2018-330-Minutes for Meeting May 21,2018 Recorded 8/10/2018•
BOARD COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541 ) 388-6570
1.30 PM
MONDAY, May 21, 2018
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2018-330
Nancy Blankenship: County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 08/10/2018 10:56:38 AM
2018-330
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Commissioner Tammy Baney was
present at 2:49 p.m. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County
Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No
representatives of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of Board Approval of Order No. 2018-039, Denial of a Land
Use Decision for Marijuana Production in the EFU Zone 755 (Note: the
correct number assigned for this document is Document No. 2018-372)
Isabella Liu, Associate Planner presented this an appeal of an approved
Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in
the EFU zone and the main reason for the appeal is based on the reason of
setback exception. For clarity on the landscape management zone, Ms. Liu
noted any marijuana related application is required to go through the review
for landscape management.
9046901M
HENDERSON: Moved approval of Order No. 2018-039, (correct number
assigned and approved is Document No. 2018-372)
DEBONE: Second
VOTE:
HENDERSON:
BAN EY:
DEBONE:
Yes
Absent, excused
Chair votes yes.
Motion Carried
2. Potential Appeal of Order No. 2018-038, Non -Farm Dwelling, 4691 911t
Street
Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner reviewed the potential appeal of a Hearings
Officer's decision to approve a non-farm dwelling application.
Commissioners DeBone and Henderson are willing to hear the appeal.
HENDERSON: Moved approval of Order No. 2018-038
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON:
BAN EY:
DEBONE:
Yes
Absent, excused
Chair votes yes.
Motion Carried
3. CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Related Tasks
Community Development staff presented four items relative to the Work
Plan: to prepare the Board for the Public Hearing of June 6 and to provide
information on the Planning Commission Water Panel, summarize the 2018
destination resort overnight lodging annual report, and to determine the
selection process for the vacation planning commission seats for the Sisters
area and Redmond area.
FUMOMMINA
Nick Lelack summarized the process for the annual report and work plan
starting with the annual goals and policies. The Planning Commission has
recommended approval of the work plan.
An overview of the resources required for projects are included in the plan.
Discussion held on the proposal of changing the name of non -resource lands
to rural resource lands by LCDC. Mr. Lelack reviewed the list of projects, staff
notes and priorities of the Planning Commission. Peter Gutowsky reported
on the average of 400 counter customers per month. Twelve Hearings
Officers have heard land use matters so far this year. Lot of record
amendments have been very successful. Marijuana regulation assessment
and flood plain amendments are currently underway.
Todd Cleveland spoke on the work load in the Environmental Soils division.
Computer programs have been updated to create efficiencies. Mr. Cleveland
also participates in the accessory dwelling program with DEQ.
Commissioner DeBone commented on the need for a meeting relative to the
South County steering committee and groundwater annual report.
Randy Scheid spoke on the Building division staffing, cross -training and
trying to target plan review turnaround times. There will be students from
the community college doing training within the Community Development
Department.
Sherri Pinner spoke on Administrative Services and reported on the focus of
implementing the new accounting system and payroll system. The CDD
lobby will be remodeled this month. The webpage for the department will be
updated. Lori Furlong spoke on the permit tech staffing and coverage at the
satellite offices. Code Enforcement is approaching 300 cases so far this year,
which exceeds the level from last year.
Commissioner Henderson commented on the Planning Commission water
panel and would have been interested in attending and requested to be
informed of the meetings.
Commissioner DeBone asked Mr. Lelack if the Public Hearing will need to be
rescheduled due to the need for the department's attendance elsewhere.
Commissioner DeBone suggested a table of projects listed by priority. Mr.
Gutowsky spoke on the plans for transect development concept relative to
IVITO INI
urban growth boundary. Hearings are anticipated before the Planning
Commission in August.
Mr. Lelack reported on the Planning Commission water panel and was joined
by Planning Commission members Maggie Kirby and Dale Crawford. This
panel was created and formed with members that have expertise on water
resources. There are two more panel discussions planned. Mr. Crawford
reported on discussions relative to water. A tour to Wychus Creek was held
last fall and that is where the concept of creating the panel was formed. Ms.
Kirby spoke on the highlights of the panel and requested input from the
Board regarding water consumption efficiency including usage for marijuana
production. Planning Commission will upload their information on the
Community Development Department webpage. Commissioner DeBone
inquired on the values of the canals and looks for a balance of statements.
Commissioner DeBone noted the reported water usage relative to marijuana
production verses types of agricultural usage. Mr. Crawford spoke on
transportation and communication issues that may require a panel as well.
Relative to transportation, plans for the future of the County may need to be
reviewed with the population growth and congestion. Commissioner Baney
noted COACT is also reviewing traffic impacts. Commissioner DeBone
suggested a joint meeting regarding transportation to review all of the
agencies working on that concept. Mr. Crawford also spoke on the priorities
of the work plan and hopes that the Board supports it as well. Mr. Lelack
noted the informational panels have been very helpful and possibly may also
include a panel on affordable housing strategies for the County. The panel
discussions have been recorded and are available for anyone interested.
RECESS: At the time of 3:07 p.m. the Board took a short recess and the meeting
reconvened at 3:10 p.m.
Zechariah Heck reported on the 2018 Destination Resort Overnight Lodging
Annual Report in the County. Deschutes County has four Goal 8 destination
resorts: Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, and Caldera Springs. Everyone is in
PAGE 4OF7
compliance. The department is tracking the lodging units. The annual report is
required through the Deschutes County Code.
Nick Lelack reported on the Planning Commission vacancies and Steve Swisher
has submitted interest of reappointment and two applications were received
from the Redmond area. Commissioner Baney noted support of reappointing
Mr. Swisher for the Sisters area seat. Commissioner DeBone is interested in an
interview process for the Redmond seat. Commissioner Baney commented with
the growth of Redmond that two seats may be considered. The Board is in favor
of reappointing Mr. Swisher and asks for the application process to be open for
a few more weeks.
4. Central Oregon Canal Nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places
Zechariah Heck, Community Development Department presented this item
for consideration as a revised and new application. Commissioner
Henderson inquired on the changes between the two nominations. The
state historic preservation office sent the nomination packet to CDD with
updates and clarification on contributing and non-contributing features. The
proposed district remains the same from the Ward Road to Gosney Road
section of the Central Oregon Canal. Mr. Heck also noted the Historic
Landmarks Commission unanimously voted in support of the nomination.
Commissioner DeBone spoke on the history of the canal nomination and the
Board's standing. Commissioner Henderson feels he needs more time to
review the broader interest. Mr. Heck also noted the value of the Historic
Landmarks Commission. Commissioner DeBone would support a letter of
the backstory of the Board's history with this nomination. Mr. Heck will
prepare an agenda item and a letter will be drafted to send prior to the June
22 State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation meeting.
COMMISSIONERS UPDATES: None were presented.
PAGE 5OF7
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 3:38 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (d) Labor Negotiations. At the time of 3:55 p.m., the Board went into Executive
Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive
Session at 4:30 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS:
Commissioner Henderson requested a work session for a 911 Update. He went to
the User Meeting and the permanent site has been vetted for the Overturf site and
commented this was never reviewed with the Board.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 4:39 p.m., the Board went back into Executive Session under ORS
192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. At the time of 5:04 p.m., the Board came out of Executive
Session to make the following motion:
BAN EY: Move approval of Order No. 2018-041
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: BAN EY:
HENDERSON:
DEBONE:
Yes
Absent, excused
Chair votes yes.
Motion Carried
PAGE 6 OF 7
�
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
r
�i
PAGE 70F7
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, MAY 21, 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
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
1. Central Oregon Canal Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places -
Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
2. CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 / Related Tasks - Nick Lelack, Community
Development Director
3. Consideration of Board Approval of Order No. 2018-039, Denial of a Land Use Decision
for Marijuana Production in the EFU Zone755 - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner
4. Potential Appeal of Order 2018,038, Non -Farm Dwelling, 4691 91 St Street - Jacob
Ripper, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (i) Performance Evaluation
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, May 21, 2018 Page 1 of 2
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.orq/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, May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 2
Z
O
N
N
W
N
Y
O
a
W
F
C
u
u
u
0
m
0
P
z
W
H
a
J
a
73,
LUW
N
La1J
WLU
Yk
a
Q
Z
a
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 May 21, 2018
DATE: May 16, 2018
FROM: Zechariah Heck, Community Development, 541-385-1704
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Central Oregon Canal Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
ATTENDANCE: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner.
SUMMARY: Staff is seeking direction on whether the Board wants to participate in the comment
process of a local nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. If yes, the Board will need to
determine how they want to comment. The County needs to submit comments to the state prior to
June 22.
AI41TANI:L101111111►Til
DATE: May 16, 2018
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
RE: Nomination of the Central Oregon Canal to the National Register of Historic Places
This memorandum updates the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding a nomination of the Central
Oregon Canal to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The following information is provided to
assist the Board in determining whether to formally comment on the nomination.
OVERVIEW
A nomination to list a segment of the Central Oregon Canal as a historic district on the National Register of
Historic Places has been submitted to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). As shown on the
attached vicinity map (Attachment 1), the proposed district is located southeast of the city of Bend and generally
bound by Ward Road to the west and Gosney Road to the east.
The nomination is a revised and resubmitted application. On October 2, 2017, the Deschutes County Historic
Landmarks Commission (HLC) held a special meeting to review a previous version of the nomination. Property
owners of the canal, as well as representatives from Central Oregon Irrigation District, provided comments to
the HLC at this meeting. The HLC provided comments to SHPO indicating concerns regarding the nomination in
a memo dated October 12, 2017. One commissioner supported listing the district on the National Register while
three commissioners did not. The Board also reviewed the application materials, as well as the HLC
recommendation, during a work session on October 4, 2017. In a letter dated October 17, 2017, the Board
recommended the Ward to Gosney segment of the Central Oregon Canal not be listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
Christine Curran, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, sent a letter on February 5, 2018 to the Board, HLC
and all parties of record to the nomination application. Ms. Curran's letter explained SHPO removed the
proposed nomination from the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) meeting agenda
because the letters received from the Board and the HLC recommended the nomination not be listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
11. CURRENT NOMINATION
The current nomination has been substantially revised since the HLC and Board reviewed the original
application.' SHPO has placed the nomination for review on the SACHP meeting agenda for June 22, 2018.
Subsequently, the Board and the HLC have been asked to review the resubmitted nomination application. The
proposed district remains the same: the Ward Road to Gosney Road section of the Central Oregon Canal.
' According to Ian Johnson, Associate Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, when a nomination to the National Register is
substantially revised, it can be resubmitted to SACHP for reconsideration. The latest version is dated December 2017.
The materials received from SHPO include:
• December 15, 2017, Cover Letter from SHPO (Attachment 2)
• Agenda for the June 22, 2018 SACHP Meeting (Attachment 3)
• National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet (Attachment 4)
• National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, i.e., nomination Z
As part of the review of a nomination, the local Certified Local Government (CLG) is afforded an opportunity to
review and comment. Evaluation by the CLG is expected to be through the completion of the National Register
Nomination Evaluation Sheet and, if applicable, a supporting narrative. A public meeting before the CLG is not
procedurally required, but a "reasonable opportunity for public comment" (54 U.S.C. 3025504) shall be provided.
Determination of what a "reasonable opportunity for public comment" is at the discretion of the CLG.
In response to SHPO's request for comment on the nomination, the Board requested the HLC review the
nomination and provide a report to SHPO pursuant to procedures the HLC deems most appropriate. The HLC
determined to receive oral comments during a public meeting on April 16 and to leave the written record open
for a week until April 23. Staff provided all of the received written comments to the HLC during a meeting on
April 30. The HLC determined the format for completing the National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet
during the same meeting. Deliberations on the nomination were conducted on May 14. The HLC voted 4-0 to
recommend the canal nomination be included in the National Register.
Staff is in the process of compiling comments from each commissioner and rendering a formal comment letter
to SHPO and the SACHP. The HLC will review this document and finalize their comments supporting the vote
during a public meeting set for May 29.
NEXT STEPS
To be considered by the SACHP, the National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet and any additional
comments must be submitted in advance of their meeting on June 22, 2018. The HLC comments will be
submitted on May 30 to the state for consideration.
The SACHP will make a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer to approve or deny the
document, or choose to table the issue for a future meeting, after their meeting on June 22. If recommended
for approval or denial, the document will be held by SHPO for a 90 -day comment period. The State Historic
Preservation Officer will then make a recommendation to the National Park Service (NPS), the federal agency
responsible for the administration of the National Register of Historic Places. The NPS will review the document
for 45 calendar days.
The Board has discretion on whether to comment on the nomination or not. If the Board decides to comment,
there is latitude on how to comment. For example, the Board may hold a public meeting to receive further
comments, or simply write a letter to the SACHP regarding to nomination.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. December 15, 2017, Cover Letter from SHPO
3. Agenda for the June 22, 2018 SACHP Meeting
4. National Register Nomination Evaluation Sheet
2 Due to the size of the electronic version of the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (16MB) it is not attached. The
document can be found at the following link: http•//www oregon gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/Pages/Central-Oregon-Canal-Historic-
District.aspx. A hard copy will be provided to the Board at the meeting.
Attachment 1
Proposed Central Oregon Canal Historic District
Vicinity Map
3-
�
! i ""h\���� r�'X2�_>+5 OS."d �; � �,✓�a�." '�`HY�.� S .r"� _5 'P )¢ 3 � 5���.
�� �•�� �4•�v mT+j-�� A "3 �f�� 4 { d �35�5�( i =f � � 5. ,�3 $� ?3�X :�``d ."'' "t "'� v��' �� f. ":J.
.��2t�"4 Y.�� K�. 'S tt� Y3. �` Yom. �'SS 4`.,�.4� k rzc �fi�v •r�, h „��, !P � ,,,> 3:5 I b k`Llf �: !�f t
l.�`�ni �(+�'
1
r �. ,r #� � V`a` a�' .{Et �Z $,� 'd L d f 1vr"i�4: k �' 7 ,A ..Y r, y� ^, `� x z z• `�F s. �'�
}J""•,,.#4. � S � ��� � ,„. ��»t 2 a;, '. � h7 �`' � }R �u `*. �',z�.a+� 54...��-; .. �2 'R S'Ja'k`.'�r, `="�"3\ 2 �'��r� S'� �>s�`
3 F � ��� ",� "�. >^g5, ,LL P?v c`g { :.y 'M�e � , (N t, a�•,'xxc,
i 4
j ..
4 " � �t \'� ��
"�- -' fke ;�`* a �.. 7 � i u"" ? � s %wsr� !� `•` 5, �. s m �.r
tda� �T'✓ms!. ? ''�'�
`� �
��`."`"�." ��k"# '1 � `� �` ywtt'`� Tom\ � � L". iE1 `4\ 's %' q ,`•�` v'fu.,' ��", i ,S' � S ..
.
�a ��"
A`K i�t LA. ` •� �F ��
� ��i' Y'4�Y.' �i `S�, F � baf �ttJZ '7\ F.SX�% 1�3 t
ME
fi
N .s -
2 t >v"
ICE
g i 7
\
Romps FApoll
>7L
'
ra -
Kate Brown, Governor
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Deschutes County Commission
PO Box 6005
ATTN: BoCC
Bend, OR 97708
Dear Mr, DeBone:
Attachment 2
Parks and Recreation Department
State Historic Preservation Office
725 Summer St NE Ste C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
Phone (503) 986-0690
Fax (503) 986-0793
www.oregonheritage.org
The State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation will review the following property for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places at its next meeting in Redmond, Oregon,
on June 22, 2018:
CENTRAL OREGON CANAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (WARD ROAD-
GOSNEY ROAD SEGEMENT)
Bend vicinity, Deschutes County
Staff contact: Robert 01guin, National Register Coordinator, (503) 986-0668
The National Register is the Federal government's official list of historic properties worthy of
preservation. It assures protective review of Federal projects that might adversely affect the
character of the property. If properties are listed in the National Register, certain Federal
investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other provisions may apply.
Please see the enclosure, which explains in greater detail the results of listing in the National
Register and the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment on, or object to, the
listing.
You are invited to attend the forthcoming meeting of the State Advisory Committee on Historic
Preservation. The date and location of the meeting are given on the agenda enclosed. If
questions concerning the National Register nomination process arise, please contact please
contact the coordinator listed below the property information.
Si rel
Christine Curran
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Encl.
Attachment 3
\tggg�' �Or6gon
Kate Brown, Governor
Parks and recreation Department
`Mate historic Preservation Office
725 Sumnie.r St N1 Ste C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
Phone (503) 986-0690
Fax (503) 986-0793
State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation www.oregornheritage.oi-g
Meeting Agendai:��N,
Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center (. I
North Sister Meeting Room
3800 SW Airport Way
Redmond, OR 97756
Friday, June 22, 2018
MEET Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center, North Sister Meeting Room 8:30
PRESENTATION SACHP Purpose and Processes Review 9:00
Ian Johnson, SHPO Associate Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
BEGIN BUSINESS MEETING 9:45
1. Opening remarks and introductions
2. Discussion of issues of interest and concern to the public not on the agenda
3. Approval of agenda
4. Approval of minutes of previous meeting
5. Update from the Deputy SHPO and Associate Deputy SHPO
6. Action Item: SACHP approval of the recommendations for awarding the Preserving Oregon and
Diamonds in the Rough Grants
Kuri Gill, SHPO Grants and Outreach Coordinator
7. Action Item: SACHP approval of the National Register program 5 -year plan
Robert Olguin, National Register Program Coordinator
BREAK 11:00
8. Review of properties proposed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Bernard and Emma Goldsmith House 11:15
Portland, Multnomah County
Proponent: Private Party
Cameo Theatre 11:45
Newberg, Yamhill County
Proponent: Private Party
This location is accessible to persons with disabilities.
Special accommodations for the hearing impaired require advance notification to the State Historic Preservation Office
N"I"1611MY
Kate brown, Governor
WORKING LUNCH
Parks and Recreation Department
State Historic Preservation Office
725 Summer St NE Ste C
Salem, OR 97301-1266
Phone (503) 986-0690
Fax (503) 986-0793
State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation
Meeting Agenda
Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center
North Sister Meeting Room
3800 SW Airport Way
Redmond, OR 97756
Main Street Grants Overview
Weston Methodist Episcopal Church, South
Weston, Umatilla County
Proponent: Private Party
www.oregonheritof e.org
I +
�F.SRKS/
12:15
eff
Central Oregon Canal Historic District: Ward Road to Gosney Road 1:30
Unincorporated Deschutes County
Proponent: Private Party
END BUSINESS MEETING
This location is accessible to persons with disabilities.
Special accommodations for the hearing impaired require advance notification to the State Historic Preservation Office
Attachment 4
NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION EVALUATION SHEET
Certified Local Governments / Historic Landmark Commissions
The following property is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and will be reviewed by the State Advisory
Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) at its meeting on 6/2212018.
PROPERTY NAME: CENTRAL OREGON CANAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (WARD ROAD - GOS
ADDRESS:
BEND, DESCHUTES COUNTY
OK Concerns
INTEGRITY: Major alterations or additions? New materials? Altered setting? Moved? etc.
DESCRIPTION' Is the property adequately described? Have contributing and non-contributing
OK Concerns features been clearly identified?
SIGNIFICANCE Has the appropriate criterion been used? Has it been justified? Is the context
OK Concerns and CONTEXT: sufficient in breadth and depth to support the claims of significance?
FACTS AND Are the appropriate and best sources used? Are key dates and facts
OK Concerns SOURCES: accurate?
SUPPORTING Adequate photos, maps, drawings, etc.?
OK Concerns MATERIALS:
The Commission recommends that the property or properties appear to meet the National Register
criteria and should be listed in the National Register.
The Commission recommends that the property or properties do not appear to meet the National
Register criteria and should not be listed in the National Register.
Signature of Commission Chair (or Designee) Date
Name of Local Historic Preservation Commission
Return to: Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
ATTN: National Register Coordinator
725 Summer Street, N.E., Suite C
Salem, OR 97301
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of May 21, 2018
DATE: May 16, 2018
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 / Related Tasks
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
The purposes of this work session are to:
CDD Work Plan
1. Prepare the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing on Wednesday, June 6,
2018 at 10:00 a.m. on the draft Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report
and Work Plan for FY 2018-19;
2. Provide an update from the Planning Commission's water subcommittee on its water
panels and future informational panels;
3. Summarize the 2018 Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Annual Report; and
4. Determine the selection process for the Sisters Area and Redmond Area Planning
Commission seats (applications will be provided separately to the Board; new
commissioner terms begin July 1, 2018).
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
DATE: May 16, 2018
SUBJECTS: Community Development Department (CDD) Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 /
Water Panel / Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Report / Planning Commission
Selection Process
The purposes of this work session are to:
CDD Work Plan
Prepare the Board of County Commissioners (Board) for a public hearing on Wednesday, June 6, 2018
at 10:00 a.m. on the draft Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan
for FY 2018-19 (Attachment 1);
2. Provide an update from the Planning Commission's water subcommittee on its water panels and
future informational panels;
3. Summarize the 2018 Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Annual Report; and
4. Determine the selection process for the Sisters Area and Redmond Area Planning Commission seats
(applications will be provided separately to the Board; new commissioner terms begin July 1, 2018).
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Planning Division Work Plan with revisions
and priorities on May 10, 2018. The Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) recommended approval with
revisions on May 14, 2018.
Water Subcommittee Discussion
A Planning Commission subcommittee with share their perspectives on the water panels. A separate
memorandum is attached (Attachment 2).
Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Annual Report
Planning staff will summarize the 2017 Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Annual Report. A separate
memorandum and presentation are attached (Attachment 3).
Planning Commission Selection Process
Planning Commission applications for the Sisters Area and Redmond Area seats were due at the time of
this packet deadline. Staff seeks Board direction on the selection process to fill these seats by July 1, 2018.
Candidate applications will be provided separately to the Board.
CDD ANNUAL REPORT & WORK PLAN
Each spring, CDD prepares an annual report describing accomplishments from the prior year and proposed
work plan services and projects for the coming fiscal year. The work plan describes the most important
objectives and proposed projects in each CDD division based on:
1. Board of County Commissioners' (Board) annual goals and policies;
2. Carry-over projects from current or prior years;
3. Changes in state law;
4. Grants/funding sources; and
5. Public comments.
It also serves as the context within which new projects that arise during the course of the year are
prioritized and undertaken. CDD division managers will briefly highlight 2017 accomplishments and 2018-
19 work plan projects at this work session.
Il. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, PUBLIC HEARING & RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Planning Division Work Plan for 2018-19
on April 26 and voted 6-0 to recommend Board approval of a slightly revised and prioritized work plan on
May 10, 2018.
The Planning Commission received the following public comments on the draft Work Plan in writing and at
the public hearing:
• Support and prioritize initiating a process to develop and adopt a grading ordinance.
• Support to initiate a process to develop and adopt an Urban Reserve Area for the City of Bend.
• Support and prioritize coordinating with the City of La Pine to jointly update the Newberry Country Plan
similar to the Sisters Country Horizons Vision.
• Support growth management coordination with cities, county departments, state agencies and
organizations.
• Support initiating an ordinance to establish livestock limitations in rural residential and similar zones.
• Support implementing amendments to Deschutes County Code and policy regarding wildfire mitigation.
• Oppose initiating an agricultural lands re-evaluation and potential re -designation.
• Oppose initiating an "amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that allows for new rural industrial
designations."
• Support consider developing a heritage tree ordinance.
The only written testimony submitted to the Planning Commission consisted of two letters submitted by
Central Oregon LanclWatch. They are attached to this memorandum (Attachment 3)
-2-
Table 1 summarizes the Planning Commission's high priority recommendations and, at the Commission's
request, estimated resource requirements for projects from minor to significant.
• A minor rating equates to 2-6 months to complete and 0.25-0.75 full time equivalent (FTE) of long range
planning staff.
• A moderate rating equates to 4-8 months to complete and 0.5-1.0 FTE or more.
• A significant rating spans 6-12 months or longer and requires 1.0-2.0 FTE with possible consultants.
The table does not list ongoing responsibilities referenced in the Annual Report and Work Plan, such as
coordinating the population forecast, serving on regional and statewide committees, participating in the
Legislative Session, and much more. In addition, the table notes the projects currently in process.
Table 1— Planning Commission Recommended FY 2018-2019 Long Range Planning Projects
Projects
Brief Description /Comments
Resources
Staff Notes & Planning
Commission Priorities
Update Marijuana
Complete process to amend Deschutes
Moderate
In Process
Regulations
County's marijuana regulations.
Amend Deschutes County Comprehensive
Bend West Side
Plan and Code to allow a new type of urban
Moderate
In Process
Transect
to rural transition development and land
use pattern on Bend's west side.
Complete Sisters Country Horizons
Sisters Country
visioning project in coordination with the
Moderate
In Process
Horizons Plan
City of Sisters and COIC.
Comprehensive Plan
Amend the Deschutes County
Amendment to allow
Comprehensive Plan to clearly allow new
Minor
In Process
new Rural Industrial
rural industrial plan designations.
Designations
Canal Pipe
Amend Deschutes County Code to allow
Minor to
Temporary Storage
temporary storage of canal pipe.
Moderate
In Process
Text Amendment
Initiate housekeeping and legislative text
Housekeeping &
amendments to ensure County Code
Minor to
Legislative
complies with State law & related technical
moderate
In Process
Amendments
corrections.
Redmond UGB
The City of Redmond will apply to exchange
Applicant Initiated,
Adjustment
land inside the UGB for land outside the
Minor
Timing TBD
UGB.
Coordinate with City of Bend to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning code to
Applicant Initiated,
Bend Airport
allow new airport -related uses at the Bend
Moderate
Timing TBD
Airport. Bend staff have indicated this is a
priority project for the City in FY 18-19.
M11
Table 1— Planning Commission Recommended FY 2018-2019 Long Range Planning Projects
Projects
Brief Description / Comments
Resources
Staff Notes & Planning
Commission Priorities
Coordinate with the City of Redmond to
Central Oregon
initiate a UGB amendment for a regional
Large -lot Industrial
large -lot industrial campus. Redmond staff
Minor to
Applicant Initiated,
Project
have indicated this is a priority project in FY
Moderate
Timing TBD
18-19.
Grading Ordinance
Establish a Deschutes County grading
Significant
High Priority
ordinance.
High Priority 2019
1. Participate in LCDC administrative
AFTER
rulemaking & 2019 Legislative Session
(1) LUBA decides
to provide clarity to initiate a non-
Douglas County
Non -Resource Lands
resources/rural resource lands
proposed Non -
(Rural Resource
program. Monitor Douglas County
Significant
Resource Lands
Lands)
LUBA appeal.
Program,
(2) lLegislative
2. Initiate a local re-evaluation and
Session to amend
potential re -designation of agricultural
ORS 215.788, and
land _
(3) LCDC Rural Resource
Lands Rulemaking
1. Coordinate with County departments,
cities, partnering agencies and
organizations on growth management
High Priority
Growth Management
(i.e., UGB amendments).
Coordination
2. Consider developing a County
PC combined Growth
&
affordable housing strategy, including
Moderate to
Affordable Housing
coordination with cities where the
Significant
Management
$
Coordination &
Strategy
majority of housing is developed.
Affordable Housing
3. Participate in state committee(s) to
consider rural accessory dwelling units.
Strategy p jects
projects
Consider implementation if approved
by the Legislature.
Coordinate with the Planning Commission
and the Board to discuss implementing
recommendations from the University of
Wildfire Mitigation
Oregon's Community Service Center's
Moderate
High Priority
review of County codes and policies
regarding natural hazards and mitigation,
and specifically wildfire mitigation
-4-
Table 1— Planning Commission Recommended FY 2018-2019 Long Range Planning Projects
Projects
Brief Description /Comments_
Resources
Staff Notes & Planning
Commission Priorities
Engage Tumalo, Terrebonne, South County
High Priority to engage
and other residents at Planning
residents in FY 2018-19.
Community and Area
Commission meetings around the County
Minor to
High priority to initiate
Plans
to determine if there is community interest
Moderate
one or more community
in and readiness to initiate a new or
or area plans in FY 2019 -
updated community or area plan.
20.
Develop policy and procedures manuals for
the Planning Commission and Historic
Landmarks Commission with
Planning & Historic
subcommittees of each body to provide a
High Priority for
Landmarks
reference guide pertaining to each
Minor
Historic Landmarks
Commission Manuals
commission's unique purpose, authorities,
Commission
roles, decision making processes,
applicable laws/regulations and
documents, public meeting requirements,
etc.
Administer a CLG Grant from the State
High Priority for
Certified Local
Historic Preservation Office. Grant
Moderate
Historic Landmarks
Government Grant
application in early 2019; ends August
Commission
2020. focus on Sisters historic resources.
Complete the series of regional panel
experts addressing water resource and
Natural Resources/
conservation issues with a particular
Water & Related
emphasis on the relationship to land use
Minor
High Priority
and population growth and development.
Panels)
Consider conducting additional panels
addressing other priorities and forthcoming
long range projects.
Outdoor Mass
Amendments to DCC 8.16 as it relates to
Minor to
Initiate text amendments
Gathering Permit
outdoor mass gatherings
Moderate
if capacity is available
Text Amendments
Update
If funded by the Oregon Dept. of
Project to be initiated by
Transportation
Transportation, update the County's TSP.
Significant
Road & Transportation
System Plan (TSP)
Planning staff
Deschutes Junction
Initiate Deschutes Junction Master Plan]
Moderate to
Not prioritized
Master Plan
Significant
Initiate amendment to DCC 17.16.105 and
Transportation Text
related code sections regarding access
Minor
Not prioritized
Amendment
requirements to rural subdivisions
-5-
Table 1— Planning Commission Recommended FY 2018-2019 Long Range Planning Projects
Projects
Brief Description / Comments '
Resources
Staff Notes & Planning
Commission Priorities
Update the. County's
Initiate a project to amend and update the
Minor to
Sign Code
County's Sign Code to comply with federal
Moderate
Not prioritized
law, among other revisions.
Update the County's
This project was separated out from the
Goal 5 Inventories &
Natural Resources / Water Panel(s) project
Significant
Not prioritized
Protection Programs
above.
III. HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION
The HLC conducts a work session on the proposed Planning Division work plan each year. On May 14, 2018
the HLC recommended approval of the proposed 2018-19 Work Plan with the following additional historic
preservation work plan projects:
1. Educate the community about historic preservation beyond Historic Preservation Month and be
an advocate for community historic_ preservation education opportunities.
2. Update CDD's HLC webpage to include information about how a local citizen can list their property
on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as other historic preservation resources, in a
user-friendly format.
The HLC unanimously recommended Board approval of the Planning Division Work Plan for 2018-19 as
revised.
Attachments:
1. Draft FY 2018/2019 Annual Report and Work Plan
2. Planning Commission Subcommittee Memorandum
3. Destination Resort Overnight Lodging Unit Annual Report
4. COLW Letters
Ka
Attachment 1
14 to] -k 49
Mn �,M MM
ANNUA,,,`,',-',., REF."ORTAND WORK PLAN
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: APRIL 3---lUNE 6
Send comments to:
Nick,Lelack@deschutes.org
117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97703
111010.104
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97703
Planning Commission: April 26,530 p.m.
Board of County Commission: June 6, 10:00 a.m.
Electedand Appointed Officials. ......................................... .. .......... .......................................................
........................................ 3
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................4
Overview..................................................................................................................................................................................................
6
ExecutiveSummary / Population Growth.......................................................................................................................................8
Board of County Commissioner's 2018-19 Goals & Objectives... ..... ...... .......... _ .... ..... _ ....................
................... _ ............. 9
Community Development Performance Measures 2018-19..................................................................................................
10
Administrative Services: Accomplishments and Work Plan....................................................................................................
12
Coordinated Services: Accomplishments and Work Plan.........................................................................................................
13
Code Enforcement: Accomplishments and Work Plan.............................................................................................................
15
Building Safety: Accomplishments and Work Plan....................................................................................................................
19
Environmental Soils: Accomplishments and Work Plan..........................................................................................................
22
Planning: Accomplishments and Work Plan...............................................................................................................................
25
CommunityInvolvement Report..................................................................................................................................
30
StaffDirectory.....................................................................................................................................................................................40
�a
2
Elected and Appo'Inted Off Ii-lo"Illals
C I i'J'
)'A 1,`., 0 F C 0 �'J 1Y " ",r' ("', 0 IAAI�"' h'21111 S 10 s`t S
Tony DeBone, Chair
Philip G. Henderson, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, Commissioner
Tom Anderson, County Administration I Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
F" I-, A N N H'%f1 hAl' a :11' S 1 �
Dale Crawford - Redmond ( Chair)
Maggie Kirby - Bend (Vice Chair)
Steve Swisher -_Sisters
Hugh Palcic - South County
Jim Beeger - Bend
Susan Tunno - Redmond
Les Hudson - At Large
�c S
K
Chris Horting-jones, Chair - Unincorporated
Sharon Leighty, Vice Chair - Unincorporated
Kelly Madden - Ex -Officio
Bill Olsen - Pioneer Association
Dennis Schmidling, Secretary - City of Sisters
Rachel Stemach - Ex -Officio
Liz Fancher I Gregory J. Frank I Stephanie Hicks I Dan Olsen I Will Van Vactor
A L
Cheryl Howard - Chair
Christopher Cassard - Vice Chair
Brad Tower
Katrina Lagenclerfer
Greg Svelund
Ann Marland
Mark Smith
Katie Hammer
Michelle DeSilva
Rick Root
Wendy Holzman
Scott Ferguson
Dave Thomson
3
w • •
The Annual Report & Work Plan highlights the department's 2017-18 accomplishments and 2018-19 Work
Plan. The Annual Report & Work Plan is developed to:
• Report on the department's achievements and performance the prior year;
• Implement the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) goals and objectives;
• Implement the Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" Standards;
• Effectively and efficiently manage organizational assets, capabilities, and finances;
• Fulfill the department's regulatory compliance requirements;
• Enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and highly desirable place to live, work, learn,
recreate, visit, and more; and
• Address changes in state law.
Summaries of CDD's performance measure results are provided in each division's section as well as in the
CDD Scorecard in the Appendix. A summary of the department's overall Work Plan is also provided in the
Appendix.
The BOCC adopts the Annual Report & Work Plan after considering public, stakeholder and partner
organization input, and Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission recommendations.
The Work Plan often includes more projects than there are resources available. CDD coordinates with the
BOCC throughout the year to prioritize and initiate projects. Projects not initiated are often carried over to
future years.
•
MAIN OFFICE
117 NW Lafayette
Ave. Bend
Mon., Tues., Thurs.,
Fri. 8:00-5:00
Wed. 9:00-5:00
REDMOND CITY
HALL
437 SW 9th St.,
Suite 202
Tuesday 8:00-
4:30
LA PINE CITY HALL
16345 Sixth Street
Monday & Thursday
9:00-4:00
SISTERS CITY HALL
520 East Cascade
Ave.
Tuesday & Friday
9:00-4:00
11111111q� 1111pil
The Community Development Department (CDD) oversees
building safety and electrical services, planning and zoning,
environmental review, code enforcement and administrative
services for Deschutes County. CDD consists of six divisions
which provide coordinated planning and development services.
The divisions include the following:
Provides oversight for all departmental operations and
facilities, human resources, budget, customer services,
technology and performance measures. Systems Analyst
staff are responsible for the integration of technology
across all CDD divisions and coordinates with the cities as
well as providing direct service to the public via application
training and support, web -based mapping, reporting
services and data distribution,
Provides coordination of permitting and "front line" direct
services to customers at the main office in Bend and at
the Redmond, Sisters and La Pine City Halls,
Code enforcement is responsible for investigating code
violation complaints to ensure compliance with each of
the codes and statutes administered by CDD, and
provides direct service on contract to the City of La Pine
for solid waste violations.
• 6 eJ t_ Ii
Provides construction plan reviews, consultation and
inspections to assure compliance with federal and state
building codes in the rural County and cities of Sisters and
La Pine.
Regulates on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic)
and monitors environmental factors for public health and
resource protection.
The Planning Division is separated into two operational
areas, Current and Long Range Planning. Current
Planning processes individual land use applications and
provides information to the public on all land use related
issues. Long Range Planning addresses the future needs
of the community through updates to the comprehensive
plan, changes to County Code and other special projects.
5
Department Overview
Staff
Summary
Organizational Chart
�'.a,.:�a.�
� w � �.�
�
�r�
���
�
'�` �".; �"w���?� ., 4uxr`,,2-.,-`->� �,`�zzc�t�:,'�.� m.,;�, s,
,.�,te,✓�' ,;a;+ "���'tb...
�;,.,.,,xr'F�' � ,£�;� �^��
t o�., . � �� .wee C�i, �,.�;
R e o, l 111 erYlC.i -1,11,1-
.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Key CDD fiscal issues and operational challenges in FY 2018-19 are summarized below, as well as emerging
departmental and community issues. These issues directly affect CDD's 2018-19 work plan,
L f.
Ensure costs are fully accounted for and recovered through fees and other revenue sources.
Ensure financial stability and ongoing operations through establishing a long term financial plan.
• Preparing for workforce turnover through succession planning and staff retention strategies.
• Addressing affordable housing.
• Improving website, development statistics, and other reports.
gi E.. _ l:.
• Managing population growth and demographic changes
• Addressing a growing need for affordable housing
• Preserving and protecting natural resources, water quality and quantity
• Improving transportation systems
• Anticipating new economic and agricultural opportunities
• Maintaining and enhancing high quality of life
• Reducing natural hazard risks, preparing for disaster resilience
• Planning for healthy and safe communities
• Regional planning, coordination, partnerships
• Expanding recreational opportunities
• Facilitating access to health care and higher education
RMM
TOTAL DESCHUTES COUNTY POPULATION & FORECAST: 1960-2065
Central Oregon is a dynamic region
and an extraordinary place to live,
work, learn, recreate and visit as
clearly demonstrated by the
sustained population growth the
region has seen over the past six
decades.
This page provides a snapshot of the
County's growth since 1960 and the
preliminary 50 -year Portland State
University, Oregon Population
Forecast Program, through 2068.
p
) f
Deschutes County 116,277 157,905 3.1%
187,621
301,999 432,930
Bend 52,163 77,010 4.0%
91,373
162,336 255,291
Redmond 15,524 26,508 5.5%
29,364
51,617 82,575
Sisters 961 2,038 7.8%
2,691
5,169 8,431
La Pine 899 1,653 6.3%
1,833
3,954 5,894
Unincorporated 45,280 50,524 1.0%
62,360
79,236 80,739
8
-A
Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner
FU
IS
vi-zl
uoars
r Objectives
7c:;:.s
Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services
1. Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services.
2. Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement.
3. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters
HEALTHY PEOPLE
Enhance and protect the health and well being of communities and their residents
1. Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations.
2. Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs.
3. Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs.
• •
Promote policies and actions that sustain and simulate economic vitality
1. Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation.
2. Administer land use programs that promote livability, and sustainability.
3. Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system.
4. Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism,
and recreation.
Provide solution -oriented service that is cost effective and efficient
1. Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems.
2. Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards.
3. Promote community participation and engagement with County government.
4. Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security.
5. Provide collaborative internal support for County operations.
BUTES CO
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Department's 2018-19 goals are reflected in the performance measures
below. These performance measures strategically and comprehensively align all of CDD's operations with
the Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) 2018-19 Goals and Objectives and the County's Customer
Service Standards.
The performance measures address service delivery expectations from the perspective of CDD's customers;
ensure the department fulfills its regulatory compliance requirements; effectively manage the organization's
assets, capacities, and finances; and preserve and enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and desirable
place to live, visit, work, learn and recreate.
CDD performance measures implement the BOCC's FY 2018-19 goals and objectives. Each performance
measure references the applicable BOCC goal and objective.
For example, CDD performance measure 4, which is to achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code
Enforcement cases, implements the BOCC's Safe Communities Objective 1 to provide safe and secure
communities through coordinated public safety and services will include the reference "SC -1" in bold type.
® SAFE COMMUNITIES (SC)
® HEALTHY PEOPLE (HP)
® ECONOMIC VITALITY (EV)
® SERVICE DELIVERY (SD)
1. Complete single family dwelling permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 30
days. (SD -1)
2. Complete commercial structural permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 35
days. (SD -1)
3. Achieve a customer feedback rating of 2.9 (out of 3.0) or better. (SD -2)
4. Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases. (SC -1)
5. Resolve 75% of Code Enforcement cases within 12 months. (SC -1)
6. Complete Code Enforcement Procedures Manual amendments. (SC -1)
7. Complete structural permit Ready -to -Issue turnaround time of 4 days. (SD -1)
t
8. Achieve an average of 6-10 stops at different construction job sites per day for each Building
Inspector. Each stop may consist of multiple inspections. (SD -1)
9. Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days. (SD -1)
ES CSG
cc) COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Environmental Soft
9. Issue new onsite septic system permits within 15 days of receiving a complete application, (SD -1)
10. Achieve compliance with the ATT operation and maintenance reporting requirements of 95%. (HP -3)
P1
11. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions requiring prior notice within 45
days of determination of complete application. (SID -1)
12. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions that do not require prior notice
within 21 days of determination of complete application, (SD -1)
13. Coordinate with cities regarding growth management. (EV -1, EV -2, EV -3, EV -4, HP -1)
14. Coordinate with the City of Bend to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan.( EV -2, EV -4)
15. Coordinate with the City of Redmond to entitle a large lot industrial site. (EV -4)
16. Re-evaluate agricultural land designations. (EV -2, SD -3)
17. Complete Sisters Country Vision Plan in coordination with the City of Sisters and Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council, (EV -2)
Please Leave us Feedback!
Timeliness:
Courteousness/Respectfulness:
Administrative Services provides oversight for all departmental operations and Facilities, human resources,
budget, customer services, technology and performance measures.
Administrative Services includes the Community Development Director, Senior Management Analyst, two
Systems Analysts, and one Administrative Assistant.
• Monitored new performance measures to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of departmental
operations and processes.
• Completed departmental Business Processes Audit and implemented 90% of recommendations.
• Implemented new accounting, human resources, and timekeeping
software.
• Began remodel of CDD lobby to improve safety, customer services, and efficiency.
• Distributed performance measure reports to internal and external customers.
• Complete implementation of Business Processes Audit recommendations.
• Worked with the County's database administrator to implement the use of genealogy within Accela and
DIAL, allowing reverse chronological research of parcel changes.
t.,
• Complete remodel CDD lobby to improve safety, customer services, and efficiency.
• Monitor a new performance measure to target the number of days from building permit acceptance to
ready to issue of 30 days.
• Implement CDD information technology strategic plan.
• Update CDD website, including division and project webpages.
• Create a new web -based CDD newsletter to report department news, development statistics,
performance measure results, notable quasi-judicial land use decisions, long range planning updates,
and department news.
COG
4 yl�
S a '
l Y
V
The Coordinated Services Division provides service to customers at the main office in Bend, as well as in
City Halls in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. The Division consists of nine permit technicians. Staff work to
ensure minimal wait times, provide accurate information to the public and ensure the efficient operation
of the front counter and coordination among all divisions. Staff also perform basic building plan reviews
e
® Permit Technicians currently staff three satellite offices
one day per week each, increasing to two days per week
due to permit volumes. The ability to be co -located in
each jurisdiction's city hall has greatly enhanced
communication while processing permits. A significant
number of projects have been initiated in cities,
requiring a substantial amount of staff time. The
Redmond satellite office continues to see only a minimal
number of customers each week.
® There was increased use of our online permitting
services this past year.
® Maintained a high level of customer service during a
period of increased activity and new staff training.
® In coordination with Administrative Services,
Coordinated Services continues to assess equipment
used by staff to ensure operational needs are met. The
team developed project lists that will enhance service,
staff efficiency and communications.
Projects included:
® Providing smart phones to building and environmental
health inspectors and code enforcement technicians in
the field to provide real-time inspection results; making
data available to inspectors in the field; and improving
communication, photography and printing tools;
® Reviewing business processes and procedures and
making several adjustments to accommodate and fully
utilize Accela.
® Continued to create efficiencies using the Accela
13
11111 111!!Il
i �r". •
permitting software. As the software evolves and new tools become available, Deschutes County continues
to be a statewide leader in offering training opportunities to our customers and regional agency partners
using the software.
Deschutes County has created an Accela ePermitting Advisory Group that will be looking at the future of
State ePermitting systems and how it can best fit the needs of the jurisdictions statewide. This is both an
opportunity to discuss system issues and to offer suggestions for improvements to meet Deschutes
County's needs. The state has been supportive of this group and its suggestions.
Percentage of permits applied for at counter target is 40%. Results: 70.1 %. Did not achieve performance
measure.
• Continue to coordinate and conduct public outreach and education on Accela and related elements to
increase custorner use of ePermitting, and encourage submittal of applications for participating
jurisdictions.
• Continue to monitor customer and permit volumes in City of Sisters and City of La Pine to ensure
resources are allocated to those locations ensuring customers are served in a timely and efficient
manner.
• Increase customer and public education on Accela and online permit applications in coordination with
Information Systems staff to achieve performance measure.
• Continue to explore options for improving efficiencies for permit applications submittals.
• Work with the new City of La Pine Community Development Director to improve efficiencies for
reviewing building permit applications, the issuance of complex permits and Certificate of Occupancies
for properties located in the City.
• Continue working with the City of Sisters to improve efficiencies in review of permit applications and
issuance of those permits.
• Serve on statewide ePermitting committee, participate in national Accela conference, and pursue other
actions to ensure Accela meets Deschutes County's needs.
• Continue to cross train permit technicians to perform simple plan reviews and participate in statewide
permit technician training programs and Central Oregon Planners Network Training.
• Achieve 25% of all permits being submitted electronically, with the exception of planning applications
(the capability does not yet exist).
• Establish and monitor a new performance measure—the target number of days for structural permit
ready to issue turnaround time for Coordinated Services of four days.
14
�vT ES
505M
11,1LQ111
The Code Enforcement program consists of three Code Enforcement Specialists plus a volunteer. The
program is managed by the Coordinated Services Administrative Manager and is supported by a law
enforcement technician from the Sheriffs Department and operating divisions. Code Enforcement is
responsible for investigating code violation complaints associated with building, land use, onsite wastewater
disposal and solid waste codes (by contract with the Solid Waste Department). The program's overriding
goal is to achieve voluntary compliance. If necessary, citations are issued for prosecution in Circuit Court or
before a Code Enforcement hearings officer.
The program continues to adapt to the County's challenges of growth and diversification, incorporating new
measures to ensure timely code compliance. With the legalization of marijuana, Code Enforcement has
been the leading entity for receiving and investigating signed and anonymous complaints. Code
Enforcement closely coordinates with CDD divisions, the Sheriffs Office, the District Attorney's Office, and
state agencies to achieve code and legal compliance of marijuana operations.
Voluntary compliance remains the Code Enforcement program's core objective and staff continue to refine
best practices to achieve this outcome. However, an ever-growing number of cases require further code
enforcement action because of lagging correction or non-compliance. Through the continuing development
and refinement of Procedures for Administrative Civil Penalty, Code Enforcement is obtaining expedited
compliance from citations, a contrast to court adjudication and greater cost recovery.
A disconcerting trend is the necessity for County abatement in some cases. In abatement, the County
affects the cure of violations with prioritization on cost recovery. Abatement action is reserved for matters
of chronic nuisance and public health and safety. In response to this trend, Code Enforcement is closely
coordinating with other County departments in the development and enactment of abatement plans.
15
A,
® Code enforcement resolved 450 cases in 2017.
® Staff found that using volunteers in the proactive code enforcement program was once again a great
success. Volunteers directly enhanced the program's productivity and efficiency through reviews of
Temporary Use Permits for compliance with conditional use decisions, including medical hardships,
removal of manufactured homes for storage permits and for living in RVs.
® Successfully coordinated with the inmate work crew to resolve solid waste cases. This partnership between
two County departments helps resolve difficult cases and helps homeowners come into compliance. The
County Road Department is also involved in helping to abate properties with hazardous structures.
® Created a new anonymous marijuana complaint form, providing parties the option to submit the
anonymous complaints.
® Created a new case type for marijuana complaints in order to monitor those cases. This will allow for easier
and consistent reporting.
• Staff started issuing a "Notice of Civil Penalty° before a Hearings Officer rather than Circuit Court. This new
process has allowed staff to schedule multiple hearings per day, which expedites cases. It also allows staff to
have a lien placed on the property if the property owner has not complied with County Code and pursue
further action, as needed.
16
Code Enforcement (cont.)
P e v f 0 a c e M e a e s
• Achieve 85% voluntary compliance. Table 1 below shows the program is within range of achieving this
performance measure with 83.66% of cases resolved voluntarily.
• Resolve cases within 12 months of opening a case. Table 2 shows that 84% of cases were closed within 12
months. The program is in within range of achieving this performance measure.
17
Code Enforcement (cont.)
• Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases.
• Resolve 85% of Code Enforcement cases within 12 months.
• Continue coordinating with the Sheriffs Office, District Attorney, Legal Counsel, and Planning staff to
track, process, and resolve marijuana complaints in a timely fashion and revisit the approach to
marijuana code violations with the BOCC.
• Update the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedure Manual and County Code, if applicable, to
implement:
BOCC direction on the approach to marijuana code enforcement and associated procedures to
process violations;
Land use procedures code amendments;
Other housekeeping amendments to reflect business practices.
• Continue to utilize the inmate work crew to resolve solid waste cases where the property owner is
unable to comply with County Code due to medical issues.
• Continue proactive efforts in investigation of illegal second dwellings, review temporary use permits, and
follow up on replacement dwellings.
• Continue to establish relationships with homeowners' associations, including offering to speak at
meetings to share information and enforcement operating procedures.
• Survey other jurisdictions and incorporate innovative enforcement practices where appropriate. This
effort includes direct involvement with the Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) conference
participation and networking.
• Administer the Volunteer Program, focusing on reviewing temporary land use approvals for medical
hardships which require the submittal of annual reports and similar cases.
• In cooperation with the Building Safety Division, participate in the development of a text amendment on
the County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The amendment will update tables to include compact
florescent lighting and LED options.
• Consider proactive review and enforcement of non-compliance with land use decision's conditions of
approval.
• Create a tracking system for code enforcement cases submitted and processed as part of the land use
application process. Submit report to the BOCC in early 2019.
0 Refine property abatement process to cure violations.
v -T E S
L�&
e
•
The Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the state -mandated building codes through a process
of education and a clear and fair application of the specialty codes. The Division provides all of these
services throughout the rural county, the Cities of La Pine and Sisters, and various services to Lake,
Jefferson, Klamath and Crook counties, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and the State of Oregon Building
Codes Division on an as needed basis. The Division consists of the Building Safety Director, Assistant
Building Safety Director, and 15 Building Inspectors.
® Issued 580 new single-family dwelling permits in 2017 for all Deschutes County building jurisdictions.
These include 43 new homes in City of La Pine and 91 new homes in the City of Sisters.
Nominated Angie Haiinear as Oregon Building Officials AssociationasPermit Technician of the Year. Ms.
Havinear earned the award.
® Continued to enhance Accela's capabilities through identifying issues, articulating business needs and
finding solutions and opportunities with this emerging building inspection software.
• Continued to cross -train all staff members to improve efficiencies.
® Continued to diversify division staff with the hiring of our newest Fire & Life Safety Plans Examiner.
® Hired the division's first licensed Architect
as a Fire & Life Safety Plans Examiner.
® Facilitated the approval of the Sisters'
Assisted Living Facility.
® Participated in the preconstruction
meetings for dozens of marijuana related
facilities.
® Participated in the construction process
for The Cloud Chaser, Mt. Bachelor's
newest ski lift.
• Participated in the construction process
for a new medical facility in La Pine.
® Maintained inspector certifications.
® Presented to:
® CCB licensed contractors through
CCB's local educational program at
COCC.
19
Building Safety (cont.)
® A well -attended educational program that included all local building jurisdictions and the local design
professional community through a partnership with the local International Code Council chapter.
® Local chapter of International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
Redmond Proficiency Academy Tiny House class in 2017.
u,
20
Building
Performance sue s.v,.
• Achieve 6-10 stops at different construction job sites per day for each building inspector. Each stop
consists of multiple inspections. Achieved: 10.28.
• Complete 2-4 residential plan reviews per day per plans examiner. Achieved: 1.3.
• Percentage of permits applied for electronically: 20%-40%. Achieved 29.9%
• Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically: 50%-80%. Achieved 60.4%.
• Residential plan review turnaround tirne in days: 2-8. Achieved 12.32.
• Inspections completed same day as requests: 90-100%. Achieved 98.9%.
• Manage staffing resources to meet increased business demands, particularly with a diversity of projects
in Sisters and La Pine.
• -Continue successionplanning, cross -training, and technology and vehicle investments to maintain and
improve efficiencies.
• Achieve an average of 6-10 stops at different construction job sites per day for each building inspector.
Each "stop" includes multiple inspections.
• Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 2-8 days.
• Coordinate with Information Systems staff to promote and educate customers on how to apply for
permits and inspections electronically.
• Participate in public, community, and
customer -specific education and outreach
efforts.
• Continue to serve in regional and
statewide and statewide leadership
positions to support Deschutes County
and Central Oregon interests.
21
The Environmental Soils Division is staffed
one Environmental Health Supervisor, one
Environmental Health Specialist, one
Environmental Health Specialist Trainee
and one on-call inspector who provide site
evaluations, design review, permitting,
inspection, education and coordination
with DEQ for onsite wastewater treatment
and dispersal systems. Additional support
staff include a permit technician. Staff also
inspect sewage pumper trucks, report on
the condition of existing wastewater
systems, maintain an Operations and
Maintenance tracking system, provide the
public with information on wastewater
treatment systems and regulations, and
investigate sewage hazards. Staff are also
engaged in the proactive pursuit of
protecting the groundwater in Deschutes
County.
1
by
® Assessed 229 sites for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, a decrease of approximately
20% from 2016, and issued 1,361 permits and authorizations for new and existing onsite treatment and
dispersal systems, an increase of 11 % from 2016. Assessed sites in 2016 included two new subdivisions. In
general, applications are more complex and technical compared to recent previous years.
® Regularly coordinated with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), including the hydrologist in the
Western Region office, to determine the circumstances in South County requiring protective onsite
wastewater systems. Staff continued to support and work with DEQ staff on South Deschutes/Northern
Klamath Groundwater Protection Steering Committee recommendations.
® Continued coordination with the Deschutes County/Neighborlmpact Loan Partnership program that
provides financial assistance to South County property owners when a nitrogen -reducing ATT system is
required to repair a failing onsite system.
• Made available to property owners in South County a rebate of $3,750 per property for upgrading
conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems. No property owners
pursued this opportunity in 2017.
® Coordinated with the City of Bend to assess sites eligible for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal
...
22
EnvironmentalSoils•
systems due to their distances from a sewer collection facility. Coordinated on proposed developments
with City staff.
® Updated Operation & Maintenance database for systems required to have service agreements and
annual reporting. Achieved 96.5% compliance on 657 accounts. Multiple Environmental Soils staff are
familiar with the database and most communications with service providers occur electronically.
® New septic system permit process control turnaround time: 5-15 days. Achieved: 11.02.
23
® Percentage of permits applied for electronically: 15%-50%. Achieved: 5.5%.
® Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically: 35%-65%. Achieved 37.9%
® Pre -cover inspections completed same day as request: 90-100%. Achieved 94.9%.
® Continue to maintain or exceed service level goals and permit
application processing time for site evaluations, design review and
inspection of onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
® Achieve a 10 -day turnaround for new construction permits.
® Prioritize addressing sewage health hazards and protecting public
health and the environment.
® Continue working with the DEQ on permitting protective onsite
wastewater systems in South Deschutes County.
Participate with DEQ in the pursuit of groundwater protection
solutions and possible implementation of the South Deschutes/
Northern Klamath Groundwater Protection Steering Committee
recommendations.
® Provide financial assistance opportunities when needed and
appropriate to assist South Deschutes County property owners who do
not qualify for conventional loans to upgrade conventional onsite
systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems (Nitrogen
Reducing System Rebates and the Neighborlmpact Non -conforming
Loan partnership).
• Participate in the City of Bend Storm Water Public Advisory Group.
® Continue coordination with the City of Bend and DEQ regarding the
southeast sewer interceptor and sewer expansion, and the impact on
homeowners with onsite wastewater systems.
® Maintain and update the South Deschutes County Groundwater
Protection Annual Report.
® Participate in DEQ Accela task force to improve efficiency and clarity
with the electronic permit system across the onsite program.
® Participate in the Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality
Management Area Local Advisory Committee.
• Coordinate with Information Systems staff to promote and educate
customers on electronic permit submittals and inspection scheduling.
® Long -Term Projects: Update the DEQ contract for the Onsite
Wastewater Treatment System Program to be more consistent with
current rules and requirements (current contract dates from 1981).
24
co
Overview
The Planning Division consists of two operational areas: Current Planning and Long Range Planning. The
Division consists of 16 employees: a Community Development/Planning Director, 1 Planning Manager, 3
Senior Planners, 1 Senior Transportation Planner, 6 Associate Planners, 4 Assistant Planners, and an
Administrative Assistant
CURRENT PLANNING is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes
County Code (DCC) and state law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating
public hearings with hearings officers and the BOCC. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with
land use rules for building permit applications and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to
respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; performing road naming
duties and assisting with addressing; and providing assistance at the public information counter, over the
telephone and via email; and addressing in the rural County and city of Redmond, under contract.
LNG RANGE PLANNING is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including
developing and implementing land use policy with the BOCC, Planning Commission, community and partner
organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations,
coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, including
population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Staff also monitors and participates in annual
legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on
transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development.
Three specific disciplines support both Current and Long -Range planning, including transportation,
wetlands/floodplains, and Information Systems.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING provides comments and expertise on land use applications, calculates
System Development Charges (SDC's) as part of land use application review process or upon request;
provides comments to the County's Risk Management Department regarding traffic issues for permitted
events; participates in the annual County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process with the Road
Department; applies for grants for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities in coordination with the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); participates in Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) funded refinement planning; coordinates road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the United States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface plans; and serves on several local and regional
transportation committees, most notably BPAC, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical
Advisory Committee, and Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) Technical Advisory
Committee.
FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS PLANNING is responsible for providing comments and expertise on land
use applications, code enforcement, and general property inquiries that require development, fill, or
25
Planning (cont.)
removal in mapped floodplain and wetlands. Staff maintains certification as an Association of State
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain Manager to provide customers with up-to-date and
accurate information regarding FEMA regulations, surveying requirements, and construction requirements.
Coordination is frequently required with external agencies including FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Forest Service.
Accomplishments
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
The Planning Division processed:
• Plan amendment and zone change re -designating a property zoned Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use
Agriculture near the eastside of Bend.
• Plan amendment and zoning text amendment relating to churches within the Wildlife Area Combining
Zone.
• Plan amendment and zone change re -designating a property zoned Surface Mining to Multiple Use
Agriculture near Bill Martin Road.
• Zone Text amendments addressing lot of record standards and process.
• New urban holding zone for lands recently brought into Bend's Urban Growth Boundary, but not yet
annexed. Also included minor amendments to Deschutes County's sign and subdivision ordinances.
LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
• Six appeals were filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals in 2017, compared to eight in 2016. Staff also
processed in 2017 a LUBA remand pertaining to Thornburgh Destination Resort.
_0.61 -•. sfO
26
Planning (cont)
MARIJUANA BUSINESSES
The following marijuana applications received approval in 2017:
® 24 for marijuana production
® Two for marijuana processing
® Three for marijuana wholesaling
® One for marijuana retail
The Board of Commissioners also
heard five appeals in 2017 pertaining
to marijuana production and
processing.
The Planning Division received 21
nonfarm dwelling applications in 2017,
compared with 39 for 2016.
PARTITION r SUBDIVISION
PLATS
Fifteen final plats were recorded in 2017 or are in the process of being recorded, creating a total of 48
residential lots,
Noteworthy land use applications in 2017 included, a solar photovoltaic system, dog kennel; temporary use/
medical hardship dwelling, Mazama Bed and Breakfast/Campground, at -risk youth school, water ski lake/
cluster development, lot of record (Kine), Thornburgh LUBA remand, and marijuana production, processing
and retail applications.
Performance Measures
® Process land use applications without prior notice in 14-35 days; target 21 days. Achieved. 28.7 days.
® Process land use applications with prior public notice in 30-60 days; target 45 days. Achieved 33.8 days.
Work Plan
AGRICULTURAL LANDS RE-EVALUATION & POTENTIAL RE -DESIGNATION: Re-evaluate agricultural
lands, including serving on state committee(s) to define non -resource lands, initiate a local non -resource
lands project, and monitor Douglas County's non -resource lands project.
COMMUNITY & AREA PLANS: Complete Sisters Country Vision Plan, Engage Tumalo, Terrebonne,
Newberry Country, and/or Deschutes junction residents to determine if community plans, goals, and
policies meet the current and future needs of the area. Only one or two such planning efforts may be
initiated each fiscal year.
27
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Consider developing a County housing strategy based on Tillamook and Coos
County's plans. Participate in state committee(s) to consider rural accessory dwelling units.
DESCHUTES JUNCTION: Initiate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that allows for new rural industrial
designations.
MARIJUANA REGULATIONS: Update the County's marijuana land use program.
NATURAL RESOURCES / WATER: Complete the series of regional panel experts addressing water resource
and conservation issues with a particularly emphasis on the relationship to land use and population growth
and development. Consider initiating a review of County Goal 5 inventories and protection programs.
GRADING ORDINANCE: Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COORDINATION: Coordinate with cities, County departments, state agencies
and organizations to develop and implement growth management plans.
CENTRAL OREGON LARGE -LOT INDUSTRIAL LAND NEED: Continue to coordinate with the City of
Redmond to initiate a UGB amendment for a regional large lot industrial campus.
® Continue to coordinate with the City of Bend to
amend the County's Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code to allow new airport -related
businesses at the Bend Airport through a
streamlined permitting process.
® Initiate County Transportation System Plan (TSP)
update in coordination with County Road Dept. if
funded by the Oregon Dept. of Transportation.
® Serve on the US 97 Parkway facilities management
plan technical advisory committee.
® Participate in the County Road Dept.'s
Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) process.
® Initiate amendment to DCC 17.16.105 and related
code sections regarding access requirements to
rural subdivisions.
NATURAL HAZARDS: Consider implementing the
recommendations from the University of Oregon's
Community Service Center's review of County Codes and
polices regarding wildfire mitigation.
.;mnrlM=
OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING PERMIT AMENDMENTS: Amend Deschutes County Code 8.16 pertaining
to Outdoor Mass Gatherings in coordination with County Legal Counsel.
SI&W•. ,. • r • 4 r •�
• Administer the 2017-18 CLG Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office, including managing
the Sisters historic inventory project, and supporting Historic Preservation Month.
• Apply for 2019-2020 CLG Grant, including coordinating with the Historic Landmarks Commission and
City of Sisters on priority projects to including in the grant proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION & HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION POLICY & PROCEDURES
MANUALS: Develop policy and procedures manuals for the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks
Commission with subcommittees of each body. The purpose of the manual is provide a helpful reference
guide pertaining to each commission's unique purpose, authorities, roles, decision making processes,
applicable laws/regulations and documents, public meeting requirements, etc.
• Consider implementing legislative amendments stemming from laws enacted by the 2017 and 2018
Oregon Legislative Sessions
• Population Forecast: Coordinate with the County Assessor and Administration Office to complete the
Portland State University, Population Research Center, annual Housing Unit and Population
Questionnaire.
• Comprehensive Plan and Community/Area Plan implementation activities, updates, necessary
revisions, and potential areas for new plans.
• Destination Resort overnight lodging units.
• Limited Use Permits: Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities.
• Marijuana Annual Reports.
• Non-farm dwellings.
• Medical Hardships.
• Conditions of Approval, as necessary
29
�vTES CO
�L s L
2� I COMMUNITY 2017 Deschutes County ommun ty
DEVELOPMENT Involvement Report
Background
z Community
Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires cities
and counties to create a citizen involvement program that
provides opportunities for community participation in land use
planning processes and decisions. Land use legislation, policies
and implementation measures made by Oregonians over 40
years ago helped shape Oregon's urban and rural environments.
Likewise, choices made today will ultimately shape these areas in
the future. Successful land use planning occurs through an open
and public process that provides room for information gathering,
analysis and vigorous debate. Deschutes County's Community
Involvement program is defined in Section 1.2 of the
Comprehensive Plan. This chapter identifies the County Planning
Commission as the committee for citizen involvement. It also
contains the County's Community Involvement goal and
corresponding five policies that comply with Goal 1.
This report briefly discusses the noteworthy community
involvement actions undertaken by the Planning Division in 2017.
The report is intended to provide county residents and
stakeholders with a tool to assess its effectiveness and offer
additional suggestions the County can utilize to ensure that its
diverse communities remain actively involved in land use
planning discussions.
Administering the zoning code requires the Current Planning
Division to process individual land use applications, zoning review
and sign -off for building and septic permits. Current planners
maintain legally prescribed turnaround times on land use
applications (150 -days) and provide customer service through
assistance at the front counter, phone conversations, and
appointments. Phone messages are returned within 24 hours.
� 11 s TAW,
?
In dune 2016, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
(BOCC) adopted eight ordinances to regulate the marijuana
production, processing, wholesaling, and retail industries.
Recognizing the unique development patterns in the rural county,
regulations mitigate sight, sound, odor, water, waste disposal, and
access, among others. They are unique among Oregon counties
in three ways:
1. Discretionary standards allow the industry to utilize
emerging technologies for growing and processing
marijuana to demonstrate regulatory compliance;
v1 ES C
�s o
o�� K✓ `G� COMMUNITY 2017 DeschutesCounty Community
DEVELOPMENT Involvement Report
2. Applications require notification to neighboring property
owners which provide opportunities for public
involvement in land use proceedings; and,
3. Development standards take into consideration rural
zoning, lot patterns, a high desert climate, and agricultural
practices.
After adopting the ordinances, the BOCC committed to re-
evaluating the marijuana regulations. The purpose of the
regulatory assessment is twofold:
Summarize comments from stakeholder, residents,
interested parties, and state agencies and law enforcement
regarding the effectiveness of the marijuana regulations; and
• Identify regulatory options.
Commencing in October 2017, the Community Development
Department (CDD) prepared an Existing Conditions Report. It
described the marijuana applications submitted to Deschutes
County from September 2016 through September 2017. The
document also summarized the County's marijuana regulations
and code enforcement philosophy. Upon its release, CDD
initiated a public involvement process to identify prevailing
opinions among industry representatives, stakeholders, and
residents.
WwAi'LININVIKS]� f
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held 22 meetings in
2017 discussing an assortment of issues, including:
• Text amendment to allow existing buildings as a medical
hardship in the Forest Zone
• Fifty -.year history of agricultural lands in Deschutes County
• Planning Division annual work plan
• Destination Resort overnight lodging unit tracking
• Community open houses and workshops in Sisters, La Pine,
and Redmond discussing flood plain amendments
• Bend Urban Holding Zone
• Lot of Record amendments
• Flood Plain Zone amendments
• Wildlife Area Combining Zone amendments
• Deschutes Basin work group update
• Sisters Country retreat
• Code Enforcement work session
2017 Deschutes County Community
Involvement Report
•; . 011 r ky, F-111,11•
The Historic Landmarks Commission held 5 meetings in 2017 discussing:
• Certified Local Government grant
• May Preservation Month
• Cline Falls Kiosk
• Hindman Barn stabilization
• Northwest Deschutes County tour
• Training on Certified Local Government and the National Register of Historic Places
• Nomination of Central Oregon Canal Segment for the National Register of Historic Places
N
33
Planning Commission Tour of
Sisters Country,, Fall 2017
,a.�,., �'�j � ..,.., iS_. � s�.��.,, ...2 x .,f r'Y 1 ...w..., .....'gym ✓d,Sv,.r � �.�mc ,F�..'� i. Y"ta.: r .�.. $P "w._.,X-.. ,, .�S .az; amu. .i,,,. h
34
44
glop
�!la,
V
� v
d
t
x f
-41
6
n ,s.�. .,».. e '- r✓�,�. .. M F 3 r F . s.�.� ,, ,, i Ir,,,s J='(, ... ,e )?', ,DS..'-�n� .i �._f : �s e, gY,t a � . s°4� id
t
.N�rt�a� �sik •, � vw� y�
I .,•4 e. l �,77
-'i :) P +fir' ' .G.
Ald
l� r
a.
Appendix le. CDD Performance Measures Scorecard
Deschutes County Community Development
Performance Measures - Customer Perspective
1/1!2017 To 12/31/2017
0 Meeting Target .,D- Within Range 10 Not Meeting Target
Planning Division
Lafir
Tar
Upper
Nurnbet of Days
score
Residential Plan Review Turnaround Time - Number of Days
limitrarerTO
5 Days
8 Days
Proom
ozo
Days To Process Administrative Determination Applications Without Prior Notice
14 Days
21 Days
35 Days
29.6
Days To Process Administrative Determination Applications With Prior Notice
30 Days
45 Days
60 Days
72.9
Building Division
LOW
Unit
Tarot
Upper
Unut
NumbTOer of Days
Prooess
Soon,
Residential Plan Review Turnaround Time - Number of Days
2 Days
5 Days
8 Days
12.91
I
ozo
Building Division
LVAW
Urnit
Tarot
Upper
L!"it
% compieted
on Time
sows
Inspection Request Completed By Inspector On Day Requested By Customer
90%
95%
100%
98.9%
0:0
- ---- - --- - ------------ --:'- -,- , -- -- --, - -1
Environmental Soils Division
- - -
LMW
U'an
-,- — -
Target
--
U Upper
mit
----- --
% completed
on 'rkoe
- - -
Soore
Pre -Cover Inspection Request Completed By Inspector On Day Requested By Customer
90%
95%
100%
94IM/6
0:0
Deschutes County Community Development
Performance Measures - Internal Organizational Assets
111/2017 To 12/31/2017
Meeting Target Within Range 1 Not Meeting Target
Coordinated Services
I
to" i
Target
Upper
U"it
% Applied For
At Fermi Counter.
Stere
Percentage of Permits Applied For AtThe Permit Counter
60%
40%
20%
701%
0:0
Building DivisionP
U.*
Target
U
Lhft
% ApFor
plied
Online
01
Percentage of Permits Applied For Electronically
20%
401
60%
29.9'1,5)
0:0
Building Division
Urnit
Tarot
Upper
Urnit
% swdlkled
ekacuonioalty
score
Percentage of Building Division Inspections Scheduled Electronically
50%
65%
80%
61.2%
0:0
Environmental Sofli s Division
LVAW
Urnit
Taro
Target
Upper
Urnit
% AFor
pphof
Sistine
score
Percentage of Environmental Soils Division Permits Applied For Electronically
15%
35%
60%
6.9%
0:0
Environmental Soils Division
LMW
Tarot
Upper
% SO**Aed
scare
Urnit
Unlit
EwhowAvy
Percentage of Environmental Soils Division Inspections Scheduled Electronically
351
5
. . . . . . . . . . .
36
k,ppend� ,, -. CDD Performance otti Y4 ance Measu rvhl.s Scorecard
and
Deschutes County Community Development
Performance Measures - Internal Processes
1/1/2017 To 12/31/2017
Meeting Target � Within Range , Not Meeting Target
Code Enforcement
L
Ta get
uiaa�rt
c Rate swa
soon
Achieving Voluntary Compliance
75%
85%
100%
85.0%
l
Resolving Cases within 12 Months
75%
85%
100%
83.21%
,D
Building DivisionLOW
La.
LimTarget
Target
L�
7Per Days
soon
Residential Building inspections - Number of Stops Per Day
51 Day
8/Day
10 i Day
10.28
l
Ba11di09 Division
Building
La.
LimTarget
Twget `
Um
Pian Reejraz
F. Day
Saxe
Residential Plan Review - Average Number of Plan Reviews Per Examiner Per Day
2 t Day
31 Day
a / Day
2.7
Environmental Solis DivisionLOZ
LLI it
Twget `
j_ P. t
a—
New System Permit Process Control - Turn Around Time in Days
5 Days
10 Days
15 Days
11.0
37
V)
Ln m m Ln
Q) -C(A c 4-
1� E m C0
u Vi c V)
4::-,,
0 c bo
:3 o X m E :3 C 4-
-0 .2 0 � (v C:
Ln
0 0 m 2! UO 0
-0 a)
0 Ln ECO
C 4- -a > >
V) c
Ln 0 0- E 0 0 U m
CD 4- E 0) . 0 0 L/i
E Fo (U u E 0 Ln
-0 Q) uq CT -0
Ln CDL m a) w
0 E m E Q) Z _0c Q) 0 u
w ,o o �fi D
U 0
u 0 U c - m c c 0
L/I i V) 0 0- 0 < C> 0 >1 0 V) 0 -
Ln D D = V�
-C c
0 u m m V) m -C C: C:
0 m 4- E .0
0 :3 u 0
Ln _0 Ln -00- 0 0 Ln Ln 0 -7�5 m
m m u U > �u
_0 E w c 0 0 CD -
w Ln u C M V)
m G) L- w -0 kj Ln 0 0-
Q) u u , 4? Ln V) -C - I
I u m 0 Q) w 0�0 0-0-
0 m :3 :3 � m -C u w u -0 C: C)
c S� - 0 M
0 0 CA m
0 to c u E m C: 0 M QJ
0- c m w U) (A
E 4.1 Ln 0 (A w w
Ln Q) -0-- c C: 0 0 :D 0 :D
u > V� C:
IR C u J_- M
0 u
u
m Q) m m (V'�, E LA C: C
4 Q) (/I � M m E c
0- E Qj -00.2-2
V) 0 0 4 -
Ln :D C: a) 4- c
V� o 0- m LSE Qu, u 4- E 0-
u Ln -
Q) u m 0 CD- u 0 0- 00 c 0 C:
m _0 0 - C) m -0 0 - 04 -
Ln 0 u w C: Ln 0 3: L, m C) U 0
4-
-0 0- Ln
E m V) C C u 0 0- a) —
-2 0) W — mu= 0- x -i
C..
4.1— 0- � — 0- C: M
w U C) -0 w
(A C)- m > 0 m
0- 0 C.- 0-
_0 E: _0 M _0
M 0 M.- Ln
E C 0- 0 b-0
u -0 Q) c 4- M CD- 0- - U m
C.0 E vi :0 W 4- u E -r- w
Ln > M -C 0 M C -0 -0
.T) -0 0 4- Qj 0 0 Z --
Ln Ln 0 U -0 Ln �: Q)
0 C �� C 0 Ln Ln V) V) m Lq V)
D u 0.- 0_-. 4- Q) C m Lip L/) V)
Q) -0 0 0 u .0 E — :D w
> u u . 0) 0 u u
— _0 Q) I - _0
u- E o-,
E _0 w -- 0 M '- 0 V) 0
u 0 u �: Q)
L/i 4�- C: > D U 4- C: 0 c C:
C: 0 C: -0 C: Q) a) c: c m m -W Q) m 0-
M - vi E 0 Ln m u 0 :) � m-
0 -4- 0 > X - Ln > U -
" -T-- (A V) Q) 0 - Q) C. a) w w � 0 C 0) V, CD- 0- Ln -C -0
C M -0 C) - :3 M U Q) V) v- C
M (L) C) m 0- U.J -, E c 0 V) " LO W —
_0 u m C: 0- C U 0- m m
Z, � � (1) — -r- Ln E u m — c C u L- 0
aJ M Ln i2 -�, -- W C 0
Ut > Q) U 0 4--
_0 u i7) E E p w Z Ln M U U W 4-- 0- Q)
L/i c: z-1 E 4- w w w E u
E 0 M4- 4-1 m m E c u C:
L/I , 0 C: 0 ---o -- — m 4-1
E " E c: a) 0-0 C Ln C U - 3: >, o 4- Q- m u u Q) -
0 Q) M M 0- c w 0- -0 M Vi 0 u C: 3:-o 0 1-1 w 0--z E
• QJ -0 0 Q) m u c Q) V) Ln 0 0
- -0- - - w -�-j E >_1 Q) U E -a-o
• u c: if o E m m m
E E -(OU mo- v.� C: c < Q) w -2 0 m c -.c- o -O E �D
o M M c
L m Q) QJ c u w u Ln
QL c Q) V) 0- Q) 0 M < 0
M :) w 0 L' w u Ln 'A
Ln C -C 0 Q) M E E E Ln Ln V)
u 0 Ln _0 -U -a) > 0- 0 0 QJ >
< -C u 0- M 4- (3) C: C: a>
U 0 u r -j V) m -0 > m c Z; 0 > m c V) 0
0 a) LA E m W W m 0-- cj
0 M -0 C > U c m
IA tDO C: Z) >,.G 0 , CIL u 0 Co E w m u V) w (f C: L- � —
Q) c D 0-5 a) -- W U 13 w o
bo� 0- � >, r) �-- M C: E Q) o o L*n- q-- w w C: .0 0 c . LD
0- LU 4- U �,
V) M M - w -4- .00 0 w >
-0 0 > Et— Q-) 0 7-3 — E c
(D L/I 4-- a_
CZ, m c � o o o Ic"'o V) E
o>0 M Ln Q) u _0 0 u -o E w -c Q) u > Ln
m -(D,- C - D � 0 LO
, a E ME L-, Ln o U) m E o
0, 4- 0- c > E,� M ±'- m Ln :D C) E u
0- �D_ E E u Q) Ln 0 m 0 -0 Q) 'Z--
- *Z (1) Ln 4- U) u M (3) 0
(a) 00 (1) (3) 4- m C) --O C) 4� V) C: � M -- 0 < o U- 0
V) 0- U 1� -0 " C - 't- C)- >I-(-- b-0
0- - U CD U 3: CD- c
,vl E D 0 -L/1 Ln 0-0 Q) Ln E :D Lp --.- u - - 4- Ln
Z) u �7n M *Z, 0 0 Ln M
- Ln > 3� m E Ln Ln
0 -0— -0 4- 0 C -C 0 E 0- u WV) m c w w
m o U W M (D Cf) Q) 0 0 0) V)
U C c E
U) — --o 3: > -E E '.z m' w -0 u
D c E Ln
E B) 0 `noarca m E W 0- C c: 0 0
_0 w W.- w " U.- -0 U
Q) - c = -0 U 0
-0 n 0 u E Q) W4 Q) = � C: 0- 0
-0 E E 0- M 0-
� _Q u E �m -c- —0-0 c � ' c
0 m C -J E E w Q) M 0 0 4-1
0 u OCU V� 0 0 > Ln D 3� 3:4-
C: C: -�- — w o— E W E m E Ln
m m U-0 c: m Ln 0 0 w Q) -r- m Em
u c: u � W bO C: 0 c W w -
-LD 0 E E 0) 0 w W 0- W w CEO C:.- 0 - 0) , , V.Ll) E
Ln U 0 W > W E
E 0 _,UJ 0 C: 0— Q) - 0 W Q)
0 0 M m M o U x m w m m w c C: 1- a) bD -0 C:
4- 4- :!--2 -0 0 C: E E
E -0, -0 -z- m c Q) Ln c: 0
0 -2 m -0 m
UJ W -- Q) Ln
Q) -0 - �5 Q).o o > - -0
E -o o'- -0 a) - 0 c 'A M -0 -�-- Ln U 0 Ln c >
0 r -.0 4- W.N M M'E > W T_- UO M
0 U C) u Q- E 0 4- U 0
V) 0 (Z• - V) u
m Ln W o w o c:
-a E 3: D u W E CW:: x) Q) 0 lw -u 0 > 0 E 0 w m E u
u _0 — u Q) o o "-c C)- 0 M 0 U
-C 0 m IIIR \,'� I (A C) o w - w Z w t 0-
E QT Qc): u _0 0-0 0 0 0 _0 -C 0 w m
0 4 i -n Ln
w m c 4-1 C Ln u Ln Q) D m
-,- 0 0 4� U
U m W M W Ln W Q) N m 00 co L C Q) - -S- 4LL 0
m _) 70 W W W o � m F-- - ro (i ,
0 E w bb :3 C: u :3 0 Z) (1) 0) (1) CD D 'Fu 0 C: -C :3 D Ln :D 0- . G) Q-
-a -a s Q) C: C vi > > > > - -0
Q) c: ro — c: c: c E >,='c— C: o Q)
-a Ln m 'T- -0 Q) W Q) , T-- m - 0 -4-- a) I
E E _0 u C: -5 ui w 2 -�- *E C 0 U Ln m
0 0 0 CL -0 0 c -EZ -E Ln C: E -0 C: c w c u - m u c c (U M
0 D -§ -0 4- 0 i 0
E 00 0 0 Ln 0 w 0 u u u Q) 000- 00 C: U 0 4-
u E u F- u v, u Lf) c u < < < of U u D . . . UU . 4- U < 0- CUU�Qf
O (N (y)
C\J CY) Ln I'D (N and Ln,,o 1-0061 Nm d Ln t -b r- 00 01
LLJ
>
Lo
• LLJ
LU
LA
!R LU
z
ui
:2
Uu
Lij
C) Lu
>
0 U
LLJ
Ln
0 LU
LA
u
0
LL
0
u
z
<
LLJ
O E
Ln
-C
bo
CLn _0o
f1 Q) 'a) Q) :3Q) c L
Q) a) > C c
Q) u
L Ln
n c a) °> ov,
Ln c
Q s c c o
ar.° v O o ro a)
a) aJ V o O U Q
V)
> v C V) C a) v,
o r- c D a) o_ -o L v,
,u o o -C � aJ v o a)
c EW - u,- C
Ln c � �
�
— Q) o ° O v,
u�o ' c U E E
6 m > � o , I E
� C v v M - Tu
0- c v, , � C s bA - ° 4- �
L C a) v C: -C O
>,ra bo O v� E v -U a) E o)
C Env �v 4-; �>
°a) o E aO 0--o
> .�LE
O_ u_
X4.1 >-o0) ocQ L 0u
� C c v n- .Ln oc v � O
LA C O r J
� � v s � vNi o -`n � J Q) v n3
to L u 0 >, Q m � C b-0 + c
>,>o n c
o �Ln _0 aoc c Q vQ
u-u� o ��v,EJEo � u �E
L
�Q o vvoo.L�o o �b°Jo
a �L c
p ) - �L C
; Q
v� o O_v0D O�U ° z0�
4-
-0
- ° c+ c+ l�� n5 0-,>,
�°°c ��� C0 E����� -6 76
v, C O u 00 C C >, C
U) -0 Q).>0UvoE-°°'Eo°cp
Ln L
G) v 0 o v 0bov c��dv� v v
v, �V) Q ui
`n -`n o° o a)= c C �b p� n `a
� oo o���QMvc0C)_0 v,v�
V a)
_o bb 4- D V) S> a) d > U > o :DN N> C> M -C > Q)
m e 1- _Q (1) C c O O N L '-' 4--+ QCJN °- D
E u
a) a) O N E L Q .a) bo -O m m v u --,E
L QJ V m �> O W
L b0 +_ QC>
V�� O u 3: -C C 03:uQ
Ln r N a) -C Q O ° O v, E > a) Ln4.1 N to
E a)Q) 0 L C �--+ C ._ L Q% L J -J i-� U
Ln In L Fu o D O 0 O U Ln
C L a)
EL Ln L r6O
ub u O () d L v Q M -Q Ln a) o C M 4— L
CO pp.w 0 E 0
u c aJ Ln O aJ a--1 ° -1 O YO a) aJ
L O m m C_ ,_, c +-+ v
� O C L bQ 4- OL v, QJ � .0 c a) n u Q-
0
v,oa) a) �° .�� j Ln> WU - aa)Q�
" V) m m c v, �Ln b c❑ .- a) C C) LU a)
acoa) Fuo�v��MroU:3 �E�-Com
_ u
v c o m Eo oo-0 oa�i.� o° a c c
m C(UY c Mcl!� a) u v v
ao c> L> c u> c -Q v a) - c a v, _�.�
C i a) C Q) Q) a) 'C i � �� > CO � .� roc a) � �
C C— --C C Q� O C L L o +_ L C Q V) L L
O u u O o u C o m o L O Z rp O E
LUQ QQ U._QO U�Z��Q��
� N (Y'1 c1 (N r 1 t Ln �,b r--: 06 0')
39
J
z }
W
0 Il l—J
:2J
D
0 LA
ul
crf
m
5;
z
W
39
E -0v c
`) O O_ c v v ° c v c U) ° o c �_
Cu u E� c �� a) M Q O E
O C
v) a) v Q v) o O >
p
V) .QE a� ao- °, o O o Lo aQ n O c
p U
v �� �c c ' v v, V) V) bO c v ��
n u p u v m c L .c a) Q Q v °i 0 E c
v N } > O
a)
E -p Q) aJ i- C O E i b0 n' O C V1 C i p 0- 0) Vl
E o0 o Q �n v a v c i O_ ouo 6 bo E'_' O_
"roc gra _u m � E v -C n rcaWM L � O o�J�
ccO a_ c �7 0 a) = bo E`� Q) s E: �r
n�ac6M v ° v�i� c lm7 > (1) (3) � U ��C=
c Q) -' C a) c L v) rp .1-i u V)
u� O o a) m O v N c OQ u
bcO O Q b�0 U N Q1 QJ bO Q a) p r6 Ero
�vO r (J C o C '�' O C c vl " �-+ O_ c c
Uo o o° m U o Eo��oO o ° i ��;
ut C t_6 C N C E O> _� O d aJ O_0 Li bO
cU0 c0 Q) a) U L > O O E O "- c C u O_� N .,_; ut O
n a) Ql p O.-_ O B aJ
v 3 a) ut vi vt L _0 U O c+ O p_ a) E L ' c U a1
V C Z U 'c ° N ° C l� O~ p N E c O-0
C 4-_ C C Q) U— _ 6 O E
O a) � � c6 m -0 v E O C U U a) -0 Ln � c � c� i
v U C O C L C r0 C O b0 J 'p > p U a) E o vl � �6 O M
C: 4— co i bO c6 +� aJ a) U v O a � u n v
n 0 -0 bO � 0_ U Cl) aJ
C � c y' 4) aL) C O Q) DO U .. L m Q) ate+ N U a) a) � c
�� ° C �� N O O ° — M N O N vi +� O V) cZ
76 °a)C E �,c-OO a)� +-� �n0 �O Ln a)NO EOa)c.Ovi
O F- a) 1O N u U c0 O= .Q C p U U E v C
L p L U X L r6 vt a) N LA vl — N O C Ou Q ro a) C o
m u c � a) a)U c > s.E o� E c o CD--§ �� bc°0-n v
L c p 0� +� =o v c o ,� c o o E bo Q)
m°� _0 m N o f 2 � U v o N LA r--� N ° "O rc6 O �B
Q) E f Q) + E b y bA N .� 0+ E t U�� > E t0 U l/1 �
-0 0 v v) M M E c m a) _C_ c 0 O_ in E c a ,n - m -o aO .. c
• c N L .� O_ C +.+ -c Vl ° r6 "� -_C .0 r6 c � o r6 C
cp bo E c o O c E ° ` " ai av c a) - � -- )n 4- Q Q
> c �� O U ��°a�Ln E.- cO_o utCv)
Y(v`u-°u' ���� me o v <M.- -Q n Q� u00 -C C: Ev�
p C .- i Q) c O O i-7 U -C i c U U+ c 7
�C n_ V) N_oN O_p u__ c �v _� c -o vac a) .N>o.:L
c Na Q c E c: vU vu ` o c v v co '' E v cN v)� ro
_ C: v l7L a E Lv -0ra� _0 Ln
C a �pvo pu c vc� J�=._.�c v vc E n� uM.T
>� O- E O c U o O c M
>- E v M C: U o'oE v E o c m Q o �v°i E o m'�
+ ° C u
O Ln D vi m D cU� 00 a a) Q)+�Q aJ c c EU -O aco �� �Ln o v ro
® a)OcvoD_Cv 0M - L GI E- n - CO voc mc -0-o
co E
_ �U r� >U bco,,U v) � c v c �.� L - c oma° m� c—° c Q Q c
Fzm_ova)O_ v� Z-Lv vpv �E v U� �+� E~�.ov,
c a Q) >, � bc0°)� m y o �� E `^ E o v a) c °,o E Lo 'n oc
�C 4— �c v, �p .�=� 17�-- -0 0- s� O_a) c
Q_ E m i a) m N C — a) bO V C J -� +-+ .. V 0 c O Q)
E E N> NO c c O_ � -L- vi E Q J n U J .� a) N c C 4M I� M .in •M
C Q O v) a) a) E C_ O Q) ++ 7 Vl O p lJ 70 a) C L QJ O C> L
oE�a' uEEO° O.OmEQ1 wc�-n n Fn '_'°gym `o Of a'°'
o- a v u ca Q) O E E a) n � _ boa) c c 3 W) U
—cUv ���v�`c—ca �" =M�La�C` =civ �° v o � � -?-,
>._..�c��raEa;p �n v� ov� =��c o= c�� �O°o�oa�
LU vicEvoO ..M4- c .o�ucUU-Eib � mt, o� c� o ��uu
� `_0 c O o Eic-i
b - c— c6 v E U O n � U c> v v
ca v> .. c�-_ NU vv) c o ra c c c c Q� c � L v v v v v c
c—° v Q1 c._��/, E u� c�o OL v o r�N._.o u c ° ,nom �� EO c
a) coo cc6v c_0 -0 v)vo m ov>cD o o`6
ULOE.tn __Uo-C ErpC c� coE ut�6 i UCS O C C N
C jQ' O Ct i -i E -Np ��a>'� bON E 6 a1 O v) j' �._ v E Q) _0 j
O O C O m° C i to ut c C bO c + C, � r0 + E mo
— c42 0 � N QGJ 0—'a C�CL a) N� r0 O N O u o D U O p O 0-E O -
i i •- Q) Q) N C �i bO N O 2 U L— N U C U c aJ O a) Q
C 4J - Q1 O O O L= U a U �- a) c s +� a1 'J N a) .v
c C: n++C -C- _co_ L c b-0 O. +� c>a� vi Q
O C (0 O + i-, c O U -- 0 C c i L C r6 N i L a) 4-
E v ._ p a) s i u C b0 co + a1 O - a) ro '- C 00
c c a) U :_ c a) •- + i r6 C O 3 C C rp c c +
c 4 = O O+ c c "O O U_ C C OJ vl v C U i—f-V)a _ 1•� v)
C a) E C O ,� 0 � p cp O C +� � �+ c 4- c to � c
C: p — ` - N ca to i O rO O O 1n 4— f6 — b0 o a) v b0 O
O_Q Em2z �, Q� E aoZuO =OQaa °J o �F- E- coQ�
N M d• ui t0 I< 00 01cN- r
z
z
z
Q
J
d
40
Appendix
Name
Title
Phone
Email
Nick Lelack, AICP
Community Development Director(541)
385-1708
Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org
Krista Appleby
Building Inspector 1
(541) 385-1701
I Krista.Appleby@deschutes.org
Tim Berg
Applications System Analyst 111
(541) 330-4648
Tim.Berg@deschutes.org
Keri Blackburn
Permit Technician
; (541) 388-6577
Keri.Blackburrm@deschutes.org
Todd Cleveland
Environmental Health Supervisor
(541) 617-4-714
Todd.Cleveland@deschutes.org
Kyle Collins
;Assistant Planner
'(541) 383-4427
Kyle.ColIins@deschutes.org
Doer e
Building Inspector III
385-1702Rainer
Raiiier,Doerge@descliutes.org
Scott Farm
Building Inspector III
(541)385-1402
Scott.Fann@deschutes.org
Lori Furlong
Administrative Manager
(541) 317-3122
Lori,Furlong@descliu(es.org
Brandon Gilmore
Applications System Analyst 1
(541) 317-3193
Branoori.Gilmore@deschutes.org
Owen Gilstrap
Building Inspector III—Electrical
(541) 388-6614_
Owen.Gilstrap@deschutes.org ?
Chris Gracia
Assistant Building Official
(541) 388-6578
Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org
Tracy Griffin
AdiTrinistrative Assistant
(541) 388-65 73
Tracy.Griffin@descliutes.org
John Griley
Code Enforcement Specialist
(541) 61 7 4.708
John.Griley@desc:liuces.org
William Groves
Senior Planner
(541) 388-6518
William.Groves@deschutes.org
Peter Gutovvsky
Planning Manager
(54 1) 385-1709
Peter.Guto\nisky@deschutes.org
Judy Hackett
Permit Technician
(541) 385 171.3
Judy Hackett@deschutes.org
Angie Havniear
Permit Technician
(541) 330-4611
Angela.Havniear@deschutes.org
Tirn Heck
Building Inspector III
(541) 388-1047
Tirr.Heck@deschutes.org
Zech Heck
Associate Planner
(541) 385-1704
Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org
Rodney Hines
Permit Technician
(541) 383-6710
Rodney.Hines@deschutes.org
Larry Howard
Environmental Health Specialist 11
(541) 330-4666
Larry.Howard@deschutes.org
Steven Jensen
Building Inspector III—Plurnbing
(541) 385-1700
Steven.Jensen@deschutes.org
Brandon Jolley
Building Inspector 111
(54.1) 3.2.2-7.182
Brandorr.Jolley@deschutes.org
Diane Justus
Admin Support Technician
(541)385-1730
Diane.Justus@deschutes.oi g
Jennifer Lawrence
Permit Technician
(54'1) 385-1405
Jennifer.L.Lawrence@deschutes.org
Michael Liskh
Building Inspector III
(541) 388-1047
Michael.Liskh@deschr.ites.org
Izze Lir.i
Associate Planner
(54.1) 388-6554
Isabella.Liu@deschutes.org
Nicole Mardell
Associate Planner
(541) 317-3.157
Nicole.Mardell@descV)r.rtes.org
Matt Martin
Associate Planner
(54'1)330 4620
Matt, Martin@deschutes.org
Nate Miller
Assistant Planner
Nate.MiIIer@deschutes.org
Brian Moore
Building Inspector III
(541) 323-5221
Brian.Moore@deschutes.org
Lisa Petersen
Permit Technician
(541) 317-3188
Lisa,Petei"Seri@deschutes.org
Sherri Pinner
Management Analyst
(541)385-1 712
Shnn i.Pinner@deschutes.org
Anthony Raguine
Senior Planner
(541) 617-4739
Anthony.Ragr_iine@deschutes.org
Tarik Rawlings
Assistant Planner
Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
Jacob Ripper
;Senior Planner
(541) 385-1759
Jacob.Ripper@deschutesorg
Kiley Rucker Clarnons
Environmental Health Specialist 1
(541) 383-6709
Kiley Rucker-Clamors@deschutes.org
Appendix 3: Staff Directory
Peter Russell
Senior Transportation Planner
(541) 383-6718
( Peter.Russell@deschutes.org
Todd Russell
Building Inspector III
= (541) 385-1700
Todd.Russell@deschutes.org
Randy Scheid
Building Safety Director
(541) 317-3137
{ Randy.Scheid@deschutes.org
Martha Shields
( Permit Technician
( (541) 385-1706
Martha.Shields@deschutes.org
Tanya Saltzman
£ Associate Planner
'Taiiya.Saltzman@desChLItes.org
Cynthia Smidt
Associate Planner
E (541) 317-3150
Cynthia.Srnidt@deschr.ites.org
Dan Smith
= Code Enforcement Specialist
541) 32.5-1710
Dan.Smith@deschutes.org
Dan Swarthout
€Building Inspector III
1 (541) 385-1745
Dan.Swarthout@deschutes.org
Chris Tiboni
Code Enforcement Specialist
-. (541) 383-4397
Christopher.Tiboni@deschutes.org
Jennifer Tidwell
Permit Technician
(541) 385-1714
Jennifer.Tidwell@deschutes.org
Hether Ward
Assistant: Planner
Hether.Ward@deschutes.org
Laurie Wilson
Building Inspector 1
(541) 383-6711
Laurie.Worley@deschutes.org
Richard Wright
i Building Inspector III
(541) 617-4746
Richard.Wright@deschutes of g
42
Attachment 2
-8-
�X\
-<
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: May 15, 2018
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Sub -committee / Water Panel / Next Steps
I. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is conducting a series of work sessions addressing water resources in Deschutes County.
Understanding water availability for current and future users can help inform and guide land use policy
recommendations. A Planning Commission sub -committee will debrief the Board of County Commissioners on
these panel conversations on May 21, and seek Board input on the value of these and additional panels.
IL PANELISTS
The first panel convened on March 8, 2018, focused on the hydrology of the Upper Deschutes basin.' It included:
• Kyle Gorman, South Central Regional Manager, Oregon Water Resources Department; and
• Stephen B. Gingerich, Ph.D. - Research Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Oregon Water Science Center
The second panel convened on April 12 and focused on the relationship between water, wildlife habitat,
recreational activities, and associated economic benefits in the upper Deschutes River basin.z Panelists included:
• Bridget Moran - Bend Field Office Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Jennifer O'Reilly — Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Brett Hodgson - Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
• Mark Buckley, Ph.D — Partner, ECONorthwest
Notes from the panel discussions are summarized below. Online videos of each panel discussion are also available
(see footnotes).
II. BOARD INPUT
The sub -committee is interested in conducting two additional water panels in June and July to discuss:
• Water Consumption and Efficiency and
• Water Projections and Planning
Additionally, there is interest in convening other panelists next fiscal year that offer insight into high priority work
tasks approved by the Board for FY 2018-2019.
1 http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1807&Inline=True
2 http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1819&Inline=True
IA
c
aJ
E
E
O
u
C
f6
a
N
+
0
0
u
a
a, a
3
+�
�
w
�,
^ 0
c in
«.
ti-
o
=_ t c
.; m
L
O
a
L
a
L
i
i
00 to
p
E=
o
O
+r
p—
u o a
aL.+ T 70 b4 C
4-
�a
vi
(6
C:00
v
M
a
m
T y N ,�,, f6 0
"a
O
c
OL
CU
a
N
t 3
-O
O a j '�..
0
°' �'
o
oO cLa
°;
3
m
o
c w a° E n`°o
>
H
"O
O O
@
°
a
a C
O °CO
, u +, t U
v v
c6
s
a
CL
3
_
s°
L w
a
L
�'
a
J
r-+ 3
U
++ L
p
of a
O a
O
U
.aC
7
a
L
°+.'
�
>`
N
v
U- E C uu
`°
m
Qj L
3 m
M
c°
M
m M
m
o
�aai ono `° `° a
> c �' ° +, a n
u
.n
f6 .�
0
++
f6 3
ti4
o
Y
o0 .0 O
c
O
a
>
C
E
a
O E ��
>
L
L
Y
On
O
ro �
L
t6 00 _ c n O a
m
a
i+lu
0
Z
0
JCL
3
0
.`^
= O>
a
U
co
m a-
D ai
N ON a O .0 r6
a
�O
m
n
a
L
++ o.
E
++
N a
}+
n
a �-+ O O
E
7
Ln
r6
U
ate+
C to
+n �+
-0
a
a O
°.
a n
a� 60 O
N
c
6C0
a
N
C 0 U
.y � 'C
c6
N C
Y
0 L
ai
cLa
a
'
vUi -C
CU
i'
++ O
c
•L
C
VI
O
y
CU
H
co
v '�''
L N L U a 3 a
f0 0 t o *'
-C
N
U
v QJ
`ai
°
� O
t
n
v
Z
0-v
°
>, u c 0 3
a
n +n
"
in
u
00
L L
°�
+'
>
u a
_0
O 'O — a
v
c
O
Q n..
3
o °'
a
v
a
lao
.1 u s m
� �
o
a4
�L�
00
o-
Ln a > o mma
m L>
ca
O
On
a U y
Q -C
Ot
U
L a "O
C E
a+ O a >• ,+,,
ai
Y
vLa
3
+UJ N p
60
N N
m O O E N w
U
i
Y
Y 3
a
c-0
i
C
O
3 -° !0
u a
U m° }' a a p U
YO
V1
y
Q) on
C
a
a)
°
�00 a;
++ Ql
Y
6
m
0 �'-0
a
O�
�, °°mT° ns•L
i L a Q 7
0
L
°�'
,+,�
C
a
>
y
N
0
cn°
j 6a0
O C v0i
N ,y
a
L -O ++
> O a N 0
a
£
° 0
ate-+
a
0=
-0
.�
° m
0
+Yif
v
on -0
@
3
>•
0 0 0 a� Y CL —
a
O
N 6D
L
+n
C
.�
Q1 C
Ln
T C a
c6 a
vi 'O I- a O -p CO
Y
u
: �'
`4 u
cu
u
w
a m
CL
3 0 ro ° M
v
U
ami
��
.�
H
m '-`
V C-0
o
.0 �' a in `n 60
v
L
O o
a
-C
U
a W w
n o
L C
._
a
C a—
C
a
L a -° .c
�o
U
H
�'
a s
I-
a
0
L
+' o�
a
E -0 m
'S m m
u �'
E m- +� 0 C i
0i cu
c
N
a=
O °:
3
of
X
°0 `m
4-
O Y
of o v cu C0
L
v
6
a
OU
N a-+
-
V
i
�
L
a
a o
0A a
T
°
a� M L
c E@
N
C
o
a-+ �(
p �l
O u a
o� 3
a c
C om0
._ �, a 0 L
u
c6
v
h0
E
o
m
a
a
60
'c o
C,
m 0
o u .O
+�
w
E V
m
"�
m
N i •C
3
m a
(C6
O
V O Ln
j O .__
E O s a L o
O
a°
60
L
O
i6 M
a
C
ns
�i
O
++ O
m O. °
c
0
>
a
L "° "6
O
O ++ r6
E
o N v L tip !6 L
CC u 'i a
t
++
;N
O
O f6
E
p
00
3 w=
a
,
In
a
L
,4;
O z c
w o a
L ++ N
a .c i m L w L N
w0 @
E
Q)
40 a
01
T
0 a
0 io
c
U
of O O
+., n L
U .� w O
3
T
E
�' m�
6
a
u a
u
a; a m
oc u
C 0° fO C U
o 3 t6
o
a
-0
c
+n ^
t
L
o
E
L
0 U a
0 s
a v
o
L
a
m e
3°
c o >
w
L .-
o ° -D 'p
.� L
� 0
v
0
a
° Y
C '�
oO
>,
t
L
'O v
_
oo n, L
O t +a. v- a
,n
@ •--1
E
.N
a
aa..
m
>
-Ca
u'
.n
a
m_
6t.0
'i 3 u m
*' O
m
n
•0
a
3
0000
c_
,s, ya--
a
°'
W
O
o "-
vai
`y
0 a >'
'� 0 °J
0
s w
v
f6 N
°
N
00
m
E
,�,; (6
L
°
bD c
°�
0 a°
c -C
c`6
O C 'O 'O O w
R
++ O' U
N •a
600
cu
E
U
ri
C
a "p
0
y
C
H
+'
co °
O i CO v
p :�
a1 Y
O
aE In
m
pi p
a
Cl
'V E
a
0 i
a cu
N a:, i O t
> 0 0
a c
0
OC
L7 a
u
'L
E
V1
;v
Y N 3
L
D_'
6.0
N •c f6
L �G +n
LA
E C O -O CU U y '+'� a
3 a 0
U O
L t�6
L H
O
>
N
in 3
t
a 0 N°
U S
O t6 •= p `n
° tU6 N
_
O
3
1- °
�i
Q
cn +�
Q O
F-
O
H cr
a_ c
ti I- I- +. a=
+
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
L
a_
i
m
C
o
CLO
CL _
u
Hv4
N
= m 0
°
U_
L
++
O N
al
t.0
�' '�
N
t6
6aD t Ln
> U
C
ns
C a;
L
I c L
c 0 a
c =
l7 r6
L a
c
a
�0 V
u
L
F+
c6 N m c
w +n
InvYi a
�� E
cd
uN
—°o ai
L.
acc
L
'p
>'
(D m O i
a a
C O
ao a
O a
p
c a
L a
(D
Y u 0 a
a
(A 0. lS
N
+
o
=
•—
to
u
u
O
to CL
Mo
°
M
u to
O
O
�
O
N
N
N =U
CC
C
a
w
c
Y
a
3
=
VI
°
>u
v
0 L
o v
�
0 ?
N
u
N
U 4-
> OJ
_
o
v
to
_0
L
°
N N
7
cv T
bD
v
a
�+
C 'u
t u
cu O O
L
f0
N•
�
u
N'o
v a
c o ti
OM
c
aui v
ai
om
a
•u •C
T
a
ai
'O =
O
7
C
m
N =to 5.f9
�—
N
L
a���
_
O fD cu
u
f0
O
vibD
3
,d =
N
0 o v N
L
a,
cu
o=
E 0
T
v-0 L c
>
3
`-
o°
a
v
— >. N N
in L Y N
O
N
N
a
00"
M
r, L
Y=
t0
E
7
>
_ M ;
GC
O
N
Y
N
O
Y
Y ++
m O
L
N
w=
CL
N
47
a
N N
f0
4-
Ln
Y"
Y
O. Ou
,>ai
H
4.lA
(b u OD
__
Q
N
=
Y
N
Q1
t 3
m
r`o
N r°
v
°'
ro
v
co
Q
E
._G
rb N@
O
N O m
O
O
a)
L
u
'O L m N
co
0o
s
0
.._
N
N Ylo
.E
'�
a O _
N
_
m,-�
N
3
N
_ _°m
= w
Y
i*
•NC
N +0.+
o°
V
N N
Y
T
t
3°
u '°
v m
by O
w
tw
m
7
w N
m
a=i
N
L
i N
N
OM
O
N
_N = i
m
m o"
O
O-=
L
w
VI L O
a.+CU L N
cu
> d1
N
i L
U N
CL
cu
.�
y Y
w
.>
Y
L
bA _
fb N
O
OJ
Y
.0
L
V
Q
N
>
In
o
_ _� C
N N
a u
a
M
N
U N
O .—
.v
CL t
Y
@
_
ate,
m� N
°D
N
�°
3=
v
cu
u
CL
Ln
O
Y
L
o
L M o "O
O O
N N
L
N
—
"O •c
a
O1
m
-° t
bq
O
_N
N�
=
bA
N
L
H °
L
W V
=
m
(Y
� p C
_
O
+�+
M
n=
c
N
to
N
=
by O N
a1 O -p
N :N
'° m
t v
O\_
Ln O
m
,�
U N
L
Q
+N+
-b-0
ON
rn
° bD
N
3
r
CU
°
_
v
w
Y
N
° vii 3_
a'
o
L
°1
cb
i m
o
aj
Y
o°
f0 ° �_
°
°
C
3
6n
v
3
°
N
�o
�
E ,� m_
a
._
aD
o
LA o ra
-cw
°
a
c
o o
V
T
O u- vYi
in uH
(>
N a
F-
—L a
F-
U
• • • •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
4!
C
c
a
c
o:
v
O
T
Q
ai
E M M
v'
w
Q
0 ro
o tw Q
"O
N
O C
E
V)
p O
L
O
Y
u N
L
c
al
a)
c u w
N
i tU -0
Q
N C
LL O
X
OU
`~
4'
C
`~ p.
p
O
s tL
`
T
m
E
vi Ln
a)
N
L
aj m
N
V
L C
U Q
L
N
E
Y Y }Yi
0
tL
m i
=
d
y
m
U m
o
C
T
'in
~
O p m
y
tll
N
3
W L
N
N L
Q
v
N N
C N
C °
E
>
}+
tL 3 C
tL T
CO +�+
'a 0
X
O. L
.ba 0
0 L
_N
Y
G
Ln
,��,,
— c
cr
cu
°
Y
a n°a
v
N
o
E
n
cu
u°-0
L v
v
3
E
a) a)
°
m i•'
cu
°
o`a
° °Ca
� o
a a
o
a
o
tv u O
L-0
C
UD
L
-o
tv E
v
cOc
LL Cl
C W
Q -
m O t
C m
.O
Y
i N
°
m
C
N m
cu
'�
y
O
O bo
m
Y Y
U
>
C L
++
0
Y
N m
CL
cu
a)
to
OU o m
o S
m
'd N
CU mO'
U
m
m L
C N C
p O
U
m
C
m 0
N
C
Y >
C L
p
L
pa ay,
E
m N ++
N
r -f 1
N
'ny
v a
V L
++
+m T
H -C
Y
N
L m
C N
m ._ w
-0 O
°
i
C
O L
L Q
Z
C tL
CU
N Y
cu�
O
Y
Y O.
m 'p
.Q' m O
L
C Y
a"'
�
m
L
+_+ S .�
N_
L
m N_
CL
N
YO
o L
'A w
C N
N
m m
"°
C C .S
Q
"O m
Q
C y
L
Y
U N
= m
C
L
v N
p
Y
L
C 4O
O N
C m>
_M
GJ
u
— C p
i
0
Ua
O
O
a)
:t
i
0
C "O
O.
°- M-0
O
i a)
OL
c
tY
C p
i m y-
,v
Y .-
C +T+
m C
m O
may+
U
C
O
U O
C l+
C *'
Q
aj N
`-
X
i
N
°
oa tv
o
°
w
°
oa
-C
ai
>a
v �
a)
m
o
z v
o
r=
w
�
aE)
c
a
o m
= I-
0
3 v
a u
to
—
m a)
m o
v°
m
3
O.
O '�''
-!3 L
N
L
'v
L '°
U 'p
N M
Y m +..'
L �
N
N
VI
U
°
cp m y
N L
tL
p
O.
C
O
C
u y
C tL
Y
O N
N
i
; N
cu Y
UD N
O m
y
m N
a) u 'p
'++ tL
m N"
N
L
O
+'
m
tw
C
(/t
+.cu
L *'
O .=
.O
@
O
'. 0
cLv L
Qj
L =p
�"
+'
Q. 0
Q L
.O
E u
'Ln �
N Q u
a fL0
T
mcu
Ln
m
,
N
,
�
X
N
u
Y
m 0
rte+
m
Q-
@
Y t
0
y
N
E
m O c
v o
N up
a)
o
n
y
m �+
m
L
tv
E t
t w
A
w
a)
`°
3
m
L
o
''
C
a°
3
s
-°
E
C Y Y
L
O C
p
>. u
ate+
qa
L Y
tv
Z ..0
m C
.O
C
U
L
C
N
C
0
C
0
N m m
U- _
N
a
LO 'C
�D i
°
E
C O
m f-
m
C cc 'O
i 0a
N
m
w
O
m
m
U
.O A
N O
w
Yif
Ln
"O
"O
C
N y
c
N U�
a
•0 O
`�
C�
3
N
L
qa
U m—
N i
v
O
C
w
J y
a
C
C
m .�.�,
m
N a1
o 'v
m Y
V Y
i
-°o
N
E
o
E
U
E-
0
CO
°= E
C
C
cu
tz C
Ln
v
v
a v
L Ln
W
3
tc
O
O. >T
N
U
T
W) p
lt0
C
N Q
tL L
C T
N. r
C
@
+m.+
`�
C
y
a C
°
U
w
ate.+
m
O
+m+
E
t
; N
> w0
y j tc
aJ
!Y °
>•
E
�.
In N
W m
W
m
a) to
Y
N
.�
M aj
i+ T
Y 00
.L
Q vi
t
N
+
Y
Y
Y ,;
N Y
u
i
p
p
E
C
u m
v° L
C C
O c
p N
3
m
u
p
0
Y
m
L L °—
°
@
+�
L
O
— O
O
o
*, txO
U
v=
fl_ Y a)
ty
Y
'CLO
O
O
cr
Y m
= Q
y L
O C
-0
N m
U
N >
to w
Y
N
y
aL+
0
aL�+ +U+
N
-0
OJ LL
N i%}
p
O 0
r
LO
O
ai
O
°
C
N
°a =u
o
to
Qum
v-0 3.C_
m
v
X01
ao
ac N
u
^
QJ
cu
O
w
m
p
w
m
y N a)
E
N m
*�
U
'C
Y
N m
N H m
"p
�; -
C
p Y
v L
cu
,to
LCL
O
m T N
cu
L +=
cu
N
L
-0
m
°�
O
C N p
Y
pD
`L°
N
�° u �=
u u
Q
-0
cuo
o N
Q. v
C 'v 3
u c
O
o
am)
cCu
v
N ''"� N
�"' E
m
Y
N
0 0�
Y 'O
a m
cu
3
C
O
•i °
"'Ln
—" M
m N
0 0
m N fO
N Q
m
y U
°
O.
m
.O
s.
N
U
OO i Q
4.1
L
.'�
CU
tn'a)
CU
=
Y
Ln.O
o
C
ai
CL
-° N j
tv m
n
Z
'-C
t
v
m
°'
ba m y
N i
o' H
m C
s
o
Q"
a)
3 'v v>
r-
u
o
Q
v=
t
•i°
y
C
o f
A >,
of
+' °A
'rA
v>
4-
u
aX,
o
v
>
N
UD .-. Q N
U u
O
L
+-Z
C
O °
N
T Y
N
O
L
Ln O
},
.O u
C m
C:.0
m m
U
M
y
E
c `n o
m
Q
E
y
a E o
W
Y o
3
o a
m '��-,
0
a M
Y °'„
ao
m�
c°
m
C
L
'A
m
v +.
ai
v
-0
0
aaii
t , a)
aui
o Q-
v
o m
y
Qi
V1
oa
0.
Eo
S Y
cV
i
.Q
'3
tw
(
`
mC
bo
v
O
3 3>
L
p
+y+
m
Vf
a �)
H
,C
N
v>
C
V) 00 OLD —u
V
cmc Y O.
O cmc
O
U
A j
p) S
0
LL
u .p
C
E
S
"O
N U
>
LL
too .s_ +'
O N
p w
w
E
rYo
Ua
N
vii
C
"° 'O +�-+
O
N
c '�
a^ -i
Q
C
vyi LL
O V1
tL u
p V)
N
L
p
V1
y O.
0
O
L
C
p
Ln = O O
m w
c a
Q ,_,
+'
p
O.
C
O 3 m
v O
V) cv
v
Q
O
0_ F
a m C
N w F w
O
L p
O a N
Q
to CO
X
+_' v
0 -
`-
O
v
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
u
fA E
i C
5a+'
a 0
0 y
N
3
'= °
a.0
oo
•-
oy a
v
Q
C
m
13
d
O
u.
v
C
u d
41 m
'a
d d
t
N
m 6
N —_
I s
N
N
C IL
ys
L L
a
fl
=.
.r
a
i-
ai
C(
O
O
o
Z
m
y
C m
@ V) -p
V1
i Oy
i Y a
O
O
3 Y .0
"
L
° aj c
m
O=
N
O m
_N
0
fl.
u
i-
i+ V) 'a �
N
Y
U w
U
m
a; i tya
= vui
Q
v 0 ^
u 'd0 `� S
'bA
m N
mm
ii � to ° m m 'm
a
$
\
\
(
2
/
�
&
\
m
\
2
bD
c
0
cu
§
2
0
CL
E
k
§
\
ƒ
®
/
on
/
0
2
\
�
/
\
c
§ ■
-
CL
—
\
» §
u
} \
a
u
0
e n
0
E
G
uo
m
0
§ E
E
@
.=
0 m
e %
®
&
~
0
#
.
-C/
�. .#
®
.\: .
Q)
/
2
0 0
E =
\tm\
u
\
Ln
\
0 /
t
=
E
¥
4-;f
® f
2 &
e
(
u 0 E
0
e
2
k
§
/
E /
k
m
§
u
& 0
'
— & 0
2
§
3
CC W
\ $ j
0 n
m '
/
k
\ k
2 -
0
2
\ f
/ \
ƒma#»$E\
§
m
e
a k
E
@&
k
5 m)
cu E
»
# 3
/
G
CL f-0
o
M
R C)
e
#
&
0
> \ m
0 0
/ $
Lnf
.
.
. .
. .
2
m
/
a
0
$
Attachment 3
In
F, A -W4, ki
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: May 16, 2018
Re: Destination Resort Annual Reports - Overnight Lodging Units
1. BACKGROUND
Wh,AMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Deschutes County has four Goal 8 destination resorts: Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, and Caldera Springs.
Each resort has numerous land use decisions, which in turn, have extensive conditions of approvals. One of
the critical elements revolves around the ratio of permanent residences to overnight lodging units (OLUs).
Initially, the ratio was 2:1, but changes to State law and subsequently County code allowed for a 2.5:1 ratio.
Each Goal 8 resort must provide an annual report to the County documenting their required ratio of platted
residential lots to OLUs. Some resorts have built their required OLUs or provided financial security
guaranteeing their development. Others utilize sophisticated technologies to document OLUs within their
resort that are privately owned, i.e., not actively managed by a centralized reservation system.
I1. Annual Reporting
Attached to this memo are draft summaries of each Goal 8 destination resort. Staff provides these materials
including a map as an informational item for discussion. The following bullet points highlight the ratios for each
resort in the 2017 calendar year. Caldera Springs, Pronghorn and Tetherow are in compliance with their
required ratios. Eagle Crest does not meet the required 2.5:1 ratio. However, Eagle Crest is in compliance
because of a text amendment they initiated in 2016. Please refer to the Eagle Crest summary sheet for the
resort's compliance status.
• Caldera Springs —1.8:11 • Pronghorn — 2.5:1
• Eagle Crest — 4.44:1 • Tetherow — 2.2:1
Attachments:
Caldera Springs summary
Eagle Crest summary
Pronghorn summary
Tetherow summary
Power Point presentation
1 Caldera Springs required ratio is two single-family dwellings/lots for every single OLU. They have not modified their original land use
decisions to increase the required ratio from 2:1 to 2.5:1.
ES �-
C3 CONAMAUNITY DEVELOPMENT
April 5, 2018
Caldera Springs Destination Resort
A 390 -acre resort located south of Sunriver, lying both south and east of South Century Drive,
west of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and U.S. 97 and north of Vandevert Road.
Conceptual Master Plan
The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2005 (file no. CU -05-7). The Resort's CMP
identifies 150 rental units available in a combination of cottages, condominiums, and lockout
units. The latter are bedrooms within a residence that could be rented overnight separately.
Some of the single-family residential units were also proposed to be rentable. Phase I includes
eating and meeting facilities to accommodate 100 people. Amenities include bike and
pedestrian trails, lakes and ponds, and a nine -hole golf course. The resort was required to
build, or bond, for $3,636,190 in recreational facilities based on 2004 dollars. The CMP was
modified in 2007 by file no. MC -07-2, which dealt with internal dimensions for lots containing
overnight cottages in the core area, but did not change any land uses or ratios.
Conceptual Master Plan Approvals
350 single-family homes 150 cottages, condominiums, and lockout units 500 total
residential units
*No hotel proposed
Final Master Plan
The Final Master Plan (FMP) was approved in 2005 (file no. M-05-1). The plan included 320
single-family homes, some of which would be rentable, and 30 to 75 cottage or cabin units,
each with up to five lock -out units which can be rented separately as overnight
accommodations. File no. MC -13-4 modified both the CMP and FMP to change the weeks the
overnight lodging units (OLUs) are available for rent from 45 to 38 weeks. File no. M-05-1
required a nine -hole short golf course, three practice golf holes, practice putting green, croquet
and tennis courts, walking/biking trails, lakes for canoeing and fishing, and a clubhouse with
recreational amenities. Prior to sale of Phase I, the applicant was required to construct or bond
for $4,305,000 (2004 dollars) for a short course, putting green, three practice holes, a core
playground and an outfitters cabin.
Final Master. Plan Approvals
Total Units
500 total residential units
Single-family
320 single-family homes, some of which are rentable
Overnight Units
30-75 cabins or cottages with up to five (5) lock -out units each
Overnight Units
Total of 150 rentable units
Overnight Lodging Requirements
File no. SP -05-53 required one -hundred fifty (150) overnight units in the resort's core, including
a three -key cottage for three (3) units and a four -key cottage for four (4) units. The plot plan
had twenty-three (23 structures) on two tracts. File no. SP -06-61 modified file no. SP -05-53 to
have twenty-two (22) cottages with up to eighty-six (86) lock -off units within Tract 1. Tracts 2
and 3 will have twenty-three (23) cottages each. Ultimately, Caldera Springs will have a total of
one -hundred -sixty (160) lock -off units on Tracts 1, 2, and 3, spread amongst 45 cottages.
Caldera Springs uses codes, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to designate individually owned
overnight units on recorded subdivision plats. The resort also notes the overnight lodging units
in its CC&Rs. According to County legal counsel, CC&Rs are equivalent to deed restrictions for
Caldera Springs Resort's purposes. There are currently 320 platted residential lots, including 45
platted for cabins. Caldera Springs relies on the cabins and lock -out units in various dwelling
units to qualify as "overnight lodging" under DCC 18.04.
The following table summarizes Caldera Springs Resort's overnight lodging ratio status for 2017.
Current Overnight Lodging Requirements for 2017
Number of platted lots
320 platted residential lots
Current Overnight Units
41 cabins with 179 keys
1.8:1 platted residential lots to
overnight units 1
1 Required ratio is 2:1, platted residential lots to overnight units (320 platted lots / 179 keys = 1.8: 1).
-2-
f
April 5, 2018
Background
COMMUNffY DEVELOPMENT
Eagle Crest Destination Resort
Eagle Crest Resort has received a number of land use approvals beginning in 1982.
• Approved in 1981, Phase 1 consisted of 508 acres located on the east side of Cline Falls Highway.
Phase 1 preceded Statewide Planning Goal 8, which detailed destination resort requirements. It
contained 202 lots.
• In 1993, after Deschutes County mapped areas for destination resorts and provided a zoning overlay
district, Eagle Crest expanded into Phase 2. Located on the west side of Cline Falls Highway on the
east slope of Cline Buttes, Phase 2 contained 746 acres. Under the Phase 2 expansion, Eagle Crest
received approval for 497 single-family home -sites, 162 multi -family units, 120 timeshare
townhouses and 226 hotel room facilities. It contained 903 lots in total.
• None of the individually -owned residential properties are deed restricted.
• In 2001, Phase 3 was proposed on 480 acres south and southeast of Cline Butte. The proposal was to
expand the existing resort by developing 480 non-contiguous acres with up to 900 dwellings units,
which contained overnight units. Commercial uses and recreational amenities were also proposed.
Phase 3 contained 806 lots.
Table 1— Platted Residential Lots
Eagle Crest Lodging
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Total
Eagle Crest Lots
202
903
806
1,911
Table 2 identifies the properties under Eagle Crest's control for overnight lodging units.
Table 2 - Current Overnight Lodging
Eagle Crest Lodging
Hotel
Timeshare
Lodge at Eagle Crest
100
VROA
124
WorldMark - Lodge
43
WorldMark - Ridgehawk
34
WorldMark — Redtail
5
Fairway Vista
32
River View Vista
57
Eagle Creek
10
Eagle Springs
1
WoridMark — 8PIex
24
TOTAL OLUs
430
Overnight Lodging Requirements
Eagle Crest is required to annually account for one overnight lodging unit for every 2.5 residential units,
a 2.5:1 ratio. Eagle Crest has 1,911 residential units (as platted residential lots) and 430 overnight units
(as hotel, timeshare, and fractional ownership units) that meet county code, for a ratio of 4.44
residential units per a single overnight unit. To comply with the 2.5 to 1 overnight lodging ratio, Eagle
Crest initiated a text amendment to Deschutes County's destination resort code. These amendments
were codified in Ordinance 2016-003.
Ordinance 2016-003
Under Ordinance 2016-003, which became effective in April 2016, overnight lodging units are
documented through a monthly review of the Eagle Crest central reservation system as well as third -
party websites, e.g., VRBO, Flipkey, Homeaway, that advertise individually -owned owned units available
for overnight stays. Eagle Crest is required to document the weeks the units are advertised as being
available and count as overnight units all units that meet or exceed the 38 week minimum.
Ordinance 2016-003 also includes a compliance fee that provides the County with a remedy to recoup
Transient Lodging Tax ("TLT") each year in the event the reporting mechanism revealed a shortfall in
meeting the overnight lodging ratio, i.e., one overnight lodging unit for each 2.5 platted lots. After
documenting Eagle Crest's central reservation system and third -party websites, if the Resort is deficient
of the required units, the Resort will be assessed a compliance fee equivalent to the lost transient
lodging tax the county would have collected from those units.
2017 Annual Report
Northview Hotel Group representatives provided the Planning Division with overnight lodging unit data
based on a collection system utilizing sophisticated web -based technologies that included screenshots of
each unit listing and schedule of availability.' Data sources included Flip Key, HomeAway, VRBO, and
Vacation Rentals.com. Using this data, Eagle Crest was able to document 103 individually owned, non -
deed restricted vacation rental units that were not directly managed by the resort in 2017.
Based on data provided by the resort, staff's conclusions are highlighted in the following bullet points.
• Eagle Crest Resort possesses 469 OLUs as of December 31, 2017, including 100 hotel units, 320
timeshare units and 49 individually owned, yet managed by Eagle Crest, non -deed restricted
vacation rental units.
' Calendar year 2017 is the second time Eagle Crest has utilized this technology to account for privately -owned overnight
lodging units.
-2-
• Eagle Crest Resort documented an additional 103 individually owned, non -deed restricted vacation
rental units that are not directly managed by the resort.'
• Per the above, Eagle Crest Resort counted a total of 572 OLUs available for the 2017 calendar year.
• Eagle Crest Resort has 1,911 platted lots. When the 49 OLUs under Eagle Crest's control and 103
individually owned OLUs are removed from the 1,911 platted lots, Eagle Crest Resort has 1,759 net
platted lots devoted to non OLUs. To comply with the 2.5:1 ratio, Eagle Crest Resort is required to
have 704 OLUs.
• Subtracting the 704 OLU obligations from those OLUs under Eagle Crest's control, Eagle Crest has a
deficiency of 132 OLU S.3
• Eagle Crest Resort paid $329,956 in TILT for the 2017 calendar year. Per DCC 18.113.060(L)(7), this
amount is then divided by the OLUs actively managed by the resort, or 469 OLUs for $703.53 per
OLU.
• Therefore, the compliance fee is $92,865.96.
Staff is coordinating with the Northview Hotel Group to pay the compliance fee by April 23, 2018. It is
worth noting that Northview Hotel Group has sold the resort to Aimbridge Hospitality. Moving forward,
staff has already met with the Aimbridge Hospitality group to ensure they understand their obligation to
track and report on the OLU — single-family residence ratio.
2 These units were documented in a spreadsheet provided by Eagle Crest and incorporated herein by reference. The
spreadsheet was populated with data from the web scraper utilized by the resort.
3 704 (OLU Requirement) — 572 (469 CLUs controlled by Eagle Crest + 103 OLUs individually -owned and not controlled by Eagle
Crest) = 132 (CLU deficit).
-3-
•
April 5, 2018
Pronghorn Resort
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Pronghorn Resort consists of 640 acres located east of U.S. 97 and west of Powell Butte Highway,
between Bend and Redmond.
Conceptual Master Plan
The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2001 (file no. CU -00-118) and modified in 2013 (file
no. MC -13-6). The Resort's CMP identifies 160 to 180 rental condominium units and 75 to 100 hotel
rooms in their first phase of development. Amenities include a 10,000 square -foot conference center,
specialty retail center, two golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and pedestrian and equestrian
trails.
Conceptual Master Plan
420 single family units 160-180 condominium units 75- 100 hotel units 700 total
Final Master Plan
The Final Master Plan (FMP) was approved in 2002 (file no. M-02-1) and modified in 2013 (file no. MC -
13 -6). The modification allows overnight rentals for no fewer than 38 weeks per year through a central
reservation system and the ratio of residential units to overnight units to be 2.5 to 1. According to the
FMP, the resort's hotel will have a traditional central registration and check-in mechanism, which will
also be responsible for coordinating registration and check-in for all overnight lodging units.
The reservation system for the hotel and all additional overnight lodging units will be created and
operated by the applicant, or by an entity to which the applicant assigns them. CC&Rs require all
designated overnight units to be available for overnight rentals no fewer than 38 weeks per year
through the central reservation system. The resort will also provide financial assurance for the cost of
the required phase one resort components, including required visitor -oriented lodging and eating
establishments and construction of the golf course, to the extent such improvements are not in place
before the commencement of the sale of residential dwellings and lots.
Final Master Plan
The Estates at Pronghorn
420-450 units occupying 220 acres.
Golf course, hotel with 75-100 rooms, spa/fitness center, tennis
The Resort and Spa at Pronghorn
courts, swimming pool, restaurants and related amenities
occupying 190 acres.
Private golf club with golf course, clubhouse, swimming pool,
The Club at Pronghorn
tennis court, driving range and practice facilities occupying 230
acres. The resort includes 160-180 condominium units.
Overnight Lodging Requirements
There are currently 380 platted residential lots at Pronghorn Resort. The Resort also relies on six, eight -
unit structures containing 48 timeshare units, which qualify as "overnight lodging" per the definition in
DCC 18.04. Eight are deed restricted (file nos. SP -07-55 and SP -07-56). A 104 -unit hotel is under
construction with a planned opening in the spring of 2018 (SP -14-4; Improvement Agreement 2012 —
Document Nos. 2012-671; 2016-289).
The following table summarizes Pronghorn Resort's overnight lodging requirements for 2017.
Overnight Lodging Requirements in 2017
379 platted residential
152 overnight units 1
2.5 to 1 platted residential lots to
lots
overnight units
148 condo units + 104 hotel units financially assured and under construction.
2 Required ratio is 2.5:1, platted residential lots to overnight units (379 platted lots / 152 01 -Us = 2.5: 1).
-2-
April 5, 2018
Tetherow Destination Resort
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Tetherow Resort consists of 706 acres located within a 906 -acre parcel located at the western edge of
Bend, lying south of Skyliners Road and east of the Deschutes National Forest, west of SW Mount
Washington Drive and Metolius Drive, and north of Cascade Lakes Highway, aka Century Drive. The
resort was originally called Cascades Highlands.
Conceptual Master Plan
The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2004 (CU -04-94). The Resort's CMP identifies 379
single-family units, 210 multi -family units, a 300 -unit resort hotel, and approximately 15,000 square feet
of commercial and specialty retail. Amenities include bike and pedestrian trails, tennis courts, pool, a
clubhouse, and an 18 -hole golf course.
A condition of approval in the CMP regarding financial guarantees for overnight accommodations was
the subject of reconsideration in file no. RC -05-01. This file modified CU -04-94 to require 150 overnight
units either be constructed or financially assured prior to the closure of sales on residential lots instead
of requiring that 50 overnight units be constructed prior to residential sales as previously required under
Condition 11.
Conceptual Master Plan
589 total residential units
300 -unit hotel
379 single-family
homes
210 multi -family
units
Final Master Plan
The Finale Master Plan (FMP) was approved under M-05-2 and included the extension of Skyline Ranch
Road from Century Drive, aka Cascade Lakes Highway, north to Skyliners Road, and Metolius Drive east
to Mount Washington. The overnight lodging rate of permanent to overnight units was 2:1 and the
overnight units needed to be available for at least 45 weeks out of the year. The FMP was appealed by
two different parties. One appeal focused on the location and possible relocation of a power line and
the other focused on the protection of natural features. The appeal file nos. were A-05-10 and A-05-11.
The parties in the power line appeal reached a settlement which was then incorporated into the A-05-10
decision. The appeal regarding protection of natural features, A-05-11, was denied.
Final Master Plan
589 total residential units
Overnight Units
300
379 single-family
210 multi -family
units
units
residential units units
Since 2005, Tetherow Resort has modified its conceptual and final master plan several times. Most
recently, file nos. 247 -17 -000121 -MC and 125 -MC, added a total of six single family residential lots and
removing three multi -family residential units. The following table reflects the current requirements for
their residential and overnight lodging units.
Modified Conceptual and Final Master Plan
589 total residential units
Overnight Units
300
468 single-family
121 multi -family
units
units
residential units units
Overnight Lodging Requirements
The applicant in file no. M-05-2 stated the 300 -unit hotel was being used to meet the overnight lodging
requirements. However, if any dwellings in the future were used to meet the then 2:1 overnight ratio,
those units would be available for at least 45 weeks out of the year via CC&Rs and a resort check-in
service per Conditions 5 and 11. File no. MC -13-3 modified the overnight ratio to 2.5:1, permanent
residents to overnight lodging units, and reduced the minimum time requirement for rental availability
from 45 weeks to 38 weeks.
Tetherow Resort's current overnight lodging requirements are noted below.
Current Overnight Lodging Requirements for 2017
469 platted residential lots
Current Overnight Units
2.2:1 platted residential lots to
395 single-family 74 multi -family 213*
overnight units
residential units units
*213 overnight lodging units are either constructed (160) or financially secured (53).
In
�10-
LM
^\000
k
\UAW o
��
�
�
tA
\^
�
«<
.
t
#
«<
t
°W
Cl
}
t.
:
0
.
_.
-�
� �
(3)
M
\
#.
d \
0
Lii
\«
.
§ \.
\
-
¥:
^\000
k
\UAW o
��
�
�
\^
�
«<
.
t
#
«<
}
t.
:
.
M
«
(3)
M
4-J
#.
d \
§
Lii
^\000
k
\UAW o
��
�
�
W
�oL
In
Lf
o�
A
/;
°' 'n
�. it . tom
uu
i
m
Y^" J
G
�U
/;
°' 'n
�. it . tom
ff
t('
i
-
1'
m
Y^" J
G
�U
/;
ff
t('
b
W =
c
G
'C
o y
\�
.�
*§
»«
\
*<
�4
. \
a
�
..
^
t:
\«
�«
\\
�
:
•.
�
<y
�
?«
AC
1
•
.�
•�
tn
cu
•
•
.�
Qj
w
•
r�Am- 10�
Omk
cl
a
I
Attachment 4
LAN DWATC H
April 25, 2018
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Nick Lelack
Community Development Director
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
re: Draft CDD FY 18-19 Annual ReportlWork Plan
Dear Chair Crawford and Planning Commissioners,
I SW ho it Si., Sk", 4 1 (,etial OR 1/1)
'hc.t I (,: ) 2 30
www. centra Ioregonlandwatch.org
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Community Development
Department Annual Report and Work Plan. Our comments are confined to the work plan for the
Planning Division.
Agricultural lands re-evaluation and potential re -designation
In the interest of efficient use of County resources, we recommend that the County wait to
see the judicial resolution of the Douglas County case before proceeding on this issue. To the extent
the County seeks to correct any potential mapping errors in its Comprehensive Plan the County
should follow the process outlined in ORS 215.788. There is no indication the lands of Deschutes
County are incorrectly mapped. The last time the County examined the issue it was apparently
decided there were no mapping errors. LandWatch recommends the County instead direct its
resources to the study and identification of lands suitable for urban reserves.
Deschutes Junction
The item on the work plan states "initiate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that allows
for new rural industrial designations." As the County has previously stated, this item is intended to
address the desires of one individual landowner in the Deschutes Junction area. That landowner has
twice received approval from the County to re -designate his property, and those approvals were
twice remanded or reversed by the Land Use Board of Appeals because those approvals did not
comply with state law. There are currently hundreds of acres of land zoned for industrial use,
including large lot industrial land, inside the urban growth boundaries and unincorporated
communities of Deschutes County where such intensive development belongs. LandWatch does not
believe it is good policy for the County to initiate a County -wide legislative process to achieve the
goals of one individual landowner.
2
Growth Management Coordination
This work plan item states that CDD will "coordinate with cities, County departments, state
agencies and organizations to develop and implement growth management plans." LandWatch
supports any County efforts to develop and implement growth management plans to plan for
population growth. We also support any potential urban reserve areas planning process in
coordination with the City of Bend to provide long-term certainty about future potential urban
growth boundary expansions.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Best regards,
/s/ Carol Macbeth
Carol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
www.centraloregonlandwatch.org
��.•„ r
,qty V
May 1, 2018
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Nick Lelack
Community Development Director
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
Re: Draft CDD FY 18-19 Annual Report/Work Plan
Dear Chair Crawford and Planning Commissioners,
www.centraloregonlandwatch.org
Thank you for hearing comment from the public at your April 26, 2018 meeting on the CDD
FY18-19 Annual Report/Work Plan. In addition to the comments we relayed at that meeting,
Central Oregon LandWatch has one additional concern to submit to you prior to the May 3, 2018
closing of the written record period.
Natural Hazards
We support the proposed Planning Division work item to consider implementing
amendments to Deschutes County code and policy regarding wildfire mitigation. Specifically, we
recommend incorporating higher standards for wildfire risk found in model code from the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA), including NFPA 1141 and 1144, and the International Code
Council (ICC), including the ICC Fire Prevention and Control Plan and International Fire Code.
Incorporating NFPA 1141 would require most new development to achieve fire risk mitigation
standards including access, building separation, fire protection, and water supply. Incorporating
NFPA 1144 would further require most new development to include defensible space zones, use
non-combustible construction materials, and complete hazard mitigation assessments and wildfire
mitigation and action plans. Both NFPA 1141 and 1144 would require these fire protection
standards prior to development approval. The ICC Fire Prevention and Control Plan includes
additional or alternative standards of risk avoidance and mitigation for new development. Other
potential code changes could include a prohibition on flammable building materials, more stringent
defensible space standards, and a new Wildfire Hazard Combining Zone.
Our region's wildfire risk will likely remain high as our climate becomes more and and
variable. Development in areas of high wildfire risk creates unnecessary risk to residents,
firefighters, and first responders, and also results in the use of public money to protect private
2
property in the likely event of wildfire. Deschutes County should prioritize implementing code and
policy changes to prevent risks to public safety, minimize private property damage, and prevent
public firefighting expenditures.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Regards, '' 00 nn
'� 'LM
Rory Isbell
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
www.centraloregonlandwatch.org
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of May 21, 2018
DATE: May 15, 2018
FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Appeal of Order 2018,038, Non -Farm Dwelling, 4691 91 St Street
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
The Board will consider hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision to approve a non-
farm dwelling application. The proposal is to establish a nonfarm dwelling on an unproductive
portion of a 39.2 -acre property. 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. The Hearings Officer's Decision approving the nonfarm
dwelling was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch on May 14, 2018.
ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner
STAFF MEMORANDUM
Date: May 15, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner
Re: Appeal of a nonfarm dwelling approval. Files 247 -17 -000220 -CU, 247-17-000852-A, 247-
18-000410-A
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on May 21, 2018, at 1:30
PM and will consider hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision to approve a nonfarm
dwelling application.
I. Application
On March 27, 2017, an application was filed for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a nonfarm
dwelling in the EFU Zone at 4691 91St Street, Redmond. The proposal is to establish a nonfarm
dwelling on an unproductive portion of a 39.2 -acre property. The property was created as part of
an approved nonfarm partition and associated applications for nonfarm dwellings in 2006, but the
approval for the nonfarm dwelling land use permit on the subject property expired.
11. Decision
On August 24, 2017, the application was deemed complete after the applicant submitted additional
information. 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 LanclWatch 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.
Ill. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision to June 23, 2018. However, the applicant
has communicated to staff that in consideration of the appeal, they are willing to provide further
extensions if the Board chooses to hear the appeal. The length of combined extensions cannot
exceed 215 days per ORS 215.427, unless the applicant chooses to waive the time period limitations.
Considering previous extensions and the maximum of possible future extensions, the latest final
decision date would be August 24, 2018.
IV. Appeal
The appellant, Central Oregon LandWatch, filed an appeal and is contesting the findings in the Soil
Scientist's study and the Hearings Officer's decision that the nonfarm dwelling building envelope is
not suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. The appellant also argues that the
property could be used in conjunction with other farms, that approval of this dwelling would
jeopardize the stability of the land use pattern in the area, and other concerns which they discuss
in the Notice of Appeal (Attachment 2).
V. Board Options
Attachments 3 and 4 are two orders, one to hear the appeal and one to decline the review. In
determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider:
1. The record developed before the lower Hearings Body;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendations of staff.
Reasons to hear:
• The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretative issues relating to the
Hearings Officer's decision. The Board may also want to reinforce or refute some or all of the
decision findings/interpretations prior to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) review.
Reasons not to hear:
• The Hearings Officer's decision is reasoned, well written, and could be supported as the
record exists today on appeal to LUBA.
If the Board accepts review of the appeal, staffs recommendation is that a hearing is held on June
27. If the Board declines review, the applicant will have a final local land use approval upon mailing
the Board's Order.
Page 2 of 3
Attachments:
1. Hearings Officer's Decision 247-17-000852-A
2. Notice of Appeal
3. Board Order to hear appeal, Board Order No. 2018-038
4. Board Order to decline review, Board Order No. 2018-038
5. Area Map
Page 3 of 3
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 911t 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
DC 8)
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.
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
Total Ac./
Farm
Soil Mapping
Owner
Tax Lots
Dwelling
Irrigated Ac.
Tax
Units
Grossman
14-12-27-400
185.06/128
Yes
Yes
26A, 65A, 128C,
North101D
Skidgel
14-12-(34)-1918
152.80/137
Yes
Yes
26A, 65A, 128C
East
Approved,
Melton
but not
South
14-12-3413-300
39.07 / None
No
26A, 128C, 128D
constructe
d
Approved,
Bailo
but not
63E, 65A, 101E,
14-12-3413-100
80.00 / None
No
106E, 128C,
West
constructe
d
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 afire 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 afire 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 ftshall 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 afire 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)
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.
I. 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 LanclWatch:
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 1501h 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
Ill. 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 farmland.
The following uses maybe 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 establish 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 application.
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 permitted 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 Planning Director or
Hearings Body that the proposed use:
1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined
in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and
2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on
surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest 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 lands 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 will 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 farming 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 9151 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 -foot 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 plot plan, 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 -
related impacts (See DCC 18.16.070 below).
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.
247-17-000852-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)
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.
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,
(iii) 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 expand, purchase or lease farmland,
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
listed on the Nonfarm Dwelling Analysis Report. This study radius is suitable to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the character of the area surrounding the subject property because of its size and the number
of parcels located within it.
As discussed above, there are 48 EFU-zoned tax lots in the study area, including 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-
value farmland if irrigated. Soil unit 128C is considered non high-value farmland. There is no evidence of
past farm use or irrigation on the subject property.
247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 11
Figure 1
The soils in the study area are predominantly non -high value soils, even when irrigated: 63 C, 101D, 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 18.16.055(C)). Under OAR 660-033-130(4)(c)(C), 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 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 o 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 paragraph (4)(a)(D) of
this rule; and [... I (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 law. 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 ineligible for division because it was created after July 1,
2001. The correct number 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 parcels is too high. There are only six parcels
that have sufficient irrigation water rights to qualify for a land division (35 irrigated acres). One such
parcel, Tax Lot 400, Map 14-12-27, was created after July 1, 2001 so is not eligible to be divided to create
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 14-12-28D (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 dwelling approvals.
Similar Properties. To address this criterion, County staff reviewed the study area to determine how many
properties are "similarly situated to the subject property" — vacant, more than 20 acres but less than 40
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 LotNonfarm Dwelling Approved Total Acres_
14-12-268-2200 Yes 20.60
14-12-28D-100 Yes 28.60
14-12-27-800 No 35.27
-- _.._.._.._..._......_____� _._...__.__.___..__.._.._.___ ____._.
14-12-3413-300 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 "stability 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 analysis.
Potential Lot of Record Dwellings. Under Section 18.16.050(E) and OAR 660-033-130(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
physical setting," such as "very steep slopes, deep ravines or other similar natural or physical 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
lot of record dwellings approved in the past are counted but not lot 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 lots are the only lots that might obtain approval to build a lot of record dwelling. A maximum of
one dwelling — 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 would be clearly 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 consisting 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 80% 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 raised 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 suitable
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 lands unattractive
expansion areas for owners of existing irrigated properties.
The development of nonfarm dwellings on dry land will not impact the ability of area farms to acquire
water rights of water because their parcels have no water rights. New nonfarm dwellings will 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 lands 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 land 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
128C 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.
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.
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 viable. 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 18.16.050(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 diagonally across the property, as seen in Figure 2 below (submitted by the
applicant) and Figure 3 below (submitted by staff, taken 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 1280:
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
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 I -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 91St Street, which is a County -maintained rural
local road. 911t 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 logs 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(8) 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 "generally 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 part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is
not "generally unsuitable. " A lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is
composed predominantly of Class I -VI soils. Just because a lot or parcel is
unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another
farm use. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the area is not "generally
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 generally 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 County, 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 COYNER AVE
e5
X04
WELL-100ft
setback
Q
c
01
2 34ft `N
.'
Cv
Initial system
893ft
--v--P-1'3
10ft set
back
Ln
N
b"
438ft
200ft
d.
CX]
m
183ft
DRIVEWAY
G
M
i
10ftsetback
247-17-000852-A (247 -17 -000220 -CU) 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 generally 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
dwelling." Deschutes County reads this decision to require that the dwelling, detached residential -
associated buildings (including garages), well, septic system, drainfield, 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
located 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 parcel under forest assessment can be sold, leased, rented or
otherwise managed as a part of a forestry operation, it is not "generally
unsuitable". If a lot or parcel is under forest assessment, it is presumed
suitable if it is composed predominantly of soil capable of producing 20
cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year. If a lot or parcel is under forest
assessment, to be found compatible and not seriously interfere with forest
uses on surrounding land it must not force a significant 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 in DCC 18.16.050(1)(2), pursuant to ORS
215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel 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 is issued, the applicant must 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
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.
B. 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 911t 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 forthe 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
IF i i a i i i
N N N N N N N
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
W 00 00 00 OP 00 W
U H e -I N N H rl N
CL Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
� _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Loto
Lo
Ln Ln Lo Ln 0i
n Ln n00
� n n n 0
0 C
Q n n Q Q Q Q
Z Z m
a a Q Q Q C Q N
V) V) E o -o E `0
s c c o v o E
W v W m
u c m 00 w w w o
a
0
N
OJ
Y
c
Ln C
N J
I
v > U
> a,
Y a
Y N V
Y *' C N = t
NI Ln M M '6 V u
Q�-l C U 00 00 n Q
Z
COO
Z Z Z,
n m w 0 LLnn
v 0)^ to 0 0 v 0
'O w 0 Ln M Ln M w
lO �T Ln rl 'j, 0 N .-7
Q
J
W
N (�
� 0
v u V)
u Z
C Q
O
C pC m
44O fO t
m U N U
J
u
� d J
� J CNC
Ec J
Q J ccU
J_
o
C G
ix
O 0) 6O
vGi �0
o2S Q OJ
Lu v
c w U w~m
m
c
Y U Qp
C
C Co C
�
U en
m N aC
Attachment 2
Notice of Appeal
A Ad\ x
Community Development Department
Planning Dlvision Sullding Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone, (541) 386-6575 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 Phone: ( 541) 647-2930
Mailing Address: 50 SW Bond Street, Suite 4 City/State/Zip: 97702
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-17-000852 -A (247- 17-000220 -CU) Omlid NFD
WM
Property Description: Township 14S Range 12E Section 34 Tax Lot_ 200
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 Perfi need with Pride
NOTICE OF APPEAL
See attached letter and check for $3661.
(This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.)
rte.
CENTCENTrI 0PIEG 0 N
LA'rhi'DWATCH
May 11, 2019
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
via hand delivery
www.centraloregonlandwatch.org
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.
W
1. DRS 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 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 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.
f, .,,;1 t t, ft Cl• itO"-7" r �!iiJ ii��(�r ! y :,
Figure A NT
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
128C 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.
A, d We tki g {
M
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 Iand 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
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.
G
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 farm 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 -farmed lands are winter wheat and
rye and spring wheat, rye, oats and barley... Winter wheat is the best of the cereal
,u, �•r7�.; � r<�� �iOl .�;si r.+ .��tv� � ^;c�;i f 1C' l' .. , 1' fiC: CJS:,
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.
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 I -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.
"'. 1 ! Icif
(
Grape or l ivostock which
soil
Percentage
NRCS Survey States can be
Numbse
Name
Soli P.,lasr
of t.bt
Pfo``duced on this Soil Tyi`ria,
leJ' A
�
i�1�r
qc �lr4i�u.�r�lxt � til tP
�'j
j
tJ1ri
sy,\WA
U®
r
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 I -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.
"'. 1 ! Icif
The subject property shares all of the legally relevant characteristies 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 farmer 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
fanner ceases to farm it.
Figure H
65A soils on left and right, cleared and not cleared for farming, respectively, note level terrain,
subject property in background on right.
Property i.r suitable.%r 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.
trtoi.� ,.. r, tr;Yl a<`r.?nii'•. td t ,', r;. ,+ i �S_;rir.� �..i `.u,"�Nn<-�t.�lt i ;tnrinI rl; t`..
Z
"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 I
Applicant photograph showing native grasses for livestock grazing in proposed building envelope.
Nn 1 G�ti.,'i'ir
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
,[t";t7 �.,'.
11
property is nearly level and thus suitable for grazing of any kind of livestock or
production of small livestock.'
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-4 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.
1 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.
np nft(:,O t" / .c s i L 1v,,C,n>n . r�i nc , kir)r f
I
0
y
P
i�
r
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-4 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.
1 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.
np nft(:,O t" / .c s i L 1v,,C,n>n . r�i nc , kir)r f
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
fit Anci W iking Fol S Isa .rn1(7L 1£ >,°r,r���lniti s
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 660-033-0I30(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.
f'ro. o c-ill;l) r!i; r r.,i'� N`(AU7�ill Eri. )nt Aitn + oihnq for `' ,,!uinc I,!(, t'i-�rmmlmiPic'
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 O
Level, uncleared, no visible rocks, 128C on subject property to the west; cleared 128C in use for
irrigated crop production to the east.
2. ORS215.284(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. The applicant failed to meet 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 Ill 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
are 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; see 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 on 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
_.tit .` 1 V4C� ifl 1 ( q rsi ,1 ri ,f r� P c;;
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(G)(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 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)." 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.
P;,��`r ciin�f >n�r t n 7t Vc. x.711 r in';n.r nt Ani, 4TH orki�
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 continents 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 nonfarm 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 farms.
Therefore the stability standard is not met and the decision should be reversed.
i'ri�l unci ,til W;jh o! 1—![CmIc')—l'?
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
Approval
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.
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,
f �-
i 1 -
"arol Macbeth
Staff Attorney
Central Oregon LandWatch
Fri«�1t.', r.,
20
LAND -CAPABILITY
CLASSIFICATION
OCT 13 1961
or
Agriculture Handbook No. 210
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
C 0 z �v
Ilii �� ,� i1•
i
Growth Through Agricultural Progress
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Wasbingtou 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 an 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 tecknology applies unevenly to the various kinds of soil. Thus the grouping
of any one kind of soil does not stay the same with changes 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 most 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
13�
CONTENTS
Assumptions ................................... ......
Page3
Capability classes ............................... ..... .... ..... .....
6
Land suited to cultivation and other uses ... ................... ..
6
Land limited in use—generally not suited to cultivation .... . ...... ..
9
Capability subclasses.......... ........................................
10
Capabilityunits ........................................ ..........
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 .................................................
1S
Wetness limitations... ..............................................
16
Toxicsalts ....................................................... ..
16
Slope and hazard of erosion ............................. ...........
17
Soil depth ............................ ....,..:............
18
Previous erosion .................................... ........ .....,...
18
Available moisture -holding capacity ........ ........................
18
Glossary................................... ..........................
18
Issued September 1961
v
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 c4pability 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 longtime 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
H
A
as 0-0 as tp0 4c$ o•o m.A
to 0 00to
0—, o �d
�in> ama-d��4)y 0 0,- v�°�a
_ ro o 0 CO "
ra
In(D �" d�ayoot7.ygy
o,o v o� o -o o'0
0N��a °aN ��oNa 01 c
N.G O D U o o R 0:3 a)
tT O
a s o U d a aD U � jy tl
OU A ��^�A an d GE�r dA U o U
U H
�t" � oF+a o- a HXt0a0
.., ,..4' 0 +o o N N m -'o S.+ N
Ox 0 I ti� o Doo>�o g3 00
03 o'��03o ybaq.-4°c00'
0 to
c0.3000 rn
a �o oob0CaN�
ooaE05
— 0a
E'l
rp
0 UaQ�U'^ O F. �r.
.so o O 0 O r N O
a N- -' 0 0 r,v� tl ,mc}Obx�r',t1
a�' w Q'N O,d � y > U ONS OUCi v`ni w tl 0 d
~ w 0— ~ tl '"
O r9i am pj c, A,c,. r- O s p-9 as
4) 0�� oOG°va 0oa�O0o8
0"0'
A
�qv > > >>, i
tC0r3>
14.d C3 0 $ In
3a?Oodp0904 m o��° >��No:ao'at
trr� ow-
p. o O '� ---%d m rn•- G o O d a [� t1 .� G N
o a o 'N o m> t3 "y a Au 0A 0
0 % . U m m
�aoo�O�.oG.ctl�
'En :- a o 0 0 .~
�8.todra,"�3N
o0 0
ay�" E d(D
N
0.-0 (D d
a •�
:3 0,to
-ddb>�mIn-c�''d �,a-a,
a��•a ��o�.�do�a;�
..+ tT W
,,a.~ ao 00
=8 CL Sw
G�1N0>0
a s o Noo
� cs U. a �, o
00a tr�,Na�o
o a�
g o tr'ti 0 —
..SOF a) wCtir.$ U�.0
oo'av
.�o.°a0,-Z Utor- —0 P.0�
H
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 subhumid 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.
597953--61 2 3
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 -surrey
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.°
i. Scialstoit id r d f astbleJbi iri rov ent.i ray ,. „
MMWThe
Pact at certain wetTols 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 danaa rye, or both if ad uat
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 improvements in them.
9.
removing stones, or large-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 limitations that common field crops can be cul-
tivated and harvested only by hand are not placed in ,classes I, II, I1I,
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
'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 level 6 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
toinputsof 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
and 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 class I may have gentle slopes.
6
Class II—Soils in class 11 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 tilth 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 IV 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 improved
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.
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.
9
Class VU—Soils in class VII have very severe limitations that make
theta 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 VM 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."
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 limitation 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 a 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 a 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.
e 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 BINDS 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 VII 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 and 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 and climates. The capa-
bility of comparable soils decreases as effective rainfall decreases.
In an and 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.
is
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 land 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 and 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 saturatiou The relative degree to which soils have metallic cations
absorbed. The proportion of the cation -exchange capacity that is saturated
with metallic cations.
Cartioa-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 -
le
equivalents per 100 grams of soil at neutrality (pH 7) or at some other
stated pH value. ( Formerly called base -exchange capacity.)
Clap 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 not modified by sail -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.
Ferdlity, 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
xchangeable-sodiumpercentage 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 /s 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 names in the system of soil
classification. The terms "the soil" and "soil" are collective terms 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
soil 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. soil type 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
-� U.S. GOVERNUrNT PRINTING 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 (MRCS) 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: ire; i.oli o{ i..iiild Collsel-\�i'itioii iuid De-clo pincnt U16Cli1lliR11 S 711' C;IU ib"jit0'
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: Qircgon Departrnicnt of `orestry_ l`oi-est
Resources 111ann�. 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.
(-. UZ ��
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 farm 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 mapping in
Oregon Counties?
A: The soils information via the Internet on Web Soil Survey
(littp:Ilwebsoilsur-vey.nres.usda.gov)is the official source ofNRCSsoil 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 ori the age of the survey, much of
the information may still be 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 assignments. 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 SO year King
Curve productivity. The NRCS continues to periodically update soil survey information as
stuff'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 tjpically 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. f ner.
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 mapping 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 ors their own merit. They are considered a more detailed level of mapping at a 'filler"
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 map 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,foresterperfornss direct
tree measurements to show that on-site forest capability is lower than the NRCS Internet soil
survey shows. Where such a fr.nding is made, counties should seek additional verification,
such as from. an examination ofsinilar 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-VINVII--VIII
soils are "suitable " for faun use, "necessary " to permit farm practices or "intermingled "
with,farmland under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B), (C) and (b). However, this irsformation
cannot be used to show that the land is a different soil type or has a land capability class
assignment different 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. NRCS productivity, 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 fironn 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 a finding 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 polvgons
of the same map units.
Q: Can an argument be made that a particular soil type is not high-value, class I-IVII-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 offarmland 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 V- VIII soils are
"unsuitable' for farm use or are not necessary to permit adjacent, farm 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 of 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 clarifj) the
requirement that the Notes be used when challenging, forest land capabilio'. 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,
speczfic 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.
Y
�
y
a>
=O
�cdy
W
.
C
v
c+,
8
c,
U
4'
Cd IICJ C
�=b
0
O
w
,°
Iii �
�
Y �
ro
Uto
wok
Cd
U
Qo'
rA
�
U
U
o
o
v
4-4
b
w �
A
�
o
v
d
cd
j
b
as
��' v
0
N
M
=
�cl
°
a
C6 0
g.
b
Cd
4*
r
rA
CA
03
°
0 04
a�iz�
o
U
g
p
03
4
2 .p
G
j
N
u
rA
AU 0
CL
'A
,.o a
pd
Qac
O�A�ss,
U
��
Z��<C
�.
o
aa
�
o
91
�•
•;
cd
a,
oCA
a
v 4
°
b�.0
3
ami
>
5`�'QA
o
cl
C)
U
.
"Zi
a�
"C:�
Q)
Qi
Cld
rcpt
V
Cls
U
0
Cd
C
.fl O Y
b H
G
°
IU
b
f�
id 0p U
W � y, ^ •
p
of
d O
� O
a
v' O j O
U -S
u `+�
Q
b0 f b
K
U O 0 c
°
o
U°
p
ro
api
o
C a
cd .O
r4.
`o
ti..
bGn ei
e� .
o
10
b
421
-00
..
ar..
0 001
ow
-i-4°
O �.
aHi
o
o 91
48�
VJen
H
'co
10
H
c':
2
O
ei
p
.�
6 i
° �
O`
kn
,L.UqQ
q F °
q 1 p'
^ ° V1
0 v
m
H
j
o
.� ._
' � H r+
cid,
O
°
'�'
`
iii ' N
q
c~a
p •�•+ ♦G+
e1 p .. ;' .G.
'�'' G rn `��e�"" N i.w I Z
v,
o",
�, y
G U Gt
r�O
'b p q
rn
cd cd a p U Oq q
M
U 0. rn 0�
G
O N
O
U o
° o d•onU
>•
4. �•'
o o
'Z
b
a
U` L� cd 'CJ Gyi
2
Zti��
q
bb.o
q q
to
0 w
q
°
r
a �� � b❑
s� �
1-0
1
O. a>
•in p
d cV
0
o
z
Uww aUaw
�wa
w
d
b
qq
y
H
ww
tw°
o d
d
a�
u
b
y
y
126
O U
0
w rn
Q�
d
�o
a14 mon
ti
C
C �
b
W
ttf ..r ar
�
CO
•b •y
O
C"cd
.0
L,
a>
O
a
L
O
O^ r.+ Gr
CPC:
0
It �°°Sq
yon
u�
oyv
al
u
ami ca
b
p
p„ O
Vi
hl
rLy V
w�
R y
q
A
p
v
O
v U
ami y
5
3s3�
t+1
��•�
� e�
o
Q�
Q
,•:
ri
e%,
d
Oq
U
CA
W
Attachment 3
Board Order to hear appeal,
Board Order No. 2018-038
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File No. 247-18-000410-A
ORDER NO. 2018-038
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2018, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued an approval of Application
No. 247-17-000852-A (appeal of 247 -17 -000220 -CU); and
WHEREAS, Central Oregon LandWatch, appealed the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on
Application No. 247-17-000852-A; and
WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Deschutes County Board of
County Commissioners (`Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review these applications on appeal;
now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal application 247-18-000410-A pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes
County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or parties entitled to
notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030.
Dated this 21St day of May, 2018
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER No. 2018-038
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Attachment 4
Board Order to decline review,
Board Order No. 2018-038
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESC1 UTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Declining Review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File No. 247-18-000410-A
ORDER NO. 2018-038
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2018, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued an approval of Application
No. 247-17-000852-A (appeal of 247 -17 -000220 -CU); and
WHEREAS, Central Oregon LandWatch, appealed the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on
Application No. 247-17-000852-A; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County
Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application; now,
therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESC1 UTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will not hear on appeal Application 247-18-000410-A pursuant to Title 22 of the
Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, there shall be a refund of the appeal in the amount of $2,856.85.
Dated this 21't day of May, 2018
EN a 144.11
Recording Secretary
PAGE 1 OF 1 -ORDER No. 2018-038
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner
Attachment 5
Area Map
247-17-000852-A - Appeal of 247 -17 -000220 -CU
Legend
En Subject Property 14 -12 -34 -BO -00200
County Zoning
EFULB - Lower Bridge Subzone
EFUSC - Sisters/Cloverdale Subzone
EFUTE - Terrebonne Subzone
FP - Flood Plain
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
„-:,.... RR10 - Rural Residential
Appellant: Central Oregon Landwatch
Taxlot Number: 14 -12 -34 -BO -00200
Address: 4691 91 at St, Redmond
Applicant: Omlid, Todd & Megan
H
0 400 800 1,600 2,400
Feet