The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-319-Minutes for Meeting June 18,2018 Recorded 7/27/2018(y, COG BOARD OF -�� COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 3886570 1:30 PM Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal CJ2018-319 07/27/2018 7:45:25 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIUI03I II III FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY WORK SESSION MINUTES MSNDAY, June 18, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM 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 Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Sunriver Service District Management Agreement This item was pulled from the agenda by request of Sunriver Service District. 2. Presentation of City of Bend's Proposed HB 4079 Submission to State of Oregon Representatives from the City of Bend presented this item explaining the process of applying to the state for the pilot program for affordable housing. The proposed project and proposed improvements were reviewed based on BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 18, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 6 the regulations set by the state. A meeting with Bend Parks and Recreation is set for tomorrow for consideration of their support as well. The request for support from Deschutes County requires a Resolution of Support to work with the City of Bend to follow the annexation and urban growth boundary process. Discussion held on the rental properties that are planned. Commissioner Henderson commented he is supportive of the housing needs yet this will provide low cost housing but not low cost to build. Partnerships for funding would be not only through federal funding but through private sources as well. Properties developed through Habitat for Humanity and Land Trust are two models of ownership in Bend. Discussion held on funding. A project manager will be designated for the development if selected for the pilot. Commissioner Henderson suggested a partnership with businesses and employers to assist with housing projects. Commissioner Baney encourages the group to expand their outreach on the development. HENDERSON: Move approval BAN EY: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes BAN EY: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes - Motion Carried 3. Request to Submit Grant Application for Infant & Early Childhood MH Grant Janice Garceau, Health Services presented the item for consideration. She noted there is an error in the agenda request as this grant would cover three new FTE instead of the two that are listed on the document submitted. The purpose of the program is to expand mental health services for youth and improve outcomes from newborns to the age of 12 years. County Administrator Anderson noted there was a hiring freeze recommendation from the Budget Hearings however there may be instances that will warrant additional staffing. Mr. Anderson will meet with Dr. George Conway tomorrow regarding the department's staffing and vacancies. Commissioner BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 18, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 6 Henderson would like to compare that data with the matrix presented during the Budget Hearings. BANEY: Move approval of submittal of the grant HENDERSON: Second VOTE: BAN EY: Yes HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECESS: At the time of 2:33 p.m. a recess was taken and the meeting reconvened at 2:40 p.m. 4. May 2018 Treasurer's Report and Monthly Financial Reports Wayne Lowry, Finance Department reviewed the treasure's report for the month of May. With the vacancy on the Investment Advisory Committee, Commissioner DeBone and Mr. Lowry interviewed three candidates. Mr. Lowry noted the candidate being recommended is Mr. Dave Edwards. A letter of appointment will come before the Board next week. Mr. Lowry reviewed the staff vacancies in the Deschutes County departments. The schedules of financial operating data was reviewed. 5. Preparation for Deliberations: Snow Creek Ranch Partition This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Will Groves, Community Development Department presented this item as preparation for public hearing of an appeal of a hearings officer's decision. Mr. Groves reviewed the history and a matrix of items for consideration were presented to the Board. The public hearing is scheduled for Monday, June 25. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 18, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 6 6. Discussion of Application for Outdoor Mass Gathering for Oregon Adaptive Sports This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Isabella Liu, Community Development Department presented the item as preparation of a public hearing on June 27. The event is the annual Bigstock festival that is proposed to be held at 18930 Couch Market Road in August. The applicant proposes a maximum of 750 people in attendance. All signatures on the application have been acquired. One item waiting for response is regarding the water source. Adventure Medics is planning to provide emergency services on site. Question raised on medical transport service. An ambulance will be stationed on site. Ms. Liu has asked for clarification on medical services. 7. Preparation for Public Hearing: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91st Street This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department presented the history of the application and preparation of a public hearing on June 27. The applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit to establish a non-farm dwelling on a 39.20 acre property in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Central Oregon LandWatch has presented opposition. RECESS: At the time of 3:35 p.m., a recess was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 3:38 p.m. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE18,2018 PAGE4OF6 COMMISSIONERS UPDATES: • Commissioner DeBone reported Deschutes County makes three appointments on COIC representation for Natural Resources, Business, and Tourism and there are open seats. COIC is recruiting a director. There will be changes in the bus schedule. Commissioner Henderson expressed interest in attending a meeting of COIC. Commissioner DeBone suggested a recruitment could be open for the natural resources representative vacancy. Commissioner DeBone explained the transportation services provided by COIC. Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson will receive special transportation investment funds and COIC will be requesting funding through an application that will be submitted to Judith Ure, Management Analyst. • Commissioner Henderson reported on attending the Terrebonne Refinement Plan Open House last Wednesday. Comments were heard from citizens in the area that they would like a stop light but it isn't included in the design plan option. • Commissioner DeBone attended the Music in La Pine event which was well attended. • Commissioner Henderson spoke on the invoice received from Eastern Oregon Counties and feels the payment should be less than billed. Discussion held on lobbyist services and the need for our Congressmen to work together on behalf of Oregon counties. Discussion held on the membership of the Eastern Oregon Counties Association. Commissioner Henderson will draft a letter. • Commissioner Henderson spoke on having the Project Wildfire meeting tomorrow. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None were presented. BOCC WORK SESSION JUNE 18, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 6 OTHER ITEMS: None were presented. ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m. DATED this Day of Commissioners. */ G SECR RY BOCC WORK SESSION 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of arc/U, ANTHONY DEBONE, CH SIR PHILIP G. 4NDERSON, VCE CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER JUNE 18, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 6 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2018 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff. Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Sunriver Service District Management Agreement - Tom Anderson, County Administrator 2. Presentation of City of Bend's Proposed HB 4079 Submission to State of Oregon - Tom Anderson, County Administrator 3. Request to Submit Grant Application for Infant & Early Childhood MH Grant -Janice Garceau, Program Manager 4. May 2018 Treasurer's Report and Monthly Financial Reports - Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer 5. Preparation for Deliberations: Snow Creek Ranch Partition - William Groves, Senior Planner 6. Discussion of Application for Outdoor Mass Gathering for Oregon Adaptive Sports. - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 2 7. Preparation for Public Hearing: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street - Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (I) Employee Evaluation At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.5660(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 public. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. 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.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Allen Room at 1300 NW Wall St. Bend unless otherwise indicated. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2 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 18, 2018 DATE: June 14, 2018 FROM: Tom Anderson, Administrative Services, 541-388-6565 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of City of Bend's Proposed HB 4079 Submission to State of Oregon RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED: City of Bend representatives will present the City's proposed HB4079 to the Board of Commissioners. Staff will also discuss a resolution supporting the proposal, which can be approved at the Work Session, or deferred to the June 25, 2018 Business Meeting. ATTENDANCE: Carolyn Eagan, City of Bend Economic Development Director LOCATION in 7w RENT LIMITS BASED ON 20 based on Actual If) 4.0 c 4) re cm ok.0 r— o") co: en co 0) 69- 69- fZek ELE -a: (0 i4>'..) rcY) ..j- vl- LIO Let) <0 CN Tr- 0 0::1 1(-) -7,-j- (CP 1--- CO a) 0) t79- (f) 4.9,- 49. •V7, - ,k--- ,k --- CO (t) (w) (NI cD Rzt C\J D CD CO 'tt• L.0 (.0 CO 17) - V 07) (p9- r— r— CO rri 131 <70,1 kt) CA CO ko- N- • cc-) 'crj" LC) Ln N ko:)- v.) 110- (.0 14") 0-.) 0 (D bc`A (0 r-- c'r) I() (.0 CD cy) (9) (/) 40 THANK YOU 7, 3° O 0 0 N 'h i S 0 pu p 3 tr+ o 0 0 t6 th u U S 0 amu+ 0 0) *- c7o .p N yp as T 7 N C: �oO N ✓O 7 'O Q y ° 0 Cr c u d 0 0 '' O O O- 0 v' T d1 +' G O N 5 .� 0 '5...-- U U co Rs N O 6) p 't5 d 2S .11 @ n v o co t6 o d 'i6 7 " d -0 U N a) 400 G ° m y s � -0 C. a� 5 a S 3 0� 1 7 o 0 0 a d co s °,- o 'y t6 :° s 0 - 0> p 0c. •c u o N - U J� o w0v° ?i,, 0- 0 u ,a .' N m o o N :e•-• u0W wQ °a --N n so O 0S 0 .Yv+ ,, te. O VS YSU�1J O di t6 U a) tp, yo -0 t6 + d ca O0 G OO„ Q± o-Cu'0-o�c- 9 d0 �ro -. 0 00. -0O O C ^OGN t6N7 NY N1 7 vtO¢. t ir. 3 k' •a 7 N • 6 t 3 0 - .Np -O O N 0 E C6 6^ 7 ° 4 0 \ S ' o c Q. s ° ' ,, • 0 ' o , t6 V• t7 N•o —, va7 m ou 'OO Q ? 15 o 0 0 ¢ o- 0) Vn of) 5 0 0 0 v °© o0 .2 o �' °r 0�' y °°°° 00 ` s 7 d c i6 ,. 0o°�a o 3 0 0 if► O co s 6) X 67 d -0 (6 N C O 'cN 1.' a- to 0 Q0. 7. p U O 0 C. in 7 .% CS d C. va ✓t --co d d° O N 63 0 T t6 4. O 0 7 fl • u s 0 3 -t5 0 y d N ° co ty °; -' u+ o co 03 �° tea 00 o tv o 0 a 6) d a d `m7 w o -c ., �a s O °*6-�, co .n -0 S. 0 O o N ca s, Q u a� o -96., .- `4 `to ,` °� coa t,° '�'' .p v a ° 61 G O . �, 91.- t0- Op CI* c., 0' G p G p 0 O �- a r+ o `� , 0 3 0 O° ° Y O oa u; t. al. u 3 Q G t 65 o 7 ca w@- ,U„ -0 c O ° 0° 6a O o O �. �% '� d id N v 'v+ 0 y O O 0 0 0 0 c t6 N r C" atr, 0 o •�? ya ° 0 s'. a y '% '.° c 3 0- o k' s -a o - O r+ u % p p t6 G -t5 y c t3 dl �Y " G o . U 'Cou�- i6 s......0,,00,,...- %... O R °- cc.tl1 O' O N 11 co t6 L. a s o) = oa .. w m .4,0c. ii e aL6 o u 6. 3a d cc, ° ° ° (� ° o m v to • -0) sx o o f ¢� m Z Z ° Ca 0, -00 3 0 o m 1% v a) C d "' °°° 0 o, T ..c, (1) a °°°© CI osem, o no's N .J• ° °n° daoUo-3 y o v 0 a o°Y 4 s�Uau°d�oo ue1d 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 18, 2018 DATE: June 11, 2018 FROM: Janice Garceau, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Request to Submit Grant Application for Infant & Early Childhood MH Grant RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Request approval to submit a grant application to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Request Board signature on grant application request form. ATTENDANCE: Janice Garceau, Program Manager. SUMMARY: The purpose of this grant program is to improve outcomes for children ages 0 to 12 years by developing, maintaining, or enhancing infant and early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment services including: 1. programs for infants and children at significant risk of developing, showing early signs of, or having been diagnosed with a mental illness, serious emotional disturbance and/or a history of in utero exposure to substances; and 2. multigenerational therapy and other services that strengthen positive caregiving relationships. This grant helps to accomplish a key goal of the Regional Health Improvement Plan which is Behavioral Health Identification and Awareness: Increase screenings for depression, anxiety, sucidal ideation, and substance use disorders. "11112- Funding availability is October 2018 through September 2023. Tivornew FTE will be needed. `—" Most funds will be utilized to enhance training and staff expertise and supports and to support a project lead to ensure activities are completed. The positions identified are able to bill insurance and ultimately offset costs through billing OHP and other insurance, as applicable. A 10% match is required, which may be cash or in-kind. The fiscal impact will be the receipt of up to $500,000 annually to cover the cost of needed training, leadership roles, technical supports, program evaluation and two new FTE. The grant allows 10% for indirect cost and up to 15% for evaluation which helps to support administrative as well as direct service, supervisor and other costs. 1 Official Grant Title: Source of Grant Funds: Funding Amount (include amount per year if multiple years): Required Matching Funds (if applicable): Application Due Date and Submission Method: FTE Required and Cost of FTE: Staff Responsible: 1 Grant Administrator (if awarded): Deschutes County Health Services GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST ,Infant & Early Childhood Mental Health Grant Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Funds available $500,000.00 per year - up to five years 10% of total — can be cash or in-kind June 29, 2018 3.0 FTE BHS II — Licensed (total annual cost of @ $360,000); 10% additional Lead Pay for full time BHS 11 Project Director role (total annual cost year of $13,700). Janice Garceau Janice Garceau Please answer the following questions: 1. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish: The purpose of this grant program is to improve outcomes for children age 0 to 12 years by developing, maintaining, or enhancing infant and early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment services, including; 1. programs for infants and children at significant risk of developing, showing early signs of, or having been diagnosed with a mental illness, serious emotional disturbance and/or a history of in utero exposure to substances; and 2. multigenerational therapy and other services that strengthen positive caregiving relationships. 2. What priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan would this grant activity support? Provide data to describe a documented health need that would be addressed and that is consistent with the Strategic Plan. Goal 1: Improve Health and Prevent Disease b. Implement evidenced based programs and/or practices in health promotion and prevention and c. Provide information and education to individuals and the community Goal 2: Assure needed health and human services a. Coordinate and integrate services through collaborative community partnerships, e. Improve delivery of clinical preventive services. 4/4/2018 C:\Users\gracee\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\WBLFS402\Grant Application Request Form.2 (003).docx Page 1 of 4 In addition, this grant helps to accomplish a key goal of the Regional Health Improvement plan. Specifically: • Behavioral Health Identification and Awareness: Increase screenings for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders. Would this support core program activities and, if so, which one(s)? Are additional funds needed to support these activities? Grant funds would support core activities of: 1. Improved capacity to identify at risk infants and young children early and reduce the likelihood of school failure and out of home placement 2. Provision of targeted, evidence based behavioral health interventions to at risk infants and very young children, and their parents/caregivers. 3. Reduction of accumulated Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which negatively affect long term health outcomes. Additional funds are necessary in order to enhance training in evidence -based practices and to expand clinical capacity to serve infant and early childhood populations. The latter is an area in which we currently are understaffed and have less capacity and skill. 3. Does this funding add new program activities? If so, what are the activities? Is it appropriate to add these new activities at this time? This funding enhances existing program activities by adding expertise and training around serving a vulnerable population. Funding builds upon existing collaborations with primary care, preschool and school providers. Funding adds two new FTE and identifies lead pay for an existing staff in order to expand maternal, infant and young child mental health service capacity. These are program areas that have been identified as inadequate to meet the current community need. 4. Is there a science base to support delivering the activities and services listed? Please describe that science base. Science that supports proposed grant activities: • ACEs literature supports that early identification of risk lowers potential exposure of children to adverse experiences and reduces the statistical likelihood of negative health outcomes across the lifespan • Nurse home visiting efforts that include depression, domestic violence and substance use disorder, and parent child relationship problem screening among pregnant mothers lead to early identification of impaired attachment and parenting of infants, which in turn reduces risk of mental health disorders in children and increases resiliency across the lifespan. • Evidence based practices such as Attachment and Regulation Therapy, Parent - Child Interaction Therapy, Targeted Case Management and Trauma -Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy have all been shown to decrease the risk of child 4/4/2018 C:\Users\gracee\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\WBLFS402\Grant Application Request Form.2 (003).docx Page 2 of 4 maltreatment and improve outcomes for children with serious emotional disturbance and/or mental health disorders. 5. How long would the funding be available? If the funding is for less than three years, what is the plan to transition the work, staffing and expenses after the funding ends? Funding is available from October 2018 through September 2023.0nly two new FTE are identified. Most funds will be utilized to enhance training and staff expertise and supports and to support a project lead to ensure activities are completed. With five years of funding, the intention is to begin planning early to find other ways to support the positions. In addition, the positions identified are able to bill insurance and ultimately to offset costs through billing OHP and other insurances. 6. What is the application deadline? Do you anticipate any problems meeting this deadline? 1 June 29, 2018 7. Do you have the staffing to write a competitive proposal? If not, how will you contract for these services? Yes. Staff are available to coordinate application drafts and components and a grant writer has been contracted and is on board to complete this application process. 8. Are there any matching requirements? 1 There is a 10% match requirement which can be in cash or in in-kind 9. What other partner organizations could potentially be applying? What is the plan to work with them? There are no other entities in our county applying. The grant call for proposals implies experience with Project LAUNCH will be helpful and DHCS completed a successful five year Project Launch program several years ago. 10. What are the potential political issues that could arise as a result of this application, funding, and/or activity? 1 None of which we are aware. 11. What is the fiscal impact to the department if we are awarded this grant? ATTACH fiscal impact analysis completed with Business Manager approval. The fiscal impact will be the receipt of up to $500,000 annually to cover the cost of needed training, leadership roles, technical supports, program evaluation and two new FTE. The grant allows 10% for indirect cost and up to 15% for evaluation, so helps to support administrative as well as direct service, supervisory and other costs. . 12. Will a contract be required if we are awarded this grant? If yes, is there sufficient time to complete the contract process (estimated timeline: 4-6 weeks) prior to starting the work? 4/4/2018 CAUsers\gracee\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.OutlooMBLFS402\Grant Application Request Form.2 (003).docx Page 3 of 4 Training contracts of small amounts will be likely in year two and four of the grant in order to accomplish project goals of training regional partners. Department Director Signature Date Director to Attend Board Meeting? (check one) E Yes No Contract Specialist Review: Board Meeting Date: Time: Grant Application Number: 4/4/2018 C:\Users\gracee\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\WBLFS402\Grant Application Request Form.2 (003).docx Page 4 of 4 G 0 ❑ -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ -TES AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 18, 2018 DATE: June 12, 2018 FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance, 541-388-6559 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: May 2018 Treasurer's Report and Monthly Financial Reports RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of May 2018 Treasurer's Report and Monthly Financial Reports ATTENDANCE: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer SUMMARY: Monthly Report esc utes ount CO N 11) ota nvestment Portf• ll. A • i Investment Income Investments By County Function rs LizL1') r- r` tu� 00 2 N N N 0 0 CAa)cti; o u) Z • c E UJ co • H C V () V) wcici <DE E 8 d c LL w R 0 c E ,� � °' E 0• co - aid0. 0 c J C C 2 • 7 M N§ V O Q 0 N Q a) to O Q m 0 i d a .° c 1— 1 a "OO C N •U O 0 •C0 0 N co E O 0 V> u_ m H 2 U 0 0 oe o 0 0 O O in O O It) O O O 1- N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 o e- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` CO CO et 0) C) 0 0) 0 O NG" 0) 0) 00 r- O C M 0 is N v 0 1 0000OONO)et 00st00NC00) O 0 CD 0 0 CO CO 0) C7 r< M O 0) N r O 0 TOO 0000N0111. -CAM r, O d• 00 • V At)" r- r` N r` C O 8 c c .. E • 2 N N to To a)a`fOiQ E • b-oi— c c • c• a. CL To • U • = • o0itI-- a; I- Total Portfolio: By Investment Types (0 O e so Op I- N N E c Q Q X O Q E O N 0 2 N an V 0 a V E d' }d } = a et to O L V.0 w E 0.0-0 L . 1- +_o d w C C O 10 r. t- 0 » O 0 U 0 N 23 cot - Doaahutos County Investments - Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments May 31,2018 Purchase Maturity .Days To Ratina* Coupon Par Market Book Cell CUSIP •Soeurlty Broker Date Data Maturity SSP Moody's Rate YTM 365 Value Yalue Value Dace 08050TMC3 Bank of America - Corporate N CASTLE 5/92017 6/5/2018 4,A+ Al 1.750 1.540 1,000,000 999,980 1,000,023 3132XOLR0 Federal Agriculture Mtg Coro PJ 12/8/2016 6/8/2018 7 1 100 1.100 2,000,000 1,999,760 2,000,000 Date ,XTOEnergyIno CASTLE . 8/4/2015. 6/15/2018 14',0,0,0 .Aaa 5.500. 1.500, 1,000,000, 1,000,940. 1,001,517. - 904121NC0 Umatilla School District PJ 5/7/2015 6/15/2018 14 M+ 1.430 1.430 750,000 749,850, 750,000 - 10592 , Washington Federal CD 5/22/2017 6/22/2018', 21, 0.900 0.913 243,643, 243,643, 243,843 166764AE0 ,Chevron Corp CASTLE 4/15/2016, 6/24/2018 23,M- ',Aa2 1.718 1.191, 2,000,000 1,999,540 2,000,862 • - 166784AE0 Chevron Corp CASTLE 10/112016 624/2018 23.M. Aa2 1.718 1.259 1,000,000 999,770' 1,000,000 - • 939307HF4 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3/30/2015 6/30/2018 29 ,Aa3 1.732, 1 650, 985,000 984,744 985,083 • - 938429M48 Washington County SD Municipal __PJ 9/6/2016. 6/30/2018; 29 :Aa3 1,585 0.999, 250,000. 249,910 250,116 - • 84247PHT1 'Southern CA Public Power Aulho CASTLE : 12/19/2017. 7/1/2016 30 M- 1,728 1 779, 2,510,000 2,509,071 2,509.894 • • 3135130L43 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE ' 12/13/2016, 7/13/2018 42.AA+ .Asa 0.850 1.221, 1,000,000 998,740 1,000,000 - - 88059EMT8 Tennessee Valley Authority OA DAV 2/22/2016 7/15/2018 44 1.021 1.065. 500,000 498,625 499,376 - • 3133EGNU5 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 8/12016 7/27/2018 56 AA+ Aaa 0.060 0 960 1,000,000 998,520 1,000.000 • - 3134G9Q67 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE . 7/27/2016 7/27/2018 56,M+ Aaa 1.050 1 050, 3,000,000 2,996,040' 3,000,000 - • 934876A120 Port of Newport OR Lease DA DAV 3/27/2017 8/1/2018 61,AA 4.500 1.450 810,000 612,098 613,058 • • 842400FJ7 Soulhem Cat Edison CASTLE 5/26/2017 8/15/2018 75'A Aa3 5.500 1.520 2,000,000 2,011,400 2,016,142 - • _ M 65371AU2 Oceanside California Pension CASTLE 1/27/20171 8/15/2018 75 2.298 1,5511 1,850,000 1.850,648, 1.852,797_ - • 544351KM0 Los Angeles Calif Go Ref Bds PJ 12/21/2018 9/1/2018 92 AA2 1.210 1.209 1,000,000 998,040 1,000,000 - - 3134GAKE0 ,Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/18/2016 9/12/2018 103 AA. Aaa 1.110 1 110 3,000,000 2,992,500 3,000,000 6/12/2018 912834PP7 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 5/18/2018 9/15/2018 106 2.475 2,496 77,000 76,567 76,365 - - 3134G8UN7 Foderal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/30/2016 9/28/2018 119 M+ ,Aaa 1.200 1,200 2,000,000 1,994,620 2,000.000 628/2018 3134G9YA9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp :CASTLE 6/28/2016, 9/28/2016 119,M+ Aaa . 1.010 , 1000 2,520,000 2,511,659 2,520,000 6/28/2018 3134GAND3 Fedora' Homo Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 9/28/2016 9/28/2018, 119. M• Aaa 1.050 1,050, 4,000,000. 3,986,520 4.000,000 - • 3133EFJP3 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11/4/2016 10/15/2018 136 M+ Aaa 1 100 1.100 5.000,000 4.981,900 5,000,000 - • 3136122P24 Federal National Airy Assn CASTLE 5/22/2017 10/29/2018, 150 M+ !Aaa , 1 190 1.340, 5,000.000 4,981,700, 5,000,000 7/29/2018 912828WD8 ,Federal Treasury 'CASTLE 12/1/2015_ 10/31/2018, 152:AAA Aaa , 1.250 1,223, 1,000,000 996,680 1,000,112 - • 912828T83 U.S Treasury .CASTLE 12/14/2016 10/31/201 152 ,AAA ,Aaa , 0750 1.155 3,000,000 2,983,830! 2,995,015 • - 31771KAJ6 FICO Strip CASTLE 9/2812017 11/2/2018; 154 , 1460 1,520 5,000,000 4,952,500 4,968,771 - • 427542KX2 Hermiston OR DA DAV 9/21/2016 12/1/2018 183.M- 3000 1001 605,000 608,618 610,967 - - 06050TME9 Bank 01 America - Corporate CASTLE 5/16/2017 12/72018 189A+ Al , 2 050 1,700 3,180,000 3,175,898, 3,185,841 - - 3134A4ZZ0 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/19/2018 12/14/2018, 196 AA- .Aa2 5 000 2.287 1.000,000 1.014,160 1,014,318 • • 31771EAN1 FICO Strip CASTLE 1113/2016 12/272018 209, 0,984 1.025 1.000,000, 987,060 994,287 • • 912828A75 U S Treasury CASTLE 6/8/2015 12/31/2018 213 AM :Aaa 1.500, 1.324, 1,000,000 996,210, 1,000,997 - - 3132XONJ6 Federal Agriculture Mtg Corp CASTLE , 5/1/2017, 1/23/2019 236 ' 1 270, 1.400 3,000,000 2,981,580, 2,997,516 - - 912633KU3 U S. Treasury CASTLE 1/29/2018 2/15/2019 259 Aaa 1.913 1.997 2,000,000 1,970,740 1,972,473 - - 912828SH4 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 2/22/2018 2/28/2019 272 Aaa 1.375 2.060 3,000,000 2,981,250 2,984,9121 - - 20271RAF7 .Commonwealth BKAustrNY CASTLE 9/18/2017 3/13/2019 285M- ,Aa3 2250 1.720, 2,600.000 2,592,174 2,610,607 - - 88059E4G6 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 2/7/2018 3/152019 287 2.002 2.090 1,020.000 999,875 1,003,720 - - C112834QD3 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 5/18/2018 3!15/2019 287 Aaa 2,430 2 509 77,000 75,618 75,435 • - 68607VS71 ]Oregon State Lottery 1CASTLE 1 4/5/20171 4/1/20191 3041 '•Aa2 1 1 602; 1 5811 1,000,0001 993,8101 1,000,1761 • • 317705AM3 FICO Ship CASTLE 5/1/2018 4/5/2019 308 Aaa 9.700 2.344 2,050,000 2,174,743 2,175,181 • - 459058FC2 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 12/15/2016 4/26/2019 329 AAA Aaa 1 250 1.500 2,000,000 1,980,660_ 2,000,000 • • 90331HMY6 US Bancorp CASTLE ' 12/22/2017, 4/26/2019 329 ,AA- !Al 1 400 2.000. 1,000.000. 989,810 994,675• 3/26/2019 90520EAF8 MUFG Union Bank _CASTLE 12/6/2017, 5/6/2019 339.A A2 2 250 2 185 1,352,000 1,346,835 1,352,773 4/6/2019 0840611BM0 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 11/15/2017 5115/2019 348,A Al 5 450 1 950 1,000,000 1.026.570, 1,032,801 • • 3133EGAV•/ Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE ' 3/1/2018 5/17/2019, 350,M+ .Aaa 1170 2210 2,000,000 1,976,180 1,980,367 62889KAD3 National Credit Union Assoc CASTLE . 3/29/2018 6/12/2019, 376M+ Aaa 3.000 2.301, 1,240,000 1,245,431 1,248,744 250351FJ7 Deschutes County Ore Sch Dist PJ _ 8/16/2016 6/15/2019 379 Mt . 1 360 1.360 245,000 242,298 245,000 938429/266 Washington County SD Municipal PJ 5/11/2017 6/152019 379.M+ Aa1 1 488 1 488 _ 400,000 396.628 400,000 3137EAB1 , Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/20/2016, 7/19/2019 413,M. Aaa 0.875 0.957, 1.000,000 984,170 999,085 13034/2NI 202 ,CAL STHOUSINGFINAN(CASTLE 11/22017 8/1/2019 426 AA- Al 1952 1.850, 1,070,000 1,061,761• 1,071,236 3135GON33 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/18/2016 8/2/2019 427 M+ Aaa 0.875 1.000, 1.000.000 983,360, 998,560, 8 91 1 4 0, 816 Toronto Dominion Bank CASTLE 2/52018 8/13/2019 438 AA- Aa2 1.450 2.36 5,000,000 4,929,650 4,946,670 912833KW9 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 5/24/2018 8/15/2019 440 Aaa 2 379 2,468 2,000,000 1,945,440 1,940,780 912828Ln' 1U.S.Treasury "CASTLE 3/21/2018_ 8/15/2019 440 Aaa 3.6251 2.250. 2,000,000; 2,031,1001 2,032,4951 08406HCW7 ;BankofNew York Mellon Corp ;CASTLE 11/3/2016' 9/11/2019, 467 A Al 23001 15321 1,675,0001 1,667,3621 1,690,4151 8/112019 8605084H4 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 5/2/2018 9/15/2019 471 2.422 2.555 1,020.000 986,748 967,675 - • 48125LRJ3 JPMorgan Chase -Corporate N CASTLE , 4(10/2017, 9/23/2019 479 Ar Aa3 2.881 2.236 3,000,000 3,018,480, 3,011,529 8/23/2.019 48125LRG9 JPMorrganChase- CorporateN CASTLE 628/2017 9/23/2019, 479,A+ ,Aa3 1.650 1.840 1,300,000. 1,283,802 1,296,916, 8/23/2019 31358613C5 Federal National Mtg Assn !CASTLE 12/4/2015 10/9/2019 495.M. 1.891 2.031, 1,400,000 1,354,304 1,363,599 - - 313586RC5 Federal National Mlg Assn CASTLE 3/17/2016, 10/92019 495 M• 1.665 1.774. 600,000 580,416 586,264 • - 313586RC5 .Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/8/2016; 10/9/2019 495.M- 1252 1318 400,000, 386,944 393,114 • • 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 11/222017 10/92019 495.M- 1,928 2.030 3,600,000 3,482,496 3,504,562 - - 76116FM5 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 9/21/2017 10/15/2019 501 1499 1572 1,000.000 967,120• 979,143. - - 313500R39 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 11/102016 10242019 510 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1 173 2,000,000. 1,962,480 1,995,273 - - 912828F62 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 10/11/2016, 10/31/2019 5175A AAaa 1.500 1 008 2,000,000;_ 1,976,320 2,013,693 • - 961214BK8 Westpac CASTLE , 8/30/2017 11/19/2019 536 AA- Aa3 4875 1.826 2,000,000; 2,058,100 2,087,229 • - 912828095 U.S. Treasury PJ 1/16/2018 12/31/2019 578 Aaa 1625. 2000 2,000,000; 1.976,960, 1,988,406, • - 94988J5L7 WeI/s Faro Corporate Note CASTLE - 1/23/2018, , 1/152020, 593 Aa2 2400 2.444 3.000600 2,977,020 2,997,933, - • ! 594918AY0 Microsoft Corp CASTLE 8/8/2016 2/122020 621M AAaa 1.850. 1.298 1,000,000 988,380 1,009,136 1112/2020 31338.1000 Federal Faro Credit Bank CASTLE , 3/12/2018. 2/20/2020 629 M+ Aaa 2.150 2.360, 925,000 918,497 922,186 2/202019 13063CSQ4 California St VINISP 9/212017 4/1/2020 670 M- _Aa3 1.800 1.800 780,000 769,649 780,000. • • 31378AEM7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Coro CASTLE ' 4/19/2018 4/23/2020, 692 2.500' 2 511. 2,000,000, 2,000,940, . 1,999,586 - • 3134G8NK4 Federal Homo Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/13/2017, 5/29/2020 728 Aaa 1,625 1.671. 3,000,000. 2,954,100 2,997.935, 5292019 688053CK3 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/15/2017 6/30/2020 760:M- Aa2 2.063 2 149. 1,000,000 939,360. 957,053 - - 569203MA7 Salem-Keizer School District CASTLE 7/26/2017 6/302020 760 Aa2 2,107 1.778 2.310,000 2,284,775 2,325,2.34 • - 888053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc :DA DAV ' 112/20151 6/302020. 760 AA A02 5.373. 2.050; 875,000 921,235 932,402, - - 886053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 6/24/2016, 6/30/2020 760 AA Aa2 5,373 1.570 500,000 528,420 538,193_ • - 9497480M6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note PJ 1/19/2017 7/22/2020 782 A A2 2.600 2 350 1,000,000 989,030 1,005,109 - • 053015,005 ,AUTOMATIC DATA CASTLE 2/26/2018'. 9/15/2020, ___ 637:AA Aa3 2 250 2.5701 2,710,000 2,686,911 2,690,877 8/15/2020 940093825 Washington Univ Higher Ed ' PJ 1/19/2017. 10/12020. 553 Aa2 5,930 1.970 400,000 427,800 435,467, • - 45905157J7 lnternatronal Bonnds for Recons CASTLE 2/9/2018 10/5/2020. 857 AM Aaa 1.625 2 474 2,000,000! 1,957,120. 1,971,043 4/5/2019 4922440V7 , Community College :CASTLE 11/15/2016 11/1/2020 884 M• 2.893• 1800: 500,000, 500,610) 512,890, • - 313400X56 ,KernFederal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/13/2017, 11/24/2020, 907, M+ Aaa 2.250 2 172. 3,000,000 2,977,770 3,000,00 • - 3134G8JH3 .Federal Homo Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/27/2017, 2/17/2021, 992, , 2.000 1.715 2.000,000 1,992,880 1,998,774, 21172019 3136G4NN9 Federal National Mtg Assn ,CASTLE , 10/18/2017, 524/2021, 1088 M+ ,Aaa . 2.000, 2.000, 1,080,000, 1,058,227, 1,080,000 8/24/2018 Local Govt Investment Pool 1 2.100 2.100 24,198,822 24,198,822 24,198,822 - • Bank of the Cascades 1 2 100 2 100 4,892,869. 4,892,869 4,892,868 - - 175,301,334 174,515,371 175,295.094 Revenues Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Other General Revenues Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Total Revenues Expenditures Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Medical Examiner Tax Office Veterans Property Management Non -Departmental Total Expenditures Transfers Out Total Exp & Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Personnel Material & Services Capital Outlay Total by Category General Fund Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2017 FY 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) Actual $ 25,816,331 465,085 2,499,968 860,861 1,952,209 12,546 253,480 196,203 96,889 94,500 32,248,072 3,993,958 1,684,783 65,175 6,095,393 146,817 785,346 403,775 247,568 1,268,363 14,691,178 17,856,310 32,547,489 (299,416) 11,217,374 $ 10,917,957 9,965,553 4,544,700 180,925 $ 14,691,178 of Actual I Budget $ 26,733,346 475,263 2,823,318 843,889 1,649,045 12,468 128,554 194,398 121,667 16,250 32,998,198 3,863,401 1,424,156 60,446 5,969,444 108,494 724,900 450,335 231,743 1,137,180 13,970,099 15,128,719 29,098,819 3,899,380 10,917,957 $ 14,817,337 9,696,708 4,105,716 167,675 $ 13,970,099 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget 102% a) 136% 120% b) 99% c) 87% 100% c) 69% 99% c) 75% 17% 102% 90% 78% d) 89% 89% d) 63% 85% 91% 84% 86% 87% 87% 87% 109% 91% 80% 99% 87% Budget I $ 26,296,000 350,000 2,345,822 848,867 1,896,945 12,480 187,400 196,200 162,223 97,000 32,392,937 4,291,041 1,820,344 68,138 6,701,724 172,184 849,312 492,630 276,097 1,328,089 15,999,559 17,445,890 33,445,449 (1,052,512) 10,000,000 $ 8,947,488 10,694,124 5,135,435 170,000 $ 15,999,559 FY 2018 Projected Variance $ 26,823,346 480,000 3,105,317 848,867 1,776,945 12,468 187,400 196,200 162,223 97,000 33,689,766 1,296,829 $ 527,346 130,000 759,495 (120,000) (12) 4,291,041 1,670,344 150,000 68,138 6,651,724 50,000 172,184 849,312 492,630 276,097 1,328,089 - 15,799,559 200,000 17,445,890 33,245,449 200,000 444,317 1,496,829 10,917,957 917,957 $ 11,362,274 $ 2,414,786 $10,890,0001 a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 99% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through May. Taxes received in June projected to be $90,000 b) Includes $500,000 Federal PILT. HB 3400 not incuded in budget: October $365,655, December $76,991, April $76,949. Estimate for June - $76,900. Other revenues in excess of budget are: MH tax $70,000; interest $45,000; tax on electrical co-ops $34,000; and property tax PILT $14,000. c) A & T Grant received quarterly. Q1 - July; Q2 - October; Q3 - January; Q4 - April. d) Projected to be less than budgeted due to YTD unfilled positions. Page 1 Revenues OYA Basic & Diversion ODE Juvenile Crime Prev Leases Inmate/Prisoner Housing DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 Food Subsidy Gen Fund -Crime Prevention Interest on Investments OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 Contract Payments Case Supervision Fee Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In -General Fund Transfers Out-Veh Reserve Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Community Justice- Juvenile Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual Actual Budget $ 355,586 $ 295,129 85% a) 86,497 64,955 90% a) 84,121 79,112 93% b) 74,700 112,950 205% c) 36,045 35,220 96% 18,744 19,029 95% 20,000 15,000 75% d) 17,512 19,273 128% h) 18,438 16,014 94% c) 10,920 6,310 79% 5,964 5,678 95% c) 3,170 3,334 180% g) 731,697 672,002 98% 5,005,247 4,724,127 1,204,317 1,082,437 6,209,564 5,806,563 Budget $ 346,046 71,982 85,000 55,000 36,658 20,000 20,000 15,000 17,000 8,000 6,000 1,850 682,536 90% e) 5,242,613 85% 1,270,246 89% 6,512,859 5,464,591 5,131,173 92% 44,000 51,750 75% f) 5,420,591 5,079,423 92% (57,276) (55,139) 1,415,374 1,358,098 113% $ 1,358,098 $ 1,302,959 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget a) Grant was increased by legislature subsequent to budget adoption. b) Rimrock Trails no longer leasing space. c) Inmate housing trending at greater than budgeted. Other counties opting to use DC facility, more than anticipated, when another regional facility became focus of a negative investigation. d) Internal grant funded quarterly e) Projection decreased due to staff vacancies in Q1 and new hires who started at a lower salary step range in beginning of fiscal year. Includes expected Class/ Comp increase and a retirement leave payout f) Transfer to Reserve includes $25,000 to cover estimated costs of vehicle repair and maintenance. g) Projection based on YTD Actual. h) Projection based on annualizing year to date. 5,597,643 69,000 5,528,643 (301,680) 1,200,000 $ 898,320 FY 2018 Projected $ 407,113 91,379 85,000 120,000 36,658 22,000 20,000 22,000 20,000 8,000 7,000 3,500 842,650 5,180,000 1,230,000 6,410,000 5,597,643 69,000 5,528,643 (38,707) 1,358,098 $ 1,319,391 $ 1,200,000 1 Variance $ 61,067 19,397 65,000 2,000 7,000 3,000 1,000 1,650 160,114 62,613 40,246 102,859 262,973 158,098 $ 421,071 Page 2 Revenues LED #1 Countywide Property Taxes Current Year Prior Year Interest Total LED #1 Countywide LED #2 Rural Property Taxes Current Year Prior Year Interest Total LED #2 Rural Sheriff's Office Revenues Total Revenues Expenditures Sheriffs Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communications Detective Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Services Crisis Stabilization Center Non -Departmental Total Expenditures Sheriff's Office and LEDs Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Actual $ 21,137,803 308,837 110,368 21,557,009 9,474,144 141,704 90,261 9,706,109 8,249,855 39,512,973 2,386,420 1,117,489 2,601,537 1,796,143 8,822,794 695,956 16,236,326 270,173 284,009 1,500,791 590,962 904,547 112,846 37,319,993 Revenue less Expenditures 2,192,980 Beginning Balance 11,225,692 Ending Balance $ 13,418,672 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual I Budget $ 22,374,208 342,212 143,995 22,860,415 10,033,615 154,984 113,939 10,302,537 6,818,384 39,981,336 2,253,829 1,199,186 1,881,161 1,733,527 8,611,009 725,345 15, 375,004 449,518 335,466 1,431,255 640,246 767,047 57,672 1,904 35,462,169 101% a) 86% 180% 101% 101% a) 84% 186% 101% Budget FY 2018 Projected $ 22,045,228 $ 22,439,208 $ 400,000 350,000 80,000 157,995 22,525,228 22,947,203 9,916,642 185,000 61,300 10,162,942 92% e) f) 7,386,585 100% 40,074,755 84% b) 2,689,023 89% b) h) 1,352,886 76% h) 2,481,701 87% 1,995,351 89% h) 9,724,673 95% d) 761,258 88% h) 17,488,887 109% c) h) 410,659 88% e) 379,092 93% f) 1,543,848 98% g) 654,646 82% c) 935,144 10% i) 558,424 4% j) 52,077 86% 41,027,669 4,519,167 13,418,672 121% $ 17,937,839 (952,914) 11,113, 000 $ 10,160,086 $ 10,058,615 161,000 125,939 10,345,553 7,212,477 40,505,233 2,474,104 1,356,517 2,052,004 1,886,897 9,543, 626 797,957 16,786,584 491,845 363,990 1,546,715 705,898 838,807 62,915 52,077 38,959,935 Variance 393,980 (50,000) 77,995 421,975 141,973 (24,000) 64,639 182,611 (174,108) 430,478 214,919 (3,631) 429,697 108,454 181,047 (36,699) 702,303 (81,186) 15,102 (2,867) (51,252) 96,337 495,509 0 2,067,734 1,545,298 2,498,212 13,418,672 2,305,672 14,963,970 $ 4,803,884 !Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget $ 13,837,807 a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 99% of Property Taxes -Current have been received through May. Taxes received in June projected to be $65,000 for LED #1 and $25,000 for LED #2. b) $25,000 contribution to suicide/substance abuse hotline. Open Civil Tech position in Civil/Special Units division reclassified as HR Analyst in Sheriff Services division c) Unfilled FTE. Overtime Is expected to exceed budget. d) Open Records Admin Supervisor position will be converted to a Sergeant position. e) Projection includes $8,000 reimbursement for Solar Eclipse expenditures. f) Grant of $50,000 for purchase of $67,500 boat. g) Projection increased due to an unbudgeted rifle purchase. h) Projection based on YTD actual adjusted for one-time transactions i) Projection includes ISF and interfund contract payments only. j) Includes the $50,000 transferred from Fund 701/702 to Fund 256 Communication Reserve Page 3 Revenues State Grants CCBHC Grants OHP Capitation Administrative Fee Environmental Health Fees State - OMAP Federal Grants Patient Fees Local Grants Local Government payments Title 19 State Shared -Family Planning State Miscellaneous Liquor Revenue Divorce Filing Fees Interfund Contract -Gen Fund Vital Records Interest on Investments Other Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In -General Fund Transfers Out Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY 2017 Actual $ 12,512,572 673,598 9,950,347 1,143,411 909,870 938,760 574,848 335,616 1,846,627 510,428 602,998 166,903 206,999 156,399 157,603 127,000 260,545 99,844 386,400 31,560,767 24,133,045 10,989, 018 135,653 35,257,716 4,684,193 445,740 4,238,453 541,504 7,688,209 $ 8,229,713 Health Services Schedule of Financial Operations Data Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual I Budget $ 11,078,363 88% e) f) 3,535,690 124% a) 8,223,700 74% b) 1,077,700 83% 929,698 96% 1,040,380 100% 289,646 45% 535,998 147% 682,865 71% f) N/A 1,298,504 430% c) 138,334 69% 352,039 31% e) 528,163 350% g) 131,745 84% 127,000 100% 202,371 102% 103,090 71% 443,807 107% 30,719,093 89% 25,198,377 87% d) 9,498,005 72% h) 160,185 15% h) 34,856,566 81% 4,202,177 92% 367,740 75% 3,834,437 94% (303,036) 8,229,714 98% $ 7,926,678 FY 2018 Budget 1 Projected I Variance $ 12,563,521 2,856,216 11,044,000 1,293,910 964,397 1,037,735 650,866 364,370 957,457 302,170 200,000 1,147,193 151,000 157,603 127,000 198,000 145,000 413,083 34,573,521 28,922,478 13,270,073 1,100, 000 43,292,551 $ 12,694,668 131,147 5,750,000 2,893,784 8,834,900 (2,209,100) 1,077,700 (216,210) 965,296 899 1,134,000 96,265 548,134 (102,732) 584,200 219,830 1,435,356 477,899 1,416,550 1,114,380 202,500 2,500 770,287 (376,906) 593,700 442,700 131,745 (25,858) 127,000 - 220,500 22,500 112,000 (33,000) 469,387 56,304 37,067,923 2,494,402 27, 570,916 1,351,562 13,989,690 (719,617) 200,000 900,000 41,760,606 1,531,945 4,584,193 4,584,193 490,320 490,320 4,093,873 4,093,873 - (4,625,157) (598,810) 4,026,347 8,434,473 8,229,714 (204,759) $ 3,809,316 $ 7,630,904 $ 3,821,588 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget $ 7,202,714 a) Collections from CCBHC have exceeded the amount forecasted for FY 18. Remaining months of FY 18 have been adjusted to reflect this trend. b) Projection based on FY 2017 collections and anticipated withholdings for panel providers. c) Title 19 revenue during the CCBHC demonstration project will be reimbursed at a higher rate than in prior years. d) Projections based on YTD unfilled positions and forecasted unfilled positions during the remainder of the year. e) State Grants reclassed to State Misc for presentation purposes. f) Reclassification from State Grants to Local Grants for presentation purposes of approximately $412k. g) State remitted the substance -abuse component of marijuana tax to Health Departments in accordance with Measure 91. The substance -abuse component is 20% of the Measure 91 overall tax. Amounts received were for the taxing period of 07/1/2017-03/31/2018. h) Amounts budgeted as Capital Outlay for the Deschutes County Stabilization Center are set to be transferred to Special Projects prior to year-end through M&S. .1 NOTE: Year-end projections for Health Service Programs are updated monthly. Projection amounts will fluctuate from month to month. Page 4 Revenues Admin- Operations Admin- GIS Admin- Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Env Health- On Site Prog Planning- Current Planning- Long Range Total Revenues Expenditures (by division) Admin -Operations Admin -GIS Admin -Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Env Health -On Site Pgm Planning -Current Planning -Long Range Total Expenditures Net from Operations Transfers Out To CDD Reserve Funds Net Transfers In/ Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Community Development Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Actual $ 110,639 230 451,837 2,903,075 745,810 678,469 1,530,513 577,420 6,997,993 1,750,586 136,312 357,992 1,249,842 320,568 399,914 1,179, 944 390,649 5,785,807 1,212,186 1,375,000 (1,375,000) (162,814) 2,330,492 $ 2,167,678 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual 1 Budget $ 123,825 534,796 2,862,663 678,644 733,916 1,658,813 551,934 7,144,590 1,740,213 180,649 369,132 1,224, 528 304,649 427,655 1,180,137 324,171 5,751,135 1,393,456 617,658 (617,658) (617,658) 2,167,678 $ 1,550,021 121% 0% 95% 97% a) 91% 108% a) 103% a) 81% 97% 82% b) 128% 82% b) 80% b) 76% b) 94% 80% b) 57% b) 81% 687% 75% 132% Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget a) Projection increased due to higher than expected permit application volume b) Projection decreased due to year to date unfilled positions. FY 2018 Revised Budget I Projected Variance $ 102,042 150 565,544 2,948,636 743,927 680,460 1,614,855 682,919 7,338,533 2,117,813 141,439 448,238 1,524,982 398,758 456,234 1,479,295 569,088 7,135,847 202,686 823,610 (823,610) (620,924) 1,640,386 $ 1,019,462 $ 138,440 $ 36,398 - (150) 583,500 17,956 3,074,745 126,109 733,618 (10,309) 820,500 140,040 1,811,705 196,850 583,552 (99,367) 7,746,060 407,527 1,932,413 200,817 417,016 1,356,627 352,159 476,743 1,308,554 361,623 6,405,952 1,340,108 185,400 (59,378) 31,222 168,355 46,599 (20,509) 170,741 207,465 729,895 1,137,422 823,610 (823,610) 516,498 - 2,167,678 527,292 $ 2,684,176 $ 527,292 $ 2,203,711 1 Page 5 Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue Federal - PILT Payment Other Inter -fund Services Federal Reimbursements Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine State Miscellaneous Forest Receipts Sale of Equip & Material Mineral Lease Royalties Assessment Payments (P&I) Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Payment from Solid Waste Transfers Out Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Road Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Actual $ 12,930,670 1,323,365 1,065,930 488,114 593,969 381,533 273,353 183,312 87,079 112,444 50,391 17,490,159 5,877,065 8,903,281 68,721 14,849,067 362,453 9,067,643 (8,705,190) (6,064,098) 14,840,939 $ 8,776,841 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual I Budget $ 12,701,929 1,574,248 306,692 108,304 719,328 882,985 275,697 59,341 89,838 103,265 61,703 16,883,330 5,346, 337 5,007, 565 135,395 10,489,297 302,044 6,000,000 (5,697,956) 696,077 8,776,841 $ 9,472,918 Budget 96% a) $ 13,260,000 97% b) 1,623,000 28% c) 1,098,800 0% d) 955,549 15% e) 710,000 110% f) 651,213 221% g) 400,000 72% h) 381,900 34% 175,000 102% I) 88,000 115% j) 90,000 150% k) 41,092 87% 19,474,554 87% 1) 6,161,974 37% m) 13,715,873 59% n) 228,000 52% 20,105,847 75% 100% 102% -11% 101% 402,725 6,000,000 (5,597,275) (6,228,568) 8,684,589 $ 2,456,021 FY 2018 Projected Variance $ 14,300,000 1,574,248 1,071,800 591,549 534,837 728,482 890,000 332,272 175,000 93,000 107,281 64,100 20,462,569 5,837,101 8,091,822 136,000 14,064,923 402,725 6,000,000 (5,597,275) 800,371 8,776,841 $ 9,577,212 $ 1,040,000 (48,752) (27,000) (364,000) (175,163) 77,269 490,000 (49,628) 5,000 17,281 23,008 988,015 324,873 5,624,051 92,000 6,040,924 7,028,939 92,252 $ 7,121,191 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget $ 8,693,653 1 a) HB 2017 increase for FY 18: $1.04M. b) PILT payment received in July was less than budgeted. c) Weed spraying and vehicles repairs anticipated to be less than budgeted. d) FLAP reimbursement based on projected completed projects. e) Contracted work is anticipated to be less than budgeted. f) ODOT allocation work more than budgeted. $20k revenue from State TSAP grant was not budgeted. g) Received an additional payment in May that was not expected. h) Sale of weed spray anticipated to be less than budgeted. i) Assessment payments are trending Tess than budgeted. k) $8,000 for Nash fire sign rental and $3,800 electric rebate not included in FY 2018 budgeted resources 1) Projections based on YTD actual unfilled positions and remaining months are projected to be the same as March. m) $4.8 million, appropriated in FY 2018 for cost of overlays, will be expended in future years. Road Striping Materials and Aggregate anticipated to be $365K less than budgeted. Engineering, Contract Road Services and Temp Labor anticipated to be $374K less than budgeted. n) Right of way acquisition and traffic safety budgeted in Fund 325 will be expended from Fund 465. Page 6 Revenues DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 CJC Justice Reinvestment DOC Measure 57 Electronic Monitoring Fee Probation Superv. Fees DOC -Family Sentence Alt Intel -fund - Sheriff Gen Fund/Crime Prevention DOJ/Arrest Grant Alternate Incarceration State Subsidy Interest on Investments Probation Work Crew Fees State Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In -General Fund Transfer to Vehicle Repl/Maint Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Beginning Net Working Capital p Adult Parole Probation Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) FY 2018 of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance $ 3,650,168 $ 4,333,329 110% a) $ 3,940,708 $ 4,333,329 $ 392,621 845,836 844,831 121% b) 699,506 844,831 145,325 240,315 233,900 100% c) 234,315 233,900 (415) 133,292 136,425 80% d) 170,000 150,000 (20,000) 209,708 175,675 84% d) 210,000 190,000 (20,000) 110,797 114,683 - a) - 114,683 114,683 50,000 45,833 92% 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 37,500 75% j) 50,000 50,000 - 46,736 11,684 106% 11,000 11,684 684 29,985 6,908 34% 0 20,035 6,908 (13,127) 16,367 16,336 105% a) 15,610 17,000 1,390 28,990 33,231 332% f) 10,000 37,000 27,000 5,958 1,606 27% d) 6,000 2,000 (4,000) 0% k) 4,300 - (4,300) 1,256 503 101% f) 500 600 100 5,419,408 5,992,444 111% 5,421,974 6,041,935 619,961 4,097,354 3,858,847 87% e) 4,455,860 4,250,000 205,860 1,509,684 1,357,008 75% h) 1,805,865 1,450,000 355,865 15,986 31,960 84% g) 38,000 28,434 9,566 5,623,023 5,247,815 83% 6,299,725 5,728,434 571,291 451,189 413,590 92% 451,189 451,189 22,000 33,000 75% 44,000 44,000 429,189 380,590 93% 407,189 407,189 - 225,574 1,125,219 (470,562) 720,690 1,191,252 1,465,370 1,690,943 123% 1,375,000 1,690,943 315,943 $ 1,690,943 $ 2,816,162 $ 904,438 $ 2,411,633 $ 1,507,195 er FY 2019 Budget $ 2,200,000 a) Projection increased due to additional revenue being granted by legislature after budget adoption. b) Legislature increased grant subsequent to adoption of FY 2018 budget. c) Annual payment received in January 2018. Projection decreased due to less than anticipated revenue granted by legislature after budget adoption. d) Projected to be less than anticipated revenue related to electronic monitoring, supervision, and work crew fees e) Projected to be less than appropriated due to vacancies. Includes expected Class/Comp increase. f) Projection based on trending. g) Projection increased due to unanticipated purchases related to security. h) Projected to be less than anticipated expenditure related to offender treatment contract payments and data dashboard. i) State prison transition program elimated. j) General Fund grant received quarterly k) Reimbursement for offender services not expected to be utilized this fiscal year. Page 7 Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees Private Disposal Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Franchise 3% Fees Yard Debris Recyclables Sale of Equip & Material Special Waste Interest Leases Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Total Operating Expenditures Transfers Out SW Capital & Equipment Reserve Total Transfers Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Solid Waste Schedule of Financial Operation Data FY 2017 Actual 5,459,396 2,095,262 1,729,096 254,304 171,470 13,467 18,590 28,812 31,959 10,801 59,241 9,872,398 2,049,320 4,334,705 127,449 858,512 7,369,985 3,075,000 3,075,000 (572,588) 1,810,265 $ 1,237,677 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) "/o of Actual I Budget 5,537,808 2,265,936 1,735,451 273,532 176,907 15,270 8,952 20,356 8,101 52,719 10,095,031 1,985,435 3,828,764 89,501 371,544 6,275,244 2,572,500 2,572,500 1,247, 287 1,237,677 $ 2,484,965 87% 113% 100% 114% 105% 127% 36% a) 102% 75% 151% 95% Budget 6,391,644 2,012,522 1,742,832 240,000 168,000 12,000 25,000 20,000 10,801 35,000 10,657,799 87% 2,278,466 79% c) 4,859,217 72% 125,000 43% b) 861,102 77% * 8,123,785 100% 2,580,000 100% 2,580,000 (45,986) 201% 615,872 $ 569,886 FY 2018 6,188,263 2,532,121 1,908,459 277,500 206,439 17,887 13,433 22,500 10,801 56,264 11,233,667 2,154,396 5,034,585 108,631 861,102 8,158,714 2,580,000 2,580,000 494,953 1,237,677 $ 1,732,630 !Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget $ 1,730,130 I a) Special Waste revenues are received for special clean-up projects and are difficult to budget and project b) Debt Service payments are made in November, May, and June. c) Projection includes a contract for solid waste management plan. * Adopted budget combines operating fund and reserve funds. No appropriation transfer required. Variance (203,381) 519,599 165,627 37,500 38,439 5,887 (11,567) 2,500 21,264 575,868 124,070 (175,368) 16,369 (34,929) 540,939 621,805 $ 1,162,744 Page 8 Risk Management Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Actual Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May FY 2018 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual I Budget Budget 1 Projected 1 Variance Revenues Inter -fund Charges: General Liability $ 931,319 $ 963,676 92% $ 1,051,283 $ 1,051,283 $ Property Damage 389,101 358,914 92% 391,542 391,542 Vehicle 197,155 178,828 92% 195,085 195,085 Workers' Compensation 1,228,053 1,138,242 92% 1,241,718 1,241,718 Unemployment 280,921 325,901 92% 354,609 354,609 Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 33,863 335,517 1118% a) 30,000 340,000 310,000 Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,980 1,620 90% 1,800 1,800 Miscellaneous 30 1,548 5160% 30 1,600 1,570 Skid Car Training 43,653 38,932 122% 32,000 40,000 8,000 Interest on Investments 58.644 77,106 105% 73,464 77,106 3,642 TOTAL REVENUES 3,164,919 3,420,282 101% 3,371,531 3,694,743 323,212 Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement / Benefit 711,705 69,537 Defense 27.039 29,601 Professional Service 6,250 12,545 Insurance 339,723 212,032 Loss Prevention 1,347 - Miscellaneous 171 Repair / Replacement 33,673 4,632 Total General Liability 1,119,908 328,346 73% 450,000 370,000 80,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE Property Damage Charges 215 Insurance 5,101 173,873 Loss Prevention 12,000 - Repair / Replacement 122,074 20,454 Total Property Damage 139,175 194,543 56% b) 350,000 250,000 100,000 VEHICLE Professional Service 781 Insurance 5,101 Loss Prevention 25,397 1,490 Miscellaneous 6,985 Repair / Replacement 102,994 93,058 Total Vehicle 136,157 99,650 77% 130,000 130,000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement / Benefit 539,792 705,552 Professional Service 6,250 38,809 Insurance 159,212 129,493 Loss Prevention 49,683 56,757 Miscellaneous 52,937 38,175 Total Workers' Compensation 807,075 968,785 81% 1,200,000 1,200,000 UNEMPLOYMENT - Settlement/Benefits 56,497 30,960 62% 50,000 50,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 2,259,612 1,622,284 74% 2,180,000 2,000,000 180,000 Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 327,505 330,370 92% 360,627 360,136 491 Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. 146,503 170,108 75% 226,699 226,699 Total Insurance Administration 474,008 500,479 85% 587,326 588,835 491 Total Expenditures 2,733,620 2,122,762 77% c) 2,767,326 2,586,835 180,491 Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 431,299 1,297,520 604,205 1,107,908 503,703 4,928,271 5,359,570 109% 4,897,636 5,359,570 461,934 $ 5,359,570 S 6,657,090 $ 5,501,841 $ 6,467,478 $ 965,637 !Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget $ 5,600,000 ! a) Claims reimbursement includes insurance payment of $254,199 for Fair/Expo roof damage. b) Projection includes expenditure for the Fair/Expo roof replacement. c) Apprropriaton will be transferred from Contingency to the Program Budget. Page 9 Revenues Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Property Taxes - Jefferson County State Reimbursement State Grant Telephone User Tax Data Network Reimb. User Fee Police RMS User Fees Contract Payments Miscellaneous Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Material and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In Transfers Out Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund 705 & 707 Balance DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707) Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2017 Actual $ 7,496,065 109,702 32,518 869,734 276,510 865,111 86,263 58,981 326,030 130,756 3,562 105,258 10,360,491 5,867,156 3,254,372 4,941,447 14,062,974 400,000 400,000 (3,302,483) 10,563,485 $ 7,261,002 Ending Bal. DC Reserve (710) 3,394,078 Total of Funds 705, 707 and 710 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual ( Budget Budget $ 7,931,179 100% a) $ 7,926,725 120,071 141% 85,000 31,218 95% a) 33,000 30,000 27% b) 110,000 N/A 676,232 77% c) 880,000 48,870 89% 55,000 91,499 102% 90,000 234,533 94% 250,119 0% 193,000 17,517 65% 27,000 90,271 141% 64,000 9,271,390 95% 9,713,844 6,200,791 3,065,880 1,671,147 10,937,818 1,300,000 493,863 806,137 (860,291) 7,261,002 $ 6,400,711 2,622,583 Fund 705 & 707 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget Fund 710 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget 88% 7,070,919 101% b) 3,047,724 76% 2,210,000 89% 12,328,643 100% 1,300,000 100% 493,863 100% 806,137 (1,808,662) 110% 6,600,000 $ 4,791,338 FY 2018 Projected 1 Variance $ 7,955,179 $ 28,454 120,900 35,900 33,000 - 30,000 (80,000) 880,000 68,638 13,638 91,499 1,499 259,496 9,377 (193,000) 20,000 (7,000) 90,271 26,271 9,548,983 (164,861) 6,770,919 300,000 3,065,880 (18,156) 2,210,000 - 12,046,799 281,844 1,300,000 - 493,863 806,137 - (1,691,679) 116,983 7,261,001 661,001 5,569,322 $ 777,984 2,433,863 2,634,583 $ 8,203,905 $ 6,000,000 2,625,000 $ 8,625,000 a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through May. Taxes received in June projected to be $24,000 b) Four workstations will not be purchased as the State will not be providing the resources. c) Q4 payment expected by the end of June. 200,720 Page 10 Health Benefits Fund Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2018 July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 FY 2017 FY 2018 Actual Actual % of BudgetProjection $ Variance I I Budget Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 16,955,229 $ 16,110,224 96% a) 16,865,000 17,574,790 709,790 Part -Time Employee Premium 2,585 2,142 N/A a) 2,336 2,336 Employee Monthly Co -Pay 923,805 877,275 95% a) 925,000 960,775 35,775 COIC 2,165,312 1,673,497 75% a) 2,224,000 1,825,633 (398,367) Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay 1,202,895 1,150,107 95% a) 1,211,803 1,254,662 42,859 Prescription Rebates 52,995 64,110 N/A 64,110 64,110 Claims Reimbursements & Misc 82,361 116,243 77% d) 150,000 116,243 (33,757) Interest 168,140 198,480 95% a) 210,000 216,523 6,523 Total Revenues 21,553,322 20,192,076 94% 21,585,803 22,015,072 429,269 Expenditures: Materials & Services Admin & Wellness Claims Paid -Medical 13,016,901 12,319,567 87% b) 14,125,000 13,885,958 239,042 Claims Paid -Prescription 977,260 1,128,957 106% b) 1,060,000 1,225,160 (165,160) Claims Paid-DentaWVision 2,141,054 1,810,208 78% b) 2,315,000 2,069,743 245,257 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 366,633 440,144 104% c) 425,000 446,950 (21,950) State Assessments 6,269 0% 6,600 6,600 Administration Fee (TPA) 461,375 665,608 81% c) 825,000 822,772 2,228 Preferred Provider Fee 91,904 80,523 124% c) 65,000 83,017 (18,017) Other - Administration 221,307 161,434 75% 214,431 214,431 Other -Wellness 174,028 144,592 81% 178,900 178,900 Admin & Wellness 17,456,731 16,749,033 87% 19,214,931 18,933,531 281,400 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 953,281 792,666 81% c) 975,000 992,229 (17,229) Medical Supplies 72,219 55,949 66% c) 85,000 96,400 (11,400) Other 45,308 27,517 80% 45,943 45,943 Total DOC 1,070,808 876,132 79% 1,105,943 1,134,572 (28,629) Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 382,900 233,374 75% c) 312,000 268,186 43,814 Prescriptions 1,728,845 1,318,469 78% c) 1,700,000 1,618,086 81,914 Other 34,083 81,073 124% 65,418 110,297 (44,879) Total Pharmacy 2,145,828 1,632,916 79% 2,077,418 1,996,570 80,849 Total Expenditures 20,673,366 19,258,081 88% 22,398,292 22,064,673 333,619 Change in Fund Balance 879,955 933,996 (812,489) (49,601) 762,888 Beginning Fund Balance 14,502,622 15,382,578 103% 15,000,000 15,382,578 382,578 Ending Fund Balance $ 15,382,578 $ 16,316,573 $ 14,187,511 $ 15,332,977 $ 1,145,466 % of Exp covered by Revenues ( 104.26%1 104.85%J I 96.37%I 99.78% 1 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget 16,051,586 a) Year to Date Annualized b) Actual:July 1, 2017 through May 15, 2018. Projection is based on May 16, 2017 through June 30, 2017 at an 8% increase. c) Projection: Year to Date actual plus encumbrances. d) $20,000 Pacific Source for "Wellness/Implement Grant", $22,792 Aetna PPO Rebate, $130 EBMS Rebate, $73,321 Stop Loss Refund Page 11 Operating Revenues Events Revenues Storage Camping at F & E Horse Stall Rental Food & Beverage Activities, net Annual County Fair (net) Interfund Contract Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures, net of TRT: General F & E Activities Personnel Services TRT Grant Materials and Services TRT Grant Capital Outlay Total Operating Exp, net of TRT Other: Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130) Rights & Signage TRT Grant Interest Total Other I Results of Operations Transfers In / Out Transfer In -General Fund Transfers In - TRT -1 % Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160) Trans In(Out)-Fair & Expo Reserve Total Transfers In Non -Operating Rev & Exp Debt Service Total Non -Operating Expenditures FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) FY 2017 FY 2018 Year to Date Actual Actual $ 538,512 66,879 21,148 34,953 119,129 440,000 30,000 14,198 1,264,818 940,667 (188,255) 812,908 (167,827) 1,397,493 Actual I 04 of Budget Budget $ 425,944 78% 544,000 81,588 126% 65,000 15,200 76% 20,000 23,301 57% 41,000 69,543 58% a) 120,$95 287,452 67% b) 430,626 27,500 92% c) 30,000 4,707 63% 7,500 935,235 74% 1,258,821 937,839 89% d) 1,050,695 (195,444) 98% (200,000) 865,290 71% 1,223,563 (203,946) 32% (635,070) 0% 15,000 1,403,740 97% 1,454,188 30,000 22,500 75% 30,000 116,130 93,199 79% 118,000 N/A e) 1,789 507 51% 1,000 147,919 116,206 78% 149,000 15,244 (352,300) (46,367) 250,000 183,333 92% 200,000 25,744 (55,000) 220,744 23,599 92% 25,744 0% (105,452) 206,932 120,292 102,536 101,824 100% 101,824 102,536 101,824 100% 101,824 Change in Fund Balance 133,452 Beginning Fund Balance 47,283 Ending Fund Balance 180,735 $ (247,192) 180,735 80% (66,456) $ Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget a) See "Food & Beverage Activities Schedule" b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund c) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E d) Personnel projection based on February actual e) General operating Grant from TRT -1 % fund. FY 2018 Projected 1 $ 452,610 81,588 22,200 34,301 76,209 287,452 30,000 9,707 994,068 1,026,905 (213,144) 945,290 (223,946) 1,535,106 30,000 111,199 100,000 507 241,706 (299,332) 200,000 25,744 225,744 101,824 101,824 Variance $ (91,390) 16,588 2,200 (6,699) (44,486) (143,174) 2,207 (264,753) 23,790 13,144 278,273 (411,124) 15,000 (80,918) (6,801) 100,000 (493) 92,706 (252,965)1 (27,899) (175,412) 225,000 180,735 197,101 $ 5,323 $ 105,452 105,452 (147,513) (44,265) (191,778) Page 12 wyo 0 0 e a 0 0 0 67 0 (A W) OO pp N WOOO 0 (h iD' ' O n mo N N NVco(0� (0) dW N O V• .I.' COM 0 O d CO 0 0 N N r '- N M .-I" fl w moo ea co n M co N (1) a° N f-- V' M r 0. 00 M CO N to M to ONO 00f_ N O N Of N o N (� O f� O) tr N00 M N NO (N n V' CO ,a2- N N O M W �t r N r r r +^ kiN r w w 'Ca. 45,763 $ 25,203 w 44 2: N (O (0 2 M LL w N 7 MI F3 ) 1 CO w O — N N U) v E cc< g N Uo 0) in a E 0 w .O W y .8 N U CO > M a) 0 LL al 2 w O — O W ELW 61. 1G 0 0 WC t a- 0 d w 2 T Er - N 0 o. T (%j w Ti) n- m 000 0) N ON) in O a) O1') '4) ( co N N N CO a) O) M M O CO e LO N (MO N CO e(ND N T M a a vT N 4- V) M O N rnti N M M )D CO - CO e O) C) W03 N CO N M M CO N N N a- M h N M W 007(!0 N r CO(O0 CD CO O I o5 N oi N N N O) W 0) N LC) VI CD (OO') U N MN 0) t') N, O N N v M co V: 0) O 0 0) N on Gi V N M O N m - Nit) 00 ) N N (O O) 00 ONO N N V N co or O N M V N r2. M M O) M N- 0 o N Q1 ui to CO CO (').4)'- N N 4, CO W 0) 0 e CO CO M CO CO r M N co W M N N co co N CO 0 CO (0 M O) CO M (0 N 0) m 0 CO CO tri co lb W A O (') M O) N V' oo W (D W N' N W 0 0 n (0 W N 0 v r A O 0) a (o N CO N N CO 0 r N 0) in N O0) '4 M 0c a r -- a)" 0)" �co Nr � r W (0 N 3 a 1 ti 0) N P7 M 0) M CO O N 00) V T SCO N ) 00)) 0 M O M N CO Maf CD om O ON 3- M (0 r V0 0' 0013 0 on CO at t .4 O N 0 O 0 N O a N 0) 0) (0 M N N O 003 NO COM0 Cef) ON C9 11) N a Z. )') Off OV 07N f 0 0 0) o 0') OO M C1 , `7 0 V ID N f - ('i v (ti o in ('i v) o) a et o o o trio in i I, N I-'-'- N N O N N r N M a T DI Cost of F&B Percentage N c 4 LX ze a I -D- 0 8 II m 0 0 N 0_ 3 M > 05N G M O tY — N C MI el I I g i 1 t°, 1 60 1- w 1- w 6,067 $ (6,044) $ 10,902 $ 208 $ (1,373) Justice Court Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY2017 Year to Date July 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018 (92% of the year) % of Actual Actual Budget Budget Revenues Court Fines & Fees $ 545,628 $ 535,460 101% a) $ 530,000 Interest on Investments 1,348 1,305 87% 1,500 Total Revenues 546,976 536,765 101% 531,500 Expenditures Personnel Services 467,419 Materials and Services 153,817 Total Expenditures 621,236 Net from Operations (74,260) Transfers Transfers In- General Fund 25,000 Total Transfers 25,000 Change in Fund Balance (49,260) Beginning Fund Balance 161,702 Ending Fund Balance $112,442 422,189 129,316 551,505 (14,740) 87% b) 91% c) 88% 64,167 92% 64,167 92% 49,427 112,442 132% $ 161,869 !BeginningNet Working Capital per FY 2019 Budget 486,471 142,392 628,863 (97,363) FY 2018 Projected I Variance $ 584,137.91 1,350 585,488 70,000 70,000 (27,363) 85,000 $ 57,637 $ 465,000 141,827 606,827 (21,339) 70,000 70,000 48,661 112,442 161,103 $ 144,0001 a) Year to date annualized. b) Based on projected payroll in budget central c) Projected based on outstanding obligations related to rent, utilities, and internal services. $ 54,138 (150) 53,988 21,471 565 22,036 76,024 76,024 27,442 $103,466 Page 14 i REVENUES Room Taxes Interest Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Administrative Auditing Services Temporary Help Interfund Contract ISF Public Notices Printing Office Supplies Postage Total Administrative Current Distributions Sheriff's Office Sunriver Service Dist COVA (20% of the 6%) COVA (100% of the 1%) Grants Third Party Grants Inter -fund Grants F&E Center Annual County Fair RV Park Inter -fund Transfers General Capital Reserve F&E Center F&E Reserve Fund Total Distributions Total Expenditures Change in Balance Beginning Balance Ending Balance Deschutes County Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170) Budget and Actual - FY 2018 YTD May 2018 Fund 160 - 7% of TRT Fund 170 1% of TRT Budget 1 Actual Budget 1 Actual $ 5,880,000 $ 5,731,999 10,000 21,070 5,890,000 5,753,069 10,937 7,064 48,238 32,287 2,669 1,881 897 2,647 106,620 $ 840,000 $ 7,000 847,000 1,563 847 48,238 9,048 32,287 15,305 1,348 381 1,262 269 128 905 378 84,887 27,072 3,151,787 2,889,138 200,000 1,082,256 923,491 920,164 777,276 25,744 5,379,951 5,486,571 23,599 4,613,504 4,698,391 403,429 1,054,678 407,000 449,923 $ 810,429 $ 1,504,600 839,242 70,000 70,000 245,978 1,225,220 1,252,292 (405,292) 405,292 $ - $ 818,861 7,685 826,546 1 Combined - 8% TRT Budget 1 Actual % of Budget 1 $ 6,720,000 $ 6,550,860 97.5% 17,000 28,755 169.1% 6,737,000 6,579,615 97.7% 12,500 113 7,064 960 8,039 57,286 56,277 15,305 47,592 47,592 193 3,050 1,540 180 2,150 1,442 1,025 129 3,025 1,034 23,959 133,692 108,846 8,000 399,389 116,125 35,088 184,484 743,086 767,045 59,501 467,133 526,634 3,151,787 2,889,138 200,000 1,082,256 923,491 920,164 777,276 839,242 70,000 70,000 25,744 245,978 6,605,171 6,738,863 8,000 399,389 116,125 35,088 23,599 184,484 5,356,590 5,465,436 (1,863) 1,114,179 812,292 917,056 $ 810,429 $ 2,031,235 Page 15 (ES v Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REOUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of June 18. 2018 DATE: June 13, 2018 FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparation for Deliberations: Snow Creek Ranch Partition RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED: Review the staff memorandum and identify any issue areas for more information in advance of deliberations. ATTENDANCE: Will Groves, Legal SUMMARY: Board Deliberation on Applicant's appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) are presently scheduled for June 25, 2018. Staff has prepared a memorandum to help the Board to prepare for these deliberations. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P',O, Bax 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (54') 385-1764 http://tvww,deschutes,org/cd MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners (Board) FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Board Deliberation on Applicant's appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) I. BACKGROUND The subject property is part of Lot 4 of the Snow Creek Ranch. This lot was divided by a 2001 partition to create a nonfarm parcel and dwelling. The applicant seeks to divide Parcel 2 of the 2001 partition for a new nonfarm parcel and dwelling. This subdivision, on farm -zoned land, is unusual in that prior approvals included specific restrictions preventing the subsequent division of the subdivision lots. It appears that the intent was to create large lot (39-102 acres) farm parcels with a homesite per lot. Unfortunately, the standards for the originally contemplated farm dwellings became significantly more onerous, and MC -97-2 was approved to authorize creation of non-farm parcels to permit non-farm dwellings. The restrictions on additional land divisions in the subdivision were implemented as follows: The 1991 approval (TP -91-760) included the following condition of approval: 5. No further division of this land would be allowed since this appears to be the minimum size in this area for farm use. Also, any further division would necessarily split up productive farm land and make it difficult to site residences on lands that did not encompass productive agricultural lands. •vices erforwiic'il with Pride This condition was modified in 1997 (MC -97-2) to read: 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(B) Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. The applicant partitioned a non-farm parcel and constructed a non-farm dwelling (CU -00-74 and MP -00-18) under this modified condition. The required deed restriction was never recorded. II. PROPOSAL The applicant has now requested to amend Condition 5 in MC -97-2, to allow another non- farm parcel and dwelling, as follows: 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Deschutes County Code and state law. The proposal also includes a new partition of the 69.37 -acre parcel zoned EFU to create a 64.73 -acre farm parcel, and a 4.64 -acre nonfarm parcel with a nonfarm dwelling. III. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. Section 22.36.040. Modification of Approval. 8. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. 1) Does a change of circumstances makes change desirable? Staff Recommendation: It is unclear in the code to whom a modification should be desirable. This case is unusual in that the decision to be modified impacts the entire subdivision and that only the applicant, among owners in the subdivision responding in the record, desires this modification. Staff recommends the Board find that the desirability of a modification, at minimum, includes consideration of both the interests of the applicant and the interests of other owners that are subject to the modification. Other considerations, including the evaluation of the modification in the context of the original decision and of the County's goals and polices should also be weighed and considered. Given this approach, the Board could concur with the Hearing's Officer and Opponents that the overwhelming opposition to the owners subject to this decision, together with fact the modification undermines the one -dwelling -per -subdivision -lot goal of the original decision (as modified), makes the proposed modification undesirable. Alternatively, the Board could concur with the applicant that lawful development with no significant adverse impacts is desirable. Hearings Officer: This criterion sets a high bar for the applicants. Perhaps the opponent's concerns do not rise to a significant adverse impact, but it is hard to conclude that increased traffic, more dwellings and other identified concerns benefit them. ....none of those other owners have expressed support or argued that the change is desirable in this rather unique farm subdivision. I find that this provision requires something more than being financially desirable for the applicant. It must be desirable considering the purpose of the applicable zoning and other regulations. The prior modification was desirable in that it furthered the objectives of the original approval and, apparently, agricultural values by providing a work -around to get something like the originally envisioned farm dwellings. In contrast, as discussed previously, the proposed modification is inconsistent with the objectives of the original and modified approvals and encourages exactly the kind of rural residential development that those approvals explicitly sought to avoid. Applicant: Interpretation of the desirability of a condition modification must be broader than that argued by the opponents or the hearings officer. Contrary to the opponents' assertions, the applicants have not claimed that their ability to sell this potential new lot is only reason that a modification is desirable. The applicants have always said that the interpretation should be determined based on a countywide policy. That policy should be one of allowing property owners to follow state statutes and county code that change from time to time in light of the fact that the changed condition does no harm to the area in which the property in which it is located. To find otherwise interprets the desirability criterion in the same manner as the hearing officer and the opponents argue the Board should not. They ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desire of the applicant. The applicants ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desires of the neighbors. Both are too narrow of an interpretation. Opponents: The homeowners in the area have consistently and continuously voiced their concern and objection to this type of change. The Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision was found with the idea of creating a limited number of non-farm dwellings on large parcels in and around agriculture fields. There must be additional components to desirability other than financial windfall to the applicants. If this were the only criteria, then certainly every application and every applicant would meet this burden. In this circumstance, the applicants have provided no evidence and cannot provide evidence to support that this modification is desirable to anyone other than themselves. In fact, the only evidence submitted is quite to the opposite. As such, the Hearings Officer correctly decided that this condition was not met. 2) Is this a substantially new proposal? C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. Staff Recommendation: The Hearings Officer, in the original subdivision approval (TP -91- 760), was very concerned with the viability of each of the original 7 subdivision lots as a farms and expressly precluded further division of these properties. It is clear from the record materials in MC -97-2 that the 1997 modification was intended to allow the original 7 subdivision lots to obtain a first dwelling, where changes in state law precluded that first dwelling. MC -97-2 states: The purpose of these changes is to allow the approved subdivision lots to be developed with non-farm dwellings, to make clear the total number of dwellings in the subdivision would be seven, and to permit the subdivision lots to be further divided to segregate the homesites from the remainder of the parcels in order to preserve the remainder lots' qualification for farm tax deferral. The applicant argues that the structure of the 1991 subdivision decision and 1997 modification may have had the effect of allowing more than one dwelling per original subdivision lot. While it may be (or may have been possible) to establish more parcels and dwellings, such development was clearly unforeseen and was expressly to be precluded by the 1997 modification. As such, staff recommends that the Board concur with the Hearings Officer's findings on this issue. Alternatively, the Board could conclude adding a non-farm dwelling lot to a subdivision (and the potential for more), as would currently be allowed under state and local law, would not be a substantially new proposal for the reasons outline in the Applicant's May 16, 2018 final arguments and summarized below. Hearings Officer: The application constitutes a substantially new proposal. The applicants propose to modify a condition that applies throughout the subdivision. Further, as discussed above, the provision sought to be modified goes to the heart of the subdivision approval and subsequent modification. The applicants propose to remove something that at least some of the other lot owners assert they relied on in purchasing property. The applicants concede that at least two other owners could take advantage of this restriction, so it could have broader impacts on the subdivision. If the Code changes again, perhaps even more properties could develop. Applicant: Two or more dwellings have always been possible with either prior decision. Nothing in either TP -91-760 prevented a property owner from constructing a farm dwelling and seeking approval of a nonfarm dwelling. Thus, each property could have had two dwellings at that time. That decision merely prevented any further division of the property to carve off the nonfarm dwelling. Likewise, the condition as written in or MC -97-2 would not prevent those property owners from first seeking a farm dwelling then a nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, each lot could have had two dwellings. Allowing the Steinfelds' proposed condition of approval modification is not a radical departure from what was allowed by the 1997 conditions modification. Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 will be allowed two dwellings like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would be allowed. The difference is that the second dwellings on Lots 3 through 5 would solely result from nonfarm partitions. Opponents: The proposal submitted by the applicants is a substantially new proposal. The condition that is sought to be modified is a critical component to the entire subdivision and the basis for the unique nature of Snow Creek Ranch. Evidence was given at the hearing demonstrating owners' preference for the Snow Creek Ranch and the reliance by property owners on the unique nature of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision, specifically, the limited ability to further develop property in the area. The proposed modification is not a minor variance from an existing scheme. Rather, the proposed modification undermines the very nature for which Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision came into existence. Certainly, a fundamental change to an entire subdivision constitutes a substantially new proposal. 3) Will there be significant additional impacts on surrounding properties? Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that "significant additional impacts" are limited to obvious harms to existing and potential surrounding uses. Impact examples include, but are not limited to: noise, visual impacts, odor, traffic, or changes that would impact the cost or viability of farming in the area. While it is clear that this proposal would increase the density of development in the subdivision in a way contrary to the neighbor's expectations at time of purchase, Staff is unaware of evidence in the record that the proposal would result in any obvious harm to the use and enjoyment of property for residential use or farming in the subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board find that "significant additional impacts" are limited to demonstrated adverse impacts to the use and enjoyment of property for existing and potential surrounding uses. This level of impact has not been demonstrated in this case. Alternatively, the Board could conclude that the proposal makes possible up to 3 total new dwellings and that cumulatively this would potentially cause visual impacts and/or cumulatively impact the cost or viability of farming in the area. In addition the Board could concur with the Hearings Officer's analysis, below. Hearings Officer: I concur with staff that the addition of single dwelling in the location proposed does not have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. But that is not the proposal at issue under this Code section. The issue is whether removing the prior condition, (as modified) and opening the subdivision to whatever development the Code allows now or in the future constitutes a significant impact. For the reasons discussed above, I find that it does. It opens the door to a fundamental change in the nature of the subdivision and removes the protections that formed the central basis for approving the lots in the first place. It may be that some other type of application constituting a new proposal could be approved that would meet the applicants' objective, but a modification of conditions is not the proper course in these circumstances. The applicants have not met their burden on this issue. Applicant: The Hearings Officer cannot find that proposal does not have significant impacts on the surrounding area for purposes of a nonfarm partition criteria but finds that it does have significant impacts for a modification of condition. The additional traffic from the additional partitioned lots is also not a radical departure from what is currently allowed in the subdivision. Snow Creek Lane is a dead-end street. The nonfarm application shows that the street can handle traffic from three additional dwellings. The number of potential additional dwellings is not so great as to totally mar the area for future farm use and opponents have provided no evidence that it would do so. Farming on the subject lot and all other lots within the subdivision will remain viable. Thus, the proposed modification of condition does not interfere with the original purpose of the original subdivision approval or the 1997 modification because it does not interfere with any of the subdivision parent parcels' ability to maintain farming activities. Opponents: The Hearings Officer correctly determined that the proposed modification would have significant impact on surrounding properties. Again, there was ample evidence presented at the hearing as well as in writing objecting based on the impact of the surrounding communities. As alluded to above, Snow Creek Ranch is a unique subdivision in Deschutes County. The proposed modification would not simply modify a slight use of the properties therein, but rather would change the fundamental nature of the subdivision. 4) Does the application comply with Section 17.36.260. Fire Hazards. Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation. This provision requires the applicant for a partition, wherever possible, to create a second point of emergency access. The Fire Department and ODOT have confirmed that such secondary access is feasible. The secondary access would be gated with locks that only the Fire Department could open in cases of emergency. The applicant argues that the requirement for an emergency is an unconstitutional land use exaction under Dolan (full citation below). Staff Recommendation: To the extent the Board has chosen to deny this application on other grounds, it is not necessary to resolve this issue. If the Board has otherwise approved this application or wishes to make findings on this issue staff provides the following analysis and recommendation. The requirement for two points of access is an obligation of the partition, regardless of the broader issues in the subdivision. Because this access is for the health and safety of the residents of the partition, Staff recommends that the Board find that a graveled, fire - department gated, emergency -only access is required under the code for the residents of the partition. There is a legitimate governmental purpose for the exaction: to provide emergency access and fire -department -assisted egress for the residents of the partition. There is a "reasonable nexus" to this project: the emergency access is for the health and safety of the residents of the partition. It is assumed that the exaction is also "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the specific project being reviewed as evidence by the requirement being long-standing provision in the Deschutes County Code. Contrary to the applicant's argument, the secondary access is not being required to cure a past access issue with the subdivisions as a whole. Instead, the secondary access requirement is triggered by the applicant's proposed partition regardless of the lack of a secondary access for the rest of the subdivision residents. The applicant's "rough proportionality" argument is factually undeveloped, and likely should fail because it is predicated on erroneous assumption that emergency access must be provide as a benefit for the entire subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board find that no easement to the emergency access for the benefit of other owners in the subdivision is required. As the emergency access will connect to a public road, the Fire Department will be able to use this access for emergency purposes in the subdivision generally. However, this is an incidental benefit and is not the reason for the requirement. As such, this requirement does not exact anything from the subject property owners for the benefit of the other owners in the subdivision. Staff notes that the applicant "shouldering the burden" of the emergency access road is a self-created difficulty, in that the applicants have proposed this development in the face of the general opposition from other owners in the subdivision. Were the replat application to have been filed cooperatively by the subdivision, the cost of developing a community second point of access could have been shared among the homeowners. Hearings Officer: The applicant has proposed a single point of access via Snow Creek Lane. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer require the applicant to demonstrate that the applicant has no ability to provide a second access to the subject property from the highway, prior to any finding of compliance with this criterion. Staff notes that ODOT has, in other subdivisions in Deschutes County, rejected general access to a Highway but has allowed gated emergency access. Staff recommends that Hearings Officer presumes that secondary access is possible until such access is clearly denied by ODOT. I am not comfortable with a condition leaving it to the applicant to apply to ODOT outside of the record. This criterion should have been addressed more fully and, therefore, has not been met based on this record. Applicant: Requiring the Steinfelds to provide an emergency road for the entire subdivision is an exaction because the county would be requiring the Steinfelds to give up full control of and access to their wholly-owned property. The United States Supreme Court said in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) that the test for an unconstitutional taking is three -fold in the case of a land use exaction. The Steinfelds argue that requiring the Steinfelds to shoulder the burden of an emergency access road at all does not meet the Dolan tests. At the very least, the Steinfelds should not be required to shoulder the burden for the rest of the subdivision. Opponents: It appears that the opponents did not respond to this issue in the written record. 5) Does the unrecorded deed restriction prevent this application or approval? Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer. Hearings Officer: DCC 22.20.015 D permits issuance of a permit or approval if "it results in the property coming into full compliance". In my experience the more common use of similar provisions is to obtain whatever approval was not obtained, a variance to legalize a defect in a development or similar approval. In other words, bring the property into conformance with the standard at issue. The applicants easily could conform by recording the restriction. Rather than do so, they seek to remove the standard (i.e. deed restriction) itself. Although it may be a somewhat expansive reading of DCC 22.20.015D, I conclude that the application may be considered on the merits. Approval would, in fact, cure the violation. This is a curative provision designed to encourage conformance rather than to penalize violators. Nothing in the modification of condition provisions requires that the party seeking a modification first come into compliance. In this case, the applicants could simply record the restriction and then reapply for a modification to negate the restriction if I reject this application. Opponents have not demonstrated that they would be prejudiced by me not requiring the applicants to follow that course. Accordingly, the applications are properly at issue. Applicant: In fact, if the requirement is ongoing and can be fulfilled at any time, no deadline was set for its recording when the county failed to include it as a condition of approval of the final plat approval in 2000. This is particularly so since the condition was for an affirmative action on the part of the county, not the property owner. If the condition had been in the final plat approval requirements, then it would have been a requirement of the property owner at that time. Thus, no violation of the condition for the deed restriction has occurred and these applications for the condition modification, partition and nonfarm dwelling can move forward. As a result, no recording of the deed restriction is necessary before the Board can approve a modification of the requirement for a deed restriction. The applicants still maintain that requiring the deed restriction at this point is a collateral attack on the final plat approval in 2001. They also maintain that, at this stage, not moving forward with these applications because of the lack of a recorded deed restrictions serves no purpose and results only in additional expense to the applicants. They could merely record the deed restriction and reapply with all the same arguments and materials, wasting time and money for them and the county. Opponents: The present application must be denied because the present parcel is not in conformance with prior land use decisions, i.e., recording of a deed restriction as a condition of approval as required by land use decisions by prior to 2001. The fact that the County did not require this as a condition of approval in 2001 does not excuse, supersede or otherwise dismiss the 1997 requirement for the applicants to impose this deed restriction as a condition of approval. Since 2001, the applicants have not recorded a deed restriction. As such, the County is not looking at the 2001 decision and whether it was valid, but rather the County must determine if the property is presently in violation of prior land use decisions. If it is, the land use action here must be denied. 6. Has there been a "collateral attack" on prior approvals for the subject property? A deed restriction was imposed in MC -97-2 as a condition of non-farm land divisions. 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(8). Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. It appears when the subject property was divided and subsequently developed under CU - 00 -74 and MP -00-18, the required condition of final plat approval was not included as part of these decisions and the deed restriction was never recorded. It is unclear if Condition #5 represents an ongoing obligation for the property, or that the failure of the County to act in the past represents a decision that cannot be revisited or "collaterally attacked" in the current process. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board vacate the Hearing Officer's findings on this issue and find that this issue need not be resolved in the current process. To the extent this application is approved, the condition will be modified to remove the deed restriction requirement. If the application is denied, the matter can be referred to code enforcement for resolution. Hearings Officer: The County bears some responsibility for this situation because it failed to enforce the condition when it approved CU -00-74 and MP -00-18. The applicants assert that the County similarly did not obtain or require deed restrictions in the other nonfarm parcel approvals. They argue that this is an impermissible collateral attack on the decision approving CU -00-74 and MP -00-18 and those decisions should have been appealed if anyone objected. It is not clear why the County has not addressed the deed restriction requirement. The decisions did not purport to modify or remove that requirement, so it is not clear if it has the practical effect of negating the prior condition. Second, the applicants note that they could cure the violation by recording the restriction. But they have neither recorded nor offered to record the restriction. I find that the condition as modified has not been waived or deleted by the County's failure to address it in prior approvals. The property is in violation of the condition of approval imposed under MC -97-2. Applicant: The case citation for the proposition that arguments in a later land use proceeding can be a collateral attack is Brodersen v. City of Ashland, 62 Or LUBA 329,339-43 (2010), aff'd2 41 Or App723, 250 P3d 992 (2011). In that case, LUBA found that, if the current proceeding requires a determination of the status of a lot, the local government can review whether a prior decision made that determination but cannot reevaluate the correctness of that decision. In this case, per Condition 5 of MC -97-2 the condition to record the deed restriction was supposed to be a condition of the final plat approval for any nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, the prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition for recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property and Tax Lot 811. Those decisions, especially the building permits, could not have been issued without at least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. That is the "whether" determination of the status of the lots. By arguing the need for a deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of those decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. Opponents: It appears that the opponents did not respond to this issue in the written record. 150 -DAY LAND USE CLOCK At the time of the Hearing Officer's decision the 150th day for the County to take final action on this application was April 15, 2018. The applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension of this clock by an email dated February 13, 2018. Because the applicant agreed to the written open record period from April 16 through May 18, 2018, the land use clock was tolled for 32 days. Therefore, the 150th -day is August 15, 2018. EXHIBITS A. Hearings Officer's Decision B. Open Record Materials C. Decision Matrix - [To Be Presented at the work session\ Issue Area Does a change of circumstances makes change desirable? Is this a substantially new proposal? Snow Creek Ranch Partition and Dwelling Land Use File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) Applicable Approval Criterion B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. Applicant Response The applicants have always said that the interpretation should be determined based on a countywide policy. That policy should be one of allowing property owners to follow state statutes and county code that change from time to time in light of the fact that the changed condition does no harm to the, area in which the property in which it is located. ,Allovwing the.Steinfelds' proposed condition of approval modification nota radical' departure from what was allowed by the 1997 conditions odificatiori.:Subdivision Lots 3 through s will be allowed two dwellings like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would be allonred.'The difference is that the,., ---:second dwellings on Lots 3 through 5 would, solely result from nonfarm partitions, Hearings Officer Staff Comment This criterion sets a high bar for the applicants. I find that this provision requires something more than being financially desirable for the applicant. It must be desirable considering the purpose of the applicable zoning and other regulations. The prior modification was desirable in that it furthered the objectives of the original approval. The application constitutes a substantially new proposal. The applicants propose to modify a condition that applies throughout the subdivision. The provision sought to be modified goes to the heart of the subdivision approval and subsequent modification. The applicants concede that at least two other owners could take advantage of this restriction, allowing even more properties could develop. The overwhelming opposition to the owners subject to this decision, together with fact .the modification undermines the one -dwelling -per subdivision -lot goal of the original decision (as modified), makes the proposed modification undesirable, Staff, recom mends. that the Boar concur a ith,the. Hearings Office findings on this issue Alternatively, 'Board could conclude adding a no farm dwelling lot to a subdivision`{and the potential for more), as would currently be allowed .under;state anc local law, .would not: be a substantially _' new proposal for,the reasons. outline in the Applicant's final arguments:, •uoilp_led aqp: jo`s1uapisaa g Jpj � ssaJga....po1s!S5e-lua; .....a... uaa4ee#ap ail . pue ssaaae 42uag.lawaap!AOJd'o1 :uol apxa aye ao asodind:I 1uau.%uiana a awl al e s1 a:ragl uw epuau. woaa,� pue ,sls�Cjeue �ulnnolloJ. , _:a141:.sapinoad els apsst s yr ua s ulpul a�Ipw o� sagsinn :lo.ualildde sltl� pang. dde aslnn:laq o seq p.leog a anssl Sti4al!(o5a.t'01. I J SSa)au-you s! 1.. 'spuno�12 Jagzo uo U0' 11eJlidde slg4 /qua o� `uasog� sig pieo9 aii 4Ua xa aye o.l n age o u ae j sr pingo Au u Ins; PInOM iesodod;a,gey' aauapina o a:lennaun si a .S `as gaand jo aual�e suol�.�adXo sJogglou aqi o / J J1uoJ �C?M e ul uolslnipgns aq� ul 1uaw,dolanap J:oj.lsuap age asea.laul pinoM _Iesodoid. sl .Il pql .leap sl! alliM •,sasn �u�puno�a'ris . Ieliva1od pue Rul slxa su.l:l y sno!Ago o pal!wil ale „spedulr Ieuoll ppe - 1ueal4.Iugis„ sanarlaq jjeiS •paoJaJ siya. uo paseq haw uaaq fou seq 'aioJ.aaa p.'pue'IIni. a.Jow passa.ippe uaaq GAN pinogs uoualuj sigj •apeld 1s..g ALP Li! age. Suino.idde JoJ. siseq IepuaD age pawaol leu. suoppa 0Jd alp sanowaa pue uoislnipgns auk Jo aanleu age u! agueq IeTuawepunJ e aoop age suado 'Sapp a.i Tapq pu!J. 1 1.3edwi lueDulu sis e sain.j suoj aJrunj Aga. ui JO MOU snore apoj aye luawdolanap JanalegM o1 uoisinipgns aye 2u!uado pue (painpow se) 'uop!puoa .loud aye gu!nowaJ Jayfagm s! anssi agl 7uoEs1npgns aq1 o .saa`ag1:rod ua,p,ang a. f1 J pjnogs o� pa.alnboJ aq fou P.Ino s splaj.ui :aq ` 'iseal i lan ail Ib s1sa uoloa ag ';1aaw fou saop. I(e ppoa ssaae Cuag.aura u� .o uap�nq ag1;rapjnogs o1 spja .u!a s aq1 �uuinbai e' Art ie splaJuia s aql aata�ul. Uol�pa� 1pou 6 L egg �q Ieao.tddo uolsin pgns ,. U! i:lo ails Jo asod.ind IeuiglJo aiajjaaurIou saop uol .lpuoa 'Jo. uol�e)l.lpour pasodojd age `s,ng pigpin u!ewa.i `III uolslnlpgrts auI U!U,1I in sip! iaga.o he pua1ol 1aa[gl s,ay4uo gu!cuied •uopemena 1uapisa.i asea pue sapigan ADUJ wa .ioJ. ssa»e pa.insse apino.ad papinoad aq !legs UOpp.Jed Jo uoisinipgns alp 01 SSGiDe 40 s1uiod 0M140 wnwiuiw e 'apssod JanauaLM •7# se awec Z9€LI. uollDOS ql!M tCldwoj uol e)liddE aq1 saOQ adoid: punaiinS fin c1arliiii (euo!1 ppe 1ueDU!ugls aq aiaq II!M Does the unrecorded deed restriction prevent this application or approval? Has there been a "collateral attack" on prior approvals for the subject property? 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(B). Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. The prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition for recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property. Those decisions, could not have been issued without at least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. By arguing the need for a deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of those decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. The applicants still maintain that requiring the deed restriction at this point is a collateral attack on the final plat approval in 2001. They also maintain that, at this stage, not moving forward with these applications because of the lack of.a recorded deed restrictions serves no purpose and results only in additional expense to the applicants. They could merely record the deed restriction and reapply with all the same arguments and materials, wasting time and money for them and the county.. The applicant proposes the screens/fencing to mitigate noise and visual impacts. DCC 22.20.015 D permits issuance of a permit or approval if "it results in the property coming into full compliance".The more common use of similar provisions is to obtain whatever approval was not obtained, a variance to legalize a defect in a development or similar approval. In other words, bring the property into conformance with the standard at issue. The applicants easily could conform by recording the restriction. Rather than do so, they seek to remove the standard (i.e. deed restriction) itself. Although it may be a somewhat expansive reading of DCC 22.20.015D, I conclude that the application may be considered on the merits. Approval would, in fact, cure the violation. I find that the condition as modified has not been waived or deleted by the County's failure to address it in prior approvals. The property is in violation of the condition of approval imposed under MC -97-2. Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer. Staff recommends that the Board vacate the Hearing Officer's findings on this issue and find that this issue need not be resolved in the current process. To the extent this application is approved, the condition will be Modified to remove the deed restriction requirement. If the application is denied, the matter can be referred to code enforcement for resolution. s1P IS3 'h7.1 w ---::::::77 : , 'Z > a 911.4 4QA3ANf1S A 1.s OO Saini 0 ND 2- BRASS CAP - 1/16 CDR NN I N� ! oa b• ID 0P,40 50031'13"W ' n 2635.45 z 5 Ie3a aIj1.7Yd HAM S00'43'06"W 571!24' zy i N.,g z a n.6 oy s't N‘N M.YS,ZY.00S 031 N 8 O�y ppRq3 OCN N00'44'34"E 816.00' v•- o mn/ 2242 Sb„ N 808 §6 2S$ 4iW 4`-V3 ff<ozo V] K'o4a<o o�zaai onos 228888622 8 6 4 6 8 8 4 ry 011 w SRS'$^.,.°yo,"o�NR. i�_-m$n7?hr..4 oovooEro ;WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW;; 3 2b- bi.<�n-�w�.` cq bit �O�i rY ��-'?OONb�T�^n�iMh�'. OwiO 6 Vii=-bh^�^m c.) L.; 8.x,$88'88 8 80888 SHEET 2 OF 2 NOVEMBER, 1995 aU UUUUUUU�iU U UUUUUUUUUUUU 8 8 4.4 "$m '0888 21-10 8 z3 U ¢3 W §g_ � o„ k � =_� <; z� �tY W :e: b 1:K� 11. O�0 2 KN O 2aGWwun0Kaoowjwa 4i, 8go ii GI il ii ;4! l'':141 `g10' x -e, :':' .1.illl t ri "2^U j /wa vWga ' 3a � "`n ia° yu W cwx Twp :x o �= e hp h� KY „II 0K h - '7,>, a rci pi ti� oQ 0. a �� F h= o G w la=�a 4 849.95' 4 • \ O .7,® __ .1nYjrw(q-- U.S. HIGHWAY 20 MAP TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR PARTITION PARCEL 1 OF PARTITION PLAT NO. 2001-06 LOCATED IN THE S1/2 OF SECTION 4 AND THE N1/2 OF SECTION 9, T165, R11E, W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAX LOTS: 1611040000804 AND 1 611 0900001 01 (ONE LOT OF RECORD) ZONING: EFUTRB & LM CURVE TABLE {NUMBER{ RADIUS 1 DELTA ANGLE ARC LENGTH {CHORD BEARING Eci 395.001 51'06'11" 352.31 I N56'39"20"W { C2 335.00 { 85'35'42" 500.46 N41'57'09"W INUMBER 01 02. 1 L.3 � L4 rI L5 I LG 1 L7 LINE TABLE BEARING- I DISTANCE N21'41'13-4' I 210.27 N7T01'03"E 1 28.79 N80'45'53 "E 1 187.51 S89'09'18"E I 135.00 500'50'42'iV I 350.00 S00'50'42'111 I 425.00 $00'50'42454' .1._161.7.3 I CHORD LENGTH{ 340.74 '} 455.20 SCALE 1" = 300' 9 190 300 GOO FT. NOTES 1. FINAL DIMENSIONS AND AREAS MAY VARY SLIGHTLY DEPENDENT UPON FIELD SURVEY. 2. ACCESS WILL BE VIA SNOW CREEK LANE. SNOW CREEK LANE IS ASPHALT SURFACE 1.22 FEET WIDE. 3. ORIGINAL PARCEL CONTAINS 47.7 ACRES OF WATER RIGHTS UNDER CERTIFICATE N0. 88564. 4. SEWAGE DISPOSAL 8Y INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEM. 5. DOMESTIC WATER BY INDIVIDUAL WELL. 6. FIRE PROTECTION 8Y DESCHUTES COUNTY RURAL FIRE DISTRICT. 7. POWER B1 CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. - - - RESULTING NEW PARCEL LINE. • •••_••••• • APPROXIMATE ADJOINER LINE. EXISTING CONTOUR LINE. ---- EXISTING EASEMENT. WIDTH AND PURPOSE 1S NOTED HEREON. Lt LINE DESIGNATION - REFER TO TABLE. CI CURVE DESIGNATION - REFER TO TABLE. T".ANwew reD. PA/880 / RD 5NW5' arra SUBJECT PROPERTY-- '� ti IA. 16/1040000200 ING 82885 PLAINVIEW WN JOINT REV.LROAD txusr BEND, OR 97703 1.2-� L3 440.00 089`09'18"E/' cL 2B1r840/003I/ 55/08k CAR01 .NI7,RY laps 0808 045/1 j LANE 0D 1 V IMT. 8'2783 c5'' �- 14 as '° .-.. .589'09'18'£ 575.00,' , N PARCEL 2 S \ ---14.64 AC. / Ln Q, J. 0.0 AC, WATER. '18'714°- 18'7 a5 °- 228;4:1- ro ro ro I \ PARCEL 1 1.64.74 AC. { 47.7 AC. WATER 09 N POWER UNE EASEufNr VOL. .07. h'G ..162 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE APPLICANTS: RICHARD & PAMALYNN STEINFELD 15885 SW 118TH AVE. #281 PORTLAND, OREGON 97224 PREPARED BY: PRECISION LAND SURVEYING, INC. P.O. BOX 2082 REDMOND, OREGON 87758 (641) 548-8062 SEPTEMBER 8, 2017 DRAWN BY: J.S. 1 EP: STUNTED FART. SHEET 1 OF 1 .106 N0, 17/01 ACRD: 1761AP1 T.L. 1671090000200 600400 BROWN (ET AL) 3119 NW 29TH *GNU, C6560S, WA 98607 GJ, 60 i N89'41'59'W - 711.62 T.L 16110900006W STATE OF OREGON 775 006902/ STREET NE ,100 00LE1/. OR 9730/ I 5 2.4 10 Steinfeld Nonfarm Division EXHIBIT V Page 1 of 2 LAURIE E. CRAGHEAD Attorney at Law PO Box 5833, Bend, OR 97708 Ph. 458.206.6884 / Fx +1.541.833.6426 laurie.c.r agheaciPoutloolc.co.na May 16, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County VIA.:\\'illiam.tirovcs(ii)deschutes.org. RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm dwelling partition, File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Applicant final arguments. Thank you for this opportunity to provide the applicants' final arguments to aid you in your decision. 1. Deed restriction does not prevent these applications or their approval. The opponents continue argue that the deed restriction required by the 1997 modification to be included in the final plat approval is an "ongoing" requirement. If so, no harm has occurred by the lack of the recording of the deed restriction until now. Had there been harm, surely the Nearys would have reviewed the county's online Official Record to make sure that deed restriction had been recorded. In fact, if the requirement is ongoing and can be fulfilled at any time, no deadline was set for its recording when the county failed to include it as a condition of approval of the final plat approval in 2000. This is particularly so since the condition was for an affirmative action on the part of the county, not the property owner. lithe condition had been in the final plat approval requirements, then it would have been a requirement of the property owner at that time. Thus, no violation of the condition for the deed restriction has occurred and these applications for the condition modification, partition and nonfarm dwelling can move forward. As a result, no recording of the deed restriction is necessary before the Board can approve a modification of the requirement for a decd restriction. The applicants still maintain that requiring the deed restriction at this point is a collateral attack on the final plat approval in 2001. They also maintain that, at this stage, not moving forward with these applications because of the lack of a recorded deed restrictions serves no purpose and results only in additional expense to the applicants. They could merely record the deed restriction and reapply with all the same arguments and materials, wasting time and money for them and the county. Therefore, at the least. the county should condition the approvals on being effective only when the decd restriction is recorded. The opponents misconstrue the applicants' statement in this Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 2 of 6 regard. The condition would still allow for the recording of the deed restriction before the modification and nonfarm dwelling and partition have effective approvals. 2. Number of additional homes are not a radical departure from the original approvals. As stated previously, staff pointed out prior to the end of the first open -record period that the intent of the original subdivision approval and the 1997 condition modification was not to allow two nonfarm dwellings on each lot. As 1 said before, I stand corrected. What all have been missing, however, is that the two or more dwellings have always been possible with either prior decision. Nothing in either TP -91-760 (Exhibit I) prevented a property owner from constructing 0 farm dwelling and seeking approval ofa nonfarm dwelling. "I'hus, each property could have had two dwellings at that time. That decision merely prevented any further division of the property to carve off the nonfarm dwelling. Likewise, the condition as written in or MC -97-2 (Exhibit .1) would not prevent those property owners from first seeking a farm dwelling then a nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, each lot could have had two dwellings. As said previously, Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision Lot 6, Tax Lot 161 1090000100 and 1611100000301 and Subdivision Lot 7, Tax Lot 161 1 100000300, took advantage of'that and established farm dwellings with mobile homes in the 1990's. it is anyone's guess as to whether those, now, 6,000 and 8,000 square foot dwellings are actually used as farm dwellings. Although the applicant's Burden of Proof Statement ("BOP") accounted in the chart for the potential new Ilolllarlll dwelling partitions of Subdivision Lots 6 and 7, the 130P made a general statement that it may he difficult for those property owners to find land that is generally unsuitable for farming given the amount of farming that is currently occurring 011 those properties. Such an analysis is part of analyzing the potential for additional dwellings despite staff's statements in the Staff Report. As for the remaining live Snow Creek Ranch subdivision lots, Subdivision Lots 1 and 2 could, under the current conditions of approval, also have two dwellings by establishing a farm dwelling and a nonfarm partition. Neither are large enough for two nonfarm partitions. With the current conditions of approval, Subdivision lots 3 through 5, however, are the only ones prevented by the 1997 conditions of approval ti'onl having more than one dwelling derived from the parent parcel. That is because, as stated in the BOP, each of those lots are considered to have been created after July 1. 1993, because of each having created a nonfarm partition in 2000 and 2001. Thus, none of those parent parcels arc eligible for a second nonfarm dwelling without an additional partition, whereas the other lour original subdivision Tots can establish a farm dwelling on the parent parcel prior to creating a nonfarm partition since they have not created a partition thus far. Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 3 of 6 None of Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 would be allowed a third nonfarm partition because they do not contain sufficient acreage. The only reason this condition of approval allows those lots a second nonfarm partition is because the first set of partitions were created prior to the July I, 2001 deadline in the statute and county code. As a result, allowing the Steinfelds' proposed condition of approval modification is not a radical departure from what was allowed by the 1997 conditions modification. Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 will be allowed two dwellings like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would be allowed. The difference is that the second dwellings on Lots 3 through 5 would solely result from nonfarm partitions. For the same reasons, the additional traffic from the additional partitioned lots is also not a radical departure from what is currently allowed in the subdivision. Snow Creek Lane is a dead- end street. The nonfarm application shows that the street can handle traffic from three additional dwellings. The number of potential additional dwellings is not so great as to totally mar the area for future farm use and opponents have provided no evidence that it would do so. Furthermore, allowing Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 to have an additional nonfarm dwelling partition maintains the intent of the 1997 conditions modification. That intent was to allow the nonfarm dwelling to be on a separate parcel while the parent parcel maintains eligibility for the farm property lax deferral. Thus, the parent parcels will remain viable for farming. Since the parent parcels for Lots 3 through 5 would not qualify for a nonfarm dwelling, they would not be taken out of the farm tax deferral and, therefore, would not lose the incentive to remain farming parcels. 3. Purpose of the subdivision is maintained. The most vocal opponents to this condition modification are not even farmers. They merely do not want any additional neighbors. What both the opponents and the hearings officer appear to forget is that the purpose of the conditions in the original approval and in the 1997 conditions modification approval was protection of the farmland. It was not to protect the residential uses from additional residential uses. The subdivision area did not contain residences in 1991 when the subdivision was originally approved. Exhibit I also shows that farming did not occur in this area until the subdivision. Exhibit I, page 6, Finding of Fact I says that what pasture area was cleared but had not been maintained for years. Also, page 11, paragraph number 5 says that the area had not been farmed for a decade or two. Additionally, page 12, paragraph 7.E. said the purpose of the "no division" rule was that the hearings officer at the time believed that the subdivision lot sizes were the minimum needed for the (arming and additional residences would interfere with that farming. The opponents have provided no arguments or factual data as to how the protection of the farming in the area will be nude impossible because of this additional nonfarm parcel. They have provided nothing that addresses any of the nonfarm dwelling or nonfarm dwelling partition criteria. While the conditions modification may make it possible for additional nonfarm parcels Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863MC. etc. Page 4 of 6 in this subdivision, each will have to be evaluated on Its own merit. None of the property owners are guaranteed success with such an application. Each would have to demonstrate how the dwelling and/or partition does not affect the stability of farming in the area. Nonetheless, as the applicants' BOP shows, the addition of this lot would not interfere with the farming. Farming on the subject lot and all other lots within the subdivision will remain viable. Thus, the proposed condition modification does not interfere with the original purpose of the original subdivision approval or the 1997 condition modification because it does not interfere with any of the subdivision parent parcels' ability to maintain farming activities. 4. Desirability of a modification needs a broader interpretation. The applicants reiterate that interpretation of the desirability of a condition modification must be broader than that argued by the opponents or the hearings officer. Contrary to the opponents' assertions, the applicants have not claimed that their ability to sell this potential new lot is only reason that a modification is desirable. The applicants have always said that the interpretation should he determined based on a county- wide policy. That policy should be one of allowing property owners to follow stale statutes and county code that change from time to time in light of the fact that the changed condition does no harm to the area in which the property in which it is located. To find otherwise interprets the desirability criterion in the same manner as the hearing officer and the opponents argue the Board should not. They ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desire of the applicant. The applicants ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desires of the neighbors. Both are too narrow of an interpretation. (Given that this county generally desires allowing development within the confines of statutes and county code and the applicants have shown how the change will not result in a radical difference in the subdivision, the applicants ask that the Board approve the modification of condition as proposed in the application. 4. The opponents misrepresent the emergency road Dolan "rough proportionality" issue. The opponents ask the hoard to look at the Do/an rough proportionality issue considering the potential for additional nonfarm parcels in the subdivision if the deed restriction condition is modified to allow this partition. The applicants, however, are not asking the Board to apply a takings analysis to the conditions modification proposal. The applicants ask that such an analysis be undertaken only for the emergency road. Also, as explained in the applicants' previous submittal, a review of other potential development is specifically prohibited in such a takings analysis.'The Board must look only to what are the impacts ol'Ihis proposed development. Stein fell Final Arguments File No. 2417-17-000863 MC, etc. Page 5 of 6 This development proposes only one additional lot and one additional dwelling. Requiring the addition of an emergency road is disproportional to the impacts of this one additional lot. The county had its opportunity to require this of the original developer, who owned all the land, but failed to do so and cannot do so now. This is particularly true since, to create such a road, the applicants must spend a great deal of money to construct an all-weather surface for a great distance from the proposed new lot to Highway 20, the only possible point of access for an emergency access. Absent this proposal, the subdivision would still be without a secondary emergency access. Thus, the impacts from this one additional lot do not justify requiring this emergency access. Even if the county still insists on requiring the emergency access road, the county cannot require the applicants to provide that emergency access for all the other lots in the subdivision. Again, the county should have made that a requirement when all the land was under one ownership at the time of the original subdivision approval. Such a requirement is not roughly proportional to the impacts of this one lot on the subdivision. The county cannot burden the applicants to this extent for the sake of the other property owners, especially since all the maps and subdivision plats in the record (Exhibit B, D, E, G, PowerPoint page 7) show that all lots but Subdivision Lot 5 have their own frontage on Highway 20 and could provide their own secondary emergency access and, as shown in the hearing, Lots 6 and 7 can egress to public land to the east. It makes no sense to have the other property owners or emergency vehicles traverse across these other properties to access the Steinfelds' road. Furthermore, as stated previously, ()DOT will require a locked gate at the access point with Highway 20. That means this road would serve only as an access for emergency vehicles in and out of the subdivision. None of the other property owners could traverse the Steinfelds' property for emergency egress since they will not have a key to the gate. Creating an easement for the other property owners, thus, serves no purpose. Suniniary lithe recording of deed restriction was an ongoing requirement despite die county's failure to include it in the 2001 final plat approval, the applicants have not violated any condition of approval by not recording it to this date. Thus, the Board can approve the condition modification and the nonfarm dwelling partition applications without requiring the recording oldie deed restriction. Requiring it now is a collateral attack on that 2001 approval. Even if it is not considered a collateral attack, the Board can easily include a condition of approval to move forward with these applications. The Board can approve the deed restriction condition modification by broadly defining the word "desirable." The condition modification is not a radical departure from prior approvals and will maintain the farming in the area, which was the purpose of the prior approvals for this subdivision. Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 6 016 Finally, requiring the Steinfelds to install an emergency road is not roughly proportional to the impacts of their proposed development. Allowing others in the subdivision to use this access road is also not roughly proportional to the development's impacts. Therefore, the Board should not require the emergency access road, or, at the very least, not require that the other properties be allowed access to the road. Thank you again for this opportunity to provide these final comments. Sincerely, Laurie R. Craghead I_ AU RIE E. CRAGHEAD Attorney at Law PO Box 5833, Bend, OR 97708 Ph. 458.206.6884 / Fx +1.541.833.6426 )ttll.ri .cra,1J.eact@out_.look.00111 April 23, 2018 I3oard of County Commissioners Deschutes County VIA:\Villiarai.(i€'oves(itticscltutcs RI': Steinfeld Nonfarm dwelling partition, File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. First open record period additional evidence. "Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional evidence and argument to aid you in your decision. Collateral Attack The applicants presented arguments to the hearings oflleer as to why the opposition's arguments regarding the deed restriction recording is a collateral attack on the previously approved and recorded final plat Ior the subject property and the previously issued building permits. Thus, the applicants direct the Board's attention to their January 9, 2018 submittal and incorporate that The case citation Icer the proposition that arguments in a later land use proceeding can be a collateral attack is Brodersen v. ('iw o/As//lu/7d, 62 01. LUBA 329, 339-43 (2010), afl'd 24 I Or App 723, 250 P3d 992 (201 1 ). In that ease, LUBA found that, if the current proceeding requires a determination of the status of a lot, the local government can review whether a prior decision made that determination but cannot reevaluate the correctness of that decision. In this case, per Condition 5 of -MC -97-2, the condition to record the deed restriction was supposed to be a condition of the final plat approval for any nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus. the prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition Ibr recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property and Tax Lot 81 1.' Those decisions, especially the building permits, could not have been issued without al least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. That is the "whether" determination o1' the status of the lots. arguing the need for ar deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of .e decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. Declaring. this a collateral attack on those prior decisions is not the same as allowing a property owner to record a release Ufa required deed restriction. In this case, it was an action required of the county to include the deed restriction requirement and the county did not.' The county has the Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863 MC, etc. Page 2 of 4 responsibility for any mistake. This is not an action 011 the part as iI`the applicant to record unrecord the deed restriction. 2. Deed Restriction Recording As this point, even if the Board does not find the opposition arguments to be a collateral attack on the January 2001 nonfarm dwelling partition, the Steinfelds have not violated a prior condition. Since the county .failed in its responsibility to include a condition in the final plat approval to record the deed restriction, no other deadline for the recording of the restriction exists. Until now, the Steinfelds did not seek to construct another dwelling on the parent parcel. hhus, nothing prevents the Steinfelds from seeking the condition modification without recording the deed restriction. Once the condition Is modified, there will be no need to record the deed restriction. Additionally, nothing is gained in denying the application based on the lack of the recording the decd restriction because the applicants could merely record the restriction and reapply fur the modification and partition. The only thing that is accomplished is the collection of more fees by the county and a delay in the process. !Tale Board still believes the decd restriction must he recorded, it could merely draft a condition that states that the condition modification and nonfarm dwelling partition approvals are not effective until the deed restriction is recorded. "The applicants could immediately record the deed restriction attached to this letter. `Hwy have not done so to this point in order to make the collateral attack and not incur unnecessary recording charges should the Board accept the argument. 3. Emergency Road Dolan "rough proportionality" Issue. Requiring the Steinfelds to provide an emergency road for the entire subdivision is an exaction because the county would be requiring the Steinfelds to give up full COI1tI'ol ()land access to their wholly-owned properly. The United States Supreme Court said in Dolan n. ('rev ol"Tigord, 512 U.S. 374, 1 14 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) that the test for an unconstitutional taking is three-Iold in the case of a land use exaction. The Steinfelds argue that requiring the Steinfelds to shoulder the burden of an emergency access road at all does not sleet the Dolan tests. At the very least, the Steinfelds should not be required to shoulder the burden for the rest ol'the subdivision. First, there must be a legitimate governmental purpose for the exaction. The Steinfelds do not deny that a secondary, emergency access for the subdivision hts with a legitimate governmental concern for the safety of its citizens. They do deny that it is a Legitimate purpose to require them to shoulder the burden for the emergency access because of the proposal to create one additional lot in the subdivision, again, because the road was not required when all the other lots were created originally. Second, the legitimate governmental purpose must have a "reasonable nexus" tc) the individual pro.iecu being reviewed. The Steinfelds agree that there is some‘‘ between their partition proposal and the county code provision ofarl emergency access to the partition. 'The Steinfelds do not agree that there is a reasonable nexus to provide such a long and Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 3 of 4 involved access road or to provide the access to the other nine lots in the subdivision, particularly when the county did not require the access when the subdivision plat was originally approved and the final plat recorded. The impacts from one additional lot is not great enough to reasonably connect this individual project with the purpose of providing the road to all the other property owners who will not be paying for its creation nor its maintenance. Finally, the reasonable nexus must also be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the specific project being reviewed. As with the reasonable nexus test, to require the Steinfelds to allow access through a newly, quite extensive in length, emergency road is not proportional to the impacts of creating one new lot. The one lot will not create enough of an emergency possibility to require allowing all the other property owners to have access through the Steinfelds' property. Additionally, as stated above, it is unconstitutional to require the Steinfelds to create and maintain the road for the other subdivision owners when they will not be contributing to any of the costs for the road creation or maintenance. As stated in the hearing, the Steinfelds already have trouble with people crashing their fences and trespassing on their property to steal their hay. Additionally, according to county staff, ODOT will require the road to have a gate at the intersection with l-lighway 20 to assure that that the road is for emergency purposes only. In a phone conversation, Cloverdale Fire District ("District") Chief Thad Olson pointed out that a road that begins and ends with gates with "Knox boxes" on them for which only the firefighters have keys will not be able to he used for egress to Ilighway 20. That is because the other residents in the subdivision will not have keys to the Knox boxes. "Rhus, granting an casement to those property owners will serve no purpose. The chief also said the firefighters will access a fire any way they can. In tact. approximately a month ago, a fire erupted on the lot adjacent to subject property. In that situation, the fire truck accessed the lire from the end of Snow Creek Lane, across the rough terrain on the subject property. Furthermore, Chief Olson said that the District does not have road standards for constructing emergency roads and the District accepts whatever are the existing county road standards at the time of construction. If the requirements of an all-weather surface and 20 feet wide are required, however, that is not roughly proportional to the impacts of the one lot because the road muse be quite long to reach I lighway 20. Also, that 20 feet cuts into the farming area on the property. Finally, the issue of the crashes into the fencing along 1-lighway 20 and the stealing of the hay were not raised as an argument to not require the emergency road. They were raised as a possibility as to why the emergency road was not required in the original 1991 decision written by Mr. Fitch. Nothing in the decision, however, provides any discussion regarding an emergency road other than to reiterate the code which allowed the possibility of requiring such a road. As for the emergency access for other lots, although the opposition showed pictures of the dirt road on the 131,M land that is between Innes Market Road and the long driveways for Lots 6 and 7, as said above, those roads do not necessarily result in the lack of emergency vehicle access or emergency egress by the residents of the subdivision even if it is officially not a legal emergency access. Furthermore. at least those two lots do have an emergency egress access through that Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 4 of'4 route. As a result, including them in any easement adds to the lack of any "rough proportionality" of the road across the subject property. Therefore, the Steinfelds request that the emergency road not be considered possible given the extent of the length and the loss of land that is farmed. in the alternative, the Steinfelds request that the road be something less than that proposed by the staff and not be for the entire subdivision. 4. The possibility of two dwellings with the 1995 conditions modification. After the hearing, the staff rightfully pointed out to the parties that the body of the 1995 decision speaks to the intent of the conditions modification was to allow for the dwelling to be on separate lot in order that the parent parcel would not have to lose its farm deferral, which it would should a nonfarm dwelling be approved. Although that may have been the intent of modifying those conditions, that is not how they were written. Nothing in those conditions prevents the scenario proposed in the hearing. They allow and, in fact, appear to mandate, a dwelling on each parcel first, then a nonfarm dwelling partition. As was pointed out at the hearing and in the Burden of Proof Statement, the dwellings on Lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision have farm dwellings on them. Other than possibly having difficulty in finding an arca "generally unsuitable for farming," nothing in any of the conditions in 1995 approval prevents those lots from also seeking a nonfarm dwelling partition. The Steinfelds request the modification merely to do the sante, create two dwellings out of the parent parcel. 5. Location of the dwelling on the subject property. The Steinfelds originally wanted the nonfarm dwelling partition in the northern portion of the subject property with one possibility, just south of Snow Creek Lane and one north adult road. Had they located the dwelling north of Snow Creek Lane, the Steinfelds surmise that none of the property owners would be objecting to the new partition. Brian Rabe, however, found the soil depth in that location to be such that he was not willing to state that that portion of the lot was "generally unsuitable" for growing crops. Mr. Rabe then assisted the Steinfelds in choosing the location currently proposed. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the above application. Sincerely, Laurie E. Craghcad Alter Recording Return To: Pamalynn N and H. Richard Steinfeld 15685 SW 116'1' Ave, 4261 Portland, OR 97224 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that H. Richard Steinfeld and Pamalynn N. Steinfeld are the owners ("Owners") of real property in Deschutes County, State of Oregon commonly referred to as 18289 Snow Creek Lane, Bend, Oregon and identified on County Assessor Tax Map 16-11-04 as Tax Lot 804 and on Map 16-11-09 as Tax Lot 101, legally described in Exhibit A ("Property") which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Property is the subject of this Covenant. The Property is bisected by a section line, yet is only one legal lot of record and was created by Partition Plat 2001-06, recorded January 26, 2001 subsequent to land use approval in July, 2000 under Decision MP-00-18/CU-00-74, comprising approximately 69.37 acres of land. The Property is subject to a number of land use decisions, including MC -97-2, dated August 27, 1997, which in relevant part requires: 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under 18.16.055(B). ,Such deed restriction shall stale that fro dwelling shall he allowed on the remainder /iarnr parcel. Such a "decd restriction" has yet to he recorded. NOW THEREFORE, the Owners declare as follows: Properties Benefitted and Burdened: All covenants. conditions. and restrictions described and granted in this Declaration will run with the Property and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, assigns, successors, tenants and personal representatives of the owners oldie Property. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Page 1 of3 Covenant: 1. Residential use restriction. Residential dwellings, whether farm or nonfarm in nature, are prohibited on the remainder farm parcel portion ofthe Property according to the terms of Decision MC -97-2 or any subsequent modifications of said Decision. 2. The Owners declare that these rights and obligations may only be amended in writing as a recorded amendment hereto and fully intend that these covenants run with the land. 3. The Owners declare that the agreement as evidenced by this declaration is intended to be performed in the State of Oregon, and that the laws of the State of Oregon will govern its interpretation and effect. Further, for all purposes related to this declaration, venue will lir' in and with the Slate Conr1s of heschntes County. Oregon. The undersigned, being the Owners of the Property, hereby executes this Declaration of Reslrictive Covenant. H. Richard Steinfeld, Owner STATE OF OREGON County of ) ss. This record was acknowledged before me on by 11. Richard Steinfeld Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Pamalynn N. Steinfeld, Owner STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of This record was acknowledged belore me on by Pamalynn N Steinfeld Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: DECLARATION OF REST RICf1VI; COVENANT Page 2 of 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Exhibit "A" Lot 4, A REPEAT OF SNOW CREEK RANCH, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of said Lot 4, lying within the following described tract of land: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4, Township 15 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Parcel 2 of that tract of land described in deed to Gary L. and Gloria 0. Neville, recorded in Volume 178, Page 2032, Official Records, said point bears South 88° 56' 3" East, 4306.40 feet from the West Quarter corner of said Section 4; thence South 80° 45' 53" West, 218.99 feet; thence South 80° 45' 53" West, 187.51 feet; thence South 77° 01' 03" West, 108.56 feet; thence South 76° 50' 34" West, 318.57 feet: thence North 00° 28' 57" East. 226.24 feet to a point on the East West centerline of said Section 4; thence along said East West centerline of said Section 4, South 89° 41' 07" East. 415.66 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2 as described in Volume 178, Page 2032; thence along the West and Southerly boundaries of said Parcel 2 the following 3 courses; thence South 00° 19' 20" West, 59.89 feet; thence South 89 ° 43' 24" East, 184.39 feet; thence South 89 ° 43' 32" East, 215.62 feet to the point of beginning. AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM Parcel 2 of PP -2001-06, also known as Tax Lot 16I1040000811. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Page 3 of 3 Fitch Law {ill iL:i) "(-ctI11111irUed tt? 1.\CC:IIe11C ' April 23, 2018 Vi A 1:NIA 1 l; - hoard&a t/c Deschutes County PO 13ox 6005 Attn: 130('(' Bend. OR 97708-600.5 Re: Patin ltwn and H. Richard Steinfeld's Appeal Application Application Being Appealed: 247 -17 -000863 -MC 864-11P, 865 -CI' ('omni 1ssioners: Please find enclosed additional materials for the record submitted on behalf 01 Ke in ,uld C'clrt,l earV. The 1.0110 tiing �lt�cumcnts submitted: Exhibit :A - Map rehlat of 4no\S ('reed Ranch showing uri2inul 7 lots ( 199. ). Exhibit fi -- flap rehlat of Silo n (1''reek Ranch showing partitions and approximate residence locations. • Exhibit ( - April 17. 2018. Email Crom William rt 'QS to Ed 1•tt Ven truly Four's. El)\VAR!) P. FITC11 1 IPI:ljn f;nelosurc (.'e: Client li'illiam Groves trillium. Rrrn'r.� a tk �c luuc'.,'.ur L' t i tlums',ti i v,tiran. I e in 1: Gaul 1 anal t ,e.201 () 1.1S 1 ti lu 131. rc C uu 2105\1 5 St..S0.'.: ) l Iiii+rnl OR 07750 i'honc: 5 l 1 310.1555 1=;;.\: 5.1 I.310.1').l ijo 1 aud V liglifita / kawirr);:0 rs s *,!1 t 1 Jo 1 'lihcl *1.Llfl�� ion EXHIBIT °.3 Page 1 of -i Steinfeld Nonfarm Ed Fitch Flom: Scut: Subject: Attachments: %!(,,Jt7 Aor:_tona: t.ataie itnd t I 1c)unc-1 !kat tv1C-97-2 rrtieht have intt,ntletl 2 dyt.4.11inf,, oei ‘nirjo<ti Cve ottachr.f1 tflC aso, rated fetrm now, dI'Peart,it1Y-;";;: dk.',i'l;l:;tf, Poi oiJ,i;;;;;;-iI lot to the extent it might retto •4 2. et.tis the intentiot diti a quick survey of the tvadable inoter. Let me knov\' if you find anythilig to the )n11, y. -Marks; Staff repot:, page Stall twit:: :ht: 1iir-oposal to not ill),(0,3, oirn- th.‘elhiTs rointnndet itnm te., at: appio\ ed. u .fildiliOnsd CI:WIC 11111:s '0, to_jd hkr' tIthd 1)\ !JIC TPCd01(idirliZt[1011 )1."..1l1j11-01*!1. St.'\ 110114Y1e', ‘,V4ill(1 li'(11 tier; SI.Itt 1?,c1b t 1 he ;11)11116ml is k1t:ill1s. :lilt 111t,i puscd1110(11111:i111011 iiS it Sllbstitilli ui ii 11Cle ,IP1,1:1e;t11!. uu1d ha‘..e n WC iIIIL:lor,;-; for kii:VI:li)1)111C1ri r :;1111k, \\-1111 de proposed deed retrk.tion reeommended bt,. the ;Ipitilte;tnt to ;tot dflot,\ dht. on the ientaint.let parcel's,. there ;611 he no atiditiontil iniptiets, Xt1 tilik cd. \\ Inch m tun \\ ould mean Mat no titiLlitiorial vehicle trips would occur. Seven dveellifirs on the ti 1appioNiniael \ fst)S acres ould be all that cle‘cloped. St.111 Report ic Hitpw;c11 flhIlL.t fl%All! 11(4 Ct)11SltiLlte all lippfo\ ;11 01 .1 and Oh: tit'LlC1 It:stilt:1RM 11/4 itS 1114: 111101 111.11). that' i%wid It111 be stakes In the grointi 1n po'rt', there ot..1:d he Ito R.Thdity.t.t. 1,, the cit.,k otthL land Sever: ti:VCIItripS ..\-otrid be !US ;.'• On2in;tik en\ 'stoned \\ 101 tile worn)N. al of I - 7.(1t1 \Iitanl kn. 1):tt,te 3: I tic::: htd.s. Ipp1iLlhle 1;l ind Iucai iand liar deVcii11)11h.lt! Linds sine.; the ,t1h,:t1til .117pio% ;n ; '0+1. and strt,:e the niodiltetnion tit)pitot etl in I The ,t.tirein stole ojapplitrahle 10\1. Is sue) that it Is practically impossil:tle ti (tithe iots crt:tiit.d by I I'm L!lil tIi1 lt,r appro. al of a Itarni reitited dv,c111111t ...tiitin:..tres lit iippliLlihie 1i1Vi,' 1101% alake it pt,SStble CF imararin dv,ellits to he artpRo.ed pt'lion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition. a nev,: 11:11, el less ilittn IhLodic.; vs ;se applicithle mini/num lot si/e 1 11) ntzt\ he cre,itect conjunction \\lilt a nontiiiin (1\velling coutlitional use tippro\ modiCicattons ul conditions of approval the EXI-111i1T C I'agc J of 2 1. 4,1dc!{=i1!1! di, , 101 LI,' 111/y,-,, r-vcy.,:H% ` t1 .t:I1'ttlitt,4flV.}t;;Iit tf,'illt4 L„Iitt$: 'tj, titt: 1.1 1 IR' Appik.".4111.Lti L1,00i 10.iditIon otiLi in lit: .sited (in ell 1I1 111'11! cit; cli%t flu!11 tiApi,;(n—IJ Grov4,5 :1 (Fro !I ' • •• t'•t Irt11•1:.;1 `S-!' t ! EXHIBIT C Page 2 of2 William Groves From: William Groves Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:28 PM To: Laurie Craghead; Ed Fitch (ed@fitchlawgroup.com) Subject: Steinfeld Attachments: MC972 Additional Materials.pdf Laurie and Ed, I found interesting the possibility that MC -97-2 might have intended 2 dwelling per original lot. I've attached the associated record materials from that decision. It appears that the two -dwelling -per original lot, to the extent it might be read into MC -97-2, was not the intention. I did a quick survey of the available materials. Let me know if you find anything to the contrary. Thanks! Staff report, page 3: Staff note: With the applicant's proposal to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels if nonfarm dwelling sites are approved, no additional vehicle trips would be created by the proposed modification of approval. Seven homesites would remain possible, not fourteen. Staff Report Page 4: The applicant is clearly not using this proposed modification as a substitute for an appeal. There is no possibility the applicant could have known of the changes in regulations for development of EFU lands. With the proposed deed restriction recommended by the applicant to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels, there will be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. No additional dwellings would be allowed, which in turn would mean that no additional vehicle trips would occur. Seven dwellings on the total of approximately 508 acres would be all that is developed. Staff Report page 5: The proposed modification will not constitute an approval of a substantially new proposal. If new parcels were created and the deed restriction was required (and also required on the final plat), there would only be stakes in the ground for property comers, there would be no change to the look of the land. Seven dwellings would be all that would be allowed. This is what was originally envisioned with the approval of TP -91- 760. Applicant's Burden, Page 3: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. 1 The proposed modifications of conditions of approval # 1 and #5 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel, to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition #5. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. Will Groves I Senior Planner, CFM _..„ 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 '61.44,044,"' Tel: (541) 388,6518 I www.deschutes.org/cd 000 Disclaimer: Please riote that the information in this email is an informal statenient made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be 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. Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be 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. 2 CDD COVER SHEET FOR MAS 12/03/2008 13:30:45 PL 1 PAGES 11 II 11111111111111 FILE ID 1611040000800PL20081203133045 TAXMAP 1611040000800 SERIAL 131227 DIVISION PL SITUS 66460 HWY 20 HOUSE# 66460 STREET HWY 20 CONTENT MC972 RECORD ID MC972 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX 11 Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541 ) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: Mc` Q 7 j tr1,'s C cels De t S tOo) CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that ono.'7 1 day tom. , 1997, the attached notice/report, dated 47 (1 , 1997, was mailed by first-class mail, postag& prepaid; to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this d" day of 440412.114 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Pete On L' tk4.set41 t rya.i f-/ Poci- 0M, Ape /15/ Aeod , off- 9'770q JQ14ti eavit !ROI/Jr�'/tivie,,,//c'o4dl 6e�d� 0,2 91762/ Cot 4 11,1 Pub/1 (Jones (04/y /r 3-Ss..s0 Y C,(t� Jahn) / aAws Wa,ermas ir' f . GeDlilarj 1. Lae9e 1 f e cs LCo6*7-5 ` yrWar-Ve0QG( Arvid/ 0K 9-770 / Quality Services Performed zvith Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER SIGN IN SHEET DATE:5141 �j 22 q t f APPLICANT: T �'L NAME (Print) ADDRESS FILE # 1. 1 l4 K-RIF/0 PDG-ocigP 47, s ` /l •--- 2. r) fd r. Gnhh f &a LIS Pia ,M U J Pal / i3 -e'✓t% 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. DR. LEONARD L. LANGELIERS OPTOMETRIST 66585 FRYREAR RD. BEND, OREGON 97701 541-385-6697 10 JULY 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN BEND, OREGON 97701 ATTN: PAUL BLIKSTAD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEAR SIR: THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION THIS PAST MONDAY (7 JULY) REGARDING FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2. MY CONCERN AS EXPRESSED BY PHONE IS THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE CODES FOR ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-4, TAX LOTS 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 806 ; ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-9, TAX LOTS 100 AND 101; AND ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-10, TAX LOTS 300 AND 310 RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON THESE PROPERTIES. IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ( 7 PER OUR CONVERSATION ) I WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. SHOULD THE CONDITIONS BE MODIFIED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS OVER THAT CURRENTLY APPROVED AND ALLOW SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION THAT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY HAZARDS I WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. WHEN THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS REACHED A DECISION MYSELF, AND MY NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT AND AN EXPLANATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE RULLING WILL ALLOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: SINCERELY LEONAR`•. LANGELIERS O.D., M. Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: 1' srer Reimer CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL ..-- I certify that on /11/ day olf, , 1997, the attached notice/report, dated' 7/A% , 1997, was mailed by first-class mail, postaig iorepaid,'to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this day of (I5t.44 , 1997. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: 8ill ked Po Eleof dv-/T sosidges, bit f775, Ade Vag altartodoistry (..ahJateris r 4. Balt 1/51 A -Fold/ oz 977p Cogooli lidoirk. Works_ At 44'044a 1...tIts,'S (Z6111 Fry~£12 04*dr .4 qi°70 NVI 2 13 6-, .., 0....., Jul1 ., 8,97 '--° 444, • m ozs co) Q ,,, Ciiii m 1449144:9 ks, k.d.-"TeA.A(Vi at(>'1Z5...:1 Quality Services Performed with Pride ,e,.. c-82.12:97 • DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NW Harriman Street, Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6575 LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate signatures. 2. Attach correct fee. 3 Include a plot plan which shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 4 All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): CONDITIONAL USE (CU)__ PARTITION (MP) T SUBDIVISION (TP)__ APPLICANTS NAME (print): TEMPORARY USE (TU)___ SITE PLAN (SP)_ VARIANCE (V) BILL REED MAILNG ADDRESS: PO. BOX 219 PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME (if different): MAILNG ADDRESS: CITY: SIS�a'.ERS CITY: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Township 16 Range 11 Section APPLICATION FEE: $ 2 9 8. 00 SETBACK EXCEPTION (SE) OTHER: MODIFICATION—OF CONDI T: PHONE(541)549-6000 STATE: OR ZIP: 97759 PHONE( ) STATE: ZIP: 4 TaxLot800 (and others see Earden of Proof) 2. PROPERTY ZONE(S): EFU—TRB/LM PROPERTY SIZE (acres or sq. ft.): 3. PROPERTY ADDRESS: IiWY 20 4. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES: NONE 6. REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND 7. PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY: Sewer 8. DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE: WELL APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: ~� 508 ACRES 5 OF TP -91-760 On -Site Disposal System PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE (if differ nt): \' AGENT'S NAME (if applicable): DALE E E. ALICENBURG ,; BRYANT LOVLIE & JARVIS PC MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. END O. BOX 1151 CITY: DATE: X c6(22./q7 DATE: 6 / a / � 7 HONE(541) 382-4331 OR 97709 STATE: ZIP: If this application is not signed by the property owner a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. 3/97 DR. LEONARD L. LANGELIERS OPTOMETRIST 66585 FRYREAR RD. BEND, OREGON 97701 541-385-6697 10 JULY 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN BEND, OREGON 97701 ATTN: PAUL BLIKSTAD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEAR SIR: THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION THIS PAST MONDAY (7 JULY) REGARDING FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2. MY CONCERN AS EXPRESSED BY PHONE IS THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE CODES FOR ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-4, TAX LOTS 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 806 ; ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-9, TAX LOTS 100 AND 101; AND ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-10, TAX LOTS 300 AND 310 RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON THESE PROPERTIES. IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ( 7 PER OUR CONVERSATION ) I WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. SHOULD THE CONDITIONS BE MODIFIED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS OVER THAT CURRENTLY APPROVED AND ALLOW SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION THAT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY HAZARDS I WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. WHEN THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS REACHED A DECISION MYSELF, AND MY NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT AND AN EXPLANATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE RULLING WILL ALLOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: SINCERELY, LEONLANGELIERS O.D., M.A. • / I•.I fir', Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Hearings Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 22, Juvenile Justice Center Room Street in Bend, to consider the FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: Officer will hold a Public 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the A located at 1128 Harriman following request: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR., BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride 17 1819 Ntx '`4Q 8192 4 , JUN 1997 DESCHUTES COUNTY BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: BILL REED APPLICANT/ Bill Reed OWNER: P.O. Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 AGENT: Dale Van Valkenburg Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 BURDEN OF PROOF REQUEST: Approval of a Modification of Conditions for TP -91-760, the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. The Applicant seeks to modify condition #1 as already modified by file MC -93-15, and condition #5. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22 of the County Code, Land Use Procedures: * Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals FINDINGS of FACT: LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Highway 20, between Fryrear and Innes Market Roads, and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #16-11-4 as tax lots 800, 802, 803 804, and 805; on Map #16-11-9 as tax lots 100 and 101; and on Map #16-11-10 as tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone, and LM - Landscape Management Combining Zone. The property is designated as Agriculture on the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Bill Reed Burden ofProof Page 1 PVATATZW72.1ENTSW,SWEEDILOD.001 LOViiell MI Jarvis A PROFFSSIONAL CORPORA -WV ATTORNEYS AT LAW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O, Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 FINDING: The subject approval was granted in September of 1991. More than six months has elapsed since the approval was issued. "B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. The proposed modifications of conditions of approval #1 and #5 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel, to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition #5. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. "C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 3 PADATA ENCIXE IDDQ-tauou.00i Bryant Lovlien in Jarvis AI *F 1ALCONPVRAMN Ar1OFNBSAT1AW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 ij F5. • 33.3 0.0I 11 11 ----- ^ t - P8 0•003 5. 3.33 I I 3 ‚5. REPLAT OF 5.. 5.0.5.0 SNOW CREEK RANCH IF% ' 'I e 4 M uo 1- o 0, N Wammo markomodp0.1.1 26' , a //-. 1 3 4 2 14 !oliN pp> RO. 5 z'aw z L C 1�� :0•�4 W a )0 W a U C mU A 0) o) r� �� 1- Q o <2 N 3 J _ N5 O1U1�� 2 2O2p .W �In h 2E1! �� o N1 110 C23, .111•66B1 3,Zt;09.00N "moi < G71_-_-_ —. -- =7 --.( ,(Td ,ot'Bf- 6/ 3.ZtOS.00N H A 0 U m 8 r OIdl3Vd WPM _ _ _ Soo 43'06"W 5113.2 z F -~K ti zax z WGcc W • *4Z5 O a wa J Mjw� OW ty. 9,14,444 Fge9s1 .lp1F °r UCO SEE M.t4.Zt.00S •BZ6821 3.p.—lON. _. QO'44'34"E 3 8116.00 / 1- 2 of d Q�QK F n•� zcx W _ d `r Of w MK - , • sot u� z / J a0 Q ,c1O ^a a W n R$ n� 43 e<(' 5 RW OW WVIg� k c�f3 hn ,wz('90aowgoO0. O„_OW 0.pM Jmz4wQr �Q{¢pp=UIQ ,o OM wzaEr- zo,..0 z <,1mow TNJ�.z4cc OlWQClpy1 pQZizat6>-U QWmQU o636mSZWz2-c}'. zoQ 66 Lw322o6w.(?m 3625 ° Q—Li,E! z”' n62t-zv' cl x,-ac,ww l ec etiafi • 3 110 z,4 - 3 O150�� MO to -if co z L I'SZ6 (360 66 O^M�n'IN O,NNh♦ O" ...[‹..x¢ Q •*1010 N Q^n NNN W ^.FNM ^C 4) .1 n N O b W• Wk h 0 W V2: � {P p1z !L'-',477,!!!::::: 1al W1, tutu W 3 1,4u W - ▪ -101! • �fn IOW 1Y� O V'!FMM.O^.�^� �^ �� O w" • �� 2 z C� ANN• Nt. f.nr\^p iYj FNo # �Q �. i Q 3�,�w E' UNINss,NslMrin�owo irk WN}` pp z CW Q cJ ppV w p(,..V^fv .....o2zz z pcn� Q.' z s • 'moi aa_ — U oU Nov,.6.1 o ,,,-k°-69;..4 O �QO w WU NVJ • �cnz QaQ z-JrJJJ--JJ,,W • 2 JC Ov�i 2N0 'z' a ��4'�9 m J W ZUt In Oil 1,0.4 O ►.4 OO POOOR O • • o,OMo,,n NNi•m00v17mnp mnnnnpp J,Nn N�.'RPtiPppNNs.smnKognrrscin An ,+dl .N-000NN00--00--NN"O^^OhnNN —33 1.0141,0I.01, WWM++!uW WWF % n WW••1 N-. N W, ' '3.ippOONN,n,nmom7.***^-.O�=Nv ,�*1-N2rpPP..pcMninnP nW`pOppM W miz.In^�Mb2nn mm0iKvnzzynz^zMn0„M— 44 i. r kuri L4 KC.GL cxu�. rtc—. r r 6i4.1 =ctP.2 COLDWel.l. BANKkei t d REED BROS. REALTY May 30, 1997 Community Development Department Administration Bldg. 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Ladies and Gentlemen: zee W. OASOAOE PO BOX 219 SISTERS, OR 97769 BUS. (641) d49.6000 FAX (541) 519-0171 Via fax: 389-3386 Please be advised that Dale Van Valkenburg, Bob Lovlien or Sharon Smith has authorization to sign land use applications on our behalf. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, William R. Reed, Jr. M. F. Reed M Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc, ASR INQ Serial: 131227 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080u Port 244 08:16:18 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 6862.20 Site Address: 66460 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 1 Prop Cls:450 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFU20LM * * * * * * Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D6 39.26 125,630 155 DEFERRED 1997 Total Total RMV Ass'd LND: 125,630 155 Factor Book: Appraisal Year: Land: 94 Land: 94 Tr 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.48 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -1.44 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.49 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -1.45 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.51 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -1.60 Page 1 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % 125,630 155 98,125 155 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.04 C 90 708490 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.04 C 90 595736 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.09 L 90 561322 - ZR INQ Serial: 185296 Act: R 6-012 161104 00 0080 Port 244 08:16:27 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. 2ED,WILLIAM R JR 2ED,MYRON F '0 BOX 218 ISTERS OR 97759 ssessor Property Description NOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 2 Page 1 rop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 smt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,348 DEFERRED EFU.D6 30.62 85,735 122 DEFERRED *Total 53.62 150,135 2,470 ** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd .96 RMV Ass'dPi., RMV Ass'd 9.5 VD: 150,135 2,470 150,135 2,470 87,005 2,315 Factor Book: Land: 94 Dpraisal Year: Land: 94 5 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 24.01 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -23.29 5 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.58 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -21.90 h Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.70 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -25.43 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.72 C 90 708482 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.68 C 90 595742 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.73 L 90 595741 ASR INQ Serial: 191269 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00806 Port 244 08:17:09 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PTN 2 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) * * * Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D7 1.99 4,975 10 DEFERRED *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o LND: 4,975 10 4,975 10 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.09 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -0.09 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.00 C 90 708480 ASR INQ Serial: 185297 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080s Port 244 08:16:42 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS, DONALD NEIL THOMAS, JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6013 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 27.70 69,250 111 DEFERRED *Total 50.70 133,650 2,455 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 96 LND: 133,650 2,455 133,650 2,455 133,750 2,295 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 23.87 Trn Date Btch Received 10-25-96 4062 -23.15 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.37 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -21.70 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.52 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -25.22 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.72 C 90 660058 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.67 C 90 595748 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.70 L 90 595746 ASR INQ Serial: 185298 Acct: R 6-013 161104 00 0080.6 Port 244 08:16:43 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS,DONALD NEIL THOMAS, JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6012 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D6 6.46 22,610 25 DEFERRED *** 1997 -1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd Fii- RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % LND: 22,610 25 22,610 25 16,150 25 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.21 Trn Date Btch Received 10-25-96 4062 -0.20 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.20 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -0.19 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.19 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -0.20 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.01 C 90 660057 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.01 C 90 595744 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.01 L 90 561323 ASR INQ Serial: 185299 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00804 Port 244 08:16:54 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Site Address: 18325 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941872 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values ASMT TYPE EFU.D4 EFU.D6 *Total * * * ACRES R.M.V 4.00 10,000 35.21 88,025 39.21 98,025 ASS'D 409 DEFERRED 141 DEFERRED 550 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd ='e., RMV Ass'd Frs RMV Ass'd 96* LND: 98,025 550 98,025 550 98,650 520 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-07-96 4073 -5.18 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.07 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.92 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.09 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -5.70 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.16 C 90 673717 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt # Description -0.15 C 90 595755 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.61 L 90 595753 ASR INQ Serial: 185295 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00101 Port 244 08:17:35 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 13.17 32,400 1,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 21.52 52,940 86 DEFERRED *Total 34.69 85,340 1,430 *** 1997-------- --------1996--- --- ----1995---- -- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 9s. RMV Ass'd % LND: 85,340 1,430 85,340 1,430 57,240 1,335 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 12.39 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -12.02 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 11.56 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -11.21 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 11.54 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -12.93 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.37 C 90 708483 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.35 C 90 595751 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 1.39 L 90 595749 ASR INQ Serial: 185300 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00805 Port 244 08:17:02 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18330 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 5 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 26.00 65,000 2,652 DEFERRED EFU.D6 40.65 101,625 163 DEFERRED *Total 66.65 166,625 2,815 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd ' LND: 166,625 2,815 166,625 2,815 166,525 2,630 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 27.36 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -26.54 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 25.65 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -24.88 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 25.81 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -28.91 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description - 0.82 C 90 708478 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description - 0.77 C 90 595764 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 3.10 L 90 595762 ASR INQ Serial: 131413 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00100 Port 244 08:17:28 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 66308 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2064.56 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 77.07 165,700 7,860 DEFERRED EFU.D6 0.47 1,010 5 DEFERRED *Total 77.54 166,710 7,865 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 96- RMV Ass'd 96 RMV Ass'd 96 LND: 166,710 7,865 166,710 7,865 167,955 7,380 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 68.12 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -66.08 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.95 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -62.03 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.84 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -71.49 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.04 C 90 708488 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -1.92 C 90 595767 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 7.65 L 90 595765 ASR INQ Serial: 149873 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 00301 08:17:56 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. Port 244 REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18475 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * * * * * Land Values ASMT TYPE EFU.D4 EFU.D6 *Total Total RMV LND: 59,665 * * * ACRES 19.46 8.29 27.75 1997 Total Tr Ass'd 2,020 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-96 4096 95 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-95 3659 94 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-95 3659 R.M.V 41,840 17,825 59,665 ASS'D 1,987 DEFERRED 33 DEFERRED 2,020 -------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 59,665 2,020 ----1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 42,775 1,550 Adval Tax 20.44 Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt # Description -19.83 -0.61 C 90 708485 Adval Tax 16.87 Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -16.36 -0.51 C 90 595769 Adval Tax 20.71 Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -23.19 2.48 L 90 595768 ASR INQ Serial: 131989 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2618.88 Site Address: 66080 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 6013 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * * *** Land Values ASMT TYPE EFU.D4 EFU.D6 *Total Total RMV LND: 185,330 Factor Book: Appraisal Year: 96 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-96 4096 95 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-95 3659 94 Balance Due 0.00 Trn Date Btch 11-15-95 3659 *** 1997 ACRES 84.36 19.76 104.12 Total Tr Ass'd % 0 8,685 Land: 94 Land: 94 Adval Tax 87.95 Received -85.31 Adval Tax 92.26 Received -89.49 Adval Tax 113.42 Received -127.03 R.M.V 150,160 35,170 185,330 Total RMV 185,330 ASS'D 8,606 DEFERRED 79 DEFERRED 8,685 1996 Total Tr Ass'd 96 8,685 1995 Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 192,645 8,485 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.64 C 90 708486 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.77 C 90 595771 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 13.61 L 90 595770 ASR INQ Serial: 185301 Acct: R 6-013 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 2007 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values * ** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 6.69 11,910 680 DEFERRED *** 1997 --------1996 1995 -------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 95- RMV Ass'd 96. RMV Ass'd % LND: 11,910 680 11,910 680 9,325 500 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.88 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -5.70 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.21 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.32 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -4.55 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.18 C 90 708479 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.13 C 90 595773 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.23 L 90 561324 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on TUES- . DAY; .JULY 22, 1997, at 7:00 P.M.'in the' Juvenile Justice Center Room .A lo- cated at 1128 Harriman • Street in Bend, to consider the following, request: ' :FILE NUMBER: MO -97-2'. .SUBJECT:'An application for •'a. Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of ap- pproval;nos._ 1.and"5: of:the Tentative:''P.lat.,�for • Snow Creek Ranch', subdivision, (TP -91-7601. Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals .with' division 'of:: the lots, APPLICANT:' Bill Reed LOCATION: The, property is •located.:ad scent::to ighway '20 • near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified •brt the:;Qounty As- sessor's;: map's 'as,'foltoivs: 16 1 is=4;'. taz tots ;800; ,892,. 803; 804;' 805;: and,? 606, 16= 11-9;':tax • .ands:lots, 1`.6>11=:10,' -lax ;lots:`300' and :301,: ': _' : •:a.::, - :.:. _. •:STAfiF:CONTACTz, : Paui Slik'sted, Associate Planner ALtt•;;INTERESTED PER- SONS;:MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRE- SENTED'By cOUNSELOR SEND' WRITTEN 'SIGNED TESTIMONY, 'ALL WRIT- TEN REPLIES, MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DE- PARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR,SUB- MIT7ED AT THE HEARING. ANY; PARTY' TO,THE AP- PLICATION. IS ENTITLED. TO. A: CQNTINUANOE'OF THE, INITIAi__EVIDENTIAfY, HEARINGOR TQ: HAVE ' THE RECORD LEFT OPEN ACCO.RDANQE1 WITH SEC:TION,:;.22.24;140: iOF THE: DESCHUTES. COUNTY • COdE:.. A copybf the, application documents _:aOd , evidence submitted.,Py ,or..on behalf iof • the; applicahtand'applicabte • Criteria -are`•avaliatilg' fot'ih spection) at ;the ;Planning' Di• viejon.,at n.Qpost, and.can pe;, .purchesed':for"25; cents 'a page.' STANDARDS,AND'_APPLI- . GABLE.•CRITERIA:: • Chapter; t8 ;16 of de. 13, EFU•zene'" ` ' • • The Deschutes .County: Compreftensive,Plaa.. • •.'; Title, 22 of, the: peschutes,; - C • County Code . • Please contact Pau( >Blikstild:. 'With the Ccun ,Planning Di-") vision at (541)' 388-6575, if , Affidavit of Publication STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES, —ss. i.. BETTY SPRAGUE •• being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Principal Clerk of the Publisher, of The Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published at Bend in the aforesaid county and state as defined by ORS 193.010 and ORS 193.020. that DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. #MC -97-2. Bill Reed a printed copy of which is hereto affixed was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One Time weeks in the following issues: 1 successive and consecutive June 29, 1997 nd swor ' o before this of July ,107 k/Q.- (1./ ► UA OFNCIAL SEAL iii r.' EZS , D. SUMEON NOTARY PUBLIC-O?RE) ON COMMISSION NO. 026n1 Y`C.OMSSIO ! I Fi1o4v AL . 14, 1S9'r 2nd day Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division MEMORANDUM Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division DATE: July 29, 1997 TO: Karen Green, Hearings Officer FROM: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner RE: Snow Creek Ranch modification Based on my discussions with John Wurst with the County Assessor's Office, the lots within Snow Creek Ranch subdivision could not have dwellings put on them without the Planning Division issuing an approval. This approval would have to be either for a farm dwelling or nonfarm dwelling. The Assessor's Office cannot disqualify only a portion of the lots from farm tax deferral if a nonfarm dwelling is approved. I believe that was your question and it does not appear that there is another way to site a dwelling on the lots without jeapordizing farm deferral. Quality Services Performed with Pride FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: BEARING DATE: AGENT: DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT MC -97-2 Bill Reed Post Office Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 Modification of Condition nos. 1 and 5 for TP -91-760 (RP - 95 -3), the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. Tuesday, July 22, 1997 7:00 p.m. Room A, Juvenile Justice Center 1128 NW Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 Dale Van Valkenburg Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner APPLICABLE CRITERIA:, Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.20, Review of land use action applications. Chapter 22.24, Land use action hearings. Chapter 22.28, Land use action decisions. Chapter 22.36, Limitation on approvals: Section 22.36.040, Modification of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. LOCATION: The subject property is located adjacent to Highway 20 between Fryrear Road and Innes Market Road in the Plainview area of the county. The Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806; 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101; and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone, with an LM, Landscape Management combining zone on that portion of the property that is within one-quarter mile of Highway 20. The property is designated Agriculture and Landscape Management on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. MC -97-2 Page 1 APPLICATION BACKGROUND: The applicant received approval of a tentative plat, TP -91-760, for a 7 -lot subdivision referred to as Snow Creek Ranch by the County Hearings Officer's findings and decision dated September 18, 1991. (The original application was for 8 lots and the applicant was required to reduce it to 7 lots). The subdivision has been recorded as Snow Creek Ranch. The applicant received approval of a Modification of Conditions (MC -93-15) for condition of approval #1 of TP -9,17769, by the Planning Division's findings and decision dated September 871993. This condition was amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a farm dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and Siatitaiv. The applicant received Final Plat Approval for Snow Creek Ranch. The final plat was recorded with the County Clerk's Office on December 1, 1993. The applicant subsequently received approval of a Replat (RP -95-3) of the subdivision by the Planning Division's findings and decision dated November 3, 1995. This replat included minor adjustments to the road right of way location for Snow Creek Lane and a change in the lot line between lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision. The final plat for the Snow Creek Ranch replat was recorded with the County Clerk's Office on December 12, 1995. 4. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a medication of approval to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of TP-917760As indicated above, condition of approval no. '1 was amended by approval of MC -93-15. The applicant is now requesting that condition of approval no. 1 be amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law. The applicant is also requesting that condition of approval no. 5 be amended to state: 5. >, Further subdivision shall be allowed only pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarni a -yelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel. 5. The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed modification to several public agencies and received the following responses: A. The Watermaster's Office states that this entire property is covered by Groundwater Right #G-12705. The applicant has until September 11, 1997 to begin construction on the wells. The permit lists seven wells. B. The County Property Address Coordinator states that the address of record for this parcel is 66460 Highway 20. This address is subject to change. C. The County Public Works Department states the following: "This land use request, if approved, would allow the further partitioning of each of the seven existing parcels in the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. This would add MC -97-2 Page 2 another seven single family homes to this area, thereby adding between 42 and 70 motor vehicle trips to Fryrear Road, which provides the only access to this property. These trips would be in addition to the 42 to 70 trips that will exist when the seven existing lots on Snow Creek Lane are developed. The distance between the intersection of Snow Creek Lane and Fryrear Road and the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road is just under 400 feet. This additional traffic could affect the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road, which is already a busy intersection. Fryrear Road had an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 474 in 1996 at a point located .08 mile north of Highway 20. Highway 20 has a traffic volume of several thousand vehicles per day. My concern is that each further partitioning of any lots within this subdivision will add incrementally to the existing traffic volumes on both Fryrear Road and Highway 20. Deschutes County does not have a systems development charge to recover any of the direct road maintenance costs caused by these additional units. Snow Creek Lane has been improved with a paved two lane surface and can handle the traffic generated by either seven or fourteen dwellings. Staff note: With the applicant's proposal to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels if nonfarm dwelling sites are approved, no additional vehicle trips would be created by the proposed modification of approval. Seven homesites would remain possible, not fourteen. D. The County Environmental Health Division states that any new lots created or modified by lot line changes will require a new septic site evaluation for each lot. E. US West Communications and the County Assessor's Office had no comments. F. No response was received from the Cloverdale Fire Department, the Oregon Department of Transportation, Central Electric Cooperative and US West Communications. 6. To date, the Planning Division has received no written response to the notice sent out on the public hearing, which was mailed out on June 18, 1997. The Planning Division has received a few phone calls with questions about the proposal. 7. This application was accepted as complete on July 10, 1997. The 120 -day review period thus ends on November 7, 1997. 8. Staff has checked the County Assessor's records and conducted a site visit, and there are no dwellings on any of the lots, nor does there appear to be any accessory structures on any of the lots. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Conformance with Section 22.26.040 of Title 22. 22.36.040. Modification of approval. A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from the time a land use action approval has become final. MC -97-2 Page 3 Staff findings: The original approval was almost six years ago and the first modification for condition no. 1 was approved almost four years ago. B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Staff findings: The applicant has addressed this criterion on page 3 of the burden of proof statement. The applicant has correctly stated that there have been significant changes to state and county regulations governing development of land within the Exclusive Farm Use zones, both since the original approval of TP -91-760 in 1991 and the modification of that approval in 1993. The standards in place for obtaining approval of a farm dwelling have changed dramatically from both 1991 and 1993. The gross income test required for either high value or non high value farmland is such that it is virtually impossible to meet the standards necessary for a farm dwelling. Even though the lots in Snow Creek Ranch are somewhat larger than parcels within the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone, they are still not large enough to accommodate a farm use which could potentially meet either the $32,500 income test for non high value farmland, or the $80,000 income test for high value farmland. The intent of the subdivision proposal in 1991 was to create lots that were suitable for farm use and which could qualify for a farm dwelling. Under current regulations, as briefly mentioned above, obtaining a farm dwelling on these lots is problematic. Without a dwelling on-site, farm use of the property is probably not realistic. The applicant's proposal offers a scenario whereby a nonfarm dwelling /parcel could be created for a farm operator, and the larger parent parcel could be put to farm use. By amending condition of approval no. 1 of TP -91-760 as proposed by the applicant, the applicant has the possibility of still applying for a farm dwelling on each lot. By amending condition no. 5 to allow a potential partition of each lot, the applicant may be able to qualify for a nonfarm dwelling on a small portion of each lot, while retaining the larger portion in farm use and in farm deferral status. Staff agrees with the applicant that by retaining a majority of the lots in farm deferral, there is more incentive for a property owner to maintain an agricultural use of the property. The applicant is clearly not using this proposed modification as a substitute for an appeal. There is no possibility the applicant could have known of the changes in regulations for development of EFU lands. With the proposed deed restriction recommended by the applicant to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels, there will be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. No additional dwellings would be allowed, which in turn would mean that no additional vehicle trips would occur. Seven dwellings on the total of approximately 508 acres would be all that is developed. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, MC -97-2 Page 4 as defined in this section, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. Staff findings: The proposed modification is directed at conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of TP -91-760. These conditions deal with how a dwelling is approved on each of the seven lots within the subdivision, and whether it can be further divided. With the applicant proposing a deed restriction on each lot, which would prevent any dwellings on the remainder parcels created by partitions allowed under Section 18.16.055 (B), there would be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. The proposed modification will not constitute an approval of a substantially new proposal. If new parcels were created and the deed restriction was required (and also required on the final plat), there would only be stakes in the ground for property corners, there would be no change to the look of the land. Seven dwellings would be all that would be allowed. This is what was originally envisioned with the approval of TP -91- 760. D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action. Staff findings: The modification is being handled as a land use action, pursuant to Title 22 of the County Code. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff fmds that the proposed modification meets the criteria of Section 22.36.040 of Title 22. The proposed modification is the most logical way to provide for development of the lots within Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. It provides flexibility by still allowing for the possibility of a farm dwelling on each lot, or for the applicant to attempt to get dwellings by a partition allowed under Section 18.16.055 (B) of Title 18. Staff recommends that conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 be amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law. 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel, and the final plats for any partitions approved contain a statement that no dwellings shall be allowed on the farm parcel. PEB:sir MG -97-2 Page 5 DESC.AUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS-JN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 18 JUN 1997 WATERMASTER - DISTRICT 11 1340 N.W. WALL, SUITE #100 BEND, OR 97701-1939 The Deschutes County Planning Division attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. has received the APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) en.{:te. OfoaQr--j s cr , I (Aktje.r 4h.4- G-12 70 p 76— u n b o-,�4- ce S ( ( Se P e .� �e. r 1/ /7 c cM. s u:c -, tY'- .a t -, ev ; 4- j s r Se uen welts. Suggested Action by Dechutes� County: NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and �D/ecision. Agent lG`U- i�45 P 62/Sf'1 Date 6-:23-5-7 Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. 612705 DESulUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS_JN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 18 JUN 1997 PROPERTY ADDRESS COORDINATOR 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN STREET BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: seiTarate et.) 2_c 7 ' I ( 5 r15 (Feel free to attach a Suggested Ac ion hy D schu es County: tlt_. h) -1A0 Agent NO NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and Decision. Date -/g)-- -7- Please c act PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions Thank you. NiMigNESIMOi' Department of Public Works MEMORANDUM 61150 S.E. 27th St., Bend, OR 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 TO: Paul E. Blikstad, Planner, Deschutes County Planning Division /1)FROM: Dick Johnson, Management Analyst, Deschutes County Public Works L/ DATE; June 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MC -97-2 Bill Reed requests a Modification of Conditions #1 & #5 of TP -91-760 for Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101 and 16- 11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. This land use request, if approved, would allow the further partitioning of each of the seven existing parcels in the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. This would add another seven single family homes to this area, thereby adding between 42 and 70 motor vehicle trips to Fryrear Road, which provides the only access to this property. These trips would be in addition to the 42 to 70 trips that will exist when the seven existing lots on Snow Creek Ranch Road are developed. The distance between the intersection of Snow Creek Ranch Road and Fryrear Road and the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road is just under 400 feet. This additional traffic could affect the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road which is already a busy intersection. Fryrear Road had an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 474 in 1996 at a point located .08 mile north of Highway 20. Highway 20 has a traffic volume of several thousand vehicles per day, I'm waiting for ODOT to get back to me with the latest ADT for Highway 20. My concern is that each further partitioning of any lots within this subdivision will add incrementally to the existing traffic volumes on both Fryrear Road and Highway 20. Deschutes County does not have a systems development charge (SDC) to recover any of the direct road maintenance costs caused by these additional units. Obviously, additional vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes will be generated by any additional vehicles owned by vehicles of residents living in this area. Snow Creek Ranch Road has been improved with a paved two lane surface and can handle the traffic generated by either seven or fourteen dwellings. Planners will need to deteimine if this request meets all planning issues other than transportation concerns. Quality Services Performed with Pride DESLnUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS.LON ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 18 JUN 1997 DESCHUTES COUNTY ENVIR. HEALTH 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN STREET BEND, OR 97701 4.v 6 1718 1T 44 JUN 1991 MAILED DESCHUTES C.DuAny The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: /24 JO e....).•07....1107 /11.7 e7k. ‘41k/004,.. Agent NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and Decision. Date a Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. DESCriUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 18 JUN 1997 DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR 1164 N.W. BOND STREET BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF' CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: Agent NO COMMENTS Please contact PAUL E. queAions. Thank you. Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and .-Decision. Date BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any JUN 1997 ,i CD CM, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 18 JUN 1997 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 100 N.W. KEARNEY BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received attached application. Your agency may be affected or concerns about this proposal. the have APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of Staff Report or Findings Decision. the and Agent , -'.-,5plify-a---- Date , Please contact contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 [541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: Pi --`Q CERTIFICATE. OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on day of , 1997, the attached notice/report, dated /.; , 1997, was mailed by first-class mail, postag epaid, to the person(s) and address (es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this Ar day of 4 ', 1997. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'i 's:,- 444 Uri 119,9? ; V ------ DSS FOns CO(j,By:: > N 4, :> 4', Ltocezt 9---1,14Ai Quality Services Performed with Pride MOM /MO S00 51'13'W 2635.45 C Ob ‘.41`v 01.10Vd FPR41 J _ _ _ 500'43'06 "W 6 5113. 4 h ~ h Zqx z wa w r. 6z!`tc 3 a1-- Nit J J Mi p kl ,i "A 4 Nq N. n N1z L I' "w +� r. zax z ow C Lo cd w ,to i4 2 f- Uri uti Ng a o �� wW 2m eat ea § h� , It •6681 3.Z>ti,04,OON �yQ ,O*171.61 3,Zt,OGOON-7/ r co 3.,Sr.9rION N00'44'34'E 816.00' ac 8u4 C)WLu 1.0 vi 95y O aK'0 a'Q 0 0.J • W 451 h as k" Ci U Ci U Ci aaaa a abti*,4N7IlgN La rii £� 2 2 = q �Q Oft 1a j6 CAN a a' ,+�h� teO Gai 2 0 ry 2 eca "+ W~oj ZO A aU a 7 K)OaKhy a ib a, W �,., .c0 j z oizni as h� of h o E+ aaLL.:?-0.s 1 2011 2 S �ga ©0� Ll d� W 1.9_2.219. 0 ♦ • gn��ppP yipp 1-.Y1 h,1h0tP1�p� 2'`N-0O0NNC70 io 4,n co o.proo NNNg^NM pp��g�W ;W W W uNNNNN,,,N. 0171 11221222 *41,0M1030)0 Mp i.nM 1\p 0],e4. t�414i 1. r.rny�v3MRtrn. M lukuWW�I'quP1wl,F•4-1WJ,1k+l"WWiu•* ya�i o3. r'_co F.. nq�7 'agi gO�S`�N."nni P,r"i +y^�;d°QiN,��i 2222z 2v10�c12Mr.i0/fv� M3,1vi01�2 .I43 NAi1E. 1 BEND FIRE DEPARTMENT 2 BLACI. MU11F r f ki DE I•'Ak I ME NI Ca.OVGnDru.c rinz DCPsr_7MCt1.' 4 LAP1Nk FIRE DEPARTMENT 5 REDMOND FIRE.. DEPARTMENT C CICTEWC fled P1 P(IUIN1 `11 7 SUNRIVER FIRE DEPARTMENT 8 TOLLGATE FIRE DISIRICI 10 CENTRAL OkEU(IN 1kK1bAl 11 ROATS WATER SYSTEMS L.' ,.� "g' G.- cy ADDRESS S NW MINNESIJfA P051 01-F'3CE BOX 816:4 VUSI UF"F10E .BUX 10 341 W. DUGWUUD. VtOS I OFF:(GE 80X 34/8 C:/U E'. Ci. SOX 1tt' . J4)9L i:uL:K:._'b ''J.' , ? 2:+98 N HWY 97 6114/ HAMILTON LANE 3 SWALLEY IRRIGATION DI,TRICT 4 TUMALU 1IK.UA'IIUN DISIKIC:T 1• 6 LAPINE SAN1'IAkY N SrW J< DIS'Ik1L1 - 17 CITY DF BEND - PLANNING DEPT 19 CITY OF SISTERS - NEIL THOMPSON - 20 BEND CABLE LUPiMUNILAI1UN1, 2: DCUD PARK6 E, riccRC.".71.— ,:22 BLACK SUI1F RANCH OWNERS' AsSUC. 23 9-1-1 '2h DCCCHUI EC' C:LINE P Y AC/'Lt.101 '25 DESCHUTES COUNTY BUILDING DIVISION 26 DESLHU•I ES CUUNI Y CODE ENr Ukt:EPiF Nl DESCHUI ES C:tSUN'I Y ENV 1R. HkAL1 H DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR/JEFF KERN LEGAL COUNSEL, VKUVF R'I Y N(4N1 . SVk C:. 4 WATERMA01k'k - k1L1 11 5 CASCADE NATURAL GAS COMPANY 36 CENTRAL LLL'C'Hti6 C -Ai UL. '37 MIDSTATE ELECTRIC 3411 mliurYr.Ir r1 :-33-TWWALC TP/ii: ,.I' 48 US WEST,CIJMMUNICAIIUNS 41 BEND/LAPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT '43 SISTERS SCHOOL DISTRICT 47 DEPT. LNV. UUAL1'IY (DEO) VUS I Or'I ice SOX 6146 646'87 COOK AVENUE „I nt )v•� t^/a KEN INAV1S, V.U. MLIX 11GN PIJ:3 i OFFICE BOX 431 POST OFFICE SOX •39 PU$I (JI- 1 CE BOX 1,067 "kc OfICACIL IY}III, P051 UF'FiLk SOX 8800 62440 HAMBY ROAD 1Z..! N.W. W. DCHID S'I CEG'_ 11.30 N.W. HARRIMAN Sf5k.I:I' 1130 N.W. HAkk1PiAN SIkEE'I H.C. 1130 N.W. HARR1MAN 91KEE1 GI150 S.E. 471H STREET M.W. L.t4HD (,Ii f.lfE1 61L50 S.E. 2/I'H :5IRIt I 11.40 N.W. NAND ST R.EE" I 11.$43 N.W. i ORK I; I ",11 1.440 N.W. WALL, SUITE 0100 334 N.E. HAWTHORNE AVENUE POST OFFICE SOX 121 . WALL SIREE1 100 N.W. KkARNEY S48 N.W. WALL '•'SG L.4. LW -NO EEl. PI)yI OFF(QE LIJX 19 2146 N. k . 41H S'I KEE'I :.1.. .....___ _ KIIUI E MG, BOX .357 15.36 UUEI:N AVENUE, 3. E. : I 11/5 L:UUK I 5 fREt f, N. G. 4:03400 EMPIRE AVENUE Nb -1 VUS"I OFFICE 'MUX 1,309 • 63034 O B ALLEY'ROAD" POS i OF'F SCE AUX 550 49 " 58 61 52 u 53 DEPT. DEPT. GEOLOGY & MINERAL INDUS TRIE:i DLSC DLCD DIVISION UF FORES1KY D 59 0 D 0 -Tv f4t1N2 JERRY PAVE 60 0'D 0:;T• - ATTN: PETER RUSSELL v G1 1, 1Tti&. RE'"L'% W5'- y, Pil",MI.P' .62 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 63 DISTk1L1 RANGER, U.::. FORk$;i SERV. 6• 4 SISTERS RANGER DISTRICT, D.N.F. 65 U.S. FURES'I SEkV1L:E '-i6-R&DP444e ' ^.7'!"77:T 6• 7 SUNRIVEk OWNERS/ ASSUCIA't1UN 68 SUNRIVER RESORT, L.P. 70 OREGON HEALTH DIVISION 71 OREGON 5'IAIE PARKS 76 TERREBUNNI DCIMES11(. WATER DIST. "77 CENTRAL OREGON PARK & REL. DISTRICT 82 MICHAEL HOUSER. HISTORIC PLANNI_K " 83 LA PINE 1NDUb181AL UKCIUM 1N(: s 01 a • T H1 KD &4i., BA -262 OFF ll.l= BOX 1.'49 N.E. 1H1HD STREET • . it ::."i:'Wii r WN OFFICE BUX '3278 O FFICE HUX 3589 (F C1 L'L 1'(. X 3(44 SOX 144514 20:400 EMPIRE AVENUE N14- C,t JC r I', .13'1++4:1:?`I : ('1n: 1110 C AVENUE P.U. SOX 84.3 W-1,- Lk Clt'TLI+F' 1130 NW HARRiMAN :)I'RsEf P U MUX 1440 SEND SLAC(: BUTTE LAPINE REDMOND :iIJNR 1 V F:Ii SISILKS REDMOND SEND SEND BEND LAPINE SEND !:S 1+444,+\'_ :31:3 f EK_> BEND SL• S'I EKS BEND _+E•P1£ BEND MENU ME• ND BEND Ll NO SEND BEND 'SEND !etBN44or LMP1t* BEND 111E BEND BEND. fvt-bM14N8 GISTERW SEND PRINEVILLE ALBANY 1'E•H•E SALEM BEND BEND SEND,' PKINF.V ILLS MEND :i LSI'ER:i BEND SUNRIVER SUNRIVER i' }: PORTLAND MEND 1' _•::l' 'IEKNEBUNNE REDMOND SEND LA t -Y) NE STATE.2IP.... GROUP OK•y//Nl FD UK97759 FD tit;!•J 1' f-.1 rr. OR97739 ' FD O 9/7S6 FD 9P?77'E, OR97/0/ FD Ok97759 FD 0197756-1219 1 OK17 704 ORS -7/08-512S I 0197701 I OR97739 MISC O K9//AV CI 944^"77 _ GZ O R9//Shd CI 0197708-5067 MISC RISE OR97759 MISC ORS / 713 l CO OR77703 :E U RS7/0i CO Ok97701 CU OR97701 CO UR97/04 CO PRO7761 :9 O K'd / /N2 CO OR97701 CO Uk97701-1939 CU UK9//01 MISC aF:77"56 'IIOC O k17/31 MISC OR97701 MI5C OR97701 MISC UK97 /It)1 .-88 3"::7756 SE UK97759 SD OR97701 ST OR97754 .ST ORS /.321 ST 2.1o921 S71:, 3T O 119/.31.0 5T 0897701-5713 ST OR▪ 97708-5309 ST UK97781 ST 9W3,721':' 0817/54 0897701 5)5<9 / / 59 UR97701 OR97707 OK'd//N/ 9f4'?77T7 US US U5 US k:. MISC MISC U429/Slit ST 3R97721•-5713 ST OR97760 I OR1 / /56 CO 5r: 7 7T: Si OR97/N1 CO OR97739 MI5C /. 1UC WO1w 'S s WEBER: ri^[ r- r APPLICANT: a,1, to =claw sEstiAL TAX LOT CODE WINE 16-11-L1 700 /,31-2-e=i 70 / !t o o 5 00 /3 /?---// 30 0 X304 joo / 30 --`Le _1120 T. 3 a-G� 4o0 /.3 /a- 14-11-5 100 14 ! 4141Ap_ Goo /5777 /)f,A-- ro.,srs/ !V, /sv 7(3a— I A— A & / 7h -7 kr••11- i 10(0 400 4200 16-11-10 AO -0 13/g3) 131 • LOOKUPS 9/90 Sao 13 k,er koo 1 v96.5 /0 /4 A) 61- ae5)4zi- ** ** :gym ** m ** ** w *m ** w ** 1- **### A 0` ~ 40 # # # h 7 3 .4 * * 3 3 •+ h x U) CO * * * * * W F- N © W J E **** fi V> N J U Q. * * * * * 0 Z 0• < O: .1 .1 * * # * D: t-+ Z •0 0 J x 3 * * * CO .1 0 .4 J 1- % * - J OC CC .0.1 0 * * # * # I- 0 0 U! 3 •4 W * * * * .4 F- in W x cc N J * * * * * •+ W 07.+ W O W C) CD st F- * * * * * NO:C)O NZph C'ZC)i- * ' * * * .4 W •+ Z .+ 0: W •+ d et .1 * * * * * C) .1 CO W 07 .1 0 1.4 C) D O W * * * * * •+ Cl .-• 00 •+ 07 0_ 37 •+ V N 07 * * * * OC W 3 .+ UW0 Z$.4h W>h C:ZoP ►r <I <C J J o: .0.0 am .r w N - .4 ccZ •+ CC N Z C).1WW 4x�o W W 1- -+ CO CO C) Q: W F- C3 CCM 1- O OC W W A . CD Q Z J O: O W CD F- M. a w tah> ..x..(n JJJJJ JJJJJ JJJJJ JJJJJ JJJJJ # N JJJJJ Cti 1-QN JJJJJ F- A D1 -P JJJJJ E 1--Za JJJJJ - 03•+ DU 0 .+ JJJJJ OCO UO >- JJ30 JJJJJ ZJN. F- .4 1-4ZW OCO0 N JJJJJ ZF-0r WZ0- EJI- .1N Cr JJJJJ 2:) co 1.4 Q Z J JJJJJ 0A O.1 U. C3 W ]- JJJJJ 7 CC MJ CC P- 2: Z3 OC JJJJJ WO 0.O U.aW .1x0 JJJJJ 03I -Z C)} •+OCCIO J Cr it JJJJJ NZ •+W V) 0000 C) <0 JJJJJ ti<oo N U. et A N0 O,xetC] JJJJJ •.YNZ .4 U.CUZ •.ZOZ C)U0Z J J J J J C) OC 0 W () 0 CO W C) .-..+ .1 d' 0 J) W JJJJJ .. p.4p - U••C) •+ J 0'U) .+C7.0 CO ' * * * * at * * Os 1-- ** Cr w . w * * Z * J 1w- **� ot Da 0 * * * * .1 0 CC h **t'** ZCC•+ F-3.+ h •+ # #.4 * # O O WO J 0• 0.00 ** ** W OC N UJ *-4 N .+ N h ** ** J.1 h > h 3C J h * 0 * W Cr A Z Cr Z et D: .+ } Cr. a d' ** CO O: Y ►4 .10 0 x 3 ()O * * X> 0.1 cc in ax U) * * w O; Or J J C: U..+ Or 0r.0 * -'U.O u. (1. 0) 030 0 • U) * 0•J N u)¢xcc 03Z 0 00•C) * co WN .... L0U) CUCDOW C3►+0- UJON * 01 CD 0)A NZ0'0 CV..4031- 0`Zn0 * .•ZNZ .4.1.+Z •4Z U) .+CCO2E * * * * * C7.143W C)>07W C)WO'+ (7W4)W * * * * * .-. J ,0 03 •4 U' CO *+ U O_ 0 .+ CO 40 q Deschutes County Oregon Community Development Department FAX TO: Phone Fax Phone I CC: REMARKS: IDate &//7/,-7 1 Number of pages including cover sheet FROM: Bend, Ore. Phone: Bend Fax Phone: Redmond, Ore. Phone; Redmond Fax Phone: 541-385-1764 541-923-3097 ❑ Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment pve,„ ?e,Alik)2( Or?, Cik-1C-T)---,)--), Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 3B8-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on TD SDAY, JULY 22, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the Juvenile Justice Center Room A located at 1128 Harriman Street in Bend, to consider the following request: FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. NOPH - MC -97-2 Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Chapter 18.16 of Title 18, EFU zone The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code Please contact Paul Blikstad with the County Planning Division at (541) 388-6575 if you have any questions. NOPH - MC -97-2 Page 2 Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Hearings Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 22, Juvenile Justice Center Room Street in Bend, to consider the FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: Officer will hold a Public 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the A located at 1128 Harriman following request: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Staff Report (25 cents a page). Any person submitting written comment or who presents testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the Hearings Officer's findings and decision. Notice of the decision will only be provided to those who submit written or oral testimony regarding this application. Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Chapter 18.16 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Exclusive Farm Use zones; 18.16.050, Standards for dwellings in the EFU zones; 18.16.060, Dimensional standards; 18.16.065, Subzones. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall planning and development framework for the County. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code: Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions; Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings. Section 22.36.040, Modification of approval. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Please contact Paul Blikstad with the County Planning Division at (541) 388-6575 if you have any questions. NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner Page 2 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: BILL REED APPLICANT/ Bill Reed OWNER: P.O. Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 AGENT: Dale Van Valkenburg Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 BURDEN OF PROOF REQUEST: Approval of a Modification of Conditions for TP -91-760, the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. The Applicant seeks to modify condition #1 as already modified by file MC -93-15, and condition #5. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22 of the County Code, Land Use Procedures: * Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals FINDINGS of FACT: L LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Highway 20, between Fryrear and Innes Market Roads, and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #16-11-4 as tax lots 800, 802, 803 804, and 805; on Map #16-11-9 as tax lots 100 and 101; and on Map #16-11-10 as tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone, and LM - Landscape Management Combining Zone. The property is designated as Agriculture on the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 1 MATA,DENCLIENIS1g,WEEMOD.001 Bryant L,oylien Jarvis a mom.. rut:Emit.. Kr LAW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 3. PROPOSAL: The Applicant is proposing a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval #1 and #5 of TP -91-760, which was platted on December 12, 1995 as subdivision plat D-177. Condition of approval #1 was previously amended by MC -93- 15 so that it now reads: 1t Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a farm dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law." Condition of approval #5 currently reads: "5 No further subdivision of this land would be allowed since this appears to be the minimum size in this area for farm use. Also, any further division would necessarily split up productive farm land and make it difficult to site residences on lands that did not encompass agricultural lands." In order to allow the approval of a non-farm dwelling conditional use permit and to allow a non-farm homesite to be partitioned off from the remaining farm acreage, the proposal would modify these conditions as follows: "5. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law." Further subdivision shall be allowed only pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel." REQUIRED FINDINGS, BURDEN OF PROOF: The authority modify a decision stems from Section 22.36.040 (Modification of approval) of Title 22, the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, which provides the following: "A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from the time a land use action approval has become final. Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 2 WDATA`DiAC »USQ-SW;iD){OD.W3 Bryant Luvlien ® Jarvis APROfESSONALCORPORATION ATIflRNEYS AT LAW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 FINDING: The subject approval was granted in September of 1991. More than six months has elapsed since the approval was issued. "B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. The proposed modifications of conditions of approval #1 and #5 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel, to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition #5. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. "C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 3 MDATA'DEV 1CIl6T.TSIQ,SREEDMOD.ODt Bryant Lovlien ® Jarvis AI' ALCORPORATMN KONNEYSATLSW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 9 770 9-11 51 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 modification, as defined in this section, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. FINDING: The proposed modifications are directed specifically at conditions of approval #1 and #5. The proposal does not result in a substantially new application, but rather is simply a response to changes in applicable law since the earlier approvals were granted. "D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action." FINDING: The Applicant has made application on forms provided by the County, is submitting this statement in support of the proposal, and has included the appropriate fee as provided in the County's fee schedule. The Applicant understands that the proposal is subject to public notice and the opportunity for an appeal. CONCLUSION: The Applicant respectfully requests approval of the proposed modification of conditions based on the above findings. DEV:dev Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 4 Dated this 30th day of May, 1997 Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis Bryant Lovlien ® Jarvis AM M:ESP.LCORORATION AflORNE,ATIASV P. aDATATENQ3IIMQ-S EINOD.001 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 1"3Lt VI 0 '44 it411 21 .11 225 LL HONVL1 N33113 MONS. OS AO .LV1‘438 $ 1• • I • cJ fe.!1 g sr 2221 77. 2 11 91 •Ig DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NW Harriman Street, Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6575 LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate signatures. 2. Attach correct fee. 3 Include a plot plan which shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 4 All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): CONDITIONAL USE (CU)____ PARTITION (MP) — SUBDIVISION (TP) APPLICANTS NAME (print): TEMPORARY USE (TU)____ SITE PLAN (SP) VARIANCE (V) BILL REED APPLICATION FEE: $298.00 SETBACK EXCEPTION (SE) OTHER: MODIFICATION OF CONDI TI01 PHONE(541)549-6000 MAILNG ADDRESS: P>0: BOX 219 CITY: SISTERS STATE: OR ZIP: 97759 PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME (if different): PHONE( MAILNG ADDRESS: CITY: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Township 16 Range 11 Section 4 2. PROPERTY ZONE(S): EFU—TRB/LM 3. PROPERTY ADDRESS: IVY 20 STATE: ZIP: TaxLot800 (and others see Barden of Proof) PROPERTY SIZE (acres or sq. ft.): 4. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES: 6. REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND NONE 7. PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY: Sewer 8. DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE: WELL APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: - PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE (if differ AGENT'S NAME (if applicable): DALE E . TALKENBURG BRYAN .LOVLIMF, & JARVIS 1"-C MAILING ADDRESS: END P.O.• BOX 1151 CITY: 508 ACRES 5 OF TP -91-760 On -Site Disposal System DATE: DATE: X 67:21q7 672_/77 541 382-4331 HONE( ) OR 97709 STATE: ZIP: If this application is not signed by the property owner a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. 3/97 5-30-1997 10:57AM FROM CB REED BROS. REALTY 541 549 0171 P. 2 C©LDWet BANIICR 0 REED BROS. REALTY May 30, 1997 Community Development Department •Admir istration Bldg. 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Ladies and Gentlemen: 2$I IN. CASA PO box 219 SISTERS, OR 97759 SUS (641) 5494040 FAX (561) 548-0171 Via fax: 389-3386 Flease be advised that Dale Van Valkenburg, Bob Lovlien or Sharon. Smith has authorization to sign land use applications on bur behalf Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Williaurt R. Reed, Jr. M. F. Reed An independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc. ASR INQ Serial: 131227 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080u Port 244 08:16:18 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 66460 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 1 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 6862.20 Prop Cls:450 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFU2OLM *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D6 39.26 125,630 155 DEFERRED Page 1 ***1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 9.0' RMV Ass'd 96 RMV Ass'd % LND: 125,630 155 125,630 155 98,125 155 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.48 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -1.44 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.49 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -1.45 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.51 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -1.60 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.04 C 90 708490 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.04 C 90 595736 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.09 L 90 561322 ASR INQ Serial: 185296 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00802 Port 244 08:16:27 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 2 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,348 DEFERRED EFU.D6 30.62 85,735 122 DEFERRED *Total 53.62 150,135 2,470 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 96. LND: 150,135 2,470 150,135 2,470 87,005 2,315 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 24.01 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -23.29 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.58 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -21.90 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.70 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -25.43 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.72 C 90 708482 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.68 C 90 595742 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.73 L 90 595741 ASR INQ Serial: 191269 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080b Port 244 08:17:09 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PTN 2 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D7 1.99 4,975 10 DEFERRED *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd a RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o LND: 4,975 10 4,975 10 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.09 Trn Date Etch Received 11-15-96 4096 -0.09 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.00 C 90 708480 ASR INQ Serial: 185297 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080.3 Port 244 08:16:42 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS, DONALD NEIL THOMAS, JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6013 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * * Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 27.70 69,250 111 DEFERRED *Total 50.70 133,650 2,455 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % LND: 133,650 2,455 133,650 2,455 133,750 2,295 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 23.87 Trn Date Btch Received 10-25-96 4062 -23.15 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.37 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -21.70 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.52 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -25.22 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.72 C 90 660058 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.67 C 90 595748 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.70 L 90 595746 ASR INQ Serial: 185299 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00804 Port 244 08:16:54 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Site Address: 18325 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941872 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) 11 :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values ** * ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 4.00 10,000 409 DEFERRED EFU.D6 35.21 88,025 141 DEFERRED *Total 39.21 98,025 550 ***---- 1997 1996- -------1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 5t. RMV Ass'd 5t- RMV Ass'd % LND: 98,025 550 98,025 550 98,650 520 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-07-96 4073 -5.18 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.07 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.92 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.09 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -5.70 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.16 C 90 673717 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.15 C 90 595755 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.61 L 90 595753 ASR INQ Serial: 131413 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00100 Port 244 08:17:28 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2064.56 Site Address: 66308 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 77.07 165,700 7,860 DEFERRED EFU.D6 0.47 1,010 5 DEFERRED *Total 77.54 166,710 7,865 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 96 RMV Ass'd gs RMV Ass'd % LND: 166,710 7,865 166,710 7,865 167,955 7,380 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 68.12 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -66.08 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.95 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -62.03 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.84 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -71.49 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.04 C 90 708488 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -1.92 C 90 595767 Int/Disc Jrnl Ropt# Description 7.65 L 90 595765 ASR INQ Serial: 149873 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 00301 Port 244 08:17:56 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18475 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Page 1 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Ascot Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 19.46 41,840 1,987 DEFERRED EFU.D6 8.29 17,825 33 DEFERRED *Total 27.75 59,665 2,020 *** --------1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 9e RMV Ass'd 9-,; LND: 59,665 2,020 59,665 2,020 42,775 1,550 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.44 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -19.83 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 16.87 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -16.36 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.71 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -23.19 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.61 C 90 708485 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.51 C 90 595769 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.48 L 90 595768 ASR INQ Serial: 131989 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2618.88 Site Address: 66080 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Page 1 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 6013 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 84.36 150,160 8,606 DEFERRED EFU.D6 19.76 35,170 79 DEFERRED *Total 104.12 185,330 8,685 *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 96 LND: 185,330 8,685 185,330 8,685 192,645 8,485 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 87.95 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -85.31 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 92.26 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -89.49 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 113.42 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -127.03 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.64 C 90 708486 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.77 C 90 595771 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 13.61 L 90 595770 ASR INQ Serial: 185301 Acct: R 6-013 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Page 1 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 2007 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) * * * Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 6.69 11,910 680 DEFERRED *** 1997 1996 1995 Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % LND: 11,910 680 11,910 680 9,325 500 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.88 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -5.70 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.21 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.32 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -4.55 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.18 C 90 708479 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.13 C 90 595773 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.23 L 90 561324 Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend. Oregon 97701 (5031388-6575 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: P9S3 CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on 0 dayof �� , 1995, the attached notice/report, dated �-1 , 1995, was mailed by first-class mail, posta�e prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. t�� DATED this day of , 1995. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: (12# v '57 (' dvA (4(.6;4%-0 Quality Services Performed with Pride to M DEC 1995 co"co MAIL� �S v 1 �2a9Z5Z Community Development Department MEN.WREMe --f-f-MMEN..:-MMEENMETEMOMMERICnNe,VR:,,,,MINAsm,mmo,m,wWAvMMIMMEMMONEM December 13, 1995 William R. and Myron F. Reed P.O. Box 219 Sisters, OR 97759 : File IRP -95-3 Gentlemen: Administration Bldg., 1130 NW. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (503) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division This is to inform you that the above mentioned Replat has received final approval. If you should have any questions, please call the Planning Division. Sincerely, DESCHUTES PLANNING DIVISION --toewk 8.121,r4:10 Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner PEB:slr Enclosure cc: File County Surveyor County Cartographer Western Title & Escrow First American Title Key Title & Escrow Central Oregon Underground Utilities Coordinating Council Cloverdale Fire Department W & H Pacific Quality Services Performed with Pride 6. After the Board has signed the final plat it must be picked up by the applicant for duplication. Two mylar copies (which must be certified as true and exact copies of the originals) and 15 blue line copies are required. Mylar copies are kept at the County Surveyor's Office and County Clerk's Office. Blue line copies are distributed to the County Assessor's Office, title companies, fire districts and other agencies. Don't forget copies for yourself. 7. When the copies are prepared they must be returned to the Planning Division. The Planning Division must review the final plat to ensure it has not been altered. The easiest way to receive final Planning approval is to make an appointment with the Planner who was the reviewer of the original application. Phone 388-6575. A final plat can also be turned in for review by attaching the appropriate fee and leaving the plat and copies at the reception window. You will be called when the plat is ready to record. 8. The final step is receiving a plat number and recording the plat with the County Clerk. No plat may be recorded unless it is accompanied by a signed statement of water rights unless the plat displays approval of an irrigation district. A recording fee is required at the Clerk's Office. Signature in the space below by a Planner will allow issuance of a plat number and recording by the County Clerk's Office. The County Code prohibits the Clerk's Office from recording plats without final Planning Division approval. File # 7`94°_ 15---3 is complete the County Clerk. 51,2o) and the plat may be recorded by ie/fa Planning Division Date Sr 3 has been recorded as Plat #% ° -) File, # (2 � ,? e e 2-1/7 9S" County Clerk's Office Date Final Plat November 1993 Page 2 Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 FILE NUMBER: RP -96 '3 CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on ( day of j Q l�Z�/ , attached notice/report, dated /)L3 mailed by first-class mail, postage ptepaid, to the and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this ' day of (503) 388-6575 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 1995, the 1995, was person( e9-0.---;„ 1995. COMMUNITY DEVEL..i'... DEPARTMENT By: 123 44) icy ro NOV4199 5 g MAILED Csi 444 DCOUN7Y S CX 4,--A0//-‘12 71- GJriz--/71 AcM / 1.6 .vE cau i P 121/ wo �4s Quality Services Performed with Pride Oe w 413' William Groves From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:10 PM To: William Groves; Ed Fitch Subject: Re: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Yes, Pamalynn talked to him too. He told her something a bit different. We're working on getting more information and I'll put it in with my other information for this first submittal. As for the timing of the final arguments, you don't need a new order. Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. From: William Groves <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:32 PM To: 'Laurie Craghead'; Ed Fitch Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline I talked to Chief Olsen with Cloverdale Fire. He said the county fire road standard (from the F2 zone) would work for the emergency access, which I've quoted below, with an all-weather (gravel) surface. B. Access roads shall have an unobstructed horizontal clearance of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13.5 feet, and provide an all-weather surface. Let me know if you have any questions. 1 Thanks, Will Will Groves 1 Senior Planner, CFM 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708 oeslow Tel: (541) 388.6518 I www.deschutes.org/cd 000 Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 2.2.20.00.5 and shall not be 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. Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be 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: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:49 PM To: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com>; William Groves <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline I have: 1. Dolan rough proportionality issue. 2. Accident relationship to emergency access. That, however, was not my argument. My argument is that may have been why ODOT didn't allow a secondary access to Hwy 20 in 1991 when the original plat was recorded. 3. Whether the deed requirement was ongoing. Anything else, Will? Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON 2 THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. From: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlaweroup.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:40 PM To: Laurie Craghead; 'William Groves' Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline No problem with May 21St. Will can you bullet point the issues you see need briefing so we are all on the same page Edward P. Fitch Attorney 210 SW 5th St., Suite 2 Redmond, OR 97756 541-316-1588 541 316-1943 fax ed@fitchlawRroup.com www.fitchlawgroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us be reply at info@fitchlawgrouo.com or by telephone at 541 316-1588, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. From: Laurie Craghead <Iaurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:41 PM To: 'William Groves' <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Subject: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Will: I didn't have my calendar with me when we all agreed on the dates. I just noticed that the May 19 final argument deadline agreed to falls on a Saturday. That would make the deadline fall to the next Monday, May 21 or did I not hear the date correctly? Laurie E. Craghead 3 Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. 4 William Groves From: Ed Fitch ^ed@fhchbwonuup.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:41 PM To: Laurie [raghead;William Groves Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline No problem with May 21st. Will can you bullet point the issues you see need briefing so we are all on the same page Edward P. Fitch Attorney 210 SW 5th St., Suite Redmond, OR 97756 541'316'1588 541 316-1943 fax edPMtch|am/arouozom www.fitch|awaruuozom CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain corifidential information that is legaily privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the informatiori contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us be reply at info@fitchlaw2roup.com or by telephone at 541 316-1588, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. From: Laurie Craghead<|aurie.craQhead@out|ook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:41 PM To: 'William Groves' <VViUiam.Groves@deschutesorg> Cc: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Subject: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Will: 1 didn't have my calendar with me when we all agreed on the dates. 1 just noticed that the May 19 final argument deadline agreed to falis on a Saturday. That would make the deadline fall to the next Monday, May 21 or did I not hear the date correctly? Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PDBox S833 Bend, OR 97708'5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. 2 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 18. 2018. DATE: June 13, 2018 FROM: Isabella Liu, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Application for Outdoor Mass Gathering for Oregon Adaptive Sports. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of Application for Outdoor Mass Gathering for Oregon Adaptive Sports. ATTENDANCE: Izze Liu, Associate Planner SUMMARY: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners is conducting a work session on June 18, 2018 in preparation for their public hearing on June 27, 2018 to consider a proposal by Oregon Adaptive Sports for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit. The applicant, Oregon Adaptive Sports, is proposing to hold the Bigstock 2018 festival at 18930 Couch Market Road, Bend, in August. The festival is a one -day event that includes music, fundraising activities (e.g. silent auction and raffle), food and drink, and parking for an estimated 750 people. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Izze Liu, Associate Planner DATE: June 13, 2018 RE: Work Session for an Outdoor Mass Gathering, File No. 247-18-000423-OMG PURPOSE The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") is conducting a work session on June 18, 2018 in preparation for their public hearing on June 27, 2018 to consider a proposal by Oregon Adaptive Sports for an Outdoor Mass Gathering (OMG) permit. PROPOSAL The applicant, Oregon Adaptive Sports (OAS), is proposing to hold the Bigstock 2018 festival at the subject property, which is located at 18930 Couch Market Road, Bend, in August 2018. The festival is a one -day event that includes music, fundraising activities (e.g. silent auction and raffle), food and drink, and parking for an estimated 750 people. The property is approximately 29.17 acres and developed with a single-family dwelling and several accessory structures. The surrounding area consists of farm and rural residential uses. The applicant has held the music festival in Central Oregon for the past eight years. The one change proposed for the 2018 festival compared to the previous year is the location. The applicant is proposing the 2018 festival in a new location northwest of the Bend city limits. The proposed dates for Bigstock 2018 are August 10-12, 2018, which includes set-up and removal of equipment, structures, and similar materials used for the festival. Specific event dates and hours are listed below: Friday, August 10 - Event set up Saturday, August 11 - Doors open at 4:00 p.m. and event will end at 10:00 p.m. Saturday, August 11 - Patrons depart between 8:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday, August 12 - Site clean up The subject property has been divided into specific areas for the music festival. The main activity area, located on the eastern half of the property, contains the stage, food and beverage vendors, restrooms, water, first aid, trash collection and recycling, and basic operational aspects of the festival. To the west of the existing driveway, includes vehicle parking. The applicant has addressed in their proposal the requirements involving insurance, sanitary facilities, water supply, fire protection, medical services, public safety and enforcement, parking facilities, and hours of operation. OUTDOOR MASS GATHERINGREQUUREMENTS/CRUTER&A Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 8.16 provides approval criteria for an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit. The applicant has satisfied the requirements addressed in Section 0.16.100. Including obtaining signatures on the application form from the following agencies • Bend Fire Department � Deschutes County Heafth Department • Deschutes County Environmentat Heatth Division • Deschutes County Sheriff Staff believes the proposed outdoor mass gathering permit requescan comply with the applicable standards and criteria outlined in Chapter 8.16 below if conditions of approval are met. Conditions will be noted in the Staif Report for the public hea ring. PUBLIC NOTICE The Planning Division mailed notice to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and several agencies on June b' 3018. Comments received will be noted in the Staff Report. Pub//c notice was also published in the Bend Bulietin on June 10, 2018. Attachments 1. Map 2. Z47'18'O0O4Z3-]MGApplication Materials Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 - Map This page intentionally left blank. Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Deschutes County- GIS, 'Source:: Esri, DigitalGi:obe, GeoEye, Earthstbr ', Geographics,.CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS;'Ae GRID, 16N, atiq the GIS: User Community Map and Taxlot: 1611230000523 File Number: 247-18-000423-OMG 18930 Couch Market Road Bend, OR 97701 This page intentionally left blank. Attachment 2 - Application Materials This page intentionally left blank. ziz 74 (84 Rcei liva 3 33 lizil(e Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Solis Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cd OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING APPLICATION FEE: f2617.. -b. 5th PLEASE PRINT, �,� Applicant/Organizer: 1".5, 1 (14-k,2(0 ( Phone: NI Mailing Address: t 1/ r ( I VI YJ f) v , IOC - I" "4"1' City/State/Zip: ldti 0 g- 61 -3 7-0D--- Property O "-"Property Description: Township Range Section Tax Lot Address: 1 c1 L) !-.)M (_- l iv' 6-olLel . City/State/Zip: Berl() t (. qi -36 1 Estimated Attendance: 9-50 Date and Time of Gathering: , q /ii/ 1 1 -pin * I Ofy'') Description of Type of Gathering/Purpose (i.e., music, art, etc.) A Y} tr )I.4 a 1(&Y1r .. - rr1 !<-f ,� Zli✓" v'es )y) / -ri . "' # it, -C.. k(. Y t' ) t, J / S i , ' l t (u.J C h' CV) `' 11Y L4 i "." Contact person who will be available onsite during gathering: Name: L oj' (' SG1r)oa"[ 5 Phone: ( 1) 5J --0 -'Email: �ea,l'1t'�K Jhir)et-m net -moll -5 ' e.cv,-tti— J phi (5t -11) y 1) qt-32c�o l�eici, um AGENCY APPROVALS: Please have the following agencies/departments review your proposal before submitting this application. Signatures: , 7"_ 41.4,-Q- ( c i -1 -1 I. ,t A, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION (indicates approval of sanitary facilities in accordance with 8.16.220) FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OR STATE FIRE MARSHAL (indicates approval of fire protection devices on-site, in accorda ; e . th 8.16.230) .a COUNTY 'ALTHDEPARTMENT`(indicates approval of medical service, in ccordance with 8.S.240) P COUNTY SHERIFF (indicates approval of a public safety plan and parking plan in ac • n ance with 8.16.250 and 8.16.260, respectively) DES On a separate sheet, please provide a plot plan showing the types, numbers and locations of the following items. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided: a. Toilets b. Washing facilities c. Water sypply Applicant's Signature: d. Food preparation and/or food service e. Solid waste collection Property Owner's Signature (if different): Agent's Name (if applicable): Mailing Address: Date: / - l 8 rt1 ._ ate: el / C61 Phone: City/State/Zip: *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete; and if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. (Rev. 11/15) G� = Nt?9 (-2 s VL,tfuNd f74 -4( e)4 go. 4L2J 3 33 ti4v)v- Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safaty Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW afayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 one: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://opmv.deschutes.org/cd OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING APPLICATION FEE: PLEASE PRINT Phone: 5S6-43)9) Applicant/Organizer: .1/:) I CY -)\-(,)( L., V A 1 (1) Mailing Address: 1-1:' \;( (-) rt) v City/State/Zip: &I 'i6'( 0 Property Description: Description: Township Range Section Tax Lot Address: 60 IA. ( airk, t 2A, City/State/Zip: 1 -3(v -1(o.(-) k) Estimated Attendance: 9-150 Date and Time of Gathering: je ./11),n - Description of Type of Gathering/Purpose (i.e., music, art, etc.) A 1 ( )(1 6 -4":1 uy.cf,r-v-) ((.1 A -1,1x (-1 )0, tc r (t.Li ti. C ) 1,-)L.i , Contact person who will be available onsite during gathering: Name: Le...a. V) (1 (' (17, Phone:( -1 ) 5 r.3o t ne, Vu D hy toOTI, CANn AGENCY APPROVALS: Please have the following agencies/departments review your proposal before submitting this application. Signatures: 7-1 E INM,NJAJ. HEALTH DIVISION (indicates approval of sanitary facilities in accordance with 8.16.220) CTION DISTRICT OR STATE FIRE MARSHAL (indicates approval of fire protection devices e, accordanT with 8.16.230) (7YV \ ( , '21-A 2/ 4 e,;1(,Ard. -147't /2 -4(0), COUNTYVEALTH DEPARTMENnindicates approval of medical service, in bccordance witf 8.16.240) DE,Sop COUNTY SHERIFF (indicates approval of a public safety plan and parking plan in aydance with 8.16.250 and 8.16.260, respectively) On a separate sheet, please provide a plot plan showing the types, numbers and locations of the following items. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided: a. Toilets b. Washing facilities c. Water supply Applicant's Signature: A. Property Owner's Signature (if different)*: Agent's Name (if applicable): Mailing Address: d. Food preparation and/or food service e. Solid waste collection • Date:. 3—I 1-/e P C ate: 1-1 Phone: L..__) City/State/Zip: `If this application Is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete; and if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. (Rev. 11/15) �i DESCHUTES COUNTY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR Chapter 8.16 iUTDOOR MASS GATHERINGS AND EXTENDED OUTDOOR MASS GATHERINGS Bigstock 2018 Outdoor mass gathering permit application Contents: 1. Outdoor Mass Gathering Application (community development department) 2. Environmental Health Department Exhibit A A. Copy of contractual agreement for toilets 13. Sketch of toilet locations (including hand washing stations) C. Copy of contractual agreement for waste collection and removal D. Food Services 3. Health Services (includes Ambulance contract with Adventure medics and location of ambulance & first aid station) 4. Deschutes County Sheriff Office Checklist Exhibit 13 A. Traffic control and crowd protection plan B. Contractual agreement with North Pacific Security company C. Parking site map 5. Indemnity Agreement 6.. Conditions of Insurance 7. Temporary Sales License Application • signed by both Sheriff & OLCC 8. Site Maps • Google map of entire event area • Full venue site map • Site map A: Main parking space • Site map B: Main stage area with VIP tent & access (+ 2 portable toilet units & 1 hand washing station) • Site map C: Main bar and silent auction • Site map D: food court & on-site ambulance location -VES 0 1660.11411 k 41.1 April 30, 2018 HEALTH SERVICES 6,111 11i14YmJJJ1Yilil,u,,l ear kWliA4lyk'i4SWk'6kAudJVaWmiiiii0 N.641.64.40111kLY4YVa 2577 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 Public Health (541) 322-7400, Fax (541) 322-7465 Behavioral Health (541) 322-7500, Fax (541) 322-7565 www.deschutes.org TO: Leann Schoales, Applicant FROM: Eric Mone, RENS, Environmental Health Supervisor RE: Bigstock, Outdoor Mass Gathering (OMG), 8/11/18 Deschutes County Environmental Health has finished reviewing the OMG application for Bigstock. The following requirements are to be met prior to the event: 1) Private water well needs a coliform bacteria and nitrate sample within 60 days prior to the event. The coliform result has to be absent and the nitrate result needs to be under 10ppm. An approved lab must be used for sampling. Submit results to Deschutes County Environmental Health. 2) Foodservice operators must have either a 2018 Deschutes County Mobile Food Unit license or apply for a Temporary Restaurant License. 3) Wastewater from foodservice operators must be disposed of at an approved location. 4) Other OMG requirements (garbage collection and disposal contract; portable toilets contract) are approved. 5) Please verify that water provided to the public for this event is conveyed using approved methods, whether for drinking, cooking, dishwashing, handwashing. Our Mission: To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community. Exhibit A 4/16/18 Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend Or 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 ATTN: Environmental Health Division RE: Bigstock 2018 Mass Gathering Application Environmental Health Checklist Bigstock 2018 will take place at 18930 Couch Market Road, Bend Or 97701 on Saturday August llth 2018. Set up is scheduled to take place on Friday, August 10th and clean up to be completed on Sunday August 14th. Doors open at 4pm and the event will end at 10pm. Expected attendance is 750 in the event that Bigstock is sold out, no animals are expected unless they are service animals. The expected number of vehicles (if the event sells out) is 200. We are encouraging participants to carpool, take a taxi, uber or lyft. To ensure for the comfort and safety of our patrons Blgstock 2018 is committed to meet or exceed Deschutes County standards. In order to comply with Deschutes County Health Ordinances 8.16.220, Outdoor Mass Gathering Sanitary Sanitaryfacllldes, Bigstock 2018 shall provide the following: 1. Contact Persons: Leann Schoales, Site Manager (541) 550-0982 Heather Johnson, Bigstock LLC (541) 948-3200 2. Toilets !Hand washing station (locations shown on map exhibit C) 10 standard units, 1 ADA toilet, 2 hand washing station (contains 2 sinks). This is in compliance with the 1 toilet per 100 people as shown on plan Toilets and hand washing facilities provided by: Advanced Systems Portable Restrooms 1300 S.E. Wilson Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Phone: 541-389-5646 Fax: 541-385-6061 3. Water Supply Water supply provided by homeowner. There is an adequate supply, with a conveniently located source (location shown on map). Water source is from a private well providing 60 gallons per minute off a 25000 gallon cistern. Drinking water will be provided in 2 locations (locations on map) from clean and sanitary water dispensing equipment. 4. Waste Collections and Removal Bend Garbage and Recycling will provide ten (10) 95 -gallon garbage bins. These bins will be delivered on Friday, August 10th and picked removal on Monday August 13th. Bins will be located on-site in various locations (locations shown on map). Volunteers will be monitoring garbage cans as needed for overflow. 5. Food service • Food service will consist of 4-6 licensed Deschutes county mobile food units Confirmed food vendors are: Dump City Dumpling, Thai on the Fly, Veraccis' pizza, Earl & Mable. * (Locations shown on maps) • Vendors will be licensed and permitted no later than seven (7) days prior to event, if not already. 6. Refer to attached site maps for facilities locations Site Map A: Main parking lot Site Map B: Main Stage area W/ VIP tent & access (2 portable bathroom units with one hand washing station) Site Map C: Main Bar & Silent auction area Site Map D: Food court & ambulance/first aid station i.t 11,14 6.1,4101041111101M h.ki1.01.1i, ,e, 't,1 . ( 1.4P, ' ,,,K .RY f ,r1 1, 1 110 err, 01;11; ; y 1 rr l"ftliLIMINIONNiliwOill=1001111 IV( r 1 1 / f I IV) I, . - % I i ini)11111111111. .• nr, Pif..CIA...VV1-9,i II_ (4•4,..-A.....-zple..Ht00, f,.ily '=/••••,V;:,,, ko ..•,i‘t ti w,••.1.:# .4..;,-1•40;tg- o-il 00100041,EKTEt4DED OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING ELNVtla0NMENT AL HEALTH CHECKLIST COMSC4 P441414 - , PVQ841 MONO ir ' T 11. per IOC mune show' er plam Lit4X41110 Phirornent reachtra Hard ralewng floc:130;5.c A _r. A4 F4073'5 4 Ix? . 41:7444 t",1PA, bkicze:4 14.,66 kW* Arl.qtasat 43.00/ etoveve-T4 /wows* dm..pv,-••=r,9 4R:Pifi"Pei 16,c t54"W WO* 40961;64n 4V44,tfi*Ove.. .S" - A • i ocre Sovizo.,4: e)o.-- ijdlOgerlf,,A ;git•AC•vhcrl*•4T -t4,q/6,,T,2tgr.**_-4t,mrs.,,,,t, *Wei that 0.44,4 el. ttagnuloig, l'imir4nr,t)p;1 an; Weft Ktfid W.4117*1 ,i44r1.7 %MOMS P.4.-t:ANT tA4o CaTmtwsty, Leann Schoales Event Planner + Principal 541.550.0982 leannQshinceventsbend.com shineeventsbend.com www.facebook.com/shineeventsbend On Apr 23, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Eric Mone <Eric.Mone@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Leann Advanced Systems Portable Restrooms 1300 SE Wilson Ave. Bend, OR 97702 (541) 389-5646 Email: Cust2912@wcnx.org Fax: (541) 385-6061 Oregon Adaptive Sports Bend Magazine 70 SW Century Dr Ste #100-474 Bend, OR 97702 Data of proposal:, , . 10/17/201 Dates of Event::Aufust 11;2018 Event Name:'Bigstack 2018 Advanced Systems A. Waste Connections Company PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES Unit / Service Pate of Service goy Re[ Price Per R. Tota( Regular Portable Wheelchair accesable unit Dual Sink White Powder Room Delivery Removal Estimated Total for Event 8/10/2018 8/13/2018 10 ¢ 75.00 $ 750.00 1 $ 113.00 $ 113.00 3 $ 75.00 $ 225.00 $ - $ 574.33 $ - 5 1 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 1 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ $ 1,288.00 $ i$1,. .. 288.000 Our goal is to provide you with personal service and work with you on an Independent basis. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this quote, and look forward to working with you in the future, Advanced Systems wants your business to be as succesful as possible so please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. H accepted, please Sign and Date and Email or Fax bade for us ASAP Signature\ Printed Narne - .?. (41-Irviv 0 k4 f.s Th, 1 S:\Cascade\Advanced\Proposals 2018\Oregon Adaptive Sports Big Stock 2018 Pa 2 s lemi5 couCr -7j March 26t, 2018 To whom it may concern, Bend Garbage & Recycling will provide 10 — 95g garbage roll carts and 2 recycling bins for the Bigstock 2018 event that takes place Saturday August 11th 2018. We will deliver 18930 Couch Market rd. Bend OR 97701 on Friday August 10th and remove on Monday August 13t from the same location. Thanks you Debbie Lefor Customer Service Manager Bend Garbage & Recycling 541-382-2263 P.O. Box 504 Bend, Oregon 97709 541/382-2263 Fax 541/383-3640 tiR • • • • • • • • *•• • • • • • 01, • • Event: Date(s): Event Location: Contact Person: Email Address: 114111141 J4ii161,041110k EALTH SERV CES Jllptl4YI141,114,, 114,11,11lWdJ4141,10411JJ.,.14,1111:144711lWmb,:lion1,00,41ie44061t1l8140QI1tWil1,IOWiLWI' 2577 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 Public Health (541) 322-7400, Fax (541) 322-7465 Behavioral Health (541) 322-7500, Fax (541) 322-7565 www.deschutes.org OUTDOOR/EXTENDED OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING HEALTH SERVICES CHECKLIST \-tic.-k. D l Phone: I-efAmil) f4 )Sr !�v'1-e.,P.c/ 1.1,1, d Medical Service Plan: Deschutes County Ordinance 8.16.240 (copy contained in this packet). Narrative description of Medical Service Pian: Indicate a minimum of one on-site ambulance and a first aid station staffed by at least two adult individuals trained in first aid techniques. List names and qualifications of aid station workers: t: 7 s3 7sq_ .) 71: ; wa ; /' �' ,. , . ,� y am . "� f �, -t ��i / . & t,� moi.-.tyr lJ 01, 1 Y V • Attach map showing location of aid station(s) and ambulance. • Attach letter from ambulance service or Fire Department verifying service to this event. Rev. 6/14 Our Mission: To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community. DocuSign Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99F0-450C-A334-D5B3BBDF777A Telephone: (541)639-9993 Email: info@advmedics.com Web: www.advmedics.com Adventure Medics LLC 20585 Brinson Blvd Unit 4 Bend, OR 97701 Event Medical Coverage Terms and Conditions These terms set out the agreement between Bigstock LLC and Adventure Medics to provide the services listed below. Event: Bigstock 2018 Location: 18930 Couch Market rd. Bend, OR 97701 The Services: On -Site Dedicated Ambulance Advanced Level support Ambulance will be stationed on site and crewed with One Paramedic and One EMT Ambulance is fully stocked and licensed by the OHA and carries Full trauma, medical, 12 lead, IV, and medications Paramedic and EMT are fully licensed and backed by insurance and Medical Director For the hours and days of: 3pm-10pm 8/11/2018 At a rate of: REFER TO ACCEPTED QUOTE Additional Mileage Fee: No Mileage Fee Pg 1 of 6 DocuSIgn Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99F0-45DCA334-D5B3BBDF777A 1.Our Obligations 1.1 We wffl provide the facilities and services for the Duration of the Event as set out in our above quotation ('the Servlces). We reserve the right to amend the Services or these Terms or terminate this Agreement for the foliowing reasons: * health and safety reasons; • circumstances beyond our reasonable control; and � any material or significant change to your Request for Cover. We are entitled to rely on any information given by you or provided in the Request for Cover to determine whetherthere has been a material or significant change. 1.2 We reserve the right to: 1.2.1 amend the Fee set out in clause 3 below if the period that first aid cover is requlrecl exceeds the Duration by 30 min or more; and 1.2.2 remove the equipment and / or personnel supplied at the time that the Event is expected to finish unless agreed otherwise with you 1.2.3 remove equipment and personnel should we be placed in threatening positions from participants/spectators/attendees to your Event 1.2.4 cancel any future bookings without liability if outstanding invoices are unpaid 1.3 Additional charges may be made at our current rates. 1.4 In the unlikely event of a life-threatening emergency occurring near Your Event, any vehicle or member of the medical team may be requested to respond (subject to reduced first aid provision remaining at the Event). Should this occur, We reserve the right to leave the event without notice. We accept no liability for any losses Vou may incur due to the terminatlon of the Event, should the cause be due to Our full or partial withdrawal. 1.5 You are advlsed to arrange appropriate "Event cancellation insurance". We wHlnot accept any liability for any loss you incur in relation to cancellation which could have been covered by such insurance. 1.6 Neither We nor Our personnel shafl be liable under any circumstancesfor any damage to land or property in the event of access being required to a casualty or to allow egress from a site. 1.7 We shall not be liable for any failure in performance of any of Our obligations under the Agreement caused by factors outside of Our controt (including but not limited to fire, storm, flood, road accidents, traffic congestion, adverse weather etc). 1.8 We may on occasioris utilize the services and staff of other companes, In this case any claims for negligence, malpractice or mismanagement including legal proceedings will Pg 2 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99F0-45DC-A334-D5133BBDF777A 2. Your Obligations 2.1 As the organizer of the Event, You retain full responsibility for ensuring that a satisfactory Risk assessment has been carried out for the Event. 2.2 You must ensure that the Event is properly policed, so that Our personnel do not find themselves in threatening positions. 2.3 You must ensure that an area for the treatment of patients and protection of staff is clearly assigned. A dry, covered clean area must be provided by either You or by Us (if Us, a Medical/First Aid Treatment Tent can be provided at an additional cost). Drinking water must be made available for both patients and staff. 2.4 If the event exceeds 4 hours, please inform us as to whether you will or will not be providing food and drink for staff so that We can make provisions. We reserve the right to make an additional charge on top of any agreed quote where food and drink is not provided for events which exceed 4 hours. 2.5 You must ensure that We have free and clear access and egress to and from the site of the Event and adequate parking for our vehicles. If parking is not available, We must be informed at booking. 2.6 You must ensure that all additional medical personnel at the Event are made known to Our personnel prior to the event commencing and vice versa. 2.7 You must adhere to any request to suspend the event if warranted due to necessary treatments. 2.8 Your Event staff should be made aware of where the medical station, personnel and / or vehicle(s) are located, to assist any requests from Us to participants or spectators. 2.9 Should the Event be of such a size that You are using maps, plans or radios, Our personnel should be provided with them. It is Your responsibility to ensure an appropriate system / route of communication is made known to Us. 2.10 You are responsible for ensuring that all the necessary licenses to operate the Event have been obtained and for compliance with all conditions associated with such licenses and in respect of all relevant legislation, regulations or similar. Failure to comply with the requirements of this clause may be treated by Us as a fundamental breach of this Agreement, in which case We shall be entitled to immediately terminate Our Services but this will not affect Our rights to be paid for Our services (whether performed or not). Pg 3 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99F0-45DC-A334-D5B3BBDF777A 3. Payment and Cancellation 3.1 a) The fee for provision of the Services is defined above or in the accepted online quote, payable no later than 15 days after receipt of our invoice to you. A part- invoice for 30% of total will be sent out prior to event and due within 15 days of signed contract b) The fee for any other service or item not defined in a quotation is payable no later than 15 days after receipt of our invoice to you. 3.2 Any payment terms defined on the invoice will override clause 3.1 above. 3.3 If the event takes place outside Deschutes County, then an additional charge of $1.00 per mile (Round trip) will be applied to the final invoice for any mileage. 3.4 If you cancel the Event with no deposit down you will pay us: a) 5% of the Fee if the cancellation is more than 2 months before the Event. b) 10% of the Fee if the cancellation is between 2 weeks and 8 weeks before the Event. c) 20% of the Fee if the cancellation is between 3 and 14 days before the Event. d) 30% of the Fee if the cancellation is less than 72 hours before the Event. If you cancel the Event with a deposit taken you will get a refund of: a) 75% of the deposit if cancellation is more than 2 months before the Event. b) 50% of the deposit if cancellation is between 2 weeks and 8 weeks before the Event. c) 25% of the deposit if cancellation is between 3 and 14 days before the Event. d) No refund of deposit if cancellation is less than 72 hours before the Event. 3.5 Refunds will not be made for any issues in relation to clauses 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1 and 4. 3.6 a) If payment has not been received 18 days after the date the invoice is due, we reserve the right to charge 10% interest on the full invoice amount b) For each invoice raised under clause 3.6, an administration fee of $60 will be incurred. If multiple invoices are raised to recover interest, then the administration fee will be applied to each invoice. c) Payment for any invoice raised under clause 3.6 is due within 7 working days of the invoice date. 3.7 a) We reserve the right to refer unpaid invoices to a debt collection agency. Any invoices referred to a debt collection agency will incur a charge of $50 for debt up to $999.99, $80 for debts of $1,000 to $9,999.99 and $120 for debts of $10,000 or more in addition to any late payment fees already applied and any debt collection agency fees to be paid at time of payment to the debt collection agency. b) For each invoice raised under clause 3.7, an administration fee of $60 will be incurred. c) Payment for any invoice raised under clause 3.7 is due within 7 working days of the invoice date. Pg 4 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99F0.45DC-A334-D5B3BBDF777A 4. Major Emergencies We reserve the right to suspend performance of our obligations under this Agreement to enable us to respond to major internal or external emergencies or for any other act, event or omission beyond our reasonable control. In such circumstances Adventure Medics LLC will liaise with statutory services to ensure an appropriate course of action is adopted. 5. Limitation of Liability Nothing in this contract shall be taken to exclude liability to any patient for death or personal injury resulting from Our (or Our personnel's) negligence. Subject to the paragraph above, neither We nor Our personnel shall have any liability to You or any third party, for any loss, expense or damage of any nature, suffered or occurred arising from any breach of any condition of the Agreement or any negligence or any breach of statutory or other duty or in any other way in connection with performance or purported performance of or failure to perform the Agreement or other claims however arising out of or in connection with the provision of The Services under the Agreement, and the total liability of Adventure Medics LLC under or in connection with the performance of this agreement shall not exceed ten thousand dollars. For the avoidance of doubt, Adventure Medics LLC shall not be liable to you for any Toss or damage caused by any failure of your part to comply with your obligations in clause 2 above. No partnership between the parties shall arise under these Terms and no third party shall have any legal claim against Adventure Medics LLC arising out of the performance of these Terms. 6. Binding Contract When a copy of these Terms have been signed by us and by you and received by each of us, or a signed quotation has been received, they will form a contract which is legally binding on us both. If a copy of these Terms have not been signed by us and by you and received by each of us, or a signed quotation has not been received prior to an event, the turning up of Adventure Medics LLC at your event constitutes acceptance on both parties and form a contract which is legally binding on us both. 7. Entire Agreement These Terms supersede all prior representations, arrangements, understandings and agreements between us (whether written or oral) relating to the Services, and sets out the complete and exclusive agreement and understanding between us relating to the Services. 8. Jurisdiction These Terms shall be governed in all respects by Oregon Law and we both hereby agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court System. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW Pg 5 of 6 ' . `DocuSign Envelope ID: OBCOBE2F-99FO-45DC-A334-D5B3BBDF777A Event Medical Coverage Terms and Condition In witness thereof, the parties hereto have executed or approved this agreement on the dates below their signatures Event Coordinator/Organization Adventure Medics LLC By: Title: Date: p—LDoouulSigned by: '—1E924394SDAE488... Heather Johnson CEO 4/19/2018 _7K,7b4_11/,/, By: MATT SABELMAN Title: OWNER Date: Pg 6 of 6 4/17/2018 Event: 127( 5, 7 Date(s): ` Aitlx cat.t. ifi 1 ()Vit Location: 1 Gi 3 O (Ouch MGA( V. f t Aft--. �(.%I.! 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE CHECKLIST OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING OR EXTENDED MASS GATHERING EVENTS Event Contact Person: LeCtinin gig & ' Ph: 51-i 1 " Sb Traffic Control Plan: 1" A narrative description of the traffic control plan. (One Traffic Control for each 250 persons expected.) t/ Name and qualifications of persons providing Traffic 'ontrol 434 - Traffic 'Traffic Control Name: L ecuiful ScAlot.ut-e. Cell Ph: 5/1-14/1--"5- j /-/-5 t!1 ' Jci r )- (Should (Should also provide information on name and number to contact with concerns during event.) Crowd Control/Security Plan: A narrative description of crowd security and control. (One Crowd Control for each 100 person expected.) Name and qualifications of persons or firm providing such control. Crowd Control Name: GUN() , 00,t,e5 Cell Ph: 5611 5-5 ?-i ! 0 (Should also provide information on name and number to contact with concerns during event.) Exhibit 13 4/116/18 Deschutes County Sheriff 63333 W. Hwy 20 Bend, Or 97701 541-388-6655 ATTN: Deputy in charge on community events Re: Bigstock 2018 (OAS fundraiser) Outdoor Mass Gathering Application Event Public Safety and Crowd Control Plan. Deschutes County Ordinance 8.16.060 Traffic Control plan - Details and descriptions Bigstock 2018 (OAS Fundraising event) will take place at 18930 Couch Market Road, Bend Or 97701 on Saturday August 11th 2018. Set up is scheduled to take place on Friday, August 10th and clean up to be completed on Sunday August 13th. Expected attendance is 750 in the event that Bigstock is sold out. Traffic Control Plan Main Parking area (up to 225 vehicles) There is 1 main point of entry onto the event property, which has a visible ingress and egress. There is an egress point at the back corner of the parking lot, leading to a dirt road, connecting with the main driveway. Guests will enter and exit the parking area through the same opening. Entry and access for the food vendors, emergency vehicles, musicians (including staff) and the event attendees will be from Couch Market road directly. Entry for handicap parking will be from the main driveway, of Couch Market road directly. Signage will be posted along Couch Market road, both from the east and west. An additional sign and a traffic control person will be directing vehicles to turn right or left into the main driveway of Couch Market road. Additional Parking area Additional parking is available west of the main parking area, and accessible from Allen Road. Ingress and egress directly from Allen road. A designated walking path from parking area 2 to the main event will be visible with fencing and appropriate signs. A traffic control person will be placed at the entry/exit of parking area 2. And another traffic control person will be placed at the entrance to the walking path. Golf carts will be available to assist attendees who are unable/unwilling to use the walking path. A minimum of 4 traffic control and parking monitors will be on duty during each shift. One will be stationed on Couch Market road in front of the entrance to the driveway, directing traffic from both east and west, entering the event. One will be stationed at the entrance to the main driveway, one will be stationed at the entrance to the parking lot, and the 4 will be stationed on the intersection of Allen road and Couch Market road, where the additional parking area 2 is located. Safety vests will be worn by all traffic and parking staff while on duty and equipped with flags for signaling drivers. Traffic is expected to be light between 3:00 pm (start of the event) and 6:OOpm as attendee's arrivals will be spread out over this time. Traffic may become a little heavier between 6:OOpm - 7:OOpm as the rest of the attendees will be arriving. We don't expect attendees to be arriving after 7:OOpm. We feel this extended arrival time frame will prevent any traffic congestion or hazards on this roadway. Departures will likely begin at 8:30 and continue until 11:OOpm. Departures will stagger as some attendees will choose to leave the event before the finish time of 10:00 pm. There will be a traffic control person directing people from the parking lot onto Couch Market rd as they are exiting. Contact Person: Leann Schoales, Parking and Volunteer coordinator (541)550.0982 Crowd Control J Security Plan- Details and descriptions Bigstock 2018 (OAS Fundraising event) will take place at 18930 Couch Market Road, Bend Or 97701 on Saturday August 11th 2018. Set up is scheduled to take place on Friday, August 10th and clean up to be completed on Sunday August 14th. Expected attendance is 750 in the event that Bigstock is sold out. To ensure for the comfort and safety of our patrons Bend Magazine & Bigstock 2018 is committed to meet or exceed Deschutes count requirements. Bigstock 2018 has contracted with North Pacific Security to provide security for the event. Six (6) uniformed DPSST licensed personnel will be on duty during the event. One (1) stationed at point of entry, one (1) stationed by the VIP tent, one (1) stationed by the stage, (1) stationed by the greenroom (where musicians will be prior to performance), (2) two will be roaming the crowds. Joshua Smith, Central Oregon Area Manager North Pacific Security, Inc. Office: 541-617-7491 Fax: 541-611 9 CeII: 541-390 501 NORTH PACIFIC SECURITY, INC. 960 SW DISK DRIVE STE 103 BEND, OREGON 97702 Telephone 541.617.7491 Fax 541.617.3895 E -Mail: nosbentWaol.com CONTRACT FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICE 1. This agreement entered into this 19th day of April, 2018, by and between North Pacific Security, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR" and Bigstock LLC, hereafter referred to as "CLIENT", which agreement is as follows. 2. CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish security guard service to CLIENT at the location of the property at: Bigstock Concert, 18930 Couch Market Rd., Bend, OR 97703. 3. The hours of service shall be directed by the CLIENT, and may be increased, or decreased by the CLIENT. It is agreed that each guard shift shall not be less than 4 hours or more than 12 hours. Default hours are from 1430 to 2230, on August 11, 2018. 4. CONTRACTOR will provide six(6) Security: Officers in uniform as dictated by the CLIENT. The Uniform will be the usual and normal uniform used by the CONTRACTOR. Other attire the Client may wish will be limited to normal and regular clothing. Any specific suits or unusual type clothing costs will be the responsibility of the CLIENT. Normal equipmentnecessary to fulfill the assignment i.e. flashlights, pepper spray, foul weather gear, safety glasses and reflective clothing will be provided by the CONTRACTOR. Security Officers=will not be required to carry a firearm, Any special equipment, gear or forms required by the CLIENT will be billed:at cost plus 20%. Cell phones are provided by the contractor at a small charge, see attached page. SPECIAL REQUIRED EQUIPMENT: NONE 5. DUTIESwiII be directed by the CLIENT to the CONTRACTOR in writing or given verbally and will be documented on a job order forrn by the CONTRACTOR. The contracted Security Officers will perform the duties of normal security guards in patrolling CLIENT'S property and personnel and protect it from loss. All incidents will be reported to the CLIENT either verbally or written or both. The CONTRACTOR will gather all information involving crimes against the CLIENT'S assets or personnel and provide it to the CLIENT and any Official government agency as requested by the CLIENT. CONTRACTOR'S personnel Will not reveal any information to any news agency, or other individual unless request by the CLIENT. 6. ARREST OR DETAINMENT, the Security Officers will not affect any arrests or detainments of any one. It is the security officer's duty to observe and report any criminal activity to the CLIENT and the police if the CLIENT desires. 7. UNLESS stated specifically in writing CONTRACTOR shall not handle, sell, buy, transport, harvest, store, or in any way interact with any product, merchandise or money involved with the CLIENT or the CLIENT's business, guests or customers, nor shall the CONTRACTOR perform any duties otherwise performed by the CLIENT or the CLIENT's employees. Rev October 6, 2016 8. INSURANCE: a. General Liability Insurance Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. Each Occurrence: $1,000,000.00 General Aggregate: $4,000,000.00 b. Commercial Auto Liability Insurance Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. Combined Single: $1,000,000.00 Policy Number PHPK1402717 Policy Number PHPK1402717 c. SAW Workers Compensation Policy Number 410485 Certificates of coverage will be provided upon request. 9. CLIENT agrees to pay to CONTRACTOR, the sum of $36.00 per hour for each Security Officer furnished under this agreement, and $46.00 for Supervisory hours, with the agreement to adjust pricing when mandated by cost increases from any government body, insurance carrier; Or other agencies that dictates increases to the CONTRACTOR costs. An additional charge of 10% will be added to the bill for administrative services. Hours worked and billed are rounded to the nearest 15 minute increment. Overtime is computed on a forty (40) hour work week and will be billed accordingly. Any other expense must be reviewed and agreed to with the CLIENT prior to the commitment. For extra security officers not included in the normal contract, regular rates and a four (4) hour, minimum call-in time per officer will apply, as well as overtime rates and per diem costs, if applicable. See attached page for current rates. 10. CONTRACTOR recognizes the following holidays, :which pay to the officer and are billed to the CLIENT at time and 1/2 rates, CLIENT may dictate which holidays they require security service on. Holidays with no service will not be billed. New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day. 11. VEHICLES rent or use cost will vary according to the assignment. Normal daily use for a stationary vehicle (less than 10 miles daily) is $50.00 Per day. Normal non -stationary vehicle (more than 10 miles daily) rates are $0.75 per mile plus the $50.00 per day rate. There will not be any vehicle usage or charge unless required by the CLIENT. 12. PAYMENT OF,SERVICES, unless otherwise stated, CLIENT agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR for all services rendered upon receipt of an itemized statement. If the assignment is an on-going contract, payment must he made net later tpn (10) days after receiving invoice. 13. CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT: Either CLIENT OR CONTRACTOR may cancel this agreement with thirty (30) day written notice. CLIENT agrees to pay in full the amount due to the CONTRACTOR, with in five (5) days of cancellation. In the case of less than forty eight (48) hours notification of cancellation of any shift client will be billed and scheduled officer paid for four (4) hours or the scheduled shift length, whichever is less. 14. EXCULPATORY CLAUSE: CLIENT agrees that CONTRACTOR is not an insurer and no insurance coverage is offered herein. The security equipment and duties are designed to reduce certain risks of loss, though CONTRACTOR does not guarantee that no loss will occur. CONTRACTOR is not assuming liability, and, therefore shall not be liable to the CLIENT for any loss, personal injury or property damage sustained by CLIENT as a result of burglary, theft, hold-up, fire, equipment failure, smoke, or any other cause, whatsoever, regardless of whether or not such loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by CONTRCTOR's negligent performance, failure to perform an obligation, performance of any obligation, or strict products liability. CLIENT released CONTRACTOR from any claims for contribution, indemnity or subrogation. Rev October 6, 2016 2 15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: CLIENT agrees that should there arise any liability on the part of CONTRACTOR as a result of CONTRACTOR'S negligent performance to any degree, failure to perform any of CONTRACTOR's obligations, equipment failure or strict products liability, that CONTRACTOR's liability shall be limited to 5% of the service call or $250.00, whichever is greater. 16. ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS NULL AND VOID: This agreement supersedes all previous agreements, oral or written, between the CONTRACTOR and CLIENT and represents the whole and entire agreement between the parties. No other agreements or representations, oral or written, have been made by the CONTRACTOR. This agreement may not be altered, modified or amended, except in writing, properly executed by an authorized manager of the CONTRACTOR. CLIENT and CONTRACTOR agree that if any of the terms and provisions of this agreement shall be invalid or inoperative all the remaining terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect. CLIENT__ C l U be,sas( (for Bigstock LLC SIGNATU CONTRACTOR Joshua Smith (for North Pacific ecurity, SIGNATURE e ate .April 19, 2018 Rev October 6, 2016 3 RATES AND DUTIES North Pacific Security, Inc. is a legal contractor as defined by Oregon law and holds Department of Safety Standards and Training license Number 15. All Security Officers are certified and licensed by the State Of Oregon. Job description is six(6) Security Officers in uniform at the Bigstock Concert, 18930 Couch Market Rd., Bend, OR 97703. To promote safety of employees and public, prevent theft and vandalism of the CLIENT'S property. All wages and other employee benefits will meet or exceed Bureau of Labor requirements and are the duty of the CONTRACTOR. All Officers must meet the requirements of the CLIENT and North Pacific Security, Inc. Supervision is the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR and will be maintained through out this assignment. The hours called for by this assignment are (use back if necessary): August 11, 2018: 1430 — 2230 COST: Officer: 6i at $36.00 per man hour Administrative Services: 1 at 10% additional (No overtime will be generated unless dictated by the CLIENT through shift changes.) Thank you for the opportunity to offer our services. If there are any questions or issues of concern pleasecall the Business Office (800.422.4380) and we will gladly review this with you. Rev October 6, 2016 Date April 19, 2018 4 Coodo 1kC OoLsD4 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNCIL For Recording Stamp Only INDEMNITY AGREEMENT i"U C. L-�- l✓ , its officers, employees and members shall, through the signing of vent Organizer) his i t (! (AL C'raoreement by an authorized party or agent, hereby agrees, for and in consideration of th approval of the v'"1_ L1 , to be held on 4 ` { 1 1 / / (Event Name) (Date of Event) and to be held within Deschutes County, to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Deschutes County, Oregon, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, its officers, agents and employees, herein called "County" from any and all suits and claims, losses and liability, including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any act or omission arising out of or any way related to the Outdoor Mass Gathering as described above, or participation in the event as a participant, spectator, sponsor, promoter, agent or official. In addition, (` i ' S i7) (. k-- L —( .= agrees to furnish Deschutes County with a certificate of (t vent Organizer) insurance with endorsement for general liability insurance with a combined single limit of not Tess than $1,000,000 per single .claimant and incident, and $2,000,000 all claimants, arising from a single incident, specific to the 1",)( Cyt AO (: Ic_ >>L4 1 C , naming Deschutes County, its officers, agents, volunteers and (Er(ent Name) employees as an additional insured. DATED his j day o By: (Authorized APPROVED: DATED this By )J�'v )1s2-;')\__ nature, Title) ick Lelack, Community Development Director ,20�. OMG/EOMG Indemnity Agreement (Rev. 1/17) L . �) AC a CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MMIDDIYYYY) 03/13/2018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the poilcy(Ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Century Ins Group LLC 572 SW Bluff Dr. Suite 100 Bend INSURED Bigstock Bend OR 97702 ICONTACT Sierra Shore NAME: PHONE (541) 382-4211 AIC. No, Extl: ADDRESS: Sierra©centuryins.com INSURER A : INSURER B : I INSURER C : I INSURER D : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE Sentinel Insurance Company SAIF Ia•Ax IANC,Nol: (541) 382-7468 70 SW Century Dr Ste 100-474 1 INSURER E : Bend OR 97702 1INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: MASTER 18/19 REVISION NUMBER: • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, INSR AUUU UHR POLICY EFF LTR INSR 1 WVn I POLICY NUMBER (MMIDDIYYYYI A TYPE OF INSURANCE X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Xl OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: X� POLICY JEC LOC PO - OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABIUTY ANY AUTO — OWNED AUTOS ONLY HIRED _..._._ AUTOS ONLY IISCHEDULED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS ONLY UMBRELLA LIAR LJ OCCUR .i EXCESS LIAR CLAIMS -MADE RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory In NH) II yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below B 52SBANX1169 r{ YI�N 1 1 NIA 858535 POLICY EMP (MMIDDJYYYYI LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ed nnlusrsncel _ i MED EXP (Any one person) 02/01/2018 02/01/2019 1 PERSONAL &ADV INJURY }I GENERAL AGGREGATE p PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG Liquor Liability COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Es nrAident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) IPROPERTY DAMAGE (Per ercidenli 02/01/2018 02/01/2019 IEACH OCCURRENCE I AGGREGATE 1 STATUTE. I I ERH EL, EACH ACCIDENT NAIC N 11000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ $ I$ $ $ 500,000 EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 500'000 ELDISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 500,000 —_ .. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached If more space le required) RE: Bigstock 2018 Bigstock, LLC DBA Bigstock Bend CERTIFICATE HOLDER PROOF OF INSURANCE ( ACORD 25 (2016/03) CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Ref Descrlptlon Hired Auto Phy. Damage Limit 1 1,000,000 Limit 2 Ref # I Description __ _Non -owned Limit 1 Limit 2 1,000,000 Ref # Limit 1 Ref # Limit 1 Ref # Limit 1 Ref # Limit 1 Descriptio XCYBR Descriptio Description Description Ref # Description Limit 1 Ref # Limit 1 Ref # Limit 1 Descriptio Description Ref # Description Limit 1 Ref # I Description Limit 1 OFADTLCV Limit 2 Limit 2 Limit 2 Limit 2 Limit 2 Limit 2 Llmtt 2 !mit 2 Limit 2 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 Limit 3 ADDITIONAL COVERAGES IDeductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount Deductible Amount IDeductible Amount Coverage Code HRDBB Form No. Deductible Type Premium Coverage Code Form No. NOWND Deductible Type Premium I Coverage Code Form No. XCYBR Deductible Type Premium Coverage Code Form No. Deductible Type I Premium Coverage Code I Form No. Deductible Type I Premium Coverage Code Form No. Deductible Type Premium Coverage Code Form No. Deductible Type Premium Coverage Code Form No. Deductible Type Premium Coverage Code Form No. Deductible Type Premium ! Coverage Code Deductible Type Form No. Premium Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Edition Date Coverage Code Form No. Edition Date Deductible Type Premium Copyright 2001, AMS Services, Inc. ❑ Notified: 4\ 13 o Spreadsheet o Book o Fee: $ 5-6 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION TEMPORARY SALES LICENSE — FOR PROFIT (TSL -FP) APPLICATION = ELIGIBILffY: Please read the instructions to determine ellglbiliryfor a TSL -FP. TEMPORARY SALES LICENSE -FOR PROFIT (TSL -FP) PRIVILEGES. The TSL -FP allows you to: • Sell at retail distilled spirits, malt beverages, wine, and cider by the drink for consumption in the special event licensed area (provided you meet the food requirements). • Sell at retail manufacturer -sealed containers of malt beverage, wine, and cider meant for drinking off of the special event U.licensed area. Note: you may not sell bottles of distilled spirits. • Sell at retail malt beverages, wine, or cider in a securely covered container (growlers) meant for drinking off of the special V J event licensed area. The container may not hold more than two gallons. • Auction (but not raffle) at retail factory -sealed containers of malt beverage, wine, and cider (but not distilled liquor) for C. consumption off the premises. CI • Auction (but not raffle) at retail open containers of alcohol for consumption on the premises • Process Time: Please read the instructions. OLCC needs your completed application in sufficient time to approve it. Sufficient time is typically 2 to 4 weeks before the first event date listed in #7 below (some events may need extra processing time). OLCC may refuse to process your application if It is not submitted in sufficient time for the OLCC to investigate it. • OLCC License Fee: $50 per license day or any part of a license day, Make payment by check or money order, payable to OLCC. A license day is from 7:00 am to 2:30 am on the succeeding calendar day. • License Days: In #7 below, you may apply for a maximum of seven license days per application form. 1. Applicant Name: GOA V Kt CLOti 2. Email: i' --Last- n e%'S%► i ne_ep.VLi" v-> fo nc1 v t:. Orr) 1 3. Fax: 4. Contact Person: t,.A ..Yvdl ;v ,i%+ou1i'?) i 5. Contact Phone: 6. Event Name: f tcsok.. a' t fl,t") i 7. Dates) of event (whore than seven days): c u 51- I / r t 8. Start/end hours of alcohol service: ]�m pm to 9. Address of event: COx MAIM ` " t J City 12 10. Is the event outdoors? F:<i,es 0 No 10a. If the event Is only Indoors, In what area(s) of the building is the event located? S-0 - C9k'2- Zip (4-77o) lob. If any part of the event is outdoors, submit a drawing showing the licensed area and how the boundaries of the licensed area will be identified. 11. Describe the primary activities within the licensed area: k(Ylu'S 1 C I ;pal cervrCe , 51 t e (ti (' c 1 vc h'tom,'► 12. Will minors be allowed at the event? fes -UN° 13. If yes, will minors and alcohol be allowed together in the same area?'es fl No 14. What is the expectedattendance per dray in the licensed area (where alcohol MIbe sold or consumed)? `i5-0 OLCC Temporary Sales License— For Profit (TSL -FPI Application (Rev. 12/2O16 PLAN TO MANAGE THE SPECIAL EVENT LICENSEDAREA if your answer to #14 is 501 or more, IN ADDITION TO your answers to questions 15, 16, and 17, you will need to complete the OLCC's Plan to Manage Special Events form, unless the OLCC exempts you from this requirement, 15. Describe your plan to prevent problems and violations: Ail iVg{-;� ��)L(( I t L 3—,b5 C11 -'els( &i-enfr�'A.vll'..t ` c4„.'(° .( 4“. tr5 CC NettY'CAr.ry) . Al F5 ogi LOl (1 ` rlc.(j Ltx'f'\. C� colDr Cc4e t,Ari 5i txt vi4 . \ �-�tG-(eS5► t� t.)Yi1-t-/ � 'cL+� ..:�i 11 i'Yt0%4; (-o$ e I4 tirt v -ilk "1" e4-11 Pp "49 16. Describe your plan to prevent minors from gaining access to alcoholic beverages and from gaining access to any portion of the licensed premises prohibited to minors: t ..t yvErf 5 wt 1 bk, Up 1P, in p e w) Where co e hal it, Cieuztz e4C (A 1,13,\1 \ex :nd tottr It,r aveck vAct.nCL c1 by ttoen Ct 17, Describe your plan to manage alcohol consumption by adults: f 'c°. Erb CL-1-4ry e LA,(t �1 . 'e O 1 J' l?Z c‘,09 CA. vl.c- & ( r t Y\ i-i'cLe (-5 EOr c ,( ' op �t 1 fie. t, -� r�-� c K,yi1LS Wt G1 b. yve.a 4-fidee- ck- - C,\M 1 SIASi—, C., V.0 c Y� 1�'�- 4L , 1L.,ur.it tc6ev.wicr &+ngi, thAn.- Fi.CvI ALCOHOL MANAGERS 18. All applicants must list the name(s) and service permit number(s) of alcohol manager(s) on -duty and in the licensed area. \GYPS (o!nj1r 9/1ah3 LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE If the licensed area is open to the public and expected attendance Is 301 or more per day in the licensed area, the event must have at least $300,000 of liquor liability insurance coverage (ORS 471,1.68), 19. Insurance Company: 20. Policy #: (3 j 21. Expiration Date: . 1 / j,,..o 11 _ FOOD REQUIREMENTS Please read the instructions to determine the food requirements. 22. Will you serve distilled spirits by the drink? KlYes InNo 22a. if yes, list at least three different substantial food items that will be provided: 8k,k, li,A 1l, h Toot 1,_1("A;"1,16t- 1 2. Nlyvytt.vt r) 13. N 1t.tr..rt (ti 0(N. 22b. If no, list at least two different substantial food items that will be provided: 1.1 2. Gt ckA1/ L(? _6,w) Fn�rt ('(.rc`.> it MARUUANA marijuana23. Will consumption,I� y, oiai event licensed premiseor be part of the event or an adjaent event? v Yes a 6a' etc.)be allowed on the spec GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATION Please read the instructions, You must obtain a recommendation from the local city or county named in #24 before submitting this application to the OLCC. 24. Name the city if the event address is within a 's limits, or the county if the event address is outside the city's limits: } e3 C Onk-t..i OLCC Temporary Sales License — For Profit (TSL -FP) Application (Rev. 1212016) SIGNATURE I affirm that I am authorized to sign this application on behalf of the applicant. 25. Narn9 (i)ease print): 4 {11102ix, .q/01) 26. Sign ire: 1 27. Date: CITY OR COUNTY USE ONLY The ci /county na es in 1124 recommends: Grant P�1 Acknowledge ED Deny (attach written explanation of deny recommendation) (Optional) C(ty/County Contact Person: j'1, - 's;°`�',� (Optional) Phone Numbe_ r or Email; City/County Signature: i .r; r.. • /4•'14.• -14;;-"," FORM TO OLCC This license is valid only when signed by an OLCC representative. Submit this form to the OLCC office regulating the county in which your special event will happen. OLCC USE ONLYDate: Fee Paid: License is: roved Denied OLCC Signature: 14 s 1 Receipt #:c't f "T • I Date: ~d,!' OLCC Temporary Sales license — For Profit (TSI -FP) Application (Rev. 12/2016) OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION PLAN TO MANAGE SPECIAL EVENTS When the expected attendance per day in the area where alcohol will be sold or consumed is 501 or more, any applicant for a Temporary Sales License (TSL -NP and TSL -FP), Special Event Winery (SEW), Special Event Grower (SEG), Special Event Brewery -Public House (SEBPH), Special Event Brewery (SEB), Special Event Distillery (SED), or a Temporary Use of an Annual License (TUAL) event must complete this form (unless exempted from this requirement by the OLCC) and submit it with the application to the OLCC. Other applicants (those expecting 500 or fewer attendees per day in the licensed area) may choose to use this form. in some cases, even if the expected daily attendance is 500 or fewer, the OLCC tray require this form. Examples of times when the OLCC may require more detailed information, even if the expected daily attendance in the area where alcohol will be sold or consumed is 500 or fewer, include a licensed area projecting an emphasis on alcohol consumption, projecting an emphasis on entertainment, or proposing to allow minors and alcohol together in the same area. Please note that for some licensed areas, in order to convince the OLCC that you will adequately manage the licensed area, the OLCC may require more details in addition to your completed PLAN TO MANAGE SPECIAL EVENTS form or any other information you submitted regarding how you will control the licensed area. If there will be more than one of the above licensees making alcohol available In the same area(s) of the same event, all licensees may agree to submit and follow one plan. 1. Applicant Name:.. (� J 1)/9 /f// ((C 2. Email: e`% Li 5 , r13,,.: ,,,�..._'eJ — 'i'-//1/ 4 , I` 2i 3. Event Name: /7 id 51 r:=,C_ ciji 4. Date(s) of event: 1,---3:417,/,,,,,,,,/ ..-,1117'` / // _ 5. Start/end hours of alcohol service: T Ott jam pm to � 6. Event Street Address tango (Doc,h mew_ m 7. City: '. ,t _ j 8. County: U :•t' Fe 10. Will minors be allowed at the event? Ries [ _ (No 1 11. If yes, will minors and alcohol be allowed together in the same area? Nyes D[ -No 12. Will any portion of the licensed premises be prohibited to minor patrons? Yes . o If yes, describe your plan to prevent minor patrons from gaining access to the prohi iced area; 9. Zip: q 77 0 13. Expected total attendance per day in the area(s) where alcohol will be sold or consumed)? 14. List name(s) and contact phone(s) of alcohol manager(s) on -duty and in the licensed area: J o 5e01 )trve 5 'W (- 70— r- 3 cog 006 9//1 /73 15. Describe the primary activities within the licensed area: IiV e, yy'o5,'t,� t 5eI(v e, 51' j.gr\.t- LA -70n 0 16. Do you estimate that 30 percent or more of the people attending the event will be between 15-20 years of age? Dyes FiNo Pian to Manage Special Events Oleo 3/17) Do you estimate the number of atrons i the licensed area will be about the same during the entire time that— alcohol Is sold or consumed? LJYes No If no, what are the estimated times that a greater number of patrons will attend? le _ cit 18. At any one time, what is the average range of the number of staff (such as managers, servers, security, alcohol monitors, ID checkers, etc,) on -duty, at the event, and whose job includes monitoring patron behavior? c90--5 , Cleft Sect sccu - - N0r Scup VI situ. 19. Will Alcohol Monitors work in the licensed area?gYes iNo (An Alcohol Monitor is o person In addition to alc hot servt rs and security staff who monitors the sale, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages to help ensure that unlawful sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages do not occur.) 20. If yes to #19, list the minimum number of Alcohol Monitors you estimate will work during the estimated times when a greater number of patrons will attend and the estimated times when a regular number of patrons will attend: 21. If yes tr Minimum number during estimated times of greater patron attendance Minimum number during estimated times of regular patron attendance 9, describe how Alcohol Monitors will be readily identifiable as such to patrons: 22. Will all kicohol Monitors be required to have a service permit? Yes QNo 23, If no to 122, those Alcohol Monitors without a service permit must be uncompensated volunteers who are directly supervl: ad In the licensed area by an Individual who has successfully completed an Alcohol Server Education course within t e last five years. Please list the name(s) of the supervisor(s) and their server education completion date(s): 24. Is the al plicant a nonprofit or chart le organization with an Oregon Registry Number issued by the Oregon Secretar ' of State's office? QYes kNo If yes, lis Oregon Registry Number (OLCC does not accept a federal registry number or an EIN number): 24a. If yes tc #24, will the applicant use servers who don't hold a service permit? YeLJJNo 25b. If yes tc 24a, describe the plan to train these people in at least the following: recognizing minors; properly checking identifi ation; and how to recognize and respond appropriately to visibly intoxicated persons: Plan to Manage Special Events (Rev. 3/171 26. Will severs, ser mit or ID checkers wear clothing or other designation which readily identifies them as such to patronE? Yes i No If yes, p lease describe: --r.c)4KA-ty;uSak, 1`« i 1� 0 27. Describ for alcoholic beverages meant for consumption in the licensed area: Size of Container (in which the Alcohol Maximum Amount of Alcohol in the will be Served) Container Malt Beverages 0 O 14 0, 1 ti 0y,, Wine . _ rel, nk-- OS - Cider Distilled Spirits .N7„n L(.o t 28. Descri .h how containers used to serve alcoholic beverages for consumption � n In the licensed area will •e of a differen color and type when compared to containers used to serve nonalcoholic beverages: enEll or> cetyl `4)wtn(15 � cA(spr-verwUo3a j color .;‘ -NA( Q L1.v{ donh h cmnV'. ors tdk e,u,,. F 29. What is :he maximum number of containers of alcoholic beverages meant for consumption in the licensed area that a patro i may possess at any one time? t 30. Descrih» the level of lighting the licensed area will have to ensure the proper monitoring of patrons: A evel of lighting sufficient to read common newspaper print; or eves of lighting that will be (please describe): 31. If other ri)ethods for adequately managing the licensed area will be used, describe them here (or submit a separate written, aced, and signed plan): alar toe" 6. -gram? ' Ctuwrclf t,ori?,,rvt', 32. Applican Name (please print): 133. ApJ ca Signature: e:6a,P j -Fe "fh cv dolt X1130-')1 34. Date Plan to Manage Special Events (Rev. 3/171 i 4'4 -,- , M ; .33 — ; t 3, . . kr! „ '3,33; '7' ',*,,,r313;3-3F•t,;,.; 3 fc',4,'343 33.433.g.,33,, i,' 3', •3 . .W 33, 4 3 3 '• I ' - 's- r.-1 ti -3 • t 3 1 ,t1 3 Z 3 \ A A I )• A U.S.1,0 eq4,SiV t „e, ; — tt k.A Li I Si ' ANON t'Vitl' .e? evaCA, -PP kactiLw(A-4-1 1242GieSk-ra,kr% I 1 -r (t)_ 1 c Mwcy Coodn 6/Vtkike.,+- -Lott,o,( 17-k Sh(i'CL-tA -) tap kcio iirji)(1) 4.711.LI(ou ricjICO e)c41-- -e„L4-,--t--e--e ; 1' • • • * • • • • • • nuAti bikr Gwd-to-v) rc- •76-74 LJL cti • • • • • „„„„), •v3( A rictioA:0) g§7 d L � a I li gi l N yeva-21 wow' Ar,!00,1/4- ex/ i k-)`• CovOc. ANA_ AAkito t - X0(4 1 Eric Mone From: Leann Schoales <leann@shineeventsbend.com> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:04 PM To: Eric Mone Cc: Heather Johnson Subject: Re: Bigstock OMG - private well. 11111 1111 1111 Hi Eric, I will be sure to contact Jeff regarding the drinking water and private well requirements (thanks for that info). I will make sure that Veracis' applies for that permit, and let them know their options. As far as the private catering, I know they have done weddings in the past, the one for me was a couple of years ago, so I'm not sure what they are currently doing. As soon as we have the other two secured I will shoot you an email to see if they are good to go with your department, and/or make sure that they are licensed as a temporary restaurant with Deschutes county or a licensed MFU. I have reached out to the adventure medics and will solve the issue of the ambulance transport. We are expecting 750 max (that is if the event sells out) and we ask that each food vendor prepare to feed approximately 200 people. Since all of the food trucks are self-contained units do you think a 300-500 gallon above ground tank is necessary? Last year there was not a need for a grey water tank, as the food vendors were responsible for there own waste and disposal. I am open to suggestions, however if you think we are okay without the tank that would make the most sense for this event. I have attached the EH checklist. Am I able to come by your office today to pick up the application? I am heading out of town tomorrow and want to pass off the application for the remaining signatures required. Thanks again for all of your help, Best, 1 Eric Mone '11111"I 1"" III II From: Jeff Freund Sent: Thursday, April 26i2O18 9:29 AM To: '/*ann@shineoventsbend.com' Cc: Eric Mone Subject: OMG Hi Leann, Just a reminder regarding drinking water for pubIc use at your upcoming event. If you plan to use an exstng private well as the source of water, we would need a coliform bacteria and nitrate sample within 60 days prior to the event. The coliform result has to be absent and the nitrate result needs to be under 1Oppm. Public water use includes not only drinking and cooking (for any food vendors) but also handwashing and hygiene. If you plan to use an alternate source of water such as hauled in by a water provider, just let me know and whom you are using. Thanks for your hep- JeffJeff FreundRS/REHSU| Deschutes CountEnvironmental Health 2577 NE Courtney Drive Bend, OR 97701 Office: (541) 388-6563 Fax: (541) 322-7604 1 Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St Ste 203 Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 383-4399 Fax (541) 749-2909 Received From: OREGON MEDIA LLC Receipt Number Official Receipt 21333 Receipt Date 04/20/18 I Charge Code Org - Obj Comment Description Amount! EHMG BIG STOCK BEND 2018 EH OUTDOOR MASS 2742053 345509 Outdoor Mass Gathering $212.00 Payment Type Check # 4184 Quantity Ref Amount $212,00 AMT TENDERED: $212.00 AMT APPLIED: $212.00 CHANGE: $0.00 Time: 12:23 Clerk: lisam Contact Jeff Freund with Deschutes County at 541-388-6563 regarding drinking water program requirements. His email is above. Private water wefls have biological and chemical tests that are required before an Outdoor Mass Gathering (0MG) starts operation. Veraci Pizza is not afor this event unless they apply for a temprary restaurant license at least days before the event. They should know about this license requirement as they have gotten them from us in the past, but it has been several years. They also have the option of applying for a mobile food unit (MFU) license but their unit would have to be plumbed and meet all the MFU rules. Aside from the OMG, if Veraci is doing private weddings, they are supposed to have a foodservice license from our dept and work from an approved licensed kitchen in order to do that type of catering. We will reach out to them separately on that. AnMFU named Earl and Mabel has received plan review approval from our dept but have not called for a pre -opening inspection yetI'm sure that will happen pretty soon, Thai on the FIy and Dump City Dumplings are approved and Iicensed already. If you have other foodservice vendors, as noted on the application, please verify that they will be licensed either as a temporary restaurant or a Deschutes County licensed MFU. My bossTom Kuhn has reviewed the medical and ambulance plan and said he would email regarding that, noting a condition that a separate ambulance company needs to be available for emergency transport. He has signed your app with that condition. Also, 1 couldn't tind the EH checklist in the app. Please fill out EH checklist ( found in Iink below): re, C,�� httpsWwww.deschutes.org/sitesidefault/filesifileattachments/communitv development/page/781/out door mass gathering app. packet -rev. 2-17.odf Lastly, one update we need to make on our EH checklist 15 a consideration for where greywater/wastewater will be dumped from the food vendors. For aG-7hour event they may need to dump dishwashing and handwashing wastewater somewhere and we need to evaluate how that will be done. On the ground or in portapotties aren't options scrnormally we see an above -ground tank that is 300-500 gallons and food vendors dump their water in that. Let me know your thoughts on that. Talk soon, thanks. Eric Mone,REHS Environmental Health Supervisor Deschutes County Health Services541-388-6566 TES ((j -1 o 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 18, 2018 DATE: June 13, 2018 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparation for Public Hearing: Appeal of a Non -Farm Dwelling at 4691 91St Street ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner SUMMARY: The purpose of this work session is to prepare for a hearing regarding an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision approving a non-farm dwelling in the EFU Zone. FILE NUMBERS: STAFF MEMORANDUM k"` 247-18-000410-A (appeal of Hearings Officer's decision 247-17- 000852-A on appeal of administrative decision 247 -17 -000220 - CU) OWNER/APPLICANT: Megan & Todd Omlid APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Shannon McCabe, Lynch Conger McLane LLP APPELLANT: Carol Macbeth, Central Oregon LandWatch PROPOSAL: The applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit to establish a nonfarm dwelling on a 39.20 -acre property in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. HEARING DATE: June 27, 2018 STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner STAFF COMMENT: This memorandum attempts to summarize the appellant's objections, the applicant's materials, and the Hearings Officer's findings in regards to the issues raised in the appellant's Notice of Appeal submittal. 1. STANDARDS & APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org kt www.deschutes.org/cd H. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The subject parcel was created as part of an approved nonfarm partition (file no. MP -04-26) with two associated nonfarm dwelling approvals (file nos. CU -04-89 and CU -04-90). The partition was completed but the nonfarm dwelling approval for the subject property expired. The applicants submitted a new application for a conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling on March 27, 2017. The application was incomplete at the time and after submitting additional materials was deemed complete on April 26, 2017. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on October 3, 2017, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria. The decision was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on October 13, 2017. A public hearing was held and a County Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was issued on May 4, 2018 (Attachment 1). The Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm dwelling was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on May 14, 2018 (Attachment 2). The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is August 24, 2018. The applicant has requested to extend the 150 -day decision period at several points throughout the process. The length of combined extensions cannot exceed 215 days per ORS 215.427, unless the applicant chooses to waive the time period limitations. August 24, 2018, is 150 days from the date the application was deemed complete, plus the maximum 215 -day extension. III. OBIECTIONS & COMMENTS STAFF COMMENT: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) has incorporated applicable state statutes and administrative rules into Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones. Staff will comment on the appellant's objections as staff understands those objections, and as they relate to the applicable sections of the DCC and the Hearings Officer's decision. 1. Stability. DCC 18.16.050(G): 1. One single family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with DCC 18.116.070, not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the following criteria: a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that: The proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. (emphasis added) 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 2 of 10 APPELLANT'S OBJECTION AND STAFF COMMENTS: The appellant addressed this criterion as DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a), and staff understands that subsection (ii) is the intended criterion. The Hearings Officer's decision states: OnJune 1, 1998, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (OAR Chapter 660-033) to incorporate case law and to clarify the analysis under the "stability" approval criterion. The rules continue to apply the three-step "stability" analysis first articulated in Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case Sweeten v. Clackamas County, 17 Or LUBA 1234 (1989). The rules are as follows:... The stability analysis is found in the Hearings Officer's decision (pp. 10-17). The appellant argues this analysis should focus on the potential for future nonfarm dwellings and parcels, which staff understands the Hearings Officer has done. The appellant argues that this criterion is applied when considering the creation of a nonfarm parcel. Because the subject parcel was created as part of land use applications CU -04-89, CU -04-90, and MP -04-26, the appellant states that the stability analysis from that land use decision should be the applicable analysis. Staff notes that both the administrative decision and the Hearings Officer's decision incorporated the following into the stability analysis (Hearings Officer's decision p. 13), quoted from OAR 660-033- 130(4)(c)(C): 'The dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, a county shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated by applying the standards set forth in paragraph (4)(a)(D) of this rule. If the application involves the creation of a new parcel for the nonfarm dwelling. a county shall consider whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area by applying the standards set_ forth in paragraoh (4)(a)(D) of_ this rule; and [..]"(emphasis added) According to LUBA's reading of this OAR in Elliott v. Jackson County, 43 Or LUBA 426 (2003), the potential to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings must be considered when applying the stability test even when no new parcels are proposed by a land use application. The appellant states that the findings in CU -04-89, CU -04-90, MP -04-26 indicate there would be 38 new nonfarm dwellings added in the study area at the time that decision was written. The Hearings Officer found 15 parcels could be created through non -irrigated nonfarm land division, seven (7) parcels could be created through irrigated nonfarm land division, and 15 existing vacant lots could potentially be approved for a nonfarm dwelling. The Hearings Officer's decision does not explicitly quantify a final maximum number of potential nonfarm dwellings, but staff understands the inferred quantity to be 37. 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 3 of 10 It is important to recognize that these are potential nonfarm partitions and dwellings and each application would need to meet the approval criteria for a nonfarm dwelling and/or partition on its own merits. 2. Suitability. DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a): iii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant states: Land that is predominantly Class I -VI according to the NRCS is presumed suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock as a matter of law under county code and state law. Moreover land that is wholly Class I -VI like the subject property is capable of producing farm crops and livestock as a matter of fact according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The hearings officer misconstrued and misapplied the applicable law in approving the application as the applicant did not overcome the presumption of suitability. The applicant provided many statements and photos to support their position that the applicants have not proven that the building envelope is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, and merchantable trees and that the applicants have not overcome the presumption of suitability as described in DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b): A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." ... STAFF COMMENT: The appellant correctly argues that the NRCS soil maps identify soil units 65A and 128C are present on the subject property and that these are Class VI soils. However, the applicant submitted a soils assessment prepared by Ryan Miebach, a certified professional soil scientist and a certified professional soil classifier. The soils study demonstrates that 84.5% of the area proposed for nonfarm development (dwelling, septic system, garage, shop building, well, etc.) is comprised of Class VII soils. Mr. Miebach's professional finding is that the majority of the proposed building area is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable tree species. The appellant also argues that several properties in the area are engaged in farm use and are within the same or similar NRCS soil units. While this is true, this particular criterion focuses on the location of the proposed nonfarm dwelling and not on the surrounding lands. When a nonfarm dwelling is 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 4 of 10 proposed on unproductive parts of farmland on lands outside the Willamette Valley, the County is to focus on the productivity of the part of the property selected for nonfarm development and should not consider the suitability of the rest of the parcel or tract. See Frazee v. Jackson County, 45 Or LUBA 263 (2003). Staff understands this would also apply beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel or tract, which would exclude consideration of other discrete properties. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b) above and OAR 660-0330-130(4)(c)(B)(ii) creates a presumption in Eastern Oregon that land is generally suitable if it is comprised of predominantly Class I -VI soils. Here, the soils are predominantly Class VII. Thus, there is no presumption that the building envelope is suitable for the production of crops and livestock. As explained in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County, LUBA No. 2017-108 (Or. LUBA 2018), if the subject property is generally unsuitable for farm use based on factors other than size and location, then the local government "need not consider size or location and need not consider whether the subject property can be used for farm use in conjunction with other lands." (p. 12). As noted in Williams v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2007-103, it is proper for a county to rely on a detailed soil study when the other soil evidence is an NRCS map. The soil survey the applicant submitted provides significant detail regarding the elements of the soil on the building site. In consideration of this soil study, staff does not share the appellant's belief that simply because other properties have some 128C soil in productive farm use that all 128C lands can be put to productive use. However, staff defers to the Board to determine if the evidence in the record substantially demonstrates the building envelope is not "generally suitable". 3. Soils Assessment. DCC 18.16.050(G': 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land ... APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant claims in two sections of the Notice of Appeal that the Hearings Officer erred in relying on the submitted soils assessment (referred to alternatively as the soil study or soil report in various documents). First, the appellant claims there is no basis for determining soils are rocky or shallow. Second, the appellant claims there is no indication that the "consultant" is qualified to determine suitability. STAFF COMMENT: Staff clarifies that the Soils Professional that conducted the subject soils assessment is Ryan L. Miebach, who is a Soil Science Society of America Certified Professional Soil Classifier (#35369) and Certified Professional Soil Scientist (#35369). Furthermore, below is a screenshot from the Department of Land Conservation and Development's website on June 12, 20181, from the section titled "List of Qualified Soils Professionals". 1 https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/soilsassessment.aspx 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 5 of 10 main house Green room c„) main parking VIP Tent .,A (R Cot-lc:Le shed 0 Silent auction bar area 0 0 0 o 0 pond k-- [ambulance 1 couch azcLA kcect CD.x/tn hut tut ada.ci 9'77 i List of Qualified Soils Professionals The current list of qualified soils professionals is showy. below, Property owners and others who wish to challenge agric:rtura land capab::lity must s&ect one of these individuals to prepare a soils assessment. These individuals have the necessary education and experience to provide detailed soils data to determine whether soils are agricultural. However, this listing is not an endorsement and those request rig soils assessments are encouraged to request references as well as bids from more than one soils profess:.onal, It can aOso be usefu': to obta.n a preliminary fie`,'d check to determine whether a fu soils assessment is warranted. Only soi.':s assessments submitted by thelisted individuas to the department may be considered by local governments rn Focal land use proceedings. This list will be updated on an as needed bass. Name Andy V. Gallagher Red Hill Soil Brian T. Rabe Cascade Earth Sciences Gary A, Kitzrow Paul Kennedy Ryan Miebach Address P.O. Box 2233 Corvallis, OR 97339 3511 Pacfc BWd. SW kbany, OR 97321 P.O. Box 96 Harrisburg, OR 97 466 946 SW 'Veterans Way t 1C2 Redmond, OR 97756 2468 Crestview Ave. Roseburg, OR 97471 16056 SE Orchard View Ln. Damascus, OR 97089 Phone Number Email Address 541-740-9508 avgr©redhillso:,com 541-812-6639 brian,raber.�cascade-earth,com 541-817-4749 k tzrowga.agmail,com 541-604-9366 541-673-0538 175r.rl4kenrledy�C ama,i,corn 541-771-1631 ryar.n ebachcaigmall.com As stated previously, Williams v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2007-103, explains that it is proper for a county to rely on a detailed soil study when the other soil evidence is an NRCS map. Due to Mr. Miebach's qualifications and the Hearings Officer's appropriate consideration of his soils assessment in making a decision, it appears these objections are unsupported. 4. Used in Coniunction with Farms. DCC 18.16.050(G): 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land ... APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the applicant states: The hearings officer misinterpreted and misapplied the use in conjunction and managed as part of standards. There are farming operations to the west, northwest, north, northeast, and east of the subject property. Neither the use in conjunction nor the managed as part of tests require farms to be directly adjacent. Many livestock producers move their livestock large distances between pastures to allow them to graze at different times of the year. The regulation is an imperative conditional, meaning use in conjunction must be considered regardless of size or location. The relevant question is not whether the land is being used in conjunction with other land, or whether the farmers who happen to own the neighboring farms choose to manage this land or 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 6 of 10 use it in conjunction, the relevant question is whether the land can reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with or managed as part of other farms. STAFF COMMENT: The following LUBA cases provide some background on how to apply this criterion. • In Central Oregon LandWatch v. Crook County, LUBA No. 2017-108 (Or. LUBA 2018), if the subject property is generally unsuitable for farm use based on factors other than size and location, then the local government "need not consider size or location and need not consider whether the subject property can be used for farm use in conjunction with other lands." (p. 12). LUBA's quote, in this case, references Epp v Douglas County, 45 Or LUBA 480, 485. • LUBA has determined the issue of whether nonfarm parcels can be put to farm use in conjunction with other properties "is triggered under DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a) if the parcels are found to be unsuitable solely because of size or location." Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 56 Or LUBA 280 (2008). See also, Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223, 230 (2007). • When a nonfarm dwelling is proposed on unproductive parts of farmland on lands outside the Willamette Valley, the County is to focus on the productivity of the part of the property selected for nonfarm development and should not consider the suitability of the rest of the parcel or tract. See Frazee v. Jackson County, 45 Or LUBA 263 (2003). The building envelope was determined to be generally unsuitable based on evidence entirely not based on the size or location of the property, therefore, this objection is immaterial. Regardless of applicability, the Hearings Officer's decision includes findings as to why the property could not reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land (pp. 26, 27). 5. Irrigation. DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii): The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant's materials state that water rights are available to purchase in Deschutes County. The appellant also states, "The presence or absence of irrigation water is not one of the relevant characteristics for the suitability determination under ORS 215.284" and, "The hearings officer's findings improperly consider the price of irrigation water rights or the tax burden as relevant." However, the appellant also seems to argue that the potential for irrigation should have been considered in the livestock grazing and foraging portions of the suitability analysis. STAFF COMMENT: Staff is unconvinced of the importance of irrigation in this case. Certainly, the cost could be a prohibitive factor for a farmer or rancher, but even if the applicants wanted and were 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 7 of 10 able to acquire irrigation rights, it would not necessarily have an effect on the "suitability" of this subject building envelope. 6. Structure on Property. DCC 22.20.15 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; 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"). APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant alleges there is an unpermitted structure on the property and that it violates the DCC. The appellant states, "The hearings officer erred in issuing a decision without requiring this issue to be addressed". STAFF COMMENT: There was no violation confirmed as of the date of this memo through any of the methods listed in subsection (C) above. During a site visit conducted on August 23, 2017, staff observed a recreational vehicle on the property. One of the property owners explained the RV was there for use during the August 21 solar eclipse. The DCC allows for the temporary use of an RV without a permit per DCC 18.116.095: A. A single recreational vehicle, as defined in DCC Title 18, may be located on a lot or parcel not containing a dwelling and used as a temporary dwelling unit: 1. For a period totaling not more than 30 days in any consecutive 60 -day period without obtaining a land use permit from the Deschutes County Planning Division; or ... Additionally, staff notes the applicants have applied for a building permit for an accessory structure prior to establishing the primary use of the property, as allowed by DCC 18.116.040 below, but the building permit (247-18-001380-STR) has not been issued as of the date of this memo. An accessory use shall comply with all requirements for a principal use, except as DCC Title 18 specifically allows to the contrary, and shall comply with the following limitations: A. The primary use of the property must be established or applied for prior to issuance of any building or land use permits for accessory structures. 1. Exception: a. Building permit for a ramada or carport may be issued without establishment or application of primary use if all other criteria for issuance are met. b. Land use, building or environmental health permits or extensions of such permits sought to correct existing code violations for the subject property shall be issued if all other criteria for issuance are met. 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 8 of 10 c. A building permit for an accessory structure or structures not exceeding a combined total of 2,000 square feet in size, with no windows, with only one floor, an operable garage door, no plumbing or stack vents through the roof or walls and not requiring plumbing or mechanical permits. The design of the proposed accessory structure complies with the above requirements and will be located within the nonfarm dwelling building envelope. 7. Appeal Fees. DCC 22.32.015. A. To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Planning Division and an appeal fee. C. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and the Board declines review, a portion of the appeal fee may be refunded. The amount of any refund will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the County in reviewing the appeal. When the Board declines review and the decision is subsequently appealed to LUBA, the appeal fee may be applied toward the cost of preparing a transcript of the lower Hearings Body's decision. APPELLANT'S OBIECTION: The appellant cites several ORS sections, the Oregon Constitution, and Court of Appeals jurisdiction in alleging the appeal fee to the Board of County Commissioners is in violation of, interferes with, and is inconsistent with those citations. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Division (and the Community Development Department as a whole) charges an average of the actual cost to review and process any application, including appeals. Staff believes this land use proposal is not the appropriate setting to challenge the Community Development Department's fee schedule. IV. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer's decision for this application identifies all applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with the criteria and standards of those ordinances. This memorandum only supplements the findings of compliance with the identified ordinances in relation to the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Dated June 13, 2018 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 9 of 10 Attachments: 1. Hearings Officer's decision 247-17-000852-A 2. Notice of Appeal materials 3. Area Map 247-18-000410-A (247-17-000852-A, 247 -17 -000220 -CU) Page 10 of 10 Attachment 1 Hearings Officer's Decision 247-17-000852-A Mailing Date: Thursday, May 03, 2018 HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) OWNER/APPLICANT: Megan & Todd Omlid 3179 SW 28th St. Redmond, OR 97756 REQUEST: A conditional use permit to establish a nonfarm dwelling on a 39.20 -acre property in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), County Zoning Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Procedure Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4691 91st Street, Redmond; and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 14-12-34B as Tax Lot 200. B. LOT OF RECORD: The property is a legal lot of record because it is Parcel 2 of the Minor Land Partition MP -04-26 (Partition Plat 2006-40, County Survey #16943). C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), within the Terrebonne Subzone (EFU- TE). It is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to establish a nonfarm dwelling in the southeastern portion of the parcel. The property had previously received a nonfarm dwelling approval (file CU -04-89), which expired. The revised plot plan shows the building envelope will be irregular in shape. Sewage disposal will be via an on-site septic system and water will be supplied by a domestic well. Access to the dwelling is from NW 91St Street. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 39.20 acres in size, somewhat square in shape, and vacant. Topography of the site is rocky with areas of uneven ground, especially in the northeastern, southeastern, southwestern, and central portions of the property. A rocky outcrop ridge runs through the property from the southwest to the northeast of the property. Vegetation consists of brush and mature juniper trees. There are no irrigation rights on any part of the property and there is no apparent history of farm use. The property fronts on NW 91st Street along 1 its eastern property line and fronts on NW Coyner Avenue along its northern property line. Staff performed a site visit to observe the property and the surrounding area on August 23, 2017. F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The properties in the surrounding area are all EFU-zoned parcels in a variety of sizes and shapes ranging from approximately 20 acres to 185 acres. Several of the parcels are irrigated and engaged in agricultural uses, mostly pasture or hay production. Several of the parcels are not engaged in agricultural uses and contain natural vegetation. Most of the nearby parcels are developed with a dwelling or have a land use permit to allow a dwelling. There is a 320 - acre property to the southwest owned by the federal government. The attributes of the adjoining EFU properties are summarized in the following table. Owner Tax Lots Total Ac./ Farm Dwelling Irrigated Ac. Tax Grossman 14-12-27-400 185.06 / 128 Yes Yes North Skidgel 14-12-(34)-1918 152.80 / 137 Yes Yes East Melton South Bailo West 14-12-34B-300 39.07 / None No 14-12-34B-100 80.00 / None No Approved, but not constructe d Approved, but not constructe d Soil Mapping Units 26A, 65A, 128C, 101D 26A, 65A, 128C 26A, 128C, 128D 63E, 65A, 101E, 106E, 128C, 128D G. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, there are two soil units mapped on the subject property: 65A, Houstake sandy loam. dry, 0 to 3% slopes. This soil type is comprised of 85% Houstake soil and similar inclusions, and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Houstake soil is well drained, with a moderate permeability and an available water capacity of about 7 inches. Major use for this soil type is livestock grazing and irrigated cropland. Native vegetation includes western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Idaho fescue and needleandthread. The soil capability rating for the Houstake soil is 6s without irrigation, and 3c with irrigation. This soil type is considered high-value farmland when irrigated and encompasses approximately 40% of the subject property. 128C, Statz-Deschutes complex, 0 to 15% slopes. This soil is typically composed of 45 percent Statz soil and similar inclusions, 40 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. It is found on lava plains between 2,500 and 4,000 feet in elevation, with native vegetation of western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and needle and thread. The Statz and Deschutes soils are well drained, with a moderately slow permeability for the Statz soil and a moderately rapid permeability for the 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 2 Deschutes soil. The Statz soil has an available water capacity of about 2 inches and the Deschutes soil has an available water capacity of about 4 inches, respectively. Major use of the soil is livestock grazing. Both soil types have a soil capability of 6e without irrigation, and are not rated with irrigation. This soil type is not a high-value soil and encompasses approximately 60% of the subject property. The nonfarm dwelling and the building envelope are located entirely on this soil unit. H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several public agencies and received the following comments: Redmond Fire and Rescue: If there are questions regarding Fire Code issues, please contact the Redmond Fire and Rescue Deputy Fire Marshal at 541-504-5016 or email at clara.butler@redmondfireandrescue.org. The following is a recommendation only (because it is 1-2 family dwelling and not in application as a subdivision): WATER: • Fire Safety during Construction — 2014 OFC 501.4 o Approved fire department access roads, required water supply, fire hydrants, and safety precautions shall be installed and serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Area without Fire Hydrants: • NFPA 1142 Requirements o If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142. o Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to determine accurate water flow requirements. ■ Building height, length and width ■ Use of the building ■ Type of construction ■ Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any other structures • Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems — 2012 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7 o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13 or NFPA 13D o Note: Contact Deschutes County Building plans review staff for other options. ACCESS: • Premises Identification — 2014 OFC 505.1 o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4" high and a .5 "stroke width. o Note: Green address signs for addresses in the county are available for $10.00 from Redmond Fire & Rescue. Please call 541-504-5000 to have one ordered and posted. • Required Access — 2014 OFC 504.1 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 3 o Exterior doors and openings shall be made readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided. • Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside. o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official (10%). • Fire Lanes — 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50 feet. • Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in bright red paint with white letters. o Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs posted on both sides of a fire lane. o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. • Aerial Access Roads — 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section D105 o Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadways. o Access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of a building more than 30 feet in height. o At least one of the required access routes meeting above requirement shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. • Dead -Ends — 2014 OFC 503.2.5 o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements. • D 103.4 Table: Length of Dead end: greater than 500 ft shall meet the turnaround requirements and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. o OFC Table D103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every 1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. • Additional Access — 2014 OFC 503.1.2 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 4 o The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. • Emergency Access Road Gates — 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5 o Minimum 20 feet wide. o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type. o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person. o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel & approved by fire officiaL o Locking devices shall be fire department padlocks purchased from A-1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "Emergency Access" • Key Boxes — 2014 OFC 506.1 o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A-1 Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com. or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. Deschutes County Building Division: NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner: The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook indicates a single-family residence (Land Use 210) generates an average of approximately 10 daily weekday trips. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no traffic analysis is required for any use that will generate less than 50 new weekday trips. The proposed land use will not meet the minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined a local trip rate of 0.81 p.m. peak hour trips per single-family dwelling unit; therefore the applicable SDC is $3,120 ($3,852 X 0.81). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. STAFF NOTE: The Senior Transportation Planner provided the following updated comments, as SDC rates were adjusted in July, 2017. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,973 per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined a local trip rate of 0.81 p.m. peak hour trips per single-family dwelling unit; therefore the applicable SDC is $3,189 ($3,937 X 0.81). The SDC is 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 5 due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Central Electric Cooperative, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Watermaster — District 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the conditional use application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on April 3, 2017. The applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit for the application indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on April 6, 2017. One written comment was received from Central Oregon LandWatch: Central Oregon LandWatch is concerned that the property on NW CoynerAvenue, File No. 247 -17- 000220 -CU, may not meet all the criteria that apply to the proposal. Moreover portions of the Supplemental Application appear to be incomplete. Please keep us informed of any opportunities for public participation in this matter. J. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on March 27, 2017. The application was deemed incomplete on April 26, 2017. After the applicant submitted additional materials, the application was deemed complete on August 24, 2017. The 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application was January 21, 2017, however, the applicant requested to toll the clock for a total of 153 days. The revised 150th day on which the County must take final action is June 23, 2018. K. LAND USE HISTORY: The following land use actions are appurtenant to the subject property. MP -04-26: A Minor Partition that created the subject property as Parcel 2 as part of a nonfarm dwelling partition. CU -04-89: A Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a nonfarm dwelling on the subject property in conjunction with the above Minor Partition. This land use permit was not acted upon and expired. L. APPROVAL AND APPEAL: County staff issued an administrative approval of the nonfarm dwelling application on October 3, 2017. On October 13, 2017, Central Oregon LandWatch appealed the decision. A hearing on the appeal was conducted by County hearings officer Liz Fancher on November 21, 2017. The 150 -day clock set by State law for County review of this application has been tolled by the applicant from the date of the hearing until April 24, 2018. M. COMMENT RE FINDINGS: The findings provided in response to each criterion, in some instances, include findings relevant to compliance with other criteria. In those cases, they should be considered as findings in support of such other criteria. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 6 UL FINDINGS TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING. A. CHAPTER 18.16, EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES. 1. Section 18.16.030. Conditional uses permitted High value and non -high value farmjand, The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or nonhigh value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of Title 18. A. Nonfarm dwelling FINDING: The applicant proposes to estabjish a non-farm dwelling on land that is "nonhigh" value farmland. The proposed dwelling may be allowed as a conditional use if the applicant satisfies the applicable criteria in Title 18 of the County Code. The applicant does not propose to establish a use other than a dwelling under this appiication, Central Oregon LandWatch (COLW) claims that the subject property contains soils classified as "prime farmland if irrigated" and "farmland of statewide importance." The subject property is, however, nonhigh value farmland as the term is used in the County's zoning code and state law. The subject property has no irrigation water rights and no known history of farm use. 2. Section 18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. A. Conditional uses by DCC 18.16.030 may be established subject to ORS 215.296 and applicable provisions in DCC 18.128 and upon a finding by the Pkinning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm orforest practices oodefined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted tofarm orforest uses; and � Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm orforest uses; and FINDING: The County has applied an area of analysis that covers all properties within a one -mile radius of the subject property. This radius has been determined to be sufficient to identify farm or forest uses that might be impacted by a proposed nonfarm dwelling. The closest properties zoned for forest use are approximately 9 miles to the west and outside of the analysis area. The predominant tree species in the surrounding area is juniper, which is not a commercial species. Given the distance to forest zoned lands and the lack of commercially viable tree species in the surrounding area, staff finds that the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on surrounding ands devoted for forest use. The majority of the study area is zoned EFU. There is an approximately 80 -acre subdivision named Kachina Acres in the southern portion of the study area, which is zoned Rural Residential (RR -10). 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 7 The study area is comprised of 48 EFU tax lots, including the subject property, with 7 of those tax lots being publicly owned. Of the 48 total EFU tax lots, 19 are receiving farm tax deferral, with 10 of the deferred properties having irrigation. The subject property does not have irrigation water rights and there is no evidence of irrigation in the past. The properties to the north and east are receiving farm tax deferral and have irrigation on central pivots, with those irrigated portions of the properties in a farm use. The predominant farming activities in the study area include irrigated pasture and hay and alfalfa production. The record includes information from the Oregon State University Extension Service describing the types of impacts the farming practices in the surrounding area could generate on nearby lands. Maintaining irrigated pasture can generate dust from re'seeding, drifting of herbicides from spraying, vehicle noise from trucks, manure odor from fertilizing, and possible water runoff from irrigation. Grazing livestock can generate dust, manure odor, possible interference with vehicular traffic, and property damage if livestock escape. The owner wili be required to sign and record in the County Clerk's office a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farnninQ or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.396 or 30.397. The recordation of this document with the County Clerk helps ensure that the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, nor will it significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices. The submitted plot plan indicates distances from the proposed building envelope (not necessarily structures) to property lines, however, no scale is provided on the plot plan. According to revised plot plan submitted by the applicant, the closest points of the proposed building envelope would be approximately 425 feet (plus the 60 -foot right of way for NW Counter Ave.) from the closest property receiving farm tax deferral to the north, and approximately 10 feet (plus the 60 -foot right of way for NW 91st St.) from the closest property receiving farm tax deferral to the east. None of the properties to the south and to the west are receiving farm tax deferral. As discussed in findings below, there is a 100'fnot setback for nonfarm dwellings from properties receiving farm tax deferral. The applicant has not indicated how far from these properties the nonfarm dwelling will be, but based on the measurements provided for the building envelope on the piot pan, the dwelling is proposed in a location which meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks required for nonfarm dwellings and will provide a sufficient buffer to mitigate farm- re|ated impacts (See DCC 18.l6.07Obe|oxv\. Within the study area, 20 of the 48 EFU tax lots are developed with dwellings. Given the establishment of a significant number of residential uses and the continuing farm uses in the study area, it is likely that the existing residential uses likely have not had a negative impact on those farm uses. For the reasons detailed above, the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not be subject to adverse impacts from adjacent farm uses, nor will it cause a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices occurring on nearby lands. No response from adjacent or nearby property owners engaged in farm use was received stating an interest in incorporating the subject property into an existing farm operation. This criterion is met. 247'17'000862'A(247-17-000220'CU) 8 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. FINDING: In the Clough decision (file no. 247-15-000035-CU/247-15-000403-A), the Board of County Commissioners determined that when the general unsuitability criterion of 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii) is met, the least suitable criterion of Section 18.16.040(A)(3) above is satisfied as well. The findings under DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii) below are incorporated herein by reference. Staff finds this criterion will be met. The Board's interpretation of this code provision is due deference because this is a local code provision rather than a requirement imposed by State law. 3. Section 18.16.050. Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones. Dwellings listed in DCC 18.16.025 and 18.16.030 may be allowed under the conditions set forth below for each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the property upon which the dwelling is placed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. FINDING: The property owner will be required to sign and record the above document prior to issuance of a building permit for the dwelling. The Farm & Forest Management Easement has been prepared and is attached to this decision. Farm & Forest Management Easement: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a nonfarm dwelling, the property owner shall sign and record in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded Farm and Forest Management Easement to the Planning Division. G. Nonfarm Dwelling. 1. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with DCC 18.116.070, not provided in conjunction with farm use may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the following criteria: a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that: i. The dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use. FINDING: This approval criterion is nearly identical to the approval criteria of DCC 18.16.040(A)(1) and (2). Findings regarding those code sections are incorporated herein by reference. This criterion will be met. ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 9 whether ci proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the county shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. FINDING: On June 1, 1998, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (OAR Chapter 660-033) to incorporate case law and to clarify the analysis under the "stability" approval criterion. The rules continue to apply the three-step "stability" analysis first articulated in Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case Sweeten v. Clackamas County, 17 Or LUBA 1234 (1989). The rules are as follows: (D) The dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, a county shall consider the cumulative impact of possible new nonfarm dwellings and parcels on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated. To address this standard, the county shall: (i) Identify a study area for the cumulative impacts analysis. The study area shall include at least 2000 acres or a smaller area not less than 1000 acres, if the smaller area is a distinct agricultural area based on topography, soil types, land use pattern, or the type of farm or ranch operations or practices that distinguish it from other, adjacent agricultural areas. Findings shall describe the study area, its boundaries, the location of the subject parcel within this area, why the selected area is representative of the land use pattern surrounding the subject parcel and is adequate to conduct the analysis required by this standard. Lands zoned for rural residential or other urban or nonresource uses shall not be included in the study area; (II) Identify within the study area the broad types of farm uses (irrigated or nonirrigated crops, pasture or grazing lands), the number, location and type of existing dwellings (farm, nonfarm, hardship, etc.), and the dwelling development trends since 1993. Determine the potential number of nonfarm/lot of record dwellings that could be approved under subsections (3)(a) and section 4 of this rule, including identification of predominant soil classifications, the parcels created prior to January 1, 1993, and the parcels larger than the minimum lot size that may be divided to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings under ORS 215.263(4). The findings shall describe the existing land use pattern of the study area including the distribution and arrangement of existing uses and the land use pattern that could result from approval of the possible nonfarm dwellings under this subparagraph; Determine whether approval of the proposed nonfarm/lot of record dwellings together with existing nonfarm dwellings will materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area. The stability of the land use pattern will be materially altered if the cumulative effect of existing and potential nonfarm dwellings will make it more difficult for the existing types of farms in the area to continue 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 10 operation due to diminished opportunities to expandpurchase or lease acquire water rights or diminish the number of tracts or acreage in farm use in a manner that will destabilize the overall character of the study area; FINDINGS: Cumulative Impacts Analysis Area. The County has applied an area of analysis including all EFU-zoned land located within a one -mile radius of the subject property's boundaries and including approximately 2,000 acres (previous and hereafter referred to as the "study area"). Land associated with lots partially in the study area is also considered in conducting the stability and impacts analysis and these properties are Iisted on the Nonfarm Dweljing Analysis Report. This study radius is suitable to provide a coniprehensive analysis of the character of the area surrounding the subject property because of its size and the number of parcels Iocated within it. As discussed above, there are 48 EFU-zoned tax Iots in the study areaincluding the subject property. Forty-one (41) of these tax lots are in private ownership and range in size from approximately 4,36 acres to 185.06 acres, partially or wholly within the study area. Of the 41 privately owned tax lots in the study area, 11 of the tax lots in the study area are 20 acres or less in size, 16 tax lots are more than 20 and less than or equal to 40 acres in size, and 14 tax lots are larger than 40 acres in size. Types of Farm Uses. The EFU zoned lands in the study area that are engaged in farm use mainly consist of farming in the form of irrigated pasture, hay and alfalfa production, and livestock (mostly horses but may include some cattle). Nineteen (19) of the privately -owned tax lots in the study area are receiving farm tax deferral. The amount of water rights on these farm tax deferred properties appears to be 580.5 acres on the 10 parcels containing water rights. Based upon the amount of irrigation and the size of the parcels in the study area, an estimated 580.5 acres (acreage that is possibly being irrigated) are engaged in farm use and approximately 494.73 acres of land receiving farm tax deferral are not engaged in any observable farm use. According to Deschutes County GIS, there are no areas within the study area that are located within an irrigation District (see Figure 1). The total area of lots in the study area that do not receive farm tax deferral and are not engaged in farm use is about 6853 acres. Two (2) soil units are present on the subject property: 65A, and 128C. The 65A soil unit is considered high- valuefarm|andifirrigated.Soi/unit128[isconsiderednonhigh'va|uefarnn|and.Thereisnoevidenceof past farm use or irrigation on the subject property. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CLO 11 Figure 1 The soils in the study area are predominantly non -high value soils, even when irrigated: 63 C, 1010, 101E, 106E, 128C, 128D and 141C. Most of these non -high values soils are not irrigated and are not employed in farm use. The best soils in the area, those that are high-value when irrigated, are 26A and 65A soils. Most of these soils are irrigated and are in farm use. These soils are primarily located north and east of the subject property. Some 65A soils are located on the subject property. The area of these soils is about fifteen to sixteen acres in size and is located to the west of the area the applicant claims is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock and merchantable tree species. Existing Dwellings. The record indicates that 20 of the 41 private tax lots in the study area, including the subject property, have dwellings. These dwellings were built in the following years: zero dwellings prior to 1979; 6 dwellings from 1979 through 1992; and 14 dwellings from 1993 to present. The 6 dwellings developed from 1979 through 1992 included 3 farm dwellings, 2 nonfarm dwellings, and 1 dwelling of unknown type. The unknown dwelling appears to have been issued a building permit in 1987 but not completed until 1992. Staff noted that dwellings constructed up until the late 1980's in this time period were not necessarily reviewed as either farm or nonfarm dwellings. Of the 14 dwellings constructed in 1993 or after, 4 were farm dwellings, 7 were nonfarm dwellings, and 1 was a lot of record dwelling. There were also 2 replacement dwellings after 1993. The established pattern of development of dwellings in the area is that they are built on irrigated farm properties or in close proximity to irrigated farm land. The establishment of a nonfarm dwelling across the street from irrigated farm fields, therefore, is consistent with the established pattern of development of the area. There is no evidence that farm uses in the area have been deterred or curtailed by the farm and nonfarm dwelling development that began in 1979. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 12 Dwelling Development Trends Since 1993. As discussed above, those dwellings constructed in or after 1993 were a mixture of farm (4), nonfarm (7), lot of record (1), and replacement (2) dwellings. Staff noted that the farm dwellings were approved between 1993 and 2003 and the nonfarm dwellings were approved between 1993 and 2014, with 5 of the 7 nonfarm dwellings approved after 2005. For this reason, the most current dwelling development trend in the study area is the establishment of nonfarm dwellings. Potential Nonfarm Parcels and Dwellings. In the EFU Zone, two types of land divisions are possible, those where the parent parcel is irrigated (DCC 18.16.055(B)) and those where the parent parcel is not irrigated (DCC 18.16.056(C)). Under OAR 660'033'130(4)/cVC\, which sets the rules for the stability analysis of properties outside of the Willamette Valley: The dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability ofthe land use pattern in the area, a county shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated by applying the standards set forth in paragraph (4)(a)(D) of this rule. If the application involves the creation of a new parcel for the nonfarm dwellina, a county shall consider whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area by applying the standards set forth in omnoonmoh (4)(a)(D) of this rule; and [...] (emphasis added) According to LUBA's reading of this OAR in Elliott v. Jackson County, 43 Or LUBA 426 (2003), the potential to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings must be considered when applying the stability test even when no new parcels are proposed by a land use application. LUBA's interpretation appears to be erroneous because it reads the last sentence of (4)(c)(C) out of the rule and the "similarly situated" criteria out of the Iaw. Nonetheless, LUBA's interpretation has been applied in this decision to reduce the chance that this case will be remanded, if appealed by COLW. The applicant states there are 21 vacant parcels and a potential to create 16 new parcels from non- irrigated parcels and 10 new parcels from irrigated parcels if each parent parcels contains areas that are generally unsuitable for farm use and if all are eligible to be divided. The applicant's estimate that 16 new parcels may be created from non -irrigated parcels is too high. It includes Tax Lot 100, Map 14-12-34B that was created in 2006 by Partition 2006'40, the same partition that created the subject property. This parcel is irieligible for division because it was created after July 1, 2001. The correct riumber of potential new nonfarm parcels that may be created from non -irrigated parcels is 15. The applicant's estimate of 10 new parcels from irrigated parce/s is too high. There are only six parcels that have sufficient irrigation water rights to qualify for a /and division (35 irrigated acres). One such parcel, Tax Lot 400Map 14-12'27,was created after July 1,30O1soisnot eligible tobedivided tocreate new nonfarm parcels. Of the remaining five parcels, only two are large enough to qualify for two new nonfarm parcels. The other three parcels are theoretically eligible for one nonfarm dwelling each. This is a total of 7 new nonfarm parcels. The applicant's 21 vacant parcels include the subject property and five parcels that, according to the County's DIAL system/Nonfarm Dwelling Analysis Report have conditional use permits for nonfarm 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 13 dwellings that have not yet expired. The five parcels are Tax Lots 2200, Map 14-12-26B, Tax Lot 300, Map 14-12-34B, Tax Lot 700, Map 15-12-00 Tax Lots 100 and 101, Map 14-12'280 (247 -15 -000107 -CU/ - 000108 -CU). This means 15 lots in the study area are vacant, have no right to build a home and might receive new nonfarm dwetling approvals, Similar ProDerties. To address this criterion, County staffreviewed the study area to determine how many properties are "similarly situated to the subject property"—vacant, more than 2Oacres but less than 4O acres in size, no irrigation water rights, and comprised of predominately non -high value farm soils. Based on staff's review, 4 properties met these characteristics, as detailed in the table below. Tax Lot Nonfarm Dwelling Approved Total Acres 14-12'26B_2200 Yes 20.60 14-12_28D-100 Yes 28.60 14-13-27'800 No 35.27 14-13'34&'300 Yes 39.07 Staff noted that 3 out of the 4 similarly situated properties have already received a Conditional Use permit for a nonfarm dwelling, but the dwelling has either not commenced or finalized construction. It is not clear whether a nonfarm dwelling could be approved on the single remaining property since the property would be reviewed on its own merits. Any proposed nonfarm dwelling on the above -referenced property must be reviewed for its effect on the stability of the land use pattern, whether it is on land generally unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock, and whether it will cause a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices on adjacent land. For the purposes of this review, it has been assumed the single remaining property could be approved for a nonfarm dwelling. Additionally, in an excess of caution, this decision looks at the potential future development on all properties in the study area to address compliance with the "stabUity analysis" despite the fact the rule clearly indicates that the focus of the review should be on similarly situated lots. This assures that all similarly situated lots have been addressed by the anaJysis. Potential Lot of Record DxveUinxs. Under Section 18.16.05[(E) and OAR 660-0[33'130(3), a lot of record dwelling may be sited on non -high value farmland in the EFU Zone if the parcel was created and acquired by the current owner prior to January 1, 1985, has continuously been owned by the present owner since then, and if the lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on November 4, 1993, no dwelling exists on another lot or parcel that was part of that tract. Under Section 18.16.050(F) and OAR 660-033'130(3)(c)' a lot of record dwelling may be sited on high value farmland if it meets the criteria for a lot of record dwelling on non -high value farmland and the Planning Division finds the parcel cannot practically be managed for farm use "due to extraordinary circumstances inherent in the land or its physica|setting,"suchas"vorysteeps/opes,deepravinesorothersinni(arnatura|orphysica|barriers." The Planning Division has previously determined that lot of record dwellings can be difficult to obtain, given the requirement for ownership prior to 1985 and the land cannot be suitable for farming based on the above factors. Some parcels may qualify for a lot of record dwelling, but without a specific analysis of each and every parcel, this determination cannot be concluded. Staff determined that the single lot of record dwelling within the study area was approved in 1997 (CU -97-14). 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 14 COLW argues that the County must determine the number of Lot of Record dwellings that might be approved in the study area "otherwise the rate of development cannot be properly accounted for because Jot of record dwellings approved in the past are counted but not Jot of record dwellings in the future." This is not, however, the case because all vacant lots in the study area without land use approvals have been counted as eligible for approval of a nonfarm dwelling by the analysis employed in this decision. The vacant Jots are the only Jots that might obtain approval to build a Jot of record dwelling. Amaximum of one dvxeUing—either a nonfarm dwelling or a lot of record dwelling — would be allowed on any of the vacant lots. As a result, adding additional dwellings to the maximum number of dwellings estimated in this decision wouid be clearJy erroneous. Materially Alter the Stability and Character of the Land Use Pattern of the Area. The land use pattern and character of the study area is a mixture of rural residential uses, some hobby farming consisting of pasture for livestock and some grass hay and alfalfa, and some farm uses mostly consistng of hay production. Although there have been 14 dwellings constructed in the study area since 1993, the land use pattern is generally stable because only 9 new or replacement dwellings were approved since 2000. Of those 9 dwellings, 5 were approved as nonfarm dwellings and at least 2 replaced an existing dwelling. Additionally, it does not appear the existing and newly approved dwellings have precluded farm uses in the study area. There are both irrigated and non -irrigated lands in the area and 8096 of the irrigated parcels are already developed with dwellings or have an approval to develop a dwelling. Only 4 farm dwellings were approved since 1995 when significant changes were made to the farm dwelling standards by the State of Oregon. The proposed dwelling will be consistent with the land use pattern of the area by allowing a nonfarm dwelling on an unproductive portion of the property when allowed by State law. Cumulative Effect of Existing and Potential Nonfarm Dwellings. The record shows that the parcels that lack irrigation water rights are not engaged in farm use. The only farm uses observed to be occurring on irrigated properties in the study area is growing hay and raising horses. Staff noted that it is possible that cattle are also raiseci on irrigated lands. Hay operations are the predominant farm use in the area. There are no known dryland grazing operations by any type of livestock occurring in the area. Given these facts, it is not reasonable to find that nonfarm development on any non -irrigated property in the study area would deprive hay farms or horse operations of the opportunity to expand, purchase or lease farmland. Dryland is not being used for the types of farm operations that are occurring in the area. It is not suitabJe for growing hay without irrigation water rights. The study area is not served by an irrigation district so any new water rights would need to come from groundwater. To obtain groundwater rights for the dry properties in the area, water rights would need to be removed from irrigated farms in the Deschutes basin. The applicant's attorney testified that purchasing these rights would cost $20,000 per acre and that this makes converting dry land to irrigated farm land cost -prohibitive. This makes dry /ands unattractive expansionareasforownersofexistingirrigatedpropert/es. The development of nonfarm dwellings on dry land will not impact the ability of area farms to acquire water rights of water because their parceJs have no water rights. New nonfarm dweflings wiJJ not compete with area farmers for water rights because single-family homes do not require water rights. The creation of new homes will not materially diminish the number of tracts or acreage in farm use for a number of reasons. Only two of the existing vacant parcels comprised of approximately 121 acres are in farm use (Tax Lot 1913; Map 14-12-00 and Tax Lot 4301, Map 14'12'00). These parcels are the only two parcels in the study area that might be removed from farm use if a nonfarm dwelling was approved. All of the other vacant parcels are not in farm use. Approval of a dwelling on these /ands will not remove land from farm 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 15 use. Each irrigated, vacant parcel may be able to qualify for approval of a farm dwelling and Tax Lot 1913 has been considered eligible for approval of a nonfarm land division that would likely retain all of the irrigated acreage on one of the new lots. The new parcels that might be created by nonfarm dwelling land divisions would all be comprised of land that is generally unsuitable for farm use. Land with a history of farm use would not qualify for approval as a nonfarm parcel due to the relevant approval criteria that requires the entire property, at a minimum, to be generally suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock and merchantable tree species. As a result, no existing farm land will be removed from production of farm crops or livestock by any of the land division approvals that create new nonfarm parcels and the new nonfarm parcels will all be comprised of generally unsuitable land. As a result, the overall character of the area will not be destabilized. The owners of three of the ten irrigated farm properties in the study area, Brian Skidgel, Brian Thorsness and Ed Stabb, testified in favor of approval of the nonfarm dwelling. Mr. Skidgel testified that it is difficult to farm in the study area and that water rights are a challenge because they cost way beyond what is reasonable for a farmer to pay. Mr. Thorsness testified that the limits of soils and irrigation make farming the subject property generally unsuitable. Mr. Stabb testified that the subject property contains a large rocky ridge and that rock is encountered a few inches below the surface — conditions that make the property generally unsuitable. None of the area farmers expressed an interest in purchasing the subject property to operate as a part of their existing irrigated farm operations on nearby properties. None expressed any concern that the nonfarm dwelling would impact their existing farm operations. The entire study area is very large — about 5348 acres. About 2290.31 acres are private properties. This means even with the number of new nonfarm dwellings projected by the applicant's attorney, large undeveloped areas will remain and new homes will not be so densely developed that they will make a noticeable difference on the character of the area. Effect on Stability from Proposed Non -irrigated Partition and Nonfarm Dwellings. Given the 5 nonfarm dwellings approved since 2000, it does not appear likely that the approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will set a precedent for the wholesale approval of nonfarm dwellings to the detriment of surrounding farming. The parcels currently in farm use will likely remain relatively stable, with little or no expansion of farm use in the area, given the topography, soil types, availability of water rights, and prevalence of relatively small to medium sized parcels (less than 40 acres) within the study area. The properties capable of being farmed that have good soils are already being farmed. Additionally, no response to the notice of application or land use action sign was received by nearby farmers requesting the building envelope nor the subject property be made available for farm use. The approval of the proposed dwelling will not affect the amount of farming or the type of farming in the study area. Lastly, nonfarm dwellings are reviewed on a case-by-case basis where each proposed nonfarm dwelling would need to demonstrate compliance with all of the applicable criteria for approval. For the foregoing reasons, the approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not destabilize the mixture of agricultural and residential character of the surrounding area. COLW argues that allowing a nonfarm dwelling on soils mapped 65A and 128C by the NRCS will alter the stability of the area because, with irrigation, they are suitable for farm use by encouraging the creation of additional nonfarm parcels. COLW has not identified which lands in the study area might be divisible that would not otherwise be able to be divided. Nonetheless, the above analysis assumed that all vacant 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 16 parcels in the study area would receive nonfarm dwelling approvals and that all potentially eligible parcels would be approved for Jand divisions to create nonfarm dwellings. As that level of development does not violate the stability standard, the fact that the nonfarm dwelling is proposed to be sited on land mapped 128[ soil by the NRCS on a parcel with 65A and 128C soils does not alter the stability of the land use pattern of the area. COLW also argues that the State's agricultural policy is to preserve farmland in large blocks. As a general rule, this is true. The subject property is not eligible for future land divisions because it was created after July 1, 2001 and the approval of the nonfarm dwelling will not change that fact. The State, also, has authorized the creation of a limited number of nonfarm parcels from farm parcels existing before July 1, 2001 on poor soil areas of productive farm parcels. The subject property was created by one of these land divisions because the County determined that the property is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species. /ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling 15 situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that 15 generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse 50!! or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, Iocation and size ofthe tract. FINDING: There are no forest -zoned properties or known forest uses within the study area. The predominant tree species on-site is juniper, which is not commercially viab|e. For these reasons, the subject property could not be put to forest use either by itself or in conjunction with another property. The portion of the property identified as the building envelope is generally unsuitable for farm crop and livestock production due to the terrain, rocky soil conditions, shallow soils, and the soil type's propensity to erosion. The "suitability" analysis detailed under 18.16.0I0(G)/2) below also supports a finding that the part of the property selected by the applicant, as shown in the applicant's soils study, is generally unsuitable. Terrain: Although there are relatively level areas within the building envelope, there is a prominent ridge with exposed rock running diagonalty across the property, as seen in Figure 2 below (submitted by the applicant) and Figure 3 be/ovv(subm/tted by stafftaken during a site visit). Due to this adverse terrain within the building envelope, staff found that any potential production of farm crops or livestock would be limited. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 17 Figure 2 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 18 Figure 3 Rocky Soils: During a site visit conducted on August 23, 2017, staff walked the perimeter of the proposed building envelope as well as the proposed locations for a dwelling, a shop, a driveway, a well, and a septic system. Staff observed numerous rocky inclusions in the soils within the building envelope. These rocky areas predominately comprise the area within the building envelope and severely limit the ability to produce farm crops. Soils were turned in several locations within the building envelope in preparation for running utility lines. These locations are demonstrative of the numerous rock inclusions within the top layer of soil, in addition to numerous surface rocks. Figures 4 and 5 below demonstrate typical areas of surface rocks within the building envelope, and Figure 6 below demonstrates one of those areas were staff observed numerous rocks present below the soil surface. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 19 Figure 4 Figure 5 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 20 Figure 6 Shallow Soils and Erosion: In addition to the shallow soils amongst surface rocks that staff observed during the site visit, the USDA/NRCS classifies and discusses the limitations of soil type 128C': 128C—Statz-Deschutes complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Properties and Qualities of the Statz Soil Depth: Duripan at a depth of 10 to 20 inches; bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class: Well drained Permeability: Moderately slow Available water capacity: About 2 inches Properties and Qualities of the Deschutes Soil Depth: Bedrock at a depth of 20 to 40 inches Drainage class: Well drained Permeability: Moderately rapid 1 USDA/NRCS Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 21 Available water capacity: About 4 inches General Management Considerations • Care should be taken to protect the soils from wind erosion when applying range improvement practices. • Because the soils are influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. • Pond development is limited by the soil depth, the risk of seepage in the Deschutes soil, and the steepness of slope in some areas. • The restricted depth of the Statz soil limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought - tolerant varieties. Based on the above information, the staff decision found the proposed building envelope is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. COLW challenged the staff's findings regarding suitability, set out above. COLW argues that the soils on the subject property are presumed suitable based on its soils. This presumption, however, is subject to rebuttal and has been rebutted by the applicant. The applicant submitted a soils study prepared by Ryan Miebach, a certified professional soil scientist and a certified professional soil classifier. The soils study demonstrates that 84.5% of the area proposed for nonfarm development (dwelling, septic system, garage, shop building, well, etc.) is comprised of Class VII soils. Mr. Miebach's professional opinion is that the majority of the proposed building area is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock or merchantable tree species. The likely use of Class VII soils is for unprofitable livestock grazing on dry land. Class VII soils are so poor that they may qualify to be removed from EFU zoning because they do not meet the definition of "agricultural land" provided by Statewide Goal 3. COLW argues that the County may not rely on the soils report because it does not comply with DLCD rules because the rules require that soil classifications "be made within the NRCS system." COLW letter dated April 17, 2018. COLW argues that the use of a slightly different, more accurate name, for one of the soils inventoried than provided by the NRCS soils survey for the Deschutes Basin violates DLCD rules. COLW claims say that soil classifications must be made within the NRCS system or they cannot be used. COLW does not cite the law that supports its position. It appears COLW may be relying on OAR 660-033- 0030(5)(a). That law does not support COLW's position for two reasons: (1) the law does not apply to soil studies prepared for nonfarm dwelling applications; and (2) the law does not say what COLW claims. OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) applies when counties are engaged in inventorying "agricultural land" as defined by OAR 660-033-0020(1) and Goal 3. It does not apply to nonfarm dwelling applications because the relevant approval criteria for approval of a nonfarm dwelling do not require an applicant to show that land is not "agricultural land." Instead, the law requires that the land be "generally unsuitable." COLW, also, reads more into the cited rule than it says. The rule says that more detailed data on soil capability than contained in the USDA NRCS soil maps and soils surveys may be used to define agricultural land. It says that the detailed soil work "shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system." 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 22 The term "related" is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged (2002), as relevant here, as "having relationship; connected to by reason of an established or discoverable relationship" and "having similar properties; belonging to the same family of chemical elements." COLW correctly notes that "Statz Ashy Sandy Loam, Dry" is not the same name given to any of the soil mapping units identified by the NRCS soils survey because it includes the word "Ashy." COLW claims that the soil must be analyzed as if it were 127A, Statz sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes and that it must be assumed that slopes are 0-3% rather than the 0% to 8% report by the soil classifier. This argument is countered by the fact that the NRCS soils mapping unit applied to the area studied by the NRCS is 128C Statz Deschutes complex, 0-15% slopes. The NRCS-identified 128C soil mapping unit has a wider range of slopes than reported by Mr. Miebach. The NRCS description of the 128C soil unit in the publication cited by COLW states "Parent material: Ash." Referring to Statz as "ashy," therefore, is accurate. Additionally, it is immaterial whether the name used by Mr. Miebach is exactly the same as used by the NRCS Soil Survey because Mr. Miebach's more detailed analysis is clearly related to the NRCS land capability classification system. Mr. Miebach is a professional soils classifier. His task was to provide a more detailed analysis of the soils on the subject property to determine the correct land capability classification (Class 1 -VIII) used by the NRCS system. Mr. Miebach's report documents that followed NRCS methods in conducting his study and that he relates the results of his study to the NRCS land capability classification system of classifying lands from Class I through VIII. For instance, on page 5 of his report, Mr. Miebach stated [t]he NRCS LCC [land capability classification] Guide rates soil profiles having an AWC less than 2 inches as LCC 7 and soils less than 10 inches deep to a root limiting layer as LCC 7. Mr. Miebach applied these NRCS rules in assessing the LCC of the soils found on the Omlid property. COLW inaccurately claims that the soils analysis determined that 15% of the building envelope is composed of Deschutes Sandy Loam, 1-3% and argues that information about Deschutes sandy loam, 0- 3% mapping units 31A and 32A shows that the soil identified by the soil classifier is suitable for crop production and livestock grazing. COLW, however, errs in reporting the results of the soils analysis. The soil identified is Deschutes Ashy Sandy Loam, 1-3% slopes. COLW either reads the "Ashy" out of the title based on its legal position regarding DLCD rules and Statz soils or fails to notice the difference. Absent any evidence about the impact of the "Ashy" designation and given the fact that this soils is found on a small part of the study area that is close to the road and separated from the 65 A soils in the northwest part of the subject property by Class VII soils and a rock ridge, it is clear that the predominant character of the entire building envelope area is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. See, Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223, 233 (2007); Peterson v. Crook County, 52 Or LUBA 160, 172 (2006); King v. Washington County, 42 Or LUBA 400, 406 (2002) (property may be generally unsuitable even if part is suitable). According to Tim Deboodt, PhD of the Oregon State University Extension Service, a reasonable estimate of the forage production of all parts of the subject property is 20 acres per AUM. One cow or one cow -calf pair would be able to graze on the subject property for about two months before all forage would be consumed. Dr. Deboodt estimated that the annual sale of the calf of a cow calf pair would bring about $1000.00 of gross farm income for a farm three times the size of the subject property or about $333.00 attributable to grazing on the entire subject property. Farm expenses would likely include expenses such as fencing, veterinarian bills, expenses to drive to the property on a regular basis to monitor the health and security of the animals, costs to purchase livestock, the cost to purchase the land, the cost to drill a well or to import and store water on the property for livestock, the cost of electricity for a pump, costs for 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 23 pump maintenance, the cost of hay to feed the mother cow over the winter, breeding expenses, the cost to build a barn for wintering on the property, real property taxes, insurance and other farm expenses. The subject property is ineligible for farm tax deferred assessment of ad valorem taxes because it was created as a nonfarm dwelling parcel by a "farm/nonfarm" land partition. As a result, the taxes on the property alone likely far exceed the gross income that could be achieved from farm use. Given the fact that the poor soils on the property (Class VII) and the non -irrigated better soils (Class VI), together, would not support any farm use that would produce sufficient income to qualify for a farm dwelling based on the income test ($32,500), no reasonable person is going to purchase the property to place it into farm use as grazing land or irrigated hay fields. Additionally, the large area of poor soils and the inability to earn a profit in money from use of the property make it of no interest to area farm owners for expansion of their farm operations. COLW argues that the subject property could be used for grazing by horses, donkeys, goats and a long list of other livestock because these uses occur in Deschutes County. COLW does not, however, claim or provide any evidence that these Deschutes County livestock uses occur on unattended, dry Class VII land. COLW did not argue that any such activities would constitute farm use. Farm use is an agricultural activity which is conducted for the purpose of earning a profit in money. A horse would consume the native vegetation on the property more rapidly than would a cow (1.25 AUMs/25 acres for one horse for one month). Absent a claim that these activities would be economically viable on the subject property and evidence that the accepted farm use of dry land grazing is not viable on the building area, the most logical conclusion is that livestock operations of the type mentioned by COLW would not be commercially viable. COLW argued that irrigating the subject property would enable the property to produce farm crops. Dr. DeBoodt, however, makes clear that the rocky Class 6 soils would, when irrigated, only be suitable for use as an irrigated pasture. Class 7 soils, logically, have the same limitation. To establish pasture land for grazing would require the property owner to purchase water rights at a cost of $20,000 per acre and to purchase and install an irrigation system. These costs would be incurred in addition to costs described above for dry land ranching. The hearings officer finds, based on the opinion of area farmer Brian Skidgel and others, that the cost of purchasing water rights is beyond what is reasonable given the likely return on investment (financial losses). This criterion is met. iv. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the livability of the nonfarm dwelling or the agriculture of the area. FINDING: This criterion does not apply because the subject property is not within one-quarter of a mile from a dairy farm, feed lot, or sales yard. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 24 v. Road access, fire and police services and utility systems (i.e. electrical and telephone) are adequate for the use. FINDINGS: Electricity. The record includes a letter from Central Electric Cooperative indicating the subject property is within their service area and they are prepared to serve this location. Road access. Access to the proposed dwelling is via NW 91' Street, which is a County -maintained rural local road. 91" Street is a paved public right-of-way. Per Form A of the application, "Traffic Figures for Non -Farm Dwelling", the proposed nonfarm dwelling would generate an estimated 8 vehicle trips per day, which would not exceed the capacity of the road (250 to 1,500 vehicle trips per day). No comments were received from the County Road Department indicating the need for any road improvements. The applicant has also obtained a driveway access permit (247 -17 -001346 -DA). Telephone. The applicant states that telephone service will be provided by Qwest Communications. Mobile phone service is also available at the subject property. Domestic water. The water source will be via an on-site well. The record includes two well Togs from the nearby area indicating water is available, with a static water level at approximately 160 to 232 feet, at a rate of 30-43 gallons per minute. Septic. The applicant did not address this section, however, staff notes that the proposed dwelling will need to be served by an on-site septic disposal system. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Septic Permit: The applicant shall secure any necessary septic permit approval for the nonfarm dwelling. Fire protection. The property is within the Redmond Rural Fire District boundaries. Police protection. The property is served by the Deschutes County Sheriff. Based on the above information, staff finds the proposal will meet or already meets these criteria. vi. The nonfarm dwelling shall be located on a lot or parcel created prior to January 1, 1993, or was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 18.16.055(B) or (C). FINDING: The subject property was created in 2006 as Parcel 2 of Minor Partition MP -04-26 (Partition Plat 2006-40). The Minor Partition created nonfarm parcels for the development of a nonfarm dwelling in accordance with the standards in the DCC. This standard is met. 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 25 a. A lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the dwelling shall be situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of merchantable tree species recognized by the Forest Practices Rules, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the parcel. FINDING: The subject property is not under forest assessment. LUBA has determined the issue of whether nonfarm parcels can be put to farm use in conjunction with other properties "is triggered under DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a) if the parcels are found to be unsuitable solely because of size or location." Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 56 Or LUBA 280 (2008). See also, Williams v. Jackson County, 55 Or LUBA 223, 230 (2007). In this case, and as articulated below, the subject property is not suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock primarily due to adverse soil and land conditions and sparse vegetation. Because the decision does not rely solely on size and location to find the property unsuitable, this criterion does not apply. Even if this criterion applied, it would not preclude approval of this application. The record shows that the adjoining 40 -acre property to the south is approved for development with a nonfarm dwelling and is not in farm use. It, like the subject property, was determined to be unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock when it was created and the fact the parcels might be used together was not grounds to deny the land divisions that created these properties and divided them from the 80 acre property to the west of both parcels. The only other property that adjoins the subject property is a non -irrigated 80 -acre parcel that is not engaged in farm use. It is composed entirely of soil mapping units that contain Class 6 and 7 nonirrigated soils. Like all other non -irrigated land in the study area, this 80 acre parcel has no known history of farm or ranching use. In CU-04-89/CU-04-90/MP-04-26, the County found that the subject property and the property south of it could not reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with adjacent land which logically includes the 80 acre parcel created by this land division. The hearings officer sees nothing in the record to indicate that this determination was in error in 2004 when it was made. All three properties have remained vacant since 2004, most likely because they are not generally suitable and cannot reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with other land. In assessing whether the property might reasonably be put into farm use with adjoining properties that are located across the road from the subject property, the nature of the adjoining farm use is relevant. Both properties are growing hay using center pivot irrigation. It would not be feasible to irrigate the subject property using the existing pivots due to the road. Both farmers would be faced with the same economic and development the applicants would face if they attempted to establish a farm use on the subject property (cost of irrigation water, large area of Class 7 soils, rock ridge, rocky soils, etc.). Furthermore, one of the two adjoining (across the road) owners has testified in support of approval of the application and has no interest in seeking to attempt to develop the subject property as a part of his farm operation. The other owner has not expressed interest in acquiring the subject property. Additionally, the applicant is relying on the fact that a part of the subject property is of such poor soils that it is reasonable to place a home in that location. The law specifically allows nonfarm homes to be sited on poor soils areas of land; even it contains some areas that might be generally suitable for farm use. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 26 The poor soils area/building area would not magically become suitable for farming if it were a part of a larger property. The soils are very poor and no farmer would likely want to place them into farm use. b. A lot or parcel is not unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as parofwcommercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." A lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed predominantly of Class 1411 solls. Just because a lot or parce! is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitabk for another farm use. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the area 15 not "generaily unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be managed for forest production profitably by itself. FINDING: The reason it is not profitable to farm the subject property or the building envelope is not due to the fact that either the subject property or the building envelope is too small to be farmed profitably. No dry land parcels in the study area, no matter how large, are employed in farm use. The most logical conclusion is that properties in the area are generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops or livestock unless they have irrigation water rights. The fact that acquiring new water rights is cost prohibitive; not the size of the parcel is one of a number of reasons the property cannot be farmed profitably. The tax burden imposed on the property by its 2004/2006 land division is yet another reason the property cannot be farmed profitably; a reason unrelated to its size. There are no directly abutting commercial farms or ranches. There are irrigated properties to the north across Coyner Ave and to the east across 91st Street, but as stated previously, no response to the notice of application or land use action sign was received by nearby farmers requesting the building envelope nor the subject property be made available for farm use. One of the two adjoining farmers testified in favor of approval of this application and opined that the cost of obtaining water rights for the property makes it cost -prohibitive to farm it. The subject property, therefore, could not reasonably be viewed as being able to be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch. Regarding suitability for farm uses, staff relies on the following LUBA case law: Griffin v. Jackson County, 48 Or LUBA 1 (2004). The question is not whether land is generaily unsuitable for all farm use; the question is whether the land is generally unsuitable to produce crops, livestock, or merchantable trees. Dorvinen v. Crook County, 33 Or LUBA 711 (1997; discussing legislative history). ORS 215.284(2)(b) allows nonfarm dwellings to be sited on unproductive parts of the productive farm land on lands outside the Willamette Valley. Frazee v. Jackson Countv, 45 Or LUBA 263 (2003). Where a nonfarm dwelling is proposed to be sited on unproductive parts of the productive farm land on lands outside the Willamette Valley, the county is to focus on the productivity of the part of the property selected for nonfarm development and should not consider the suitability of the rest of the parcel or tract. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 27 Based on the above case law, the suitability of the building envelope with respect to crops, livestock or merchantable trees is the determining factor. The applicant has proposed an irregularly shaped building envelope (see Figure 7 below) on the portion of the property identified as containing type 128C soils, which is roughly the southeastern half of the property (see Figure 8 below). 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 28 Figure 7 NW COYN ER AVE If Initial system 438ft Shop Reserve system WELL-100ft setback 0 183ft 893ft 10ft set back 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 10ft setback 29 Figure 8 The following analysis based on the NRCS soil mapping analysis also supports approval of the nonfarm dwelling application: Farm crops. The record indicates the soils on the subject property consist of the following two soil mapping units: Unit 65A Houstake sandy loam, and Unit 128C Statz-Deschutes complex. The proposed building envelope will be situated entirely on the mapped 128C soils which have a Land Capability Classification (LCC) rating of 6e when unirrigated and do not have a rating when irrigated. The subject property does not have irrigation rights. As noted above, the approval criterion presumes LCC 1 through 6 soils are suitable for farm use. As mentioned in 18.16.050(G)(1)(A)(iii) above, the soil unit 128C is a complex with type 6e (VI) soils, however, the soils within the building envelope are "generally unsuitable" for farm crop and livestock production due to the terrain, rocky soil conditions, shallow soils, and the soil type's propensity to erosion. Consequently, the proposed building envelope is not suitable for the production of farm crops. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 30 Livestock. The applicant has provided evidence from Dr. DeBoodt of the OSU Extension Service that the entire subject property can be expected to produce approximately $1000 per year in gross income if used for cattle grazing without considering the cost of purchasing livestock. Merchantable trees. The predominant tree species on-site is juniper. Juniper trees are not a commercially viable tree. For this reason, staff found the proposed building envelope is not suitable for the production of merchantable trees. Based on the information and case law cited above, the building envelope is not generaily suitable for production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species. In Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA found that "the portion of the parcel that is "generally unsuitable" must be large enough to include not only the dwelling, but essential or accessory components of that dxveUing." Deschutes County reads this decision to require that the dwelling, detached residential - associated buildings (including garages), well, septic system, dnainfie|d, and the septic reserve area, as essential or accessory components of the dwelling be located in the building area. LUBA however, expressly excluded driveways from "essential or accessory components of the dwelling." that must be Iocated within the building envelope. The applicant submitted a revised plot plan that depicts a well, a dwelling, a septic system, and a shop within the proposed building envelope. Although the final locations of these features may change within the building envelope, the applicant has demonstrated these essential and accessory components of the dwelling can be located within the building envelope. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Building Envelope: The dwelling and all essential or accessory components,excluding driveways, shall be sited within the proposed building envelope. c. If a lot or parceunder forest assessment can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as a part of a forestry operation, it is not "generaily unsuitable". If a lot or parcel is under forest assessment, it is presumed suitable if it 15 composed predominantly of soil capable ofproducing 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year. If a lot or parce! 15 under forest assessment, to be found compatible and not seriously interfere with forest uses on surrounding land it must not force asignificant change in forest practices or significantly increase the cost of those practices on the surrounding land. FINDING: The subject property is not under forest assessment. Therefore, this rule does not apply. 3. Loss of tax deferral. Except as provided /n[ICC 1�16.pursuant to ORS 215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot orparce! in an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is or has been receiving special assessment may be approved only on the condition that before a building permit 15 issued, the applicant must produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parce! upon which the dwe!!ing is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 31 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. FINDING: The subject property was required to be disqualified from farm tax deferral after it was approved as a nonfarm parcel with a nonfarm dwelling by files CU -04-89, CU -04-90, and MP -04-26. The subject property does not appear to be currently receiving farm tax deferral, but it is unclear if the property has been permanently disqualified from farm tax deferral. The property owners signed the tax consequence acknowledgement form (Form D). The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. Farm Tax Deferral Disqualification: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. 4. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The application does not indicate the height of the proposed dwelling. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. Building Height: No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. 5. Section 18.16.070. Yards A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. 8. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm us, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: The subject property fronts on NW 91St Street to the east and Coyner Avenue to the north, both of which are county -maintained rural local roads. The required front yard setback is 40 feet. The submitted 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 32 plot plan identifies the building envelope as being as close as 10 feet from the eastern front property line and 425 feet from the northern front property line. All proposed structures are required to be at least 40 feet from the eastern and northern front property lines. The properties to the west and south of the subject property are not receiving farm tax deferral (special assessment for farm use), therefore, no increased setbacks for the proposed nonfarm dwelling are required. The required side yard setbacks are 25 feet from western and southern property lines. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with these criteria. Minimum Structural Setbacks: The nonfarm dwelling and all accessory structures shall be located within the approved building envelope and observe the following minimum setbacks: a minimum of 40 feet from the eastern and northern front property lines, and a minimum of 25 feet from the western and southern side property lines. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. 5. Section 18.16.080. Stream Setbacks To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. FINDING: There are no rivers or streams on or near the subject property. These standards do not apply. 6. Section 18.16.090. Rimrock Setback Nothwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160 or 18.84.090, whichever is applicable. FINDING: The subject property has no rimrock on or near it. This standard does not apply. Iv. CONCLUSIONS Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant and the above analysis, the application for a nonfarm dwelling in the EFU Zone meets the standards for approval as conditioned by this approval. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 33 Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits and meeting the requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division, the Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as obtaining any required state and federal permits. V. DECISION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Use: Approval is based upon the submitted plan. Any substantial change to the approved plan will require a new application. An updated title report shall be required as part of final plat review. 2. Farm & Forest Management Easement: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a nonfarm dwelling, the owner shall sign and record in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded Farm and Forest Management Easement to the Planning Division. 3. Septic: The applicant shall secure any necessary septic permit approval for the nonfarm dwelling. 4. Building Envelope: The dwelling and all essential or accessory components, excluding driveways, shall be sited within the proposed building envelope. 5. Farm Tax Deferral Disqualification: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. 6. Building Height: No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. 7. Minimum Structural Setbacks: The nonfarm dwelling and all accessory structures shall be located within the approved building envelope and observe the following minimum setbacks: a minimum of 40 feet from the eastern and northern front property lines, and a minimum of 25 feet from the western and southern side property lines. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 34 VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: All conditions of tentative approval and submission of an application for a building permit for the proposed nonfarm dwelling must occur within four (4) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain approval of an extension under Title 22 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Liz Fancher, Hearings Officer 247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 35 n n n n r n n U N c -I a-1 .-I c-1 1-1 N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N N N N N N N V) Lf) Ln 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 2 2 S T 2 2 2 00 0 00 N t0 N 01 t,- 0 00 00 ^o 0 c01 no n•J 0CC 0 C4 0 O 0 N O Cr) Cr) 00 - 00 00 z t( z N o 0 0 0 0 0 bi ,;, E -o-o 2 E 2 "o Y 0) 0) 0) uJ 0 0) 00 100 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 0 0) 5 a 01 z 00 00 :'-0 0 N N 4-4 r ati -p L (n 00 c u CO vl o Lo Z Q1 1 > N- 00 -o 00 V) 00 0 a O0 0 00 01 f0 a L .--1 ,j- Carol Macbeth Shannon McCabe C/O BRIAN SKIDGEL (A) 5506 NW 8rd St. Brian Thorsness 2940 NW 74TH ST 16056 SE Orchard View Lane 0 0 00 Q S 5 @ 0 0 00 Q c 00 c Q T t 00 Attachment 2 Notice of Appeal Community Development Department Planning Division auiWing Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P,O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes,org/cd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: $3661 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Appellant's Name (print): Central Oregon LandWatch Mailing Address: 50 SW Bond Street, Suite 4 Phone: ( 541) 647-2930 City/State/Zip: 97702 Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-17-000852 -A (247- 17-000220 -CU) Omlid NFD Property Description: Township 14S Range 12E Section 34 Tax Lot 2(i0 Appellant's Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 10/15 Quality Services Performed with Pride NOTICE OF APPEAL See attached letter and check for $3661. (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) er;p, I LAN D WATC H www.centraloregonlandwatch.org May 11, 2019 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 via hand delivery Re: 247-17-000852-A Appeal of hearings officer approval of a nonfarm dwelling in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone Dear Chair DeBone and Commissioners: Central Oregon LandWatch appeals the hearings officer's decision in File No. 247-17-000852-A. The hearings officer's decision violates the law and is prohibited as a matter of law and is subject to reversal. The property is located in a productive agricultural area in the county's EFU zone. The property is wholly composed of Class I -VI soils. Fig. A (Deschutes County GIS); Fig. G (excerpt from application). The property and all portions thereof are presumed suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B). The property is identical in relevant characteristics to adjacent lands currently in agricultural use. The property can be used in conjunction with or managed as a part of adjacent commercial farms. The property meets the tests for suitability in ORS 215.284, OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B), and DCC 18.16.050(G)(2), and therefore cannot be approved. We respectfully urge the Board to reverse the decision for the reasons outlined below. 2 1. ORS 215.284(2)(b); DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(iii); the proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitablefor the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location, and size of tract. Land that is predominantly Class I -VI according to the NRCS is presumed suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock as a matter of law under county code and state law. Moreover land that is wholly Class I -VI like the subject property is capable of producing farm crops and livestock as a matter of fact according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The hearings officer misconstrued and misapplied the applicable law in approving the application as the applicant did not overcome the presumption of suitability. The County's regulations implementing the statutes governing nonfarm dwellings are not intended to facilitate nonfarm dwellings on agricultural land. Nonfarm dwellings are the exception in lands zoned for exclusive farm use. As the Oregon Court of Appeals has explained, an EFU zone is designed to preserve the limited amount of agricultural land to the maximum extent possible and constitutes a substantial limitation on other uses of rural land. To achieve this purpose, the legislature has imposed substantial restrictions on the construction of non-farm dwellings in EFU zones. LUBA has also commented that the standards for approving a nonfarm dwelling are so strict that they often cannot not be satisfied. Unsurprisingly for a property that is wholly composed of Class I -VI soils in the County's exclusive farm use zone and that, as shown in the uncontested photographs below, is surrounded to the west, northwest, north, northeast, east, and southeast with lands in production for irrigated agriculture, this property does not satisfy Deschutes County code standards for nonfarm dwellings. The hearings officer's decision erred in finding otherwise. 3 Figure A Not The soils on the subject property, including the proposed building envelope, are identical to soils shown in active use for farming to the northwest, north, northeast, east, and southeast of the property. Figure C shows land to the west is also in active use for farming 65A soils. Figure B N4 Proposed envelope soils 128C shown in use for irrigated crop production; 128C on subject property is indistinguishable in terrain, adverse land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, and location to 1 28C that, when cleared, is manifestly suitable for the production of farm crops on adjacent commercial farms. Because the subject property can be managed as part of these farms it is not unsuitable and the decision must be reversed. 4 Figure C Horse and cattle farm to west of property. Same 65A soil that covers western half of property is shown in active use for pasture; identical slope to subject property; identical native vegetation in background (foreground 65A land cleared for agriculture by removing junipers, rocks, sagebrush). Figure D Same 65A soil that covers western half of property in active use for irrigated crop production on land to northwest; in background, 65A & 128 C in active use for irrigated crop production on land to north. 5 Figure E Same soils as on subject pro )ert in active use for alfalfa cro i on farm to the north. Figure F Same 128C soils as in proposed building envelope in active use for crop production on farm to the northeast and east of the subject property. Because the subject property can be managed as part of one of these commercial farms it is not unsuitable. 6 No nonfarm dwelling may be approved on the subject parcel because the strict requirements for nonfarm dwelling approval in statute and county code cannot be met. No portion of this EFU parcel is unsuitable for the production of faun crops or livestock. As shown in Fig. A from the Deschutes County GIS database, the property is 60% 128C and 40% 65A soils; see Fig. G. Both soils are in widespread use for irrigated agriculture in the exclusive farm use zone lands surrounding the subject property. As shown in Figures A and B, the 128C soils on the eastern half of the property where the dwelling is proposed are in use for farming throughout the area, as are the 65A soils that cover the western part of the property. As shown in Figures A and C, 65A soils are in use for irrigated pasture on the farm to the west. As shown in figures A and D, 65A soils are in use for irrigated crops on the farm to the northwest. As shown in Figures A, B, and E, 65A and 128C soils are in use for irrigated crops on the farm to the north. As shown in Figures A, B, and F, 128C soils are in use for irrigated crops on the farms to the northeast and east. Wherever 128 C is managed for farm use in the above photographs it is shown growing crops. The evidence that adjacent farms with identical terrain, soil and land conditions, drainage and flooding patterns, native vegetation, location, as well as soil type, are currently using the same soils for irrigated farm crops and pasture, in combination with the availability of water as discussed infra, is a significant obstacle to finding the subject property cannot be used for the production of farm crops and livestock. Property is suitable for the production of farm crops The photographic evidence in Figures A -F is consistent with the applicant's determination that the property's soils are suitable for winter wheat, bluegrass seed, mint distillate, Irish potatoes, pasture grass, and alfalfa, as the applicant wrote in its application. See Fig. G below; Application, 20. As indicated in the record, winter wheat and other crops can be and historically were dry -farmed in Central Oregon. e.g. L.R. Breithaupt, Grains for the Dry Lands of Central Oregon, Farmers Bulletin 800, USDA, 1917 ("The important crops for these dry -fanned lands are winter wheat and rye and spring wheat, rye, oats and barley... Winter wheat is the best of the cereal 7 crops ...) Whether the subject property is irrigated or not, the property is suitable for the production of farm crops, therefore the hearings officer erred by approving the application for a nonfarm dwelling. Soll Number lt5A 8C, Nauur 1‘t, ,l,..y:- LAS Ni`". ��. 'tv� Crops Of i ivt :tm.k which Percentage NRCS Survey Stag can be ,r1 1 .r{ Produced Oft this Soll type n,l,r1 (0,01l:1 tt5 '41-0:.:tint \1 t, Am), •rY{'r ;1.111.,! 1P°% IV OA, Figure G Applicants' description of uses for the soils on the property. Deschutes County code requires that a nonfarm dwelling must be situated upon a lot or parcel or portion thereof that is unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock based on a number of relevant factors. The suitability standard in county code, which implements ORS 215.284(2)(b), provides: DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii): The dwelling is situated upon a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable land for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a) A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land.... (b) A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed predominantly of Class 1 -VI soils. Just because a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another farm use. 8 The subject property shares all of the legally relevant characteristics with the farmland and pasture shown in Figures A -F. There is no reason the subject property cannot be used for the same purposes. Whether a particular farmer has produced or wishes to produce farm crops or livestock on the subject property is not relevant. The subject property is identical in the legally relevant characteristics to surrounding lands in use for irrigated crop production and pasture. The subject property is not currently cleared for agricultural use by removing juniper, rocks, and sagebrush, as a reasonable fanner or rancher would do. Figure H, below, shows the same soil that covers the western half of this property, 65A, as it looks when cleared and put into farm use. The same vegetation that covers the subject property was present before the farm to the left was cleared, and the same vegetation will cover the farm again if the farmer ceases to farm it. Figure H 65A soils on left and right, cleared and not cleared for tanning, respectively, note level terrain, subject property in background on right. Property is suitable for the production of livestock The entire property is Class VI soil without irrigation. Class VI land is, by definition, suited for the grazing of livestock. Staff decision, 3; Attachment 1, p. 9. The county must consider not only the suitability for producing crops, but also for production of livestock, both alone and in conjunction. The staff decision LandWatch appealed to the hearings officer calculated the applicant could make over $13,000 annually from grazing cattle just in the building envelope alone. 9 "Thus, the total gross beef production potential for the proposed building envelope would be approximately (12 months)($1,090.20) = $13,082.40 annually." This is a significant income for the building envelope, to which can be added the income that can be made from crops or livestock on the rest of the subject property. The subject property could be used for grazing and breeding horses, cattle, llamas, donkeys, sheep, or goats. If the landowner finds insufficient native bunch grass on the property, the landowner could seed the property with native grasses, thus increasing the forage capability, or could move livestock to other ground for part of the year. Photographs submitted by the applicant taken, according to the applicant, 100 feet from the proposed location, show native grasses in the envelope, that contribute to the property's suitability for livestock grazing. See below Figs. I, J. Figure 1 Applicant photograph showing native grasses for livestock grazing in proposed building envelope. 10 Figure J Applicant photograph showing native grasses for livestock grazing to right, midground, background, in proposed building envelope. The property could also be used for the production of small livestock such as bees, rabbits, mink, ducks, geese, or chickens, which do not require any particular soil type. There is no evidence these livestock and related products, such as goat cheese, mohair, or honey, cannot be produced on the subject property. The hearings officer erred in shifting the burden of proof to appellants. As shown in photographs throughout the record and as shown on the below topographic map, the terrain of the 11 property is nearly level and thus suitable for grazing of any kind of livestock or production of small livestock.1 !W COYN{R AV{ Figure K There is a negligible slope on the property and no risk from erosion. The topography is shown in the above map and in photographs to be level. The hearings officer mischaracterized the property as having a "prominent ridge." Id. Figs. I, J, show rock outcrops, not a ridge; Fig. K shows no ridge; Figs. L -O and other photographs in the record show the property is level with no ridge. Most importantly, erosion is accounted for in the NRCS land capability classification, which classified this land as Class VI when not irrigated. Attachment 1. It is counterfactual for the hearings officer to cite erosion as a relevant factor where the land is level and is suitable for livestock grazing by definition. See Figure 11 close-up from the USGS Cline Falls Quadrangle (2014.) It shows the topography of the property is level and similar to nearby properties in use for pasture to the west, and irrigated crop production to northwest, north, northeast, east, and southeast. 12 Figure L Subject property to right, no ridge, no erosion risk. Figure M Subject property to right, no ridge, no erosion risk. The applicant did not meet its burden of proof in establishing that the land is not suitable for the production of livestock or crops or cannot be managed as part of a larger commercial neighboring farm, or managed as part of a commercial farm or livestock production enterprise on the rest of the property where the land is Class III when irrigated. The applicant did not address the production of other types of livestock or of crops common to Deschutes County such as hops, lavender, and mint. Even if production of such livestock or crops might require additional management, such management should be simple for the small portion of the property identified as the building envelope. Even if the land were sloped goats are an example of livestock produced in Deschutes County that can graze on slopes. The hearings officer's decision violates the applicable law because where, as here, an applicant cannot show the property is unsuitable for livestock or crop production, county code, as well as the state law the code implements, prohibits approval. Just because a lot or parcel or 13 portion of a lot or parcel is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another farm use. DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(b). Current state of land is not relevant to suitability The decision is erroneous in considering the history of the land to be a relevant factor. The land's "suitability" for agriculture is the legally relevant quality. Suitability is unrelated to whether the land has been cultivated for crops, livestock, or merchantable timber in the past. See the photographs in the record showing the same soils cleared and farmed, and uncleared and not farmed. There is no evidence one way or the other regarding whether the property was or was not part of a ranch in the past therefore the decision is not based on substantial evidence in relying on this as a factor. Decision, 1, 26. OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B); no such thing as "rocky" or "shallow" Class VI soil NRCS classification is based on an assumption of management by a reasonable farmer. Attachment 1. The decision misinterpreted and misapplied OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B). There is no evidence the NRCS classification is not Class I - VI therefore the hearings officer erred in relying on the soils report. Attachment 2. There is no such thing as a "rocky" or "shallow" Class VI soil. See Attachment 1. The hearings officer may not substitute her judgment about rockiness or similar factors for LCDC's determination that lands classified as Class VI are presumed suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. The hearings officer errs in making findings that attack the presumption, relying on the soils report. In this case the proposed building envelope soils, 128C, are shown to be in use for crop production. See above photographs; see Figs. N,O below. The presence of inclusions does not alter the NRCS classification. The report cannot and does not establish the property is outside the range of variability of the NRCS soil map unit across thousands of acres of 128C farmland in the Deschutes basin. The presumption of suitability holds and the applicant did not overcome it, therefore the hearings officer's decision should be reversed. 14 Figure N Level, uncleared, no visible rocks, 128C on subject property to the west; cleared 128C in use for irrigated crop production to the east. Figure 0 Level, uncleared, no visible rocks, 1280 on subject property to the west; cleared 128C in use for irrigated crop production to the east. 2. ORS 215.284(2)(b); OAR 660-033-0130(4)(c)(B)(i); DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a) The hearings officer misinterpreted and misapplied the use in conjunction and managed as part of standards. There are farming operations to the west, northwest, north, northeast, and east of the subject property. Neither the use in conjunction nor the managed as part of tests require farms to be directly adjacent. Many livestock producers move their livestock large distances between pastures to allow them to graze at different times of the year. The regulation is an imperative conditional, meaning use in conjunction must be considered regardless of size or location. The only legally relevant characteristic that is different from the surrounding farms in active agricultural use is the size: the parcel is approximately 40 acres, while the pivots on adjacent lands are for larger parcels of 185 acres and 138 acres. See administrative decision, 2. Since the envelope can be used in conjunction with or managed as a part of those commercial farms, limits in the amount of forage or crop 15 production possible on a parcel of this size are not an indication of unsuitability. Because this land can reasonably be used in conjunction the burden was on the applicant to show that the land is not being considered unsuitable solely because of size or location. The evidence in the record is not sufficient to meet that burden because the portion is not unsuitable in any of the other characteristics relevant to suitability. ORS 215.284(2)(b). The relevant question is not whether the land is being used in conjunction with other land, or whether the farmers who happen to own the neighboring farms choose to manage this land or use it in conjunction, the relevant question is whether the land can reasonably be put to farm use in conjunction with or managed as part of other farms. Thc applicant failed to mcet the burden of proving the land cannot be managed as part of one of these commercial farms or as part of a future commercial farm on the 65A (Class JJ1 when irrigated) soil on the property, precluding approval. 3. ORS 215.284(2)(6); DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(iii); irrigation water is available The presence or absence of irrigation water is not one of the relevant characteristics for the suitability determination under ORS 215.284. As a matter of fact and law irrigation water rights are available in Deschutes County. This can be determined upon cursory inquiry and is so well known that it qualifies for official notice in this proceeding. Evidence in the record from the watermaster for Deschutes County shows it is possible to acquire irrigation rights in Deschutes County, see Jeremy Giffin April 11, 2018 email, stating "You can transfer water rights, lease water rights and apply for a new water right." The watermaster is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The forage analyst erroneously stated water is not available ("there are no new water rights available") and only considered circumstances without water, The analyst did not consider irrigation, clearing, reseeding, and other steps a reasonable farmer or rancher would take to produce crops or improve forage for livestock grazing, and did not consider production of other livestock. The forage analyst's evidence is not comparable to NRCS data because the NRCS assumes the farmer or rancher will act 16 reasonably. Attachment 1. The forage estimates are directly related to the size of the fraction of land set aside for the proposed envelope. The hearings officer pointed out that well water is available. Decision, 24. The only impediment to obtaining irrigation water is the will of the landowner to acquire it. If the applicant does not wish to acquire irrigation water or does not wish to farm that is an argument against acquiring property in the exclusive farm use zone. It is not, however, a relevant argument concerning whether the land is suitable for the production of farm crops, livestock, or merchantable timber under ORS 215.284 and DCC 18.16.050(G). The hearings officer's findings improperly consider the price of irrigation water rights or the tax burden as relevant. As we argued to the hearings officer, approval of a nonfarm dwelling on this property will destabilize the agricultural land base in this area in part by driving up the price of land beyond its price for farming. When the land is priced for agriculture as county and state exclusive farm use zones arc designed to do, the combined cost of land and water will not be so high. The hearings officer further erred in finding that approval of this claim will not destabilize the land base and will not drive up the prices of accepted farming practices such as production of irrigated crops. DCC 18.16.050(G). According to the applicant, all portions of the property are suitable for the production of winter wheat and rye. Application, 20; sce supra Fig. G. Both crops may be grown with or without irrigation. Lack of irrigation water is not relevant to suitability and in any case is no impediment to agricultural use on the property. 4. Applicant's consultant is a soil classifier The hearings officer's findings are not based 011 substantial evidence where they rely on the applicant's consultant's ultimate conclusions regarding the suitability of the property for the production of farm crops, livestock or merchantable timber. Decision, 17 ("[The consultant's] professional opinion is that the majority of the proposed building area is composed of soils generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops, livestock or merchantable tree species.") There is no indication the 17 consultant is qualified to determine suitability under ORS 215.284(2)(b), OAR 660- 033-0130(4)(c)(B)(i), or DCC 18.16.050(G)(2)(a). See Second Supplemental Burden of Proof, Exhibit 1 (explaining the purpose of the study was to "determine the amount of lands generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock...") A soil report is scientific evidence. A reasonable decision maker would not rely on the legal conclusions asserted by the consultant. 5. DCC 22.20.15, unpermitted structure on property The decision is inadequate for failure to address the issue raised by LandWatch about an unpermitted structure located in the proposed building envelope. Since there are no permits in the county records for this structure the property appears to be in violation of county regulations regulating the placement of structures on EFU land. Until the property is brought into compliance with applicable regulations no additional land use permits may be approved. The hearings officer erred in issuing a decision without requiring this issue to be addressed. 6. DCC 18.16.050(0(1)(a); stability analysis The hearings officer erred in finding approval of the requested use will not destabilize the land base. The hearings officer misinterpreted the applicable law in finding dwellings "have not deterred or curtailed" farm uses in the past. Decision, 12. The question is whether approval of this requested use will result in other approvals that will destabilize the land use pattern in the future. The hearings officer relied on the partition process that created the subject property as evidence that the parcel was created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 18.16.055(B) or (C). Decision, 25.2 DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(v). The standard in DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(v) is binary: a parcel must either have been created prior to 1993, or through the partition process to create 2 DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(v) requires: "The nonfarni dwelling shall be located on a lot or parcel created prior to January 1, 1993 or was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 18.16.055(B) or (C)." The hearings officer found that the parcel satisfies this requirement because it was created as a nonfarm parcel under those land division standards in 2006. 18 a nonfarm parcel. If the parcel here were not created by a partition process it would be unlawful as not created prior to 1993. OAR 660-033-130(4)(c) requires consideration of other nonfarm parcels in the stability analysis "if the application involves the creation of a new parcel for the nonfarm dwelling." "New parcel" in the rule refers to a parcel created by nonfarm partition as opposed to the only alternative, a parcel created prior to 1993. Therefore this application necessarily "involves" the creation of a new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling that must be taken into account in the stability analysis. The hearings officer erred by not counting five nonfarm dwellings that have been approved but not yet built. Decision, 13. The decision's stability analysis is inadequate for review because it does not identify which of the nonfarm dwellings approved since 1993 were approved before and which were approved after the subject parcel was approved, and the total number of nonfarm dwellings estimated is unclear. As we explained in prior comments the relevant stability analysis is the stability analysis conducted in the county decision that created the subject property. CU -04-89, CU -04-90 and MP -04-26, 7; (see Application 36.2). This analysis shows the impact of approving a nonfarm dwelling on the property. The county found that if this parcel were approved there would be an additional 38 nonfarm dwellings. Id. The 38 nonfarm dwellings would be added to 16 dwellings that were built from 1900 to the date of the stability analysis resulting in a density of 54 dwellings, where before there were 16. Id. See below graph of the change in the number of nonfann dwellings over time as estimated by Deschutes County at the time of creation of this parcel. (i.e. 1 from 1900-1978; 8 from 1979 to 1992; 7 from 1993 -present, 38 additional in the future.) It is absurd to contend approval of this nonfarm dwelling will not cause a material alteration of the land use pattern of this rural farm area. DCC 18.16.050(G). The cascade of new approvals of nonfarm dwellings if this nonfarm dwelling is approved will irreparably fragment the agricultural land base. The change in price from farmland to development land will preclude future expansion of existing fauns. Therefore the stability standard is not met and the decision should be reversed. 19 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1900 Nonfarm Dwellings CU -04-89, CU -04-90 and MP -04-26 Nonfarm Dwellings 7. ORS 215.422; ORS 2.516; ORS 215.825; the exhaustion requirement of ORS 215.825 as applied to the land use appeal fee of $3361 violates the Oregon Constitution's justice without purchase clause and raises due process, equal protection, and separation of powers issues, interferes with jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; the fee is inconsistent with ORS 215.422, which allows charging of only an average or actual cost of a review of the lawfulness of an adverse decision LandWatch requests a refund of the appeal fee except that portion required to recover the cost of the review of the lawfulness of the hearings officer's decision, the service requested. The fee of $3361 exceeds by thousands of dollars the cost of the requested service (e.g. appeals to LUBA are $400, appeals to Court of Appeals are $391). If the County declines review LandWatch requests a full refund; LandWatch objects to the County's charging a fee for not hearing the appeal as the County is not authorized to charge for not providing a service. 20 Conclusion The hearings officer's decision misinterprets and misapplies the applicable law. Even the most casual observer can perceive that no nonfarm dwelling can be approved on this nearly level parcel that shares all legally relevant characteristics with the farms that surround it and that could be used for the production of crops or livestock, alone or as part of the adjacent farms. The hearings officer's decision should be reversed. Best regards, arol Macbeth Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch LAND -C PABILITY C ASSIFICATIO1s1 A RYI OCT1 3 1961 oi tijj Agriculture lifartaboolt No. 210 SOIL CONS ft ATIO U.S. DEPART ENT ERV ICE /OR/CULTURE Growth Through Agricultural Progress For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents FOREWORD Since soil surveys are based on all of the characteristics of soils that influence their use and management, interpretations are needed for each of the many uses. Among these interpretations the grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses, and classes is one of the most important. This grouping serves as an introduction of the soil map to farmers and other land users developing conservation plans. As we have gained experience in this grouping, the definitions of the categories have improved. It is the purpose of this publication to set forth these definitions. In using the capability classification, the reader must continually recall that it is cm interpretation. Like other interpretations, it depends on the probable interactions between the kind of soil and the alternative systems of management. Our management systems are con- tinually changing. Economic conditions change. Our knowledge grows. Land users are continually being offered new things, such as new machines, chemicals, and plant varieties. The new technology applies unevenly to the various kinds of soil. Thus the grouping of any one kind of soil does not stay the same with cbanges in technology. That is, new combinations of practices increase the productivity of some soils more than others, so some are going up in the scale whereas others are going down, relatively. Some of our moat productive soils of today were considered poorly suited to crops a few years ago. On the other hand, some other soils that were once regarded as good for cropping are now being used more productively for growing pulpwood. These facts in no way suggest that we should not make interpretations. In fact. they become increasingly important as technology grows. But these facts do mean that soils need to be rein- terpreted and regrouped after significant changes in economic conditions and technology. Besides the capability classification explained in this publication, other important in- terpretations are made of soil surveys. Examples include groupings of soils according to crop -yield predictions, woodland suitability, range potentiality, wildlife habitat, suit- ability for special crops, and engineering behavior. Many other kinds of special group- ings are used to help meet local needs. CHARLES E KELLOGG Assistant Administrator for Soil Survey Soil Conservation Service iii CONTENTS Assumptions Capability classes Land suited to cultivation and other uses , . Page 3 6 6 Land limited in use --generally not suited to cultivation Capability subclasses 10 Capability units 12 Other kinds of soil groupings 12 Criteria for placing soils in capability classes 13 Arid and semiarid stony, wet, saline -sodic, and overflow soils . 14 Climatic limitations 16 Wetness limitations . 16 Toxic salts 16 Slope and hazard of erosion 17 Soil depth 18 Previous erosion 18 Available moisture -holding capacity 18 Glossary 18 Issued September 1961 LAND -CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION By A. A. Klingebiel and P. H. Montgomery, soil scientists, Soil Conservation Service The standard soil -survey map shows the different kinds of soil that are significant and their location in relation to other features of the landscape. These maps are intended to meet the needs of users with widely different problems and, therefore, contain considerable detail to show important basic soil differences. The information on the soil map must be explained in a way that has meaning to the user. These explanations are called interpretations. Soil maps can be interpreted by (1) the individual kinds of soil on the map, and (2) the grouping of soils that behave similarly in responses to management and treatment. Because there are many kinds of soil, there are many in- dividual soil interpretations. Such interpretations, however, provide the user with all the information that can be obtained from a soil map. Many users of soil maps want more general information than that of the individual soil -mapping unit. Soils are grouped in different ways according to the specific needs of the map user. The kinds of soil grouped and the varia- tion permitted within each group differ according to the use to be made of the grouping. The capability classification is one of a number of interpretive groupings made primarily for agricultural purposes. As with all interpretive groupings the capability classification begins with the individual soil -mapping units, which are building stones of the system (table 1) . In this classification the arable soils are grouped according to their potentialities and limitations for sustained production of the common cultivated crops that do not require specialized site conditioning or site treatment. Nonarable soils (soils un- suitable for Iongtime sustained use for cultivated crops) are grouped ac- cording to their potentialities and limitations for the production of perma- nent vegetation and according to their risks of soil damage if mismanaged. The individual mapping units on soil maps show the location and extent of the different kinds of soil. One can make the greatest number of precise statements and predictions about the use and management of the individual mapping units shown on the soil map. The capability grouping of soils is designed (1) to help landowners and others use and interpret the soil maps, (2) to introduce users to the detail of the soil map itself, and (3) to make possible broad generalizations based on soil potentialities, limitations in use, and management problems. The capability classification provides three major categories of soil group- ings: (1) Capability unit, (2) capability subclass, and (3) capability class. 1 .., 0 ,_. -5 _,. _ 6 ,./ ••••• (;41•,. 4:111:1 0 0 -4 0,)•• 0, .,-. t-.$ 6-6 (8,-- ri,o0.2 mot70, a ..r. w (1) e 0 0 -5 --0. o 01 0 '•0 (1 • L6ye,,.--, .Ei c octcLows;-.0aor..) T ,i -A •-• 0 -7.. P. a 1 V. i--* d ° . 0 ,L0 . c 0 "6 Vc3 0 a °A ‘05 t; 'DO "rt..5 -V-.0P-.5,-'45,-° CI 71:1 0 - —0 r.171 0 o O� 0 : t 1c3 0 gcl G• Ln .9, • 1:) 0 S '18 -a 2 ,_•,* .- -0 0 Ica ..--. -6 -0 o 6 0--,:-. tn0 aDO°y0 0 17.; 0 .1-.,,. a) ..!-• a -„Q 0 6 0 0 > et. ''' riA ,), 2 iCk5 0 1.1 9 0 tt 0 6'21.P'.7;5't g `)1 '8 PP Lti ul.:4 02,t, 74 01:8, 0 .tr,,Tte :7;3, la, d ta'..g zlo oci ,3°) 00 5, .5.r.50VG '"m041)(1) " 000 000,000 9100.20'PO v'Vw 134 ,,;r1 OJO 0 r $6.,;,017-).-0 CI" S. • •-• '‘) d 0 rp 04 •e'a. vn g fa-- ci. 050 00 01-A0. 0 • a) :0 0 0 0 0 s:44-• 4)-43° (3E0 - 0-Q0o tr (Ds' 15.0....,.. .e. OliAlio.01-1:st r) o ,z c) • •,, .b... CD 0 P .p c cp -.•;', .0,, 5. O. 0 ::A ei.,,,,,, .T„..sset.9..ie,1 P P., 2 04 , ' -,,,..1A ,_..t.:•' ,'D, ° ,.... -- 0 0 *0 o 07.4 a) Z'''.117) b *.9-, `6 0,...00¢,. 0 ''' 0 • 0 :::1 0 0 I-' 10 ?,,-, 0 0 -4 atsou,3-.-. IitlltgVAi'z'oeft 0 — „Qty00,00% ,..;;I. ?.0,$6' ,€AA ete-0.50.--Ai6.-6.,,,6. t.ci • ,... t ,„ „ (,) ta.,0o..000,0,,,,906 -(5,1„a64,)Z0-7Ac).-9. ZS5c3 tS 12ra-V--...„9,....---. ..., e -St e % 0 cl. - P-- 2 'S ,., ....._ cp. , (lig.a"J'a-e .r•-*.--- -gi .-0 '''' ''' t-, The first category, capability unit, is a grouping of soils that have about the same responses to systems of management of common cultivated crops and pasture plants. Soils in any one capability unit are adapted to the same kinds of common cultivated and pasture plants and require similar alterna- tive systems of management for these crops. Longtime estimated yields of adapted crops for individual soils within the unit under comparable management do not vary more than about 25 percent.' The second category, the subclass, is a grouping of capability units having similar kinds of limitations and hazards. Four general kinds of limitations or hazards are recognized : (1) Erosion hazard, (2) wetness, (3) rooting - zone limitations, and (4) ' climate. The third and broadest category in the capability classification places all the soils in eight capability classes. The risks of soil damage or limita- tions in use become progressively greater from class I to class VIII. Soils in the first four classes under good management are capable of producing adapted plants, such as forest trees or range plants, and the common culti- vated field crops 2 and pasture plants. Soils in classes V, VI, and VII are suited to the use of adapted native plants. Some soils in classes V and VI are also capable of producing specialized crops, such as certain fruits and ornamentals, and even field and vegetable crops under highly intensive management involving elaborate practices for soil and water conservation.3 Soils in class VIII do not return on-site benefits for inputs of management for crops, grasses, or trees without major reclamation. The grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses, and classes is done primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without deterioration over a long period of time. To express suitability of the soils for range and woodland use, the soil - mapping units are grouped into range sites and woodland -suitability groups. ASSUMPTIONS In assigning soils to the various capability groupings a number of assump- tions are made. Some understanding of these assumptions is necessary if 'Yields are significant at the capability -unit level and are one of the criteria used in establishing capability units within a capability class. Normally, yields are estimated under the common management that maintains the soil resource. The main periods for such yield estimates are 10 or more years in humid areas or under irrigation and 20 or more years in subhunild or semiarid areas. The 25 percent allowable range is for economically feasible yields of adapted cultivated and pasture crops. ' As used here the common crops include: Corn, cotton, tobacco, wheat, tame hay and pasture, oats, barley, grain sorghum, sugarcane, sugar beets, peanuts, soybeans, field -grown vegetables, potatoes, sweet potatoes, field peas and beans, flax, and most clean -cultivated fruit, nut, and ornamental plants. They do not include: Rice, cran- berries, blueberries, and those fruit, nut, and ornamental plants that require little or no cultivation. ° Soil and water conservation practices is a general expression for all practices including but not limited to those for erosion control. 697953-61----2 the soils are to be grouped consistently in the capability classification and if the groupings are to be used properly. They are: 1. A taxonomic (or natural) soil classification is based directly on soil characteristics. The capability classification (unit, subclass, and class) is an interpretive classification based on the effects of combinations of climate and permanent soil characteristics on risks of soil damage, limitations in use, productive capacity, and soil management require- ments. Slope, soil texture, soil depth, effects of past erosion, perme- ability, water -holding capacity, type of clay minerals, and the many other similar features are considered permanent soil qualities and characteristics. Shrubs, trees, or stumps are not considered permanent characteristics. 2. The soils within a capability class are similar only with respect to degree of limitations in soil use for agricultural purposes or hazard to the soil when it is so used. Each class includes many different kinds of soil, and many of the soils within any one class require unlike management and treatment. Valid generalizations about suitable kinds of crops or other management needs cannot be made at the class level. 3. A favorable ratio of output to input 4 is one of several criteria used for placing any soil in a class suitable for cultivated crop, grazing, or wood- land use, but no further relation is assumed or implied between classes and output -input ratios. The capability classification is not a pro- ductivity rating for specific crops. Yield estimates are developed for specific kinds of soils and are included in soil handbooks and soil -survey reports. 4. A moderately high level of management is assumed—one that is prac- tical and within the ability of a majority of the farmers and ranchers. The level of management is that commonly used by the "reasonable" men of the community. The capability classification is not, however, a grouping of soils according to the most profitable use to be made of the land. For example, many soils in class III or IV, defined as suitable for several uses including cultivation, may be more profitably used for grasses or trees than for cultivated crops. 5. Capability classes I through IV are distinguished from each other by a summation of the degree of limitations or risks of soil damage that affect their management requirements for longtime sustained use for cultivated crops. Nevertheless, differences in kinds of management or yields of perennial vegetation may be greater between some pairs of soils within one class than between some pairs of soils from different classes. The capability class is not determined by the kind of practices recommended. For example, class II, III, or IV may or may not require the same kind of practices when used for cultivated crops, and classes I through VII may or may not require the same kind of pasture, range, or woodland practices. 'Based on longtime economic trends for average farms and farmers using moderately high level management. May not apply to specific farms and farmers but will apply to broad areas. 4 6. Presence of water on the surface or excess water in the soil; lack of water for adequate crop production; presence of stones; presence of soluble salts or exchangeable sodium, or both; or hazard of overflow are not considered permanent limitations to use where the removal of these limitations is feasible.' 7. Soils considered feasible for improvement by draining,_ by, irrigating, by removing stones, by, removing salts or exchangeable sodium, or by pro - from overflow are classified according to their .continuing :limita- tions in use, or the risks of soil damage, or both, after the ini rovernents have been installed. The act at certain wet soils are in classes II, III, and IV does not imply that they should be drained. But it does indicate the degree of their continuing limitation in use or risk of soil dama e, or both if adeuatel drained. 8. Soils already drained or irrigated are grouped according to the continu- ing soil and climatic limitations and risks that affect their use under the present systems or feasible im • rovements in them. 9. removing stones, or Iarge-scale grading of gullied land. (Minor dams, terraces, or field conservation measures subject to change in their effectiveness in a short time are not included.) 10. Capability groupings are subject to change as new information about the behavior and responses of the soils becomes available. 11. Distance to market, kinds of roads, size and shape of the soil areas, locations within fields, skill or resources of individual operators, and other characteristics of land -ownership patterns are not criteria for capability groupings. 12. Soils with such physical (imitations that common field crops can be cul- tivated and harvested only by hand are not placed in classes I, II, III, and IV. Some of these soils need drainage or stone removal, or both, before some kinds of machinery can be used. This does not imply that mechanical equipment cannot be used on some soils in capability classes V, VI, and VII. 13. Soils suited to cultivation are also suited to other uses such as pasture, range, forest, and wildlife. Some not suited to cultivation are suited to pasture, range, forest, or wildlife; others are suited only to pasture or 6 Feasible as used in this context means (1) that the characteristics and qualities of the soil are such that it is possible to remove the limitation, and (2) that over broad areas it is within the realm of present-day economic possibility to remove the limitation. 5 range and wildlife; others only to forest and wildlife; and a few suited only to wildlife, recreation, and water -yielding uses. Groupings of soils for pasture, range, wildlife, or woodland may include soils from more than one capability class. Thus, to interpret soils for these uses, a grouping different from the capability classification is often necessary. 14. Research data, recorded observations, and experience are used as the bases for placing soils in capability units, subclasses, and classes. In areas where data on response of soils to management are lacking, soils are placed in capability groups by interpretation of soil characteristics and qualities in accord with the general principles about use and man- agement developed for similar soils elsewhere. CAPABILITY CLASSES Land Suited to Cultivation and Other Uses Class I—Soils in class I have few limitations that restrict their use. Soils in this class are suited to a wide range of plants and may be used safely for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, and wildlife. The soils are nearly levels and erosion hazard (wind or water) is low. They are deep, generally well drained, and easily worked. They hold water well and are either fairly well supplied with plant nutrients or highly responsive to inputs of fertilizer. The soils in class I are not subject to damaging overflow. They are pro- ductive and suited to intensive cropping. The local climate must be favor- able for growing many of the common field crops. In irrigated areas, soils may be placed in class I if the limitation of the arid climate has been removed by relatively permanent irrigation works. Such irrigated soils (or soils potentially useful under irrigation) are nearly level, have deep rooting zones, have favorable permeability and water -hold- ing capacity, and are easily maintained in good tilth. Some of the soils may require initial conditioning including Ieveling to the desired grade, leaching of a slight accumulation of soluble salts, or lowering of the seasonal water table. Where limitations due to salts, water table, overflow, or erosion are likely to recur, the soils are regarded as subject to permanent natural limita- tions and are not included in class I. Soils that are wet and have slowly permeable subsoils are not placed in class I. Some kinds of soil in class I may be drained as an improvement measure for increased production and ease of operation. Soils in class I that are used for crops need ordinary management prac- tices to maintain productivity—both soil fertility and soil structure. Such practices may include the use of one or more of the following: Fertilizers and lime, cover and green -manure crops, conservation of crop residues and animal manures, and sequences of adapted crops. ° Some rapidly permeable soils in lass I may have gentle slopes. 6 Class II—Soils in class II have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices. Soils in class II require careful soil management, including conservation practices, to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water relations when the soils are cultivated. The limitations are few and the practices are easy to apply. The soils may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Limitations of soils in class II may include singly or in combination the effects of (1) gentle slopes, (2) moderate susceptibility to wind or water erosion or moderate adverse effects of past erosion, (3) less than ideal soil depth, (4) somewhat unfavorable soil structure and workability, (5) slight to moderate salinity or sodium easily corrected but likely to recur, (6) occa- sional damaging overflow, (7) wetness correctable by drainage but existing permanently as a moderate limitation, and (8) slight climatic limitations on soil use and management. The soils in this class provide the farm operator less latitude in the choice of either crops or management practices than soils in class I. They may also require special soil -conserving cropping systems, soil conservation prac- tices, water -control devices, or tillage methods when used for cultivated crops. For example, deep soils of this class with gentle slopes subject to moderate erosion when cultivated may need one of the following practices or some combination of two or more : Terracing, striperopping, contour tillage, crop rotations that include grasses and legumes, vegetated water - disposal areas, cover or green -manure crops, stubble mulching, fertilizers, manure, and lime. The exact combinations of practices vary from place to place, depending on the characteristics of the soil, the local climate, and the farming system. Class III --Soils in class III have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both. Soils in class III have more restrictions than those in class II and when used for cultivated crops the conservation practices are usually more difficult to apply and to maintain. They may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, range, or wildlife food and cover. Limitations of soils in class III restrict the amount of clean cultivation; timing of planting, tillage, and harvesting; choice of crops; or some combi- nation of these limitations. The limitations may result from the effects of one or more of the following: (1) Moderately steep slopes; (2) high susceptibility to water or wind erosion or severe adverse effects of past erosion; (3) frequent overflow accompanied by some crop damage; (4) very slow permeability of the subsoil; (5) wetness or some continuing waterlogging after drainage; (6) shallow depths to bedrock, hardpan, fragipan, or claypan that limit the rooting zone and the water storage; (7) low moisture -holding capacity; (8) low fertility not easily corrected; (9) moderate salinity or sodium; or (10) moderate climatic limitations. When cultivated, many of the wet, slowly permeable but nearly level 7 soils in class III require drainage and a cropping system that maintains or improves the structure and filth of the soil. To prevent puddling and to improve permeability it is commonly necessary to supply organic material to such soils and to avoid working them when they are wet. In some irri- gated areas, part of the soils in class III have limited use because of high water table, slow permeability, and the hazard of salt or sodic accumulation. Each distinctive kind of soil in class III has one or more alternative combina- tions of use and practices required for safe use, but the number of practical alternatives for average farmers is less than that for soils in class II. Class IV—Soils in class N have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. The restrictions in use for soils in class IV are greater than those in class III and the choice of plants is more limited. When these soils are cultivated, more careful management is required and conservation practices are more difficult to apply and maintain. Soils in class IV may be used for crops, pasture, woodland, range, or wildlife food and cover. Soils in class IV may be well suited to only two or three of the common crops or the harvest produced may be low in relation to inputs over a long period of time. Use for cultivated crops is limited as a result of the effects of one or more permanent features such as (1) steep slopes, (2 ) severe susceptibility to water or wind erosion, (3) severe effects of past erosion, (4) shallow soils, (5) low moisture -holding capacity, (6) frequent overflows accompanied by severe crop damage, (7) excessive wetness with continuing hazard of waterlogging after drainage, (8) severe salinity or sodium, or (9) moderately adverse climate. Many sloping soils in class IV in humid areas are suited to occasional but not regular cultivation. Some of the poorly drained, nearly level soils placed in class IV are not subject to erosion but are poorly suited to inter - tilled crops because of the time required for the soil to dry out in the spring and because of low productivity for cultivated crops. Some soils in class IV are well suited to one or more of the special crops, such as fruits and orna- mental trees and shrubs, but this suitability itself is not sufficient to place a soil in class IV. In subhumid and semiarid areas, soils in class IV may produce good yields of adapted cultivated crops during years of above average rainfall; low yields during years of average rainfall; and failures during years of below average rainfall. During the low rainfall years the soil must be pro- tected even though there can be little or no expectancy of a marketable crop. Special treatments and practices to prevent soil blowing, conserve moisture, and maintain soil productivity are required. Sometimes crops must be planted or emergency tillage used for the primary purpose of maintaining the soil during years of low rainfall. These treatments must be applied more frequently or more intensively than on soils in class III. 8 Land Limited in Use—Generally Not Suited to Cultivation ' Class V—Soils in class V have little or no erosion hazard but have other limitations impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Soils in class V have limitations that restrict the kind of plants that can be grown and that prevent normal tillage of cultivated crops. They are nearly level but some are wet, are frequently overflowed by streams, are stony, have climatic limitations, or have some combination of these limita- tions. Examples of class V are (1) soils of the bottom lands subject to frequent overflow that prevents the normal production of cultivated crops, (2) nearly level soils with a growing season that prevents the normal pro- duction of cultivated crops, (3) level or nearly level stony or rocky soils, and (4) ponded areas where drainage for cultivated crops is not feasible but where soils are suitable for grasses or trees. Because of these limitations cultivation of the common crops is not feasible but pastures can be unproved and benefits from proper management can be expected. Class VI—Soils in class VI have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Physical conditions of soils placed in class VI are such that it is practical to apply range or pasture improvements, if needed, such as seeding, liming, fertilizing, and water control with contour furrows, drainage ditches, diversions, or water spreaders. Soils in class VI have continuing limita- tions that cannot be corrected, such as (1) steep slope, (2) severe erosion hazard, (3) effects of past erosion, (4) stoniness, (5) shallow rooting zone, (6) excessive wetness or overflow, (7) low -moisture capacity, (8) salinity or sodium, or (9) severe climate. Because of one or more of these limita- tions these soils are not generally suited to cultivated crops. But they may be used for pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife cover or for some combi- nation of these. Some soils in class VI can be safely used for the common crops provided unusually intensive management is used. Some of the soils in this class are also adapted to special crops such as sodded orchards, blueberries, or the like, requiring soil conditions unlike those demanded by the common crops. Depending upon soil features and local climate the soils may be well or poorly suited to woodlands. 7 Certain soils grouped into classes V, VI, VII, and VIII may be made fit for use for crops with major earthmoving or other costly reclamation. 8 Class VII—Soils in class VII have very severe ]imitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife. Physical conditions of soils in class VII are such that it is impractical to apply such pasture or range improvements as seeding, liming, fertilizing, and water control with contour furrows, ditches, diversions, or water spreaders. Soil restrictions are more severe than those in class VI because of one or more continuing limitations that cannot be corrected, such as (1) very steep slopes, (2) erosion, (3) shallow soil, (4) stones, (5) wet soil, (6) salts or sodium, (7)unfavorable climate, or (8) other limitations that make them unsuited to common cultivated crops. They can be used safely for grazing or woodland or wildlife food and cover or for some com- bination of these under proper management. Depending upon the soil characteristics and local climate, soils in this class may be well or poorly suited to woodland. They are not suited to any of the common cultivated crops; in unusual instances, some soils in this class may be used for special crops under unusual management prac- tices. Some areas of class VII may need seeding or planting to protect the soil and to prevent damage to adjoining areas. Class VIII --Soils and landforms in class VIII have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or to esthetic purposes. Soils and landforms in class VIII cannot be expected to return significant on-site benefits from management for crops, grasses, or trees, although benefits from wildlife use, watershed protection, or recreation may be possible. Limitations that cannot be corrected may result from the effects of one or more of the following: (1) Erosion or erosion hazard, (2) severe climate, (3) wet soil, (4) stones, (5) low -moisture capacity, and (6) salinity or sodium. Badlands, rock outcrop, sandy beaches, river wash, mine tailings, and other nearly barren lands are included in class VIII. It may be necessary to give protection and management for plant growth to soils and landforms in class VIII in order to protect other more valuable soils, to control water, or for wildlife or esthetic reasons. CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES Subclasses are groups of capability units within classes that have the same kinds of dominant limitations for agricultural use as a result of soil and climate. Some soils are subject to erosion if they are not protected, while others are naturally wet and must be drained if crops are to be grown. Some soils are shallow or droughty or have other soil deficiencies. Still 10 other soils occur in areas where climate limits their use. The four kinds of limitations recognized at the subclass level are: Risks of erosion, desig- nated by the symbol (e) ; wetness, drainage, or overflow (w) ; rooting -zone limitations (s) ; and climatic limitations (c) . The subclass provides the map user information about both the degree and kind of limitation. Capa- bility class I has no subclasses. Subclass (e) erosion is made up of soils where the susceptibility to ero- sion is the dominant problem or hazard in their use. Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors for placing soils in this subclass. Subclass (w) excess water is made up of soils where excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation in their use. Poor soil drainage, wet- ness, high water table, and overflow are the criteria for determining which soils belong in this subclass. Subclass (s) soil limitations within the rooting zone includes, as the name implies, soils that have such limitations as shallowness of rooting zones, stones, low moisture -holding capacity, low fertility difficult to correct, and salinity or sodium. Subclass (c) climatic limitation is made up of soils where the climate (temperature or lack of moisture) is the only major hazard or limitation in their use.8 Limitations imposed by erosion, excess water, shallow soils, stones, low moisture -holding capacity, salinity, or sodium can be modified or partially overcome and take precedence over climate in determining subclasses. The dominant kind of Iimitation or hazard to the use of the land determines the assignment of capability units to the (e), (w), and (s) subclasses. Capability units that have no limitation other than climate are assigned to the (c) subclass. Where two kinds of limitations that can be modified or corrected are essentially equal, the subclasses have the following priority: e, w, s. For example, we need to group a few soils of humid areas that have both an erosion hazard and an excess water hazard; with them the e takes precedence over the w. In grouping soils having both an excess water limitation and a rooting -zone limitation the w takes precedence over the s. In grouping soils of subhumid and semiarid areas that have both an erosion hazard and a climatic limitation the e takes precedence over the c, and in grouping soils with both rooting -zone limitations and climatic limitations the s takes precedence over the c. Where soils have two kinds of limitations, both can be indicated if needed for local use; the dominant one is shown first. Where two kinds of problems are shown for a soil group, the dominant one is used for summarizing data by subclasses. Especially among young soils such as alluvial soils, although not limited to them, climatic phases of soil series must be established for proper grouping into capability units and into other interpretive groupings. Since the effects result from interactions between soil and climate, such climatic phases are not defined the same in terms of precipitation, temperature, and so on, for contrasting kinds of soil. 11 CAPABILITY UNITS The capability units provide more specific and detailed information than the subclass for application to specific fields on a farm or ranch. A capability unit is a grouping of soils that are nearly alike in suitability for plant growth and responses to the same kinds of soil management. That is, a reasonably uniform set of alternatives can be presented for the soil, water, and plant management of the soils in a capability unit, not considering effects of past management that do not have a more or less permanent effect on the soil. Where soils have been so changed by management that permanent characteristics have been altered, they are placed in different soil series. Soils grouped into capability units respond in a similar way and require similar management although they may have soil characteristics that put them in different soil series. Soils grouped into a capability unit should be sufficiently uniform in the combinations of soil characteristics that influence their qualities to have similar potentialities and continuing limitations or hazards. Thus the soils in a capability unit should be sufficiently uniform to (a) produce similar kinds of cultivated crops and pasture plants with similar management practices, (b) require similar conservation treatment and management under the same kind and condition of vegetative cover, and (c) have comparable potential productivity. (Estimated average yields under similar manage- ment systems should not vary more than about 25 percent among the kinds of soil included within the unit. ) OTHER KINDS OF SOIL GROUPINGS Other kinds of interpretive soil groupings are necessary to meet specific needs. Among these are groupings for range use, woodland use, special crops, and engineering interpretation. The range site is a grouping of soils with a potential for producing the same kinds and amounts of native forage. The range site for rangeland is comparable to the capability unit for cultivated land. The purpose of such a grouping is to show the potential for range use and to provide the basis for which the criteria for determining range condition can be estab- lished. The soils grouped into a single range site may be expected to produce similar longtime yields and respond similarly to alternative systems of management and to such practices as seeding, pitting, and water spread- ing. Soils suitable for range but not for common cultivated crops may be placed in capability classes V and VI if they are capable of returning inputs from such management practices as seeding, fertilizing, or irrigating and in class WI if they are not. If these soils do not give economic returns under any kind of management when used for cultivated crops, pasture, woodland or range, they fall in class VIII. Soil -woodland site index correlations are essential for interpreting the po- tential wood production of the individual soil units that are mapped. 12 Woodland -site indices are commonly developed for individual kinds of soils. Soil -mapping units can be placed in woodland groupings according to site indices for adapted species and other responses and limitations sig- nificant to woodland conservation. Such groupings do not necessarily paral- lel those for capability units or range sites; however, in some areas capability units may be grouped into range sites and woodland -suitability groups. Rice has soil requirements unlike those of the common cultivated crops requiring well-aerated soils. Some fruits and ornamentals do not require clean cultivation. Therefore, these crops are not given weight in the capability grouping. Instead, special groupings of the soils for each of these crops are made in the areas where they are significant. With a good basic table of yields and practices the soils can be placed in any number of suitability groups. Commonly, five groups—unsuited, fairly suited, moderately suited, well suited and very well suited—are sufficient. Kinds of soil shown on the soil map are also grouped according to need for applying engineering measures including drainage, irrigation, land leveling, land grading; determining suitability as subgrade for roads; and constructing ponds and small dams. Such groupings may be unlike those made for other purposes. CRITERIA FOR PLACING SOILS .IN CAPABILITY CLASSES Soil and climatic limitations in relation to the use, management, and productivity of soils are the bases for differentiating capability classes. Classes are based on both degree and number of limitations affecting kind of use, risks of soil damage if mismanaged, needs for soil management, and risks of crop failure. To assist in making capability groupings, specific criteria for placing soils in units, subclasses, and classes are presented here. Because the effects of soil characteristics and qualities vary widely with climate, these criteria must be for broad soil areas that have similar climate. Capability groupings are based on specific information when available— information about the responses of the individual kinds of soil to manage- ment and the combined effect of climate and soil on the crops grown. It comes from research findings, field trials, and experiences of farmers and other agricultural workers. Among the more common kinds of information obtained are soil and water losses, kinds and amounts of plants that can be grown, weather conditions as they affect plants, and the effect of different kinds and levels of management on plant response. This information is studied along with laboratory data on soil profiles. Careful analysis of this information proves useful not only in determining the capability of these individual kinds of soil but also in making predictions about the use and management of related kinds of soil. Basic yield estimates of the adapted crops under alternative, defined sys- tems of management are assembled in a table. Where data are few, the 13 estimates should be reasonable when tested against available farm records and studies of the combinations of soil properties. Where information on response of soils to management is lacking, the estimates of yields and the grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses, and classes are based on an evaluation of combinations of the following: 1. Ability of the soil to give plant response to use and management as evidenced by organic -matter content, ease of maintaining a supply of plant nutrients, percentage base saturation, cation -exchange capacity, kind of clay mineral, kind of parent material, available water -holding capacity, response to added plant nutrients, or other soil characteristics and qualities. 2. Texture and structure of the soil to the depth that influences the environ- ment of roots and the movement of air and water. 3. Susceptibility to erosion as influenced by kind of soil (and slope) and the effect of erosion on use and management. 4. Continuous or periodic waterlogging in the soil caused by slow perme- ability of the underlying material, a high water table, or flooding. 5. Depth of soil material to layers inhibiting root penetration. 6. Salts toxic to plant growth. 7. Physical obstacles such as rocks, deep gullies, etc. 8. Climate (temperature and effective moisture). This list is not intended to be complete. Although the soils of any area may differ from one another in only a few dozen characteristics, none can be taken for granted. Extreme deficiencies or excesses of trace elements, for example, can be vital. Commonly, the underlying geological strata are significant to water infiltration, water yield, and erosion hazard. Any unfavorable fixed or recurring soil or landscape features may limit the safe and productive use of the soil. One unfavorable feature in the soil may so limit its use that extensive treatment would be required. Several minor unfavorable features collectively may become a major problem and thus limit the use of the soil. The combined effect of these in relation to the use, management, and productivity of soils is the criterion for different capability units. Some of the criteria used to differentiate between capability classes are discussed on the following pages. The criteria and ranges in characteristics suggested assume that the effects of other soil characteristics and qualities are favorable and are not limiting factors in placing soils in capability classes. Arid and Semiarid, Stony, Wet, Saline -Sodic, and Overflow Soils The capability -class designations assigned to soils subject to flooding, poorly or imperfectly drained soils, stony soils, dry soils needing supple- mental water, and soils having excess soluble salts or exchangeable sodium are made on the basis of continuing limitations and hazards after removal of excess water, stones, salts, and exchangeable sodium. When assessing the capability class of any soil the feasibility of any neces- sary land improvements must be considered. Feasible as used here means 14 (1) that the characteristics and qualities of the soil are such that it is possi- ble to remove the limitation, and (2) that over broad areas it is within the realm of economic possibility to remove the limitation. The capability designation of these areas is determined by those practices that are prac- tical now and in the immediate future. The following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their present continuing limitations and hazards: (1) Dry soils (arid and semiarid areas) now irrigated, (2) soils from which stones have been removed, (3) wet soils that have been drained, (4) soils from which excess quantities of soluble salts or exchangeable sodium have been removed, and (5) soils that have been protected from overflow. The following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their continuing limitations and hazards as if the correctable limitations had been removed or reduced : (1) Dry soils not now irrigated but for which irrigation is feasible and water is available, (2) stony soils for which stone removal is feasible, (3) wet soils not now drained but for which drainage is feasible, (4) soils that contain excess quantities of soluble salts or exchangeable sodium feasible to remove, and (5) soils subject to overflow but for which protection from overflow is feasible. Where desirable or helpful, the present limitation due to wetness, stoniness, etc., may be indicated. The following kinds of soil are classified on the basis of their present continuing limitations and hazards if the limitations cannot feasibly be corrected or removed: (1) Dry soils, (2) stony soils, (3) soils with excess quantities of saline and sodic salts, (4) wet soils, or (5) soils subject to overflow. Climatic Limitations Climatic limitations (temperature and moisture) affect capability. Ex- tremely low temperatures and short growing seasons are limitations, espe- cially in the very northern part of continental United States and at high altitudes. Limited natural moisture supply affects capability in subhumid, semiarid, and arid climates. As the classification in any locality is derived in part from observed performance of crop plants, the effects of the interaction of climate with soil characteristics must be considered. In a subhumid climate, for example, certain sandy soils may be classified as class VI or class VII, whereas soils with similar water -holding capacity in a more humid climate are classified as class III or IV. The moisture factor must be directly con- sidered in the classification in most semiarid and arid climates. The capa- bility of comparable soils decreases as effective rainfall decreases. In an arid climate the moisture from rain and snow is not enough to support crops. Arid land can be classed as suited to cultivation (class I, II, III, or IV) only if the moisture limitation is removed by irrigation. Wherever the moisture limitation is removed in this way, the soil is classified according to the effects of other permanent features and hazards that limit its use and permanence, without losing sight of the practical requirements of irrigation farming. 15 Wetness Limitations Water on the soil or excess water in the soil presents a hazard to or limits its use. Such water may be a result of poor soil drainage, high water table, overflow (includes stream overflow, ponding, and runoff water from higher areas) , and seepage. Usually soil needing drainage has some permanent limitation that precludes placing it in class I even after drainage. Wet soils are classified according to their continuing soil limitations and hazards after drainage. In determining the capability of wet areas emphasis is placed on practices considered practical now or in the foreseeable future. The vast areas of marshland along the seacoast or high-cost reclamation projects not now being planned or constructed are not classified as class I, II, or III. If reclamation projects are investigated and found to be feasible, the soils of the area are reclassified based on the continuing limitations and hazards after drainage. This places the classification of wet soils on a basis similar to that of the classification of irrigated, stony, saline, or overflow soils. Some large areas of bottom land subject to overflow are reclassified when protected by dikes or other major reclamation work. There are examples of these along streams where levees have been constructed. Land already drained is classified according to the continuing limitations and hazards that affect its use. Needs for initial conditioning, such as for clearing of trees or swamp vege- tation, are not considered in the capability classification. They may be of great importance, however, in making some of the land -management de- cisions. Costs of drainage, likewise, are not considered directly in the capability classification, although they are important to the land manager. Toxic Salts Presence of soluble salts or exchangeable sodium in amounts toxic to most plants can be a serious limiting factor in land use. Where toxic salts are the limiting factor, the following ranges are general guides until more specific criteria are available: Class II—Crops slightly affected. In irrigated areas, even after salt re- moval, slight salinity or small amounts of sodium remains or is likely to recur. Class III—Crops moderately affected. In irrigated areas, even after salt removal, moderate salinity or moderate amounts of sodium remains or is likely to recur. Classes IV–VI---Crops seriously affected on cultivated land. Usually only salt -tolerant plants will grow on noncultivated land. In irrigated areas, even after leaching, severe salinity or large amounts of sodium remains or is likely to recur. Class VII --Satisfactory growth of useful vegetation impossible, except possibly for some of the most salt -tolerant forms, such as some Atriplexes that have limited use for grazing. 16 Slope and Hazard of Erosion Soil damage from erosion is significant in the use, management, and re- sponse of soil for the following reasons : 1. An adequate soil depth must be maintained for moderate to high crop production. Soil depth is critical on shallow soils over nonrenewable substrata such as hard rock. These soils tolerate less damage from erosion than soils of similar depth with a renewable substrata such as the raw loess or soft shale that can be improved through the use of special tillage, fertilizer, and beneficial cropping practices. 2. Soil loss influences crop yields. The reduction in yield following the loss of each inch of surface soil varies widely for different kinds of soil. The reduction is least on soils having little difference in texture, con- sistence, and fertility between the various horizons of the soil. It is great- est where there is a marked difference between surface layers and sub- soils, such as among soils with claypans. For example, corn yields on soils with dense, very slowly permeable subsoils may be reduced 3 to 4 bushels per acre per year for each inch of surface soil lost. Yield reduc- tion is normally small on deep, moderately permeable soils having similar textured surface and subsurface layers and no great accumulation of organic matter in the surface soil. 3. Nutrient loss through erosion on sloping soils is important not only be- cause of its influence on crop yield but also because of cost of replace- ment to maintain crop yields. The loss of plant nutrients can be high, even with slight erosion. 4. Loss of surface soil changes the physical condition of the plow layer in soils having finer textured layers below the surface soil. Infiltration rate is reduced; erosion and runoff rates are increased; tilth is difficult to maintain; and tillage operations and seedbed preparation are more difficult. 5. Loss of surface soil by water erosion, soil blowing, or Iand leveling may expose highly calcareous lower strata that are difficult to make into suitable surface soil. 6. Water-control structures are damaged by sediments due to erosion. Maintenance of open drains and ponds becomes a problem and their capacity is reduced as sediment accumulates. 7. Gullies form as a result of soil loss. This kind of soil damage causes reduced yields, increased sediment damage, and physical difficulties in farming between the gullies. The steepness of slope, length of slope, and shape of slope (convex or concave) all influence directly the soil and water losses from a field. Steepness of slope is recorded on soil maps. Length and shape of slopes are not recorded on soil maps; however, they are often characteristic of certain kinds of soil, and their effects on use and management can be evalu- ated as a part of the mapping unit. Where available, research data on tons of soil loss per acre per year under given levels of management are used on sloping soils to differentiate between capability classes. 17 Soil Depth Effective depth includes the total depth of the soil profile favorable for root development. In some soils this includes the C horizon; in a few only the A horizon is included. Where the effect of depth is the limiting factor, the following ranges are commonly used: Class I, 36 inches or more; class II, 20-36 inches; class III, 10-20 inches; and class IV, less than 10 inches. These ranges in soil depth between classes vary from one section of the country to another depending on the climate. In arid and semiarid areas, irrigated soils in class I are 60 or more inches in depth. Where other un- favorable factors occur in combination with depth, the capability decreases. Previous Erosion On some kinds of soil previous erosion reduces crop yields and the choice of crops materially; on others the effect is not great. The effect of past erosion limits the use of soils (1) where subsoil characteristics are unfavor- able, or (2) where soil material favorable for plant growth is shallow to bedrock or material similar to bedrock. In some soils, therefore, the degree of erosion influences the capability grouping. Available Moisture -Holding Capacity Water -holding capacity is an important quality of soil. Soils that have limited moisture -holding capacity are likely to be droughty and have limita- tions in kinds and amounts of crops that can be grown; they also present fertility and other management problems. The ranges in water -holding capacity for the soils in the capability classes vary to a limited degree with the amount and distribution of effective precipitation during the growing season. Within a capability class, the range in available moisture -holding capacity varies from one climatic region to another. Glossary Alluvial soils Soils developing from transported and relatively recently deposited material (alluvium) with little or no modification of the original materials by soil -forming processes. (Soils with well-developed profiles that have formed from alluvium are grouped with other soils having the same kind of profiles, not with the alluvial soils.) Available nutrient in soils The part of the supply of a plant nutrient in the soil that can be taken up by plants at rates and in amounts significant to plant growth. Available water in soils The part of the water in the soil that can be taken up by plants at rates significant to their growth; usable; obtainable. Base saturation The relative degree to which soils have metallic cations absorbed. The proportion of the cation -exchange capacity that is saturated with metallic cations. Cation -exchange capacity A measure of the total amount of exchange- able cations that can be held by the soil. It is expressed in terms of milli - 18 equivalents per 100 grams of soil at neutrality (pH 7) or at some other stated pH value. (Formerly called base -exchange capacity.) Clay mineral Naturally occurring inorganic crystalline material in soils or other earthy deposits of clay size --particles less than 0.002 mm. in diameter. Deep soil Generally, a soil deeper than 40 inches to rock or other strongly contrasting material. Also, a soil with a deep black surface layer; a soil deeper than about 40 inches to the parent material or to other unconsolidated rock material ziot modified by soil -forming processes; or a soil in which the total depth of unconsolidated material, whether true soil or not, is 40 inches or more. Drainage, soil (1) The rapidity and extent of the removal of water from the soil by runoff and flow through the soil to underground spaces. (2) As a condition of the soil, soil drainage refers to the frequency and duration of periods when the soil is free of saturation. For example, in well -drained soils, the water is removed readily, but not rapidly; in poorly drained soils, the root zone is waterlogged for long periods and the roots of ordinary crop plants cannot get enough oxygen; and in excessively drained soils, the water is removed so completely that most crop plants suffer from lack of water. Drought A period of dryness, especially a long one. Usually considered to be any period of soil -moisture deficiency within the plant root zone. A period of dryness of sufficient length to deplete soil moisture to the extent that plant growth is seriously retarded. Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by detachment and trans- port of soil and rock materials through the action of moving water, wind, or other geological agents. Fertility, soil The quality of a soil that enables it to provide compounds, in adequate amounts and in proper balance, for the growth of specified plants, when other growth factors such as light, moisture, temperature, and the physical condition of the soil are favorable. Field capacity The amount of moisture remaining in a soil after the free water has been allowed to drain away into drier soil material beneath; usually expressed as a percentage of the ovendry weight of soil or other convenient unit. It is the highest amount of moisture that the soil will hold under conditions of free drainage after excess water has drained away following a rain or irrigation that has wet the whole soil. For permeable soils of medium texture, this is about 2 or 3 days after a rain or thorough irrigation. Although generally similar for one kind of soil, values vary with previous treatments of the soil. First bottom The normal flood plain of a stream, subject to frequent or occasional flooding. Parent material The unconsolidated mass of rock material (or peat) from which the soil profile develops. Permeability, soil The quality of a soil horizon that enables water or air to move through it. It can be measured quantitatively in terms of rate of flow of water through a unit cross section in unit time under specified temperature and hydraulic conditions. Values for saturated soils usually 19 are called hydraulic conductivity. The permeability of a soil may be limited by the presence of one nearly impermeable horizon even though the others are permeable. Phase, soil The subdivision of a soil type or other classificational soil unit having variations in characteristics not significant to the classification of the soil in its natural landscape but significant to the use and management of the soil. Examples of the variations recognized by phases of soil types include differences in slope, stoniness, and thickness because of accelerated erosion. Profile (soil) A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material. Range (or rangeland) Land that produces primarily native forage plants suitable for grazing by livestock, including land that has some forest trees. Runoff The surface flow of water from an area; or the total volume of surface flow during a specified time. Saline soil A soil containing enough soluble salts to impair its productivity for plants but not containing an excess of exchangeable sodium. Series, soil A group of soils that have soil horizons similar in their dif- ferentiating characteristics and arrangement in the soil profile, except for the texture of the surface soil, and are formed from a particular type of parent material. Soil series is an important category in detailed soil classi- fication. Individual series are given proper names from place names near the first recorded occurrence. Thus names like Houston, Cecil, Barnes, and Miami are names of soil series that appear on soil maps and each con- notes a unique combination of many soil characteristics. Sodic soil (alkali) Soil that contains sufficient sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants; soils for which the exchangeable -sodium - percentage is 15 or more. Soil (1) The natural medium for the growth of land plants. (2) A dy- namic natural body on the surface of the earth in which plants grow, com- posed of mineral and organic materials and living forms. (3) The collection of natural bodies occupying parts of the earth's surface that support plants and that have properties due to the integrated effect of climate and living matter acting upon parent material, as conditioned by relief, over periods of time. A soil is an individual three-dimensional body on the surface of the earth unlike the adjoining bodies. (The area of individual soils ranges from less than /2 acre to more than 300 acres.) A kind of soil is the collection of soils that are alike in specified combina- tions of characteristics. Kinds of soil are given naives in the system of soil classification. The terms "the soil" and "soil" are collective tenns used for all soils, equivalent to the word "vegetation" for all plants. Soil Characteristic A feature of a soil that can be seen and/or measured in the field or in the laboratory on soil samples. Examples include soil slope and stoniness as well as the texture, structure, color, and chemical composition of soil horizons. Soil management The preparation, manipulation, and treatment of soils for the production of plants, including crops, grasses, and trees. 20 Soil quality An attribute of a soil that cannot be seen or measured directly from the soil alone but which is inferred from soil characteristics and soil behavior under defined conditions. Fertility, productivity, and erodibility are examples of soil qualities (in contrast to soil characteristics). Soil survey A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in the laboratories, their description and classification, the map- ping of kinds of soil, and the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various crops, grasses, and trees, their behavior under use or treatment for plant production or for other purposes, and their pro- ductivity under different management systems. Structure, soil The arrangement of primary soil particles into compound particles or clusters that are separated from adjoining aggregates and have properties unlike those of an equal mass of unaggregated primary soil par- ticles. The principal forms of soil structure are platy, prismatic, columnar (prisms with rounded tops) , blocky ( angular or subangular) , and granular. Structureless soils are (1) single grain—each grain by itself, as in dune sand, or (2) massive—the particles adhering together without any regular cleavage as in many claypans and hardpans. ( "Good" or "bad" tilth are terms for the general structural condition of cultivated soils according to particular plants or sequences of plants.) Subsoil The B horizons of soils with distinct profiles. In soils with weak profile development, the subsoil can be defined as the soil below the plowed soil (or its equivalent of surface soil), in which roots normally grow. Al- though a common term, it cannot be defined accurately. It has been carried over from early days when "soil" was conceived only as the plowed soil and that under it as the "subsoil." Surface soil The soil ordinarily moved in tillage, or its equivalent in uncultivated soil, about 5 to 8 inches in thickness. Texture, soil The relative proportions of the various size groups of indi- vidual soil grains in a mass of soil. Specifically, it refers to the proportions of sand, silt, and clay. Type, soil A subgroup or category under the soil series based on the texture of the surface soil. A soil type is a group of soils having horizons similar in differentiating characteristics and arrangement in the soil profile and developed from a particular type of parent material. The name of a sail type consists of the name of the soil series plus the textural class name of the upper part of the soil equivalent to the surface soil. Thus Miami silt loam is the name of a soiltype within the Miami series. Water table The upper limit of the part of the soil or underlying rock material that is wholly saturated with water. In some places an upper, or perched, water table may be separated from a lower one by a dry zone. Water -holding capacity The capacity (or ability) of soil to hold water against gravity (see Field capacity), The water -holding capacity of sandy soils is usually considered to be low while that of clayey soils is high, It is often expressed in inches of water per foot depth of soil. Waterlogged A condition of soil in which both large and small pore spaces are filled with water. (The soil may be intermittently waterlogged because of a fluctuating water table or waterlogged for short periods after rain.) 21 G,l. GOVERNMENT POINTING OFFICE: 1961 Guide to Resource Land Capability Challenges DLCD — June 2012 This Guide summarizes statutory and rule requirements that apply when more detailed soils data than that in the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Internet soil survey are used to argue that land is not agricultural or forest land. Different requirements apply to challenges on agricultural land, forest land and high-value farmland, as described below. The Guide is intended for use by soils professionals, foresters and county planning staff. It answers common questions from the perspective of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, which has oversight over the implementation of applicable statute and rules, but is not intended to provide legal advice or to be a substitute for rulemaking. 1. Agricultural Land Capability Challenges This is when more detailed soils data is used to challenge the accuracy of a property's NRCS land capability class assignment in determining whether it is agricultural land. This may be to support a rezoning proposal or nonfarm dwelling approval. A new process was adopted when the Legislature passed HB 3647 in 2010, which is codified at ORS 215.211 and implemented through rules at OAR 660-033-0030 and -0045. The new process and applicable forms are found here: Ore cm 1)C1)1 lin 01.1 -and Conservation and Development /\ iricuituralSoils Capability Assessment. Soils professionals or applicants who have acquired professional soil services submit onsite soils assessments to DLCD, which reviews and forwards them to the counties for decisions. 2. Forest Land Capability Challenges This is when data on forest land capability (cubic feet per acre per year) is unavailable or is challenged under OAR 660-006-0010(3). The Oregon Department of Forestry has prioritized alternative data sources that may be used in its updated Land Use Planning Notes and Attachment A tables, which may be found here: Orevon Department of Forestry Forest Resources Planning. Professional foresters or applicants who have acquired professional forester services submit onsite capability assessments directly to counties for decisions. 3. High -Value Farmland Soils Challenges for Lot -Of -Record (LORs) This is when high-value farm soils are challenged in the review of lot -of -record dwellings under ORS 215.705 and OAR 660-033-0030(7). Soils professionals or applicants who have acquired professional soil services submit these onsite soils assessments to the Oregon Department of Agriculture for its review and decision. 1 t .it. .�1G 4. High -Value Farmland Soils Challenges for Other Uses This is when high-value farm soils are challenged in an application for permitted uses under OAR 660-033-0030(8). This section requires soil classes and ratings on high-value farmland to be those of the NRCS Internet soil survey, meaning that they may not be challenged. However, high-value faun soils may be challenged to show that they are not agricultural land under option #1 above. Soils professionals or applicants who have acquired professional soil services submit these soils assessments directly to counties for decisions. Soil Capability Challenges Two of the above options for soil capability challenges (#s 1 and 2) are described in more detail in the attached Table 1, which compares the two different processes. Table 2 describes the specific circumstances under which all four options for soil capability challenges may or may not be used. In developing this guide and tables, the Oregon NRCS State Soil Scientist and the Oregon Department of Forestry were consulted in March of 2012 and recommendations solicited. Those recommendations together with those of DLCD are reflected in the guide and tables. Q&A Q: What is the status of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil trapping in Oregon Counties? A: The soils information via the Internet on Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov)is the official source of NRCS soil mapping, data and interpretations. It is NRCS policy that the soils information at this source be deemed the official soil survey information and NOT the maps and information in the hard copy (paper or CD) soil survey reports. However, soil survey information in the hard copy soil survey reports is still good reference information and, depending on the age of the survey, much of the information may still he appropriate. A majority of the changes to the maps have been to improve the "joins" along boundaries between the surveys. In addition to the changes to the maps, other changes may include new and updated data for soils in the survey and occasionally changes to land capability class assignrnents. Changes have also been made to standardize all forest productivity data to a uniform 50 -year King curve for Douglas fir. Some older hard copy soil survey reports display Douglas fir productivity using a 100 year McArdle Curve, however, the Internet soil survey information now displays 50 -year King Curve productivity. The NRCS continues to periodically update soil survey information as staff resources permit. This updated information is reposted to Web Soil Survey on the Internet, typically in September and October. 2 Q: When may soil capability be challenged? A: Soil capability may be challenged when NRCS data are not available, when data of comparable quality to NRCS data are not available (forest lands only) and when NRCS or comparable data are determined to be inaccurate, as permitted by law. A soils challenge requires the services of either a soils professional or a professional forester, or sometimes both (in the case of a rezoning to a nonresource use based on nonresource land), NRCS soils mapping and associated data and interpretations are generally conducted at a scale of 1:24,000. Soils challenges must be conducted at a mapping scale finer than 1:24,000. Q: Can it be argued that the line between two soil types is inaccurate? A: Yes, if the scale of revised mapping is at a significantly more detailed scale than the NRCS mapping, which is typically 1:24,000. For instance, the new agricultural soils onsite investigation or assessment report requires revised mapping be at a scale of 1:5,000 or finer. Q: Can inclusions of surface rock fragments and other significant differences in soil characteristics identified during onsite investigation or assessment of'soil mapping be used to challenge the soil snapping and land capability class assignment? A. Maybe. The NRCS recognizes the legitimacy of more intensive soil investigations, depending on the needs of the user. These investigations and subsequent interpretations must stand on their own merit. They are considered a more detailed level of mapping at a `;finer" mapping scale. This does not change the NRCS mapping, data and interpretations, such as the land capability class assignment as contained in the official soil survey. This is because the interpretations of the NRCS mapping for any particular map unit encompass all polygons or areas of that particular reap unit and are not based on one or more site specific areas. A more intensive investigation on, forest land can, however, "supersede" the NRCS mapping, data and interpretations for a specific area, when a professional, forester performs direct tree measurements to show that on-site forest capability is lower than the NRCS Internet soil survey shows. Where such a_fnding is made, counties should seek additional verification, such as from an examination of similar areas or polygons of the same map units. (See also answer to following question) Q: Can site productivity data (crop yields or tree measurements) be used to challenge soils capability? A: Maybe. The use of site productivity data such as crop yields or other productivity information may be a relevant consideration in determining whether class V-VIIIIVII VIII soils are "suitable " for• farm use, "necessary" to permit faun practices or 'intermingled" with farmland under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), (C) and (b). However, this information cannot be used to show that the land is a different soil type or has a land capability class assignment dif ferent from the NRCS official soil survey information. 3 The use of direct tree measurements to determine, forest land productivity is only appropriate if there are no NRCS or comparable data or if these sources are shown to be inaccurate (OAR 660-006-0010(3)). This is because differing landowner management practices can influence forest land productivity. NRCSproductivity ratings for forest lands are based on natural stands. Thin tree cover or openings in tree cover are normal for some soil types and this factor is included in the NRCS forest productivity rating. Any direct tree measurements must be made from dominant and not suppressed trees, either on-site or on an adjacent site, following ODF's updated Land Use Planning Notes. Q: Can an argument be made that soils as identified during onsite investigation or assessments are different from NRCS soils mapping or classifications? A: Maybe. This is a more difficult assertion to justify and depends on the expertise of the soils professional and the basis of the justification. Drastic deviations from NRCS mapping or classifications, such as afinding that soils are shallow instead of deep or class VI instead of class III should be viewed with caution. Where such an assertion is made, counties should seek additional verification, such as from an examination of similar areas or polygons of the same map units. Q: Can an argument be made that a particular soil type is not high-value, class I-IV/I-VI or of a cubic foot rating as published? A: No. There is no authorization in statute or rule. for challenging the identification of specific soil types as falling into these capability categories. Q: Can high-value farm soils be challenged? A: Yes and no. They may be challenged where lot-of:record dwellings are proposed (OAR 660-033-0030(7). However, for other proposed uses, high-value farm soils may not be challenged, for the purpose of showing only that land is not high-value, if it is otherwise agricultural land. But because neither HB 3647 nor implementing OARs differentiate between high-value and non high-value farmland, both types of farmland may be challenged if the purpose is to show that they are not agricultural land. Q: If the Internet NRCS soil survey already identifies a property as having a predominance of soils that are not I-IV in western Oregon or I -VI soils in eastern Oregon, would a soils assessment still have to go through the new DLCD review process? Yes. This is because HB 3647 applies when "more detailed soils information " is provided that "would assist a county" to make a better determination of whether land is agricultural. Presumably, any such soils information would be intended to influence such a county determination. Such information could be used to argue that class i- VIII soils are "unsuitable' for faun use or are not necessary to permit adjacent.farrn practices, or are not 4 intermingled with higher -class soils. Q: How can the Department of Forestry's updated Land Use Planning Notes be used to challenge forest land capability? A: In April 0' 2010, the ODF updated an earlier version of Land Use Planning Notes, after which DLCD updated OAR 660-006-0010 to reflect this change and to clarifjthe requirement that the Notes be used when challenging forest land capability. The Notes provide excellent guidance. for foresters, soils professionals and counties, and prioritize alternative data sources that may be used when NRCS or other specified comparable data are not available or are shown to be inaccurate. When direct tree measurements are made, specific tables as identified in the Notes must be used for the predominant on-site tree species. These include tables A, B or C in Attachment A, which employ growth curves that are consistent with the curves used in the NRCS Internet soil survey. 5 Table 2: When Can Soil Capability Be Challenged? u ow ,v S 3 o O a W C N - 5 C iii O O C y N Uot, c) 'C �' ,d o d f no ▪ 0 • o o O o▪ n v :' -a1 (4"o° ,• 11 "�.5aq' o.t.r p'U.a,gA 0 6. co o O.v • a t :fi ,, • ro 1 :� o, 4, 0 ,,C co., • •,, p2 2 Ca yg botiM a Dim -4 U ,o ua p„ 0 00wN .2 •LE. L . -O 'a�b*pd .E--i.:.w°T' • R O 7 EaV d 0y „so • o •n.0CLAp„ -511 A . Cn ° o �7 5, W ▪ '?'� 0, 0 • g ^' 7'1i p ..: p ,ted U ▪ �°� ni u— ti O w .-• o ..6' w .a qa p •y ,-. G� •� .r9)) `•_' `,. ,d Gj y io of p' 0 ,,J, Z 0 "a .,5 •r' E b ,Y z ca' O 'C , ,.; a. ir.0 a0i 8 " 4 UI `ti c, o a0i 0 V.. 'cid 0 "tl o• a 0 � W b ,o - 0' 0 o b0 . 4'•g 'v � g 3 � Uowwo,-oUaw 0 w°,- 4 1 8 tw w°O 2 , , , , , , , 1 1 , , 4e Circumstance 1. When NRCS data are not available 0 ° 00 C w 4. 0cu 0 0 0y V1 N N N 03 , cci �r z b d .q d 45 E t5 :q O 17,, V] 7. 0 ^ G O �. T.: CV i. +' w q 0 v 1rtg 0., w p q 0 tat -. a0., y " BR.0 O1w r+ d Lu. N .letti • OJ) A M ab e ro °' • d b ci u d w C o ouu'E a` wl.0000 p0 ao W R 0 .fl w woo40. 4. 0 0 E " q q m v y Q .40 00 15 V m ,n ;,0,3t ,� p'� es ed 0 d d 8 a) 0 to b ti g oE y U c U • 0 R d 0 al kanrn S 0 O f3, M es; � 0 Z4 o r" 0 0 O CD ,D 0 O V O .p� O 0 4.4 ° :a • ,o U V . 0 .-n 0 N 5• a Department of Land Conservation and Development (KD) — Attachment 3 Area Map Legend 247-17-000852-A - Appeal of 247 -17 -000220 -CU Appellant: Central Oregon Landwatch Subject Property 14-12-34-B0-00200 County Zoning EFULB - Lower Bridge Subzone EFUSC - Sisters/Cloverdale Subzone EFUTE - Terrebonne Subzone FP - Flood Plain MUM 0 - Multiple Use Agricultural RR10 - Rural Residential Taxlot Number: 14-12-34-80-00200 Address: 4691 91st St, Redmond Applicant: Omlid, Todd & Megan 0 400 BOO 1,600 2,400 Feet November 21, 2017