (WUI). Project Wildfire • Project Wildfire is a long-term wildfire mitigation strategy that provides for disaster - resistant communities. Its mission is to prevent deaths, injuries, property loss, and environmental damage resulting from wildfires in Deschutes County. • Created by Deschutes County Ordinance 8.24.010, Project Wildfire is the community organization that facilitates, educates, disseminates, and maximizes community efforts toward effective fire planning and mitigation. Project Wildfire organizes -11- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report community events that help educate the community about wildfire protection strategies and techniques. Community Wildfire Protection Plans • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) are the result of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003' which, as part of a historic bipartisan legislative effort, calls for communities to collaborate with state and local agencies to determine priorities for hazardous fuels projects on federal and private lands in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). • It also allows communities to develop and list priorities that affect their abilities to survive a wildland fire in their areas. Egress, education, and water availability are some of the other issues that communities may address in their plans. Across Central Oregon, each community has been collaborating with forest and fire management agencies to identify risks and outline strategies to address them. Project Wildfire acts as the caregiver to seven unique Community Wildfire Protection Plans within Deschutes County. Each plan is revised on a 5-year cycle to ensure it's relevant to the partners involved in its development. FireFree FireFree is both an event and a program. The FireFree message is a year-round effort to educate community members about how they can be prepared for wildfires. Along with the education, FireFree provides events where residents can recycle yard debris for free or a reduced price. • Project Wildfire coordinates the FireFree program, which is an educational program that teaches residents how to protect their homes from wildfire. The FireFree program and fuels reduction projects yield over 40,000 cubic yards of woody debris each year. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Few counties have wildfire hazard maps in their Comprehensive Plans, but Deschutes County is an outlier. The Deschutes County Fire Hazard map is included in Chapter 3: Rural Growth Management of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and identifies wildfire hazard throughout the county. In total, 96 percent of the land in Deschutes County is identified as being located in a fire hazard area. 8 http://www.projectwildfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hfra.pdf -12- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report • Policy 3.5.11(b) addresses wildfire concerns to and from development, through consideration of site location, building construction and design, landscaping, defensible space, fuel management, access, and water availability. Defensible Space • Defensible space is the buffer created between a building and the grass, trees, shrubs, or any wildland areas that surround it. This space is needed to slow or stop the spread of wildfire and helps protect structures themselves from catching fire. • Deschutes County utilizes several regulatory programs to address defensible space. The following list summarizes the County's current approach to wildfire mitigation: o Consistent with State law, the Forest Use 1 and 2 zones require compliance with defensible space, access, and water supply standards. o Destination resorts are required to implement a wildfire management plan to ensure safe evacuations and that hazards are minimized. o Defensible space requirements for unprotected lands were adopted in 2011. o In October 2016, conditional use permit criteria were applied to Tree Farm, LLC, a cluster aevelopment consisting of 50, approximately two -acre residential lots located west of the City of Bend. The conditional use criteria require wildfire mitigation standards including defensible space and residential sprinklers. o The Westside Transect Zone (WTZ), consisting of approximately 717 acres and located west of the City of Bend and East of Shevlin Park and Tumalo Creek, was approved in January 2019. The WTZ Zone requires all land divisions to submit a master plan that contains a wildfire mitigation plan. County Forester o The County Forester helps private land owners create defensible space around their homes and helps coordinate fire adapted communities throughout Deschutes County. SEC%T1 2 � FU . MITIGA"nON PROPOSALS The County has undertaken a public outreach program to gauge support for additional wildfire hazard mitigation measures relating to residential development. Specifically, the -13- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report County approached residents in our region to evaluate their opinions on the following programs: 1) An update to the Deschutes County Building Code (in accordance with the 2019 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation)) which would require new residential construction in a Wildfire Hazard Zone to incorporate certain types of materials and requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and glazing in windows/skylights and doors. 2) An update to the Deschutes County Code requiring Defensible Space for all rural residential properties. These proposals were outlined in the context of Deschutes County's wildfire history, locations for where these standards may apply, and cost estimates associated with implementation. Through the TA Grant process, Deschutes County undertook a multi -pronged outreach approach to address the recommendations provided by the CSC and WMAC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020, public outreach opportunities were limited, and the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildfire mitigation. To ensure the greatest possible opportunity for public involvement, the County considered multiple options for gathering input and ultimately aeddea on the following options-, 1) Communications Plan. Press releases, social media, the department's electronic newsletter and the NextDoor web application to announce a project website, ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based maps with text and photos) and an online survey to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. 2) Open Houses. Two virtual open houses with the Deschutes County Planning Commission on November 19 and December 3, 2020, to discuss the project's history and specifics regarding the proposed mitigation standards. 3) Statistically Valid Survey. A statistically valid survey conducted via telephone by Nelson Research, Inc. of residents across Deschutes County to understand the public's support to adopt building codes and defensible space standards for rural housing. The following sections outline the results of those public outreach actions and the public's general assessment of additional wildfire mitigation measure in Deschutes County. -14- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report PUBLIC OUTREACH Process and Methodology As described above, the County requested Nelson Research, Inc. to conduct a statistically valid phone survey in addition to the County conducted online survey. This secondary survey was undertaken for the following reasons: 1) To provide an independent, scientifically accurate public outreach process to achieve greater confidence in the County's findings. 2) To cross reference and validate findings from the County -directed internet survey through an additional outreach method. To achieve statistically valid results, Nelson Research, Inc. conducted the survey under the following methodological standards: A randomized telephone sample of 20,000 Deschutes County residents was chosen for the survey, among which a smaller sample was chosen based on geographic parameters set by the County. A total sample of 383 residents was ultimately chosen to conduct the survey. o As the County was primarily interested in responses from those that would be most impacted by the new requirements (rural residents), the chosen sample was weighted towards residents outside of incorporated cities. o 75 percent of the sample came from rural areas of the County and 25 percent from Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine. o The total sample size is a +/- 5 percent margin of error at the 95 percent level of confidence. o However, due to the oversampling of rural residents, results coming from the Bend/Redmond/Sisters/La Pine geographic area likely have a higher error rate, while results from the rural parts of the County have a lower error rate. o Initially, the County discussed breaking out Sisters and La Pine separately, but since these two cities make up only 1 percent each of the County's total residents, a separate sub -sample would have been too small to achieve any meaningful data. -15- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report o Due to the large oversampling of rural residents, Nelson Research did not set up any other demographic quotas besides the geographic quota outlined a bove. All surveys were conducted by telephone and all calls were randomized so all parties within the sampling parameters had an equal opportunity of being called. o All calls were monitored and recorded to ensure all survey protocols were followed and to ensure the quality of each call. o A qualifier question was included that asked each respondent prior to participation if they were 18 years of age or older and currently living in Deschutes County (If respondents answered no to either portion, they were excluded from participating in the survey). • All information regarding their geographic location was taken from the list provided by the Deschutes County Clerks office Clerk's Office based on voting precinct designated census tracts and was not asked directly of respondents. The final demographic samples were as follows: Sex Percentage Males 49.3% Females 49.9% Other 0.3% Refused 0.5% Age Percentage 18-29 3.4% 30-44 14.6% 45-59 27.2% 60+ 153.8% Residency Percentage 0-5 Years 14.9% 6-10 Years 12.5% Over 10 Years 71% Refused 1.6% Geographic Location Percentage Bend/Redmond/Sisters/La Pine 25.1 % Other/Rural 74.9% -16- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Limitations While the County has taken appropriate measures to ensure that the results of the public outreach process accurately reflect the perspectives and opinions of the community, there are a number of limitations to the process which must be summarized. Specifically, a not insignificant number of respondents to both surveys were uncomfortable noting their support or lack of support without additional information and specifics of how individual proposals might be implemented. Community members have raised numerous concerns, many of which are addressed in this report, regarding how possible mitigation measures would interface with existing development regulations, differing County comprehensive plan priorities, and parcels with pre-existing development patterns which may challenge implementation on a property -by -property basis. While all of these concerns are valid, the purpose of this outreach process is to gather a generalized sense of public opinion on wildfire mitigation measures that the County may have the option of pursuing in the near to medium term. To the extent possible, the County has attempted to provide a clear picture of what these programs might mean for Deschutes County residents writ large, such as projected costs and geographic locations which would be affected. More specific implementation issues would ultimately be addressed and reviewed further at future work sessions and public hearings should the County elect to move forward with these proposals. Additionally, a number of comments and concerns were raised by community members throughout the outreach process related to items such as public education on safe fire practices and the role of outdoor recreation in wildfire ignition. The County acknowledges the significant role that educational programs can play in reducing human caused wildfire ignition within the Central Oregon region. However, while these issues are important and should be addressed, ultimately that authority and responsibility lies outside of the Community Development Department, which principally deals with physical development of properties throughout Deschutes County. The possible mitigation measures referenced herein are an attempt to reduce wildfire risks associated with new and existing development. Public education on proper fire safety and risk management are distinct issues which can be addressed through a variety of state, federal, and local agencies which are not directly related to physical development of property. Finally, staff points out that many of these agencies, such as local fire protection districts and the United States Forest Service, frequently undertake public education campaigns to reduce human caused fire ignition, particularly during periods of high fire danger. has. mR-nu nicer ions Plan and COUnty Survey As described previously, the County's communication plan involved a number of online press releases, a public -facing web page specific to the wildfire mitigation project, an ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based maps with text and photos), and an online survey. The primary information gathering tool through this process was the online survey, which -17- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report proposed a series of six questions to understand the public's desire to see additional mitigation measures brought forward at a County level. Those six questions were outlined as follows: 1) Are you a resident living within Deschutes County? 2) How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? 3) The County's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire- resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? 4) If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? 5) If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? 6) Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural County? In total, the County received 801 individual responses to the online survey, with 498 of those responses coming from people living within rural Deschutes County (outside of an incorporated city). Of the total responses, 86.6 percent of community members feel that their homes are somewhat vulnerable or extremely vulnerable to wildfire damage. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 88.9 percent of respondents feel that their homes are somewhat vulnerable or extremely vulnerable to wildfire damage. -18- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q2 How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? $i.IneV: h vulnerab Extremel vulnerabl Undecided;:;; Cie 1040 21;1.'b 30_{ 40,i Gc':: GU°rL 704_. 8p":c 1001,:; All County Residents 02 How vulnerahle is vour home to wildfire? z— .._.. - - - - - -- -- - - - - - IN IM-Iffir oj� �u�;.t Exti erne vutnelable Undecided::<' 101. 2G'd C, .. 4041 51?5e GG:"_ 80111,. 1 90D.. 10 'S Rural County Residents Regarding whether residents support additional requirements for fire-resistant building materials when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County, 67.3 percent were -19- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report supportive, 22.7 percent were not supportive, and the remaining 10.0 percent were undecided. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 61.5 percent were supportive, 27.8 percent were not supportive, and the remaining 10.7 percent were undecided. Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Undecided All County Residents ., icq.., eC .. .�%4b 400rc a 70i0 F03: K 100? Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Undecided ll:o_ 2C^t 3O?:: 4C°:i Cla^,:. 6C' 7Cpn, 90?, 904. 100110 Rural County Residents Regarding whether residents support expanding defensible space requirements to all existing and new development in rural Deschutes County, 60.9 percent were supportive, 24.1 -20- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report percent were not supportive, 10.3 percent were undecided, and the remaining 4.8 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 55.1 percent were supportive, 29.9 percent were not supportive, 10.3 percent were undecided, and the remaining 4.6 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. The provided supplementary answers covered a wide range of perspectives and concerns; however, certain themes did emerge, including:9 How to implement defensible space standards for smaller properties Cost of maintenance for lower -income residents How defensible space measures will impact wildlife habitat Visual buffering between neighboring property owners Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? Yes No Undecided OthPltplea^e specify) All County Residents 9 The full list of supplementary comments is attached as an appendix to this report for additional information -21- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? Yes NO 0 Undecided Other q?leace sJpeat;? Gq' lcl. 20111, 7.c,_, 4GO: Sc^a GG', az 71 f, 1, .;. 8G?b 90?, 1eGI_. Rural County Residents As presently written in State Building Code, any fire-resistant building materials can only be required in designated Wildfire Hazard Zones. Currently, the entirety of rural Deschutes County is designated as a Wildfire Hazard Zone. As discussed previously, during the 2019- 2020 WMAC meetings the committee discussed updates to the County's Wildfire Hazard Zone based on more recent information. Ultimately, the committee members were split regarding the need for zone updates, or whether the Wildfire Hazard Zone should continue to apply across the entirety of Deschutes County. The public outreach process was intended to vet these recommendations against public perceptions to help guide any future decisions on how zone changes, if any, are enacted. When answering where fire-resistant building materials (and hence the Wildfire Hazard Zone) should apply, 57.5 percent believe the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone should remain as is, 17.2 percent believe the Wildfire Hazard Zone should be reduced to only include Forest and Rural Residential Zoned properties, 21.5 percent believed no additional fire-resistant building materials should be required at all, and the remaining 3.8 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 53.6 percent believe the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone should remain as is, 17.3 percent believe the Wildfire Hazard Zone should be reduced to only include Forest and Rural Residential Zoned properties, 25.5 percent believed no additional fire-resistant building materials should be required at all, and the remaining 3.7 percent of respondents provided a more detailed or contextual answer. -22- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Those supplementary answers covered a wide range or perspectives and concerns; however, certain themes did emerge, including:10 • How wildfire hazard mitigation actions should be implemented inside incorporated city limits Cost of implementation for lower -income residents Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? Existing YJildfire Hat.., Reduce the Wildfire HRZ_ 01 I do nut eupput cd— q:teaee wecifyS_. All County Residents 701:. 2p :. 3Ch::. 4Uo.. [C°R. 13 G?4 7e,,_. 9il?b 90iti tCiis,:: io The full list of supplementary comments is attached as an appendix to this report for additional information -23- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? Existing Wildfil'e Haz.,. Redurethe ;'ditdfire Haz.,. i dnict euppoit.. Othl (,leace s'J edf').;s Rural County Residents To provide relative cost context for the proposed building materials standards, residents were asked how much they would be willing to add to the construction cost of a 2,400- square-foot home to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage. Residents were given a total range of between $0 and over $6,000. The range of proposed estimates was based on a wide variety of resources, including the local building official, the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA), and various real estate agencies working in the region. Regarding how much additional expense residents would be willing to incur to implement new wildfire building standards, 22.8 percent stated they would not expend any additional money, 46.4 percent stated they would expend up to $6,000, and the remaining 30.8 percent of respondents stated they would expend more than $6,000. From those community members living within rural Deschutes County, 27.5 percent stated they would not expend any additional money, 45.3 percent stated they would expend up to $6,000, and the remaining 27.3 percent of respondents stated they would expend more than $6,000. -24- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Q5 If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? .xc Up to 9 PI,G'Glo! G"" I1`� 20'-' 4C'0 GC>-", 601".. 701t 8111, 90?<, 100zo All County Residents Q5 If building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing +.. ...,1.,1 +.. +4,. construction , r,n+r. .'.+f r. r. .+..n+ +� ir�nr.rr�r.vn+e-. rr�e.�e�� Iren that rv��a� rei+lI 1ne +ho rit+L of willi g to add o the col stt uctiol I cost to i Cot Not ate t t Ieaout es tt tat t t lay I euua.e a Ic t t.�FN vt wildfire damage to your home? M Up to $6,0 Rural County Residents ,.. 100k 20$L 0$b 40 6G i6^n; e041m -25- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Statistically Valid urvey Deschutes County employed the services of Nelson Research, Inc. to conduct a statistically valid phone survey to gauge the public's perception of wildfire threat to homes in the County, requiring certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing new homes in the Wildfire Hazard Zone, and expanding defensible space for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County. The survey was carried out between December 1 and December 4, 2020. A total of 383 respondents were interviewed during that time. As stated previously, to account for the primary community who would be effected by these proposals, the sampling for this survey was heavily weighted in the rural areas of the County (75 percent rural, 25 percent urban). Due to the significant weighting, the survey results are not necessarily representative of the community at large, but they are representative of those living in rural Deschutes County. The questions posed through the survey process were as follows: 1) In Deschutes County, wildfires have significantly increased over the last 40 years. Deschutes County is currently considering measures to help reduce the risk of catastrophic damage to homes in high risk areas in the County. These homes are located in what is called the Wildfire Hazard Zone. On a scale of one to four with "i" representing VERY VULNERABLE and "4" representing "NOT VULNERABLE AT ALL," please tell me how vulnerable you believe your home is to wildfire? 2) Deschutes County currently requires fire-resistant roofing materials only. The County is considering a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. This requirement would increase the cost of building a new 2,400-square-foot home by approximately $5,00046,000 including labor costs and materials. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the County enacting these requirements for new construction? 3) If you had to choose, where would you prefer the County require additional fire- resistant materials — in the EXISTING Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes ALL OF RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY, or reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include FOREST AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONLY, or do you OPPOSE requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether? 4) Currently, Deschutes County requires Defensible Space in Forest Use Zones. Defensible space is an area around a building where vegetation, debris and other -26- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire to and from the building. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE expanding these requirements so residents would need to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County? The following trends and conclusions were provided in the executive summary prepared by Nelson Research: 1) Vulnerability: Well over half of respondents do not believe their home is vulnerable to wildfire; however, nearly half of rural residents (47 percent) believe their homes are vulnerable. A large majority of older residents 45-59 years old (61 percent) and 60+ years old (57 percent) do not believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire. 2) Fire-resistant building materials: Well over half of respondents favor a proposal that would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. It is important to note that a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group (including rural areas) favor this proposal. 3) Wildfire Hazard Zone: Respondents are nearly split with slightly less than one-third that prefer fire-resistant materials be required in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and slightly fewer that prefer to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. It appears that slightly more rural residents prefer enacting these requirements on all of rural Deschutes County (32 percent), over reducing the Wildfire Hazard Zone (30 percent). Additional education and communication about why this is a necessary option (enacting the requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone) could significantly increase support, should the County choose to move forward with implementation. 4) Cost: Slightly less than one-third of respondents would be willing to pay between $1 and $6,000 more to build a new home with fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones. However, it is important to note that when accounting for those who would be willing to expend more than $6,000, a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more for these fire-resistant materials, including those currently living in rural areas of the County. These numbers are consistent with the number of respondents that favor requiring fire-resistant materials. 5) Defensible Space: A very large number of respondents favor expanding Defensible Space requirements so new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County would need to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of wildfire. It is significant that a large majority of respondents in every demographic group support this proposal. -27- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report The following pages illustrate the range of responses across the various questions from the statistically valid survey: Vulnerability of Howe to Wildfli-e > egg 60 so 44ao 40 , ,30 20 4 ftC 12 0 Vulnerable Not Vulnerable -28- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Where to Require of Fire -Resistant Materials ,g 15 . a 13F. i0iug+All Rural CJFerest'Riull Zone& j 23 e ru � -: L7L'�pgcrsc R�uitpiiplt � E EINot S%we 1 V an z � Now Much Afore Residents are Willing to Pay for Fire -Resistant Materials #5 n 32 s � Cd 25 F Ucr Y 0V"' CS 24Cd �Notlainr� � O S 1-Sb.000 m a o over $6,000 i 15 iL ONO Sure .., e 10 5 r -29- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Based on the summary above, both proposals appear to have widespread community support in nearly every demographic group. There are some discrepancies between the online survey and the phone survey administered by Nelson Research. The primary differences related to where additional building standards should be applied (the Wildfire Hazard Zone) and how much additional money residents would be willing to spend to implement new standards. There was slightly less support among phone survey respondents for preserving the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone and for expending any additional resources to implement new standards. However, even when accounting for those divergences, a majority of residents across both surveys were supportive of including additional building requirements in at least some areas of the County and a majority of residents were willing to expend at least some additional resources to implement the additional standards. Additionally, despite the similarity of the questions, it is interesting to note the difference in perception of wildfire risk between the Nelson Research survey and the County produced survey. It is not entirely clear what accounts for this specific discrepancy. However, it may be that the StoryMap and associated wildfire history information leading into the County survey provided a more grounded education concerning wildfire risk in Deschutes County, rather than simply relying on personal anecdotes and observations. If this is the case, it would seem to support Nelson Research's conclusion that additional communication and education may have a significant effect on community support for either of these proposals. -30- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Virtual pen Houses Due to the public gathering restrictions in place from the COVID-19 pandemic, the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildfire mitigation. To account for these challenges, County planning staff facilitated a series of virtual open houses in conjunction with the Deschutes County Planning Commission, staff members from the Deschutes County Building Department, the Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator Boone Zimmerlee, and the Deschutes County Forester Ed Keith. The open house events occurred on November 1911 and December 201Z, 2020. The purpose of the open houses was to give the public and the Deschutes County Planning Commission an opportunity to ask County staff and fire protection experts additional questions concerning the proposed wildfire mitigation measures. These sessions were intended to introduce community members to the StoryMap feature and associated survey, while also allowing for more clarification and inquiry into details which may not have been captured by the other outreach features. The open house sessions were conducted via Zoom web -meeting platform and each was simultaneously streamed and recorded via Facebook Live through the County's social media account. Participants were encouraged to submit questions through either of these channels, with corresponding answers provided in real time by facilitators and presenters. As of January 12, 2020, the recorded November 19 event has been viewed a total of 626 times and the recorded December 3 event has been viewed a total of 445 times. These open house events covered a wide range of topics, including the following major themes that appeared during both open house sessions: • How defensible space standards will be monitored and enforced if implemented • How the new building code requirements would apply to additions or replacements of existing development • How defensible space standards would be balanced against various other land use goals such as wildlife habitat preservation • How the new building code requirements differ from the standards that are in place presently Whether similar code provisions have been adopted in other Oregon jurisdictions 11 https://www.facebook.com/Deschutes.County/videos/wildfire-mitigation-open-house/380763246530718/ 12 https://www.facebook.com/Deschutes.County/videos/wildfire-mitigation-open-house/387548885807657/ -31- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Whether the new building code requirements can be modified beyond what was adopted by the State Building Codes Division Whether the County will provide additional resources for property owners to establish the defensible space standards should they be adopted • How the County intends to navigate challenges such as absentee landlords and second -home owners in implementing the proposed code changes • How the defensible space standards will be implemented on properties with limited space/development area The full list of community member questions and answers during the open house meetings has been included as an appendix to this report. General Public Coryin ents In addition to the data gathered through survey outreach and both virtual open houses, the County has received over 30 public comments from private citizens, professional organizations, and advocacy groups concerning the proposed wildfire mitigation code amendments. in particular, the County has received comments from numerous fire protection agencies throughout the region including the Alfalfa Fire Protection District, the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, the Sunriver Fire Protection District, Bend Fire and Rescue, the Sisters - Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District, and the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District. The agencies were unanimous in their support for the proposed wildfire mitigation code amendments and strongly pressed the County to adopt them into the current land use and building safety programs. A full copy of the public comments has been included as an appendix to this report. SECT" w %6'0NLL U1 Based on the outreach undertaken by the County and described above, it appears that a majority of residents within Deschutes County are generally supportive of greater building code and defensible space requirements to mitigate wildland fire impacts to the community. Of course, there are numerous technical and pragmatic questions regarding how these standards would be implemented on a case -by -case basis and these items would need to be addressed in greater detail when considering next steps. However, the common theme appears to be that Deschutes County residents are acutely aware of the risk posed by wildfire -32- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report to their communities and would like to see proactive measures be put in place to reduce those risks. -33- Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Appendix Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Deschutes County Survey Summary Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q1 Are you a resident living within Deschutes County? Answered:799 Skipped: 2 I live wit rural Desch I live within the city lim.. M, live outside of Deschutes... live outside: of Deschutes... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES I live within rural Deschutes County, outside of a city. I live within the city limits of Bend, Redmond, Sisters or La Pine. I live outside of Deschutes County but own property within Deschutes County. I live outside of Deschutes County and do not own property in the area. TOTAL RESPONSES 62.33% 28.79% 7.63% 1.25% 498 230 61 10 799 1/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q2 How vulnerable is your home to wildfire? Answered:801, skipped:0 Somewh vulnerab Extremely vulnerable Undecided 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Not vulnerable 10.61% Somewhat vulnerable 61.30% Extremely vulnerable 25.34% Undecided 2.75% TOTAL 85 491 203 22 801 2/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q3 The county's current Wildfire Hazard Zone only requires fire-resistant roofing materials. Do you support additional building codes which would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in rural Deschutes County? Answered, 798 Skij:)ped: 3 Yes No Undecided 0%, 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 67.29% No 22.68% Undecided 10.03% TOTAL 537 181 80 798 3/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q4 If Deschutes County requires additional fire-resistant materials for new homes, where in rural Deschutes County should they apply? fin wend: 790 Skippe:.d::1"I Existing Wildfire Haz... Reduce the Wildfire Haz... 1 do not support... Other (please specify). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone (entire rural county) Reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include only Forest (F1 & F2) and Rural Residential (RR10) zoning I do not support requiring additional fire-resistant materials Other (please specify) TOTAL RESPONSES 57.47% 454 17.22% 136 21.52% 170 3.80% 30 790 4/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Require in F1 and F2, strongly recommend in the whole county 12/13/2020 5:15 PM 2 All new construction -- both rural and city limits -- within Deschutes County 12/7/2020 5:11 PM 3 ??? 12/7/2020 4:35 PM 4 The entire county is at risk (including inside city limits.) If anyone thinks the city is not at risk, 12/6/2020 11:12 PM they should probably talk to residents of Talent and Phoenix to get their take on wildfire. 5 unfair to target rural areas. All homes in the county should be effected. 12/5/2020 7:16 PM 6 The entire County. Sadly, Deschutes Cnty has grown and continues to grow too rapidly. Why 12/5/2020 8:47 AM band aid this issue? Plan for the future, and do it right; make this applicable in the ENTIRE County. 7 1 would leave existing requirements as is, but add new requirements to F1, F2, RR10. 12/3/2020 5:14 PM 8 Utilize higher resolution modelling to determine risk. Consider ember travel beyond fuel beds 11/27/2020 3:23 PM 9 Anywhere that has many pine trees 11/26/2020 9:25 AM 10 Use F1 & F2 and RR10 as a starting point, but modify based on a landscape wildfire risk 11/23/2020 10:08 AM assessment. 11 would not want this to apply to replacements on existing homes anywhere 11/18/2020 11:26 AM 12 1 support requiring large housing developments to use all fire resistant materials, but not 11/16/2020 2:43 PM individuals who want to build a home outside of a development. 13 Everywhere in the County not just unincorporated. All Cities. 11/14/2020 6:43 AM 14 1 would prefer an expert to do the math on cost of upgrades vs saving/rebuilding and projected 11/12/2020 12:47 AM risk per home in each zone. 15 Only require it where it is truly needed. I don't know if any of the above options meet that. May 11/9/2020 7:54 AM require a new map. 16 Extreme High Risk WUI - but the answer is not building code but development code/pattern 11/8/2020 3:17 PM 17 All new construction within the county - INCLUDING cities. 11/6/2020 10:37 AM 18 Please explain (again?) F1, F2 and RR10 zoning 11/5/2020 2:28 PM 19 1 don't believe the new codes and requirements should apply only to Uralic new construction. 11/3/2020 8:57 AM Where we have wildfires the homes are typically areas out in Uralic areas. I believe especially with all the fires in past and this last year has shown, wildfires can happen both in Uralic and urban areas where the density of homes and buildings. With wind driven wildfire like we had a few months ago everyone is susceptible. With that said, I don't believe it is fair that the new codes and requirements be applied to just rural new homes or or remodels so the the City of Bend is exempt making the rural communities only pay these new construction fees. The City of Bend is building more and more homes and this new proposal would exclude home owners and contractors to pay. I believe if these code and restrictions should apply to all of Deschutes County be it living in Urban or Rural. Share the cost across the board. 20 there may be areas in the RR10 zones that should not be included, F1 and F2 seem 11/2/2020 10:46 AM appropriate. 21 F1, F2, RR10 and resort zones such as Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch. And any limited 10/30/2020 11:01 AM portions other zones that are within a stipulated distance from a F1 & F2 zone. For example the south end of Sisters is zoned R but borders national forest 22 1 am undecided on this. There are already a lot of homes in the Three Rivers area and 1 think 10/29/2020 4:21 PM the concern is to enforce a defensible space for existing homes. The Three Rivers area has a lot of people living in trailers and leaving the lot with trash and clutter. I say start at where the issue lies now. Even, if you require new homes to have a fire-resistant material. This doesn't really make us any safer, with other homes out of compliance. 23 Let the homeowner decide if they want additional fire-resistant material, and future owners can 10/28/2020 9:27 AM decide if they want to choose to purchase only homes with additional fire resistant materials 5/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey 24 Entire county not just outside city but city as well 10/27/2020 7:29 PM 25 Both in the existing wildfire hazard zone and I'd like to see a collaborative effort for the City 10/27/2020 2:09 PM Governments to adopt a similar code/policy 26 All houses in the county. Embers can travel miles and don't care about UGBs. 10/27/2020 12:18 PM 27 There should be no new development allowed in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (yes I realize that is 10/27/2020 11:01 AM the entire rural county) 28 Local and county government should offer significant property tax credits to property owners 10/26/2020 10:30 PM who voluntarily create defensible space. Additionally, metropolitan Bend should encourage low density development bordered by agricultural fields and pastures, golf courses, sports fields, and pasture parks developed voluntarily by citizens. 29 All areas. Fire is random with what was shown in talent/Phoenix Oregon. Commercial 10/26/2020 9:02 PM structures where lost due to extreme weather and available fuels. Preparations on all structure construction as well as fire resistant barriers. 30 Everywhere - wildfire can be unpredictable, it'd be great to have as many protection measures 10/23/2020 8:53 AM in place as possible. 6/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q5 if building a new home of approximately 2,400 square feet, how much would you be willing to add to the construction cost to incorporate measures that may reduce the risk of wildfire damage to your home? Answered: 797 Skipped: lI $0 Up to $6,000 , Over $6,000 2% to 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $0 22.84% Up to $6,000 46,42% Over $6,000 30,74% 2% to 3% 0.00% TOTAL 182 370 245 0 797 7/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey Q6 Defensible space is required in Forest Use zones. Do you support Deschutes County expanding these requirements to all existing and new development in the rural county? Answered:800 Skipped: 1 Yes No Undecided Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 60.88% No 24.13% Undecided 10.25% Other (please specify) 4.75% TOTAL 487 193 82 38 800 8/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 only new 12/21/2020 5:59 PM 2 This should apply to areas within the City that are also vulnerable and not just rural areas. It 12/7/2020 2:24 PM should also apply to remodeling. 3 Yes defensible space is absolutely needed but a 200 ft requirement should be considered. As 12/7/2020 12:31 PM the urban area pushes out further into the wildland this would be provide a better defensive area for firefighting operations. As a retired firefighter from a urban wildland area this required space truly allowed us the chance to save more homes during firefighting. 4 Expand to new development, consider requirements for undeveloped areas and their 12/7/2020 9:32 AM boundaries against developments 5 Yes. But not 100 foot of space. That'd basically leave me with zero trees between my property 12/6/2020 11:12 PM and the neighbors. 6 Redmond has more BLM land around us. Fire breaks and people keeping their yards fire safe 12/5/2020 8:20 AM is important. 7 We need more wildlife friendly 'defensible space' rules that better consider long term impacts 12/5/2020 6:13 AM on habitat rather than just clearing areas. 8 The fire retardants often use chemicals detrimental to water quality, human health and wildlife - 12/4/2020 12:36 PM - and alternatives are often regrettable (think pfas/pfoa), so please analyze from multiple perspectives. I live in Sundance subdivision near Horse Butte. We have one way in and one way out ... I would urge the County to consider retrofits to ensure multiple ways to leave an area in case of wildfire. The CCRs in terms of number of buildings are not being held to either so there are more lifestock and people that would need to leave quickly out the one road. Outreach to federal agencies for a second way out by means of a fire road have not been successful despite easements. Also there are not hydrants out here. As a county, I would focus on ensuring multiple routes of escape, hydrants and adequate water supplies; and because a lot fo fires start with sparks in the gutters/under eaves per your fire free experts improved options there. Then continue education on fire free products etc. but the analysis should include all the environmental and health risks/impacts. 9 Firewood storage exempted. Where will we keep the firewood? Almost everyone in our 12/4/2020 9:16 AM neighborhood has a pile near the house. Lots are not big enough to move firewood away 100': older subdivision with 1/2 acre lots. 10 My opinions are based upon repeated trips through the infamous Carr wildfire on the edge of 12/4/2020 7:37 AM Redding, CA. The devastation is unimaginable, but those risk are on our doorsteps today. 11 New developments need buffer zones between the development and the forest. The Tree Farm 12/4/2020 2:14 AM has a park area on the east side of the development and it should be on the west side next to Shevlin Park. We need better development planning for fires. Brooks Resources should be doing this for their new development along Skyliner Road as well! 12 In Sisters, many in -city homes border on NFS. Of the 100' defensible space, perhaps only 20 12/3/2020 4:30 PM feet of backyard is private property within city limits. NFS refuses to let homeowners modify their property. What good is 20' of defensible space when NFS won't deal with their 80'? Your regulations must take this into account. 13 For existing property, it should be up to the property owner to assume increased fire risk if not 12/3/2020 10:53 AM implemented. Many may not be able to afford upgrades which is also a reason many live outside the cities. 14 1 endorse all these measures on the condition that fire insurance premium reductions are 12/3/2020 10:18 AM commensurate with the calculated efficacy of these measures. 15 Yes ... but Borne flexibility is needed based on an on -site review. For example, if trees are 11/23/2020 10:08 AM spaced and limbs pruned appropriately they might be OK within the 100' zone. And stacked firewood could be allowed conveniently close to homes during winter/non-fire season but not allowed during fire season. If wildfire risk reduction measures are implemented there should be some flexibility in the guidelines . 16 Should be required in high -risk areas only. For example, areas east of Hamby Road are much 11/18/2020 3:12 PM lower risk than areas south of Knott Road. 9/10 Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Survey 17 Yes, with assistance ($ or otherwise) for existing development 11/14/2020 7:00 PM 18 Who would enforce? There appears to be no active enforcement of other zoning codes. 11/13/2020 5:12 PM 19 The requirements should include only areas of actual forest, they should not be "peanut- 11/13/2020 1:45 PM buttered" across the county without consideration for actual fire risk. 20 all depends on what would need to be done. I would not want to be required to cut down the 11/13/2020 1:38 PM trees adjoining my house 21 This seems like a question for experts. Does a rural home surrounded by dirt fields or lava 11/12/2020 12:47 AM fields have the same risk from fires and need to get rid of the tree and garden beds next to their house? 22 Expand it to where it makes sense, which is not necessarily all of the rural county. 11/9/2020 7:54 AM 23 The fire boundaries are vital for human saftey but creating larger altered space in rural 11/9/2020 5:19 AM residential areas increases the human footprint in places that are vital for wildlife. Cutting bitterbrush and mowing sage is not the simple answer. 24 The proposal to require 100' of diminished vegetation vs the staged 50 and 100' criteria seems 11/8/2020 3:17 PM excessive 25 1 do say Yes on above and also much less development needs to be allowed near all these 11/7/2020 8:39 AM forest areas! 26 1 am not sure "required" for existing development but I agree with "highly recommended" for 11/5/2020 2:28 PM existing development. Is there some kind of incentive to give existing development if they comply with the new requirement? 27 Need more specific requirement from the County before I can answer this question. 11/3/2020 12:11 PM 28 1 support defensible space but am concerned about requirements to remove excessive number 11/2/2020 3:54 PM of trees. Mature trees are not the same fire danger as other materials and I would not have to rernove them if they were within 30 feet of my home as this would mean losing a significant number of healthy trees and make any remodel cost prohibitive. 29 Yes but have a waiver process for unforeseen circumstances 10/29/2020 11:18 PM 30 It depends on definition and extent of space. I.e., would I have to turn my yard into a desert or 10/29/2020 12:37 PM concrete slab? 31 Stop trying to legislate common sense 10/28/2020 8:12 AM 32 As long as it doesn't require clear cutting the trees, all for cutting under brush and low lirnbs 10/27/2020 11:03 AM 33 Better & more sensable forest management 10/27/2020 8:50 AM 34 Again, citizens who voluntarily create defensible space around their homes and other 10/26/2020 10:30 PM structures should be given a worthy property tax credit. Too much fuel is Oregon's problem! Citizens need to be rewarded for significantly eliminating volatile plant fuel on their private property. After all, for decades we have been encouraged to plant more trees and shrubs. Now it is time for us happily, voluntarily to create law density towns and cities with defensible space both inside and around the perimeters. And we will ! No wise person wants to see life and property unnecessarily lost in a preventable wildfire! 35 Any new construction would need a site evaluation. This would include site adjacent fuels 10/26/2020 9:02 PM available (vegetation/structures) to make a decision on needed for fire resistance materials/ sprinkler systems. 36 1 would like to know more about situations where existing lot size does not allow these 10/26/2020 4:32 PM dimensions 37 The cost of creating defensible space could impact some families significantly. I would support 10/26/2020 3:10 PM expanding and searching for grants to help offset costa for low/medium income families. 38 Yes, but thought must be given to providing help to those not able to do this on their own (i.e., 10/26/2020 2:25 PM elderly, physically impaired, etc). 10 / 10 Nelson Research, Inc. Survey Executive Summary Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report NT,ZNELSON R E S E A R C H DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDFIRE SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 6, 2020 The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding the public's perception of wildfire threat to homes in the county, as well as two proposals: 1) require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing new homes in the Wildfire Hazard Zone, and 2) expand Defensible Space for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County. This report should assist Deschutes County in its decision -making process regarding these proposals. Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher percentage rate than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion; however, they are the ones that hold that opinion most strongly. Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR A total of 383 respondents were interviewed between December 1 and December 4, 2020. While the total number of respondents participating in this research reflects a +/-5.0% at the 95% level of confidence, the sampling has been heavily weighted in the rural areas of the county (75% rural, 25% urban). The reader must understand that due to the significant weighting, these results are not necessarily representative the community at large, but they are representative of those living in rural Deschutes County. In addition, it should be noted that a very small percentage of respondents participating in the survey, (3%), were in the 18-29 age group. This is likely due to the 75/25 split between rural and urban residents. Furthermore, not all responses total 100%. This is not due any error, but because fractions of percentages have been rounded up or down. All responses not totaling 100% total 99% or 101 %. PERCEPTION OF WILDFIRE THREAT TO HOMES Respondents were given the following information and question: "in Deschutes County, wildfires have significantly increased over the last 40 years. Deschutes County is currently considering measures to help reduce the risk of catastrophic damage to homes in high risk areas in the county. These homes are located in what is called the Wildfire Hazard Zone. On a scale of one to four with 111" representing VERY VULNERABLE and "4" representing "NOT VULNERABLE AT ALL," please tell me how vulnerable you believe your home is to wildfire?" Well over half of respondents, 56%, did not believe their home was vulnerable to wildfire (3-26%, 4-not vulnerable at all 30%), while 44% believed their home was vulnerable to wildfire (1-very vulnerable 17%, 2%-27%). 2 Nelsen' Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Key groups that did not believe their homes were vulnerable to wildfires were males (60%), other genders (100%), 45-59 years old (61%), 60+ years old (57%), 6-10 year residents (58%), over 10 year residents (57%), and urban (66%). Key demographics that believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfires were females (48%), 18-29 years old (77%), 30-44 years old (50%), 0-5 year residents (55%), and rural (47%). In a key cross tab, 54% of respondents that later strongly favored a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (21 % of all respondents), believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. In another special cross tab, 70% of respondents that strongly opposed a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (16% of all respondents) did not believe their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. 3 Nelsou Research I Deschutes Comity Wildfire I December- 6, 2020 M In yet another important cross tab, 46% of respondents that later strongly favored expanding Defensible Space requirements in rural Deschutes County (24% of all respondents) believed their homes were vulnerable to wildfire. FAVOR/OPPOSE: REQUIRING CERTAIN FIRE-RESISTANT MATERIALS WHEN CONSTRUCTING A NEW HOME IN THE WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONE Next, respondents were read the following information and question: "Deschutes County currently requires fire-resistant roofing materials only. The county is considering a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. This requirement would increase the cost of building a new 2,400 square foot home by approximately $5,00046,000 including labor costs and materials. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the county enacting these requirements for new construction?" Well over half of respondents, 57%, favored requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone (strongly favor-39%, somewhat favor-18%), while 32% opposed the proposal (somewhat oppose-9%, strongly oppose-23%). Another 12% were not sure, as reflected in the following chart. 4 Nelson Researcli I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Key demographics that favored requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in Wildfire Hazard Zones were females (61%), 18-29 years old (77%), 60+ years old (61 %), 0-5 year residents (68%), and rural (58%). Key groups that opposed requiring certain fire-resistant materials when constructing a new home in Wildfire Hazard Zones were other genders (100%), males (34%), 45-59 years old (41%), over 10 year residents (34%), and urban (33%). In a special cross tab, 72% of respondents that later strongly favored expanding Defensible Space requirements in rural Deschutes County (37% of all respondents) also favored certain fire-resistant materials for new construction in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. 5 hTe�son ttesearch I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR Next, respondents were asked the following question: If you had to choose, where would you prefer the county require additional fire- resistant materials — in the EXISTING Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes ALL OF RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY, or reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include FOREST AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONLY, or do you OPPOSE requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether? Respondents were nearly split, with 32% that preferred requiring fire-resistant materials in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and 30% that preferred to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. Another 23% opposed requiring fire-resistant materials altogether and 15% were not sure. Where to Require of Fire -Resistant Materials 35 i i 30 30 ®Existftig/All Rural V! ❑Forest/Rtral Zones pG K 23 o Zo i ®Oppose Requiremeaat v � C9 � ®Not Slue Is a io 9 0 x' 6 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR Key demographics that preferred a requirement for fire-resistant materials in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone were females (34%), 18-29 years old (62%), residents of 6-10 years (35%), and residents of 0-5 years (33%). Key groups that preferred to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zone only were other genders (100%), males (33%), 60+ years old (34%), and residents of 0-5 years (33%). Key demographics that opposed requiring fire-resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones altogether were males (25%), 30-44 and 45-59 years old (30%), residents of over 10 years (26%), and urban (25%). Next, respondents were asked how much more they were willing to pay to build a new home in Deschutes County to reduce the risk of wildfire damage to their home. A slight plurality of respondents, 32%, were willing to pay $1,00046,000 more for a new home with fire-resistant materials, while 23% were not willing to pay anything more. Another 22% were willing to pay over $6,000 and a relatively high 24% were not sure. It is interesting to note that 54% of all respondents were willing to pay more for a new home using certain fire-resistant materials ($1-$6,000+). These numbers are consistent with the percentage of respondents that favor this requirement. 7 Nelson Research ( Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR How Much More Residents are Willing to Pay for Fire -Resistant Materials 35 32 10 30 J � S S d 25 iA ° 24 ONothing �. 22 0 20 0 $1-$6,000 J bn 00ver $6,000 15 w � ONot sure _._ 10 5 Y f Key demographics willing to pay $146,000 more were females (33%), 18-29 years old (46%), 0-5 year residents (40%), and rural (33%). Key groups that were not willing to pay anything more were males (24%), 45-59 years old (33%), 30-44 years old (25%), over 10 year residents (26%), and rural (24%). Key groups willing to pay over $6,000 more were males (23%), 30-44 years old (27%), 0-5 year residents (26%), and urban (27%). Key demographics that were not sure how much they would be willing to pay for fire- resistant materials were other genders (100%), 18-29 years old (39%), 60+ years old (27%), and 6-10 year residents (31%). 8 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NITZ FAVOR/OPPOSE: EXPANDING DEFENSIBLE SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY Next, respondents were given the following information and question: "Currently, Deschutes County requires Defensible Space in Forest Use Zones. Defensible space is an area around a building where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire to and from the building. Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE expanding these requirements so residents would need to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County?" A very large percentage of respondents, 70%, favored expanding Defensible Space requirements so residents would have to create defensible spaces around their home for existing and new development in rural Deschutes County (strongly favor-52%, somewhat favor-18%), while 21% opposed the proposal (somewhat oppose-6%, strongly oppose-15%). A relatively high 9% were not sure. 9 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Key demographics that favored expanding Defensible Space Requirements were females (74%), 18-29 years old (77%), 60+ years old (73%), residents of 6-10 years (73%), and urban (76%). Key groups that opposed expanding Defensible Space Requirements were males (25%), other genders (100%), 30-44 and 45-59 years old (27%), over 10 year residents (23%), and rural (22%). 10 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIT;z CONCLUSIONS 1. Well over half of respondents do not believe their home is vulnerable to wildfire; however, nearly half of rural residents, (47%), believe their homes are vulnerable. A large majority, of older residents 45-59 years old (61%) and 60+ years old (57%), do not believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire. 2. Well over half of respondents favor a proposal that would require certain fire-resistant materials (siding, decking, ventilation) when constructing a new home in the Wildfire Hazard Zone. It is important to note that a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group (including rural areas) favor this proposal. 3. Respondents are nearly split with slightly less than one-third that prefer fire-resistant materials be required in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone which includes all of rural Deschutes County, and slightly fewer numbers that prefer to reduce the Wildfire Hazard Zone to include forest and rural residential zones only. It appears that slightly more rural residents prefer enacting these requirements on all of rural Deschutes County (32%), over reducing the Wildfire Hazard Zone (30%). Additional education and communication about why this is a necessary option (enacting the requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone) could significantly increase support, should the County choose to move forward with. 4. Slightly less than one-third of respondents would be willing to pay between $146,000 more to build a new home with fire resistant materials in Wildfire Hazard Zones. It is important to note that a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more for these fire-resistant materials ($1-$6,000+), including those currently living in rural areas of the County. These numbers are consistent with the number of respondents that favor requiring fire-resistant materials. A very large number of respondents favor expanding Defensible Space Requirements so new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County would need to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of wildfire. It is significant that a large majority of respondents in every demographic group support this proposal. 11 Nelson Research I Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 NIR 6. While most Deschutes County residents do not currently believe their homes are vulnerable to wildfire, a majority of respondents in nearly every demographic group favor a proposal to require certain fire-resistant materials on new construction. A slight plurality favor this requirement be enacted in all of rural Deschutes County. If the County chooses to enact this requirement in the existing Wildfire Hazard Zone, additional communication and education would likely increase community support for this option. In addition, a majority of respondents say they would be willing to pay more to build a home with fire-resistant materials ($1-$6,000+), including those currently living in rural areas of the County. A strong majority of respondents in every demographic group favor a second proposal that would require new and existing residents living in rural Deschutes County to create an area around their homes where vegetation, debris and other types of combustible materials have been treated or cleared to slow the spread of fire. Both proposals appear to have wide -spread community support in nearly every demographic group. 12 Nelson Research ( Deschutes County Wildfire I December 6, 2020 Virtual Open House Q&A Summaries Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report s 11 � I E i s MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: November 12, 2020 SUBJECT: Wildfire Mitigation Open House I. Wildfire Mitigation Open House On November 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. the Community Development Department (CDD) is inviting residents and stakeholders to hear experts discuss wildfire mitigation measures and to share their own opinions and questions regarding the issue.' This is the first virtual open house hosted by the Planning Commission that will rely exclusively on Zoom, Facebook Live, and by phone. The second open house will be held on December 3, 2020. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could increase the cost of new construction and some remodels due to new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. 111111. Background Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant to —among other tasks —incorporate Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. Last year, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discussed approaches to updating the Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) / Map and potential building and land use standards to mitigate wildfire hazards and improve wildfire safety. Ultimately, the Board established a WMAC to provide ' The Planning Commission will convene a second open house on December 3 at 6:00 p.m. More information is available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation. recommendations.' The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020 and a final report on April 17, 2020.3 III. Online Survey In addition to the discussions with staff at the open houses, CDD invites residents to provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigationsurve. The deadline to respond is December 22, 2020. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. 2 The WMAC was charged to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. s https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation-advisory-committee. -2- DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILDFIRE MITIGATION OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 19, 2020, 6:00 PM Questions and Answers 1. Is the town Redmond rural area or not? The City of Redmond and its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are not included in this proposal. This proposal only applies to rural Deschutes County, which is lands outside of the cities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond and their respective UGBs. 2. Are there resources that I can find more information on what defensible space should look like? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www,deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.pro4ectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. 3. How did the $2000 grant program go over the summer? This grant was associated with Firewise Communities funded by Deschutes County. It went well. Many communities requested funding. Prioritization of grant applications has been completed. All communities that applied for a grant have been notified as to whether or not they have been awarded a grant. For more information, contact Boone Zimmerlee. 4. Does defensible space mean I have to remove all trees within 100' around my home? No. The key is understanding what is going to contribute to ember production. For trees within the defensible space of a structure, the emphasis is on removing ladder fuels. Alternatively, trees or vegetation that are up against the home or under the eaves should be significantly trimmed and if necessary, removed. 1 7 NW L IfayoIte Avenue, 'ond, Oregon ?7703 1 P O. Rox 6001), Bend, OR 97708-6005 vVww('1('- 011te()i ghd S. Can you choose to adopt only some of the new regulations, but not others (e.g. roofing and siding only)? No. If R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) is adopted, all building codes pertaining to ventilation, siding, decking, etc. will apply. There are exceptions related to where geographically the building codes can apply. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports updating the County building codes. 6. I've seen an option between having this apply to the current wildfire risk area or having it encompass the entire rural Deschutes County. Is this still optional, or has the decision to expand coverage already been made? This decision has not been made. In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a wildfire hazard zone that prohibited untreated wooden shake roofs in the rural county. Under this new building code provision, R327.4, Deschutes County can revisit its wildfire hazard zone based on four factors (weather, topography, vegetative fuel type, and vegetative fuel distribution). There are two options based on the work of a Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee to consider. The first is to keep as it is today and apply the wildfire hazard zone to the rural county. The second is to focus on sub -areas based on Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and the four factors. Some areas were eliminated through that analysis. The law allows a jurisdiction to focus on a region, but it doesn't define what a region means. Staff will have a conversation with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this option in early 2021. 7. Does that include wood stoves? M 8. How much fuel reduction has been done on State and Federal lands in the county? It varies from year to year depending on funding. Approximately 800-1,000 acres are treated annually for fuels reduction by the state. USFS generally has a target of approximately 38,000 acres annually, in 2020 the Deschutes National Forest completed 26,752 acres that received treatments such as thinning, mowing, pile burning, broadcast burning or other treatment. CWPPs track fuel treatments across the county on a five year basis. 9. 1 understand that the majority of fires that burn homes come from embers landing on roofs. Do some roof types offer better protection and why not require them on new construction or reconstruction? Wooden shakes and wooden shingles are the most susceptible to embers. Deschutes County's existing wildfire hazard zone already prohibits those types of materials. Any new construction is required to meet existing roofing standards. Asphalt shingles and metal roofing are effective materials. 10. Many of our neighboring overgrown properties are owned by absentee landlords whose attitudes apparently are "out of sight -out of mind." How are we going to address these issues? There isn't an enforcement mechanism today to compel absentee landlords to implement defensible space. It's important to continue to try to maintain relationships with those individuals. One approaches is offering incentives like grant funding that assist in fuels reduction and improving defensible space. As an additional incentive, as woody debris is removed, evidence shows property values generally increase. It is important to emphasize that maintaining 100' of defensible space can greatly improve structure survivability. 11. If I add a room to my house, will I need to modify my existing deck to be covered underneath? No. R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) would only apply to new rural residential construction and potentially to new accessory structures. 12. Do these regulations apply to commercial structures as well? No. 13. Extending some of the county forestry recommendations for 100' from structures will change the landscape considerably in the rural 2.5 acre subdivisions - even if the space is gradated. What is the flexibility for those who have met SB 760 (360) standards - out to SO'- it is a little less rigorous? Senate Bill (SB) 360 (not 760) does have requirements for defensible space. Based on the latest science, 50' is not always enough and a property owner that decides to rely on that separation distance needs to recognize the risk they are accepting by not working out to 100'. Ember fallout occurs in the 100' area. 14. Are these new code requirements unique to Oregon or have other states adopted similar requirements? California has adopted similar regulations. In Oregon, the City of Medford applied R327.4 to a portion of their jurisdiction. 15. What did they restrict the venting size to? Current regulation allows a maximum opening of a 1/4 of an inch, R327.4 would allow a maximum opening of a 1/8 of an inch. 16. Can you briefly describe what makes a vent opening "ember resistant"? Certain types of vents are manufactured and tested by a third party to prevent ember intrusion. They rely on a heat activated material similar to those firework snakes. They char over and seal the opening. 17. Is there a rural map? The map that applies today was adopted in 2001. Adopted in 2001, it prohibits wooden shake roofs. 18. What triggers the building code portion for remodels: anything requiring a permit (inside or outside)? Any improvement to the exterior - requiring permit or not? Normally all work that is not considered exempt from building permits would be required to comply with the adopted code requirements. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports adopting the increased construction standards (R327.4). General building code questions can be referred to Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official, Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org. 19. If one has questions about building materials and grant funds, who are appropriate contacts? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.projectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. A fairly comprehensive list of approved building materials can be found at: http://osfm.fire. ca.gov/divisions/fire-enginee ring-and-investigations/building-materials-listing/bml- search-building-materials-listing/ 20. How does one select fire resistant plants in the defensible space area, especially near a house? Any thoughts about water conservation and xeriscaping? There are plants that don't use a lot of water but are still flammable. There is a guide to fire-resistant plants available. The guide can be found on FireFree.org, contact Boone Zimmerlee for more information. 21. 1 want to clear up a misunderstanding. Does SB 360 require 100' of defensible space onto a neighboring property as well as theirs? Under SB360 the fuel break distance depends on type of roof material. The required fuel break distance under SB360 will only extend to the property line and does not extend beyond the property line. 22. Are there certain trees that apply a reasonable fire break around a property? Yes. Some trees like aspen are more resistant to wildfires. Many deciduous trees are fire-resistant as well since they hold a lot of moisture, their leaves are green and they don't have a lot of lower limbs creating ladder fuels. 23. If I have a fire hydrant on the street in front of my house, outside a UGB, will this still apply to my house? This has not been determined yet. However, the presence of fire hydrant should not exclude a homeowner from their responsibility of doing defensible space. This would be a transfer of risk to firefighters under the homeowner's assumed safety of a having a hydrant, which likely would not be working during a wildfire event as power is often shut off especially in areas outside of Urban boundaries and larger municipalities. There are a couple of communities around Sisters that have hydrants, but wildland firefighting agencies recognize and plan for these to likely not be working during a wildland event. 24. Will absentee landlords with property but no dwelling be responsible to provide defensible space on their side of the property line? This has not been determined yet. The Board of County Commissioners, if they direct staff to develop defensible space regulations will need to determine if absentee property owners with no structure .-+ill ed to undertake . ge+a+,-- m�r»nevn nr+ are ai.ni required to ui�uc� Banc vegcw�wi� �ua��abccn. 25. How many people participating/watching tonight? 571 people. 24 people participated through Zoom. 547 were reached through Facebook Live. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: November 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Wildfire Mitigation Open House I. Wildfire Mitigation Open House On December 3, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. the Community Development Department (CDD) is inviting residents and stakeholders to hear experts discuss wildfire mitigation measures and to share their own opinions and questions regarding the issue. This is the second virtual open house hosted by the Planning Commission.' It will rely exclusively on Zoom and by phone. Questions received and answered during the first open house are attached as a reference. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could increase the cost of new construction and some remodels due to new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. 111111. Background Deschutes County received an 18-month Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) grant to —among other tasks —incorporate Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan and development code. Last year, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discussed approaches to updating the Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) / Map and potential building and land use standards to mitigate wildfire hazards and improve wildfire safety. Ultimately, the Board established a WMAC to provide ' The Planning Commission's first open house occurred on November 19 and relied exclusively on Zoom, Facebook Live, and by phone. More information is available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation. recommendations.' The WMAC, which consisted of 12 voting members, held meetings from October 2019 to January 2020. A draft WMAC report was provided to the Board and the Planning Commission on February 13, 2020 and a final report on April 17, 2020.3 III. Online Survey In addition to the discussions with staff at the open houses, CDD invites residents to provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigationsurvey. The deadline to respond is December 22, 2020. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. Attachment: November 19, 2020 Open House Questions & Answers 2 The WMAC was charged to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. 3 https://www deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation-advisory-committee. -2- WILDFIRE MITIGATION OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 19, 2020, 6:00 PM Questions and Answers 1. Is the town Redmond rural area or not? The City of Redmond and its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are not included in this proposal. This proposal only applies to rural Deschutes County, which is lands outside of the cities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond and their respective UGBs. 2. Are there resources that I can find more information on what defensible space should look like? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.proeectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. 3. How did the $2000 grant program go over the summer? This grant was associated with Firewise Communities funded by Deschutes County. It went well. Many communities requested funding. Prioritization of grant applications has been completed. All communities that applied for a grant have been notified as to whether or not they have been awarded a grant. For more information, contact Boone Zimmerlee. 4. Does defensible space mean I have to remove all trees within 100' around my home? No. The key is understanding what is going to contribute to ember production. For trees within the defensible space of a structure, the emphasis is on removing ladder fuels. Alternatively, trees or vegetation that are up against the home or under the eaves should be significantly trimmed and if necessary, removed. 117 NW L.aIay(,tte nverme, 103encl, UwAon )//0� ('.() Pox 6005, i3e 1d, OR 97108 6005 (5'1-i) 388 657`5 (rJ ui�K«�desc iu�es .o; c; www.cl��schut�, �.�rg/�..d 5. Can you choose to adopt only some of the new regulations, but not others (e.g. roofing and siding only)? No. If R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) is adopted, all building codes pertaining to ventilation, siding, decking, etc. will apply. There are exceptions related to where geographically the building codes can apply. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports updating the County building codes. 6. I've seen an option between having this apply to the current wildfire risk area or having it encompass the entire rural Deschutes County. Is this still optional, or has the decision to expand coverage already been made? This decision has not been made. In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a wildfire hazard zone that prohibited untreated wooden shake roofs in the rural county. Under this new building code provision, R327.4, Deschutes County can revisit its wildfire hazard zone based on four factors (weather, topography, vegetative fuel type, and vegetative fuel distribution). There are two options based on the work of a Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee to consider. The first is to keep as it is today and apply the wildfire hazard zone to the rural county. The second is to focus on sub -areas based on Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) and the four factors. Some areas were eliminated through that analysis. The law allows a jurisdiction to focus on a region, but it doesn't define what a region means. Staff will have a conversation with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this option in early 2021. 7. Does that include wood stoves? lid 8. How much fuel reduction has been done on State and Federal lands in the county? It varies from year to year depending on funding. Approximately 800-1,000 acres are treated annually for fuels reduction by the state. USFS generally has a target of approximately 38,000 acres annually, in 2020 the Deschutes National Forest completed 26,752 acres that received treatments such as thinning, mowing, pile burning, broadcast burning or other treatment. CWPPs track fuel treatments across the county on a five year basis. 9. 1 understand that the majority of fires that burn homes come from embers landing on roofs. Do some roof types offer better protection and why not require them on new construction or reconstruction? Wooden shakes and wooden shingles are the most susceptible to embers. Deschutes County's existing wildfire hazard zone already prohibits those types of materials. Any new construction is required to meet existing roofing standards. Asphalt shingles and metal roofing are effective materials. 10. Many of our neighboring overgrown properties are owned by absentee landlords whose attitudes apparently are "out of sight -out of mind." How are we going to address these issues? There isn't an enforcement mechanism today to compel absentee landlords to implement defensible space. It's important to continue to try to maintain relationships with those individuals. One approaches is offering incentives like grant funding that assist in fuels reduction and improving defensible space. As an additional incentive, as woody debris is removed, evidence shows property values generally increase. It is important to emphasize that maintaining 100' of defensible space can greatly improve structure survivability. 11. If I add a room to my house, will I need to modify my existing deck to be covered underneath? No. R327.4 (fire-resistant building codes) would only apply to new rural residential construction and potentially to new accessory structures. 12. Do these regulations apply to commercial structures as well? No. 13. Extending some of the county forestry recommendations for 100' from structures will change the landscape considerably in the rural 2.5 acre subdivisions - even if the space is gradated. What is the flexibility for those who have met 5B 760 (360) standards - out to 50' - it is a little less rigorous? Senate Bill (SB) 360 (not 760) does have requirements for defensible space. Based on the latest science, 50' is not always enough and a property owner that decides to rely on that separation distance needs to recognize the risk they are accepting by not working out to 100'. Ember fallout occurs in the 100' area. 14. Are these new code requirements unique to Oregon or have other states adopted similar requirements? California has adopted similar regulations. In Oregon, the City of Medford applied R327.4 to a portion of their jurisdiction. 15. What did they restrict the venting size to? Current regulation allows a maximum opening of a 1/4 of an inch, R327.4 would allow a maximum opening of a 1/8 of an inch. 16. Can you briefly describe what makes a vent opening "ember resistant"? Certain types of vents are manufactured and tested by a third party to prevent ember intrusion. They rely on a heat activated material similar to those firework snakes. They char over and seal the opening. 17. Is there a rural map? The map that applies today was adopted in 2001. Adopted in 2001, it prohibits wooden shake roofs. 18. What triggers the building code portion for remodels: anything requiring a permit (inside or outside)? Any improvement to the exterior - requiring permit or not? Normally all work that is not considered exempt from building permits would be required to comply with the adopted code requirements. These issues will be discussed at a later date if the Board of County Commissioners supports adopting the increased construction standards (R327.4). General building code questions can be referred to Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official, Chris.Gracia(@deschutes.ore. 19. If one has questions about building materials and grant funds, who are appropriate contacts? Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Project Website is a good place to start: • https://www,deschutes.org/cd/page/wildfire-mitigation The Project Wildfire website is another useful resource: • https://www.proeectwildfire.org/ Contact your local fire department. One can also reach out to Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator. His email is Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org. A fairly comprehensive list of approved building materials can be found at: http://osfm.fire. ca.gov/divisions/fire-enginee ring-and-investigations/building-mate rials-listing/bml- search-building-materiaIs- listing/ 20., How does one select fire resistant plants in the defensible space area, especially near a house? Any thoughts about water conservation and xeriscaping? There are plants that don't use a lot of water but are still flammable. There is a guide to fire-resistant plants available. The guide can be found on FireFree.org, contact Boone Zimmerlee for more information. 21. 1 want to clear up a misunderstanding. Does SB 360 require 100' of defensible space onto a neighboring property as well as theirs? Under SB360 the fuel break distance depends on type of roof material. The required fuel break distance under SB360 will only extend to the property line and does not extend beyond the property line. 22. Are there certain trees that apply a reasonable fire break around a property? Yes. Some trees like aspen are more resistant to wildfires. Many deciduous trees are fire-resistant as well since they hold a lot of moisture, their leaves are green and they don't have a lot of lower limbs creating ladder fuels. 23. If 1 have a fire hydrant on the street in front of my house, outside a UGB, will this still apply to my house? This has not been determined yet. However, the presence of fire hydrant should not exclude a homeowner from their responsibility of doing defensible space. This would be a transfer of risk to firefighters under the homeowner's assumed safety of a having a hydrant, which likely would not be working during a wildfire event as power is often shut off especially in areas outside of Urban boundaries and larger municipalities. There are a couple of communities around Sisters that have hydrants, but wildland firefighting agencies recognize and plan for these to likely not be working during a wildland event. 24. Will absentee landlords with property but no dwelling be responsible to provide defensible space on their side of the property line? This has not been determined yet. The Board of County Commissioners, if they direct staff to develop defensible space regulations will need to determine if absentee property owners with no structure are s+:lni ieyuireu +o undertake vegetation �+ 25. How many people participating/watching tonight? 571 people. 24 people participated through Zoom. 547 were reached through Facebook Live. General Public Comments Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:56 AM To: Tanya Saltzman; Kyle Collins; Peter Russell Subject: FW: My two cents and more FYI Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue 1 Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 006 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:55 AM To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith @deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: My two cents and more Commissioner, Thank you for sharing the message with us. Peter will include it in our record of public comments and survey results for this project. Nick Lelack, AICP ( Director � e 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Cell: (541) 639-5585 UDS Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey From: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:23 AM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.l<eith@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: My two cents and more Good morning Nick, This is feedback from our community regarding raising the costs of building... Catherine was thinking we need to do a better job cleaning around home sights... Most sincerely, Patti } Patti Adair Commissioner J Ig 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 206 Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 388-6567 1 Cell: (541) 904-5378 s Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective rnonner. From: Catherine Caudle <caudlecatherine@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 7:04 PM To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Subject: My two cents and more [EXTERNAL EMAIL] The proposed building code changes for Deschutes County is not necessary. What is necessary is Dechutes County enforcing fire debris removal and clean up. The proposed building code changes will cost lower income families, a great amount live in the rural areas of Deschutes County, from improving their homes. Many purchase mobile homes and place those on land, most or some are used, and this new rule would prohibit this cheap form of living from occuring. I oppose the buidling changes being proposed and wish to have this item removed from further discussion. Deschutes county residents pay for homeowners coverage some at a higher rate simply because the fire hydrants are not available and they are too far away from the closest fire department. Perhaps the county could look at reducing fire by placing fire hydrants in the neighborhoods or requiring internal extinguishers in future home builds rather than prohibiting cheaper forms of living and further injuring those living cheaply in rural Deschutes County. Catherine Caudle 2187 NW Quince Place Redmond, Oregon 97756 5418487121 `A Tanya Saltzman From: Matt Martin Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:29 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman Subject: FW: Form submission from: Land Use Planning Peter and Tanya - I assume this is related to the proposed wildfire regulations. Please let me know if there is any action necessary on my part as planner on duty. -Matt From: Do Not Reply <donotreply@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 11:51 AM To: CDD Planning <planning@deschutes.org> Subject: Form submission from: Land Use Planning ****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY**** Incoming Land Use Planning Submission from Website Submitted on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 - 11:50am Submitted values are: Name cheryl Phone Number 541-225-7185 Email Address cheryljerryhoskins@gmail.com Subject Property Address 7015 NW River Springs Rd, Redmond OR Subject Property Taxlot Number Relationship to the Property Details of your Inquiry When is the deadline for public comment on the proposed TAX on new construction in rural Deschutes County to require fire retardant materials to be used in any new construction? Please send email with pertinent information. Phone calls to get information isn't working & we aren't on facebook. Thank you! From: Peter Gutowsky To: "James Lewis" Subject: RE: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:48:32 AM Attachments: image001.ona image002.ona image003.ono imaae004.ona James, Thanks for the email. Everything right now is conceptual. We'll convey the results of the survey to the Board in the New Year. If the Board supports R327 and/or defensible space, we'll draft language and share with it you and others as we prepare for inevitable public hearings. Of course, Tuesday's election could also impact whether there's Board support for additional wildfire mitigation measures. I haven't heard from any other community association. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager t17 NVV I af�yo ue Avenue Rend, Owgon 9/7N l el: C"A 1) 335-1 /09 Enhancing the live o(cl: bens by deflverir ;r quo/ily so v,ces in o < uQ jJe�tive manner. From: James Lewis Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:30 AM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: RE: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter: Thanks for thinking of me and sending this. I did see this — I am going to discuss this with our Community Development department staff. Our primary concerns will be if this is adopted by the County, what provisions included therein will conflict with our design manual regulations — and to determine if we will request changes to the County document or need to change our design manual (or a combination of both). Curious — have you heard from the managers of any other community associations (Black Butte, Eagle Crest, etc...)? Overall, it is hard to argue against any construction provisions for fire safety— especially in Sunriver. Overall, in the past, SROA has changed it's requirements for fire prevention (i.e. no shake roofs, defensible space, etc.). We have to review the drafts first — haven't had an opportunity to do that yet. In your estimation, is there something in particular that we should be looking? Ultimately, I would like to support the changes formally, but we need to get a pulse on what this would mean for construction in Sunriver and how it affects our owners (ahhh, the politics of it all ..... LOL). Thanks, James From: Peter Gutowsky <Peter, Gutowsky(@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 8:24 AM To: James Lewis <iamesl@srowners.org> Subject: Re Wildfire Mitigation Project / Community Input James, If you haven't seen the press release, FYI. Deschutes County is considering new building codes and land use regulations to protect communities from wildfire. Proposed changes could help make homes more fire resistant and require homeowners to create defensible space around their homes. Updating local building codes to make homes more fire resistant could make new construction and some remodels more expensive because of new requirements for decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Deschutes County Community Development Department invites residents to learn more about the proposed changes and provide their feedback through an online survey: www deschutes org/wildfiremitiag tionsurvey The Deschutes County Planning Commission will host two virtual meetings to provide residents a chance to learn more about the proposed changes and ask questions. Meetings will be held on: • Thursday, November 19, at 6 p.m. • Thursday, December 3, at 6 p.m. Staff will share the results of the community's feedback to the Board of County Commissioners in early 2021 and discuss how to proceed. For more information on how to participate in the virtual community meetings, please visit www deschutes or—AdOrem t�ation For questions, or more information, please contact Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager, 541-385-1709, Detergutowsl<vPdeschutes.org; or Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner, 541-388-6528, Tanva SaltzmanEc deschute5oor. Please visit www deschutes or /wildfiremitigation for current project information, and to sign up for project updates. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager 1 17 NW l qe i to Avenue I Bend Oi eg;on y / 70 id: (5,11) 81) 1 /01) Fnllancing thcr live o' ouz•en.s by dcliverinr; quo/ity servr(es in a unt ffecrive mai�nrr. Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 4:46 PM To: 'Bill Inman'; Tanya Saltzman Cc: Ed Keith Subject: RE: Fire risk reduction MU Your question is a good one. Should defensible space apply to vacant lots? It's one we can discuss with the Board in the New Year. � s Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Fiend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 000 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Bill Inman <inmanoutdoor@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 3:52 PM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith@deschutes.org> Subject: Fire risk reduction [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter & Tanya, Thanks for the presentation and survey. My question is regarding vacant lots, especially in south county where it doesn't take long for the lodgepoles to take over and create a tinderbox. As you may have heard, there was a fire on Hermosa on Labor Day that came within minutes of crowning, in which case the whole DRRH neighborhood would likely have gone up. In addition to the changes for homeowners, is it possible for the county to consider requiring landowners to do fuel mitigation on vacant lots? It is required when a lot is purchased at the county auction, but that does nothing for the 100s of privately owned lots that will explode with the slightest spark or ember. I'm happy to share pictures of some of the lots adjacent to my property that are overgrown and crisscrossed with downed trees. I know Ed is well aware of the issue as we have discussed it in the past. While this is not part of the purview of the the road district, it has come up in our meetings as well as in numerous conversations with neighbors. Thanks, Bill Inman Special Road District #1 Commissioner cell: 503.709.1492 Tanya Saltzman From: Oregon: Living with Fire <coordinator@oregonlivingwithfire.org> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 3:08 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman Cc: Ed Keith; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: Fwd: New Blog -- Deschutes County is seeking resident input [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi There Peter & Tanya, Please see the feedback I received from our blog post we sent out this morning. I did respond back to Craig to invite him to put his feedback in the survey. I will make sure to pass along any other feedback I receive to you all. Thanks! Take care, Alison Green Coordinator Oregon: Living with Fire CA,9 AA(S 444P, Salta®"p17m1 a asp coordinator0oreaonlivinawithfire.or www.oreaonlivinawithfire.ora Begin forwarded message: From: Craig Renkert <hike4fun77(cD-gmail.com> Subject: Re: New Blog -- Deschutes County is seeking resident input Date: November 2, 2020 at 12:10:50 PST To: Alison <coordinator(a ore onq livingwithfire.orq> Allison With the recent fire damage it is great that the county is taking action to reduce future risks. 1 My new home is less than a mile east of the August Juniper Ridge fire with nothing between us and the fire except juniper trees. We were very concerned that we could louse our home less that 6 months after completing it. In building the home we include many fire mitigation construction techniques, with some resistance from the builder and sub -contractors. More education of the construction trades on fire mitigation is needed to get their buy -in on the best practices and so they can develop procedures that will minimize any additional costs of construction. As a rural county resident that has recently built a new home I would be willing to assist the county develop an update set of codes and procedures to reduce wildfire risk. We will all benefit from reducing fire risk and we will all pay for it is we don't. The short term additional cost during construction of fire mitigation will pay long term benefits for the owner as well as others. Thanks Craig Renkert hike4fun77@gmail.com (541) 797-3598 On Nov 2, 2020, at 8:26 AM, Alison <coordinator cr ore ong livinwithfire.org> wrote: View this email inyouur browser C)IRi C;C)1"'*'*z LIVI_NGO.'A.11�11" FIRE Deschutes County seeking input on proposed defensible space, fire rules. The county acknowledged that updating local building codes to make homes more fire-resistant could make new construction and some remodels more expensive because of new requirements decks, siding, vents and other materials. The proposed rules would only apply to homes outside of city limits in unincorporated areaE of the county. Deschutes County Community Development Department invites residents to learn more about the proposed changes and provide their feedback through an online survey: www.deschqtga.org/wildfiremiti_qationsurvey. The deadline for residents to provide their input is December 21 st ... Read More M Copyright @ 2020. Oregon: Living With Fire, All rights reserved. Our email address is: Want to change how you receive these ernails? You can this list. upd_at�,_y L rn qj_Lp_Lgferences or unsubscribe from This email was sent to hike4fun77 angmaiLcom why did I pet this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Oregon: living with Fire - 61150 SE 27th St • Bend, Oregon 97702 - USA Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:19 AM To: 'Jeff Scheetz' Cc: Harry Ward; Sean Hartley; cart.harbour@crookedriverranch.com; garyw@crrfire.org; Nick Lelack; Ed Keith; Tanya Saltzman; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: RE: Residential WUI Building Code Thanks Jeff for your comments. If you haven't done so already, please complete Deschutes County's survey: • www.deschutes.org/wildfiremitigationsurvey Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager e 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 WO F63hanci1)g the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in o cost-effective monner. From: Jeff Scheetz <jscheetz@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:58 PM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Cc: Harry Ward <harry.ward@crrfire.org>; Sean Hartley <seanh@crrfire.org>; carl.harbour@crookedriverranch.com; garyw@crrfire.org Subject: Residential WUI Building Code [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter, As a firefighter having performed many lot inspections for wildfire safety at Crooked River Ranch, 1 can say that a very common recommedation is to improve the foundation (crawl space) vent screening found on almost all residential structures. Typical construction uses 1/4 inch spacing wire screen, presumable designed to prevent animal intrusion. Tested with artifically-driven embers (Institute for Business & Home Safety, 2013 Demonstration) has shown that 1/4 inch screen is too coarse for ember protection, and 1/8 to 1/16 inch spacing performs better in blocking embers. Also, field reports from the Camp Fire in California several years ago reached the same conclusion after surveying residences for survivability. Accordingly I recommend the county adoption of mandatory building code requirements (R327) for new residences in the wildfire -urban interface. I believe the additional cost in such implementation will produce a large return in public safety. Respectfully, Jeff Scheetz Crooked River Ranch 1 Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 SAS PM To: Tanya Saltzman Subject: FW: Yes on fire resistant homes FYI Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Anderson <Tom.Anderson@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:20 PM To: Ed Keith <Ed.Keith @deschutes.org>; Boone Zimmerlee<Boone.Zimmerlee@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Yes on fire resistant homes FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Debra DeWeese <deweese3@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:27 AM To: Board <board@deschutes.org> Subject: Yes on fire resistant homes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] urge you to vote to require homes in Deschutes County to be built to be fire resistant - and do not allow the City of Bend to opt out of this. In addition, I encourage you to do an educational campaign on how current homeowners can retrofit their homes to be fire resistant. Do not let this area burn like Paradise, California 1 Thank you. Deby DeWeese Sent from my Wad Air 2 Tanya Saltzman From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:32 AM To: Kyle Collins; Tanya Saltzman; Peter Russell Subject: FW: Wildfire Mitigation Just a fyi for us to collectively remember to include these of types observations in the summary report. Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:31 AM To:'TA Humphrey' <tbkodie@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Wildfire Mitigation Mr. Humphrey, Thanks for your email. We'll share your comments about outdoor burning with the Board of County Commissioners in 2021. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 385-1709 Fnhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. From: TA Humphrey <tbkodie@�mail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:27 AM To: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: Wildfire Mitigation [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter - It looks like the upcoming virtual meetings will focus on defensible space and construction requirements. Thank you for pursuing these important actions. Please also consider: 1) mirroring city requirements for open burning. We frequently see neighbors burning toxic trash to avoid paying for garbage service; 2) enhancing the no -cost fire free cleanup frequency. Burning yard debris greatly impacts our air quality throughout Central Oregon. Thank you. - - Terry Humphrey From: ie nifer To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: fire mitigation Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:54:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Peter While I know we all live in a fire danger area surrounded by trees and brush in high desert, I think it is prudent to avoid the natural tendency to overreact based on unfounded fear. It is true that most Oregon forest fires are human caused. We now have more and more humans coming to Bend engaging in reckless behavior with no restrictions in camping, length of stay and fire (mostly non adherence) with no one to enforce this. This would seem to be a necessary issue to address. High density housing which has been a priority of Bend, on the city limits is also fraught with lack of foresight. The truth is, because of the lack of planning and city management, we now have a sprawling city that will engender much more fire danger. Rather than deferring to the same poor planning that gave birth to this trend, it should be up to the individual home owners to make this decision since they are the ones taking on this risk. Our city leaders have shown very poor judgement on the sustainable to controlled growth of this city, I certainly don't want them making any additional choices that changes the lives of all of us who live here without firm data and support from the community. Jennifer Gunnell From: Laura Skundric To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Wildfire mitigation - social media comments Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 10:23:32 AM Attachments: imaae001,pno imaQe003,i)nQ Hi Peter, Over the weekend, we shared Facebook and Twitter posts about the proposed building codes and land use regulations for protecting communities from wildfire, and the upcoming virtual open house. The posts received several comments that I wanted to forward to you just for your visibility, below. Thanks! Toby Rey Fou ntaing rove 1,1 in Santa Rosa CANas a Firewise neighborhood destroyed by the Tubbs Fire in 2017, All the latest urban-veildland interface fire and building codes).-vere used, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and thousands. of tons of fuel were remo-ved creating fire breaks and defensible spaces, The new fire station -was even lost to the fire. Like. Reply klessage, d Adam Azrill Ahhh— governmen,t regulations that increase costs to builders and homeowners. Nothing better than the government requiring you to spend time/nnorey for something that "i-nay" wo& Not as if prices of houses aren't already sky rocketing. Like Repl.y Nlessacle d Beverly Michaelis Time to follow the example of Paradise, California. Many changes to landscaping specifications post -fire, Like, RepIv Pylessage d Megan Noblitt How about .ve manage the forest around usl What a fantastic idea' Like. Reply rvlessige 3- te--- Writea, cornment—, 1,� JD r "", 1 i r%IaTl be a bet i ,-,i a;te t I Voll U C`t'i J I ille"Aal. View Thread Ol From: Robin Vora To: Peter Gutowskv; Tanya Saltzman; Deschutes County Commissioners; Planning Commission; Nick Lelack Subject: Building codes and wildfire Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:31:40 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] The Deschutes County Wildlife Survey is well done. I would have added an opportunity in the survey to make other specific suggestions. I think the county needs to adopt all the additional defensive measures listed to increase public and firefighter safety, and reduce losses due to wildfire. Catastrophic wildfire will happen in Deschutes County; it is just a matter of when. It is best to be better prepared. Most people constructing new homes outside of cities are spending hundreds of thousands on them; they can afford a few thousand extra and it will be to their benefit in the long -run. At some point they will likely have lower insurance rates and higher resale value if their houses are constructed or upgraded to these proposed standards. It will also save the taxpayer money on wildfire response and generally increase public and firefighter safety. These building codes should also apply to homes being upgraded (e.g., new roof or siding). I suggest starting out with the Forest Use and Rural Residential Zones. I am not convinced some of the more open parts of eastern Deschutes County have the same wildfire risk, especially if the property has irrigated land around the house. I also suggest requiring Class A roofs (concrete or clay tiles, fiberglass asphalt composition shingles, metal roofs). Class B (pressure treated shakes and shingles) are more flammable. My understanding is that most houses that catch on fire do so because of embers igniting the roof. Proper roof vents with metal mesh and openings less than 1/8" will help in the event of wildfire. I encourage the County to adopt the proposed construction code in relation to wildfire. We don't need a repeat in Deschutes County of the Camp Fire, or this year's fires in the Ashland - Medford corridor or Detroit Lakes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Robin Vora 1679 NE Daphne Ct Bend, OR 97701 Tanva Saltzman From: Susan T. Springer <susan@susantspringer.com> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:45 PM To: Tanya Saltzman; Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack Subject: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello Nick, Tanya and Peter, Thank you for working to keep our county safer by considering additional fire prevention measures. It seems obvious that any discussion of fire mitigation would include stopping yard debris burning. Afterall, escaped debris burning is the leading cause of human -caused fires in our state. Given the increased risks your county report describes, this needs to be considered. Is this outside the scope of your department? Do you know other officials who are considering this? And do you have any say in it? In our 18 years in our neighborhood (outside Sisters), I've lost count of the number of times I've called the fire department because of yard debris fires unattended by the homeowner or fires still burning after dark. Having safer roofing materials is a great step - but we need to stop one of the main causes of fire in the first place. Please let me know if this is an issue you can address or if you know others who can. Thank you, Susan 541-549-1928 From: Mike Benefield To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Wildfire Mitigation Date: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:39:26 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Mr. Gutowsky, My name is Mike Benefield, I am a retired Bureau of Land Management Fire Management Officer. I spent over 35 years serving in wildland fire management, including a decade within Deschutes County (Central Oregon Fire Mtg Service). I sat in on your Zoom Meeting on 12.03 and listened intently to all present. I applaud your efforts in this important initiative, however I was somewhat dismayed at how one respondent could steer the whole conversation off track. I will simply refer to this particular individual as the bird woman. While I have a great deal of respect for wildlife biologists and I love birds, I believe that it is important to stay focused upon the issues that will impact all life in Central Oregon. Wildfires. Wildfires have been an important agent of change in Central Oregon for thousands of years. Climate change will result in more frequent and larger wildfires. Until we manage it, all life will be negatively impacted by wildfire. What we saw at Paradise, CA and in Western Oregon will be Deschutes County's fate, if we don't get out ahead of it. What you are now engaged in with planning is the best way to fight wildfires, that is before they start. The Bird Woman spoke of toxic chemicals in fire resistant building products, while ignoring the tons of toxic materials that are found in the average home itself. Stuff burns. Limit the wildfires strategically and wildlife will benefit. One other point that I would like to make concerns the fire danger that exists within Bend itself. I understand your focus on the rural areas of the county, however there are areas within the city that are extremely hazardous from a wildfire stand point as well. Don't ignore it. Think of a dry day with extreme winds and an ignition in the worst place possible within the urban growth boundary. How will you evacuate a lot of people quickly? What constitutes defensible space and the proper type of vegetation in those circumstances? That's my two cents worth. Please don't let political expediency, or special interests deflect your attention from this important issue. It could end up being the most consequential issue in Band's history. Thank You Sincerely, Mike Benefield 3560 Ice Ave. Terrebonne, OR. 541.419.7418 PS Let me know if I can be of further service to my county. Say hello to Ed Keith for me. From: brett hue To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: WUI codes Date: Friday, December 4, 2020 5:20:18 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Mr. Gutowsky, I read the article on KTVZ regarding updating the wildfire protection codes and wanted to reach out and say I think it is a great idea to proactively take this on. My background is in wildland fire and arboriculture, I mention that only to set a tone- I do not think I know it all. I would like to be clear on that. Since 2015, I have been involved with the fires in California on large scale vegetation management projects and the overwhelming takeaway from these catastrophic wildfires is that there needs to be a significant focus on home hardening measures in addition to fuel reduction in the home ignition zone. From my experience, home hardening is often overlooked. On many of these fires that I have been on recently, there are only foundations and chimneys left adjacent to vegetation that has only been minimally scorched. Our homes are often the fuel source during wind driven fires. As you are likely aware the NFPA has lots of resources available. In the link below is something I am currently working on and feel it is likely going to be a common certification in the future for all vegetation management professionals httos:/hifna.ore/Training-and-Events/Certification/Certification/S ertitie -Vii-rc—Mitieation-Specialist If there is anything I might be able to assist with or provide a perspective on, please do not hesitate to reach out to me Regards, Brett Huet Certified Treecare Safety Professional #02477 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # RM-7448-BUM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified OSHA Outreach Instructor NCCER Crane Operator 2272801 From: Susan T. S ringer To: Ed Keith Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Tanya Saltzman; Nick Lelack; Boone Zimmerlee Subject: Re: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk Date: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:48:07 PM Attachments: image001.g_no image002.pno image003. ng_o image004.pna [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Ed and all, Yes, thanks, I do know whose jurisdiction it is and I am communicating with the fire districts. However, when the county is attempting to address fire mitigation, it seems such a missed opportunity to solve only part of the problem. Fire resistant building materials are helpful - yet so much more effective when paired with reducing one of the main causes of fire in our state. So communication from you to those in charge of yard debris burning would offer a more complete solution to reducing fire risk. Also, several years ago, the City of Sisters banned yard debris burning. Thanks, Susan On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ed Keith <Ed.Keith(deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Susan, Deschutes County does not have jurisdiction over debris burning, that is under the jurisdiction of the 9 individual fire districts located throughout the County. We do offer FireFree each year as an alternative way for people to get rid of their debris for free instead of burning, but that is of course voluntary. To date the only area within the County that does not allow burning is the area within the City of Bend. Ed Keith I County Forester 61 150 SF 27"' Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 1eL (541) 32 2-71 17 1 Cell: (54."1) 408-8862 Ed Keithgdeschutes.org www.descliutes.org From: Peter Gutowsky <Peter,GutowskyPdeschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:59 PM To: 'Susan T. Springer' <susanPsusants resin eg r.com>; Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman(@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick Lelackl@deschutes.org> Cc: Boone Zimmerlee<Boone.Zimmerlee(@deschutes.org>; Ed Keith <Ed.Keith(@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk Susan, Thanks for email. I'm cc'ing Boone Zimmerlee, Fire Adaptive Communities Coordinator and Ed Keith, County Forester. They may have additional thoughts. Your comments will be shared in our summary report to the Board of County Commissioners early in the New Year. Peter Gutowsky, AICP I Planning Manager I "I i NW Lafayet(e Avenue, I Rend, Oregon 97703 Vel ('-/11) 385 1709 000 Enhanc�nt,* t{?� lwrs o f r rtircns b}% c(cliver in ; quulit�l uwi es in a cost etfectiv� rr�crr�ner: From: Susan T. Springer <susan(@susantspringer.com> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:45 PM To: Tanya Saltzman <Tanya.Saltzman@deschutes.org>: Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky(@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelackl@deschutes.org> Subject: Wildfire Mitigation misses a main fire risk [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello Nick, Tanya and Peter, Thank you for working to keep our county safer by considering additional fire prevention measures. It seems obvious that any discussion of fire mitigation would include stopping yard debris burning. Afterall, escaped debris burning is the leading cause of human -caused fires in our state. Given the increased risks your county report describes, this needs to be considered. Is this outside the scope of your department? Do you know other officials who are considering this? And do you have any say in it? In our 18 years in our neighborhood (outside Sisters), I've lost count of the number of times I've called the fire department because of yard debris fires unattended by the homeowner or fires still burning after dark. Having safer roofing materials is a great step - but we need to stop one of the main causes of fire in the first place. Please let me know if this is an issue you can address or if you know others who can. Thank you, Susan 541-549-1928 From: Rimrock West To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Please add codes for landscaping Date: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:14:18 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hello, We have had several landscaping companies plant utterly ridiculous shrubs and trees in terms of wildfire prevention. All landscapers should be required to take a wildfire mitigation course and be required to use non or less flammable shrubs and trees. Thank you, Martita Marx Rimrock West, A Firewise Community ,. w�a�aa,r.a.raroa:,.:taPa �EX'I'I:,RNA1, EmAILI Thanks for the wildfire "open house' discussing the proposed regs. Sorry about SB 760 instead of 360. It has been a long time. Attached is an event that I watched on Oregon's 2020 wildfires. I have been unable to find any link to a recorded version fthe meeting. 1 have not checked with Ben Gordon at COLW. Both Ralph and Tim pointed out that the spread oflhcsc fires and the destruction they did in towns was similar to what was seen in Paradise<CA - ember ignition or contact from adjacent home conflagrations, not a continued vegetation derived or crown fires. Defensible space relative to vegetation proximity helped only if there was not a nearby building burning. So 1 know you know this -and I am assuming that the new proposals are pattemed to he coupled with some development design criteria in WU[s to space buildings, provide multiple se—Vegross routes and adequate water supplies to handle more than one structure tire simultaneously. I also remember some fthe outbuildings we looked at for the marijuana EFU ordinance -a number of those were constructed- or being emasuacted- at the minimal setback distance from a lot line to an adjacent parcel with an existing residence already in place. Lots of opportunities if your planning goes far enough. I have not seen any data related to building size -1 found it ironically typical for this area that the that application for one of the transact zone panels was for a 15,000 sq tt residence (maybe my memory is bad here also) At any rate, what you are trying to accomplish is laudable. The devil will be in the details. Hope you have a peaceful holidays CITY OF SISTERS PO BOX 39 - Sisters, Or 97759 1 01: 541;549-6o22 I www.ci.sisters.orms December 09, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager Community Development Dept. Deschutes County RE: Wildfire Mitigation — Building Codes and Land Use Proposed Measures Peter, The City of Sisters would like to strongly support and encourage the consideration of updates to the County building codes and land use regulations to the most current national wildfire standards and best practices. Following several recent wildfire events in close proximity to the City of Sisters, we are grossly aware of the increase in frequency, intensity, and size of wildfire events and accompanying hazardous smoke. These events have significant impact on our residents and business community and can often have long term impacts on health and our local economy. In consultation with the Sisters Camp Sherman Fire District, we have learned that there are two initiatives that will greatly increase our community's ability to mitigate risk due to wildfire and also increase resilience following an event if it were to occur in or adjacent to city limits. The first County initiative, the addition of wildfire resistant building codes is key to ensuring that new homes or substantial remodels are being built to reduce spread of wildfire and the loss of homes for our residents. As the County oversees the City's building permitting division, we are supportive of these additional building codes being adopted to ensure long term affordability of quality homes in a wildfire prone environment. The second initiative, to increase defensible space through land use requirements is also key to reduce the spread of wildfire through a relatively simple and inexpensive measure. The City of Sisters is also considering the addition of defensible space requirements and landscaping requirements to our development code. Having both the City and Codes align on this measure will help to reduce the size, spread, and intensity of wildfire for our urban and rural residents. We appreciate your consideration of these measures. e Y, Chuck Ryan Mayor To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: County wildfire mitigation Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:00:11 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Peter, I just took the Deschutes County Wildfire Survey, it's a wonderful storymap, kudos to whoever put it together! One thing I wanted to note about some of the measures being considered related to fire retardant treated materials & requirements, there is a lot of research about the hazards of fire/flame retardant chemicals (they are major endocrine disruptors) and actually can cause more smoke when burning therefore making it harder and more toxic for firefighters. See Green Science Policylnstitute for more information about hazards of flame/fire retardants. While I am in support of most of the mitigations proposed, I would recommend not including any requirements that involve the required use of flame retardants. Thanks, Allison Platt alliekatplattggamail.com "Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished." -Lao Tzu From: Frank Sai ker To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: 100 ft. defensible space mandate Data; Monday, December 21, 2020 3:17:50 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Today's wildfires can burn right through defensible space, prescribed bunts, thinning, tree farms, cicarcuts, prior bums, everything in their path. Climate change is the critical issue with wildfire, creating dryer fuels and hotter fires. Mandated defensible space of 30ft., 100ft. or more will not prevent a wildfire from raging through our land. There are 76 Junipers within 100ft. of our house. Most are ancient, the oldest around 800yrs. They shade & cool the house in summer, temper it in winter, provide nesting, shelter, food for a myriad of wildlife and screen us off from our neighbors. They are also efficient windbreaks as are all the Junipers on our 27 acres. We consider ourselves very fortunate to be able to live in one of the oldest desert woodlands in existence, among some of the oldest living things on earth. 80 to 90% of fires arc human caused. We feel a major effort toward halting all human caused sources of ignition needs to take place immediately. There is no time to waste. We can't afford to make any mistakes. So lets make a list: bum barrels, target shooting, OHV's, burning of debris, burning ditches, field burning, campfires, cigarettes, etc. All these activities have and can start fires. They also pollute, contributing to climate change. Trees work hard to sequester pollution that we create. Stringent restrictions and regulations are now necessary, including closures of public lands during extreme fire danger as fire season extends at both ends. Many old timers, like ourselves, who built their houses in rural Deschutes county back in the 80's, built here because we love the land. The defensible space mandate does not address the causes of wildfire. It seems almost a diversion away fiom what could actually work.......... prevention. Cutting dozens of ancient trees fi•om around our house will not prevent one wildfire. They don't start fires, people do. Trees aren't the problem. They're the answer. Civility has rapidly declined in this country. No longer can agencies rely on the public to be careful on red flag days. Many are simply not listening. Hell, many won't even wear masks in a deadly pandemic! As for all the ancient Junipers on the land we manage as wilderness, they will remain, respected, loved and untouched. We love our house. We built it with our own hands. And we love the land. Together, they make a home. Hundreds of trees will come down with this mandate. Please focus your efforts on ways the county can mitigate climate change and on preventing human caused fires. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Frank Spiecker, Gabriele Mimler www.colw.org December 22, 2020 sent via email: PlanningComrn.ission. a deschutes.org, Peter. Gutowsk>>gdeschutes.orW Deschutes County Planning Commission Attn: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Wildfire Mitigation Project Dear Chair Hudson and Planning Commissioners: Thank you for hosting the two recent open house sessions on wildfire mitigation. Central Oregon LandWatch is pleased that the County is taking proactive steps to protect its residents from the ongoing threat of wildfire in our region. We understand that after this current public input gathering stage, the County will explore specific changes to its building and land use codes. We provide the following high-level input to inform those changes. Oregon is blessed with what is likely the most important tool a local government can wield to 1111 LL9[LLG U1G LIllGILL Vl Wllullt c. JLL VIl6 LCLLIU lAsc PLCLLlllll%. VLG�'V11 Lauu use law uu ccw development into urban areas while limiting development in the rural areas and the wildland- urban interface that are most at risk of wildfire. In Deschutes County's high fire frequency environment, this has prevented putting thousands of homes and families in danger. Deschutes County can strengthen this existing land use planning framework by adopting additional protections against wildfire for development and redevelopment. Those protections should reflect the following: • Wildfire protection for existing development, including fire-resistant retrofits and landscaping, should be prioritized. Climate change and drought have increased the risks of wildfire and existing homes without fire-resistant retrofits are most at risk. • Thinning of brush and dense stands of young trees that are within one-half mile of a proposed or existing development should be required on a routine basis. • All new or replacement home construction should use fire-resistant materials and landscaping. • No further urban development expansion should be allowed in forests currently bordering urban growth boundaries. In addition to these principles, it is also crucial for the County to enforce existing rules at DCC 18.36.040(B) that limit development in fire prone areas when it would create a significant increase in fire risk, a significant increase in the cost of fighting fire, and a significant risk to 2 firefighters. Through this code section, the County already has a strong tool to protect new development from wildfire and protect first responders from unnecessary hazards. It is simply a matter of proper interpretation and enforcement. Wildfire risk is present throughout Deschutes County. The public health and safety of the entire county depends on enforcing existing rules limiting development in the most high -risk areas, and fireproofing all existing and future development elsewhere. Thank you for your attention to these considerations. We look forward to participating in the next stages of the County's efforts to mitigate the threat of wildfire. Regards, I U Rory Isbell Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch 2843 NW Lolo Drive, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97703 rory(cz,colw.org (541) 647-2930 Fire Protection District Comments Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Report (541) 318.0459 1 1212 SW Simpson Ave. I Bend, OR 97702 1 Fax (541) 322-6320 December 7, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Subject: ORSC R-327 Peter, The Deschutes County Rural Fire District #2 serving the area surroundinn Bend is very_ concerned about the growing wildfire problem in Deschutes County. The fuels within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) both vegetation and homes are of great concern. The wildfire season is now 30-60 days longer than it was decades ago. The cost of fighting these wildfires are a burden to fire department budgets. Within our Fire District we have had several wildland fires that have been devastating to our communities, particularly the 1990 Awbrey Hall fire that destroyed 21 homes and 3,500 acres, in addition to the 1996 Skeleton Fire that consumed 19 homes and 17,000 acres. Since the 1990's the Fire District has created new ordinances, fire prevention programs and has continued to partner with other agencies to minimize the loss from wildland fires. Some of those programs being used today are: FireFree; 1997 Senate Bill 360; Wildfire Fuel Reduction Grants; Oregon Fire Code; Fireworks Sales Prohibition Ordinance; Fire Resistive Wood Shake Ordinance; and Project Wildfire to name a few. While the Deschutes County Natural Hazards Plan has identified wildfire as the greatest risk to our constituent's way of life, we know there is more that can be done prior to the wildfire incident to save homes. Science has demonstrated if structures are built and maintained with fire resistive construction materials coupled with fire resistive vegetation within the adjacent surroundings, the risk can be reduced by more than 80% from ember and flame ignitions. Eliminating ignitions to structures will reduce exposure to residents and firefighters enhancing evacuation and firefighting strategies. The Fire District's Standards for Response Plan is designed for routine fires, once there are more than two to three homes burning we don't have enough resources to protect the rest of the neighborhood without mutual aid support. Therefore it will take more than fire suppression agencies to reduce the number of homes burning. The District believes to enhance our firefighter's chances to save life and property within the WUI it is necessary to introduce additional fire resistant construction features to homes such as Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327. The District also recognizes that additional building code requirements may be not as successful to eliminate ignitions without reducing the amount of flammable vegetation within the immediate area around the home. Respectfully Submitted: Deschutes County Rural Fire District #2 Board of Directors 51590 Huntington Rd. Post Office Box 10 La Pine, OR 97739 Phone 541.536.2935 Fax 541.536,2627 www.lapinefire.org December 8, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development Director P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 REF: Wildfire Mitigation - Building Codes and Land Use Proposed Updates Mr. Gutowsky: The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District would like strongly support and encourage the Deschutes County consideration of the proposed updating county building codes and land use regulations to the most current national wildfire standards and best practices. This county is in the wildfire bullseye. The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District has lost two homes and multiple structures to wildfire in just the last three years despite the fire district's quick responses and best efforts. This community was extremely fortunate the late afternoon of September 7th of this year that a fast-moving wildfire in the DRRH neighborhood did not become the 11t" major wildfire disaster in the state of Oregon that day. As we are seeing these fires are not only affecting individual families and the lives of the most vulnerable, they destructively affect the whole community - for years. Populations exit, most businesses close permanently, hospitals and schools close, and local agencies - once there to help the community - themselves are decimated. Wildfire in our communities affects everyone. As major wildfires are increasing in frequency, intensity and size, there is some good news. We are now learning what can make these events survivable and those solutions are rather simple: 1. Hardened homes; and 2. Fire resilient landscapes. We currently have codes and regulations to protect our homes from wind, rain, and snow, and to keep our drinking water, electrical, and heating systems safe. These codes did not come out of thin air - they became national standards through common sense experiences on what is working to protect our communities. We have now learned if we provide fire resilient landscape in the close proximity of our homes - that lowers the fire intensity and the direct transfer of flames to the home. We have also learned if we harden our homes from the snowstorm of sparks a wildfire produces - that will prevent Pride Service .Dedication __ ignition; Last, we have learned that suitable building materials can prevent the spread of fire from home to home when they are built in close proximity. The La Pine Rural Fire Protection knows the County is on the right path in upgrading the county building codes and land use regulations to match the most current adopted standards for in the wildfire hazard zone and strongly supports that effort. Not to do so would be irresponsible to the citizens we all serve. Sincerely, LA K.7 ROTECTION DISTRICT Mike Su kis..�.�' p Fire Chief 1212 SW Simpson Ave Bend, Oregon 97702 (5,11) 322-6300 FAX 322-6321 December 15, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: Community Development Bend, OR 97708-6005 Subject: County Wildfire Standards Mr. Gutowsky, 'Todd Riley Fire Chief We have seen firsthand the devastating effects of wildfire when it impacts a community. Even though Deschutes County made it out of the historic 2020 wildfire season without a major fire, Bend Fire & Rescue sent crews across the state to help fight the fires that surrounded our county. The last major Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fire in our area was in 1996 when the Skeleton Fire burned 17,000 acres as well. as 19 homes. Prior to that, the 1990 Aubrey Hall Fire burned 3,500 acres and destroyed 21 homes. Several effective steps were taken after these two fires to increase our community's resilience to wildland fire. The efforts to encourage defensible space around homes resulted in the FireFree initiative, which is still successful today. Communities that meet specific fuels reduction and defensible space can be recognized through the Firewise USA program as a nod to their collective efforts to protect their neighborhood. It is recognized that a homeowner's fuels reduction efforts can directly affect adjoining properties if a fire enters the community. Fire season is getting longer and the destructive nature of these events is increasing. Additionally, much of our community is built in the WUI, which increases our desire to be proactive with preventative measures. Preventing house -to -house ignition is an 'important component of being able to contain a fire once it enters a community. With enhanced building codes and required defensible space, firefighters have a much better chance to safely evacuate residents, operate on the fire more effectively, and prevent catastrophic fire spread. There is an opportunity to adopt a stricter landscape ordinance that requires defensible space and prohibits the placement of materials that will early fire next to a home. 'These improvements can be made more effective with enhancing the building code to address the use of fire resistive materials as siding and soffit finishes. We currently have an ordinance in place that addresses roofing materials, as this was identified as a major contributor to home ingitions. It is acknowledged that an enhanced building code has the potential to increase building costs, but many builders in the area are already using fire resistive materials in construction today. Bend Fire & Rescue provides fire protection to both the city limits of Bend and the surrounding fire district. The City of Bend and Deschutes County are both actively engaged in the wildfire resiliency conversation. Even though the two entities are at different phases of this work, it is an issue that is equally important to both. With a community that is resilient to wildfire, we stand a better chance of keeping residents in their homes after a fire. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted by natural disasters, and wildfires are no exception. There are several examples of communities that never recover from a devastating WUI fire. Without sufficient economic resources to rebuild, many residents never return. By reducing flammable vegetation around homes, increasing the defensible space next to a structure, and using fire resistive materials on a home, our community stands a better chance to minimize the devastation of a WUI fire. Respectfully, _�''".. � P<- � Todd Riley, Fire Chief Bend Fire & Rescue Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District "Protecting Life and Property through Quality Service" December 8, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky, The Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District (District) supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. The District provides fire suppression services to 55 square miles of area in Western Deschutes county, including the City of Sisters. Wildfires are a common occurrence in the District, and we work closely with the US Forest Service, Oregon Department of Forestry and other local fire districts to minimize the impacts of wildland fire on our community. Even with this level of coordination and response, wildfires create a significant risk to our community. The fire district's request to adopt enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements are in alignment with the tenets of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy), The Cohesive Strategy is a national approach to work collaboratively among stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards three goals: 1. Resilient Iaandscapes 2. Fire Adapted Communities 3. Sale and effective wildfire response. While there is great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response, the building code element of fire adapted communities hasn't been addressed. Addressing only two of the three strategies will result in increased risk for Deschutes County residents. Communities that have implemented the tenets of the Cohesive Strategy have seen reductions in the loss of life and property as a result. 301 South Elm Street, PO Box 1509 Sisters, Oregon 97759 Phone541-549-0771 Fax541-549-1343 Lastly, I would like to address the significant wildfire season our state endured this summer. A perfect alignment of extremely dry fuels, fires on the landscape and high winds resulted in catastrophic losses of life and property in Oregon. These losses have demonstrated that there is more work to be done. and we must take action to prevent a similar event from impacting our communities. Adopting defensible space standards and enhanced wildfire resistant building codes is a logical, rneasured approach, supported by national standards and industry best practices. Sincerely, Chuck Newport President, Board of Directors Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District. Black Butte Ranch R.F.P.D. PMB 8190, POB 8000 13511 Hawks Beard, Black Butte Ranch, OR 97759 (541) 595-2288 Bus 9-1-1 Emergency (541) 595.6867 Fax December 16, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky, Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District (District) supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. Our District provides fire suppression services to the 3+ square miles of Black Butte Ranch. As you are likely aware, wildfires threatening our community have been a common nrrtirrcnrA for many ware raitcinn midtinla avariintinne ne wall ne thin destruction of two homes in 2002 from the Cache Mountain Fire. We work very closely with the US Forest Service, Oregon Department of Forestry, and other local fire districts to minimize the impacts of wildland fire on our community. Even with this level of coordination and response, wildfires continue to create a significant risk to our community. As others have mentioned, the support to adopt enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements are in alignment with the tenets of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy is a national approach to work collaboratively among stakeholders and across all landscapes, using the best science, to make meaningful progress towards three goals: 1. Resilient Landscapes 2. Fire Adapted Communities 3. Safe and effective wildfire response. This District agrees with other districts in that while there is and has been great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response, the building code element of fire -adapted communities hasn't been addressed. We also agree that addressing only two of these three strategies would Professional • Competent** Integrity •• Respectful • Compassionate result in increased risk for Deschutes County residents. We also add that this increased risk is inherently transferred to the many first responders called upon to protect those communities and the citizens within. The losses demonstrated from the recent fires throughout Oregon shows us that there is more work that can and needs to be done to prevent similar events from impacting our communities. Adopting defensible space standards and enhanced wildfire resistant building codes is a logical, measured approach supported by national standards and industry best practices. Sincerely, Dan Tucker Fire Chief Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District. Professional • Competent 99 Integrity •• Respectful • Compassionate � PO Box 2108, Sunriver, Oregon 97707-2108 PeterGutowshy Peter.0utowsky@deschutax.org Planning Manager 117NVVLafayette Avenue Bend, 0R977O3 RE: Defensible Space and Enhanced Building Codes McGutowsky, The SunriverService District, which includes both the Police and Fire Departments, issupportive ofthe proposed new ordinances on defensible space and enhanced building codes (R327,4), TheSunriverOwnersAcsodotionbveryproactiveintheprevevtionofm/ildfre.Then/|esmndprn8r ms in place in Sunriver are reflective of what R-327 could provide for all of Deschutes County. Sundver Owner Association program/rules examples include' • Spark arrestors w Roofs are required to be Class "A" fire rated • Individual properties and common ground have ladder fuel reduction requirements It is time to eliminate the threat of wildfire to our communities and provide safety to our citizens and firefighters by supporting the proposed defensible space and enhanced building codes in Deschutes Respectfully Submitted: Bill Hepburn, Choir Sundve/Service District, Board of Directors *Alfalfa ,' Fire . 541-382-2333 25889 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend, Or 97701 Dec 21, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Subject: ORSC R-327 Peter, The Alfalfa Fire District would like to discuss the growing concerns of past, as well as future wildfire concerns in our district. As a relatively new district we have seen our fair sharp of rinsP rails with fires in tha WiIf lan(I llrhan Intarfara (Will) Asa distrirt that is surrounded by BLM land we have an extreme amount of fuels that could cause catastrophic loss to our district. As someone who has spent over 30 years in the construction industry I have seen what building codes can do for homes. Codes that can allow for homes to be built with more fire resistive material as well as creating a defensible space around the home, this can lead to less fire spread in the event of a wildland fire. Up to 70-80 percent reduction can be maintained according to recent studies. This allows for a more substantial initial attack from a suppression standpoint, and the possibility of reduced resources if managed early. While our response plans are geared for a smaller scale response, if we cannot manage the fire in its initial stage, it will require a large scale response in the form of mutual aid from surrounding agencies. This mutual aid response then draws down resources for those agencies to respond to incidents within their respective districts. Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-237 would allow for new structures being built within our districts to maintain standards for fire resistive construction reducing the STREET ADDRESS, CITY, ST ZIP CODE T (123) 456-7890 U WWW.COMPANY.COM potential for fire spread. This code, coupled with a distinct plan for defensible space will allow our fire district to reduce resource needs in the event of a wildfire. As a rural department, we have our work cut our for us as the codes for building during the majority of construction for our two major subdivisions did not allow for defensible space, or the construction using fire resistive material. It is with great concern that as a small agency with limited resources we ask that this residential code get passed and with careful consideration to the resources it takes to mitigate wildfire in the WUI in its current state. Respectfully Submitted, Chad LaVallee- Fire Chief Alfalfa Fire District Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District 67433 Cloverdale Rd., Sisters, OR 97759 PH: (541) 389-2345 Burn Info: (541) 548-4815 www. cloverdalef ire. com December 21, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development, Planning Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Or. 97708-6005 Mr. Gutowsky The last few years have proven to be particularly catastrophic for properties in Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District. Due to our rural geography (the 50 square mile triangle between Bend, Redmond and Sisters), ingress to properties can at times make it difficult to access fire related incidents. As a. result of this and the fact that many of our constituent's homes are surrounded by large amounts of fire fuels, the Board of Directors strongly supports the adoption of enhanced wildfire resistant building codes and defensible space requirements throughout Deschutes County. While Cloverdale RFPD works closely with our partnering agencies, wildfires continue to be a significant risk to our community. We recognize and appreciate the great work being done in Deschutes County related to resilient landscapes and effective wildfire response. However, the building code element of fire adapted communities would further enhance our community's ability to survive a conflagration. It is with utmost urgency that Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District Board of Directors requests that Deschutes County adopt defensible space requirements and wildfire resistant building codes in order to further protect the life safety and property losses of our community. Thank you, Jerry Johnson, President Cloverdale RFPD Board of Directors CROOKED RIVER RANCH FIRE & RESCUE 6971 SW Shad Road, Crooked River Ranch, OR 97760 Phone: (541) 923-67761 Fax: (541) 923-5247 www.crrfire.org Peter Gutowski Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Attn: Community Development Bend, OR 97708-6005 DEAR PETER GUTOWSKY, Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District is mainly in Jefferson County, but the lower part of our fire District is in Deschutes county. We pride ourselves in having an active community that is willing to keep their properties cleaned up and try their best to meet the defensible space standards. But that is not all of them. For some property owners, their neighbors do not abide by the defensible space standards. With more and more properties being developed in our district it would be nice to have enhanced building codes for improved safety. In May of 2007 was our last major wildfire in our fire district. That fire burned over 350 acres and no homes were destroyed. With the assistance of tri-county fire departments and federal fire agencies there where no homes lost. It might not be that way again. There are more houses are being built in the same area of this fire. With last summer's fire season still very fresh in people's minds our community members are asking about defensible space and how they could protect their homes if we had another large fire. This is a great time to have building codes put in place. Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue is in support of enhanced building codes that would save lives and property. It will also save the lives of those firefighters who will be fighting the fire. These codes combined with good defensible space standards will help to make our and more fire resistive community. Respectfully, Harry Ward Fire Chief Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue •� REDMOND FIRE & RESCUE 341 NW Dogwood Avenue, Redmond, OR 97756 Phone: (541) 504-5000 Fax: (541) 526-1254 www.redmondfireandrescue.org December 22, 2020 Peter Gutowsky Planning Manager 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 Subject: ORSC R-327 Mr. Gutowsky, As the Fire Chief of Redmond Fire & Rescue, I am writing to offer my support for the adoption of Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327 and defensible space standards throughout Deschutes County. I have been a fire service professional for over 40 years, and I have seen firsthand the devastating impact of wildfire in the urban interface. Having spent the bulk of my career in California, I've sent my personnel to some of the largest wildfires in California's history including the Thomas Fire in Ventura, the Mendocino Complex, the Camp Fire in Paradise and countless more. I looked on in amazement beside the Governor's staff at the Coffee Park neighborhood which had been completely destroyed during the fires in Napa and Sonoma County by an ember cast that stretched well over a mile ahead of the actual fire line. Though some might suggest it just doesn't happen like that here, we don't have the same kind of weather, or wind patterns as in California, one need only look back a few months to see many fellow Oregonians experiencing wildfire on a scope and scale thought impossible. Having served on the Deschutes County Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee, I've had ample opportunity to discuss these issues with County staff, local builders, and concerned residents. Much of our time together was spend debating the merits of defensible space as well as building standards like those set forth in ORCS R-327. I assure you I fully understand there are myriad concerns and factors that must be taken into account when considering adoption of such standards. We must recognize that fire seasons are getting longer, and wildfires are becoming more destructive. We must also recognize that what may have seemed unlikely, or even impossible just one year ago, is now part of our history. I believe it is our responsibility as public servants to take a lesson from that history and adopt Oregon Residential Specialty Code R-327 and defensible space standards throughout Deschutes County. Thank you, /1 �L /1 ¢iLlytytG. Ken Kehmna Fire Chief, Redmond Fire & Rescue 81st OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2021 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 762 Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDFIRE RECOVERY (at the re- quest of Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire Recovery, Governor Kate Brown) CHAPTER ................................................. AN ACT Relating to wildfire; creating new provisions; amending ORS 197.716, 205.130, 401.025, 477.015, 477.025, 477.027, 477.281 and 526.360; repealing ORS 477.017, 477.018, 477.023, 477.029, 477.031, 477.052, 477.054, 477.057, 477.059, 477.060 and 477.061; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: ELECTRIC SYSTEM PLANS SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 4 of this 2021 Act are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 757. SECTION 2. The Public Utility Commission shall periodically convene workshops for the purpose of helping public utilities that provide electricity, municipal electric utilities, people's utility districts organized under ORS chapter 261 that sell electricity, electric cooperatives organized under ORS chapter 62 and operators of electrical transmission and distribution systems to develop and share information for the identification, adoption and carrying out of best practices regarding wildfires, including, but not limited to, risk -based wildfire pro- tection and risk -based wildfire mitigation procedures and standards. SECTION 3. (1) A public utility that provides electricity must have and operate in com- pliance with a risk -based wildfire protection plan that is filed with the Public Utility Com- mission and has been evaluated by the commission. The plan must be based on reasonable and prudent practices identified through workshops conducted by the commission pursuant to section 2 of this 2021 Act and on commission standards adopted by rule. The public utility must design the plan in a manner that seeks to protect public safety, reduce risk to utility customers and promote electrical system resilience to wildfire damage. (2) A public utility that provides electricity shall regularly update a risk -based wildfire protection plan on a schedule determined by the commission. The plan must, at a minimum: (a) Identify areas that are subject to a heightened risk of wildfire and are: (A) Within the service territory of the public utility; and (B) Outside the service territory of the public utility but within a reasonable distance, as determined by the commission, of the public utility's generation or transmission assets. (b) Identify a means for mitigating wildfire risk that reflects a reasonable balancing of mitigation costs with the resulting reduction of wildfire risk. (c) Identify preventive actions and programs that the public utility will carry out to minimize the risk of utility facilities causing a wildfire. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 1 (d) After seeking information from regional, state and local entities, including munici- palities, identify a protocol for the deenergizing of power lines and adjusting of power system operations to mitigate wildfires, promote the safety of the public and first responders and preserve health and communication infrastructure. (e) Describe the procedures, standards and time frames that the public utility will use to inspect utility infrastructure in areas that the public utility identifies under paragraph (a) of this subsection. (f) Describe the procedures, standards and time frames that the public utility will use to carry out vegetation management in areas that the public utility identifies under paragraph (a) of this subsection. (g) Identify the development, implementation and administration costs for the plan. (h) Identify the community outreach and public awareness efforts that the public utility will use before, during and after a wildfire season. (3) To develop a plan described in subsection (2) of this section, a public utility may consult with and consider information from regional, state and local entities, including municipalities. (4) The commission, in consultation with the State Forestry Department and local emergency services agencies, shall evaluate a public utility's wildfire protection plan and plan updates through a public process. (5) Not more than 180 days after receiving a wildfire protection plan or plan update from a public utility, the commission shall approve or approve with conditions the plan or update if the commission finds that the plan or update is based on reasonable and prudent practices identified through workshops pursuant to section 2 of this 2021 Act and designed to meet all applicable rules and standards adopted by the commission. (6) The commission's approval of a wildfire protection plan does not establish a defense to any enforcement action for violation of a commission decision, order or rule or relieve a public utility from proactively managing wildfire risk, including by monitoring emerging practices and technologies. (7) The commission shall adopt rules for the implementation of this section. The rules may include, but need not be limited to, procedures and standards regarding vegetation management, public power safety shutoffs and restorations, pole materials, circuitry and monitoring systems. (8) All reasonable operating costs incurred by, and prudent investments made by, a public utility to develop, implement or operate a wildfire protection plan under this section are re- coverable in the rates of the public utility from all customers through a filing under ORS 757.210 to 757.220. The commission shall establish an automatic adjustment clause, as defined in ORS 757.210, or another method to allow timely recovery of the costs. SECTION 3a. (1) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, violation of section 3 of this 2021 Act or a rule adopted pursuant to section 3 of this 2021 Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. (2) Notwithstanding ORS 183.315 (6), 183.745 (7)(d) and 756.500 to 756.610, civil penalties under this section must be imposed by the Public Utility Commission as provided in ORS 183.745. (3) Civil penalties collected under this section must be paid into the General Fund and credited to the Public Utility Commission Account as described in ORS 756.990 (7). SECTION 4. (1) As used in this section, "consumer -owned utility" and "governing body" have the meanings given those terms in ORS 757.600. (2) A consumer -owned utility must have and operate in compliance with a risk -based wildfire mitigation plan approved by the governing body of the utility. The plan must be de- signed to protect public safety, reduce risk to utility customers and promote electrical sys- tem resilience to wildfire damage. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 2 (3) The consumer -owned utility shall regularly update the risk -based wildfire mitigation plan on a schedule the governing body deems consistent with prudent utility practices. (4) A consumer -owned utility shall conduct a wildfire risk assessment of utility facilities. The utility shall review and revise the assessment on a schedule the governing body deems consistent with prudent utility practices. (5) A consumer -owned utility shall submit a copy of the risk -based wildfire mitigation plan approved by the utility governing body to the Public Utility Commission to facilitate commission functions regarding statewide wildfire mitigation planning and wildfire preparedness. SECTION 5. A public utility that provides electricity shall submit the first risk -based wildfire protection plan required of the public utility under section 3 of this 2021 Act for Public Utility Commission evaluation no later than December 31, 2021. SECTION 6. A consumer -owned utility shall submit the first risk -based wildfire miti- gation plan required under section 4 of this 2021 Act to the utility governing body no later than June 30, 2022. SECTION 6a. (1) As used in this section, "electric utility" has the meaning given that term in ORS 757.600. (2) Sections 3 and 4 of this 2021 Act do not affect the terms or conditions of easement held by an electric utility over private land as of the effective date of this 2021 Act. SECTION 6b. Sections 3 and 3a of this 2021 Act do not apply to municipally owned utili- ties organized under ORS chapter 225. STATEWIDE MAP OF WILDFIRE RISK SECTION 7. (1) The State Forestry Department shall oversee the development and maintenance of a comprehensive statewide map of wildfire risk that displays the wildfire risk classes described in subsection (4) of this section and populates the Oregon Wildfire Risk Explorer. (2) The Oregon Wildfire Risk Explorer must be the official wildfire planning and risk classification mapping tool for the State of Oregon. (3) The State Board of Forestry shall establish by rule criteria by which the map must be developed and maintained, including criteria concerning the use of the most current wildfire assessments. (4) In consultation with Oregon State University, the department shall establish five statewide wildfire risk classes of extreme, high, moderate, low and no risk. The classes must be: (a) Consistent with ORS 477.027. (b) Based on weather, climate, topography and vegetation. (5) The department shall enter into an agreement with the university that provides that the university will develop and maintain the map and make the map publicly available in electronic form through the Oregon Wildfire Risk Explorer. (6) The board shall adopt rules that: (a) Provide opportunities for public input into the assignment of properties to the wildfire risk classes described in subsection (4) of this section. (b) Require the department to provide notice and information about how a property owner may appeal an assignment of the property owner's property to the extreme or high wildfire risk classes. (c) Allow affected property owners and local governments to appeal the assignment of properties to the wildfire risk classes after the map is developed, after any updates to the map and within a reasonably time after delivery of the notice and information described in paragraph (b) of this subsection. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 3 (d) Establish a specific process for appeals through which a requested change in assign- ment is assessed based on: (A) Whether the assignment is consistent with the criteria described in subsection (3) of this section; (B) Any pertinent facts that may justify a change in the assignment; and (C) Any error in the data the department used to determine the assignment, if the error justifies a change in the assignment. (7) The map must: (a) Be based on the wildfire risk classes. (b) Be sufficiently detailed to allow the assessment of wildfire risk at the property - ownership level. (c) Include the boundaries of the wildland-urban interface, as defined in ORS 477.015, consistent with national standards. (d) Include a layer that geospatially displays the locations of socially and economically vulnerable communities. (8) To develop and maintain the map, the university shall collaborate with the depart- ment, the State Fire Marshal, other state agencies, local governments, federally recognized Indian tribes in this state, other public bodies and any other information sources that the university deems appropriate. (9) In maintaining the map, the university shall make technical adjustments as needed and update the map consistent with the results of appeals described in subsection (6)(b) of this section. (10) The university shall provide technical assistance to representatives of state and local government, and to landowners, that use the map. SECTION 7a. (1) On or before December 31, 2021, the State Forestry Department shall report to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to wildfire, in the man- ner provided in ORS 192.245, to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildlife Programs Advisory Council on the progress of the department and Oregon State University in complying with the requirements of section 7 of this 2021 Act. (2) On or before June 30, 2022, the department and university must finish all actions re- quired of the department and university by section 7 of this 2021 Act. (3) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, the State Board of Forestry may adopt temporary rules to help ensure the requirements described in subsection (2) of this section are met. DEFENSIBLE SPACE SECTION 8. As used in sections 8a, 8b and 8c of this 2021 Act, "defensible space" means a natural or human -made area in which material capable of supporting the spread of fire has been treated, cleared or modified to slow the rate and intensity of advancing wildfire and allow space for fire suppression operations to occur. SECTION 8a. (1) The State Fire Marshal shall establish minimum defensible space re- quirements for wildfire risk reduction on lands in areas identified on the statewide map of wildfire risk described in section 7 of this 2021 Act as within the wildland-urban interface. (2) The State Fire Marshal: (a) Shall consult with the Oregon Fire Code Advisory Board to establish the require- ments. (b) Shall establish requirements that are consistent with and do not exceed the standards pertaining only to defensible space that are set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code published by the International Code Council, including the standards per- taining only to defensible space that are set forth in sections 603 and 604 of the code. (c) May consider best practices specific to Oregon in order to establish the requirements. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 4 (d) Shall periodically reexamine the standards set forth in the International Wildland- Urban Interface Code and update the requirements to reflect current best practices, in con- sultation with the Oregon Fire Code Advisory Board. (e) Shall enforce the requirements that are applicable to lands within the jurisdiction of a local government. (f) Shall adopt rules governing administration of the requirements. (g) May develop and apply a graduated fee structure for use in assessing penalties on property owners for noncompliance with the requirements. (h) Shall consult on implementation of the requirements. (i) May adopt rules concerning reports by local governments described in subsection (4)(a) of this section. (3) Subject to additional local requirements, the requirements shall apply statewide for all lands in the wildland-urban interface that are designated as extreme or high risk, as identified on the map. (4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a local government may: (a) Administer, consult on and enforce the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal, within the jurisdiction of the local government. A local government that adminis- ters or enforces the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal shall periodically report to the State Fire Marshal regarding compliance with the requirements, including the extent of compliance for each property within the jurisdiction of the local government, any change in the degree of compliance since the last report and any other information required by the State Fire Marshal by rule. (b) Adopt and enforce local requirements for defensible space that are greater than the requirements established by the State Fire Marshal. Any local requirements that a local government adopts for defensible space must be defensible space standards selected from the framework set forth in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or other best prac- tices specific to Oregon. (c) Designate local fire districts, fire departments or fire agencies to enforce the re- quirements established by the State Fire Marshal or the local government pursuant to par- agraph (b) of this subsection. A local — ernment. that des7gnalteA enf(riV`P_.meint must comply with the reporting requirements in paragraph (a) of this subsection. (5) The State Fire Marshal shall administer a community risk reduction program that emphasizes education and methods of prevention with respect to wildfire risk, enforcement of defensible space requirements, response planning and community preparedness for wildfires. (6) The State Fire Marshal may provide financial, administrative, technical or other as- sistance to a local government to facilitate the administration and enforcement of require- ments within the jurisdiction of the local government. A local government shall expend financial assistance provided by the State Fire Marshal under this subsection to give priority to the creation of defensible space: (a) On lands owned by members of socially and economically vulnerable communities, persons with limited proficiency in English and persons of lower income as defined in ORS 456.055. (b) For critical or emergency infrastructure. (c) For schools, hospitals and facilities that serve seniors. SECTION 8b. (1) The minimum defensible space requirements established by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to section 8a of this 2021 Act may not be used as criteria to approve or deny: (a) An amendment to a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations. (b) A permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160. (c) A limited land use decision, as defined in ORS 197.015. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 5 (d) An expedited land division, as defined in ORS 197.360. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a local government may: (a) Amend the acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations of the local government to include the requirements; and (b) Use the requirements that are included in the amended acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations as a criterion for a land use decision. SECTION Sc. The State Fire Marshal shall establish minimum defensible space require- ments for wildfire risk reduction on lands in areas identified on the map described in section 7 of this 2021 Act on or before December 31, 2022. SECTION 9. The Community Risk Reduction Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Community Risk Re- duction Fund shall be credited to the fund. Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the State Fire Marshal for the purpose of carrying out community risk reduction and the local government financial assistance described in section Sa of this 2021 Act. SECTION 10. (1) The State Fire Marshal shall biannually report regarding the status of State Fire Marshal and local government activities for carrying out section Sa of this 2021 Act to a committee or interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to wildfire, in the manner provided in ORS 192.245, to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council: (a) On or before the date of convening of the regular session of the Legislative Assembly as specified in ORS 171.010. (b) Approximately six months after the date described in paragraph (a) of this subsection. (2) The report shall include, but need not be limited to: (a) A status report regarding community risk reduction and the establishment, adminis- tration and enforcement of defensible space requirements; (b) The amount of moneys expended during the year for community risk reduction and the establishment, administration or enforcement of defensible space requirements; (c) The amount of moneys expended during the year for the suppression of fires on wildland-urban interface lands; and (d) Any recommendations of the State Fire Marshal for legislative action, including, but not limited to, current or future resource and funding needs for community risk reduction and establishing, administering or enforcing defensible space requirements. �i`I lli�y �I SECTION 11. (1) As used in this section, "defensible space" has the meaning given that term in section S of this 2021 Act. (2) The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall identify updates to the statewide land use planning program and local comprehensive plans and zoning codes that are needed in order to incorporate wildfire risk maps and minimize wildfire risk, including the appropriate levels of state and local resources necessary for effective implementation. (3) Updates may include, but need not be limited to, provisions regarding sufficient defensible space, building codes, safe evacuation and development considerations in areas of extreme and high wildfire risk, allowing for regional differences. (4) On or before October 1, 2022, the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall: (a) Complete the updates. (b) Report to a committee or interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to wildfire, in the manner provided in ORS 192.245, to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council on the updates. The report must include recom- mendations concerning the updates. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 6 (5) As necessary to identify needed updates and develop the recommendations required by subsection (4)(b) of this section, the department may consult with the State Fire Marshal, the State Forestry Department, the Department of Consumer and Business Services and lo- cal governments. BUILDING CODES SECTION 12. (1) For extreme and high wildfire risk classes in the wildland-urban inter- face that are identified pursuant to section 7 of this 2021 Act, the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall adopt wildfire hazard mitigation building code standards that apply to new dwellings and the accessory structures of dwellings, as described in section R327 of the 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code. (2) The department shall amend section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code to include standards for additions to existing dwellings and accessory structures and for re- placement of existing exterior elements covered in section R327 of the 2021 Oregon Residen- tial Specialty Code. (3) The department shall incorporate the standards described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section into any updates to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. SECTION 12a. (1) The Department of Consumer and Business Services shall take the actions required by section 12 (1) and (2) of this 2021 Act not later than October 1, 2022. (2) The standards described in section 12 (1) and (2) of this 2021 Act may not become operative before April 1, 2023. SECTION 12b. Not more than two years after the standards described in section 12 (1) and (2) of this 2021 Act are adopted, the Department of Consumer and Business Services shall update section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code to: (1) Ensure that the code incorporates the standards described in section 12 (1) and (2) of this 2021 Act; and (2) Make any necessary adjustments to the applicability of the standards and permitting requirements in the code. .SECTION 12c. The Department of Consumer and Business Services! (1) Shall develop and maintain an interactive mapping tool that displays, at the property level, wildfire hazard mitigation standards covered in section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. The tool must be designed to support future inclusion of snow load, seismic and wind building code standards at the property level. (2) Shall collaborate with Oregon State University to obtain any needed information from the Oregon Wildfire Risk Explorer and national or science -based sources in order to develop the tool. (3) Shall ensure that the tool is displayed in an electronic format and available to the public at no charge. (4) Shall periodically update the tool when the relevant building code is updated. (5) May enter into an agreement with the university concerning services required to de- velop and maintain the tool. SECTION 12d. (1) The Department of Consumer and Business Services shall develop the interactive mapping tool described in section 12c of this 2021 Act not more than 60 days after the statewide map of wildfire risk described in section 7 of this 2021 Act is developed. (2) Any delay in developing the tool may not affect a deadline concerning the map. HEALTH SYSTEMS FOR SMOKE SECTION 13. The Department of Environmental Quality shall develop and implement a program for supporting local communities, in detecting, preparing for, communicating or mitigating the environmental and public health impacts of wildfire smoke. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 7 SECTION 13a. The Department of Environmental Quality shall establish a program for supporting local communities through intergovernmental agreements, grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to develop and implement community response plans to enhance the communities' readiness and mitigation capacity for smoke. SECTION 13b. (1) The Department of Environmental Quality shall establish and imple- ment a program to support communities across this state in monitoring, interpreting and communicating data related to ambient air quality conditions caused by wildfire smoke. (2) As part of the program, the department shall: (a) Conduct community outreach in areas of this state that are prone to poor air quality attributable to elevated levels of particulate matter. (b) Deploy air quality monitoring equipment in a manner sufficient to evaluate an in- creased prevalence of poor air quality attributable to elevated levels of particulate matter. (c) Monitor meteorological conditions in a manner sufficient to forecast occurrences of poor air quality. SECTION 14. (1) As used in this section, "smoke filtration system" means an air filtration system capable of removing particulates and other harmful components of wildfire smoke in a public building. (2) In consultation and coordination with the Oregon Health Authority, the Department of Human Services shall establish and implement a grant program that allows local govern- ments to: (a) Establish emergency clean air shelters. (b) Equip public buildings with smoke filtration systems so the public buildings may serve as cleaner air spaces during wildfire smoke and other poor air quality events. (3) The department shall require grantees to provide access to the clean air shelters at no charge. SECTION 14a. The Department of Human Services is the lead state agency for clean air shelter operations. The department shall: (1) Consult and collaborate with the Oregon Health Authority to align practices for vol- untary evacuations and emergency sheltering operations. (2) C:oordirnate with the authority in setting priorities for awarding grants described in section 14 of this 2021 Act. (3) Provide support to local agencies that take lead roles in operating and planning clean air shelters in the local agencies' jurisdictions. SECTION 14b. No later than June 30, 2023, in consultation with the Oregon Health Au- thority, the Department of Human Services shall report to an appropriate committee or in- terim committee of the Legislative Assembly, in the manner described in ORS 192.245, to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council on: (1) The grants administered pursuant to section 14 of this 2021 Act, including information about which local governments received grants. (2) Any barriers to administering the grants. (3) Areas for improving the grant program described in section 14 of this 2012 Act. (4) Public health impacts from wildfire smoke events. SECTION 15. (1) As used in this section, "smoke filtration device" means portable air cleaners and furnace, heating, ventilation and air conditioning filters that are intended to remove contaminants, including particulates and other harmful components of wildfire smoke, from the air in a room to improve indoor air quality. (2) The Oregon Health Authority shall establish a program to increase the availability of residential smoke filtration devices among persons vulnerable to the health effects of wildfire smoke who reside in areas susceptible to wildfire smoke. (3) The authority may award grants for the purchase of smoke filtration devices. (4) If the authority awards grants described in this section, the authority shall give pri- ority to funding for smoke filtration devices in residential buildings occupied by persons who Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 8 qualify for the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid and are vulnerable to the health effects of wildfire smoke. (5) The authority may adopt rules establishing standards for smoke filtration devices obtained with grant moneys received under this section, including, but not limited to, mini- mum acceptable efficiency for the removal of particulates and other harmful substances generated by wildfires. (6) The authority may provide information and refer service providers to grantees that need housing interventions to facilitate effective use of smoke filtration devices, including interventions such as weather proofing. SECTION 15a. The Oregon Health Authority shall periodically report to an appropriate committee or interim committee of the Legislative Assembly, as described in ORS 192.245, to the State Wildfire Programs Director and to the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council on: (1) The use of smoke filtration devices funded under section 15 of this 2021 Act, including use of the smoke filtration devices by vulnerable and underserved communities. (2) The effectiveness of the programs described in section 15 of this 2021 Act. (3) Areas for improvement. (4) Public health impacts during wildfire smoke events. (5) Whether funding described in section 15 of this 2021 Act has provided a public health return on investment. EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND DISASTER RECOVERY SECTION 16. ORS 401.025 is amended to read: 401.025. As used in this chapter: (1) "Emergency" means a human created or natural event or circumstance that causes or threatens widespread loss of life, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial loss, including but not limited to: (a) Fire, wildfire, explosion, flood, severe weather, landslides or mud slides, drought, earth- quake, volcanic activity, tsunamis or other oceanic phenomena, spills or releases of oil or hazardous material as defined in ORS 466.605, contamination, utility or transportation emergencies, disease, blight, infestation, civil disturbance, riot, sabotage, acts of terrorism and war; and (b) A rapid influx of individuals from outside this state, a rapid migration of individuals from one part of this state to another or a rapid displacement of individuals if the influx, migration or displacement results from the type of event or circumstance described in paragraph (a) of this sub- section. (2) "Emergency service agency" means an organization within a local government that performs essential services for the public's benefit before, during or after an emergency, such as law enforcement, fire control, health, medical and sanitation services, public works and engineering, public information and communications. (3) "Emergency services" means activities engaged in by state and local government agencies to prepare for an emergency and to prevent, minimize, respond to or recover from an emergency, including but not limited to coordination, preparedness planning, training, interagency liaison, fire fighting, oil or hazardous material spill or release cleanup as defined in ORS 466.605, law enforce- ment, medical, health and sanitation services, engineering and public works, search and rescue ac- tivities, warning and public information, damage assessment, administration and fiscal management, and those measures defined as "civil defense" in 50 U.S.C. app. 2252. (4) "Local government" has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.116. (5) "Major disaster" means any event defined as a "major disaster" under 42 U.S.C. 5122(2). SECTION 17. (1) The Office of Emergency Management shall update its statewide emer- gency plan as necessary to prepare for or respond to wildfire emergencies on an area -wide or statewide basis. The plan developed by the office to prepare for or respond to wildfire Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 9 emergencies shall include, but need not be limited to, wildfire risk mitigation efforts and evacuation planning. (2) The office shall coordinate with cities, counties, adult foster homes, health care fa- cilities and residential facilities, the Department of Human Services and the Oregon Health Authority to establish local or private procedures to prepare for emergencies related to wildfire and ensure that local efforts to prevent, respond to or recover from an emergency caused by wildfire are conducted in a manner consistent with the plan developed by the office to prepare for or respond to wildfire emergencies. The coordinated activities may include, but need not be limited to, providing training, carrying out exercises and promoting com- munity education. SECTION 17a. The Office of Emergency Management shall conduct the update required by section 17 (1) of this 2021 Act on or before December 31, 2021. REDUCTION OF WILDFIRE RISK SECTION 18. (1)(a) The State Forestry Department shall design and implement a pro- gram to reduce wildfire risk through the restoration of landscape resiliency and the re- duction of hazardous fuel on public or private forestlands and rangelands and in communities near homes and critical infrastructure. (b) The department shall ensure that the program is consistent with the objectives de- scribed in this section and biennially select, administer and evaluate projects consistent with the objectives described in this subsection. (c) When developing program and project selection criteria, the department shall, to the extent practicable, consult and cooperate with state and federal agencies, counties, cities and other units of local government, federally recognized Indian tribes in this state, public and private forestland and rangeland owners, forest and rangeland collaboratives and other rel- evant community organizations and ensure consistency with the priorities described in sub- section (3) of this section. (2) The department shall develop a 20-year strategic plan, as described in the Shared Stewardship Agreement signed on August 13, 2019, that prioritizes restoration actions and geographies for wildfire risk reduction. The plan must be able to be used to direct federal, state and private investments in a tangible way. (3) In selecting and administering projects, the department shall: (a) In collaboration with the Oregon State University Extension Service and other enti- ties, identify strategic landscapes that are ready for treatment, giving priority to projects within the landscapes that are: (A) On lands in the four highest eNVC risk classes identified in the United States Forest Service report titled "Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and Results" and dated April 9, 2018; (B) Inclusive of federal lands with treatment projects currently approved under the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); (C) Focusing on treatments protective of human life, property, critical infrastructure, watershed health and forest or rangeland habitat restoration; and (D) Part of a collaborative partnership with agreements across diverse forestland or rangeland stakeholders that use an expansive, landscape -scale approach to address underly- ing causes of poor wildfire resilience and elevated risk of wildfire or that establish innovative approaches to addressing the underlying causes that could be implemented on a larger scale. (b) To the extent practicable, identify and support projects that are designed to: (A) Evaluate varying types of fuel treatment methods; (B) Leverage the collective power of public -private partnerships and federal and state funding, including leverage of the coordination of funding to support collaborative initiatives Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 10 that address the underlying causes of elevated forestland and rangeland wildfire risk across ownerships; and (C) Optimize the receipt of federal government investments that equal or exceed de- partment investments. (c) Design the projects to involve existing forest -based and range -based contracting en- tities. (d) Design the projects to complement programs and projects of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board or other state agencies as needed. (e) Design the projects to involve the Oregon Conservation Corps Program established by section 21 of this 2021 Act, to the maximum extent possible, for community protection projects located in the wildland-urban interface, subject to funding available in the Oregon Conservation Corps Fund established by section 23 of this 2021 Act. (f) Affirmatively seek, and enhance opportunities for, collaboration from stakeholders holding a wide variety of perspectives regarding forest and rangeland management and op- portunities for significant involvement by communities in proximity to project sites. (g) Engage in monitoring of the projects to produce useful information on which to base recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. (4) A project under this section may not include commercial thinning on: (a) Inventoried roadless areas; (b) Riparian reserves identified in the Northwest Forest Plan or in federal Bureau of Land Management resource management plans; (c) Late successional reserves, except to the extent consistent with the 2011 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); (d) Areas protected under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542), national recreation areas, national monuments or areas protected under ORS 390.805 to 390.925; (e) Designated critical habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205) or by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission under ORS 496.172, unless commercial thinning is already allowed under an existing envi- ronmental review or recognized habitat recovery plan; or (f) Federally designated areas of critical environmental concern or federally designated wilderness study areas. (5) The department shall give public notice, and allow reasonable opportunity for public input, when identifying and selecting landscapes under this section. SECTION 19. Section 18 of this 2021 Act does not expand, diminish or otherwise affect a right, privilege, duty or function established under federal, state or local laws or rules that pertain to the management of private lands in this state. SECTION 20. (1) The State Forestry Department shall complete the operation of projects under section 18 of this 2021 Act no later than June 30, 2023. (2) The department shall report regarding progress in carrying out projects under section 18 of this 2021 Act to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to natural resources, in the manner provided by ORS 192.245, and to the Governor, State Wildfire Pro- grams Director and Wildfire Programs Advisory Council no later than January 15, 2022. The report shall include, but need not be limited to: (a) An explanation of how landscapes were selected, a summary of the selected projects, a description of initial outcomes from projects selected under the requirements established by section 18 of this 2021 Act, anticipated time frames for completion of the projects and any initial recommendations concerning landscape identification and projects selected under the requirements established by section 18 of this 2021 Act; (b) A description of the funding source types and amounts secured by the department as matching funds to implement projects; and Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 11 (c) A summary of outreach and coordination with relevant federal and state agencies, counties, cities and other units of local government, federally recognized Indian tribes in this state, public and private forestland and rangeland owners, forestland and rangeland collaboratives and other relevant community organizations to identify and select landscapes for treatment and develop selection criteria for projects. (3)(a) The department shall report its findings and recommendations regarding wildfire risk reduction on forestland and rangeland and in communities, based on information ob- tained from the projects described in section 18 of this 2021 Act, to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to natural resources, in the manner provided by ORS 192.245, and to the Governor, State Wildfire Programs Director and Wildfire Programs Ad- visory Council no later than July 15, 2023. The report shall include, but need not be limited to: (A) A qualitative and quantitative summary of the project outcomes that, at a minimum, states the number of acres treated, the treatment actions carried out and any resulting or anticipated changes in landscape conditions related to enhanced resiliency or the mitigation of wildfire risk to public values; (B) The identification of barriers to more efficient implementation and achievement of goals in future wildfire risk reduction projects; (C) A qualitative and quantitative summary of the use of prescribed fire activities and invasive annual grass treatments for wildfire risk reduction that, at a minimum, states the number of acres burned or treated and any resulting or anticipated changes in landscape conditions related to enhanced resiliency or the mitigation of wildfire risk to public values; (D) The identification of existing disincentives to, and recommendation for reducing barriers to, the use of prescribed fire; (E) Recommendations for creating optimal working relationships with forestland or rangeland collaboratives and other relevant community organizations regarding future wildfire risk reduction projects; (F) A description of the funding source types and amounts secured by the department as matching funds to carry out projects; and (G) Recommendations for investment in future wildfire risk reduction projects to be carried out in the 2023-2025 biennium. (b) In developing the report required under this subsection, the department shall work in coordination with federal land management agencies, institutions of higher education and third parties to develop consistent performance measurements and condition -based metrics for monitoring and communicating the effectiveness of state investments and project actions in reducing wildfire risk on public or private forestlands and rangelands and in communities. OREGON CONSERVATION CORPS SECTION 21. (1) The Oregon Conservation Corps Program is established for the purposes of: (a) Reducing the risk wildfire poses to communities and critical infrastructure. (b) Helping to create fire -adapted communities. (c) Engaging youth and young adults in workforce training. (2) Youth and young adults between 13 years of age and 26 years of age who have been qualified by a youth development organization may participate in projects undertaken by the corps. (3) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, participants in projects undertaken by the corps: (a) Are not employees of the corps. (b) Are exempt from prevailing wage laws. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 12 (c) Must receive compensation for their participation of at least minimum wage or an allowance or stipend that, when combined with other sources of payment the participant is eligible to receive, including academic credit or an AmeriCorps education award, is equiv- alent to the value of minimum wage. SECTION 22. (1) As used in this section, "eligible organization" includes Oregon -based nonprofit youth development organizations and public entities that provide programs of job training, skill development and forest -related or rangeland -related career path training. (2) The Oregon Conservation Corps Advisory Committee is established within the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for the purpose of managing the Oregon Conservation Corps Program. (3) The Governor shall determine the number of members on the committee and appoint the members. (4) The committee shall, in collaboration with a qualified nonprofit foundation, actively seek and source private donations to support the Oregon Conservation Corps Program. (5) The committee may direct the expenditure of moneys from the Oregon Conservation Corps Fund for a promotional website and materials to solicit private funds. (6) Members may not receive compensation for service on the committee, but, subject to any applicable laws regulating travel and other expenses of state officers and employees, may be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the per- formance of committee duties with moneys available to the commission for the purpose of reimbursing the members. (7) The committee shall administer a grant process that: (a) Provides funding to support the work conducted by the Oregon Conservation Corps Program. (b) Defines and uses an equity lens in awarding grants by identifying and supporting populations with greater vulnerability including communities of color, indigenous communi- ties, communities with members who have limited proficiency in English and communities with lower -income members. (c) Awards grants to eligible organizations. (d) Ensures that grant awards support activities described in section 21 (1) of this 2021 Act and subsection (8) of this section. (e) Establishes guidelines for prioritizing grant -supported projects to reduce community fire risks, promote youth and young adult workforce development and educational experi- ences and reduce hazardous fuels. (8) The committee shall consult with the State Forestry Department to ensure that the grant process awards funds to proposals that: (a) Protect at -risk communities and infrastructure within the wildland-urban interface, as described in section 18 of this 2021 Act. (b) Meet standards for fuel treatment established by the department. (9) The committee shall biennially submit a report, on the timeline described in ORS 293.640, to an appropriate committee or interim committee of the Legislative Assembly, as described in ORS 192.245, and to the State Wildfire Programs Director and Wildfire Programs Advisory Council, regarding the expenditure of moneys deposited in the Oregon Conservation Corps Fund. SECTION 23. (1) The Oregon Conservation Corps Fund is established in the State Treas- ury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Oregon Conserva- tion Corps Fund shall be credited to the fund. (2) The fund may receive contributions from individuals and private organizations. (3) Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the Higher Education Coordi- nating Commission to be used as directed by the Oregon Conservation Corps Advisory Com- mittee and for related administrative expenses of the commission. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-0 Page 13 (4) The commission shall keep records of all moneys credited to and deposited in the fund and the activity or program against which each withdrawal from the fund is charged. SMALL FORESTLAND GRANT PROGRAM SECTION 24. (1) As used in this section, "small forestland owner" means an individual, group, federally recognized Indian tribe in Oregon or association that owns: (a) Up to 160 acres of nonindustrial private forestland west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains; or (b) Up to 640 acres of nonindustrial private forestland east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains. (2) The State Forestry Department shall establish a small forestland grant program for the purpose of providing grants, on a competitive basis, to support small forestland owners in reducing wildfire risk through the restoration of landscape resiliency and the reduction of hazardous fuels on the owners' property. (3) In consultation with partners and stakeholders, the department shall set criteria for assessing grant applications and awarding grants. The criteria may include, but need not be limited to: (a) Prioritization of projects on forestland in extreme or high wildfire risk classes de- scribed in section 7 of this 2021 Act. (b) Owner commitment to maintaining fuel reduction treatments. (c) Owner possession of a forest management plan. (d) Project proximity to current or past fuel mitigation efforts, supported by any owner or funding source, that would contribute to cross -boundary, landscape -scale forest resiliency. (e) Whether the project addresses additional resource concerns, such as insect and dis- ease management. (f) Whether critical facilities and infrastructure may receive enhanced protection due to project outcomes. PRESCRIBED FIRE - SECTION 25. The State Forestry Department shall adopt rules to clarify that a person may: (1) Conduct a prescribed fire that burns across land ownership boundaries if the person obtains a permit for the fire as described in ORS 477.515 or 477.625 and complies with the conditions of the permit. (2) Obtain a single permit under ORS 477.515 or 477.625 for a prescribed fire that burns across land ownership boundaries if the person demonstrates to the department that the person has obtained consent to conduct the fire from all persons on whose lands the fire is planned to burn. SECTION 25a. The State Forestry Department shall initiate the rulemaking described in section 25 of this 2021 Act on or before November 30, 2021, and finalize the rulemaking on or before November 30, 2022. SECTION 26. ORS 526.360 is amended to read: 526.360. (1) The State Board of Forestry, [and the forester] the State Forester and forest protective associations may assist to the extent [possible] practical in developing, for forestry, grazing or agricultural uses, all forestland classified pursuant to ORS 526.328 or 526.340 for such uses, including the burning of brush or other flammable material for the purpose of. (a) Removing a fire hazard to any property; (b) Preparing seed beds; (c) Removing obstructions to or interference with the proper seeding or agricultural or grazing development or use of that land; Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 14 (d) Promoting the establishment of new forest crops on cutover, denuded or underproductive lands; (e) Implementing pest prevention and suppression activities, as provided in ORS 527.310 to 527.370; or (f) Promoting improvements to forest health, including improvements to fish and wildlife habitat. (2) Upon request of the owner or the agent of the owner of any forestland classified pursuant to ORS 526.328 or 526.340, the forester or a forest protective association may perform or super- vise burning operations thereon for any of the purposes stated in subsection (1) of this section. The owner or the agent of the owner shall supply such personnel and equipment and shall perform such fire control actions and activities as the forester or forest protective association may require while there is danger of the fire spreading. The forester or forest protective association may re- fuse to perform or supervise burning or to issue any burning permit when, in the judgment of the forester or forest protective association, conditions so warrant. (3) To accomplish the purposes set forth in subsection (1) of this section, the [State Board of Forestry may] board shall establish by rule a Certified Burn Manager program. (4) The rules shall include: (a) Certification standards, requirements and procedures; (b) Standards, requirements and procedures to revoke certification; (c) Actions and activities that a Certified Burn Manager must perform; (d) Actions and activities that a Certified Burn Manager may not allow or perform; (e) Limitations on the use of a Certified Burn Manager; and (f) Any other standard, requirement or procedure that the board considers necessary for the safe and effective administration of the program. (5) The rules may establish and impose fees for participation in the program. [(4)] (6) When [any] a burning for any of the purposes stated in subsection (1) of this section on forestland classified pursuant to ORS 526.328 or 526.340 is started under the supervision of and supervised by the forester, a forest protective association or a Certified Burn Manager, [no] a person [shall] may not be held liable for property damage resulting from that burning unless the damage is caused by the negligence of the person. SECTION 27. By December 1, 2021, the State Board of Forestry shall: (1) Consult with the Oregon Prescribed Fire Council concerning best practices for con- ducting the Certified Burn Manager program described in ORS 526.360; (2) Initiate rulemaking to establish the program; and (3) Report in the manner provided in ORS 192.245 to an appropriate committee or interim committee of the Legislative Assembly on progress the board has made in establishing and implementing the program and when the board expects to launch the program. FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS SECTION 27a. The State Forestry Department shall cooperate with federal agencies to increase the effectiveness of activities undertaken pursuant to ORS 526.271, 526.274 and 526.275. PROTECTED AREAS SECTION 28. (1) The State Forester, in collaboration with the State Fire Marshal, state agencies and local governments as defined in ORS 174.116, shall adopt rules establishing baseline levels of wildfire protection for lands that are outside of forest protection districts and susceptible to wildfire. When establishing the baseline levels for lands, the State Forester shall ensure that the levels are adapted to reflect regional conditions. A county, in collaboration with the State Forester and the State Fire Marshal, may work to ensure that all lands within the county that are outside of forest protection districts and susceptible to Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 15 wildfire are provided with wildfire protection services at the applicable baseline level or a higher level. As used in this subsection, "forest protection districts" means lands designated in State Forester rules as provided under ORS 477.225. (2) A county, in collaboration with the State Forester and the State Fire Marshal, may assist: (a) Landowners, individuals and businesses with forming jurisdictions to provide wildfire protection; (b) Landowners, individuals, businesses and jurisdictions with obtaining expansion of or other changes to boundaries or facility locations of jurisdictions that provide wildfire pro- tection; (c) Jurisdictions to expand or adjust jurisdiction service boundaries to ensure adequate wildfire protection for lands; and (d) Jurisdictions in developing wildfire protection facilities, equipment, training and other resources adequate to ensure that the jurisdiction provides timely and effective wildfire protection at the baseline level or higher on lands described in subsection (1) of this section throughout the jurisdiction. (3) The State Forester may provide financial assistance to counties for carrying out county duties under subsection (2) of this section from any funds made available to the State Forester and designated for that purpose. SECTION 29. A county shall ensure no later than January 1, 2026, that all lands described in section 28 (1) of this 2021 Act within the county have baseline level or higher wildfire protection as described in section 28 of this 2021 Act. WILDFIRE RESPONSE CAPACITY SECTION 30. (1) The State Forestry Department shall establish and maintain an ex- panded system of automated smoke detection cameras that includes staffing in detection centers to monitor and alert fire suppression staff when fires are detected. (2) The system must serve the purposes of quickly detecting, locating and extinguishing fires and keeping fires as small as possible. SECTION 30a. The State Forestry Department: (1) Shall consult and coordinate with federal agencies, private stakeholders and other state agencies to determine the adequacy of state, federal and private wildfire response ca. pacity. The department shall act to facilitate wildfire prevention and wildfire response communication and coordination between federal, state, local and private entities. (2) Shall increase the department's wildfire readiness and response capacity, including increases to fire suppression response personnel, aviation assets and necessary administra- tive support personnel, to the extent the department receives funding for the increase. (3) Shall, to the extent practicable, seek to leverage state moneys to obtain an increase in federal wildfire resources available to Oregon for effective initial response purposes. (4) Shall consult with the office of the State Fire Marshal and with local fire defense board chiefs to assess the adequacy of available mutual aid to provide wildfire response on wildland-urban interface lands and to identify means for providing additional resources from the state or other entities to enhance wildfire response capacity on wildland-urban interface lands. (5) Shall continually identify workforce development needs associated with wildfire risk mitigation and wildfire response and develop funding proposals for meeting those needs on a sustained basis. The identified workforce development needs must align with wildfire risk to provide an adequate level of wildfire protection, as described in ORS 477.062. (6) May enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with a local or private entity for the purpose of assisting the entity to organize for purposes of wildfire risk mitigation or wildfire response, including, but not limited to, facilitating wildfire training and the acquisi- Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 16 tion of firefighting equipment for the entity and assisting with payment for liability insur- ance and other administrative expenses of the entity associated with wildfire risk mitigation or wildfire response. SECTION 30b. (1) The office of the State Fire Marshal shall increase the office's wildfire readiness and response capacity to the extent the office receives funding for the increase, by means including: (a) Increasing fire prevention and response personnel and fire administrative support personnel to address planning, communications, training, deployment and safety. (b) Implementing innovative technologies and modernizing systems to expedite fire re- source deployment in an efficient and safe manner. (2) The State Fire Marshal may: (a) Designate funding intended for the Oregon fire mutual aid system to support prepo- sitioning of resources and costs. (b) Enter into contracts with federal or state agencies, other states, political subdivi- sions, corporations and authorities having fire suppression jurisdiction for fire prevention, suppression, coordination and response. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE PROTECTION SECTION 31. ORS 477.015 is amended to read: 477.015. [(1)] As used in this section and ORS [477.015 to 477.061] 477.025 and 477.027, [unless the context otherwise requires,] "[forestland-urban] wildland-urban interface" [means] has the meaning given that term in rule by the State Board of Forestry. [a geographic area of forestland inside a forest protection district where there exists a concentration of structures in an urban or sub- urban setting.] [(2) As used in ORS 477.015 to 477.057, unless the context requires otherwise:] [(a) "Committee" means a county forestland-urban interface classification committee.] [(b) "Governing body" means the board of county commissioners or county court of a county, as the case may be. ] SECTION 32. ORS 477.025 is amended to read: 477.025. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the [forestland] wildland-urban interface in Oregon varies by condition, situation, fire hazard and risk, that different [forestland] wildland-urban interface fire protection problems exist across the state because of this variability, and that these different problems necessitate varied fire prevention and protection practices. [and that, in order to give recognition to such differences and their effect on the accomplishment of the public policy stated in ORS 477.023, certain classifications of the forestland-urban interface within the State of Oregon are established by ORS 477.027 to 477.057.1 SECTION 33. ORS 477.027 is amended to read: 477.027. (1) By [administrative] rule, considering national best practices, the State Board of Forestry shall establish: (a) A definition of "wildland-urban interface." (b) Criteria by which the [forestland-urban] wildland-urban interface [shall] must be identified and classified. (2) The criteria [shall]: (a) Must recognize differences across the state in fire hazard, fire risk and structural charac- teristics within the [forestland-urban] wildland-urban interface. (b) May not exclude a category of land from inclusion in the wildland-urban interface. (3) Based on the criteria [shall include not less than three nor more than], the board shall es- tablish five classes of [forestland-urban] wildland-urban interface. (4) The classes must be integrated into the comprehensive statewide map described in section 7 of this 2021 Act. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 17 SECTION 33a. The State Board of Forestry shall adopt by rule the definition described in ORS 477.027 (1)(a), as amended by section 33 of this 2021 Act, not later than 100 days after the effective date of this 2021 Act. SECTION 34. ORS 477.017, 477.018, 477.023, 477.029, 477.031, 477.052, 477.054, 477.057, 477.059, 477.060 and 477.061 are repealed. STATE WILDFIRE PROGRAMS DIRECTOR SECTION 35. (1) The Governor shall appoint a State Wildfire Programs Director to serve at the pleasure of the Governor. (2) The duties of the director shall include: (a) Overseeing implementation of requirements and authorization provided by this 2021 Act. (b) Coordinating and integrating activities of state agencies and other entities that are required or authorized by this 2021 Act in order to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities. (c) Ensuring compliance with deadlines set out in this 2021 Act. (d) Monitoring and assessing any financial impacts of the activities on local jurisdictions and the equity of those financial impacts among the jurisdictions. (e) Supervising staffing of the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council. (f) Reporting at least every 60 days to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairs of relevant committees and interim committees of the Legislative Assembly to summarize progress on implementing the activ- ities, note obstacles and opportunities and catalog possibilities for future improvements to further reduce wildfire risk in this state. (g) Exploring additional opportunities to reduce wildfire risk, including but not limited to engaging with: (A) Insurance companies regarding insurance policy coverage provisions, underwriting standards, insurance rates and any other topics relevant to enhancing the protection of property from wildfire at a reasonable cost. (B) Electric utilities regarding further actions to protect public safety, reduce risk to electric company customers and promote electrical system resilience to wildfire damage. (C) Congressional delegations and federal agencies to expand opportunities for cost -share partnerships for wildfire mitigation and develop strategies for improvements to federal fire management policies. (h) Collaborating with the State Resilience Officer and participating in any relevant emergency preparedness advisory councils. WILDFIRE PROGRAMS ADVISORY COUNCIL SECTION 36. (1) As used in this section, "defensible space" has the meaning given that term in section 8 of this 2021 Act. (2) There is established a Wildfire Programs Advisory Council to advise and assist the State Wildfire Programs Director by: (a) Closely monitoring implementation of activities related to wildfire prevention and re- sponse, including receiving and evaluating agency reports related to wildfire prevention and response. (b) Providing advice on potential changes to the activities in order to fulfill the goal of dramatically reducing wildfire risk in this state and ensuring that regional defensible space, building codes and land use applications are appropriate. (c) Strengthening intergovernmental and multiparty collaboration and enhancing collab- oration between governments and stakeholders on an ongoing basis. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 18 (d) Developing strategies to enhance collaboration among governmental bodies and the general public. (e) Assessing ways the statewide map of wildfire risk described in section 7 of this 2021 Act may inform development of building codes and land use laws, rules and decisions, in a regionally appropriate manner. (f) Assessing the application of defensible space requirements to vineyards, crops and other cultivated vegetation. (g) Reviewing Department of Land Conservation and Development findings and recom- mendations in the report required by section 11 of this 2021 Act and making additional re- commendations related to potential updates to the statewide land use planning program, local comprehensive plans and zoning codes to incorporate wildfire risk maps and minimize wildfire risk to people, public and private property, businesses, infrastructure and natural resources. (3) The council is not a decision -making body but instead is established to provide advice, assistance, perspective, ideas and recommendations to the State Wildfire Programs Director. (4) The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives shall jointly appoint 19 members to the council as follows: (a) One member who represents county government. (b) One member who is a land use planning director of a county that is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (c) One member who represents city government. (d) One member who is a land use planning director of a city that is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (e) One member who represents fire chiefs and has experience with managing, fighting or preventing fire within the wildland-urban interface. (f) One member who represents fire marshals and has experience with managing, fighting or preventing fire within the wildland-urban interface. (g) One member who represents firefighters and has experience with managing, fighting or preventing fire within the wildland-urban interface. /�h) n,ne ;ember who represent.- rural residential property owners whose property is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. M One member who represents farming property owners whose property is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (j) One member who represents ranching property owners whose property is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (k) One member who represents forestland owners whose property is wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (L) One member who represents federally recognized Indian tribes with land wholly or partially within the wildland-urban interface. (m) One member who represents a utility company. (n) One member who represents environmental interests. (o) One member who represents forest resiliency interests. (p) One member who represents state or regional land use planning organizations. (q) One member who represents land and housing development interests or real estate industry interests. (r) One member who represents public health professionals. (s) One member who represents the environmental justice community. (5) The presiding officers shall provide public notice of an opportunity for interested parties to submit names of interest for appointment to the council. (6) At least 30 days before appointing a member, the presiding officers shall consult in good faith with the minority leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives on the ap- pointment. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 19 (7) The term of service for each member is four years. (8) The members are eligible for reappointment. (9) The council shall elect a chairperson and vice chairperson to serve for one-year terms. (10) The members shall serve on the council as volunteers and are not entitled to re- imbursement for expenses. (11) The Department of Consumer and Business Services, Department of Land Conser- vation and Development, office of the State Fire Marshal and State Forestry Department shall each provide 15 percent of the time of a full-time equivalent employee to: (a) Cooperatively staff the council. (b) Attend council meetings as informational resources. (c) Assist with drafting reports at the request of the council. (d) Support the work of the State Wildfire Programs Director. (12) The Oregon State University Extension Service shall designate a person to serve as staff for the council. (13) Each October the council shall submit a report to the Governor and appropriate committees or interim committees of the Legislative Assembly that describes progress on implementing program activities related to defensible space, building codes, land use and community emergency preparedness and that recommends improvements. SECTION 37. (1) On or before September 1, 2021, members of the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council must be appointed as described in section 36 (4) of this 2021 Act. (2) On or before November 1, 2021, the council must begin meeting regularly. SECTION 38. Notwithstanding section 36 (7) of this 2021 Act, the term of service for the members first appointed from each category described in section 36 (4)(a), (c), (e), (g), (i), (k), (m), (o), (q) and (s) of this 2021 Act is three years. SECTION 39. The Wildfire Programs Advisory Council must make the first report de- scribed in section 36 (13) of this 2021 Act in October 2022. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS SECTION 40. For purposes of the sellers' property disclosure statements described in ORS 105.464, "forestland-urban interface" has the same meaning as "wildland-urban inter- face," as defined in ORS 477.015. SECTION 41. ORS 197.716 is amended to read: 197.716. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Economic opportunity analysis" means an analysis performed by a county that: (A) Identifies the major categories of industrial uses or other employment uses that could rea- sonably be expected to expand or locate in the county based on a review of trends on a national, state, regional or county level; (B) Identifies the number of sites by type reasonably expected to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the site characteristics typical of expected uses; (C) Estimates the types and amounts of industrial uses and other employment uses likely to oc- cur in the county based on subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph and considering the county's economic advantages and disadvantages, including: (i) Location, size and buying power of markets; (ii) Availability of transportation facilities for access and freight mobility; (iii) Public facilities and public services; (iv) Labor market factors; (v) Access to suppliers and utilities; (vi) Necessary support services; (vii) Limits on development due to federal and state environmental protection laws; and (viii) Educational and technical training programs; Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 20 (D) Assesses community economic development potential through a public process in conjunction with state agencies and consistent with any categories or particular types of industrial uses and other employment uses desired by the community as identified in an existing comprehensive plan; (E) Examines existing firms in the county to identify the types of sites that may require expan- sion; (F) Includes an inventory of vacant and developed lands within the county designated for in- dustrial use or other employment use, including: (i) The description, including site characteristics, of vacant or developed sites within each plan or zoning district; and (ii) A description of any development constraints or infrastructure needs that affect the buildable area of sites in the inventory; and (G) Identifies additional potential sites for designation and rezoning that could reasonably ac- commodate expected industrial uses and other employment uses that cannot be met by existing in- ventories. (b) "Industrial use" means industrial employment activities, including manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, processing, storage, logistics, warehousing, importation, distribution and transshipment and research and development. (c) "Listed county" means Baker, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Lake, Malheur, Sherman, Union, Wallowa or Wheeler County. (d) "Other employment use" means all nonindustrial employment activities, including small scale commercial use, wholesale, service, nonprofit, business headquarters, administrative, governmental or employment activities that serve the medical, educational, social service, recreational or security industries and that occupy retail, office or flexible building types of any size or multibuilding cam- puses. (e) "Reasonably be expected to expand or locate in the county" means that the county possesses the appropriate locational factors for the use or category of use. (f)(A) "Small scale commercial use" means the low -impact use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or services, including offices. (B) "Small scale commercial use" does riot include use of land for factories, warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale distribution centers. (2) A listed county that has adopted an economic opportunity analysis as part of its compre- hensive plan may amend its comprehensive plan, land use regulations and zoning map to designate not more than 10 sites outside an urban growth boundary that cumulatively total not more than 50 acres of land if the sites were identified in any economic opportunity analysis as additional potential sites for industrial uses or other employment uses in order to allow for industrial uses and other employment uses without requiring an exception under ORS 197.732 to any statewide land use planning goals related to: (a) Agriculture; (b) Forest use; or (c) Urbanization. (3) A county may not designate a site under subsection (2) of this section: (a) On any lands designated as high -value farmland as defined in ORS 195.300; (b) Unless the county complies with ORS 197.714; and (c) If any portion of the proposed site is for lands designated for forest use, unless the county: (A) Notifies the State Forester in writing not less than 21 days before designating the site; and (B) Cooperates with the State Forester in: (i) Updating and classifying [forestland] wildland-urban interface lands in and around the site; (ii) Taking necessary steps to implement or update the [forestland] wadland-urban interface fire protection system in and around the site as described in ORS [477.015 to 477.061] 477.027; and (iii) Implementing other fire protection measures authorized by the State Forester. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 21 (4) A county may not amend its comprehensive plan, land use regulations or zoning map under this section to allow a use that would conflict with an administrative rule adopted for the purpose of implementing the Oregon Sage -Grouse Action Plan and Executive Order 15-18. SECTION 42. ORS 205.130 is amended to read: 205.130. The county clerk shall: (1) Have the custody of, and safely keep and preserve, all files and records of deeds and mort- gages of real property and a record of all maps, plats, contracts, powers of attorney and other in- terests affecting the title to real property required or permitted by law to be recorded. (2) Record, or cause to be recorded, in a legible and permanent manner, and keep in the office of the county clerk, all: (a) Deeds and mortgages of real property, powers of attorney and contracts affecting the title to real property, authorized by law to be recorded, assignments thereof and of any interest therein when properly acknowledged or proved and other interests affecting the title to real property re- quired or permitted by law to be recorded; (b) Certificates of sale of real property under execution or order of court, or assignments of previously recorded certificates or of any interest in real property, when properly acknowledged or proved; (c) Certified copies of death records of any person appearing in the county records as owning or having a claim or interest in land in the county. A certified copy of a death record recorded in the deed records of a county under this subsection is a public record and is not subject to the dis- closure limitations under ORS 432.350; (d) Instruments presented for recording by the United States or the State of Oregon, or a poli- tical subdivision of either, that affect title to or an interest in real property or that lawfully concern real property; and (e) Instruments recognized under state law or rule or federal law or regulation as affecting title to or an interest in real property if the instrument is properly acknowledged or proved[; and]. [(/) Orders from a county forestland-urban interface classification committee filed under ORS 477.052.1 (3) Keep and maintain: (a) Deed and mortgage records (b) Statutory lien records; (c) A record called the County Clerk Lien Record in which the following shall be recorded: (A) The warrants and orders of officers and agencies that are required or permitted by law to be recorded; and (B) All instruments presented for recordation when required or permitted by law to be recorded that affect the title to or an interest in real property, other than instruments recorded in the deed and mortgage records or the statutory lien records; (d) Releases, satisfactions, assignments, amendments and modifications of recorded instruments; and (e) Other instruments required or permitted by law to be recorded not affecting interests in real property. (4) Perform all the duties in regard to the recording and indexing of deeds and mortgages of real property, contracts, abstracts of judgments, notices of pendency, powers of attorney and other in- terests when required or permitted by law to be recorded that affect the title of real property, and in regard to the entry of satisfaction and discharge of the same, together with other documents re- quired or permitted by law to be recorded. (5) Incur no civil or criminal liability, either personally or in an official capacity, for recording an instrument that does not comply with the provisions of law that require or allow the recording of the instrument. SECTION 43. ORS 477.281 is amended to read: 477.281. (1) The obligation of an owner of timberland or grazing land for payment of assessments and taxes for fire protection of forestland is limited to: Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 22 (a) The payment of moneys pursuant to ORS 321.015 (2), 477.277, 477.295, 477.760 (4) and 477.880 to maintain the Oregon Forest Land Protection Fund; and (b) The payment of forest protection district assessments pursuant to ORS [477.060 and] 477.205 to 477.281. (2) As used in this section, "obligation of an owner of timberland or grazing land for payment of assessments and taxes for fire protection of forestland" does not include the duties or obligations of the owner under ORS 477.066, 477.068 or 477.120 or the obligations of an owner of land included in a rural fire protection district pursuant to ORS 478.010. APPROPRIATIONS (State Forestry Department) SECTION 44. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the State Forestry Department by section 1 (2), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for fire protection, is increased by $10,611,235, for carrying out the provisions of section 30a of this 2021 Act. SECTION 45. Notwithstanding any other law limiting expenditures, the limitation on ex- penditures established by section 2 (2), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, as the maximum limit for payment of expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts and federal funds from the United States Forest Service for fire protection and for research projects, but ex- cluding lottery funds and federal funds not described in section 2, chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), collected or received by the State Forestry Department, for fire protection, is increased by $11,514,649, for carrying out the provisions of section 30a of this 2021 Act. SECTION 46. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the State Forestry Department by section 1 (3), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for federal forest resto- ration, is increased by $27,990,713, for carrying out the provisions of sections 7, 18, 20, 24 and 30a of this 2021 Act. SECTION 47. Notwithstanding any other law limiting expenditures, the limitation on ex- penditures established by section 2 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, as the maximum limit for payment of expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts and federal funds from the United States Forest Service for fire protection and for research projects, but ex- cluding lottery funds and federal funds not described in section 2, chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), collected or received by the State Forestry Department, for agency administration, is increased by $1,467,358, for carrying out the provisions of sections 7, 18, 20 and 30a of this 2021 Act. SECTION 48. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro- priated to the State Forestry Department, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, out of the General Fund, the amount of $15,000,000, for the purpose of offsetting potential increases in landowner forest patrol assessments under ORS 477.270 due to the implementation of the provisions of section 30a of this 2021 Act. SECTION 49. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the State Forestry Department by section 1 (6), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5518), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for the equipment pool, is increased by $474,884, for carrying out the provisions of section 30a of this 2021 Act. (Public Utility Commission) Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 23 SECTION 50. Notwithstanding any other law limiting expenditures, the amount of $324,286 is established for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, as the maximum limit for payment of expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts, but excluding lottery funds and federal funds, collected or received by the Public Utility Commission, for carrying out the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of this 2021 Act. (Department of State Police, Office of the State Fire Marshal) SECTION 51. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Department of State Police by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled House Bill 5028), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for patrol services, criminal investigations, gaming enforcement and the office of the State Fire Marshal, is in- creased by $13,506,889, for carrying out the provisions of sections 8a, 10 and 30b (1) of this 2021 Act. SECTION 52. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Department of State Police by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled House Bill 5028), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for patrol services, criminal investigations, gaming enforcement and the office of the State Fire Marshal, is in- creased by $7,000,000, for carrying out the provisions of section 8a (5) of this 2021 Act. SECTION 53. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro- priated to the Department of State Police, office of the State Fire Marshal, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, out of the General Fund, the amount of $25,000,000, for deposit in the Community Risk Reduction Fund established by section 9 of this 2021 Act. SECTION 54. Notwithstanding any other law limiting expenditures, the amount of $25,000,000 is established for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, as the maximum limit for payment of expenses by the Department of State Police, office of the State Fire Marshal, from the Community Risk Reduction Fund established by section 9 of this 2021 Act for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of section 8a (6) of this 2021 Act. SECTION 55. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Department of State Police by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled House Bill 5028), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for patrol services, criminal investigations, gaming enforcement and the office of the State Fire Marshal, is in- creased by $55,000,000, for carrying out the provisions of section 30b of this 2021 Act that are related to the Oregon fire mutual aid system. (Department of Environmental Quality) SECTION 56. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Department of Environmental Quality by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5516), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for air quality, is increased by $3,322,828, for carrying out the provisions of sections 13, 13a and 13b of this 2021 Act. (Department of Human Services) SECTION 57. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Department of Human Services by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5529), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for central services, is increased by $5,187,411, for carrying out the provisions of sections 14, 14a and 14b of this 2021 Act. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 24 (Oregon Health Authority) SECTION 58. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Oregon Health Authority by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (En- rolled House Bill 5024), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for health systems, health policy and analytics and public health, is increased by $4,768,812, for carrying out the pro. visions of sections 14, 14a, 14b, 15 and 15a of this 2021 Act. (Oregon Military Department) SECTION 59. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Oregon Military Department by section 1 (3), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5535), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for emergency manage- ment, is increased by $700,003, for carrying out the provisions of section 17 of this 2021 Act. (Higher Education Coordinating Commission, Oregon State University) SECTION 60. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission by section 1 (11), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5528), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for distribution to public university statewide programs, is increased by $1,138,040, for distrib- ution to Oregon State University for carrying out the provisions of sections 7, 12c and 18 of this 2021 Act. SECTION 61. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission by section 1 (1), chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5528), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, for Higher Education Coordinating Commission programs, is increased by $643,668, for carrying out the provisions of section 22 of this 2021 Act. SECTION 62. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro- priated to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, out of the General Fund, the amount of $10,000,000, for deposit in the Oregon Con- servation Corps Fund established by section 23 of this 2021 Act. SECTION 63. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appro- priated to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, out of the General Fund, the amount of $1,000,000, to match private donations that are donated for the purposes of funding grant -supported projects related to the Oregon Conservation Corps Program established by section 21 of this 2021 Act. (Office of the Governor) SECTION 64. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the General Fund appropriation made to the Office of the Governor by section 1, chapter _, Oregon Laws 2021 (Enrolled Senate Bill 5520), for the biennium beginning July 1, 2021, is increased by $497,541, for car- rying out the provisions of section 35 of this 2021 Act. CAPTIONS SECTION 65. The unit captions used in this 2021 Act are provided only for the conven- ience of the reader and do not become part of the statutory law of this state or express any legislative intent in the enactment of this 2021 Act. Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-0 Page 25 EMERGENCY CLAUSE SECTION 66. This 2021 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2021 Act takes effect on its passage. Passed by Senate June 25, 2021 .................................................................................. Lori L. Brocker, Secretary of Senate .................................................................. Peter Courtney, President of Senate Passed by House June 26, 2021 .................................................................................. Tina Kotek, Speaker of House Received by Governor: ........................ M.,.......................................................... 2021 Approved: .............. M............................................................ 2021 .................................................................................. Kate Brown, Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: ........................ M............................................................ 2021 .................................................................................. Shemia Fagan, Secretary of State Enrolled Senate Bill 762 (SB 762-C) Page 26 Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee Final Report April 17, 2020 Prepared By: Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, Oregon 97703 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 II. Overview & Background.................................................................................................................... 2 III. Wildfire Hazard Zone Background...................................................................................................................................... 4 Oregon Dept. of Forestry Criteria - Hazard Rating Factors & Values ........................................ 5 Oregon Dept. of Forestry - Geographic Area............................................................................... 7 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 7 IV. Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Background...................................................................................................................................... 9 CostImpacts.................................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 10 V. Land Use Background...................................................................................................................................... 11 KeyIssues......................................................................................................................................... 12 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 12 Implementation............................................................................................................................... 13 List of Tables Table1.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Table2.............................................................................................................................................. 5 Table3.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table4.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table5.............................................................................................................................................. 8 List of Figures Figure1............................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure2............................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure3............................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure4............................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure5............................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure6............................................................................................................................................. 14 Attachments A. Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones B. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - Entire County (status quo) C. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - CWPP Sub -regions (raw values) D. Wildfire Hazard Zone Option - CWPP Sub -regions (rounded values) E. Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) - R327 F. Recommended R327 Implementation Map (for newly created lots) - With Exception Areas G. Recommended R327 Implementation Map - Entire County, No Exceptions H. Summary of R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation I. Hazard Map - Raw Data (by color) I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Board of County Commissioners (Board) appointed the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) in September 2019 to undertake the following objectives: 1. Recommend an updated Wildfire Hazard Zone (WHZ) based on the Oregon Department of Forestry's (ODF) criteria in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-044-0200 (weather, slope, fuel hazard, fuel distribution); 2. Review and recommend whether and how to apply the Oregon Building Codes Division's (BCD) updated Wildfire Hazard Mitigation standards, i.e., ORSC - R327, in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction; and 3. Review and recommend whether and where to propose new land use regulations based on the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) audit of Deschutes County Code and best practices from other jurisdictions. The WMAC made two recommendations pertaining to the WHZ and two recommendations in determining where R327 should apply: • Six (6) members recommended the WHZ continue to apply to the entire County; and • Five (5) members recommended the VVH'c be updated based on a landscape- dpprodcil informed by Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) sub -regions.' • Six (6) members recommended R327 apply to the entire County and all existing and new lots, regardless of zone. • Five (5) members recommended utilizing the WHZ based on CWPP sub -regions to inform where R327 should be implemented. From there, the group recommended R327 apply to newly created lots and replacement dwellings in the Forest Use (F1 and F2) and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones. A majority of the WMAC also recommended requiring throughout the County's jurisdiction: • Defensible space, steep slope setbacks, and access standards for all new development; • Defensible space for all properties, vacant and developed; • Establishing a program that shares best practices of wildfire mitigation to the public. ' Several CWPP sub -regions would not be within the WHZ because the hazard level score was below the prescribed threshold. See Attachments C & D for more details. -1- II. OVERVIEW & BACKGROUND Community Development Department (CDD) staff and the Board began discussing a 2015 University of Oregon Community Service Center (CSC) code audit in the fall of 2018. The timing coincided with the State Building Codes Division's (BCD) consideration of an amendment - referred to as Appendix W - to the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to prescribe fire hardening standards, i.e., building codes to increase resiliency to fire. The Board directed staff to track Appendix W and revisit options in 2019. Possible options were: • Comment on any proposed wildfire hardening measures considered by BCD Adopt the CSC's recommendations resulting from their code audit Create a working group to review and recommend options for the County to mitigate the risk of wildfire losses Appendix W officially became part of ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation once it was approved by the BCD in January 2019. The BCD structured the amendments of R327 to permit jurisdictions the flexibility to decide whether and how to implement the new wildfire hardening regulations. The following outcomes occurred in 2019: • January - BCD r eviSej R327 = V V Ildfire 11-- Mltlgatl^vr; in npCr • February - Board directs staff to explore how and where the updated R327 might be implemented and to identify potential impacts and issues. • March / April - Staff obtains data and creates various maps based on ODF criteria. • May - Staff conducts a stakeholder meeting with fire districts, building officials, and County planning commissioners, in addition to building and real estate associations. • June - Staff shares WHZ data, potential maps, and stakeholder feedback with the Board. • July - One of the Board's Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Goals was to "Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services."An objective to achieve this goal was to "Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters." Based on this input, CDD's 2019-20 Work Plan included an action item to: "Consider implementing wildfire mitigation recommendations from the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) code audit, coordinate with the Deschutes County Forester, and consider adopting a new Wildfire Hazard Zone." Board agrees to create a working group to review and recommend if the County's WHZ should be updated and where/how it should apply. 2 The Board submitted comments to the BCD to encourage local jurisdiction's the option to implement Appendix W instead of such regulations being mandated by the State. -2- August -Staff initiates an open recruitment for working group, i.e., WMAC, volunteers. • September - Board appoints WMAC and sets objectives. • October - WMAC convenes biweekly meetings. Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee Table 1 lists the WMAC membership: Table 1 - Membership Name Organization / Background Region Brent Landels Realtor - Re/Max Bend Brian Braddock Farmers Insurance (Retired) Bend Geoffrey Reynolds Home Owner Bend Jim Beeger Planning Commissioner Bend Jim Figurski Landscape Architect Bend Joe Foran Fuels Management - BLM (Retired) La Pine Kama Gustafson Central OR Builders Association Bend Ken Kehmna Redmond Fire and Rescue Redmond Martha Meeker Home Owner Sisters Matt Van Coutren Hayden Homes Redmond RogerJohnson Sisters -Camp Sherman Fire Dist. Sisters Tyler Neese Central OR Assoc. of Realtors Bend The WMAC met a total of nine (9) times between October 2019 and January 2020. General information, meeting agendas, minutes and supporting documents were available online at a project specific website: www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. Figure 1 -Initial WMAC meeting. County Legal Counsel summarizes public meeting laws. -3- III. WILDFIRE HAZARD ZONE BACKGROUND WHZs, defined in OAR Chapter 629, Division 44, are determined by specific ODF criteria.3 In 2001, Deschutes County adopted a WHZ based on these criteria to prohibit shake -roofs.' The WHZ encompassed the entire County, as depicted in Figure 2. DESCHUTES COUNTY WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS Exhibit "B" •.rr mac. 'f ,. '"J'�Ywti 1`r j r � ji #' � •a p � r "�� 4Wp�9Yt Hietury 1Y , �y } ; Figure 2 — Existing Wildfire Hazard Zone (in light pink), adopted in 2001. The BCD revised R327 on January 24, 2019 to allow jurisdictions the ability to require additional wildfire hardening measures for residential structures. These standards apply to qualifying lots of record as defined in the rule using the ODF criteria. This caused the County to consider updating the WHZ to inform where R327 may be implemented.' This section summarizes the ODF criteria, including the: 1. Hazard rating factors and values necessary to establish WHZs; and 2. The geographic area for the WHZ. 3 OAR 629-044-0220. 4 Ordinance 2001-024 adopted a WHZ. 5 R327 can only be implemented within a designated Wildfire Hazard Zone. -4- ODF CRITERIA - HAZARD RATING FACTORS & VALUES OAR Chapter 629 Division 44 prescribes specific hazard rating factors that determine how a WHZ shall be established. The "Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones," Attachment A, describes each factor. The criteria are: • Weather • Topography • Vegetative Fuel Type • Vegetative Fuel Distribution Each factor is assigned a value from 0-3, with three (3) the most hazardous value. Wildfire hazard zones are those areas where the cumulative value of the hazard rating of all four factors is seven (7) or above. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) served as a tool to collect and map federal/national data, assign values to each factor, display information at a variety of geographical scales, and summarize the information into an overall hazard value. Fire Weather Hazard Factor The State assigns each county a fire weather hazard value, from 0-3, with the three (3) the highest value. Deschutes County is assigned a score of three (3).' Topography Hazard Factor United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps are assigned points based on slope percentage: Table 2 - Topography Hazard Values Slope Value 0-3 % 0 3-12% 1 12-20% 2 >20% 3 Natural Vegetative Fuel Type Hazard Factor Vegetative fuel type values are assigned based on fuel type(s) existing across a landscape.' Fuel hazards are categorized generally into grass, shrub, and timber and further divided into fuel types. Of the 13 total fuel types described in the General Technical Report INT-122, OAR 629-044-0250 6 For comparison, Columbia County, northwest of Portland, is categorized as a two (2) for weather hazard. ' Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior" published by the Forest Service, USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1982 as General Technical Report INT-122 was used as the reference for establishing the natural vegetative fuel hazard factor. Staff acquired the latest data for the fuel models from LANDFIRE. -5- considers fuel types 1-6 and 8-10. Fuel type 7 is not present in Oregon and fuels types 11-13 are slash fuel types. Natural Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Factor Fuel distribution varies throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel distribution as a percent of cover:' Table 3 - Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Values Percent of Cover Value 0-10% 0 10-25% 1 25-40% 2 40-100% 3 Figure 3 is a composite map that overlays each criterion.' The red areas indicate a hazard area, i.e., combined score of seven (7) and above. Figure 3 - Wildfire hazard throughout County according to prescribed ODF criteria. 8 Landfire data was used for fuel distribution analysis. 9 Figure 3 is also provided as Attachment I for easier readability. -6- ODF - GEOGRAPHIC AREA OAR Chapter 629-044-0200 sets forth the fire hazard factors (above) while allowing jurisdictions to determine the "appropriate geographic areas and associated hazard values." The geographic area may be the entire jurisdiction or a smaller segment based on natural geographic features,10 land features"or another landscape approach.12 The OAR defines: "'Geographic Area' [as an] area which results from the partitioning of all or portions of a jurisdiction into smaller segments, based on the presence of differing values." The WMAC considered seven (7) potential geographic areas based on landscape approaches as the basis for determining the WHZ. The hazard values depicted in Figure 3 could be structured to provide a hazard level for any number of landscape approaches. The Committee reviewed the following options to determine an appropriate landscape approach: • School districts Fire districts • Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) boundaries • CWPP Sub -regions • County boundary In addition, members considered the appropriate methodology to establish values for each area, I.e., 1 aV1l numbers J or rounding. lg. For example, LJ LYVrr sub -regions have hazard d VaIUCJ duVVe bevel lI (7), meaning they qualify as a WHZ. Alternatively, if values are rounded up from a half point (0.5) to the next full value, a total of 33 CWWP sub -regions would qualify as WHZs. RECOMMENDATIONS Table 4 lists the WMAC's votes on seven (7) landscape approaches. Voting options for each map included: green - support; yellow - unsure; red - do not support. Table 4 - Votes on Seven Landscape Approaches Map Type Vote EMEMENNAMM Yellow Green CWPP Sub- regions (rounded values) 4 3 5 CWPP Sub -regions 3 4 5 (raw values) 10 The OAR defines "Natural Geographic Features" as "streams, ridge lines and other features naturally occurring." 11 The OAR defines "Land Features" as "roads, jurisdictional boundaries and other features created by human activity." 12 The OAR does not define "landscape approach". -7- Fire District Boundaries (rounded 5 3 4 values) Fire District Boundaries (raw 5 3 4 values) CWPP (with no Sub- 11 0 1 regions) School District 12 0 0 Boundaries Status -quo (entire 5 2 5 County as WHZ) The top three (3) landscape approaches were: 1. Status quo -entire County (7.27 hazard value) 2. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Sub -regions -raw values 3. Community Wildfire Protection Plan Sub -regions -rounded values The WMAC voted a second time on the top three (3) landscape approaches. Table 5 summarizes the second round of votes. Table 5 - Votes for Top 3 Draft WHZ Maps Vote RA O„Iap Type Yellow Green CWPP Sub -regions 7 3 1 (rounded values) CWPP Sub -regions 5 1 5 (raw values) Status -quo (entire 4 1 6 County as WHZ) Keeping the status quo for the WHZ landscape approach, where the entire County is considered a wildfire hazard, received the most votes (Attachment B), followed by the CWPP Sub -regions (raw values) approach (Attachment Q. The CWPP Sub -regions (rounded values) approach received the least amount of support (Attachment D). WMAC members supporting the status quo said: • It best depicts the hazard threat across the entire county; • The other approaches are based on arbitrary standards (no reasonable basis to exempt certain areas, such as the CWPP sub -regions); and • Concern of losing one of the only wildfire mitigation code requirements in effect today, i.e., prohibition of shake roofs.13 t3 Deschutes County's existing prohibition of wood shake roofs may be compromised if the WHZ is amended to exempt some areas. The ordinance prohibiting shake roofs (2001-024) is tied to the WHZ. -8- IV. ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation BACKGROUND The BCD amended ORSC R327 - Wildfire Hazard Mitigation in January 2019 (Attachment o Q. R327 is optional for local governments to implement; it is not mandatory. The amendments require new construction in a WHZ to use certain types of materials and incorporate specific requirements for roofing, ventilation, exterior wall coverings, LS"[3S4 • { .�. overhanging projections, decking surfaces, and' glazing in windows/skylights and doors.14 Political subdivisions within Deschutes Figure 4 - Staffutilizes live GISto facilitate a discussion. County's building jurisdiction, such as the cities of La Pine and Sisters, may locally adopt or opt -out of such rules independently from the County. The WMAC recommendations on R327 were focused on the unincorporated areas of the County. A primary objective of the WMAC was to review and recommend whether and how to apply R327 construction standards in areas under Deschutes County's building jurisdiction. R327 has several built-in exceptions and allows local control to implement wildfire hardening standards. For example, subdivisions more than 50-percent built out are automatically exempted from the requirements. Further, a jurisdiction can exempt parcels over/under a certain size or limit the new standards to specific zoning districts. COST IMPACTS WMAC members discussed cost impacts to implement R327 throughout the process. Project Management Team members and WMAC members shared information on the potential costs of requiring specific construction materials and hardening standards. Comparing costs from a standard single-family residential dwelling to one built to comply with the R327 standards ranged from $0 to $15,000.15 The WMAC recognized that building a single-family residence to R327 standards would likely increase construction costs, but did not agree on how much it would cost. The WMAC was split in determining whether added construction costs outweighed the increase in public safety, which resulted in two recommendations on the WHZ and R327 implementation standards. 14 In addition to the actual ORSC R327 code, a written summary of the requirements was provided to the WMAC (Attachment H). 15 Cost estimates from BCD, Headwater Economics, County staff and WMAC members can be found on the projectwebsite: www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. -9- RECOMMENDATIONS WMAC members separated into two groups based on the preferred WHZ recommendation (the CWPP Sub -regions or the entire County) to recommend exceptions to the R327 standards:16 1. The CWPP Sub -region WHZ group recommended R327: a. Apply to newly created lots in the Rural Residential (RR-10), Forest Use 1 and Forest Use 2 zones. Attachment F depicts the area where newly created lots would be subject to R327. b. Exclude all existing lots County wide, and new lots in the zones not mentioned above." 2. The entire County WHZ group recommended applying R327 to all existing and new lots under the County's building jurisdiction.18 Attachment G depicts the existing and new lots subject to R327. 16 For information regarding the decisions and factors WMAC members considered in developing the recommendations, see the December 16, 2019 meeting materials: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/11797/w mac meeting packet 2019-12-02.pdf 17 Initially, the group considered implementing R327 to a certain buffer around a UGB, as well as a set distance from unincorporated communities. However, the group decided not to pursue this option due to the shortcomings and complications of such an approach because UGBs are expected to expand. 18 This group explained that using an arbitrary distance from a UGB would be meaningless. There was some consideration of exempting the requirements in the County's resource zones (Exclusive Farm Use and Forest Use), but the group determined such areas are also hazardous. -10- V. LAND USE BACKGROUND Deschutes County utilizes several regulatory programs to address wildfire hazards. The following list summarizes the County's current approach to wildfire mitigation: • Consistent with State law, the Forest Use 1 and 2 zones require compliance with defensible space, access, and water supply standards (DCC 18.36.070 - 18.36.080 / 18.40.070 - 18.40.080).19 • Destination resorts are required to implement a wildfire management plan to ensure safe evacuations and that hazards are minimized 18.113.070(H).20 • The Board declared Deschutes County a WHZ in its entirety in 2001, consistent with ORS 93.270(4) in order to require a minimum Class C roofing and to prohibit the use of untreated wood roof coverings (Ordinance 2001-024).21 • Defensible space requirements for unprotected lands were adopted in 2011, in DCC Chapter 8.21 (Ordinance 2011-011).22 • In October 2016, conditional use permit criteria were applied to Tree Farm, LLC, a cluster development, requiring wildfire mitigation standards including defensible space and 23 residential sprinklers (file nos. 247-14-000242-CU / 243-TU / et Cq • The Westside Transect Zone, approved in January 2019, requires all land divisions to submit a master plan that contains a wildfire mitigation plan (file nos. 247-18-000612-ZC / 613-PA / 614-TA).24 In 2015, CDD contracted with the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (CSC) to conduct a review of the Deschutes County Code consistent with direction in Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 (Rural Growth/Natural Hazards). The review focused on improving development regulations that address wildfire and flooding. The intent of the work was to help the County 19 https•//weblink.deschutes.org/Public/DocView.aspx?id=4021 &dbid=0&repo=LFPUB 20 https•//weblink deschutes.org/Public/DocView.aspx?id=4006&dbid=0&repo=LFPUB 21Ordinance 2001-024 is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/ord inance 2001-024.pdf 22Ordinance 2011-011 is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/ord inance 2011-011.pdf 23 The Board's decision on the Tree Farm proposal is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community develop ment/page/1 21 90/boc c approval tree farm 1.pdf 24 The Board's decision on the Westside Transect Zone is available here: https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/12190/20 19-40-ordinance no. 2019-001 recorded 1222019.pdf - 11 - understand the implications of land use regulations on development in areas affected by natural hazards and to develop a set of programmatic options on how to best manage those impacts. The project focused on researching model ordinances and best management practices for mitigating the effects of wildfire and flood on development.25 The final report highlighted potential changes to update Deschutes County's zoning code.26 Best practices have evolved since the report's completion in 2015. The WMAC considered updated best practices from a variety of sources, including jurisdictions across the West, to supplement the 2015 CSC report. KEY ISSUES The WMAC evaluated establishing new or strengthening existing land use code provisions pertaining to: • Defensible space • Steep slopes • Access • Water supply • Signs / property addresses • Gate requirements Figure 5 - Staff explains implementation options. The WMAC determined that several options were adequately addressed in the Oregon Fire Code and/or the ORSC, i.e., water supply, signs / property address, gate requirements. Additionally, the WMAC considered potential costs associated with implementing each land use approach. For example, defensible space treatment costs vary widely ($125 - $3,000 an acre) based on density and type of vegetation, and whether or not annual maintenance is regularly completed. Cost estimates for other possible land use regulations were either not available or not discussed in detail. 25 DCC was amended in 2019 in part to implement recommendations pertaining to flood hazards (reference file nos. 247-19-000530-TA / 532-TA / 533-PA). 26 The CSC Deschutes County Natural Hazards Code and Program Review is available online at www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee. -12- RECOMMENDATIONS A majority of the WMAC recommended the following land use regulations to the Board for further consideration. Defensible Space Expand defensible space requirements beyond unprotected lands as currently required by DCC 8.21 to all lands throughout the County, with some exceptions. Further details of a potential defensible space regulation are summarized below: • Standards should be applied to all new and existing structures.27 • Vacant properties less than five (5) acres in size should be subject to defensible space requirements.28 • Fuel break requirements should apply to driveways greater than 150 feet in length. The WMAC also recommended the County educate (not require) property owners to use non- combustible fencing attachments to structures and locate other combustible items such as firewood, building materials, furniture, etc. away from residential structures. Steep Slopes A majority of WMAC members recommended an ordinance that would require building setbacks r J I + F F'� d 29 t, 1 should Irom steep slopes and limit development of � slopes in � excess of a specific grade. Details s� ould be determined at a later date with feedback from the public and fire representatives. Access The WMAC unanimously supported requiring wildfire -safety specific access requirements to all new developments. Such standards should include specific surface(s) capable of supporting a minimum gross vehicle weight, minimum widths, maximum grade, road clearance, and turnaround options. The WMAC did not support requiring access standards to existing developments, but did support the County encouraging such standards as best practices. 27 The WMAC supported the concept of an implementation grace period and recommended the County explore incentives and/or an outreach program. 28 There was less support for requiring defensible space to all vacant lots, regardless of size (5 in favor - 3 unsure - 2 opposed). 29 Four (4) members supported such a standard throughout the County, three (3) opposed, and two (2) voted for such a standard to be advisory only. -13- IMPLEMENTATION The WMAC discussed the following implementation strategies for the three (3) recommended land use approaches summarized above: • Regulations should be easily understood by the average property owner. • Application costs for County review should be kept to a minimum. • Property owners should not be required to hire a professional, e.g., land use consultant, attorney, engineer, to complete and/or submit an application demonstrating compliance with the standards. In addition, hand -drawn site plans should be acceptable. • Regulations should have an inspection component to ensure compliance. • Establish a process that can only be appealable by the applicant and no other parties. • Seek education and voluntary compliance prior to enforcement penalties. • Seek grants and other financial aid to help property owners with limited incomes comply with the regulations. Figure 6 - WMAC group photo. (Committee member Brian Braddock not pictured.) -14- ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Summary of Wildfire Hazard Zones 1) Overview Determination of wildfire hazard zones are based on four criteria. Each of the four factors is ranked 0-3 with 3 being the most hazardous value. Wildfire hazard zones are those areas where the sum of all the hazards totals 7 or more. The four factors are: - Fire weather hazard - Topography hazard - Vegetative fuel hazard - Fuel distribution hazard We can use a Geographic Information System (GIS) to collect this data into layers, assign the related points to each factor, display it at a variety of scales and summarize it into an overall hazard score. Deschutes County has done preliminary work to acquire and summarize this data in GIS. This data can be displayed in committee meetings. Before we look at the actual data and how it could be summarized the committee should first have an understanding of each factor and how they interact to create potential wildfire hazard zones. ATTACHMENT A 2) Wildfire Hazard Zones 629-044-0220 (1) For the convenience of administration, when practical, a jurisdiction may utilize nearby natural geographic features or land features to delineate the boundaries of Wildfire Hazard Zones. (2) It is not the intent of OAR 629, division 044 that Wildfire Hazard Zones be determined on a tax lot or an ownership specific basis, but rather that a landscape approach be used. Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on what is the appropriate scale (using a landscape approach) and what geographic features or land features should be used, considering the administration of the associated rules the map will be related to (e.g. do not split tax lots, neighborhoods). 3) Fire Weather Hazard Factor 62-044-0230 Deschutes County is assigned one factor, 3, for the entire County. This is assigned by statute. A factor of 3 is the highest risk level for weather hazard. For comparison, Columbia County, northwest of Portland, is categorized as a 2 for weather hazard. 4) Topography Hazard Factor 629-044-0240 Slopes vary throughout the County, USGS topography maps are used to assign points based on the steepness of slopes. • Slopes 00-03% = 0 • Slopes 03-12% =1 • Slopes 12-20% = 2 • Slopes 20+% = 3 51 Natural Veeetative Fuel Hazard Factor 629-044-0250 Fuel types vary throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel type(s) present, as described beginning on the next page. The reference for establishing the natural vegetative fuel hazard factor shall be the "Aids to Determininq Fuel _Models For Estimating Fire Behavior" published by the Forest Service, USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1982 as General Technical Report INT-122. The County has acquired the latest LandfireTm data for the fuel models described in INT-122. This data is available at a 30 meter resolution, meaning there is a fuel model estimated for every 30 meter square across the entire county. This data can be summarized over a larger geographic area. This is likely the most consistent and objective data available for use and can be used to inform this hazard factor. "LANDFIRE (LF) delivers vegetation, fuel, disturbance, and fire regimes geospatial data products for the entire nation. Methods are based on peer -reviewed science from multiple fields. LF products are consistent, comprehensive, and standardized, resulting in multiple applications to fire, fuel, and natural resources." Link to metadata tip./11` ii lid ATTACHMENT A Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on if this data set should be used. If so, how should it be summarized consistent with the decision called for under section 2? If not, what alternate data should be used? Points are assigned by fuel type. Fuel hazards are categorized generally into grass, shrub, and timber and further divided into fuel types. Of the 13 total fuel types described in INT-122, OAR 629-044-0250 considers fuel types 1- 6 and 8-10. Fuel type 7 is not present in Oregon and fuels types 11-13 are slash fuel types. • Little or no natural vegetative fuels present — 0 points • Grass. Very little shrub or timber is present, generally less than one-third of the area. Main fuel is generally less than two feet in height. Fires are surface fires that move rapidly through cured grass and associated material. (Fuel model 1) — 3 points Photo 4. Western annual grasses such as cheatprass, rnedusahead ryegrass, and tescues. Photo 2. Live oak savanna or the South• west on the Coronado National Forest. Photo 3. Omen pine —grasslands on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, ATTACHMENT A • Grass. Open shrub lands and pine stands or scrub oak stands that cover one-third to two-thirds of the area. Main fuel is generally less that two feet in height. Fires are surface fires that spread primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. (Fuel model 2) — 3 points. Photo 4. Open ponderosa pane stand watch annual gfa:ss understo�y. Phuto 5. Scattered sage mthui grass.. lands on the Payette National Foaest. • Grass. Beach grasses, prairie grasses, marshland grasses and wild or cultivated grains that have not been harvested. Main fuel is generally less than four feet in height, but considerable variation may occur. Fires are the most intense of the grass group and display high rates of spread under the influence of wind. (Fuel model 3) — 3points. Photo 7. Meadow fox€aal an Oregon prairie and meiadowland. ATTACHMENT A • Shrubs. Stands of mature shrubs have foliage known for its flammability, such as gorse, manzanita and snowberry. Main fuel is generally six feet or more tall. Fires burn with high intensity and spread very rapidly. (Fuel model4) — 3 points. Photo 10. Chaparral own pose d of man- zafuta and charnise near the Inaja Fire Itifen,oriaC. Catif. • Shrubs. Young shrubs with little dead material and having foliage not known for its flammability, such as laurel, vine maple and alders. Main fuel is generally three feet tall or less. Fires are generally carried in the surface fuels and are generally not very intense. (Fuel model5) — 1 point. Photo 13, Green, taw shrub fields withia, timber stands or without over - story ase typical. Example is. Doug las-fir-snowberiy habi- tat type. ('hoar) 14. Regeneration shrublands after fire or other 6stwbances have a large green fuel component. iundance Fire. Pack River Area, Idaho. ATTACHMENT A • Shrubs. Older shrubs with foliage having a flammability less than fuel model 4, but more than fuel model 5. Widely spaced juniper and sagebrush are represented by this group. Main fuel is generally less than six feet in height. Fires will drop to the ground at low wind speeds and in stand openings. (Fuel model 6) — 2 points. s Photo 15. fliaaion- uniper with sagebrush near Ely. Nev.: understoty mainly sage with some grass [ nter coaxed. Timber. Areas of timber with little undergrowth and small amounts of litter buildup. Healthy stands of lodgepole pine, spruce, fir and larch are represented by this group. Fires will burn only under severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidities and high winds. (Fuel model 8) — 1 point. Photo 22. Surface litter fuels in western hemtock stands of Oregon and Washinglon. Photo 23, Understory of inland Douglas - fir has little fuel here to add to dead -down litter load. Photo 24. Closed stand of btrch-aspen with leaf litter compacted. 'WV!'[ 11aid( Cd "A/ddhi e 1 11 ATTACHMENT A • Timber. Areas of timber with more surface litter than fuel model 8. Closed stands of healthy ponderosa pine and white oak are in this fuel model. Spread of fires will be aided by rolling or blowing leaves. (Fuel model 9) — 2 points. (photo 27. Long -needle barest fff w litter in ponderosa pme stand near Alberton, Patr_rnt. • Timber. Areas of timber with heavy buildups of ground litter caused by overmaturity or natural events of wind throw or insect infestations. Fires are difficult to control due to large extent of ground fuel. (Fuel model 10) — 3 points. Photo 9. Nlixec conJes stand with deact-• do•rrn Woody fuels, Photo 30. Spruce habitat type wheae successgon or n9tural distur- bance can produce a heavy dawned fuel load. /-, Y t ET4;I OTi ;ti :l 6) Natural Vegetative Fuel Distribution Hazard Factor 629-044-0260 Fuel distribution varies throughout the County. Points are assigned based on the fuel distribution as a percent of cover as follows. • 0 to 10% of the area = 0 • 10 to 25% of the area = 1 • 25 to 40% of the area = 2 • 40 to 100% of the area = 3 The County has acquired the latest LandfireT"" data for fuel distribution. This data is available at a 30 meter resolution, meaning there is a fuel distribution estimated for every 30 meter square across the entire county. This data can be summarized over a larger geographic area. This is likely the most consistent and objective data available for use. "LANDFIRE (LF) delivers vegetation, fuel, disturbance, and fire regimes geospatial data products for the entire nation. Methods are based on peer -reviewed science from multiple fields. LF products are consistent, comprehensive, and standardized, resulting in multiple applications to fire, fuel, and natural resources." Link to metadata Decision point: The committee will be asked to seek consensus or provide input on if this data set should be used? if so, how should it be summarized consistent with the decision called for under section 2? If not, what alternate data should be used? C O ai � `PAg ea 5xa N L v r l�i� g� W -a qq.Sa¢ i O O m Q� _ Ov° O tf� 0 � a yo A, L 07 U a; C N °C . U =pax TS ` V O o L VI ) < 75 o h J 1 4n� Y W � a v b v2 'y j y ry •3.,��,„,s za C � z � � ��'�``� ��Nf ••f'�a siU ct 6 , n4 � g ATTACHMENT E BUILDING PLANNING Effective: January 24, 2019 SECTION R327 WILDFIRE HAZARD MITIGATION R327.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide minimum standards for dwellings and their accessory struc- tures located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject to wild- fires, to reduce or eliminate hazards presented by such fires. R327.2 Scope. The provisions of this section shall apply to all dwellings required to be protected against wildfire by a jurisdiction which has adopted wildfire zoning regulations. The additional provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply when a local mmnicipality has adopted a local ordinance specifically recognizing Section R327.4 and consistent with Sections R327.4 through R327.4.3. R327.3 Determination. •xaaa..o hay -a -.a zone. n wily hazard zone is an area legally detearined by a jur-isdietion to hav Wildfire hazard zones shall be determined using criteria established by the Oregon Department of Forestry. R327.3.1 Wildfire hazard zone requirements. Dwell- ings and their accessory structures shall be protected against wildfire by the following requirement in addition to other -requirements of this code. The provisions of Sec- tion R327.4 ably only to qualifying lots identified in Sec- tion R327.4.1. Exception: Nonhabitable detached accessory struc- tures with an area of not greater than. 400 square feet_ located at least 50 feet from all other structures on the lot. R327.3.1.1 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accordance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in ac- cordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in accordance with Section R905.3 and other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class C rated roof covering. Untreated wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted when the con- struction site is in a wildfire hazard zone as determined by Section R327.3. R327.3.1.2 Reroofing or repair of roofing of existing buildings. When 50 percent or more of the roof cov- ering of any building is repaired or replaced within one year, the roof covering shall be made to comply with this section and attic ventilation shall be made to com- ply with this code. Ventilation openings shall be pro- tected with corrosion -resistant wire mesh, not greater than 1/2-inch (12.7 mm) or less than t/g-inch (3.2 mm) in any dimension. R327.4 Scope of additional wildfire hazard mitigation requirements. The provisions of Section R327.4 shall apply to new dwellings and their accessory structures located in a wildfire hazard zone on a qualifying lot of record created on or after the effective date in the local adopting ordinance. R327.4.1 Oualifyina lots of record. Qualifying lots of record shall meet all the following: 1. Be located in a wildfire hazard zone as identified by the local municipality using criteria established by the Oregon � Department of Forestry. The local mu- nicipality is not required to include all areas identi- fied by the Oregon Department of Forestry as wild- fire hazard zones. The zone shall be detailed in the local adopting ordinance. 2. The local municipality shall determine in the adopt- ing ordinance whether qualifying lots of record shall consist of individual lots or whether qualifying lots must be part of a development that contains a minimum number of lots. 3. The local nnunicipaliti, shall make a determination that the lot of record is either located within the identified wildfire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction or that it is located outside of the wild- fire hazard zone as determined by the jurisdiction. Notification shall be provided in conjunction with the land use approval under ORS 197.522. 4. Application: 4.1 Lots created prior to the effective date of the local ordinance, that would otherwise qualify under the local adopting ordinance, are ex- empt from the requirements of the ordinance for a period of three years from the creation date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522, 4.2 For a lot created after the effective date of the local ordinance that receives notification un- der this section the determination in the noti- fication shall be valid for three years from the date of the land use approval under ORS 197.522. At the expiration of the three years, a lot of record shall be re-evaluated under the current version of the adopting ordinance prior to the issuance of a buildingpernzit. Intill exception: Dwellings or accessory structures constructed on a lot in a subdivision, do not need to comply with Section R327.4 when at least 50 percent of the lots in the subdivision have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with Section R327A. Nothing in the code or adopting ordinance prevents a local municipality from waiving the requirements of Sec- tion R327.4 for any lot, property or dwelling, or the re- rnodel, replacement or reconstruction of a divelling with- in the jurisdiction. The local municWalih, must include a process for re- solving disputes related to the applicability of the local ordinance and this section. R327.4.2 Definitions. The following words and terms shall, for purposes of Section R327.4, have the meanings shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 for general definitions. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE Insert Facing Page 86 BUILDING PLANNING ATTACHMENT E Heavy Timber. For the use in this section, heavy timber shall be sawn lumber or glue laminated wood with the smallest minimum nominal dimension of 4 inches (102 nnn). Heavy timber walls or floors shall be sawn or glue - laminated planks splined tongue- and -grove, or set close together and well spiked. Ignition -Resistant Material. A type of building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion suffi- cientlyso as to reduce losses from wildland-urban inter- face conflagrations under worst -case weather and fuel con- ditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames. Such materials include any product designed for exterior exposure that, when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723 for surface burning characteristics of building materials, extended to a 30-rninute duration, exhibits a flame spread index of not more than 25, shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion, and whose flame front does not progress more than 10'/z feet (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burner at any time during the test. Noncombustible Material. Any material that in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite burn support combustion, or release flam- mable vapors when subjected to fire or heat in accordance with ASTM El36. Wildfire. Any uncontrolled fire spreadingthrough hrou lg � vegeta- tive fuels that threatens to destroy life, property, or re- sources. Wildfire Exposure. One or a combination of circumstanc- es exposing a structure to ignition, including radiant heat, convective heat direct flame contact and burning embers beingprojected by a vegetation fire to a structure and its immediate environment. R327.4.3 Roofing. Roofing shall be asphalt shingles in accordance with Section R905.2, slate shingles in accord- ance with Section R905.6, metal roofing in accordance with Section R905.4, tile, clay or concrete shingles in ac- cordance with Section R905.3 or other approved roofing which is deemed to be equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. Wood shingle and shake roofs are not permitted in a wildfire hazard zone. Where the roof profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking,the lie spaces shall be constructed to prevent the intrusion of flames and embers, be fire - blocked with approved materials, or have one layer of minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced nonperfo- rated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Where valley flashing is installed, the flashing shall be not less than 0.019-inch (0.48 mm) No. 26 gage galva- nized sheet corrosion -resistant metal installed over not less than one layer of minimum 72 pound (32.4 kg) mineral - surfaced non -perforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 at least 36-inch-wide (914 mm) running the full length of the valley. R327.4.3.1 Gutters. When required, roof gutters shall be constructed of noncombustible materials and be pro- vided with a means to prevent accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. R327.4.4 Ventilation. Where provided, the minimum net area of ventilation openings for enclosed attics, en- closed soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces, and under- floor spaces shall be in accordance with Sections R806 and R408. All ventilation openings shall be covered with non- combustible corrosion -resistant metal wire mesh vents designed to resist the intrusion of burning embers and flame, or other approved materials or devices. Ventilation mesh and screening shall be a minimum of -inch (1.6mm) and a maximum of /x-inch (3.2mm) in any dimension. R327.4.4.1 Eaves, soffits, and cornices. Ventilation openings shall not be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices. Exceptions: 1. The building official maapprove special eave soffit or cornice vents that are manu- factured to resist the intrusion of flame and burning embers. 2. Ventilation openings complying with the requirements of Section R327.4.4 may installed on the underside of eaves soffits or cornices where the opening is located 12 feet or greater above grade or the surface below. R327.4.5 Exterior walls. The exterior wall covering or wall assembly shall comply with one of the following requirements: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ikinition-resistant material. 3. Heavy timber assembly. 4. Log wall construction assembly. 5. Wall assemblies that have been tested in accord- ance with the test procedures for a 10-minute direct flame contact exposure test set forth in ASTM E2707, coming with the conditions of acceptance listed in Section R327.4.5.2. Exception: Any of the following shall be deemed to meet the assembly performance criteria and intent of this section: 1. One layer of 5/Kinch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior wall cover- ing or cladding on the exterior side of the fi•am- im.. 2. The exterior portion of a 1-hoar fire resistive extc- rior wall assembly designed for exterior fire expo- stre including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gyp- sum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. R327.4.5.1 Extent of exterior wall covering. Exterior wall coverings shall extend fi•om the top of the founda- tion to the roof, and terminate at 2 inch (50.8 nun) nomi- nal solid wood blocking between rafters at all roof over- hangs or in the case of enclosed eaves or soffits, shall terminate at the underside of the enclosure. 86.2 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE ATTACHMENT E R327.4.5.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2707 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. if any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of flame penetration through the wall assembly at any time during the test. 2. Absence of evidence of glowing combustion on the interior surface of the assembly at the end of the 70-minute test. R327.4.6 Overhanging proiections. All exterior projec- tions (exterior balconies, carports, decks, patio covers, porch ceilings, unenclosed roofs and floors, overhanging buildings and similar architectural appendages and pro- jections) shall be protected as specified in this section. R327.4.6.1 Enclosed roof eaves soffits and cor- nices. The exposed underside of rafter or truss eaves and enclosed soffits, where any portion of the framing is less than 12 feet above grade or similar surface be- low, shall be protected by one of the following 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter tails truss tails or soffit. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the rafter tails or soffit including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. Soffit assemblies with an underside surface that meets the performance criteria in Sec- tion R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance ASTM E2957. Exceptions: The following materials do not require protection rewired by this section: 1. Eaves and soffits where all portions of the framing members are 12 feet or greater above grade, and 2-inch nominal eave fireblocking is provided between roof framing members from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. 2. Gable end overhangs and roof assembly pro- jections beyond an exterior wall other than at the lower end of the rafter tails. 3. Fascia and other architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.2 Exterior patio and porch ceilings. The exposed underside of exterior patio and porch ceilings greater than 200 square feet in area and less than 12 feet above grade shall be protected by one of the fol- lowing: 1. Noncombustible material. BUILDING PLANNING 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 1-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind the exterior covering on the underside of the ceiling. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive ex- terior wall assembly applied to the underside of the ceiling assembly including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. 5. Porch ceiling assemblies with a horizontal under- side that meet the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with the test procedures set forth in ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.3 Floor projections. The exposed under- side of cantilevered floor projections less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor projection. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor projection, including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing prod- ucts listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Re- sistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: Architectural trim boards. R327.4.6.4 Underfloor protection, The underfloor area of elevated structures shall be enclosed to Jr� ade in accordance with the requirements of Section R327.4, or the underside of the exposed underfloor shall be protected by one of the following: 1. Noncombustible material. 2. Ignition -resistant material. 3. One layer of 5/8-inch Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the floor assembly. 4. The exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the floor, including assemblies using exterior gypsum panel and sheathing products listed in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual. 5. An assembly that meets the performance criteria in Section R327.4.6.5 when tested in accordance with ASTM E2957. Exception: llearw timber structural columns and beams do not require protection. 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE 86.3 BUILDING PLANNING Gy_Tops IIT, I4iLY R327.4.6.5 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2957 tests shall be conducted in triplicate, and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1 Absence of flame penetration of the eaves or hori- zontal projection assembly at any time during the test. 2. Absence of structural failure of the eaves or hori- zontal projection subassembly at any time during the test. 3. Absence of sustained combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40 minute test. R327.4.7 WalkinIz surfaces. Deck, porch and balcony walking surfaces located greater than 30 inches and less than 12 feet above grade or the surface below shall be con- structed with one of the materials listed below. Exception: Walking surfaces of decks, porches and balconies not greater than 200 square feet in area, where the surface is constructed of nominal 2-inch lumber. 1. Materials that comfy with the performance require- ments of Section R327.4.7.1 when tested in accord- ance with both ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726. 2. 1aznition resistant materials that comply with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.2 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. 3. Exterior fire retardant treated wood. 4. Noncombustible material. 5. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of Section R327.4.7.2 where tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 where the exterior wall covering of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. 6. Any material that complies with the performance requirements of ASTM E2632, where the exterior wall covering of the structure is noncombustible or ignition -resistant material. Exception: Wall covering material may be of any material that otherwise complies with this chapter when the decking surface material complies with the performance requirements ASTM E84 with a Class B flame spread rating. R327.4.7.1 Requirements for R327.4.7, item 1. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and ASTM E2726, and shall comply with the conditions of acceptance below. The material shall also comply with the performance requirements of Section R327.4 2 for ignition resistant material when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. R327.4.7.1.1 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2632 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All additional tests shall meet the fol- lowing conditions of acceptance: 1. Peak heat release rate of less than or equal to 25 kW/ft (269 c nW/1 ) 2. Absence of sustained flaming or glowing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 3. Absence of falling particles that are still burn- ing when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.1.2 Conditions of acceptance. ASTM E2762 tests shall be conducted in triplicate and the conditions of acceptance below shall be met. If any one of the three replicates does not meet the condi- tions of acceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the following conditions of acceptance: 1. Absence of sustained flaming or TII owing combustion of any kind at the conclusion of the 40-minute observation period. 2. Absence of falling particles that are still burn- ing when reaching the burner or floor. R327.4.7.2 Requirements for R327.4.7, item 6. The material shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E2632 and shall comma with the following condition of acceptance. The test shall be conducted in triplicate and the peak heat release rate shall be less than or equal to 25 kW/ft` (269 Min). If any one of the three replicates does not meet the conditions of ac- ceptance, three additional tests shall be conducted. All of the additional tests shall meet the conditions of acceptance. R327.4.8 Glazing. Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multila ey red glazed panels, glass block, or have a fire resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes. 86.4 2017 OREGON RESIDENTIAL SPECIALTY CODE Summary of Oregon Residential Specialty Code R327.4-Wildfire Hazard Mitigation 1) Introduction In 2018, the Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) engaged stakeholders from the fire service, local government, and homebuilders to develop wildfire mitigation code standards that have a consistent and predictable application. BCD amended the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) section R327 (Wildfire Hazard Mitigation) in January 2019 and made it available for local adoption. 2 Scope If adopted by a local jurisdiction, the new provisions of ORSC R327.4 shall apply to new dwellings and their accessory structures, with some exceptions, located in a wildfire hazard zone on a qualifying lot of record. What is a qualifying lot of record? R327.4.1 requires qualifying lots of record to meet all of the following: 1. Be located in a wildfire hazard zone as identified using Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) criteria (OAR 629-044-0200 through OAR 629-044-0260). 2. The local municipality shall determine if qualifying lots of record consist of individual lots or lots that must be part of a development that contain a minimum number of lots. 3. The local municipality shall determine whether a lot of record is either located within or outside of a wildfire hazard zone. Notification of the finding shall be provided in conjunction with a land use approval. 4. Lots created prior to the effective date of the local ordinance are exempt from the requirements for a period of 3 years from the date of the land use approval. 5. Requirements for lots created after the effective date of the local ordinance shall be valid for 3 years. After 3 years, the lot shall be re-evaluated under the current provisions of the adopting ordinance prior to issuing a building permit. Exceptions: Dwellings and accessory structures constructed in a subdivision, do not need to comply with R327.4 when at least 50% of the lots have existing dwellings that were not constructed in accordance with R327.4. The municipality may waive the requirements of R327.4 for any lot, property or dwelling, or the remodel, replacement or reconstruction of a dwelling within the jurisdiction. The municipality must include a process for resolving of disputes related to the applicability of R327.4. ATTACHMENT H 3) Overview of code requirements Adoption of ORSC section R327.4 will provide additional wildfire hazard mitigation provisions that affect the following construction materials and/or methods of construction: (A) Roofing/Gutters R327.4.3 - Roofing shall be asphalt shingles, slate shingles, metal roofing, tile, clay, or concrete shingles or other approved roofing which is equivalent to a minimum Class B rated roof assembly. WOOD SHINGLE AND SHAKE ROOFS ARE NOT PERMITTED. - Roof gutters, when required, shall be constructed of non-combustible materials and be provided with a means to prevent accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. ATTACHMENT H (B) Ventilation R327.4.4 - openings shall be covered with non-combustible corrosion resistant metal wire mesh (openings 1/16"- 1/8") or approved alternate. - Ventilation openings shall not be installed on the underside of eaves, soffits, or cornices. Exceptions: Special vents manufactured to resist intrusion of flame and burning embers OR vent openings located at least 12' above grade or surface below. x �t*�rrro�iat Yeast iin� R�lug \S m Vn t Ciar�+Etr1a�7�'�eaaa ATTACHMENT H (C) Exterior Walls R327.4.5 - Exterior wall coverings shall comply with one of the following requirements: • Non-combustible material • Ignition -resistant material • Heavy timber assembly • Log wall construction assembly • Wall assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E2707 and ORSC section R327.4.5.2 Exceptions: Install one layer of 5/8" Type X exterior gypsum sheathing behind the exterior wall covering on the exterior side of the framing OR install the exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly. ALL LOT RFA 04ALL'PIAU k° 2 M liOM ' a e, e • t� z j i �z 1 /-MI4►ji J (D) Overhanging projections (e.g. exterior balconies, carports, decks, patio covers porch ceilings, unenclosed roofs and floors, overhanging buildings, and similar projections) R327.4.6 1. Enclosed roof eaves, soffits, and cornices shall be protected by one of the following: • Non-combustible material • Ignition -resistant material • One layer of 5/8" Type X exterior gypsum sheathing applied behind an exterior covering on the underside of the rafter/truss tails or soffit • Exterior portion of a 1-hour fire resistive exterior wall assembly applied to the underside of the rafter/truss tails or soffit • Assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E2957 and section R327.4.6.5 Exception: Protection not required when all framing members are at least 12' above grade. 2. Exterior patio and porch ceilings • Exposed underside of exterior patio and porch ceilings greater than 200 sq. ft. in area and less than 12' above grade shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. 3. Floor projections The exposed underside of cantilevered floor projections less than 12' above grade or surface below shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. 4. Underfloor protection • The underfloor area of elevated structures shall be enclosed to grade OR the underside of the exposed underfloor shall be protected by one of the methods described in (D)(1) above. Exception: Heavy timber columns and beams do not require protection. ATTACHMENT H (E) Walking surfaces R327.4.7 1. Deck, porch, and balcony walking surfaces located greater than 30" and less than 12' above grade or surface below shall be constructed with one of the materials listed below. • Exterior fire retardant treated wood • Noncombustible material Materials that comply with the performance requirements of specific nationally recognized testing standards. See code section for details. Exception: Decks, porches, and balconies not greater than 200 sq. ft. where the walking surface is constructed of nominal 2-inch lumber. ATTACHMENT H (F) Glazing R327.4.8 • Exterior windows, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilayered glazed panels, glass block, or have a 20 minute fire rating. Na it C�i'•+"�•:;7tr m r ,v� f,il: ;: 4) Housing cost impact Oregon Building Codes Division estimates the increased provisions in section R327.4 will add approximately $2,500-$3,000 to the existing cost of a typical 1,200 square foot single family home.' 1 See BCD's Housing Cost Impact Statement—12/18/19 (Available at www.deschutes.org/wildfirecommittee) \)A E SCOMMCUC� II MEETING DATE: 7/14/2021 SUBJECT: Discussion: SB 391 / Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of Senate Bill (SB) 391, which allows counties to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in rural residential areas, and to identify elements of the new law that require clarification prior to initiating legislative amendments. Staff anticipates scheduling a follow-up work session later in the summer to continue the discussion and seek further direction. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: July 8, 2021 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 391 / Rural Accessory Dwelling Units The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of Senate Bill (SB) 391, which allows counties to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in rural residential areas, and to identify elements of the new law that require clarification prior to initiating legislative amendments. Staff anticipates scheduling a follow-up work session later in the summer to continue the discussion and seek further direction. SB 391 depends on the adoption of statewide wildfire hazard maps and related wildfire provisions, including a revised definition of the wildland urban interface and the wildfire hazard zones; these wildfire provisions are outlined in the recently -passed SB 762. The complex process of adopting these maps and related provisions is governed at the state level, and it is estimated that final adoption will not occur until mid-2022 at the earliest. While the rural accessory dwelling law is effective immediately and counties may adopt ordinances to allow accessory dwelling units, local governments cannot implement the law (meaning they cannot allow or approve ADUs) until the adoption of the statewide wildfire maps. It is staffs intention to work with the Board to finalize all other parts of SB 391 in the interim so that code amendments will be ready upon adoption of the statewide wildfire maps. 1. Background Rural residential zones exist throughout Oregon. By definition, rural residential zones exist outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) but are excluded from the state's resource land (farm and forest zone) protections. With certain exceptions, those protections allow residential uses only in conjunction with a farm or forest use. However, in rural residential zones, a dwelling can be a primary use of the land. Currently, state law allows counties to permit an additional dwelling on a property containing a house built prior to 1945.' However, unlike in urban zones, rural residential zones do not have any other by - right accessory dwelling options, making inter -generational and alternative housing options difficult to achieve. 1 House Bill 3012 (2017). 11. SB 391 / Overview The Oregon Legislature adopted SB 391 into law on June 23, 2021 (Attachment 1). It authorizes a county to allow an owner of a lot or parcel within a rural residential zone to construct one ADU subject to certain restrictions and limitations. SB 391 does not obligate a county to allow ADUs. It also does not prohibit a county from imposing any additional restrictions, including those relating to the construction of garages and outbuildings that support an ADU. The matrix in Section 4 summarizes the new law as it pertains to Deschutes County. III. Implementation Process in order to implement SB 391 for Deschutes County, several steps must occur: 1. First, decide whether to allow ADUs or not. If yes, then the Board of County Commissioners (Board) must adopt an ordinance to allow ADUs in Deschutes County Code (DCC). 2. The Board must decide if they would like to adopt the text of the bill as is, or if they would like to modify certain provisions —this bill allows counties to place additional conditions (be more restrictive) than state law. The matrix below provides explanations of various conditions and potential decision points for the Board. 3. If the Board would like to develop and adopt additional local standards, they will need to decide the process to develop the local standards, including public engagement. 4. Once the Board decides whether to adopt the bill as is or with additional local standards, the public hearing process to adopt the law into DCC will begin. As noted above, it is important to note that in addition to the provisions that Commissioners may choose to examine more closely, SB 391 depends on the adoption of statewide wildfire hazard maps and related provisions per SB 762. The complex process of adopting these maps and other provisions is governed at the state level, and it is estimated that final adoption will not occur until mid-2022 at the earliest. While this law is effective immediately and counties may adopt ordinances to allow ADUs, local governments cannot implement the law (meaning they cannot allow or approve ADUs) until the adoption of the statewide wildfire maps. It is staffs intention to work with the Board to finalize all other parts of SB 391 in the interim so that code amendments will be ready upon adoption of the statewide wildfire maps. IV. SB 391 Matrix The matrix below provides a summary of criteria contained in SB 391, along with explanations and context; additionally, the matrix highlights elements that will require action, whether additional research by staff, coordination with other agencies, a decision by the Board, or similar. -2- SIB 391 - Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation Eligibility Restrictions Comments Applies to Rural There are over 10,000 lots in Southern Residential (RR10), Deschutes County. The Oregon Multiple Use Agricultural Department of Environmental Quality (MUA10), Urban Area (DEQ), the US Geological Survey (USGS) 1. Rural Residential Reserve (UAR-10) and and Deschutes County have determined Exception Areas, Suburban Residential (SR that the safety of the groundwater in Minimum Lot 2.5) zones. southern Deschutes County is threatened Size, and by nitrate contamination from traditional Dwelling • Lot or parcel must be at onsite septic wastewater treatment Requirements least two acres in size. systems.' • One single-family dwelling . Consider raising the eligible lot or parcel must be sited on the lot or size in this area (South of Sunriver) to 5 to parcel. 10 acres. • The existing single-family ORS 105.550 to 105.600, Abatement of dwelling is not subject to Nuisance, provide local governments 2. Existing Dwelling an order declaring it a specific authority to abate certain public Nuisance nuisance or pending nuisance activities that affects the health, ion under ORS 105.550 act ion and safety and welfare of its community. to In Southern Deschutes County, rural • The ADU must comply with residential density, even at two acres, can all applicable laws and create physical challenges for upgrading 3. ADU Sanitation regulations relating to conventional septic systems and Requirements sanitization and drainfields. wastewater disposal and • Consider raising the eligible lot or parcel treatment. size in this area (South of Sunriver) to 5 to 10 acres. 4. ADU Square • The ADU cannot include Footage more than 900 square feet • Useable floor area is undefined. Requirements of useable floor area. The ADU is required to be • It is unclear whether the ADU in its 5. ADU Distance located no farther than entirety must be within 100 feet of the Requirements 100 feet from the existing existing single-family dwelling or just a single-family dwelling. portion. z https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/programs/Pages/Deschutes-Klamath-Groundwater-Protection.aspx -3- Eligibility Restrictions Comments • If the ADU is relying on a The Water Resource Commission has not domestic well, no portion restricted new or existing domestic water 6. ADU Water of the lot or parcel can be use in Deschutes County for 1) watering Supply within new or existing any lawn or noncommercial garden, not Requirements ground water uses exceeding one-half acre, or 2) serving a restricted by the Water domestic use, not exceeding 15,000 Resource Commission. gallons a day. • A county may require that an ADU be served by the same water supply source 7. ADU Water or water supply system as Supply Source pp y the existing single-family • This provision is optional dwelling, provided such is Option allowed by an existing water right or a use under ORS 537.545 (exempt uses).3 8. ADU / Metolius • No portion of a lot or The Oregon legislature designated the Area of Critical parcel can be within a Metolius River Basin as an "area of critical State Concern / designated area of critical statewide concern" in 2009. Limitations state concern. • The ADU is required to 9. ADU Setback have adequate setbacks from adjacent lands zoned Adequate setbacks are not defined. Requirements Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) or Forest Use. s https:Horegon.pubIic.Iaw/statutes/ors_537.545 -4- Eligibility Restrictions Comments • ORS 477 pertains to the wildland-urban interface (WUI), formerly known as the forestland-urban interface. SB 762, adopted in June 2021, rewrites several sections of ORS 477 cited in SB 391. Most • The lot or parcel must significantly, the new provisions of ORS 10. ADU / Wildland- comply with the rules of 477 require the State Board of Forestry to Urban Interface the State Board of Forestry define the wildland-urban interface based Requirements under ORS 477.015 to on national best practices and define 477.061.a criteria and classes of the WUI to be included in the statewide wildfire hazard map. Until the provisions of the revised ORS 477 are met at the state level, the County will be unable to define the related criteria in SB 391. • If the ADU is not subject to ORS 477.015 to 477.061 (i.e. outside of the newly- 11. ADU / Outside defined wildland-urban Wildland-Urban interface), it must have See above re: ORS 477. Interface Area defensible space and fuel Requirements break standards as developed in consultation with local fire protection service providers. 4 Provisions in ORS 477.015-061, Urban Interface Fire Protection, were established through efforts of the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, fire service agencies from across the state, and the Commissioners of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Jackson Counties. It is designed to address the expanding interface wildfire problem within Oregon Department of Forestry Fire Protection Districts. Full implementation of the statute occurred on January 1, 2002. The statute does the following: 1. Directs the State Forester to establish a system of classifying forestland-urban interface areas; 2. Defines forestland-urban interface areas; 3. Provides education to property owners about fire hazards in forestland-urban interface areas. Allows for a forestland- urban interface county committee to establish classification standards; 4. Requires maps identifying classified areas to be made public; S. Requires public hearings and mailings to affected property owners on proposed classifications; 6. Allows property owners appeal rights; 7. Directs the Board of Forestry to promulgate rules that set minimum acceptable standards to minimize and mitigate fire hazards within forestland-urban interface areas; and 8. Creates a certification system for property owners meeting acceptable standards. Establishes a $100,000 liability limit for cost of suppressing fires, if certification requirements are not met. -5- Eligibility Restrictions Comments • Statewide wildfire risk maps must first be approved per SB 762. 12. ADU / Statewide . ADUs are then required to . The State of Oregon wildfire risk maps Wildfire Map comply with the Oregon are anticipated for adoption in mid-2022. Requirements residential specialty code relating to wildfire hazard mitigation for the mapped area (R327.4). 13. ADU Adequate ' Local regulations must This provision will require coordination Access and ensure the ADU has with Rural Fire Protection and Road Evacuation for adequate access for Districts. Adequate access, safe Firefighting firefighting equipment, evacuation and staged evacuation areas Requirements safe evacuation and are not defined. staged evacuation areas • ADUs cannot be allowed Consider requiring a restrictive covenant 14. ADU Occupancy for vacation occupancy, as that is recorded, prohibiting the ADU Requirements defined in ORS 90.100. from being used as a vacation rental. 15. ADU Land • If land divided, the single Division family dwelling and ADU None. cannot be situated on a Requirements different lot or parcel. 16. ADU / Additional • A second ADU is not • Legislative amendments will need to Units allowed clarify that a medical hardship dwelling and/or RV are not allowed. V. SB 391 Decision Points Necessary Prior to Drafting of Amendments If the Board wants to adopt SB 391 into DCC, it must first determine the desired procedural decision type in addition to deciding on a number of substantive issues contained in the bill itself. Procedural Issues - Ministerial Decision versus Limited Land Use Decision 1. Ministerial Decision. This type of decision entails that the amendments are structured with clear and objective standards for ADU applications, require no discretion from staff, and as such would not be subject to public notice or public hearings requirements. 2. Limited Land Use Decision. Limited land use decisions can, if desired, be structured so notice of application is sent to neighboring property owners. Regardless, these types of decisions require a -6- mailed notice of decision to neighbors and those who have standing by commenting on an application. The land use decision can be appealed to a Hearings Officer and/or the Board. Three provisions of SB 391 help illustrate the comparison between a ministerial decision and a limited land use decision: • ADU / Wildland-Urban Interface Requirements. SB 391 requires applications to demonstrate if applicable that the subject property complies with the rules of the Department of Forestry (DOF) for mitigating fire hazards, as defined in ORS 477.015 to ORS 477.061. Legislative amendments structured for a ministerial decision can specify DOF standards as part of a complete application. Alternatively, for a limited land use decision, amendments can require that an applicant demonstrate (forester fuel thinning contract, etc.) the subject property will mitigate fire hazards consistent with DOF standards. DOF certification would then be a condition of land use approval prior to issuing a building permit. • ADU / Outside Wildland-Urban Interface Requirements. SB 391 requires for those ADUs not subject to ORS 477.015 to ORS 477.061 (i.e., outside a DOF Wildlife -Urban Interface designation), to demonstrate that the subject property has implemented defensible space and fuel break standards as developed in consultation with local fire protection service providers. Legislative amendments structured for a ministerial decision can specify documentation by a local fire protection service provider as part of a complete application. Alternatively, for a limited land use decision, amendments can require that an applicant demonstrate (forester fuel thinning contract, etc.) the subject property will mitigate defensible space and fuel break standards consistent with local fire protection service providers. Local fire protection service provider documentation would then be a condition of land use approval prior to issuing a building permit. • ADU / Access & Evacuation Requirements. SB 391 requires that each ADU have adequate access for firefighting equipment, safe evacuation and staged evacuation areas. Legislative amendments structured for a ministerial decision will require clearly and objectively defining adequate access, safe evacuation and staged evacuation areas. Based on those definitions, an applicant could then submit the requisite documentation as part of a complete application. Alternatively, for a limited land use decision, amendments can require that an applicant demonstrate subject to discretionary criteria that adequate access, safe evacuation and staged evacuation areas are provided. Fulfilling this obligation would then be a condition of land use approval prior to issuing a building permit. Substantive Issues As noted in the above matrix, if the Board wants to adopt SB 391 into DCC, the following items require clarification by the County prior to drafting legislative amendments. These items are separate from wildfire -related provisions that will be determined at the state level. -7- 3. Parcel Size. Consider raising the eligible lot or parcel size in Southern Deschutes County (South of Sunriver) to 5 acres. 4. Floor Area. Define "useable floor area" for the ADU. 5. Distance Requirements. Clarify whether the ADU in its entirety must be within 100 feet of the existing single-family dwelling or just a portion. 6. Setbacks. Define adequate ADU setbacks from adjacent lands zoned EFU or Forest Use. 7. Restrictive Covenant. Consider requiring a restrictive covenant that is recorded, prohibiting the ADU from being used as a vacation rental. 8. Water Supply Source. Clarify whether to require that an ADU be served by the same water supply source or water supply system as the existing single-family dwelling. VI. Next Steps Staff can schedule a follow-up work session with the Board later in the summer to continue the discussion and seek further direction. Attachment: 1. SB 391 -8- 81st OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2021 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 391 Sponsored by Senators DEMBROW, FINDLEY, KNOPP; Senators GOLDEN, HANSELL, JAMA, KENNEMER, Representatives BYNUM, LEVY, MORGAN, SMITH DB, ZIKA (Presession filed.) CHAPTER ................................................. AN ACT Relating to accessory dwelling units in rural residential areas; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2021 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 215. SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Accessory dwelling unit" has the meaning given that term in ORS 215.501. (b) "Area zoned for rural residential use" has the meaning given that term in ORS 215.501. (c) "Single-family dwelling" has the meaning given that term in ORS 215.501. (2) Consistent with a county's comprehensive plan, a county may allow an owner of a lot or parcel within an area zoned for rural residential use to construct one accessory dwelling unit on the lot or parcel, provided: (a) The lot or parcel is not located within an area designated as an urban reserve as de- fined in ORS 195.137; (b) The lot or parcel is at least two acres in size; (c) One single-family dwelling is sited on the lot or parcel; (d) The existing single-family dwelling property on the lot or parcel is not subject to an order declaring it a nuisance or subject to any pending action under ORS 105.550 to 105.600; (e) The accessory dwelling unit will comply with all applicable laws and regulations re- lating to sanitation and wastewater disposal and treatment; (f) The accessory dwelling unit will not include more than 900 square feet of useable floor area; (g) The accessory dwelling unit will be located no farther than 100 feet from the existing single-family dwelling; (h) If the water supply source for the accessory dwelling unit or associated lands or gardens will be a well using water under ORS 537.545 (1)(b) or (d), no portion of the lot or parcel is within an area in which new or existing ground water uses under ORS 537.545 (1)(b) or (d) have been restricted by the Water Resources Commission; (i) No portion of the lot or parcel is within a designated area of critical state concern; Q) The lot or parcel is served by a fire protection service provider with professionals who have received training or certification described in ORS 181A.410; (k) The lot or parcel and accessory dwelling unit comply with rules of the State Board of Forestry under ORS 477.015 to 477.061; Enrolled Senate Bill 391 (SB 391-B) Page 1 (L) Statewide wildfire risk maps have been approved and the accessory dwelling unit complies with the Oregon residential specialty code relating to wildfire hazard mitigation for the mapped area; and (m) The county has adopted land use regulations that ensure that: (A) The accessory dwelling unit has adequate setbacks from adjacent lands zoned for resource use; (B) The accessory dwelling unit has adequate access for firefighting equipment, safe evacuation and staged evacuation areas; and (C) If the accessory dwelling unit is not subject to ORS 477.015 to 477.061, the accessory dwelling unit has defensible space and fuel break standards as developed in consultation with local fire protection service providers. (3) A county may not allow an accessory dwelling unit allowed under this section to be used for vacation occupancy, as defined in ORS 90.100. (4) A county that allows construction of an accessory dwelling unit under this section may not approve: (a) A subdivision, partition or other division of the lot or parcel so that the existing single-family dwelling is situated on a different lot or parcel than the accessory dwelling unit. (b) Construction of an additional accessory dwelling unit on the same lot or parcel. (5) A county may require that an accessory dwelling unit constructed under this section be served by the same water supply source or water supply system as the existing single- family dwelling, provided such use is allowed for the accessory dwelling unit by an existing water right or a use under ORS 537.545. If the accessory dwelling unit is served by a well, the construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall maintain all setbacks from the well required by the Water Resources Commission or Water Resources Department. (6) An existing single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit allowed under this section are considered a single unit for the purposes of calculating exemptions under ORS 537.545 (1). (7) Nothing in this section requires a county to allow any accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential use or prohibits a county from imposing any additional re- strictions on accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential use, including re- strictions on the construction of garages and outbuildings that support an accessory dwelling unit. SECTION 3. This 2021 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2021 Act takes effect on its passage. Enrolled Senate Bill 391 (SB 391-B) Page 2 Passed by Senate April 15, 2021 Repassed by Senate June 9, 2021 ................................................................... Lori L. Brocker, Secretary of Senate .................................................................................. Peter Courtney, President of Senate Passed by House June 7, 2021 .................................................................................. Tina Kotek, Speaker of House Received by Governor: ........................ M........................................................... 1 2021 Approved: ... ..................... M........................................................... 1 2021 .................................................................................. Kate Brown, Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: .................... M....................................................... I ... 1 2021 .................................................................................. Shemia Fagan, Secretary of State Enrolled Senate Bill 391 (SB 391-B) Page 3 �01 E S CO Q�L C A BOARD F COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: House Bill 3295 / Marijuana Tax Revenue / Cannabis Advisory Panel RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff is requesting direction from the Board of County Commissioners to appoint and convene a Cannabis Advisory Panel (CAP). Introduced by Representative Jason Kropf (D, Bend), sponsored by Representative Jack Zika (R, Redmond), and ultimately adopted by the Oregon Legislature on June 26, 2021, House Bill (HB) 3295 ensures that counties that participate in Oregon marijuana economy receive a share of marijuana revenue BUDGET IMPACTS: TBD. To receive marijuana tax revenue, the Board must appoint a CAP. ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager; Nick Lelack, Community Development Director; County Legal Counsel. u ►ZI1iliil TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel DATE: July 6, 2020 SUBJECT: House Bill 3295 / Marijuana Tax Revenue / Cannabis Advisory Panel Staff is requesting direction from the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to appoint and convene a Cannabis Advisory Panel (CAP). I. Background Introduced by Representative Jason Kropf (D, Bend), sponsored by Representative Jack Zika (R, Redmond), and ultimately adopted by the Oregon Legislature on June 26, 2021, House Bill (HB) 3295 ensures that counties that participate in Oregon marijuana economy receive a share of marijuana revenue (Attachment). Marijuana tax revenue has not been paid to Deschutes County by the Oregon Department of Revenue since 2019, when the Board passed Ordinance 2019-014, prohibiting the establishment of future (new) marijuana production and processing businesses in unincorporated Deschutes County (commonly referred to as an Opt Out). Ordinance No. 2019-015, adopted on October 16, 2019, further clarified that Ordinance No. 2019-014 has no impact on the County's past marijuana production land use decisions and does not preclude those applicants from moving forward in the licensure process with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). On November 3, 2020, Ballot Measure 9-134 asked voters if they wanted to repeal the opt -out ordinances — a "yes" vote would once again allow new marijuana production and processing businesses in Deschutes County, and a "no" vote would continue to prohibit new marijuana production and processing businesses in Deschutes County. Ultimately, Deschutes County residents voted "no" to Measure 9-134, thereby upholding the opt -out and prohibiting future/new recreational marijuana production and processing businesses from being established in the unincorporated county. II. HB 3295 To receive marijuana tax revenue, the Board must appoint a CAP that meets at least quarterly.' The CAP is required to provide at least three recommendations: 1 HB 3295. Section 3a. 1. The use of moneys transferred to the county under ORS 475B.759; 2. Increases in public safety measures related to marijuana use and marijuana entitles in the county; and 3. Issues presented by the production, processing, wholesaling and distribution of marijuana in the unincorporated area subject to the jurisdiction of the county.z Members of the CAP are appointed by the Board and must consist of the following: • A person who holds a license issued under ORS 47513.070 for a premises located in the county (i.e. MJ production license); • A person who holds a license issued under ORS 47513.105 for a premises located in the county (i.e. MJ retail license); • A designee of the county sheriff; • A designee of the county commission; • A member of the public; • A watermaster, as described in ORS 540.020, who is appointed for a water district in, partially in or near the county;" and • A representative of the county who is knowledgeable about economic development in the county.3 The effective date of HB 3295 is confusing. HB 3295 takes effect on September 25, 2021, 91 days after the legislature adjourned. However, Section 5 of HB 3295 notes that the at -issue amendments proposed therein "become operative on January 1, 2022." Section 5 also notes that a county and the State may take "any action" before the operative date necessary to be ready to go as of the operative date. But the proceeding Section 4 notes that if a county opted out between January 1, 2018 and September 1, 2021, then that county is eligible to receive distributions "when the county appoints a county cannabis advisory panel." Despite the aforementioned language in Section 4, it seems the intent is that Deschutes County will only be eligible for distributions under HB 3295 beginning on January 1, 2022, so long as a CAP is established prior to that date. If initiated, no later than July 1 of each year, Deschutes County will be required to certify with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) that it complies with HB 3295 by convening a CAP. Failure to do so disqualifies Deschutes County from receiving marijuana tax revenue.4 III. Board Direction Staff is requesting the following direction from the Board: 1. Does the Board want to convene a CAP? 2. If so, a. What process should be used to identify potential candidates? b. Are there other members beyond those listed in HB 3295 that warrant appointment? 2 Ibid. Section 3, Sub 2. 3 Id. Sub 1 a-g. HB 3295 does not specify if the County can appoint additional members. It also does not specify that the licensee must be from the unincorporated county. This may be important because there are relatively few retail marijuana retail licenses in rural Deschutes County. a Id. Section 1, Sub 6 a-b. -2- c. Are there other topics of discussion for the CAP to consider beyond the three listed in HB 3295? d. When should the CAP first convene on a quarterly basis? Attachment UNN-OR -3- 81st OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2021 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 3295 Sponsored by Representatives KROPF, ZIKA CHAPTER ................................................. AN ACT Relating to marijuana revenue; creating new provisions; amending ORS 475B.759 and section 5, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)); and prescribing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 475B.759, as amended by section 10, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)), is amended to read: 475B.759. (1) There is established the Oregon Marijuana Account, separate and distinct from the General Fund. (2) The account shall consist of moneys transferred to the account under ORS 475B.760. (3)(a) The Department of Revenue shall certify quarterly the amount of moneys available in the Oregon Marijuana Account. (b) Before making other transfers of moneys required by this section, the department shall transfer quarterly to the Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund all moneys in the Oregon Marijuana Account in excess of $11,250,000. [(b)] (c) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, and after making the transfer of moneys re- quired by [subsection (7) of this section] paragraph (b) of this subsection, the department shall transfer quarterly 20 percent of the moneys in the Oregon Marijuana Account as follows: (A) Ten percent of the moneys in the account must be transferred to the cities of this state in the following shares: (i) Seventy-five percent of the 10 percent must be transferred in shares that reflect the popu- lation of each city of this state that is not exempt from this paragraph pursuant to subsection (4)(a) of this section compared to the population of all cities of this state that are not exempt from this paragraph pursuant to subsection (4)(a) of this section, as determined by Portland State University under ORS 190.510 to 190.610, on the date immediately preceding the date of the transfer; and (ii) Twenty-five percent of the 10 percent must be transferred in shares that reflect the number of licenses held pursuant to ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 and 475B.105 on the last business day of the calendar quarter preceding the date of the transfer for premises located in each city com- pared to the number of licenses held pursuant to ORS 475B.070, 47513.090, 475B.100 and 475B.105 on the last business day of that calendar quarter for all premises in this state located in cities; and (B) Ten percent of the moneys in the account must be transferred to counties in the following shares: (i) Fifty percent of the 10 percent must be transferred in shares that reflect the total commer- cially available area of all grow canopies associated with marijuana producer licenses held pursuant to ORS 475B.070 on the last business day of the calendar quarter preceding the date of the transfer for all premises located in each county compared to the total commercially available area of all Enrolled House Bill 3295 (HB 3295-A) Page 1 grow canopies associated with marijuana producer licenses held pursuant to ORS 47513.070 on the last business day of that calendar quarter for all premises located in this state; and (ii) Fifty percent of the 10 percent must be transferred in shares that reflect the number of li- censes held pursuant to ORS 47513.090, 47513.100 and 47513.105 on the last business day of the cal- endar quarter preceding the date of the transfer for premises located in each county compared to the number of licenses held pursuant to ORS 47513.090, 47513.100 and 47513.105 on the last business day of that calendar quarter for all premises in this state. [(c)] (d) After making the transfer of moneys required by [subsection (7) of this section, eighty] paragraph (b) of this subsection, 80 percent of the remaining moneys in the Oregon Marijuana Account must be used as follows: (A) Forty percent of the moneys in the account must be used solely for purposes for which moneys in the State School Fund established under ORS 327.008 may be used; (B) Twenty percent of the moneys in the account must be used solely for mental health treat- ment or for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, early intervention and treatment; (C) Fifteen percent of the moneys in the account must be used solely for purposes for which moneys in the State Police Account established under ORS 181A.020 may be used; and (D) Five percent of the moneys in the account must be used solely for purposes related to al- cohol and drug abuse prevention, early intervention and treatment services. (4)(a) A city that has an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of a premises for which issu- ance of a license under ORS 47513.070, 47513.090, 47513.100 or 47513.105 is required is not eligible to receive transfers of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)(A)] (3)(c)(A) of this section. (b) A county that has an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of a premises for which issu- ance of a license under ORS 47513.070 is required is not eligible to receive transfers of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)(B)(0] (3)(c)(B)(i) of this section. (c) A county that has an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of a premises for which issu- ance of a license under ORS 475B.090, 475B.100 or 47513.105 is required is not eligible to receive transfers of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)(B)(ii)] (3)(c)(B)(ii) of this section. (d)(A) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection do not apply to a county ordinance adopted on or after January 1, 2018, that prohibits the establishment of a premises for which a license under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 47513.105 is required but allows in the unincorporated area of the county the continued operation of an existing premises for which a license under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 475B.105 is required. (B) A county that adopts an ordinance described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall certify the adoption of the ordinance under subsection (6) of this section. (5)(a) A city or county that is ineligible under subsection (4) of this section to receive a transfer of moneys from the Oregon Marijuana Account during a given quarter but has received a transfer of moneys for that quarter shall return the amount transferred to the Department of Revenue, with interest as described under paragraph (f) of this subsection. An ineligible city or county may vol- untarily transfer the moneys to the Department of Revenue immediately upon receipt of the ineli- gible transfer. (b) If the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services determines that a city or county received a transfer of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)] (3)(c) of this section but was in- eligible to receive that transfer under subsection (4) of this section, the director shall provide notice to the ineligible city or county and order the city or county to return the amount received to the Department of Revenue, with interest as described under paragraph (f) of this subsection. A city or county may appeal the order within 30 days of the date of the order under the procedures for a contested case under ORS chapter 183. (c) As soon as the order under paragraph (b) of this subsection becomes final, the director shall notify the Department of Revenue and the ineligible city or county. Upon notification, the Depart- ment of Revenue immediately shall proceed to collect the amount stated in the notice. (d) The Department of Revenue shall have the benefit of all laws of the state pertaining to the collection of income and excise taxes and may proceed to collect the amounts described in the no - Enrolled House Bill 3295 (HB 3295-A) Page 2 tice under paragraph (c) of this subsection. An assessment of tax is not necessary and the collection described in this subsection is not precluded by any statute of limitations. (e) If a city or county is subject to an order to return moneys from an ineligible transfer, the city or county shall be denied any further relief in connection with the ineligible transfer on or after the date that the order becomes final. (f) Interest under this section shall accrue at the rate established in ORS 305.220 beginning on the date the ineligible transfer was made. (g) Both the moneys and the interest collected from or returned by an ineligible city or county shall be redistributed to the cities or counties that were eligible to receive a transfer under sub- section [(3)(b)] (3)(c) of this section on the date the ineligible transfer was made. (6)(a) Not later than July 1 of each year, each city and county in this state shall certify with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services whether the city or county has an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of a premises for which issuance of a license under ORS 475B.070, 475B.090, 475B.100 or 47513.105 is required and whether the county has an ordinance described in subsection (4)(d) of this section. The certification shall be made concurrently with the certif- ications under ORS 221.770, in a form and manner prescribed by the Oregon Department of Admin- istrative Services. (b) If a city fails to comply with this subsection, the city is not eligible to receive transfers of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)(A)] (3)(c)(A) of this section. If a county fails to comply with this subsection, the county is not eligible to receive transfers of moneys under subsection [(3)(b)(B)] (3)(c)(B) of this section. (c) A city or county that repeals an ordinance as provided in ORS 47513.496 shall file an updated certification with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services in a form and manner pre- scribed by the department, noting the effective date of the change. A city or county that repeals an ordinance as provided in ORS 475B.496 is eligible to receive quarterly transfers of moneys under this section for quarters where the repeal is effective for the entire quarter and the updated certif- ication was filed at least 30 days before the date of transfer. [(7) Before making the transfer of moneys required by subsection (3) of this section, the department shall transfer quarterly to the Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund all moneys in the Oregon Marijuana Account in excess of $11,250,000.1 SECTION 2. Section 5, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)), is amended to read: Sec. 5. (1) The Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund is established in the State Treas- ury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund shall be credited to the fund. (2) The Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund shall consist of: (a) Moneys deposited into the fund pursuant to section 6, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)); (b) Moneys appropriated or otherwise transferred to the fund by the Legislative Assembly; (c) Moneys allocated from the Oregon Marijuana Account, pursuant to ORS 475B.759 [(7)] (3)(b); and[,] (d) All other moneys deposited [in] into the fund from any source. (3) Moneys in the fund shall be continuously appropriated to the Oregon Health Authority for the purposes set forth in section 2, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)). [(4) Unexpended moneys in the fund may not lapse and shall be carried forward and may be used without regard to fiscal year or biennium.] [(5)(a)] (4)(a) Pursuant to subsection (2)(b) of this section, the Legislative Assembly shall ap- propriate or transfer to the fund an amount sufficient to fully fund the grants program required by section 2, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)). (b) The total amount deposited and transferred into the fund shall not be less than $57 million for the first year [this Act] chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)), is in effect. Enrolled House Bill 3295 (HB 3295-A) Page 3 (c) In each subsequent year, [that] the minimum transfer amount set forth in paragraph (b) of this subsection [(5)(b) of this section] shall be increased by not less than the sum of: [(i)] (A) $57 million multiplied by the percentage [(if any)], if any, by which the monthly av- eraged U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for the 12 consecutive months ending [December] August 31 of the prior calendar year exceeds the monthly index for the fourth quarter of the cal- endar year 2020; and[,] [(ii)] (B) [An amount not less than the increase] The annual increase, if any, in moneys dis- tributed pursuant to ORS 475B.759 [(7)] (3)(b). SECTION 3. (1) Prior to adopting an ordinance described in ORS 475B.759 (4)(d), a county shall convene a cannabis advisory panel to provide recommendations to the county commis- sion regarding the county's regulation of marijuana and use of moneys transferred to the county under ORS 475B.759 (4). The county commission shall appoint the following members to the county cannabis advisory panel: (a) A person who holds a license issued under ORS 475B.070 for a premises located in the county; (b) A person who holds a license issued under ORS 47513.105 for a premises located in the county; (c) A designee of the county sheriff, (d) A designee of the county commission; (e) A member of the public; (f) A watermaster, as described in ORS 540.020, who is appointed for a water district in, partially in or near the county; and (g) A representative of the county who is knowledgeable about economic development in the county. (2) A county cannabis advisory panel shall provide recommendations to the county com- mission on at least the following: (a) The use of moneys transferred to the county under ORS 475B.759; (b) Increases in public safety measures related to marijuana use and marijuana entities in the county; and (c) Issues presented by the production, processing, wholesaling and distribution of marijuana in the unincorporated area subject to the jurisdiction of the county. (3)(a) A county cannabis advisory panel shall meet at least quarterly during the time in which the county receives transfers of moneys under ORS 475B.759, beginning not later than the date on which an ordinance described under ORS 475B.759 (4)(d) is proposed by the county. (b) A county that adopts an ordinance described in ORS 475B.759 (4)(d) and that does not appoint a county cannabis advisory panel under this section is not eligible to receive trans- fers of moneys under ORS 475B.759. SECTION 4. Notwithstanding section 3 (3) of this 2021 Act, a county that adopts an or- dinance described in ORS 475B.759 (4)(d) between January 1, 2018, and September 1, 2021, is eligible to receive transfers of moneys under ORS 475B.759 when the county appoints a county cannabis advisory panel, as described in section 3 of this 2021 Act. SECTION 5. (1) Sections 3 and 4 of this 2021 Act and the amendments to ORS 475B.759 and section 5, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)), by sections 1 and 2 of this 2021 Act become operative on January 1, 2022. (2) The Department of Revenue and a county may take any action before the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section that is necessary to enable the department and the county to exercise, on and after the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section, all of the duties, functions and powers conferred on the department and the county by sections 3 and 4 of this 2021 Act and the amendments to ORS 475B.759 and section 5, chapter 2, Oregon Laws 2021 (Ballot Measure 110 (2020)), by sections 1 and 2 of this 2021 Act. Enrolled House Bill 3295 (HB 3295-A) Page 4 SECTION 6. This 2021 Act takes effect on the 91st day after the date on which the 2021 regular session of the Eighty-first Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die. Passed by House June 15, 2021 .................................................................................. Timothy G. Sekerak, Chief Clerk of House .................................................................................. Tina Kotek, Speaker of House Passed by Senate June 25, 2021 .................................................................................. Peter Courtney, President of Senate Received by Governor: ........................ M.,......................................................... 1 2021 Approved: ................... ..... M........................................................... 1 2021 .................................................................................. Kate Brown, Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: ........................ M.,............................... I ......................... 1 2021 ............................................................................... Shemia Fagan, Secretary of State Enrolled House Bill 3295 (HB 3295-A) Page 5 COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 SUBJECT: 2021 Legislative Session Outcomes and Impacts BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The 2021 state legislative session came to a close on June 26 after more than five months of mostly virtual work. Staff and the County's lobbyist, Pac/west, will provide updates on the outcomes and impacts of priority legislation. During the 2021 Legislative Session, the County achieved many of its legislative priorities, including: • The Legislature also approved funding for two new circuit court judges for Deschutes County. Legislators approved a bill that will allow counties to authorize construction of accessory dwelling units on lands zoned for rural residential use. Z519 bills were introduced in the 2021 Legislative session. A brief summary of key bills that will have significant fiscal or operational impacts on County departments is available below. Additional updates will be provided by staff during the Board's meeting on July 14. CLERK'S OFFICE: HB 3291- If ballot mailed, extends date to be received by Clerk's office by seven days. Extends certification of election seven days. Moves quarterly election date from third Tuesday in September to fourth Tuesday in August. Allows county clerks to open and begin counting ballot upon receipt. • SB 27 - If approved by SOS, Clerk can use a different procedure rather than providing voter with secrecy envelope or secrecy sleeve. SB 250 - Provides flexibility to adjust recording hours of operation to accommodate training and emergencies with limit of two closures per year. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: • Will provide updates during the Board's July 14 meeting. COMMUNITY JUSTICE: • SB 620 - Allows counties the discretion to not charge and collect probation fees. That bill passed the Senate without any opposition. However, the incredibly positive May revenue forecast, combined with the infusion of federal COVID relief funds, meant the legislature could entirely eliminate probation fees statewide with a $10 million backfill to prevent service reduction. As a result, Senate Bill 620 was amended to remove the fees and Section 165 of House Bill 5006 provided the backfill. For Adult P&P the loss of supervision fees is a decrease to revenue of $180,000 but with the backfill there should not be any major impact. • HB 497 - Expands community correction services and funding to include certain misdemeanor domestic violence and sex crime misdemeanor cases. We knew this would likely pass but planned for it not coming through just in case with general fund transfer in. We will see what this additional revenue looks like for us and recalibrate from there. - Overall significant community corrections baseline budget expansions through the Department of Corrections (DOQ budget bill, HB 5004. Full funding f6rJR1 and other specialty programs occurred through the Criminal Justice Commission (CJQ budget bill, HB 5005. We will see how/what shortfalls this will help with as we move through the next biennium. FACILITIES: The addition of two Circuit Court judges in Deschutes County will have impacts related to Courthouse expansion. HEALTH SERVICES: • Behavioral Health provided the attached update from AOCMHP as a summary of bill that have a direct impact on their division. • Public Health o HB 5024 - OHA Budget bill: Passed out of the House and Senate and is at the Governor's Office awaiting signature. The recommended budget includes $45 million for the 2022-23 budget for OHA's public health modernization efforts. It was only a $5M investment in the 2018-2019 biennium, and only $15M in 2020- 2021. This funding will largely support the work of local public health authorities, community -based organizations, and tribes to improve health outcomes in the areas of communicable disease control, emergency preparedness and response, health equity, and environmental health. This will result in grant opportunities becoming available for local public health authorities in the target areas identified. It is unclear when modernization grant opportunities and funds will be released. o SB 587 - Statewide Tobacco Retail Licensure (TRL): Passed out of the House and Senate and is at the Governor's Office awaiting signature. It requires Oregon businesses to obtain an annual license issued by the Department of Revenue in order to sell tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes. The local public health authority has the option to administer and enforce the standards established by the state TRL law locally. The Department of Revenue will collect the fees and transfer the money to, the enforcing agency. The enforcement agency, either Oregon Health Authority or Deschutes County, will establish the fees, collect data, provide education to tobacco retailers, perform compliance inspections, and may enforce civil penalties on businesses that violate the law. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2022. NATURAL RESOURCES: • SB 762 will be discussed during the Board's July 14 meeting. SOLID WASTE: • Will provide updates during the Board's July 14 meeting. VETERANS' SERVICES: • HB 5036 Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs budget passed which includes $173,000 in pass through funds for the Deschutes County Veterans' Services Office. BUDGET IMPACTS: Noted within department summaries, if applicable. ATTENDANCE: Department Heads, Whitney Hale, Communications Director, Phil Scheuers, Pac/West, AOCMHP Like salmon smolts approaching the ocean, those of us swimming in legislative waters can smell the salt of Sine Die. This week the legislature began making moves that signal the beginning of the end: passing big budgets, shutting down Ways and Means Subcommittees, and introducing the Sine Die bill. At the beginning of the week it was hard to fathom that the legislature had only 13 days left to finish its business. Many decisions were still up in the air and there was a substantial list of bills piling up for hearings in the Rules Committees, Ways and Means Subcommittees and on the House and Senate floors for a vote. But the legislature picked up the pace, legislators kept their comments brief, and now it begins to feel like the end is in sight. Speculation continues on the precise day of adjournment next week. We heard the Senate President was angling for Thursday, while others believe the legislature will have to work through next weekend to the constitutional date of June 27th to finish all of their business. Nineteenth Century author and postal clerk, Anthony Trollope once wrote: "There are some achievements which are never done in the presence of those who hear of them. Catching salmon is one, and working all night is another." To legislators working in an empty building, it may seem like Trollope saw their future. But we at NW Public Affairs will be listening. So let's hope Trollope was half -right and soon we'll all be catching salmon in peace. Speaking of peace, the legislature released the interim calendar this week which we have attached for your reference. Note that it includes dates for a possible special session in September. Updates on Key Priorities Parity: HB 3046 was formally released to a subcommittee early this week. It was worked out of the Ways and Means Human Services Subcommittee on Wednesday. More below. Telehealth: The bill has been signed into law by the Governor. CCBHCs: See below. 1 DD: See below for more details. Historic BH Investment Package Laura Curtis 541-280-9984 laura(@nwoublicaffairs.com Ryan Fisher 503-807-7525 ryan@nwpublicaffairs.com Jacob Bell 913-231-7080 _ iacobOnwpublicaffairs.com AOCMHP This week the legislature passed the Oregon Health Authority Budget and several policy bills that represent a historic investment in the behavioral health system and sizable allocations to community mental health programs. Here is the overview: OHA Budget: • No cuts to inflation for CMHPS or to the CHOICE program as recommended by the Governor's budget • $70.21VI to completely backfill marijuana revenue dedicated to behavioral health that was redirected by M110 • $21.51VI for "aid and assist" community restoration and clinical services, rental assistance and wraparound support, the majority of which will be allocated to CMHPS • $25M for continuation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Program through the 21-23 biennium (the evaluation language in HB 3123 was turned into a budget note. See below) • $50M for the "Transformation and System Alignment" special purpose appropriation for "investments that align outcomes, roles, responsibilities, risk and incentives in Oregon's behavioral health system." (See associated budget note below) • $130M for the "Regional Development and Innovation" special purpose appropriation for "capital, start-up, and operational costs related to increasing statewide capacity of licensed residential facilities and housing for people with behavioral health needs." (See associated budget note below) HB 2417B Mobile Crisis: HB 3069 was added to a much amended version of HB 2417 (click linked bill number for final version of the bill). This language is a huge improvement over where both bills started this session. The bill allocates $15M. $5M of this money is a one-time allocation for "costs associated with the crisis hotline center" and $10M of it is an ongoing appropriation for mobile crisis services provided by CMHPS, doubling the current biennial investment. HB 294913: Workforce Investments: • The final version of Rep Bynum's workforce bill allocates $60M to the "Behavioral Health Incentive Subaccount" created by the measure and $20M for the coverage of supervision costs. Of this $20M, $71VI is dedicated specifically to CMHPS for this purpose. We will need to work closely with OHA and the Oregon Health Policy Board to ensure that a portion of the $60M in the BH incentive subaccount is dedicated to the public BH system. Additionally, the OHA budget allocated $31M for the opening of two SRTF units at Junction City as anticipated. It also set aside an additional $20M for the Emergency Board to address OSH staffing issues in the near future once a sustainable plan is developed. See budget note below where CMHPS are called out as a required stakeholder in these conversations. Finally, LFO recommended a budget note that requires them to work with DAS in the interim to develop a new agency budget structure for OHA that will provide for more transparency and clarity. Adopted Budget Notes: Laura Curtis = 541-280-9984 laura(@nwoublicaffairs.com Ryan Fisher : 503-807-7525 rvan@nwpublicaffairs.com Jacob Bell 913-231-7080 : jacob@nwpublicaffairs.com 2021 0regon Stab,, [_(-,,jjiMature AOCMHP Regional Development and Innovation The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) shall award up to $5 million to community mental health programs, tribes, Regional Health Equity Coalitions, and other community grantees by September 1, 2021 for identifying community needs, assessing the feasibility and sustainability of potential projects, and other planning activities necessary to increase residential facility and housing capacity with a focus on reducing health inequities. OHA, in consultation with Oregon Housing and Community Services and OHA's advisory councils, including, but not limited to, the Oversight and Accountability Council, the Oregon Consumer Advisory Council and the System of Care Advisory Council, shall issue a Request for Proposals by December 31, 2021 and a recommendation for how to invest available funds for increasing culturally and linguistically appropriate residential treatment and housing capacity to the legislature by March 1, 2022. Note: while we were asked for our estimation for reasonable planning grant amounts, the budget note does not specifically instruct the agency to provide planning grant monies to the CMHPs through the CFAAs. We will need to work closely with the agency in the interim to ensure that the planning grant monies end up in the right hands and that the established regions are workable for CMHPs. 2. Transformation and System Alignment The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) shall contract with a third -party evaluator to evaluate current behavioral health programs with respect to budget, staffing, data and metrics analysis and tracking, and contracts. The evaluator shall submit a roadmap to increasing financial transparency, accountability and ongoing reporting on Oregon's behavioral health needs and outcomes. As part of this work, County Financial Assistance Agreements should align with coordinated care organization contracts by addressing roles and responsibilities, and ensuring Oregon is maximizing federal funding. The contract shall also recommend risk alignment addressing liability concerns, administrative support, and oversight required of community mental health programs in monitoring treatment services, safety and compliance, and abuse and neglect investigations, as well as overseeing corrective plans, site reviews, crisis services, civil commitment process, and discharge transitions. OHA may request funding to operationalize these recommendations. 3. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) shall administer the certified community behavioral health clinic (CCBHC) demonstration program and evaluate whether CCBHCs: 1) increase access to behavioral health treatment for residents of this state; 2) provide integrated physical and behavioral health care; 3) offer services that result in improved health outcomes, lower overall health care costs and improved overall community health; and 4) reduce the cost of care for coordinated care organization members. No later than February 1, 2023, OHA shall report its findings to the interim committees and subcommittees of the Legislative Assembly related to health and mental health and to the interim subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means with authority over human services agencies' budgets. 4. CCO Contracts The Oregon Health Authority shall report to the Legislature on its plans for the next round of coordinated care organization contracting. The report shall include: 1) anticipated milestones and deadline dates; 2) an outline of how the process will provide public transparency and communication; and 3) the anticipated resources the agency will need to Laura Curtis : 541-280-9984 : Iauraffi)nwpublicaffairs.com Ryan Fisher 503-807-7525 : man@nwpublicaffairs.com Jacob Bell . 913-231-7080 °ai cob nwpublicaffairs.com 2021 Oregon State AOCMHP perform the next round of CCO contracting. The report shall be delivered to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means by January 1, 2023 Aid and Assist Services The Oregon Health Authority shall report to the Department of Administrative Services Chief Financial Office and Legislative Fiscal Office on February 1, 2022 and February 1, 2023 on the number of aid and assist clients served at the Oregon State Hospital and through community restoration, amount of funding awarded to communities and providers, and actual expenditures by community mental health program or direct contracts from the funding available in the agency's budget for community restoration services, case rate payments, and housing and wraparound services. The reported dollar amounts shall be detailed according to specific service. For amounts expended or obligated on housing and rental assistance, the report shall identify the number of individuals placed in housing as a result of the investments. 6. State Hospital Staffing - Special Purpose Appropriation The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) shall consult with relevant stakeholders to resolve staffing shortfalls at the Oregon State Hospital. The relevant stakeholders OHA shall consult with include, but are not limited to, managerial and direct care staff employed by the Oregon State Hospital; community mental health programs; and hospital and other health care providers. No later than November 1, 2021, OHA shall submit a financially and programmatically sustainable plan to the Emergency Board or Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means that provides solutions for maintaining appropriate daily staffing levels to ensure the safety of both patients and staff. 7. Appropriation Structure The Oregon Health Authority shall work with the Department of Administrative Services Chief Financial Office and Legislative Fiscal Office to establish a more detailed agency appropriation structure for its primary biennial budget bill. At a minimum, this structure shall detail the amount of funding budgeted for Medicaid, non -Medicaid behavioral health, the Public Health Division, Health Policy and Analytics Division, Oregon State Hospital, the Public Employees' Benefit Board, Oregon Educators Benefit Board, and central administrative functions. This new budget structure shall be recommended and prepared prior to the 2023 legislative session. HB 2086 - Governor's BH Advisory Council Bill On Friday the GBHAC bill finally posted for a work session in the Capitol Construction committee. The committee adopted the A6 amendments which require OHA to do the following: • Increase reimbursement rates for co-occurring disorder treatment and provide start-up funding for treatment programs that provide integrated co-occurring disorder treatment; the measure appropriates $10.2 million for this purpose. • Establish programs that ensure access to culturally specific and responsive services. • Continually evaluate opportunities to reduce the burden of documentation requirements for providers seeking certificates of approval. • Study and report on Medicaid rates paid for behavioral health services. • Adopt rules requiring coordinated care organizations to provide housing navigation services and address social determinates of health. Laura Curtis : 541-280-9984 - : laurnwaublicaffairs.com Ryan Fisher : 503-807-7525 : ryanC)nwpublicaffairs.com Jacob Bell :: 913-231-7080 - i cob0nwaublicaffairs.com ,,.a.4�... ,��.fia' n1 �'.�r�.::;''�5'd��F eea'�k.& �,.,.f''@"�i �Is��,��'�,. • Collect data from providers who offer intensive behavioral health treatment services; the measure appropriates $400,000 General fund for this purpose. • Report on the demand and capacity of intensive behavioral health treatment for children. • Support a new Behavioral Health Committee established by the Oregon Health Policy Board charged with developing quality metrics and incentives to improve behavioral health services (CMHPs are a required participant in this committee) The Committee passed the bill unanimously and it will now go the Full Ways and Means Committee. Parity in Ways and Means THe -A6 amendment was adopted unanimously by the subcommittee. The bill was then moved to the full committee unanimously. Representative Nosse (D-SE Portland) will be the carrier to the full committee and to the House floor. Senator Geiser (D-Corvallis) will be the carrier on the Senate floor. DHS Budget - SB 5529 We were anxiously awaiting the release of the DHS budget to determine the level of funding that the CDDPs would receive as part of the case management budget. Throughout this session, we worked with the Brokerages on a unified advocacy strategy, and this was the week that we would see whether the legislature was going to invest into this system. Although the materials did not give us much clarity, we reached out to LFO later this week after the materials posted to determine what level the CDDPs and Brokerages were funded at. After several biennia of significant underfunding, the legislature made significant investments into the case management system. Funded through the workload model, the CDDPs will be receiving 93% of full funding of the model. In past biennia, we were closer to 80%. Although this is rough math, this investment comes in $87.6 million over the 2019-2021 total funding levels. This is a 42% increase from last session. The total funds budget for CDDPs is $295.7 million. We are excited about this level of investment. One other note in the DHS budget is that the $1.4 million allocation for family -to -family networks, which was cut during last year's second special session, has been restored. Laura Curtis =:: 541-280-9984 : laura@nwr-ublicaffairs.com Ryan Fisher :: 503-807-7525 -: ryan « nwpublicaffairs.cam Jacob Bell 913-231-7080 , iacob@n ublicaffairs.com