Loading...
2024-338-Minutes for Meeting October 16,2024 Recorded 12/9/2024\31 ES coG2< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County OJ2024-333 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 12/09/2024 10:47:15 AM 4�>:'fr�����_ IIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIiINillllilllll 2024-338 " BOCC MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY October 16, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio al Id video recorded an Gl cal I be accessed at tl le Desch lutes County Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetinES. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Ron Boozell commented on a speaker at the Board's meeting last week who presented a large volume of information using many graphs and statistics. Commissioner Adair said County Epidemiologist Mathew Christensen was invited to share information on the number of drug overdose deaths in Oregon, which have significantly increased over the past few years. Chair Adair announced that ballots for the November election will be mailed today. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 15 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2024-047 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations in the Sheriffs Office and the District Attorneys Office 2. Approval of Resolution No. 2024-048 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations within the Health Services fund 3. Approval of Order Number 2024-040 establishing Wood Avenue and a portion of NW 39th Avenue as County Roads 4. Authorize the conveyance of real property located at 640-652 SE Wilson Avenue in Bend to the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council 5. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Dave Thomson and appointing Bob Nash for service on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee DEBONE: Move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR, Chair vntes ves. Mntinn Carried Commissioner DeBone spoke to the transfer of the Wilson Ave property back to COIC, saying it will be used by J Bar J Youth Services for youth transitional housing. Commissioner Chang said while he believed that the use of this property as originally proposed by Adult P&P would have been highly effective, he appreciated J Bar J and COIC finding a different use for this property. Commissioner Adair commented on the challenges experienced by the Larkspur neighborhood and said this would have been the wrong location to house male justice -involved individuals on parole. ACTION ITEMS: 6. Second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-010 - Remand of the Eden Plan Amendment / Zone Change Haleigh King, Associate Planner, presented Ordinance No. 2024-010 for the Board's consideration of second reading and adoption, reminding that this ordinance would approve a decision on remand from the Land Use Board of BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 15 Appeals concerning an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for property totaling approximately 710 acres to the west of Terrebonne and north of Highway 126. King noted that at first reading of the ordinance on October 2nd, Legal had advised two changes to clarify a prior decision by the Board and the recommendation of the Hearings Officer, and to make clear that Ordinance No. 2022-013, adopted on December 24, 2022 and effective March 14, 2023, is supplemented and controlled by Ordinance No. 2024-010 rather than superseded by it. Commissioner Chang stated his belief that the Board has not adequately addressed the issues raised by LUBA on remand of this matter. DEBONE: Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-010 by title only ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: No DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 Chair Adair read the title of the ordinance into the record. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-010 amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for certain property From Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to change the Zone Designation for certain property from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Residential ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: No DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 7. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-038 updating the Transportation System Development Charge Chris Doty, Road Department Director, explained that System Development Charges are fees assessed to new development to fund capacity -adding improvements necessary to accommodate growth in the County's transportation BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 15 system. Doty reminded that last January, the Board approved an update to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP), which included a 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and funding estimates for each capital project. Staff now seeks Board approval to increase SDC charges to pay for needed improvements. Continuing, Doty said the updated charges are based on an analysis which considered 20-year growth projections, estimates of growth -related impact to specific CIP project categories, and project cost estimates. It's anticipated that 5,680 peak hour trips will be added to the system over the next 20 years, representing an increase of 15.2% in traffic volume. Doty explained how the recommended new rates were calculated and said the analysis supports an SDC of $5,691 per PM peak hour trip - this would be an increase of $22 per trip. The impact on SDCs charged to single family residential units would be an increase of $17 per trip, or a total of $4,610 per single family unit. Doty shared a chart comparing the County's proposed updated SDC fees with those of other jurisdictions including Bend, Redmond, Sisters and La Pine and said the updated fees would generate approximately $1 million to $1.5 million annually. Doty added that the resolution before the Board today includes, in conjunction with the recommended rate changes. some housekeening amendments —among them the elimination of Section 4.A.1 which provided a 50% SDC reduction to developments in the Tetherow area as these are paid to the City of Bend in exchange for utility service and do not impact County transportation facilities. Commissioner DeBone said the County's updated CIP was one subject of discussion at last night's Newberry Estates Road District meeting. The public hearing was opened at 9:29 am. There being no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:29 am. In response to Commissioner Adair, Senior Legal Assistant Counsel Kim Riley said any changes approved by the Board would take effect immediately upon adoption of the resolution. CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2024-038 modifying the Transportation System Development Charges established by Resolution No. 2013-020 for properties within unincorporated Deschutes County DEBONE: Second BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 15 VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner DeBone expressed his appreciation of staffs professionalism and work to facilitate important capacity and safety improvements. Responding to Commissioner Adair, Assistant Road Director Cody Smith said the Buckhorn Road project will be done in two parts, with one part done by the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA) over BLM property north of Highway 126, and the second part done by the County. Although this will be constructed as two separate projects, Smith assured that the County will coordinate with the FHWA on the design of these improvements. 8. Public Hearing: CORE3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for approximately 228 acres adjacent to and north of Highway 126 in Redmond Haleigh King, Associate Planner, presented the application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of approximately 228 acres from Agricultural (AG) to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) along with a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The applicant also rani iP-,t-, a 7nnP C-hanaP to rP7nne the -,uhiprt nrnnerty from Fxch isivP Farm I NP (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH-10). These applications are sought to enable the development of the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient (CORE3) facility. Commissioner DeBone disclosed that he serves on the executive board for the CORE3 project. Continuing, King said pursuant to a Joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond and the County, these applications have been reviewed jointly by the County and the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission. The City has approved the applications, and the County's Hearings Officer has recommended their approval as well. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 am. Scott Aycock, Community and Economic Development Director for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC), the project applicant, stated the need for a dedicated, multi -disciplinary and multi -agency coordination center for emergency response and training to allow the continuity of operations during and after a disaster. Aycock referred to lists of project partners and funding sources and described Phase 1 of the proposed development, acknowledging BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 15 that Deschutes C:OL;nty donated 300 acres valued at $13 million towards this effort. Jesse Winterowd from Winterbrook Planning described the process to prepare the necessary land use applications for this project, including the proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary. In response to Commissioner Adair, Aycock said the total project is expected to cost more than $100 million over 40 years, with the first phase (including site preparation, utilities, and environmental remediation) estimated to cost $40 million. Responding to Commissioner Chang, Aycock did not contemplate any lodging being provided on -site. Commissioner DeBone said the Fairgrounds would be utilized for any mass evacuation incident. There being no one else who wished to speak the public hearing was closed at 10:13 am. Commissioner Chang said given the very limited input received, he supported closing the written and oral records and commencing deliberations today. nFRnNF- Move to close the written and oral records and commence deliberations at this time CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried CHANG: Move to adopt the decision of the Hearings Officer as the Board's decision in this matter DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried In response to Commissioner Adair, Aycock believed that the project partners are in a much better position to seek funding from the Legislature in the upcoming session than they were last year. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 15 Commissioner Chang appreciated that this public hearing included information on the planned development, saying this served transparency. He hoped to see such information shared in future public hearings for Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone changes. Anthony Raguine, Principal Planner, said applicants are not precluded from sharing information on future development plans at a public hearing, but neither are they required to do so. Commissioner DeBone said the CORE3 project will be developed on public property, which is different from private property. He noted the risk of publicly committing to how a private development will proceed, given the variables involved in the private market. Commissioner Chang said because a request for a rezone involves a publicly - granted change in private property rights, he believed the public has a right to know the plans behind rezone requests. 9. Deschutes County Employee Benefits Renewal for the 2025 Plan Year Jason Bavuso, Interim HR Director, explained the process undertaken to renew employee benefits and provided an overview of proposed changes to benefits for the i mmming year nnting that hPral ICP the Health BenefitC Trl lit fell beln\A/ the required contingency level earlier this year, department charges were increased to meet those higher costs. Commissioner Adair said an internal audit report indicated that reserves were at $6.4 million at the end of August. Cam Sparks, Budget & Financial Planning Manager, said more updated numbers show an ending fund balance of $4.1 million at end of FY 2024. Commissioner Adair expressed concern that health care costs have increased dramatically in the last two years. Bavuso shared factors contributing to the decline in reserves and described cost containment options to restore the Health Benefits reserve by the end of this fiscal year. He noted that after considering options for cost containment with a goal of recouping $1.2 million, the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee (EBAC) unanimously recommended five cost containment measures which together would total $1.35 million in savings. These are: 1. Move members on prescriptions for Humira to Hadlima; 2. Remove wellness staff from the DOC Clinic; BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 15 3. Adopt the standard drug formulary offered under the current Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM) Prescryptive; 4. Amend plan language under Durable Medical Equipment to include breast pump rentals as a covered service; and 5. Update plan language to align with current plan interpretation and Third - Party Administrator best practices. Commissioner Adair asked if EBAC recommended increasing employee premium sharing. Bavuso said this was considered but is not being recommended. Commissioner Adair was concerned about health care costs possibly continuing to rise and supported being proactive instead of responding to cost increases after they happen. Commissioner DeBone noted adjustments made in premium cost -sharing which took effect January 1, 2024; spoke to the impacts of inflation; agreed that health care costs have increased drastically; and supported people getting the health care they need. He said because the County has a self -insured program, it must respond quickly to drawdowns of the reserves. Commissioner DeBone added that with the best information available today, the proposal before the Board will get the reserves back to $8.1 million. He annrPriatPrl the thni i¢htfi it rPviPw by FRAC-. Commissioner Adair supported employees paying a bit more in premium sharing. Commissioner Chang agreed that this proposal will help to contain costs and replenish the reserves. Commissioner DeBone stated his support for increasing cost sharing if EBAC recommends that. He suggested planning on doing this in the future and setting this as an expectation for next year's budget process. Commissioner Chang asked if the proposed changes will help the County withstand a new bigjump in health care costs. Cam Sparks, Budget & Financial Planning Manager, said Finance is forecasting a 12% increase in health care costs for both FY 2025 and FY 2026, although that level of increase may not be experienced given that some costs appear to be stabilizing rather than growing. Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer, added that historically, health care annual increases have been in the range of 5.5% to 6.5%. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 15 Sparks said with the proposed changes, an ending fund balance of $8.1 million is projected on June 30, 2025. Tintle said Finance anticipates having a reserve of $10 to $11 million in the future. Noting the effects of the pandemic when much medical care was delayed, Commissioner DeBone expressed appreciation for EBAC and staffs work on this. Commissioner Chang said while the drop in reserves the last two years has been alarming, the purpose of reserves is to be able to withstand unanticipated cost increases. He agreed that now that these cost increases have been covered, it's time to rebuild the reserves. DEBONE: Move to approve a contract (including deductible limits for the 2025 plan year) with a Stop Loss provider who presents the best financial options for the County CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Adair asked when the Board will know what contract is signed for -,tnn Ins-, rnverage. Trvgve Bniken, HR Analyst, said it's exnerted this will he decided by next week. CHANG: Move to approve renewing with PacificSource, the current Third Party Administrator (TPA), for the 2025 plan year DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried DEBONE: Move to approve the staff -recommended Employee Benefit Plan changes #1-5 CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes no. Motion Carried 2 - 1 Commissioner Adair said in light of the reduced reserves and higher costs, more changes were warranted to the benefits plan. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 15 CHANG: Move to approve County Administrator signature of the final Deschutes County Employee Benefits Health Plan documents and service agreements for the 2025 plan year DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes no. Motion Carried 2 - 1 Commissioner DeBone commented that health maintenance is the best investment any of us can make. A break was announced at 11:16 am. The meeting resumed at 11:18 am. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 11:18 am, the Board moved into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 11:24 am, and the public was invited back into the room. The Board then directed staff to proceed as discussed during the Executive Session. Commissioner Adair announced that ballots were mailed to registered voters today and advised that persons contact the Elections Office if their ballot is not received by October 23rd A lunch recess was announced at 11:45 am. The meeting reconvened at 1:01 pm. Continued ACTION ITEMS: 11. Public Hearing and Consideration of Draft Resolutions to Assist the City and County with Management of Land Northeast of Bend (commonly referred to as juniper Ridge) The public hearing was opened at 1:02 pm. Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, reviewed the format of the public hearing and provided information on the background of this matter, sharing a map showing the location of properties owned by the County and the City of Bend northeast of Bend in an area commonly referred to as juniper Ridge. Kropp recapped the discussion at the joint meeting of the County and City on BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 15 September 41", which culminated in an agreement to establish a Temporary Safe Stay Area and work collaboratively to mitigate the public health and other issues resulting from unsanctioned camping at Juniper Ridge. Kropp said at this time, two resolutions have been put forth for consideration. Resolution No. 2024-046 would establish a Temporary Safe Stay Area (TSSA) on 170 acres for persons already camping on the properties indicated. Kropp listed key elements of this resolution, including an intended closing date of the TSSA by December 31, 2026. Alternatively, Resolution No. 2024-049 would provide for cooperative efforts by the County and City to offer supportive services and housing -focused case management services to persons living at Juniper Ridge. Kropp explained the differences between the two resolutions. Commissioner Chang explained why he asked for an alternate resolution on this matter, saying that while he fully supports the County and City cooperating to provide facilities and services to help persons who are camping at juniper Ridge move out of homelessness, the County is already providing sanitation and other services on the land it owns without having designated a Temporary Safe Stay Area and without asserting that this use is allowed under HB 2006. • Rend Mavnr Melanie Kehler referred to a letter suhmitted by the Citv to the County yesterday on this subject, stressing that action is needed to address the unsanctioned camping happening in this area. She encouraged adoption of Resolution No. 2024-046 as agreed to at the September 4t" joint meeting. • Chuck Hemingway was opposed the joint resolution as drafted, saying that non - vehicle camping should be allowed in addition to vehicle camping. He was concerned about the stated intention to close the TSSA by December 31, 2026 as he believed people will still be camping in this area at that time. He suggested that the TSSA be downsized from 170 acres and said it may be possible to establish a managed camp on just five acres. • Linda Murrer concurred that 170 acres is too large of an area and bemoaned the missed opportunity to use Juniper Ridge as a triage site for persons camping in other locations such as China Hat. She said if people are camping in tents and not allowed to do that at juniper Ridge, they will move to China Hat. She said another fire happened last night in China Hat, started by someone who built a warming fire which then ignited a brush fire. Saying that the provision of case management services is imperative, she urged coordination with service providers as well as defined metrics to measure success. • Jessica Gamble urged consideration of those who are already camping on the east side of the tracks —including many who live in immovable structures — saying it would be Inhumane to ask them to pack up and leave without offering a BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 15 viable alternative. Adding that tents are the only shelter options available to some campers, she said disallowing tents would place such persons in precarious situations. She supported making sanitation and case management services available to all who need them. In response to Commissioner Chang, Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, said neither of the proposed resolutions comply with HB 2006 or ORS 195.520. Referring to the interpretation offered by the City of Bend regarding the definition of a TSSA, he said Resolution No. 2024-046 would render the form and function of the defined property as a homeless camp. He cautioned that this would constitute a land use decision that could be challenged by an appeal directly to LUBA. Adding that people living in tents or makeshift shelters do not constitute temporary safe parking, Gutowsky said the County -owned property in this area is currently functioning as a homeless encampment, and someone could challenge a decision by the Board to formally commit resources towards this use as the land is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. He concluded that formally memorializing a commitment to provide resources to homeless persons camping in an area that cannot be used for a homeless encampment would make the County vulnerable to a legal challenge. Cnmmi«inner Chan¢ nntPrl that the County is nirrently facPcl with a CncIP Compliance action regarding homeless campers on the 50 acres owned by it at Juniper Ridge, with the result that the County has taken temporary measures to provide limited services and security patrols in that area. In response to Commissioner Adair, Kropp said the County began providing sanitation and other services in Juniper Ridge in the summer of 2023. Commissioner Adair said many people living on the property owned by the City in Juniper Ridge are utilizing pallet houses or RVs. The public hearing was closed at 1:47 pm. Commissioner DeBone supported Resolution No. 2024-046 as presented or as amended to reference the County's Code Enforcement case. He encouraged working together with the community and service providers, saying that progress reports could be shared every few weeks regarding the results of the case management services. He agreed that the threat of fires must be addressed and said residents want to see that something is being done. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 12 OF 15 Commissioner Chang said while he supported co -investing and co -offering support services, he did not think that the TSSA as proposed was the right framework for these efforts. Commissioner Adair referred to a suggestion that this property be used to relocate persons who are camping at China Hat. Saying that 170 acres is too large of an area to allow camping on, she noted that the County has been expending $15,000 per month at Juniper Ridge and stressed the need to address the risk of danger to other residents in the County. Commissioner Chang said he did not want this to be about land use but rather about offering supportive services, and a resolution which does not assert that camping is an allowable use under HB 2006 could yet accomplish many of the desired results. He suggested entering into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City to secure the needed case management and support services, noted the proposed restriction on people camping outside of vehicles, and said some people who are camping on the 50 acres owned by the County are not using vehicles. Commissioner Adair said the work done at Juniper Ridge for over a year has not accomplished enough. More clean-up is needed, and the chop shop should be removed. Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager, said the City is not interested to provide or share in the cost for security services. Elizabeth Oshel, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Bend, said the City proposes to cost share in the provision of sanitation facilities, handwashing stations and garbage disposal. A separate agreement could address funding the cost of case management/supportive services. Responding to Commissioner Chang, Oshel said the City may possibly want to co - invest in the provision of security services. Oshel said fuels reduction work is already happening and the City expects this would be independently pursued by both jurisdictions. In response to Commissioner Adair, Amy Fraley, Affordable Housing Coordinator for the City of Bend, estimated that case management services at juniper Ridge would cost $658,000 through the end of 2026. Commissioner Chang supported entering IGAs with the City to collaboratively provide case management and supportive services to persons camping in the BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 13 OF 15 Juniper Ridge area on land owned by the County and the City. He asked that staff draft such IGAs. Mary Winters, City Attorney for Bend, said the City does not believe that proposed Resolution No. 2024-046 constitutes a land use decision under HB 2006. In response to Commissioner Adair, Bollinger said the County plans to budget $30,000 for clean-up on the County's property at Juniper Ridge. Commissioner Adair asked to know the date of the original drafted cost -share IGA referenced at today's meeting and noted her support for adding security patrols to this agreement. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner DeBone relayed an opportunity communicated from Representative Bentz's office for a federal land transfer at the base of Finley Butte and asked if the County is interested to receive approximately 40 acres southeast of La Pine. Commissioner Chang was interested to learn more and asked what would be the public purpose of this property. Commissioner DeBone described the property as a low -risk, hard rock resource. The Board was in consensus to seek more information about this opportunity. • In response to Commissioner DeBone, Commissioners Adair and Chang did not support allocating lobbying resources to reduce the number of required meetings of the Cannabis Advisory Board. • Commissioner DeBone shared that he will meet with the Governor on Friday along with county commissioners from Eastern Oregon, at which time he'll mention the CORE3 project. • With regard to the process for appointments to the La Pine Parks & Recreation District Board, the BOCC concurred to conduct interviews as a group on October 23rd • Commissioner Chang said he will be in Clatsop County next week for the AOC Commissioner exchange. • Commissioner Adair reported on the Fair Board meeting where the theme was decided for next year's event. • Commissioner Adair reported on the Project Wildfire meeting, saying the desired grant funding was not awarded. • Commissioner DeBone said Community Development has been notified that the County's EPA Community Change grant was not approved. BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 14 OF 15 ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:53 pm. DATED this /day of &C�" 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, CommrfiIONER BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2024 PAGE 15 OF 15 vT E S co�'2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizen in put@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. • When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. oilIf you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the 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.. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2024-047 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations in the Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's Office 2. Approval of Resolution No. 2024-048 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing appropriations within the Health Services fund 3. Approval of Order Number 2024-040 establishing Wood Avenue and a portion of NW 39th Avenue as County Roads 4. Authorize the conveyance of real property located at 640-652 SE Wilson Avenue in Bend to the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council 5. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Dave Thomson and appointing Bob Nash for service on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ACTION ITEMS 6. 9:10 AM Second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-010 - Remand of the Eden Plan Amendment / Zone Change 7. 9:15 AM Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-038 updating the Transportation System Development Charge 8. 9:45 AM Public Hearing: CORES Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for approximately 228 acres adjacent to and north of Highway 126 in Redmond 9. 10:30 AM Deschutes County Employee Benefits Renewal for the 2025 Plan Year October 16, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 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. 10. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations LUNCH RECESS Continued ACTION ITEMS 11. 1:00 PM Public Hearing and Consideration of Draft Resolutions to Assist the City and County with Management of Land Northeast of Bend (commonly referred to as Juniper Ridge) 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. ADJOURN October 16, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 I E S CoG 2� BOARD OF F COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution No. 2024-038 updating the Transportation System Development Charge RECOMMENDED MOTION: Following the public hearing, move approval of Resolution No. 2024-038 updating the Transportation System Development Charge. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In January 2024, the BOCC approved an update to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP), which included a 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and funding estimates, inclusive of continued use of a System Development Charge (SDC). System Development Charges are fees assessed to new development to fund capacity adding improvements necessary to accommodate new growth within the County's transportation system. Deschutes County has utilized SDCs to generate funding for capital improvements since 2008. Approval of an updated CIP has necessitated the need to modify the SDC rates enacted in Resolution 2013-020 to account for new project cost and growth estimates within the CIP. Utilizing the SDC methodology established in Resolution 2013-020, an analysis was prepared and documented in a Technical Memorandum, dated July 31, 2024 (attached Exhibit A). The analysis includes 20-year growth projections, estimates of growth -related impact to specific CIP project categories, and project cost estimates to calculate an updated SDC. As contained in the previous and current methodology, the SDC includes an Improvement portion, Reimbursement portion, and administrative fee. In summary, the analysis supports an SDC of $5,691 per PM peak hour trip - which is an increase of $22 per trip (less than 0.5%). Factoring in trip rates assigned to single family residential units results in a calculation of $4,610 per single family unit - which is an increase of $17 per trip (less than 0.5%). In accordance with the requirements of ORS 223.304.7(a), the Road Department provided a 90-day notification of this public hearing to stakeholders on the County's SDC notification list and also provided materials for public inspection 60-days in advance. Proposed Resolution 2024-038 has been updated (track changes provided) to reflect new rates as well as several housekeeping measures. The most notable housekeeping change is elimination of Section 4.A.1 which provided a 50% SDC reduction to development in the Tetherow area west of Bend, which by separate agreement with the City of Bend, agreed to pay City of Bend SDCs (in exchange for utility services). In proposing elimination of this special provision, staff notes that a sizable portion of the development subject to this reduction is built -out and that the development willingly agreed to pay SDCs in exchange for utility services - which is unrelated to any impact to County transportation facilities. BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed nominal SDC increase will have negligible impact to the estimated $1.5M in SDC revenue in Fund 465 for FY25. PUBLIC HEARING: ORS 223.304.7(a) requires a public hearing to be held to establish or modify an SDC. At the conclusion of the staff presentation, the Board Chair may open the public hearing (legislative) to receive testimony to fulfill the requirement of statute. ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Department Director Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution to Modify the Transportation System Development Charges Established by * RESOLUTION NO. 2013-0202024-038 Resolution No. 2008-0-5#2013-020 for Properties Within Unincorporated Deschutes County. WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on Rine 5, 20130ctober 16, 2024, to consider modifying the transportation system development charge ("SDC") originally established by Resolution No. 2008-059 and modified by Resolution 2013-020 to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to serve the existing and growth -related needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish and modify transportation system development charges; and WHEREAS, system development charges are incurred upon the decision to develop property at a specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than, the actual cost of providing public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density and/or intensity; and WHEREAS, system development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or imposed as a condition of development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a development's receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on the land, owner, or property, and, therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of property within the meaning of Section 11, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution or the legislation implementing that section; and WHEREAS, revenues from the system development charges are to be used for capital improvements in the unincorporated areas outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") staff, identifies the uses of an "improvement fee" SDC, and a "reimbursement fee" SDC, and considers the transportation capital improvement needs of the unincorporated county; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to future development of properties within the unincorporated county and outside the cities of Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend; and Page 1 of I I — Resolution 'n'�02024-038 (06,105,11310/16/24) WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide transportation capital facilities through the use of general county revenues, SDCs, and matching funds from the State of Oregon; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. The Board has previously adopted Resolution 2008-059 establishing a Transportation SDC and methodology in 2008 and subsequently pdated the methodology via Resolution 2013-020 in 2013. Resolution 2013-020 is hereby amended by a report titled "Technical Memorandum: Transportation SDC Update" dated July 10 2024, prepared by Chris Doty PE Road Department Director, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference (herein "Methodology" or "Methodology Report"). In the event of a conflict between the reports contained within the prior resolutions and the Methodology Reportthe latter shall control. The Board authorizes the assessment and collection of transportation system development charges in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Charge Study prepared by FGS GFettp !no. and PKS Asseeiates, dated Mar -eh 2009 (FIGS G+eup Repwt) v� is hereby amended by a r-epeA titled "TmnspeAatien System Development Charge The Board in Resolution No. 2009 059 adopted the report, titled TFanspaAatian System Development prepared by Desehutes Gotmty Road DepaAment, attaohed as Exhibit "A" and iaeei:par-ated by r-efeivnee (her- " « developmentMethodolog-y Report"). in the event of a eonfliet between the FCS Repoi4 and Methodology RepoFt, the latter shall eoatr-el. The Board atither-izes the assessment and ealleetion of transpet4ation sys eharges in the ref Desehutes Count) -.- Section 2. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit "B," and incorporated by reference ("Capital hnprovement Plan"). The Capital Improvement Plan hereby supersedes the capital improvement plan which was adopted as part of Resolution No. 2008-0592013-020. Section 3. DEFINITIONS. (A) "Applicant" shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (B) "Building" shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. (C) "Building Pen -nit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (D) "Capital Improvement" shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (E) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is located within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend. (F) "County" shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon. (G) "Department" shall mean the Deschutes County Road Department. Page 2 of 11 — Resolution 20'�02024-038 (0 310/16/24) (H) "Development" shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements. (1) "Development Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate, issued by Deschutes County, other than a building permit, authorizing development. (J) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner. (K) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use of the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to meet the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public health and safety upon development. (L) "Manufactured Housing" shall mean a dwelling unit constructed primarily off -site and transported to another site for use. A unit located in a designated mobile home park shall be considered a manufactured housing dwelling unit; otherwise a manufactured housing unit shall be considered a single-family dwelling unit. (M) "Multi -family housing" shall mean attached residential dwelling units. (N) "Occupancy Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the occupation or use of any building or improvement authorized by a building permit. (0) Owner" shah mean the person nolding legal title to tile real property upon which development is to occur. (P) "Person" shall mean an individual, a corporation, including without limitation, limited liability corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity. (Q) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is: (1) Required as a condition of development approval; and (2) Identified in the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution; and either: (a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. (R) "Reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or under construction by the County on the effective date of this resolution. (S) "Road Department Director" or "Director" shall mean the appointed Road Department Director of Deschutes County, Oregon or the Director's designee. Page 3 of 11 — Resolution 'n'�Q2024-038 (06/85� 1310/16/24) (T) "Single-family housing" shall mean a detached residential dwelling unit located on an individual lot. (U) "System Development Charge" or "SDC" shall mean a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof and an administrative recovery charge, assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of an occupancy permit. System development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. (V) "System Development Charges Methodology" shall mean the methodology set forth in the rcs Group Repe..t as modified by the Methodology Report. Section 4. APPLICABILITY. (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby assessed and imposed upon all new development for which a building permit or a development permit is required and issued within all unincorporated areas of the County outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. From and after assessment, the transportation system development charge shall run with the property, not with any structure attached to the property. Development shall mean and include new construction, alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit. Non- residential, farm -related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt. and Sewer Agreement between the City of Bend and Gaseade Highlands himited Partnership (t:eeer-ded agreement #2005 73584) shall pay 1) All develapm@nt subj@ot to pay-n-wUnt eft -hp- City of Bend Transportation SDG, via thed, ),A,Tat@F of the 44-ansper-tation SDG for the speeifie use. (B) Consideration of existing use. 1) If construction, alteration, expansion, replacement, or change -of -use results in an increase in the calculated number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on which the development is located, as compared to the pre -development number of calculated peak hour trips, then a new Transportation SDC shall apply. The amount of the system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the calculated trips generated from the proposed development and the calculated trips generated from the property prior to the construction, alteration, expansion or replacement. If the change in use results in a Transportation SDC for the proposed use which is less than the Transportation SDC for the use being replaced, then no new or additional SDC shall be assessed and no refund or credit shall be given. 2) If the previous development or prior use of the property, which was not subject to SDC payment, has been abandoned for at least two consecutive years, as determined by the Community Development Department under the County Code, then no consideration of existing use shall occur and a new SDC assessment shall apply. However, if such development or use was discontinued due to fire, natural disaster or required demolition on account of public health and safety, then the two-year time period will be extended to 10 consecutive years. 3) Previously paid SDCs shall be credited to the property regardless of any period of abandonment. The credit shall be based on the number of PM peak hour trips generated by the development at the time of original SDC assessment. Page 4 of 11 — Resolution 20'�02024-038 (06/85/1310/16/24) (C) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) shall be determined as follows: (1) For those land -use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or the Methodology Report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the Methodology Report, unless otherwise approved by the Director. (2) For land -use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual), the Director shall use the land -use category identified in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual) that is most similar to the subject land use category and apply the corresponding trip generation rate. The Director may consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust the calculation of peak hour trip rates. An applicant who disagrees with the Director's decision may appeal this decision as outlined in Section 12 of this Resolution. (D) Applicants may submit a request for an alternative trip generation rate and corresponding system development charges for a development, subject to the following conditions: (1) In the event an applicant believes that the trip generation impact on County capital improvements resulting from the development is less than the trip generation rates used to establish the SDC fee established by this Resolution, the applicant may submit a calculation for an alternative system development charge to the Director, but no later than the issuance of a building permit. (2) The alternative system development charges rate calculations shall be based on data, information and assumptions contained in this Resolution and the Methodology or an independent source, provided that the independent source is: (a) a study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such study; (b) the study is performed using a generally accepted methodology and is based upon generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics; (c) The demonstrated number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) percent less than the number of peak hour trips set forth in the Methodology Report or otherwise calculated by the Director pursuant to subsection (B) of this Section; and (d) the demonstrated number of peak hour trips shall be documented by a registered traffic engineer or otherwise qualified professional engineer. (3) The Director shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of a complete application and shall notify the applicant by regular mail. (4) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates satisfy the requirements of this subsection and have been timely submitted, the alternative system development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in or otherwise determined by the Director under this Resolution. (5) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not satisfy the Page 5 of 11 — Resolution 2013 0202024-038 (0€/05,/1310/16/24) requirements of this subsection or have not been timely submitted, the Director shall deny the application and apply the rates established by the Director. (E) Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the County hereby assesses and shall collect a transportation system development charge ("SDC") on the following schedule: (1) at the initial rate of $3-,74S5, 991 per PM peak hour trip, consisting of a $3-,62-54,234 improvement fee, a $1,38784 reimbursement fee, and a $7047- administrative recovery charge. (F) For SDC's that have been assessed, but not yet been paid as of the effective date of this Resolution, the property owner shall pay the lesser of the applicable SDC charge determined under Resolution No. 24484592013-020 or this Resolution. (G) Unless otherwise adjusted by order of the Board of County Commission, on each succeeding July 1 after 2$142024, the SDC, consisting of the improvement fee, the reimbursement, if any and the administrative recovery charge shall be adjusted by the annual percentage increase or decrease in the construction cost index, published in the immediately preceding January by the Engineering News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The ealet'^tion shall use the immediately pre..edin * My 1 and the the applicable rate per peak hour trip, s the st„4in po Section 5. COLLECTION. (A) The Transportation SDC's shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date of submittal of an application for an occupancy permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060. (B) In cases where an occupancy permit is not required, the Transportation SDC shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date on which the property is used in the manner approved by the development permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060. (C) Notwithstanding the receipt of an occupancy permit or the use of the property pursuant to a development permit without payment of the SDC, the SDC liability shall survive and be a personal obligation of the permittee. (D) Intentional failure to pay the SDC within sixty (60) days of the due date shall result in a penalty equal to fifty percent (50%) of the SDC. Interest shall accrue on and after 60 days after the due date at the rate of nine (9%) percent per annum. (E) In addition to an action at law and any statutory rights, the County may: (1) Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy; (2) Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development; (3) Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest; (4) If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate code enforcement proceedings; (5) For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any person controlling a delinquent corporate permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Page 6 of 11 — Resolution 2013 0202024-038 (06/054310116124) Section 7. CREDITS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (A) The County may grant a credit against the improvement fee portion, if any, of system development charges imposed pursuant to this Resolution for the construction of any qualified public improvement. (B) Prior to issuance of a development permit, the applicant shall submit to the County a proposed plan and estimate of cost for the applicant to construct one or more qualified public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include: (1) a designation of the development project for which the proposed plan is being submitted; (2) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated, if any, and documentation as to the seller and purchase price; (3) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the development plan; (4) an estimate of construction costs for the contemplated capital improvements certified by a professional architect or engineer; and (5) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed capital improvements. (C) The credit provided for construction of a qualified public improvement shall be only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the minimum standard facility size and must be designed and constructed to provide additional capacity to meet projected future transportation needs. Projected future transportation needs shall be determined by reference to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan. Improvements that address capacity deficiencies existing at the +ime F A.-11�N1V1 f �] it llt Plirt1111P In the ISO Cie -f iWillYI��IPYYIA-1i �ddr eJ siiirt 1otli � uiu� of u�.vvivYaaavaiuav aav v b.�.... ...+... t.... v.........w eapu..i...y' deficiencies and adding future capacity, only that portion providing future capacity is eligible. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit. (D) The Director is authorized to determine that the timing, location, design and scope of proposed improvement is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the County's capital improvements program and either: (1) the improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval; or (2) the improvement is within the impact area of the development. For purposes of this section, impact area is that geographic area determined by the Director in which the estimated peak hour traffic to be generated by the development exceeds ten (10%) percent of the existing average peak hour traffic. Existing traffic volumes shall be those observed and measured within six months prior to filing the development application, adjusted for daily and seasonal traffic variations using factors provided by the Director. (E) Credit eligibility shall be determined by the Director. In addition to meeting the standards of this section, the following shall control: (1) No credits shall be issued for design or construction costs associated with landscaping, street lighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or sound walls, berins or other such mitigation devices. (2) Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan or development condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value of land purchased Page 7 of 11 — Resolution 2013 0202024-038 ( 310/16/24) by the applicant from a third party that is necessary to complete a required off -site improvement is creditable. The Director may require an applicant at the applicant's expense to furnish an appraisal to determine the market value of such property. (3) No credit shall granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise would have been the legal obligation of the County pursuant to a tariff, easement or similar relationship if the project had been undertaken by the County. (4) No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive plan. (5) No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for survey, engineering, inspection and permit fees. (F) All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the Director not more than 90 days after County acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in accordance with the County's policies, practices, procedures and standards. The amount of any credit shall be determined by the Director and based upon the subject improvement construction contract documents, or other relevant information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon a finding by the Director that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rates for a similar project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The Director shall provide the applicant with a credit voucher, on a form provided by the Department. The original of the credit voucher shall be retained by the Department. The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied only against the SDC otherwise imposed by the County against the subject property. In no event shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed. Under no circumstances will the County be required to pay an applicant in cash, as consideration for the improvement. This paragraph applies only to issuance of credit vouchers and does not extend the deadline for credit redemption or otherwise modify the credit redemption deadline. (G) Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was the subject of the application to construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to anticipated average peak hour trips generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written application to the Director, however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on the original credit voucher retained by the Department. (H) Any credits issued pursuant to this Resolution are assignable, however, they shall apply only to that property subject to the original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based or any partitioned or subdivided parcels or lots of such property to which the credit has been apportioned. Credits shall only apply against SDC's, are limited to the amount of the improvement fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit is sought, and shall not be a basis for any refund. (I) Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. Under no circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of an occupancy permit. (J) Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten (10) years after the acceptance of the applicable improvement by the county. No extension of this deadline shall be granted. Section 8. FUND ESTABLISHED. The County hereby establishes a fund to be designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," (herein Transportation SDC Fund or the Fund). Page 8 of 11 — Resolution 2013 0202024-038 (06/05/1310/16/24) (A) All SDC payments shall be deposited into the Transportation SDC Fund immediately upon receipt. (B) The monies deposited into the Fund designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," including interest on the Fund, shall be maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the County and shall be used solely for the purpose of providing the capital improvements that provide for the increased capacity necessitated by new development, including but not limited to: (1) Design and construction plan preparation; (2) Permitting and fees; (3) Property acquisition, including any costs of acquisition, relocation or condemnation; (4) Construction of capital improvements; (5) Design and construction of storm and surface water drainage facilities associated with the construction of capital improvements and structures; (6) Relocating utilities associated with the construction of improvements and structures; (7) Landscaping within the right of way or upon property disturbed by the construction of capital improvements; (8) Capital construction management and inspection; (9) Surveying, soils and material testing; (10) Ae"isifieft of eapital equipment used on association with eapital eenstpaetion of-feaadd maintenanee or- bath; (410) Repayment of monies transferred to or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the County, including interest, which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided; (4-211) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital improvements; (4-312) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing and updating the SDC, the methodology, resolution, and capital improvements master plan; administration of credit applications and apportionment; and the costs of collecting SDC's and accounting for SDC receipts and expenditures. Section 9. INVESTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SDC FUND REVENUE. (A) Any funds on deposit in Transportation SDC Fund that is not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested by the County. (B) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the appropriate SDC trust fund and used as provided herein. Section 10. ANNUAL ACCOUNTING REPORTS. The Director shall prepare an annual report accounting for SDC funds received, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee revenue collected in each fund, and expenditures. Page 9 of I I — Resolution 2013 0202024-038 (06,105,11310/16/24) Section 11. CHALLENGE OF EXPENDITURES. (A) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. (B) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the Department for review within two (2) years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the following information: (1) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the expenditure; (2) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on which it was made; and (3) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged. (C) If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with the provisions of this resolution and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of SDC fund revenues from other funds shall be made within one (1) year following the determination that the expenditure was not appropriate. (D) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review within ten (10) days of completion of the review. Section 12. APPEALS AND REVIEW HEARINGS. (A) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to request a hearing to review a decision only in the following matters: (1) A land -use category and/or seasonal/cyclical variations used by the Director to determine the SDC amount pursuant to Section 4. (2) An alternative rate calculation pursuant to subsection (C) of Section 4. (3) A proposed credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section 7. (B) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of first receipt of the Director's decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right. (C) The request for hearing shall be filed with the Director and shall contain the following: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) The legal description of the property in question; (3) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued; (4) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to the building permit or development permit; (5) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and (6) A statement addressing the decision subject to review set forth in subsection (A) of this section and the reasons why the applicant is challenging the decision. Page 10 of 11— Resolution ''0'�202024-038 (06/05/13 10/16/24) (D) Upon receipt of such request, the County shall schedule a hearing before the Board of Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose of conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and place of the hearing. Such hearing shall be opened within forty-five (45) days of the date the request for hearing was filed. (E) Such hearing shall be before the Board of Commissioners and shall be conducted in a manner designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard and to present information and evidence. (F) Appeal of the decision of the Board shall be made to the Circuit Court of Deschutes County. Section 13. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining portions of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion had not been adopted. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as invalidating any assessment or collection of system development charges pursuant to Resolution No. 2008- 059-,2013-020-nor any project funded in whole or in part with funds collected thereunder. In addition, all funds assessed and collected pursuant to Resolution No. 20�92013-020, which have not been committed, shall be treated in the same manner as funds received pursuant to Section 8 of this Resolution. Section 14. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. The SPG established by Resolution No. 20-0-8- 0-59 sh-All first apply to building peFm for- whieh a building pefmit applioation is aeoepted by the County as complete on and af4er- Oetebei: 1, . The SDC established by Resolution No. 2013-020 shall first apply to building permits or development approvals for which a building permit or development application was accepted by the County as complete on ann aftt+prior to the effertive Ante of this resohrtion. DATED this day of 20241-3�. ATTEST: Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON n r n N r NGE— pATTI ADAIR, Chair T- nA M av R XE-)vANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair ANTIIONY DEBO EPHIL CHANG, Commissioner Page 11 of I I — Resolution'n'�i02024-038 (06/05,11310/16/24) Exhibit A �01 E S C �Gl �—A Technical Memorandum: Transportation SDC Update Date: July 31, 2024 To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Chris Doty, PE, Road Department Director RE: Transportation SDC Update: 2020-2040 Capital Improvement Plan On March 6, 2024 the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners approved the 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan — the County's planning and policy document for a 20-year investment period. Included in the TSP is an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) containing a 20-year list of capital projects within the following categories: 1. Intersection Improvements 2. Roadway Improvements 3. ODOT/County Intersections 4. Pedestrian Facilities 5. Bridges 6. Federal Land Access Proeram (FLAP) Projects Central to the CIP (Attached, Exhibit B) is the funding chapter within the TSP which identifies and estimates funding source contribution — which included a Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) as a funding mechanism. The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to provide an updated calculation of Deschutes County's Transportation SDC based on the methodology established in Resolution 2013-020 (updated from Resolution 2008-059). Existing SDC Methodology: The existing SDC methodology was updated via Resolution 2013-020 in 2013 to include an Improvement Fee and a Reimbursement Fee, with methodologies for each described as follows: 1. Improvement Fee: _ Eligible cost of planned capacity increasing capital improvements ($) Growth in system capacity demand (in peak hour trips) The Improvement Fee portion is designed to capture costs associated with growth's share of future projects. 2. Reimbursement Fee: Cost of assets funded by previously paid SDC improvement fees ($) Growth in system capacity demand (in peak hour trips) The Reimbursement Fee portion is designed to recover costs of capital improvements already constructed, but used by future growth. Growth Estimate: The SDC will apply to growth within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County, which excludes growth within the incorporated city limits of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine. Growth within the unincorporated area is primarily residential in nature and reflects development of existing undeveloped lots, limited partition/subdivision development, resort development infill, and accessory dwelling unit potential, with relatively small percentages of non-residential or commercial development in limited areas. It is anticipated that growth within the unincorporated area over the next 20 years will be similar in nature to growth observed over the prior 20-year period and will generally represent a smaller percentage of system use. As such, growth's portion of SDC eligible projects will decrease. Within the prior decade of growth (2014-2023), approximately 2,839 peak hour trips were added to the system within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. The added trips ranged from a high of 363 in 2021 to a low of 223 in 2014. Given the assumption that growth within the ensuing 20-year planning period will be similar in nature relative to the growth observed in the prior 10-year period, it is estimated that 5,680 peak hour trips will be added to the system from growth within the unincorporated area. This estimate represents the growth in system capacity demand and the denominator in the Improvement Fee and Reimbursement Fee SDC equations. Eligible Cost of Planned Capacity Increasing Capital Improvements Estimating growth's cost of capital improvements requires both an estimate of which capital projects add capacity to the system as well as the assignment of growth's portion of each project. The following project categories are considered capacity increasing projects: Table 1: Capacity Increasing Project Classification Project Category Intersection Improvements Roadway Improvements ODOT/County Intersections Pedestrian Facilities Notes: Adding? Yes Intersection improvements add capacity to intersection operations. Yes Road widening and modernization add corridor capacity and the ability to serve additional traffic volume. Yes Intersection improvements add capacity to intersection operations. No Identified projects add negligible system capacity and are not SDC eligible. Bridges No Identified bridge projects replace existing bridges and do not add system capacity. Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) Projects No Projects are funded primarily via the Federal FLAP program and primarily serve recreational corridors. In assigning growth's portion of the capacity adding projects, the existing background traffic (2023) has been estimated at 31,593 peak hour trips generated by existing development within the unincorporated area (28,754 trips estimated in 2013 modelling with the addition of 2,839 trips added via development in the preceding decade). Therefore it is estimated that new growth in the unincorporated area accounts for 15.2% of the added peak hour trips to the transportation system as follows: 5,680 new peak hour trips _ 15.2% 37,273 total peak hour trips (31,593 baseline + 5,680 new) Application of the growth calculation to the cost of the eligible projects will produce a total cost of the capital project list attributable to growth as shown in Table 2. This represents the numerator in the Improvement Fee portion equation. Table 2: Eligible Cost of Planned Capacity Increasing Capital Improvements Attributable to Total Cost of Projects in Total Cost Attributable to Project Category Growth Category Growth Intersection Improvements 15.2% $28,500,000 $4,332,000 Roadway Improvements 15.2% $88,600,000 $13,467,200 ODOT/County Intersections 15.2% $41,100,000 $6,247,200 Pedestrian Facilities 0% $6,300,000 _ $0 Bridges 0% $16,000,000 $0 Federal Land Access Program 0% $8,800,000 $0 (FLAP) P is rolec Total $189,300,000 $24,046,400 Improvement Fee Calculation: The Improvement Fee portion is designed to capture costs associated with growth's share of future projects. Per the -_.._�..�_ rn� .......+L.,.,J..l,..... +-.L.I��L.....1 :r o,.�,.1� +;..� �n� a non the l.v..-..-...,.,.v ent Fee calculated �l- ted follows: County a DW%- methodology established in ncaviution 2011 -.cv, lilt Improvement L Fee IJ �a��u�aicu as ivnvvv �. $24,046,400 _ $4, 234 per peak hour trip 5,680 peak pour trips Reimbursement Fee Calculation: The Reimbursement Fee portion is designed to recover costs of capital improvements already constructed, but used by future growth. Per the County's SDC methodology updated via Resolution 2013-020 (originally established in Resolution 2008-059), the basis upon which to establish the Reimbursement Fee portion is a reimbursement of the non -tax resource funded investment, which amounts to the cost of assets funded by previously paid SDC improvement fees. Improvement fees expended by Deschutes County from FY 2014 to 2023 total $7,879,085 (excluding improvement fees expended during that period on projects within proposed CIP, Exhibit B). This portion of recoverable funding represents the numerator in the Reimbursement Fee portion equation, as follows: $7,879,085 _ $1, 387 per peak hour trip 5,680 peak hour trips Administrative Recovery Charge: Resolution 2013-020 also established an Administration Recovery Charge amounting to an inflation adjusted $70 per peak hour trip. The Administration Recovery Charge accounts for staff time and expense associated with application and collection of the SDC and is shared revenue between the Road Department and Community Development Department. Proposed Transportation System Development Charge The proposed Transportation SDC, inclusive of the Improvement Fee portion ($4,234 per peak hourtrip), Reimbursement Fee portion ($1,387 per peak hour trip), and Administrative Fee ($70 per peak hour trip), amounts to $5,691 per peak hour trip. Table 3 compares and contrasts the existing (FY 2025 fee schedule) and proposed SDC rate and corresponding single family dwelling SDC. Table 3: Existing and Proposed SDC Comparison Transportation SDC Notes: Existing Transportation SDC (FY 25 rate) $5,670 Per PM peak hour trip Proposed Transportation SDC $5,691 Per PM peak hour trip $ Increase $22 % Increase 0.4% Existing Single Family Dwelling Unit 4,593 0.81 trip/peak hour for SFDU in Deschutes County Proposed Single Family Dwelling Unit 4,610 0.81 trip/peak hour for SFDU in Deschutes County $ Increase $17 Increase 0.4% By resolution, Transportation SDCs are assessed based upon the estimated number of PM peak hour trips of a proposed development calculated via use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual. Specific to residential development Deschutes County has arlonted a specialty trin aonoratinn rato in rnncirlorntinn of the niimhor of resort and second homes in the county. The specialty rate of 0.81 trips per single family dwelling unit considers a blend of the ITE rates for single family dwellings and recreational housing. No changes are proposed to this specialty trip generation rate. Implementation of SDC Update SDCs are authorized by ORS 223.297-223.316 and implemented in via ordinance (DCC Section 15.12) and resolution. Statutorily prescribed process requirements include Board adoption by public hearing to be preceded by a 90-day notification to individuals who have previously made a written request for notification prior to adoption or amendment of a methodology for any system development charge. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 161h at 9:00 AM before the Board of County Commissioners at the Deschutes County Services Building, 1300 NW Wall Street (Barnes/Sawyer Room), Bend, OR. 00 M O N O N N NW FL .F+ E O L Q U N J W_ •O L 0. s C� m E 0 A� W co z'. O o C O 0 0 O 0 C O 0 C O 0 0 O 0 C O 0 C O 0 o O 0 O O 0 o O 0 o O O O O o C CD0, o 0 F-; ww ; Zm O o lr C. N 0 O 0 o 0 000 0 V 0 t0 Q 00 o O 0 00 O Ili O 0 V 0 N �.._ N N N co N N N N UO0 v 61�1 6� 64 bq U�l 6s Gq lbq e4 QE� e9� e% Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 y G o C o O 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 ;w 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.:0 IQ N O � W VT N r- r M N Z N N M N N N N QN F;O O; s F � 6i EH EH EA olJ H3 V3 fA EA EA EA U) ffJ fH F p 'x o w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w _ _ = x x = z 0 a 0 w F F- F w = z Z w z w Q w w z z cn z O 0� o D � � � � z a a LL w w z U) W J J J D o w w O m O m O m W z W p Z> m 0 m w 2 w 2 0 in 2 2 ¢ ❑ Q ❑ a ❑ z Z z Q U' 0 Q ❑ Z U' z CD Z a ❑ z U' z U' 0 O O W C7 F w w 0 O w w 2 O W w 0' K K w N J 0_' K 0' K w (n a' 0: w 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ a, W a., a a. ¢ 4 0 z Q N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q W w z z z _ 0 a z z w Q a w 0 O ❑ O O O 0 O Q w a w O O F U Q U U Z U U U U U Q� Of U U p x S O x S = x S Q Q = x x w m O 0 w 0 0 z 0 z 0 U) 0 z w m w m O n 0 z 0 > J D> W 0 2 a. 0 ❑ `L Q❑ ❑ 0 w ry a w a -� Ix a w > IS- z F a ~ w S' 0 ❑ J ❑ z K C � x a w ❑ Z W Z z > a w z S J O S W S J ¢ N } W J Z F a F ❑ U Z Q J } Z U W U } J m a. (n O N Z O Q ❑ 0 Z z Q> > Z Q a. 0 U) 210 S } S zz F ❑ w ~ > O p > Q z w Z o m 0 z 0 w O Q 0 m 0� o } N g z w g j J J ] � Cl) p p O m m O J F Z S w w 0 F U) S J ¢ W Z H F (� Z J Z LLIv Q>Q U ❑ F Z U W z O a U W x x W z D m O U 'S a z3 0 <n z K o w 0 ❑a! w > U) 0 N co q' to O ti O O N M d w W zjo w IL co 0 00 M O I It N CD �N W J z Os O O O O 0 O O C O ClO C O C O O C O O o O O O O CD 0 O C O O C O O C O O C 0 CD0 0 >- t-' W z z z o �W 0 0 MNO 0 0 CfI 0 CD N 0 NO0 0 Cl (0 0 � co 0 OC CO 0 00 0 O M N 0 M �- vao t� ce �6s Q9 64 6s 61�1 co� C6. Ql� 69, 61� Ge 6�1 Ls N.G 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 O C Cl O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 C� 0 0 0 0 0 U ❑ CO C0 .- M N .- Cn N Cn 7 .- CO O M CO CT 00 M N M Q_ F O Oix Uf , Ea fH EA b9 E13 69 to EA EA to 613 EA (f3 rr r a. w w w w w 0 O O J J J S S S S rG Z z N w V W z z w z > o .� (7 w w w a a 0 0. w K � (D N } ° � Q z a O Q � Q Q ❑ z OF � m t- � z C) w w w 0 w W w w 7 O >O M >O Z co z ❑ z w J z J J Q O N Z Kf _ J Z p J Q w w Z J a Z K z 3: O U W O W O W O z p a 0 o 0 a 0 2 q a„ 0 N Q [ifw w Q Q w Z O z N z N m Q w w < Q o o w a z o c V Q = O O _ O Q ❑ W ~ ❑ aJa p O z K N K N w O 0 O K F- O � w p JQ O w ❑03 O Z O O Z w ❑ JQ � or w °a O Z z U Q K K Q a K Q Q K K X w J W N U' w Z K 0_' O 0_' D F K D_' O 2 0 m 7 m w > w z O F- 0 ❑ a 3 r Q O JQ w Q ° Y m H N O z ui C W W p N ❑ = Q H ° O W N❑ O w >Q w O WO a w H 0 W Y Q M ° ° O 2 c O Z J O Z K O O O m z o 1}- U U U z Cn Z m J K S a Y cn 1 W z o S ❑ m w m Q a m Q J m O W O W> O [ifU w w m Q 0 < J Qiy Q' z W > w J W J w o = ❑ W N z z Q w Y p i' w Z z � % q� i Z ° J U ° U Q m >O > Q Z zi >� J> O S >O > Q z a m 7 S S co >O > a Z ° 0' ❑ N 2 co n co M o 04 lV W W e- e- r N N z o U U ci U U c u C) Li V U U Ci a w 0 N O! a z 0 > C) 0 O O 0 C O 0 O C) 0 O o 0 C Ct 0 C O Cl O C' 0 C O 0 C C) 0 CD O 0 C) 0 C C) 0 C o 0 C }%;W zm` o 0 0 oc 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 rn 0 0 � 0 coo 0 o 0 c0o 0 rn 0 w 0 0 z Q_ �- LL) N Cl) N c- 00 N M V 0r0 O C) ea <» v> e3� v> <s <» e» 61� 6�) E» E» eq F» f Cl 0 Cl 0 O 0 o C 0 C. 0 0 O C 0 6 C 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o C 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 O w o 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 Cl 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 V 0 J J Z CD C)O oc M r- O) r (O M 0 (O 0 O) 0 cc O N N N 00 N co d' �0 Q... (f) EA Efi ER 613, Efa Y> EA 6p ff) (A E9 PH Ge cl 6 z o ❑_ 7 ❑ 7 w K W a w w LU w w w o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 u u Z w Jo z z z z Nc�z z i H w w w w w w w w Zow W z w w w - J n K K K K w¢- K 2 W Z Z 3 a r r } Ir C� r r r ° w a°o67) off— O z 0 z Z. g a it 5 ¢ ❑ a ❑ a a w a a a K a w a ❑ K > > > > > > z z IW- ?HZ w w O 0 0 F m F m O C)0 Q U W O }a Q m} z �a z w z w w z z z w z w z W z z ��a- O> w p p z K n ❑ ❑ 7) O D O 0 0 p :DD O O Z) a U �Wx Q 0 ¢ 0 7 W 0> 3 U U U U K w K K C)O J 2 20 of z 0 L F w w > w > 0 } w Y 0 U U W u Ci ❑ a Z w Q ❑ K p Z Q LL ° w K W r ° ¢ > C)x of0U tu U) ou zZ ¢ z W Q �' °U > I x z w z z rn } z ° p O m } W � z h 3 w K } wC) Oa a rn (n > = ° w h-W Nz F Q W z a_0 x ° z x a V) z {a- Un❑ xa ❑ .2 5 z w w w K Z 0 OU O U) x Q Z U ~ i 0) F ❑ Z °� p _ U) > Q U g p t- W i w I- w m p 0 ❑> ❑ o m w ww W� >>C-) > 30 ❑ z m K LU r ❑ Z ❑ z ¢ p w z 2 ¢ w 3 = H i wz w Kz Q w a LL 0 Z j Q K O rn W w E z z O ❑ m O ❑ w K ° m m O Z 3 Z O zz ❑ x Q w- ai 2 w p ON LU p Q w ¢ w � ❑ z a p ZZ z Q O z W 7 > w W w W Z K W W Y Z LLI LLi Z z Z W LLi J > I- 7 p❑ K ~ w p p O W N W Q ° W UZ Ko W Fw W Kw - W U K W W❑ LLF' Q O Q Z m w N Li = Q W Qa' U)e❑e Q N z N w Of Q F Q❑ rn O m N U Z w w N w F IK-- J N U 3 °~r W 0) W K U 7o W z> � zF Q W _ xO2 Fw-0=� O NO Z co I-K Z Z (� ZY Q(/7 ZNU Z m NK>i m N U co LL u o «o 0.uj Q' L? tU a 00 0 a z 0 Q O O 0 O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 W Z m 0 Z 0 MO 0 W 0 0 0 O 0 O oc 0 o o 0 O U i Cl O M 0 CD N 0 CD M 0 O L 0 O (p 0 O O O 0 0 N OM _ �- N .- c' co i- N (O 00 UZlox M 0- p 0 Q�l 6-� o Cl 0 o a o 0 CI-4 N 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 p C O w o Cl C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 CDO 0 0 N <i Z �1.= 0 O) .- 0 CO 0 V 0 c- 0 oc 0 C 0 C. M 0 N 0 M 0 L 0 (O 0 fl 0 N in F 0 N � M c- N (0 W 0 n f v (fl lfl EfJ fA EA EA ER EH fA V3 fA ff3 64 (fl Ix a ° a 0 J 0 J 0 J 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J J J J J J 0 E 01 ^, W` LL / U 0 0 L d 0 Z w V W w O ® 0 Dw a w', w> W W W W Z U > O > O > O > O W > O W > O W > O W > O W > O W > O w > O W❑ > O W > O Q F 0)6 0 W Uf W 06 af' .$ W Kf W at{ w 1W c� }� Z w Z w Z w Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z W Z w Z w Z> w x Z W w z y m O 9 O O m 0 O O O O w =O J N (n n rn W •O Z. Q O } ¢ W Q N /L� O ¢ D W Z > D w ii 0 ti w 3 0 a W Q w v O Z W J W K U W -� Q Q LLI W J o F rn a w w w 0 t�-- z w w } _ w O z } = U z Z a 2 z 2 -� Q z U 0 J w (n Q N Z z z w O i N W > .QJ = z z m z Q CL 0 z O w > d U w 'a } o Q 0 w Y U U Z � N m w U) Q w z FN- A, 0 IS- Q O � F- Q w O S �✓ K W m cNi Q o N H o J K W 2 W N NQ z z O Z Z O U m O U) W z a 0 ¢ o z M .Y Q Z cl Q w Q O < O K W N J 0 w Q W O Of Q F- uj K O O F J w of W w U w g W Z_ U oN W� to W = Q W N F Q W Z CO w W x coN O U ch z m W m U z S = � U)V JU 0_ N r N y M d t tf) Ski SC C* f- <V OO IN, C? N O M r+ M N M M M d 4 z o c.r � o s.± 0 0 {.� C) %� U U Ci U a. 00 0 to C. m C 1 N O N�1 NW m F.9 Z 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 F W n 0 CDO 0 0 O 0 O Cl) 0 o 0 0 N O 0 0 O co 0 0 0 CD 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o o Cl 0 o o O 0 0 O o 0 o 0 o 0 O 0 O Z m o O O LO n O O Z 0 - :.% ER EA 6. EA EA EA ER ER EH (A fA EA EA 64 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 00 0 0 0 0 Cl Q ,Z 0 0 M 00 N M O O �"� 00 O O 0 N 0 O 0 O CD O C W N 0 Q_ o .- CD M Cl)M N ITwLO a U O V f J � Q EA EH ER EA EA Efl EA H3 Efl EA Efl (A 09. f ❑ W Q' z � 4 3 3 2 x 2 0 0 3 mw 0 0 0 0 0 0 z _ _ 0 0 00 r 0 J a z W z W z ui r a 0 wz S w ~ W (D z ci w > W > w > m C6 (W U w 2 w w O (9 2 a. a. z w I- z w w 0- m w z 2 Q Z d ❑ K ❑ ❑ ❑ LL W w 0 2' U z O Z cn te_ ❑ Q Q < K d' Z O Q J w a 2 Q F W Q W W O' Q Q Z w a U o K m of U) to O O w z w z y LL z S z W N } Z }} Z }} Z z t7 US z ai z U W W (� W >> aZa J U S❑ U W 0 0 o J w W ❑ W ❑ ❑ qa W a W �a w aw0 U U U 3 Q �� 0 z �za O N ; Z 0 F O W ❑ W a F W LLI & w W J a v~ Q O U w W = z = > � Q w N u~ U O m Z U W 0 w Z O w (wD z z Q > cxi Q V � Q Q Q W = J W ~ O Jo F z r W W > ro o u z z °a W w N w Q 2 > m ❑ O K w z O m K V) W Q N W .�- Y w w } K Q v W ¢ z 00 m = w o a o W Q Y Z W Z W Z W Z W U 0 Q Z W O m W Z w 0 z W O z Q ❑ W O w w m N I m W d J w Q � W❑ O r o r r > W' x C' > x m 1, N W N m prj cN- m m ti N _ H Q ❑ z Q > > > 0 7 2 ?r 0 M M M M M N M d 11� tG 1� 00 Z 0 N fn (n fn fA fn CO) CO CU U {? a i FL G7 E Q L E J v m .O L. d a s C d E a 0 d W W y-+ C0 B :s X w Z O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 o a o Os > ►- 0 o o 0 O 0 0 C 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 o o O O Z..m 0 lC lLQ O (`O'S M N N Lo O co 0 O 0 V O rx : N— ()Z� 0 �- ci. ER EA EA fR fA 64 EH b9 ER fA EA fR fA EA N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C)CD O O CD CD CD O O O O V Q Z 0 O Ln C, O_ Cl) CD O co co LU Cl)M CD O f� O N O N C, In CD O CDO co 0 o IL U 0_:Q' r� Jo t» t» to g a v> cfi <t» E» t» to 6s ts3 F» va } `F- 0 S 0. w S 7 7 7 J = J S S = L w w 0 0 0 a a ~ LLJ Z 0 W LL W O C9 fn W S F 0 Z 0 N W W W VJ W U¢¢ O w w a 0 O p 7 0 z Z w ¢ VJ w (n = n n o N NV) () w F a O W N = S S 2 � S ~O N d O O O 1 O N O 0 ON ¢¢ H F- z O Z w O z Z Z O~ z O w m z O O z 0 m O W �- Z J J J J -� Y O Y Y z 2C) 3 3 � 3 ,YJ a a a a ¢ Q Z a� W K a W p w o (n W 0 to W o N w g U w o N w 0 N w w O w O w O Z q Z O z w 0 w LLI Q N ii W Z 0 J wui Z)v Z z W O w x w F r W > ¢ W ¢ J ¢ D w Z w x of w Y 0 U n W z W > N Y O N x rn K w O c J ¢ F O U > U m U C)z co U Z � S Of _2 Q O 3 a C.) x J 0 w w O J. 7 0 j W w m p Z W S w W W w Q D Z W x = N a 0 0 Q Z ¢ O /QJy ¢ a a W m N W m w N r m F wi Y F- v~ c w o o J o 0 o 0 w w w w w H w W w W ma wZ z z z wZ a' o� Wm �m W �m �m ,m W (7 N O N w (Y W cr N W K W W W W � N (n N co U) x S S w Q w = Qw Qw Fw (/) S 7 Z)~ r a N N m~ N U U~~ W w o ch a m a m a m a an a m a m a m a m a m o. m a' ,. O CDO O O O p O O O p O O O O O O O O O O .-. }�W O 0 C 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C 0 O O 0 p C 0 O p 0 O C 0 CD O 0 O O 0 O O 0 Z = m Z O O CDO 0) O r O N O p .- O oc CD V CD O c0 CD d' O M O (0 OR =) �- N Ne- Xi V Z 1 U EA ER V3 EA Efl EA H3 (A ELT W. fA Efl fA 60 d" O O O O O p O p N Q O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O p O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O p O O p O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O CD O O L _ 0 O CDO 0 � N N 00 M V [F (O M O Q N N GNi 0 � (fl H3 fR Vfl P9 64 ER fA 613 fA EA (A K3 Efl = x o 0 0 0 0 0 = d o A, w z m L Op r Q J Q uui 0 J w Q iQ lz a w ❑ G z F+ wF z U z U H F F w w w C J J w w ¢ w w w w o w w a ~ Q J ¢ J Q J m Q > O > O U Q U Q J m U Q U Q U Q K 0] a> Z U ww a w a w a w x w w w a w a w = w a w a w a w 3 � LU w w Of w z 3 J F+ v 0� O z Z L o 0 m w U J > LU C N W K NI O LL C Q Z J / 4 of U z O w z U W U J Z O W h E ai x J D x Z m U � FAJ Z LL OJ +/ O w Z m z m w ❑ a (n N W Q a � � ❑ rr Z+ Y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 w w ? ❑ w Q z w Q w Q Z K � R O W > w W x m O x O ~ O O w 0 c9 w LLw, O a X U K I_ m 2 w J J Q' r z K ❑ ❑ W M OU J LU w K ai U' 2 v) 3 m UU U) O <n U Fx- u o H O r N M Z �q LML CL W W W p�/� W W M� W W M� W M� W MT Mr Mr W W W W a 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z m z Z M d' W V _0 N 00 VZ° M 0- 9 U F» » F» F» e> 0 0 0 0 0 N0 00 cov o ooc ooi rn Q D o 0 0 0 d Oa ' °' F �. to Hi to eH EA EA � p a a o 0 3 3 3 i5 cl 0 0 0 0 = o w Ci ~ G � �� In a9 D N N F- OFO W O O Q CL U QQ W Of E_... W O z} 70 w wa. w— wQ LL Y K O 0 Q. C) w ❑ z w" G �" oz � w O w O 0)0 w w O w Q 5 F- Z F O U w ❑LLI_ w ❑_ z =O w w ❑ zo =O a ¢0a Q� 0 U I U O ?> c i J .ur a �O Z Z ° z O AL Y. F O 0Z� ai U C� FS-w0 vI J ❑ W 7 7F-Z T W >- Z W O U CO Q Y g w F S W J N ww U 00 ° O ° x w cn C O z @ ° O � � p O w w m N N K F W ❑ Q ❑ O a Y C Q z 4-1 LU Y) z O 7 ❑ w N Y O O ^ A '/ '.. LLI. Q ❑ /y� W Z O N N Y Y r O yd Z J J :.� Y US US W U Z ft X m U S U S ❑ m U W o W' ) z'0 CL U) O U J Q N O F- MEETING DATE: October 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: CORE3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for approximately 228 acres adjacent to and north of Highway 126 in Redmond RECOMMENDED MOTION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will hold a public hearing on October 16, 2024 to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of a portion the subject property, approximately 228 acres, from Agricultural (AG) to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The applicant also requests a Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH-10). The full record is located on the project webpage: www.deschutes.org/CORE3. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Haleigh King, Associate Planner �01 ES ins® co G2 MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Haleigh King, AICP, Associate Planner DATE: October 8, 2024 SUBJECT: CORE3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Public Hearing The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will conduct a public hearing on October 16, 2024 to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of a portion the subject property, approximately 228 acres, from Agricultural (AG) to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH-10) (County File Nos. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC). I. BACKGROUND The purpose of these applications is to allow for the development of the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient (CORE3) facility. The CORE3 facility will address a need for both a centralized public safety training facility and a coordination center for emergency response operations. Regional emergency management agencies have been discussing the concept of the CORE3 facility for well over ten years. Organizing efforts culminated in a June 2018 report prepared by the University of Oregon's Partnership for Disaster Resilience that found a strong need for an emergency services center for regional agencies in Central Oregon. The October 2020 Central Plan assessed current training facilities and programming needs, conducted a financial assessment for the project, developed a list of site layout considerations, and identified the City of Redmond as the optimal location for this facility. The applicant has provided findings within the burden of proof that demonstrate compliance with state and local requirements and policies. Pursuant to the Joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond ("City") and Deschutes County, these applications are reviewed jointly by the respective local agencies. The initial public hearings were held before a County Hearings Officer and the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission (RUAPC) for their respective applications. The RUAPC held a public hearing on April 24, 2024, that was continued to May 1, 2024, where they recommended approval of the application to the Redmond City Council. The Redmond City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 2024, and approved the application package before the City. The County's initial hearing before a Hearing's Officer was held on August 8, 2024. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County. IL PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received one (1) public comment from a neighbor prior to the Hearing's Officer hearing. The Hearing's Officer recommendation addressed the public comment. III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Aside from the applicant's team, there was no other testimony, oral or written, from nearby property owners or neighbors in conjunction with the initial hearing. On August 30, 2024, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change. IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. The record is available at the following link: www.deschutes.org/CORE3 Per DCC Section 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change is not subject to the 150-day review period typically associated with land use decisions. V. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. ATTACH M E NT(S): 1. Area Map 2. Hearing's Officer Recommendation Page 2 of 2 ,u7 N [nil M 0 Z O w t © ~ ."' co w Q CA (7 Q © z w N z w' w N O W 0 z Z 0 to a� z w 4 z o o m m 2 Z i� Mailing Date: Friday, August 30, 2024 HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC' HEARING: August 8, 2024, 1:00 p.m. Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 SUBJECT PROPERTY/ OWNER: Mailing Name: DESCHUTES COUNTY ("the "Owner") Map and Tax Lot: 1513000000103 Account: 150551 Situs Address: 1805 E HWY 126, REDMOND, OR 97756 APPLICANT: Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) Scott Aycock 1250 NE Bear Creek Road u, vR 97 7v Ben APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT: Winterbrook Planning Jesse Winterowd 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 810 Portland, OR 97205 REQUEST: The applicant requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of a portion the subject property, approximately 228 acres, from Agricultural ("AG") to Redmond Urban Growth Area ("RUGA") and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") expansion. The applicant also requested a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Urban Holding ("UH-10"). The purpose of these applications is to allow for the development of the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient ("CORE3") facility. The CORE3 facility will address a need for both a centralized public safety 1 The applicant submitted a concurrent request to the City of Redmond. The associated file numbers for the City of Redmond are; Text Amendment (711-23-000146-PLNG), UGB Expansion (711-23-000147-PLN), Zone Change (711-23- 000149-PLNG), Annexation (711-23-000150-PLNG), and Master Development Plan (711-23-000148-PLNG). 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 1 of 67 training facility and a coordination center for emergency response operations. STAFF PLANNER: Haleigh King, Associate Planner Haleigh.king@deschutes.org, 541-383-6710 RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.deschutes.org/CORE3 APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) Chapter 18.136. Amendments Title 20, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Chapter 20.36. Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County and City of Redmond Joint Management Agreement (DC Doc No. 2007-110) Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules ("OAR"), Chapter 660 Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included within Urban Growth Boundary II. PRELIMINRY FINDINGS A public hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2024. Prior to the occurrence of the proposed March 19, 2024 hearing the applicant submitted a request to continue that hearing to a date uncertain. The hearing was ultimately continued to August 8, 2024 ("Continued Hearing"). At the Continued Hearing only representatives of Deschutes County (the "County") and the applicant were present. The Hearings Officer asked for testimony from the County, applicant, applicant's representatives, 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 2 of 67 those in support of the applicant's requests, those neutral to and those in opposition to the Applicant's requests. Haleigh King (County Planning Staff Representative), Shelby Knight (applicant representative) and Jesse Winterowd (applicant representative) testified at the Continued Hearing. No person testified at the Continued Hearing in opposition to the Applicant's requests. Applicant, during Continued Hearing testimony, stated applicant had no "opposition" to any part or section of the Staff Report. The Hearings Officer reviewed all documents submitted into the evidentiary record. Included in the Hearings Officer's review was a document submitted by Aaron and Elizabeth Faherty ("Faherty"). Staff referenced the Faherty record submission (Staff Report, page 11). Applicant, during Continued Hearing testimony responded to the issues raised in the Faherty record submission. Staff, in the Staff Report, requested the Hearings Officer to address and/or consider specific issues. The following list incudes a brief summary and Staff Report page reference for the issues raised by Staff: Rezoning Standards, DCC 18.136.020 A. Page 14 Purpose consistent with proposed zoning Pages 15 & 16 Impacts surrounding land use DCC 18.136.020 C.2 Pages 17 & 18 Change or mistake in circumstances DCC 18.136.020 D. Page 18 ID & retain accurately designated ag land Comp Plan 2.2.13 Pages 22 & 23 Transportation requirements OAR 660-024, div 24(1)(d) Pages 30 - 32 As noted above, the Hearings Officer independently reviewed each of the issues raised by Staff as set forth above. The Hearings Officer addressed each of the specific Staff issues in the relevant findings below. The Hearings Officer finds that the Staff findings for all relevant approval criteria are, subject to the findings for the specific issues raised by Staff, based upon substantial evidence and analysis leading to supportable factual and legal conclusions. The Hearings Officer, therefore, finds that it is reasonable and appropriate that the Hearings Officer incorporate Staff findings. Where the Hearings Officer agrees with staff findings the Hearings Officer incorporates the Staff findings as the Hearings Officer findings in this case. 111111. BASIC FINDINGS LOT OF RECORD: The Hearings Officer finds that the following basic findings, as proposed by Staff, are supported by substantial evidence and properly interpreted relevant law. The subject property tax lot 103 is a lot of record as it is recorded as Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2023- 28 (County File No. 247-23-000002-MP). However, per DCC 22.04.040, Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is only required for certain permits: B. Permits Requiring Verification. 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot or parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required prior to the issuance of the following permits: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 3 of 67 a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40), b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as shown on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory, c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment, d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel, e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone, - In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-1 4-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior zone change decision (Belveron ZC-08-04; page 3) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Hearings Officer finds that the following basic findings, as proposed by Staff, are supported by substantial evidence and properly interpreted relevant law. The subject property, in its current configuration, is approximately 1,637 acres in size', with portions of the west and south located within the city limits and urban growth boundary (UGB) of the City of Redmond as shown in Figure 1. The property was tentatively approved for a three parcel Partition via County File No. 247-23-000545-MP which would create three parcels, consisting of the following; • Parcel 1: Parcel 1 will be ± 300 acres in size and is currently located entirely outside Redmond's city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. • Parcel 2: Parcel 2 will consist of the remaining acres (±1,300 acres) and will have portions located both within the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. • Parcel 3: Parcel 3 will be ±70 acres and is located entirely within Redmond's city limits and the UGB. The applicant has submitted a concurrent Partition to City of Redmond for review (711- 23-000145-PLNG) The final plat has not yet been recorded for the above referenced partition. The site has varying terrain and is vegetated with juniper trees and native shrubs and grasses. The property is not farmed, has no apparent history of farming, and is not irrigated. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Deschutes County and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), respectively, the subject property is not located in the 100-year flood plain nor does it contain mapped wetlands. The subject property includes approximately 320 acres of land zoned Surface Mining ("SM") and occupied by Site No. 482 on the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory. This portion is developed with the Negus Transfer Station and Recycle Center. ' According to Partition Plat No. 2023-28, Parcel 2. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 4 of 67 The subject property includes frontage along E Highway 126 to the south and NE Upas Avenue to the north. To the west, the subject property also has frontage along several roads including NE 17th Street, NE Kingwood Avenue, NE Maple Avenue, and NE Negus Way. The E Antler Avenue unimproved right of way bisects the property. PROPOSAL: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following comments which the Hearings Officer finds accurately reflects the proposal in this case: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of a portion the subject property, approximately 228 acres, from Agricultural (AG) to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH-10). 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 5 of 67 The City of Redmond is the review agency for the following applications which are related to the overall development proposal but not evaluated as part of this staff report: • 711-23-000146-PLNG - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the need for the CORE23 facility and specific site requirements. 711-23-000147-PLNG - Urban Growth Boundary Expansion • 711-23-000150-PLNG - Annexation of the 228-acre property • 711-23-000149-PLNG - Zone Map Amendment to change the zoning from UH10 to Public Facilities (PF) • 711-23-000148-PLNG - Master Development Plan SOILS: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following comments which the Hearings Officer finds accurately reflects the proposal in this case: According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the subject property, there are three mapped soil units. 35B, Deschutes-Stukel complex, dry 0-8 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soil is well drained with moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 4 inches. The Stukel soil is well drained, with moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about two inches. The contrasting inclusions consist of Redmond soils in swales, soils that have a loamy sand surface laver, and rock outcroppings. Maior uses for this soil tvpe include livestock grazing and irrigated cropland. v 104A, Redmond sandy loam, 0-3 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 85 percent Redmond soil and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The soil is well drained with moderate permeability and an available water capacity of about 4 inches. The contrasting inclusions consist of Buckbert, Deschutes and Houstake soils in swales, along with Stukel soils on ridges. The major use for this soil type is irrigated crop land and livestock grazing. 142B, Stukel-Rock outcrop - Deschutes complex. dry 0-8 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 20 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil, 30 percent rock outcrop, and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soil is well drained with moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 4 inches. The Stukel soil is well drained, with moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about two inches. The contrasting inclusions consist of Redmond and Houstake soils in swales. Major uses for this soil type include livestock grazing. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following comments which the Hearings Officer finds accurately reflects the proposal in this case: The surrounding land uses and zoning are described below. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 6 of 67 West - To the west are lands located within the Redmond city limits and UGB. A portion of this area, on the north side of Highway 126 and directly west of the future CORE3 development, contains the Oasis Village transitional housing project and is planned for other commercial and industrial uses. North and East - To the north is the Lake Park Estates subdivision that is zoned MUA-10 and developed with dwellings. Other uses include a radio transmission tower, natural gas pipeline, and a high voltage power line. The property to the east is zoned EFU, undeveloped, and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). South - To the south is the Redmond Municipal Airport - Roberts Field, which is within the Redmond city limits and UGB. Hwy 126 also abuts the subject property along its southern boundary. Southwest - To the southwest is 250 acres of vacant land owned by the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) and located within the Redmond city limits and UGB. Staff also highlights those uses found on the county -owned lands located to the north and east to include the Negus Transfer Station, Redmond Area Park Recreation District sport fields, radio transmission tower, natural gas pipeline, high voltage power line, and the Antler Avenue unimproved right-of-way. Otherwise, the area is undeveloped and has relatively level topography with rock outcroppings and native vegetation. Further east are public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). LAND USE HISTORY: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following comments which the Hearings Officer finds accurately reflects the proposal in this case: The following is the land use history for that portion of the property located outside of the Redmond UGB and city limits: • CU-81-89: Conditional Use permit for a ballpark in the EFU Zone. • V-81-29: Variance to allow advertising signs at ballpark. There was no decision for this request. • SP-84-41: Site Plan review for auto recycling storage yard in the M-2 Zone. This request was withdrawn. • SP-86-51: Site Plan review for log storage and whole log chipping in the M-1 Zone. • CU-91-137: Conditional Use permit for a caretaker's residence at the Redmond Rod and Gun Club. • CU-92-165/SP-92-130: Alteration of a Nonconforming Use to change the Negus landfill to a transfer station and recycling center. This request was denied. • CU-92- 214/SP-92-170/TU-92-64: Conditional Use permit and Site Plan review to change the Negus landfill to a transfer station and recycling center. This request was approved. • CU-93-31: Conditional Use permit for a caretaker's residence at the Redmond Rod and Gun Club. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 7 of 67 • LL-01-07: Property line adjustment. • CU-07-13: Conditional Use permit improve and relocate Redmond Rod and Gun Club facilities. • 247-19-000648-PA/649-ZC: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, UGB Amendment, Zone Change to expand the UGB of the City of Redmond and rezone a portion of the property to light and heavy Industrial (M-1 and M-2). • 247-21-000440-PA: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to accommodate the future Skyline Village Affordable Housing site. • 247-21-000865-MP: Minor partition to create two (2) parcels that include property located both inside and outside the city limits and urban growth boundary of the City of Redmond. • 247-23-000002-MP: Minor partition to create two (2) parcels that include property located both inside and outside the city limits and urban growth boundary of the City of Redmond. • 247-23-000545-MP: Minor partition to create three (3) parcels that include property located both inside and outside the city limits and urban growth boundary of the City of Redmond. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of application on july 7, 2023, to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings I have reviewed the transmittal materials for file 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC, 545-MP for a Plan Amendment, Zone Change, corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansion, and Minor Partition for development of the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive. Resilient (CORE3) public safety facility on 1,671.44 acres to the northeast of the City of Redmond at 2525 E HWY 126, Redmond, OR 97756 aka County Assessor's Map 15-13-00, Tax Lot 103. The proposal would divide the subject property into three (3) parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to contain the CORE3 facility, be included into the expanded Redmond UGB, and will be approximately 300 acres in size. Parcel 2 will remain within Deschutes County and will be approximately 1,300 acres in size. Parcel 3 is currently within the Redmond UGB, will remain in the Redmond UGB, and will be 71 acres in size. The subject property currently has Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designations of Agricultural (AG) and Surface Mining (SM) and has County zoning within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFUAL) Zone, Surface Mining (SM) Zone, Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone, Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) Combining Zone and the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA). Portions of the subject property are also within the City of Redmond's Exclusive Farm Use (EFUAL) Zone, Limited Service Commercial (C4) Zone, Light Industrial (M1), and Heavy Industrial (M2) Zones. The proposal would annex Parcel 1 and change the zoning designation from EFUAL to County Urban Holding (UH-10). The City of Redmond will concurrently review a Zone Change request to change the zoning designation from UH-10 to the City Public Facility (PF) Zone and an annexation into the city limits. The subject property will be brought into the City of Redmond as a result of the proposal. There currently is no specific proposal to develop the land while in County jurisdiction, and the Applicant's transportation consultant has prepared an assessment 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 8 of 67 dated February 22, 2023 reviewing the potential trip generation of the property and planned improvements to affected City facilities. The provided traffic analysis is based on City code as the development is not permissible within the EFU Zoning District. There were no adverse effects outlined in the assessment. County staff will defer to the City of Redmond and ODOT regarding review of the traffic study based on the impending UGB expansion and annexation. Because the Parcel 1 CORE3 site is accessed from State Highway 126 and City roadways, County staff will defer to the City and ODOT regarding any access permitting issues. It is unclear to County staff whether the subject property has an approved access approach from ODOT regarding Highway 126. Staff notes that DCC 17.48.210(B) could apply if the access remains outside of the proposed Redmond UGB and City Limits. If a potential access approach to Highway 126 is now within the Redmond UGB or City Limits, or will be included in the Redmond UGB or City Limits as a result of the subject proposal, then DCC 17.48.210(B) would not apply. Under the joint Area Management Agreement between City of Redmond and Deschutes County (included as Appendix G.2 of the submitted application materials), jurisdictional transfer of roads and road rights of way are accomplished as part of annexation. The site is currently served by: Hwy 126, a state highway under the jurisdiction of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and functionally classified as a principal arterial to the south; NE 171" Street and NE Kingwood Avenue roads within the City of Redmond's jurisdiction and functionally classified as City local roads to the west; NE Maple Avenue a public road not maintained by Deschutes County otherwise known as a Local Access Road (LAR) and functionally classified as a local to the west; NE Negus Way a public road maintained by Deschutes County and functionally classified as a Rural Collector to the northwest; and NE Upas Avenue a public road not maintained by Deschutes County otherwise known as a Local Access Road (LAR) and functionally classified as a local to the north. Adequacy of current and future transportation facilities will be reviewed per the Redmond development code as the land is proposed to develop. Parcel 2 resulting from the proposed Minor Partition (as identified in the submitted application materials) will continue to be within County zoning and jurisdiction. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no traffic analysis is required for any use that will generate less than 50 new weekday trips. Partitions do not generate any trips and, therefore, the proposed Minor Partition land use will not meet the minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Where Parcel 2 takes access from either NE Negus Way or NE Upas Avenue, the applicant will need to either provide a copy of an approved driveway permit from Deschutes County or be required to obtain one as a condition of approval to meet the access permit requirements of DCC 17.48.210(A) for the proposed parcels. The entirety of proposed Parcel 1 (the CORE3 location) and the majority of proposed Parcels 2 and 3 are within the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport. Staff finds that a standard review of the AS standards outlined in DCC 18.80.044 Table 1 would recognize the proposal as an Institutional land use category, provided that the proposed use does not include "overnight accommodations, such as hotels, motels, hospitals and dormitories...". Staff is unclear whether the proposal includes 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 9 of 67 dormitories. Despite the provisions of DCC 18.80, staff will ultimately defer to the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) regarding the proposals compatibility with airport operations and infrastructure. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $5,603 per p.m. peak hour trip. Given a partition does not generate any trips, no roadway capacity is consumed as that term is commonly understood. Additionally, the proposed CORE3 use will be within the expanded Redmond UGB and City Limits and the City will apply their own SDCs rather than the County. Therefore, County SDCs are not triggered by the proposal. If you have any questions, please let me know. Deschutes County Road Department - Cody Smith I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file number, proposing a zone change, UGB expansion, and three -parcel partition for Tax Lot 1513000000103 associated with the CORE3 facility project. The subject property abuts the following public road rights of ways under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County: The roads listed above would all abut Proposed Parcel 2, which is not proposed for further development at this time. Pursuant to DCC 17.22.030, the Road Department has considered the need for improvement of the above -listed public roads as part of this proposed development and has determined that road improvement is unnecessary as it will provide negligible benefit to the transportation system in proportion to the development's impact on the roads. The proposed partition would constitute series partitioning pursuant to DCC 17.08. Road Department staff find that the existing County road system can accommodate the increase in trips generated by the new parcels. Staff note that development of areas brought within the Redmond UGB will be subject to the joint Management Agreement for the Redmond Unincorporated Urban Growth Area (Cj 2007- 444). Deschutes County Road Department requests that approval of the proposed land uses be subject to the following conditions: Prior to final plat approval by Road Department: • The surveyor preparing the plat shall, on behalf of the applicant, submit information showing the location of the existing roads in relationship to the rights of way to Deschutes County Road Department. This information can be submitted on a worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the final plat. All existing road facilities and new road improvements are to be located within legally established or dedicated rights of way. In no case shall a road improvement be located outside of a dedicated road right of way. If research reveals that inadequate right of way exists or that the existing roadway 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 10 of 67 is outside of the legally established or dedicated right of way, additional right of way will be dedicated as directed by Deschutes County Road Department to meet the applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 or other County road standards. This condition is pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (G) and 17.24.070(E)(8). • All easements of record or existing rights of way shall be noted on the final partition plat pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (H). • Applicant shall submit plat to Road Department for approval pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(R)(2), 100, 110, and 140. Central Oregon Irrigation District - Spencer Stauffer Please be advised that Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) has reviewed the request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject propertyfrom Agricultural (AG) to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. The applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH-10). The applicant has also submitted a concurrent Minor Partition (File No. 247-23- 000545-MP) to divide a ±1,637-acre property into three (3) parcels. One parcel will create a ±300-acre parcel for the CORE3 site, one will remain within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area and Deschutes County, and the third will remain within the Redmond UGB. The purpose of these applications is to allow for the development of the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient (CORE3) facility. The CORE3 facility will address a need for both a centralized public safety training facility and a coordination center for emergency response operations. (dated July 7, 2023). COID has no facilities or water rights on the subiect property (TAXLOT: 1513000000103). Oregon Department of Aviation - Brandon Pike Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODAV) to comment on file number(s): 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC, 545-MP. ODAV has reviewed the proposals and prepared the following comment(s): 1. In accordance with FAR Part 77.9 and OAR 738-070-0060, future development at this site will likely be required to undergo aeronautical evaluations by the FAA and ODAV. The aeronautical evaluations are initiated by the applicant providing separate notices to both the FAA and ODAV to determine if the proposal poses an obstruction to aviation safety. The applicant should receive the resulting aeronautical determination letters from the FAA and ODAV prior to approval of any building permits. 2. The height of any new structures, trees, and other planted vegetation should not penetrate FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, as determined by the FAA and ODAV. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 11 of 67 3. Any proposed external lights should be designed as to not interfere with aircraft or airport operations. Jevra Brown, Department of State Lands FYI, there are no Statewide Wetlands Inventory mapped features on TL 15S 13E 00 #103 (entire). See attached "Desch utesCoRedmond. pdf." The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater Division, Bureau of Land Management, Deputy State Fire Marshal, Deschutes County Property Management, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Redmond Airport, Redmond Fire & Rescue, Redmond Public Works, Redmond City Planning, County Property Address Coordinator, Department of Environmental Quality, Watermaster - District 11, Department of Land Conservation and Development. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on July 7, 2023. The applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on July 12, 2023. Staff received one public comment copied below which is included in the application record. Aaron and Elizabeth Faherty As Droaerty owners near the proposed land use application File Numbers: 247-23-000543- PA, 544-ZC, 545-MP. We do not approve of this application. While the proposed land use application to change the boundary for CORE3 site does seem like an appropriate location, we are fearful that changing the boundary from farm use to Urban growth Boundary will expand Urban development for the city of Redmond. Many of the water wells in Lake Park Estates and surrounding Agricultural land have already experienced a drought on their water wells. We fear this current land use application, if approved, will increase the risk of surrounding water wells going dry. For this reason we do not approve of the current land use application. The Hearings Officer takes note that applicant's proposal, if approved by the County and City of Redmond, will connect to the City of Redmond water and sewer systems. The Hearings Officer finds that Faherty's water concerns are sincere and generally appropriate that in this case water wells in the vicinity of the subject property will not be negatively impacted because of water and sewer service provision by the City of Redmond (as opposed to private wells and septic systems). NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated July 12, 2023, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on that same date. On February 1, 2024, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to agencies and all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property for a public hearing to be held on March 19, 2024. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 12 of 67 on Sunday, February 4, 2024. Notice of the first County evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on February 12, 2024. At the applicant's request, the March 19, 2024 hearing was continued to a date and time uncertain. Subsequently, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed on July 18, 2024 for the continued hearing to be held on August 8, 2024. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on July 19, 2024. REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS In order to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change request, the proposal must comply with the criteria found in statutes, statewide planning goals and guidelines and their implementing administrative rules, County comprehensive plan, and land use procedures ordinance. Each of these approval criteria is addressed in the findings below. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning CHAPTER 18.24. REDMOND URBAN RESERVE AREA COMBINING ZONE Section 18.24.10. Purposes. The Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone implements the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for those areas designated as urban reserve. The RURA Combining Zone maintains lands for rural uses in accordance with state law, but in a manner that ensures a range of opportunities for the orderly, economic, and efficient provision of urban serves when these lands are included in the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary. Section 18.24.070. Limitations for Future Urban Development The following limitations shall apply to uses allowed by DCC 18.24.020 and 18.24.030. Zone changes and plan amendments involving land within the RURA Combining Zone and Multiple Use Agricultural, Surface Mining, or Rural Residential zoning districts that propose more intensive uses, including higher residential density, than currently allowed are prohibited. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: A portion of the subject property to be included within the Urban Growth Boundary falls within the RURA Combining Zone. As proposed, the RURA Zone will be removed from the subject property in conjunction with this application request and therefore will no longer apply upon approval of the subject applications and incorporation within the City of Redmond. In this case, 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 13 of 67 the RURA is not in combination of the Multiple Use Agricultural or Rural Residential zoning districts. The application does not affect land within the Surface Mine (SM) zone. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. CHAPTER 18.52. SURFACE MINING ZONE FINDING: The overall subject property includes approximately 319 acres of land identified as Surface Mine Site No. 482 on the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and is further identified as the Negus Transfer Station and Recycle Center. The subject property does not include the SM-zoned region of the subject property. Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The subject property is located within the SMIA Zone in association with mine site(s)no. 482. However, the portion subject to this amendment does not include the associated SMIA designation and therefore, the existing SMIA designation will not be affected by this amendment. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Section 18.80.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identifies dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries. The Redmond Airport is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, and located wholly within the Redmond City Limits... FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. The subject property is entirely within the County Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) associated with the Redmond Airport (Robert's Field). City of Redmond has land use regulations that also protect the Redmond Airport. This transition from County -zoned lands to Redmond UGB-zoned 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 14 of 67 lands, as proposed, will remove the existing County AS Combining Zone from the subject property. Transportation and airport policies are discussed below in more detail. The proposal is not subject to the County AS Zone review as no development is proposed at this time. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 18.80.026. Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications. Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. (ORS 836.623(1), OAR 738-100-010, ORS 215.416(6), ORS 227.175(6)] For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports: A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when the property, or a portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000 feet of the sides or ends of a runway. B. Notice of land use and limited land use applications shall be provided within the following timelines. 1. Notice of land use or limited land use applications involving public hearings shall be provided prior to the public hearing at the some time that written notice of such applications is provided to property owners entitled to such notice. 2. Notice of land use or limited land use applications not involving public hearings shall be provided at least 20 days prior to entry of the initial decision on the land use or limited land use application. 3. Notice of the decision on a land use or limited land use application shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation within the same timelines that such notice is provided to parties to a land use or limited land use proceeding. 4. Notices required under DCC 18.80.026(B)(1-3) need not be provided to the airport sponsor or the Department of Aviation where the land use or limited land use application meets all of the following criteria: a. Would only allow structures of less than 35 feet in height, b. Involves property located entirely outside the approach surface; c. Does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that emit smoke, dust or steam, sanitary landfills or water impoundments, or radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission facilities or electrical transmission lines, and d. Does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 15 of 67 The Planning Division mailed notice of the proposed land use application and scheduled public hearing at the same time that written notice of such applications was provided to property owners entitled to such notice. Notice was mailed to Oregon Department of Aviation and Redmond Airport. Comments from the Oregon Department of Aviation are included above in the staff report and in the application record. No comments were received from the Redmond Airport. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The applicant on behalf of the property owner has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The applicant has filed the required land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: In previous Hearings Officer's decisions, comprehensive plan goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial zone changes. Instead, the goals and policies are implemented through the zoning ordinance, and thus if the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance it also will be consistent with the plan. Nevertheless, the provisions of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan below are the relevant provisions of the plan that should be considered in reviewing applications to change the zoning 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 16 of 67 of EFU to a plan designation of RUGA and Zoning of UH10. Relevant sections of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is reviewed below within this Staff Report. In previous comprehensive plan and zone change recommendations' to the Board of County Commissioners, Hearings Officers have found that the introductory statement of the Comprehensive Plan is aspirational in nature and not necessarily approval criteria. The Hearings Officer agrees with the Staff conclusion that this section is aspirational in nature and not approval criteria. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: In response to subsection (B) of this policy, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The proposed map amendments will change the comprehensive plan designation from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and the zoning from county Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to county Urban Holding - 10 (UH-10). The purpose statement of the UH-10 zone is: DCC 20.12.010 Purpose The following regulations shall apply in areas designated Urban Holding Zone (UH- 10) on the Deschutes County Title 20 Zoning map. This zone is intended to be used to retain large undeveloped or underdeveloped land areas for future urban development. The UH-10 zone is a holding zone and is considered agricultural or rural residential and it will allow agricultural uses to continue operation until such time as urbanization takes place after annexation. As described, the County UH-10 zone is a holding zone. Lands within this zone are intended to be master planned, annexed and rezoned into the City of Redmond. Part 3 of this application package contains an MDP for the subject site. Part 4 contains a request for rezoning and annexing the subject property. This application narrative (Part 5) contains a request to the county for dual map amendments for the subject site to be rezoned from EFU to UH-10 to allow for the site to then be rezoned PF. The subject site will not be urbanizable until the entirety of this application package is approved by both city and county hearings bodies. The purpose of the UH10 Zone is described in DCC 20.12.010, which is addressed above in the applicant's response. Staff finds the proposed Zone Change will allow orderly development consistent with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan by retaining the subject property as undeveloped land until it is annexed, at which time Redmond Comprehensive 3 Powell/Ramsey decision (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) and Landholdings Decision (247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA). 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 17 of 67 Plan and Zoning designations will be applied. The provisions of the UH10 zone are intended to preserve land for future urban development. Staff finds the UH10 Zone is an appropriate zoning designation for the subject property, based on the planned annexation. Staff finds the Applicant has demonstrated the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the UH10 Zone, and asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to amend or add to Staffs quoted findings. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: Although there are no plans to develop the property in its current state, the above criterion specifically asks if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12 guide the orderly, economic, and efficient provision of public utilities and services. Responses to these goals are contained in Appendix J: Statewide Planning Goal Analysis. Supplemental information supporting the availability and future efficiency of public facilities and transportation systems are contained in Appendix D. Public Facility Plan and Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR). Appendix D. Public Facilities Plan shows that the site can be served by a proposed public water line and a proposed public sanitary sewer line. Potable water service will be provided by extending the existing 16" public water main from the south side of Highway OR126 at SE Ochoco Way approximately 1,200 LF easterly to future SE 21 st Avenue. From there, the public water main will be extended northerly in SE 21 st Avenue approximately 550 LF to the project access road. The CORE3 site will be served by a single potable water service and a single fire service. All on -site domestic and fire water will be private and isolated from the public water main system. Wastewater (sanitary sewer) service will be provided by connecting to the existing 12" public sanitary sewer main along the south of Highway OR126. The project connection will require crossing OR126 and extending a public sewer main northerly approximately 600 LF in future SE 21 st Avenue to the project access road. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 18 of 67 The CORE 3 site will be served by a single sanitary service. All on -site sanitary sewer will be private and gravity served where possible. Due to project topography, lower lying areas will be served by a private lift station/force main system. All stormwater will be contained on -site. Stormwater will be collected and dispersed on -site via swales, underground injection control (UIC) devices such as drywells, or a combination of both methods. A certified engineer has determined that the 16' water line and the 12" sanitary sewer line would be adequate to serve the project, discussed in Appendix D.2. Appendix E analyses the zone change from Deschutes County EFU to city PF. The zoning from EFU to PF will have a more significant change than zoning from EFU to UH-10, and therefore encompasses any transportation impacts from rezoning EFU to UH-10. No issues have been identified in the record regarding service provision to the subject property. The Redmond UGB is currently adjacent to the west side of the subject property. Staff finds the proximity to the Redmond UGB will allow for efficient provision of public services upon annexation. In addition, master planning projects upon annexation will ensure adequate land is provided for public facilities. As noted by the applicant, coordination has begun with public utility providers to ensure necessary public facilities and services can be provided. Staff reiterates that prior to development of the properties, the applicant would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code or the Redmond Development Code. Development on the site is planned to occur after annexation under the planned Redmond zoning designation. Regardless, through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. Staff finds this provision is met. The Hearings Officer finds the above applicant statement and staff findings address the Faherty email comments. The Hearings Officer finds Faherty's concern related to the ongoing viability of wells in the subject property vicinity is a legitimate general concern but the provision of water and wastewater services by the City of Redmond eliminates the risk to wells raised by Faherty. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's statement and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: In response to this criterion, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: Consistency with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan is demonstrated in section 2.3. Further, Redmond requires a MDP for the proposed rezone and annexation into the city 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 19 of 67 limits. MDP's must be consistent with Redmond's Great Neighborhood Principles. These principles ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, urban and rural. The proposed Zone Change from EFU to UH will not generate additional development or impacts to surrounding properties. The UH Zone will function as a holding zone to preserve the subject property in its current configuration until it is brought into the City of Redmond, and new urban zoning designations are assigned. If any development occurs while the property remains within Deschutes County zoning, all necessary land use permits will need to be obtained and compatibility with surrounding uses will be evaluated. The Applicant provided specific findings for each relevant Comprehensive Plan goal and policy, which are addressed below. Staff finds the Applicant has demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan, and asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's Burden of Proof discussion of this criterion and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to amend or add to Staffs quoted findings. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant proposes to rezone the properties from EFU to UH and re -designate the properties from Agriculture to RUGA. The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Regional emergency management agencies have been discussing the concept of the CORE3 facility for well over ten years. Organizing efforts culminated in a June 2018 report prepared by the University of Oregon's Partnership for Disaster Resilience that found a strong need for an emergency services center for regional agencies in Central Oregon (See Appendix 1.3. Central Plan in October 2020 that assessed current training facilities and programming needs, conducted a financial assessment for the project, developed a list of site layout considerations, and identified the City of Redmond as the optimal location for this facility (See Appendix 1.1. Strategic Business Plan). RCP policy 11-1-7 establishes the need for the CORE3 facility in Redmond. This documented need —paired with the fact that no suitable site could be identified within the existing UGB— has created a change in circumstances that justified the UGB expansion contained in Part 2 of the application package. The UGB expansion, in turn, has created another change of circumstances that warrants the rezoning and annexation of the subject site, consistent with Part 3. MDP. The proposed Deschutes County comprehensive plan and zoning map 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 20 of 67 amendments from UH-10 to PF are necessary in order to develop the CORE3 facility, a facility spurred through reginal planning and codified in the RCP. It is unclear to staff why the subject property was initially zoned EFU. Staff is unaware of any evidence such as soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming, which explains its current zoning. It does not appear the property has ever been farmed, likely owing to its lack of water and proximity to urban uses. Staff agrees with the applicant's findings that there have been several particularly relevant changes in circumstances that warrant a zone change. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this criterion, but asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's Burden of Proof discussion of this criterion and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to amend or add to Staffs quoted findings. Title 20, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Ordinance CHAPTER 20.36. AMENDMENTS Section 20.36.010. Authorization to Initiate Amendments. A. An amendment to the text of DCC Title 20 or a legislative amendment to a zoning or plan map may be initiated by either the City, the Board, Planning Commission or an Owner. B. Quasi-judicial plan map amendments shall be initiated by an Owner. C. An Owner shall initiate a request for an amendment by filing an application with the Director. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a quasi-judicial UGB reconfiguration together with a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change. The proposal has been initiated by the owner, Deschutes County, by filing concurrent applications with the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. Section 20.36.020. Zone -Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Hearings Body shall hold a public hearing on a quasi-judicial zone change or Comprehensive Plan amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Management Agreement. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The applicant submitted a copy of the Joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County (DC Document No. 2007-110). The initial public hearings will be held before a County Hearings Officer and the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission (RUAPC) for their respective applications. The RUAPC held a public hearing on April 24, 2024 that 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 21 of 67 was continued to May 1, 2024 where they recommended approval of the application to the Redmond City Council. The Redmond City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 2024 and approved the application package before the City. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County. Staff finds this is consistent with all provisions of the Joint Management Agreement. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 20.36.030. Criteria for Map Amendments. For all zoning or Comprehensive Plan map amendments, the applicant shall show the proposed change: A. Conforms with the applicable state statutes; B. Conforms with the applicable state wide planning goals and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) whenever they are determined to be applicable, C. Conforms with the City Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: As detailed throughout this report, staff finds the proposal before the County for the UGB reconfiguration, plan amendment, and zone change conforms to the applicable state statutes, state wide planning goals, and Oregon Administrative Rules. Conformance with the Redmond C-mmnrehensive Plan will be reviewed as hart of the city arocess. --... 1-'--- --'--- ----- ----- -- - - - i The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 20.36.040. Legislative Amendment Procedure. Except as set forth herein, legislative zone, plan or map changes shall be heard pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Joint Management Agreement. FINDING: The applicant is requesting for a quasi-judicial plan and map amendment. Although this criterion is not applicable, staff anticipates that the application before Deschutes County will be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. Section 20.36.050. Limitations on Reapplications. A. No application of a owner for an amendment to the text of DCC Title 20, to the City Comprehensive Plan map or to the Title 20 zoning map shall be considered by the Hearings Body within a six month period immediately following a previous denial application. B. if, in the opinion of the Hearings Body, however, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it, the Hearings Body may permit a new application. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 22 of 67 FINDING: The applicant does not expect reapplication will be necessary. In the event, however, that reapplication becomes necessary, the applicant understands that these provisions will apply. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. Goal2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. Policy 1.3.11 Participate in and, where appropriate, coordinate regional planning efforts. a. Provide affected agencies, including irrigation districts, an opportunity to comment and coordinate on land use policies or actions that would impact their jurisdictions. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments:: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: This or000sal has come together through a high level of coordination between COIC. the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and state and federal agencies. Agencies involved include the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), State Fire Marshal, State Police, and Oregon Emergency Management; Governor Brown's Regional Solutions; the US Forest Service; local public safety agencies; and others. All land use entitlements contained in this proposed application package have required inter- governmental coordination - including the City of Redmond and Deschutes County - to provide an appropriate site for development of a needed regional public facility. And, as evidenced in this application narrative, the proposal will be processed with proper public noticing and hearings before the Deschutes County's Board of County Commissioners. As adopted in DLCD acknowledged documents, the land use processes and review criteria applicable to this application proposal are in conformance with statewide planning Goals 1 and 2. The subject application is being evaluated based on an objective review of compliance with Statewide Planning Goals, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies, and Oregon Administrative Rules. A public hearing will be held before a Hearings Officer on August 8, 2024, and members of the public can attend and testify at that hearing. Pursuant to DCC 22.28.030, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action on the application after a recommendation from the Hearings Officer. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 23 of 67 Change application will be evaluated through an open process that allows for public input and follows Deschutes County's Procedures Ordinance. The City of Redmond has undertaken parallel planning efforts to amend their Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, develop a Concept Plan for the subject property, and annex the subject property and facilitate a master planning process. The RUAPC held a public hearing on April 24, 2024 that was continued to May 1, 2024 where they recommended approval of the application to the Redmond City Council. The Redmond City Council held a public hearing on July 23, 2024 and approved the application package before the City. These City -led efforts allow for greater public involvement in the planning and development of the subject property, even though they are not directed specifically at the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. Staff finds that within each of the steps described above, there is an open and public process that is based on an objective evaluation of facts. Further, these multi -step planning processes are interrelated and require regional coordination, and staff finds they demonstrate cooperation and partnership between the County, City, and State agencies. This criterion will be met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Chapter 2. Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject site is currently zoned EFU and designated as Redmond Urban Reserve Area. The proposal in this narrative (Part 5) is to move from EFU to UH-10, and Ag to RUUGA, concurrent with the proposed UGB expansion contained in Part 2. Statewide Planning Goals 3&4 and their implementing comprehensive plan goals and policies are not applicable to UGB 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 24 of 67 amendments and concurrent zone changes; however, it is interesting to note that DEQ has also determined that the site is not appropriate for any agricultural use (see Appendix G.5). The proposed plan and zone map amendments follow requirements of state statutes, OARS, and the DCCP. See section 2.1 for compliance with ORS's. See section 2.2 for compliance with applicable OARs. Reference this section for compliance with other portions of the DCCP. This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. The applicant is pursuing a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex, rezone, and master plan the property for public facility development, pursuant to OAR 660-024-0040. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The proposal will rezone the subject site from EFU to UH-10. No development or uses are proposed Drior to this rezoninEr. No development or uses are Dr000sed while zoned UH-10. A sequential zone change application (contained in Part 4) will rezone the property from UH- 10 to PF, consistent with the MDP. At that point, the property will have urban zoning and will be able to develop urban uses and at urban intensities. Therefore, ORSs and OARS guiding uses on EFU lands do not apply to this development proposal. Staff finds this policy is not applicable to the application at hand. The applicant is pursuing a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex, rezone, and master plan the property for public facility development, pursuant to OAR 660-024-0040. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Although the subject site is currently zoned EFU and designated Ag in the comprehensive plan, it is designated with the Redmond URA combining zone and therefore first priority for 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 25 of 67 inclusion into the Redmond UGB when a UGB expansion is necessary to accommodate an identified land need. To designate Redmond URAs, the city conducted an extensive analysis that required identifying UGB expansion alternatives considering agricultural land capabilities, among other factors. The subject site has been designated Redmond URA through these state - approved and acknowledged analyses. This application package proposes a UGB expansion. A site selection analysis (Appendix F) contains evidence to support this expansion onto the subject site. Through this analysis and findings contained in application narrative Part 2, the subject site will be redesignated RUUGA and rezoned UH-10. Redesignation and rezoning allow the site to be annexed and developed. The findings related to (1) designating the land as Redmond Urban Growth Area and then to (2) UGB inclusion and rezoning provide evidence to show that the subject site is best suited for future urban development and not retained as designated agricultural land. Staff is unaware of any evidence such as soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming, which explains the current zoning of the subject property. It does not appear the property has ever been farmed, likely owing to its lack of water and proximity to urban uses. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this policy, but asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's Burden of Proof discussion of this criterion and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to amend or add to Staffs quoted findings. Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies Goal 6. Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The proposed zone change and annexation will not change any applicable Goal 6 policies or measures that relate to water resource quality. Actual development of the CORE3 facility will require subsequent development reviews and compliance with Redmond land use and water policies. Development will require coordination with and approvals from Redmond 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 26 of 67 public works, and state and federal entities. If any water impacts are identified, these will be addressed during the development application process. Staff agrees that any potential negative water impacts of future development will be identified and mitigated during the development review process for the site. Staff adds that one component of the site selection process for the CORE3 site included consideration of proximity to water and wastewater infrastructure. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and Applicant's quoted statement above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 2.8 Energy Policies FINDING: The Applicant provides responses pertaining to these three goals in their response to Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation, below. Section 2.9 Environmental Quality Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: There are some proposed elements and activities that may impact air quality if not for mitigation. As described in section 2.2.4 in response to Statewide Planning Goal 6, the siting, design, and operation programing of these elements were targeted to reduce any potential air impacts and to mitigated impacts unable to be addressed through the design process. Further, developing the CORE3 facility will require additional reviews and approvals from federal, state, and local offices regulating air, water, and land quality. Development will require any impacts to be identified and mitigated. The proposed zoning designation, UH-10, is intended to serve as a holding zone while the property remains undeveloped. The County will not be the review agency for development on this property. The applicant provides responses pertaining to these two goals in their response to Statewide Planning Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality, below. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Goal 2. Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural environment. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 27 of 67 The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: A master development plan is included in this application package (Part 3) that requires the CORE3 facility to meet applicable City of Redmond Great Neighborhood Principles. Among those principles are "green design." As a resiliency facility for emergency services, the buildings for the CORE3 campus will be held to a high standard of efficiency and performance to ensure the optimal use of resources and support emergency operations. Occupied buildings will be designed to meet the State's goals with LEED Silver equivalency, and SEED (20% above current energy code). The applications under County review do not include development of the site. The proposed zoning designation, UA, is intended to serve as a holding zone while the property remains undeveloped. The Applicant is not required to provide detailed information on future building practices and building materials as part of this application. Future site development will be reviewed by the City of Redmond. Therefore, staff finds this goal is not applicable. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. Section 2.10 Surface Mining Goal Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while minimizing adverse impacts of extraction, processing and transporting the resource. Policy 2.10.1 Goal 5 mining inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. Policy 2.10.3 Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with conflicting resources and uses FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Negus Landfill is located north of the proposed subject site (see Figure 2 following this response). The 300-acre subject site will not contain the inventoried natural resource (Deschutes County Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory #482). The proposed area of the dual map amendments (the subject site) does not contain any county Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources or any potential City of Redmond Statewide Planning Goal 5 resources. Staff agrees with the applicant's response and notes that no land currently zoned or designated Surface Mine is proposed to be changed as part of this application request. Further, the Goal 5 resource is protected by the SMIA Zone which extends beyond the SM zoned site. However, this application does not remove the SMIA Zone or any existing Goal 5 protections that may apply to surrounding land. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 28 of 67 Based on the information, staff finds the proposed amendment is consistent with this policy and will not interfere with the neighboring Goal 5 resource. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT Section 3.3 Rural Housing Goals and Policies Goal Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The proposed UGB amendment results in approximately 228 acres that will be added to the Redmond UGB. Staff finds the proposed amendment will not adversely impact the rural character and safety of housing in the unincorporated Deschutes County, as the property is not planned to be used for housing. Therefore, the proposal complies with the rural housing Goal 1. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal. Goal2 Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The policies identified under Goal 2 are not applicable to this application. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal. Section 3.4 Rural Economy Goal 1 Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 3.4.4 Support regional educational facilities and workforce training programs. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 29 of 67 As discussed in the Introduction to Land Use Applications, Redmond and the region currently lack both a centralized public safety training facility and a coordination center for emergency response operations. The CORE3 facility will provide support to rural emergency services, thereby stabilizing current and futural rural economies. The proposed map amendments will allow the development of the CORE3 facility inside the Redmond City Limits. Locating this facility inside an existing urban area will help maintain the rural economy while being compatible with the County's rural lifestyle and supporting a healthy environment. The classrooms and practical learning spaces of the proposed CORE3 facility will serve regional rural economic needs while concentrating development within urban areas. Staff agrees with the applicant's response. Further, the development review process required by the City of Redmond will ensure the mitigation of any impacts to the rural economic uses that could occur on neighboring properties, including an appropriate urban -rural interface, building height restrictions, screening, landscaping, and open space requirements. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section. Section 3.5 Natural Hazards Goal 1 Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Reaort, provided the followinz findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The CORE3 facility is a centralized public safety training facility and coordination center for emergency response operations. The CORE3 facility will act as the State Resiliency Center during a Cascadia subduction event. The proposed map amendments will allow for siting the CORE3 facility in Redmond. This is consistent with - and directly implements - Statewide Planning Goal 7 requirements and this DCCP policy because the CORE3 facility will provide local, regional, and state emergency response capacity to respond to natural disasters and hazards. Potential natural hazards on the subject property include wildfire and winter storm risks, as is typical throughout Central Oregon. There are no mapped flood or volcano hazards. However, staff finds the goals and policies of this section are not directly relevant to this proposal. Nonetheless, as the applicant states, the CORE3 facility will act as the State Resiliency Center during a Cascadia subduction event and provide critical emergency services on a local, regional, and statewide scale. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 30 of 67 Policy 3.5.3 Coordinate with emergency service providers when new development is proposed. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Input on the proposal has been received by emergency service providers. Coordination has occurred during the conceptual stages and the creation of the MDP contained in Part 3 of the application package. Further communication will continue with providers as future development applications are necessary to permit the CORE3 facility on the subject site. Staff notes that the County review of the plan amendment and zone change does not include site development. However, as stated by the applicant, the development of the CORES facility has been a multi -year and multi -agency coordination effort. Furthermore, local emergency service providers were provided notice of the application. Staff finds this policy is met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of this goal/section/policy. Policy3.5.6 Critical facilities (schools, churches, hospitals and other facilities as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) should be located outside high risk natural hazard areas, where possible. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The CORE3 facility will be a regional coordination and state resiliency center during the event of major natural disasters. As such, the CORE3 facility should be located outside of any high risk natural hazard areas. The subject site is outside of any flood areas, and it does not contain any steep slopes nor wetlands. The subject site is shown within the Deschutes County Wildfire Zone2. This zone requires the use of specialty building codes, per DCC 15.04.085 and DCC 15.04.010(A). Actual development of the CORE3 facility will occur within the City of Redmond's jurisdiction and will require subsequent land use reviews and compliance with Statewide Goal 7, including wildfire mitigation measures, where applicable. Staff notes that the County review of the plan amendment and zone change does not include site development. There are no mapped flood or volcano hazards. Additional hazards include wildfire and winter storm risks, which are identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the goals and policies of this section not applicable or relevant to this proposal. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 31 of 67 The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of this goal/section/policy. Section 3.6 Public Facilities and Services Policies Goal 9 Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. Policy 3.6.9 New development shall address impacts on existing facilities and plans through the land use entitlement process. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The policies identified under Goal 1 are not applicable to this application. Nonetheless, the Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12 guide the orderly, economic, and efficient provision of public utilities and services. Responses to these goals are contained in AppendixJ: Statewide Planning Goal Analysis. Supplemental information supporting the availability and future efficiency of public facilities and transportation systems are contained in Appendix D. Public Facility Plan and Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR). Staff acknowledges that the intention of the subject applications is to support orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of urban public facilities and services. However, development of the artiial C ORF3 facility will nrcur under the authority of the ON of Redmond. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Policy 3.6.7 Before disposing of County -owned property review whether the land is appropriate for needed public projects such as schools, health clinics, fire stations or senior centers. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject site is currently owned by Deschutes County. The proposed map amendments are necessary to permit the CORE3 facility, a needed regional public facility project. Although the county will not own the CORE3 facility, the facility will fulfill a demonstrated local and regional public facility land need. Staff agrees with the applicant's response. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the criterion. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 32 of 67 Section 3.7 Transportation Goal 1 Achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation and communication system. This system includes roads, rail lines, public transit, air, pipeline, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Deschutes County transportation system shall be designed to serve the existing and projected needs of the unincorporated communities and rural areas within the County. The system shall provide connections between different modes of transportation to reduce reliance on any one mode. Goal 3 The transportation plan and facilities of Deschutes County shall be coordinated with the plans and facilities of incorporated cities within Deschutes County, adjacent counties and the State of Oregon. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject site abuts E. HWY 126. Development of the site requires coordination with ODOT, City, and County officials (see Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR)). COIC is coordinating the proposed UGB expansion, map amendments, and Master Plan with the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and ODOT. The CORE3 facility is a unique public training facility that requires restricted public access. Because of this, no through transportation connections are planned through the site. However, internal transportation design will not nrPVPnt ritv or county transnortation connections that would negatively impact the effic_iencv 1- - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - -.1 - - - - i- - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - . - - _ . - . - - - - - . - c� - - - - - -J - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J of existing or future transportation networks. Further findings detailing compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 12 are found in Appendix J: Statewide Planning Goal Analysis. Staff notes that the Transportation planning program has been summarized and incorporated into the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), which was adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 and is contained with Appendix C of the County Comprehensive Plan. The applicable goals and policies of the TSP are addressed below under Appendix C. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of this goal/section/policy. Policy 3.1 Deschutes County shall notify ODOT concerning. a. All land use proposals or actions that would create access onto a state highway or add >100 ADT to any County road intersection with a state highway; b. Any proposed land use or development within 500 feet of a state highway or public use airport within the County, and C. Require ODOT road approach permits. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 33 of 67 The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject site is adjacent to E. HWY 126. Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR) will be reviewed by ODOT, as required by the RDC. The development of the subject site will ultimately be reviewed by the City of Redmond. However, Staff notes the Oregon Department of Transportation was provided notice of the County application. Therefore, this policy is met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies Goal 1 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Policy4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Part 2. UGB Amendment in this application package contains findings to support UGB expansion onto the subject site. The subject site is currently in the Redmond URA, but the series of applications within this larger proposal incorporate the subject site into the RUUGA and then into the City of Redmond. This application process has involved coordination with both the City of Redmond and Deschutes County, and the application will need to be heard by both city and county hearings bodies. The proposed UGB expansion onto the subject site is an orderly, economic, and efficient transition between urban and rural lands, as demonstrated in Appendix D. Public Facility Plan and Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR). Staff concurs with the Applicant's analysis and finds they have demonstrated coordination between Deschutes County, the City of Redmond, and special districts. The CORE3 facility is the result of a regional effort led by the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) who facilitates regional coordination amongst local, state, and federal agencies. While the future development of the CORE3 project site will be reviewed by the City of Redmond, staff finds the coordination during that process is relevant in addressing this criterion. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 34 of 67 The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The proposed zoning designation, UH-10, will serve as a holding zone while the subject property is inside the Redmond UGB but outside city boundaries, until annexation. The above goals will not be applicable to the subject property if the application is approved. The proposal seeks to bring the subject property into the Redmond UGB as well as annex the property into the City of Redmond. Goals 2 and 3 are not applicable to properties within city boundaries. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings/comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OAR 660-024_ Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries Section 660.024.0020. Adoption or Amendment of a UGB. (1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows: FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable with the proposed UGB amendment, except as noted below. Based on the findings below, no exception is provided to this requirement. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. The Hearings Officer adopts the above -quoted Staff findings. a) The exceptions process in Goal and OAR chapter 660, division 4, is not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a particular goal requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660-004- 0010(1), 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 35 of 67 FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: These provisions are not applicable to this application since this proposal is not seeking a goal exception. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above and correctly interpret the language of the goal/section/policy. b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above and correctly interpret the language of the goal/section/policy. (c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR chapter 660, division 23, apply only in areas added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660-023-0070 and 660- 023-0250; FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: Coal 5 resources are listed in the acknowledeed Comprehensive Plan. There is an identified Goal 5 resource on the subject property but the portion of the property subject to the amendment does not include the inventoried Goal 5 resource. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. (d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary, FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The applicant has applied for a concurrent review with the City of Redmond. Pending the outcome of this UGB amendment application, the applicant plans to rezone the property to Public Facilities (PF) within the City of Redmond Zoning Code. Therefore, these requirements do not apply. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 36 of 67 However, staff asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. However, if the Transportation Planning Rule applies, the applicant has provided the following response: As documented in Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR), rezoning the subject site from EFU to UH-10 to allow the development of the CORE3 facility will not adversely impact the existing transportation system. Transportation Planning Rule Conclusions: The "reasonable worst -case scenario" for the full build out of the MDP (all Phases) is estimated to be 600 daily trips and 65 weekday peak - hour trips. As described, Phase 1 will produce only 150 daily trips and 16 peak -hour trips. This trip generation is not significant, per Policy 1 F.5 of the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). The OHP reads "Any proposed amendment that does not increase the average dailytrips by more than 400 is not considered significant". Therefore, Phase 1 of the MDP will not produce a significant impact on the transportation system. However, the full buildout of the CORE3 facility could constitute a significant effect. When future phases of the MDP are proposed, additional analyses per the TPR and RDC may be required. At this stage, only Phase 1 impact evaluation and mitigation measures in the form of a trip -cap are proposed. Staff notes that the UH10 interim zone is a holding zone Prior to the planned annexation of the subject property. Uses allowed in the UH10 Zone are of a similar nature to that of the EFU Zone. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's Burden of Proof discussion of this criterion and Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to amend or add to Staffs quoted findings. (e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary; (f) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within a coastal shorelands boundary; (g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The above three provisions are not applicable to the proposal. The subject property is not within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary or within a coastal shorelands boundary, and the proposal is a UGB amendment. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 37 of 67 The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. The Hearings Officer adopts the above -quoted Staff findings. (2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the city and county plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels are included in the UGB. Where a UGB does not follow lot or parcel lines, the map must provide sufficient information to determine the precise UGB location. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The proposed UGB and amendments to the UGB are shown on the city and county plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine the precise UGB location. The location does not presently align with lot or parcel lines, in this case, and so the inclusion area will be defined with a metes and bounds legal description, until such time as it aligns with lot or parcel lines. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Section 660-024-0040, Land Need (1) The UGB must be based on the appropriate 20 year population forecast for the urban area as determined under Rules in OAR 660, div 32, and must provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the 20 year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goal 14 and this rule. The 20 year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision. Local governments in Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties may determine the need for Regional Large -Lot Industrial Land by following the provisions of OAR 660-024-0045 for areas subject to that rule. (3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need) without a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of land need (for example, employment need). FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: And OAR 660-024-0040(3) allows cities to review and amend their UGB based on only one category of land, like public facilities. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 38 of 67 To satisfy this demonstrated land need, lands inside the existing Redmond UGB and lands adjacent to the Redmond UGB were evaluated. The following sections show the process of evaluation, following the UGB Rule and ORSs. Staff concurs and finds that the provisions of OAR 660-024-0065, as noted below, were followed to determine this land need. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Section OAR 660-024-0050 Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency (1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20- year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. [..] FINDING: Staff findings for this section (including footnote 4) are set forth below: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Cities must first look at lands within their UGBs to satisfy an identified need before rnnsidarinu a HGR exnansion. Winterbrook evaluated lands inside the current 1JGR haled ---.-.-._....o - - __... - - -- -.._._ .. - -- - -- - - on the land's ability to meet defined site characteristics in RCP policy 11-1-7. No sites within the UGB will meet CORES facility site requirements (OAR 660-024-0050[l]). Therefore, the CORE3 facility cannot be reasonably accommodated within the current UGB, and the City of Redmond must amend its UGB (OAR 660-024-0050[4]). Sites inside the UGB were first identified based on their total vacant acreage. In the case of tax lots that fell partially within and partially outside of the UGB, only the portions of tax lots that fell inside the UGB were considered. Contiguous tax lots under the same ownership were considered a single site. Winterbrook identified five sites over 300 acres, shown in Figure 3. Winterbrook used a combination of aerial imagery, assessor data, and information from the 2019 Redmond Economic Opportunities Analysis to confirm vacancy or current use of the sites. Four sites within the UGB have established land uses and are not available for development of the CORE3 facility: 1) Juniper Golf Course (Tax lot 151332-00-01000) 2) Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center (Tax lot 151328-00-00100) 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 39 of 67 3) Redmond Municipal Airport (Tax lots 151322-00-00100, 151300-00-01500, and other contiguous parcels under City of Redmond ownership)' 4) Two tax lots under Central Oregon Irrigation District ownership (Tax lots 151315- 00-00101 and 151315-00-00102) Because these four sites are either developed or committed - and therefore not vacant and available for the CORE3 facility site - they were removed from consideration. Applicant's Figure 3 300 Acre Sites within UGB (Appendix F) After removing these four sites from consideration, one site remains. This site is shown on Figures 3 and 4 as "Large Lot Industrial" - its designation in RCP. Although 4 While the airport does hold buildings of similar use to the CORES facility (the Redmond Air Center, for instance, is a training and resources hub for wildland firefighting owned by the U.S. Forest Service), the airport already has its own Master Plan, and not enough vacant or uncommitted land remains on the site to support the 300 acres required for CORE3. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 40 of 67 this vacant site is large enough to accommodate the CORES facility, the site does not meet the locational requirements identified in RCP policy 11-1-7. The Large Lot Industrial site is farther than one -quarter miles away from the Redmond Municipal Airport. Further, this site is a planned part of the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land program (OAR 660-024-0045) and is unable to be developed for the CORE3 facility per RDC 8.0186 and OAR 660-024-0045(9) and (10). Therefore, this site is removed from consideration, and there are no remaining sites within the UGB that meet CORE3 facility siting requirements. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 41 of 67 Applicant's Figure 4 300 Acre Sites within UGB (Appendix F) Fi ,urc- PiU,'A.i a Le e4;LlKn of LNge Lot industrial sate With no vacant and suitable land within the existing UGB to satisfy demonstrated public facility land needs, the City of Redmond must amend their UGB to accommodate the land need, per OAR 660-024-0050(4): (4) if the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 year needs determined under OAR 660-024- 0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. If the local government determines there is a need to expand the UGB, changes to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 42 of 67 locations consistent with Goal 14 and applicable rules at OAR 660-024-0060 or 660- 024-0065 and 660-024-0067. Based on the applicant's response to the site selection process with regards to the UGB, staff finds these provisions are met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Section OAR 660-024-0065 Establishment of Study Area to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB (1) When considering a UGB amendment to accommodate a need deficit identified in OAR 660-024-0050(4), a city outside of Metro must determine which land to add to the UGB by evaluating alternative locations within a "study area" established pursuant to this rule. To establish the study area, the city must first identify a "preliminary study area" which shall not include land within a different UGB or the corporate limits of a city within a different UGB. The preliminary study area shall include: (a) All lands in the city's acknowledged urban reserve, if any, (b) All lands that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UGB: (A) For cities with a UGB population less than 10,000: one-half mile, (B) For cities with a UGB population equal to orgreater than 10,000: one mile, (c) All exception areas contiguous to an exception area that includes land within the distance specified in subsection (b) and that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UGB: (A) For cities with a UGB population less than 10,000: one mile, (B) For cities with a UGB population equal to or greater than 10,000: one and one- half miles; FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report (including footnotes 5 & 6), provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: As previously explained, OAR 660-024-0065 guides the establishment of a preliminary study area and the refinement of that study area based on the narrow evaluation of the study area, per OAR 660-024-0065(3) and ORS 197A.320(6). The preliminary study area shall include: The initial preliminary study area includes: 1) Redmond's four URAs; 2) All tax lots within one mile of the existing Redmond UGB; and 3) All exception areass within one and one-half mile from the existing Redmond UGB. 5 For this analysis, lands with the following zoning designations were used to determine status as exception area: Rural Residential, Rural Industrial, Multiple Use Agricultural, Surface Mining and Open Space. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 43 of 67 Cities can exclude certain lands from the preliminary study area, per OAR 660-024-0065[4]6. Generally, the exclusions include lands that are impracticable to serve with public facilities, lands with significant natural hazards, lands with natural resources or other protections, or land that is owned by the federal government and managed for rural purposes. Lands owned and managed by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were therefore removed from consideration in the preliminary study area. After exclusions per OAR 660-024-0065[4], figure 5 shows the preliminary study area. The total acreage of this preliminary study area is over 9,700 acres —over 30 times the amount of land needed to accommodate the 300-acre CORE3 facility. This complies with OAR 660- 024-0065[5]. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. (5) After excluding land from the preliminary study area under section (4), the city must adjust the area, if necessary, so that it includes an amount of land that is at least twice the amount of land needed for the deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4) or, if applicable, twice the particular land need described in section (3). Such adjustment shall be made by expanding the distance specified under the applicable section (1) or (2) and applying section (4) to the expanded area. FINDING: Staff findings and comments, including photographs/figures, for this section are set forth hplrnnr 6 4) The city may exclude land from the preliminary study area if it determines that: (a) Based on the standards in section (7) of this rule, it is impracticable to provide necessary public facilities or services to the land; (b) The land is subject to significant development hazards, due to a risk of: (A) Landslides: The land consists of a landslide deposit or scarp flank that is described and mapped on the Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon (SLIDO) Release 3.2 Geodatabase published by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) December 2014, provided that the deposit or scarp flank in the data source is mapped at a scale of 1:40,000 or finer. If the owner of a lot or parcel provides the city with a site -specific analysis by a certified engineering geologist demonstrating that development of the property would not be subject to significant landslide risk, the city may not exclude the lot or parcel under this paragraph; (B) Flooding, including inundation during storm surges: the land is within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); (C) Tsunamis: the land is within a tsunami inundation zone established pursuant to ORS 455.446; (c) The land consists of a significant scenic, natural, cultural or recreational resource described in this subsection: (A) Land that is designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan prior to initiation of the UGB amendment, or that is mapped on a published state or federal inventory at a scale sufficient to determine its location for purposes of this rule, as: (i) Critical or essential habitat for a species listed by a state or federal agency as threatened or endangered; (ii) Core habitat for Greater Sage Grouse; or (iii) Big game migration corridors or winter range, except where located on lands designated as urban reserves or exception areas; (B) Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers and State Scenic Waterways, including Related Adjacent Lands described by ORS 390.805, as mapped by the applicable state or federal agency responsible for the scenic program; (C) Designated Natural Areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage Resources; (D) Wellhead protection areas described under OAR 660-023-0140 and delineated on a local comprehensive plan; (E) Aquatic areas subject to Statewide Planning Goal 16 that are in a Natural or Conservation management unit designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan; (F) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations that implement Statewide Planning Goal 17, Coastal Shoreland, Use Requirement 1; (G) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations that implement Statewide Planning Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 2; (d) The land is owned by the federal government and managed primarily for rural uses. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 44 of 67 Applicant's Figure 5 Preliminary Study Area (Appendix F) Fig u re 5 Pry hI'n mary Stu dy Area As with the UGB lands evaluation, lands within this preliminary study area were evaluated based on their ability to satisfy the CORE3 facility's site and locational needs. 1) At least 300 contiguous acres of vacant land; 2) Within one -quarter mile of the Redmond Municipal Airport; and 3) Within one -quarter mile of a state highway. Winterbrook identified four vacant sites in the preliminary study area over 300 acres. These sites are shown on Figure 6. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 45 of 67 W:,aui 6 Si:r_s Ovo. 300 r.s in h (`IC011-11in r, stud", -1 Of these four sites, only Site 1 is within both one -quarter miles of the Redmond Municipal Airport and within one -quarter miles of a state highway. Sites 2, 3, and 4 are not within this proximity; they were excluded from the preliminary study area. All four sites are shown in context with one -quarter mile buffers in Figure 7. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 46 of 67 i-ip -r SftE-� 0,&r",10Ac. nildP«aIR .dims rsA,,Pon InFItdimIF,orvSwdyArea Site #1 (tax lot 151300-00-00103) is the only site within the preliminary study area to meet CORE3's site and locational needs: at least 300-acres of contiguous vacant land within on - quarter miles of both the Redmond Municipal Airport and a state highway. Site 1 is within the eastern Redmond URA. The site is owned by Deschutes County and contains roughly 1,800 acres. Only 300-acres are needed for the entirety of the CORE3 facility. The preferred location of Phase 1 and the Future Phase CORE3 facility is shown on figure 8, and contains 228 acres. This preferred location meets all three site and locational needs of the CORE3 facility and is considered the final study area. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 47 of 67 Applicant's Figure 8 Final Study Area (Appendix F) Fig,vi,t,8 Final Sti-aJy.Arf-a Based on the applicant's response to the site selection process with regards to the UGB, staff finds these provisions are met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. (3) When the primary purpose for expansion of the UGB is to accommodate a particular industrial use that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that requires specific site characteristics, and the site characteristics may be found in only a small number of locations, the preliminary study area may be limited to those locations 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 48 of 67 within the distance described in section (1) or (2), whichever is appropriate, that have or could be improved to provide the required site characteristics. For purposes of this section: (a) The definition of "site characteristics" in OAR 660-009-0005(11) applies for purposes of identifying a particular industrial use. (b) A "public facility" may include a facility necessary for public sewer, water, storm water, transportation, parks, schools, or fire protection. Site characteristics may include but are not limited to size, topography and proximity. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: UGBs may be amended in consideration of one category of land need without a simultaneous review of other categories, and local governments can identify specific site requirements for public facilities for purposes of UGB expansion. RCP policy 11-1-7 demonstrates (1) public facility land need and (2) defines necessary site and locational characteristics. RCP policy 11-1-7 reads: To implement the Central Oregon Emergency Services Center Viability Assessment and the related Strategic Business Plan, the City, has determined a need for a suitable site for the Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient (CORE3) regional public facility as a new community element. The CORE3 facility requires the following site and locational characteristics: • 300 contiguous acres of suitable vacant land, • Within one -quarter mile of the Redmond Municipal Airport, and • Direct access to a state highway without the need to travel through designated residential or commercial areas. Any land brought into the Urban Growth Boundary to meet public services and facilities site needs identified through this policy shall be limited to Public Safety, Emergency Services, Training and Coordination Facilities. The UGB may be amended in consideration of this demonstrated public facility need without simultaneous review of other land use categories, and the analysis can use the specific site requirements outlined in this policy for the purposes of UGB expansion. The first phases of the Core3 facility will require 228 acres. ORS 197A.320(6) also allows a narrow study area establishment: (6) When the primary purpose for expansion of the urban growth boundary is to accommodate a particular industry use that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that requires specific site characteristics and the site characteristics may be found in only a small number of locations, the city may limit the study area to land that has, or could be improved to provide, the required 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 49 of 67 site characteristics. Lands included within an urban growth boundary for a particular industrial use, or a particular public facility, must remain planned and zoned for the intended use: Winterbrook relied on RCP policy 11-1-7 to define the narrow study area. The policy provides three site and locational needs for the CORES facility. The subject site must be: 1) At least 300 contiguous acres of vacant land; 2) Within one -quarter mile of the Redmond Municipal Airport; and 3) Within one -quarter mile of a state highway. Winterbrook interpreted the RCP policy section "Direct access to a state highway without the need to travel through designated residential or commercial areas" to mean within one -quarter mile of a state highway. This proximal boundary limits the likelihood of access conflicts through residential or commercial areas, which is the intention of the RCP policy section. While a 300 acre need for a CORE3 facility was identified, the Master Development Plan included in this application package plans for only 228 acres for Phase 1 and the Future Phase. Therefore, the site selection analysis will include sites that can accommodate 300 acres, but for the purposes of this UGB expansion request, only 228 acres will be considered to be brought into the UGB. Using the above site and locational characteristics, lands inside the existing UGB were first evaluated to see if they could satisfy the demonstrated public facility land need. gtaff find-, the ;nnlirant'-. site selection analvsis and methodologv annronriately followed OAR ---... ....-.- -�--'I-F..--' --- - ---------------"J--- -----------------VJ --1-I- -F- ----J - ----- -- --- 660-024-0065(3) to establish a narrow study area specific to a public facility need. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/section/policy. Section 660-024-0067 Evaluation of Land in the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB; Priorities (2) Priority of Land for inclusion in a UGB: (a) First Priority is urban reserve, exception land, and nonresource land. Lands in the study area that meet the description in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection are of equal (first) priority. (A) Land designated as an urban reserve under OAR chapter 660, division 21, in an acknowledged comprehensive plan; (B) Land that is subject to an acknowledged exception under ORS 197.732, and (C) Land that is nonresource land. (b) Second Priority is marginal land. land within the study area that is designated as marginal land under ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition) in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 50 of 67 (c) Third Priority is forest or farm land that is not predominantly high -value farm land. land within the study area that is designated for forest or agriculture uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and that is not predominantly high -value farmland as defined in ORS 195.300, or that does not consist predominantly of prime or unique soils, as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). In selecting which lands to include to satisfy the need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification system or the cubic foot site class system, as appropriate for the acknowledged comprehensive plan designation, to select lower capability or cubic foot site class lands first. (d) Fourth Priority is agricultural land that is predominantly high -value farmland: land within the that is designated as agricultural land in an acknowledged comprehensive plan and is predominantly high -value farmland as defined in ORS 195.300. A city may not select land that is predominantly made up of prime or unique farm soils, as defined by the USDA NRCS, unless there is an insufficient amount of other land to satisfy its land need. In selecting which lands to include to satisfy the need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification system to select lower capability lands first. [• •] (5) With respect to section (1), a city must assume that vacant or partially vacant land in a particular priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency identified in OAR 660- 024-0050(4) unless it demonstrates that the land cannot satisfy the specified need based on one or more of the conditions described in subsections (a) through (g) of this section: Existing parcelization, lot sizes or development patterns of rural residential land make that land unsuitable for an identified employment need, as follows: `..] (e) With respect to a particular industrial use or particular public facility use described in OAR 660-024-0065(3), the land does not have, and cannot be improved to provide, one or more of the required specific site characteristics. `..] (8) The city must apply the boundary location in coordination with service providers and state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) with respect to Factor 2 regarding impacts on the state transportation system, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Department of State Lands (DSL) with respect to Factor 3 regarding environmental consequences. "Coordination" includes timely notice to agencies and service providers and consideration of any recommended evaluation methodologies. ORS 197.298 priority: 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary. (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary of Metro except under the following priorities: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 51 of 67 a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate (..] ORS 197A.320 priority: 197A.320 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundaries outside Metro, rules. (2)(00): (c) When evaluating the priority of land for inclusion under paragraph (b) of this subsection: (A) The city shall evaluate the land within the study area that is designated as an urban reserve under ORS 195.145 in an acknowledged comprehensive plan, land that is subject to an acknowledged exception under ORS 197.732 or land that is nonresource land and select as much of the land as necessary to satisfy the need for land using criteria established by the commission and criteria in an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: PPr nAR r)n-n24-on67(2)(a)_ land within the URA is first nrinrity fnr UGR inrlusion. The studv _...- -- -- � ---- ,.-.,, .-.._..-_....- - - - — --- -- - -- -----.-.-... .- - --- area contains one site that is entirely within the URA, as shown on Figure 8. The subject area within tax lot 151300-00-00103 is vacant and meets identified site needs. It is therefore suitable (OAR 660- 024-0067[5]). OAR 660-24-0067(8) requires that cities apply the boundary location factors of Goal 146 in coordination with service providers and state agencies. Efficiency and compatibility in compliance with Goal 14 boundary location factors 1 and 2 are demonstrated by Appendix D. Public Facility Plan and Appendix E. Transportation Studies (TGR - TPR). To address locational factor 3, adopted Deschutes County Goal 5 inventories, the State's wetland database7, and the RCP were consulted. There are no identified Goal 5 resources - or potential Goal 5 resources - on the southern portion of the subject site, the proposed area for UGB inclusion. (See figure 5). Finally, the proposed CORE3 facility has been designed with consideration of adjacent agricultural land. Application Part 3. MDP details the urban -rural buffers to ensure compatibility, consistent with the Great Neighborhood Principles. The proposed UGB expansion area will only accommodate the CORE3 facility. No other urban uses will be permitted. Therefore, the MDP for CORE3 addresses any urban uses within the proposed UGB expansion area, and therefore any potential urban -rural conflicts. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 52 of 67 There are no other suitable sites which require the four boundary location factors to be weighed against one another on alternative sites. In evaluation, a city must consider all urban reserves in the study area and select for inclusion "as much of the land as necessary to satisfy the need for land." (ORS 197A.320[2][c][A] and OAR 660- 024-0067[1 ][a]8). RCP policy 11-1-7 has defined the land need for the CORE3 facility as 300-acres, and the locational requirements as near the Redmond Municipal Airport and near a state highway. Phase 1 and the Future Phase depicted in the Master Development Plan included requires 228 acres. The southern portion of Site #1 is nearest to the Redmond Municipal Airport and E. HWY 126. Therefore, 228 acres of the southern portion of Site #1 should be included in the UGB to satisfy the demonstrated public facility land need for this phase of the CORE3 facility. While tax lot 151300-00-00103 contains roughly 1800 acres, 76.5 of which are already within the Redmond UGB, this portion of the site is already planned for and committed to The Oasis Village shelters. Additionally, the programmatic elements depicted in the Master Development Plan require site contiguity, the western portion of tax lot 151300-00-00103 has a public road running along the edge of the current Urban Growth Boundary, a public road running through the CORE3 facility would present security and access issues. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis and notes that 228 acres are proposed to be included in the UGB to satisfy the demonstrated public facility land need for the CORE3 facility. Further, the 228-acre project site is located in the Redmond URA - the first priority for inclusion into UGBs as guided by the applicable OAR's and ORS's. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Section 660.024.0070. UGB Adjustments. DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS (OAR 660-015) Goal 1: Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 1 calls for the opportunity for the public to be involved in all phases of the planning process and is applicable to all proposed amendments. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County have adopted and acknowledged procedures within the RDC that are consistent with Goal 1. The proposal will be processed with proper public noticing and hearings before the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission - the city's formal citizen advisory committee - 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 53 of 67 and the Redmond City Council for the City of Redmond applications. For Deschutes County applications, the proposal will be processed with proper public noticing and hearings before Deschutes County's Board of County Commissioners. By meeting applicable city and county notice requirements, the application will be in conformity with Goal 1. During the plan amendment and zone change process, public notice of the proposal was provided to affected agencies and property owners in the surrounding area. Planning staff mailed and published notice of the proposal and public hearing. The County will hold a public hearing before the County Hearings Officer. The City of Redmond will hold a public hearing before the Redmond Planning Commission. Goal 1 will be met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 2: Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 2 generally requires consideration of alternatives, coordination with affected units of government, and that comprehensive plan policies be implemented by local land use regulations. Goal 2 applies to all proposed amendments. This proposal has come together through a high level of coordination between the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIL), the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and state and federal agencies. Agencies involved include the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), State Fire Marshal, State Police, and Oregon Emergency Management; Governor Brown's Regional Solutions; the US Forest Service; local public safety agencies and Districts; and others. A Steering Team completed a Strategic Business Plan in 2020 that developed, among other things, site layout considerations and facility needs for the site. Goal 2 requires jurisdictions to establish a factually -based planning process for all land use decisions. This planning process includes the creation of a comprehensive plan and other supporting planning documents that inventory a city's built and natural environments, providing a basis for policy goals and implementation measures. The proposed comprehensive text amendment will establish an identified need for a regional public facility use with specific required characteristics. The amendment is crafted to enable evaluation and potential urban growth consistent with the RCP and public facility infrastructure, and it is consistent with RCP policies as demonstrated in Section 3.3 of Part 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 54 of 67 The proposed UGB amendment will designate the expansion area for public facility use. UGB expansions are regulated by ORS 197, as implemented by OAR 660-024; therefore, the proposed UGB expansion process and requirements supersede conceptual planning contained in the Eastside Framework Plan. Through adoption of the proposed UGB amendment, the RCP designation of Public Facilities will be the controlling land use designation for the proposed expansion area. The RCP designation of the site for public facilities is relevant to the MDP application in Part 3, and subsequent annexation applications in Parts 4 and 5. City of Redmond policy mandates that the land added to the UGB will remain with an Urban Holding Area (UH-10) zoning designation until time of annexation. The annexation applications for both the city and Deschutes County (Parts 4 and 5) are part of this application package and will rezone the land as Public Facilities (PF) upon city annexation. In 2007, the City of Redmond and Deschutes County signed a joint management agreement, an intergovernmental agreement to establish the process for eventual plan and map amendments in the Redmond URA. The agreement states that the "City will accept and process all legislative and quasi-judicial applications, including County initiated ones, for comprehensive plan, plan map, zoning map and zoning regulations text amendments." (See JMA section 4(D) in Appendix G.2). City of Redmond policy mandates that the land added to the UGB will remain with an Urban Holding Area (UH-10) zoning designation until time of annexation. This application narrative requests annexation intn the City of RPrlmnnri rnnn irrant With the rani iPctari 7nna rhanaa from UH-10 to PF. The requested zone change is consistent with the MDP contained in Part 3 of the application package, and the justification for UGB expansion to meet public facility land need contained in Part 2 of the application package. The requested land use actions are consistent with the DCCP, DCC, and JMA. The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal 2. In accordance with Goal 2, the applicant has submitted an application to the County and the City of Redmond for the UGB expansion, plan amendment, and zone change. Staff finds the proposed plan amendment and zone change satisfies this goal because the proposal has been reviewed in accordance with the County's acknowledged planning review process. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: Staff findings and comments for this section are set forth below: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 55 of 67 The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable to lands within UGBs or to UGB amendments, per OAR 660- 024-0020(1)(b) "Adoption or Amendment of a UGB". Staff agrees with the applicant's response. Further, staff recognizes this application is unique as the property was identified through a regional needs assessment. The applicant analyzed alternatives previously in this application to preserve and maintain agricultural lands to the greatest extent possible. Staff finds the applicant provided sufficient analysis that this property is not viable agricultural land. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 4: Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. riNnmjr.- staff in the gtaff Rennrt- nrnvirlPrl the fnllnwing findings/rnmmPnt�- .. --- - -- ----., ... -..- --_... --� -, - --- -- --- -- - - -- -a --- --- -o-- _------ -----. The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable to lands within UGBs or to UGB amendments, per OAR 660- 024-0020(1)(b) "Adoption or Amendment of a UGB". Staff agrees with the applicant's response. Further, the subject property does not include forest land. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 56 of 67 The area of the proposed annexation and zone change does not include any inventoried or potential Goal 5 resources. Actual development of the CORE3 facility will require subsequent land use reviews and compliance with Goals 5, if and where applicable. Portions of Tax lot 151300-00-00103 contain an inventoried Deschutes County Goal 5 resource: the Negus Landfill. This resource is listed as #482 on Table 5.8.1 within the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Although a portion of the tax lot containing the subject site is an inventoried Goal 5 resource, the proposed UGB expansion area onto the subject site is south of the Negus Landfill and will not include this resource. Moreover, there are no other potential Goal 5 resources on the subject site that could be incorporated into the City of Redmond Goal 5 inventories. Goal 5 is met. Staff agrees with the applicant. The subject property does not include any Goal 5 resources that would be impacted by this proposal. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: Tha Annlirant nrnvidprl the fnllnwinu resnnnse in the submitted burden of nroof statement: The Redmond Comprehensive Plan text amendment (Part 1) does not affect any Goal 6 policies. The proposed map amendments will not change any applicable Goal 6 policies or measures that relate to air or water resource quality. However, the CORE3 facility will include burn buildings and a wildfire training area that could have impacts on air quality. To reduce impacts from these facilities on surrounding lands, element siting, design and operational program has been developed to best meet state and federal air quality standards. The State of Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training has adopted the 2019 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association's 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications. The Class A Burn Building and Class B Drill Tower (see Appendix C. MDP) are essential training components to provide a safe, secure and consistent training environment to fulfill certification requirements for fire behavior, search and rescue, ventilation, water supply, hose management, fire control, fire streams, sprinkler control, scene safety, and the practical use of self-contained breathing apparatus. The Class A and Class B Burn Buildings are currently programmed for approximately 510 training hours annually. Of those training hours, Class A live burn training, using combustible materials such as hay and wood, will represent a small fraction of the total training hours annually. Class A live burn training operations are expected to occur a few times a month 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 57 of 67 with the actual burns lasting less than hour. Class B fire training operations utilize propane fueled fire training props and theatrical smoke that is engineered to dissipate quickly. As part of the CORE3 facility operation plan, live burn training operations must meet environmental parameters such as wind speed and direction to promote the rapid dissipation of smoke. The Class A and Class B training structures are strategically located on the site to take advantage of prevailing wind patterns to optimize the dissipation of smoke from populated areas. The Recycling Pond component of the plan helps to capture and store water used in the fire training exercises in the tactical village and holds it for reuse in future exercises. Utilizing the pond to recycle water used in onsite trainings preserves water resources by reducing the overall water used. The CORE3 development contains a gun range/firearms training area that is planned to be an open-air enclosed and fully -baffled gun range with sound mitigation measures integrated into the design. The no -blue sky configuration is to be designed so errant rounds cannot escape the perimeters of the range. The fuel island component of the site is envisioned as a minimum of (1) 12,000-gallon gas fuel tank and (1) 12,000-gallon diesel fuel tank with two pumps to fuel training vehicles used on site. The fuel stations will be designed with appropriate spill control and mitigation measures and will meet or exceed local, state, and federal regulations. Construction of the CORE3 facility will require additional local, state, and federal reviews to ensure that all potential air, land, and water quality impacts are mitigated through element siting, structure designs, and operational program development, thereby complying with Goal 6. As discussed previously, the subject property includes the Redmond Rod and Gun Club, a former shooting range used by the Deschutes County Sheriff, and an unpermitted disposal area. Development of the CORE3 facility is planned to occur under the authority of the City of Redmond. Nonetheless, the applicant has included a site remediation plan, dated Mary 4, 2020, prepared by the environmental consulting firm, APEX (Applicant's Appendix G.4). The remediation plan was reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality (Applicant's Appendix G.S, dated July 2020) and includes alternatives for remediation actions. Moreover, the remediation plan for the property will ensure clean-up of the property will be completed in conjunction with development and will meet all DEQ requirements. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 58 of 67 FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 7 requires local governments to adopt natural hazard inventories, policies, and implementing measures. RCP policies 7-3-1 and 7-3-2 require the City to "plan and prepare" for the Cascadia earthquake and to "support plans and programs to expedite the restoration of critical services following a natural hazard event". There are three DCCP policies that implement Goal 7 and support the development of the CORE3 facility: Section 3.5 Goal 1, Policy 3.5.6, and Policy 3.5.9. Part 5 addresses each policy in detail in Section 3.1 of Part 5 Deschutes County Plan Map and Zone Change. The CORE3 facility is a centralized public safety training facility and coordination center for emergency response operations. The CORE3 facility will act as the State Resiliency Center during a Cascadia subduction event. The proposed UGB amendment will allow for siting the CORES facility in Redmond. This is consistent with - and directly implements - Goal 7 requirements, RCP policies, and Deschutes County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Item #9. This is because the CORE3 facility will provide local, regional, and state emergency response capacity to respond to natural disasters and hazards. Further, the subject site is outside of any flood areas. It does not contain steep slopes (slopes over 15% are a development constraint and considered unsuitable for employment uses in the Redmond Economic Opportunity Analysis, an adopted and acknowledged document). And the subject site does not contain any wetlands nor does Deschutes County regulate wetland areas. Wetland areas and steep slopes in relation to the subject site are shown in Figure 2. The subject site is shown within the Deschutes County Wildfire Zone2. This zone requires the use of specialty building codes, per DCC 15.04.085 and DCC 15.04.010(A). Actual development of the CORE3 facility will occur within the City of Redmond's jurisdiction and will require subsequent land use reviews and compliance with Statewide Goal 7, including wildfire mitigation measures, where applicable. Thus, the proposed amendments comply with Goal 7. Staff finds wildfire risk is the primary natural disaster concern on the subject property. There are no mapped flood hazards or steep slopes on the subject property. As stated, development of the CORE3 facility will be reviewed by the City of Redmond. However, staff notes the master development plan proposes improved transportation access which can provide benefits if a natural disaster were to occur and the subject property needed to be evacuated or accessed by emergency service providers. The planned annexation will also allow it to be served by urban service providers. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 59 of 67 Goal 8: Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, here appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 8 is not applicable to the proposed amendments because there are no potential park or recreational facilities on the subject site (as identified in the Redmond Parks Master Plan and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan), and no park or recreational facilities are proposed. The proposed development is a unique public facility use that will not be a major employment center or residential center that would create an excess of potential park users that would strain existing recreational resources. While the site will contain open buffer areas and vegetation, for safety and security reasons the site will not be open to the general public for recreation. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment has no impact on compliance with Goal 8. Staff concurs with the applicant and finds this goal is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities either on the subject property or in the area. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 9: Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: A 156-acre portion of the subject site was originally inventoried as industrial land in the 2019 Redmond EOA. Since then, the subject site has been removed from the UGB and redesignated as county agricultural land (see reference document City of Redmond UGB Adjustment, Redmond Ordinance No. 2020-01). A separate 156-acre portion of URA was included and zoned the same industrial designations as the subject site was previously. Because of this land swap, the subject site is currently non-contributing to the City of Redmond's employment lands inventory. The subject site is currently designated as agricultural land within the Redmond URA for future urbanization. The site is currently non- contributing to Deschutes County economic activities. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 60 of 67 The subject site is proposed to be designated as public facility land with PF zoning. The CORE3 facility itself will not be a major employment center. However, establishment of the site will have some positive impact on the local economy because development and use of the facility will increase economic activity within the City of Redmond. The facility will serve as a training center for personnel from regional and state agencies, increasing visitors to Redmond and consumer spending at local commercial establishments. The proposed map amendments are compliant with Goal 9. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment has no impact on compliance with Goal 9. Staff concurs and finds Goal 9 is met. The approval of this application will not adversely impact economic activities of the state or local area. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal10: Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 10 is not applicable to the proposed amendments because the site does not contain residential land and no housing is proposed. Staff concurs and finds the application does not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for housing on the subject property or in the area. This goal is not applicable. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 61 of 67 Goal 11 requires communities to consider the provision of public facilities and services in their planning and development decisions, this goal is applicable to all proposed amendments. The CORE3 facility is critical to the provision of local and regional public safety and emergency response services. For more details on programmatic elements of the CORES facility, see Introduction to Land Use Applications and Part 3. MDP. The proposed UGB amendment, comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments - and the ultimate construction of the CORE3 facility - will allow the City of Redmond, Deschutes County and the greater region to efficiently serve current and future residents' public safety needs, consistent with Goal 11. Goal 11 and Goal 14 require that public facilities and services planned in urbanizable areas be adequate to serve planned development. Part 3 Master Development Plan and Appendix D. Public Facilities Plan demonstrate how the proposed provision of public facilities and services to serve the CORE3 facility will be orderly, economic, and efficient. Appendix D. Public Facilities Plan shows that the site can be served by a proposed public water line and a proposed public sanitary sewer line. Potable water service will be provided by extending the existing 16" public water main from the south side of Highway OR126 at SE Ochoco Way approximately 1,200 LF easterly to future SE 21 st Avenue. From there, the public water main will be extended northerly in SE 21 st Avenue approximately 550 LF to the project access rnad. The CORF3 site will he served by a single notahle water service and a single fire service. All on -site domestic and fire water will be private and isolated from the public water main system. Wastewater (sanitary sewer) service will be provided by connecting to the existing 12" public sanitary sewer main along the south of Highway OR126. The project connection will require crossing OR126 and extending a public sewer main northerly approximately 600 LF in future SE 21 st Avenue to the project access road. The CORE 3 site will be served by a single sanitary service. All on -site sanitary sewer will be private and gravity served where possible. Due to project topography, lower lying areas will be served by a private lift station/force main system. All stormwater will be contained on -site. Stormwater will be collected and dispersed on -site via swales, underground injection control (UIC) devices such as drywells, or a combination of both methods. A certified engineer has determined that the 16' water line and the 12" sanitary sewer line would be adequate to serve the project, discussed in Appendix D.2. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 62 of 67 Review of the CORE3 facility development will be facilitated by the City of Redmond upon annexation. Nonetheless, the applicant states that the proposed CORE3 facility can be adequately served by public facilities. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 11. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 12: Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: This goal applies to all proposed map amendments. The proposed text amendment in Part 1 itself does not affect the TSP or change any plan designation or zoning within the UGB. Therefore, the adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment will not impact the city's ability to plan for and provide an efficient transportation system. OAR Chapter 660 Division 12 - the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) - is the implementing rule for Goal 12. Although compliance with OAR 660-012-0060 (which requires that zone and map amendments consider the impact on the transportation system from the proposed rhanvA) rinac not nPraccarily annly to I IC;R Ampnrlmantc nar nAR rrn-n94-nn9nr11rrI1-� thay do apply to the zoning map changes from city UH-10 to city PF. See application Part 4. Redmond Zone Change & Annexation. in order to reach compliance with OAR 660-012-0060, the proposed zone and map amendment from UH-10 to PF must consider the impact on the transportation system from the proposed change. Applicants must demonstrate that there will be no significant effect on the transportation system. If rezoning would alter the total trips or functional classifications of roads and streets, then feasible transportation mitigation strategies are required. This goal is implemented through OAR 660-012, commonly known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which is addressed in a previous finding. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal 13: Energy Conservation To conserve energy. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 63 of 67 The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Goal 13 directs jurisdictions to evaluate land use planning proposals with consideration of efficient use of land and energy and applies to all the proposed applications. By consolidating training facilities for over 20 regional organizations and agencies, the CORE3 facility will improve energy efficiency by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled from the current condition where training facilities are dispersed between multiple sites. In the event of a major natural hazard event, the CORE3 facility's relative location adjacent to the airport and E. HWY 126 will shorten regional emergency response travel. Overall, the proposed UGB amendment will further the objectives of Goal 13, allowing for conservation of energy by reducing excessive travel linked largely to fossil fuel consumption. Due to the emergency functionality needed during power outages and natural disasters, it is in the project's best interest to utilize efficient building systems in order to minimize the size and costs of back-up systems. This will allow this facility to function off -grid, as well as reduce on -going operational costs. And as a resiliency facility for emergency services, the buildings for the CORES campus will be held to a high standard of efficiency and performance to ensure the optimal use of resources and support emergency operations. Occupied buildings will be designed to meet the State's goals with LEED Silver equivalency, and SEED (20% above current energy code). Staff concurs with the Applicant's response and finds this Goal is met. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. Goal14: Urbanization To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Land Need Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following. (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20 year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments, or for cities applying the simplified process under ORS chapter 197A, a 14 year forecast, and 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 64 of 67 (2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth boundary. Goal 14 and its implementing rule OAR 660-024 guide cities to plan for the efficient accommodation of all urban uses, such as public facilities. This goal is applicable to all of the proposed actions. The proposed plan amendment incorporates the identified a regional need for a centralized public safety training facility and coordination center for emergency response operations in the City of Redmond. By codifying this identified need through the adoption of this policy, the City can plan to accommodate this need within its UGB. Part 2. UGB Amendment and Appendix F. Site Selection Analysis and Division 24 findings evaluate land sufficiency of the UGB to accommodate the identified need, consistent with OAR 660-024 requirements. As described in detail in Part 2. UGB Amendment of this application package, this land must be brought into the UGB and annexed into the city to meet a regional need for a consolidated emergency response training facility. OAR Chapter 660 Division 14 guides the implementation of Goal 14 as it applies to annexation and urban development on previously rural landr- Rerause the UGR was exnandpd nntn the suhiert site to satisfy a rlemnn-,tratar-I .-..-.. .-.--'---- - -- -- --'- - -- -- -'- -- -I- - - - -_' -'- -- -- -----'-J- -- - --- ----.-.-., _. _._..._..__. --- _. public facility land need, the subject site must be annexed into the Redmond city limits and rezoned PF, consistent with OAR 660-024-0050: (6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination and the requirements of section (7) of this rule, if applicable. The local government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned urban development. The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB. (7) Lands included within a UGB pursuant to OAR 660-024-0065(3) to provide for a particular industrial use, or a particular public facility, must be planned and zoned for the intended use and must remain planned and zoned for that use unless the city removes the land from the UGB. The requested Deschutes County zone change from EFU to UH-10 and comprehensive map change from Ag to RUGA is consistent with the UGB expansion justification to include the 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 65 of 67 land for a demonstrated public facilities land need. The requested applications directly support the requirements of the UGB Rule, and therefore the requirements of Goal 14. Once brought into the UGB, the CORE3 facility is proposed to be designated in the RCP as Public Facility and zoned City Public Facility (PF), consistent with the UGB expansion justification to include land for a demonstrated public facilities land need. Application Part 4. Redmond Zone Change & Annexation provides the rationale for rezoning the site from county UH-10 to the PF zone, consistent with the proposed Master Development Plan (see Part 3. MDP). The requested applications directly support the requirements of the UGB Rule, and therefore the requirements of Goal 14. Staff concurs with the Applicant's response and notes that consistency with Goal 14 and it's implementing rules OAR Chapter 660, Division 24, ORS 197.298, and 197A.320, emphasizes two central questions: is there enough land within the UGB to accommodate future population growth over 20 years, and if not, which land is suitable to bring within the existing UGB. These factors were evaluated in the Applicant's Appendix F where they demonstrated compliance with the applicable OARS and ORS. These criteria and associated findings are also included above in the staff report. Staff finds that, as the applicant has demonstrated therein, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with all of them. For these reasons, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14 Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway Goal 16: Estuarine Resources Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes Goal 19: Ocean Resources The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. FINDING: Staff, in the Staff Report, provided the following findings/comments: These Goals are not applicable because the proposed amendment and zone change area is not within the Willamette Greenway, and does not possess any estuarine areas, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, or ocean resources. The Hearings Officer finds the Staffs findings and comments quoted above are based upon substantial evidence and correct interpretation of the language of the goal/criterion/policy. 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 66 of 67 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff provided the following conclusion language: Staff finds that the applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the request to change the Plan Designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area, to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Urban Holding (UH10), and to expand the Urban Growth Boundary through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance), DCC Title 20 (Redmond Urban Area Zoning Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staffs above -quoted conclusions. The Hearings Officer recommends approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of a portion the subject property, approximately 228 acres, from Agricultural ("AG") to Redmond Urban Growth Area ("RUGA") and a corresponding Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") expansion and also a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Urban Holding ("UH-10"). DATE: August 30, 2024 a GregoryJ. Frank Deschutes County Hearings Officer Attachment(s): Project Site Map 247-23-000543-PA, 544-ZC Page 67 of 67 zo N M u d � D Z 0 W O �- - z d O w > > w c p M Z v ci N tW Z 0(0 w w~ Z O CL O z O Gi OD D Z W CL D D 1- M N Lo s m rn c m m� a T� v m d m m c as c m c Z o 0 o� o Em m�3r �o0 yd�$ O m � O ul y � O :cmca rN 0 m Q Q Z 0 ui O ~ ■.. Z GA 2 111 w N W w w 0 N Z 0 � w w 1- Z 0-- d 0. z uJ D D 1= X\vT E S COG�� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Deschutes County Employee Benefits Renewal for the 2025 Plan Year RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1. Move to approve a contract (including deductible limits for the 2025 plan year) with a Stop Loss provider who presents the best financial options for the County. 2. Move to approve renewing with PacificSource, the current Third Party Administrator (TPA), for the 2025 plan year. 3. Move to approve the staff recommended Employee Benefit Plan changes #1-5. 4. Approve County Administrator signature of the final Deschutes County Employee Benefits Health Plan documents and service agreements for the 2025 plan year. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPUCA T IONS: The Deschutes County Employee Health Benefits Plan is set to renew January 1 for the 2025 Plan Year. This annual renewal period requires the County to evaluate the health benefits plans and vendor contracts supporting the plans. Deschutes County has established the Deschutes County Group Health Plan (referred to as the "Plan") to provide health care coverage for eligible employees and their dependents. Deschutes _County is the Plan Sponsor. This Plan Document contains both the written Plan Document and the Summary Plan Description ("SPD") which will be administered by PacificSource, the Third Party Administrator, and will be effective on January 1, 2025. The attached memo and matrix provide additional details on the recommended changes and proposed contract renewals. BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed changes are anticipated to be within the currently approved Health Benefit Fund 650 budget for FY25 and will be included in the proposed budget for FY26. ATTENDANCE: Jason Bavuso, Interim Human Resources Director Trygve Bolken, Human Resources Analyst �v1 E S c0 �-A HUMAN RESOURCES Date: October 16, 2024 To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Trygve Bolken, HR Analyst Jason Bavuso, Interim HR Director Re: Deschutes County Employee Benefits Renewal for the 2025 Plan Year The Deschutes County Employee Benefits Plan is set to renew for the 2025 Plan Year. The following is a summary of program renewals and considerations for the period of January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025. In preparation for the annual renewal period, staff meets with the County's legal team, benefit consultant, and Third -Party Administrator (TPA) to review proposed changes to the plan. This includes an analysis of changes due to legislative requirements, industry standards, new offerings in the inriiistry benchmarking against comparable plans, cost impacts, and the impact on the health care needs of our employees and their dependents. It is the County's approach to consider changes that have proven effectiveness, are mandated by law, fiscally responsible, and competitive with benchmarking against other health plans. This year, due to the continued increases associated with the cost of the County's Health Benefits Plan, County leadership increased Health Plan charges to departments by 30% and also requested that the County's Employee Benefits Advisory Committee (EBAC)' identify $1.2 million in cost containment measures and/or increases to employee premiums for FY 2025. Claims costs have continued to increase at a higher -than -expected rate. This is due to medical inflation, higher number than expected mid -range large dollar claims, new specialty drugs becoming available on the market, and higher utilization of specialty medications overall. On Tuesday, October 8, EBAC voted 13- 0 in support of the proposed cost containment measures and plan changes detailed in this memo for the 2025 Plan Year. The cost -containment measures identified by EBAC are estimated to save the plan $1,354,729 during the 2025 benefit year. The County 1 (EBAC is comprised of representation of County management and represented staff. The committee is responsible for making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Health benefits.) 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 201 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6553I hr@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org appreciates the thoughtful recommendations that EBAC developed to achieve a balance of cost containment while maximizing health plan benefits for enrollees. Employee Health Benefits Plan: Refer to attachment A - Changes Recommended to BOCC for 2025 Plan Year. ➢ Human Resources and Administration recommend and EBAC supports the following Employee Benefit Plan changes, #9-5, for the 2025 plan year. 1. Move members on prescriptions for Humira to Hadlima. A biosimilar drug, Hadlima, is now available to patients that are currently prescribed Humira. This new biosimilar is significantly less expense. Members are already moving to the new equivalent. ➢ The estimated cost impact to the plan is a savings of $939,651 annually. 2. Remove wellness staff from the doc Clinic. Do not refill the vacant position and move ongoing wellness support to existing doc Clinic staff. Continue existing wellness programs under doc Clinic staff. ➢ The estimated cost impact to the plan is a savings of $140,000 annually. 3. Adopt the standard drug formulary offered under our current Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM) Prescryptive. Adopt standard drug formulary offered under current Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM) Prescryptive. Prescryptive would manage all prescriptions under their standard formulary and provide applicable rebates accordingly. ➢ The estimated cost impact to the plan is a savings of $275,078 annually. 4. Amend plan language under Durable Medical Equipment to include breast pump rentals as a covered service. This is an optional change recommended by PacificSource as a best practice. It would allow for commercial grade breast pump rental costs to be covered under our medical plan. ➢ The estimated cost impact for this change is an annual increase of $9,000. 5. Update plan language to align with current plan interpretation and TPA best practices. In partnership with our TPA, HR staff have made efforts to clarify plan language. Proposed changes are clarifications to the plan document and do not change benefit coverage. ➢ HR Staff recommended and EBAC supports making the corrections, clarifications and changes as described on the PacificSource Medical and Dental plan documents. 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite201 Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6553 hr@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org Human Resources and Administration recommend that the County proceed with the following administrative actions associated with renewal rates and selection of a stop loss carrier: • Renewal - Third Party Administrator (TPA): Last year, the County experienced a 3.9% rate increase for TPA services with our current vendor, PacificSource. This year, PacificSource has proposed an 8.1 % to 9.3% rate increase for TPA services. The final rate increase will depend on which performance reporting options the County selects. • Renewal - Life and Disability Insurances with New York Life: Rate decreases for basic group life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment and Long -Term Disability (rates guaranteed until 1/1/2028). 7.6%fee decrease; estimate $121,406 cost savings. • Renewal - Employee Assistance Program with Canopy: 23.4% fee increase; estimated $8,488 annual cost increase. • Renewal - Flexible Spending Accounts with PacificSource Administrators: No increase. • Renewal - Livongo Diabetic Management Program: No increase. • Transition to a new stop loss provider, Symetra. Staff worked with the County's benefit consultant to obtain competitive bids for coverage and reviewed adjusting the policy deductible. Transitioning to a new stop loss provider is expected to result in an estimated cost saving of 7.9%; however, if a new provider is selected, the County won't receive the stop loss refund for FY24 resulting in an estimated net impact of 0% for FY25. Staff recommend maintaining current deductible levels. There is potential for the current provider, Sun Life, to update their bid. If this occurs and it provides additional savings over the bid from Symetra, staff recommends staying with the current provider to achieve the best savings. 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite201 Bend, Oregon 97703 �(541) 388-6553 5hr@deschutes.org a www.deschutes.org 1. Move members on prescriptions for Humira to Hadlima with Prescryptive 2. Remove Wellness staff from doc Clinic 3. Adopt standard drug formulary offered under current Pharmacy Benefits Manager (PBM) Prescryptive Members currently prescribed Humira to move to biosimilar equivalent Hadlima Staff supports this change. Do not refill the vacant position and move ongoing wellness support to existing doc Clinic staff. Continue existing wellness programs under doc Clinic staff. Staff supports this change. Move from current custom formulary established under our previous PBM Northwest Pharmacy Servies to the standardized formulary under Prescryptive Changes to DC Employee Benefits Plan 2025 Plan Year Changes effective 1/1/2025 Estimate-$939,651 (-89.9% on this drug) annually. A biosimilar drug, Hadlima, is now available to patients that are currently prescribed Humira. This new biosimilar is significantly less expense. Members are already moving to the new equivalent. Estimate-$140,00 annually. Savings realized from reduced salary and benefits costs. Existing wellness programs and Personal Health Assessments (PHA) would be managed by doc Clinic staff. Estimate-$275,078 (-3.8%) annually. Prescryptive would manage all prescriptions under their standard formulary and provide applicable rebates accordingly. Staff supports this change. 4. Durable medical Amending plan language under durable Estimate +$9,000 annually. This is an Equipment — Breast medical equipment to include breast pump optional change recommended by Pumps rentals as a covered service PacificSource as a best practice. (Optional Change) Staff supports this change. 5. Plan language Language to be added or changed throughout updates the plan documents to clarify the administration of benefits, simplify plan (Medical and Dental language, or to align with PacificSource core Documents Wide) plan language. Staff supports language clarification and simplification with no changes to benefits. These changes are clarification and clean-up of plan language. Not a change to the benefit or coverage. HR is reviewing language changes with Deschutes County Legal to ensure it does not result in a change to benefits. i\3T ES COG �� BOARD OF I COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 16, 2024 SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft Resolutions to Assist the City and County with Land Management of Land NE of Bend (commonly referred to as juniper Ridge) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve of Board Signature of Resolution. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: During the joint meeting between Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and the Bend City Council on September 4, 2024, the governing boards agreed to establish a Temporary Safe Stay Area and work collaboratively to mitigate the public health and other issues resulting from unsanctioned camping at property northeast of the city of Bend (juniper Ridge). The governing boards approved the following motion: Establishment of a Temporary, Safe Stay Area, with direction to staff to coordinate: • Legal, land use/siting issues, potentially adopting joint'orders' • Communication and outreach plan • Scoping of on -site services, leveraging existing contracts and procurement efforts with a housing connection and intensive case management, a focus on safety, and key performance metrics, including a monthly follow up for six months Full Closure of areas owned by the City and County outside of the Temporary Safe Stay Area by May 31, 2025 Continued coordination on fire fuel reduction and other fire reduction strategies as part of the management plan To implement the above approved strategy, City staff drafted Resolution No. 2024-046. It's important to note that some of the items listed in Resolution 2024-046 may not be able to be implemented. Commissioner Phil Chang asked County staff to draft an alternative resolution that mainly focused on providing case management services, which is Resolution No. 2024-049. At the October 16 Board of Commissioners meeting, consideration of the draft resolutions is scheduled for a public hearing at 1:00 p.m. Members of the public are invited to testify in person or by video. Testimony will be limited to 3-minutes per person. Key elements of Resolution No. 2024-046: • 170-acres of property owned by the City and County northeast of the City of Bend will be designated as the "Temporary Safe Stay Area" or "TSSA" (see attached map). • The TSSA will not be available to homeless individuals not living in vehicles. • The TSSA is not intended to be a place for people not currently camping or sheltering on lands atjuniper Ridge. • The County and City plan to provide the following services at the TSSA: portable toilets, handwashing stations, drinking water, and trash disposal facilities. • The County and City plan to fund housing -focused case management services at the TSSA. • The County and City will use land management strategies to provide a framework for rules of conduct, including property clean-up efforts and periodic security patrols. • The County and City will coordinate on fire fuel reduction and other fire reduction strategies. • The City will close its property east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks by May 31, 2025. ' • The TSSA is intended to close no later than December 31, 2026. Key elements of Resolution No. 2024-049: • The County and City plan to provide the following services at the 170-acres property owned by the City and County: portable toilets, handwashing stations, drinking water, and trash disposal facilities. • The County and City plan to fund housing -focused case management services. • The County and City will use land management strategies to provide a framework for rules of conduct, including property clean-up efforts and periodic security patrols. • The County and City will coordinate on fire fuel reduction and other fire reduction strategies. • The City will close its property east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks by May 31, 2025. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2024-046 2. Draft Resolution 2024-049 BUDGET IMPACTS: TBD. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator Estimated time needed for item (presentation/questions/discussion/action): 60 minutes ME 0 z �c Q W U J m D r r�1 e JN�Y �O I w r JS3 a v O Q N �` L f6 i � Q O Vi N 4�-- 2 f6 a 4— N 4 - a) cn aA +j ocu °' 4-1 O N 0 u N 0-C N O OU 0 E 44 aN0 O L N 0 L CO O � X_ i-+ O N m LA 4_ L p O i N p : N i O UA M = >, O c� 4-J _ m U N ro � C O L Q fa V p c a-' U 4-1 G i b E a .� d-� to a--i p L N i W U L v +j •— a) v f� N C -0 a) w N N i N a� -Q V) O L O bn L vi w C C N O •L O � C O n O GJ O C N C fII Q N O O "O v 4— v C mLn 'a +, C p to 4— N O a) E E O 0 O N E �_ v.)L N v N ca E O I M v lz U ci Q U c U w � I I ul 0 0 0 M 0 0 -0 0- -0 E 0 4-J aj 0 J -C 4- L-j Z- (J) 4-J 4-J C ro (aj 0 M U < 4�J u 0 0 (ai 0w LA o Lt-- > Z C: (1) LWJ m m V L tA 0 I BEND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. DESCHUTES COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-046 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BEND CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY OVERNIGHT VEHICLE CAMPING AND IMPROVE SAFETY, SANITATION, AND CASE MANAGEMENT ON PUBLICLY OWNED LAND AT JUNIPER RIDGE Findings A. Deschutes County, Oregon ("County"), and the City of Bend, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City"), are political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. B. The County and the City each own land in Deschutes County north of the city limits of Bend and outside the Bend urban growth boundary, adjacent to US-97 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. This area is part of an area commonly referred to as "Juniper Ridge". Staff estimate approximately 37 people are residing in 21 unpermitted and unauthorized campsites on the County's property, and that there are approximately 50-60 unpermitted and unauthorized camps west of the railroad tracks and fewer than 20 campsites east of the railroad tracks on the City's property. These numbers can fluctuate based on the season and circumstances. C. Camping, survival sheltering, and other overnight uses of the land without services or facilities at Juniper Ridge has resulted in unpermitted and potentially unsafe conditions, including unpermitted structures, roadways and trans, disposal or human and solid waste and debris, and other unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Unmanaged camping without appropriate facilities can pose fire danger and imperil public health and safety, both for the larger community and people seeking shelter on public land. Significant fires threatened safety and property in 2020 and 2024, in addition to smaller fires at other times, and the risk of wildland fires is extreme and increasing. Juniper Ridge has also been used as a site for illicit and unlawful dumping of garbage and vehicles, which poses a threat to health and safety, the environment, and the public, including people seeking shelter on Juniper Ridge. D. Unmanaged camping and unlawful access to the City's property at Juniper Ridge has resulted in unpermitted and unsafe crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks within the City's property, including at crossings licensed only for the City's own use and at unimproved crossings. Crossing of the railroad tracks poses significant safety risks for people making such unpermitted crossings, the safe operation of the railroad, and the safety of the community. Unpermitted use of the City's licensed crossings jeopardizes the ability of the City to maintain its license to use these crossings, which are essential to the City's access to its property at Juniper Ridge. E. Camping, sheltering, or otherwise using facilities intended for conveyance of irrigation water and City facilities intended for the treatment of drinking water and wastewater is a threat to public health and safety. City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 1 of 7 F. The County and the City are committed to addressing homelessness in the area by increasing housing, case management, and a continuum of shelter options. Both entities have provided funding for case management and other services, shelter beds, safe parking locations, and permanent and supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. In 2021, the City adopted codes authorizing temporary overnight vehicle use and transitional housing accommodations for individuals who lack permanent or safe shelter and who cannot be placed in other low-income housing, as allowed by ORS 195.520 (formerly ORS 203.082, as amended by HB 2006, Section 6 (2021)) and ORS 197.746 (formerly ORS 446.265), referred to as "Safe Parking." The City supports development of hundreds of units of affordable housing and shelters through its Affordable Housing Fee, Community Development Block Grants, Commercial and Industrial Construction Excise Tax, and other funding sources. There are over 250 shelter beds and temporary shelter units directly supported by the City, including 16 units at Safe Parking sites in the City. G. The County adopted an order allowing property owners to allow overnight camping in vehicles on lands zoned for certain uses within one mile of the City of Bend and City of Redmond urban growth boundaries, as allowed by ORS 195.520 (formerly ORS 203.082, as amended by HB 2006, Section 6 (2021)), also referred to as "Safe Parking". The County is additionally supporting the development of over 100 units of shelter and supportive housing. Both the City and County have elected officials serving on the board of the Coordinated Houseless Response Office, set up by agreement of the County and cities in Deschutes County under HB 4123 (2022), to coordinate efforts for the purpose of strengthening Central Oregon's houseless response system. H. Both the City and County have made efforts to improve public safety and reduce harms posed by unmanaged camping on their properties at Juniper Ridge. Beginning in 2024, the County and City have provided portable toilets, potable water, and dumpsters on its land at Juniper Ridge. The County contracts with a security contractor that has provided connections to resources and services. The City has removed approximately 131,000 pounds of solid waste, 879 discarded tires, and 39 abandoned campsites from its property at Juniper Ridge. Independent service providers are also in contact with individuals camping on the lands owned by the City and County, building relationships and providing resources and connections to more stable living situations, including shelter and permanent housing. I. Sanitation facilities and housing -focused case management are essential to improving the risks to public safety posed by unmanaged camping. J. The Bend City Council and Deschutes County Board of Commissioners held a joint meeting on September 5, 2024, where they discussed, among other items, Juniper Ridge Management Strategy and addressing homelessness. The Council and the Board of Commissioners unanimously agreed on a set of action items, including establishment of a Temporary Safe Stay Area on a portion of lands owned by the City and the County at Juniper Ridge, with direction to staff to coordinate legal and siting issues, communication and outreach, and scoping of on -site services including intensive case management, full closure of areas of Juniper Ridge outside the Temporary Safe Stay City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 2 of 7 Area, continued coordination on fire fuel reduction, and allocation and leverage of county -wide resources to assist in case management and operations for the Temporary Safe Stay Area. This resolution is the first step in implementing the direction agreed to at the joint meeting. K. ORS 195.520 enables political subdivisions of the State of Oregon to allow any public or private entity to allow overnight camping by homeless individuals living in vehicles on the property of the entity. The political subdivision may impose reasonable conditions upon offering camping space under this section, including establishing a maximum number of vehicles allowed. Under this statute, entities providing camping spaces must also provide access to sanitary facilities, including toilet, handwashing and trash disposal facilities. ORS 195.520 does not distinguish between areas inside or outside of city limits or urban growth boundaries, and does not refer to zoning. L. Permanent improvements for homeless facilities are not allowed uses of the land at Juniper Ridge under the present zoning and development code of Deschutes County. This resolution is not intended to allow any camping by homeless individuals at Juniper Ridge other than vehicle camping as described in this resolution and implementing documents. The activities authorized by this Resolution are not intended to be permanent. M. This resolution is not a final decision or determination by a local government concerning the goals, a comprehensive plan provision, or a land use regulation, and is not intended to be a land use decision. Neither the City's Safe Parking nor the County's Safe Parking programs were adopted as land use decisions and the temporary authorization for vehicle camping under this resolution follows the same legal framework as those existing programs, under ORS 195.520. It likewise is not a land use decision. Now, therefore, based on these findings, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEND and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY JOINTLY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Temporary Safe Stay Area for Vehicles under ORS 195.520. Overnight camping by homeless individuals living in vehicles is temporarily allowed on approximately 170 acres of property owned by the City and County in the area known as Juniper Ridge, as shown on the attached Exhibit A (the "Temporary Safe Stay Area" or "TSAA"), to mitigate dangers to public health and safety resulting from unmanaged camping currently occurring on the property of each entity, as authorized by the Oregon legislature under ORS 195.520. The TSSA will not be available to homeless individuals not living in vehicles. A "vehicle" includes a car, camper, trailer, recreational vehicle, or other structure intended to be movable by towing. 2. Intent of TSSA. The TSSA is not intended to be a place for people not currently camping or sheltering on the lands at Juniper Ridge to relocate and is not approval for anyone to enter or remain in the area permanently, as further provided in paragraph 4 below. The intent of the TSSA is to mitigate and improve the health and safety risks associated with unmanaged camping, and to provide improved sanitation services and City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 3 of 7 case management to facilitate people camping at Juniper Ridge to move into safer shelter or housing. 3. Commitment for funding. The City and County commit to negotiating an intergovernmental agreement (IGA), with each party providing funds toward additional services for people who camp overnight in vehicles in the TSSA, including: a. Sanitary facilities, including toilet, handwashing and trash disposal facilities; b. Housing -focused case management services, including appropriate follow- up; and c. Land management strategies that provide a framework for rules of conduct including property clean-up efforts and security (see paragraphs 4 and 5 below for details). 4. Funding and duration of TSSA. The funds anticipated to be allocated to this effort originate with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and must be expended by the end of 2026. Therefore, the TSSA is intended to close no later than December 31, 2026, after which time public access, camping, and overnight vehicle use will no longer be allowed on the City and County properties. Any suspension of the TSSA by either the City or County before December 31, 2026 may occur only after consultation between the City Council and Board of County Commissioners, and then by formal action of the governing bodies. 5. Additional future agreements. City and County staff are authorized and directed to work collaboratively on agreements to leverage existing contracts and procurement efforts to expand a security presence onto the City's land west of the railroad tracks, establish case management for housing connections, at the TSSA, and engage in continued coordination on fire fuel reduction and other fire reduction strategies. Staff are further directed to develop an intergovernmental agreement, memorandum of understanding, joint administrative policies, or other regulatory approaches, to mitigate and improve safety conditions for the community and people staying in the area. These administrative actions should address, at a minimum: a. Enforcement and monitoring strategy; b. Access by emergency services and how emergency services can obtain information about where people are staying within the TSSA; c. Reduction in unlawful access points from US-97 to the County's property; d. Enforcement strategy toward remedying unlawful structures and unlawful dumping of black water and waste; e. Management for sanitary, handwashing, potable water, and wastewater disposal, including during winter months; City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 4 of 7 f. Coordination between County Counsel and the City Attorney's Office including joint defense obligations if appropriate; and g. Reasonable rules describing open flame, cooking, and warming fires, and an enforcement strategy. 6. Continued services and enforcement. The City will continue and expand contracts for fuels reduction and clean-up of solid waste, debris, abandoned campsites, and abandoned vehicles on its property at Juniper Ridge. The City will develop an enforcement and monitoring strategy to enforce a prohibition on camping and other unlawful uses of its property east of the railroad tracks. The County will continue its contracts for sanitation and hygiene services, and both entities will work together on contracting for additional services including sanitation, hygiene, and housing -focused case management in the Temporary Safe Stay Area. i. Closure of the eastern portion of the City's property. The City will make concerted efforts to remove all people camping on the portion of its property at Juniper Ridge east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks, by May 31, 2025. The process and notice for removal will be through the City's revised Administrative Policy on Removal of City -Owned Property Outside City Limits, with an implementation plan to provide additional advance notice and coordination with service providers for outreach to the individuals camping at Juniper Ridge. 8. Limited authorization. The allowance for overnight camping by homeless individuals living in vehicles applies only to the area identified as the TSSA. All other are -as of .h ininnr Ririnp ara intpnrinri to hp rinspri to ramninn. cnnsistpnt with the Citv's revised Administrative Policy on Removal of City -Owned Property Outside City Limits and applicable County policies on land management and encampment removal. This resolution does not authorize any other property owner to allow overnight camping by homeless individuals living in vehicles on their property, except as may be otherwise allowed by separate provisions of the Bend City Code or orders of the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County. 9. This resolution is effective on signing by both the City and County. Adopted by the Bend City Council on October 16, 2024. 1'1*3 City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 5 of 7 NO: Melanie Kebler, Mayor Attest: Morgen Fry, Bend City Recorder Approved as to form: Mary A. Winters, City Attorney City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 6 of 7 Adopted by the Board of Commissioners for Deschutes County on October 16, 2024, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice -Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner Attest: Deschutes County Recording Secretary City Resolution No. County Resolution No. 2024-046 Page 7 of 7 TEMPORARY SAFE STAY AREA OCTOBER 8, 2024 Q Temporary Safe stay Area EM City Owned Deschutes County EXHIBIT A Redmond -Pend Juniper State Scenic Corridor State Park Property 0 250 500 100 Feel Map prepared by: City of Bend Print Dale: Oct 08, 2024 Sources: City of Bend, Deschutes County CITY OF BEND This map Is for reference purposes only. Cara was taken in the creation of this map, but it Is provided "AS IS." Please contact the City of tend to verity map Information or to report any enars. BEND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX DESCHUTES COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-049 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BEND CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY TO PROVIDE CASE MANAGEMENT AND SANITATION SERVICES ON PUBLICLY OWNED LAND NORTHEAST OF BEND Findings A. Deschutes County, Oregon ("County"), and the City of Bend, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City"), are political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. B. The County and the City each own land in Deschutes County northeast of the Bend city limits and outside the Bend urban growth boundary, adjacent to US-97 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. [This area is part of a larger area commonly referred to as "Juniper Ridge", but the City and County are going attempt to no longer call the area with unsanctioned camping as "Juniper Ridge"]. Staff estimate approximately 37 people are residing in 21 unpermitted and unauthorized campsites on the County's property, and that there are approximately 50-60 unpermitted and unauthorized camps west of the railroad tracks and fewer than 20 campsites east of the railroad tracks on the City's property. These numbers can fluctuate based on the season and circumstances. C. Camping, survival sheltering, and other overnight uses of the land without services or facilities at the location has resulted in unpermitted and potentially unsafe conditions. The area has also been used as a site for illicit and unlawful dumping of garbage and vehicles, which poses a threat to health and safety, the environment, and the public, including people seeking shelter. D. The County and the City are committed to addressing homelessness in the area by increasing housing, case management, and a continuum of shelter options. Both entities have provided funding for case management and other services, shelter beds, safe parking locations, and permanent and supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. E. Both the City and County have made efforts to improve public safety and reduce harms posed by unmanaged camping on their properties. Beginning in 2023, the County and City have provided portable toilets, potable water, and dumpsters. Independent service providers are also in contact with individuals camping on the lands owned by the City and County, building relationships and providing resources and connections to more stable living situations, including shelter and permanent housing. F. Sanitation facilities and housing -focused case management are essential to improving the risks to public safety posed by unmanaged camping. City Resolution No. County Resolution No. Page 1 of 3 Now, therefore, based on these findings, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEND and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY JOINTLY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Commitment for funding. The City and County commit to entering to an intergovernmental agreement each providing funds toward additional services for people living on the property, including: a. Housing -focused case management services, including appropriate follow- up. 2. Funding and duration. A portion of the funds to be allocated to this effort originate with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA),and must be expended by the end of 2026. The City and County do not intend to provide services at the location long-term. The City and County goal is with the additional services being provided that the people currently living on the land will be relocated to an alternative site or find long-term housing solutions for the eventual closure of this land. 3. Continued services and enforcement. The City will continue and expand contracts for fuels reduction and clean-up of solid waste, debris, abandoned campsites, and abandoned vehicles on its property. The City will develop an enforcement and monitoring strategy to enforce a prohibition on camping and other unlawful uses of its property east of the railroad tracks. The County will continue its contracts for sanitation and hygiene services, and both entities will work together on contracting for additional services including sanitation, hygiene, and housing -focused case management. 4. This resolution is effective on signing by both the City and County. Adopted by the Bend City Council on [INSERT MEETING DATE]. YES: I De Melanie Kebler, Mayor Adopted by the Board of Commissioners for Deschutes County on [INSERT MEETING DATE]. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner Attest: Morgen Fry, Bend City Recorder Deschutes County Recording Secretary Approved as to form: Mary A. Winters, Bend City Attorney Deschutes County Counsel City Resolution No. County Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 �J-res c' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony LO J Sub ect:; � Date: , y Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS October 15, 2024 LOCATION CITY OF BEND 710 NW wall street Re: Resolution 2024-046 Downtown Bend Dear Board of County Commissioners, MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 431 1 write in support of Resolution 2024-046 to establish a temporary safe Bend, OR 97709 stay area in the Juniper Ridge area of Deschutes County, north of the Bend city limits. This resolution implements the direction the Board and PHONE City Council unanimously agreed on at our joint meeting on September (541) 388-5505 5, 2024, and is the result of collaboration between Deschutes County Relay Users Dial 7-1-1 and City of Bend staff. FAX The steps outlined in the Resolution 2024-046 set up an approach to (541) 385-6676 more coordinated and effective land management that is intended to improve safety, decrease fire risk and the risk of environmental WEB contamination, and provide more structure and better connections to bendoregon.gov services and case management for people living on public lands north of Bend. Without adopting Resolution 2024-046, the County will continue to MAYOR face increased danger from fire and other risks, and will forego a unique Melanie Kebler opportunity to improve safety and increase security for area residents and business owners. MAYOR PRO-TEM Megan Perkins The alternative Resolution, 2024-049, does not continue the agreement reached at our joint meeting, and does not facilitate clearer land CITY COUNCILORS management and structure that can be achieved through Resolution Anthony Broadman 2024-046. 1 encourage you to adopt Resolution 2024-046 so that the Barb Campbell County and the City can continue to move forward. Arial Mendez Megan Norris Sincerely, Mike Riley CITY MANAGER Eric King Melanie Kebler, Mayor mkebler@bendoregon-gov �J-res c 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: %D / o 2 Name Address 14WWOA d P�a4_v� Phone #s E-mail address! UYY�irL,y r'�a YYl r G�° ,U In Favor [�kNeutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written' documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS v�J cea co rL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING n < REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: ur� ���� Dater 0 Name Address Phone #s 5� a E-mail address �eQ( "t-M C In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ® Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS MEMORANDUM FOR: Deschutes County Commissioners Bend City Council SUBJECT: Recommended Changes Deschutes County Resolution No. 2024-046 and Bend City Counerl Resolution XXXX !. This Memorandum is to outline concerns about and objections to both joint resolutions and to propose recommended changes, 2. These resolutions, if passed in their current form, represent a rush to judgment without adequate opportunity for input from service providers and the interested public coupled with a failure to address realities of those living in Juniper Ridge who are currently living West of the BNSF tracks or those who are living East of the tracks and would be relocated to the Temporary Safe Stay Area (TSSA) or elsewhere. 3. Major objections - a. The TSSA will be limited to vehicles only. Recognizing that ORS 195.520 only provides authority for overnight camping by homeless individuals living in vehicles, there needs to be a further ,expansion of the TSSA to allow for non -vehicular camping too, for the following reasons- (1) At present the "fewer than 20 campsites east of the railroad tracks on the City's property" are comprised mostly of vehicles that are undrivable or untowable. if these individuals have no vehicle that can be moved, under the current TSSA wording, these people will have to go elsewhere — they will not be allowed with the 170 acre TSSA location because they will not be in a vehicle (unless they can somehow acquire one and have it moved to the TSSA area). (2) At present there are an estimated 37 people living in 21 campsites on County land and approximately 50-60 camps west of the tracks on city land within the TSSA area. Collectively these campsites are a combination of vehicles and tents. The County's Staff Report under Key Elements specifies at the 31d bullet that "The TSSA will not be available to homeless individuals not living in vehicles." Therefore, the current TSSA wording arguably, puts those individuals engaged in non - vehicular camping in violation of the TSSA once the TSSA period begins,- b. Para. of the Joint Resolution specifies that the TSSA will close December 31, 2026, 'after which time public access, camping and overnight vehicle use will no longer be allowed on City and County properties." First, that closure date is tied to the end of ARPA funding and wholly ignore$ the reality that after December 31, 2026 a substantial number of campers, vehicular and non -vehicular, will still remain on this land, 4. AccordinglY, attached is recommended rewording of the Joint Resolution. The County Commissioners and the City Council are respectively requested to approve the attached changes, CHARLES W. HEMINGW Community Advocate i� M72�! M 1. ORS 195.500 specifies the policy for homeless individuals camping on public property. It st7tes-tk?t muxici#,21ities 9,A4, otVAtit-s sk"PI101ift-4�* x*licies that rec*gnize the s*cial naty-fre—vI the problem of homeless individuals camping on public property. It further specifies that municipalities and counties should implement policies for the most humane treatment of homeless individuals camping on public property, owned by the City and County, This includes individuals currently engaged in non -vehicular living on the 170 acre tract or individuals currently living east of the BNSF tracks who may not be able to relocate their vehicles from there to the 170 acre TSSA location, This is in the area known as Juniper Ridge, as shown in the attached Exhibit A (the "Temporary Safe Stay Area" or "T�SAO). This is to mitigate dangers to public health and safety resulting from unmanaged camping currently occurring on the property of each entity, as recognized by the Oregon Legislature under ORS 195.500 and ORS lj95.520. Except as specified above, the TSSA will not oe available to homeless indivi duals not living in vehicles. A --vehicle" includes a car, camper, trailer, recreational vehicle, or other structure intended to be movable by towing. MCI Funding and duration, of TSSA. The funds anticipated to be allocated to this effort originate with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and must be expended by the end of 2026, Accordingly, although funding for the TSSA will expire on December 31, 2026, the TSS.A will continue for an indefinite period with the following understanding: That per Para. F of Findin to the Joint Resolution., the City and the County will continue to address the continuum of shelter options with a; specific view toward humanely relocating individuals who may remain within the 170 acre TSSA location as soon as is reasonably practicable. This is with the additional understanding that public access, camping and overnight vehicle use is no longer allowed on City and County properties but that it will take time to humanely relocate those who, based on their circumstances, will continue to remain there. Any suspension of the TSS by either the City or County before December 31, 2026 may occur only after consultation governing bodies. �J-ces o O ov ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony fr a. Subject: E Date: / 0l Name i Address '" � P v� i `3 4 2- Phone #s �1 ) 6 (C� 5 - E-mail address Vuz d,,l m J In Favor Neutral/Undecided IXOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a ;copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 10/16/24, 12:08 PM Gmail - Summary and Rebuttal d rna Jessica Gamble <homemorenetwork@gmail.com> Summary and Rebuttal 2 messages Jessica Gamble <homemorenetwork@gmail.com> Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:58 AM To: hemingwaych@bendnet.com **Summary:** On October 16, 2024, the Bend City Council and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will consider two resolutions regarding land management at Juniper Ridge, an area that has become a site for unauthorized camping. The resolutions propose the establishment of a Temporary Safe Stay Area (TSSA) for individuals living in vehicles, providing essential services like portable toilets, drinking water, and case management while emphasizing the need for safe and managed camping protocols. However, crucial details are that the TSSA will not accommodate individuals not residing in vehicles and is designated solely for those currently camping at Juniper Ridge. Additionally, the city plans to close areas east of the railroad tracks by May 31, 2025. There are concerns that unless alternative accommodations are made available, moving unhoused individuals from the eastside to the westside without allowing camping options will be unreasonable. **Rebuttal Speech:** Good afternoon, everyone, I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to speak today regarding the ongoing deliberations concerning the management of Juniper Ridge. I understand that the well-being of our unhoused neighbors is a priority, and while I'm supportive of initiatives like the Temporary Safe Stay Area, I must stress a critical point: we cannot ignore the needs of those who are currently camping east of the railroad tracks. The proposals on the table suggest a movement of unhoused individuals from the eastside to the westside, but here's the catch —many of these individuals live in immovable structures. These structures are often their homes, holding their belongings and lives together. It is unreasonable and, frankly, inhumane to ask them to pack up and leave without providing viable alternatives. If we are asking our unhoused neighbors to leave the safety of their current camps, they must have the option to set up their tents and other structures within the Temporary Safe Stay Area. This approach would not only provide a safe alternative but would acknowledge their dignity and current circumstances. For many, tents and RVs are their only options, and without the ability to camp, we risk pushing them into more precarious situations —farther away from necessary resources such as sanitation facilities or case management services. Moreover, if we close areas east of the railroad tracks without facilitating places for these individuals to go, we're merely moving the problem, not solving it. The city's commitment to case management and sanitation services is promising, but let's make sure these services are accessible to everyone, especially those who have no other place to go. In conclusion, I urge the Council and Commission to consider amendments that allow unhoused individuals to camp within the TSSA. Let us not merely relocate our unhoused neighbors, but empower them with options that ensure their safety and dignity. Thank you for your attention and for considering the realities faced by those we aim to support. With Gratitude, Jessica Gamble Executive Director/Founder Home More Network c (541) 368-0940 hornemorenetwork@gmeil.com www.homemorenetwork.©rg https:Hmail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d33ad6b341 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r4700238677487538212&simpl=msg-a: r301635754095203... 1 /2 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, My name is Matt Miller, and I reside in the Woodside Ranch Development on the south side of Bend. I appreciate the concept behind the Temporary Safe Stay Area (TSSA) and commend the goal of consolidating impacts on our landscape into one managed space. This initiative presents a valuable opportunity to provide essential services and stability for individuals experiencing homelessness, while also addressing fire mitigation for residents and private property owners in the area. However, I believe it is crucial that this program is not limited solely to those currently residing in the area. The TSSA has the potential to serve as a significant resource for homeless individuals in our community, including those living on city streets and in places like China Hat, as well as throughout the broader Wildfire Urban Interface. With its 170 acres, the TSSA can accommodate individuals from areas like China Hat, providing them with access to vital resources that can facilitate their transition into housing, addiction treatment, or reconnection with family outside of Central Oregon. According to the Point -In -Time (PIT) count, even with campers from China Hat, each individual would still have access to over half an acre —more space than many residents of Bend enjoy. Creating a welcoming environment where people can store their belongings and embark on their journey out of homelessness is essential. This should be available on a broader scale to effectively address homelessness in the Bend area. Restricting access to the TSSA will likely push individuals to seek refuge in areas like China Hat or other jurisdictions that lack the resources to support them. This is not merely a theoretical concern; we have seen this cycle repeat itself when the City conducts sweeps, resulting in individuals relocating to the forest. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Matt Miller w 4i LA PINE b s x Y.N au Deschutes ational rest � Y max,? 3 x Tw x, i3 �z A 0 d,na;'02 ggr s„ g aF qK " s DESCHUTES COUNTY KLAMATH COUNTY AW s �ftp7.�ToQo NjM Rift-r, it ftf bg�tff CN@ o T7.Iphf,;�5. Nl(l hm C S l km't afj.Ti iv4CARIV k