HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-29 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 1 of 11 Pages
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2014
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County
Counsel; Nick Lelack, Community Development; James Lewis, Property &
Facilities; Lt. Scott Shelton, Sheriff’s Office; Judith Ure, Administration; and
about a dozen other citizens, including media representative Ted Shorack of The
Bulletin.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
___________________________
1. Discussion of Removal of Homeless Camps.
Laurie Craghead said that the Sheriff’s Office asked a few months ago for the
County to adopt State standards regarding the cleanup of homeless camps.
There have been instances where a lot of garbage has been left behind. She
added that State Statute provides minimum standards in this regard, so an
Ordinance was drafted accordingly.
Lt. Scott Shelton advised this has been an issue for years, but the Sheriff’s
Office wants consistency on how to deal with this type of situation. Ms.
Craghead stated that the Sheriff has been following this process already,
including 24 hours’ notice to occupants, and posting same, if the campers need
to leave.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 2 of 11 Pages
The Ordinance also defines a campsite, and what is prohibited activity. The
property manager would be the County representative. The Sheriff can cite
without removal, remove without citation, or both.
Chair Baney stated this is public land so public access is allowed. Ms.
Craghead stated all is open unless it closed for a specific reason. This is
something that needs to be clarified, as complaints arise from other people
visiting the land on a day-use basis when they run across encampments, dogs at
large and trash. Statute is not clear. She obtained copies of rules followed in
other counties as well. This will get the ball rolling to find out how the Board
wishes to proceed.
Officer Shelton said there have been numerous complaints, particularly in the
area off Antler Avenue in eastern Redmond. Most of the occupants are
cooperative, but after 30, 60 or 90 days it is not appropriate for them to stay.
One person in particular has cut down trees, which is illegal, and has several
cords of wood stacked there. This is County-owned property and trees. He
wants to make sure there is a specific point of contact at the County and
consistent rules to follow.
Chair Baney asked if community partners are involved in this. Officer Shelton
wants to be sure the officers know what to do. The County is the ‘victim’ in
this situation, as the property owner. The social services agencies are not
involved at this point, but officers can refer people to these services, even
though it is not required.
Ms. Craghead said that there is no sanitation provision so some pit toilets are
being dug. This presents a public health hazard on County-owned land. James
Lewis stated that the vast majority of complaints come to the Sheriff’s Office.
Property Management is to maintain and protect the property. He would work
with the Sheriff’s Office when there needs to be a decision on when it has gone
too far.
Ms. Craghead noted that cutting trees on County land is already illegal and
covered in Code. People cannot live in an RV even on their own property for
more than 30 days.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 3 of 11 Pages
Commissioner Unger asked for the policy of the USFS and other agencies.
Officer Shelton said that the USFS uses a ten-day limit. It used to be 30 days.
However, people would set up sites ahead of fishing season and visit those sites
on the weekends. There were people staying for 60 or 90 days. He said the
problem is not for a few days, but for 30 or more days when it starts to look like
a permanent camp. There are some sites with a lot of trash accumulated, and in
the summer, there are concerns about campfires. BLM has a 30-day policy.
Oregon State Police deals with State-owned lands.
Ms. Craghead said that the County has land use rules for even staying on your
own property in a camping situation for over 30 days, and people have to make
accommodation for waste. This needs to cover County-owned lands also.
Commissioner Unger said that this is a common problem with agencies. He
asked where the people will go and who will end up with the problem when
they leave the County land. It is a bigger issue and needs an overall way to
address it.
Ms. Craghead stated that this activity is not allowed on EFU land anyway. No
one seems to know how to deal with the big picture. Chair Baney asked about
camping on EFU, which has been discussed in the past. Tom Anderson stated
that it is a maximum of 30 days on your own property. Ms. Craghead said that
a permit is needed even for that.
Nick Lelack said under the EFU zone, a campground could be approved
through a conditional use permit. There is a limit even then, compared to
permanent residency. Officer. Shelton stated that it is understandable that the
officers have a problem knowing how to deal with this, while in the field. Th ey
need to be able to give the same message to people when it comes to the
Sheriff’s Office handling the calls.
Chair Baney wants to be sure everyone would be utilizing the process in the
same manner. She asked how this would work. Officer Shelton replied that
they are instructed in the same way and they want to help people help
themselves. However, if a resident is visiting public land and comes upon
camps and dogs running at large, with pit toilets and an accumulation of trash,
those visitors will complain. They have a right to use their public lands as well.
This is when the complaints come in.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 4 of 11 Pages
He added that officers would visit with the illegal residents, reach out to social
services, and property management can then get involved if nothing has
changed. Mr. Lewis said that it will always mean a conversation with the
Sheriff’s Office since each situation will be unique. Some may be more
difficult and Mr. Anderson may have to be involved. They are trying to keep
the Board from having to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, and that is the
primary purpose of the request today.
Ms. Craghead said that the property is subject to day use only. Chair Baney
stated that there are not enough resources to help all, and some people prefer to
live this way and will not be open to social services. There may be nowhere
else for them to go. She does not want to come down with a heavy hand.
Ms. Craghead stated that the various departments have been involved in this,
and it would come to the Board in January. The minimum would be to follow
State law. She asked if there should be a noticed public hearing; and whether it
should be done by emergency. Otherwise, it is 104 days from the time of the
hearing before it is effective.
Commissioner DeBone said that the County doesn’t have much property with
amenities. Ms. Craghead stated there are individual riverside lots but no
camping is allowed on those. There really aren’t any County-owned
campgrounds except at the Fairgrounds. This would follow the rules used by
the State. She stated they can change the existing chapter and add another in
this regard, declaring the type of property and how to deal with the
encampments.
Commissioner DeBone asked how changes could be instituted if needed . Ms.
Craghead replied that this would require another Ordinance to change the
language. Commissioner Unger understands the problem, but wants to know
what will happen to manage the problem afterwards. He wants to know they
are doing all they can. He feels a public hearing is necessary.
Officer Shelton said that what the Sheriff’s Office originally wanted to know
was who would be the point of contact in the County, should an encampment
become a problem. They need someone designated as the property owner, the
victim, which would likely be the Property Manager.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 5 of 11 Pages
There is a bigger situation, but this basic issue needs clarification. Ms.
Craghead said that almost all of the language is from State statute. There has to
be a policy to remove the camps, per the State. There have to be established
procedures, something the Sheriff’s Office can follow.
Commissioner DeBone asked someone to find out if the cities have adopted
anything in this regard. Officer Shelton said that procedures need to be set at
some point. Ms. Craghead said the Board could approve an Order simply
establishing the formal contact at the County.
Officer Shelton stated that the campsites have to be removed very infrequently.
Most people are cooperative. However, his people need to know the process if
it gets beyond that point and there is damage being done or conflicts with other
citizens visiting the land on a day-use basis. Commissioner Unger appreciates
this issue getting attention, and he’d like to find a solution. Commissioner
DeBone noted that the local climate means this is not one of the best places to
live outdoors anyway.
Ms. Craghead will draft an Order designating the Property Manager as the
County lands owner for this purpose. The larger issue will be addressed later.
Mr. Lewis said it should be codified in Code Enforcement, with the same
process of discussions followed by citations if necessary. It needs to be
clarified so that enforcement is consistent. There are many users of the land
who do not want to see the public lands damaged, or who might feel unsafe
when visiting these public lands when others have set up camps and sometimes
make other citizens feel unwelcome.
2. Update on the Goal 11 Exception Project.
Nick Lelack said that representatives of the DEQ are present, who are well
versed in Goal 11 issues. He distributed a color map of the areas in question.
Jon Jinings and Scott Edelman of the DLCD, and Robert Baggett of the DEQ
were introduced.
In early 2013, after a lot of discussion, there was a key recommendation to
establish a Goal 11 exception for southern Deschutes County. The DLCD
recently provided a draft burden of proof document and the map in this regard,
which is a strong starting point. (Mr. Jinings said that the map may not be
exact.) The DEQ endorses the document as well.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 6 of 11 Pages
County staff is acting as facilitator to make sure the Comp Plan is consistent.
ODOT is a partner as well. A transportation firm needs to be hired to make
sure there are no unforeseen impacts on State or County facilities with this
change. It appears those impacts would be minimal.
The next step would be a series of public informational meetings , requesting
input and feedback. A webpage would be developed as well. There will be
many opinions, and they need to keep everyone informed and on the same page.
A Goal exception sets a very high bar.
Mr. Anderson asked why the transportation planning rule is involved. Mr.
Jinings said the provisions apply to zone changes. The level of analysis needs
to satisfy the TPR, which applies every time there is a zone change. There may
be that there is little impact. The conclusion is for a Level 1 analysis so they
can say without question that this is not a problem.
Mr. Anderson said this would not change zoning, but could result in more lots
being able to be developed at some point. The land use piece is already in
place. The traffic impacts would have been determined earlier. If there are
impacts, it needs to be known who will deal with those. Mr. Jinings replied that
he would like to discuss this later so that they all have the same understanding.
What this means to him is they would go to the transportation person with
representatives of DLCD.
Chair Baney stated that she thought this would be more of an ODOT concern.
Mr. Jinings said they will contact ODOT. Ms. Craghead stated that they need
to know how it might affect State facilities.
Chair Baney asked about the fact that these lots were already approved and any
impacts addressed at that time. Ms. Craghead stated that they since were
designated red lots, and it was understood that they would not develop at all, or
over a long period of time. Commissioner DeBone supports some analysis of
transportation. The whole project could take a very long time. They need to
know which are the key intersections that might be impacted.
Mr. Lelack said that Peter Russell did work with agencies on this, and
specifically the high groundwater lots that were not considered previously. Mr.
Anderson wants them to keep their eye on the big picture. The idea is to protect
groundwater and allow alternative means to treat wastewater.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 7 of 11 Pages
Mr. Lelack stated that TPR does apply and has to be addressed. It is possible
few lots will be impacted at any given time. He always wants to be sure that
they cover all the bases.
Bob Baggett of the DEQ said he will be pleased to help with whatever changes
are necessary. Commissioner Unger stated that this does not talk about cluster
systems. Mr. Baggett said a community system is one that is served by a single
system. Some systems may serve a dozen properties; others hundreds. Mr.
Jinings said that a community system covers them all. Mr. Baggett noted that
the goal exception does not mandate using the system, but just allows it.
Mr. Jinnings stated that this is very nuanced. It will take a long time, possibly
decades, once this option is enabled. Mr. Baggett said that there is a high level
of community organization necessary. Commissioner DeBone stated that some
people have already asked about cluster systems similar to that in Oregon Water
Wonderland II. There will be engagement or not for various reasons.
Mr. Lelack said that people are being told it is not a mandate, and the goal is not
for forming additional lots but to serve what is already ther e.
Commissioner DeBone asked if northern Klamath County is involved. Mr.
Lelack said that they are waiting for Deschutes County to develop a plan. Mr.
Baggett indicated that the north Klamath region was part of the study area on
the U.S.G.S. record. This plan only allows for options, and it was felt those
options should be made available to others. Mr. Jinings said that Klamath
County was involved in some of the meetings, but he feels they are standing by
to see what happens here.
Mr. Jinings explained the process for the exemption. The authority and
responsibility lies with the Board of Commissioners, with the State agencies
being involved parties. Any decision is appealable to LUBA.
Commissioner Unger asked how they are presenting the costs involved. Mr.
Nick said that this is just to pursue the exemption, allowing it to happen. There
is a long way to go on the rest.
Citizen John Huddle asked if there are legal descriptions of the properties that
would fall within the boundaries. Mr. Jinings said that it would be part of the
process.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 8 of 11 Pages
Wendell Evers asked if there is a committee dealing with the ATP systems and
how this fits. Chair Baney stated this is something that DEQ is addressing . Mr.
Baggett said his supervisor has been involved in this issue.
Commissioner DeBone asked if the County has any authority in this regard. It
is a potential future problem. Mr. Lelack stated that the County looks to the
State first, since the County rescinded the Ordinance and all responsibility and
decision-making went to the DEQ. Mr. Baggett said there is no trigger point
indicated in the process, but they have a groundwater policy indicating when
they should act.
3. Discussion of Natural Hazards Goal 7 Project.
Mr. Lelack updated the Board on the contract between Community
Development and the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center. The
plan was developed in 2011 but he wants to coordinate this with the natural
hazards mitigation plan update. He also wants to make sure they are consistent
with each other.
He referred to his memo, indicating a series of actions. The same consulting
team is doing both, and some FEMA funds might be used for this purpose. This
would not result in the adoption of any new regulations. The County wants to
emphasize flexibility. The group includes graduate students, and there will be a
series of public informational meetings.
The County is spending about $16,000 and the consulting team is matching this,
and it should take little County staff involvement. Most of that time would be
provided by Peter Russell. They likely would not proceed with Ordinances or
major changes since that could affect what the City of Bend plans for the futu re.
It is likely the Planning Commission can take a first effort at it, followed by a
Board work session.
4. Overview of Community Grants.
Judith Ure said they followed the same process as the previous year. Twenty-
five applications were received. The Board can be flexible on the award
amounts and categories. The committee came up with their top-ranked choices.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 9 of 11 Pages
The recommendations are based on two things: an average of the rating points;
and how the committee members ranked each.
Some applications were more suited for the emergency food and shelter
program. Hillary Sarceno had a conflict of interest regarding the Heart of
Oregon Corps, so that was just rated by two members. She explained a few
other variables.
Ms. Ure provided a handout showing average rankings. Two in one category
were tied.
Chair Baney asked about Volunteers in Medicine request, since only about 5%
of people are now uninsured. Ms. Ure said that their project is targeting a
certain number of clients. Commissioner Unger stated that Deschutes Family
Recovery is a program involved with the courts. Ms. Ure noted that they
received funding last year.
Chair Baney asked how many clients Advantage Dental plans to help. There is
assistance now available through the State and this type of program may be
funded through the CCO. Ms. Ure said they did get funding last year. They did
not provide a number of the clients to be served. Chair Baney stated that there
is about $3 million surplus in the CCO budget right now, which may be
available for this kind of program. She feels this work should be considered
more medically driven, now that dental has been integrated. A member of
Advantage Dental’s board sits on the CCO board.
Commissioner Unger supports the first category as written, and Deschutes
Family Recovery for the second group. Mr. Ure stated that they asked for the
$11,000 and got $3,000 last year. There were many applications for the third
category. Commissioner Unger would like to support the Red Cross. Ms. Ure
said they received funding last year.
The Commissioners wanted to know the involvement of the cities and other
agencies. Commissioner DeBone wanted to add back the Historical Society but
delete the Advantage Smiles; and provide funding to Deschutes Family
Recovery.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, December 29, 2014
Page 10 of 11 Pages
After further discussion, the Board decided on the following distribution of the
funds:
Deschutes Public Library Foundation $2,400
Cascades Theatrical Company $2,400
Deschutes County Historical Society $2,400
Volunteers in Medicine $11,000
Deschutes Family Recovery $3,000
Volunteers in Action $11,000
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Oregon $11,000
American Red Cross $5,000
DEBONE: Move approval of funding as discussed.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
3. Other Items.
Ms. Craghead asked about revisions to the OMG (outdoor mass gathering)
Code regarding timing. The permit system is being revised so th at certain
departments handle certain aspects. Commissioner Unger would like to set this
up so that it makes it easier for people to plan events. Chair Baney would like
to discuss this in the spring so that it does not get confused with the Shepherd
issue. Ms. Craghead will send the Board the link to the proposed document.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification of a retreat date. January 16 may not
work, but there are a few available dates in February. The downside of having
this occur in February is that departments will already be preparing their budget
documents.
Chair Baney asked if the issue is the facilitator. She suggested David Inbody as
facilitator, as he did this previously. Mr. Anderson said it may be too soon for
his own process since he wants to ask the Department heads for suggestions and
feedback at the Department Heads meeting on January 12. February 2 or 11
may be best. Mr. Anderson will advise which date is best.
Commissioner DeBone is coordinating City Club meetings in La Pine to get
more involvement. The first meeting is January 22 and the Sheriff is invited to
speak The Project Wildfire group meets on January 13 at 7:00 a.m., and he
asked if someone else could attend in his place. Commissioners Baney and
Unger said they would try.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
DATED this ~Dayof ~ 201&ror the
Deschutes County Board of Commissio rs:
Tam ~'
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 29,2014
Page 11 of 11 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1 :30 P.M., MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2014
1. Discussion of Removal of Homeless Camps -Laurie Craghead
2. Update on the Goal 11 Exception Project -Peter Gutowsky
3. Discussion of Natural Hazards Goal 7 Project -Nick Lelack
4. Overview of Community Grants -Judith Ure
3. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to DRS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; DRS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; DRS 1 92.66O(2)(d), labor negotiations; or DRS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other
issues under DRS 192.660(2), executive session.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners ' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting. please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is
accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or
send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org.
--.L
I
I ,;
1
I I I
I
I I
V'I
Q)
I ~
14o
I I
~
I Q)
co
1 0..
TO: Board ofCounty Commissioners
DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: LAURlE CRAGHEAD
Assistant Legal Counsel
VExt. 6593
RE: Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code 11.04.060 to Prohibit Camping on
County-Owned Property Outside a Designated
Campground Area.
DATE: December 29,2014
cc: Tom Anderson, Dave Doyle, Darryl
Nakaira, Lt. Scott Shelton, Lt. Deron
McMaster, James Lewis, Nick Lelack, Lori
Furlong
FILE NO.: 15/1-018
Before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") today is a draft ordinance that adopts two
Deschutes County Code ("DCC") text amendments that incorporate the state statutes, with some
modifications, regarding the removal of people camping on County-owned property in areas that
are not designated for camping. ORS 203.077 requires counties to adopt policies "that
recognize[s] the social nature of the problem of homeless individuals camping on public
property." This ordinance attempts to do that.
Legal drafted this ordinance at the request of the Sheriffs Office because of the numerous
complaints that the Sheriffs Office has received over the last couple of years of the increasing
number of people camping on the County-owned properties, both temporarily and permanently.
The camping occurs primarily on the large parcel just outside the City of Redmond city limits.
The ordinance adopts the state law that requires 24-hour notice to be posted and provided in
writing to those in the camp at the time of the posting of the notice before removing those who
are camping in areas not designated for camping.
This ordinance amends DCC 11.04.060 to add the non-permitted camping as an activity
prohibited on County-owned property. The ordinance also adds a new chapter, 11.06, to
specifically adopt the statutory provisions and add additional clarifications. The proposed DCC
Chapter 11.06 differs from state law by adding definitions, clarifying time periods and adding
that the County Property Manager will represent the County for purposes of the issuance of a
citation.
Memo to BOCC
Ordinance to Remove Camping
On County-owned property
Page 2 of2
The initial draft of the text amendment was reviewed by others in the Legal Department, a
couple of representatives of the Sheriff's Office and the Property Manager. Since the initial
draft, the Lt. Scott Shelton requested to meet with the Community Development Department
("CDD") Code Enforcement staff and the Property Manager. Legal Department representatives
attended the meeting and the DCC text was revised in response to the meeting. Given that the
revision was sent to the Sheriff s Office representatives, CDD staff, and the Property Manager
not too long before the December holidays, not all the County staff have had the opportunity to
review the revisions to make sure they capture all concerns.
Legal expects to bring this ordinance to the Board in late January for adoption. A public hearing
is not required for adopting this ordinance, but the Board has the option of holding a public
hearing and publishing notice of the hearing.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code *
11.04.060 to Prohibit Camping on County-Owned * ORDINANCE NO. 2014-@
Property Outside a Desigated Campground Areas. *
WHEREAS, Deschutes County recognizes that the number of homeless individuals and families has
grown over the last several years and insufficient shelters exist for the homeless making it difficult for the
homeless to be safe, clean and healthy; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the lack of shelters, the homeless sometimes camp on vacant, County-owned
lots or in dwellings that the County owns prior to selling at a public auction or transferring ownership by another
lawful means; and
WHEREAS, because the County recognizes that homelessness is an issue with which all of Q/
should work towards in resolving, the County assists local organizations in many ways and continues t~
additional means, other than allowing camping on County-owned property, to help those who are homeless; and
WHEREAS, individuals or families who are not homeless also sometimes camp on vacant, County
owned lots; and
WHEREAS, when people camp on County-owned property that is not designated as a campground or
day use recreataional area, problems arise in regards to conflicts with owners of adjacent properties, law
enforcement issues, noise issues, fire hazards, and improper disposal of solid and human waste that could cause
environmental and public health hazards; and
WHEREAS, the County incurs additional costs when law enforcement has to respond to reports of
criminal activity or loud noises or when fire hazards arise from those camping on County-owned property; and
WHEREAS, the County incurs additional costs when the County has to remove solid and human waste
from County-owned property prior to being able to transfer ownership of those properties; and
WHEREAS, designated campgrounds or day use recreational areas better equipped to provide for the
needs of campers and the public by providing for solid and human waste disposal facilities as well as other
sanitary facilities and by providing the necessary human monitoring of illegal or nuisance activities; and
WHEREAS, ORS 203.077 requires counties to adopt policies "that recognizes the social nature of the
problem of homeless individuals camping on public property; and
I WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") finds that, because of the issues described
above, it is in the public's interest to prohibit camping on County-owned property except in designated 1 i campgrounds or day use recreational areas; and I
I
I PAGE 1 OF 3 -ORDINANCE NO. 2014-@
!
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
~~
1
I
I
1
1
I
!
!
~
WHEREAS, the Board also finds that removal of the homeless who are camping on county-owned
property should be done in a humane manner that allows those who are homeless to leave the premises with as
much dignity as is possible in such a difficult situation; and
WHEREAS, ORS 203.079 established the minimum procedures for the humane removal of the
homeless persons from public property and the Board finds it in the public interest to follow those procedures;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 11.04.060, Public Use, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to
be deleted in stril.etkrettgft.
Section 2. ADDING. DCC Chapter 11.06, Removal of Person From Unlawful Campsites, is hereby
added to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Dated this of ,2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------------~
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,OREGON
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1st Reading:
Date of 2 nd Reading:
Commissioner
Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone
Alan Unger
ALAN UNGER, Commissioner
__day of _____, 2014.
__day _____,2014.
Record of Adoption Vote
Yes No Abstained Excused
PAGE 2 OF 3 -ORDINANCE NO. 20 14-@
J Effective date: __day ____,2014.
I AITESTIj
Rec1ordill1g Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 -ORDINANCE NO. 2014-@
11.04.060. Probibited Activities.
A. No person shall construct, install, or encroach upon County owned land .
L .No person shall sever, excavate, damage, vandalize, bum, litter, remove materials from or cause other
site disturbing activity upon or to County owned land without obtaining a pennit authorizing such
activity, from the Board, Property IIflEi Real 85lme Manager, Director of Road Department or Director of
Solid Waste.
B. No person shall cut or remove wood on or from County owned real property except upon first obtaining
a wood cutting permit from the County Property BREi Real ~slale Manager.
C. Except for law enforcement. other emergency personnel or authorized County representatives. no
person shall operate a Mmo tor vehicle s sElalJ ae limileEi Ie on County owned land except within
~ounrv desil!J1ated parking lots and Q.!Lroads that are County roads or dedicated public rights of
illlY,
11-Motor vehicles are prohibited on dedicated public pedestrian/bicycle trails.
~£.Discharge of firearms is prohibited in and on public service facilities except as may be provided by
resolution of the Board.
eE .No person or group shall exclude any other member of the public from County owned land, except as
provided by ordinance or bv lease, license or resolution by the Board.
FQ. No person shall engage in any conduct in or on property where public services are provided which
hinders, interferes with or prevents those employees from performing their duties.
!:L.No person shall smoke or carry any lighted smoking instrument in any Deschutes County owned or" Fonnatted: Indent: Left : 0", Hanging: 0.25",
occupied building. Tab stops : Not at 0"
\. '0 person shall camp on County-owned land except as provided in DeC Chapter I 1.06.
J. No person shall discharge a firearm on County owned land except :
J. On a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area built or auUlorized by the County for the
purpose of target shooting : or
2. When larget shoot im! on Counrv owned .land that is not inside an urban growth boundary or the
boundary of 8 city, if the discharge will not endanger persons or property .
l Ord .20l4-XXX. §1.2014: Ord . 97 -057 §I, 1997; Ord . 96-013 §I, 1996)
Fonnatted: Fon t: 11 pt
Fonnatted: Font: II pt
Fonnatted: Font color: Dark Blue
Chapler 11.04 (0412003)
Chapter 11.06. REMOVAL OF PERSON FROM UNLAWFUL CAMPSITES ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY
11.06.010 Definitions
11.06.020 Unlawful Camping; Removal from Public Property
11.06.030 Notice of Unlawful Camping
11.06.040 Enforcement
11.06.050 Exceptions
11.06.060 Personal Property
11.06.010 Defmitions
For purposes of DCC Chapter 11.06, unless otherwise apparent from the context certain words and
phrases used in this chapter are defined and as set forth in DCC 1.04 and this section.
"Camp, Camps, Camped or Camping" means to set up, or to remain in or at a campsite or placing or
pitching of tents, the placing of camping or sleeping facility vehicles including but not limited to a trailer,
mounted camper, motor vehicle or other equipment for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a place
to live.
"Campsite" means any place where a person has established or is maintaining a place to live without a
permit. Evidence of a campsite shall include, but shall not be limited to; the presence of: bedding,
sleeping bag or other sleeping material; a place where a fire pit, ring or other such place; a stove, tent,
lean-to, shack, or any other structure; or any vehicle or part thereof in which a person has been residing or
sleeping.
"Motor vehicle" means every self-propelled vehicle and vehicle designed for self-propulsion, except police
and other official motor vehicles, and does not include camping or sleeping facility vehicles.
"Park" means any lands accepted as a county park pursuant to ORS Chapter 275.
"Parking area" means any space marked or unmarked which may be or is used for the parking of automobiles
or other transportation vehicles.
"Personal Property" means, for the purpose of this chapter, any item that is reasonably recognizable as
belonging to a person and that has apparent utility.
"Public Property" means public lands, premises and buildings, including but not limited to any building
used in connection with the transaction of public business or any lands, premises or building owned or
leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state, including any park, or under any bridge or
viaduct.
"Sleeping facility vehicle" means any motor vehicle or device designed for or utilized for overnight camping,
including but not limited to campers, motor homes, travel trailers, and tent trailers.
"Unlawful Campsite" means a campsite on a private or public right of way or on real property not
approved for a campground.
(Ord. 20IS-XXX, §l, 2015)
11.06.020 Unlawful Camping; Removal from Public Property
Page 1 of3 -EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
A. It is unlawful for any person who camps in or upon any public property to remain camped for 24
hours after having been provided written or posted notice, as set forth DCC 11.06.030, of unlawful
camping.
B. Any person found to be camping unlawfully on public property may be removed from the unlawful
campsite as provided by this Chapter.
(Ord. 20IS-XXX, §I, 2015)
11.06.030 Notice of Unlawful Camping
A. Subject to the exceptions set forth in this chapter, a notice ofunlawful camping must be posted before
the County removes persons from a campsite on public property, or before the County removes
personal property from a campsite on public property.
B. The notice must meet the following requirements:
1. Be posted at the campsite in English and Spanish,
2. Be posted in a location easily visible to and readable by persons present or who may enter the
campsite subsequent to the posting,
2. State the date and time the notice was posted,
3. State that personal property located at the campsite will be removed 24 hours after the notice is
posted,
4. State that anyone remaining at the campsite 24 hours after the notice is posted may be subject to
removal,
5. Indicate the location where personal property can be retrieved if property was removed from the
site for storage, and that it must be retrieved within thirty (30) days,
6. Include the telephone number for Deschutes County Health Services information and referral,
C. The notice must be provided in writing to persons present at the campsite at the time of the posting of
the notice, allowing the person a minimum of 24 hours to vacate the area.
D. Officials posting such notice shall photograph the posted notice contemporaneous with the posting
and the photograph shall include the date and time of the posting.
E. Officials posting and providing such notice shall inform Deschutes County Health Services at the
time notice is posted that notice has been provided to the persons and/or has been posted on the public
property, and the location of the posting.
F. Following the removal of persons from public property under the provisions of this chapter, law
enforcement officials, local agency officials and outreach workers may meet to assess the notice and
the provisions of this chapter, to discuss whether the removals are occurring in a humane and just
manner, and to determine if any changes are needed in this chapter.
(Ord. 20IS-XXX, §I, 2015)
11.06.040 Enforcement
A. After the notice period provided in the notice of unlawful camping has elapsed, the County may
remove any person from an unlawful campsite on public property, and may remove personal property
left at the campsite as provided in section 11.06.060.
B. A person authorized to issue a citation for unlawful camping under state law, administrative rule or
city or county ordinance may not issue the citation if the citation would be issued wi thin 200 feet of
the notice described in this section and within two hours before or after the notice was posted.
C. For purposes of removal of or issuing citations under this chapter to persons who are camping on
County-owned property, the County, through the County Property Manager at the County's
representative, shall be identified as the complaining party.
(Ord. 20IS-XXX, §1, 2015)
Page 2 of3 -EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
11.06.050 Exceptions
The notice described in sections 11.06.030 and 11.06.040 is not required:
A. When there are grounds for law enforcement officials to believe that illegal activities other than
unlawful camping are occurring;
B. In the event of an emergency such as possible site contamination by hazardous materials, or when
there is immediate danger to human life or safety, or when the Governor has declared an emergency
under the provisions of ORS 131.715;
C. For a campground designated by the County, state or federal government which is occupied under an
agreement between the occupant and the campground; or
D. For an area temporarily designated by the County Administrator for camping during an emergency or
special event.
(Ord. 201S-XXX, §1, 2015)
11.06.060 Personal Property
A. Personal property may be removed by the County from an unlawful campsite on public property.
B. All unclaimed personal property removed from the campsite shall be given to law enforcement
officials.
C. The property shall be stored for a minimum of thirty (30) days during which it will be reasonably
available to any individual establishing ownership to the satisfaction of its law enforcement
custodian.
D. Any personal property that remains unclaimed for thirty (30) days may be disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of County Code Chapter 2.70, Disposition of Unclaimed Property.
E. Personal property that has no apparent utility, poses a hazard or health risk, or is in unsanitary
condition may be immediately discarded.
D. Weapons, drug paraphernalia and items that appear to be stolen or evidence of a crime shall be given
to law enforcement officials.
(Ord. 201S-XXX, §1, 2015)
Page 3 of3 -EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety DIvision Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend. Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: December 22,2014
MEETING: December 29,2014
SUBJECT: Work session with staff on Goal 11 exception to allow sewers on rural
lands in southern Deschutes County
BACKGROUND
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) convened an advisory committee in
2010 to study the problem in southern Deschutes County of nitrates, shallow
groundwater, on-site septic systems, and rural sewer systems. The advisory committee
recommended the problem be addressed with sewers rather than upgraded on-site
septic systems. Sewering rural lands require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal
11, Public Facilities Planning. Such an exception is specifically allowed to mitigate a
public health hazard. The DEQ advisory committee in 2013 recommended pursuing this
course.
PROPOSAL
Deschutes County has worked with the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) and DEQ on preparing draft findings for a Goal 11 Exception.
The County set a Dec. 18 deadline to receive the materials from DEQ and DLCD to
read and prepare a summary for the Board of County Commissioners' (Board) Dec. 29
work session. DLCD delivered the materials on Dec. 19.
Staff has not had time to review and prepare a summary for the Board, but will be
prepared to discuss the DEQ/DLCD materials at the Dec. 29 work session. Staff has
also completed a draft request for proposals (RFP) for a traffic analysis to comply with
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) as part of the Goal 11 process.
DEQ/DLCD plan to hold outreach meetings over the winter in southern Deschutes
County to hear feedback from the public. The Goal 11 exception findings could be
modified based on that feedback.
Once the draft burden of proof for the Goal 11 exception is finalized, the County will
follow its normal process for a land use application. This will include a work session
with the Planning Commission, then a public hearing before the Planning Commission,
a work session before the Board, and then a public hearing before the Board.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
/}eeurJu. 19, 2011
DRAFT FINDINGS
GOAL 11 EXCEPTION TO ALLOW SEWER SERVICE TO RURAL
LANDS IN SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY
The amendments to Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan are described in
Ordinance 201S-XXX, Exhibits A, B, and C. New language is underscored and deleted
text is shown as strikethrough .
I. ACTION
This report supports an amendment to the Deschutes County comprehensive plan to
include an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 , "Public Facilities and Services," to
allow sewer service to rural land in South Deschutes County . See Attachment A for a
map of the affected area.
The specific parcels that would receive sewer service have not been identified and the
financing mechanism to establish treatment and disposal facilities has not been
developed. Development of these specific elements of a South Deschutes County
sewage facilities plan would not be practical until the area is eligible for sewer service.
For reasons explained in these findings, an exception to Goal 11 is justified.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Groundwater Quality of in South Deschutes County
The La Pine sub-basin of the Upper Deschutes River is underlain by a shallow aquifer
that currently supplies the primary source of drinking water for approximately 18,000
people. The soils in the region are highly porous and permeable with no impervious
layer that protects the aquifer from pollution sources . In addition, the region's soils are
young, pumice-based (volcanic), and relatively low in organic matter. Recharge from
natural (precipitation) or human (residential onsite system discharges or irrigation)
sources moves rapidly down through surface soils to the aquifer.
The water table ranges in depth from less than two feet to about thirty feet below land
surface . Recharge (precipitation that reaches groundwater) from infiltration of
precipitation averages 2.0 inches per year; the balance of water from precipitation
evaporates, transpires, or discharges via surface runoff to rivers . Groundwater
discharges in the basin include baseflow contributions to the Deschutes and Little
Deschutes Rivers, evapotranspiration by vegetation, and water pumped from wells.
Regional groundwater characteristics include temperatures that are among the lowest in
the state, generally 42.soF (6° C) to 48.2° F (9° C) and high dissolved oxygen content
(3 mg/L to 6 mg/L). Groundwater velocities are low and , at the water table, groundwater
is generally oxic (oxygen rich conditions); however, at depths ranging from near zero to
more than fifty feet below the water table it becomes suboxic (depleted oxygen
PAGE 1 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2014-XXX
conditions) and natural nitrate reduction (denitrification) can occur.1 Denitrification thus
keeps deeper portions of the La Pine aquifer essentially nitrate-free, but the oxic
portions remain vulnerable to nitrate contamination from onsite systems, the primary
anthropogenic source. Nitrate contamination of the oxic groundwater is a concern in this
region because the shallow oxic aquifer is the desired drinking water supply for
individual domestic wells and because of the potential for nitrogen-enriched
groundwater to discharge to the nitrogen-limited rivers in the region.2
Development in rural areas threatens groundwater quality in southern Deschutes
County through onsite system discharges. About 15,000 lots of one-half to one-acre in
size were platted prior to enactment of Oregon's land use planning laws in the 1960s
and 1970s. These lots are located within a corridor near the scenic Deschutes River
and the Little Deschutes River. Subdivision developers marketed these lots nationally
with no promise of infrastructure improvements and without an understanding of the
region's high water table or the aquifer's vulnerability. Currently, about 6,400 improved
lots in the La Pine region use conventional on site systems and individually owned
drinking water wells. Most of these wells draw from the most vulnerable upper 100 feet
of the aquifer.
South Deschutes County has been the focus of extensive local, state and federal
attention beginning in the early 1980s with the identification of significant groundwater
impacts from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the La Pine Unincorporated
Community. Provided below is a timeline of events related to water quality in the region.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in July 1996 began a
program to study the more than 12,000 residential lots platted in the 1960s and '70s in
an area of approximately 42 square miles, which are primarily served by on-site septic
systems. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assisted with the process as
did the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which produced a model of
groundwater movement and pollution. The result was this area of southern Deschutes
County was at risk of having nitrate levels exceed federal and state standards for
drinking water. A final report was issued to DLCD in 1999.
DEQ and Deschutes County have been working cooperatively for more than a decade
to find an appropriate solution to this growing concern. In 2008, the county adopted
ordinances effectively requiring advanced treatment technology systems that would
reduce nitrate concentrations in wastewater. One of the ordinances was repealed as the
result of a successful citizens' referendum vote in 2009 to overturn the ordinances and
the other was repealed by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011. In October
2009, Deschutes County Commissioners requested that DEQ take over the effort to find
appropriate solutions to the increasing groundwater contamination caused by wide use
of onsite wastewater treatment and disposal.
1 Oregon Health Authority Fact Sheet on Nitrates. available at
http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Monitoring/HealthEffects/Pages/nitrat
r,aspx.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water Standards are available at
http://water.epa.gov/drinklcontaminants/index.cfm.
PAGE 2 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
Since that time, DEQ has engaged a steering committee comprised of Deschutes and
Klamath County citizens to consider local circumstances and make recommendations
for a long-term solution. DEQ received the recommendations from the committee in
summer 2013.3 One of those recommendations was to pursue an area wide Goal 11
exception to allow a broader range of options for domestic wastewater treatment and
disposal.
B. land Use and Zoning Considerations
Providing centralized sewer service to some or all of the area is among the options
under consideration to address the groundwater quality challenge explained above. For
the area outside the La Pine urban growth boundary, provision of sewer service is
limited by this provision in Statewide Planning Goal 11:
Local Governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of
sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated
community boundaries, or allow extensions of sewer lines from within
urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries to
serve land outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended
system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard
and will not adversely affect farm or forest land.
This provision of Goal 11 is implemented by OAR 660-011-0060. This rule is quoted
and discussed in subsection IV.C of this report.
Statutes and the statewide planning goals provide an opportunity for relief from goal
requirements on a case-by-case basis through an "exceptions" process. This report
supplies facts and findings to support an exception to Goal 11 for South Deschutes
County to permit sewer service to rural land.
These findings do not support or propose changing the designation of any property on
the Deschutes County comprehensive plan or zoning map. The purpose of sewerage is
to serve existing and planned residential development to alleviate groundwater
contamination from onsite wastewater disposal systems, not to increase the
development potential of the area.
III. AFFECTED AREA
The area affected by the exception is generally comprised of unincorporated, nonfederal
property located between Sunriver and the Klamath County border. A map specifically
identifying the location of lands subject to this exception is included as Attachment.
3 ODEQ. 2013. South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and Recommendations.
Nigg, E. and R. Baggett. 32pp. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/docs/SDNKreportrec.pdf
PAGE 3 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX:
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA
Ordinance 2014-XXX adopts these findings for a Goal 11 exception to allow sewer
service to rural lands in southern Deschutes County. Deschutes County lacks specific
approval criteria in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Titles 18, 22, or 23 for a legislative
plan and text amendment. The county is a co-applicant with DEQ, which has partnered
with DLCD; these findings demonstrate compliance with the applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), statewide planning goals, and the
county's comprehensive plan. DEQ and DLCD were the subject experts for the ORS,
OAR, and Statewide Planning Goals and prepared the findings for those areas; County
staff prepared the findings that pertained to the Comprehensive Plan.
The findings address requirements contained in the following state and local
regulations:
A. ORS 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning
B. OAR Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process
C. OAR Chapter 660, Division 11, Public Facilities Planning
D. OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning
E. Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
F. Other Statewide Planning Goals
G. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
H. Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County
A. ORS 197.732, Goal Exceptions
The pertinent sections of ORS 197.732 with findings are provided below.
(2) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal if:
(a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent
that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal;
(b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as
described by Land Conservation and Development Commission rule to
uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent uses
and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal
impracticable; or
(c) The following standards are met:
(A) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable
goals should not apply;
(8) Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use;
(C) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy
! consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with ! measures deSigned to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly!
more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal
I being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the
proposed site; and
1
PAGE 4 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT 'X' TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
(D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or
will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse
impacts.
FINDINGS: The provisions of DRS 197.732 are further refined and interpreted by
Statewide Planning Goal 2 and OAR chapter 660, divisions 4 and 11.The legal tests
established in state statute are satisfied by adequately responding to the applicable
provisions of the administrative rules. Please see the applicant's response to
OAR chapter 660, divisions 4 and 11 in Subsections IV.B. and IV.C. of this report.
(4) A local government approving or denying a proposed exception shall set forth
findings of fact and a statement of reasons that demonstrate that the standards
of subsection (2) of this section have or have not been met.
FINDING: The findings in this document provide the factual basis for the Goal 11
exception based on the standards of the applicable administrative rules and county
comprehensive plan policies.
B. OAR chapter 660, division 4: Interpretation of Goal 2 Exceptions Process
Pertinent rules relating to exceptions generally, with findings, are provided below.
OAR 660-004-0000(2): An exception is a decision to exclude certain land from
the requirements of one or more applicable statewide goals in accordance with
the process specified in Goal 2, Part II, Exceptions. The documentation for an
exception must be set forth in a local government's comprehensive plan. Such
documentation must support a conclusion that the standards for an exception
have been met. The conclusion shall be based on findings of fact supported by
substantial evidence in the record of the local proceeding and by a statement of
reasons that explains why the proposed use not allowed by the applicable goal,
or a use authorized by a statewide planning goal that cannot comply with the
approval standards for that type of use, should be provided for. The exceptions
process is not to be used to indicate that a jurisdiction disagrees with a goal.
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception is supported by facts and evidence and a statement
of reasons why the proposal should be approved contained in this report. These items
are offered in detail in the response to the provisions of OAR 660-004-0020 and -0022
and OAR 660-011-0060(9), below.
OAR 660-004-0010(1): The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide
Goal 1 "Citizen Involvement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning. " The exceptions
process is generally applicable to all or part of those statewide goals that
prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource land, restrict urban uses on rural
land, or limit the provision of certain public facilities and services. These
statewide goals include but are not limited to:
* * *
(c) Goal 11 "Public Facilities and Services" as provided in OAR 660-011
0060(9); * * *
PAGE 5 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
FINDING: The administrative rule expressly recognizes that Goal 11 could be subject to
an exception proposal. Subsection C of this section addresses the standards specified
in OAR 660-011-0060(9), which is the applicable exception language.
660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
(4) "Reasons" Exceptions:
(a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons"
section of DRS 197. 732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-0020 through 660-004
0022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses, density, public
facilities and services, and activities to only those that are justified in the
exception.
FINDINGS: The purpose of this Goal 11 exception is to allow sewer service on rural
lands in southern Deschutes County. This exception does not authorize any other uses
that would not be permissible under the existing comprehensive plan and implementing
ordinances. The exception does not amend existing limits in the plan on uses, densities,
or activities. The exception findings do justify a change in limitations on a public facility
sewerage -but the uses served by the sewer are not proposed to become more
intensive as a result of the new service. The county plan must limit sewer service to
those areas justified in this exception.
OAR 660-004-0020(2): The four standards in Goal 2 Part I/(c) required to be
addressed when taking an exception to a goal are described in subsections (a)
through (d) of this section, including general requirements applicable to each of
the factors:
(a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals
should not apply. " The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions
used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal
should not apply to specific properties or situations, including the amount
of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on
resource land;
FINDINGS: In this case, the applicable state policy resides in Goal 11. The application
seeks relief from this provision of Goal 11 :
Local Governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of
sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated
community boundaries, or allow extensions of sewer lines from within
urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries to
serve land outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended
system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard
and will not adversely affect farm or forest land.
OAR 660-004-0020(2)(a) essentially requires a three-part response: (1) a description of
the reason or reasons that justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goal
PAGE 6 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
should not apply; (2) a description of the use being planned; and (3) why the use
requires a location on resource land.
Reasons Goal 11 Should Not Apply_ The Goal 11 prohibition on providing sewer
service to rural land should not apply to South Deschutes County because onsite
sewage treatment and disposal systems are not protecting the groundwater quality in
the area. For the reasons explained below. sewerage is needed to prevent continued
contamination of groundwater.
Residents of south Deschutes and north Klamath counties face challenging wastewater
disposal conditions. The area has porous, sandy. pumice soil derived from volcanic
events and a shallow. vulnerable aquifer. both of which allow for the potential
contamination of drinking water. These local conditions are unusual, as other parts of
the state have finer silt and clay-like subsurface soil that can form a protective layer
above the groundwater.
Historical groundwater contamination in the downtown core of La Pine offers a good
illustration of the challenges facing much of the region. Studies of groundwater
contamination, hydrology and the effects of nitrates were conducted in southern
Deschutes County beginning in the late 1970s. Well monitoring and analysis in La Pine
was performed in response to very high nitrate concentrations in drinking water. Nitrate
concentrations in drinking water wells commonly exceeded the drinking water standard
of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen and were elevated as high as 42 mg/L and were linked to
wastewater disposal from individual septic systems.4 Elevated (i.e., above natural
background) levels of nitrate-nitrogen entering groundwater are likely to also be
associated with other wastewater contaminants entering the groundwater.
Contamination in La Pine became so severe in the early 1980s that La Pine constructed
a sewer system providing better treatment and land disposal of wastewater in order to
reduce nitrogen concentrations in drinking water supplies. The operation of this sewer
system resulted in markedly improved groundwater quality in town. Monitoring wells for
the wastewater treatment plant have demonstrated steadily improving groundwater
conditions following improved treatment and disposal.
This historical contamination is both evidence of the vulnerability of the aquifer and a
cause for concern throughout the region, as the soil and groundwater conditions in
La Pine are similar to those throughout much of southern Deschutes and northern
Klamath counties.
Other surveys and studies over the years pOint to increasing groundwater contamination
throughout the region. A survey of groundwater data in 1993 and modeling in 1995 by
DEQ indicated elevated nitrate concentrations and concern for future aquifer-wide
4 Oregon Health Authority Fact Sheet on Nitrates, available at
http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Monitoring/HealthEffectsiPages/nitrat
e.aspx.
PAGE 7 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
increases. Recent sampling of monitoring wells in the area demonstrated a small but
statistically significant increase in nitrate concentration between 1995 and 2011.5
The U.S. Geological Survey completed a La Pine National Demonstration Project and
mathematical modeling effort in 2007 .6 The demonstration project was designed to test
innovative treatment technologies that would reduce nitrogen loading to groundwater
from onsite systems. The USGS also produced a three-dimensional model to estimate
the effects of nitrates in the shallow aquifer of a large area in southern Deschutes and
northern Klamath cou nties. 7
These studies have reached the conclusion that the groundwater aquifer is vulnerable
to increasing concentrations of nitrates and other contaminants associated with
domestic sewage . The USGS study predicted nitrate concentrations increasing above
the federally adopted drinking water standard throughout the area over time.
Concentrations would increase for about 140 years after full build-out, at which time
more than 9,000 acres would have groundwater concentrations exceeding 10 mg/L.
Deschutes County attempted to address the area-wide groundwater problem through
various ordinances and requirements . For a period of time, certain residential
developments were required by county ordinance to install Advanced Treatment
Technology (ATT) onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems . After those
ordinances were repealed and rescinded, the county asked DEQ to take the lead in
groundwater protection. DEQ then began conducting site-by-site groundwater risk
assessments to determine which sites were required to install ATT systems while the
county ordinances were in effect.
The nitrogen-reducing A TTs provide the best onsite treatment option, but they do not
truly address the long-term problem or offer the best level of groundwater protection for
the area as a whole . As steering committee members acknowledged in their
recommendations, the area would be best served by allowing more options to deal with
the larger concerns of area-wide contamination. The steering committee also
acknowledged the limitations of the ATT requirement and recommended a moratorium
on such systems until a more comprehensive solution could be made available to land
owners.
The steering committee realized that such options would require an area-wide exception
to Goal 11, and they recommended DEQ and Deschutes County pursue the exception .
DEQ agrees with this recommendation because an exception to Goal 11 provides
5 NEED CITATIONS TO THESE STUDIES
6 Williams , J.S., D.S . Morgan and S .R. Hinkle. 2007 . Questions and answers about the effects of septic
systems on water quality in the La Pine area, Oregon. USGS Factshee t 2007-3103.
http ://pubs .u sgs.gov/fs/2007/3103f
7 Morgan, D.S ., S.R. Hinkle, R.J . Weick. 2007. Evaluation of approaches for managing nitrate loading
from on -site wastewater systems near La Pine, Oregon USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5237
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/52 37/
PAGE 8 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015·XXX
residents with a tool to pursue meaningful and long-term groundwater protection in a
way that is not currently available to them.
An area-wide Goal 11 exception would allow for an acceptable level of wastewater
control and is necessary to protect public health in the area over the long term. The
area requires a regional solution to what is truly an area-wide problem -one with risk
increasing the longer a comprehensive solution is not in place. Up to this point, public
agencies including DEQ have looked at individual property risk on a site-by-site basis .
This strategy will fail because it prohibits greater regional planning and infrastructure to
address a significant and regional public health risk .
This risk is compounded by the relatively high density of development in the area, as
more than 75 percent of the approximately 14,000 properties in the area are two acres
or smaller. There is little precipitation in the area to dilute contaminants . Too many
septic systems were discharging into porous soil and over time there would be
increasing contamination of the shallow, vulnerable aquifer that many people were
using as their drinking water supply
The Use Being Planned. In this case, most of the area proposed for sewage service
has already been developed with permitted residential uses. In most exception
proposals, "the use being planned" would add to the built environment by enabling
development activity (i.e., residential, industrial, commercial, etc.) not allowed by the
existing zoning. Goal 11 exceptions require a different perspective.
The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has held, "In the context of a Goal 11
exception to extend public facilities to serve proposed development of lands outside the
urban growth boundary, the 'proposed use' can only be the proposed development to
be served by the facility extension and not the extended public facility." Todd v. City of
Florence, 52 Or LUBA 445 (2006). In this case, the "use being planned" is _ existing
residential units and _ potential new units allowed by existing zoning.
This situation resembles Todd because it would authorize the establishment or
extension of sewer service in order to support development. This situation is
distinguishable because the proposed facility in this case is necessary to support the
"use being planned" in order to improve the area's groundwater quality over time. The
subject lands are planned and zoned to receive residential development. Failing to
authorize sewer service will eventually create unacceptable levels of contamination in
the groundwater and place citizens at risk of health concerns .
Location on Resource Land. This Goal 11 exception does not generally request a
location on resource land. Instead, sewer service would be available to residential
development on lands planned and zoned for residential use. Small amounts of
resource lands are includes but no upzoning will occur. Most of this development exists.
Some potential for future development on existing platted lots is possible .
OAR 660-004-0020(2) (continued)
PAGE 9 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X " TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
(b) "Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonably
accommodate the use". The exception must meet the following
requirements:
(A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the
location of possible alternative areas considered for the use that do
not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is
taken shall be identified;
(8) To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to
discuss why other areas that do not require a new exception cannot
reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors may
be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that
the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under
this test the following questions shall be addressed:
(i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on
nonresource land that would not require an exception,
including increasing the density of uses on nonresource
land? If not, why not?
(ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on
resource land that is already irrevocably committed to
nonresource uses not allowed by the applicable Goal,
including resource land in existing unincorporated
communities, or by increasing the denSity of uses on
committed lands? If not, why not?
(iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated
inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not?
(iv) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated
without the provision of a proposed public facility or service?
If not, why not?
(C) The "alternative areas" standard in paragraph 8 may be met by
a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of
specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an
exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in
the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use.
Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government
taking an exception unless another party to the local proceeding
describes specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate
the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites
is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described,
with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more
reasonable, by another party during the local exceptions
proceeding.
FINDINGS: Regarding OAR 660-004-0020(2)(b}(A}, a map of the area subject to this
exception is provided in Attachment A.
Regarding paragraph (b)(8), areas that do not require a new exception cannot
reasonably accommodate the use because, as described above, the use in this case is
PAGE 10 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
residential development on lands planned and zoned for that use, with some resource
lands included that are. Identified resource lands have an existing settlement pattern
and are either adjacent to rural residential exception areas or surrounded by federal
land. This Goal 11 exception will create the ability to support existing homes and some
future households with sewer service, which is necessary to preserve the integrity of the
area's groundwater. The existing homes and lands planned and zoned for development
will continue to occupy their current locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as
a domestic water source. Utilizing a different area is not possible. In other words, the
development pattern is where it is.
To best protect public health, the exception area includes unincorporated, nonfederal
portions of Deschutes County except those areas already authorized for sewers
generally located south of Sunriver and north of Klamath County (see Attachment A).
This is generally the area in Deschutes County studied by the USGS (see Attachment
G). Deschutes County determined that groundwater protection is necessary for this area
because groundwater was determined to be vulnerable to contamination from individual
onsite wastewater disposal systems.
The exception area includes all existing platted lots and other lands necessary for
community water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure. No up-zoning or
increases in development densities other than allowed by current zoning shall occur
within the Goal 11 exception area.
Regarding accommodation of the use on nonresource land or existing exceptions land
(paragraphs (b )(B)(i) and (ii», these provisions assume the proposal is for an exception
to Goal 3 or Goal 4 -the "resource goals." The "applicable goal" in this case is Goal 11.
"Uses not allowed by the applicable goal" in this case are not "nonresource uses," but
rather rural uses provided with sewer service. To address the these provisions in the
context of a Goal 11 exception, the purpose of the exception is to allow an additional
option -sewerage -for contending with a groundwater quality problem associated with
existing residential development. LUBA has ruled that "the use" in a Goal 11 exception
is the development at the end of the sewer line, not the sewer line itself (Todd v. City of
Florence, 52 Or LUBA 445 (2006». Existing homes cannot reasonably be expected to
relocate. The small amount of future development currently permitted in the area could
potentially be prohibited and those development rights transferred to a different location
that does not require an exception, but that would not contribute significantly to solving
the groundwater problem or alleviate the need for this exception.
For these same reasons, the proposed use cannot be reasonably accommodated inside
an urban growth boundary (paragraph (bXBXiii». This Goal 11 exception will create the
ability to support existing homes and some future households with sewer service, which
is necessary to preserve the integrity of the area's groundwater. The existing homes
and lands planned and zoned for development will continue to occupy their current
locations and will continue to utilize local aquifers as a domestic water source.
In this Goal 11 exception, the "use being planned" is existing homes and some new
residences on lands planned and zoned for residential development. The proposed
facilities would be sewer service that is not otherwise available under Goal 11. Existing
PAGE 11 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
and possible residential development in these areas cannot be reasonably
accommodated without the opportunity to receive sewer service because, as described
in this document, sewer service is necessary to guard against unacceptable levels of
pollution in the area's groundwater that would expose citizens to health risks.
OAR 660-004-0020(2) (continued)
(c) "The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy
consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures
designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse
than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas
requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. " The exception
shall describe: the characteristics of each alternative area considered by
the jurisdiction in which an exception might be taken, the typical
advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by
the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting
from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce
adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not
required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support
the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during
the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons
why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly
more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being
located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site.
Such reasons shall include but are not limited to a description of: the facts
used to determine which resource land is least productive, the ability to
sustain resource uses near the proposed use, and the long-term economic
impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from
the resource base. Other possible impacts to be addressed include the
effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving
roads and on the costs to special service districts;
FINDING: The "use being planned" is composed of existing dwellings and some new
dwellings allowed outright on land planned and zoned for residential use and under
certain restrictions on lands zoned for resource use. The proposed public service
includes sewer service that is not otherwise allowed under Goal 11. OAR 660-004
0020(2)(c) requires an analysis of impacts from the use being located in alternative
"areas." In this exception, the area in question will be the same for any alternative. This
criterion arguably does not apply. Instead, the environmental, social, economic, and
energy (ESEE) consequences of providing sewer service compared to not providing
that service are presented herein.
Environmental Consequences. A long-term environmental consequence of no sewer
service has been studied by DEQ and USGS (see footnotes 5,6 and 7) All of these
studies showed long-term degradation of groundwater quality caused by residential
onsite sewage disposal systems. Since a large majority of the residential uses already
exist, limiting additional development will not solve the problem. Nitrates will continue to
accumulate in the groundwater, which is also the areas' drinking water, ultimately
PAGE 12 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X· TO ORDINANCE 201S-XXX
exceeding safe drinking water standards. See subsection II.A, "Groundwater Quality of
in South Deschutes County," in these findings.
A long-term environmental consequence of providing sewer service to some or all of the
affected area will be a slowing and ultimately a reversal of the degradation of water
quality South Deschutes County.
Since the problem this exception is intended to solve relates to safe drinking water,
provision of drinking water to the affected area is another potential solution option that
should be considered. The long-term environmental consequences of providing drinking
water to the area instead of providing sewer service include continued contamination of
groundwater. Groundwater is not just drinking water. It also serves as a barometer of
overall ecosystem health. To put it another way, a healthy ecosystem does not have
contaminated ground water. Providing drinking water service rather than sewer service
may solve the safe drinking water problem, but it does not solve the larger issue of
groundwater quality in South Deschutes County.
On balance, the long-term environmental consequences of providing sewer service to
the affected area are positive because groundwater quality in the affected area will at
least get no worse, and is likely to improve.
Economic Consequences. Providing sewer service will have long-term economic
consequences, while not providing the service will have different economic
consequences. The affected area is rural and no service district currently exists to
establish the system. so there is no existing tax base to subsidize a sewer system
project. Costs will be entirely borne by residents and property owners within the affected
area (with any state or federal assistance that may materialize).
If sewer service is not provided, groundwater quality will continue to degrade and
Deschutes County will at some point in the future be forced to contend with a water
supply that does not meet safe drinking water standards. Waiting to address the
problem will result in a more widespread issue because additional dwellings will have
been built. A larger network of sewer lines and a higher-capacity treatment system will
likely be required if a solution to the groundwater quality problem is not addressed
sooner. While the potential number of ratepayers may be greater in the future. diluting
each individual user's rate, this does not necessarily make the no-build alternative the
lower-cost option. Interest rates are at an historically low level and construction costs
tend to increase over time.
Establishing a sewer system is expensive. No feasibility studies have been conducted
so the most appropriate system technology has not been determined. The sequencing
of installation has not been established (it is not anticipated that the entire affected area
will be sewered at once. if ever). Completion of these plans would not be prudent before
approval of this Goal 11 exception. Consequently, a financing plan has not been
completed and detailed costs of the system are not available. but general conclusions
can be made nonetheless. In any case, it is reasonable to assume that installation and
operation of an entirely new sewer system will lead to relatively high rates for each
hookup in the affected area.
PAGE 13 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X· TO ORDINANCE 2015~XXX
The alternative long-term economic consequences are not "build" versus "no-build," but
rather "now" or "later." Addressing the problem before it gets worse has long-term
economic benefits to ratepayers in the affected area.
Social and Energy Consequences. No social or energy consequences have been
identified that would be different for the alternatives under consideration.
Summary. The long-term ESEE consequences of establishing a sewer system to
address groundwater quality problems in the affected area versus continuing with onsite
sewage disposal systems favors establishing a system. The long-term environmental
consequences clearly favor establishment of the system. The long-term economic
consequences are not as clearly in favor of the system but available information shows
that establishing a system earlier will be beneficial. The long-term social and energy
consequences of various alternatives are the same for each alternative.
OAR 660-004-0020(2) (continued)
(d) "The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be
so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. " The
exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered
compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that
the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with
surrounding natural resources and resource management or production
practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no
interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses.
FINDING: The "proposed uses" are existing homes and some new households on lands
planned and zoned for residential development. The prohibition in Goal 11 on sewer
service to rural lands works in concert with Goal 14, "Urbanization," to direct urban
development inside urban growth boundaries. That is, comprehensive plans are to
provide for an orderly transition from rural to urban uses. A patchwork of urban-type
subdivisions scattered across the landscape is generally incompatible with adjacent
farm and forest uses and wildlife habitat conservation. Rural residents often find nearby
high-density development incompatible with their rural environment. Sewer service does
not cause, but it enables, a checkerboard pattern of high-density subdivisions.
The Deschutes County comprehensive plan and zoning limit development in the
affected area to a rural level of development. The rural residential zoning is limited to
one dwelling per lot and new lots must be 10 acres in size. Resource zoning under goal
3 &4 require even larger minimum parcel sizes and have greater restrictions regarding
land divisions. Sewer service allowed under this exception will not increase the
residential density of the area beyond what would develop without the sewer because
the county comprehensive plan and zoning will not change.
OAR 660-004-0020(3): If the exception involves more than one area for which
the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a
PAGE 14 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X' TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
group. Each of the areas shall be identified on a map, or their location otherwise
described, and keyed to the appropriate findings.
FINDING: To best protect public health, the exception area includes unincorporated,
nonfederal portions of Deschutes County except those areas already authorized for
sewers generally located south of Sunriver and north of Klamath County (see
Attachment A). This is the general area in Deschutes County studied by USGS.
Deschutes County determined that this area is necessary for groundwater protection
and where groundwater was determined to be vulnerable to contamination from
individual onsite wastewater disposal systems.
OAR 660-004-0020(4): For the expansion of an unincorporated community
described under OAR 660-022-0010, including an urban unincorporated
community pursuant to OAR 660-022-0040 (2), the reasons exception
requirements necessary to address standards 2 through 4 of Goal 2, Part I/(c), as
described in of subsections (2)(b), (c) and (d) of this rule, are modified to also
include the following: * * *
FINDING: The exception does not involve an expansion of an unincorporated
community described under OAR 660-022-0010. Therefore, the provisions of OAR 660
004-0020(4) are not applicable.
OAR 660-004-0022: An exception under Goal 2, Part I/(c) may be taken for any
use not allowed by the applicable goal(s) or for a use authorized by a statewide
planning goal that cannot comply with the approval standards for that type of use.
* * * Reasons that may allow an exception to Goal 11 to provide sewer service to
rural lands are described in OAR 660-011-0060. * * *
FINDING: Sewer service to rural land is not permitted by Goal 11. The criteria in
OAR 660-011-0060 area addressed below.
C. OAR chapter 660, division 11: Public Facilities Planning
Pertinent rules relating to implementation of Goal 11 , with findings, are provided below.
OAR 660-011-0060(2): Except as provided in sections (3), (4), (B), and (9) of this
rule, and consistent with Goal 11 , a local government shall not allow:
(a) The establishment of new sewer systems outside urban growth
boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries;
(b) The extension of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or
unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses on land
outside those boundaries;
(c) The extension of sewer systems that currently serve land outside
urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in
order to serve uses that are outside such boundaries and are not served
by the system on July 2B, 199B.
PAGE 15 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X' TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
FINDINGS: This rule section provides a prohibition on most rural sewer service.
Subsection (2}(a) of this rule is pertinent to the circumstances in South Deschutes
County. The proposed system has not yet been designed. so the affected area may be
served by establishment of new sewer system (subsection (a» or by extension of lines
from within an urban growth boundary (La Pine) or unincorporated community
(Sunriver) to these lands outside the community (subsection (b». OAR 660-011
0060(2}(c) does not apply.
Because of this prohibition, which implements the same prohibition in Goal 11. an
exception to Goal 11 is required to establish or extend a sewer system to the affected
area. The reasons Goal 11 should not apply, and findings showing the exception
complies with relevant administrative rules, are provided in the previous section of this
findings document. OAR 660-011-0060(3), (4). and (8), referenced in Section (2), do not
apply to the circumstances in the affected area and therefore are not relevant to this
exception. Specifically, no components of a sewer system to serve lands inside an
urban growth boundary are proposed, there is no specifically declared public health
hazard, and there is no existing sewer district or sanitary authority.
OAR 660-011-0060(9): A local government may allow the establishment of new
sewer systems or the extension of sewer lines not otherwise provided for in
section (4) of this rule, or allow a use to connect to an existing sewer line not
otherwise provided for in section (8) of this rule, provided the standards for an
exception to Goal 11 have been met, and provided the local government adopts
land use regulations that prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses or
areas other than those justified in the exception. Appropriate reasons and facts
for an exception to Goal 11 include but are not limited to the following:
(a) The new system, or extension of an existing system, is necessary to
avoid an imminent and significant public health hazard that would
otherwise result if the sewer service is not provided; and, there is no
practicable alternative to the sewer system in order to avoid the imminent
public health hazard, or
(b) The extension of an existing sewer system will serve land that, by
operation of federal law, is not subject to statewide planning Goal 11 and,
if necessary, Goal 14.
FINDINGS: Subsections (a) and (b) represent two alternative justifications for an
exception to Goal 11. However, Deschutes County finds that this language is not
exclusive. In other words, it is possible to justify an exception to Goal 11 under
circumstances that do not comport with OAR 660-011-0060(9}(a} or (b). See Foland v.
Jackson County, 61 Or LUBA 264 (2010).
In this case, the reason Goal 11 should not apply relates to long-term effects on water
quality. See findings for compliance with OAR chapter 660, division 4 in the previous
section of this findings document. After decades of studies and monitoring, DEQ has
determined that there is a growing health threat of groundwater contamination caused
by onsite septic systems in the area of south Deschutes and north Klamath counties.
Public health can best be protected through a range of treatment and disposal options
not allowed under Goal 11.
PAGE 16 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT 'X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
There has not been "an imminent health hazard" as referenced in subsection (a). Many
studies over the years show groundwater contamination in the La Pine study area. Most
recently, the USGS studies and reports indicated a slow-moving but expanding plume of
human effluent-tainted groundwater. Over time, that plume will spread to deep areas of
the aquifer and will become so widespread that the drinking water becomes unusable.
There is a real threat from nitrates, pharmaceuticals, personal hygiene byproducts and
organic wastewater compounds entering groundwater. The current trend must be
reversed to protect human health in the long term . This contamination is occurring at a
rate that allows for some planning; the threat to public health is not imminent, but it is
inevitable.
This rule requires that the Goal 11 exception be accompanied by "land use regulations
that prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses or areas other than those justified
in the exception" adopted by Deschutes County. Along with this exceptions document,
the county adopts new Comprehensive Plan Policy --' which states : _ ______
D. OAR chapter 660, division 12: Transportation Planning
OAR 660-012-0060, "Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments," requires
consideration of the effects of development allowed through a plan amendment on
transportation facilities.8 Specifically, the rule requires a determination of whether the
8 OAR 660-012-0060 provides, in relevant part:
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this
rule , unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land
use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would :
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection
based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the
adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be
generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an
enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but
not limited to , transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely
eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it
would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan .
(2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local
government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through
(e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or
qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule . A local government using subsection
(2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that
PAGE 17 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
newly allowed uses will "significantly affect" on existing or planned facilities, and if there
is a significant effect, then the local government must "ensure that allowed land uses
are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the
facility."
[more)
additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be
expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the
planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities,
improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the
requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism
consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the
facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards
of the transportation facility.
(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development
agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system
management measures or minor transportation improvements . Local governments shall, as part
of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection
will be provided .
(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected
mode, improvements to facilities other than the Significantly affected facility, or improvements at
other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that
the system-wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the
improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards.
(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an
amendment that would Significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that
the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the
facility where:
(a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and
services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with
the identified function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning
period identified in the adopted TSP;
(b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts
of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility
by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or
measures;
(c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined
in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and
(d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed
funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum,
sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However,
if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a
proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a
written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not
provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections
(a) through (c) of this section.
PAGE 18 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
I
I
I
!.
I
I
I
E. Statewide Planning Goals
1. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
FINDING: Deschutes County conducted multiple workshops and public hearings
regarding groundwater quality in the southern part of the county generally and on the
exception proposal specifically. Any interested was provided the opportunity to offer
evidence and testimony as part of the review process. This exception was reviewed in
accordance with Deschutes County public involvement requirements and Goal 1.
2. Goal 2: Land Use Planning
FINDING: The Goal 2 exceptions process is further interpreted and implemented by the
provisions of OAR chapter 660. divisions 4 and 11. See Subsections IV.B. and IV.C. of
this exceptions document for findings regarding compliance with these rules. The
applicable administrative rule provisions have been identified and addressed. Goal 2 is
satisfied.
3. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception includes only a small amount of lands subject to Goal
3. Nothing in this exception would change the allowed uses in these minority portions of
the exception area. Therefore. Goal 3 is not implicated.
4. Goal 4: Forest Land
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception includes only a small amount of lands subject to Goal
4. Nothing in this exception would change the allowed uses in these minority portions
of the exception area. Therefore, Goal 4 is not implicated.
5. GoalS: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
FINDING: This exception does not authorize development beyond what is currently
allowed by the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Existing plan and code provisions
enacted by Deschutes County to protect resources under Goal 5 will remain effective.
This Goal 11 exception does not conflict with the requirements of Goal 5.
6. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Goal 6 provides:
All waste and process discharges from future development, when
combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not
threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental
quality statutes, rules and standards. With respect to the air, water and
land resources of the applicable air sheds and river basins described or
included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and
implementation plans, such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying
capacity of such resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade
such resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources.
PAGE 19 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
I
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception does not authorize development beyond what is
authorized by the acknowledged comprehensive plan. This exception is intended to
further the policy articulated in Goal 6 by preventing future violation of applicable
environmental quality standards and exceedance of the carrying capacity of water and
land resources of South Deschutes County. All future sewerage permitted as a result of
this exception will be subject to permitting though DEQ to ensure all waste discharges
comply with applicable standards and regulations.
7. Goal 7: Natural Hazards
FINDING: Existing plan and code provisions enacted by Deschutes County to protect
life and property from natural hazards under Goal 7 will remain effective. This Goal 11
exception does not conflict with the requirements of Goal 7.
8. Goal 8: Recreational Needs
FINDING: No provision of Goal 8 applies to this exception. While there are recreation
facilities in the affected area, the sewer service permitted by this Goal 11 exception will
not detrimentally affect the capacity of these facilities to fulfill the recreation needs of the
area. The exception does not conflict with the requirements of Goal 8.
9. Goal 9: Economic Development
FINDING: Goal 9 provides, in part, "Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute
to a stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state." The sewer service permitted
as a consequence of this exception will serve residential use and therefore should have
no effect on the stability of the economy in Deschutes County or Central Oregon. The
exception does not conflict with the requirements of Goal 9.
10. Goal 10: Housing
FINDING: Goal 10 and its implementing rules direct that needed housing to be
accommodated inside urban growth boundaries. This Goal 11 exception does not affect
lands within an urban growth boundary and is not designed to create housing
opportunities beyond what are currently designated in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan. Goal 10 does not apply.
11. Goal 11: Public Facilities
FINDING: Goal 11 is addressed in Subsection IV.D. of this exception document.
12. Goal 12: Transportation
FINDING: Goal 12 is addressed in Subsection IV.E. of this exception document.
13. Goal 13: Energy Conservation
Goal 13 provides:
PAGE 20 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so
as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles.
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception does not authorize development beyond what is
currently allowed by the acknowledged comprehensive plan. This exception does not
conflict with the requirements of Goal 13 .
14. Goal 14: Urbanization
FINDING : Goal 14 requires that comprehensive plans provide for "an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use ." Sewer service by its nature tends to be
associated with urban uses. Because sewer systems are expensive to install, maintain,
and operate, system operators tend to maximize the number of hookups to share costs
and minimize the length of lines to minimize expenses. More, denser development
leads to urbanization .
However, the land proposed to be served by the sewer system permitted by this
exception is currently planned and zoned to allow a rural level of use. Deschutes
County concurrently adopts Comprehensive Plan Policy _, which states:
" ." Rural use will be maintained by the plan and zoning provisions. The
plan for South Deschutes County will continue to provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use, so the exception does not conflict with Goal 14.
15. Goals 15 through 19
FINDING: Goal 15 relates to the Willamette River and Goals 16 through 19 relate to the
coastal zone and ocean. None of these are applicable to this Goal 11 exception.
F. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2 of the county plan, "Resource Management," includes the following policies
under Goal 5, "Protect and improve water quality in the Deschutes River Basin ."
Policy 2.5.19 Coordinate with stakeholders to address water-related public health
issues .
a . Support amendments to State regulations to permit centralized sewer systems
in areas with high levels of existing or potential development or identified water
quality concerns.
b. If a public health hazard is declared in rural Deschutes County, expedite
actions such as legislative amendments allowing sewers or similar infrastructure.
Finding : A goundwater-related public health issue has been identified, as described in
Subsection II.A of this exceptions document. Deschutes County has coordinated with
residents and property owners in South Deschutes County for at least 20 years in an
effort to resolve the identified issue . DEQ formed a steering committee of local residents
to address the issue, and the committee recommended this Goal 11 exception.
Deschutes County has coordinated with DEQ and DLCD throughout the local review
PAGE 21 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT "X" TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
process. The county has complied with this policy in the development of a solution to
groundwater quality issues in the affected area.
Policy 2.5.20 Work with the community to expand the range of tools available to
protect groundwater quality by reviewing new technologies, including tools to
improve the quality and reduce the quantity of rural and agricultural stormwater
runoff.
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception is part of a larger effort to add tools for addressing the
groundwater quality issues in South Deschutes County. The county formerly required
Advanced Treatment Technology systems for onsite sewage disposal; this effort proved
unsuccessful but it demonstrates that Deschutes County has continued to search for a
reasonable solution to rising nitrate levels in the groundwater. The specific technology
that will be used to provide sewage disposal and treatment in the area has not been
determined. Approval of new technology will ultimately be DEQ's responsibility, but
Deschutes County, through this Goal 11 exception, shall remove barriers to reasonable
alternative technologies.
G. Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County, 2012-2032
Deschutes County adopted a land use plan specifically for the southern part of the
county in 2013 (Ordinance 2013-007). Pertinent goals and policies from this plan are
addressed below.
Goal 5: Address high groundwater lots and zoning and surveying issues.
Policy 5.1 Develop a work plan with affected stakeholders to determine the
future development and conservation potential of approximately 1,500 high
groundwater lots. The work plan will need to incorporate the potential for an
unknown number of lots to be served by centralized sewer or other methods of
collection in the future, which would make them developable, where that
possibility may not currently exist. The work plan shall, at a minimum, analyze:
a. The impact of the newly permitted development on roads, riparian
areas, wildlife habitat, and wetlands; and
b. Acquisition options such as purchasing the lots, land transfers or other
ideas.
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception will allow the potential establishment of sewers on
rural lands in South Deschutes County. The provided maps and written description of
the affected area encompasses the approximately 1,500 lots with high groundwater.
The section of this exceptions document dealing with Statewide Planning Goals 5, 6, 7,
and 12 addresses Policy 5.1.a. See Subsection IV. E. of this section. As no property is
being purchased at this time, Policy 5.1.b does not apply. The Goal 11 exception is
consistent with Goal 5 and its poliCies from the Newberry Country Plan.
Goal 9: Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to
protect groundwater and public health.
PAGE 22 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT ·X· TO ORDINANCE 2015·XXX
Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of
advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use
of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster
systems.
Policy 9.2 Conduct a joint Board of County Commissioner/Planning Commission
hearing in Newberry Country to:
a. Discuss the South County/Northern Klamath County steering committee
recommendations; and
b. Allow for public comments
FINDING: This Goal 11 exception is expressly specified in Policy 9.1. The Board of
County Commissioners and Planning Commission held a joint meeting in La Pine on
July 25, 2013, to hear the recommendations from the South County/Northern Klamath
County steering committee and received public comments.
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Map of Areas Subject to the Goal 11 Exception.
B. Amendment to Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
C. Amendment to Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
D. Oregon Health Authority Fact Sheet on Nitrates.
E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Standards.
F. South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Protection: Report and
Recommendations. ODEQ, 2013
G. Evaluation of Approaches for Managing Nitrate Loading from On-Site
Wastewater Systems near La Pine, Oregon. USGS, 2007
PAGE 23 OF 23 -DRAFT EXHIBIT 'X' TO ORDINANCE 2015-XXX
--
------
-------
_.~h" j c ..",,~
1 ,\11 1, J'lNooC l"",.-.v1
Id.,..,·,t I ,. 1 ...1 III
"' ,...IEII.....
1=-----:~._=-1
Zoning
'-"c=-_
----"-"--------, --==-.:=---------
200
175
• Population xl000150
125
· IIDDAs100
75
. IIDDA50
Recommended25 ~ IIIJ ....o
2005 2010 2015 2020
Using historical data to review the number of DDAs required to complete the majority of the
responsibilities of the District Attorney's Office based upon population alone, the BOCC and the Budget
Committee were on track when the number of DDAs was increased to 16 in 2008. By population alone,
the number of DDAs should increase with the population to 19 by 2015 .
As the community grows, our local law enforcement is growing, as well. The Sheriff's Office, Bend Police
Department, Redmond Police Department and Sunriver Police Department all expect to either add
personnel or to deploy their personnel in such a way that case referrals to the District Attorney's Office
will increase significantly in coming years.
'M. B. Chamlill & J. K. Co chra ll / WeS lem Crimillology Revie w. 5 (2) 119 -130 (2 004)
J
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safllty Division Environmental Solis DIvision
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEETING:
RE:
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend. Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
December 19, 2014
Board of County Commissioners
Nick lelack, Community Development Director
December 29, 2014
Natural Hazards Goal7 Plan & Code Review Project
The purpose of this work session is to update the Board on the Community Development Department's
contracting with the University of Oregon's Community Service Center (UO CSC) to:
• Review and evaluate the County's Comprehensive Plan Natural Hazards element (Section 3.5) as stated
in Policy 3.5.1(a): Review this Section 0/ the Comprehensive Plan every five years;
• Ensure consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP)
Update; and,
• Review and analyze County Code per Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.5.4 and 3.5.11.
Please find attached the Scope of Work and budget. COD is initiating this project at this time for the
following reasons:
1. Completion date for NHMP. The NHMP Update is mostly completed at this point and will be forwarded
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review in early 2015. The County's
Comprehensive Plan "adopts by reference the most recent Deschutes County Natural Hazards Plan."
The timing is perfect to evaluate the County's Natural Hazards element ("GoaI7 Program") to ensure
consistency with the NHMP Update.
2. Funding. The UO CSC is using County (COD) dollars to match FEMA dollars (a grant requirement) on this
project at a roughly 1:1 match. The federal funds will be used to pay for a graduate research fellow and
the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience program director that will be working on the project and
gUiding the Community Planning Workshop graduate student team. If the FEMA grant dollars are not
spent on this project this fiscal year, they will be redirected towards other activities, most likely outside
Deschutes County. Future funding mayor may not be available.
3. Timing. The timing to initiate this project is based on the completion date ofthe NHMP Update,
upcoming 5-year review ofthe County's Goal7 Program goals and poliCies, FEMA funding, and staffing
(discussed below).
Quality Services Performed with Pride
4. Staffing. This is related to completion ofthe NHMP Update-ifthe project begins in January 2015, the
same internal UO CSC team (Michael Howard, Drew Pfefferlie, Josh Bruce, and Robert Parker) working
on the NHMP Update will also lead this project along with a 4-5 graduate student team contributing
two terms of service to this project. UO CSC cannot guarantee that the same team will work on this if
the project starts later in 2015 or in a future year. In addition, minimal CDD staffing resources are
required to manage this project.
-2
.,
o UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK:
DESCHUTES COUNTY
NATURAL HAZARDS GOAL 7 PLAN AND CODE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Deschutes County updated the Natural Hazards element of its Comprehensive Plan in 201l.
Section 3.5 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan establishes County policy with
respect to natural hazards. The comprehensive plan cross-references the Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan (NHMP) as well as Deschutes County Community Wildfire Protection Plans
(CWPPs). Policy 3.5.1 specifically addresses maintenance of the Goal 7 Comprehensive Plan
Element as well as the NHMP and CWPP:
Adopt by reference the most recent Deschutes County Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan into this Plan.
oj Review and evaluate this Section of the Comprehensive Plan every five
years.
b) Adopt by reference Community Wildfire Protection Plans and revisions
into this Plan.
In summary, Policy 3.5.1 clearly articulates the County's commitment to address natural
hazards and establishes mechanisms for coordinating the Comprehensive Plan with the NHMP
and CWPPs.
The Community Service Center (CSC) has partial funding through a Federal Emergency
Management Agency Pre-Disaster Mitigation 2012 Subgrant' to update the Deschutes County
NHMP.' The NHMP is a non-regulatory action plan that specifies strategies the County will
implement to reduce risk for natural disasters. Goal 7 of the Oregon statewide land use
planning program requires local governments to develop a factual base and policies that
address land use in areas prone to natural disasters.
This project will focus on assisting Deschutes County with a review and analysis of
Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5 to ensure consistency with the NHMP Update and the
following policies:
1 Grant: EM5-2012-PC-0004, Sub-grant Application Reference: PDMC-PL-10-0R-2012-002
, CSC will use funds from a FEMA grant to support a (1) graduate research fellow and the OPDR program director as part of our
effort.
COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
1209 University of Oregon I Eugene, Oregon 97403 I T: 541.346.3889 I F: 541.346.2040 http://csc.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Policy 3.5.4. Pravide incentives and if needed regulations, ta manage
development in oreas prone to natural hazards.
Policy 3.5.11 Review and revise County Code as needed to:
a. Ensure that land use activities do not aggravate, accelerate or increase the level
of risk from natural hazards.
b. Address wildfire concerns to and from development, through consideration of
site location building construction and design landscaping, defensible space,
fuel management, access and water availability.
c. Require development proposals to include an impact evaluation that reviews the
ability of the affected fire agency to maintain an appropriate level of service to
existing development and the proposed development.
d. Minimize erosion from development and ensure disturbed or exposed areas are
promptly restored to a stable, natural and/or vegetated condition using natural
materials or native plants.
e. Ensure drainage from development or alterations to historic drainage patterns
do not increase erosion on-site or on adjacent properties.
f Make the Floodplain Zone a combining zone and explore ways to minimize and
mitigate floodplain impacts.
g. Require new subdivisions and destination resorts to achieve FireWise standards
from the beginning of the projects and maintain those standards in perpetuity.
This work program describes how the CSC team will work with Deschutes County to analyze
and evaluate strategies to address Policies 3.5.4 and 3.5.11 of the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT ApPROACH
This project is a review of the Deschutes County development code consistent with guidance
provided in policies 3.5.4 and 3.5.11 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The focus
of this project is to identify policy options for consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), Planning Commission, staff (i.e., County Forester, Community
Development Department), stakeholders and partner organizations, and potential adoption
into the development code. Thus, it is largely an applied research and policy analysis project.
The research will consistent of a literature review, identification of best practices and model
codes, and case studies of jurisdictions that have adopted policies that address the code
review. The case studies will include phone interviews with staff that are engaged in the day to
day implementation of the policies.
The CSC team will work closely with a staff working group that will consist of the Community
Development Director, Planning Manager, County Forester, Certified Floodplain Manager,
Senior Planner/Project Manager, and other invited individuals. We propose to conduct bi
weekly check-ins with the County project manager and schedule working group meetings as
necessary. We anticipate 3 to 4 working group meetings over the course of the project.
Deschutes County Natural Hazards Goal 7 Plan & Code Review December 2014 Page 12
..,
The product of this project will be a report that summarizes the results of our research and
presents policy options for consideration by the BOCC and Planning Commission. While the
report may present potential code language from model ordinances and other sources, the
intent is to provide an array of options and approaches for consideration by staff and Planning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners with the strong emphasis on incentives and
non-regulatory approaches. The review and adoption of code revisions is not included as part
of our work program. The CSC team and staff work group will present preliminary findings and
recommendations to the BOCC and/or Deschutes County Planning Commission.
DESCRIPTION OF TASKS
The CSC team will include Robert Parker (CSC Director); Josh Bruce (program manager); Mike
Howard (program specialist), and Drew Pfefferle (project coordinator). The project team will
include three to five graduate students in the Masters of Community and Regional Planning
program at the University of Oregon.
Task I -Project Kickoff Meeting
The CSC project team will meet with the Deschutes County staff work group to discuss the
goals and objectives of the project. We will review the sequence of activities, the timeline,
and list of identified stakeholders. This meeting will be held in-person and will be combined
with the discussion of code sections for review described in Task 2.
Schedule: January -February
Meetings: One, to discuss work program and to solicit direction from County staff
regarding specific areas of the code to concentrate as described in Task 2.
Product: Meeting notes summarizing any changes to the work program
Task 2 -County Code Review and NHMP Plan Cross-Reference
The CSC team will work with County Staff to identify areas of the Deschutes County Code that
will be reviewed as part of this project. The code review will focus on improving Wildfire,
Flood, and other natural hazards that development regulations would affect. The code review
will utilize and support the comprehensive plan cross reference that will be conducted as part
of the NMHP update. CSC memorandum will summarize the code sections that will be
reviewed for this project in a memorandum to county staff.
Schedule: January -February
Meetings: None
Product: Memo that identifies code deficiencies
Task 3: Code Research
Task 3 is the core of this project. Building from the code sections identified in Task 2, CSC will
conduct research on policy options using methods described in Tasks 3.1 through 3.3 below.
Deschutes County Natural Hazards Goal 7 Plan &Code Review December 2014 Page 13
Task 3.1 -Literature! Best Practices Review
The CSC project team will review approaches and best practices for wildfire, flood, and other
natural hazard ordinances, as well as model codes and programs (Firewise Communities,
National Flood Insurance Program, etc.). The team will also conduct a review of applicable
journal articles, books, etc. This research will provide a foundation for Tasks 3.2 and 3.3 and
for the development of code review and revision options.
Schedule: January to March 2015
Meetings: None
Products: Appendix in final report that informs policy options
Task 3.2 -Model Ordinances
The CSC project team will review state and national model ordinances that will be identified
during Task 3.1. This review will include wildfire ordinances that focus on mitigation activities
such as defensible space, vegetation management, and identifying high fire hazard severity
zones. In addition, CSC will review model ordinances for flood hazard areas as well as other
hazard ordinances as agreed upon by the staff working group and Csc.
Schedule: January to May 2015
Meetings: None
Products: Evaluation of Model Ordinances for Wildfire and Flood
Task 3.3 -Case Studies
CSC will conduct case studies of counties in the U.S. to evaluate wildfire, flood and other
natural hazard codes and policies to support the literature and model review. We anticipate
conducting 3 to 5 case studies each of wildfire and flood ordinances (e.g., 3-5 case studies per
topic; 6-10 case studies total). The case studies will not be limited to code analysis; we will
document how the county programs work and how the development code informs and
interacts with the program. The case study communities will be determined via the literature
review and/ or informational interviews with floodplain coordinators and wildfire experts.
Schedule: January to May 2015
Meetings: None
Products: 6-10 Natural Hazard Case Studies
Task 4 -BOCC ! Planning Commission Work Sessions
The CSC team will facilitate three work sessions with the BOCC and/or Planning Commission to
present potential policy options and screen options for further analysis and review. At the
initial work session, the CSC team will (1) provide an overview of the project and present
research findings from the Task 3 literature, model ordinance, and case study review. The
agendas for the following Planning Commission work sessions will be determined through
Deschutes County Natural Hazards Goal 7 Plan & Code Review December 2014 Page 14
consultation with County staff. Our initial view is that work sessions 2 and 3 will focus on
specific policy and code options.
Schedule: March to June 2015
Meetings: Two or Three
Products: Meeting Notes
Task 5 -Draft and Final Report
The CSC team will deliver a draft of the County Code Review report to the staff work group for
review and comment. The County will deliver one set of comments to CSC within three weeks
of receiving the draft report. The CSC team will incorporate comments and edits into the final
draft. CSC will present the draft report in a work session with the Planning Commission in May
2015. Once final comments and edits have been incorporated, the team will provide a digital
version of the County Code Review and supporting data to the County. Deschutes County will
be responsible for any hard copy document production and printing.
Schedule: April to July 2015
Meetings: One if needed to review the draft report
Products: Draft and Final Reports
SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
The CSC proposes to initiate work on the project on January 5, 2015, and complete the project
by June 30, 2015. Table 1 summarizes the project schedule.
Table 1. Proposed project schedule
Task Dates
1. Project kick-off January 5 -February 15
2. County Code review January 5 -February 15
3. Code research
3.1. Literature/best practice review
3.2. Model Ordinances
3.3. Case Studies
January 5 -March 30
January 5 -May 15
January 5 -May 15
4. Commission Work Sessions March, April, and May
5. Draft and Final Report April1-June 30
Table 2 presents our proposed project budget. CSC proposes to complete the work described
in Tasks 1 through 5 for a fixed fee of $16,863.
Deschutes County Natural Hazards Goal 7 Plan & Code Review December 2014 Page 15
Table 2. Proposed project budget
Category Budget
Labor
Taskl1l.:lJIrojectlJ:ick-Off $600
TasklJ! :fI:odel1Reviewilll ndlJ.JMHPfI:rosswa Ik $1,500
Taskl3:fI:odel1Research iii
Tas kr!. UaLite ratu re/BestlJlract ices[){eview $1,000
Taskl'!.2rnJ1odellDrdinances $1,500
Taskl3.3fI:ase~tudies $1,500
Task~:lJIlanningfI:ommissionliiVork~essions $3,000
Task!]) :lDraftli n dl)=i na I~eport $2,500
mntIIIt5ubtotaI $11,600
Direct
Travel $1,127
Printing~flJinalllllocuments $100
SupplieslJorl1neetings $75
l1H.I!It5ubtotaI $1,302
Universityll)verheadl1@1B0.7%) $3,961
TOTAL $16,863
Deschutes County Natural Hazards Goal 7 Plan & Code Review December 2014 Page 16
Date: December 23, 2014
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst
Subject: Community Grant Award Recommendations
Changes to Community Grant Program
In April 2014, while prioritizing the use of video lottery funds, the Board of Commissioners
made the following changes to the Deschutes County Community Grant program:
1. Allocated funds in the amount of $21 ,960 each to the Health, Mental Health, and Addictions
and the Other Essential Services categories and $4,880 to the Arts and Culture category.
These amounts reflect an overall reduction of$14,367 from fiscal year 20l3-14.
2. Continued the practice of transferring funds to United Way to administer in conjunction with
the Emergency, Food and Shelter program. The amount allocated for this purpose was
reduced by $10,000 from fiscal year 20l3-14 for a total of $65,000 in fiscal year 2014-15.
3. In a subsequent discussion, established a set number of two awards of$ll,OOO each to be
made in the Health, Mental Health, and Addictions and Other Essential Services categories
and two awards of $2,400 each in the Arts and Culture category.
These changes were reflected in the solicitation notice, funding guidelines, and application and
ratings fonns.
Applications Submitted
Deschutes County received 25 applications in response to the 2014-15 Community Grant
solicitation as follows:
Arts and Culture
• Deschutes Public Library Foundation
• Cascades Theatrical Company
• Deschutes County Historical Society
• Women's Civic Improvement League
• High Desert Chamber Music
• Discover Your Forest
Health, Mental Health, and Addictions Services
• Volunteers in Medicine
• Advantage Smiles for Kids
• Healing Reins
• Children's Vision Foundation
• Deschutes Family Recovery
Other Essential Services
• Volunteers in Action
• Big Brothers Big Sisters Central Oregon
• NeighborImpact
• American Red Cross
• ICON City
• Bloom Project
• Heart of Oregon
• The Center Foundation
• Bend Spay & Neuter Project
• Families Forward
• Bend's Community Center
• Grandma's House
• La Pine Community Kitchen
• S1. Vincent de Paul Redmond
Review Process
A three-person panel reviewed the 2014-15 Community Grant applications, assigning numerical
points and rankings based four evaluation criteria that included organizational strength; financial
stability; proposed program, project, or activity benefit; and performance management
capability. Points and rankings assigned by members of the review panel were averaged and the
results were compared to individual ratings to assess conformity. The review panelists were then
given an opportunity to confirm that the highest ranking applications reflected a consensus
recommendation.
Recommendations
Specific recommendations will be presented to the Board of Commissioners for discussion
during the work session scheduled on December 29,2014.
Deschutes County Community Grant Program
2014-15 Award Recommendations
Arts & Culture Category
2 Awards of $2,400 Each
DescriptionApplicant Average Final
Ranking Placement
A Novel Idea program.Deschutes Publi c Library Foundation 2.33 I
All A ~ts Teen Theatre program . 2.67C8scadq Theatri cal Com~ 2
Tablet technology initiative. Deschutes County Historical Society 2.67 3
Arts and culture media coverage in Deschutes County. Women's Civic Improvement League 43.33
High Desert Chamber Music concert series. High Desert Chamber Music 4 .33 5
Newberry National Volcanic Monument 25 th anniversary ce~bration. 4.67Discover Your Forest 6
Health, Mental Health, and Addictions Category
2 Awards of$II,OOO Each
Applicant Description Average
Ranking
Final
Placement
V()lun~ in Medic in e Health care sp onsorship for 33 patien ts . 1.67 1 I
AdVan~ge Smiles fo r Kids Ordlodontic u.tment.fo r at-risk kids. 3.00 2 ,
Healing Reins Equine-Assisted psychotherapy program for drug & alcohol recovery. 3.33 3
Children's Vision Foundation Visual abilities screenings in the classroom. 3.67 4
Deschutes Family Recovery
-
Off to a Good Start program. 3.67 5
Other Essential Services Category
2 Awards of$ll,OOO Each
Applicant Description Average Final
Rankin Placement
1.67 1
")..67 2
---
-"",",~.-<"''''',",''''',"""";>,_",,,.,,.'~>~~;;''~i;;''''i.':';;;'d~,_~to.~fiN'·f:t''' n'(QIlt 111' i~'''''$.)~47Io;;''~.\II.oiri; ~'iIaII.""~ {til "'.";;;~Iiooo..Ih<1l<4~~~~~~~~~"""''''.'''i''_~''''''''.o'<·_''''''''''''''"'''''';''';''-''''''~~;.i.,~<,,,,;"',,,",~,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,.,,,,~~"_'4.<.."~"'~""'.""""';;,,,,,,-...~~~"li~~~
Neighborlmpact
A'merican Red Cross
HomeSource loan assistance program.
Prepare! Deschutes County. Note: project wasfunded with a
~ommunity Grant in 2012-13.
3.00
4.33
3 --
3
ICON City
Bloom Project
Mobile shower truck. 5.67 4
--
5
--
5
•-
5
----
6
7
Floral arrangement and delivery to hospice and palliative care patients.
--
5.67
Heart of Oregon
The Center Foundation
Capital campaign to purchase vehicles.
Brain and spinal cord injury prevention initiative in South County.
Spay Neuter Your Pet Deschutes (SNYP'D) program.
Opportunities for Kids program.
6
5.67
6.00
6.67
Bend Spay & Neuter Project
Families Forward
Bend's Community Center Meal program support. Note: Request determined to be more consistent
with Emergency Food, Clothing, and Shelter fonds directed to United
Way.
0 EF&S
I
Grandma's House
La Pine Community Kitchen
General program support. Note: Request determined to be more
consistent with Emergency Food, Clothing, and Shelter funds directed to
United Way.
Operating expenses. Note: Request determined to be more consistent
with Emergency Food, Clothing, and Shelter funds directed to United
Way.
0
0
EF&S
EF&S
St. Vincent de Paul Redmond Recycling project. Note: Request determined to be more consistent with
Emergency Food, Clothing, and Shelter funds directed to United Way.
0 EF&S
Commissioner DeBone lines up a series of local talks starting in January: 5 for 5!
ByT. Myers
Commissioner Tony DeB one approached the La Pine Chamber at a recent board meeting telling
about how the Bend City Club and other organizations hold regular talks one time a month. After a
discussion that explained that DeB one feels that there are lots of people in the La Pine area who
would like to get a chance to listen to experts and have access to current, poignant info that directly
relates to La Pine, that he suggested that the Chamber help him formulate a plan. On the following
Tuesday he formed a committee (Woody Jarrell, Mary Thorson, Gary Gordon, Linda Stephenson,
Mark and Leslie O'Connell and Teri Myers. Vicki Russell was at the flrst meeting.) to develop a
series of five seminars covering flve topics in flve months. 5 for 5 is alive and ready to kick off on
January on the 22 fd (4th Thursday of each month at the La Pine Grange on Morson Street.)
W'hen the committee met they discussed the possible topics that need to be discussed:
1. Public Safety
2. The Economy
3. Education
4. Health and Human Services
5. Natural Resources, Environment infrastructure (roads, sewer, water)
These discussions/Topics will be scheduled for the next five months on the 4th Thursday of the
month in La Pine. These topics are based on the Community Vitality concepts of the Ford Family
Foundation.
"The series is to bring people together to practice discussing the big topics of the day," DeB one
explained. "It is all about civic engagement and getting common facts around our local issues. We
should be inviting our friends and neighbors to be part of these discussions. It is my hope that our
opportunity to develop this kind of interaction will be good for Newberry Country!" W'hen asked to
define Newberry country DeBone said that these discussions are for South Deschutes including
Sunriver and North Klamath County and everyone is welcome.
Like the Portland City Club and the Bend City Club, these are not free to the public and they are
limited seating with a lunch included. The cost of each monthly talk will be $20.00 and costs cover
the rental of the building, marketing for the program and a catered lunch. The La Pine Grange will
begin to host the event for the January 22 discussion. A pamphlet will be available with the schedule
of panel speakers and topics to be discussed.
You can call Commissioner DeBone (541 388-6568) or the La Pine Chamber of Commerce (541
536-9771) for more information.
--
--
---
--
---
--
---
~
~
co
>
~
'-0
en
C
0
en
C
Q)
E
Cl
(l)
en co
<..:>
>~
(l)
E w
>..c
co
"c..
co
<..:>
co
~
~
0:::
co
~
E
0
~
I.j...
-a
(l) ---c.. co -a «