HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-25-08 Backup Docs - Wind Power ProposalCommunity Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Divisior.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-192E
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Planning Commission
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
DATE: April 30, 2008
MEETING: May 8, 2008
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Text Amendment to allow hydroelectric facilities on
existing irrigation systems in the Open Space and Conservation (OS&C)
Zone; TA -08-4
BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission work session held on April 24, 2008, the Commission inquired
about certain historical details of the Open Space & Conservation zone. The question revolves
around why there is an OS&C zone and why certain properties were included in the OS&C
zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan does contain a policy that addresses open space,
areas of special interest, and environmental quality (DCC 23.96). In this section of the
comprehensive plan, the goal includes conserving, maintaining, and improving these designated
areas and the environment (air, water, and land resource quality). Moreover, the Plan states,
Open spaces include not only parks, but also agricultural, forested, natural areas, mining sites
and historical areas, as well as scenic waterways and other locations of unique scenic,
environmental, social or cultural character.
This is further defined in DCC 23.12.010, Definitions.
"Open space" means the part of the countryside which has not been developed and which is
desirable for preservation in its natural state for ecological or recreational purposes, or in its
cultivated state to preserve agricultural, forest or urban greenbelt areas. More specifically, open
space consists of any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use:
A. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources;
B. Protect air or streams of water supply;
C. Promote conservation of soils, wetlands or beaches;
Quality Services Performed with Pride
D. Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses, that reduce air
pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring property;
E. Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forest, wildlife
preserves, natural reservations or sanctuaries or other open space;
F. Enhance recreation opportunities;
G. Preserve historic sites;
H. Promote orderly urban development.
When referring to the Areas of Special Interest chapter in the County Comprehensive Plan
Resource Element (the factual information behind the Comprehensive Plan), it details the
benefits of open space occurring in various forms whether it be agricultural lands, forest lands,
parks, mining sites, rivers, roads, et cetera. Open space and special interest areas are not all
zoned OS&C. For example, the County regulates scenic rivers with the Landscape
Management (LM) Combining Zone and regulations pertaining to the associated riparian areas.
Regulations for sensitive bird sites are within the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat (SBMH)
Combining Zone. However, the areas zoned OS&C are more likely to be site specific. For
example, the Newberry National Volcanic Monument was zoned OS&C prior to the recognition
as a national monument thus illustrating the County's interest in maintaining and protecting this
special geologic area. Some of the high mountain lakes (e.g. Elk Lake, Little Cultus Lake, and
Davis Lake) found in the County and which have public access from existing roadways have
OS&C zoning surrounding the water resource and the recreation and historic significance they
contain. Oregon State parks and campgrounds such as La Pine State Park and Tumalo State
Park are zoned OS&C. Segments along Highway 97 between Redmond and Bend are also
zoned OS&C. These sections of highway are or have been owned by Oregon State Parks and
Recreation Department. Further, the text amendment before us today includes existing
irrigation canals located on these OS&C zoned properties along Highway 97. Based on the
Resource Element, these sections along the roadway may have been zoned for the purposes of
protecting mountain views and/or for the potential of a future state park (campground or day use
area). In conclusion, the OS&C zone is in place to protect designated areas desirable for
preservation; to restrict development in fragile and unique areas; to plan development to
conserve these areas of interest; and to protect and improve quality of resources (e.g. air, land,
and water).
Attachments:
1. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element, Areas of Special Interest
Staff Memorandum TA -08-4 Page 2
HURLEY
RE, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AI' LAW
747 SW Mill View Way
Bend OR 97702
Phone 541.317.5505
Fax 541.317.5507
www.hurley-re.com
February 12, 2008
Catharine Morrow
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
Daniel C. Re
William E. Flinn
Christopher D. Hatfield
Elizabeth A. Dickson
Gary R. Johnson
Brian J. MacRitchie
Jennifer L. Coughlin
Ryan P. Correa
Re: Central Oregon Irrigation — Swalley Irrigation District
Text Amendment to Title 18 Deschutes County Code Relating to Hydroelectric
Facilities in OS & C Zones
Lot of Verification
Dear Catharine:
James V. Hurley
of Counsel
Enclosed in the above -referenced matter please find the Text Amendment to Title 18 Deschutes County
Code Relating to Hydroelectric Facilities in OS & C Zones and the Lot of Verification, together with
• Central Oregon Irrigation District's check in the amount of $3,920.00.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Dickson
EAD/lt
c: client
Swalley Irrigation District
Q: \DATAU.IZ\CLIENT FILES \CICOID\PURCHASE OF HYDRO SITE STATE PARKS 102.298\L -Catharine Morrow 2.12.08.doc
SCANNED
FEB 13 ?.008.
TES
{ Community Development Depart
g Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Bend. OR 97701-1925
(541) 388.8575 - Fax (541)385-1764
http://www.daschutes.orgiodd
PLAN/ZONE/TEXT AMENDMENT
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT:__„_
FEE:
PLAN MAP AMENDMENT:___
FEE:
TEXT AMENDMENT: X
FEE:
Co-Appiicant's Name (print): Central Oregon Irrigation District Phone: t41) 548=6047
co-�pp
aitlNAddiess-. 1055 SW Lake Court City/State/Tp: Rechccid, OR 97756
can
Property E)wr rt Name (If different): Smiley Irrigation District Phone: (541J 388-0658
Mailing Address: 64672 Cook Avenue, Suite #1 City/StatefZrp: Bend, OR 97701
Property Description: Township Range Section Tax Lot
Lot of Record? (state reason):
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
Current Pian Designation: Proposed Designation:
Applicable State Goals: Exception Proposed? Yes - No
Size of Affected Area: Acres
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THiS APPLICATION:
1. Complete this application form Including the appropriate signatures.
2. Include a detailed statement describing the proposal and how It meets all requirements of the appropriate State
rules and statutes, and County codes and Comprehensive Plan policies. Text amendment applications must
include the proposed language and the basis for the change.
3. if multiple properties are involved In this application, then Identify each property on a separate page and follow
with the property owners' signatures.
4. Submit the correct application fee.
5. Submit a • • y • the current deed(s) for the propertyfies).
o-511ffncYazsi a
Praperty Owner s Signatu =4 •r 1- nt7':
APPOINTMENT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL AMENDMENTS
Date:
o otta car Date: ii /O B
Agents Name (if applicabl - ': Elizabeth A. �� ' Phone: ( 541) 317-5505
Hur Re P.C.
Mailing Address: 747 SW Mill lew Jay
City/State/Zip: Bend. OR 97702
If this application Is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached.
1/07
Proposed Amendment to Title 18 Deschutes County Code
Relating to Hydroelectric Facilities in OS & C Zones
Submitted by:
Central Oregon Irrigation District
1055 SW Lake Court
Redmond, Oregon 97756
and
Swalley Irrigation District
64672 Cook Ave. Suite #1
Bend, Oregon 97701
Co -Applicant:
Steve Johnson, District Manager
Central Oregon Irrigation District
1055 SW Lake Court
Redmond, Oregon 97756
Phone: (541) 548-6047
Fax: (541) 548-0243
February 12, 2008
Co -Applicant
Jan Lee, General Manager
Swalley Irrigation District
64672 Cook Ave. Suite #1
Bend, Oregon 97701
Phone: (541) 388-0658
Fax: (541) 389-0433
Attorney:
Elizabeth A. Dickson
Hurley Re, P.C.
747 SW Mill View Way
Bend, Oregon 97702
Phone: (541) 317-5505
Fax: (541) 317-5507
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Text Amendment Application
Summary
Text of Proposed Amendment
Discussion
Issue
Hydroelectric Facilities
Federal Regulation
State Regulation
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Conclusion
SUMMARY
The Central Oregon Irrigation District (COM) and Swalley Irrigation District (SID)
(hereafter "Districts") would like to develop sustainable energy production facilities in
Deschutes County by inserting hydroelectric turbines into piped irrigation canals. It is
currently not possible for the Districts to construct these facilities on eligible sites
because these are in the Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Zone. The Deschutes
County Code excludes "hydroelectric facilities" in its definition of allowable utility
facilities on Open Space & Conservation (OS & C) zones. The Districts propose to
amend section 18.48.020 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to allow for the
construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities in piped, screened systems in a way
that would encourage "green power" in accordance with existing state and federal laws.
COID and SID are special districts, local governments, and quasi -municipal corporations
of the state of Oregon. They made this proposal for the benefit of Districts' patrons and
the energy -consuming community -at -large. The Districts have determined that there is a
sufficient elevation drop on COID's Pilot Butte Canal north of Bend and east of Highway
97, and on SID's Main Canal north of Bend and west of Highway 97, which would
generate substantial power via turbine, if captured. The parcels of interest are vacant and
zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS & C). The proposed amendment modifies
18.48.020 (Uses Permitted Outright) to add limited construction, maintenance, and
operation of "hydroelectric" facilities on OS & C zones. The proposed amendment does
not alter restrictions already in place for hydroelectric facilities, or use of riparian zones
or wetlands.
It is not foreseeable that this amendment will result in a proliferation of additional
hydroelectric facilities throughout the county. Only canals, screened to prevent fish
injury, will be eligible for this dual use.
The proposal is compatible with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The benefits
the County will receive from green power facilities are measurable and will contribute to
the sustainable growth of the community. Hydroelectric facilities in piped canals can
contribute to the optimal use of irrigation water and will not affect the rural character of
the area. The proposal does not alter designated Scenic Waterways, parks, historical areas
or other locations of unique scenic, environmental, social or cultural character.
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
(New language is underlined and deleted language shown in stems)
Chapter 18.48. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ZONE - OS&C
18.48.020. Uses permitted outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2).
B. Public and nonprofit agencies, museums and exhibits on lands where an exception
has been granted in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660,
Division 4.
C. Public wildlife reserve or management area, not including structures.
D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition,
subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC
18.116.230.
E. Class B1 road or street project.
F. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an
Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
G. Construction, operation. and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities on existing
irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, subject to the limitations in
DCC 18.128.260 23.96.030 and 23.112.040, including transmission lines serving
such facilities.
DISCUSSION
The Issue
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) and Swalley Irrigation District (SID)
are interested in constructing hydroelectric facilities on canals located on rural,
undeveloped lands north of Bend. The Districts have determined that there is both a
sufficient elevation drop ("head") and sufficient flow at these specific canal sites to
generate renewable, sustainable power when turbine/generators are added to these
existing facilities. The lands upon which the canals are located are zoned Open Space
and Conservation (OS & C). It is currently not possible for the Districts to construct
hydroelectric facilities in this zone because the Deschutes County Code left out
"hydroelectric facilities" in its provision for permissible uses in Open Space &
Conservation (OS & C) zones. The Districts now propose to amend DCC 18.48.020 to '
include hydroelectric facilities, thus permitting the districts to construct and operate these
facilities.
Hydroelectric Facilities
Rapid growth in the county is accelerating the demand for electricity. Recent
changes to state and federal law encourage renewable, sustainable power production to
meet increased demands. The Districts' propose to build hydroelectric facilities that
produce "green power." DCC 18.48.020 regulates permissible uses in OS & C zones,
and was last amended in 2001. That amendment did not address the issue of permitting
hydroelectric facilities. Hydroelectric power, as produced by irrigation districts in closed
canal systems, would serve the community well and implement the purposes of the
County's Comprehensive Plan. In Deschutes County, there are only two hydroelectric
facilities, both of which are operating at capacity. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan states that growth of the area has put a strain on energy and public facilities. The
Plan fosters growth in a way that is sustainable and accommodating to both urban and
rural areas. The proposed amendment allows for services to be provided accommodating
that growth.
This proposal encourages the restricted use of hydroelectric facilities in closed
systems. The construction of these facilities is expensive and well regulated at both the
state and federal levels. The text amendment will not diminish the regulation of either
state or federal law.
Federal Regulation
The text amendment requested to allow projects proposed by the Districts will
allow closed -system (diverted water closed to fish) hydroelectric facilities in OS & C
zones, as it is currently allowed in other zones within the county. The proposed projects
would be constructed by adding hydroelectric turbines to already piped irrigation canals.
The amendment, as proposed, will have no impact on federal regulation of these
facilities. Both sites will be reviewed by the Federal Engergy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) as `conduit exemption projects." 18 CFR 4.30 governs conduit exemptions
because the projects will be located in existing canals that flow from existing diversions
from the river which are already screened at the intake to prevent fish entry into the
systems. The County's regulation may include a provision that a project allowed under
this DCC must have a license or exemption issued by FERC.
State Regulation
The Oregon Water Resources Department governs hydroelectric development
under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapters 537 and 543 and Oregon Administrative
Rule 690-051-000. The Districts' proposed amendment to the DCC and the Districts'
proposed hydroelectric facilities do not have significant impacts on "designated resource
areas" within the state as cited because they are already within district canals with
existing diversions and screened intakes, as well as within federal and state authorized
easements or rights -of way.
Regional Regulation
The Northwest Planning and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Plan does
not allow for hydroelectric development within tributaries of the Columbia River system,
such as the Deschutes River Basin, except when such projects are on existing canals or
reservoirs, with screened, existing diversions from the river. The state statutes governing
issuance of a water right for hydropower mirror this requirement.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
1. Compatibility with County Energy Policy
The proposed text amendment to DCC 18.48 effectively implements the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan"). In the Plan, the County noted that "[ejnergy usage
has been growing dramatically in Deschutes County... ." (DCC 23.76.010). The Plan also
states that the "County shall review and promote the development and use of local
alternative energy sources in order to prepare for future shortages and to reduce the
outflow of local dollars to buy energy."(DCC 23.76.030). The Districts' proposed
amendment to allow these hydropower facilities meets these objectives.
2. Open Space and Conservation Land Goals Allow Proposed Change
With regard to OS & C lands, the Plan states that there is a need for regulatory flexibility.
It indicates that regulations and regulatory bodies need to be mindful of the "needs of the
public" and the demands of a growing community. The Plan focuses on the balancing of
resources with demand that growth places on those resources to promote sustainable
development. The Districts' proposed facilities further this purpose.
f.
Conclusion
The amendment to the DCC proposed by the Districts is compatible with the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, state and federal regulations, and will allow only
the environmentally sensitive and sustainable development of hydroelectric facilities in
closed systems by irrigation districts in OS & C zones. This amendment will allow
irrigation districts to better serve their patrons and the public by providing this important
service. The amendment proposed herein is timely, as Deschutes County has been the
fastest growing county in Oregon for the past decade, and there is a statewide renewed
mandate to provide sustainable energy for the future.
Q:\DATAILIZ\CLIENT FILE= \COID\PURCHASE OF HYDRO SITE STATE PARKS 102.298\Text Amendment Application
Final 1.21.08.doc
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 Zoning Ordinance to
permit hydroelectric facilities in the Open Space
and Conservation Zone.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2008-018
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2008, Central Oregon Irrigation District and Swalley Irrigation District
submitted an application to amend the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 18.48, to allow for
hydroelectric facilities on existing irrigation systems to be permitted outright in the Open Space and
Conservation Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on May 8, 2008, forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners ("Board") a recommendation of approval as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after public hearings on July XX, 2008 and concluded
that the public will benefit from changes to the Open Space and Conservation Zone; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04.030, Title, Purpose, and Definitions, 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 strip.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.48.020, Open Space and Conservation Zone, Uses Permitted
Outright is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strike.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-018 (06/25/08)
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1St Reading: day of
Date of 2nd Reading: day of
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Michael M. Daly
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy (Baney) Melton
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, VICE CHAIR
MICHAEL M. DALY, COMMISSIONER
, 2008.
, 2008.
Effective date: day of , 2008.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-018 (06/25/08)
NOTE: *** denotes code provisions not amended by this ordinance.
Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
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.
"Utility facility" means any major structures, ,hydroelectric facilities, owned or operated by a public, private - [ Deleted: excluding
or cooperative electric, fuel, communications, sewage or water company for the generation, transmission,
distribution or processing of its products or for the disposal of cooling water, waste or by-products, and
including power transmission lines, major trunk pipelines, power substations, telecommunications facilities,
water towers, sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills and similar facilities, but excluding local sewer, water, gas,
telephone and power distribution lines, and similar minor facilities allowed in any zone. This definition
shall not include wireless telecommunication facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a
zone.
***
1 (Ord. 2008-018 `1, 2008; Ord. 2007-005 §1, 2007; Ord. 2007-020 §1, 2007; Ord. 2007-019 §1, 2007; Ord.
2006-008 §1, 2006; Ord. 2005-041 §1, 2005; Ord. 2004-024 §1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §1, 2004; Ord. 2003-
028 §1, 2003; Ord. 2001-048 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-044 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-037 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-033
§2, 2001; Ord. 97-078 §5, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §1, 1997; Ord. 97-003 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-082 §1, 1996; Ord.
96-003 §2, 1996; Ord. 95-077 §2, 1995; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1975; Ord. 95-007 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 §1, 1995;
Ord. 94-053 §1, 1994; Ord. 94-041 §§2 and 3, 1994; Ord. 94-038 §3, 1994; Ord. 94-008 §§1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8, 1994; Ord. 94-001 §§1, 2, and 3, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§1, IA and 1B, 1993; Ord. 93-038 §1, 1993;
Ord. 93-005 §§1 and 2, 1993; Ord. 93-002 §§1, 2 and 3, 1993; Ord. 92-066 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-065 §§1 and
2, 1992; Ord. 92-034 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 §§1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §§3 and 4,
1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §11, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §2, 1990; Ord. 89-
009 §2, 1989; Ord. 89-004 §1, 1989; Ord. 88-050 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-030 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-009 §1, 1988;
Ord. 87-015 §1, 1987; Ord. 86-056 §2, 1986; Ord. 86-054 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-032 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-018 §1,
1986; Ord. 85-002 §2, 1985; Ord. 84-023 §1, 1984; Ord. 83-037 §2, 1983; Ord. 83-033 §1, 1983; Ord. 82-
013 §1, 1982)
PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-018 (6/25/2008)
Chapter 18.48. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ZONE - OS&C
18.48.010. Purpose.
18.48.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
18.48.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
18.48.040. Dimensional Standards.
18.48.050. Setbacks.
18.48.060. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
18.48.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the Open Space and Conservation Zone is to protect designated areas of scenic and natural
resources; to restrict development in areas with fragile, unusual or unique qualities; to protect and improve
the quality of the air, water and land resources and to plan development that will conserve open space.
(Ord. 93-043 §6, 1993)
18.48.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2).
B. Public and nonprofit agencies, museums and exhibits on lands where an exception has been granted in
accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, Division 4.
C. Public wildlife reserve or management area, not including structures.
D. Class I and H road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject
to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
E. Class III road or street project.
F. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District
except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
G. Construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities on existing irrigation systems
operated by an Irrigation District, subject to the limitations in DCC 18.128.260, 23.96.030 and
23.112.040. including transmission lines serving such facilities.
(Ord. 2008-018 2008; Ord. 2001-039 §3, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-023 §1, 1997; Ord.
94-041 §1, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
18.48.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
A. Private parks, picnic areas or hunting and fishing preserves.
B. Public parks and recreational areas owned and operated by a governmental agency or nonprofit
community organization.
C. Utility facility except landfills.
D. Water supply and treatment facility.
E. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland
subject to DCC 18.120.050 and DCC 18.128.270.
F. Campground.
G. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
PAGE 1 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-018 (6/25/2008)
H. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and maintenance
of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation and mining for
facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off-site use, storage, and sale of excavated material.
(Ord. 2001-039 §3, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-063 §3, 1997; Ord. 94-041 §1, 1994; Ord.
92-004 §9, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991)
18.48.040. Dimensional Standards.
In an OS&C Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
A. The minimum lot size is 80 acres.
B. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height,
except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
(Ord. 94-041 §1, 1994; Ord. 92-055 §B, 1992)
18.48.050. Setbacks.
A. Minimum setbacks shall be 60 feet from an arterial or collector street or road right of way and 20 feet
from a street within a platted and recorded subdivision.
B. The setback from a perennial stream or lake ordinary high water mark shall be a minimum of 200 feet,
and from an intermittent stream channel, 100 feet.
C. Each side setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet, except on a comer lot it shall be 30 feet from the street
side.
D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180.
E. Rimrock Setback. Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160.
F. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or
structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
(Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §28, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 86-053 §10, 1986; Ord. 83-037
§13, 1983)
18.48.060. Limitations on Conditional Uses.
The following limitations shall apply to a conditional use in an OS&C Zone:
A. An application for a conditional use m an OS&C Zone may be denied if, in the opinion of the Planning
Director or Hearings Body, the proposed use is not related to or sufficiently dependent upon the
recreational resources of the area.
B. The proposed use shall not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase risks to fire
suppression personnel. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require establishment and
maintenance of fire breaks, the use of fire resistant materials in construction and landscaping, or attach
other similar conditions or limitations that will reduce fire hazards or prevent the spread of fire to
surrounding areas.
C. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may limit changes in the natural grade of land, or the
alteration, removal or destruction of natural vegetation to prevent or minimize erosion, pollution or
degradation of the natural attractiveness of the area.
D. An application for a conditional use in an OS&C Zone shall be denied if, in the opinion of the Planning
Director or Hearings Body, the proposed use would exceed the carrying capacity of the area or would
be detrimental to the natural features or resources of the area.
E. An application for a conditional use in an OS&C Zone shall be denied if not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. An application for a conditional use shall be denied if the proposed use would force a significant change
in, or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest
lands.
PAGE 2 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-018 (6/25/2008)
G. Where the proposed use is adjacent to forest zoned land, a written statement recorded with the deed or
written contract with the County or its equivalent shall be obtained from the land owner which
recognizes the right of adjacent and nearby land owners to conduct forest operations consistent with the
Forest Practices Act and Rules for uses authorized in Oregon Administrative Rules 660-06-025(4)(e),
(1), (r), (s) and (v).
(Ord. 94-041 §1, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991)
(Zoning maps amended by Ord. 95-059 §1, 1995)
PAGE 3 OF 3 — EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2008-018 (6/25/2008)
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701 1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385 1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.uF/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commission
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: June 25, 2008
SUBJECT: Work session for Open Space and Conservation Zone Text Amendment;
TA -08-4
PURPOSE
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a work session prior to a
public hearing to consider text amendments proposed by Central Oregon Irrigation District and
Swalley Irrigation District. The Commission will consider a text amendment for Deschutes
County Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions, specifically "Utility Facility" and modify Deschutes
County Code Chapter 18.48, Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Zone, Section 18.48.020,
Uses permitted outright. The text amendment would allow hydroelectric facilities on existing
irrigation systems as a use permitted outright in the OS&C Zone.
PROPOSAL
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) and Swalley Irrigation District (SID) have proposed an
amendment to the Deschutes County Code that would permit hydroelectric facilities on existing
irrigation systems (piped canals) in order to develop sustainable energy production in
Deschutes County (See Attachment 1, TA084 Application Materials). The Planning
Commission held one work session and one public hearing on the proposed text amendment
(See Attachment 3, PC Minutes). There were no public comments at the hearing; however, the
U.S. Forest Service did submit written comments. The Planning Commission listened to
testimony by COID and SID representatives, as well as their attorney.
Currently, in the OS&C Zone, hydroelectric facilities are not permitted. Utility facilities, however,
are permitted conditionally but, as defined, do not include hydroelectric facilities. Within
Deschutes County, the applicant has designated two locations in which significant elevation
change coupled with water velocity would allow for small-scale hydroelectric facilities on piped
irrigation canals. One site is within the COID system and one is in the SID system. In addition,
these two locations are within the OS&C Zone thus the reasoning behind an amendment to that
zone. The applicants indicate that there are other locations in the COID system that may work
for hydropower. However, only the location specified here "has the volume and gravitational
drop that warrants the cost of piping and turbine purchase and line at this time." The proposed
hydro facility will be established entirely within the irrigation district's easement and within
Quality Services Performed with Pride
existing piped irrigation canals that are screened at the intake and thus preventing fish entry and
harm. The turbines used are designed -specific to flow levels and do not result in an
accumulation of or stored water. Temporary powerlines will be in place for approximately three
to four years until PacifiCorp installs permanent lines. According to the applicant, the Oregon
Department of Water Resources (ODWR) regulates hydroelectric facilities. Hydroelectric
facilities are regulated by OAR 690 and ORS 537. According to the applicant, this text
amendment only refers to those projects permitted under ORS 537.765. Further, the applicant
indicates that power facilities with a generation capacity of 10 megawatts of power or Tess are
considered small-scale generation. The COID hydropower project will generate approximately
3/4 to 1 megawatt of power and the SID project will generate about 3 megawatts. Lastly, other
State and Federal laws such as Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Clean
Water Act, respectively also bind hydropower facilities including the two proposed here.
Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy Conservation, Oregon's Energy Policy (ORS
469.010), and the 2007 Senate Bill 838 (Oregon Renewable Energy Act) were all intended to
promote the efficient use of energy resources and develop sustainable energy resources. State
law allows local jurisdictions to implement such energy facilities for the needs of the rural area
served. It is found in the Oregon Renewable Energy Act (SB 838) that it is necessary for
Oregon to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels for electricity and increase the use of renewable
energy sources.
Background information and staff reports on the record to date, can be found at the County
website www.deschutes.orq/cdd under pending code amendments.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
The proposed amendment would revise Deschutes County Code, Title 18, to permit
hydroelectric facilities on existing piped irrigation systems as a use permitted outright in the
OS&C Zone. For purposes of this discussion, the proposed amendments would satisfy
Statewide Planning Goals with the exception of Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 was
reviewed by staff and determined that changing the definition of "utility facility" would create a
violation of statutory requirements. Goal 4, Forest Lands, was reviewed and staff determined
that changing the definition of "utility facility" would not be affected here. Satisfaction of Goal 5,
Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources is discussed below in this
report. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resource Quality; Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services;
and Goal 13, Energy Conservation would be satisfied by permitting hydroelectric facilities on
existing irrigation systems as a renewable energy source to serve the electrical needs within the
County. Other Statewide Goals such as Goals 8 through 10 and 14 through 19 were reviewed
and were found not applicable to this proposal.
Regarding Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, staff
believes the goal would be satisfied. The proposed small-scale hydroelectric facilities will be
located on existing piped irrigation canals in site-specific areas. The designated sites are
located in segments along Highway 97 between Redmond and Bend that have the OS&C
zoning designation. These areas may have been zoned OS&C to protect scenic mountain
views and/or for the potential of a future state park (campgound or day use area). These sites
are outside of federal or state designated scenic waterways. There are no known historic
values assigned to these areas. Staff believes Goal 5 would be satisfied because the proposed
use is minimal in size, thus protecting scenic and open space resources. Additionally, fish and
wildlife resources are managed and protected at the Irrigation District's water diversion area
located south (up river) from these sites. Furthermore, through the promotion of low -impact
BOCC Staff Report TA -08-4 Page 2
renewable energy such as this it also is a promotion of a healthy environment and natural
landscape. In conclusion, the proposed use would protect and improve quality of resources
(e.g. air, land, and water).
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan contains policies addressing energy resources,
water resources, and open space. Staff believes the proposal would be consistent with the
County's energy goals on protecting natural energy resources and assisting with local energy
supplies. Further the proposal is consistent with the County's open spaces, areas of special
concern and environmental quality goals to maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and
land resources. The text amendment proposed here includes existing irrigation canals located
on OS&C zoned properties along Highway 97 and far from federal and state scenic waterways
as well as other local rivers and streams. The proposal is consistent with maintaining water
quantity and quality as addresses in the County's water resources goals. Staff also reviewed
the proposed text amendment against the County's public facilities and services goal to
determine if the proposal will best serve existing and proposed (urban and rural) development
with "timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities."
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On April 24, 2008, staff presented the proposal to the Planning Commission at a work session.
At the public hearing on May 8, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval as
proposed (See Attachment 3 for Planning Commission meeting minutes). The recommendation
did not include documented findings. The proposed language amends Deschutes County Code
section 18.04.030 and 18.48.020 and includes modifying the definition of "utility facility" to
include hydroelectric facilities and adding the "construction, operation, and maintenance of
hydroelectric facilities on existing irrigation systems" as a use permitted outright in the OS&C
Zone.
PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
The applicants propose, and the Planning Commission concurred, an amendment to alter the
definition of "utility facility." The County Code specifically excludes "hydroelectric facility" from
the definition. As detailed by staff to the Planning Commission (see attachment 2 and 3, PC
Staff Report and Memo), state statute regulates "utility facility" in the farm zone thus changing
this definition may make the farm zone not meet statutory requirements. Furthermore, staff
believes that if hydroelectric facilities are included as a utility facility, it will create additional
revisions throughout Title 18. Staff believes the current definition of hydroelectric facility defines
the proposed use of hydropower on existing irritation canals. County Code regulates
hydroelectric facility separately from a "utility facility" as detailed in DCC 18.116.130 and
18.128.260.
Also included with and further recommended by the Planning Commission is the proposal of
hydroelectric facilities on existing irrigation systems (piped canals) as a use permitted outright in
the OS&C zone (DCC 18.48.020). Currently, hydroelectric facilities are permitted conditionally
regardless of the zone. As indicated to the Planning Commission, staff believes this
amendment does not appear to comply with the County Comprehensive Plan. In DCC
23.68.020(2)(d) it states, "power generation sites shall be landscaped and the site plan
reviewed as part of the conditional use applications. Staff notes that reviewing a hydroelectric
facility does include the applicable criteria in DCC 18.116.130, 18.128.015, and 18.128.260.
Standards addressed DCC 18.116.130, is specific to hydropower on rivers or streams. The
BOCC Staff Report TA -08-4 Page 3
proposed hydroelectric facilities are site specific and will not occur on rivers or streams rather
they will occur on existing piped irrigation canals far from the rivers and streams of Deschutes
County. The Standards addressed DCC 18.128.260 refer to Targe hydroelectric projects located
on rivers and reservoirs, including reviewing the impact of dams and man-made diversions,
existing fish and wildlife habitat, riparian health, and riverbank stability. Staff believes these
criteria were created with the thought of regulating large hydroelectric facilities typically
associated with reservoir dams. Staff believes that to be consistent with DCC 23.68.020(2)(d),
the proposed use should be permitted conditionally. However, standards set in DCC
18.116.130 are not applicable. Based on information in the record, the proposed hydropower
facility is small in scale and generates less than 5 megawatts of power. Therefore, staff
believes the criteria in DCC 18.128.260 are not necessary in reviewing because they address
large hydroelectric facilities. In conclusion, staff believes hydroelectric facilities on existing
irrigation systems should be permitted conditionally in the OS&C Zone and subject to General
Standards Governing Conditional Uses (DCC 18.128.015).
NOTICE
Notice of the proposed text amendment was sent to five (5) known irrigation districts within
Deschutes County as well as Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Watermaster —
District 11, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD),
and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
REVIEW CRITERIA
The proposed amendment revises Deschutes County Code, Title 18, to permit hydroelectric
facilities on existing piped irrigation systems as a use permitted outright in the OS&C Zone.
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative
zoning text amendment. Therefore, the County must determine that the proposed Title 18 text
amendments are consistent with state statute, the Statewide Planning Goals, and the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The parameters for evaluating these text amendments are based on
whether there are adequate factual findings that demonstrate this consistency.
PUBLIC HEARING
Staff has not yet scheduled a public hearing for this application in order to allow the Board to
schedule further work sessions and/or to discuss the most appropriate time and place for a
hearing.
Attachments:
1. TA084 application materials
2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Memo
3. Planning Commission meeting minutes
4. Planning Commission Proposed Ordinance with Exhibit A and B
BOCC Staff Report TA -08-4 Page 4
Community Development Department
{ Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
1. CALL TO ORDER
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or. us/cdd/
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
APRIL 24, 2008— 5:30 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Cyrus. Members present were Vice Chair
Todd Turner, Robert Otteni, Brenda Pace, Kelly Smith, Robert Klyce. Susan Quatre attended
via conference phone. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Catherine Morrow,
Planning Director; Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner; Kristen Maze, Associate Planner; and Sher
Buckner, Administrative Secretary.
Minutes of March 27 and April 10 were approved.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
None.
III. WORK SESSION: File No. TA -08-2, Text Amendment to Deschutes County Code Section
18.116.090, A Manufactured Home as a Temporary Residence for Medical Condition —
Kristen Maze, Associate Planner.
Kristen discussed proposed text amendment, which has been in the long-range planning work
plan and covers recreational vehicles as temporary residences. There are pending Code
Enforcement cases which will be affected — currently about 400 for medical hardship dwellings.
RV's used as temporary residences could increase this number. Staff recommends a public
hearing be scheduled, and comments in favor of this proposal have been received. Chair Cyrus
questioned whether the 90 -day limit could be revised to accommodate favorable weather
conditions for removal of temporary residences. Commissioner Quatre asked whether any of
the RV's being used have permanent foundations, and Kristen said that residents are more
concemed about manufactured homes on permanent foundations.
Commissioner Smith asked if the problem seems to be temporary residences becoming
permanent, and whether the proposed rule would alleviate that with people using RV's instead of
temporary homes. He also asked if there was any negative input concerning the RV's. Kristen
said that the petitions were more concerned with manufactured homes.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Commissioner Quatre asked if people would be less likely to use manufactured homes. Kristen
said that the text amendment would provide more options.
Commissioner Otteni asked for an example of a typical case where a temporary residence
would be needed. Kristen responded that it is often due to an illness of a family member, and
that if a temporary medical hardship dwelling is applied for, a manufactured home could be put
on the property with annual "medical hardship" letters from a doctor required to keep it there.
Commissioner Turner asked how this would be different than parking an RV next to a
homeowner's residence. Kristen said that these cannot be "lived in," or hooked up.
Tom Anderson said that the Board had asked for this amendment in response to several Code
Enforcement cases a few years ago, where a few family members were living in RV's and the
Code didn't cover this. The families appealed to the Board, and the Board requested the
amendment. The Code Enforcement cases were put on the shelf until this amendment could be
evaluated. The petitioners introduced additional concerns about manufactured homes, but the
County did not initiate these issues.
Chair Cyrus asked about the process for siting a manufactured home. Kristen said that
setbacks have to be met and there are currently no restrictions for single- or double -wide.
Commissioner Quatre asked if there were restrictions for the placement of RV's in the County as
there are in the City. Can you have the RV on the same parcel as a residence, or another
parcel? Kristen said that this text amendment would allow someone to place an RV on the
same lot, with setbacks.
Commissioner Smith thought that the proposed text amendment is fairly narrow, and some
citizens are suggesting more revisions. Does staff think we should we just stick to the RV
issue? Kristen said that the concern is that the public hearing take place and then go to the
Board. Individuals can apply for text amendments in the future.
Catherine Morrow said that there is a distinction between someone paying for an application and
a staff -initiated proposal. A paid application would be better kept more specific; if the proposal is
from staff, it could cover a wider area.
Commissioner Klyce thought that a wheeled vehicle being required to be in a setback would be
a problem. Wheeled vehicles are considered personal property, such as cars in an area, and
could be parked anywhere it is legal. He also said he has seen properties where the only
available space for an RV to park is in someone's front yard or next to their house.
Commissioner Quatre asked about the types of RV's as defined in the proposed amendment.
Kristen said that it had not been discussed and that RV classes are not defined in the proposed
text amendment. Commissioner Quatre asked for some information to be provided at the next
meeting.
Discussion took place about whether to schedule this hearing on May 22 at the same time as
the Lopez Hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Tumer motioned to schedule the public hearing on May 22.
Seconded by Commissioner Pace. Motion passed.
2
IV. WORK SESSION: File No. TA -08-4, Text Amendment to Deschutes County Code Sections
18.04.030 and 18.48.020 to allow Hydroelectric Facilities on Existing Irrigation Systems in
the Open Space and Conservation Zone — Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner.
Cynthia Smidt summarized the proposed text amendment, applied for by the Central Oregon
Irrigation District and Swalley Irrigation District.
Commissioner Pace asked about potential impact on water and flows. Cynthia said that the
water is going to flow through the turbines to generate electricity but would not be restricted
beyond that. Commissioner Pace wondered about the potential of more water being desired in
the future. Chair Cyrus said that as the proposal is written, it doesn't seem as if levels would be
affected. The energy is harnessed as the water flows through the pipes, which are sized to
carry the capacity. Commissioner Pace said that even if only the limits of water rights can be
taken every year, the incentive of earning more money from energy production could cause the
applicants to take the maximum every year. Commissioner Turner suggested that these
questions would best be answered by the applicant at the public hearing.
Commissioner Quatre asked about energy lines and how the landscape would be affected,
whether the lines would be above or underground, whether there would be pump houses, and
what the visual impact would be.
Catherine Morrow discussed the Open Space Plan, and more history will be provided at the
May 22 meeting. Possible size restrictions were also discussed.
V. UPDATES ON CITY UGB PROCESS FROM LIAISONS AND DISCUSSION ON THE ROLE
OF THE LIAISONS — Commissioner Brenda Pace.
Commissioner Pace said that another land economist had written a report on the demand for
second homes in the City and came up with very different results (3%) than the report prepared
by the developer's consultant (20%). Chair Walkey decided to have staff come back with
information from each consultant.
Commissioner Smith discussed the sewer analysis.
Commissioner Pace said that the ranking of the priority lands was discussed — UAR first; then
MUA-10; then resource lands (EFU, etc.). Although state law says that priority lands should be
looked at first, City staff are preparing information on a much larger area.
Catherine Morrow mentioned that the public hearing has been continued until June 26. There was a
coordination meeting with the County and City today. There should be several altematives to
consider at the public hearing. The Planning Commission's role in the process was also discussed,
as well as the role of the liaisons and the Joint Management Agreement. Title 22 talks about the role
of the Planning Commission in legislative amendments, and the Planning Commission does not
have to have a public hearing but does make a recommendation to the Board. It was suggested that
the public hearings continue with the Planning Commission in attendance, so they have full
knowledge of recommendations being made by the City Council.
3
Commissioner Turner said that City Planning could also make a recommendation to the City
Council, which might or not be revised before being presented to the Board of County
Commissioners. .
Cliff Walkey also suggested the City Planning Commission meet every week to accomplish more.
Chair Cyrus thought that there is quite a quagmire of information, and maybe the City should bear
most of the responsibility for finishing what they want to do and coming up with a recommendation,
rather than the County continuing to participate. Commissioner Otteni agreed. Commissioner Pace
thought it was important to be involved due to the level of complication of the issues.
Discussion continued on the role of the liaisons and whether their reports to the other
Commissioners were needed.
V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN
Commissioner Smith indicated that his term would be ending on June 30 and he would not be
participating in the future. Catherine Morrow announced that she will retire from the County in June.
Upcoming meetings:
May 8 — Hydroelectric Facilities and Aspen Lakes.
May 22 —Weddings/Medical Hardship.
June 12 — City of Bend Public Hearing on Renewal District for Airport.
June 26 — Joint City/County UGB meeting.
The County is trying to come up with an overall work plan for the Comp Plan update, South
County groundwater issues, destination resorts, etc. There will be a working version of the Plan
to be used with the public.
VI. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respe, u11y submitted,
Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary
NEXT MEETING —May 8, 2008, 5:30 p.m., at the
Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701
4
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
I. CALL TO ORDER
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/:dd/
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
MAY 8, 2008— 5:30 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Cyrus. Members present were Robert Otteni,
Brenda Pace, Robert Klyce. Susan Quatre attended via conference phone. Absent: Kelly
Smith, Todd Turner. Staff present were Catherine Morrow, Planning Director; Cynthia Smidt,
Associate Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher
Buckner, Administrative Secretary.
Minutes of April 24 were approved.
1I. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
None.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: File No. TA -08-4, Text Amendment to Allow Hydroelectric Facilities on
Existing Irrigation Systems in the Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Zone — Cynthia
Smidt, Associate Planner.
Cynthia Smidt summarized the text amendment and proposed changes by the applicant.
County Code states that the facilities would not be allowed in federal or state scenic waterways.
Attorney Liz Dickson, Jan Lee from Swalley Irrigation District and Steve Johnson from the
Central Oregon Irrigation District offered testimony.
Liz said that the proposal is for a very narrow use under the Carey Act of 1894, enacted for
purposes of building these systems. This includes the ability to pipe without further regulation,
with easements on both sides of the canals — something like a railroad regarding legal status.
The use is protected under federal law. The hydro will be placed entirely within the easements
and have no impact on the rivers because no water will be diverted. There are only two
locations in Central Oregon that have sufficient drop and velocity of the water for turbines, and
Quality Services Performed with Pride
would be suitable for use. Jan Lee and Steve Johnson have done more to protect the
Deschutes than anyone and have thoroughly considered any potential impacts of these facilities.
Jan Lee, General Manager for Swalley Irrigation District, said that they had looked at statues
from other areas to find similarities. In Clackamas County, there are no irrigation districts.
Kalamath County has wording in their comp plan but nothing is planned at this point.
Chair Cyrus asked about horsepower generated at each site. Jan said for the Swalley site it
was about 7.5 hp per kw. That site has about 220 feet of fall.
Steve Johnson said that these facilities would generate enough power for about 3900 homes.
Commissioner Quatre asked for more clarification about the easements.
Steve Johnson said that some easements were provided by the federal government for
maintenance of the canal system. Easements relating to these facilities, such as those for trail
designation, would be provided by private owners of property along the canal.
Commissioner Pace asked about power lines, and Jan Lee said that 3000 feet would be added
temporarily for 3-4 years until a feeder line is put in permanently by PacifiCorp. Commissioner
Pace also asked about seasonal flows. Jan Lee said that they have permanently committed a
transfer from agriculture irrigation to in -stream flows.
There were no public comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Klyce motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Otteni. Motion approved unanimously.
Commissioner Pace said she appreciated the permanent water going into the Deschutes under
this proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni motioned that the Planning Commission forward this proposal
on to the Board with a recommendation for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Pace.
Motion approved unanimously.
IV. DELIBERATION: File No. TA -07-7, Text Amendment to Title 18 to Allow Cluster Develop-
ment, Approved Prior to 1992, to Convert to a Destination Resort - Peter Gutowsky,
Principal Planner.
Commissioner Otteni was chosen to chair this part of the meeting, as Chair Cyrus recused
himself due to conflicts of interest.
Peter Gutowsky stated the current status of the proposal and summarized meetings to date.
There were 26 written comments received before the written record was closed, followed by the
Applicant's rebuttal.
Commissioner Quatre said she had thought about this a lot and reviewed the materials several
times. She cannot get past the legal premise which does not support this potential conversion
from a cluster to a destination resort. She feels the proposal should go to the legislature and
does not feel it would be a good policy.
2
Commissioner Pace said that she felt there are enough differences in setbacks, lot sizes,
requirements for resort housing coming in first, etc., that that is what the applicant should do.
The destination overlay does not make a difference. The owners have a justifiable interest in
protecting open space where they wish to, and whether it was in the CC&R's that a destination
resort was planned is irrelevant. The standards are not met for a destination resort.
Commissioner Klyce felt that out of all of the testimony presented on March 27, he was most
impressed by that of Mr. Comfelder who was against the amendment, and Mr. Van Winkle who
was in favor of it. Mr. Dewey's testimony was too Orwellian to accept, where he stated that if
this is not specifically allowed in the Code it should not be permitted. He feels that the applicant
is taking a different approach and the Thornburgh case does not apply. He does understand
that ovemight lodging is needed to prevent another group of subdivisions. He would not
necessarily support cluster development conversion but would like to see discussion continue at
a higher level.
Commissioner Otteni stated that he thought the application as written is a text amendment, not
specifically whether the property qualifies for conversion to a destination resort. The objective of
the Commissioners should be to consider the text amendment as stated, as a policy decision.
The Cyrus family did attempt to make this a destination resort from the onset, and things have
changed to make this process more restrictive. But on the legal end, it is difficult to understand
all of the legal issues. In the rebuttal, it is stated that Aspen Lakes could apply for a variance at
any time. Commissioner Otteni would like to support this proposal in principle as good public
policy, although there are legal implications which should be looked at by County legal staff.
Commissioner Pace questioned how this would be forwarded. Commissioner Otteni thought
that the applicant should pursue a variance and an application for a destination resort.
However, the application should not be for a change to the Code. This isnot necessary.
Commissioner Klyce thought that the discussion should be continued. Peter Gutowsky said
there is no time commitment so that is possible.
Commissioner Quatre thought that the proposal should not be held up.
Commissioner Otteni wanted to support the application as good policy.
Commissioner Quatre said she is not convinced that this is good policy. It is a big change, and
supporting the policy side of it would be meaningless without getting past the legal aspects. The
County's legal staff has already reviewed the proposal.
Commissioner Pace thought that the discussion came down to two questions — whether the
Code should be changed and whether a recommendation as to whether Aspen Lakes should
become a destination resort would be made to the Board.
Peter Gutowsky summarized that anyone who was mapped in a destination resort zone could
apply, and the Commissioners generally supported that route for independent submittals.
Commissioner Pace asked whether the Commissioners wanted to discuss the Code and
whether the text should be changed. She would not vote to change the text. Commissioner
Otteni felt that this was a unique situation, with many amenities already installed and money
spent to support the idea of a future destination resort.
3
Commissioner Quatre said that the text amendment is what generated the discussion, and
maybe no recommendation should be made about it.
Peter Gutowsky summarized that if the text amendment is not approved, Aspen Lakes would
apply for a destination resort "from scratch," — a stand alone product outside what we currently
call Aspen Lakes. Existing policy allows application for destination resort, but this amendment
would cover conversions.
Commissioner Quatre felt that many more residences could be added which is a policy problem
for her. Commissioner Pace agreed. Cluster developments are required to have protected
open space, and converting to a destination resort means they "rip off" the open space
protection. As a policy, this should not be encouraged. She is against allowing the conversion
in general because of this problem.
A straw poll was taken on whether or not to delay the decision. Commissioner Klyce was in
favor of a delay, as were Commissioners Pace and Quatre.
MOTION: Commissioner Pace moved to continue the deliberation during the June 12 meeting.
Commissioner Klyce seconded. Motion approved.
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Terri Payne, Senior Planner.
Terri said that the update has been worked on for about two years now, and it has jumped
ahead in the Board's interest. It has been updated piecemeal since 1979 and needs to be
redone in total. Goals and policies cannot be changed without public input. We are currently
starting background research and will then coordinate a public input process for 6-9 months or
so, to move the County forward for the next 20 years. The next packet sent to the
Commissioners will contain more information about timelines, staffing, and will include a copy of
the working plan. The idea is for the Planning Commission to be a steering committee for the
process, with at least one meeting a month devoted to the Comp Plan update. This will take
about a year. Each Commissioner would help with public input meetings for their own region.
The Comprehensive Plan is an evolving document, but ours is so old that the entire document
needs updating.
Commissioner Otteni asked about the purpose of public meetings. Terri said that the idea is to
start by asking people what they feel works and what doesn't in their communities. If they say
traffic is a problem, then that needs to be looked at. If they value wildlife, then the degree of
protection needs to be considered.
V. UPDATE ON CITY UGB PROCESS FROM LIAISONS — Commissioners Brenda Pace and
Susan Quatre. The City is having meetings every Monday. Two issues of concern to our
Planning Commission are the treatment of UAR land separately, as part of priority lands, and the
sewer expansion plan provided by staff, which was missing some elements and also seen as
driving the UGB rather than being driven by it. Commissioner Pace felt that improvements have
been made. Commissioner Quatre also mentioned changes in the ranking of university lands.
Peter Gutowsky mentioned that the first public hearing for the UGB expansion was in July 2007,
continued to January, 2008 and a decision made to continue the public hearing to June 26.
4
V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN
Terri Payne handed out some documents from the Big Look Committee. They will be in Bend
on May 19.
Commissioner Otteni asked Catherine Morrow for her opinion on the Planning Commission's
relationship with the Board. She responded that one goal would be to make the
recommendations clearer. Additional suggestions would be for the Board to meet with the
Commissioners prior to their term expirations and to hold joint meetings maybe twice a year.
Upcoming meetings:
May 22 — Weddings/Medical Hardship
June 12 — City of Bend Public Hearing on Renewal District for Airport
June 26 — Joint City/County UGB meeting
VI. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed.
Respectfully submitted,
Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary
NEXT MEETING — May 22, 2008, 5:30 p.m., at the
Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701
5
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
A Resolution authorizing the transfer of funds from the
Reserve Fund (716) contingency account to the Reserve
Fund (716) expense accounts and directing the
District's Finance Director to make appropriate entries.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-060
WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer funds from the Reserve Fund (716) contingency account to ? he
Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts; and
WHEREAS, the Reserve Fund (716) contingency account has sufficient resources to make the transfer to the
Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT as follolrs:
Section 1. The Sunriver Service District Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer funds, he
aggregate not to exceed SIXTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($66,000) from the Reserve Fund (7:6)
contingency account to the Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts not later than June 30, 2008.
Section 2. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to make such entries in the records of the
District for the fiscal year 2007-2008 as are necessary to reflect these transactions
DATED this day of , 2008.
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVCE
DISTRICT
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST: TAMMY MELTON, Vice Chair
MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1 — RESOLUTION NO. 2008-060
11020-034 318.doc
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
A Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the
Reserve Fund (716) Contingency Account to the Reserve
Fund (716) Expense Accounts and Directing the
District's Finance Director to Make Appropriate Entries.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-060
WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer funds from the Reserve Fund (716) contingency account to he
Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts; and
WHEREAS, the Reserve Fund (716) contingency account has sufficient resources to make the transfer to he
Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT as folio, rs:
Section 1. The Sunriver Service District Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer funds, he
aggregate not to exceed SIXTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($66,000) from the Reserve Fund (7 i 6)
contingency account to the Reserve Fund (716) expense accounts not later than June 30, 2008.
Section 2. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to make such entries in the records of the
District for the fiscal year 2007-2008 as are necessary to reflect these transactions
DATED this day of , 2008.
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERV' CE
DISTRICT
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST: TAMMY MELTON, Vice Chair
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1— RESOLUTION NO. 2008-060
11020-034 318_doc
MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
A Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Funds
from Operating Fund (715) to the Capital Reserve
Fund (716), and Directing the District's Finance
Director to Make Appropriate Entries.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-057
WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer funds from the Operating Fund (715) to the Capital Reserve Fund
(716) in order for the Capital Reserve Fund to be able to pay for acquired assets; and
WHEREAS, the Operating Fund (715) has sufficient resources to make the transfer to the Cap tal
Reserve Fund (716); now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT as
follows:
Section 1. The Sunriver Service District Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer funds, the
aggregate not to exceed THREE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($335,000) from the
Operating Fund (715) to the Reserve Fund (716) before June 30, 2008.
Section 2. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to make such entries in the records of the
District for the fiscal year 2007-2008 as are necessary to reflect these transactions
DATED this day of , 2008.
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE
DISTRICT
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST: TAMMY MELTON, Vice Chair
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1— RESOLUTION NO. 2008-057
11020-034 315.doc
MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
A Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Funds
from the Operating Fund (715) Contingency
Account to the Operating Fund (715) Expense
Accounts and Directing the District's Finance
Director to Make Appropriate Entries.
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-058
WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer funds from the Operating Fund (715) contingency account to +he
Operating Fund (715) expense accounts; and
WHEREAS the Operating Fund (715) contingency account has sufficient resources to make the transfer
to the Operating Fund (715) expense accounts; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT as
follows:
Section 1. The Sunriver Service District Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer funds, the
aggregate not to exceed NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($90,000) from the Operating Fund (715)
contingency account to the Operating Fund (715) expense accounts not later than June 30, 2008.
Section 2. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to make such entries in the records of the
District for the fiscal year 2007-2008 as are necessary to reflect these transactions
DATED this day of , 2008.
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERV CE
DISTRICT
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST: TAMMY MELTON, Vice Chair
MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1 — RESOLUTION NO. 2008-058
11020-034 316 doe
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT
A Resolution Authorizing the Operating Fund (715)
to Borrow from the Reserve Fund (716), Providing
for Repayment and Directing the District's Finance
Director to Make Appropriate Entries.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-059
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Operating Fund (715) borrow $300,000 for operations until
revenues from taxes are received; and
WHEREAS, the Reserve Fund (716) has sufficient resources to make a loan to the Operating Fund
(715); now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT as
follows:
Section 1. The Sunriver Service District Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer funds, the
aggregate not to exceed THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000) from the Reserve Fund
(716) to the Operating Fund (715).
Section 2. Said loan (principal & interest) is to be repaid to the Reserve Funds no later than June 30,
2009.
Section 3. Interest shall accrue at the annual earnings rate based on the District's actual earning rate and
will be paid with the repayment.
Section 2. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to make such entries in the records of the
District for the fiscal year 2007-2008 as are necessary to reflect these transactions.
DATED this day of -, 2008.
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERV ICE
DISTRICT
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST: TAMMY MELTON, Vice Chair
MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1 — RESOLUTION NO. 2008-059
11020-034 317.doc
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
June 10, 2008
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 977(11-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www,co.deschutes.or us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
From: Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner
Subject: Using wind for generating electricity in Deschutes County.
USE OF WIND POWER
The use of the wind's power is both old and new. From moving everything from Targe
and small sailing ships across the oceans of the world, pumping water out of the ground
and producing electricity for personal or commercial purposes. The use of wind
powered structures, such as "windmills" or turbines has been used for many years prior
to creation of any governmental regulations that may restrict their use.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) located in Washington D.C. provides
nationwide information on the use and operation of micro to major commercial wind
power producing facilities. My research of AWEA and other Internet data sources has
determined there are various zoning ordinances created by Counties and Cities
throughout the country for the regulation of personal use wind powered turbines for
generating electricity. Almost all of the zoning ordinances I reviewed contain regulations
regarding minimum lot size, setback distances, noise levels, tower height limits based
upon property size, clearance of the turbine blades above the ground, safety issues
regarding FAA, restoration requirements due to abandonment, maximum tower heights
up to 75 feet for residential purposes, visual impacts and prohibition of advertisement
signage. According to AWEA, the 35 -foot height limit in many zoning ordinances dates
back to the early 1900's as the typical height that firefighting engines could pump water,
and this restriction is clearly not applicable for today's modern fire fighting equipment
that may respond to the site of a residential wind powered turbine mounted on the top of
a metal pole or lattice -work structure.
AWEA and wind powered turbine manufacturers recommend that an electricity
producing wind turbine blade be at a minimum height of 25 to 30 feet ABOVE any
physical barriers such as trees, buildings, bluffs or other obstructions within 300-500
feet from the tower supporting the wind turbine.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
REGULATING WIND POWER IN DESCHUTES COUNTY
A "structure" is defined in Deschutes County Development Code as "something
constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another
structure. A wind powered turbine is typically installed on the top of a metal mono -pole or
lattice -work tower that is attached to the ground by a fixed base typically made of concrete
and, therefore, is a "structure".
The Deschutes County Code (DCC) currently has language that regulates utility
facilities, including major structures owned or operated by a public, private or electric
cooperative for the generation, transmission, distribution or processing of its products.
The small-scale wind powered turbine, generating electricity for personal use, is not
defined as a utility facility structure and, therefore, is subject to height restrictions in any
zone.
DCC requires a 30 -foot maximum height for "structures" in all zones. However, an
exception to this limitation may be approved up to 36 feet subject to certain conditions as
described in DCC 18.120.040. "Structures" associated with telephone or power
transmission Tines, public schools, structures necessary for public safety and flag poles
may exceed the 36 -foot height limitation based upon a site plan review process, except
in Landscape Management and Airport Safety Combining zones. No variance to the
maximum structure height of 36 feet is available in the code.
OREGON COUNTY OR DLCD REGULATIONS ON WIND POWER
The Deschutes County Planning Director recently requested any information that other
County Planning Directors throughout Oregon may have regarding existing Development
Codes that may regulate small-scale wind powered turbines, or Code language that
would have an outright permitted use or an exemption for various types of wind powered
structures. Four (4) County Planning Directors responded to Catherine's request for
information with the following comments;
Clackamas County indicated that "Generally, we don't have height restrictions in our
non -urban zones. We also have a general exception to height limits (ZDO 904.01), for,
and among other things, windmills, transmission towers, and solar collection
apparatus..."
Lincoln County indicated a general exception to the building height limit for "... towers,
aerials, flag poles, wind generators and other similar objects". Lincoln County regulates
residential wind generators as accessory uses and permits them outright in conjunction
with a dwelling, unless they are connected to the grid (through a "buy-back"
arrangement with the utility company) in which case, the County calls them a utility
facility and they are subject to conditional use review.
Morrow County indicated that the County has not done any work on this issue and also
will be facing those same limitations and concerns.
Union County indicated that it sounds like we (Oregon Counties) are all in the same
position (crafting regulations related to wind turbines). Union County actually had
administrative and Planning Commission appeals on one of these (wind turbines)
resulting in the Board of Commissioners requesting a specific ordinance. Union County
also noted that AOC staff in Salem will be developing a model ordinance for small wind
turbines through a grant received from ODOE.
Gilliam and Umatilla Counties did not respond, however, both Counties have a
development code that regulates Wind Power Generation Facility Siting Requirements
for commercial production of power. The use of small personal wind powered turbine
structures does not appear to be regulated in these Counties, other than through a
building permit process.
DLCD was requested to provide comments on the statewide regulation and/or use of
wind turbines for personal power generation, but did not respond prior to this memo.
The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) has been issued a grant by the Oregon
Department of Energy for the creation of a state-wide template Ordinance regarding the
recognition and regulation of small-scale wind turbine electric power generation. AOC
will complete this template Ordinance prior to December 2008.
OPTIONS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY TO CONSIDER REGULATING WIND POWER
STRUCTURES FOR PERSONAL USE
1. No change in the DCC and continued height restriction of 36 feet for personal
use wind power structures.
Effect: Will continue to significantly limit the use of and/or location(s) for the efficient
operation of wind powered structures for generating electricity for personal/residential
use.
2. Require an applicant to initiate a DCC Text Amendment to allow the use.
Effect: This option would place a financial burden on an applicant when compared to
the installation cost of a single location for a personal use wind powered turbine and
tower structure. However, it would cover the costs of creating the policy necessary for
the use.
3. The BOCC determines there is a County -wide interest in promoting and
regulating the siting of wind powered structures for personal use generated electricity
and direct CDD to conduct a legislative process to amend the code.
Effect: Permitting wind power structures for personal use electric power generation
would require a code Amendment. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also be
required to recognize the County -wide importance of wind power generating facilities for
personal use. Financial impacts to CDD for staff time in completing a Text and
Comprehensive Pian Amendment cannot be determined.
4. Wait for AOC to create model ordinance and then direct CDD staff to conduct
the process to adopt the language.
Effect: Costs to CDD are reduced.