The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-447-Minutes for Meeting May 31,2017 Recorded 7/25/2017Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2017-447 Commissioners' Journal 07/25/2017 9:59:31 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111iu For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Monday, May 31, 2017 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Laura Skundrick, Board Assistant Secretary. No representatives of the media were in attendance and various members of the community were present. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:02 am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Neil Ripsch approached the Board with concerns regarding Lot of Record processes for county properties. He explained that years ago, he built on his property after obtaining all necessary building permits, believing he had already received lot of record. Now that he wants to sell his property, he would have to spend at least $925 plus other costs and fees, and wait until that process is complete in order to sell. This affects quite a few people and the County should ensure those people are aware of this. Commissioner Henderson explained how the lot of record issue originated within the past year, that it's a new issue that didn't exist when Mr. Ripsch was building. Commissioners thanked Mr. Ripsch for the opportunity to hear his experience, stating they understand the frustration and they are working with the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 10 Community Development Department (CDD) to correct issues regarding fees and notices. • Ramona Hulick approached the Board regarding a conditional use permit they applied for regarding a small home church built without a permit. They have been awaiting response from CDD and are now running up against a deadline. The Commissioners expressed the need to remain objective in this matter but asked Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager for CDD, to speak. Mr. Gutowsky thanked Ms. Hulick for bringing attention to this matter, stating they looked into the issue and a decision will be issued no later than Friday. A decision notification will go to neighbors for a 12 -day appeal window, otherwise the decision is final and a building permit can be applied for. Mr. Gutowsky stated the County is committed to resolving this issue amicably and will work with the Hulicks regarding the timeline and deadlines. • Lovine Freeland approached the Board regarding his experience with lot of record issues, explaining a letter he received from the Deschutes County Senior Planner in 2009 that confirmed his property's lot of record. However after selling his property, his realtor notified him he did not have lot of record, and they owed $925 for the application. Mr. Freeland requests that the County refund his realtor the $925 and correct the issue. Commissioners thanked Mr. Freeland for sharing his experience and assured him they are working to find the best approach to resolve this. Chair Baney recommended that Mr. Freeland follow up with Mr. Gutowsky and keep the Board updated, since they cannot engage further at this time. • Patty Dempsey from Windermere Real Estate and client Dora Bowman approached the Board to express their concern regarding lot of record issues. Ms. Dempsey stated they began the process in March to verify lot of record, and now have to wait until at least July 3'd due to this process. Ms. Dempsey mentioned they were aware of this issue thanks to the notification from Deschutes County Community Development Department to real estate offices throughout the area. She confinned they have a letter from the County that previously stated lot of record for the property. Mr. Gutowsky offered to follow up after this meeting for more information. The Board of Commissioners recognizes the frustration, noting this is also uncharted territory for the County. Chair Baney requested to County Administrator Anderson this item be added to a work session soon. • Anita Keller, principal broker representing Mr. Ripsch, approached the Board regarding the lot of record issue. She mentioned that with lenders now aware of this issue, they have begun not lending on these properties, which will cause more issues down the road. Commissioners thanked Ms. Keller for her comments and assured her they will discuss this matter in the near future. Commissioner Henderson suggested a potential centralized presentation for realtors if it would be beneficial, and Ms. Keller replied that any outreach is helpful and most realtors have similar questions. Mr. Gutowsky mentioned the Planning Commission's June 8thwork session with a presentation on lot of record, and noted they are open to providing a centralized presentation in a convenient location, as well as outreach to specific offices if needed. At this time, Chair Baney and the Board of Commissioners recognized David Givans, Deschutes County's Internal Auditor, celebrating 15 years of great service with the County. The Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 10 Commissioners congratulated him and showed appreciation for the great way he works with departments and the strong relationships he has developed within the County. CONSENT AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson asked that Item 2 be moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda, and that the approval of the minutes (Items 4 and 5) be postponed. DEBONE: Move approval of Items 1 and 3. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: HENDERSON: BANEY: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration and Signature of Resolution #2017-025, Transfer General Fund/Non-Departmental to the Vehicle Maintenance & 2. Consideration and Signature of Resolution #2017-026, Transfer Road Building & Equipment Fund. 3. Consideration and Signature of Resolution #2017-027, Transfer Justice Court Fund. 4. Approval of Minutes of the April 26 2017 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the May 3 2017 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS of Appropriation from the Replacement Fund. of Appropriation Within the of Appropriation in the 2. Consent Agenda Item 2 as pulled for discussion: Consideration and Signature of Resolution #2017-026, Transfer of Appropriation Within the Road Building & Equipment Fund Chris Doty, Public Works Director, explained that a piece of equipment was budgeted in fiscal year 16 actually arrived in fiscal year 17, so the request is for budget adjustments in order to spend the funds that weren't used in FY16. Commissioner Henderson asked the current location of the funds, and Mr. Doty replied that it's a separate line item in the budget. What is not appropriated for expenditure becomes contingency on the expenditure side. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 10 HENDERSON: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 6. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2017-013, Establishing Two (2) Roads, NW 39th Drive and NW Glenn Meadow Loop as County Roads George Kolb, Deschutes County Engineer, explained a 2006 resolution that declared no further acceptance of new county roads into the road department system for maintenance. However, Exhibit B of that resolution stated subdivisions in process before the resolution took effect were eligible to be accepted into the system upon completion. The subdivision of 39th Drive and NW Glenn Meadow Loop fell under that deadline, so the roads constructed can now be accepted into the county maintenance system. Order 2017-013 establishes those as county roads. There is one more phase to be completed, at which time they will be eligible to be accepted into the maintenance system. Chair Baney confirmed with Mr. Kolb that these roads have been constructed to county standards, to which he confinned the roads have been inspected, material testing has been completed, and an inspector was on-site supervising construction to meet county standard. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 7. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2017-160, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Construction and Paving of Huntington Road and Deer Run Lane Mr. Kolb provided an overview of the bid process for the construction and paving of Huntington Road and Deer Run Lane. He provided the status of the current road and Commissioner DeBone expressed he is familiar with this area and paving it has been a long time coming. Mr. Kolb explained the three firms who bid on the project submitted good plans and were all fairly close. They are prepared to send a Notice of Intent to Award for this contract. Chair Baney noted the bid differs from the initial estimation, and Mr. Kolb explained the estimate was low on the aggregate base cost, which was estimated based on ODOT unit prices. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 10 DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 8. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2017-321, Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Household Hazardous Waste Management Services Timm Schimke, Director of Department of Solid Waste, explained three firms submitted bids for this contract for management of household hazardous waste at the Knott landfill facility. Chair Baney asked how the StairCycle bid compares to the original cost estimate, to which Mr. Schimke replied the bid is a bit higher than the original estimate, but that bid is an estimate for the year, based on last year's volume. The actual cost will depend on actual volume received throughout the next year, since the contract will set cost for labor and a per unit rate for transport and disposal. Commissioner DeBone thanked Mr. Schimke for his great tour of facilities with the commissioners who visited from Hawaii. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. Third Quarter Performance Measure Update Ms. Ure explained the materials provided include goals and objectives and a document with detailed quarterly updates. Today, various department representatives will present highlights from the third quarter. Goal: Safe Communities Nathan Gariby, Emergency Services Manager with the Sheriff's Office, updated the Board on preparations and communication planning for the 2017 Solar Eclipse. Sgt. Gariby provided a status update on planning and coordinating with partners for the event, in order to plan for the expected 200,000 visitors in the area, but also allowing contingency planning for unaccounted- for day-trippers, campers in dispersed areas, which are difficult to quantify. Most of the impacts Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 10 being tracked currently are related to transportation, public safety, and healthcare. As Crook and Jefferson counties will likely be impacted the most, Deschutes County is working with them to create solutions, such as the multi -agency coordination center to manage information, resources, and priorities across the tri -county area as a team. Commissioners inquired about specifics regarding sanitation and health issues, preparation and water supply. Sgt. Gariby spoke to those specifics and confirmed the public's health and safety are the primary concern, and these are all topics that have been discussed at length during meetings and are very aware of the potential impacts, and how to prevent those from happening. Additionally, messaging to the public is very important. Chair Baney asked for Sgt. Gariby to keep the Board informed in ways they can be supportive to efforts, and suggested various communication networks they have access to. Sgt. Gariby and County Administrator Anderson explained the quantitative measure of calls coming in, which demonstrates how busy the Sheriff's Office is. Sgt. Gariby elaborated that the numbers reflect the increase in demand, but the complexity of calls is also increasing. Nick Lelack, Community Development Department Director, presented the performance measurement of resolving 75% of code enforcement cases within 12 months, and during the third quarter, the department achieved 82% compliance with that standard. Chair Baney asked about trends in types of code enforcement cases, which might provide an opportunity for education to the public. Mr. Lelack stated the department sees more illegal marijuana grow cases, and also other types of cases that are more complex and challenging to resolve. Chair Baney suggested a potential discussion around voluntary compliance for issues such as illegal grow operations. Commissioner DeBone supports having that conversation during a work session, and including departments such as the Sheriff's Office and District Attorney's Office, both of which have an understanding of the applicable rules and regulations. Commissioner Henderson asked why case compliance has dropped from the first quarter statistic, to which Mr. Lelack answered he would need to rely on Lori Furlong for accurate response, which she can provide at the afternoon work session. Commissioner Henderson asked Mr. Lelack to also bring copy of reserve policy to the afternoon work session. Goal: Resilient Economy Mr. Lelack explained the objective to "support land use programs and initiatives that promote economic growth and diversity, livability, and sustainability" includes a measure to support and participate in the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission's (LCDC) rule- making process to address non -resource lands if initiated. Once those rules are adopted, a work plan would be developed to implement those new rules. He also summarized efforts in non - resource lands and next steps moving forward, working with City of Bend. Commissioner Henderson mentioned he would be curious to see if a City like Sisters would be interested — they have different issues around expansion, but a similar situation. He also voiced his concern over tuning, since delaying meetings creates other issues and this topic should be pressed, otherwise it doesn't feel as urgent for the people involved in identifying solutions. Goal: Healthy People Hilary Saraceno, Deputy Director for Deschutes County Health Services, wanted to make note that DCHS is very involved in the conversations around the solar eclipse, especially as it pertains to communicable disease, preparedness, and communications. Preparations are being made Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 10 internally to ensure coverage, working with hospitals and clinics, transportation, and having medical services on site at the many venues around the tri -county area. To speak on the objective of Public Health and Modernization, Ms. Saraceno noted that they have quantitative data, but now also qualitative data, which will be presented at the budget meeting. She spoke to the importance of public health and modernization, which is a nationwide effort to ensure we maintain a minimum level of public health protections, and that everyone has access to a minimum set of essential services and supports. The 2017 statewide assessment had 100% participation with over 6000 metrics assessed. Deschutes County came out fairly well, however in the continuous process, we continue to evolve and address any weaknesses identified from that assessment. Chair Baney expressed her gratitude for the efforts in working to upgrade Deschutes County systems, and providing continuity from county to county. Commissioner Henderson asked what the impact is since the budget did not include a line item for public health and modernization. Ms. Saraceno confirmed the Governor's proposed budget did not include it, however there is a bill in legislature to create a phased approach for the program over 6 years, and with that bill there is opportunity for additional resources. Goal: Quality Customer Service Mr. Doyle presented on the objective to provide internal support to County operations to ensure cost-effective and efficient delivery of services to the public. Mr. Doyle explained that after about a year and a half of being down one attorney, the department has now filled the vacant position, allowing legal to start proactively attacking various trainings and priorities, which will now include legal lot of record as well. Commissioners thanked Mr. Doyle for leading the way during that downtime. Commissioner Henderson asked about Deschutes County Codes that were updated, and Mr. Doyle explained they are in the process of putting together a global - housekeeping code amendment that would come to the Board as a package, but are still exploring the feasibility of third party hosting for the county code. Kathleen Hinman, Human Resources Director, and Jason Bavuso, HR Analyst, spoke about the objective to support employee wellness, development, productivity, and job satisfaction. Mr. Bavuso discussed the opportunity given to staff to attend trainings through the Public Sector Partnership Training, and provided background of that program. He spoke specifically about the Supervisors Tool Chest training, which was structured to be relevant for recently promoted supervisors but also for existing supervisors to learn about changing landscapes. Chair Baney asked if feedback is gathered from staff on their participant experience. Mr. Bavuso explained that COCC has survey mechanisms for response that they share and make adjustments based on that. The spring session is currently in session, so that feedback has not been received yet. Commissioner Henderson inquired about the status of another measurement, the comp and class study. Ms. Hinman stated they are working with the vendor to finalize the timeline and deadlines for various milestones, requiring back and forth correspondence with that vendor. Ms. Hinman is expecting the information required from the vendor due back by July 14, at which time the County will finalize the study by creating job descriptions and discussing the final implementation process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 7 of 10 Goal: Effective Asset Management Lee Randall, Maintenance Supervisor and Interim Facilities Director, explained the measure to create county -wide space planning has transitioned into a facilities asset management plan. The goal is to address the long -teen building and facility needs, and address potential impacts within the next 5-10 years. He provided background of facility maintenance in the past, and stated the square footage managed and maintained by the department has doubled since 2004. Currently, building -by -building assessments are being done to identify and prioritize the needs of buildings, in order to create a document in list fonn as well as a spreadsheet identifying life cycles and replacements. The long term goal is a 5, 10, and 20 year plan to grow analysis and incorporate needs for additional space and/or retiring facilities when it wouldn't be cost effective to repair the existing system. Chair Baney stated that understanding the long teini needs of the County will be critical in order to make informed decisions, and thanked Mr. Randall for his work to do that. Mr. Randall explained further details on phase one and phase two of the plan. Mr. Randall also mentioned planning for the eclipse, ensuring the priority buildings are prepared. If there happened to be a facility issue during that time, the department wants to be staffed for coverage so we can respond, as well as taking into account what the impact on transportation will be and potentially staging staff at particular buildings if necessary. The Commissioners thanked all staff and teams on their hard work in each of their departments as well as preparing these reports and updates on that work. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District, in the Amount of $142,288.01 DEBONE: Move approval subject to review. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County, in the Amount of $708,385.54. DEBONE: Move approval subject to review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 8 of 10 HENDERSON: Second. County Administrator Anderson explained the big item was medications for the onsite pharmacy. One item of interest is Clear Ballot, the manufacturer of the ballot review system for the Clerk's Office, which Nancy expressed that the system was a great success. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried OTHER ITEMS: At this time of 12:35p.m., the Board went into recess to reconvene in the Allen Conference Room. At this time of 12:45p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(d) Labor Negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h) Litigation, and ORS 192.660(2)(i) Employee Evaluation. RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The Board came out of Executive Session at 1:33p.m. for the following motion: DEBONE: BANEY: Move to proceed as discussed in Executive Session. Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: No. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned from at 1:36pm. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 9 of 10 DATED this t 7 Day of County Board of Commissioners. ecording Secretary 2017 for the Deschutes Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Philip G. enderson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting May 31, 2017 Page 10 of 10 (E 0 {t0a-1 5/3b Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2017 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. COIC Board Appointments - Community Request, 2. Consideration of Letter Supporting COIL TGM Application - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 3. CDD Hours of Operation - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director 4. Discussion of Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner 5. Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 / Work Session - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 2 At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.oraimeetinacalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place 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.) Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW WaII St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of Mav 31, 2017 DATE: FROM: Community Request, Board of Commissioners, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: COIC Board Appointments PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Karen Friend, Executive Director, COIC 334 Nij: Hawthorne AV . OR 97 70)1 341-`') ?S 163 i r°hl.:oii;.C)(g To: Deschutes County Commission From: Karen Friend, Executive Director Date: May 19, 2017 Re: COIL Board Appointments Attachment J CENTRAL OREGON INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL Background: The COIL Articles of Agreement require that the appointed membership of the COIL Board consist of five (5) persons, one each from Crook and Jefferson Counties and three from Deschutes County. Appointed members must be generally representative of (1) timber and wood products, (2) business and industry, (3) tourism and recreation, (4) unemployed and underemployed, and (5) agribusiness and agriculture. The County Courts/Commissions must mutually determine their areas of individual representation on an annual basis. Each appointed member for the COIL Board is appointed by the respective County Court/Commission as generally representative of their mutually determined areas. In a review of membership by the Executive Committee of COIL, it was determined that this area of the Articles had not been followed in the appointments to the COIL Board by the Counties. To address that, the County Commissioners from Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties met to agree on their areas of representation to recommend to their respective County Courts/Commissions. The areas of representation by County are being proposed as follows: Deschutes County: Business & Industry, Tourism & Recreation, Unemployed & Underemployed Crook County: Agriculture & Agribusiness Jefferson County: Timber & Wood Products These areas of individual representation will be reevaluated prior to annual appointments. Recommendation: Approve the recommended areas of representation: Deschutes County: Business & Industry, Tourism & Recreation, Unemployed & Underemployed Ratify previous County Commission appointments to the COIL Board designating their area of representation: Lou Capozzi-Business & Industry Katy Brooks -Tourism & Recreation Katie Condit -Unemployed & Underemployed 1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 5, 2017 DATE: May 26, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Letter Supporting COIC TGM Application PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: Yes COIC has requested that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners furnish a letter of support to be submitted with its upcoming TGM grant application. Staff has prepared a draft letter (see attached) for Board review and possible approval and signatures. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review, revise, and/or approve letter supporting COIC's application for Transportation Growth Management (TGM) funds. May 31, 2017 TGM Grants Committee Transportation and Growth Management Program 555 13th Street, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301 Members of the Committee: Board of County Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206, Bend, OR 97701-1960 TEL (541) 388-6570 • FAX (541) 385-3202 www.deschutes.orq board@co.deschutes.or.us Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Philip Henderson The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is writing to express support for the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council's (COIC) application for a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant. These funds will assist COIC in updating and merging its Regional Master Transit Plan and Bend Transit Master Plan, a project that is critical to addressing both existing and future transit needs in Central Oregon. COIC has been managing and coordinating public transit operations in Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties through the Cascades East Transit (CET) service for over 10 years. During that time, CET's system has grown exponentially and its guiding planning documents are reaching the limits of their useful lifespan. To remain effective, the plans need to be adjusted to effectively respond to current population growth, demographic shifts, economic development, and land use changes. This project also offers an opportunity to combine the two separate plans, which will help to clarify the regional vision while maximizing coordination, reducing duplication, and streamlining implementation. In addition, updating the plans will allow COIC to better assess necessary system -wide capital and infrastructure improvements and address emerging technologies such as ridesharing platforms, self - driving vehicles, and alternative fuel sources. Public transit services are essential to both urban and rural populations in Deschutes County and Central Oregon, particularly for those residents who are underserved or disadvantaged. We thank you for considering COIC's application for the funding that will allow these services to remain vital and progressive. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tammy Baney Chair Anthony DeBone Vice Chair Phil Henderson Commissioner Sharon Ross From: Sent: Cc: Subject: Tom Anderson Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:18 AM Judith Ure; Sharon Ross FW: Please Help CET Get Funding to Update Our Plans 5-11u4 ,etAtA Gyfit Commissioners — Per the note below, we've been asked to send a letter in support of COIC's application for a TGM grant to fund an update/consolidation of their trUnless we hear different from you, we will do so and present it to you for consideration at Thanks, Tom From: Dylan Corbin [mailto:dcorbin@coic.org] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:50 PM To: Tom Anderson Cc: Jackson Lester; Judy Watts Subject: Please Help CET Get Funding to Update Our Plans Mr. Anderson, I am reaching out to you to request a letter of support for our Transportation Growth Management (TGM) application. In this application, CET is requesting grant funding to update and com:ine its egiona Master Transit Plan and its Bend Transit Master Plan. By thoroughly updating and combining these plans, CET will bring its plans up to date, prepare for the advent of forthcoming technologies, update its planning process to reflect its coordinated service, address the needs of the region's increasingly transit -dependent population, and accommodate the region's projected growth into the future. TGM applications are evaluated jointly by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD.) Strong letters of support from local partners will encourage the selection committee to fund this project. The application deadline is Friday, June 9th, 2017. We are asking for completed letters to be returned to Dylan Corbin at dcorbin@coic.org by Friday, June 2nd, 2017. The letter should be printed on your organization's letterhead, and the contents should state clearly who is writing, what you are requesting, and why the outcome is important to you. The grant committee appreciates brevity and clarity. If you have questions or require assistance in drafting your letter, please contact Planning and Outreach Specialist, Dylan Corbin, at dcorbinPcoic.org. Please email your letter as an attachment to Dylan Corbin at dcorbin@coic.org by close of business on Friday, June 2nd. Please address your letters as follows: (DATE] Transportation and Growth Management Program 555 13th Street, Suite 2 1 Salem, OR 97301 TGM Grants Committee, Here are two templates of potential letter formats you may use: Template 1 I am writing today to urge you to approve Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council's (COIC) application for grant assistance from the Transportation and Growth Management Program to support the creation of an updated Regional Transit Master Plan. An updated Regional Transit Master Plan offers an opportunity for Cascades East Transit (CET) to mesh the Transit Plan with other planning efforts, like Bend's recently approved UGB revision. The update is also needed for COIC to proactively prepare for the transportation impacts of new technologies like autonomous vehicles. (Include a personalized message about why you or your organization supports CET's grant application) As an organization, we are committed to assisting COIC with their update to the Regional Transit Master Plan and will participate by providing input into the plan update. Because of the growing need for transit to serve our community and COIC's successful track record of managing transit service in Central Oregon we support their grant application. Signature, Template 2 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) operates Cascades East Transit (CET) to provide coordinated and efficient public transportation to Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties. Two plans, the Regional Transit Master Plan and the Bend MPO's Public Transit Plan, have served as guides for CET's transit expansion. However, the plan is approaching the end of its usefulness, as CET is currently providing or implementing services listed as medium- long- term goals in the current plan, like constructing a transit hub for Redmond and offering flex -route service in Warm Springs. In order for CET to continue to effectively respond to population growth, economic development, and land use changes, an updated plan is needed. An updated Regional Transit Master Plan offers an opportunity to mesh the Transit Plan with other planning efforts, like Bend's recently approved UGB revision. The update is also needed for COIC to proactively prepare for the transportation impacts of new technologies like autonomous vehicles. represent . As an , we understand the value of public transportation for our [community's quality of life, customers, employees, residents, students, visitors, guests, faculty, businesses]. The region would benefit greatly from a roadmap to guide future expansion of transit service that could, in turn, serve to advise other plans and decisions surrounding transportation and land use. This letter serves to demonstrate our support for COIC's transit planning efforts. As an organization, we are committed to assisting COIC with their update to the Regional Transit Master Plan and will participate by providing input into the plan update. Because of the growing need for transit to serve our community and COIC's successful track record of managing transit service in Central Oregon we support their grant application. Regards, Signature Title Organization 2 Please consider the following talking points when crafting your letter of support: • CET's current plans are due for an update. o Central Oregon is new to transit, having only gained public bus service in 2006, and it needs frequent analytical reevaluation of its plans and processes. o CET service in Bend is currently achieving the mid- to long-term restructuring concept laid out in the Bend Public Transit Plan. To continue moving forward in an informed and effective way CET needs to clarify and reevaluate the priorities of the long-term restructuring concept before implementing further changes. o Through Bend's MPO, CET is gaining access to the robust Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation tool this summer. This will provide CET technological tools to project the impacts of transit service and demographic changes on transit in order to allow for better estimation of future scenarios. o CET needs to consider alternative and more efficient options for mobility with the advent of new technologies, especially in low-density and underserved communities outside of Bend. This planning process will allow the analysis of those options. • New transportation technologies require new thinking. o Transportation network technologies (including ridesharing platforms like Uber and Lyft) should be evaluated as a way to provide low-cost and door-to-door service as a replacement, supplement, or modification to dial -a -ride service. o Autonomous vehicles present an uncertain suite of threats and opportunities for regional transit service. A plan update offers the chance to assess those threats and opportunities at a high level. o Autonomous vehicles have uncertain impacts on travel patterns, total VMT (vehicle miles traveled), and land use patterns. This is a critical moment to plan for different scenarios related to the impacts of AVs. o Need to assess capital and infrastructure improvements necessary to take advantage of new technologies. • Regionally administered transit should be planned regionally. o Transit provided at a regional scale needs a regionally focused planning process to fully achieve its potential of providing convenient and well -coordinated mobility. o Combining the Bend Public Transit Plan with the Regional Transit Master Plan will coordinate planning to match coordinated service and administration of transit in Central Oregon by CET. • Need to address Central Oregon's increasingly transit -dependent population. o Strong population growth, especially for transit -dependent demographics, since the last iteration of the plan. The tables below showing changes in transit -dependent populations in the region's counties between 2012 and 2014 demonstrate this growth. Low -In % Change from 2012 - 2014 Low -Income & Disabilities% Change from 2012 - 2014 come & Disabilities Crook Deschutes Jefferson Crook Deschutes Jefferson Total Population' -1.3% 2.7% 0.7% Adults (18-64)' -2.9% 1.3% -0.5% Low -Income all ages 18.2% 17.9% 9.2% Low -Income 18-64 16.9% 21.5% 6.4% Total Population' -1.2% 8% 0.5% Adults (18-64)° -2.9% 1.5% -0.5% Disabled all ages 19.5% 10.1% 2.9% Disabled 18-64 15.9% 9.3% -0.4% Children (< 18)' -7.3% -0.4% -0.8% Seniors (65+)' 9.4% 13.0% 7.5% Low -Income < 18 12.4% 8.2% 12.3% Low -Income 65+ 46.3% 28.6% 15.6% Children (< 18)' -6.6% -0.4% -1.2% Seniors (65+)' 9.4% 13.0% 7.5% Disabled < 18 45.3% -12.9% -18.5% Disabled 65+ 20,5% 17.8% 12.9% o Quickly -rising housing costs emphasize need for transit to provide equity in mobility. 3 o People living in lower -density areas spend more of their income on transportation, indicating the need for more affordable transportation options in this region. See the Housing and Transportation Index for more information o Ongoing development of major regional destinations with land uses conducive to transit, like OSU- Cascades, needs to be accounted for in transit planning. • Regional transportation is entering a paradigm shift o The existing road network is becoming unable to support travel demand. Updating the transit plan will provide opportunity to look at alternative options to bolster the region's mobility without first requiring investment in major road improvements. • Bend's UGB (urban growth boundary) Expansion provides new challenges and new opportunities in serving the region's residents with public transportation. Thank you for your assistance in supporting this project. Promoting well -thought-out mobility solutions for Central Oregonians will allow this region to grow and thrive into the future. Thank you, Dylan N. Corbin 1250 NE Bear Creek Rd. Bend, OR 97701 dcorbinPcoic.org 4 (ES o jll-< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of Mav 31, 2017 DATE: May 26, 2017 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CDD Hours of Operation PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, CDD Director SUMMARY: The Community Development Department's (CDD) main building is currently open to the public from 8:00-5:00 Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and 9:00-5:00 on Wednesday to allow time for staff meetings from 8:00-9:00. CDD proposes to change the hours open to the public to close at 4:00 p.m. primarily to: 1. To reflect a new customer service reality by improving service to online and all customers; and 2. To reduce the need to hire / add more staff and reduce overtime / comp time. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Community Development Department Proposal to Close at 4:00 p.m. Daily Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safely Division Environmental Soils Division P.0, Box 6005 :7 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-'764 http ;//www,deschutes,org/cd MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: May 31, 2017 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Proposal to Close at 4:00 p.m. Daily SUMMARY The Community Development Department's (CDD) main building is currently open to the public from 8:00-5:00 Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, and 9:00-5:00 on Wednesday to allow time for staff meetings from 8:00-9:00. CDD proposes to change the hours open to the public to close at 4:00 p.m. primarily to: 1. To reflect a new customer service reality by improving service to online and all customers; and 2. To reduce the need to hire / add more staff and reduce overtime / comp time. DISCUSSION / BACKGROUND During the hours CDD is open to the public, the department allocates significant resources to reception and public counters. A permit technician staffs reception, divisions provide staff to meet with walk-in customers, and permit technicians and planners accept permit applications. Additional staff are also regularly necessary to support front counter operations. Closing the office at 5:00 p.m. generally results in meetings and application submittals extending to 5:15 p.m. or later. However, significant changes have occurred over the past 5 years that directly impact CDD's operations and mark major differences from the pre -recession era: 1. Electronic permit application submittals ("epermitting") began with the implementation of Accela (CDD's software program) in 2013-14. The department has and continues to educate customers on this system. The results have been and remain positive. A large and increasing number of CDD's customers are conducting business with the department online.' 1 There are significant benefits to increasing epermitting, such as reducing staff resources to manually perform routine application data entry, and customers' ability to submit applications 24 -hours per day and without driving round-trip to the department. This is similar to businesses engaged in buying/selling goods and services online. Quality Seri. (Id with 1 2. Customer inquiries to Coordinated Services and Planning are again at very high levels, but require significantly more research and time to respond than the pre -recession era. Property owners and potential buyers, realtors, developers/builders, technical experts (i.e., engineers, architects, and attorneys) and others are addressing more challenging properties, complex and controversial regulations and issues, involving neighbors, and more. As a result, CDD allocates significantly more resources to assisting customers on such issues. 3. CDD currently provides satellite services one day per week in La Pine, Sisters, and Redmond compared to full time in La Pine and Redmond pre -recession. The reduced office hours at the satellite offices is a cost savings but also increases the number of customers conducting business in the Bend office, often requiring the utilization of several Coordinated Services staff during the hours the office is open to the public. Consequently, staff frequently work overtime or earn comp time to process all permits, download epermits, and respond to email into the early evening. CDD proposes to close at 4:00 p.m. to achieve the following: 1. To reflect a new customer service reality by improving service to online and all customers. a. Provides an opportunity for staff to improve services to online customers during the normal business day from 4:00-5:00; and b. To research and respond to customer inquiries received in person, via email or telephone calls/messages as discussed above, and to process all pending permits and land use applications. 2. To reduce the need to hire / add more staff and reduce overtime / comp time. One way to absorb the increasing permit and customer inquiry business generated online and in- person is by hiring additional staff and/or providing additional overtime/comp time. However, CDD believes high customer service levels and standards can be maintained along with current staffing levels by closing at 4:00 p.m. by re -allocating resources from "keeping the doors open" to performing the tasks described above. lithe Board supports CDD closing at 4:00 p.m., the department expects the number of walk-in customers to slightly increase during the open hours. However, the customers will likely be spread out over the hours open once the new hours are established and public notice provided. In addition, most other Community Development Departments close at 4:00 p.m. for the reasons discussed above. The list below provides the current hours for local and comparable departments. a. City of Bend: 9:00 to 4:00, Monday -Friday b. City of Redmond: 9:00 to 4:00, Monday -Friday c. Crook County: 8:00 to 4:00, Monday -Thursday, 8:00 to 1:00 Friday d. Jefferson County: 8:00 to 5:00, Monday -Friday, closed 12:30 to 1:30 for lunch e. Lane County: 9:00 to 4:00, Monday -Friday f. Clackamas County: 8:00 to 4:00, Monday -Thursday, 8:00 to 3:00 Friday g. Washington County: 8:00 to 4:00, Monday -Friday h. Jackson County: 8:00 to 4:00, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, 11:00 to 4:00 Wednesday i. Marion County: 8:00 to 5:00, Monday -Friday -2- If the Board approves this change, CDD proposes to implement the new hours effective July 1, 2017, and to begin to publicize the new hours immediately. CDD notified and discussed this proposed change with the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) and Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR). Neither organization expressed any concern. BOARD DIRECTION / DECISION 1. Approve CDD closing at 4:00 p.m. as proposed on July 1, 2017 or as modified by the Board. 2. Do not approve the change. CDD to remain open until 5:00 p.m. 3. Postpone the decision to a future date. 4. Other. -3- TES or Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of May 31, 2017 DATE: May 24, 2017 FROM: Chris Schmoyer, Community Development, 541-317-3164 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner; Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner SUMMARY: Discussion of proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change going before the Board on June 5th at a public hearing. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.D. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703.6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 335-1764 http://www.deschutes.orgicd MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2017 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner RE: Public Hearing: Plan Amendment and Zone Change (247-16-000317-ZC and 247 -16 -000318 -PA; Applicant: Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings, LLC) This memorandum prepares the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2017, to consider Ordinances Nos. 2017-007 and 2017-008 for a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and zone change from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for an approximate 34.6 acre parcel abutting the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) on the east side of Bend. The ordinances are included as Attachments A and B to this memorandum. The subject property has an assigned address of 21455 Highway 20, Bend and is also identified on County Tax Map 17-12-35 as Tax Lot 1500. This proposal excludes land in the northwest corner of the tax lot Tying west of the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) canal that is zoned UAR-10 and inside the Bend UGB. The portion of the property in the northwest corner, west of the Central Oregon Irrigation District canal is a separate legal lot of record'. Approvals for property line adjustments have been approved by both the County and the City of Bend to adjust the common property line to coincide with the new UGB line. I. Background Stephanie Hicks, a County Hearings Officer, issued a decision of approval on November 22, 2016 subject to 4 conditions of approval which are listed in Section III. The BOCC is required to conduct a hearing. Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.28.030(C), Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes states: Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. 1 As determined in County Land Use File 247 -16 -000653 -LR + ua1itt} Services I't„r c�rrer<tr} tttit}t 1't ict€ II. Key Findings A. Not Agricultural Land The Hearings Officer found that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660- 033-0020(1). Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) applies a predominant soil type test for determining "agricultural land." If a majority of the soils is Class VII and/or Class VIII, e.g., 51% or greater of these soils, the County may determine the property is not agricultural land. An Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (hereafter referred as "Soils Assessment"), prepared by soil scientist Roger Borine, CPSC, CPSS, PWS of Sage West, LLC, determined that the subject property consists of approximately 67% class VII and VIII soils that are un -suitable for agricultural uses whether irrigated or not. The Soils Assessment was reviewed and certified by the Department of Land Conservation and Development for review on September 21, 2015. The Hearings Officer found that the Soils Assessment is adequate and reliable for determining whether the subject property is unsuitable for farm use, considering profitability and factors in the Goal 3 administrative rule, as well as other factors set forth in additional findings outlined below: • Insufficient irrigation rights • The shallow depth of soils • The inability to employ the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors • The relatively small size of the parcel, which also affects the economic viability of farming the property for profit • The fact that the property has not been eligible for the farm tax deferral program • The surrounding road network and impacts of nearby heavy traffic; property abuts Highway 20 to the north and Bear Creek Road to the south B. Transportation Planning Rule Compliance The Hearings Officer found the application complies with the Transportation Planning Rule of OAR 660-012-0060, which is the rule that implements Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation. The Hearings Officer found that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the proposed rezone will have minimal impact to the road system. Because the proposed plan amendment and rezoning would generate Tess than 50 daily vehicle trips, the Hearings Officer found that the traffic impact letter submitted by the applicant to be acceptable and that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. This is consistent with the comments submitted by the County's Senior Transportation Planner. C. Change in Circumstances The Hearings officer found that evidence in the record demonstrates the following general circumstances have changed with respect to the subject property and/or to other property in the vicinity since the it was originally zoned and are not representative of a change in the property owner's circumstances or needs: Staff Memo to BOCC, File Nos. 247-16-000317-ZC and 247 -16 -000318 -PA 2 • A significant increase in traffic along Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road over the past 35 years, has transformed the area from a quiet, rural farming community to one in which it is increasingly difficult to operate farm equipment and graze cattle. • Farming economics in Central Oregon have significantly changed; the evidence is clear that it is difficult to make a profit in farming, particularly on smaller parcels such as the subject property. • Farm uses are not viable on the property or on other area properties and, as a result, many property owners are choosing to forego irrigating their properties. • Farm operations have steadily declined in Deschutes County between 2007 and 2012, with only a small fraction of farm operators achieving a net profit from farming in 2011. • The encroaching development in the City of Bend, immediately to the west of the subject property has brought both traffic and higher intensity commercial uses to this area. • The recent rezoning by the City of Bend of property to the west of the subject property from residential low density (RL) to residential standard density (RS), now allows urban level residential density development adjacent to the subject property. III. Conclusions The Hearings Officer concluded that the subject property is unsuitable for agricultural uses as the property has no known history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make it generally unsuitable for farm use as defined in state law, as well as those reasons and change in circumstances outlined above. The Hearings Officer's decision of approval includes the following conditions of approval: A. A hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is required to consider approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. B. Prior to the hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, the alleged violation of DCC 13.36.010 on the subject property shall be corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of Deschutes County Code Enforcement officers and the Code Enforcement file, if any, shall be officially closed. Staff response: Staff confirmed that the code violation, File No. 247 -16 -000303 - CE, was officially closed, which occurred on October 14, 2016. C. Prior to the public hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to approve the subject plan amendment, zone change for the subject property, the applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division a metes -and -bounds description of the subject site to be re -designated and rezoned. Staff response: The applicant has provided a current metes and bounds description for the subject property (Ordinance No. 2017-007, Exhibit C). D. The Hearings Officer recommends that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners impose the following conditions of approval: Staff Memo to BOCC, File Nos. 247-16-000317-ZC and 247 -16 -000318 -PA 3 a. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. b. This approval allows on the subject property all uses allowed outright and conditionally in the MUA-10 zone, except that cluster or planned development, as described by the County, shall not be allowed on the subject property as long as the property is zoned MUA-10. A notice of this restriction shall be recorded in the chain of title on the subject property. Staff response: The Hearings Officer found the maximum density of the approximate 34.6 -acre subject parcel under MUA-10 zoning to be three (3) parcels, with the applicant agreeing to a condition of approval prohibiting a cluster or planned development proposal. Consequently, Condition D (b) was imposed by the Hearings Officer. IV. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC can choose one of the following options: 1. Continue the hearing to a date certain. 2. Close the hearing and begin deliberation. 3. Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain. Deliberations will be scheduled at a date to be determined. 4. Close the hearing and then allow a specified amount of time for a rebuttal period; and a specified time for final argument. Deliberations will be scheduled at a date to be determined. 5. Close the hearing, allowing the applicant a specified amount of time for final argument. Deliberations will be scheduled at a date to be determined Attachments: A. Ordinance 2017-007 (Title 23 amendment) Exhibits: "A" — 23.01.010 (introduction) "B" — Comp Plan 5.12 (Legislative History) "C" — Legal Description of Property "D" — Comp Plan Map "E" - Hearings Officer Decision B. Ordinance 2017-008 (Title 18 amendment) Exhibits: "A" — Zone Map "B" - Legal Description of Property C. Staff Hearing PowerPoint Staff Memo to BOCC, File Nos. 247-16-000317-ZC and 247 -16 -000318 -PA 4 o c u.- o ceu (i) cs. : ,,,,. ,),) e u sa) G.) .,, ,... (1) %,--.., 4.,..,). oz(;). 0 ,.c ,... i..- ,),) O c... (9. , w ., ... 0 , 0 0 (,) 0) ‘..- ccs°, C (13 's O •— 4-1 Cli 4- y - CU 0 .. .� fl73 4-J p • J CU CU .""j 43) o E Tis f6 aA CU3 CUf p V L- tiO 4-1 ca CU •± s. Q s ? ` cx3 CSA p Q �+— l0 Co V c6 r-1 cn v , 0 a-'• V) C. CtS U(13 • Sr co Y. co Cll. 0 +a S 0 � @ (1)� Q. N O N .5C p U 13 CO 4-> NI tco d) to cE . O cn to Q •N c - 4-, cn N `n O y O 0in .4.1 0 O - 0 E �.,. O EE tao v O' ° 0- a E to Q —di Q) Cti U tin .0 It"). W3 C >`' N �CU N ,,, N N U *F_, cn N Cts CL CSA C U-.--44••••Sr S-* v F CI) CU -ED G)) (0 c U Ca- t7i E X cc REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code, Title 23, and Amending Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 5.12 and to Change the Plan Designation for Certain Property Froin Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-007 WHEREAS, Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings, LLC applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Deschutes County Code ("DCC"), Section 23.01.010, Introduction, and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 5.12, Legislative History, to change the comprehensive plan designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearing was held on September 27, 2016 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, and on November 22, 2016 the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on June 5, 2017 before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") ; and WHEREAS, the Board, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, approved the plan amendment to change the comprehensive plan designation from Agriculture to Rural R; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by reference herein with new language underlined. Section 4. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "C" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "D," with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as it findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of the Hearings Officer, Exhibit "E", and incorporated by reference herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2017-007 ATTACHMENT "A" TO BOARD MEMO /1/ Dated this of , 2017 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR PHIL HENDERSON, COMMISSIONER Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2017. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Phil Henderson Effective date: day of , 2017. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2017-007 ATTACHMENT "A" TO BOARD MEMO Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive and found on the Deschutes County Communit by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 y Development Department website, is incorporated Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2017-007 V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. (Ord. 2017-007 1; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) PAGE 2 OF 2 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2017-007 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SW14 SE114) OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW1/4 OF THE SETA OF SECTION 35. T17S. R12E. NV.1\1.: THENCE N00'40'13 -W - 30.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SW1r4 SE114 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEING LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR BEAR CREEK ROAD: THENCE CONTINUING NO0:40.13"'W - 690.79 FEET ALONCT THE WEST LINE OF SAID SW1/4 SE1/4 TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE CURRENT CITY OF BEND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LINE: THENCE N2847'13"E 598.S7 FEET ALONG SAID URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LINE TO THE SOUTHERLY RICiHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR U.S. HIGHWAY 20: THENCE NS9:50'12"E - 1030,08 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW L'4 SE1/4: THENCE S00 : -38`15"E - 1225.72 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SW1.'4 SE14 TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR BEAR CREEK ROAD: THENCE N8941 -34"W - 1324.04 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGIN-XING. PARCEL CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 35.324 AC'RES SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS. AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE DE SC'RIBED LANDS. Page 1 of 1 — EXHIBIT "C" TO ORDINANCE 2017-007 NE TIERRA RD cc z cc0 w z NEN IICORONA IL I NE HAMPTON LN AG 1— z 0 Legend Subject Property 17-12-35-00-01500 Bend Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation AG -Agriculture RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area URA - Urban Reserve Area HWY 20 Plan Amendment From Agriculture (AG) To Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) RREA BEAR CREEK RD AG PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings, LLC 21455 Highway 20, Bend Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2017-007 GAD 200 400 May 18, 2017 RREA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice -Chair Phil Henderson, Commissioner ATTEST Recording Secretary Boo .Feet Dated this day of June, 2017 Effective Date. , 2017 ■ EXHIBIT "E" to Ordinance 2017-007 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA HEARING DATE: September 27, 2016, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/OWNER: Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings, LLC 152 Champanelle Way Bend, OR 97701 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: Liz Fancher 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and a Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). STAFF REVIEWER: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner RECORD CLOSED: October 11, 2016; Applicant's Final Argument due and submitted on October 18, 2016. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Chapter 23.64, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Planning OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments Division 33, Agricultural Land Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 215.211 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 1 II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The oubieutpnooadvhas anassigned addremaof21455 20, Bend and is also identified on County Tax Map 17-12-35 as Tax Lot 1500. This proposal excludes land in the NW corner of the tax lot lying west of the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) canal that is zoned UAR-10. B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to the Deschutes County Planning Division's policy on what determines a legal lot of record. propertyThe aubieo1vx isconsidered a legal lotrmnond as itao|awfuUydeva(oped with a single-family dwelling prior to the County's involvement in the permit process. Per Deschutes County Assessor's data, the property supports a single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1940, long before the County regulated septic and building permits for construction. No land use regulations app!ied at the time. The subject property was lawfully created via deed instrument in 1947 prior to the County's adoption of the first Zoning Ordinance, PL -5 which became effective on 11/1/72. A copy of the 1947 deed that conveys the subject property as a single unit of land was included with the submitted application materials (Volume 80. Page 553 of the deed records of the Deschutes County Cerk). C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use —Tunna}o/Rmdmond/Band subzone (EFU-TRB) and Urban Area Reserve 10 (UAR- 10). The subject propertyDeschutes is designated Agriculture on the County Comprehensive Map. The subject property has not been mapped by Deschutes County as containing Goal 4 resources, but it includes a pond/wetland mapped as a Goal 5 resource. The portion of Tax Lot 1500 zoned UApl'10 is situated west of the COID canal and is not part of the subject property. The area has been approved for inclusion in the Bend urban growth boundary by the City of Bend. The subject property is situated within the Landscape Management Combining Zone associated with Highway 20. The proposal is not subject to LM site plan review as no development is proposed at this time. When development is proposed in the future, the County will review compliance with LM regulations. D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is one of three properties Iocated in a small area surrounded by major roadways and the city limits of the City of Bend that is approximately 80 -acres in size. The property lies between Highway 20 (a principal arterim0and Bear [�reekF�om6(mrural coUeotohwest rural '�toho|). /\��gntra| Oregon Irrigation District canal traverses the property from the (astern property line through the northwest corner of the subject property. The subject�ropodx is approximately 34.89 acres in size as shown by the historic tax lot record (Exhibit ard 'B to the applicant's Corrected Burden of Proof and Application ("Corrected Burden of Pnoof'\, which is the size prior to the addition of land west of the ona|tothetan|ct. It has been developed with a home and outbuilding and has .25 acres of irrigation water rights and 9.75 acres of pond water rights distributed into two ponds. The two ponds occupy Iess than 9.75 acres of land. A house has been built on top of a significant pad of the .25 acres of irrigation water rights as shown by Exhibit C to the Corrected Burden of Proof. The remaining water right is used to irrigate the lawn associated with the home. The water rights mnanagarfor Central Oregon Irrigation District (C��rights|C>linfomnmdthoapp|ioantthmtbecauaethehouaewmabui|to*arthmm/atarrightsthot the rights under the house have been lost and may not be transferred to another part of 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 2 the subject property or to another irrigation district customer. Vegetation on the property consists primarily of weeds, annual grasses, big sagebrush, and scattered juniper trees, with clusters of coniferous trees surrounding the dwelling and two ponds on the property. According to County GIS Mapping, based on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) data, the subject property is predominantly comprised of Deskamp Loamy Sand soils, Unit 36A. NRCS Soil Unit 36A has an agricultural soil classification of IVS and is classified as high value where irrigated and a classification of VIS where unirrigated. The property is predominantly unirrigated and classified as non -high value farmland. To clarify the soils composition of the property, the applicant submitted a Soil Investigation Report ("Soils Assessment"), dated September 10, 2015, prepared by soil scientist Roger Borine, CPSC, CPSS, PWS of Sage West, LLC. Exhibit D to Corrected Burden of Proof. The Soils Assessment shows that 67% of the soils on Tax Lot 1500 are Class VII or Class VIII nonagricultural soils when not irrigated. These soils are not rated for irrigation as the soils are too poor to benefit from irrigation. The Land Capability Class of the soils will not improve when irrigated. Mr. Borine also determined that 67% of the subject property zoned EFU-TRB is LCC VII or VIII soil, Exhibit Q to Corrected Burden of Proof. Below is a recent aerial photograph of the subject property from the south: E. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property lies between Highway 20 to the north and Bear Creek Road to the south. The western edge of the property borders the city limits for the City of Bend and land zoned UAR-10 that is a part of the legal lot of record that includes the subject property. Abutting the subject property to the west are small residential lots within the City Limits and UGB of Bend that are zoned Residential Urban Standard Density (RS). Zoning surrounding the property consists of UAR-10 and EFU-TRB to the north across Highway 20. The two adjacent properties to the east are 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 3 zoned EFU-TRB. To the south is EFU-TRB zoning, the southwest is UAR-10 and the southeast is MUA-10 (across Bear Creek Road), The applicant's Corrected Burden of Proof provides the following description of the development pattern in the area surrounding the subject property: West: Properties adjacent to the western edge of the subject property are zoned RS — Residential Urban Standard Density and are located within the city limits of the City of Bend. The south part of this area has been divided and developed with single-family homes on urban lots and the Light and Life Church. Three of the adjoining fax lots are part of the Traditions East Subdivision. One large tax lot which lies adjacent to Highway 20 is used by Landsystems Nursery for the growing of trees, plants and shrubbery. It adjoins the UAR-10 part of the subject property. Landsysterns Nursery sells its nursery stock from a property located directly across Highway 20 from this fax lot. Southwest: Properties located across Bear Creek Road to the southwest of the subject property are located within the UAR-10 (Urban Area Reserve) zone and all except one are developed with single-family residences. One fax lot is developed for use by an RV. One of the single-family home lots is used for the production of hay. South: Three tax lots lie directly south of the subject property across Bear Creek Road. A fourth small fax lot is located within the boundaries of one of these lots. They are zoned EFU-TRB. All four lots are developed with single-family dwellings. Tax Lot 201, Assessor's Map 18-12-02 received approval for a farm/nonfarm partition in 2009 in CU- 09-56/MP-09-20. This property contains approximately 36 acres of irrigation water rights and is currently used for the production of hay. This is the Harold Marken property. Mr. Marken testified that he loses money raising hay on his property and that the soils are poor, rocky soil. Many rocks were removed to make the property suitable for raising hay at a financial loss. Tax Lot 200, Assessor's Map 18-12-02 is not irrigated and has native grasses, sagebrush and junipers. The homes on the other two lots are not farm residences. Southeast: Properties to the southeast, across Bear Creek Road, are zoned MUA-10 and are RF?EA (Rural Residential Exception Area) on the comprehensive plan. These lots range in size from approximately 1.77 acres to about 10 acres in size. This area of MUA-10 properties includes several subdivisions: Dobbin Acres, Dobbin Acres First Addition, Somerset Phase 1, Arrowhead Acres, Arrowhead Acres lst Addition, 2nd Addition and Third Addition. Numerous parcels have also received partition approvals. Most of the MUA-10 properties within this area have been developed with single-family homes. East: Two fax lots adjoin the eastern property line and are under the same ownership. Tax Lot 1600, Assessor's Map 17-12-35 is developed with a manufactured home and Tax Lot 1601 is developed with a single-family residence. Neither fax lot appears to be irrigated nor employed in farm use. Together, these properties are about 40 acres in size. Ward Road, a busy rural arterial street, adjoins and runs along the eastern boundary of these properties and creates a small island of EFU-TRB land ringed by major roadways and the City of Bend. North: Highway 20 separates the subject property from four (4) tax lots to the north. One of these tax lots is located within the UAR-10 zone. The remaining three (3) tax lots 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 4 are zoned EFU-TRB. Three of these four lots are developed with single-family residences while the fourth, one zoned EFU, is undeveloped. None appear to be used for farm use or to have irrigated farm fields. The Hearings Officer notes that conflicting testimony at the public hearing was presented by Mr. and Mrs. Clevenger that properties to the north of the subject property do, in fact, have irrigation water rights and use them. F. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Deschutes County to change the zoning of the subject property from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 and the comprehensive plan designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exceptions Area ("RREA") because the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under state law or administrative rule. No exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not agricultural land No proposed development of the subject property is associated with the application. The Hearings Officer notes that a change from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 will not allow any new residences to be built on the subject property because the zone allows only one house per parcel. No additional home could be built after a rezone without County approval of a partition application G. SOILS REPORT: The applicant submitted an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled "Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment" (hereafter referred to as "Soils Assessment"), with the application (Exhibit D to Corrected Burden of Proof). The document is entitled "Agricultural Soils Capacity Assessment and is dated September 10, 2015. The Soils Assessment was prepared by soil scientist Roger Borine, CPSC, CPSS, PWS of Sage West, LLC. Mr. Borine and applicant's attorney, Carl Hopp, submitted the soils report to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for review and certification on September 21, 2015 as shown by Exhibit E to Corrected Burden of Proof. On September 21, 2015, DLCD certified Exhibit D for use by Deschutes County. Exhibits F and G to Corrected Burden of Proof. The applicant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of ORS 215.211 and Deschutes County may rely on the assessment in making its determination as to whether the land qualifies as "agricultural land." The Soils Assessment inventoried the soils found on all of Tax Lot 1500, including the part of the property zoned UAR-10. This shows that the percentage of Class VII and VIII nonagricultural soils on the entire property is 67%. The same percentage applies to the part of the property proposed for rezoning and for a plan map change. Exhibit Q to Corrected Burden of Proof. G. PUBLIC/PRIVATE AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the public hearing, on July 27, 2016, to several agencies and the following comments were received: 1) County Transportation Planner: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner provided the following comment: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-15-000317-ZC/398-PA for a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a rezone from 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 5 Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) on a 35 -acre parcel at 21455 U.S. 20, aka 17-12-35, Tax Lot 1500. The applicant has not provided a traffic analysis by a registered engineer as required by Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(E)(4), which requires a traffic study for zone changes. Additionally, a traffic analysis is needed to demonstrate compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) to demonstrate there is no adverse effect to the operations of the affected facility(ies) either now or in 20 years. The applicant asserts on page 25 that the proposed plan amendment/zone change would have a de minimis effect from a traffic generation standpoint. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence that there is capacity on US 20 under the following four scenarios: 1) in 2016 under the current zoning; 2) in 2016 under the proposed zoning; 3) in 2036 under the current zoning; and 4) 2036 under the proposed zoning. Finally, the TPR analysis needs to assume a reasonable "worst case" scenario, which means the trip generation rate must compare the highest trip -generation rate allowed outright under the EFU and MUA-10 zones. The burden of proof states the site could accommodate four (4) new homes, but needs to demonstrate that is the reasonable "worst case" scenario from a traffic generation standpoint. Reviewing the outright permitted uses in MUA-10 at DCC 18.32.020 that does seem a reasonable assumption, admittedly. Board Resolution 2013-020 as amended sets an SDC rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined given the residential mix of housing units between primary and secondary residences in the County, that a single-family home will generate 0.81 p. m. hour trips, so the applicable SDC is $3,120 ($3, 852 X 0.81) per lot for a total of $6,240 ($3,120 X 2). The SDC does not come into play with the plan amendment/zone change, but rather is triggered by development of the sites. The SDC amount is for informational purposes only. In response to the applicant's transportation memo, dated 9-9-16, Mr. Russell provided the following comments: I have reviewed the Sept. 9, 2016, transportation memo from the applicant's traffic engineer, which was prepared in response to staff's determination the transportation planning rule (TPR) analysis requirements have not been met for the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use (MUA-10) for demonstrating no significant effect. The property's sole access currently is a driveway onto US 20; the Deschutes County TSP shows this segment fails in 2030. In this most recent memo the applicant's engineer focused on establishing a baseline for trip generation in the existing zoning by using what would be the highest trip rate from a use permitted outright in the EFU zone and contrasting it to the highest trip generator permitted outright in the MUA-10. The applicant's traffic engineer concluded that based on this comparison the highest trip generator for EFU would be a church of less than 100 seats whereas the highest trip generator in the MUA-10 would be two additional houses, both with Type I home occupations. The church would generate more trips than the homes, thus the rezone would result in fewer trips, thus proving no significant effect. Staff agrees this would be an appropriate method if either 1) the EFU parcel was vacant or 2) the applicant was proposing a church simultaneously with the rezone or a church application already had been approved. Neither 1) nor 2) are true. The parcel is 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 6 developed with a single-family home and staff feels the baseline trip generation should be based on that use. This has been past County practice in cases were parcels were developed and there was no simultaneous application for a new land use. Thus, the parcel would have more trips generated under the MUA-10 zoning than EFU and the applicant has not demonstrated no significant effect. Staff will defer to the hearings officer on whether the applicant's approach to trip generation is allowable; however, staff points out TPR compliance can be met via a different route. While the affected segment of US 20 is forecast to fail in 2030, the Deschutes County TSP lists planned improvements at Table 5.3.T1 (County Road and Highway Projects). Adding additional travel lanes on US 20 between Providence and Hamby is listed as a $2 million dollar medium priority project (next 6-10 years). The applicant, under the TPR, can rely on planned improvements as a mitigation. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the amount of additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed zone change is minimal. While all parties agree the resulting trips would be under the County's 50 -trip threshold for traffic studies as stated in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(C)(3)(a), staff points out DCC 18.116.310(E)(4) requires traffic analysis for zone changes Again, staff agrees with the applicant's traffic engineer that there is no significant effect to US 20 from this EFU to MUA-10 zone change; we just arrived at the same destination via different routes. 2) Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT): David Knitowski, Region 4 Access Management Engineer, provided the following comment: Facts, adopted policies, or any other comments that a tply to this application: The driveway serving this property connecting to US Hwy 20 is permitted for a single- family house. Any future development will be subject to review under ODOT's Change of Use rule (OAR 734-051-2030). If the proposed future development will generate 50 peak hour vehicle trips more than the permitted use, 500 daily vehicle trips more than the permitted use, or 20 daily heavy truck trips more than the permitted use, that would constitute a change of use, and ODOT will require a new Application for State Highway Approach. The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) contains Access Management Policy 5.3, which says, "Wherever practical, access to state highways shall be provided via frontage roads, alternate local roads or other means, rather than direct access to the highway. Therefore, when this property redevelops with MUA-10 uses, access shall be provided via Bear Creek Road, and not US Hwy 20. Suaaested action by Deschutes County: Enforce Access Management Policy 5.3 when this property redevelops and require that access shall be provided via Bear Creek Road, and not US Hwy 20. In response to the Mr. Knitowski's comments, Peter Russell, County Transportation Planner, provided the following comment: I'd be hesitant to include the condition of approval language proposed by ODOT for a couple of reasons. First, ODOT is the road authority for the State highway system. Deschutes County has no legal ability to close a private approach to US 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 7 20. Second, while ODOT can close an approach to its own system, there is a protocol set forth in OAR 734-051-5110 about what is required. There is also a remedy process when closing a highway approach described in OAR 734-051-6010 with offer of remedies listed in OAR 734-051-6030, which includes monetary compensation. Third, typically the County cannot require conditions of approval under which it has not control or requires an action by another entity. Should this property redevelop, ODOT can certainly weigh whether to use its own processes to close the approach to US 20 or not and then present the outcome to Deschutes County for consideration regarding the County approving an access to Bear Creek Road where none currently exists. I would point out Access Management Policy 5.2 that states "Deschutes County shall require new development to minimize direct access points onto arterials and collectors by encouraging the use of common driveways." The TSP classifies Bear Creek as a collector. Thanks. 3) Bend Fire Department: Jeff Bond, Deputy Fire Marshal, provided the following comment: I'm not quite sure if this potentially involves the addition of any structures, but in case it does, here are my comments. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS: • Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 2014 OFC 503.1.1 • Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus road, the minimum width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Traffic calming along a fire apparatus road shall be approved by the fire code official. Approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus roads to prohibit parking on both sides of fire lanes 20 to 26 feet wide and on one side of fire lanes more than 26 feet to 32 feet wide. 2014 OFC 503.2.1, D103.1, 503.4.1, 503.3 • Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced (asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire department. Al! dead-end turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB -17. The maximum grade of fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire apparatus access road gates with electric gate operators shall be listed in accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 8 constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. A Knox® Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC D102.1, 503.2.4, FiRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES: • An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. 2014 OFC 507.1 • Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by an approved method. Documentation of the available fire flow shall be provided to the fire code official prior to final approval of the water supply system. • In areas without water supply systems, the fire code official is authorized to use NFPA 1142 in determining fire flow requirements. 2014 OFC B107.1 OTHER FIRE SERVICE FEATURES: • New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be visible under low light conditions and evening hours. Provide illumination to address numbers to provide visibility under all conditions. Address signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours. 2014 OFC 505.1 Codes and Referenced Standards: 2014 Oregon Fire Code (OFC) 2012 NFPA 1142 No responses were received from: Avion Water Company, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Watermaster District 11, Bend Parks and Recreation, Deschutes County Environmental Soils, County Road Department and the County Building Division. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On July 27, 2016, the Planning Division sent notice of the proposed land use application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. Written comments, or email correspondence, were received from the following individuals prior to the public hearing, at the public hearing, and when the record was left open following the public hearing: John Foote: Submitted a letter, received August 1, 2016, expressing his support for approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change request based on listed reasons. The letter has been entered into the record. Doua and Jane Cleavenger: Emailed staff with questions regarding the proposal. The email correspondence has been entered into the record. Mr. and Mrs. Cleavenger also submitted a letter, dated September 26, 2016 expressing their disapproval, stating that 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 9 the property is capable of being farmed, disputing that neighboring properties have lost water rights, questioning whether there is adequate sewage capacity for new development, stating that the proposal does not address visible Landscape Management review regulations, expressing concerns that Highway 20 will need to be widened in the future and that development of the subject property will preclude such widening, and stating that approval of the application will set a precedent for high density development in disregard of the City of Bend's UGB decision and process. Each of these comments is addressed in the Findings below. The letter has been entered into the record. Jane Cleavenger: Separately submitted a letter dated September 26, 2016 in opposition to the application. She stated that the City of Bend planners decided the subject property was not appropriately considered to be part of the Bend UGB. Ms. Cleavenger also asserted that the applicant will negatively impact hundreds of other property owners if the application is granted. She noted that there is an open Code Enforcement violation on the subject property, commencing on August 12, 2016, regarding trash on the property that is visible from Highway 20. Ms. Cleavenger noted that a good example of stewardship in County development is the Tree Farm Development on the westside of the City, mentioning Charley Miller who gave back a sizeable quantity to parks and maintained the natural features and beauty of the land. She stated that larger homesites will better fit the County and will provide highly desirable lots of which there is a scarce supply. Each of these comments is addressed in the Findings below. The letter has been entered into the record. Phil Tracy: Emailed staff with questions regarding the proposal and expressed concern regarding traffic along Bear Creek Road. Each of these questions and concerns is addressed in the Findings below. The email correspondence has been entered into the record. David Morman: Expressed concern regarding medium and high density development of the subject property and preservation of the pond on the property. Each of these questions and concerns is addressed in the Findings below. The comment letter has been entered into the record. 1000 Friends of Oregon submitted a letter dated September 27, 2016 in opposition to the application. Meriel Darzen submitted the letter on behalf of the non-profit organization. The letter discusses the cumulative impact of exurban and ranchette development on agricultural lands in general and the requirements of a viable agricultural economy. Specifically, 1000 Friends states that granting the application would be inconsistent with the following provisions of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan: Policy 2.2.3 (comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels must be consistent with state statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and the Comprehensive Plan); Policy 2.5.24 (ensure water impacts are reviewed and addressed for significant land uses or developments); Policy 4.4.B (change in classification must be consistent with purpose and intent of proposed zone classification); Goal 4.C.2 (changing the zoning will serve the public health, safety and welfare; impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with specific goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan); and Goal 4.D (there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question). 1000 Friends also states that granting the application would be inconsistent with OAR 660-033-0020 and OAR 660-033-0030 because the subject property is agricultural land. 1000 Friends questions the conclusions of the applicant's 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 10 soils study. Each of these comments is addressed in the Findings below. The letter has been entered into the record. Following the public hearing on September 27, 2016, the Hearings Officer left the record open until 5:00 p.m. on October 4, 2016 for additional evidence and argument, and until 5:00 p.m. on October 11, 2016 for rebuttal evidence and argument. 1000 Friends of Oregon submitted post -hearing comments on the application to Deschutes County via email at 5:01 p.m. on October 4, 2016. I find that such comments are untimely. However, the applicant responded to the additional arguments submitted by 1000 Friends in its Rebuttal, timely submitted on October 11, 2016 and its Final Argument, via a Corrected Burden of Proof and Application, timely submitted on October 18, 2016. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated July 14, 2016, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on that same date. Notice of the public hearing was sent to all property owners within 750 of the subject property on July 27, 2016. And the notice of public hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, July 31, 2016. J. REVIEW PERIOD: These applications were submitted on June 2, 2016. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment application is not subject to the 150 -day review period. K. PREVIOUS LAND USE HISTORY: There are no previous land use decisions associated with the subject property.' III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance A. Chapter 18.136, Amendments 1. Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant/property owner, has requested a quasi- judicial plan amendment, and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The applicant has filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the 1 A scanned document for the subject property account in Deschutes County DIAL includes documentation of an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for fish propagation associated with the ponds on the property. Planning Division signed the form on 12-16-92. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 11 proposal. The application has been reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. i find that these criteria are met. 2. Section 18.136.020, Rezonina Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: In previous decisions, the Hearings Officer has found this paragraph establishes two requirements: (1) that the zone change conforms with the plan; and (2) that it is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and the plan's goals. I find that each of these requirements is met, as discussed below. 1. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential. The proposed rezoning from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 will be required to be consistent with its proposed new plan designation. 2. Consistency with the Plan's Introductory Statement and Goals. In previous decisions, the Hearings Officer has made the following findings concerning this requirement: "Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held: 'As intervenor correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.] Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]' LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to `consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23.08.020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as follows: 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 12 The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to Provide a site- specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a Particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to the various decisions which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then interpreted to make decisions about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and Provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer previously found that the above -underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case included those ranging from aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to policies with language providing 'guidance for decision-making' with respect to specific rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to '[rjecognize the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area including the subject property) and discourage future rezonings of these properties.' LUBA held that: '* * * even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations. pursuant to ordinance provisions that require * * * consistency with applicable plan provisions.'(Emphasis added.) The county's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The applicant's burden of proof addresses goals for rural development, economy, transportation, public facilities, recreation, energy, natural hazards, destination resorts, open spaces, fish and wildlife, and forest lands. The Hearings Officer finds these goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision standards for the proposed zone change." Hearings Officer Karen Green adhered to these findings in the Powell/Ramsey decision (file nos. PA-14-2/ZC-14-2), and found the above -referenced introductory statements and goals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. This Hearings Officer also adheres to the above findings herein. Nevertheless, depending upon their language, some plan provisions may require "consideration" even if they are not applicable approval criteria. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, 209 (2004). I find that the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require such consideration, and that other provisions of the plan do not apply: 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 13 Chapter 2, Resource Management 1. Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in the Powell/Ramsey decision, and I agree in this Decision, that this is an aspirational goal and not an approval criterion. Nonetheless, I find that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3, OAR 660-033- 0020(1) for the reasons set forth in this Finding and as discussed in additional findings below. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land." The applicant's Order 1 soils study ("Soils Assessment") and the Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment information prepared by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, demonstrate that the subject property is not suitable agricultural land. The Soils Assessment shows that 67% of the subject property is Class VII and Class VIII soils. Contrary to the argument of 1000 Friends of Oregon, a property need not be comprised entirely (100%) of Class VII and Class VIII soils for a determination to be properly made that the property is not "agricultural land." Rather, it must be predominately (51%) comprised of soils that are not properly classified as Class I -VI soils to support such a determination. The County's Comprehensive Plan map, adopted in 1979, was developed without the benefit of reliable, detailed soils mapping information. The map was prepared prior to the USDA/NRCS's publication of the "Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon." This survey is more comprehensive than prior soils mapping efforts but continues to provide general soils information. The subject application includes a more detailed Order 1 soils survey, Exhibit D to the Corrected Burden of Proof for the subject property based on specific soils sampling and testing of the subject property. Consistent with ORS 215.211, this survey has been approved for use by Deschutes County by DLCD. It provides Deschutes County with the information needed to conclude that the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" as defined by state administrative rule. When the County first implemented Statewide Goals, it applied resource zoning with a broad brush. Since that time, the County has rezoned properties from EFU to MUA-10 zoning and has applied a Rural Residential Exceptions Plan designation to lands found to be nonresource land. See Board of County Commissioners decisions in PA-07-1/ZC-07-1 (Pagel), PA-08-1/ZC-08-1 (The Daniels Group) and PA-11-7/ZC-11-2 (State of Oregon Department of State Lands) (Exhibits K, L and M to Corrected Burden of Proof). The Board has determined that the current comprehensive plan allows the County to approve applications to change the plan designation of nonagricultural land from Agricultural to RREA. Exhibit M. The Board has also determined that a goal exception is not required to allow the County to approve an RREA plan designation for nonagricultural land. Exhibit M. 1000 Friends of Oregon challenged the applicant's right to commission a soils classifier like Roger Borine to provide more detailed information than available through the NRCS soil surveys. However, I find that LCDC's Goal 3 rules, OAR 660 -033 -0030(5)(a) -(e), authorize property owners to submit and counties to rely on more detailed information about the land capability ratings of the soils in determining if land is "agricultural land." Soils classifiers like Mr. Borine are guided by a process established in OAR 660-033-0045 and OAR 660-033-0030(a)(a) to conduct soil surveys that provide a more detailed and accurate delineation of the soils found 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 14 on a specific property for purposes of defining agricultural land. Goal 3's definition of "agricultural land" does not require that counties adhere to the soils ratings of NRCS soil surveys. Goal 3 requires that the Soil Capability Classification System of the US Soil Conservation Service be used to classify soils. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). Read together with OAR 660-033-0030, more detailed information provided by qualified state certified soil classifiers may be used. Mr. Borine is a certified soil classifier and scientist. He is qualified and approved by DLCD to classify soils for consideration by the County. Although 1000 Friends of Oregon argued that land in the ponds on the subject property should be rated Class VI, I find that Mr. Borine correctly classified this land according to the U.S. SCCS system as Class VIII. See Exhibit E to applicant's Rebuttal argument, submitted on October 11, 2016. 1000 Friends also argued that the NRCS soil survey, an Order 2/3 survey, rather than the Order 1 survey prepared by Mr. Borine, should be used to define agricultural land. However, the NRCS General Manual, Part 42-.6 says that soils surveys "are not designed to be used as primary regulatory tolls in permitting or citing decision." LUBA has noted that "the NRCS maps are intended for use at a higher landscape level and include the express statement "Warning: Soil Ratings may not be valid at this scale." Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County (Aceti), LUBA No. 2016- 012 (August 10, 2016). The applicant presented evidence that traffic on Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road has increased steadily around the subject property to the point where traffic volumes make it impracticable to move farm machinery by driving on either road. Traffic also prevents grazing and herding cattle to a different property after they have depleted the sparse vegetation found on the subject property. The subject property is located in close proximity to one of the largest commercial centers in the City of Bend, within 1/3-1/2 mile of three major shopping centers, numerous restaurants, retail shopping and car dealerships. It is also within % mile from a Targe apartment complex development, the Stonebriar Apartments. The subject property is also close to Saint Charles Hospital, one of the largest employers in the region and the medical services area around the hospital. The applicant described the property, with two adjacent parcels of EFU-TRB zoned land as an "island of 80 acres of poor soils ringed by major roadways and the City of Bend." The applicant notes that lands in the "island" are not engaged in farm use, and that the subject property is not part of a farm unit on adjoining lands or other properties in the area, nor is it needed by any area farm property in order for those properties to continue in farm use. There is conflicting testimony in the record regarding the viability of farm use on the subject property and in the surrounding area. In particular, Mr. and Mrs. Cleavenger submitted letters and testimony that the property has pasture land, a livestock barn and a commercial fishing pond. They submitted that the property could be productive, but that investors have intentionally let it go fallow in anticipation of development. On the other hand, the information submitted by the applicant indicates that, in order to prepare the subject property for grazing (at a minimum) measures that are beyond accepted farming practices would be required. Evidence of other farming uses in the surrounding area consists of relatively small "hobby farms," and not commercial farm operations. Moreover, the fact the property is adjacent to high traffic on both Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road raises insurance issues for escaping livestock, in addition to difficulties moving farm machinery and grazing/herding cattle to different properties. Mr. Rob Marken and Mr. Harold Marken testified at the public hearing concerning the difficulties associated with farming the subject property. Rob Marken lives to the south and was friends 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 15 with the prior property owner of the subject property, Mr. Ensworth. He testified that the property would require $5,000 of fertilizer to result in $4,000 of hay. He also testified that there are other, more valuable farm properties. This "pocket" of EFU-zoned property is not valuable. Harold Marken testified that the driveway on the subject property includes rock piles from the property itself. He stated that the soils are only 5-6 inches deep. Mr. Marken commented that "if you put water on it, you get grass," but that the property is not able to be farmed. He stated that there are 10 cows and 4 calves on the property but that it doesn't make money in farming. On the other hand, Ms. Noreah Rogers -Livingstone testified that her father and brother are farmers and one only needs 5 inches of soil to grow crops. She also commented that multiple soils reports should be required, not just a single report prepared by the applicant's soils expert. 1000 Friends of Oregon argued the cumulative impact of conversion of agricultural lands puts the stability of Oregon's agricultural land base at risk. It noted the impacts of such conversion on farm land and the farm economy in Central Oregon. 1000 Friends also argued that fragmentation of farm lands will result, with a direct loss of land available for ranching and a loss of economies of scale. The applicant submitted evidence that the subject property does not currently have land use approval to use the ponds for fish propagation. No such approval is required as the use is permitted outright. Fish propagation licenses are issued by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and must be renewed annually. See Exhibit A to Rebuttal argument, submitted October 11, 2016. The applicant stated that the "Planning Approval" submitted with 1000 Friends of Oregon's October 4, 2016 letter is a land use compatibility statement (LUCS) required by ODFW, and that fish propagation cannot occur without an ODFW license and none exists for the subject property. The record shows that the fish ponds were a hobby of the prior owners of the subject property and was not intended to make a profit in money. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer finds that the fish ponds do not constitute a farm use as defined by ORS 215.203(2)(a). The record also shows that other limited agricultural uses that occurred on the subject property were hobby farm uses, not conducted to make a profit in money. According to Leslie Clark, Water Right Manager for Central Oregon Irrigation District, "[i]t appears historically water was diverted for the purposes of filling the ponds, very little irrigation occurred. The transfers (of water rights) in 1996 and 2000 were done as part of a cleanup of water rights, removing them from lands that were not beneficially using water and transferring them to lands in need of water." See Exhibit B to Rebuttal argument, submitted October 11, 2016. The law does not require several "independent" soils reports to support a determination that a property is not "agricultural lands" due to the soils of which it is comprised. I find that DLCD's review and approval of the Soils Assessment prepared by Mr. Borine in this case, and his experience and certifications (discussed in the findings below) demonstrate the reliability of the findings in the Soils Assessment. The arguments of opponents to the application do not merit denial of the application because the subject property does not constitute "Agricultural Land," as it consists predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils and is unsuitable for farm use. The record shows that the land in the area is not commercial farmland, although there are some hobby farm uses. As the County stated in its approval of Mr. and Mrs. Cleavenger's LM site plan decision, the property that adjoins the subject property "is surrounded by rural residential and some minor farm uses on 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 16 lands zoned EFU-TRB." Findings and Decision File Nos. 247-16-000071-AD/247-16-000072- LM (Exhibit K to Applicant's Response to Staff Report and Opponent Concerns). For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the Soils Assessment is adequate and reliable for determining whether the subject property is unsuitable for farm use, considering profitability and factors in the Goal 3 administrative rule, as set forth in additional findings below. The property is unsuitable for farm use considering, among other things, insufficient irrigation rights, the surrounding road network, impacts of nearby heavy traffic, the shallow depth of soils, the inability to employ the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors, and the fact that the property has not been eligible for the farm tax deferral program, and the relatively small size of the parcel, which impacts economies of scale. The Hearings Officer finds that this goal does not apply. Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the subject property; rather, the applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided adequate findings to support rezoning the subject property MUA-10. The Hearings Officer finds that this policy is inapplicable. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof states the following: in 1979, Deschutes County adopted its first comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that implemented the Statewide Goals. The County's comprehensive plan map was developed without the benefit of reliable, detailed soils mapping information. The map was prepared prior to the USDA/NRCS's publication of the "Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon." This survey is more comprehensive than prior soils mapping efforts but continues to provide general soils information. This land application includes a more detailed and accurate Order 1 soils survey, Exhibit D, for the subject property based on specific soils sampling and testing of the subject property. Consistent with the requirements of ORS 215.211, this survey has been approved for use by Deschutes County by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. It provides Deschutes County with the information needed to conclude that the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" as defined by state administrative rule. When the County first implemented Statewide Goals, it applied resource zoning using a broad brush. Since that time, Deschutes County has rezoned properties from EFU to MUA-10 zoning and has applied a Rural Residential Exceptions Plan designation to lands found to be nonresource land. Recent examples include PA -07-12C-07-1, Pagel (the hearings officer's decision adopted by the Board is Exhibit K), PA -08-12C-08-1, The Daniels Group (Board Decision, Exhibit L) and PA -11-72C-11-2 State of Oregon Department of State Lands (Board Decision, Exhibit M). 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 17 The Board's findings in Exhibit M conclude that the current comprehensive plan allows the county to approve applications to change the plan designation of nonagricultural land from Agricultural to RREA. The Board's findings also conclude that a goal exception is not required to allow the county to approve an RREA plan designation for nonagricultural land. The applicant is seeking a comprehensive plan amendment from Agriculture to RREA and a zone change from EFU-TRB and UAR-10 to MUA-10 for non -resource land. This is the same change approved by Deschutes County in PA-11-1/ZC-11-2 on land owned by the State of Oregon (DSL). In findings attached as Exhibit M of the applicant's burden of proof statement, Deschutes County determined that State law as interpreted in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006) allows this type of amendment. LUBA said, at pp. 678-679: "As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation, neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209, 218 (1993); DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990)." LUBA's decision in Wetherell was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court but neither court disturbed LUBA's ruling on this point. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court changed the test for determining whether land is agricultural land to make it less stringent. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). In that case, the Supreme Court stated that: "Under Goal 3, land must be preserved as agricultural land if it is suitable for "farm use" as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), which means, in part, "the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money" through specific farming -related endeavors." Wetherell, 343 Or at 677. The Wetherell court held that when deciding whether land is agricultural land "a local government may not be precluded from considering the costs or expenses of engaging in those activities." Wetherell, 342 Or at 680. In this case, the applicant has shown that the subject property is primarily composed of Class VII and VIII nonagricultural soils when irrigated and when not irrigated making farm -related endeavors not profitable. Accordingly, this application complies with Policy 2.2.3. The Hearings Officer found in Powell/Ramsey, and I agree in this Decision, that this policy is directed at the county rather than an individual applicant. In any event, the applicant has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change to remove the EFU designation and zoning from the subject property and has submitted information to establish the subject property is not "Agricultural Land" subject to Goal 3. The applicant's proposal is authorized by policies in the comprehensive plan and is permitted under state law. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 18 The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows that the subject property is not suitable for farm use defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), as interpreted and applied by the Oregon Supreme Court in Wetherell v. Douglas, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). As detailed in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, I find that the applicant's Order 1 Soils Assessment and the Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment information prepared by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, as well as the shallow depth of soils, the inability to employ the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors, and the fact that the property has not been eligible for the farm tax deferral program support a determination that the subject property is not suitable for farm use. As the Wetherell court ruled, hobby farming is not "farm use." 342 Or at 671. A goal exception is not required where, as here, substantial evidence in the record supports a finding the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals for the reasons set forth above. OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) authorizes the County to rely on more detailed data on soil capability than contained in the NRCS maps and surveys when determining if land is Agricultural Land. I find that the Soils Assessment prepared by Roger Borine is more accurate and complete than provided by the NRCS. The soils study authorized by DLCD rules is intended to determine the correct land capability classification of soils found on the property. It is expected, that if used, the report will show that soils have a different classification than shown by the NRCS maps. DLCD's description of its review of soils reports states that LCDC may choose to audit soils reports if "soils are shown to be more than one capability classification lower than that of the NRCS Internet Soil Study." (Exhibit C to Applicant's Response to Staff Report and Opponent Concerns). Mr. Borine is one of 5 sods scientists in the State of Oregon DLCD has determined is qualified to conduct a soil survey to help counties determine whether land is agricultural land. His review for this application was submitted to and reviewed by DLCD and found to comply with its rules for such a report. Substantial evidence in the record shows that Mr. Borine is qualified to complete this assessment, given his certifications and work experience. (Exhibits D, E, F, 0, H and t to Applicant's Response to Staff Report and Opponent Concerns). The Hearings Officer rejects the argument of 1000 Friends of Oregon that the Supreme Court's decision in Wetherell is not instructive with respect to the application of state statutes, OARs and the Comprehensive Plan. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof states the following: This plan policy directs Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. In the DSL findings, Deschutes County found that this policy does not impose a moratorium on requests for applications of the type filed by DSL and, in this case, by the applicant. See Exhibit M. Deschutes County also noted that it had approved the conversion of EFU land to an RREA plan designation and MUA-10 zoning in the Pagel decision, Exhibit K and that nothing in this plan policy prohibits that action. The County's interpretation of Policy 2.2.3 above, spells out when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. The facts presented by this case merit conversion of the subject property to a new plan designation under the County's interpretation of Policy 2.2.3. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 19 The Hearings Officer found in Powell/Ramsey, and I agree in this Decision, that this policy is directed at the county rather than at an individual applicant. Nonetheless, the Hearings Officer finds that the County has developed comprehensive policy criteria and code requirements that provide clarity on the conversion of EFU parcels to other designations. I further find that the applicant is entitled to file an application to rezone and change the plan designation of the subject property under this policy under the law and facts of this application. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.2.13 identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Powell/Ramsey and I agree in this Decision, that this policy is directed at the County rather than the applicant. I find that this plan policy requires identification and retention of agricultural lands that are accurately designated. Based on my findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, I find that the subject property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the applicant's Order 1 Soils Assessment and the Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment information prepared by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development because the property consists of predominantly Class VII and VIII soils and is unsuitable for farm use considering profitability and factors in the Goal 3 administrative rule. This finding is also based on the shallow depth of soils, the inability to employ the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors, and the fact that the property has not been eligible for the farm tax deferral program. Accordingly, as set forth in the findings herein, the subject property does not constitute "Agricultural Land." Several members of the public2 testified at the public hearing that the parcel should not be rezoned because the City of Bend rejected including the parcel in its recent UGB expansion. However, the record does not support a determination that such decision was made due to the value of the property as "Agricultural Land." The City of Bend included the subject property in its original UGB proposal. However, the State of Oregon requires that resource lands, such as the subject property under its current zoning classification and plan designation, and exception lands not be included in a proposed UGB. The Hearings Officer further notes that the City of Bend UGB expansion process is not binding in any way on the subject application. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy., 2. Section 2.5 Water Resources Policies Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The applicant's corrected burden of proof states the following: Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.24 requires the County to ensure that water impacts are reviewed and addressed for significant land uses or developments but it does not establish an approval criterion. It does not require that water impacts be considered when a plan amendment or zone change is proposed. This application does not propose a significant land use nor does it propose a development. 2 Jane Cleavenger, David Morman, Gavin Hepp referenced the Bend UGB decision in their testimony. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 20 In its DSL findings, Exhibit M, Deschutes County found that impacts of any proposed future development of the DSL property on water resources would be reviewed by Deschutes County in future development applications. That finding was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this plan policy. Together with the findings above and the later review by Deschutes County, this policy is satisfied. The subject property is served by Avion Water System. If the subject property is zoned MUA-10 no additional homes will be able to be built on the property as of right. Only if adequate water service can be provided will a land division be approved. Irrigation water rights impacts under this application, also will be neutral to positive. It is possible that water rights will not be affected as the water rights are primarily pond rights. Only the residential lawn on the subject property is irrigated land. Much of the existing .25 acres of irrigation water rights are mapped under the house and cannot be used or transferred. Irrigating poor farm ground consumes a large amount of the area's precious water resources without the resulting economic benefits of profitable agricultural production. Homes consume less water than would be needed for farm field irrigation on the subject property. In addition, if the subject property is annexed to the City of Bend, it is likely that the irrigation water rights will be transferred to more productive farm properties or used to enhance flows in the Deschutes River. On balance, based on the lack of productive resource land on the subject property, water resources will be better preserved and conserved under this application by reapplication to a more beneficial use. The Hearings Officer found in Powell/Ramsey, and I agree in this Decision, that this policy is directed at the County. Hearings Officer Green stated in the Powell/Ramsey decision: "Nevertheless, in my decision in NNP i held it is not clear from this plan language what "water impacts" require review -- impacts to water supplies from use or consumption on the subject property, or impacts to off-site water resources from development on the subject property. As a result, I addressed both issues in that decision, and I do so here as well." This Hearings Officer likewise addresses both issues as set forth below. The Hearings Officer finds that it is premature to review "water impacts" because the applicant has not proposed any particular land use or development. Any subsequent applications for development of the subject property would be reviewed under the County's land use regulations which include consideration of a variety of on- and off-site impacts. Substantial evidence in the record shows that irrigation water rights are minimal on the subject property; pond water rights cannot be converted to other use. While there is no evidence in the record to support speculation as to the future of irrigation water rights if the subject property is annexed to the City of Bend, the Hearings Officer agrees that proposed water use for the development of the subject property would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site in the future. 1000 Friends of Oregon argues that rezoning the property to MUA-10 will increase the water usage over the baseline (currently one residence), allowing up to three residences to be permitted. However, the applicant correctly notes that the zone change in and of itself cannot authorize any additional residences on the subject property; there is no current proposal for any 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 21 subdivision or partition. 1000 Friends is correct that each lot that could be created in the future will have to establish water rights before it can be developed. DCC 17.22.020 requires the County to find, prior to approval of a partition, that all required utilities, public services and facilities are available and adequate for the uses proposed. DCC 17.16.100 similarly requires the County to find, prior to approval of a subdivision, that the subdivision will not create an excessive demand on public facilities and services and utilities required to serve the development. 1000 Friends also argues that the property has been proposed to be developed with up to 800 units, having a substantial impact on water resources. However, MUA-10 zoning does not allow development of apartments or other high density development. I find that the application is not proposing a "significant land use or development." The applicant submitted evidence that the amount of water use associated with two new residences on the subject property is lower than the water requirements for uses allowed outright and conditionally allowed uses in the EFU zone, including, but not limited to churches. The applicant also submitted evidence from Avion Water Co., LLC that it serves the part of the community in which the subject property is located and it is willing to provide water service to the subject property and to serve future development. Exhibit Ito Corrected Burden of Proof. I find that future water impacts are not required to be reviewed at this time as there is no pending development proposal associated with the rezone application. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Chapter 3, Rural Growth 1. Section 3.2, Rural Development Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. *** o Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential FINDING: The applicant's corrected burden of proof states the following. The County's Comprehensive Plan anticipates that EFU-zoned land with poor soils will be rezoned for rural residential development when it adjoins rural residential exceptions areas. The County's code provides mechanisms to amend the County's zoning maps when such changes are appropriate. The subject property has extremely poor soils. It is adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend along its entire western boundary and adjoins a large area of properties in rural residential exception areas that are developed with rural residential uses at its southwest and southeast corners. The property adjoins land zoned UAR-10 (rural residential zoning) to the north. A part of the subject property is already zoned UAR-10. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 22 The MUA-10 zone is a rural residential zone. It will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use as intended by the purpose of the MUA-10 zone. As a result, rezoning the subject property MUA-10 is consistent with Section 3.2. The Hearings Officer finds that the County's Comprehensive Plan and County Code provisions anticipate the need for additional rural residential lots as the region continues to grow. The Plan and the Code provide for a mechanism to rezone farm lands with poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. For the reasons set forth above, I find there is substantial evidence in the record to support a determination the subject property is comprised of poor soils and is adjacent to rurual residential uses. The MUA-10 zone is a rural residential zone. Rezoning the subject property will provide additional rural residential Tots in the County and is appropriate where, as here, the subject property is comprised of poor soils, as specified in the policy above. Ms. Cleavenger argued that rezoning the subject property will devalue surrounding properties and erode home equity. No evidence was submitted to support this assertion, however. Nor is this argument evidence that the subject property, with poor soils that is adjacent to rural residential uses, cannot be rezoned to MUA-10, a rural residential designation under this policy. The MUA-10 zone will not permit urban residential development of the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. 2. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDING: In response to this section, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The quoted language is a part of the background text of the County's comprehensive plan. it is not a plan policy or directive and it is not an approval standard for this application. This fact was confirmed by former Deschutes County Senior Planner Terri Hansen Payne, AICP during the County's review of the DSL rezoning and plan amendment application. See Exhibit M. Nonetheless, given the fact that the above - quoted text was discussed in the context of that application, the applicant has elected to address it in the context of this application. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 23 This plan language does not bar application of the RREA plan designation to non - resource land. It does not require that an exception be taken to apply the RREA designation to non -resource land. Instead, as stated by the Board's findings in Exhibit M, the language "appears to be directed at a fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application." The text is written to require that exceptions be taken for resource lands that require an exception; not to require goal exceptions for non -resource lands that do not require such exceptions. As LUBA and the Oregon Supreme Court recognized in the Wetherell decision, there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow non -resource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm or forest uses. The first is to take an exception to Goal 3 and Goal 4 and the other is to adopt findings that demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. Here, the applicant is pursuing the latter approach. The quoted plan text addressed the former. If the quoted plan text were read to require an exception to Goal 3 or 4 where the underlying property does not qualify as either Goal 3 or Goal 4 resource land, such a reading would be in conflict with the rule set forth in Wetherell and Policy 2.2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Deschutes County has interpreted its RREA plan designation to be the proper "catchall" designation for non -resource land. As a result, the RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation for the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that the language set forth above under Section 3.3 of the County Comprehensive Plan is background text and not a plan policy or directive. As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, no goal exception is required for the subject application because the Hearings Officer has made findings that the land does not qualify as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goal. The Hearings Officer relies in part on the Hearings Officer's decision for PA-11-17/ZC-11-2 concerning this language of Section 3.3 in which, Hearings Officer Kenneth Helm, states at page 11 of the decision: To the extent that the quoted language above represents a policy, it appears to be directed at a fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language addresses conversions of "farm" or "forest" land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division 004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not "farmland" as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use. As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal 3. There is one additional related matter which warrants discussion in connection with this issue. It appears that part of Staff's hesitation and caution on the issue of whether an 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 24 exception might be required is rooted in the title of the Comprehensive Plan designation that would ultimately apply to the subject property — which is "Rural Residential Exception Area." There appears to be seven countywide Comprehensive Plan designations as identified in the plan itself. These include "Agriculture, Airport Development, Destination Resort Combining Zone, Forest, Open Space and Conservation, Rural Residential Exception Area, and Surface Mining." Of the seven designations, only Rural Residential Exception Area provides for associated zoning that will allow rural residential development. As demonstrated by reference to the Pagel decision discussed above, there appears to be instances in which rural residential zoning has been applied without the underlying land necessarily being identified as an exception area. This makes the title of the `Rural Residential Exception Area" designation confusing, and in some cases inaccurate, because no exception is associated with the underlying land in question. However, it is understandable that since this designation is the only one that will allow rural residential development, that it has become a catchall designation for land types that are authorized for rural residential zoning. That is the case with the current proposal, and again, for the same reasons set forth in Hearings Officer Green's decision in Pagel, 1 cannot find a reason why the County would be prohibited from this practice. (emphasis added). I find that Deschutes County has interpreted the RREA plan designation as the proper "catchall" designation for non -resource land. As a result, the Hearings Officer finds that the RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation for the subject property. Section 3.7, Transportation Appendix C — Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal 4 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policies 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that this policy applies to the County and advises the County to consider the roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. The County has complied with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation System Planning Rule. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 25 FINDING: In response to subsection (B) of this policy, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district which stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows: "The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming. The MUA-10 zone will allow property owners to engage in hobby farming. The low-density of development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. This low level of development will also help maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the county by encouraging the future owners of the property to return irrigation water to area waterways or to more productive farm ground elsewhere in the county rather than to waste it on unproductive lands. The subject property adjoins the City of Bend. The MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from EFU rural zoning to City zoning. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows that the subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming, as discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference. I find that the proposed change in zoning classification from EFU is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 zone. Specifically, the MUA- 10 zone is intended to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area. Approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low-density development, which will comprise a transition zone between EFU rural zoning, primarily to the east and City zoning to the west. The evidence shows that the maximum density of the approximately 35 -acre property under MUA-10 zoning is approximately three (3) lots, with the applicant agreeing to a condition of approval prohibiting a cluster development proposal. No additional residential development may occur until a partition or subdivision application is approved. This low-density development will allow property owners to engage in hobby farming, if they desire, and will conserve open spaces, preserve natural and scenic resources and maintain or improve the quality of air, water and land resources. The Hearings Officer notes that none of the current resources of the subject property including, but not limited to the pond, will be changed by approval of the rezone application. As discussed in more detail below, the pond is a Goal 5 resource that will enjoy the same protections under both the EFU-TRB current zoning and under the proposed MUA-10 zoning. Approval of a rezone will not in and of itself impact the Goal 5 resource. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 26 1000 Friends of Oregon comments that the applicant intends to develop the property into a high-density housing complex, referring to an illustrative exhibit that the applicant submitted to the City of Bend during the UGB expansion process. First, the testimony at hearing by the applicant confirms that they are not proposing such a development because it would not be permitted under the MUA-10 zone. Second, the applicant has not submitted any development application with its rezone application, nor has it requested a partition or subdivision. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Section 5.3, Goal 5 Inventory Water Resources Wetlands Inventory. In 1992, Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. Additionally, Deschutes County Ordinance 2001-008 adopted a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) covering 18,937 acres in South Deschutes County. FINDING: The subject property is not located in South Deschutes County and thus is not subject to Ordinance 2001-008. However, a pond on the subject property is a mapped wetland. The comprehensive plan inventories it as a Goal 5 resource. Section 2.5, Water Resources Wetlands Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, under normal conditions, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. Additionally, Deschutes County Ordinance 2001-008 adopted a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) covering 18,937 acres in South Deschutes County. These mapped areas are subject to County, state and federal fill and removal regulations. FINDING: The NWI Maps show an inventory of wetlands based on high-altitude aerial photos and limited field work. While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes, its small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent (existing wetlands now shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -based decision making. With the exception of narrowly defined riparian buffers (100 ft from top of bank for all Class 1 and Class 2 streams), Deschutes County does not protect wetlands; instead development activities proposed in a NWI are required to initiate a land -use procedure and notify the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). According to the County's zoning regulations, no person shall fill or remove any material or remove any vegetation, within the bed and banks of any stream or river or in any wetland, unless approved as a conditional use or exception. All necessary state and federal permits must be obtained as a condition of approval 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 27 I find that the pond on the subject property is protected by regulations in DCC 18.128.270 as a Goal 5 resource. Any fill or removal activity in a mapped wetland requires approval of a conditional use permit. This requirement applies in land in all zoning districts and plan designations (DCC 18.16.030(T) in the EFU zone; DCC 18.32.030(V) in the MUA-10 zone). This is the only protection imposed by the County code and comprehensive plan for wetlands. I find that the protections afforded by this program will not be weakened by a change in zoning or plan designation. Other wetlands protection programs administered by State and federal agencies apply, regardless of zoning district or plan designation. Compliance with Goal 5 is not dependent on restriction of the type of uses that may occur on properties that contain wetlands. Rather, compliance is achieved by compliance with the County's fill and removal program. The Hearings Officer finds that the change in zoning and plan designation will not impact the protection of the Goal 5 resource on the subject property. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property as shown by the following evidence. Will -serve letters from PacifiCorp and Avion Water Company, Inc., Exhibits H and I of this application show that electric power and water services are available to serve the property. The subject property adjoins two major roadways: Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road. The impact of rezoning the subject property will be extremely minor. With its current zoning, it is theoretically possible to divide the property into a farm and nonfarm dwelling parcel if 23 acres of irrigation water rights were purchased. This would allow two dwellings on the subject property. MUA-10 zoning and a standard subdivision would allow the creation of three residential lots — an increase of one home. The applicant has agreed that cluster and planned development approvals should be prohibited to assure that no new lot is less than 10 acres in size. As a result, the higher density of development allowed in those developments will not be allowed to occur on the subject property. The property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff. The property is in a rural fire protection district and the nearest fire station is nearby. It is efficient to provide necessary services to the property because the property is already served by these service providers and the property is close to the corporate limits of the City of Bend and adjacent to large tracts of land zoned MUA-10 and UAR-10 that has been extensively developed with rural and urban density residences. Mr. and Mrs. Cleavenger submitted letters and testified that the County should consider the over -taxed sewage system in the area and alleged that the County is not prepared to administer urban development. They note that there is a sewer project underway to replace the over -taxed 27`' Street sewer line that will take two years to complete and that the applicant has not requested pre -approval to connect to City services. With respect to urban development in the County, the Cleavengers assert that the County's fee structure is not sufficient to cover 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 28 administration of higher density development to support additional burdens of such development including traffic, parks, open space, trails and libraries. The Hearings Officer rejects the arguments regarding septic capability because the property would be rezoned to MUA-10, which does not allow it to be served by City sewer. MUA-10 development is served by septic systems. I further reject the argument regarding insufficiency of fees to administer "higher density development," not only because there is a lack of proof on this issue, but because approval of the application does not constitute approval of any development, let along "higher density" development. With respect to transportation impacts, 1 find that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the proposed rezone will have minimal impact to the road system. Because the property would generate less than 50 trips, a traffic impact letter is acceptable. Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell mistakenly interpreted DCC 18.116.310(E) to require a Transportation Impact Analysis for all rezones. DCC 18.116.310(D) only requires a TIA for proposals that generate at least 50 trips, among other things. I find that no TIA is required. The applicant's traffic impact letter constitutes the required traffic analysis under DCC 18.116.310 and OAR 660-012-0060. The Hearings Officer finds that two or three new homes is the worst case scenario for the subject property and that there will be no significant effect on Highway 20. I also find that the circumstances in this case are similar to those in the Pagel decision, PA -07-1, ZC-07-1, in which the property owner requested rezoning a parcel from EFU to MUA-10 and such property had already been developed with a single-family home. There, Mr. Russell advised that the applicants should compare the traffic generating potential of the uses permitted outright in EFU and MUA-10 zones. In so doing here, a comparison of traffic that would be generated by a church, for example that could be permitted in the EFU zone, but not in the MUA-10 zone, with traffic that would be generated by no more than 5 additional homes on the subject property is appropriate. Finally, I find that the Transportation Systems Plan includes planned improvements including additional lanes on Highway 20, upon which the applicant can rely as mitigation. With respect to the comments from ODOT, I agree with Mr. Russell that the agency's suggested condition of approval cannot be imposed by the County in this case. The County has no authority to close a private approach to the State highway system. Moreover, the County cannot require conditions of approval over which it does not have control, or which require action by another entity. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows that necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property, including but not limited to electric power, water service and police and fire protection services. The Hearings Officer further finds that transportation services required to serve the subject property will be adequate given the small increase in potential lots that could be created under current EFU zoning, compared to potential development of the property under MUA-10 zoning (an increase of 1-2 lots). The Hearings Officer notes that development of the property, under MUA-10 zoning, would need to comply with applicable requirements of the code and many uses would require a formal land use permit and process. Through the land use process, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. This criterion is met. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 29 FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the comprehensive plan discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning is the same as the zoning of many other properties in the area southeast of the subject property. The zone change will not impose new impacts on EFU-zoned farm land to the south because these lands are separated from the subject property by Bear Creek Road and because the area along Bear Creek Road has been developed with a number of single-family homes. For the reasons discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone from EFU to MUA-10 will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearings Officer further finds that rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 will not result in new impacts on EFU-zoned farm land in the surrounding area because Bear Creek Road serves as a buffer for properties to the south that are engaged in farming, and the potential number of new lots that could be created on the subject property under MUA-10 zoning will be no more than 2-3. Again, a partition or subdivision would first be required before any additional homes could be sited on the subject property. Ms. Cleavenger testified that larger homesites would better fit the County and would be highly desirable as there is a scarce supply of small acreage lots close to city limits. I note that, a maximum of 2-3 new lots could potentially be created in the future out of the approximately 35 - acre parcel, resulting in approximately 10 -acre homesites considerably larger than those in the adjacent City of Bend under residential standard (RS) density. Ms. Cleavenger also testified regarding a desire for the property owner to give back to the community (concerning parks) and to maintain natural features and beauty of the land. The Hearings Officer agrees that these are laudable goals and interests, but they are not required considerations for a rezone application. Again, if the property is reclassified to MUA-10, no additional homes may be sited on the property unless and until future applications for partition or subdivision are submitted and approved. The Hearings Officer also notes that there was concern expressed by the Cleavengers regarding impact of approval of the application on the irrigation delivery system that the Cleavengers use. There is no proof that any impact will occur, particularly given the fact that the Cleavengers live across Highway 20 to the north of the subject property and have independent irrigation rights not associated in any way with the subject property. Several people in opposition to the proposal testified regarding concerns about high density development that is inconsistent with the rural character of the MUA-10 zone. It appears that such concerns are based in part on a concept plan prepared by the applicant for consideration by the City of Bend when it was considering the entire property for inclusion in the Bend UGB. The applicant clarified that such concept drawing is not a current proposal for development of the subject property. Nor would such a development proposal be consistent with the MUA-10 zone. When a future development proposal is submitted for consideration by the County, the County will review to ensure consistency of such development with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with applicable zoning regulations. This criterion is met. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 30 D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: There has been a change in circumstances since the subject property was last zoned and a mistake, evident in 20-20 hindsight, in designating the subject property EFU/Agriculture. This zone was applied to the property in 1979 and 1980 when Deschutes County adopted zones, a zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan that complied with the Statewide Goals. The change in circumstance that has occurred is that the City of Bend has developed out to the edge of the subject property. Prior to 1979 and 1980, this area was a rural area of open spaces along a State highway. It is now an area that includes a brew pub, apartments, major shopping centers and retailers, banks, restaurants, gyms, churches and car dealerships in close proximity — with all the traffic and impacts those uses generate. The rural areas around the property have developed with single-family homes. There are only a handful of farm properties in the area. Most of the EFU-zoned land is not engaged in farm use. In response to this change in the character of the area and a need for higher density development in the Bend UGB, the City of Bend rezoned and re -designated the land that adjoins the west boundary of the subject property from RL, Low Density Residential to RS, Standard Density Residential.3 This allows urban density residential housing along west boundary of the property. That type of housing has been built along the south half of the boundary. Traffic along Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road has increased dramatically since the property was designated EFU making it impractical to operate farm equipment on either road or to allow cattle to use these road to travel to other agricultural lands in the area that might be used for grazing.4 Since the property was zoned, it has become evident that farm uses are not viable on the property or on other area properties. The economics of farming have worsened over the decades making it virtually impossible for a Deschutes County property owner to make money farming good ground. Central Oregon Irrigation District has provided us with an irrigation map prepared by the State Engineer/Surveyor around 1945 to 1948, attached as Exhibit N of this burden of proof. It shows that lands in the area of the subject property had extensive water rights. Since that time, almost none of the lands shown continue to irrigate their properties. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of farm operations in the county dropped from 1405 to 1283 farms (8.68% decrease). This is not surprising as only 16.45% of farm operators achieved a net profit from farming in 2012 (211 of 1283 farm operations). That figure was 17% in 2007 (239 of 1405 farm operations). A copy of the Table 4, Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and Operators: 2012 and 2007 from the 2012 US 3 The City's general plan map from 1994 shows that the subject property was designated RL. 4 There are currently no properties in the surrounding, nearby area that are currently available for this type of use. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 31 Census of Agriculture, the source of this information, is Exhibit 0 of this burden of proof. The vast majority of farms in Deschutes County have soils that are superior to those found on the subject property. As farming on those soils is problematic and generally not profitable, it is reasonable to conclude that no reasonable farmer would purchase the subject property for the purpose of attempting to earn a profit in money from agricultural use of the land. In 1979 and 1980, lands that contained poor soils but were mostly undeveloped were zoned EFU without regard to the specific soil characteristics of the property. Land owners were required to apply for a zone change to move their unproductive EFU properties out of the EFU zone. The County's zoning code allowed these owners a one-year window to complete the task. The zone change approach in 1979 and 1980 recognized that some properties would be mistakenly classified EFU even though soils and other conditions did not merit inclusion of the property in the EFU zone. Other property owners of lands east of Bend received approval to rezone their properties from EFU to MUA-10 because their properties contained poor soils and were improperly included in the EFU zone. The soils on the subject property are similarly poor and also merited MUA-10 zoning to correct the broad brush mapping done in 1979 and 1980. Furthermore, there is a change of circumstances since the application of EFU zoning — the County's comprehensive plan was amended to specifically allow individual property owners to, again, have improperly classified land reclassified. 1. Mistake. I find that the original EFU zoning of the subject property was not a mistake at the time of its original designation. The property's EFU designation and zoning were appropriate in light of the minimal soil data available to the county in the late 1970s when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted. 2. Change in Circumstances. In ZC-01-1, the Hearings Officer found that, "...any change in circumstance justifying a zone change must be to the subject property or other property in the vicinity and not to the property owner's circumstances or needs." I find that the record shows that the following general circumstances have changed with respect to the subject property and/or to other property in the vicinity since the property was originally zoned by the County and are not representative of a change in the property owner's circumstances or needs: • A significant increase in traffic along Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road over the past 35 years, has transformed the area from a quiet, rural farming community to one in which it is increasingly difficult to operate farm equipment and graze cattle. • Farming economics in Central Oregon have significantly changed; the evidence is clear that it is difficult to make a profit in farming, particularly on smaller parcels such as the subject property. • Farm uses are not viable on the property or on other area properties and, as a result, many property owners are choosing to forego irrigating their properties. • Farm operations have steadily declined in Deschutes County between 2007 and 2012, with only a small fraction of farm operators achieving a net profit from farming in 2011. • The encroaching development in the City of Bend, immediately to the west of the subject property has brought both traffic and higher intensity commercial uses to this area. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 32 • The recent rezoning by the City of Bend of property to the west of the subject property from residential low density (RL) to residential standard density (RS), now allows urban level residential density development adjacent to the subject property. 1000 Friends of Oregon argues that the "vast majority of rural Deschutes County contains soils of the same classes" as on the subject property, and that "much of that land has been actively and successfully used as farmland or ranchland." There is no evidence in the record to support this argument, however. Furthermore, evidence in the record shows that the subject property is predominately comprised of soils rated VII and VIII, which do not constitute "agricultural lands" under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a), as discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the Applicant has established the public interest is best served by rezoning the property under the criteria set forth in DCC 18.136. The criteria are met. C. STATE LAW 1. Statewide Goal 3 The applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: State law requires the County to determine if the subject property has resource values that merit protection under State law. In 1979, Deschutes County applied agricultural plan designation to the property based on limited and general information about the nature of the soils found in the area of the property. The County has also implemented Goal 5 resource protection programs throughout Deschutes County. No Goal 5 resources were identified and protected on the subject property. The question before the County, at this time, is whether the subject property meets the definition of Agricultural land and, if not, whether it merits protection under Goal 3. The County must also determine if the property has forest resources that merit protection under Goal 4. In this case, it is clear that the subject property is not Goal 4 forest land. The requirements of Goal 4 are addressed near the end of this document. Goal 3 provides that it is a Statewide Goal "(t]o preserve and maintain agricultural lands." The Goal states that "Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700." Farm use is an activity undertaken for the purpose of making a profit in money. Goal 3 defines agricultural land as follows: Agricultural Land — in western Oregon is land of predominantly Class 1, 11, 111 and IV soils and in eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class 1, ll, Ill, IV, V and Vi soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climactic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land -use patterns, technological and energy outputs required, or accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 33 which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event. More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be utilized by local governments if such data permits achievement of this goal. Agricultural land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4. The soils on the subject property, according to an Order 1 soil survey, are predominately Class VII and VIiI soils as identified in the Order 2/3 Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service. This is more detailed soil data than provided by the NRCS soil surveys and should be utilized as it provides information at a level of detail appropriate for making land use decision on a property -by -property basis. That system is the Land Capability Classification system of placing soils into classes I- Vlll described in the Land -Capability Classification, Agricultural Handbook No. 210 of the Soil Conservation Service of the USDA. This system is supplemented, in Oregon, by USDA NRCS's publication "Guide for Placing Soils in Capability Classes in Oregon" (Rev 6/1977) that has received national approval for use by soil scientists in Oregon. Both were used by Mr. Borine in his soils assessment. The soils on the subject property are not suitable for farm use based on Goal 3 factors. The land is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. No adjacent lands are in farm use. Nearby lands are separated from the subject property by a State highway and an arterial street. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that Goal 3 defines agricultural land. That definition is restated in OAR 660-033-0020. Consistency with Goal 3 and compliance with the administrative rule are addressed together in the findings below. 2. OAR 660, Division 33, Aaricultural Land OAR 660-033-0020 For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and l -V1 soils in Eastern Oregon; FINDING: In response to (1)(a)(A) above, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: The NRCS soils survey that includes the subject property indicates that the subject property contains soils that are predominately Class I -VI soils. The soils found on the subject property, however are not predominately Class 1 through Vi soils when irrigated or when not irrigated as shown by the more detailed soil data provided by an Order 1, more detailed soil survey, Exhibit D. Over 67% of the property is Class VII or Vlll soil 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 34 when not irrigated and is not rated for irrigation use due to its unsuitability for that purpose. Goat 3 and OAR 660-033-0030(5) allow the County to rely on the more detailed and accurate information provided by the Exhibit D study. 1000 Friends of Oregon has made a lay challenge to the soils report claiming that wetlands and ponds on the subject property should be classified LCC VI rather than LCC VIIi because the term "current employment" of land for farm use is defined by ORS 215.203(2)(b) to include wasteland not engaged in farm use if in common ownership with land in farm use.5 The definition of "current employment" is clearly not relevant to answering the question of whether land is "agricultural land" because "in eastern Oregon (it) is land of predominately Class I, 11, 111, IV, V and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service." As explained by Mr. Borine, water bodies or ponds are considered Miscellaneous Areas and classified LCC 8 by the Soil Survey Manual and Ag Handbook 210. As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds that the subject property, consisting of soils that are not classified as Class I -VI (whether irrigated or not), is not properly classified as Agricultural Land, and that it does not merit protection under Goal 3. It is proper for the County to rely on the Soils Assessment included as Exhibit D to the applicant's burden of proof. 1000 Friends of Oregon argues that the County should not rely on the Soils Assessment because OAR 660-033-0020(1) does not permit the County to substitute the Capability Classification assigned by the soil scientist for the Classification assigned by NRCS. For the reasons set forth in findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, I reject this argument. Specifically, OAR 660-033-0030 permits the use of more detailed data on soil capability than provided by NRCS soil maps to define agricultural land. Here, this more detailed information shows that the subject property has a lower soil capability than indicated by NRCS maps. As stated by the NRCS itself in NRCS General Manual Part 402.6 — Limitations on the Use of Soil Survey Information, "Soils Surveys seldom contain detailed site specific information and are not designed to be used as primary regulatory tools in permitting decisions, but may be used as reference sources." OAR 660-003-0030(5)(e), cited by 1000 Friends of Oregon, states: This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether a lot or parcel qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. The Hearings Officer finds that this part of the rule must be read in context. The rule allows more accurate soils information to be used for property with soils that are LCC I -VI but that compliance with other requirements of the Goal 3 definition of Agricultural Land also must be met. This section of the rule does not say that superior soils information allowed for assessing the land capability class of land cannot be used to determine the correct LCC for purposes of the Goal 3 definition of Agricultural Land. Accordingly, a soils study may be used to provide more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the This definition allows waste land to be assessed as farm land if the property is engaged in a current farm use. The subject property is not currently employed in a farm use so any waste land on the property, like the remainder of the property, is not currently employed in farm use. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 35 NRCS, which may be relied upon to determine whether land was properly classified as "Agricultural Land." I reject the argument of 1000 Friends of Oregon that the County has impliedly added new language to the administrative rule above. With respect to the argument of 1000 Friends that the "zeta" soil classification used by Mr. Borine is improper, I find that such classification and the analysis thereof is not improper. The applicant argued that "zeta" soil is an unidentified soil that is shallow and in LCC VII. This is consistent with the NRCS soils date from the Soils Survey for the Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon, that shows the 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex soil unit found on the subject property contains contrasting inclusion that include unidentified soils that are very shallow to bedrock. (Exhibit J to Applicant's Response to Staff Report and Opponent Concerns). Mr. Borine assigned a name to this unidentified soil for ease of reference in his Soils Assessment. I find that his study does not challenge NRCS data and that the assignment of LCC VII to the shallow soil (zeta) is consistent with the NRCS soils data. The Hearings Officer also rejects the argument of 1000 Friends that the wetlands/ponds on the subject property should be classified LCC Vi and rules that the question of "current employment" is not determinative. I find that Mr. Borine properly classified the wetlands/ponds as LCC VIII (water bodies or ponds are Miscellanous and classified LCC VIII), consistent with the Soil Survey Manual and Ag Handbook 210. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection. (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and FINDING: In response to subsection (1)(a)(B) above, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: This part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the County to consider whether the Class VI! and Vlll soils found on the subject property are suitable for farm use despite their Class VII and Vlll classification. The Oregon Supreme Court has determined that the term "farm use" as used in this rule and Goal 3 means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors. The costs of engaging in farm use are relevant to determining whether farm activities are profitable and this is a factor in determining whether land is agricultural land. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). The subject property was owned by John A. and Chrissie Ensworth from 1961 through 1994. Mr. Ensworth owned the property from 1994 until 2002. Internet research revealed that John A. Ensworth was a public school teacher at Kenwood Elementary School who received the 1973 National Teacher of the Year Award. According to an application filed with the County, starting around 1978 Mrs. Ensworth raised bass and crappies in the two ponds that are located on the property. The fish were sold to the owners of private ponds for fishing by their family and Mr. Ensworth's students. This operation is described in a letter to David Leslie, a Deschutes County Planner, in 1992, 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 36 Exhibit P. This use was abandoned long ago, and was not, according to Mr. Ensworth, profitable. Using the subject property to raise bass and crappies would not provide sufficient income to achieve a profit in money. The fish ponds were a hobby; not a farm use as defined by ORS 215.203(2)(a). Mr. Ensworth told H. Porter Burns that the ponds were used by him, his family and students for fishing and were a tax write-off. As the sales of fish did not cover the cost of production and was not intended to make a profit in money, it was not a farm use. This fact is a likely reason the use was abandoned. This assumption is supported by Table 22 of the 2012 Census of Agriculture which shows that there is only one aquaculture operation in Deschutes County and that it raises trout; not bass and crappies for stocking in private ponds. If the relatively small area set aside for this use is considered as being suitable for farm use, the majority of the property still is comprised of Class Vil and VIII soils. It is unknown whether any other activity that might qualify as farm use occurred on the property during the time the property was owned by the Ensworths but it is known that they would have lost water rights due to nonuse for a period of at least five years, but for a law that allowed them to transfer their lapsed water rights. The Ensworths had sheep at one time and a family cow that they milked but they were not farming the land to make a profit in money and, therefore, not a farm use. The extremely poor soils found on the property prevent it from providing sufficient feed for livestock for dryland grazing. The dry climate, the proximity to US Highway 20 and area development prevent grazing from being a viable or potentially profitable use of the property. The soils, also, are so poor that they would not support the production of crops for a profit, assuming irrigation water rights could be obtained for that purpose. The primary agricultural use conducted on properties with poor soils is grazing cattle. Given the high cost of irrigating and maintaining the property as pasture or cropland (high labor costs, labor-intensive, high cost of irrigation equipment and electricity, high cost of fertilizer, etc.), dry land grazing is the accepted farm use of poor soils in Deschutes County. This use can be conducted until the native vegetation is removed by grazing (see the discussion of the suitability of the property for grazing, below). When assessing the potential income from dry land grazing, Deschutes County uses a formula and assumptions developed by the OSU Extension Service. This formula is used by the County to decide whether EFU-zoned land is generally unsuitable for farm use. • One AUM is the equivalent to the forage required for a 1000 lb. cow and calf to graze for 30 days (900 pounds of forage). • On good quality forage, an animal unit will gain 2 pounds per day. • Two animal units will eat as much in one month as one animal unit will eat in two months. • Forage production on dry land is not continuous. Once the forage is eatern, it generally will not grow back until the following spring. • An average market price for beef is $1.20 per pound. Based upon these assumptions, the value of beef production on the entire subject property can be calculated using the following formula: 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 37 30 days x 2#/dav/acre= 60.0 lbs. beef/acre (1 acre per AUM) 60.0 lbs. beef/acre x 36.39 acres x $1.20/lb. = $2, 620.08 per year gross income Thus, the total gross beef production potential for the subject property would be approximately $2, 620.08 annually. This figure represents gross income and does not take into account real property taxes, fencing costs, land preparation, purchase costs of livestock, veterinary costs, or any other costs of production which would exceed income. In addition, as the subject property abuts a busy state highway, the cost for liability insurance due to the risk of livestock escape and the potential for a vehicle/livestock accident, would most likely be extremely high. A review of the seven considerations listed in the administrative rule, below, shows why the poor soils found on the subject property are not suitable for farm use that can be expected to be profitable: Soil Fertility: Without soil sampling, lab analyses, proper fertilization and soil amendment the soils found on the subject property are non-productive and infertile according to soils scientist Roger Borine. According to Mr. Borine's soils study, Exhibit D, organic matter is "extremely low" and clay content is less than five percent, resulting in a very low Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). According to Mr. Borine, "CEC is important because it provides a reservoir of nutrients for plant uptake." Exhibit D, p. 6. Mr. Borine also determined that soils have a low level of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and sulfur. As a result, "(hjigh levels of fertilization are required for a grass crop to be produced. Without an ability of the soil to attract and absorb nutrients (low CEC) they are readily leached out of the soil by irrigation and precipitation thus becoming unavailable for plant use and lost into the surface and ground water." Exhibit D, p. 6. Mr. Borine noted that while the soils found on the subject property have an adequate pH, the use of needed fertilizers reduce the nutrients available to plant. "Lime as a soil amendment must be added to raise oil pH to an acceptable range for plant nutrient intake." Exhibit D, p. 6. Mr. Borine concluded that "jtjo maintain a minimum level of essential nutrients for proper crop growth multiple yearly application of very high rates of fertilizer and soils amendments are required." The fact that the soils are infertile unless made fertile through artificial means supports the applicant's position that the Class Vil soils and the entire property is not suitable for farm use. The costs to purchase and apply fertilizer and soil amendments and the costs to sample and test soils are a part of the reason why it is not profitable to farm the subject property. This claim is consistent with data provided by the 2012 Census of Agriculture that shows that 83.55% of farms in the County loss money from farming, Exhibit 0. Suitability for Grazing: The climate is cold and dry. The growing season is very short — just half the length of the growing season in the more temperate Madras region of Central Oregon. The average annual precipitation is only 11.7 inches. This means that the amount of forage available for dry land grazing is low. This also means that a farmer has a short period of amount of time to irrigate pastures. This makes it difficult for a farmer to raise sufficient income to offset the high costs of establishing, maintaining and operating an irrigation system. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 38 Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm irrigation Purposes: No new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the Central Oregon irrigation District (COLD) in the foreseeable future. In order to obtain water rights, the applicant would need to convince another COiD customer to remove water rights from their property and sell them to the applicant and obtain State and COiD approval to apply the water rights to the subject property. In such a transaction, water rights would be taken off productive farm ground and applied to the nonagricultural soils found on the subject property. Such a transaction runs counter to the purpose of Goal 3 to maintain productive Agricultural Land in farm use. Most of the soils on the property are Class VII soils that are not irrigated. Given the poor quality of these soils, it is highly unlikely that Central Oregon Irrigation District would approve a transfer of water rights to this property. In addition, no person intending to make a profit in farming would go to the expense of purchasing water rights, mapping the water rights and establishing an irrigation system to irrigate the lands on the subject property. A part of the small amount of irrigation water rights assigned to the subject property is currently used for irrigation around the existing residence located on the property and not for crops and/or livestock. The remainder of the water right is located under the house and is not transferable. Given the dry climate, it is necessary to irrigate the subject property to grow a hay crop and to maintain a pasture. Irrigating the soils found on the subject property, according to Mr. Borine, leaches nutrients from the soil so that expensive testing, soils amendments and fertilizers are needed to grow crops. A farmer would need to also spend significant sums of money to purchase additional water rights, purchase irrigation systems, maintain the systems, pay laborers to move and monitor equipment, obtain electricity, pay irrigation district assessments and pay increased liability insurance premiums for the risks involved with farming operations. Termination of Historic Irrigation Water Rights: According to Central Oregon Irrigation District, the subject property had water rights in the distant past but failed to put the water to beneficial use. As a result, the water rights were terminated. The lack of beneficial use of the water rights, at times prior to high land values and development pressure, is a true reflection of the fact that irrigating this property and its very poor soils was not prudent. The property to the east and lands to the north have, also, not been irrigated for decades. According to COID, 5.0 acres of irrigation water rights were transferred off the property in 1946. In 1955, 3.0 acres of irrigation water rights were removed as the result of a court decree due to nonuse. In 1996, 9.75 acres were transferred from an irrigation water right to a pond right (7.50 acres and 2.25 acres) and 9.0 additional acres were transferred to a property that was over -irrigating. The transfer document explains that the owner was under -irrigating. In 2000, a final 9.0 acre transfer occurred that removed all water other than the .25 acre water right that is located around the house and the pond water rights. According to COID, the 1996 and 2000 transfers were done as part of a cleanup of water rights that removed water from lands not putting the water rights to a beneficial use. These terminated water rights, if restored, would not improve the NRCS soils rating of the property to the point where a majority of the property would be Class I through VI 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 39 soils — making the property "Agricultural Land" as defined by Statewide Goal 3. The soils identified by Symbols B, C, 0 and W remain Class VII and VIII even if irrigated according to the Borine Order 1 soils assessment. Existing Land Use Patterns: The applicant's analysis of existing land use patterns earlier in this document shows that the properties located to the west are located within the city limits for the City of Bend and a majority of these lots are located in and developed with single-family homes, a nursery and a church. The property is bordered by Highway 20 to the north with the properties to the north of the highway being zoned UAR-10 and EFU. None of these properties appear to be employed in farm use. Two properties adjoin the eastern edge of the subject property and are zoned EFU-TRB. Neither is employed in farm use. One of the properties received conditional use approval for the placement of a manufactured home and the other property has a home which was constructed in 1935 but appears to be vacant at this time. Bear Creek Road adjoins the southern edge of the subject property with the properties south of Bear Creek Road zoned EFU-TRB. These properties appear to be small hobby farms with horses, irrigated pasture and some small hay production. One property is a nonfarm dwelling parcel that was created by a "farm/nonfarm" partition. The close proximity to the City of Bend, the busy highway and residential areas limits the types of agricultural activities that could reasonably be conducted for profit on the subject property. The subject property would not be suitable for raising animals that are disturbed by noise. Additionally, the property owner would bear the burden of paying for harm that might be caused by livestock escape along the extremely busy highway, in particular livestock and vehicle collisions. Any agricultural use that requires the application of pesticides and herbicides would be very difficult to conduct on the property given the numerous homes located in close proximity to the property and the heavy traffic along Highway 20 due to aerial drift of these chemicals. In addition, the creation of dust which accompanies the harvesting of crops is a major concern on this property due to the close proximity of Highway 20 and the significant amount of traffic using the highway on a daily basis. Heavy dust could limit vision along the highway and be a concern for major traffic accidents in this area. Technological and Energy Inputs Required: According to Mr. Borine, "[t]his parcel requires technology and energy inputs over and above that considered acceptable farming practices. Excessive fertilization and soil amendments; very frequent irrigation applications pumped from a pond with limited availability; and marginal climatic conditions restrict cropping alternatives." Pumping water requires energy inputs. The application of lime and fertilizer typically requires the use of farm machinery that consumes energy. The irrigation of the property requires the installation and operation of irrigation systems. Accepted Farming Practices: Farming lands comprised of soils that are predominately Class VII and VIII soils is not an accepted farm practice in Centra! Oregon. Dryland grazing, the farm use that can be conducted on the poorest soils in the County, typically occur on Class VI non -irrigated soils that have a higher soils class if irrigated. Crops are typically grown on soils in soil class 111 and IV. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property is predominately comprised of Class VII and Class VIII soils and it is not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.302(2)(a), considering limitations detailed in the record (set forth in findings above, incorporated herein by this reference) and supported by the applicant's burden of proof and exhibits. The Hearings Officer 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 40 noted in the Powell/Ramsey decision, and I agree with the statement that DLCD's administrative rules define Class VII and VIII soils as having very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation. Thus, the next question under this administrative rule is whether the Class VII and VIII soils on the subject property nevertheless constitute "agricultural land" based on the factors listed in this paragraph. For the following reasons, I find that the answer to the question is "no." Significant limitations on the subject property include poor soil fertility, shallow depth of soils, unsuitability for grazing, the short growing season in the area due to climatic conditions, the lack of water available on the subject property for farm irrigation purposes and difficulties in obtaining new irrigation rights, the existing land use patterns in the area discussed in the findings above and incorporated herein by this reference which show encroaching urban development and significantly increased traffic along Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road, and the necessity for technological and energy inputs in order to farm the subject property that exceed acceptable farming practices. With respect to soil fertility, Mr. Borine found organic matter on the subject property to be "extremely low" such that Cation Exchange Capacity — a reservoir of nutrients for plant uptake — is also low. High rates of fertilizer and soils amendments are required because, due to the low CEC, it will be difficult for the soil to attract and absorb nutrients, resulting in leaching Toss by irrigation and precipitation. Exhibit D to burden of proof. Unsuitability for grazing is a condition on the subject property that results from the cold and dry climate and relatively short growing period. Forage for dry land grazing is low, as a result. Farmers have a short period of time to irrigate pastures, which makes it difficult to raise income to offset the costs of irrigation. Existing and future availability of water for farm irri aq tion is another constraint on the subject property. COID states that no new irrigation water rights are expected to be available in the foreseeable future. Moreover, given the poor quality of soils on the property, it would be difficult to convince COID to transfer water rights to the property. The termination of historic irrigation water rights on the subject property occurred because the past owner was unable to put the water to beneficial use. Moreover, Mr. Borine has determined that if terminated water rights were restored, it would not improve the NRCS soils rating to the point that a majority of the soils could then be classified as LCC I -VI. Turning to existing land use patterns, the evidence is clear that the subject property is an "island" of EFU-zoned property flanked by the City of Bend, Highway 20 and Bear Creek Road. There are no large-scale commercial farming operations in the area, only small, hobby farms. Increasing traffic in the area makes it difficult to conduct certain farming operations, including raising animals sensitive to noise and the risk associated with animals escaping onto the roadways to both livestock and vehicles. There are also conflicts between dust and drifting chemicals associated with farming and with nearby rural residential development and traffic along the highway and arterials. Technology and energy inputs required also makes the property unsuitable for farm use on this record, given the information provided by Mr. Borine regarding excessive fertilization and soil amendments that would involve pumping water, installing and operating an irrigation system with energy inputs, as well as and farm machinery required to apply fertilizer. 247-16-000317-ZC 1318 -PA 41 The applicant would have to go above and beyond accepted farming practices to even attempt to farm the subject property to allow dryland grazing, given the fact it is predominately Class VII and VIII soils, There is no evidence crops could be successfully grown on the subject property. The evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property has not ever been, and cannot be used for farming practices to provide sufficient income to achieve a profit in money. Past use of the property for fish ponds, sheep and a family cow was not profitable and does not qualify as farm use under ORS 215.203(2)(a). The Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. FINDING: In response to subsection (1)(a)(C) above, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The following facts are shown by the applicant's discussion of surrounding development in Section E of this application, above, which is discussed further below: West: All of the properties to the west of the subject property are located within the city limits for the City of Bend, zoned RS — Residential Urban Standard Density and designated RM (Medium Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Several of the adjoining tax lots are part of the Traditions East Subdivision. The largest adjoining fax lot to the west is operated by Landsystems Nursery and is used for the storing and growing of trees, plants, shrubbery and other items used in their retail nursery operation located directly across Highway 20 to the north. North: All of the land north of the subject property is separated from the subject property by US Highway 20, a state highway providing access between the City of Bend and small towns located to the east including Bums and on to the Idaho state line. This is a major east/west connector through the State of Oregon. It is not practicable to operate these properties as a single farm unit due to this separation. Furthermore, these properties are not employed in farm use and one property, fax lot 900, Assessor's Map 17-12-35 is zoned UAR-10 and designated URA (Urban Reserve Area) on the comprehensive plan map. The properties to the north that are zoned EFU-TRB and that are not employed in farm use are mapped by the NRCS as being located in Mapping Unit 58C. The vast majority of the soils in this mapping unit are nonagricultural soils (Class VII and VIII). Mapping unit 58C contains Gosney-rock outcrop-Deskamp complex soils. The Gosney soil is rated Class VII and is 50% of the mapping unit. Rock outcrops are rated Class VIII and are 25% of this mapping unit. These poor soils are the likely reason these properties are not employed in farm use. East: Two fax lots adjoin the eastern boundary of the subject property. Both fax lots are developed with residences. Tax Lot 1600 has a double -wide manufactured home with a hay cover and machine shed. Tax Lot 1601 has a one-story residence built in 1935 and 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 42 appears to be vacant at this time. Neither of these tax lots is currently engaged in any farm use. According to information provided by the NRCS Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area, both of these tax lots are comprised of the identical soil types identified on the subject property. Tax Lot 1600 is surrounded on three sides by major roads including Highway 20 to the north, Ward Road to the east and Bear Creek Road to the south. South: All of the land south of the subject property is separated from the subject property by Bear Creek Road, a major rural collector, and is zoned EFU-TRB. Bear Creek Road is a major road that provides access to businesses, schools and commercial businesses located within the City of Bend. It is not practicable to operate these properties as a single farm unit due to this separation. The subject property, also, is not needed to permit farm practices to be undertaken on any of the lands found south of Bear Creek Road. These farm operations, are independent operations that can continue to operate after the subject property is zoned MUA-10 to match other MUA-10 zoning that adjoins EFU property that is south of the subject property. The above analysis and the more detailed inventory and photographs provided by the applicant after the application was filed show that the subject property is not land "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on any adjacent nearby lands." The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property is not land that is "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on any adjacent nearby lands." in other words, the subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands because none of the identified farm uses on those lands is dependent upon the subject property. The information set forth in the applicant's burden of proof on this subsection was not refuted by other testimony or persuasive evidence. As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, land to the west of the subject property is primarily urban residential development or zoned for such uses in the City of Bend. Land to the north of the subject property is separated by Highway 20 and is not currently engaged in farming operations. The two Tots to the east of the subject property are developed with single-family residences and are not engaged in farm use, Land to the south of the subject property is separated from the site by Bear Creek Road, such that the subject property cannot be used for operation of any single farm use. Independent farming operations to the south will be able to continue if the subject property is rezoned to MUA-10. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-V/ within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; FINDING: In response to subsection (1)(b) above, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land." If a majority of the soils is Class I -Vi in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural land." 1000 Friends position is that this test is a 100% Class Vil- Vlll soils test rather than a 51 % Class VIi and VIII soils test because the presence of any Class I -VI soil requires the County to identify the entire property "agricultural land." Case 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 43 law indicates that the Class 1 -VI soil test applies to a subject property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to lands in active farming in the area that were once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is not a test that requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1 -VI. The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by preventing property owners from dividing farm land into smaller properties that, alone, do not meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so that land could be removed from EFU zoning. The subject property is not in farm use. It has not been in farm use of any kind (hobby farming or commercial farming) for more than 14 years. It has no known history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for farm use as the term is defined by State law. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land. Deed records show that Jack and Chrissie Ensworth purchased the subject property in 1961, sold it in June 1979, repurchased in August 1979 and Mr. Ensworth sold it in 2002 to HP Burns Realty LP.6 The deed to the Ensworths is Exhibit C of this document. The deed to HP Burns Realty LP is Exhibit D.7 The Ensworths used the property as a hobby farm and family residence. No farm use or fish rearing, to the best of Mr. Burns' observation and recollection, was occurring when the property was sold to HP Burns Realty LP in 2002. All water rights, other than water for irrigating the lawn around the house and for ponds, were removed by 2000. The property has not been used for fish rearing or other farm use since it was acquired by HP Burns Realty LP. The subject property in this case, like the subject property in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County (Aceti) is "property predominately Class VI and VII soils and would not be considered a farm unit itself nor part of a larger farm unit based on the poor soils and the fact that none of the adjacent property is farmed." The applicant owns a triangular UAR-10 zoned property that is separated from the subject property by a major canal. That property has been included in the Bend urban growth boundary by the City of Bend and Deschutes County and has been designated for high density residential housing. The soil in this area is, also, predominantly Class VII soil and no farm use has occurred here for decades. This small area of land west of the canal was acquired by the Ensworths around 1976, according to the Official Record of Descriptions of Real Property, maintained by the County Clerk. There is no evidence that the area was used as a part of the farming operations conducted by the Ensworths (aquaculture). It is unlikely that the area was used for farm operations as part of the farm unit as it is located to the west of the canal and does not have irrigation water rights. If this UAR-10 property is viewed to be a part of the farm unit, the majority of soils in the farm use are Class VII and VIII nonagricultural soils as shown by the Borine soils report 6 Additionally, in 1979, the Ensworths sold then repurchased the property a few months later. The Hearings Officer notes that the references to Exhibit C and D in this paragraph are to the Exhibits submitted with the applicant's Rebuttal argument on October 11, 2016. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 44 submitted to DLCD, Exhibit D. This merits a finding that this parcel is not agricultural land and is properly zoned UAR-10. All parts of the subject property were studied by the applicant's soils analysis, Exhibit D. The analysis (Table 2, page 5) and Exhibit Q (Table 2.1) together show that the predominant soil type found on the property is Class VII and VIII, nonagricultural land (.59 acres Class VIINII; .54 acres Class I -VI or 47.8%). When the subject property and this area are considered as a single property, 67% of the property is Class VII and VII. Exhibit D (Table 3). Class VI soils are found on the subject property but they are in the minority. The predominance test says that the subject property is not agricultural soil and the farm unit rule does not require that the Class VIINIII soils that comprise the majority of the subject property be classified as agricultural land due to the presence of a small amount of Class 1 -VI soils on the subject property that are not employed in farm use and are not part of a farm unit. As a result, this rule does not require the Class VII and VIII soils on the subject property to be classified agricultural land because a minority of the property contains soils rated Class VI. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property is not adjacent to or intermingled with any lands in capability classes 1 -VI within a farm unit. The evidence shows that the subject property is not and has never been part of a farm unit that includes other lands not currently owned by the applicant. The subject property has no known history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make it generally unsuitable for farm use as defined in state law. I also find that Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test for determining "agricultural land." If a majority of the soils is Class VII and/or Class VIII, e.g., 51% of the soils, the County may determine the property is not agricultural land. Based on the evidence in the record, I find that there is no basis to inventory the subject property as agricultural lands. The Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the portion of Tax Lot 1500 west of the COID canal is part of the legal lot of record for the subject property and is also owned by the applicant. It is zoned UAR-10. The applicant indicates that this is an acknowledged exceptions area for Goal 3 and is not "Agricultural Land". However, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map reveals a designation of Agriculture has been applied to that portion as well. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, this portion of the property has been included in the new Bend UGB. The Hearings Officer finds that, for the same reasons that the remainder of the subject property has been determined not to consist of "agricultural land," the portion of Tax Lot 1500 west of the COID property also is not "agricultural land." 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 45 OAR 660-033-0030 Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I-IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands." A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The applicant has provided substantial evidence that addresses the factors set forth in OAR 660-033-0020(1), the definition of Agricultural Land, in this document. The applicant's findings in subsection (3), below, show that the uses of all adjoining and nearby lands and that the lands on the subject property are not "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent nearby lands." As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property is not "agricultural land," under OAR 660-033-0020(1) because it is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. The subject property is not "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent nearby lands." The Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The evidence that shows that the subject property is not suitable for farm use and is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands has assigned no significance to the ownership of adjoining properties. It has, also, involved a detailed examination of lands outside the boundaries of the subject property. As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property is not "agricultural land," is not "suitable for farm use," and is not "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent nearby lands." The Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 46 (5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as of January 2, 2012, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) specifically authorizes the County to rely on more detailed data about soil capability than contained in the NRCS soils maps and surveys when determining if land is Agricultural Land. This is an exception to the definition of "Agricultural Land" contained in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a) that says that lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominately Class I - VI soils in Eastern Oregon should be inventoried as Agricultural Land. This exception is consistent with Goal 3 which defines "agricultural land" as predominately Class I, ll, 111, IV, V and VI soils in Eastern Oregon "as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation Service." The Soil Capability Classification System was used by certified soil classifier Roger Borine of Sage West in assigning a soil class to the soils inventoried on the subject property and his determination is more detailed than that provided by the NCRS Order 2/3 soils maps. Mr. Borine assigned the name "Zeta" to an unidentified soil that is shallow and is in land capability class VII. This is consistent with the NRCS soils data from the Soils Survey for the Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon that shows that the 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp soil unit found on the subject property contains a contrasting inclusion of unidentified "soils that are very shallow to bedrock." Exhibit J (description of 58C soil unit found on subject property from NRCS publication, "Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon). Rather than referring to this shallow soil as "shallow soil," Mr. Borine referred to as "Zeta." Mr. Borine assigned an NRCS Land Capability Classification (LCC) rating of VIi to the Zeta soil. The NRCS provides Mr. Borine a system that he used to apply the correct soil classification to soils found on the subject property. Mr. Borine has used the NRCS classification system to apply a rating to the unknown "Zeta" soil. Mr. Borine is a certified professional soil classifier and soil scientist who is trained to determine the correct LCC rating for soils and his determination of the correct rating for the unknown soil (Zeta) is reliable. The Sage West soils assessment, prepared by Roger Borine, Exhibit D provides more detailed soils information than contained on the Web Soil Survey, the Internet soil survey of soils data and information produced by the National Cooperative Sail Survey. Those sources provide general soils data for large units of land. The Sage West, LLC soils assessment provides detailed and accurate information about a single property based on numerous soil samples taken from the subject property. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 47 Mr. Borine is one of five soils scientists in the State of Oregon DLCD has determined is qualified to conduct a soil survey to help counties determine whether land is or is not agricultural land. His review was submitted to and reviewed by DLCD and found to comply with its rules for such a report. Mr. Borine has worked for the NRCS and is eminently qualified to complete this assessment as shown by his certifications and work experience. The NRCS intends that its maps be used at higher landscape level, not on a property by property basis. They include the express statement: "Warning: Soil Rating may not be valid at this scale," on their maps. As stated by the NRCS itself in the NRCS General Manual Part 402.6 -Limitations on the Use of Soil Survey Information, "Soils Surveys seldom contain detailed site specific information and are not designed to be used as primary regulatory tools in permitting decisions, but may be used as reference sources." As Mr. Borine has explained NRCS maps may be perfectly correct at the landscape level while a tax lot may be in part or entirely a contrasting inclusion. An Order 1 soil survey is prudent to accurately identify soils, mapping units, and miscellaneous area and to accurately locate their boundaries. It provides more detailed information about the soils within the large mapping units used in the NRCS Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area. The depth of these soils was also determined. The soil samples taken from the subject property were tested to determine soil type and water -carrying capacity of the soils. The results of this analysis were used to develop an accurate soils map of the subject property. The Sage West, LLC soils assessment is related to the NCRS land capability classification system that classified soils Class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS. 1000 Friends claims that LCDC's rules and Goal 3 prevent Mr. Borine from assigning a different land capability classification to the soils found on the subject property. This claim, however, is inconsistent with LCDC's rules because it is expected Order 1 soils reports will show that soils have a different classification than shown by the NRCS maps. Otherwise, an applicant would simply rely on the NRCS maps. This fact is recognized by DLCD in its description of its review of soils reports. It states that LCDC may choose to audit soils reports if "soils are shown to be more than one capability classification lower than that of the NRCS Internet Soil Study." See, DLCD Website "Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment." As set forth in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has submitted more detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps and soil survey in the Soils Assessment prepared by Mr. Borine of Sage West, LLC, and that the Soils Assessment relates to the NRCS land capability classification system. The Soils Assessment is presented to assist the County in making a better determination of whether the subject property qualifies as "agricultural land." I have previously determined in findings above that the County is authorized to rely on the more detailed soil capability data prepared by Mr. Borine and that his report and analyses meet all requirements of state laws and regulations. The Order 1 soils report is sufficient for the County to determine that the subject property is not "agricultural land." 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 48 The Hearings Officer finds that the application complies with this subsection of the rule. (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm -forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land; and FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant is seeking approval of a non -resource plan designation on the basis that the subject property is not agricultural land. The application complies with this subsection of the rule. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant's soil assessment has been certified by DLCD as required by this rule. The application complies with this subsection of the rule. (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033- 0020. FINDING: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by this reference, above, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has provided DLCD's certification of its soils analysis with the submitted application materials and has complied with the soils analysis requirements of OAR 660-033-0045 in order to obtain that certification. I find that DLCD's certification establishes compliance with OAR 660-033-0045. This information can be used to determine whether land qualifies as agricultural land. I find that the process for review, using that information, is not changed. I reject the arguments of 1000 Friends of Oregon and find that the process does not preclude the County from using the soils capability ratings determined by Mr. Borine using the LCC system of the NRCS (Soil Classification Service). Goal 3 bases the determination of class on that system, and not on the LCCs applied by NRCS soils surveys. Consistent with the administrative rules, the applicant has provided more detailed information that shows the subject property is not "agricultural land." The application complies with this subsection of the rule. 3. OAR 660, DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION RULE OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 49 (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the applicant's corrected burden of proof provides the following: The proposed rezoning and change in plan map designation will not significantly affect any existing or planned transportation facility, as documented by the transportation impact analysis prepared by Chris Clemow, PE and by comments provided by Transportation Planner Peter Russell. As a result, this application complies with the TPR. The County code does not impose a requirement of a transportation impact analysis for all zone changes. DCC 18.116.310(C) says that no transportation analysis is required for proposals that generate fewer than 50 trips per day. The proposed zone change will not result in an increase in vehicle trips as uses that do not require conditional use approval in the EFU zone generate more vehicle trips than similar uses in the MUA-10 zoning district. If an analysis is required by DCC 18.116.310(C), DCC 18.116.310(E) requires that a 20 -year study period be used in the analysis. It does not require that a TIA be performed. At the request of the County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell, the applicant submitted a transportation memo, dated September 9, 2016, which was received on September 10, 2016. In response to the letter, Mr. Russell provided the following comments: I have reviewed the Sept. 9, 2016, transportation memo from the applicant's traffic engineer, which was prepared in response to staff's determination the transportation planning rule (TPR) analysis requirements have not been met for the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use (MUA-10) for demonstrating no significant effect. The property's sole access currently is a driveway onto US 20; the Deschutes County TSP shows this segment fails in 2030. In this most recent memo the applicant's engineer focused on establishing a baseline for trip generation in the existing zoning by using what would be the highest trip rate from a 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 50 use permitted outright in the EFU zone and contrasting it to the highest trip generator permitted outright in the MUA-10. The applicant's traffic engineer concluded that based on this comparison the highest trip generator for EFU would be a church of less than 100 seats whereas the highest trip generator in the MUA-10 would be two additional houses, both with Type I home occupations. The church would generate more trips than the homes, thus the rezone would result in fewer trips, thus proving no significant effect. Staff agrees this would be an appropriate method if either 1) the EFU parcel was vacant or 2) the applicant was proposing a church simultaneously with the rezone or a church application already had been approved. Neither 1) nor 2) are true. The parcel is developed with a single-family home and staff feels the baseline trip generation should be based on that use. This has been past County practice in cases were parcels were developed and there was no simultaneous application for a new land use. Thus, the parcel would have more trips generated under the MUA-10 zoning than EFU and the applicant has not demonstrated no significant effect. Staff will defer to the hearing's officer on whether the applicant's approach to trip generation is allowable; however, staff points out TPR compliance can be met via a different route. While the affected segment of US 20 is forecast to fail in 2030, the Deschutes County TSP lists planned improvements at Table 5.3.T1 (County Road and Highway Projects). Adding additional travel lanes on US 20 between Providence and Hamby is listed as a $2 million dollar medium priority project (next 6-10 years). The applicant, under the TPR, can rely on planned improvements as mitigation. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the amount of additional traffic that would be generated the proposed zone change is minimal. While the all parties agree the resulting trips would be under the County's 50 -trip threshold for traffic studies as stated in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(C)(3)(a), staff points out DCC 18.116.310(E)(4) requires traffic analysis for zone changes Again, staff agrees with the applicant's traffic engineer that there is no significant effect to US 20 from this EFU to MUA-10 zone change; we just arrived at the same destination via different routes. The Hearings Officer notes that the evidence at hearing shows that the maximum potential increase in traffic caused by the application is traffic generated by 2-3 new lots. As set forth in the findings above, I find that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the proposed rezone will have minimal impact to the road system. Because the property would generate Tess than 50 trips, a traffic impact letter is acceptable and no Traffic Impact Analysis is required. As discussed above, DCC 18.116.310(C) is entitled "Guidelines for Traffic Studies; subsection (3) sets forth trip generation thresholds that shall determine the level and scope of transportation analysis required for a new or expanded development, with subsection (a) stating that no report is required if there are fewer than 50 trips per day generated during a weekday. DCC 18.116.310(E) sets forth Study Time Frames and the information that must be included in a TIA, if one is required by the trip generation thresholds in DCC 18.116.310(C). I find that interpretation of DCC 18.116.310(E) must be read in context with the "Guidelines for Traffic Studies" in DCC 18.116.310(C). The threshold requirements in DCC 18.116.310(C) also apply in DCC 18.116.310(E). 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 51 The applicant's traffic impact letter constitutes the required traffic analysis under DCC 18.116.310 and OAR 660-012-0060 for a 20 -year period. In addition, the Transportation Systems Plan includes planned improvements including additional lanes on Highway 20, upon which the applicant can rely as mitigation. There is no evidence that rezoning the subject property will preclude widening of Highway 20 to a 4 -lane road, as Mr. Cleavenger asserts. Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's conclusion that there is no significant effect to US 20 resulting from the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change, based on the submitted transportation letter, I find that compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been demonstrated. OAR 660, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The applicant's corrected burden of proof statement addresses applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines below: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the applicant to post a "proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the public hearings held regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held to consider the application. Goal 2, Land Use Planning Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings of act and conclusions of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands The applicant has shown that the subject property is not agricultural land so Goal 3 does not apply. Goal 4, Forest Lands The existing site and surrounding areas do not include any lands that are suited for forestry operations. Goal 4 says that forest lands "are those lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption of this goal amendment." The subject property does not include lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption of Goal 4. Goal 4 also says that "(wjhere **a plan amendment involving forest lands is proposed, forest land shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources." This plan amendment does not involve any forest land. The subject property does not contain any merchantable timber and is not located in a forested part of Deschutes County. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces A part of the large pond on the subject property is a mapped wetland that may be one of the wetlands inventoried by the County in its Goal 5 inventory. The wetland is a mapped wetland on the current National Wetlands Inventory prepared by the US Department of Fish and Wildlife. The National Wetlands Inventory inventories the large pond on the subject property as an excavated wetland (man-made). In 1992, Deschutes County protected all wetlands shown on NWI inventor maps in effect in 1992 as a Goal 5 resource. This fact is discussed in Section 5.3, Goal 5 Inventory of 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 52 the County's comprehensive plan. The County has also adopted an LWl for South Deschutes County. The subject property is not in the study area of the South County LWI. Deschutes County's comprehensive plan does not contain policies that provide specific protections for wetlands. Protections are, instead, provided by County ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections. The plan amendment does not amend a resource list or a portion of a land use plan or regulation that protects wetlands. It also will not affect a Goal 5 resource. The resource protection for the pond will remain the same after the plan designation and zoning are changed. Both the EFU zone and the MUA-10 zone offer the same protection for wetlands. Both require conditional use permit approval for any excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a wetland and must comply with DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270. This is the protection called for by the comprehensive plan. Wetlands are also subject to state and federal fill and removal regulations. Wetland resources are not protected by limiting the use of land. The changed uses allowed by the MUA-10 zone will not cause the fill and removal restrictions that protect the Goal 5 [sic) to become ineffective or inapplicable. As a result, the zone change and plan amendment will have no impact on Goal 5 protection provided to the resource by the County's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality The approval of this application will not cause a measurable impact on Goal 6 resources. Approval will make it more likely that the irrigation and pond water rights associated with the property will ultimately be returned to the Deschutes River or used to irrigate productive farm ground found elsewhere in Deschutes County. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards This goal is not applicable because the subject property is not located in an area that is recognized by the comprehensive plan as a known natural disaster or hazard area. Goal 8, Recreational Needs This goal is not applicable because the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County residents and does not directly impact areas that meet Goal 8 needs. Goal 9, Economy of the State This goal does not apply to this application because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application will not adversely impact economic activities of the state or area. Goal 10, Housing The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR -10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Approval of this application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County comprehensive plan. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services The approval of this application will have no adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Utility service providers have confirmed that they have the capacity to serve the maximum level of residential development allowed by the MUA-10 zoning district. Goal 12, Transportation 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 53 This application complies with the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012- 0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also demonstrates compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation The approval of this application does not impede energy conservation. The subject property is located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend. Providing homes in this location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. Goal 14, Urbanization This goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. Goal 15, Willamette Greenway This goal does not apply because the subject property is not located in the Willamette Greenway. Goals 16 through 19 These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination of compliance with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, as follows: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. The Planning Division provided notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change to the public through individual mailed notices to nearby property owners, publication of notice in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and posting of the subject property with a notice of proposed land use action sign. A public hearing has been held by the Hearings Officer on the proposal, and a public hearing on the proposal will also be held by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), per DCC 22.28.030(C). The proposal is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to plan amendment and zone change applications are included in the county's comprehensive plan and land use regulations in Titles 18 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code and have been applied to the review of these applications. The proposal is consistent with Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 is "[tjo preserve and maintain agricultural lands." As LUBA has explained in various cases including DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1998) and Wetherall v. Douglas County, LUBA No. 2006-122 (October 9, 2006), a county can follow one of two paths to support a decision to allow non -resource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use. One option is to take an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3. The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate that the land does not qualify as agricultural under the applicable statewide planning goal. The latter path has been selected as the preferred procedure which is a option permitted by state law. As discussed in the findings above, the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" because it is comprised predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils that are not suitable for farm use. The proposal is consistent with Goal 3. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 54 Goal 4, Forest Lands. I find that this goal is not applicable because the subject property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. Since the hearing, the applicant has stated that the pond on the subject property is an inventoried Goal 5 resource. The applicant also states that the proposed change in zoning and plan designation will not change the Goal 5 protections that apply to the pond. This is because there is "ample room" on the property to allow it to be developed with the uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone without impinging on the resource. The applicant notes that the uses allowed outright in the EFU zone are more expansive than those allowed outright in the MUA-10 zone, comparing DCC 18.16.020 and 18.16.025 with DCC 18.32.020. Any more intensive use allowed in the MUA-10 zone requires approval of a conditional use permit that can be used to provide further protections to the Goal 5 resource. I find that the proposal is consistent with Goal 5 because the same zoning requirements apply in the EFU and MUA-10 zone with respect to grading, fill and removal in wetlands. The rezone and plan amendment in and of themselves will not impact any Goal 5 resource. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. I find that the applicant's proposal to rezone and amend the plan designation, in and of itself, will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the county. Any future MUA-10 Zone development of the property would be subject to local, state, and federal regulations protecting these resources. The proposal is consistent with Goal 6. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. I find that this goal is not applicable because the subject property is not located in a known natural disaster or hazard area. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. I find that this goal is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not affect recreational needs, and no specific development of the property is proposed. Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities. This goal does not apply to this application because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, approval of this application will not adversely impact economic activities of the state or area. Goal 10, Housing. 1 find that approval of the application to convert a farm property with poor soils from EFU to MUA-10 zoning and to amend the plan designation is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County comprehensive plan. Future development of the property will help meet the need for rural housing. The proposal is consistent with Goal 10. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. This goal requires planning for public services, including public services in rural areas, and generally has been held to prohibit extension of urban services such as sewer and water to rural lands outside urban growth boundaries. I find that this goal is not applicable to the applicant's proposal because it will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. As discussed in the findings above, public facilities and services necessary for development of the subject property in accordance with the MUA-10 Zone are available and will be adequate. The proposal is consistent with Goal 11. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 55 Goal 12, Transportation. As discussed in the findings above, I find that the application complies with the Transportation System Planning Rule at OAR 660-012-0060, which is the rule that implements Goal 12. The proposal is consistent with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. I find that the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and of themselves, will have no effect on energy use or conservation since no specific development has been proposed in conjunction with the subject applications. Given that the subject property is located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend, providing homes in this location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. The proposal is consistent with Goal 13. Goal 14, Urbanization. Goal 14 is "[t]o provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." I find that this goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. The proposal is consistent with Goal 14. Goals 15 through 19. These goals, which address river, ocean, and estuarine resources, are not applicable because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. I find that the applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable statewide planning goals. TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE A. CHAPTER 22.20, REVIEW OF LAND USE ACTION APPLICATIONS Section 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not: 1. Approve any application for land use development; 2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments; 3. Issue a building permit. B. As part of the application process, the applicant shall certify: 1. That to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the property in question, including any prior development phases of the property, is currently in compliance with both the Deschutes County Code and any prior land use approvals for the development of the property; or 2. That the application is for the purpose of bringing the property into compliance with the Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 56 C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal or through the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA '9. D. A permit or other approval, including building permit applications, may be authorized if: 1. It results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, or local laws, and Deschutes County Code, including sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a voluntary compliance agreement; 2. It is necessary to protect the public health or safety; 3. It is for work related to and within a valid easement over, on, or under the affected property; or 4. It is for emergency repairs to make a structure habitable or a road or bridge to bear traffic. FINDING: Ms. Cleavenger testified at hearing that Deschutes County Code enforcement procedures have commenced against the owner of the subject property for an alleged nuisance under DCC 13.36.010 (solid waste accumulations). It is her position that the requested rezone cannot be approved due to this alleged code violation. I find that, first, there is not a "violation" as per DCC 22.20.015(C) because there is no prior decision by the County or other tribunal and no acknowledgment by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement. Second, I find that the requirements/prohibitions in DCC 13.36.010 do not constitute an "applicable land use regulation," and that there are no conditions of approval in any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County with which the applicant is not in compliance. Nonetheless, I will make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that the application be approved after the alleged violation has been corrected. Although the attorney for the applicant advised staff on October 11, 2016 that the trash on the subject property has been removed, with a supporting photograph, the Hearings Officer finds that confirmation of such a fact by County Code Enforcement Officers should be provided before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners hearing on the proposed rezone. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the Applicant's application to change the Plan Designation and Zoning of the subject property from Agriculture/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10 subject to the following conditions of approval: A. A hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is required to consider approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. B. Prior to the hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, the alleged violation of DCC 13.36.010 on the subject property shall be corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of Deschutes County Code Enforcement officers and the Code Enforcement file, if any, shall be officiallly closed. C. Prior to the public hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to approve the subject plan amendment, zone change for the subject property, the applicant/owner shall submit to the Planning Division a metes -and -bounds description of 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 57 the subject site to be re -designated and rezoned. D. The Hearings Officer recommends that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners impose the following conditions of approval: a. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. b. This approval allows on the subject property all uses allowed outright and conditionally in the MUA-10 zone, except that cluster or planned development, as described by the County, shall not be allowed on the subject property as long as the property is zoned MUA-10. A notice of this restriction shall be recorded in the chain of title on the subject property. Sfephanib/M4Shall Hicks, Hearings Officer g" 2,9/ Dated thisday of November, 2016 Mailed h day of November, 2016 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA 58 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Designation on Certain Property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) ORDINANCE NO. 2017-008 WHEREAS, Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings, LLC applied for a Zone Change to the Deschutes County Code ("DCC) Title 18, Zoning Map, to rezone certain property from Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone ("EFU-TRB") to Multiple Use Agricultural ("MUA-l0"); and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, public hearing was held on September 27, 2016 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, and on November 22, 2016 the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Plan Amendment and a Zone Change; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on June 5, 2017 before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") ; and WHEREAS, on this same date, the Board adopted Ordinance 2017-007, amending DCC Title 23, the County Comprehensive Plan, changing the plan designation of the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area ; and WHEREAS a change to the Deschutes County Zoning Map is necessary to implement the amendment adopted in Ordinance 2017-007; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Multiple Use Agricultural ("MUA-10") for certain property depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "A," attached and incorporated by reference herein, and described in Exhibit "B," incorporated by reference herein. Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as it findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of the County Hearings Officer, attached to Ordinance 2017-007 as Exhibit "E," and incorporated by reference herein. PAGE I OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2017-008 ATTACHMENT "B" TO BOARD MEMO /// Dated this of , 2017 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR PHIL HENDERSON, COMMISSIONER Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2017. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Phil Henderson Effective date: day of , 2017. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2017-008 ATTACHMENT "B" TO BOARD MEMO NE HAMPTON LN in tr z 0 O ❑ J Li! _ Z z i NE CORONA LN 1..-.1.-.1 11 NE PROVID z - UARIO` HWY 20 Zone Change From EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFUTRB) To Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). Legend Subject Property Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural i UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve 10 Ac. Min. 17-12-35-00-01500 II I BEAR CREEK RD EFUTRB PROPOSED ZONING MAP Porter Kelly Bums Landholdings, LLC 21455 Highway 20, Bend Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 2017-008 0 200 400 800 May 18, 2017 EFUTRB MUA10 1111,,,,,1111,1 11,111111.....11111111.01111111 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice -Chair Phil Henderson, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of June, 2017 Effective Date: , 2017 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING. A PORTION OF THE Sot.`THw'EST ONE.•QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST (:)NE -QUARTER (SWE'4 SEI/4) OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 1' SOUTH. RANGE 1.2 EAST OF THE WVILLAMETTE MERIDIAN BEING. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRII3.ED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCIN(% AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW1 4 OF THE SEI.a OF SECTION 35. TI'S. R12E. \i'.\I.: THENCE N0O.4O' 1 ' ',V .... 30.00 FEET ALONG THE \VEST LINE OF SAID SW 114 5E1,4 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEING, LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR BEAR CREEK ROAD: THENCE CONTINUING N00'40'13"W - ti90"-9 FEET ALONG THE \VEST LINE OF SAID SW1/4 5E1,4 TO A POINT LOCATED ON THE CURRENT CITY OF BEND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LINE: THENCE N264' 1 3" E 595.57 FEET ALONG SAID URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY LINE TO THE SOLTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WVAY LINE FOR U.S. HIGI-IWAY .20: THENCE N89;0•I2"E - 1030,05 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID S\V1r4 5E1.4: THEN( is S00 35'15•"E - 1225.72 FEET' ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID Stt i 4 SI 1/-1 TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY L:NE FOR BEAR CREEK ROAD: THENCE N89"41‘34"W -- 1324.04 I IET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE TRUE. POINT OF BEGI'N'NING. PARCEL CONTAINS APPROYINIATELY 35.324 ACRES SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS. AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LANDS. Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE No. 2017-008 Chris Schmoyer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: David, Chris Schmoyer Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:23 AM 'd,morman@bendbroadband.com' Peter Gutowsky RE: Comments for Hearing on File Numbers 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA Thank you for the comments and photos. I will include them in the record for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners regarding this matter. You are welcome to submit hard copies, however, the email is sufficient and the submitted items will be entered into the record. Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Community Developrnent Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Web: htto://www.deschutes.orq/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not he deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: d.mormanftendbroadband.com[mailto:d.morman@bendbroadband.co_ml Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:57 AM To: Chris Schmoyer Subject: Comments for Hearing on File Numbers 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA Mr. Schmoyer, Please forward the attached written testimony and accompanying photos to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners and for inclusion in record for the June 5 public hearing on File Numbers 247-16-000317-ZC 318 -PA. A reply from you confirming you have received this information will be appreciated. I would be happy to submit a signed original copy of these comments, if needed. Thank -you, 1 David Morman 21352 Bartlett Lane Bend 503-569-1380 2 May 25, 2017 Deschutes County Community Development Department Planning Division P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 RE: File Number 247-16-000317-ZC / 318 -PA To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: I am writing to comment on the request by Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings, LLC for approval of a Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property located at 21455 Highway 20, near Bend (also identified as tax lot 1500 on County Assessor Map 17-12-35). The applicant is requesting to change the designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change. My residence is 21352 Bartlett Lane in Bend, which is located a few hundred feet to the west of the subject property. I have a strong interest in how the use of the subject property might change if the applicant's request is approved, how that use and associated traffic flow might affect my neighborhood, and also in preservation of natural resources present on the subject property. The City of Bend is just completing an extensive Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion process. Only 2.5 acres of this subject property were considered for inclusion in the UGB. I believe before any intensified residential or non-agricultural mixed-use development is allowed on the remaining portions of the subject property additional justification is needed as to: • Why the expanded UGB will not satisfy projected needs for such development and • Why the subject property should not retain its current designation until another future round of UGB expansion takes place. Without such a justification, the applicant's request appears contrary to the land use planning rules for the maintenance of lands zoned for agricultural use and for planned development and expansion of the City of Bend. I think that is what Urban Growth Boundaries are for. At one time, PACWEST Builders proposed a design for the subject property that would eventually include 858 housing units. Is this zone changed a first step towards that intended outcome by the property owners? East Bend is also already plagued with an accumulation of years of piecemeal development. By granting the applicant's request, Deschutes County would be allowing just one more piecemeal development action outside of the UGB, with no larger plan in place on how it will contribute to a "complete neighborhood." As decision -makers, you should require information establishing how the applicant's request is a logical contribution to the overall strategy for the development in Deschutes County and perhaps, some day, of East Bend and its neighborhoods. A second major concern regarding development of the subject property is the fate of the lake that resides on the lot (see attached photos). From aerial photos of the area this lake has stood there as far back as 1940. It is fed through the ground by the irrigation canal, has no pump facilities, and maintains a water level throughout the year that does not freeze over. This lake supports complex, water -loving vegetation and is home to countless birds and wildlife including osprey, hawks, deer, and huge families of ducks and other fowl. Consistent with the Land Use Planning requirements for the protection of Goal 5 resources, I strongly support protection of this water body and its surrounding natural vegetation. With the property owner's plans for development, this natural beauty would be covered and the entire area loses this natural landmark. This lake should more appropriately be preserved as an option for future integration into the Bend Parks District to provide an amenity to any future development in the vicinity. How much was spent on Discovery Park in Northwest Crossing for their artificial water feature? Why allow the destruction of a similar feature that already exists? Will East Bend residents be given access to beautiful features like this lake? It is a tremendous benefit to the area. This region of Bend will need more parks with new development already planned inside the UGB. I believe my neighbors and I are reasonable and willing to work with any new development to help our community grow in a healthy way. But I request that Deschutes County and the City of Bend first work together to craft a larger scale development strategy and transportation plan is in place for the area bounded by 27th Street, Bear Creek Road, Highway 20, and Ward Road. Critical information in such a plan will be details on the inevitable future development of the Landsystems Nursery property bordering both sides of Highway 20 just west of subject property and how development of the subject property and the nursery property will contribute to the already established neighborhoods, such as my own. Thank you for your work on this important topic and for considering my comments and including them in the public record. Sincerely, David and Cindy Morman 21352Bartlett Lane Bend, Oregon (ES 0 -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ DATE: AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of May 31. 2017 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 / Work Session PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: CDD Director Nick Lelack. SUMMARY: Each spring, CDD prepares an Annual Report and Work Plan describing annual accomplishments and a proposed work plan for the coming fiscal year. The work plan describes the most important objectives and projects in each CDD division based on: 1. Board annual goals and policies; 2. Carry-over projects from the current or prior years; 3. Changes in state law; 4. Public comments; and 5. Grants/funding sources. The draft Work Plan contains projects CDD expects to initiate next fiscal year based on Board of County Commissioners (Board) priorities, Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission recommendations, public input, and budgeted resources RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a work session to briefly present and discuss the draft Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 prior to the scheduled public hearing on June 14, 2017. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: May 31, 2017 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 / Work Session SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a work session to briefly present and discuss the draft Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 prior to the scheduled public hearing on June 14, 2017. The draft Work Plan contains projects CDD expects to initiate next fiscal year based on Board of County Commissioners (Board) priorities, Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission recommendations, public input, and budgeted resources. BACKGROUND Each spring, CDD prepares an Annual Report and Work Plan describing annual accomplishments and a proposed work plan for the coming fiscal year. The work plan describes the most important objectives and projects in each CDD division based on: 1. Board annual goals and policies; 2. Carry-over projects from the current or prior years; 3. Changes in state law; 4. Public comments; and 5. Grants/funding sources. The work plan is presented in draft form to major customer groups, including the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) and the Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR), the Planning Commission, the Historic Landmarks Commission, interest groups, and is distributed with a request for comments to cities and the general public. Quality Services Performed with Pride Each year the department improves the Annual Report and Work Plan content and format. Notable improvements this year's document includes the following: • Executive Summary and Population Growth. • Each CDD Performance Measure references the applicable Board of County Commission goal and objective it implements. • Performance Measure results for 2016 are reported graphically, including whether the measure was met, not met, or within the range. • The department's administrative and information technology functions and services are combined into one section to reflect CDD's organizational chart. • The Work Plan now focuses on new projects and services to be initiated rather than the ongoing services. The overview of each division and performance measures provide information on ongoing services. • Additional photographs of staff, meetings and events, and from the field have been included. PLANNING COMMISSION / HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing in April to gain public input, discuss, and make a recommendation to the Board regarding the Planning Division's draft FY 2017-18 Work Plan. In addition to the carry-over projects from the current fiscal year and staff proposed new projects, which are based on Board goals and objectives for FY 17-18, the Commission also recommended three new projects based on public input: 1. Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance. 2. Add Sisters Country to the list of community plans to be initiated or updated. The list already includes Tumalo, Terrebonne, Newberry Country, and Deschutes Junction. The City of Sisters will initiate a community visioning project in the fall, and is seeking County participation in the effort to include unincorporated Sisters Country. The area is to be determined, and may include the school district boundaries or Sisters zip code, based on coordination with the County. 3. Convene a panel of water experts to discuss water resource and conservation issues with an emphasis on the relationship between land use, population growth, and development. The Historic Landmarks Commission also conducted a work session on the draft Planning Division Work Plan, and did not offer any additional comments. Both Commissions unanimously recommended approval of the draft Planning Division Work Plan to the Board, recognizing that the Board will prioritize projects based on its goals and objectives, public input, and funding. Board action is not requested at this meeting. -2- 646661111 41161 Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT WORK SESSION: MAY 31, 2017, 1:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 14, 2017, 10:00 AM Main Line: 541-388-6575 Fax: 541-385-1764 Website: www.deschutes.org/cd 117 NW Lafayette Avenue P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS .IWI111.11 .W,I.IM1,11.4WL4Y1,1110111,.141xdYi,1,1141.lktil.aYa:,Wual:WdulnLUYII,lin4111411.1“1,11,4Whil.11111,11,1uiuYWl,I,a..1.1,YW1blulffie.1.,4:YY14Al6w::ini.ii,Y.I.11YWd.1.111,uWuYJ.1{11.LIWWiWW,J1il.Wlui.l41.11.M0111,1.1IWUJ'W:Ii:LIdJ,iWJIdYbWYIOL'G+1C1J+1,II:lY.1ail:i:laLW11111.ueW11i8WI11illh YLIIieuLtlYalludl.11wWYd'M1YYLLIUWW Commissions, Committees and Hearings Officers 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary / Population Growth 7 Overview 8 Executive Summary 9 Deschutes County Mission Statement 10 Performance Measures 2017-18 11 COORDINATED SERVICES Accomplishments 13 Work Plan 14 CODE ENFORCEMENT Accomplishments 15 Work Plan 16 ADMINISTRATION AND Accomplishments 18 18 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Work Plan BUILDING SAFETY Accomplishments 20 Work Plan 20 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS Accomplishments 23 Work Plan 23 PLANNING Accomplishments 27 Work Plan 31 Staff Directory 36 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND HEARINGS OFFICERS :wmda1cwa:n,,n1,:l.L uwsnweid:,uuimvnm.umeuueuua.uwannauwduu..61uumuA,,w:u1.i,.d.,A11 u, : �1n.uu,u.u,mi,�m„,d,.,1,ai,muie.u,0,wsm�dunm 1,dik1,d:au,oua,em,uoimivao1,m,:,uwodi1�¢m1udwu1mooureumoummera�m.mu.umnumm,na,e:wdw„nu,mudu1mu1wu..Y161niu�muum,oyd:,dv1,4,A u.iwz.,amnm�,un„�m��umwud�,�umnu ❑uu,uu,u , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF BUILDING SAFETY COORDINATED SERVICES Tammy Baney, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Henderson, Commissioner Tom Anderson, County Administrator Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Sherri Pinner, Management Analyst Kim Adamson, Administrative Secretary Tim Berg, GIS Analyst/Programmer Randy Scheid, Building Safety Director Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Safety Official Krista Appleby, Building Inspector I Rainer Doerge, Building Inspector III Scott Farm, Building Inspector III Owen Gilstrap, Electrical Inspector Steve Jensen, Plumbing Inspector Brandon Jolley, Building Inspector I Brian Moore, Building Inspector I Dan Swarthout, Building Inspector III Steve Wills, Building Inspector III Laurie Worley, Building Inspector I Richard Wright, Building Inspector III Lori Furlong, Administrative Manager Judy Hackett, Permit Technician Angie Havniear, Permit Technician Rodney Hines, Permit Technician Jennifer Lawrence, Permit Technician Lisa Petersen, Permit Technician Martha Shields, Permit Technician John Griley, Code Enforcement Technician Tony Laemmle, Code Enforcement Technician Chris Tiboni, Code Enforcement Technician ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor Larry Howard, Environmental Health Specialist II Kiley Rucker Clamons, Environmental Health Specialist I Tracy Griffin, Permit Technician PLANNING CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017 Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary Will Groves, Senior Planner Zech Heck, Assistant Planner Caroline House, Assistant Planner Izze Liu, Assistant Planner Matt Martin, Associate Planner Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner 3 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND HEARINGS OFFICERS IJuY II.I,i IJ,ule41W11 I Ii I.i111411,l1.0i41e111,JI i,IA1,111,1111,1,1111LYo I1id111,1,1111 JI, u1d1,1611.11,IJ„111.,1„1411111„I 4,1i1111,1111111d,11411d1111e11111,i11w,1,141,M,eL1Y4111LUIlYY1i1111i ill! ll,J,I4YIu611,L,Y.,Ii111.1.111441111LL,1„ 1Y111,I111.,I1L1,.11YuludL1Y,11 ILII11,11,11111,,11,011111,LW 11111,u1Wu11,1410i1Y1,da,1,I1d.1111111111,Idll.,1.111e1Im4u51i111 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSIONERS Steve Swisher - Sisters (Chair) Dale Crawford - Redmond (Vice Chair) Maggie Kirby - Bend Hugh Palcic - South County Jim Beeger - Bend Susan Tunno - Redmond Les Hudson - At Large Chris Horting-Jones, Chair - Unincorporated Sharon Leighty, Vice Chair - Unincorporated Kelly Madden - Ex -Officio Bill Olsen - Pioneer Association Dennis Schmidling, Secretary - City of Sisters Rachel Stemach - Ex -Officio Broc Stenman - Unincorporated DESCHUTES COUNTY Liz Fancher HEARINGS OFFICERS Stephanie Hicks Dan Olsen DESCHUTES COUNTY BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cheryl Howard - Chair Bill Braly - Vice Chair Greg Svelund - Secretary Mary Barron Chris Cassard Michelle DeSilva Scott Ferguson Wendy Holzman X11 IIIc Scott Morgan David Olsen Rick Root Mark Smith CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 INTRODUCTION CDD Mission Statement The Community Development Department facilitates orderly growth and development in Deschutes County through coordinated programs of Planning, Environmental Soils, Building Safety, Code Enforcement education and services to the public. This Annual Report highlights the Community Development Department's 2016-17 accomplishments, the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-18, and implements the Board's goals and objectives. CDD provides satellite office coverage in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters, as well as services at the main office in Bend. The Department consists of divisions and programs as listed below, which provide coordinated planning and development services. Coordinated Services Building Safety Environmental Soils Planning Division Code Enforcement Information Services Main Office 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Mon., Tues., Thurs., Fri. 8:00-5:00 Wed. 9:00-5:00 ..��uw,m�a�,e�.,ui odwlma��wu.ym.nww�muaiw,uaum Redmond City Hall 437 SW 9th St., Suite 202 Redmond, OR 97756 Tuesday 8:00-4:30 amis,wwu..iwun,ei,111 .6,1114wWoe4uo,W1.13/41Ws,u.1u.ai1muWww6114 Wma.o.e.1a CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 .11 16114,owmw:,w La Pine City Hall 16345 Sixth Street La Pine, OR 97739 Tuesday 8:00-4:00 Sisters City Hall 520 East Cascade Ave. Sisters, OR 97759 8:30-4:30 Li.ulliwilodowuagaaAadWadi,11.11,1, ,L 5 6 OVERVIEW The Community Development Department (CDD) oversees building safety and electrical services, planning and zoning, environmental review, code enforcement and administrative services for Deschutes County. CDD consists of five divisions which provide coordinated planning and development services. The divisions include the following: • Administrative Services establishes the integration of technology across all CDD divisions and coordinates with the cities as well as providing direct service to the public via application training and support, web -based mapping, reporting services and data distribution. • Coordinated Services Division provides coordination of permitting and "front line" direct services to customers at the main office in Bend and at the Redmond, Sisters and La Pine city halls. • Code Enforcement, within the Coordinated Services Division, is responsible for investigating code violation complaints to ensure compliance with each of the codes and statutes administered by CDD, and provides direct service on contract to the City of La Pine for solid waste violations. • Building Safety Division provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with federal and state building codes in the rural County and cities of Sisters and La Pine. • Environmental Soils Division regulates on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic) and monitors environmental factors for public health and resource protection. • Planning Division is separated into two operational areas, Current Planning and Long Range Planning. Current Planning processes individual land use applications and provides information to the public on all land use related issues. Long Range Planning addresses the future needs of the community through updates to the comprehensive plan, changes to County Code and other special projects. Wo066,,,,A&W.M111,1,1W,Wmidd,W,IIMIN.11111111.41.11.1a.Mmil.A1 .M1,1 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 E411#49$OPFICERS 1::, OVERVIEW HISTORIC *o*toisin ---1-'-i-z,COMMISSIONi,„:..„„ T - PLANNING .0x0mun- livelo ,Drp .6623.3, DUCHIll*sRNER: MITIGATION :AND NHANCEMENT 00.006,-; Budget Summary FY2.014 FY 2015 FY 20I8 FY2.0I6' FY2017 (requested) Resources 6,605,706 7.833.348 7,213.683 8,420.357 8,978,919 Requircments 6.605.706 7.833.348 7.213.683 8,420.357 8.978,919 1 FY 16 Reserves: 2 FY 17 Reserves: 3 FY 18 Reserves: $1,037,652 $1,375,000 $ 823,610 Full Time Equivalents FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 3000 34.00 36,00 11 IlllJiI „„.,1116.(ift Ikl01111 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 45.00 45.00 mosismassym, iwas EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND & � The Annual Report and Work Plan is developed to: FY 2017-1$ WORK PIAN • Implement the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) goals and EMERGING ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS & FUTURE WORK PLANS • Managing Population Growth & Demographic Changes • Addressing Affordable Housing • Preserving & Protecting Natural Resources, Water Quality & Quantity • Improving Transportation Systems • Anticipating New Economic & Agricultural Opportunities • Maintaining & Enhancing High Quality of Life • Reducing Natural Hazard Risks, Preparing for Disaster Resilience • Planning for Healthy & Safe Communities • Regional Planning, Coordination, Partnerships • Expanding Recreational Opportunities • Facilitating Access to Health Care & Higher Education objectives (page 9); • • Implement the Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" Standards; ♦ Effectively and efficiently manage organizational assets, capabilities, and finances; Fulfil the department's regulatory compliance requirements; Enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and highly desirable place to live, work, learn, recreate, visit, and more; and Address changes in state law. The BOCC adopts the Work Plan after considering public, stakeholder and partner organization input, and Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission recommendations. The Work Plan includes more projects than there are resources available. CDD staff coordinates with the BOCC throughout the year to prioritize and initiate projects listed in this Plan. Projects not initiated are carried over to future years. • Key CDD fiscal issues and operational challenges in FY 2017-18 are summarized below. • Fiscal Issues • ♦ Ensure costs are fully accounted for and recovered through fees and other revenue sources. • Ensure financial stability and ongoing operations through establishing a long term financial plan. ✓ ♦ 8 Explore future funding options to pay debt service on the bond funding the expansion of the La Pine sewer system. Operational Challenges & Opportunities Maintaining high customer service levels with appropriate staffing levels. • Responding to new regulations and laws as outcome of 2017/18 legislative sessions. • Processing complex and controversial land use applications and decisions and code enforcement cases. • Preparing for work force turnover through succession planning and staff retention strategies. • Addressing affordable housing. • Improving website, development statistics, and other reports. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Central Oregon is a dynamic region and an extraordinary place to live, work, learn, recreate, visit and so much more, as is clearly demonstrated by the sustained population growth over the past six decades. This page provides a snapshot of the County's growth since 1960, the 2015 Portland State University Population Forecast through 2065, and the most recent PSU Population estimate. POPULATION GROWTH Deschutes County 50 -Year Forecast: 2015-2065 Bend Unincorporated Redmond Sisters La Pine Total 2015 2035 2065 85,737 132,206 194,793 53,151 69,627 84,719 27,715 39,812 64,784 2,315 4,375 7,212 1,687 3,014 5,836 170,606 249,037 357,345 Total Deschutes County Population & Forecast Portland State University Population Estimate 2016 Geographic Area 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Deschutes County 176,635 170,740 166,400 162,525 160,140 158,875 Bend 83,500 81,310 79,985 78,280 77,455 76,925 Redmond 27,595 27,050 26,770 26,590 26,345 26,305 Sisters 2,390 2,280 2,190 2,115 2,080 2,055 La Pine 1,675 1,670 1,670 1,670- 1,670 1,670 Unincorporated 61,475 58,430 55,785 53,870 52,590 51,920 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 10 DESCHUTES COUNTY MISSION STATEMENT Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' 2017-2018 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Safe Communities Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services 1. Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 2. Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 3. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters Healthy People Enhance and protect the health and well being of communities and their residents 1. Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 2. Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 3. Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. Economic Vitality Promote policies and actions that sustain and simulate economic vitality 1. Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. 2. Administer land use programs that promote livability, and sustainability. 3. Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 4. Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. Service Delivery Provide solution -oriented service that is cost effective and efficient. 1. Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 2. Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 3. Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 4. Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 201718 LYWWYWLWYL4IWIYWWYWW""' ,' "'WWIWIIIW.LYWIWYWW ' .Y.., udWAJLWu.IYLLWIWI.LLWWYWIi14WLYWYNrILJryWYYLL6W14WIW44WwiJtllJo6,..W'L4WWYWYWUJLWIWYWu:I'u'JLWWUWWI'.1d1WWWWIWIWWiIALIMIYWWJ4WWIYtlWW4'W1W44WW ILYWY4IMY'BJWYWUW116WWLWYWWY1464 YWIJLYYWYIWWULWY.WWYWlLLW1 The Community Development Department's 2017-18 goals are reflected in the performance measures below. These performance measures strategically and comprehensively align all of CDD's operations with the Board of County Commissioners' (Board) 2017-18 Goals and Objectives and the County's Customer Service Standards. The performance measures address service delivery expectations from the perspective of CDD's customers; ensure the department fulfils its regulatory compliance requirements; effectively manage the organization's assets, capacities, and finances; and preserve and enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and desirable place to live, visit, work, learn, recreate and more. CDD performance measures implement the Board's FY 2018 goals and objectives. Each performance measure references the applicable Board goal and objective. For example, CDD performance measure 4 which is to achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases implements the Board's Safe Communities objective 1 to provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety and services will include the reference "SC -1" in bold type. Safe Communities (SC) Healthy People (HP) Economic Vitality (EV) Service Delivery (SD) All CDD 1. Complete single family dwelling permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 30 days. SD -1 2. Complete commercial structural permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 35 days. SD -1 3 Achieve a customer feedback rating of 2.9 (out of 3.0) or better. SD -2 Coordinated Services & Code Enforcement 4. Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases. SC -1 Resolve 75% of Code Enforcement cases within 12 months. SC -1 Complete structural permit Ready -to -Issue turnaround time of 4 days. SD -1 41,4,11 liddii.11,1i1Allip 1.. Yaw 411111IYJ,IWIRYl Yu I001,YIiIJYlYIIIW'1 4Y,J111,1111 ILI1'1111111 u11:JIMY YYI1W11111 lil1JJ111W:WIII.IIIJW.YL111u1111411 '.1,YJYWWYe YJYIIW LJ.Wd W1'4i 1 111111.111111. uitl Ill WJ11W 1'11 „11111, IWIW1',LYII II WLWWIY hWJLIl11111Ii1W1Y1,li1 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES, CONTINUED JYfWY'WYWiW6YYIb�ha �WiYJUYoi�Wi,Y4iWiYWiLYWYuuYW1oWLYiLLYYWJY�Wn14WJuluyJJ,W�iY4WWYu1WY1WLLWW 146W.h.41,..WYYYN1WJJuuu141,116.1.4.YJYY4WWwuLLWWWuW 411,a,lnWNWW,YYYetlu.MW,41,i LLWULLYLYJUWtlYUWUWUYuuLu Building Safety 7. Achieve an average of 6-10 stops at different construction job sites per day for each Building Inspector. Each stop may consist of multiple inspections. SD -1 8. Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days. SD -1 Environmental Soils 9. Issue new onsite septic system permits within 15 days of receiving a complete application. SD -1 10. Achieve compliance with the ATT operation and maintenance reporting requirements of 95%. HP -3 Planning 11. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions requiring prior notice within 45 days of determination of complete application. SD -1 12. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions that do not require prior notice within 21 days of determination of complete application. SD -1 13. Coordinate with cities regarding growth management. EV -1, EV -2, EV -3, EV -4, HP -1 14. Coordinate with the City of Bend to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. EV -2, EV -4 15. Coordinate with the City of Redmond to entitle a large lot industrial site. EV -4 16. Re-evaluate agricultural land designations. EV -2, SD -3 12 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES 4141111.16.1.6.1.64.1, OVERVIEW Administration provides oversight for all departmental operations and facilities, human resources, budget, customer services, and performance ACCOMPLISHMENTS measures. Information Services (IS) is responsible for the development and maintenance of digital spatial databases and for providing state-of-the- art mapping and data services to local governments, citizens, and businesses. In addition, IS staff supports customer service applications, reporting services, technical support and application development. IS establishes methods for deriving statistics, evaluating efficiency, and assisting in measuring departmental performance. IS is staffed by one GIS analyst/programmer. • Worked with the County's database administrator to implement the use of genealogy within Accela and DIAL, allowing reverse chronological research of parcel changes. • Established meaningful performance measures using database programming and custom report writing to measure volume and capacity of department. • Developed departmental policies pertaining to: 0 Reserve funds 0 Fee setting 0 Records retention 0 Mileage reimbursement 0 Collection procedures 0 Payment card 0 Cash handling • Established and monitored new performance measures to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of departmental operations and processes. • Completed departmental Business Processes Audit and implemented 90% of recommendations. WORK PLAN = • Complete implementation of Business Processes Audit recommendations. • Implement new accounting, human resources, and timekeeping software. • Remodel CDD lobby to improve safety, customer services, and efficiency. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 13 ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES WORK PLAN, CONTINUED Establish performance measure reports for distribution to internal and external customers. Establish and monitor a new performance measure to target the number of days from building permit acceptance to ready to issue of 32 days. Create a CDD information technology strategic plan. Create a new web -based CDD newsletter to report department news, development statistics, performance measure results, and hearings officer, Board, and LUBA/court quasi-judicial land use decisions. 14 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 COORDINATED SERVICES .LIW411u14..4Yl 1,4141'e4WwYYu1.{1.Y641.44u,1Y4Y4141wi .4Y1,.141....i1111 1,6,..4.Y..a 41;41 11.1L;ItlllW4h411a;.;1041A4W114.1A6Y611,1Y4111.1e ..Wo141;11.1,11{....kkul;i .614Y11;WIe 01,1,d1,14,1/1..1,41,WJI,MUlk WWWWfLINW;W{IY 61s. JYW411W W111WnWtlLLWi i114,6Ilw4illYuuWYYWLtlLL1'1,41,1.11t1YWY,3111.1,11,1416.411 OVERVIEW The Coordinated Services Division provides service to customers at the '_. main office in Bend, as well as in City Halls in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. The Division consists of eight permit technicians and three code enforcement technicians. The goals of the Division are to ensure minimal wait times, provide accurate information to the public, and ensure the efficient operation of the front counter and coordination among all 1 divisions. Staff also performs basic building plan reviews and addressing in the rural County and City of Redmond, under contract. ACCOMPLISHMENTS CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 • Customer service is the top priority for Coordinated Services staff and they have maintained that high level of service during the increase in activity and while training new staff. ♦ Coordinated Services relocated the Redmond satellite office to Redmond City Hall last spring. The office is staffed one day per week in this location. Responsibility for the Sisters building program was given back to the County last summer. Services are provided at Sisters City Hall with staffing one day per week. • In coordination with Information Services (IS) and Information Technology (IT), Coordinated Services continued to assess equipment used by all CDD staff to ensure that operational needs were met. The team developed project lists that will enhance service, staff efficiency and communications. Projects included: 0 Providing smart phones to building and environmental health inspectors and code enforcement technicians in the field to provide real-time inspection results; making data available to inspectors in the field; and improving communication, photography and printing tools; 0 Providing linkages to historical documents where parcel numbers have changed; 0 Creating new types of online permit applications; and 0 Reviewing business processes and procedures and making several adjustments to accommodate and fully utilize Accela. Accela 0 Continued to create efficiencies using the Accela permitting software. As the software evolves and new tools become available, Deschutes County continues to be a statewide leader in offering training opportunities to our customers and regional agency partners using the software. 0 Deschutes County has created an Accela ePermitting Advisory Group that will be looking at the future of State ePermitting systems and how it can best fit the needs of the jurisdictions statewide. This is both an opportunity to discuss system issues and to offer suggestions for improvements to meet Deschutes County's needs. The state has been supportive of this group and its suggestions. COORDINATED SERVICES, CONTINUED auw„v�uaauaweu:,r;aYoaur.,nau.Wn��na��u�uiowdau:,uas�mwawuuwncame,u.mmau.1wa„a,u.11...ie1uawu 1.11a4+xa.uauuy.u.rm_wm1.1.1.4,1:.m,muwU.iM1naaswum,mi,aMuuwuuo.iu4uuwmuoum.m4aivamaeu..1...a...wa,wuwm61,1,1mn.w,,..w1l4.i,54 uusuuiw.,....a:muwawwronuwaumam:,mswmn:wm11.amww0muw.,mitl WORK PLAN Performance Measures 0 During the transition to Accela, it was discovered that a custom program used by Coordinated Services for operation and maintenance of septic systems did not fit under the umbrella of the new system. IT has created a new custom program for staff to use. This will enable staff to send out timely monthly billing statements to maintenance providers, track reports that have been submitted and keep better track of those septic systems that are out of compliance. 0 Deschutes County was the first statewide jurisdiction to adopt the new Accela user interface that was introduced in the fall of 2016. This new interface has been a significant change from the current interface. Staff led several training sessions in preparation for this new interface. 0 As part of the continued improvements to the ePermitting software by the state, an onsite module was implemented to better address onsite sewage disposal systems. Deschutes County staff helped to design and test this new module and implemented it in the fall of 2016. • Continue to coordinate and conduct public outreach and education on Accela and all related elements to increase customer use of ePermitting, and encourage submittal of applications for all participating jurisdictions at any participating Community Development Department. A class was held for contractors this past winter to help educate them on the use of the online services . • Serve on statewide ePermitting committee, participate in national Accela conference, and pursue other actions to ensure Accela meets Deschutes County's needs. • Continue to cross train permit technicians to perform simple plan reviews, and participate in statewide permit technician training programs and Central Oregon Planners Network Training. Achieve 25% of all permits being submitted electronically, with the exception of planning applications (the capability does not yet exist). Establish and monitor a new performance measure—the target number of days for structural permit ready to issue turnaround time for Coordinated Services of four days. 3 ♦ Percentage of permits applied for at counter 16 Coordinated Services Lower Upper Limit Target Limit 60% 40% 20% -11 Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Average 73.7% Score X CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 � CODE � NMENT OVERVIEW The Code Enforcement program consistof three Code Enforcement technicians (3 FTE in 2017-2018) plus volunteers, supported by a Iaw enforcement technician from the Sheriff's Department, management and the operating divisions. Code Enforcement is responsible for investigating code violation complaints associated with building, land use, onsite wastewater disposal and solid waste codes, with the overriding goal of achieving voluntary compliance. If necessary, Code Enforcement may issue citations for prosecution in circuit court or before a Code Enforcement hearings officer. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Code Enforcement staff successfully resolved 340 cases in 2016. New Complaint Cases 500 2 -+as% 400 7+ao%300 ^ � ; r-+14%--.1 �� F- - ! � -- , �7 i_ 200 366� 100 252 l241 Z84 _____ ,:1 � )�� 80% 60% -- 40% J0%- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 w Compliance m , l! � � /;vo|unmry El Warning ootamon n|n/vnct ion 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 • Staff continued to achieve an 85% voluntary compliance rate with the additional case load. • Utilization of volunteers in the proactive code enforcement program was very successful. Work performed by volunteers directly enhanced productivity and efficiency. Volunteers review Temporary Use Permits for compliance with conditiona|uoededxions,inc|udin8theannua|updateofdoctom'|e11emfornnedica/hardships,remnva|ofman' ufactured homes for storage permits and for living in RVs. • Code Enforcement staff has successfully coordinated with the inmate work crew on a few cases in order to resolve some solid waste enforcement issues. This has been a great partnership between two County departments to CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 17 CODE ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUED 'mmwe�mewWe.Wuewm.dden,w.euu:reu,auee:.11,44.411ew.,11 emae1u,.wxunwiea..ua ,mam.otaumermmaey 14.41.0,W44(.amod,eawaeruuam4u:wu,wmwaudaae•.mw1aeuurm,.w.M.uum•emn•uieaWW.,u,mewuomyawmoweW,:aeuomnn,Wma,matdr„endia,ommuwauvsuwiwuwau:uWail,yuew:,wm:iuguuaaaisiimuwe,ummdwe:mumru,auaa,sef resolve some difficult cases and help the homeowners to come into compliance. The County Road Department was also involved in helping to abate a property with a hazardous structure. • Staff participated in a panel discussion on 'Living on Small Acreages.' • Staff met with local jurisdictions and WEBCO on dealing with seniors with hoarding disorders and resources available. • Staff participated in the Marijuana Advisory Committee meetings in order to address concerns on the enforceability of the proposed and adopted ordinances. • In order to have cases heard by a hearings body in a more timely manner, staff have been issuing a Notice of Civil Penalty that are heard by a Hearings Officer instead of Circuit Court. This has allowed staff to schedule multiple hearings per day as needed, have a lien placed on the property if the property owner has not complied with County Code and pursue further action as needed. 100% W« 80% _ ,.:o 70% 60% 30% 30% -._.. 20% "7°b % 4% Case Turnaround 8% il% • 2012 WORK PLAN 2013 2014 2015 2016 Closed within 30 Days ❑Closed within 60 Days ❑ Closed within 180 Days (D Closed within 1 Year • Continue to utilize the inmate work crew to resolve solid waste cases where the property's owner is unable to comply with County Code due to medical issues. • Continue working with planning staff on marijuana related complaints in order to process these complex situations in a timely and consistent manner. • Continue proactive efforts in investigation of illegal second dwellings, review temporary use permits, and follow up on replacement dwellings. • Continue to establish a relationship between CDD Code Enforcement and rural subdivision homeowners' associations. Code Enforcement technicians make themselves available to speak at stakeholder meetings to share Deschutes County Code Enforcement information and operating procedures. 18 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 CODE ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUED • Survey other code enforcement jurisdictions and incorporate innovative practices where appropriate. This effort includes direct involvement with the Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) conference participation and networking. • Administer the Code Enforcement Volunteer Program, focusing on proactive, non -threatening case review. • In cooperation with the Building Safety Division, participate in the development of a text amendment on the County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The amendment will update tables to include compact florescent lighting and LED options. • Explore the feasibility of conducting proactive enforcement of certain types of land use permits which have conditions of approval associated with them. • Evaluate updated Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, and initiate amendments per direction from the Board. • Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases. • Resolve 75% of cases within 12 months. Performance Measures Achieving voluntary compliance Resolving cases within 12 months 4 Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Code Enforcement Lower Upper Compliance Limit Target Limit Rate 75% 85% 100% 91.60% 75% 85% 100% 84.90% Score CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 19 BUILDING SAFETY YId4:WW..dY;,,W'wdia'L WeauutluuWYI,W W.wWLuIWY..JYLWJWua,wu:4oWJJ•uWWuldWlwduLddutlL•WJ.iedLW,J;,e4W1YWLLW W1LLWllluW:iIJi6L'uWUYwW Wuwai.W,:IWe,11;Yuulwhd.;ew11dN,;,�luu•uuLwMLIWYu1LW d4WLWaWWIYUWwLIIIiwW:;dWWWI�eW,:,Ya�Wllwi.4,au.eu':YYWuWL,1LLWY:W'WYIWYdi�:Jl;,WdYYmtW1YJu,WiY�I�uJI4wY'uBUWUWI:nLWUYYWdeuddwWWYY4uIWu,:l,1 OVERVIEW The Building Safety Division provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with state statutes, state building codes and national standards. The Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the state -mandated building codes through a process of education and a clear and fair application of the specialty codes. The Division provides all of these services throughout the rural county, the Cities of La Pine and Sisters, and various services to Lake, Jefferson, Klamath and Crook counties, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division on an as -needed basis. The Division consists of the Building Safety Director, Assistant Building Safety Director, and 11 Building Inspectors. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Issued 523 single-family dwelling permits in 2016 for Deschutes County. Includes Sisters. • Increased building inspections by 13% from 30,040 in CY 2015 to 34,426 in CY 2016 • Continued to enhance Accela's capabilities through identifying issues, articulating business needs, and finding solutions and opportunities with this emerging building inspection software. • Continued the process of cross -training all staff members. Two more Inspectors have received their "specialized" inspector certifications, allowing them to conduct limited commercial inspections, as well as all four residential certifications. • Gained diversification in the division with the hiring of a former Permit Technician as the newest Plans Examiner after obtaining certifications. • Continued the transition to a more fuel efficient inspection fleet. The vast majority of the daily field inspection fleet is now made up of small AWD vehicles. • Completed a remodel of the Division's work area to accommodate our consolidated staff. • Reviewed and approved the first proposed marijuana extraction facility. • Assisted in the snow load evaluations of county buildings, essential facilities, and schools in the rural area during the recent inclement weather event. • Presented a well -attended educational offering that included all local building jurisdictions and the local design professional community through a partnership with our chapter of the International Code Council. • Presented to the local chapter of International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. • Presented to a Redmond Proficiency Academy Tiny House class. 20 WORK PLAN • Manage staffing resources to reduce any negative results due to the loss of two FTE's until replacements can be hired and trained. • Achieve an average of six to ten stops at different construction job sites per day for each building inspector. • Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of eight to ten days. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 600 500 400 — 300 100 157 BUILDING SAFETY Numbers of New Homes +89% 2 +19% +38% 524 7. 1600 320 441 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Numbers of Permits Issued +12% 2012 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 2013 2014 2015 2016 21 BUILDING SAFETY ..lmmuau..1w,u,1miwuumw..1.u1 1m+n.w1Alrnmwt,w,,1..111/ 1.11w1,a1.W,1ww,. u,w..1.m1.11au.a 1auir. W,u:Wmum a,4mn,1.uamv.u1Lm, 41dui.J:m.11,111a+1111.u..o u:e1,w.1.milmrm s.o+mb 1111w.mwmu1.ammdau 1wmI 1uau4muwuu/u1.1Wma.uwmaw1m1+14111uam14eYwmmmummmm,m.mm Performance Measures u,uim.u�m��umu�m Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Building Safety Lower Upper Limit Target Limit Average Residential building inspections- number .o€stops per day 6 8 10 10.64 Residential plan review - number per examiner per day 2 3 4 2.5 Percentage of permits applied for electronically 20% 40% 60% 26.3% Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically 50% 65% 80% 61.2% Residential plan review turnaround time in days 2 5 8 12.78 Inspections completed same day as requests 90 95 100 98.4 Score X j Y dIWVJY�Y�Iu41WVWil4lVdIlLIWIYIYY�ViWIWLWIWlY�.1+iV:YIY�''dIWI�VL4J�'�Y'1u111'WIW�WLlu1WIrYJ�4u'.4WWJrL�IW�WIIWJCIfJIWVl411WV4J � Y�u�wWrYi4dd� 22 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS AWI1611,..y.d.mliWlaaWlln,LUY .1.141,41.11..11411WI1.•1,1iA.1.....1.11b1114.X161.1.1.64,101.1“..11..1116,L.100 Y.1.1d WW0.111.1Bilo•AMiLLII iYyWYW11WWAM ull..41W 41WkYW41.6M.1.111.4ltlxYduWWWWYJtWy0111. uWIWwIWiiWWIYI AsialbItY4A.JYaWW4.6iLlyYynMJI.WyWWILY11YtWWWYII OVERVIEW = The Environmental Soils Division provides site evaluations, design review and inspection of on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal systems as an agent of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Staff inspects sewage pumper trucks, reports on condition of existing wastewater systems, maintains an operations and maintenance tracking system, provides the public with information on wastewater treatment systems and regulations, and investigates sewage hazards. Staff are also engaged in the proactive pursuit of protection of the groundwater in southern Deschutes County and other sensitive areas. The Environmental Soils Division is staffed by one Environmental Health ,)1 Supervisor, one Environmental Health Specialist, one Environmental Health Specialist Trainee and one on-call inspector who provide site evaluations, design review, permitting, inspection, education and coordination with DEQ for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. Additional support staff include 0.5FTE permit technician. ACCOMPLISHMENT 111114.14.Y.1.11.1e11111.101.11wa In 2016, the Division: • Assessed 276 sites for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, up approximately 60% from 2015, and issued 1373 permits and authorizations for new and existing onsite treatment and dispersal systems, up 9.7% from 2015. Applications included more complex and technical procedures compared to recent previous years. ♦ Provided two property owners in South County with rebates of $3,750 per property for upgrading conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems. • Hired and trained a new Environmental Health Specialist Trainee working the onsite program and helping with Operation and Maintenance reporting and tracking database. 1 • Supported Craft3 in starting its clean water loan program in Deschutes County. Craft3 now provides clean water loans 1 throughout Oregon. WORK PLAN J • Achieve a goal of a 10 -day turnaround for new construction permits. ♦ Prioritize addressing sewage health hazards and protecting public • health and the environment. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Participate with DEQ in the pursuit of groundwater protection solutions and possible implementation of the South Deschutes/ Northern Klamath groundwater protection steering committee recommendations. • Provide financial assistance opportunities to assist property owners who do not qualify for conventional loans to upgrade conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems 23 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED IWWWI,JIubma hl.ululW,,,daN1, 1411 tl,11,6,11111,1,,,11, ndl,ulul.I�,neY��xl n, 4i,,,Y aYJ,11e,�, I I, I III IIiIUYIu,.I,'.IYnYYe,uelY1,4.,,1,411,„II,Y.,d,1,I,d,:Jn„a'4,I.IIdI4"n1Y.JU 11111.IIW.u11W,YYIWJIYYWYIY„aul,N,IIIYY„V'.II,1YYYY:,Id,ddYY1,,J1uluYkYYdniI4Jl6 WORK PLAN, CONTINUED Performance Measures (Nitrogen Reducing System Rebates and the Neighborlmpact Non -conforming Loan partnership). • Participate on the City of Bend stormwater public advisory group. • Continue coordination with the City of Bend and DEQ regarding the southeast sewer interceptor and sewer expansion, and the impact on homeowners with onsite wastewater systems. • Maintain and update the South Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Annual Report. • Complete updates of the Operation and Maintenance reporting, tracking, and electronic invoicing system as required by DEQ. Diversify and train additional staff to work the operation and maintenance program. • Issue new onsite septic system permits within 15 days of receiving a complete application. • Achieve voluntary compliance with the ATT operation and maintenance reporting requirements of 95%. Long -Term Projects I • Update the DEQ contract for the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Program to be more consistent with current rules and requirements (current contract dates from 1981). Environmental Soils Lower Limit Target New system permit process control, turn -around time 5 10 Percentage of permits applied for electronically Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically Pre -cover inspections completed same day as request 15% 35% 90% Meeting Target Within Range XNot Meeting Target Upper Limit Average 15 10.30 35% 50% 50% 65% 100% 95% 5.5% 39.8% 95.6% Score 24 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Site Evaluations +62 +21 +23 +65 *: 2761' f 1 - • :, 1 ,,,,_ :1 100 , ..r - rr 3 t 1170 , - ri 140 69 ..; ? .: ... ..• 50 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ,-.• • ..• Septic Permits Issued +15% -13% 926 :, .. . . ..1 935 ...,-,..-..--, '&--------4, 810 i -----k . . , . . • ..1 2012 2013 +27% 2014 2015 +16% 1373 25 to m„W.e1L,,1„.:.Lrtl„1.4161e„.mL,., 1141.1.1 PLANNING u{WWdL:YilWl6iL11,1i16 NllWa,JJ6.1 1,0,416.1 J,uWAWUW,LWWUNbYYL41L,Y1.11111 aieYuen,Y,dlWue&HAMA 1,144i bY,,,lu11114 ,Nw,Jwiul ALAI. 1luuYWiluPaYUOuhni,tlaltAA1l.o„YLW0LW'W ILLI,JIM1.1Y1.m.. OVERVIEW The Planning Division consists of two operational areas: Current Planning and Long Range Planning. The Division consists of 12 employees: a Community Development/Planning Director, one Planning Manager, two Senior Planners, one Senior Transportation Planner, an Information Systems programmer/analyst, three Associate Planners, three Assistant Planners, and an Administrative Secretary. Development Services is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) and state law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with hearings officers and the BOCC. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; performing road naming duties and assisting with addressing; and providing assistance at the public information counter, over the telephone and via email. Long -Range Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the BOCC, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, including population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Staff also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development. Three specific disciplines support both Current and Long -Range planning, including transportation, wetlands/floodplains, and Information Systems, covered separately in this Work Plan. Transportation Planning provides comments and expertise on land use applications, calculates System Development Charges (SDC's) as part of land use application review process or upon request; provides comments to the County's Risk Management Department regarding traffic issues for permitted events; participates in the annual County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process with the Road Department; applies for grants for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities in coordination with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); participates in Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funded refinement planning; coordinates road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface plans; and serves on several local and regional transportation committees, most notably BPAC, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee, and Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) Technical Advisory Committee. YWIY�e�Y��uYUY�.WlaluwWuulY uu4 Petr llu4�WUWuu't �:�lu'IJIWYY uu JIY WILLm'uau�uWWlYaWuou:�u.1�m: Ytlu �W Y6lv'u.'wYW .�L6unWul�Y:u�Wuu�u �,I,; AQUI 26 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED Floodplain and Wetlands Planning is responsible for providing comments and expertise on land use applications, code enforcement, and general property inquiries that require development, fill, or removal in mapped floodplain and wetlands. Staff maintains certification as an Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain Manager to provide customers with up-to-date and accurate information regarding FEMA regulations, surveying requirements, and construction requirements. Coordination is frequently required with external agencies including FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Forest Service. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Applications The Planning Division continues to experience an increase in land use 3 applications. In 2016, the division received 809 land use applications, I compared with 663 for 2015. The following table conveys the application trends over the last five years: CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 900 800 ...,T 700 600 500 400 300 200 --- 100 - 0 - Land Use Applications :i 463 392 r' -1, • 2012 2013 +10% C. • 663 +22% 809 f:. 2014 2015 2016 Eleven applications were reviewed by hearings officers in 2016. The highest volume were landscape management reviews (123), permit sign -offs (120), administrative determinations (83), property line adjustments (77), conditional use permits (73), lot of record verifications (63), and site plan reviews (41). Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments The Planning Division processed: I • A plan amendment relating to a Goal 11 exception for Southern 1 Deschutes County 27 PLANNING, CONTINUED ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED 28 ♦ Plan amendment to rescind the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan and adopt the 2013 Bend Air Master Plan into the Transportation System Plan Zoning text amendments for marijuana regulations ♦ Plan amendment relating to Bend's Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Zoning text amendment to expand the definition of a lot of record Plan and zoning text amendment recognizing non -resource lands process allowed under state law to change EDU zoning; a definition of ag-exempt buildings; and, reducing setbacks in the F2 Zone, for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three -acre tax lot LUBA remand to initiate a plan amendment, zone change, changing Exclusive Farm Use zoning to Rural Industrial for property at Deschutes Junction 1 Land Use Board of Appeals j There were 8 appeals filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals in 2016, 1 the same number as in 2015. 1 Marijuana Businesses i The Planning Division approved five marijuana production applications and one marijuana processing application in 2016. 1 Non -Farm Dwellings The Planning Division received 39 nonfarm dwelling applications in 3 2016, compared with 28 for 2015, equating to a 39 % increase. j Partition and Subdivision Plats 1 Thirteen final plats were recorded in 2016 or are in the process of 1 being recorded, creating a total of 163 residential lots. j Prominent Applications Noteworthy land use applications in 2016 included two solar 1 photovoltaic system modification of approvals, Bend Airport Master 1 Plan amendment, dude ranch, Buddhist church, Bend Urban Growth Boundary amendment, and marijuana production and processing. 1 Grants I Certified Local Government Grant Planning Staff completed an eighteen month $13,000 Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to assist Deschutes County with its historic preservation programs. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED e U.S. EPA Brownfield Community -Wide Assessment Grant The Planning Division completed a three-year $400,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Community -Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant in September. Proceeds from the grant enabled the County to establish Brownfield inventories for Deschutes County and the Cities of Bend and Redmond and nine Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The Brownfield grant also dedicated $90,000 for Area Wide Planning (AWP) for the City of Redmond's Mid -Town area. The timing and readiness to utilize AWP funding offered extraordinary advantages in Redmond. It dovetailed with the City's existing efforts to revitalize the area, including an urban renewal district, market analysis, and recently completed housing study. The City of Redmond contributed an in-kind match of $44,700 to maximize the opportunity. Projects Statewide Planning Goal 11 Exception The Planning Division, in coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) initiated a Goal 11 Exception in June 2015 that would allow sewers in rural Southern Deschutes County to address nitrates in shallow groundwater. The Board adopted the Goal 11 exception in February 2016. Recreational Marijuana Convened a Marijuana Advisory Committee and held seven meetings in early 2016. Staff revised marijuana regulations and held work sessions and public hearings with the Board of County Commissioners to regulate marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Ordinances were adopted in June 2016. Agricultural Lands The Board adopted a plan and zoning text amendment in November recognizing non -resource lands process allowed under State law to change EDU zoning; a definition of ag-exempt buildings; and, reducing setbacks in F2 Zone, for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three - acre tax lot. Lot of Record Definition The Board adopted a zoning text amendment in November, expanding 4 the definition of a lot of record in response to a recent LUBA remand. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 29 PLANNING, CONTINUED nWirvWWkY.LLWWwduYLLmWJLIYY,J.14i1,1:14,1 WLJW,YwL.J.u..k.LLLd.IaLJ,4.4YY4MA.1601dLLJ4.JA114,1.1,14,1v 16441. NWLL'Y.1i41/ JWn 4aIJ4i.4WiuI�HJa plbluliWlaul�i�LUI�nuHn1�41veWnn�a��.vL'W'.e.LYIIJYJYJw.euxeuuaYvuWl�JaddYYUJa1WaJuvl4lele�IlLJwiYtlluYv.uY.vaWJW.iWLNLivWuaAdYluLIIWIIYWnIne�LludWYIJ�4e�,WJvwIWrlWl&WA/.LLUW14,, WvWNW41iWY'JYWI ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED 30 Performance Measures Coordination with Other Jurisdictions and Agencies City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion The Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing in the fall and adopted the Bend UGB amendment in September 2016. Central Oregon Large -Lot Industrial Land Need Planning staff coordinated with the City of Redmond regarding a site owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) adjoining its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as a plausible location for a regional large -lot industrial campus. DSL is expected to initiate a City/County UGB plan amendment in 2017. City of Bend Airport Master Plan Planning staff coordinated with the City regarding a land use application to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Title 18 of the Airport Development Zone to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. The City of Bend is expected to initiate an amendment in 2017. City of Sisters Airport Planning staff coordinated with the City of Sisters, Oregon Department of Aviation, Sisters Airport and Eagle Air Estates regarding the taxiway and the process related to a state "recognized" airport. Planning Lower Upper Limit Target Limit Days to process admin. determinaton apps wjo prior notice 14 21 35 Days to process admin. determinaton apps with prior notice 30 45 60 Meeting Target t within Range XNot Meeti ng Target Average 26.6 68.9 Score X CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED WORK PLAN Floodplain Complete the process to amend County Code to change the floodplain base zone into a combining (overlay) zone. Evaluate Marijuana Regulations During the adoption of the marijuana land use regulations, the Board recognized this new program should be reviewed and evaluated to determine if it is working as intended—to support this emerging industry, protect the high quality of life for rural residents—and to address changing circumstances, interpretive matters, and amendments to state law. This evaluation would perform the analysis described above based the decisions issued and public comments from all sides of this issue. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Agricultural Lands Re -Evaluation & Potential Re -Designation Participate in the Land Conservation and Development Commission's Non -Resource Lands Rulemaking process, if initiated. Coordinate with the Department of Land Conservation and Development to initiate a process to re-evaluate agricultural lands. Community & Area Plans Engage Sisters Country, Tumalo, Terrebonne, Newberry Country, and/or Deschutes Junction residents to determine if community plans, goals, and policies meet the current and future needs of the area. Only one or two such planning efforts may be initiated each fiscal year. South County Groundwater Protection Develop a template for property owners or organizations to apply for Goal 11 Exceptions. Consider amending the Newberry Country Plan to replace the existing Goal 11 Exception policy with a new Goal 11 Exception policy framework for future policies. Affordable Housing Explore affordable housing options for the rural county. Grading Ordinance Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance. Historic Preservation—Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant 1 Administer the CLG Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office. 1 Natural Resources / Water j Convene a panel of regional water experts to discuss water resource j and conservation issues with a particularly emphasis on the relationship to land use and population growth and development. Initiate a review 1 of County Goal 5 inventories and protection programs. 31 PLANNING/ CONTINUED Wd 11,W.WeLWu44Lulln,I1WIWIiWWu16WWi116ei1,A11,1m1.414,WAWWLII,,141,61,111nYWYYWYYIWW4,WId1,61WW11WWIIS.141,..14./1wkWIuuW4YUWJYIW,1111../ILIIYWWNIU.+Liv.,l4111 WW 1,4411141LAI .111 6141. a.1.104v WORK PLAN, CONTINUED Growth Management Coordination Coordinate with cities, County departments, state agencies and organizations to develop and implement growth management plans. 1 :w a w,Wu: u„ „: r 0w 1 32 Central Oregon Large -Lot Industrial Land Need Continue to coordinate with the City of Redmond to initiate a UGB amendment for a regional large lot industrial campus. City of Bend Airport Master Plan Continue to coordinate with the City of Bend to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to allow new airport - related businesses at the Bend Airport through a streamlined permitting process. Natural Hazards Consider implementing the recommendations from the University of Oregon's Community Service Center's review of County Codes and polices regarding wildfire mitigation. Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit Amendments Amend Deschutes County Code 8.16 pertaining to Outdoor Mass Gatherings in coordination with County Legal Counsel. Ongoing Annual Projects • Consider implementing legislative amendments stemming from laws enacted by the 2017 and 2018 Oregon Legislative Sessions • Population Forecast: Coordinate with the County Assessor and Administration Office to complete the Portland State University, Population Research Center, 2017 Housing Unit and Population Questionnaire. • Tracking Systems: Develop, maintain, and improve tracking systems for: 0 Comprehensive Plan and Community/Area Plan implementation activities, updates, necessary revisions, and potential areas for new plans. 0 Destination Resort overnight lodging units. 0 Limited Use Permits (agri-tourism and other commercial events and activities. 0 Marijuana Annual Reports. 0 Non-farm dwellings. 0 Medical Hardships. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT BACKGROUND Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires cities and counties to create a citizen involvement program that provides opportunities for community participation in land use planning processes arid decisions. Land use Iegislation, policies and implementation measures made byOregonians over 40years ago � helped shape Oregon's urban and rural environments. Likewise, choices made today will ultimately shape these areas in the future. Successful land use planning occurs through an open and public process that provides room for information gathering, analysis and vigorous debate. Deschutes County's Community Involvement program 15 defined in Section 1.2 ofthe Comprehensive PIan. This chapter identifies the County Planning Commission as the committee for citizen involvement. also contains the County's Community Involvement goal and corresponding five pohcies that comply with Goal 1. This report briefly discusses the noteworthy community involvement actions undertaken by the Planning Division in 2015. The report is intended to provide county residents and stakeholders with a tool to assess its effectiveness and offer additional suggestions the County can utilize to ensure that its diverse communities remain actively involved in land use planning discussions. 2016 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT I Current Planning ACCOMPLISHMENTS I Administering the zoning code requires the Current Planning Division to processes individual Jand use applications, zoning review and sign -off for building and septic permits. Current planners maintain legally prescribed turnaround times on lanci use applications (150 -days) and provide customer service through assistance at the front counter, phone conversations, and appointments. Phone messages are returned within 24 hours. Website, Facebook and DIAL 2 CDD utilized the County's website as a primary tool of public communication and information for public meetings; pending land use applications; long-range planning projects; posting the CDD Update; and providing links to current and past BOCC and Planning Commission meetings. In addition, CDD coordinated with the County's Communications Directorto publish press releases and announce 1. documents, etc. on the County's Facebook page. CDD also coordinates with the Information Technology Department to create a one-stop shop in DIAL 2 for all County propertydevelopment/permits, assessor records, and interactive mapping. DIAL 2 increases access, simplifies, and consolidates information in one place for the benefit of the general CDD ANNUAL PORT AND ORK PLAN 20 7-18 33 2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT, CONTINUED 1011111601d I4diui,l,J1,111,1,4i1,4144,41 .11411,1141111i1,1d110411.14,11e,4WtlYuinllYlilue,I,Yi;dW 1.lu, 61461.111. i I W44.IJ 1J,111411'Jii,,ul:,nW,,YiWY4.lilil,Je.111LJI,Y Iwl i,1,11.1u111:1WY4YJe1411:4 441114uJ,Y1d1Ye1Jiul,L,i YlillduYlJ,1ulun:11,1d1;W.J1wi1:i1141u W,YII,YJI4di111411.d,nILL1111u11e14d1.141:101J1111411J.ilY1aJdJ111YY:lAeLu1Y1JIWIw,44eJ111Jn4g6Y14YilYNIIIaYUO,euA11u14,1{4iL44NJ144WJnYILu.L44�4�lelalellWui Marijuana Regulations CDD convened a Marijuana Advisory Committee and held seven meetings in early 2016. Based on the MAC's recommendation, staff revised marijuana regulations and held work sessions and public hearings with the Board of County Commissioners to regulate marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Ordinances were adopted in June 2016. U.S. EPA Brownfield Community -Wide Assessment Grant The Planning Division completed a 3 -year $400,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Community -Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant in September. Deschutes County convened a Brownfield Advisory Committee (BAC) throughout the project to provide input on grant administration and to assist staff in making allocation decisions. The BAC j convened for the final time to receive the project report as well as presentations by APEX Companies, LLC, Deschutes County, and the City of Redmond in September 2016. Planning Commission The Deschutes County Planning Commission held 13 meetings in 2016 discussing an assortment of issues, including: • Marijuana Regulations • Agricultural Lands • Setbacks in Forest Use 2 zones • Agricultural Exempt Buildings • Destination Resort Tracking • Planning Division Work Plan • Bend Urban Growth Boundary • Medical Hardship Dwelling • Lot of Record Verification • U.S. EPA Brownfield Grant • Performance Measures • LUBA Decisions / Appeals uWP IWVL IuV'YY4"u W.�I�rWJV ✓�IvV6� 'h F + 411 i ,lE 34 Historic Landmarks Commission The Historic Landmarks Commission held 4 meetings in 2016 discussing: • Paulina Lake Cabins • Pilot Butte Canal Historic District / National Register Nomination • Deschutes County Centennial • May Preservation Month • LCDC Rulemaking • Cline Falls Power Plant Demolition Permit • Regional HLC Summit Concept CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 NAME Nick Lelack, AICP Kim Adamson Krista Appleby Tim Berg ; Sher Buckner Todd Cleveland Rainer Doerge ;Scott Farm Lori Furlong Owen Gilstrap Chris Gracia Tracy Griffin John Griley William Groves Peter Gutowsky ;Judy Hackett Angie Havniear Zech Heck Rodney Hines Caroline House Larry Howard Steven Jensen Brandon Jolley Anthony Laemmle Jennifer Lawrence Izze Liu Nicole Mardell Matt Martin Brian Moore Lisa Petersen Sherri Pinner Anthony Raguine Kiley Rucker Clamons ; Peter Russell Randy Scheid Martha Shields Chris Schmoyer Cynthia Smidt ' Dan Swarthout Chris Tiboni Steve Wills Laurie Worley Richard Wright STAFF DIRECTORY TITLE Community Development Director Administrative Secretary Building Inspector I GIS Analyst/Programmer Administrative Secretary Environmental Health Supervisor Building Inspector III Building Inspector III Administrative Manager Building Inspector III—Electrical Assistant Building Official Permit Technician Code Enforcement Technician Senior Planner Planning Manager Lead Permit Technician Permit Technician Assistant Planner ` Permit Technician Assistant Planner Environmental Health Specialist II Building Inspector III—Plumbing Building Inspector I Code Enforcement Technician i Permit Technician Assistant Planner i Assistant Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector I Permit Technician Management Analyst Senior Planner Environmental Health Specialist I Senior Transportation Planner Building Safety Director Permit Technician Associate Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector III Code Enforcement Technician Building Inspector III Building Inspector I Building Inspector III PHONE (541) 385-1708 (541) 317-3193 (541) 385-1701 (541) 330-4648 (541) 617-4736 (541) 617-4714 (541) 385-1702 (541) 385-1402 (541) 317-3122 (541) 388-6614 (541) 388-6578 (541) 388-6573 (541) 617-4708 (541) 388-6518 (541) 385-1709 (541) 385-1713 (541) 330-4611 (541) 385-1704 (541) 383-6710 (541) 317-3148 (541) 330-4666 (541) 385-1700 (541) 322-7182 (541) 385-1707 (541) 385-1405 (541) 388-6554 (541) 317-3157 (541) 330-4620 (541) 323-5221 (541) 317-3188 (541) 385-1712 (541) 617-4739 (541) 383-6709 (541) 383-6718 (541) 317-3137 (541) 385-1706 (541) 317-3164 (541) 317-3150 (541) 385-1745 (541) 383-4397 (541) 322-7181 (541) 383-6711 (541) 617-4746 EMAIL Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org Kim.Adamson@deschutes.org Krista.Appleby@deschutes.org Tim.Berg@deschutes.org Sher.Buckner@deschutes.org Todd.Cleveland@deschutes.org Rainer.Doerge@deschutes.org Scott.Farm@deschutes.org Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org Owen.Gilstrap@deschutes.org Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org Tracy.Griffin@deschutes.org John.Griley@deschutes.org William.Groves@deschutes.org Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org Judy.Hackett@deschutes.org Angela.Havniear@deschutes.org Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org Rodney.Hines@deschutes.org Caroline.House@deschutes.org Larry.Howard@deschutes.org Steven.Jensen@deschutes.org Brandon.Jolley@deschutes.org Anthony.Laemmle@deschutes.org Jennifer.L.Lawrence@deschutes.org Isabellaliu@deschutes.org F Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org Matt.Martin@deschutes.org Brian.Moore@deschutes.org Lisa.Petersen@deschutes.org Sherri.Pinner@deschutes.org Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org Kiley Rucker-Clamons@deschutes.org Peter.Russell@deschutes.org Randy.Scheid@deschutes.org Martha.Shields@deschutes.org Chris.Schmoyer@deschutes.org Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.org Dan.Swarthout@deschutes.org Christopher.Tiboni@deschutes.org Steve.Wills@deschutes.org Laurie.Worley@deschutes.org Richard.Wright@deschutes.org