Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-26 Work Session MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701 -1960 (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Catherine Morrow and Kristen Maze of Community Development; Chris Stollar of The Bulletin and a representative of KOHD TV; and five other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Review of Transportation SDC Methodology and Process. Tom Blust stated that the stakeholders group started meeting in November, and a proposal has developed from the various meetings since then. Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders Association said that it was a good process with a capable technical advisory committee. John Ghilarducci of FCS Group gave an overview of the Transportation System Development Charge Study. (A copy of his presentation is attached for reference.) He said if you try to hold new development to a higher standard than that is already in place, the existing standards have to be raised to meet the higher standard. He added that it is more equitable to take the 15% and share it among users. Commissioner Luke pointed out that these projects are always behind anyway. Tom Blust said that a portion would be allocated to projects such as Cooley Road improvements and other projects that are not underway now but will be eventually. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Pages Dave Kanner said that the County has been taking money received for maintenance and using it for SDC possible projects. For instance, the $2 million contributed to the Sunriver interchange project came out of the maintenance fund, but was eligible for SDC status. Commissioner Luke asked if an SDC might be used for a home occupation that might generate additional trips. Laurie Craghead said it is an interesting concept but it is complicated by the fact that there are a variety of home occupations, some of which do not require much action. Mr. G said that this could create an administrative issue. In regard to a comparison with other counties, reimbursement is not possible for past projects but future capacity could be a basis for reimbursement to the County for its costs of the improvement. This reduces the burden of other programs. The question was whether different fees should be charged in various areas. It appears to make more sense to have the fee uniform throughout the County. Tom Blust said the stakeholder group is well aware of the current funding situation and that only basic work can be done by the Road Department due to lost revenue. Alan Unger, Redmond Mayor, asked how the SDC would affect businesses that have pass- through customer visits. Mr. Ghilarducci replied that there is an explicit reduction to take into account pass -by trips. Mr. Blust said that the alternatives were discussed, both pros and cons, to get to the most reasonable or fair alternative. The group tried to meet general consensus. Mr. Ghilarducci stated that members of the group have their own constituency to represent, but it was felt that consensus and acceptance of the approach were reached. Mr. High said that SDC's can be phased in over time, but the developers need to know ahead of time as a new fee could impact financing efforts. Mr. Unger said Redmond is phasing in new development fees at this time. Commissioner Luke expressed concern about doing the SDC's at final inspection or closing. Ms. Craghead noted that if a house is unsold, it is not generating traffic. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Pages Mr. Blust stated that at least sixty days prior to a hearing methodology has to be available to the public. The time of collection and a phase -in can be made at a later date. Some phasing options will be developed to represent to the Board. 2. Follow -Up Discussion of Amateur Radio Facilities Ordinance. Commissioner Luke asked about the difference between a tower and an antenna; you could have more than one antenna. Kristen Maze stated that the structure is called a facility, which is the entire structure including guy wires and other equipment. Commissioner Luke asked if the Board does nothing, then what. Ms. Craghead said if there is a Code enforcement action or the County decides to initiate, each one would be handled separately. Commissioner Daly commented that the last public hearing made it clear to him that this only affects perhaps one or two towers a year at most. He wonders why the County is here and dealing with this issue, spending thousands of hours of staff time, when he feels it is merely a neighborhood dispute. Ms. Craghead said that this was a Code enforcement issue and it is unknown how many similar violations might be out there. If the towers are over thirty feet, they are not in compliance. This change would deregulate the situation to a degree by establishing parameters. Requiring neighborhood meetings and similar requirements will make it difficult to handle at the State level if there is an appeal. She recommends a streamlined version. Commissioner Luke stated that there are obviously neighbors that are concerned about the situation and perhaps would not like the streamlined version, but he does not want to see the County or others ending up working on appeals or going to court. Catherine Morrow stated that the County must have an objective to achieve and regulations to apply to meet those findings. Commissioner Luke said that something that works in Millican might not work well closer to the cities. He does not want to be arbitrary; he wants to know what the justification is for whatever height. It might be a non -issue for most people but obviously is a concern for others. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that views are not protected; Ms. Craghead stated that in the LM zone they are. There are no other scenic view corridors, but the comp plan has a stated purpose that the goal is to protect views no matter what the zone. These are harder to justify in court, however. Commissioner Melton said that a streamlined version is probably the most advisable. Commissioner Luke asked that staff talk with the citizens and get their feedback. Ms. Craghead stated that the record is closed and there is primarily one person who is not going to be satisfied with any solution at this point. Commissioner Melton said she respects the opinion of staff and legal counsel, and the streamlined version seems to be the most logical. Forcing people to talk with their neighbor will not work well. Any requirements are not going to make everyone happy. Something defensible needs to be put in place for it to work. She is not entirely pleased with this version but will have to wait and see if it is appealed. Commissioner Luke stated that some specifics need to be in place so the building official can make a logical call. Ms. Craghead stated that it is not discretionary; decisions are made based on Code. Commissioner Daly said he would agree with a streamlined version with minimal restrictions, per Code. 3. Other Items. Mr Kanner advised that the April 9 business meeting will include an item regarding activating the urban renewal agency does not mean an area is established or a plan is being adopted. Activating the agency creates the board. It has no fiscal impact but is a step that has to be taken before the Board can consider adopting a plan. As planned, the urban renewal board would consist of the three Commissioners and two others selected by the City Council. This will be the urban renewal board unless the Commissioners decide to change the structure in the future via ordinance. Ex officio, non - voting members can also be included. The same agency will oversee other districts not related to the airport, however, and it might be an awkward situation if a district is created in the Terrebonne or La Pine area. He advised that perhaps it would be best not to have Councilors on the board; perhaps just ordinance citizens who live in Deschutes County. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Pages Mr. Kanner stated that perhaps a managing board could be created for each district, who can act in an advisory capacity to the Board. He suggested, and the Board agreed, that the Commissioners should be the governing body. Commissioner Luke said that the City cannot form the district without the County. Commissioner Melton added that the City can perhaps put together an advisory board. Mr. Kanner said that permissive language can be added. Commissioner Luke asked if the County should collect a fee to manage the financial aspects. Consensus was to do so. It was decided that one jurisdiction should not be able to make decisions regarding areas of the County that are not related to the particular city. He noted that there are a lot of areas for cooperation between the cities and County regarding future projects. Commissioner Daly stated that he received an e-mail from a citizen regarding vested rights; Catherine Morrow said that the direction of the Board was to use existing Title 22 procedures Code and an application form, and the Hearings Officer to determine vested rights under Measure 49. In regard to how many have been received, eight have been; six of them paid the fee of $855; the deposit for the Herrings Officer is $2,500. No bills have been received at this time since there has not been a decision yet; six are in process at this time. Leona Johnson filed a land use application on September 9; a hearing was held in November, and the attorney involved asked for two extensions. Second haring was held on February 5, the record was left open until March 4. A staff response was issued March 11, and March 18 was the deadline to make final arguments. Nothing has been submitted. The record is closed. The Hearings Officer is to get a decision in within thirty days of the record closing, which would be April 18. Staff had recommended that there are several issues to be resolved; otherwise, it should be denied. This involves a dedicated right of way for a road and other complications. The final date is July. In the meantime Measure 49 passed. DLCD has started mailing out packets: the claimants can choose the fast track, vested rights or a regular process. Letters were sent out to the parties advising them to get legal assistance to decide what to do next. DLCD sent out notices and the claimant has ninety days to respond. This particular claim allows three parcels. The proposal they applied for on September 9 was not decided as the conditions were not met. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Pages Ms. Craghead stated that the issue is very complicated and a Hearings Officer needs to decide if it meets the legal requirements. Ms. Morrow added that if the person wants to get vesting, she needs to get the help of an attorney to pursue it. They can also call DLCD for advice. Commissioner Daly said that Jefferson County did two vested interest cases, decided by the Board. Crook County says the County Planning Director makes the decision; if it is appealed, it goes to the County Court. Two have been appealed, one by LandWatch and one by DLCD. Catherine Morrow emphasized the one big condition is the road situation. She asked if there is enough information for the Board to make a decision. Ms. Craghead said there would not be enough fee collected for staff and legal to do the research to make it defensible. Ms. Morrow added that the Hearings Officer is the best person to make the decision. Being no further items before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. DATED this 26th Day of March 2008 for the De, hutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: • 2rlal t�-z�` Recording Secretary 2 Dennis R. Luke, Chair Tammy (Baney) Melton, Vice Chair aael M. Daly, C missioner Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, March 26, 2001 Page 6 of 6 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., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 1. Review of Transportation SDC Methodology and Process — Tom Blust 2. Follow -Up Discussion of Amateur Radio Facilities Ordinance — Kristen Maze 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dales, limes and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388 -6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding altemative formats or for further information. PLEASE SIGN IN Work Session Meeting Wednesday, March 26, 2008 (P /ease Print) Name Representing Rie ha rcS t Re y Cenfia/ CR S DX �./v b - / a'n Pa di-6 A.3. 1/41 Tz`,/ ,(- �� ) � LZ- [I l/ &'!`c) / V CiL'✓ /7 l., ur e," . a ( (-)6,1' 14-24- /U a ki -i- /" 4 ii k ., ,-- ,:--4: ,,,____ /111, 6-11 (7 GC /g. 06J4a 4-: ;1 '7 y - v10N4; , 72t.�y v 14-144 !fir' 64 , . -r0 I L l4 - ? C; 7 V V 1611/1— Kiv� Le- %A7 -61-C t92P-�.v 4 ‘X @Z--t, & ---- 101 11- r?iW,. 444 e D Please return to Bonnie. Exhibit A MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County SDC Stakeholders Advisory Committee FROM: Steven Hultberg DATE: February 28, 2008 CLIENT: RE: Proposals for SDC Ordinance The purpose of the recommendation below is to deal with a situation where i) a property owner is required to construct an improvement as a condition of approval, ii) the improvement creates capacity above and beyond the impacts of the approved development; and iii) the improvement is not on the County's CIP, and is thus not eligible for SDC credits. In general, the proposal would allow the property owner to i) request that the improvement be placed on the County's CIP; ii) require the County to amend the CIP unless the amendment is not in the public interest; iii) allow the property owner to receive SDC credits for the excess capacity; and iv) limit the recovery area to the property owner's development, with no right to transfer the credits. Applicability. The following conditions would have to be met in order to request that the County amend the CIP to include the improvement. procedure: 1. The improvement is required as a condition of development approval. 2. The improvement is a sv''stem improvement that provides additional capacity above and beyond the impacts of the full build -out of the proposed development. The applicant is required to provide this analysis to the County consistent with the requirements of the SDC ordinance. 3. The improvement is not on the County's CIP. Procedure for Amending CIP. The CIP could be amended under the following 1. Applicant must file request within 30 days of final approval. (Note: Ideally the applicant would be in discussion with the county regarding the improvement prior to the approval.) 2. Applicant must provide sufficient evidence quantifying the excess capacity created by the improvement. 3. Applicant must identify sole recovery area, which is limited to the development approved by the land use approval. ( Deschuteti In l)ocumentat nVPropo:^dCr edit Larwuage Rev ._..�.: G.D(K;{JE,eio tit Exhibit B Deschutes County Transportation SDC Study Preliminary Policy Issues Analysis Issue Preliminary Recommendation • Reimbursement Fee Is it appropriate to include a reimbursement fee as a component of the County's initial transportation SDC? Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other "general" funds, the County should forego charging a reimbursement fee as part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee methodology, or formula, should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the Count,' to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee. SDC Credits SDC credits must be provided when developers construct qualified improvements that add system capacity (in excess of that needed by the development). What is a reasonable SDC credit policy that meets statutory requirements as well as the County's general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but sustained development? See Exhibit A. 2. Response to Measure 37 Claims Measure 37 essentially requires the County to compensate property owners for the reduced market value of their land due to regulations, or waive the regulations to allow the development to occur. This may have obvious effects on infrastructure needs. How does the enactment of Measure 37 relate to the County's transportation SDC? "Measure 37 "developments would be required to make "local" improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity. Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impac. long -term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and he share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC. 3. Destination Resorts Central Oregon is the site of several destination resorts, and it is expected that a number of similar resorts will locate in Deschutes County. What is the best approach for recovering the cost of providing transportation capacity to destination resorts that were not planned at the time of SDC calculation? The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. A new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in o -der to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it. 1 4. Area- Specific Transportation Charges Does it make sense, due to expected levels of development and varying infrastructure needs, to charge SDCs that vary by geographic area within the rural County? FCS GROUP (425) 867 -1802 The generally rural character of the service area, with regard to the SDCs, and the common level of service provided and to be provided, supports the implementation of a uniform charge throughout the rural County. Policy Recommendations Summary 3/13/; 008 conditions: 4. County Whistle consider request within sixty days of application and approve request unless it determines that request would negatively impact the construction or funding of other projects on the CIP. Procedure for SDC Credits. Credits would be issued pursuant to the following 1. CIP must be amended prior to payment of SDC or issuance of credits. 2. Credits limited to the oversiringportion of the cost. taus t<7tal o nppt:g ctrictit to t-e_.. ajd_in tlac_sole recovery area. 3. Cash redemption of credits provided to applicant limited to ini noyement fee5_,eneratcd by development in the sole recovery areaa.N -e-e -a feit- nblifr e- fft--er it- <.»4l-y- 4. All other provisions of SDC Ordinance would apply. 2F U<,sdiutc s County •Uoctm.'! t o iot Pritt?r,scd Crtd? I -WW t „n ,rovement Pro acts intersection BURGESS RD AT DAY RD OLD REDMOND -BEND HWY AT TU HUNTINGTON RD AT SOUTH CENTI COYNER RD AT NORTHWEST WAY BAKER ROAD AND CINDER BUTTE 1 POWELL BUTTE HWY. /NEFF- ALFALI POWELL BUTTE t-IWY,/BUTLER MAF :.e „a•ortatronS stemMana. U.S. 20 U.S. 20 QUARR WlCKIU WICKIU HUNTIN TUMALO OLD BE New Road Se ments urban and rural HUNNELL ROAD DESCHUTES MKT., PHASE II 19TH STREET EXTENSION BRITTA EXTENSION MASTEN 19TH ST. END OF B 1.51 1.54 0.61 1.02 n . rovement Pro acts Existi CINDER BUTTE RD EZCEIZ NORTHWEST WAY NW COYNER AVE SOUTH CENTURY DR VANDEVERT RD NW ODEM MINNETON 19ST MAPLE PERSHALL VANDEVEF HWY 97 Deschutes County SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Project List 3/26/2008 Page 1 Location rF x < , <; ;" _ $ 225,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 56,250 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 125,000 $ 281,250 $ 250,000 1AL0 RD Rural / South Coun Area Add turn lanes to Burgess Road Add turn lanes to OM Redmond -Bend Add turn lanes Arterial/Collector h Arterial/Collector Collector Collector JRY DRIVE Rural / Tumalo Area Rural /South Coun Area $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 625,000 ROAD Rural / North Coun Area Add turn lanes to Northwest Way Rural/ Deschutes River Woods A MKT, ROAD RuraVBerx1 Install Roundabout Arterial/Collector Area KET ROAD Install Roundabout Arterial/Arterial $ 1,221,320 $ 1463,753 $ 305,330 $ 365,938 $ 1,526,650 RuraVBend Area Install Roundabout ArteriaVArterial $ 1829,691 TSM and Trans .ortation Demand Mena ement 7DMPro-ects Count 'de Cou share to continue fundin. of Commute O.tions ear, $ 10,000 Coun 'de Instal -.ional rideshare lots at various future locations 45,000 ODOT Pro -acts with Coun participation) / ROAD INTERCHANGE - grade separation JUNCTION INTERCHANGE Principal Arterial $ 9,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 11,250,000 PHASE 1 grade separation, realignment 'JUNCTION INTERCHANGE Principal Arterial $ 24,000,000 $ 6,000,000 _ $ 30,000,000 PHASE II 3TON /S. CENTURY EXTENSION grade separation, realignment Principal Arterial $ 80,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 100,000,000 INTERCHANGE grade separation/roadwayextension Principal Arterial $ 9000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 11,250,000 $ 11,250,000 , $ 11,250,000 ID REDMOND HIGHWAY grade separation, realignment Principal Arterial _ .radeseparation Principal Arterial ma include intersections EET DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD ROAD New Road Arterial 32 30 30 30 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 RODGERS ROAD New Road ALIGNMENT, PHASE Collector $ 1,500,000 $ 375,000 $ 1,875,000 1 DESCHUTES MKT. RD. New Road )R )R SMITH Collector $ 5,970,000 $ 126,000 $ 1,492,500 $ 31,500 $ 7,462,500 $ 157,500 ROCK WAY New Road 6TH ST Co /lector REDMOND New Road DESCHUTES Collector 30 $ 1,200,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 21TT MARKET ROAD New Road Collector 30 $ 5,800,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 7,250,000 HWY 20 /ROBAL RD New Road Collector 30 $ 500,000 $ 125,000 $ 625000 WAY NW LOWER BRIDGE KA LN WAY Widen BAKER RD Widen & Overta Y Collector 21 28 $ 377,500 $ 94,375 $ 471,875 & Overla Collector 28 $ 385,000 $ 96,250 $ 481,250 NW COYNER AVE Widen & Overla Collector 28 28 $ 152,500 $ 38,125 $ 190,625 NW ODEM WY.-NW ALMETER Widen NW HELMHOLTZ & Overlay & Overla Collector Collector 23 -33 24-27 _ 28 28 $ 387,500 $ 96,875 $ 484,375 T RD WAY Widen GENERAL PATCH BRIDGE Widen $ 312,500 $ 78,125 $ 390,625 & Overla Collector 28 $ 982,500 $ 245,625 $ 1,228,125 SOUTH CENTURY DR Widen & Overla Collector 27 28 $ 255 000 $ 63 750 $ 318 750 3/26/2008 Page 1 Deschutes County SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Project List SDC Project List 3/26/2008 Page 2 0.98 BAILEY RD US 20 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD Widen & Overlay Collector 23 30 $ 245,000 $ 61,250 $ 306,250 4.5 JOHNSON MARKET RD SHEVLIN PARK TUMALO RESERVOIR RD Widen & Overlay Collector 30 -32 30 $ 1,125,000 $ 281,250 $ 1,406,250 4.61 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD OB RILEY COLLINS RD Widen & Overla Collector 21 -23 28 $ 1,152,500 $ 288,125 $ 1,440,625 2.78 BEAR CREEK ROAD CITY LIMITS HIGHWAY 20 Widen & Overla Collector RIENCIII 30 $ 695,000 $ 173,750 $ 868,750 1.835 CHINA HAT ROAD KNOTT ROAD END MAINTENANCE Widen & Overla FS Collector 0 30 $ 458,750 $ 114,688 $ 573,438 3.6 CLOVERDALE ROAD HIGHWAY 20 HIGHWAY 126 Widen & Overla Collector ® 30 $ 900,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,125,000 0.315 COOLEY ROAD HIGHWAY 20 O.B. RILEY ROAD Widen & Overla Collector 22 30 $ 78,750 $ 19,688 $ 98,438 ERMIIIINECEI 1.64 PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD HIGHWAY 97 DESCHUTES MKT. RD. Widen & Overla Collector 28 30 $ 410,000 $ 102,500 1.39 N. CANAL BOULEVARD REDMOND CITY LIMITS Widen & Overla Collector 111131B3111111111111ECNIIII r $ 86,875 $ 434,375 1.45 NE NEGUS WAY REDMOND CITY LIMITS NE 17TH STREET Widen & Overlay Collector 21 -26 30 $ 362,500 $ 90,625 $ 453,125 1.57 NW 35TH STREET NW HEMLOCK AVE. NW UPAS AVE. Widen & Overla Collector 24 30 $ 392,500 $ 98,125 $ 490,625 2.15 NW HELMHOLTZ WAY MAPLE AVE COYNER AVE Widen & Overlay Collector 23 -25 30 $ 537,500 $ 134,375 $ 671,875 8.49 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY 43RD STREET HOLMES ROAD Widen & Overla Collector 24 30 $ 2,122,500 $ 530,625 $ 2,653,125 1.04 STEVENS ROAD BEND CITY LIMITS WARD ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 27 30 $ 260,000 $ 65,000 $ 325,000 1.01 SW OBSIDIAN AVE. REDMOND CITY LIMITS UGB Widen & Overlay Collector 20 30 $ 252,500 $ 63,125 $ 315,625 0.51 SW WICKIUP AVE. SW HELMHOLTZ WAY SW 58TH STREET24 -26 Widen & Overla Collector 20 30 $ 127,500 $ 31,875 $ 159,375 1.75 SPRING RIVER RD HARPER BRIDGE FS ROAD #40 Widen & Overla Collector 28 30 $ 437,500 $ 109,375 $ 546,875 0.305 SMITH ROCK WAY HIGHWAY 97 COMMUNITY BOUNDARY Widen & Overlay Arterial 27 28 $ 76,250 $ 19,063 $ 95,313 8.9 HUNTINGTON ROAD SOUTH CENTURY BURGESS ROAD Reconstruction/ widen and overlay Arterial $ 2,775,000 $ 693,750 $ 3,468,750 5.63 MASTEN ROAD HIGHWAY 97 COLLAR DRIVE Reconstruction/ .ave Collector 22 -26 30 $ 4,900,000 $ 1,225,000 $ 6,125,000 1.93 RICKARD ROAD GROFF ROAD HIGHWAY 20 Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 90 $ 1,700,000 $ 425,000 $ 2,125,000 1.3 BUCK CANYON SHOSHONE ROAD BAKER ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20-24 30 $ 1,600,000 $ 400,000 $ 2,000,000 4.27 BUCKHORN ROAD LOWER BRIDGE HIGHWAY 126 Reconstruction/ pave Co /lector 20 30 $ 2,700,000 $ 675,000 $ 3,375,000 4 FOSTER ROAD SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE LA PINE REC. ROAD Reconstruction/ •ave Collector 20 30 $ 2,500,000 $ 625,000 $ 3,125,000 3.17 HUNNELL ROAD RODGERS ROAD SOUTH CANAL Reconstruction/ pave Collector 22 -24 30 $ 2,020,000 $ 505,000 $ 2,525,000 3.16 TETHEROW ROAD HELMHOLTZ WAY 74TH STREET Reconstruction/ pave Local 20 28 $ 2,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000 0.87 WHITTIER ROAD LA PINE STATE REC. ROAD END MAINTENANCE Reconstruction/ .ave Local 20 28 $ 689,040 $ 172,260 $ 861,300 WARD ROAD GOSNEY ROAD END OF PUBLIC WAY Reconstruction/ .ave 1111111111111211111M WEN= 28 $ 712,800 $ 178,200 $ 891,000 1.68 GRIBBLING ROAD HIGHWAY 20 WARD ROAD Reconstruction/ .ave Local 22 -24 28 $ 1,330,560 $ 332,640 $ 1,663,200 1 GROFF ROAD GRIBBLING ROAD RICKARD ROAD Reconstruction/ .ave Local 22 -24 28 $ 792,000 $ 198,000 $ 990,000 NW IVANCOVICH WAY TETHEROW ROAD END COUNTY MAINTENANCE Reconstruction/ .ave Local 22 -24 $ 459,360 $ 114,840 r r 0.664 DEER RUN LANE PINECREST LANE HUNTINGTON ROAD Reconstruction/ .ave Local 22 -24 28 $ 525,888 $ 131,472 $ 657,360 0.3 BOZEMAN TRAIL CHISOLM TRAIL RICKARD ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Local 22 -24 28 $ 237,600 $ 59,400 $ 297,000 1 ODEM MEADOW NW WAY 13T STREET Widen & Overlay Collector 21 28 $ 250,000 $ 62,500 $ 312,500 3.8 LA PINE STATE REC ROAD HWY 97 5TH STREET Widen & Overla Collector 21 28 $ 950,000 $ 237,500 $ 1,187,500 3.62 CAMP POLK RD WILT ROAD HWY, 126 Widen & Overlay Collector 21 28 $ 905,000 $ 226,250 $ 1,131,250 1 17TH STREET NE NEGUS WAY HIGHWAY 370 Widen & Oveda Collector 21 28 $ 250,000 $ 62,500 $ 312,500 3r SDC Project List 3/26/2008 Page 2 Deschutes County SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Project List 3/26/2008 Page 3 Federal Forest Hi•hwa Pro'ects .rimaril federal fundin.�� Protect - 10.55 SOUTH CENTURY DR GENERAL PATCH BRIDGE BURGESS RD Widen & Overlay Collector 26 32 $ 9,495,000 $ 2,373,750 $ 11,868,750 3.62 BURGESS RD PRINGLE FALLS SOUTH CENTURY DR Reconstruction Collector 24 32 $ 3,300,000 $ 825,000 $ 4,125,000 8.36 SKYLINERS ROAD UGB BEND END CO. MAINTENANCE Reconstruction Collector 24 32 $ 7,550,000 $ 1,887,500 $ 9,437,500 i i' ti Prioritized Other Bike and Pedestrian Pro'ects 3 t .* �5 Road Bike Pro "ects Pro.. ed Treatment 450 5th Street B Avenue C Avenue 5' sidewalk on east side on Local r , .: ; x. s± $ 9,000 $ 2,250 $ 11,250 170 8th Street Wharton Road Riverside Avenue 5' sidewalk on south side on Loca! $ 3,400 $ 850 $ 4,250 300 7th Street U.S. 20 Cook Avenue 5' sidewalk north side only Local .� $ 6,000 $ 1,500 $ 7,500 1300 B Avenue 5th Street U.S. 97 Wharton Road 5' sidewalk on north side only 5' sidewalks both sides Local Local s , ,. _ $ 26,000 $ 6,500 $ 32,500 _ 300 8th Street Cook Avenue $ 12,000 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 2600 _ C Avenue 19th Street U.S. 97 5' sidewalk on south side on Local k , ., ., - $ 52,000 $ 13,000 $ 65,000 $ 28,500 570 4th Street Wood Avenue Cook Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local _,° $ 22,800 $ 5,701 570 5th Street Wood Avenue Cook Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local _ r w $ 22,800 $ 5,700 $ 28,500 775 A Avenue 11th Street 15th Street future 5' sidewalks both sides Loca! <' $ 31,000 $ 7,750 $ 38,750 1360 Smith Rock Way U.S. 97 15th Street 5' sidewalks on both sides Arterial ate' $ 54,400 $ 13,600 $ 68,000 1550 _ C Avenue U.S. 97 16th Street 5' sidewalk on south side only Local = -- =, $ 31,000 $ 7,750 $ 38,750 2100 11th Street Central Ave U.S. 97 5' sidewalks on both sides Loca! >'_ $ 84,000 $ 21,000 $ 105,000 Canal "H" Trails/OtherPro"ects 13th Street 12th Street 10' sandseal trail Local Subtotal $ 443,000 $ 1,500 $ 375 $ 1,875 Canal "H" 12th Street 400' south of A Avenue 10' sandseal trail Local , : $ 5,500 $ 1,375 $ 6,875 Riverside Ave. Trail Riverside Avenue South Communi Bounda 10' sandseal trail Local ; *s rrF $ 10,000 $ 2,500 $ 12,500 E Avenue West of Canal "H" East of Canal "H" 10' sandseal trail and brill. e Local - $ 20,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 B Avenue East end of west s =. ment West end of east se. ment 300' stairwa Locals - =x $ 21,000 $ 5,250 $ 26,250 $ 26,250 $ 26,250 E Avenue East end of west se. ment West end of east s • . ment 300' stairwa Local r, $ 21,000 $ 5,250 4th Street North Forster Drive 300' stairwa Local ti, $ 21,000 $ 5,250 Subtotal 125 _ . .ao�wsF.. nd . e Pro'ects laPosted Location Sufricienc Ratin. Treatment Limit GRIBBLING RD 16.8 New Bride 5 tons g �,_ . . _ �:, $ 180,000 $ 1,266,000 $ 45,000 $ 225,000 TETHEROW RD 34.1 New Bride none $ 316,500 $ 1,582,500 NE 17TH ST 36.2 New Bride none $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 150,000 HOLMES RD 49.9 New Bride none $ 150,000 WILCOX AVE 50.1 New Bridge none $ 120,000 $ 30,000 $ 150,000 CASCADES LAKES Fall River 66.2 New Brid.e 5 tons -- $ 200,000 $ 550,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 SISEMORE ROAD 49.1 New Bride none $ 137,500 $ 687,500 - -- $ 279,545,589 3/26/2008 Page 3 >70 Feet Amateur Radio Facilities Summary Issues and Options Text Issues Streamline PC Recommendation BOCC Options Objective Aesthetics Criteria • Setbacks not including facility guy wires • Color(galvanized) • No signage or lighting • Setbacks not including facility guy wires • Color(galvanized) • No signage or lighting Include guy wires as a part of the amateur radio facility for setback requirements. (EFU setbacks include front- 60, side- 25, rear 25, MUA — front- 20, side- 20, rear - 25.) 1. Maximum height and /or 2. Cumulative height 3. >70 feet or more than one (1) of any height requires site plan review Height Standards No limit LM zone30 feet height maximum • No limit • >70 feet requires site plan review • LM zone 30 feet height maximum Subjective Aesthetics Criteria None Approval Criterion: 1. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences. Discuss: Types of trees and vegetation, mature? What is nearby? • Adjacent residence? • What is the radius? • Should we use the neighborhood meeting radius to define nearby? Approval Criterion: 3. In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Amateur Staff recommends this text be deleted because the Landscape Management zone identifies scenic roadways and currently prohibits amateur radio facilities >30 feet without an LM permit. radio facilities shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. Landscape Management Zone (LM) • Not permitted >30 feet • Permitted up to 30 feet with a LM permit (Cost = $520.00) Proposed Code is not clear. Intent is: • Not permitted >30 feet • Permitted up to 30 feet with an LM permit. (Cost = $520.00) >70 Feet Amateur Radio Facilities Summary Issues and Options Process :Streanthine` ecommendation ° °' BCCC Options Site Plan Review Required No Yes with Initial Site Plan Review • Administrative Decision or Hearings Officer Planning Directors discretion • Cost $635.00 • No HO deposit from applicant $2,500.00 • Appeal Cost $250.00 1. Administrative decision only impose new fee $XXX 2. Straight to a Hearings Officer with new fee and deposit of $2,500 3. Discretion with new fee, no deposit. • Appeal Cost for all options costs $250.00 Neighborhood Meeting Required No Yes with notification: • <100 foot height — 1,320 foot radius • >100 foot height - 2,000 foot radius *Notification radius taken from DCC 18.128.340 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities 1. Require proof of a neighborhood meeting only. 2. Discuss the radius requirements and its purpose for notification. (e.g. adjacent neighbors only or all "nearby" neighbors up to % mile) REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, of the Deschutes County Code to Regulate Amateur Radio Facilities. * ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -007 * WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Division requested a text amendment to add provisions 10 regulate amateur radio facilities, and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners ( "Board ") was included in the tax statements and mailed to all property owners within the unincorporated county; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered this matter after a public hearings on February 3, 2007 and February 22, 2007 and forward changes to the zoning regulations for amateur radio facilities to the Board; and WHEREAS the Board considered this matter after public hearings was held November 26, 2007 and February 25, 2008 and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04.030, Definitions is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language ro be deleted in stikethr-eugh. Section 2. ADDITION. DCC 18.116.290, Amateur Radio Facilities, is added to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions is amended to read is described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in str- ilkethretrgh /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-007 (2/25/08) Section 4. FINDINGS. The Board of Commissioners adopts as it findings in support of this amendment as in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR TAMMY MELTON, VICE CHAIR Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2008. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2008. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Dennis R. Luke Tammy Melton Michael M. Daly Yes No Abstained Excused Effective date: day of , 2008. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-007 (2/25/08) * * ** Denotes section of the Code not amended in Ordinance 2008 -007 Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 18.04.010. Title. 18.04.020. Purpose. 18.04.030. Definitions. 18.04.010. Title. DCC Title 18 shall be known as the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance of 1979. (Ord. 91 -020 § 1, 1991) 18.04.030. Definitions. As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030. "Amateur .Radio Facilities" means the external, outdoor structures associated with an operator's amateur radio service. This includes antennae, masts towers, guy wires, and other antenna support structures that consist of solid tubular or open lattice metal structure not exceeding 25 inches on average in diameter or face width. "Amateur ("Ham") Radio Services" means radio communication services, including amateur - satellite service and amateur service, which are for the purpose of self- training, intercommunication, and technical investigations carried out by duly licensed amateur radio operators solely for personal aims and without pecuniary interest, as defined in Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 and regulated there under. (Ord. 2008 -007 § 1, 2008) PAGE 1 OF 1 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 (2/25/08) Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses. 18.116.020. Clear Vision Areas. 18.116.030, Off - Street Parking and Loading. 18.116.031. Bicycle Parking. 18.116.035. Bicycle Commuter Facilities. 18.116.040. Accessory Uses. 18.116.050. Manufactured Homes. 18.116.070. Placement Standards for Manufactured Homes. 18.116.080. Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot. 18.116.090. A Manufactured Home as a Temporary Residence for Medical Condition. 18.116.095. Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot. 18.116.100. Building Projections. 18.116.200. Repealed. 18.116.120. Fences. 18.116.130. Hydroelectric Facilities. 18.116.140. Electrical Substations. 18.116.150. Endangered Species. 18.116.160. Rimrock Setbacks Outside of LM Combining Zone. 18.116.170. Solar Height Restrictions. 18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access. 18.116.190. Solar Access Permit. 18.116.200. Repealed. 18.116.210. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities. 18.116.215. Family Childcare Provider. 18.116.220. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and Streams - Prohibitions. 18.116.230. Standards for Class I and II Road Projects. 18.116.240. Protection of Historic Sites. 18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. 18.116.260. Rock Crushing Outside the SM Zone. 18.116.270. Conducting Filming Activities in All Zones. 18.116.280. Home Occupations. 18.116.290. Amateur Radio Facilities 18.116.290 Amateur Radio Facilities A. Amateur radio facilities that do not exceed 70 feet in height shall meet the following criteria: 1. Antenna support structures, including guy wires and anchors shall he located outside of the required front, rear and side yard setbacks; 2. Metal structures shall have a galvanized finish, or flat or matte silver. or flat or matte gray in color; 3. Amateur radio facilities shall not include attached signage, symbols, or decorations, lighted or otherwise, other than required unlighted signage for safety or regulatory purposes; 4. The property owner shall obtain a valid building permit if required from the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division: 5. Compliance with Federal Regulations PAGE 1 OF 3— EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 a. The property owner shall demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) restrictions. b. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting copies of the FCC's, FAA's, and ODA's written determination to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division at time of application for a building permit: and 6. FCC License a. The property owner shall provide documentation of a current, valid FCC Amateur .Radio License for the operation of amateur ("Ham ") radio services in the name of property owner. b. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting a copy of the property owner's Amateur Radio License to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division at time of application for a building permit. B. Amateur radio facilities exceeding 70 feet in height including retractable amateur radio facilities that exceed 70 feet at full ;hei )ht and more than one amateur radio facilit of any height on a property shall comply with following requirements: 1. The amateur radio facilities shall comply with the applicable standards. setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any combining: 2. Neighborhood Meeting. a. The applicant shall provide written notice and hold a meeting with property owners of record within: 1. One thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet from an applicants property lines for a facility no greater than 100 feet in height, and 2. Two thousand (2,000) feet from the applicant's property lines for a facility at least 100 feet and no higher than 150 feet in height. b. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be in writing and shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, c. Notice of the nejghborhood meeting shall be in addition to the notice required by DCC Title 22. 3. Submittal Requirements. An amateur radio facility application shall include: a. A copy of the written notice of the required neighborhood meeting and a certificate of mailing showing that the notice was mailed to the list of property owners falling within the notice area designated under DCC 18.116.290 (B)(1)(a). b. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the meeting, and a list of meeting attendees. c. A site plan drawn to scale showing the setbacks, the location of the proposed facility and its components. The site plan shall also identify the location of existing and proposed landscaping, any equipment shelters, utility connections, and fencing proposed to enclose the facility. d. A copy of the design specifications, including proposed colors, and /or elevation of an antenna(s) proposed with the facility. e. An elevation drawing of the facility. E A description and photos of topographic and vegetative screening from contiguous properties. g. A copy of a letter of determination from the Federal Aviation Administration or the Oregon Department of Transportation - Aeronautics Division as to whether or not aviation lighting would be required for the proposed facility. PAGE 2 OF 3— EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 4. Approval Criteria: An application for an amateur radio facility shall meet the following criteria: a. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of contiguous residential properties. b. Any approval of an amateur radio facility shall include a condition that if the facility is left unused or is abandoned for more than one year, the facility shall be removed by the landowner. c. Amateur radio facility structures including guy wires and anchors shall be located outside of the required front, rear and sideyard setbacks. d. Metal structures shall have a galvanized finish, or flat or matte silver, or gray color; e. The maximum height of the facility shall not exceed 150 feet. f. Amateur radio facilities shall not include attached signage, symbols. or decorations, lighted or otherwise, other than recuired unlighted signage for safety or regulatory purposes. g. The property owner shall obtain a building permit if required from the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division; h. Compliance with Federal Regulations. 1. The property owner shall demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) restrictions. 2. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting copies of the FCC's, FAA's, and ODA 's written determination; i. FCC License 1. The property owner has a current, valid FCC Amateur Radio License for the operation of amateur ("Ham") radio services in the name of property owner. 2. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting a copy of the property owner's Amateur Radio License; and (Ord. 2008 -007 § 2, 2008) PAGE 3 OF 3— EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 Chapter 18.120. EXCEPTIONS 18.120.010. 18.120.020. 18.120.030. 18.120.040. 18.120.050. Nonconforming Uses. Nonconforming Lot Sizes. Exceptions to Yard Requirements. Building Height Exceptions. Fill and Removal Exceptions. 18.120.040 Building height exceptions. A. The following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of DCC Title 18: 1. chimneys, not more than three feet six inches above the highest point of the roof; vertical support structures for telephone and power transmission lines in utility easements or public rights -of -way, not requiring a site plan review as defined in DCC 18.124.060; flagpoles not exceeding 40 feet;, and agricultural structures as defined in DCC 18.04.030 not exceeding 36 feet, and amateur radio facilities as outlined in DCC Title 18.1 16290. This exception does not apply to an Airport Development Zone, Airport Safety Combing Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone. B. The following structures or structural parts may receive exceptions to the building height limitations of DCC Title 18 if approved as part of a Site Plan Review, as defined in DCC 18.124.060 and subject to the criteria contained therein, public schools, vertical support structures for telephone and power transmission lines requiring a site plan, structures that are necessary for public safety and flagpoles. This exception does not supercede the more restrictive requirements that are found in the Airport Safety Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone. C. An exception (up to 36 feet) to the building height limitations for structures not otherwise exempted by DCC 18.120.040(A) may be approved upon findings that: 1. The structure is not located in a Landscape Management Zone, except when the structure is a single- family dwelling with an attached hangar located in an unincorporated community and the structure has a maximum height of 35 feet including chimneys, antennas, flagpoles or other projections from the roof of the structure; 2. The structure is not located within 100 feet of any rimrock, as defined in DCC 18.04.030; 3. After consultation with the applicable fire department, the proposed height does not exceed the height limitation of the department's fire fighting equipment, considering the evacuation of the building's occupants and the fire fighting requirements of the department; and 4. The proposed additional height will not adversely impact scenic views from existing nearby residences. 5. The proposed structure shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. D. An exception to building height limitations for agricultural structures may be approved upon findings that the applicant meets the criteria listed in DCC 18.120.040(C)(1) through (3) and demonstrates that the proposed structure is: 1. An agricultural structure as defined in DCC 18.04.030; 2. Located in an EFU or Forest zone; and 3. Necessary to conduct generally accepted farming practices that are typical or customary of Deschutes County farmers who are regularly involved in the proposed type of agriculture. The applicant shall document satisfaction of this criterion by submitting evidence or testimony from an authorized representative of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau. PAGE 1 OF 2 - EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 1 (Ord. 2008 -007 § 3, 2008.Ord. 2001 -033 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001 -004 §3, 2001; Ord. 98 -035 §1, 1998; Ord. 96 -035 §1, 1996; Ord. 93 -043 §20C, 1993; Ord. 92 -055 §10, 1992; Ord. 92 -036 §1, 1992) PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2008 -007 Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 -1925 [541) 388 -6575 - Fax [541) 385 -1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cdd DECLARATORY RULING APPLICATION Measure 49 Common Law Vested Right The declaratory ruling will not be a land use decision FEE: Declaratory Ruling $855 Hearings Officer Deposit $2,500 (Actual cost of hearing, not to exceed $4,500) $3355 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. 2. Attach correct fee. 3 All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Burden of proof, detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. Applicant's (Property Owner) Name (print): Phone: ( ) Email Address: Mailing Address: City /State /Zip: Property Description: Township Range Section Tax Lot Property Zone(s): Property Size (acres or sq. ft.): Property Address: Submit the following information with the application: 1. Deschutes County Measure 37 Order and State Waiver. 2. Deschutes County land use decisions approved under County and /or State Measure 37 Orders. 3. A copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Burden of proof and evidence to support the claim for Common Law Vested Right to carry out a use on the property under Measure 49, Section 5(c). The following factors, as well as guidance from the Oregon Courts, will be used to determine whether a vested right exists. Thus, the Burden of Proof should include, but is not limited to, the information listed below each of the following factors: a. The kind of project, the location and the ultimate cost. (i) Description of the use for which a common law vested right determination is requested. (ii) Itemized list of the estimated total cost of developing the proposed use. b. The ratio of expenditures incurred to the total cost of the project. (i) Itemized list of the estimated total cost of developing the proposed use. (ii) Itemized list of the all money spent on developing the proposed use prior to this application, including the dates when money was spent on the development activities. c. Whether the development activities undertaken to date go beyond mere preparation (land clearing, planning, etc.). (1) Itemized list, including dates, of all development activities undertaken by the property owner prior to this application. (over) d. Whether the expenditures have any relation to the proposed completed project or could apply to other uses of the land. (i) Description of any other uses or structures existing on and /or approved for the subject property. (ii) Evidence of uses allowed on the subject property without a Measure 37 waiver. e. Evidence of good faith of the property owner. (i) Description of how and when property owner first learned of the existence of the proposed legislation in the Oregon State Legislature and /or Measure 49 (for example, television, newspaper article, voter's pamphlet, friends or family). (ii) Itemized list, including dates, of all development activities engaged in by property after having learned of the proposed legislation and /or Measure 49. Property Owner's Signature: Date: Applicant's Representative (if different)*: Phone: ( � Applicant's Representative Mailing Address: City /State /Zip: Applicant's Representative Email Address: * If this application is not signed by the property owner who received the Measure 37 waiver for the proposed use, a letter authorizing signature by the property owner's representative must be attached.