Loading...
2018-383-Ordinance No. 2018-011 Recorded 9/19/2018Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2OI 8-3$3 Nancy Blankenship,County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 09/19/2018 8:38:18 AM 1111,111111111111111111111 11111 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of State Lands applied for changes to both the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to change a portion of the subject property as described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the maps set forth as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Faun Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on April 24, 2018, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on May 9, 2018, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of both the Comprehensive Plan Map change and Zoning Map change; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on July 30, 2018, before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); and WHEREAS, the Board, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, both approved the plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area, and approved the Zoning Map amendment to change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "B", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "C." Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "F", and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this /.2 of ATTEST. 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Recording Secretary Date of 1St Reading: <21 day of ANT 1F PHILIP G. H ; DERSON, Vice Chair TAMMY BA Y, Corn ssioner , 2018. Date of 2"d Reading: / day of , 2018. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Anthony DeBone Philip G. Henderson Tammy Baney 7� Effective date: // day of ,C2 r, 2018. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Exhibit "A" All that portion of Section 11, Township 18 South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon lying east of the easterly extent of the following easement: Commencing at the North Quarter corner of Section 11; thence South 89°27'02" East along the northern line of said Section 11, a distance of 1490.00 feet, more or Tess, to the easterly line of an existing PG&E Gas Transmission Company Northwest natural gas pipeline easement; thence South 18°22'12" West along the easterly line of said easement, 5558.08 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Section 11, also excluding that portion of Section 11 North of the southerly right of way of Stevens Road. PAGE 1 OF 1- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 JDESFERT �I -CALEBPL-I ��- 1v' G 11 Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01800 Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01800 Plan Amendment from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01700 Deschutes County Road Dept. Legend Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary j Bend City Limit Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation AG -Agriculture RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area Knott Landfill PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2018-011 V V 0 250 500 1.000 1.500 Feet July 24, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this (-7-- day of 018 Effective Date: Ncecmtxf l t 2018 D iiERT-SKIES.PL E,-CALI B PL -J W_T a LT�. _L L =nom { w 2:ddL LJ 1 1.I l fa r= gR_EED MARKET RD-1112 Lad EFUTRB -- ——STEVENS:RD_ Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01800 Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01800 MUA10 Zone Change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) 1 •} li 'I ffERGUSON RDL Taxlot 18-12-00-00-01700 — 1.1.1 01 URA Deschutes County Road Dept. EFUTRB Legend Proposed Zone Change Boundary 1® Bend City Limit Urban Growth Boundary County Zoning EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural PROPOSED ZONING MAP Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2018-011 0 250 500 1.000 1,500 CC'' Feel Dated this /y day ofSep 2018 Effective Date: C:)aatx txr t t , 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCH TES OUNTY, OREGON July 24, 2018 Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive and found on the Deschutes County Communit by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 y Development Department website, is incorporated Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1, 20181 Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 §1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011- 017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 sectf,ow 5.12 l.-eglsIati-ve I-tistoru Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table 5.1 1.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2011-003 8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 I All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 Comprehensive Plan update 2011-027 10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 I 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5. I I , 23.40A, 23.40B, 23.40.065, 23.01.010 Housekeeping amendments to ensure a smooth transition to the updated Plan 2012-005 8-20-12/11-19-12 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), 3.7 (revised), Appendix C (added) Updated Transportation System Plan 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Housekeeping amendments to Destination Resort Chapter 2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13 4.2 Central Oregon Regional Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.1 1 Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County Page I of 4 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-0I I 2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3. I I Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2015-021 11-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. 20 1 5-029 11-23-15/11-30-15 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5 -Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. Page 2 of 4 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 2015-010 12-2-15/12-2-15 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County 2016 -005 11-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non - resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning 2016-022 9-28-16/11-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Comprehensive plan Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2016-029 12-14-16/12/28/16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2017-007 10-30-17/10-30-17 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-002 1-3-18; 1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone Page 3 of 4 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-01 I 2018-006 8-22-18/11-20-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9 Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources 2018-011 9-12-18/12-11-18 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Page 4 of 4 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-01 I FILE NUMBERS: HEARING: APPLICANT/OWNER: AGENT FOR APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: STAFF REVIEWER: HEARINGS OFFICER: Mailing Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 HEARINGS OFFICER REPORT 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC April 24, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW WaII Street Bend, OR 97708 Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) John M. Swanson, Real Property Planner 775 Summer St. NE, Ste. 100 Salem, OR 97301 Angelo Planning Group Matt Hastie, Project Manager 921 SW Washington St., Ste. 468 Portland, OR 97205 The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation. The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Dan R. Olsen SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved This decision adopts the staff report with minor edits and except as denoted 'Hearings Officer'. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code, Title 18, County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.136, Amendments Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 6, Forest Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment. II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 21425 Stevens Road, Bend, and includes an approximately 260 -acre area in the eastern portion of the property identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 18-12-(11), as tax lot 1800. The property is described in the application as both the Stevens Road Tract (SRT) and Section 11. The portion of the subject property that these applications address lies directly east of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) running diagonally through the subject property (see map below). 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 2 of 41 THUNDER RD 0 tt 0 Shaded area is subject portion of the property. Map and tax lot: 1812000001800 OBSIDIAN COYOTE OF Deschutes Count) CIS, Sources' Esti, USSS, NOAA B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject tax lot 1800, together with the adjoining tax lot 1700, form a single legal lot of record pursuant to the previous land use decisions CU -97-132, PA -11-7, and ZC-11-2. C. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation. The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The applicant asks that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the subject property 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 3 of 41 does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The applicant proposed that no exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land is required because the subject property is not agricultural land. The area west of the UGB is not part of the subject application, as it has already been approved for a similar Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Submitted with the application is an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled "Soil Investigation for Stevens Road Tract" (hereafter referred to as "soil study"), and an amendment to the soil study. The soil study was prepared by soil scientist Roger Borine, CPSC, CPSS, PWS of Sage West, LLC. The applicant has also submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Kittelson & Associates, titled "Transportation Planning Rule Analysis", and an amendment to the traffic study. Additionally, the applicant has submitted an application form, a burden of proof statement, a revised burden of proof statement, and other supplemental materials, all of which are included in the record for the subject applications. D. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The subject property is within the land use management jurisdiction of the City of Bend for the western portion and Deschutes County for the eastern portion. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map designates the subject eastern portion of the property as Agriculture. The western portion has been incorporated into the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), where the City of Bend's Comprehensive Plan applies. The subject eastern portion of the property is within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB), while the western portion is within the Urbanizable Area (UA) and Residential Standard Density (RS) Zones. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The SRT, or Section 111, is an undeveloped square mile (640 acres) of scrub sagebrush, juniper, ponderosa pine, and lava rock. An underground natural gas pipeline diagonally bisects the property from the northern property line to the southern property line. The western portion of the SRT property, which is approximately the area west of the natural gas pipeline, was previously rezoned from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 in 2013. The western portion of the site was subsequently added to the Bend UGB in 2016. As a result, the UGB abuts the entire western boundary of the subject eastern portion of the SRT. Although the property is zoned EFU, there is no indication in the record of current or historic farm uses or agricultural uses. The property is not in farm tax deferral as it is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands, and is thereby exempt from property taxes. The property does not contain any irrigated areas nor does it have irrigation water rights. There are also several trails on the property and a cluster of lava tube caves identified in the applicant's Exhibit A attached to the application materials. F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Surrounding land uses generally consist of urban residential, rural residential, agricultural, and civic/institutional uses. To the west of the SRT is the City of 1 The applicant refers to the subject property as both the SRT (Stevens Road Tract) and Section 11 in the application materials. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 4 of 41 Bend, where properties across SE 27th Street are developed with single-family dwellings and a manufactured home park. To the south of the SRT are properties developed with buildings and facilities for the Humane Society of Central Oregon, the Deschutes County Road Department, the Central Electric Cooperative, and the Knott Landfill. To the east and north of the SRT are private properties mostly developed with dwellings and some are engaged in agricultural or small-scale farm uses. Zoning in the areas to the northwest, west, and southwest consist of City of Bend Zones Residential Standard Density (RS), Residential Low Density (RL), Urbanizable Area (UA), and Public Facility (PF). The remaining areas to the south, east, and north are zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) or Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). G. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject eastern portion of the property contains four soil units. The mapped soil units are listed below. The applicant submitted a soil study report (applicant's Exhibit B), which was prepared by a certified soils scientist and soil classifier that determined the entire 640 -acre SRT was predominantly comprised of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Land'. The purpose of this soil study was to inventory and assess the soils on the subject property and to provide more detailed data on soil classifications and ratings than is contained in the NRCS soils maps. The NRCS soil map units identified on the subject eastern portion of the property are below. 27A, Clovkamp Loamy Sand: Clovkamp Loamy Sand soils consist of 85 percent Clovkamp soils and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The contrasting inclusions for the Clovkamp soils consist of Deskamp soils on side slopes. The major uses of this soil are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability ratings of this soil are 3s when irrigated and 6s when not irrigated. Section 18.04.030 of the DCC considers this soil type high-value farmland when irrigated. Approximately seven (7) percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. 36A, Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of 85 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with a rapid over moderate permeability, and about 5 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 36A soils are 3S when irrigated, and 6S when not irrigated. This soil is high-value when irrigated. Approximately two (2) percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. 38B, Deskamp-Gosney complex. 0 to 8 percent slopes: This soil is composed of 50 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability, and an available water capacity of about 3 inches. The Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability, and an available water capacity of 2 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 5 of 41 about 1 inch. The contrasting inclusions contain Clovkamp soils in swales, soils that are very shallow to bedrock, and are on ridges with occasional rock outcrops. The major use of this soil is for livestock grazing. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 3e when irrigated. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. This soil type is not considered high-value soil. Approximately six (6) percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. 58C, Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. The available water capacity is about 1 inch. Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. Available water capacity is about 3 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 4e when irrigated. Approximately 83 percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. H. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application and notice of the public hearing to several agencies and the following comments were received: Arnold Irrigation District The District monitors construction or building activities near mapped water right areas. Tax Map 18-12-(11), as tax lot 1800, does not have a water right with Arnold Irrigation District. The District has no conveyance system, assets or facilities with this tax lot. Bend Fire Department No fire department comments will be submitted regarding zone change only for 247 -17 -000726 - PA & 727-ZC. Bend Park & Recreation District Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) has three comments: 1. BPRD's adopted Trails Master Plan designates the gas line easement of the TransCanada Pipeline (the dividing line between the aforementioned property and the property of the same address to the west) as a Planned Primary Trail. 2. Additionally, the BPRD adopted Trails Master Plan designates a Planned Connector Trail from NE 27th St. through the property to the west of the aforementioned property to the TransCanada Pipeline. 3. BPRD is interested in discussing the provision of parks and trails on the property to the west that was recently brought into the Urban Growth Boundary. Central Oregon Irrigation District COID FACILITIES: • COID has two facilities on subject's property 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 6 of 41 o The COC has a 100' right of way along with a road on the west side of the canal with a 20' right of way o The smaller delivery ditch has a 20' right of way COID WATER RIGHTS: none COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT none Staff Comment: COID also included a map depicting the rights-of-way, which are located in the far northwest portion of the SRT, and are not located within the area of the subject applications. The COID map is included in the record. City of Bend Growth Management Department Thanks for the copy of the notice on the above -referenced application of the Department of State Lands. We have no comments on their application for a plan map amendment and zoning map amendment. Please send on copies of the Staff Report and final decisions and any adopting ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners. Our interest is in keeping track of changes in land use around the current UGB before we prepare for the next UGB evaluation. Deschutes County Road Department I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file numbers, proposing a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for the Stevens Road Tract. I will reiterate the comments submitted by Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner with Deschutes County CDD. Deschutes County Transportation Planner I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-17-000726-PA/727-CU to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Agriculture to Rural Residential and the zoning map from Exclusives Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) on 242 acres at 21425 Stevens Road, aka 16- 12-15, Tax Lot 1300. The subject property, which belongs to Department of States Lands (DSL) is often referred to as Section 11 and this land use application would change the land use designations to the same as the western half of Section 11 which went through a similar process in 2011. 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 including one trip in the p.m. peak hour. The 2011 traffic study was based on the western 380 acres going from EFU to MUA-10. The then -existing EFU zone was expected to generate 100 daily trips and 10 p.m. peak hour trips. The current proposal is for 242 acres to also change from EFU to MUA-10. As 242 acres is 63% of 380 acres (242/380 X 100), the base traffic under the EFU zoning should be 63 daily trips (100 X 0.63) and 6 trips in the p.m. peak. The submitted TIA assumes the existing EFU would generate 50 daily trips and 5 p.m. peak hour trips. The applicant needs to explain the difference of why they expect 13 fewer daily trips (63-50) under the existing EFU zone and one less p.m. peak hour trip (6-5). The study's conclusions probably won't change, but the seeming discrepancy still needs to be explained and Table 1 revised if necessary. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 7 of 41 The study's horizon year is 2030 to be consistent with the horizon years of the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the City of Bend TSP. That makes sense. Alas, the 13 year timeframe is inconsistent with Deschutes County Code (DCC) as DCC 18.116.310(E)(4) specifically requires a 20 year traffic analysis for zone changes. The study needs to examine affected County intersections out to 2037. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. While SDCs are not assessed for this land use, they do apply as sites develop so the SDC info is provided. For residential uses, 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) per home. 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 Comment: The applicant submitted an updated traffic analysis in its supplemental application materials. Department of State Lands, Planning and Policy Unit, Aquatic Resources Management Program ... a change in land use from normal farming and ranching to other uses removes ground disturbing activities from removal fill exemptions within wetlands and waters (if any exist on this property) ... if there are any wetlands or waters on the property (1 can't remember the details of this property) then the change from EFU and farm use removes any agricultural exemptions that may have applied under removal fill. Staff Comment: According to the County's property information and maps, the SRT contains no wetlands, nor does it have a history of farming or ranching activities. TransCanada, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC Reference is made by the applicant to request approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from an Agricultural designation to a Rural Residential designation and from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The proposed subdivision is located on or adjacent to the TransCanada -Gas Transmission N0l thwest LLC (GTN) gas pipelines easement in Section 11, T 18 N, R 12 E, W.M. (see attached google earth image) between Steven's Rd. and Ferguson Rd. in Deschutes County, Oregon. GTN owns and operates two (2) high-pressure natural gas pipelines which begin at the U.S./Canada border, extend across Idaho, Washington and Oregon, and end at the Oregon/California border. The above referenced request affects lands upon which the GTN pipeline system crosses, containing two (2) high pressure natural gas pipelines, (1) 36 -inch and (1) 42 -inch pipelines which are located within the GTN 83.75 foot easement (50 feet belongs to the DSL easement# 40319 -EA). We have no objection to the request but are concerned regarding development of the property. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 8 of 41 We ask that provisions in the Right -of -Way Agreement granted to our company several years ago be observed. The "Right -of -Way Agreement" grants to GTN a right-of-way 83.75 ft. in width over and across the property impacted by the applicant's request. It is important that GTN provides input and is willing to meet with the developer/Community Development Department during the design phase impacting the GTN pipelines and right-of-way to encourage best practices and enhance pipeline corridor safety which is in the best interest to us all. In order to protect the integrity and safety of these pipelines and to safeguard the land rights obtained several years ago, we ask the following comments to be included by Deschutes County Planning Division: 1. No buildings or structures of any kind are to be placed upon GTN's right-of-way. 2. No leaching fields, septic tanks, drain fields, wells, reservoirs, or other water impoundments are to be placed on GTN's right-of-way. 3. Any underground crossing of GTN's right-of-way must be a minimum of one (1) foot above or two (2) feet below GTN's pipelines and this depth must be maintained across the entire 83.75 ft. right-of-way. A "Consent to Common Use" agreement must be obtained from GTN before third parties install any facilities over/across the right-of-way. Parallel encroachments inside the easement are not allowed. 4. Any new permanent road crossings of GTN's right-of-way must make provisions for protection of the pipelines from the additional external loading superimposed upon the pipelines by the vehicular traffic using the roadway. GTN reserves the right to design and install the necessary pipeline protection, if any; however, the cost of design and installation shall be borne by the proponents of the new roadway. 5. As required by law GTN requests a 48-hour notice by calling 811 (2 working days) prior to the commencement of any excavation or other work. Any work on the GTN right-of-way requires than a GTN Field Representative be present. Please contact the GTN Redmond office at (541) 548-4110. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Bend Public Works Department, Bureau of Land Management, Cascade Natural Gas Co., Department of Environmental Quality, Deschutes County Assessor, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, PG & E Gas, U.S. Fish & Wildlife. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On September 8, 2017, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. Written comments were received prior to the hearing from the following individuals: Steve Brainerd We were discussing with neighbors [Eric & Amber Work: Tax Lot 1812120000801] the State of OR: DSL: Account 151656 812000001800 260 acres: Zoning change EFU-TRB to MUA-10: The owners of these abutting properties to the east would like to see some type of road access to the backside of these properties from the future. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 9 of 41 East side abutting properties would like a road access to back side of these properties from Stevens Road in the PLAN A road to access these properties in the future. Please put these comments into the public record for 247 -17 -000726 -PA & ZC See attached document Tom and Beth Lomax We live on Stevens road and will be directly impacted by the proposed land action change on the State Land to the South of Stevens road. This change would essentially make a 640 acre residential parcel in what is now MUA or agricultural zoning. Has the parcel on the east side of that property already had a zoning change? It was my understanding that it was brought into the UBG and that there would be a zoning change process after that. Please see specific listed comments below. • The entire parcel of State Land would make an amazing open space park that over time in Bend would be invaluable. • This land has unobstructed views of the surrounding mountains, is sheltered from views of the surrounding city and has natural caves and lava features. • Due to its size it will be irreplaceable in the future and must be one of the largest undeveloped parcels in as close to the core of the city that there is in the Bend area. • There is sufficient private land available in the surrounding area to bring into the UBG or to change the zoning on, to fulfill the need for additional building areas. • By changing this entire 640 acres to residential and not the properties to the North between Stevens Road and the canal, the character of the neighborhoods would be completely changed. • These properties are zoned MUA 10 and with all the changes that the development of the State Land would bring, the use of these properties would be substantially changed. • If this development were to move forward, the proprieties on the South are insulated somewhat due to the landfill but on the North Stevens road would be directly impacted. • If the State Land has to be developed, which I understand is the only way for the State to see income from this land swap, then the proprieties between Stevens road and the canal should also be rezoned to allow those propriety owners to change the use or have a better chance of moving somewhere else that maintains the character of MUA 10. • If there is any interest in the planning department in walking this property to see some of its natural attributes I would gladly lead a group around the property. Staff Comments: The attachments Mr. Brainerd submitted are in the record. Staff has included a portion of one of the maps to demonstrate the location of the road access referenced above. The applicant has included a conceptual master plan, but that conceptual master plan is not being reviewed as part of the subject applications. Only the Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is being reviewed at the present. Any future subdivision of the property, if the property were in the jurisdiction of Deschutes County, would consider road development pursuant to the provisions of DCC Title 17 (the Subdivision Ordinance) and any other applicable sections of the DCC. Also in Mr. Brainerd's comments 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 10 of 41 J• are questions as to why there was only one public comment in the record at the time he submitted comments, and why Central Oregon LandWatch (COLW) hasn't opposed the application. Staff notes only two public comments have been received and were included in the record. Staff also notes that COLW has not participated in the land use process as of the date of this Staff Report. The application will be reviewed and eventually approved or denied based only on the approval criteria that apply to the proposal, which is listed at the beginning of this Staff Report. The applications only include the subject property, so will not and cannot change the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Maps for other nearby properties. If a property owner desired similar amendments for their own property, then separate applications would be required and would be reviewed on their own merit. The DSL is not applying for specific development at this time. Staff also notes the majority of the properties to the north of Stevens Road and south of the irrigation canal are already zoned MUA-10. ADD aroad to access these properties NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated September 14, 2017, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on that same date. On March 6, 2018, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, March 11, 2018. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on March 5, 2018. K. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on August 28, 2018. The application was deemed incomplete on September 25, 2017. Upon submission of additional application materials, the application was deemed complete on January 29, 2018. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 11 of 41 Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150 -day review period. L. LAND USE HISTORY: According to the applicant, the SRT is part of Trust Lands that are managed by DSL for the exclusive benefit of the Common School Fund (CSF) as directed by the State Land Board (the Governor, Secretary of State, and the State Treasurer). CSF lands were granted to the state by the federal government at statehood to support K-12 public schools throughout the state. The SRT was acquired from the federal government in the mid- 1990s to compensate for deficiencies in the original land allocation at the time of statehood. Previous land use actions associated with the subject property are: SW3985: A 1980 driveway access permit issued by the Road Department for access to the subject property from Stevens Road. The owner of the property at the time was the BLM. CU -97-132: A 1997 conditional use permit to establish a mainline valve and blowdown assembly for an existing natural gas pipeline. The applicant was Pacific Gas Transmission Company. CU -04-21: A 2004 conditional use permit to establish a utility facility consisting of an electric substation. The applicant was Central Electric Cooperative (CEC). The facility was not constructed. PS -09-4: A 2009 Department of State Lands sign -off for a renewal of Central Electric Cooperative's power line easement across State lands. The applicant was CEC. PA -11-7 and ZC-11-2: The Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications which were approved for the western portion of the subject property. The applicant was the DSL. 247 -16 -000075 -PS: A 2016 Department of State Lands sign -off for a renewal of the gas transmission line easement across State lands. The applicant was TransCanada. M. HEARINGS OFFICER: At the outset of the hearing I provided the required notices. I indicated that I had had no ex parte contacts, had not conducted a site visit and had no conflicts of interest. I asked for but received no procedural or other objections to hearing this matter. At the end of testimony, I provided an opportunity to keep the record open as provided by statute, but no request was received. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 12 of 41 III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) & THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. Chapter 18.136, Amendments 1. Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The applicant, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applicant has filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. 2. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: The following provisions of Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan should be considered in reviewing this proposal to change the plan designation from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and to change the zoning from EFU to MUA-10. Other provisions of the plan do not apply. Chapter 2, Resource Management 1. Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: As discussed below, the applicant's soil study, NRCS soil data, and the findings in the submitted burden of proof effectively demonstrate that the subject property is not suitable for designation as Agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 13 of 41 Policy2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the subject property; rather, the applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the subject property to MUA-10. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant has applied for a Zone Change to rezone the subject property from EFU to MUA-10. The applicant has also applied for a Plan Amendment to support this Zone Change, which would designate the approximately 260 acres as RREA rather than AG. Rather than pursuing an exception to Goal 3, which would ordinarily be the method of effectuating such a change, the applicant has attempted to demonstrate that the subject property does not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land", as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020). The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed this approach in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), and this approach was utilized in the previous Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications for the western portion of the subject property, files PA -11-7 and ZC-11-2. The County Hearings Officer also accepted this method in file PA -10-5 (Rose & Associates). In Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA states at pp. 678-679: As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation, neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209, 218 (1993); DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990). The facts pertinent to the subject application are sufficiently similar to those in PA -11-7 and PA -10- 5 to allow the applicant to attempt to show that the subject property is not agricultural land, rather than seeking an exception to Goal 3 under state law. Policy2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. In the findings for the previous Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the western portion of the subject property, the County found that this policy does not impose a moratorium on requests for applications of this type, and that nothing in this policy prohibits the conversion of EFU parcels to other designations (see PA -11-7, 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 14 of 41 also 247 -16 -000318 -PA, PA -10-5, PA -07-1). Staff concurs with the previous determinations and the proposal is consistent with this policy. Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: This plan policy makes it clear that it is County policy to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The applicant proposes that the subject property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study, NRCS soil data, and the applicant's burden of proof. 2. Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: In the previous Plan Amendment application for the subject property, the County found that any proposed water use for the development of the subject property would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). Staff agrees with the previous decision and finds that it is also relevant to the subject application. 3. Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic view and sites. FINDING: The applicant addressed this criterion in their burden of proof, stating: No actual site development or land division/subdivision is proposed at this time, and thus the applicability of this evaluation criterion is uncertain. Nevertheless, the SRT Conceptual Master Plan includes significant proposed open space areas comprised of lava caves, lava tubes, lava rock outcrops, a natural gas pipeline easement, and a former county landfill site. The former county landfill site has been environmentally analyzed and reviewed and has been found to be properly closed and managed according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 15 of 41 FINDING: The subject property is not within the Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) Zone, nor is it located within a Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone associated with designated scenic highways, roads, rivers, and streams. Additionally, no actual development of the property is proposed at this time, so staff finds these policies do not apply to the subject proposal. Chapter 3, Rural Growth 1. Section 3.2, Rural Development Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. • Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies, but does provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The County Comprehensive Plan notes that "Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential." The requested Plan amendment is based on the results of the submitted Soils Investigation for the SRT which has demonstrated that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural lands" as defined in the goal, based upon a site-specific soils study conducted by a certified, professional soil scientist (Roger Borine). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this section of the Comprehensive Plan, given that the subject property has been determined to be non -resource land appropriate for rural residential development. Staff notes that the MUA-1 0 Zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Findings above, there are many adjacent properties to the east and north that are zoned MUA-1 0. Additionally, many properties to the north and west are within urban residential zones. Staff agrees with the applicant's response and finds the proposal complies with this policy. 2. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 16 of 41 that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDING: The Hearings Officer's decision for the western portion of the subject property (PA-11- 17/ZC-11-2) provides the following findings in response to this portion of Section 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan: To the extent that the quoted language above represents a policy, it appears to be directed at a fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language addresses conversions of 'farm" or 'forest" land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division 004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not 'farmland" as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use. As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal 3. There is one additional related matter which warrants discussion in connection with this issue. It appears that part of Staff's hesitation and caution on the issue of whether an exception might be required is rooted in the title of the Comprehensive Plan designation that would ultimately apply to the subject property - which is "Rural Residential Exception Area." There appears to be seven countywide Comprehensive Plan designations as identified in the plan itself. These include "Agriculture, Airport Development, Destination Resort Combining Zone, Forest, Open Space and Conservation, Rural Residential Exception Area, and Surface Mining." Of the seven designations, only Rural Residential Exception Area provides for associated zoning that will allow rural residential development. As demonstrated by reference to the Pagel decision discussed above, there appears to be instances in which rural residential zoning has been applied without the underlying land necessarily being identified as an exception area. This makes the title of the "Rural Residential Exception Area" designation confusing, and in some cases inaccurate, because no exception is associated with the underlying land in question. However, it is understandable that since this designation is the only one that will allow rural residential development, that it has become a catchall designation for land types that are authorized for rural residential zoning. That is the case with the 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 17 of 41 current proposal, and again, for the same reasons set forth in Hearings Officer Green's decision in Pagel, I cannot find a reason why the County would be prohibited from this practice. Based on the above, staff agrees with the Deschutes County Hearings Officer that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3, thus, the RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property. Hearings Officer: I concur and note that I also have concluded in at least one prior matter that the title "Rural Residential Exception Area" is not controlling. 3. Section 3.7, Transportation The Transportation System was adopted in Ordinance 2012-005 and is hereby incorporated into this Plan as Appendix C ... Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal 4 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policies 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: This policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. The County will comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation System Planning Rule (TPR), as described below. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: In response to subsection (B) of this policy, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The proposed zone change from EFU to MUA-10 is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA zone classification. Per DCC 18.32.010, the stated purposes of the MUA zone are: "The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 18 of 41 of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full time commercial farming for diversified or part time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The MUA-10 zone is the optimal county zone to transition the SRT to urban use which is a stated intention of the MUA-10 zone. As detailed above and incorporated herein by reference, the subject property is not suited for agricultural use. This property is more appropriately zoned MUA-10. The SRT is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) likely due to prior ownership by the federal government (BLM), rather than consideration of the agricultural capability of the land; the SRT has never been in farm or pasture use. Agricultural uses are not practical or compatible with the existing residential uses surrounding the SRT. Furthermore, as validated by the 2010 and 2011 Soils Investigations, the majority of the soil types in the SRT are Class 7 & 8 and the property has no water rights. It is not possible to engage in productive or profitable farming activity without water rights. Agricultural uses at the SRT are not feasible, practical or compatible with existing and surrounding urban uses and residential development. This Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment request will help to resolve the potential conflict and incompatibility between the EFU permitted uses and the adjacent, surrounding lands developed or committed for urban and residential uses. The requested Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments will result in a zoning assignment that is compatible with neighboring properties rather than the current EFU zoning, which poses potential conflict with established residential uses. Rezoning of the SRT from EFU to MUA-10 will resolve the latent conflict between EFU permitted uses and the immediately adjacent urban density residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Map change will serve the interests of the southeast Bend residents, surrounding residential neighborhoods, and public investments in public facilities and services for the following reasons. 1. The northwest 12 acres of the SRT are already within Bend city limits and UGB; 2. The City of Bend recently expanded its UGB to include the adjacent western portion of the SRT. This area is planned and will be zoned for a mix of urban uses, including residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and open space, consistent with adopted amendments to the City of Bend's Comprehensive Plan; 3. The adjacent area within the Bend city limits (west of 27th Avenue), includes fully developed urban density residential areas and major urban infrastructure (Southeast Sewer Interceptor and Avion water lines) and facilities (including bus route and shelter/stop); 4. A middle school is less than 3 mile away; 5. The Bend-LaPine School District 2005 Sites and Facility Study proposes a new elementary school for the immediate vicinity (the SRT is the only vacant parcel in the vicinity large enough to support a new elementary school); 6. The State Land Board adopted Stevens Road Tract Conceptual Master Plan includes a new 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 19 of 41 elementary school in the adjacent western portion of the SRT site with a trail system connecting the new elementary school with the existing nearby middle school; 7. Future development of the SRT will support the City's plans to create a complete community in southeast Bend for future and existing residents who currently do not have a local neighborhood commercial facility; 8. The Stevens Road Tract Conceptual Master Plan, adopted by the State Land Board, was prepared with the participation of Bend planning staff, school district and parks district staff and other diverse public input in order to address the interests and needs of southeast Bend residents; 9. There are no active commercial agricultural activities in the vicinity or neighborhood; and 10. Various public agencies and interests have cooperatively participated in planning for the eventual urban density development of this site to serve the residents of Bend through implementation of the Stevens Road Conceptual Master Plan. The requested Rural Residential Comprehensive Plan Map designation is sought at this time in order to enhance the eligibility of the subject property for inclusion in a future expansion of the Bend UGB and/or in the designation of urban reserves. The SRT Conceptual Master Plan calls for diverse, mixed use development including affordable home ownership and rental opportunities. DSL is committed to the urban development forms illustrated in the Conceptual Master Plan that was developed cooperatively with Bend planning staff to support the City's Framework Plan. This request to re- designate and re -assign the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps from Agriculture to Rural Residential and EFU to MUA-10, respectively, will allow this site to be eligible and competitive for future UGB inclusion. The requested MUA-10 zone emphasizes the conservation of open spaces and the protection of natural and scenic resources. While the subject property is not suitable for agriculture, it does contain lava tubes and caves; this area represents a significant planned open space area in the SRT Conceptual Master Plan. The MUA-10 zone will encourage that preservation and protection while also maintaining consistency with the EFU and MUA-10 lands in the vicinity. By allowing for a single family dwelling as an outright permitted use (DCC 18.32.020(B), the MUA-10 zone recognizes that rural lands may sometimes be better suited for residential use than agricultural uses. Other non -resource land uses are conditionally permitted; any nonresource land development proposal on the property other than a single family dwelling would not be allowed unless it was found to be consistent with the surrounding properties and the applicable conditional use evaluation standards. Therefore, the proposed change in zoning is consistent with the intent and purpose of the MUA-10 zone, and will be compatible with surrounding properties. In addition, as noted elsewhere in this application, the long-term proposed use of the property is for urban density development after the property is included in the Bend UGB. Until such time, the property owner plans to essentially hold the property for that future use. Staff accepts the applicant's response and finds compliance has been demonstrated. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 20 of 41 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The proposed change from EFU to MUA-10 will not require the extension of new public services to the subject property. The site is already adjacent to urban infrastructure (city sewers and water district water lines) City services are typically not available until a property annexes to the city, although the private water district water service may be available upon request. The site likely could be served by on-site private well and septic system. Similarly, electrical and phone services are already provided to adjacent properties could be efficiently extended to the property to serve a new dwelling or other use. Thus, public facilities are available and can be efficiently provided to the site. Also in the applicant's burden of proof, DSL's long-term goals for the property are explained: At this juncture, DSL has no intention of actually developing the site into 10 -acre rural residential lots. DSL is committed to the urban development forms and resulting community functions and services as illustrated in the Conceptual Master Plan. That Plan was developed cooperatively with City of Bend planning staff to support the City's Framework Plan. Similar to the benefits of previously rezoning the western portion of the SRT to a rural residential designation, this request to re -designate and re -assign the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps from Agriculture to Rural Residential and EFU to MUA-10, respectively, will allow this site to be eligible and competitive for UGB inclusion in the future and help the site come closer to realizing its ultimate potential for urban development and community benefit. Developing the eastern portion of the SRT as part of a larger complete community and urban center serving southeast Bend residents will make efficient use of existing and planned (adjacent and nearby) urban infrastructure, public facilities, and public services. Eventual urbanization of this site will continue to further goals and opportunities to provide a mix of land uses and community facilities (parks, schools, open spaces, and other facilities) along with supporting urban infrastructure and services in this and other portions of the Bend urban area. Although there are no plans to develop the property, the criterion specifies if the zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The surrounding areas outside of the UGB contain numerous properties that are residentially developed and have water service from a quasi- municipal source or wells, on-site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Staff agrees with the applicant's response and compliance with this criterion is demonstrated. Staff adds that if the SRT is not included in the UGB, development of the property under MUA-1 0 zoning would need to comply with applicable requirements of the DCC, including possible land use permit, building permit, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: In response, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 21 of 41 The relevant goals of the Comprehensive Plan are implemented through the MUA-10 purpose statement in the zoning ordinance, as set forth above. The zone is unique in that it serves as a transition between EFU lands with productive soils and other rural lands that are "not suited to full time commercial farming" and are more appropriately suited for "diversified or part time agricultural uses." The MUA-10 zone retains consistency with EFU lands by allowing a limited array of rum! uses and mandating a 10 -acre minimum lot size (except in cluster developments, in which the smaller lot sizes are offset by the 65% open space requirement). There are only a limited number of uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone that are not also allowed in the EFU zone. Further, the majority of the different non -resource land uses in the MUA-10 zone are conditional, thereby ensuring that potential impacts on surrounding land uses are reviewed by the County during each quasi-judicial land use application. In summary, the MUA-10 zone remains a rural zone devoted to a mix of part-time agricultural and residential uses. This minimizes potential impacts on surrounding lands. The MUA-10 zoning would emphasize the continued protection of the open space and wildlife values of the property. As a result of the proposed MUA-10 zoning, the land development restrictions caused by the (closed) county landfill, and the lava tubes and caves, the foreseeable impacts on surrounding land uses in the next 5 -years will be minimal to none. Development of the permitted uses in the existing EFU zone could result in direct conflicts with the existing and fully developed, urban -density residential neighborhoods adjacent to the SRT. The requested Rural Residential Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and MUA- 10 Zoning Map Amendment will help to diminish these potential conflicts. Staff accepts the applicant's response; compliance has been demonstrated. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: In response, the applicant's burden of proof provides, in part, the following: Circumstances have changed since the zoning of the property. When the property was first given an EFU zoning assignment, it was in federal (BLM] ownership; it is now in state ownership as a Common Schools Fund land asset. This property was zoned without detailed or site specific consideration given to its soil, geologic, and topographic characteristics. Now that a certified soils scientist has conducted a detailed Soils Investigation, it is documented that the parcel does not qualify as farmland. Furthermore, urban density residential development has occurred in direct proximity to the SRT, directly across the street (27th) to the immediate west of the western portion of the SRT site. The county also has allowed the establishment of urban related uses (offices) to the immediate south. In addition, the City of Bend approved expansion of its UGB in 2016 to include the western portion of the SRT. As a result, the eastern portion of the SRT (subject site) is directly adjacent to the existing UGB. Major investments in urban infrastructure also have occurred in direct, immediate proximity to the SRT. The Bend Southeast sewer interceptor, a major sewer conveyance system that is currently being improved, is adjacent to and designed to serve the western edge of the SRT. Major urban sized water (Avion) lines abut the western portion of the SRT and the north property boundaries of the subject site. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 22 of 41 And a major road improvement project to nearby Reed Market Road is funded and scheduled for construction. See Figure 4 for a map showing the location of these improvements. In summary, the County's zoning of agricultural lands has been a process of refinement since the 1970's. The subject property has never been suitable for agriculture and has never been actively farmed due to its soil and geologic (lava rock outcrops, lava tubes/caves) characteristics, as well as lack of water rights for irrigation. Although it was assigned EFU zoning, this property likely should not have been originally zoned EFU due to its location, soils, geology, and lack of irrigation water supply. Therefore, the parcel should be rezoned to MUA-10, consistent with the zoning of adjacent rural/county properties to the west and east. The MUA-10 zoning assignment supports logical, compatible, and efficient use of the land and will contribute to future urbanization and sound growth management within the Bend urban area. The applicant also argues that the SRT was likely zoned EFU in 1979 because it was owned by the federal government (BLM) at the time. Staff is unaware of the exact reasons why this property was initially zoned EFU, but supposes it had more to do with the lack of development and the size of the property itself, and not necessarily the soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming practices. For whatever reasons the property was initially zoned EFU, staff agrees with the applicant's findings that there have been several particularly relevant changes in circumstances that warrant a zone change, especially in consideration of the detailed information provided by the soil study. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this criterion. Hearings Officer: As discussed below, there is an issue regarding the role of the soils study. Regardless, it is apparent from the NRCS maps, staff's analysis of those maps as discussed below, and the significant changes in the immediate vicinity of the property, that this criterion is met. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. Division 6, Goal 4 Forest Lands 1. OAR 660-006-0005, Definitions (7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include: (a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices; and (b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. FINDING: The subject property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties within a two-mile radius. The property does not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in the record that the property has been employed for forestry uses historically. None of the soil units comprising the parcel are rated for forest uses according to NRCS data. The property does not appear to qualify as forest land. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 23 of 41 B. Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands; Division 33, Agricultural Lands 1. OAR 660-015-0000(3) To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. FINDING: Goal 3 continues on to define "Agricultural Land", which is repeated in OAR 660-033- 0020(1). 2. OAR 660-033-0020. Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I-IV soils in Western Oregon and 1 -VI soils in Eastern Oregon3; FINDING: The applicant's basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is based on the proposal that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land". In support, the applicant offers the following: A professionally conducted Soils Investigation has demonstrated that the subject property is not composed predominantly of Class I -VI soils. To analyze the soils on the site, the Applicant obtained the services of Mr. Roger Borine, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS #24918), Soil Classifier (CPSC #24918) and Professional Wetlands Scientist (PWS #1707) who has a distinguished career in Oregon with the USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service including positions as: State Habitat Biologist, State Wetland Specialist, Resource Soil Scientist, Soil Survey Project Leader, and Soil Scientist. Mr. Borine is an acknowledged soils expert statewide and especially in Central and Eastern Oregon. The complete Soils Investigation report, detailing the procedures and methodology used as well as the complete findings, is attached to this application as Exhibit B. This analysis was undertaken as part of the previous land use permitting effort associated with the western portion of the SRT site. Mr. Borine initially conducted a soils investigation of the entire 622 - acre SRT site. The resulting report was subsequently modified to include only that area from the east edge of the natural gas pipeline easement westward to 27th Street. As part of this application, data associated with the subject site (the eastern portion of the SRT) has been further summarized. 3 OAR 660-033-0020(5): "Eastern Oregon" means that portion of the state lying east of a line beginning at the intersection of the northern boundary of the State of Oregon and the western boundary of Wasco County, then south along the western boundaries of the Counties of Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath to the southern boundary of the State of Oregon. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 24 of 41 The purpose of the Soils Investigation for the Stevens Road Tract was to determine the extent of agricultural land for planning purposes. A comparison of the soils reports for the entire site and the western -half of the SRT indicates that approximately 227 acres or 87% of the site consists of Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils, and 13% (33 acres) is Land Capability Class 6 soils'. This means that the soils are predominantly non-agricultural soils according to a certified and well-qualified soils scientist using state sanctioned and approved field investigation methods and techniques. Thus, the Stevens Road Tract as defined in OAR 660-033-0020 is not predominantly Agricultural Land. ... In July, 2010, a Soils Investigation of the 622 -acre SRT was conducted by Mr. Roger Borine. This information was again used a year later as the basis for the July, 2011 380 -acre Soils Investigation findings. The purpose of both Soils Investigations was to determine the extent of agricultural land at the SRT for planning purposes. The inventory and analysis of the 622 -acre Stevens Road Tract [T18S, R12E, Section 11, Tax Lots 1700 and 1800] determined that approximately 71% (438 acres) was Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils; and 29% (184 acres) Land Capability Class 6 soils. The 622 acre Stevens Road Tract, as defined in OAR 660-033-0020, is not predominantly Agricultural Land. A second analysis indicated that approximately 56% (211.4 acres) of the western portion of the SRT was Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils. This means that 227 acres of the eastern half of the SRT are Class 7 and 8 soils out of a total of 260 acres. This translates to 227 acres (87%) of the eastern half of the site being Class 7 and 8 soils. 2 The Borine Reports states that 438 acres of the entire SRT site are Class 7 and 8 soils, while 211 acres of the western half of the site are Class 7 and 8 soils. This means that 227 acres of the eastern half of the SRT are Class 7 and 8 soils out of a total of 260 acres. This translates to 227 acres (87%) of the eastern half of the site being Class 7 and 8 soils. Table 2 and the conclusion of the original soil study are below, with the revised table from the soil study amendment to reflect the soils only on the western 380 acres. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 25 of 41 Original Soil Study Table 2 and Conclusion Table 2 —Order 1 Soil Survey Map Units and Interpretations. ap 34. AR Access Road 100 No 8 9 2 CA Clovkamp loamy sand, 0-3% Clovkamp 85 No 6 14 2 DGB DGB Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0-5% Deskamp 50 No 6 Gosney 35 No 7 170 27 GRB GRB Gosney-Rock outcrop complex, 0-8% Gosney 60 No 7 Rock outcrop 20 No 8 229 37 GRC GRC Gosney-Rock outcrop complex, 8-15% Gosney 50 No 7 Rock outcrop 25 No 8 68 11 GTE Gas Transmission Easement 100 No 8 21 3 LF Landfill 90 No 8 56 9 MFA Mined/Fill Area 90 No 45 7 SR Stevens Road 100 No 8 10 2 Conclusion: The purpose for this study was to conduct an inventory and assessment of the soil resource and specifically the extent of agricultural land as defined in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-033 kiAgricultural Land. The inventory and analysis of this 622 acre Stevens Road Tract in T18S, R12E, Section 11, Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 determined that approximately 71% (438 acres) was Land Capability Class 7 and 8 si sods and 29% (184 acres) Land Capability Class 6 soils. The Stevens Road Tract as defined in OAR 660-033-0020 is not predominantly Agricultural Land. Tax LOU . LCC 7/8 s LCC .6 . (622aaes) Acr'eb, ;-%,. .� Acres 1700 & 1800 43871 184 29 Soil Study Amendment As requested, I have reviewed the Soils Investigation Report by Sage West, LLC of the Stevens Road Tract located in T18S, R12E, and Section 11 as it relates to the new "study area". The review was determined necessary as the boundary and size of the new "study area" differs from the original 622 acre study area that was reduced to 380 acres. The new area is primarily the west half is of Section 11 that is west of the eastern boundary of the Gas Transmission Easement. Dan Antonson, GIS Analyst ODSL, digitized the mapping units from the soil map completed by Sage West, LLC dated June 2010 for -`. the new study area. Data points, transect data and accuracy of soil boundary line placement was reviewed both in the office and field. Minor adjustments to soil boundaries were made to four polygons based an field observation and updated on the ODSL .`i Stevens Road Tract Map dated 7/25/2011 (attached). Mapping unit descriptions and interpretations in the Soils Investigation Report, dated 7/6/2010, accurately describe conditions existing in the new study area, Survey map units and interpretations for the new study area in the Stevens Road Tract are: Symbol Map tJnt High Value:, CCi An c i DGB Deskamp-Gosney complex, 0-5% Deskamp 50 No 6 Gosney 35 No 7 168.6 44.4 688 Gosney-Rock outcrop complex, 0.856 Gosney 60 No 7 Rock outcrop 20 No 8 101.5 26.7 GRC Gosney-Rock outcrop complex, 8- 15% Gosney 50 No 7 Rock outcrop 25 No 8 12.3 3.2 GTE Gas Transmission Easement 100 No 8 20.7 5.5 LF Landfill 90 No 8 55.9 14.7 MFA Mined/Fill Area 90 No 8 14.2 3.7 SR Stevens Road 100 No 8 6.8 1.8 The inventory and analysis of this 380 acre study area in the Stevens Road Tract determined that approximately 56% is Land 'i Capability Class 7 and 8, and 44% is Land Capability Class 6. This study area in the Stevens Road Tract as defined in OAR 660-033- `0020 is predominantly non-agricultural land. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 26 of 41 Staff accepts the applicant's evidence and explanation; compliance with this subsection has been met and the subject property should not be defined as "Agricultural Land". Hearings Officer: See discussion below. (8) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices; and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. (b) Land in capability classes other than 1-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; FINDING: In response to subsections (1)(a)(8), (1)(a)(C), and (1)(b) above, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: The subject property has never been irrigated, has not been used for producing crops or grazing livestock, is not part of a farm unit and is currently vacant. None of the surrounding properties are used for active, commercial agriculture including the MUA-10 and EFU zoned abutting properties to the north and east that are predominantly developed with rural residences engaged in horse raising and equestrian activities. There are no commercial farm practices being undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. A review of both Soils Investigations (July, 20101-622 acres] and July, 2011 [380 acres]) found that the Stevens Road Tract, as defined in OAR 660-033-0020, is predominantly nonagricultural land. This includes the SRT as a whole, as well as both the western and eastern halves when viewed independently. The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), but this designation is not based on the agricultural capability of the land, as the SRT has never been in farm or pasture use. Agricultural uses are not practical or compatible with the existing residential uses surrounding the SRT. Furthermore, as validated by the 2010 Soils Investigation, the majority of the soil types in the SRT are Class 7 & 8 and the property has no water rights. Agricultural uses at the SRT are not practical, profitable or compatible with existing and surrounding urban uses and residential development. This Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment request will help to resolve the potential conflict and incompatibility between the EFU permitted uses and the adjacent, surrounding lands developed or committed for urban and residential uses. Staff accepts the applicant's response and finds compliance with this subsection of the rule has been demonstrated. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 27 of 41 (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. FINDING: The subject eastern portion of the SRT is outside of the UGB. The western portion of the SRT is within the UGB and therefore is not considered Agricultural Land. 3. OAR 660-033-030. Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(8). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I-IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands." A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). Hearings Officer: As noted above, the property has not been irrigated or farmed. Given its location adjacent to the UGB and the zoning and uses in the immediate vicinity it is unlikely that it could be put to productive agricultural use in conjunction with any other property. No one has suggested otherwise. In conjunction with the discussion above and below, I find that compliance with this subsection of the rule has been demonstrated. (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel. FINDING: The evidence that shows that the subject property is not suitable for farm use and is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, has not assigned any significance to the ownership of the subject or adjoining properties. (5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as of January 2, 2012, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 28 of 41 must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDING: The Sage West soils study provides more detailed soils information than contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. NRCS sources provide general soils data for large units of land. The soil study provides detailed and accurate information about a single property based on numerous soil samples taken from the subject property. The soil study is related to the NRCS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that classifies soils class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS. The NRCS mapping for the subject portion of the property is estimated below, based on the County's GIS data and NRCS soil maps available on Dial (the County's property information and mapping website). This data estimation shows that a predominance of the subject eastern portion of the SRT is comprised of class 7 and 8 soils (see map below). Staff notes these estimations assume the highest soil classification of the soil complex for the portion of the soils that are unclassified (contrasting inclusions), and amount to approximately 98 percent of the subject 260 acres, so a margin of error should be taken into consideration. Additionally, staff notes that the NRCS data indicates the average soil compositions across an entire soil unit. The NRCS data and the applicant's soil study indicate a predominance of class 7 and 8 soils. A discussion regarding the process described in OAR 660-033-0045 is provided in findings below, as it relates to the previous Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the western portion of the SRT. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 29 of 41 Soil Unit Approx. "/o of unit in east SRT Soil' name Percent in complex Classification Approx. % in east SRT Classification 1-6 Classification 7-8 27A: Clovkamp Loamy Sand 7% Clovkamp 85% 6 7% 7% 0% 36A: Deskamp loamy sand 2% Deskamp 85% 6 2% 2% 0% 38B, Deskamp- Gosney complex 6% Deskamp 50% 6 3% 3% 0% Gosney 35% 7 2% 0% 2% Other 15% 6 1% 1% 0% 58C: Gosney- Rock Outcrop- Deskamp complex 83% Gosney 50% 7 42% 0% 42% Rock Outcrop 25% 8 21% 0% 21% Deskamp 20% 6 17% 17% 0% Other 5% 6 4% 4% 0% Total percent of the eastern portion of SRT: 34% 64% 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 30 of 41 NRCS Soil Map (dial.deschutes.org) 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 31 of 41 (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land; and FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a non -resource plan designation on the basis that the subject property is not defined as agricultural land. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. FINDING: The applicant's submitted soil study was prepared for the previous files PA -11-7 and ZC- 11-2. The date of the original soil study is July 6, 2010, and the amendment to the study is dated July 26, 2011. Both of these dates are before the effective date of ORS 215.211. Although the soil scientist was recognized by DLCD and had the appropriate qualifications, it does not appear the soil study was certified by the department (DLCD). The soils study, as mentioned, was completed and submitted as part of the western portion of the property's land use applications, which were submitted on October 31, 2011, after the effective date of ORS 215.211. In PA-11-7/ZC-11-2 the Hearings Officer addressed this point, as it was discussed as a point of concern by an opponent of the applications and is the same soil study submitted by the applicant for the subject application. This discussion is quoted in full below as it is pertinent to the subject application: In response to this portion of the definition, the applicant submitted a soil investigative report, prepared by Roger Borine. In short, that report concludes that the subject property is composed predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils which do not meet the definition set forth in this administrative rule. Newland argued at both the March 20, 2012 public hearing and in written submissions that in order for the County to rely on the applicant's soils report, the recently adopted Oregon statute at ORS 215.211 and DLCD rules at OAR 660-033-0030 and 0045 must be applied to this application. Newland argued that these administrative rules, adopted on October 1, 2011, clearly apply to the application. This does not appear to be disputed. Newland then argued that a specific provision, OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b), which essentially mimics the statute, triggered a required review by DLCD of the Borine report. Newland argued that the County was prohibited by both the statute and DLCD rule from relying on the report until the DLCD had conducted a review under the rigorous provisions of OAR 660-033-0045. The applicant and DLCD disagreed with Newland. Specifically, the applicant provided an April 3, 2012 letter from DLCD representative Katherine Daniels in which she argues that OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b) 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 32 of 41 is only triggered where an applicant and the local government desired to rely upon a soils report, such as the Borine report, to challenge or contradict the NRCS Soil Survey, which is considered to be the primary source of soils information for the state. OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b) states: "If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Internet soil survey of soil data and information produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey operated by the NRCS of the USDA has of January 2, 2012, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045." Newland argued, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this provision may be applicable in the context of a request to change the zoning of EFU land to a non -resource zone. OAR 660-033-0030(5)(c). However, the Hearings Officer disagrees with Newland that a DLCD analysis is necessary as part of the current application. I also disagree with Ms. Daniels's interpretation of OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b), because it reads too much into the administrative rule and probably grants the department more discretion than the statute intends, but my disagreement is not relevant to the review of this application. In this case, Newland reads the administrative rule far more strictly than the actual language of the rule indicates. The rule does not require that any time an applicant submits a soils report in support of an application to rezone EFU land to a non -resource zone that the report must be vetted by DLCD. That analysis is only triggered when the report "would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land." Where the NRCS Soils Survey itself is sufficient to demonstrate that the land in question is predominantly Class Vil and Vill soils, and a supplemental soils report merely confirms that data, the rule is not necessarily triggered. Here, the record contains three sets of corroborating data which all appear to indicate that at least 50 percent, and as much as 70 percent, of the subject property is composed of Class VII and Vlll soils. The primary data is the information submitted by the applicant in its April 18, 2012 letter which contains the NRCS Soil Survey. The supplemental data includes the Borine report, and calculations submitted by Staff which were initially identified in a March 20, 2012 e-mail from Tim Berg to Paul Blikstad, and then refined and submitted during the open record period as a table showing that the subject property is composed of at least 51 percent Class VII and VIII soils. Taken together, this information is sufficient to demonstrate that the subject property is not predominantly agricultural land as defined in administrative rule. While the Borine report is helpful in confirming the base soil survey data, the application is not solely dependent on the report, and the Hearings Officer would consider it unreasonable to expect the applicant to seek and obtain an additional DLCD review of the report when other reliable data adequately serves the same purpose. Newland submitted criticism of the Borine report in one of its April 20, 2012 submissions arguing that the report does not adequately explain a distinction between Class VI and Class VII components of some of the Deskamp-Gosney soils on the property. The Hearings Officer does not find these 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 33 of 41 arguments persuasive. Newland's criticisms appear to be adequately answered by the applicant submission of the NRCS Soils Survey and Staff calculations of Class VII and VIII soil types on the subject property. The Hearings Officer would also note that while Newland is careful to confine its criticism to the Borine report, to be successful in demonstrating that the subject property is predominantly composed of Class 1 -VI soils, and therefore not eligible to be rezoned from EFU zoning, Newland might be required to prove that the NRCS Soils Survey for the subject property is incorrect. Such a challenge would appear to require a soils report that would "assist a county to make a better determination" about whether the subject property qualifies as agricultural land, and would likely trigger the DLCD review required by OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b). In other words, the "person" identified in ORS 215.211 and OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b) could be the applicant or any opponents of an application as well. Based on the above -referenced decision and the NRCS data indicating a predominance of class 7 and 8 soils, it appears the application and associated soil study complies with this administrative rule. HEARINGS OFFICER: I generally agree with the above-cited analysis. In this case, staff analyzed the NRCS maps and demonstrated that, on their face, the maps show that the property is at least 67% non-agricultural land on average. This is less than the 87% the applicant found based on its soil survey but nevertheless demonstrates that the site consists of predominantly non-agricultural soils. This is evidence independent of the soil survey. So, the soil survey confirms staff's map analysis and consideration of the soil survey would, at most, be harmless error. The issue raised by the rule might be closer if anyone had introduced evidence that the NRCS maps are inaccurate, that staff miscalculated or some other evidence that the property consists predominantly of agricultural soils. Although Martin Lawrence testified in passing that the "soil survey" should have been redone, he provided no evidence of misclassification. To the contrary, the opposition testimony stressed that the property has value as open space and recreational land, not agriculture. (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. FINDING: The applicant has obtained additional information regarding soils and how these soils relate to the agricultural designation of the property. Staff defers to the Hearings Officer as to if OAR 660-033-0020 otherwise affects the agricultural land determination. HEARINGS OFFICER: To reiterate, I find based on the evidence and analysis provided above that the property was not and is not property classified as agricultural land under Goal 3, the administrative rule or the Deschutes County comprehensive plan and code. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 34 of 41 4. OAR 660-012, DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: As referenced in the agency comments section in the Findings of Fact above, the Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County requested revised details than what the initial traffic study materials provided. The applicant, as mentioned above, submitted an updated report from Kittelson dated October 10, 2017, to address these discrepancies. The update included adjustments to total daily trip generation and p.m. peak hour trips, as well as an extension of the traffic analysis to the year 2037. In response to this criterion, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: To address Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements and the relevant Comprehensive Plan goal and policies, a professional Transportation Engineering firm (Kittelson &Associates) was hired to prepare a Transportation Planning Rule Analysis for the subject property. Kittelson & Associates initiated this analysis by preparing a scope of work that was reviewed by Transportation Planning staff from both Deschutes County and the City of Bend, and then conducted that analysis per the agreed upon work scope. Following immediately below are the criteria, factors, conclusions, and findings of the Section 11 Transportation Planning Rule Analysis. Exhibit D is the complete Transportation Planning Rule Analysis report prepared by Kittelson. Exhibit E is a supplemental memo addressing County staff comments related to Exhibit D. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 35 of 41 Transportation Planning Rule and Goal and Policy Compliance OAR Section 660-12-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) sets forth the relative criteria for evaluating plan and land use regulation amendments. Table 2 summarizes the criteria in Section 660- 012-0060 and the applicability to the proposed rezone application. Table 2 Summary of Criteria in OAR 660-012-0060 Section Criteria Applicable? Describes how to determine if a proposed land use action1 results in a significant impact. See response below 2 Describes measures for complying with Criteria #1 where a significant impact is determined. See response below 3 Describes measures for complying with Criteria #1 and #2 without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility No (Roadway system currently operates acceptably) 4 Determinations under Criteria #1, #2, and #3 are coordinated with other local agencies. Yes (Scoping and application sent to City and County for review) 5 indicates that the presence of a transportation facility shall not be the basis for an exception to allow development on rural lands. No 6 Indicates that local agencies should credit developments that provide a reduction in trips. No 7 Outlines requirements for a local street plan, access management plan, or future street plan. No 8 Defines a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly neighborhood No 9 Outlines requirements under which a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing and planned transportation facility. No 10 Outlines requirements under which a local government may amend a plan without applying performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion, delay or travel time. No 11 Outlines requirements under which a local government may approve an amendment with partial mitigation. No As noted in Table 2, there are 11 criteria that apply to Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. Of these, Criteria #1, #2, and #4 are applicable to the proposed land use action. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 36 of 41 Criteria #1 and #2 are provided below in italics with responses shown in standard font. Criteria #4 is summarized in Table 2 with a response provided in the "applicable" column. [Staff note: italic and standard font are reversed as a quote in this Staff Report] (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; Response: Based on the incremental traffic increase from EFU to the proposed MUA-10 zoning, the functional classification of all the adjacent roadways will not be affected with the proposed zone change. (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or Response: All of the study intersections will operate acceptably with or without the proposed rezone. (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. Response: All of the study intersections currently operate acceptably, operate acceptably without the rezone, and continue to operate acceptably with the rezone assuming incorporation of programmed projects. OAR 660-12-0060 (2) Where a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, compliance with section (1) shall be accomplished through one or a combination of the following unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 37 of 41 section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including but not limited to transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. Response: A significant effect does not occur. TPR Analysis: Findings and Recommendations Findings and recommendations of this analysis are presented below: • The proposed rezone to MUA-10 could generate an additional 393 daily trips and 42 additional weekday PM peak hour trips as compared to the existing EFU zoning. • All of the study intersections can accommodate forecast travel demands with the existing and proposed zoning. • With the planned realignment of Stevens Road and Reed Market Road the intersection with 27th Street can continue to adequately accommodate the increased traffic. • A significant effect does not occur with the incremental trips associated with the proposed rezone, and no mitigation is required to satisfy the Transportation Planning Rule. • No existing safety or operational issues were noted at any of the study intersections. Based on the Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the amended traffic study from Kittelson, staff finds compliance with the TPR Rule has been demonstrated. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 38 of 41 5. OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are outlined in the applicant's burden of proof: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. This proposal satisfies this goal because the Planning Division will provide notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change to the public through individual notice to affected property owners, posting of the subject property with a notice of proposed land use action sign, and publishing notice of the public hearing in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper. In addition, at least two public hearings will be held on the proposed plan amendment before it can be approved - one before the Hearings Officer and one before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. This proposal satisfies this goal because the applications were handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to plan amendments and zone changes in the county's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The applicant has elected not to take an exception to Goal 3 for the subject property, but rather to provide evidence supporting findings that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3. The application includes a professionally prepared Soils Investigation that demonstrates that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore the proposed plan amendment and zone change to MUA-I0 is consistent with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. The proposal is consistent with Goal 4 because the subject property is not zoned for forest use and the applicant's soil survey shows the subject property does not contain any forest soils. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. The proposal is consistent with Goal 5 because, as discussed in the proposed plan amendment and zone change will have no effect on any designated Goal 5 resources. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The proposal is consistent with Goal 6 because it will not result in any impact on air or water quality and land resources. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 is not applicable to the proposal because the subject property is not located in a known natural disaster or hazard area (i.e., flood hazard zone, steep slopes, historic landslide areas or other hazards identified under Goal 7). Goal 8, Recreational Needs. Goal 8 is not applicable to the proposal because the proposal will not affect property zoned for recreation or impact recreational needs. In addition, it supports a potential, though not certain, eventual transition from rural to urban land use that will incorporate lands designated for open space and trails. Goal 9, Economy of the State. The proposal is consistent with Goal 9 because it will not adversely impact economic activities in the state. In addition, it supports a potential, though not certain, eventual transition from rural to urban land use that will incorporate and build on a complete 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 39 of 41 community in the southeastern portion of Bend which will include retail, commercial and other employment uses, consistent with the Stevens Road Conceptual Master Plan. Goal 10, Housing. Goal 10 is not applicable to the proposal because it does not include development of additional housing, and does not remove any land from the county's supply of land for needed housing. In addition, it supports a potential, though not certain, eventual transition from rural to urban land use that will incorporate a mix of residential uses that will support future city residents with a range of housing needs, consistent with the Stevens Road Conceptual Master Plan. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The proposal is consistent with Goal 11 because the proposed plan amendment and zone change will have little to no impact upon the provision of public facilities and services to the subject property. Goal 12, Transportation. The proposal is consistent with the TPR, and therefore is also consistent with Goal 12 as demonstrated by the attached, professionally prepared Transportation Planning Rule Analysis. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The proposal is consistent with this goal because it will have no impact on energy use or conservation. Goal 14, Urbanization. The proposal is consistent with Goal 14 for the following reasons. 1. The proposal does support a likely, though not certain, eventual transition from rural to urban land use that responds to identified needed lands; 2. The proposal represents an orderly growth pattern that eventually will efficiently enhance and utilize public facilities and services; 3. The proposal will ultimately result in the maximum efficiency of land uses on the fringe of the existing urban area; 4. The subject property has been found to be not predominantly agricultural land as defined in OAR 660-033-0020; and 5. The proposal will promote compatibility with surrounding urban uses and will not adversely impact any nearby commercial agricultural uses because there are none. Goals 15 through 19. These goals, which address river, ocean, and estuarine resources, are not applicable to the proposal because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. The applicant's responses demonstrate compliance with the applicable Goals. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011Page 40 of 41 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation and the corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change a portion of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) are approved. Dan R. Olsen, Hearings Officer Date: May 8, 2018 THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. 247 -17 -000726 -PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2018-011 Page 41 of 41 -k 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 Business Meeting of September 12, 2018 DATE: September 4, 2018 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: SECOND READING: Ordinance No. 2018-011. Plan Amendment/Zone Change for DSL Property BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board conducted a public hearing on July 30, 2018 to consider a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a Department of State Lands (DSL) property. The Board closed the public hearing and the record on July 30, 2018 and deliberated on the matter directly following the hearing. The Board approved the proposal and adopted the Hearings Officer's findings in support of that decision. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a second reading of Ordinance No. 2018-011 on September 12, 2018. This is the second of two required ordinance readings. The first was conducted on August 29, 0218. The attached ordinance has been updated to correct some typographical errors but is otherwise unchanged from the first version. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner. STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: August 29, 2018 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner Re: Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2018-011 - a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for an Oregon Department of State Lands property. Second Reading: The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a second reading of Ordinance No. 2018-011 on September 12, 2018. This is the second of two required ordinance readings. The first was conducted on August 29, 0218. The attached ordinance has been updated to correct some typographical errors but is otherwise unchanged from the first version. Background: The Board conducted a public hearing on July 30, 2018 to consider a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a Department of State Lands (DSL) property. The Board closed the public hearing and the record on July 30, 2018 and deliberated on the matter directly following the hearing. The Board approved the proposal and adopted the Hearings Officer's findings in support of that decision. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2018-011 with exhibits 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 . (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org 0 www.deschutes.org/cd