2019-67-Ordinance No. 2019-004 Recorded 2/20/2019R IEW D
LE AL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-67
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 02/20/2019 8:53:39 AM
��VTES co
2019-67
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation
for Certain Property From Agriculture to Redmond
Urban Growth Area and Declaring an Emergency.
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of State Lands initiated an amendment (Planning Division File No.
247 -18 -000752 -PA) to the Comprehensive Plan Map, to change a portion of the subject property from an
Agricultural (AG) designation to a Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) designation, and amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a companion application (Planning Division File No. 247 -18 -000751 -PA) was submitted to
redesignate the remaining portion of the property from Agricultural (AG) designation to Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) designation, in accordance with the Regional Large Lot Industrial Program, under Ordinance No.
2019-003; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
November 27, 2018, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on December 10, 2018, the Hearings
Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held
on February 12, 2019, before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); and
WHEREAS, the Board, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, approved as detailed
above the Comprehensive Plan text and map changes; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described
in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with language approved by the Board within
Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is
amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit `B" and depicted on the map set
forth as Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth Area.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Urban Growth
Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with
language approved by the Board within Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined.
Section 4. 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
language approved by the Board within Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined.
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.
Section 6. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, and to support the City of Redmond's timely efforts related to the expansion of
the Deschutes County Fairgrounds facility and relocation of the Oregon Military Department's National Guard
Armory, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days from adoption.
Dated this of Fe— 2019
ATTESTi
Re r mg Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, O EGON
PHILIP G. $3NDERSON, Chair
4 46��
PA TI ADAIR, Vice Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
Date of I" Reading: aday of T,,,Ioj 2019.
Date of 211 Reading:�� day of r` 2019.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Philip G. Henderson K
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Effective date: day of G --A c , 2019.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
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.
A.A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
FF The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003 are incorporated by reference herein.
GG The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004 are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2019-004 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 1, 2019, Ord. 2019-001 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 §1,
2019; Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1,
2018; 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 A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
I::/:11lkd.l
Proposed County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department Expansion Area
Legal Description, Subject Property
Willamette Meridian, Oregon
T. 15 S., R. 13 E.,
sec. 33, N1/2NW1/4, and N1/2NE1/4.
Legend
Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary
® Redmond Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Designation
AG -Agriculture
OS&C - Open Space & Conservation
RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2019-004
100
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
January 18, 2019
Philip G. Henderson, Chair
Patti Adair, Vice Chair
Tony DeBone, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2019
Effective Date: , 2019
i trbaw growth
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Chapter 4
Mawagemewt
Se t'Ow 4.1 1 K tr001 V-CtLOw
Background
A major emphasis of Oregon's land use planning program is directing new development into
urban areas. Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, requires cities, in cooperation with
counties, to create Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). The UGBs are legal lines that contain
lands that are anticipated to urbanize over a 20 -year period. UGBs allow cities to adequately
plan for future urban facilities and services. State laws require that UGBs be adopted by both
the city and the county.
Besides the UGBs which define the land needed for city expansion over 20 years, some cities
adopt Urban Reserve Areas (URAs), which define land needed beyond a 20 year horizon,
typically representing an additional 10 to 30 year land supply. By adopting an URA a city can
better plan for expansion and growth. Like UGBs, URAs are done in a partnership between a
county and the city.
Deschutes County has four incorporated cities. Bend, Redmond and Sisters were incorporated
before 1979. The City of La Pine incorporated on November 7, 2006. Bend, Redmond and
Sisters' Comprehensive Plans are coordinated with the County. Certain elements are adopted
into the County's. In addition, the cities and the County maintain urban growth area zoning
ordinances and cooperative agreements for mutually administering the unincorporated
urbanizing areas. These areas are located outside city limits but within UGBs. La Pine adopted a
Comprehensive Plan and UGB in 2012. Until La Pine adopts its own land use regulations,
County land use regulations will continue to be applied inside the city limits though a joint
management agreement.
In addition to cities and the associated UGBs and URAs, there are rural locations around the
County that contain urban level development. These areas generally existed before the Oregon
land use system was enacted in the early 1970s. In 1994 the Land Conservation and
Development Commission wrote a new Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR), 660-22, to classify
and regulate these unincorporated communities. The OAR created four categories of
unincorporated communities and required the County to evaluate existing rural developments
under the new Rule.
Purpose
The Urban Growth Management chapter, in concert with the other chapters of this Plan,
specifies how Deschutes County will work with cities and unincorporated communities to
accommodate growth while preserving rural character and resource lands.
The following issues are covered in this chapter:
• Urbanization (Section 4.2)
■ Unincorporated Communities Overview (Section 4.3)
■ La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (Section 4.4)
■ Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community (Section 4.5)
■ Terrebonne Rural Community Plan (Section 4.6)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
■ Tumalo Rural Community Plan (Section 4.7)
■ Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7`h Mountain/Widgi Creek Rural Resorts (Section 4.8)
■ Rural Service Centers (Section 4.9)
Goal 14 recognizes the following:
Statewide Planning Goal 14 Urbanization
"To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities."
Excerpt from Goal 14 Planning Guidelines
"`Plans should designate sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accommodate the
need for further urban expansion, taking into account (1) the growth policy of the area,
(2) the needs of the forecast population; (3) the carrying capacity of the planning area;
and (4) open space and recreational needs."
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
seou'ovv +.2 Rrbaw'zat'ow
Background
This section describes the coordination between the County and the cities of Bend, La Pine,
Redmond and Sisters on Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Reserve Areas (URAs).
Statewide Planning Goal 2 recognizes the importance of coordinating land use plans.
"City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions
related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and
counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268."
Oregon Revised Statute 197.015(5) goes further to define comprehensive plan coordination.
"A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic
and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and
accommodated as much as possible."
Population
An important basis for coordinating with cities is adopted population projections. Having an
estimate of anticipated population is the first step to planning for future growth and
conservation. ORS 195.025(1) requires counties to coordinate local plans and population
forecasts. The County oversees the preparation of a population forecast in close collaboration
with cities. This is important because the population of the County has increased significantly in
recent decades and a coordinated approach allows cities to ensure managed growth over time.
Table 4.2.1 — Population Growth in Deschutes County 1980 to 2010
Sources 1980 1990 2000 2010
Population Research Center July I estimates 62,500 75,600 116,600 172,050
US Census Bureau April I counts 62,142 74,958 115,367 1 157,733
Source: As noted above
In 1996 Bend, Redmond, Sisters and the County reviewed recent population forecasts from the
Portland State University Center Population and Research Center (PRC) and U.S. Census
Bureau, Department of Transportation, Woods and Poole, Bonneville Power Administration
and Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis. After reviewing these
projections, all local governments adopted a coordinated population forecast. It was adopted by
Deschutes County in 1998 by Ordinance 98-084.
The results of the 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared by the
PRC revealed that the respective populations of the County and its incorporated cities were
growing faster than anticipated under the 1998 coordinated forecast. The cites and the County
re-engaged in a coordination process between 2002 and 2004 that culminated with the County
adopting a revised population forecast that projected population to the year 2025. It was
adopted by Ordinance 2004-012 and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals on March 28,
2005.
The following table displays the 2004 coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County
and the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters.
4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Table 4.2.2 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025
Year I Bend UGB I Redmond UGB I Sisters UGB I
Unincorporated Total County
2000
52,800
15,505
975
47,320
116,600
2005
69,004
19,249
1,768
53,032
143,053
2010
81,242
23,897
2,306
59,127
166,572
2015
91,158
29,667
2,694
65,924
189,443
2020
100,646
36,831
3,166
73,502
214,145
2025
109,389
45,724
3,747
81,951
240,811
The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop the 2000-2025
coordinated forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated
Population Forecast 2000-2025: Findings in Support of Forecast."
The fourth city in Deschutes County is the City of La Pine. Incorporated on November 7,
2006, the City of La Pine's 2006 population estimate of 1,590 was certified by PRC on
December 15, 2007. As a result of La Pine's incorporation, Deschutes County updated its
Coordinated Population Forecast with Ordinance 2009-006.
The purpose of this modification was to adopt a conservative 20 year population forecast for
the City of La Pine that could be used by city officials and the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development to estimate its future land need and a UGB.
The following table displays the coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, the
UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and La Pine from 2000 to 2025. By extending
the growth rate to the year 2025, La Pine's population will be 2,352. The non -urban
unincorporated population decreases by 2,352 from its original projection of 81,951, to 79,599.
Table 4.2.3 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025, Including La Pine
Year
Bend
UGB
Redmond
UGB
Sisters
UGB
La Pine
UGB
Unincorporated
County
Total County
2000
52,800
15,505
975
-
47,320
116,600
2005
69,004
19,249
1,768
-
53,032
143,053
2010
81,242
23,897
2,306
1,697
57,430
166,572
2015
91,158
29,667
2,694
1,892
64,032
189,443
2020
100,646
36,831
3,166
2,110
71,392
214,145
2025
109,389
45,724
3,747
2,352
79,599
240,811
Source: 2004 Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County - updated 2009
2030 Population Estimate
This Comprehensive Plan is intended to manage growth and conservation in the
unincorporated areas of the County until 2030. Because the official population forecast extends
only to 2025, County staff used conservative average annual growth rates from the adopted
population forecast to estimate population out to 2030. The following table estimates
Deschutes County population by extending the adopted numbers out an additional five years.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Table 4.2.4 — Deschutes County 2030 Population Forecast
Year
Bend
Redmond I
Sisters
Lo Pine
Unincorporated
Total County
UGB
UGB
UGB
UGB
County
2030
119,009
51,733
14,426
2,632
188,748
266,538
Snurre• Cnuntv
estimates
based on the 2004
Coordinated Population
Forecast
as shown below
Bend's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 1.70%
Redmond's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.50%
Sisters' based their population on forecasted rates of building growth, residential housing units, and persons per dwelling unit
La Pine's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20%
Deschutes County's unincorporated area average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20%
As the pie chart below indicates, if population occurs as forecasted, 67% of the County's
population will reside in urban areas by 2030.
In 2030
Unincorporated
— Area Bend_
33% 45%
b
Sisters
2%
I
I
La Pine Redmond
1% 19%
Figure 4.1 Deschutes County 2030
Estimated Population
Such growth will undoubtedly require strategically managing the provision of public services and
maintaining adequate amounts of residential, commercial and industrial lands. Growth pressures
will also require programmatic approaches to maintain open spaces, natural resources, and
functional ecosystems that help define the qualities of Deschutes County.
Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
Bend
The City of Bend legislatively amended its UGB as part of a periodic review acknowledgment in
December 2004. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted
concurrent ordinances that expanded the Bend UGB by 500 acres and satisfied a 20 year
demand for industrial land.
In July 2007, the Bend -La Pine School District received approvals to expand the City of Bend
UGB to include two properties for the location of two elementary schools, one at the Pine
Nursery, the other on Skyliner Road. In 2014, the Bend -La Pine School district received
approval to include a 33 -acre site within the UGB near Skyliners Road to facilitate the
construction of a public middle school.
The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved a legislative
amendment to the Bend UGB in September 2016. The adopted amendment added 2,380 acres
of land intended to satisfy a 20 -year land need for needed housing, employment, and public uses
from 2008 to 2028. The adopted UGB amendment also satisfied the terms of a 2010 Remand
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Order from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (10 -REMAND -
PARTIAL ACKNOW-001795).
The City of Bend UGB amendment identified 5 existing neighborhood typologies within the
City, with the "Transect" being the defined neighborhood typology which "provides a
transitional residential development pattern from urban to rural using a variety of housing types
integrated with the surrounding natural landscape to minimize the impact on sensitive
ecosystems, wildlife and to reduce the risk of wildfire." The City applied this Transect concept
to specific areas added to the UGB identified as the "Shevlin Area" and the "West Area" and
created area -specific policies for those areas to recognize the unique characteristics of the area
and create a transition from higher densities within the city to lower densities extending
westward to the City of Bend UGB. In coordination with the city, Deschutes County has
continued this concept for the areas in the county on the west side of Bend adjacent to the
"Shevlin" and "West Area" in its Rural Housing elements and policies found in Chapter 3 of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Sisters
The City of Sisters legislatively amended its UGB in September 2005 when its City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Sisters UGB
expansion covered 53 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential, commercial, light
industrial, and public facility land. In March 2009, Sisters amended their UGB to facilitate the
establishment of a 4 -acre fire training facility for the Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District.
Redmond
The City of Redmond legislatively amended its UGB in August 2006 when its City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Redmond UGB
expansion covered 2,299 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential and neighborhood
commercial land.
In Febt < r ._dnOnd amended € t�ah cov7r its
_cuncil
and the Board Of COUnty Commissioners adoMe res_pec.tivc_Ordinances. This expansion
covered 949_acr_es in total_ 789_ acres_ was, desi hated for lame lot industr-._€al de_v_elppm- ifs
accordance with the Central �re�Oer ,� ,iona_I_I ire Lot Industrial_ Lancis._P a�trr�and 160
acres allowed for the .ex[ansion of the existinZI)esch,utes .0 ung fair rounds and � e�c�r�
Eli ,National Guard Armory.
Lo Pine
In 2012 La Pine adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. La Pine established a UGB that matches
the city limits, because the City contains sufficient undeveloped land for future housing,
commercial and industrial needs over a 20 -year period. The Plan map includes land use
designations intended to provide an arrangement of uses to ensure adequate and efficient
provision of public infrastructure for all portions of the City and UGB.
Urban Reserve Area
Redmond
In December 2005, Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
5,661 acre URA for the City. It is the first URA in Central Oregon because most cities find
planning farther into the future than the 20 -year UGB timeframe, challenging.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 7
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Coordination
As noted above, Statewide Goal 2 and ORS promote land use planning coordination. The
purposes of the urbanization goals and policies in this section are to provide the link between
urban and rural areas, and to provide some basic parameters within which the urban areas of
Deschutes County can develop, although the specific comprehensive plan for each community
remains the prevailing document for guiding growth in its respective area. These policies permit
the County to review each city's comprehensive plan to ensure effective coordination.
The Redmond and Deschutes County Community Development Departments received the Oregon
Chapter of American Planning Association's (OAPA) Professional Achievement in Planning Award in
2006 for the "Redmond Urban Reserve Area / Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Project.".
The following quote taken from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's 2006
Awards Program shows why the Redmond Community Development Department was chosen for this
award.
"An outstanding effort fort to address Redmond's rapid population growth, including the successful
designation of an Urban Reserve and the imminent designation of an Urban Growth Boundary, a
"Framework Plan" with a requirement for master planning, and the establishment of "Great
Neighborhood Principles."
Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis
During the 1990s, the Central Oregon region experienced a dramatic transformation from an
economy concentrated largely in wood products into a service based economy serving a
growing and diverse tourism and household base. Accelerated in -migration and tourism growth
gave way to rapid economic expansion, escalation in home prices, and a systematic shift in the
local economy from goods producing activities to service oriented industries. While initially
representing a diversification of the local economy, this shift led to an over -reliance upon these
types of industries.
During the recent recession, the regional economy's vulnerabilities became apparent. Suitable
land for today's industrial development forms emerged as one of Oregon's most severe
development challenges. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties and
their respective cities, undertook an unprecedented regional evaluation of the economic
opportunities and constraints associated with users of large industrial parcels in the Central
Oregon region. The purpose of this evaluation was to aid in providing a more diversified
economic base for the region that would accommodate industrial uses with a need for larger
lots than possibly may be currently available in any of the Central Oregon cities. As part of that
evaluation, Deschutes County hired a consultant to draft an analysis of Central Oregon's
opportunities, competitiveness, ability, and willingness to attract more basic industries. The
analysis focused specifically on industries that require large lots. The result was a document
called the Central Oregon Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, and was the basis for
Ordinance 2011-017, dated May 31, 2011.
Ordinance 2011-017 was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by 1,000 Friends of
Oregon (" 1,000 Friends"). The appeal was stayed in early 2012 to allow Deschutes County, the
Governor's Office, and 1,000 Friends to explore a settlement, which was ultimately reached in
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
April, 2012. The settlement consisted of policy concepts focusing entirely on Central Oregon's
short-term need for large -lot industrial sites as well as a commitment from the Department of
Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") to initiate rule-making that summer. The three
counties, their respective cities, 1,000 Friends, and DLCD staff then engaged in drafting a
proposed rule. In August, the final draft of that rule was then sent to the Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"). As a result, in November, the LCDC
adopted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-0045. That rule
provides that that the large lot industrial land need analysis agreed upon by all of the parties,
once adopted by each of the participating governmental entities, would be sufficient to
demonstrate a need for up to nine large industrial sites in Central Oregon. Six of the sites will
be made available initially. Three more sites may be added under the rule as the original sites
are occupied. After the adoption of the new OARS, Deschutes County voluntarily repealed
Ordinance 2011-017 and adopted a new ordinance, Ordinance 2013-002, in accordance with
the OARS.
Utilizing the new OARS, Ordinance 2013-002 emphasized Central Oregon' short term need for
a critical mass of competitive and diverse vacant, developable industrial sites. An additional
necessary component is an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the region's
jurisdictions and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC"). Through the IGA,
COIC will provide oversight of the short-term land supply of large -lot industrial sites to enable
the region to become competitive in industrial recruitment. Once each of the three counties
and their respective cities adopt similar ordinances and enter into an IGA with COIC, the large
lot sites will enable industrial recruitment opportunities to attract potential industrial users to
consider the region that may not have otherwise without the availability of these large lots. The
IGA between COIC and the_FAggi_c ri's_cities and counties--was—executedQ Aril_ _2QJ3.
Participating local governments will review the program after all nine sites have been occupied
or after ten years, whichever comes first.
In . e_hrtr -01 t_I sch�ates_ cr_ _rec dcaited_ r dir7 n e,l' 0._20119..."t�3,_ which_imp (p inented,
ti e.far e Ir�t.industr-4j _Qlicies defined 6_y 0. - _go—Administrative R lei K�660 024€ 004,},
and 660-024-0045. The ordinance amended the Deschutes Counry_QqDip_r__ebensive (plan rnaD t..0
allow for _ 89 acres of a 949-acre..Darcel awned lywthe_reeparmqgnt., of State Lands to
be inccLpprai-a_(.h e arrC pansf€rredec�__
_ces v
into the_lJ_GllB suarit_to different criteria . This site referred to as the SouthRedmond Trac4t.,.
vvas sut r ittcd_ta_the ar�e_Lot Industrrial_Laands_,para r�rrt, 6��chc_ i� cif Red rrrond.in 201.,_after
an extensive analysis of several potential sites utflizing the criteria of the -Ado ed.Central
C re an Lard Leat Industrial Lands Needs Analysis(" the Analysis" )I. LIQ acc_gpted_117e
pro. rptyiinto the La Lot Ir�dustria_l_��Ll.�jjror �rr� ren C�� �? 15. _�uk�se��.��rrt� �{7�_�ity__ni
Redmond amended its ronin _c de tcs.._awddLar i_Lot_l€adustrial Zon—e-which_addresses the
r �rir rncntsci the L,LI )rc)arrr and ensures th�tparop rhes with_this zonin deli nation armee
to be utilized spleC r far I a _industrial or direct[ relate"urgs.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 9
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
sect'ow -4.2 L -j rbawLzatLov- PoU' a' es
Goals and Policies
Goal 1 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support
urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an
orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands.
Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create
and/or amend their urban growth boundaries.
Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas.
Policy 4.2.3 Review the idea of using rural reserves.
Goal 2 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban
growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but
outside city boundaries.
Policy 4.2.4 Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban
growth boundaries but outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.5 Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use
inside urban growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.6 Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and
location of public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans.
Policy 4.2.7 Adopt by reference the comprehensive plans of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and
Sisters, as the policy basis for implementing land use plans and ordinances in
each city's urban growth boundary.
Goal 3 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies
and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside
urban reserve areas.
Policy 4.2.8 Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive
Plan Map and regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA)
Combining Zone in Deschutes County Code, Title 18.
Policy 4.2.9 In cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent
with their respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-021-0050 or its successor.
Policy 4.2.10 The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA.
a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the
orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are
brought into the urban growth boundary.
b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres.
c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone
changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that
10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the
RURA.
d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law
and the County Zoning Ordinance.
e. New arterial and collector rights-of-way in the RURA shall meet the right-of-
way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is
greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards.
f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights-of-
way, as designated on the County's Transportation System Plan.
g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted
before the RURA designation.
Policy 4.2.1 1 Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800
acres in the RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's
urban growth boundary.
Goal 4 To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating
public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and
state economic development objectives in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.12 Deschutes County supports a multi -jurisdictional cooperative effort to pursue a
regional approach to establish a short-term supply of sites particularly designed
to address out -of -region industries that may locate in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.13 Deschutes County recognizes the importance of maintaining a large -lot industrial
land supply that is readily developable in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.14 The Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis
("Analysis"), adopted by Ordinance 2013-002 is incorporated by reference
herein.
Policy 4.2.15 Within 6 months of the adoption of Ordinance 2013-002, in coordination with
the participating local governments in Central Oregon, Deschutes County shall,
execute an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council ("COIC") that specifies the process of allocation of
large lot industrial sites among the participating local governments.
Policy 4.2.16 In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling
coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its
comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively
or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant sites.
Policy 4.2.17 Deschutes County supports Economic Development of Central Oregon
("EDCO"), a non-profit organization facilitating new job creation and capital
investment to monitor and advocate for the region's efforts of maintaining an
inventory of appropriate sized and located industrial lots available to the market
Policy 4.2.18 Deschutes County will collaborate with regional public and private
representatives to engage the Oregon Legislature and state agencies and their
commissions to address public facility, transportation and urbanization issues
that hinder economic development opportunities in Central Oregon.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Policy 4.2.19 Deschutes County will strengthen long-term confidence in the economy by
building innovative public to private sector partnerships.
12 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
sect%ow X22 t...eg%sl,at%ve Ftistor�
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table S. 12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
2011-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
2011-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.408,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/11-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System Plan
(added)
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
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
County
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/10-21-13
23.0 1.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/11-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/11-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
11-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
11-23-15/11-30-15
23.01.010
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.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Comprehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/12-2-15
2.6
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area)
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-I6
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non -
2016 -005
11-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
2016-022
9-28-16/11-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/12/28/16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/11-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-011
9-12-18/12-11-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
2019-003
TBD/TBD
23.01.010. 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
2019-004
TBD/TBD
23.01.010, 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
DESCHUTES COUNTY
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
FILE NUMBERS: 247 -18 -000752 -PA
HEARING: November 27, 2018, 6:00 p.m.
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Service Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANT/OWNER: John Swanson, Real Property Planner
Department of State Lands
775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100
Salem, OR 97301-1279
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Matt Hastie
Angelo Planning Group
921 SW Washington Street, Ste. 468
Portland, OR 97205
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) for the City of Redmond to allow for the expansion of the existing
Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department's
National Guard Armory. The applicant requests approval of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to redesignate a 160 -acre portion of
the property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The
applicant has submitted a related application (247-18-000751)
associated with the remaining 789 acres of the property.
STAFF REVIEWER: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner
Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org, 541-317-3157
HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen
The following decision adopts the Staff Report, including staffs conclusions regarding the applicable
standards and criteria, with minor substantive revisions and edits. Substantive revisions are noted
as Hearings Officer.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 12, Transportation
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 18, Post -Acknowledgement Amendments
Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
197A - Comprehensive Land Use Planning II
Amendment of Urban Growth Boundaries Outside Metro
111. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. LOCATION: The property is located at 4800 SW 19th Street, Redmond and is identified on
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13 as Tax Lot 130. The entire property, referred to as
the South Redmond Tract in the application materials, is 949 acres in size. The focus of this
application is the northeastern 160 acres of the property ("Subject Property"), as shown in
the map below.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 2 of 55
B. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is
required for certain permits:
B. Permits requiring verification
1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (8)(2) below, verifying a
lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the
following permits:
a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones
(DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or
Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40);
b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the
Statewide Wetlands Inventory,
C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special
assessment,
d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces
in size a lot or parcel'
e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on-site sewage
disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the
minimum area required in the applicable zone,
In the Powell/Ramsey (PA -14-2, ZC-14-2) hearings officer decision, the Hearings Officer held
to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status
was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application.
Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any
development on the subject property. Therefore this criterion is not applicable.
C. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to
redesignate 160 acres of the South Redmond Tract from Agriculture to Redmond Urban
Growth Area. The purpose of the request is to amend the City of Redmond's Urban Growth
Boundary to allow for the expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and
Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. The applicant has submitted a
separate request for a Large Lot Industrial application (247 -18 -000751 -PA) for the remainder
of the property. The public hearings for each proposal will take place on the same evening,
but are to be reviewed individually.
D. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa
subzone and is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map as Agriculture.
E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property encompasses approximately 160 acres and is
located immediately south and east of the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary and
City Limits. The property is bordered by the Burlington Santa Fe Railroad to the west and
receives access from SW Elkhorn Avenue to the north. The property is vacant, is not in farm
tax deferral and does not contain any irrigation water rights or irrigated area. The property
is generally level in topography with scatter rock outcroppings and contains juniper and
sagebrush throughout.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 3 of 55
F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the subject property vary. To the south
and east of the subject property are large tracts of land owned by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) which are currently vacant. To the west of the subject property is Juniper
Golf Course, vacant land owner by the State of Oregon, Mountain View Mobile Home Park, a
few residential parcels, and larger EFU-zoned parcels farther west of the subject property.
To the northeast of the property is the Redmond Municipal Airport and vacant land owned
by the City of Redmond. To the north of the property is the Deschutes County Fairgrounds
and a variety of smaller parcels zoned for commercial, industrial, or residential use.
G. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the
subject property contains three different soil types, as described below.
33B Deschutes-Houstake complex. 0 to 8 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of
50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Houstake soil and similar
inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with
a moderately rapid permeability, and about 3.7 inches of available water capacity. Houstake
soils are well drained with a moderate permeability, and about 7 inches of available water
capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The
agricultural capability rating for 33B soils are 3E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated.
This soil is high-value when irrigated. Approximately thirty-three (33) percent of the entire
property is made up of this soil type.
35B Deschutes-Stukel complex, d 0 to 8 percent slo e. This soil complex is composed of
50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions,
and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with a
moderately rapid permeability, and about 7 inches of available water capacity. The Stukel
soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability and about 2.2 inches of available
water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The
agricultural capability rating for 35B soils are 4E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated.
This soil is high-value when irrigated. Approximately eight (8) percent of the entire property
is made up of this soil type.
142B Stukel-rock outcrop - Deschutes complex. 0 to 8 percent slopes: This soil type is
comprised of 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, 30 percent rock outcrop, 20
percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. Stukel
soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability. The available water capacity is
about 2 inches. Deschutes soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability.
Available water capacity is about 3.7 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock
grazing. The Stukel soils have ratings of 6E when unirrigated, and no rating when irrigated.
The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with orwithout irrigation. The Deschutes soils have ratings
of 6E when unirrigated, and no rating when irrigated. Approximately fifty-nine (59) percent
of the entire property is made up of this soil type.
H. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 4 of 55
and notice of the public hearing to neighboring property owners and the following agencies:
Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Transportation, City of Redmond, State
of Oregon, and Department of Land Conservation and Development. No comments were
received prior to the close of the record. Staff consulted Peter Russell, Deschutes County
Senior Transportation Planner in reviewing the Transportation Memorandum provided in
the Burden of Proof. Mr. Russell's comments are found under the OAR 660- Division 12
Transportation Planning analysis.
I. 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 October 10, 2018 indicating the applicant posted notice
of the land use action on the property on that same date. On October 30, 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,
November 4, 2018. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department
of Land Conservation and Development on October 16, 2018.
J. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on September 12, 2018. The application
was deemed complete October 15, 2018. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D),
the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment application is not subject to the
150 -day review period.
K. LAND USE HISTORY: The South Redmond Tract is owned by the Oregon Department of State
Lands (DSL) for the exclusive benefit of the Common School Fund (CSF). Revenues generated
by the land are dedicated to the support of K-12 public schools throughout the state.
According to the applicant, in October 2008 the State Land Board, which oversees DSL,
adopted the South Redmond Tract Land Use and Management Plan (Plan). The Plan set out
a concept for urban development of the Tract that is consistent with state land use law,
advances DSL's mission to maximize revenue for the CSF, and benefits the local community
and regional economy of Central Oregon. Prior to 2007 the subject property was owned and
managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Previous land use actions associated with the subject property are:
• 247-SP0750-PL (2007): Site plan review for the removal and replacement of utility
poles.
• 247-PS1240-PL (2012): Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for an Outdoor Mass
Gathering - Tough Mudder Race.
• 247 -14 -000158 -LL, 159 -LL, and 160 -LL (2014): Application for a property line
adjustment between four legal lots of record.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 5 of 55
247 -18 -000631 -PS: Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for the Redmond Turkey
Trot road race.
L. HEARING:
Hearings Officer: At the outset of the hearing I provided the statutorily required notices. I
noted that I had no conflicts of interest, had received no ex parte contacts and had not
conducted a site visit. I explained the right to a continuance or extension of the open record
period, but no such request was made.
Matt Hastie, Angelo Planning Group, testified for the applicant, including explaining how the
potential future transportation impacts will be addressed. James Lewis, Deschutes County
Property Manager testified in favor, noting that the current fairgrounds is turning away events
and that the County will be acquiring the property in an exchange for county owned industrial
land. There was no other testimony. Staff introduced into the record the 2007 Agreement
between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County governing land use matters within the
Redmond Unincorporated Urban Growth Area and the Redmond Urban Reserve Area.
The Agreement was adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 190. Among other things it designates
Deschutes County as the entity with authority to process and decide amendments to the
Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and amendments to the County comprehensive plan, plan
map, zoning map and regulations until such time as property is brought within the Redmond
Urban Growth Boundary, subject to approval by the Redmond City Council. (Hearing Ex. 1)
As with the companion application (247-18-000751), the City of Redmond concurrently is
processing the related city land use applications, culminating in a joint public hearing at which
the Redmond City Council and Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will make their
respective final decisions on the applications.
111. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - APPROVAL CRITERIA
TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE
A. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
1. Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable
procedures of DCC Title 22.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 6 of 55
FINDING: The applicant, also the property owner, has requested and filed an application for a quasi-
judicial plan amendment in accordance with County policies and applicable procedures of DCC Title
22.
TITLE 23 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning
Section 1.3 Land Use Planning
Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the
objective evaluation of facts.
FINDING: The proposed plan amendment is being processed as a quasi-judicial application with
opportunities for public input before a County Hearings Officer and the Board of County
Commissioners. Staff adhered to the notice requirements within Title 22 - Deschutes County
Procedures Ordinance. Additionally, the City of Redmond is processing a concurrent application to
annex, rezone, and master plan the property which will include additional opportunities for public
input. This goal is met.
Goal 2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues.
FINDING: The applicant has a long history of coordination with the City of Redmond, Deschutes
County, and other agencies leading to the submittal of this application. Within the burden of proof,
the applicant details this history:
• All affected regional agencies and stakeholders were involved in the South Redmond Tract
Land Use and Management Plan, which designated the northern portion of the tract for
the public facility uses proposed in this amendment. At the inception of the project, DSL
engaged partner agencies including OPRD, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),
City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and Economic Development for Central Oregon
(EDCO). The plan was developed through a regional task force, the South Redmond
Collaborative Planning Group, supported by a regional partnership known as the Central
Oregon Economic Revitalization Team, and input was sought from the DLCD and Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD).
• Visit Bend, the regional tourism agency, funded feasibility study for the Multi -Purpose
Athletic and Events Center facility that informs the proposed development program for that
site.
• The City of Redmond and Deschutes County are conducting a joint land use review and
public hearing process to concurrently review proposed amendments to the UGB, the
County Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning map. As part of this process, the City and
County conducted a joint pre -proposal conference with the applicant and the applicant
(DSL) has continued to coordinate regularly with City and County staff in regards to the
proposed amendments.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 7 of 55
As part of a separate but related set of land use amendments associated with the adjacent
proposed Large Lot Industrial site, the City and DSL have coordinated closely the COIC and
Deschutes County staff regarding proposed plans for that site and its relationship to the
proposed public facility uses.
City and County staff and the DSL representatives have coordinated closely with ODOT staff
in regards to analysis of transportation impacts associated with the proposed land use
applications, including approaches for modeling impacts, potential mitigation associated
with those impacts and consistency with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and
other state transportation requirements.
DSL representatives have consulted with representatives of DLCD regarding consistency
with state requirements associated with UGB amendments, including those intended to
support the Central Oregon LLI program and associated administrative rules.
DSL representatives have coordinated with other state agencies partners including the
Oregon Military Department and Oregon Parks and Recreation Department in regards to
future land exchanges or agency facilities within or adjacent to the subject property.
Staff finds that the applicable has demonstrated the cooperation and partnership among regional
stakeholders. This goal is met.
Goal 3. Manage County owned lands efficiently, effectively, flexibly and in a manner that
balances the needs of County residents.
FINDING: The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to allow for an exchange of land
resulting in the conveyance of a 160 -acre portion of the subject property from the Department of
State Lands to Deschutes County. The property will be used to expand the County's Fairgrounds,
including a new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, as well as providing a relocation site for
the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. Within the burden of proof, the applicant
stated County residents will be served by these facilities as they will provide needed recreation
facilities. Additionally, the Armory will provide additional public service benefits to the community.
This goal is met.
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Policies
Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 8 of 55
Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study
and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones
are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3.
FINDING: The majority of the discussion surrounding agricultural land and the applicant's legal
argument (per policy 2.2.2) is found in the findings for Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land.
Staff notes that this application is unique, in that the request follows a needs based assessment
conducted on a regional scale for the expansion of the Fairgrounds and military site.
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: Staff notes that this application is unique in that the applicant is pursuing a needs -based
UGB adjustment to accommodate a public facility use. Compliance with State Statute, Oregon
Administrative Rules, and further sections of the Deschutes Country Comprehensive Plan are
addressed in this decision. This provision is met.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and
how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and
Oregon Administrative Rule.
FINDING: The applicant is requesting approval of a plan amendment to redesignate the subject
property as Redmond Urban Growth Area, and in doing so will amend the City of Redmond's Urban
Growth Boundary. This application does not rezone the subject property. The applicant is pursuing
a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex, rezone, and master plan
the property to Fairgrounds (FG) and Public Facility (PF). Staff finds this policy is not applicable to
the application at hand.
Section 2.4 Goal 5 Overview Policies
Goal 1. Protect Goal 5 resources
FINDING: In the burden of proof, the applicant states that the subject property does not contain
any identified open spaces or natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources identified in the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff confirms that the property does not contain any inventoried Goal 5
resources, therefore this goal does not apply.
Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Policies
Goal 1. Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and
scenic views and sites.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT' F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 9 of 55
FINDING: As stated above, the subject property does not contain any identified open spaces or
natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore this
goal does not apply.
Section 2.8 Energy Policies
Goal 1. Promote energy conservation.
Goal 2. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound energy systems for
individual home and business consumers.
Goal 3. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound commercial energy
facilities.
FINDING: The applicant addresses compliance with energy policy and conservation goals in their
response to Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation, detailed below.
Section 2.9 Environmental Quality
Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land.
Goal 2. Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural
environment.
FINDING: The applicant addresses compliance with environmental quality goals in their response
to Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, detailed below.
Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management
Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies
Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth
boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between
urban and rural lands.
Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create
and or amend their urban growth boundaries.
FINDING: As referenced above, the applicant provided a detailed history of the significant
collaboration among Deschutes County, City of Redmond, Department of State Lands, Oregon Parks
and Recreation, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Economic Development for Central
Oregon (EDCO), as well as others. The City and County are conducting simultaneous land use
reviews for the subject property to ensure all requirements are accurately addressed prior to
approval.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 10 of 55
Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning
for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries.
Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for
lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas.
FINDING: These goals relate to properties designated within Urban Growth Boundaries and outside
of city boundaries or vice versa. The applicant proposes to amend the City of Redmond's Urban
Growth Boundary to include the subject property, while also annexing the property into the City of
Redmond, per the concurrent City of Redmond review process. Therefore, these criteria do not
apply.
Goal 4. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments,
policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in
Central Oregon.
FINDING: The applicant provides the following response to this criteria within the burden of proof:
Economic development is not the primary purpose for this proposed amendment, however, several of the
Fairgrounds facilities planned under this amendment will generate economic activity and employment
opportunities by attracting visitors and supporting tourism within the city and region. The proposed
facilities will support regional and state economic development objectives to increase tourism.
Additionally, the facilities will share infrastructure with a large lot industrial site directly to the south that
is associated with the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial lands program, a regional economic
development initiate. More information about the economic impacts of this amendment is provided under
Statewide Planning Goal 9 below.
Staff agrees that expansion of the fairgrounds and coordination with the large lot industrial site are
aligned with the goal above and support the regional and state development objectives for the
region. This goal is met.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
OAR 660-024-0020 Adoption or Amendment of a UGB
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing
or amending a UGB, except as follow.
(a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR chapter 660, division 4, is not applicable
unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a particular goal
requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660-004-0010(1);
FINDING: The proposal does not seek any goal exceptions, therefore this provision does not apply.
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable;
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I'" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 11 of 55
FINDING: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable.
(c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR chapter 660, division 23, apply only in areas
added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660-023-70 and 660-023-025;
FINDING: The subject property does not contain any Goal 5 resources listed in the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan, therefore this goal does not apply.
(d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be
applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable
land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the
boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does not allow development that
would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned
prior to inclusion in the boundary,
FINDING: The applicant has applied for a concurrent review with the City of Redmond. Pending the
outcome of this UGB amendment application, the applicant plans to rezone the property to
Fairgrounds (FG) and Public Facilities (PF) within the City of Redmond Zoning Code. Therefore these
requirements do not apply. Additional analysis for compliance with Transportation Planning Rule
and Goal 12 are found below.
(e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within the
Willamette River Greenway Boundary;
(f) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within
a coastal shorelands boundary,
(g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment
FINDING: The subject property is not located within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary nor
a coastal shorelands boundary. Goal 19 does not apply to UGB amendments. Therefore Goals 15-
19 do not apply to this application.
(2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the city and county plan and
zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels are
included in the UGB. Where a UGB does not follow lot or parcel lines, the maps must
provide sufficient information to determine the precise UGB location.
FINDING: The applicant has provided maps within the burden of proof denoting the specific
boundary lines and parcels in which the UGB is proposed to be adjusted. This provision is met.
OAR 660-024-0040, Land Need
(3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in consideration of one categoryof
land need (for example, housing need) without a simultaneous review and amendment
in consideration of other categories of land (for example, employment need).
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 12 of 55
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend the UGB in consideration of one land category need
- public facilities. No other land needs are addressed as part of this application. This provision is
met.
(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS 197.015(13), the
determination of 20 year employment land need for an urban area must comply with
applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAR chapter 660, division 9, and must include a
determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment uses
consistent with 660-009-0025. Employment land need may be based on an estimate of
job growth over the planning period, local government must provide a reasonable
justification for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that job growth
estimates necessarily be proportional to population growth. Local governments in
Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties may determine the need for Regional Large -Lot
Industrial Land by following the provisions of 660-024-0045 for areas subject to that
rule.
(6) Cities and counties may jointly conduct a coordinated regional EOA for more than one
city in the county or for a defined region within one or more counties, in conformance
with Goal 9, OAR chapter 660, division 9, and applicable provisions of ORS 195.025. A
defined region may include incorporated and unincorporated areas of one or more
counties.
FINDING: The purpose of the application is to accommodate the need for specific public facilities,
expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of the Oregon Military
Department's National Guard Armory site. Although additional employment may be generated by
the application, it is not the primary purpose of the amendment. Therefore these requirements do
not apply.
(7) The determination of 20 year land needs for transportation and public facilities for an
urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR
chapter 660, divisions 11 and 12, and public facilities requirements in ORS 197.712 and
197.768. The determination of school facility needs must also comply with 195.110 and
197.296 for local governments specified in those statutes.
FINDING: The application is for public facilities, but not those defined by OAR 660-011-0005(5)
subject to Goal 11 (water, sewer, transportation). Rather the application is for facilities to be used
for a public purpose. The applicant is not proposing a school facility as part of the application.
Therefore these requirements do not apply.
(8) The following safe harbors may be applied by a local government to determine housing
need under this division...
(9) The following safe harbors may be applied by a local government to determine its
employment needs for purposes of a UGB amendment under this rule, Goal 9, OAR
chapter 660, division 9, Goal 14 and, if applicable, ORS 197.296...
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT 'T" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 13 of 55
FINDING: The provisions above relate to proposals addressing employment or housing needs. As
the applicant is proposing an amendment related to a need for public facilities, these requirements
do not apply.
(10) As a safe harbor during periodic review or other legislative review of the UGB, a local
government may estimate that the 20 year land needs for streets and roads, parks and
school facilities will together require an additional amount of land equal to 25 percent
of the net buildable acres determined for residential land needs under section (4) of
this rule, and in conformance with the definition of "Net Buildable Acre" as defined in
OAR 660-024-0010(6).
FINDING: The proposal targets facilities needed for the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and
relocation of the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. As the proposal does not
incorporate the addition of facilities specifically for streets, roads, parks, or schools, this provision
does not apply.
OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency
(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside
the UGB to determine whether there is adequate development capacity to
accommodate 20 year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the
buildable land inventory must include vacant and redevelopable land, and be
conducted in accordance with OAR 660-007-0045 or 660-008-0010, whichever is
applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute. For
employment land, the inventory must include suitable vacant and developed land
designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in
accordance with OAR 660-009-0015.
FINDING: The proposal will not impact the buildable land inventory related to residential or
employment development as it is addressing a site specific, public facility need. The analysis
regarding the existing UGB's land inventory to meet the available need is found in section (4) below.
(4) If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is
inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 year needs determined under OAR 660-
024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency,
either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by
expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior
to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs
cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. If the local
government determines there is a need to expand the UGB, changes to the UGB must
be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with Goal 14
and applicable rules at OAR 660-024-0060 or 660-024-0065 and 660-024-0067.
FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval to amend the City of Redmond's UGB to meet the need
for specific public facilities that cannot be accommodated within the existing UGB. As the proposal
includes three different uses, the applicant provided analysis for three distinct sites, each with an
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 14 of 55
individual set of site characteristics, to best analyze compliance with this requirement. The applicant
provided the following information in the burden of proof.
Site Characteristics - Fairgrounds Expansion
• Fairgrounds Expansion Site. There is a need to expand three existing facilities on the
Fairgrounds: the RV Park, the 4-H facilities, and the OHV track facilities. In total, 50 acres of
vacant and developable land is needed to accommodate these facilities. Each of these facilities
are required to be directly adjacent to each respective, existing facility to accommodate the
need for expansion.
Site Characteristics - Multi- Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site
• Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is
a new County facility. The complex is not strictly required to be adjacent to the existing
Fairgrounds, but this location would provide many efficiencies that would enable the facility
to operate more effectively. This application evaluates alternative locations that could provide
the required site characteristics for the complex, pursuant to Goal 14 requirements. The site
must include 100 acres of vacant and developable land, as determined through the County's
feasibility study...
1. Needed zoning designation. If within the existing UGB, the site must be in one of the
following zones: Fairgrounds, Open Space Park Reserve (OSPR), Park, Public Facility, or
specific Commercial zones (C-1, C-2, C-4, and C-5). These are the only zones that allow for
the full range of uses that are proposed for the site. The use categories of the Redmond
Development Code that match the proposed uses for the site are "Recreational Facilities"
and "Arena for Indoor Sport Events" These uses are not permitted in Residential, Mixed -
Use, Industrial, or Airport zones. These uses are also not permitted in the UH -10 zone,
which is intended primarily for future urban residential development, as identified in the
Redmond Framework Plan.
2. Outside URAs. If outside the UGB, the site must not be in a Redmond Urban Reserve Area
(URA). City of Redmond URAs are designated to meet future residential and employment
needs, as identified in the Redmond Framework Plan. The 2005 Redmond Urbanization
Report, the analysis that informed the Framework Plan and the associated UGB
amendment, found there was a need for 1,985 acres of land to meet the needs for
residential and employment land and associated public facilities between 2003 and 2025.9
The adopted UGB expansion added 2,299 acres of land that is designated under the city of
Redmond's URAs. The large size of the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, at 100
acres, could potentially consume land that needed to meet future residential and
employment demand.
3. Conflicts with residential uses. The site must not be adjacent to existing residential use
zones or to areas planned for future residential uses in URAs, as identified in the Redmond
Framework Plan or other subarea plan. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 15 of 55
not suitable for a location adjacent to residential areas due to the livability impacts of a
large complex that hosts ongoing events, including traffic generation, noise, and outdoor
lighting.
4. No more than three separate, contiguous parcels. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events
Center may be developed on a site made up of multiple parcels. However, it would be
impractical to attempt to assemble more than three lots under separate owners given
varying interests, demands, and willingness to sell on the part of the property owners.
Therefore, the analysis will be limited to sites that are over 100 acres in size but include no
more than three contiguous parcels.
Site Characteristics - Oregon Military Department Armory Relocation Site
OMD Armory Relocation Site. The primary purpose for the relocation of the OMD armory is to
provide direct access to the Biak Training Area. The site must include 20 acres of vacant and
developable land. Three additional site characteristics are required for the facility, as
described below:
1. Direct access. As described in the Section 2.2.2 of this report, OMD needs direct access to
the training grounds to avoid potential conflicts with general traffic on local streets.
Therefore, the relocation site needs to be adjacent to the boundaries or the Biak Training
area or accessible to the training area via a private easement through land not planned
for future urban development.
2. Zoning. If within the UGB, the site should be in a Public Facilities, OSPR, or Park zone to
prevent potential land use conflicts with other uses.
3. Outside URAs. If outside the UGB, the site must not be in a Redmond Urban Reserve Area
(URA). As described above in relation to the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center,
URAs are designated to meet future residential and employment needs, as identified in
the Redmond Framework Plan.
The applicant then went on to detail land options within the existing UGB that could suit the needs
identified in the characteristics above. As described below, no areas within the existing UGB could
accommodate the specific needs for each of the three sites.
Land Inventory - Fairgrounds Expansion
The only sites within the existing UGB and directly adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds are the
Airport to the north and industrial areas to the north and west. No vacant sites in this area
meet the size requirement of 50 acres.
Land Inventory - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center
No sites located in the specific zones are large enough to accommodate the 100 -acre site. No
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 16 of 55
sites in the Park, Public Facility, or specified Commercial zones contain fewer than three
contiguous parcels that total at least 100 acres. One site in the OSPR zone is approximately 99
acres in total size, however, a significant portion of the site is not suitable for development.
Approximately 12 acres of the area is located within a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the
Deschutes County Airport Safety Overlay, development is significantly constricted within an
RPZ. Additional, the site includes Goal 5 resource areas, further limiting development.
Land Inventory - OMD Relocation Site
• The Biak Training Area is located east and south of the existing UGB, on lands owned and
managed by BLM (see Exhibit G for a map of the training area boundary). No sites on the
eastern or southern boundary of the existing UGB, which could potentially provide direct
access to the training area, are designated for the specified zones. These areas are zoned for
residential, industrial, commercial, and airport uses. Additionally, most areas north of
Highway 126 will be separated from the Biak Training Area by future urban development in
the Eastside Framework Plan area. If the facility were located west of this plan area—within
the existing UGB future urban development to the east would interfere with direct access to
the training area. As no sites within the existing UGB meet the zoning and access requirements
for the facility, the site must be located outside the UGB.
The applicant found that no lands within the existing UGB could accommodate the use, and
therefore evaluated alternative boundary locations outside the UGB, discussed in findings for OAR
660-024-0065 and 0067 below. This provision is met. A map of the existing UGB boundary is shown
in Figure 2.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 17 of 55
Figure 2 - Existing UGB Lands Analyzed
k/
1111.3 Redmond UG8 89 34
Highway 27 21 39 36
Arterial t
--- Collector 6 20 38 26
Zoning 106
Airport 23 60
Com rcrcial (CS C5) 2p
34
4, ft U W h R1Ul"Y)
,M.. fined- 6e live- Pr (
Industrial (Ali-M2i
r
236
nnnnr
Public facilities (PF?
• 40
56
213 22
Fairgrounds IPG)
or u
Open Space Con:ervatren IOSCI
r
20l 36
33 28
24
30 )7 22
Open Space Park Reserve
r,OSPR)
000% -
Park
21
to 20 40
Residential ( R I -W
UrbanHadingIUHiO)
39 .039
29
•29
Flood Plain iFPI
assie
57 TM
37
21Orr
BIAK TRAINING AREA �►
ynuss
MAPLE
►rE U8 (SEE EXHIBIT G)
Labeled numbem are
the sire of taxlot
31 40
1601
(acres) Taxiots
29
soon
smaller than 20 acres
27
not labeled
22 20
39
84 LA
HWV 1264 42 34
.. cv
38�.
47
H
30
28 39
28.a
zc 21 ■
22
HI
HLiAND
148
#Elrssaor+tnr/��iuo
s2 23 an 55
49 s
34 20
25
105
7ERAt S 12 .®.
39 29 38 r2g
37 27
^W
105
24 fru 0
26 r 49
�aus#
24 i
36 30 44
39A
_
678
r
35
qY'y
'_6
20 20
?�` i■
oY
38
20
•
36
38
23�
•
nsnnnrrrrrrnoroorrr�i�renn�
24 41
24
COUNTY
FAIRGROUNDS
i
a
31 37 38 85
33
25�i
34
�
288
it 17; i
2847 /
urrrra■ ��
•r•nrrnw•r••wi'
"
43 27 21 G
35
BIAK TRAINING AREA
G) Oil
1E�
°i 3
(SEE EXHIBIT
40
57
6 �•an
4062
fa••rus••••r
21 30
48
075
OM�lee
22
40
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 18 of 55
(5) In evaluating an amendment of a UGB submitted under ORS 197.626, the director or the
commission may determine that a difference between the estimated 20 year needs
determined under OAR 660-024-0040 and the amount of land and development capacity
added to the UGB by the submitted amendment is unlikely to significantly affect land
supply or resource land protection, and as a result, may determine that the proposed
amendment complies with section (4) of this rule.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend the UGB to include the 160 -acre portion of the
property for public facilities. As the amount of land proposed for the adjustment is equal to the
identified land need for the specific facilities, this provision does not apply.
(6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban
plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination and the
requirements of section (7) of this rule, if applicable. The local government must also
apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may
maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban
uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary
or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned
urban development. The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning
also apply when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB.
FINDING: The applicant has applied for a concurrent application with the City of Redmond. Pending
approval of the UGB amendment, the applicant seeks to rezone and redesignate the Fairgrounds
expansion portion of the site (shown in Figure 1) to Fairgrounds (FG) under the City of Redmond
Code. The proposed uses are consistent with the requirements of that zone. Additionally, the
applicant seeks to rezone and redesignate the OMD facility (shown in Figure 1) as Public Facilities
(PF). A military site is an allowed use in this zone. This provision is met.
(7) Lands included within a UGB pursuant to OAR 660-024-0065(3) to provide for a particular
industrial use, or a particular public facility, must be planned and zoned for the
intended use and must remain planned and zoned for that use unless the city removes
the land from the UGB.
FINDING: As stated previously, the proposal is to amend the property pursuant to OAR 660-024-
0065(3). Through the burden of proof, intergovernmental agreement provided as Exhibit B in the
burden of proof, and concurrent application with the City of Redmond, the applicant has
demonstrated the property is being planned and zoned for the intended use of public facilities. This
provision is met.
OAR 660-024-0065, Establishment of Study Are to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB
(1) When considering a UGB amendment to accommodate a need deficit identified in OAR
660-024-0050(4), a city outside of Metro must determine which land to add to the UGB
by evaluating alternative locations within a "study area" established pursuant to this
rule. To establish the study area, the city must first identify a "preliminary study area"
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 19 of 55
which shall not include land within a different UGB or the corporate limits of a city
within a different UGB.
The preliminary study area shall include:
(a) All lands in the city's acknowledged urban reserve, if any,
(b) All lands that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UGB:
(A) For cities with a UGB population less than 10,000: one-half mile,
(B) For cities with a UGB population equal to or greater than 10,000: one mile;
(c) All exception areas contiguous to an exception area that includes land within the
distance specified in subsection (b) and that are within the following distance from
the acknowledged UGB:
(A) For cities with a UGB population less than 10,000: one mile,
(B) For cities with a UGB population equal to or greater than 10,000. one and one-
half miles,
(d) At the discretion of the city, the preliminary study area may include land that is
beyond the distance specified in subsections (b) and (c).
FINDING: The applicant identified a study area consistent with the requirements in this chapter,
including the incorporation of all lands in the City of Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA). As the
City of Redmond UGB includes a population of approximately 27,000; all lands within one mile of
the existing UGB and all exception areas contiguous to those lands and within one and one-half
miles of the existing UGB were included in the study area, pursuant to subsections (b) and (c). No
additional discretionary land was included in the study area. The applicant provided a map denoting
the study area shown in Figure 3. This provision is met.
(2) A city that initiated the evaluation or amendment of its UGB prior to January 1, 2016,
may choose to identify a preliminary study area applying the standard in this section
rather than section (1). For such cities, the preliminary study area shall consist of...
FINDING: The city initiated the application after January 1, 2016. Therefore this provision does not
apply.
(3) When the primary purpose for expansion of the UGB is to accommodate a particular
industrial use that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public
facility that requires specific site characteristics, and the site characteristics may be
found in only a small number of locations, the preliminary study area may be limited to
those locations within the distance described in section (1) or (2), whichever is
appropriate, that have or could be improved to provide the required site
characteristics. For purposes of this section:
(a) The definition of site characteristics in OAR 660-009-0005(11) applies for purposes
of identifying a particular industrial use.
(b) A "public facility" may include a facility necessary for public sewer, water,
stormwater, transportation, parks, schools, or fire protection. Site characteristics
may include but are not limited to size, topography and proximity.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 20 of 55
FINDING: The applicant states in the burden of proof that the list of facilities in 3(b) above is not
exclusive to only those types of public facilities listed. Therefore the applicant finds the proposal for
public facilities related to the Oregon Military Department and Fairgrounds fall under this category
and are subject to the requirements in section (3) and can limit the preliminary study area to those
that provide the required site characteristics. As the proposed amendment includes three public
facilities, the applicant provided three sets of defining site characteristics to define the respective
study areas.
Figure 3 - General Study Area Boundary
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 21 of 55
fig„ �„......,,,.. ......
<_,Q
r ♦�
k.
a
Oman am
®®®• g
of _
WPM
USS
�
�
B ®
am
E
®
k
L
r sn RLAANn
-
All
_,
Z
a ♦
•
E7�RAta9
126
=
u
•
RPO
„
COUNTY
P FAIRGROUNDS
r
R
I
1
=f"5fi
® Highway
Redmand LlGB Zoning
Exception Areas
— Rrterial
a®®�
�®®� UrbanReserveF.reas Ezrlusive Farm Use (EFII)
Rural Residential(RR1(l)
— Collector
�e11 Mile El fferfrom UGB Surface Miring(SPA Y
Mixed-UseAgriculultural (MUA)
1.5Mile Buffer from UG6 Rural Industrial (RI)
g
Opon Space (OSC)
C—
boles
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 21 of 55
(4) The city may exclude land from the preliminary study area if it determines that:
(a) Based on the standards in section (7) of this rule, it is impracticable to provide
necessary public facilities or services to the land;
(b) The land is subject to a risk of:
(A) Landslides: The land consists of a landslide deposit or scarp flank that is
described and mapped on the Statewide Landslide Information Database for
Oregon (SLIDO) Release 3.2 Geodatabase published by the Oregon Department
of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) December 2014, provided that the
deposit or scarp flank in the data source is mapped at a scale of 1:40,000 or
finer. If the owner of alot or parcel provides the city with a site-specific analysis
by a certified engineering geologist demonstrating that development of the
property would not be subject to significant landslide risk, the city may not
exclude the lot or parcel under this paragraph;
(B) Flooding, including inundation during storm surges: the land is within the
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) identified on the applicable Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM);
(C) Tsunamis: the land is within a tsunami inundation zone established pursuant
to ORS 455.446;
(c) The land consists of a significant scenic, natural, cultural or recreational resource
described in this subsection:
(A) Land that is designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan prior to
initiation of the UGB amendment, or that is mapped on a published state or
federal inventory at a scale sufficient to determine its location for purposes of
this rule, as:
(i) Critical or essential habitat for a species listed by a state or federal agency
as threatened or endangered
(ii) Core habitat for Greater Sage Grouse, or
(iii) Biggame migration corridors or winter range, except where located on lands
designated as urban reserves or exception areas,
(B) Related Adjacent Lands described by ORS 390.805, as mapped by the applicable
state or federal agency responsible for the scenic program;
(C) Designated Natural Areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage
Resources,
(D) Wellhead protection areas described under OAR 660-023-0140 and delineated
on a local comprehensive plan,
(E) Aquatic areas subject to Statewide Planning Goal 16 that are in a Natural or
Conservation management unit designated in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan;
(F) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations
that implement Statewide Planning Goal 17, Coastal Shoreland, Use
Requirement 1,
(G) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations
that would implement Statewide Planning Goal 18, Implementation
Requirement 2;
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "f" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 22 of 55
(d) The land is owned by the federal government and management primarily for rural
uses.
FINDING: The initial study area found above in Figure 3 was modified to exclude areas that did not
meet the identified site characteristics as described in section (3) or were designated for exclusion
in the list for section (4) above. The applicant provides a detailed analysis of the specific areas that
were excluded on pages 40-41 of the burden of proof. Figures of the new study boundary for each
site are found below. Full size renderings of the study boundary maps are found on pages 42-44 of
the burden of proof.
Figure 4 - Fairgrounds Amended Study Area
--- Highway C3 Redmond UGB IM Exclusion A: Not Adjacent to Fairgrounds
«..«
— Arterial � ,ri Urban Re-wer1e Areas Exc:tuslon B: BLM Land
-- Collector s, 1 Mite Butter trom UGB
ti,;, 15 Mile Buffer from UGB
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 23 of 55
Figure 5 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site
- Highway Redmond UG8 ExClusion 8: AtIjacent to ReSiC,,Pnl[ial
— Arterial Urban Reserve Areas (Exclusion Al Exotusion C: Less trian 100 ages
Wlector C•,3 1 Mile Buffer from UGE3 Exclusion D7 13L.M Land
1,5 Mile Buffer from UCS EM Attjletic/EvetA5 Center Study Area
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 24 of 55
Figure 6 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site
- HLohvxy CM Redmond UG3
k?wm
- arterial
a% Urban Reserve.Areas (ExcILIS1011 A.1
Colkqctw 1 k1i Ne Fkiffe r f [ oiv lJ08
1.5 Mie BuffI rfdomUG0
e
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Exclusion 0'. Not Adjacent to Di atr Tye fining Ayea
Exclusion C: KN -1 Land
DMI)Study Af OF
Page 25 of 55
(5) After excluding land from the preliminary study area under section (4), the city must
adjust the area, if necessary, so that it includes an amount of land that is at least twice
the amount of land needed for the deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4)
or, if applicable, twice the particular land need described in section (3). Such
adjustment shall be made by expanding the distance specified under the applicable
section (1) or (2) and applying section (4) to the expanded area.
FINDING: The applicant provided the acreages for each site analysis area, shown in the table below.
The acreages are at least twice the amount need for public facility needs described in section (3). This
provision is met.
Site
Required Size
Size of Study Area
Fairgrounds Expansion
50 acres
1,559 acres
Multi -Purpose
Athletic/Events Center
100 acres
3,661 aces
OMD Relocation Site
20 acres
3,160 acres
(6) For purposes of evaluating the priority of land under OAR 660-024-0067, the "study area'
shall consist of all land that remains in the preliminary study area described in section
(1), (2) or (3) of this rule after adjustments to the area based on sections (4) and (5),
provided that when a purpose of the U68 expansion is to accommodate a public park
need, the city must also consider whether land excluded under subsection (4)(a) through
(c) of this rule can reasonably accommodate the park use.
FINDING: No land was excluded under subsection (4)(a) through (4)(c), therefore this section does
not apply.
(7) For purposes of subsection (4)(a), the city may consider it impracticable to provide
necessary public facilities or services to the following lands...
(8) Land may not be excluded from the preliminary study area based on a finding of
impracticability that is primarily a result of existing development patterns. However, a
city may forecast development capacity for such land as provided in OAR 660-024-
0067(1)(d).
FINDING: No land was excluded from the preliminary study area under subsection (4)(a), nor based
on a finding of impracticability that is primarily the result of existing development patterns. The
exclusions applied to each study area were to eliminate areas that did not have or could not be
improved to have the required site characteristics for each public facility use. Therefore, this provision
does not apply.
(9) Notwithstanding OAR 660-024-0050(4) and section (1) of this rule, except during periodic
review or other legislative review of the U6B, the city may approve an application under
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 26 of 55
ORS 197.610 to 197.625 for a UG8 amendment to add an amount of land less than
necessary to satisfy the land need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4),
provided the amendment complies with all other applicable requirements.
FINDING: This application does not propose to add an amount of land less than required for the
need; this provision does not apply.
OAR 660-024-0067, Evaluation of Land in the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB; Priorities
(1) A city considering a UGB amendment must decide which land to add to the UGB by
evaluating all land in the study area determined under OAR 660-024-0065, as follows:
(a) Beginning with the highest priority category of land described in section (2), the city
must apply section (5) to determine which h land in that priority category is suitable
to satisfy the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050 and select for
inclusion in the UGB as much of the land as necessary to satisfy the need.
(b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not sufficient to satisfy
all the identified need deficiency, the city must apply section (5) to determine which
land in the next priority is suitable and select for inclusion in the UGB as much of
the suitable land in that priority as necessary to satisfy the need. The city must
proceed in this manner until all the land need is satisfied, except as provided in OAR
660-024-0065(9).
(c) If the amount of suitable land in a particular priority category in section (2) exceeds
the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, the city must choose which
land in that priority to include in the UGB by applying the criteria in section (7) of
this rule.
(d) In evaluating the sufficiency of land to satisfy a need under this section, the city
may use the factors identified in sections (5) and (6) of this rule to reduce the
forecast development capacity of the land to meet the need.
(e) Land that is determined to not be suitable under section (5) of this rule to satisfy
the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050 is not required to be
selected for inclusion in the UGB unless its inclusion is necessary to serve other
higher priority lands.
FINDING: The applicant identified the study areas in compliance with OAR 660-024-0065.
Conformance with the priority criteria is further analyzed below.
(2) Priority of Land for inclusion in a UGB:
(a) First priority is urban reserve, exception land, and non -resource land. Lands in the
study area that meet the description in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection
are of equal (first) priority.
(A) Land designated as an urban reserve under OAR chapter 660, division 1, in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan,
FINDING: No urban reserve lands are included within the study areas of each public facility site, as
demonstrated in Figures 4-6. All Redmond URA lands were excluded from study areas to preserve
those lands to meet future employment and residential land needs established in the Redmond
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 27 of 55
Urban Framework Plan. Furthermore, the Redmond URA lands do not possess adequate site specific
characteristics to accommodate the OMD relocation site, Fairgrounds Expansion site, or the Multi -
Purpose Athletic and Event Center. This provision does not apply.
(8) Land that is subject to an acknowledged exception under ORS 197.732
FINDING: No exception lands are present in the study areas for the OMD relocation site, nor for the
Fairgrounds Expansion site. Within the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area are 45
acres of land zoned Rural Residential -10 acre minimum (RR -10), which is an acknowledged exception
area in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The area is part of a larger 89 -acre parcel that is
split zoned, with the remaining 44 acres of land zoned EFU. The applicant stated the following in the
burden of proof:
The parcel is included in the study area for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center because it is
adjacent to a 67 -acre parcel with which it could be combined to achieve the required size of at least 100
acres for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center site. The adjacent parcel is also zoned EFU. In order
to accommodate the 100 -acre Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, this site would need to include at
least 55 acres of EFU land. The entire site is located within the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), and
therefore, in accordance with 195.300(10)(c)(B), the EFU lands on this site are considered high-value
farmland and therefore would be in a lower priority category of land that could be considered for a UGB
expansion.
Staff agrees the split zoning and potential for high value farming on the 45 -acre RR -10 parcel make it
unsuitable to meet the identified need. This provision does not apply.
(C) Land that is non -resource land.
FINDING: No non -resource lands are present in the study areas for the Fairgrounds Expansion site,
nor for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Event Center. Within the OMD study area is one property zoned
Rural Industrial, which is developed with the Central Oregon Unit Training and Equipment Site
(COUTES). The facility is adjacent to the aforementioned Biak Training Area owned by OMD. The OMD
facility requires 20 acres of vacant land on the site to accommodate the armory. The applicant found
that the COUTES parcel has 15 acres of developed land with 20 acres of undeveloped land, but the
20 -acre piece is bisected by an access road and therefore not entirely developable and vacant. Staff
agrees there is no non -resource land suitable to satisfy the need in the study area. This provision
does not apply.
(b) Second Priority is marginal land. land within the study area that is designated as
marginal land under ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition) in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan.
FINDING: Deschutes County does not have any acknowledged or designated marginal farm lands.
Therefore, the three study area do not contain any second priority lands.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 28 of 55
(c) Third Priority is forest or farmland that is not predominantly high-value farmland.
land within the study area that is designated for forest or agriculture uses in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and that is not predominantly high-value
farmland as defined in ORS 195.300, or that does not consist predominantly of prime
or unique soils, as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). In selecting which lands to include to
satisfy the need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification
system or the cubic foot site class system, as appropriate for the acknowledged
comprehensive plan designation, to select lower capability or cubic foot site class
lands first.
FINDING: The applicant stated the following in the burden of proof:
No farm land in Deschutes County meets the definition of "high-value farm land" as defined by this
subsection and the applicable ORS sections. Therefore, all lands zoned EFU in Deschutes County are
considered Third Priority lands. However, Deschutes County has historically applied an additional
classification of EFU lands based on soil capability ratings and availability of irrigation. In establishing urban
reserve areas in 2005, the County divided Third Priority EFU lands into non -irrigated parcels ("Dry EFU'),
partially irrigated EFU parcels, and commercial agricultural properties. 12 Dry EFU parcels were designated
the highest priority for inclusion in urban reserve areas, followed by partially irrigated EFU parcels, and
commercial agriculture properties were designated the lowest priority for inclusion. This additional
prioritization will be used to select lands from each study area to meet the need for each use, as follows.
Full analysis can be found on pages 50-52 of the burden of proof. Staff finds for this section, the
relevant information is the number of sites within each study boundary that are being evaluated as
Third Priority lands. The Fairgrounds identified only one eligible site (the South Redmond Tract) to
include in the study area. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site identified three potential
sites that meet the characteristics and need. The OMD Relocation Site identified four potential sites
that meet the characteristics and need. Staff notes the sites will be compared based on the Goal 14
boundary location, pursuant to section (7) of this rule. The findings of the boundary location
determination are reviewed in that section.
(c) Fourth Priority is agricultural land that is predominantly high-value farmland. land
within the study area that is designated as agricultural land in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan and is predominantly high-value farmland as defined in ORS
195.300. A city may not select land that is predominantly made up of prime or unique
farm soils, as defined by the USDA NRCS, unless there is an insufficient amount of
other land to satisfy its land need. In selecting which lands to include to satisfy the
need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification system to select
lower capability lands first.
FINDING: There are sufficient Third Priority lands to meet the identified need for all three proposed
sites. Therefore, no Fourth Priority lands will be included.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 29 of 55
(3) Notwithstanding section (2)(c) or (d) of this rule, land that would otherwise be excluded
from a UGB may be included if.•
(a) The land contains a small amount of third or fourth priority land that is not important
to the commercial agricultural enterprise in the area and the land must be included
in the UGB to connect a nearby and significantly larger area of land of higher priority
for inclusion within the UGB: or
(b) The land contains a small amount of third or fourth priority land that is not
predominately high-value farmland or predominantly made up of prime or unique
farm soils and the land is completely surrounded by land of higher priority for
inclusion into the UGB.
FINDING: The study areas did not include sufficient First and Second Priority lands, therefore this
provision does not apply.
(4) For purposes of categorizing and evaluating land pursuant to subsections (2)(c) and (d)
and section (3) of this rule,
(a) Areas of land not larger than 100 acres may be grouped together and studied as a
single unit of land,
(b) Areas of land larger than 100 acres that are similarly situated and have similar soils
may be grouped together provided soils of lower agricultural or forest capability may
not be grouped with soils of higher capability in a manner inconsistent with the intent
of section (2) of this rule, which requires that higher capability resource lands shall
be the last priority for inclusion in a UGB;
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (4)(a), if a city initiated the evaluation or amendment of
its UGB prior to January 1, 2016, and if the analysis involves more than one lot or
parcel or area within a particular priority category for which circumstances are
reasonably similar, these lots, parcels and areas may be considered and evaluated as
a single group,
(d) When determining whether the land is predominantly high-value farmland, or
predominantly prime or unique, "predominantly" means more than 50 percent.
FINDING: There are three individual study areas curated to include the individual needs of each type
of use. The study areas were grouped based on the amount of land needed for each use. Higher
priority inclusion lands in the UGB were not grouped with lower priority lands, consistent with this
provision. This provision is met.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 30 of 55
Figure 7 - Fairgrounds Land Prioritization
— Highway Redmond U,-,B
- Arienalf it Urban Reserve Areas (First Priority Lands)
CoIlectorarw 1 1.44e Buffer from UGB
1 5 Mile Buffer from UGB
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
Fairgtounds Expansion Study Area
First Priority Lands - Exception Areas
First Priority Lands - Nonresource
Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU
Third Priority Lands - Dry EFU
Page 31 of 55
Figure 8 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Land Prioritization
---- Highway C3 Redmond UGB
— Arterial :'O"t Urban Reserve Areas (First Priority Lands)
n••q
Collector • • 1 Kle Buffer from UGB
„ s ,
1,5 Mile, Buffer from UGB
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT"F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
CM Athletic/Events Center Study Area
First Priority Lands - Exception Areas
First Priority Lands - Nonresource
Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU
Third Priority Lands - Dry EFU
Page 32 of 55
Figure 9 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Land Prioritization
— Highway a3Redmond UGB
G.W.64
— Arterial - Urban Reserve Areas (First Priority Lands)
Collector I Fable Buffer from UGS
1.5 We Buffer from UGB
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004
OMD Study Area
First Priority Lands - Exception Areas
First Prionty Lands - Nonresource
Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU
Third Priority Lands - Dry EFU
Page 33 of 55
(5) With respect to section (1), a city must assume that vacant or partially vacant land in a
particular priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency identified in OAR 660-
024-0050(4) unless it demonstrates that the land cannot satisfy the specified need based
on one or more of the conditions described in subsections (a) through (g) of this section:
(a) Existing parcelization, lot sizes or development patterns of rural residential land
make that land unsuitable for an identified employment need, as follows:
(A) Parcelization: the land consists primarily of parcels 2 -acres or less in size, or
(B) Existing development patterns: the land cannot be reasonably redeveloped or
infilled within the planning period due to the location of existing structures and
infrastructure.
(b) The land would qualifyfor exclusion from the preliminary study area under the factors
in OAR 660-024-0065(4) but the city declined to exclude it pending more detailed
analysis.
(c) The land is, or will be upon inclusion in the UGB, subject to natural resources
protections under Statewide Planning Goal 5 such that that no development capacity
should be forecast on that land to meet the land need deficiency.
(d) With respect to needed industrial uses only, the land is over 10 percent slope, or is an
existing lot or parcel that is smaller than 5 acres in size, or both. Slope shall be
measured as the increase in elevation divided by the horizontal distance at maximum
ten foot contour intervals.
(e) With respect to a particular industrial use or particular public facility use described
in OAR 660-024-0065(3), the land does not have, and cannot be improved to provide,
one or more of the required specific site characteristics.
(t) The land is subject to a conservation easement described in ORS 271.715 that
prohibits urban development.
(g) The land is committed to a use described in this subsection and the use is unlikely to
be discontinued during the planning period.
(A) Public park, church, school, or cemetery, or
(B) land within the boundary of an airport designated for airport uses, but not
including land designated or zoned for residential, commercial or industrial uses
in an acknowledged comprehensive plan.
FINDING: Within the analysis for section (2) in the burden of proof, the applicant identified the
following properties as not suitable to satisfy the need deficiency, in accordance with the provisions
in this section:
Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area, Site 6 includes 44 acres of exception land. As the land
was not large enough to meet the size requirements for the site, it was considered not suitable, as allowed
by subsection (5)(e) of this rule.
Fairgrounds Expansion and Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area, Site Z was partially
included in the boundary of the Deschutes County Airport Safety Combining Zone. These lands were not
considered suitable for development pursuant to subsection (5)(g)(B) of this rule. The remaining lands in
Fairgrounds Expansion, Site Z following this exclusion, were not large enough to accommodate the required
size of the site, and therefore were excluded pursuant to subsection (5)(e) of this rule.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 34 of 55
The southern parcel of the OMD Relocation Site study area, Site 3, was removed from the study area as the
site was developed and used for the Central Oregon Unit Training and Equipment Site (COUTES). As provided
by this section, developed land can be considered not suitable.
This provision is met.
(6) For vacant or partially vacant lands added to the UGB to provide for residential uses:
FINDING: This proposal is not for residential uses, therefore this provision does not apply.
(7) Pursuant to subsection (1)(c), if the amount of suitable land in a particular priority
category under section (2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency,
the city must choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB by first applying the
boundary location factors of Goal 14 and then applying applicable criteria in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged prior to
initiation of the UGB evaluation or amendment. The city may not apply local
comprehensive plan criteria that contradict the requirements of the boundary location
factors of Goal 14. The boundary location factors are not independent criteria, when the
factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the UGB
location the city must show that it considered and balanced all the factors. The criteria
in this section may not be used to select lands designated for agriculture or forest use
that have higher land capability or cubic foot site class, as applicable, ahead of lands that
have lower capability or cubic foot site class.
FINDING: No First or Second Priority lands were suitable for any of the three sites. The amount of
Third Priority lands within each study area is greater than the identified need, therefore the boundary
factors of Goal 14 were applied to determine the appropriate site for UGB inclusion, in each study
area. The applicant provided the following analysis for the boundary factors below:
Boundary Location Analysis: All Third Priority Lands
Fairgrounds Expansion.
As demonstrated in the evaluation of suitable lands, Site 1, the South Redmond Tract is the only suitable
location for the expansion of the County Fairground. Therefore, the consideration for boundary location
factors for this site is limited to areas within the South Redmond Tract, as described below.
Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site and OMD Relocation Site. There are significantly
more Third Priority lands suitable for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center and OMD sites than
the identified land need. These lands are divided among three sites for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and
Events Center and four sites for the OMD facility. Sites 1, 2, and 3 are identical for both facilities; Site 4 is
only suitable for the OMD facility (Figure 12). Site 1, the South Redmond Tract, is the most appropriate
location for inclusion in the UGB for both facilities, based on consideration for the Goal 14 boundary
location factors, as follows.
1. Efficient accommodation of identified land needs,
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 35 of 55
The location of the South Redmond Tract, Site 1, provides several efficiencies relative to the alternative
sites.
Transportation efficiency. If located on the SRT, transportation to the both the OMD and
Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center would be more efficient because the SRT is closer to
local population centers in Redmond than Sites 2 and 4, and closer to regional population
centers in Bend than Site 3. The SRT can be accessed via an existing arterial, 19th Street. 19th
Street is a complete street that includes sidewalks and bike lanes, which may facilitate non -
motorized transportation to the site. Site 3 would be accessed via Highway 126, which is less
safe for walking and biking, does not include pedestrian facilities and limits bike facilities to
the road shoulder. Sites 2 and 4 are not accessible on existing roadways. The SRT site also
will significantly minimize the need to travel between separate, non -adjacent facilities,
reducing the need for additional transportation facilities and associated land.
Operational efficiency. Locating the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center on the South
Redmond Tract would allow the facility to utilize centralized resources and support facilities
in use for the existing Fairgrounds, including parking, concessions, administration, and
maintenance. If the expansion were located on any of the other sites, redundant facilities
would need to be developed and/or significant transportation needs and associated impacts
would be incurred in transporting goods and services between the two sites, as described in
more detail below.
2. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
The location of the South Redmond Tract would allow a more orderly and efficient provision of public
facilities than alternative sites. Water and wastewater lines are available along the alignment of 19th
Street and terminate at the northwest corner of the site. Alternatively, sites 2, 3, and 4 would each
require an extension of sewer and water lines of at least one mile. Additionally, Sites 2-4 are not capable
of accommodating all of the proposed uses for the Fairgrounds expansion and OMD relocation,
therefore, the uses would need to be located on separate sites and be served with separate facilities.
Alternatively, all uses can utilize the same infrastructure if located on the South Redmond Tract.
The South Redmond Tract currently has sufficient water, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications
capacity to serve the proposed uses, as demonstrated in the findings in response to Statewide Planning
Goal 11. There is not currently sufficient capacity for wastewater service to the Tract, but DSL has agreed
to finance the replacement of a pump station and construction of associated infrastructure to establish
sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the site. Sites 2 and 4 would connect to the some water and
wastewater lines, and thus require similar capacity improvements to the South Redmond Tract. Site 3
was included in the Infrastructure Analysis completed for the application to the large lot industrial sites
program. That analysis found that the sufficient infrastructure capacity could be developed to serve the
site but would be costlier to provide than the capacity improvements needed to serve the South
Redmond Tract.
As the South Redmond Tract is in closer proximity to existing public facilities and requires capacity
improvements that are similar or less costly than Sites 2-4, the Site allows for a relatively more efficient
and orderly provision of public facilities.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 36 of 55
More detailed information related to public facilities and services can be found in Section 3.2 of this
report, under the findings in response to Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12.
3. Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social (ESEE) consequences, and
• Environmental consequences. As discussed in the findings under Goals 5-7 in Section 3.2 of this
report, Site 1 contains no Goal 5 resources, permanent or seasonal water, wetlands, habitat for
sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral
potential. Sites 2, 3, and 4 do not contain any water and are not within any County inventories of
wetlands or habitat areas. A more detailed environmental assessment of Sites 2, 3, and 4 has not
been completed, however, given that the environmental conditions of Site 1 has been assessed and
no significant environmental impacts were identified, the relative environmental consequences of
development on Site 1 are similar or less significant than the environmental consequences of
development on Sites 2, 3, and 4.
A portion of Site 3 is located within a Deschutes County Landscape Management Zone, an overlay
zone intended to protect Goal 5 scenic resources in the city. Development of this site, therefore, may
have more significant consequences on local scenic resources.
Additionally, the adjacency of Site 1 with the existing Fairgrounds and Redmond UGB provides
transportation efficiencies that encourage non -motorized transportation which will reduce impacts
on air quality. Sites 2, 3, and 4, by comparison, are further from the existing Fairgrounds and are
not connected to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Redmond UGB.
• Energy consequences. As noted above, the adjacency of Site 1 to the existing Fairgrounds Ona
regionally central location provides transportation efficiencies that can encourage nonmotorized
transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7), therefore conserving energy in comparison
to Sites 2, 3, and 4. The relocation of the OMD facility will significantly shorten trips between the
facility and the OMD training grounds. The expansion of 4-H facilities adjacent to existing facilities
eliminates the need for trips between the site and existing off-site locations for specific activities. The
siting of the new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region
will reduce overall VMT compared to less central locations. Sites 2, 3, and 4 lack these advantages
and development of them would result in more significant energy consequences.
• Economic consequences. As noted in findings under Goal 9 in Section 3.2 of this report, the expanded
RV park, OHV tracks, and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will generate economic
activity by attracting visitors and supporting tourism in the city and region. By centralizing these
facilities on one site with the existing facilities, expansion of the Fairgrounds onto Site 1 can offer
greater efficiency, convenience, and flexibility to potential users in comparison to Sites 2, 3, and 4.
• Social consequences. None of the potential sites are adjacent to any existing city neighborhoods or
residential areas, in order to avoid potential land use conflicts related to traffic, parking, noise, or
lighting. Additionally, all land designated for other uses in the City of Redmond Urban Reserves were
excluded from the OMD and Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study areas in order to avoid
displacing land previously identified for other needs that contribute to the residential and social
fabric of the community, including housing, parks, and commercial services. Finally, the educational
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 37 of 55
and recreational uses proposed for the site will contribute to the social capacity of the community
and region. There is no meaningful difference between the sites under consideration in relation to
this criterion.
This provision is met.
(8) The city must apply the boundary location factors of Goal 14 in coordination with service
providers and state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
with respect to Factor 2 regarding impacts on the state transportation system, and the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Department of State Lands (DSL)
with respect to Factor 3 regarding environmental consequences. "Coordination" includes
timely notice to agencies and service providers and consideration of any recommended
evaluation methodologies.
FINDING: The study area contains no identified wildlife resources, wetlands, or floodplains. Therefore
coordination with ODOT, ODFW, and DSL is not required. However, the applicant (DSL) has
collaborated extensively with organizations in the development of the application, including ODOT.
This provision is met.
(9) In applying Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2 to evaluate alternative locations under
section (7), the city must compare relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of
alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and
services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. For purposes of this section,
the term "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water
management, and transportation facilities. The evaluation and comparison under
Boundary location Factor 2 must consider.
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation
facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB;
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the
UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways,
interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major
improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more, the
provision of public transit service.
FINDING: As noted previously, in comparison to the other sites, Site 1 will have lower costs associated
with provision of water, sanitary sewer and storm water facilities due to its proximity to existing
facilities located along 19th Street. This provision is met.
(10) The adopted findings for UGB amendment must describe or map all of the alternative
areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis.
FINDING: The text and figures within the applicant's burden of proof and Figure 10 within this
decision describe and map all alternate areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives
analysis.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 38 of 55
In conclusion, the applicant has demonstrated the issues and challenges with Sites 2 and 3 in
association with the Third Priority lands boundary criteria. Site 1, the subject property is the best
option for location, comparative to the other sites. This provision is met.
Figure 10 - Boundary Location Analysis - All Study Areas
--^— Highway Redmond UGB Suitable Third Priority Lands, All Study Areas
saw--
— Arterial a 4 Urban Reserve Areas {First Priority Lands) First Priority Lands - Exception Areas
— Collector • 1 Mile Buffer from UGB First Priority Lands - Nonresource
�•rr �:
Water tines 1.5 Mile Buffer from UGB Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU
Sewer lines Third Priority Lands . Dry EFU
Ods
�Mlks
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 39 of 55
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be in
involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDING: Staff adhered to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code - Procedures Ordinance in
providing adequate notice to parties involved. Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing
was mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and to relevant agencies.
Additionally, Notice of Public Hearing was posted in the Bend Bulletin more than 20 days in advance
of the initial public hearing. Following the Hearings Officers proceedings, a second hearing will take
place before the Board of County Commissioners. This goal is met.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and
actions.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted concurrent applications with the City of Redmond and
Deschutes County in accordance with established land use planning processes. The applicant has
provided a burden of proof discussing the factual basis for approval of the proposal. This goal is
met.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
FINDING: The subject property is designated as Agriculture and zoned Exclusive Farm Use. The
applicant provided the following response to this goal in the burden of proof:
...the land has never been farmed and is not suitable for agricultural production. Soils on the property
are designated as Class Vll and Vlll and the property lacks irrigation water rights. The lands zoned EFU
adjacent to the property are not actively used for agricultural production due to similar constraints. The
proposed UGB amendment meets the goal of preserving agricultural land as the property does not include
viable agricultural land and can be made compatible with any future farming uses on adjacent land.
Staff recognizes this application is unique as the property was identified through a regional needs
assessment. The applicant analyzed alternatives previously in this application to preserve and
maintain agricultural lands to the greatest extent possible. Staff finds the applicant provided
sufficient analysis that this property is not viable agricultural land and cannot be made compatible
with future farm uses. Therefore, this goal is met.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 40 of 55
Goal 4 - Forest
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
FINDING: The subject property does not include forest land, therefore this goal does not apply.
Goal 5 - Open Space Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response to this goal in the burden of proof:
No part of the subject property is identified in Deschutes County's Goal 5 inventory of open spaces and
natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources. As described in Section 2.1.1 of this report, the property
does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species,
wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. Historic and cultural resources surveys
conducted on the site indicate that the Tract was not occupied by prehistoric or historic peoples and
contains no significant historic or cultural resources. As no part of the property is identified in a Goal 5
inventory and additional surveys have found no significant resources, this proposed amendment is
consistent with Goal 5.
Staff agrees this goal does not apply as the site does not contain any Goal 5 resources listed within
the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 6 - Air Water and Land Resource Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The (South Redmond} Tract has no evidence of permanent or seasonal water and the National Wetlands
Inventory Map does not identify wetlands on the Tract. Any potential negative impacts of future
development on the quality of air, water or land resources will be identified and mitigated during the
development review process, as the specific impacts cannot be known until a specific development is
proposed. The City of Redmond has adequate provisions in place to protect the quality of air, water, and
land resources from negative impacts of new development. In addition, state and federal regulations
administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality regulate impacts of new development. In addition, state and federal regulations administered by
the US Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulate
impacts on air resources to ensure clean air and will apply to any future development located on the
subject site. Therefore, this UGB amendment is consistent with Goal 6.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the impact on air, water, and land resource quality will be
reviewed during the actual time of development. Staff finds this goal is met.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 41 of 55
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or landslide activity. Wildfire hazards are not
substantially different from other areas within or adjacent to the Redmond UGB, and development of the
site could improve fire protection by providing access and water infrastructure. Therefore, inclusion of
this site within the UGB and subsequent development will be consistent with Goal 7.
Staff agrees with the applicant that there are no areas on site within a floodplain or designated as
high landslide risk. Additionally, the property is currently within and will continue to be within the
jurisdiction of Redmond Fire and Rescue District. This goal is met.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where
appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination
resorts.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The primary purpose of the Fairgrounds expansion and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is
to provide for the recreational needs of local and regional residents and visitors. The Fairgrounds
expansion site will incorporate a number of recreational facilities in an accessible and convenient
location, including an RV park for camping, equestrian trails, off-road vehicle trails, and potentially a
shooting range facility. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will include a variety of facilities able
to host events and informal use for a wide range of sports and activities, including basketball, volleyball,
wrestling, martial arts, soccer, football, lacrosse, baseball, softball, cheerleading, and dance competitions.
The facilities to provide for these recreational opportunities are specialized and often not inefficient to
provide at a local scale. As a regional facilities that generates revenue from both local use and visitors,
the Fairground employs an economic and operational model that is not available to most general parks
and recreation departments. This amendment proposes to increase the capacity of the Fairgrounds facility
and organization to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities to citizens of the state and visitors,
therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 8.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis and finds that this project is specifically targeting the
fulfillment of recreational needs and thereby meets this goal.
Goal 9 - Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities
vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 42 of 55
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The primary purpose of the facilities is to meet the needs for defense, recreation, and non-profit
educational opportunities for residents of the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and the Central Oregon
region.
However, several of the Fairgrounds facilities planned under this amendment will generate economic
activity and employment opportunities by attracting visitors and supporting tourism within the city and
region. The RV park will accommodate more visitors to the Fairgrounds during the County fair and for
year-round events at the Fairgrounds or general tourism in the area. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and
Events Center... will attract visitors from a wide area that includes Oregon, Washington, and Northern
California. The OHV tracks will enable the Fairgrounds to accommodate a wider variety of off-road racing
competitions and other events. The facility's support of tourism is consistent with the economic
development strategies of the City of Redmond and Central Oregon. Tourism leverages the strengths and
opportunities presented by Central Oregon's favorable climate, natural beauty, and outdoor recreational
opportunities. Further, the facility is strategically located to support tourism as it is regionally central,
adjacent to the Redmond Municipal Airport, and adjacent to Juniper Golf Course.
As this amendment will generate economic opportunities by supporting a regional strategy to increase
tourism, it is consistent with Goal 9.
Staff agrees that the expansion of the Fairgrounds and relocation of the Oregon Military
Department Armory increase the variety of economic activities in the area while promoting health,
welfare, and prosperity of nearby and statewide citizens. This goal is met.
Goal 10 - Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The South Redmond Tract is not identified as a suitable location for residential development in the City of
Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The city has identified sufficient acreage of land for future residential
development outside the UGB in Urban Reserve Areas within the Eastside Framework Plan and lands to
the west of the existing UGB. This UGB amendment is not proposed to meet residential land needs and
will not displace land identified as needed for residential uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with
Goal 10.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. Additionally, this location was identified through a regional
needs analysis for suiting the needs of this specific type of development. The City of Redmond has
identified other key areas for residential development. This goal is met.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 43 of 55
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services
to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
FINDING: The applicant provided a detailed response on pages 76 and 77 of the burden of proof,
which discuss the specific conditions and planning efforts to ensure the subject property has
adequate access to public facilities and services. The following excerpt provides valuable context on
the coordination between this application and the large lot industrial proposal on the remainder of
the subject property (file no. 247 -18 -000751 -PA).
Public facility planning for the Fairgrounds expansion occurred in coordination with the adjacent large
lot industrial uses. The City of Redmond evaluated infrastructure needs for serving the entire South
Redmond Tract through the City's application to COIC to include the Tract in the regional large lot
industrial program (Exhibit A). A preliminary Infrastructure Analysis was included in that application. The
analysis assessed the infrastructure capacity and relative efficiency of infrastructure provision compared
to an alternative site east of the UGB. Based on this analysis and subsequent assessments performed
through updates to the City's Wastewater Master Plan and Water Master Plan, DSL agreed to finance
construction of all facilities necessary to serve the site through an MOA with the City of Redmond (Exhibit
B). The agreement requires that DSL construct the facilities within 180 days of approval of this
amendment..
Staff finds that the applicant and other agencies have adequately planned and arranged for the
arrangement of public facilities and services. As the applicant is requesting a redesignated to be
included in the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary, the applicant has prepared for urban
development on the subject property. This goal is met.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDING: Conformance with Goal 12 is addressed in detail below, under the OAR Division 12 -
Transportation Planning criteria of this report.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
Energy conservation will be achieved by this amendment through transportation efficiencies and land
use%onstruction efficiencies. The site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and regionally central
location provides transportation efficiencies that can encourage non -motorized transportation and
reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The relocation of the OMD facilities will significant shorten trips
between the facility and the OMD training grounds. The expansion of 4-H facilities adjacent to existing
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT' F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 44 of 55
facilities eliminates the need for trips between the site and existing off-site locations for specific activities.
The siting of the new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region
will reduce overall VMT compared to less central locations. The location of the proposed uses directly
adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds eliminates the need to site and construct redundant support facilities,
which conserves energy that would be used for construction and ongoing operations of those facilities.
Both the expansion of existing uses and the new uses can utilize existing, centralized support facilities,
including parking, concessions, administration, and maintenance. If the expansion were located
elsewhere, redundant facilities would need to be developed for these support needs.
As the location of the proposed amendment provides transportation and land use efficiencies compared
to existing locations and alternative relocation sites, the amendment is consistent with the intent of Goal
13 to conserve energy.
Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated the amendment will achieve energy conservation.
This goal is met.
Goal 14 - Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate
urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries (UGB), to ensure
efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The purpose and intent of Goal 14 was considered throughout the development of this proposed UGB
amendment. The proposal provides for orderly and efficient transition to urban land uses because the
site is directly adjacent to the City of Redmond's existing UGB, can be served by a direct expansion of
existing public facilities, and because the proposed use of the site for specific public facilities is suitable
and compatible with existing uses in the area. The proposal accommodates the need for specific public
facilities in an accessible location. Several of the proposed uses represent expansion of uses located at
the existing Fairgrounds site, making for efficient use of both land and the transportation system by
providing direct access and connections between the existing and expanded facilities. The proposal
generally contributes to livable communities by increasing recreation and employment opportunities, the
specific contributions to livability needs are addressed in other findings through this report, including
conformance with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Great Neighborhood Principles provided under
the City of Redmond's Master Planning Requirements.
The master planning requirements mentioned by the applicant are found within the application
materials, but are not reviewed through the Deschutes County process. Staff finds the applicant has
demonstrated compliance with this goal based on the location of the subject property, the joint use
of existing facilities, and concurrent master planning process taking place with the City of Redmond.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 45 of 55
Urban Growth Boundaries: Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by
cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban development needs and
to identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and
change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process among cities, counties and,
where applicable, regional governments.
An urban growth boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be adopted by all cities
within the boundary and by the county or counties within which the boundary is located,
consistent with intergovernmental agreements, except for the Metro regional urban growth
boundary established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted or amended by the
Metropolitan Service District.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
This proposal conforms to established processes for designating and amending the UGB of the City of
Redmond. The proposal is a result of a cooperative process between DSL, the City of Redmond, Deschutes
County, and other agencies and jurisdictions. The UGB amendment is proposed for adoption to both the
City of Redmond and Deschutes County, in accordance with the provisions of the UGB,Joint Management
Agreement between the City and County.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. The applicant is pursuing concurrent approval between
the City of Redmond and Deschutes County, in which the property is located. This goal is met.
Land Need. Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the
following.
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20 -
year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments, or for cities applying
the simplified process under ORS chapter 197A, a 14 year forecast; and
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The City of Redmond has adopted a population forecast through the year 2025 in coordination with
Deschutes County and the cities of Bend and Sisters. However, the proposed amendment is intended to
address a need for specific public facilities that is not directly proportional to local or regional population
growth.
The applicant is pursuing the amendment to the UGB to accommodate the growth of the Deschutes
County Fairgrounds and the Oregon Military Department site. The applicant has provided analysis
related to land need and site analysis below.
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public
facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need
categories in this subsection (2). In determining need, local government may specify
characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be suitable
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 46 of 55
for an identified need. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall
demonstrate that needs cannot be reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the
urban growth boundary.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The proposed amendment includes facilities that are publicly owned and intended to address multiple
public needs. The primary needs include national defense (OMD facility), recreation (RV park, Multi -
Purpose Athletic and Events Center, 4-H facilities, and OHV tracks), and non-profit educational
opportunities (4-H facilities, operated by Oregon State University Extension program).
These public facilities are distinct from public facilities defined under Goal 11, which concerns water,
sewer, and transportation facilities fas defined in OAR 660-011-005(5)1.
The primary purpose of the facilities and the associated UGB amendment is to meet a public facility need.
The RV park, Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, and OHV tracks address a secondary need for
direct and indirect employment opportunities that may be provided by attracting visitors and supporting
tourism to the city and region. However, as addressed in the Goal 9 findings under Section 3.2 of this
report, the employment benefits of this development are secondary to the public facility need and the
land is not considered employment land.
The City of Redmond and Deschutes County specified necessary site characteristics for land to be suitable
for the public facilities and demonstrates that the need cannot be accommodated on land within the
existing UGB. See the findings associated with OAR 660-024-0050, 660-024-0065, and 660-024-0067, in
section 3.1 of this report.
The applicant stated previously that the location of the subject property is ideal for expansion and
it will reduce the expansion of existing public facilities defined by OAR 660-011-005(5) such as water,
sewer, and electricity. Additionally it allows for close proximity of the existing operations on the
property to allow for efficient transportation of goods, services, and employees. The subject
property is 160 acres and is not located in close proximity to existing residential development,
allowing for best use of the property for the recreation, education, and national defense uses. This
goal is met.
Boundary Location: The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the boundary
shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197.298
and with consideration of the following factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs:
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The location of the proposed uses directly adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds provides several
efficiencies. Both the expansion of existing uses and the new uses can utilize existing, centralized facilities,
including parking, concessions, administration, and maintenance. If the expansion were located
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 47 of 55
elsewhere, redundant facilities would need to be developed. The adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds
also allows the developments to utilize existing infrastructure and future infrastructure improvements
required for the proposed large lot industrial site to the south. The proposed location also will significantly
minimize the need to travel between separate, nonadjacent facilities, reducing the need for additional
transportation facilities and associated land.
Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated efficient accommodation of identified land needs on the
subject property. This goal is met.
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The site can be served by a direct and orderly extension of existing public facilities. Transportation, water,
and wastewater facilities will be provided along the alignment of 19th Street, an arterial street planned
for future expansion south of the site to serve other rural uses. The direct extension of 19th street will
provide a framework for orderly development of the site and potential future development to the south.
There is sufficient water, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications capacity to serve the site. There is
not currently sufficient capacity for wastewater service to the Tract, but DSL has agreed to finance replace
a pump station and construct associated infrastructure to establish sufficient wastewater capacity to
serve the site. The MOA between DSL and the City of Redmond requires that DSL construct all necessary
public facilities to serve the site upon approval of this amendment. More detailed information related to
public facilities and services can be found in Section 3.2 of this report, under the findings in response to
Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12.
Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated orderly and economic provision of public facilities
and services. This goal is met.
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences, and
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
The City of Redmond and Deschutes County has considered the relative environmental, energy, economic
and social consequences of development of the site, as detailed below.
• Environmental consequences. As discussed in the findings under Goals 5-7 in Section 3.2 of this
report, the site contains no permanent or seasonal water, wetlands, habitat for sensitive,
threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential.
The site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and Redmond UGB provides transportation
efficiencies that encourage non -motorized transportation. Specific impacts to air, land, or water
quality can be addressed at the time of development.
• Energy consequences. As noted above, the site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and
regionally central location provides transportation efficiencies that can encourage nonmotorized
transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7), therefore conserving energy. The
relocation of the OMD facility will significantly shorten trips between the facility and the OMD
training grounds. The expansion of 4-H facilities adjacent to existing facilities eliminates the need
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 48 of 55
for trips between the site and existing off-site locations for specific activities. The siting of the new
Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region will reduce
overall VMT compared to less central locations.
• Economic consequences. As noted in findings under Goal 9 in Section 3.2 of this report, the
expanded RV Park, OHV tracks, and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will generate
economic activity by attracting visitors and supporting tourism in the city and region. By
centralizing these facilities on one site with the existing facilities, the Fairgrounds can offer
efficiency, convenience, and flexibility to potential users and is projected to attract more year-
round events and visitors to the region.
• Social consequences. The proposed location for the facilities is not adjacent to any existing city
neighborhoods or residential areas, in order to avoid potential land use conflicts related to traffic,
parking, noise, or lighting. Additionally, all land designated for other uses in the City of Redmond
Urban Reserves were excluded from the alternative sites analysis for the Multi -Purpose Athletic
and Events Center in order to avoid displacing land previously identified for other needs that
contribute to the residential and social fabric of the community, including housing, parks, and
commercial services. Finally, the educational and recreational uses proposed for the site will
contribute to the social capacity of the community and region.
Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis and finds that the environmental, energy, economic, and
social consequences have been addressed within this application. This goal is met.
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
There are no active farm or forest activities near the South Redmond Tract. The land to the south and east
of the Tract is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use, but is not suitable or used for agriculture due to poor soil
quality and lack of irrigation rights for the land. As a result, development of the site would be compatible
with farm and forest use outside the UGB and would have no impacts on such uses. Additional findings
associated with Statewide Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) are found in Section 3.2 of this document.
Staff agrees that there is no evidence of commercial agriculture taking place in the area due to the
soil quality, parcel size, and proximity to the Redmond city limits. This goal is met.
Urbanizable Land: Land within urban growth boundaries shall be considered available for
urban development consistent with plans for the provision of urban facilities and services.
Comprehensive plans and implementing measures shall manage the use and division of
urbanizable land to maintain its potential for planned urban development until appropriate
public facilities and services are available or planned.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
Upon approval of this proposed amendment, DSL is obligated by the land exchange and sale agreements
with Deschutes County and DSL to construct all necessary infrastructure to serve the sites. The Servicing
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT' F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 49 of 55
Agreement requires the construction to be complete within 180 days of any contracted interest to convey
the SRT or part thereof.6 In addition, applications for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments
are beingsubmitted and reviewed concurrently with the proposed UGB amendment application. Approval
of the package of amendments will result in application of urban Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
designations which will allow for urbanization as soon as public facilities are in place to serve the
development.
Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this provision.
Single Family Dwellings in Exception Areas: Notwithstanding the other provisions of this goal,
the commission may by rule provide that this goal does not prohibit the development and use
of one single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel that:...
FINDING: The application is not for a single family dwelling. This goal does not apply.
Rural Industrial Development. Notwithstanding other provisions of this goal restricting urban
uses on rural land, a county may authorize industrial development, and accessory uses
subordinate to the industrial development, in building of any size and type, on certain lands
outside urban growth boundaries specified in ORS 197.713 and 197.714 consistent with the
requirements of those statutes and any applicable administrative rules adopted by the
Commission.
FINDING: The application is not for a rural industrial development. This goal does not apply.
Goals 15-19
Willamette rivergreenway, estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, ocean
resources.
FINDING: As stated previously, the subject property is not located within the Willamette River
Greenway nor within a Coastal boundary. Goal 19 does not apply to UGB amendments. These goals
do not apply.
Division 12, Transportation Planning
FINDING: The applicant provided a Transportation Analysis Memorandum as Exhibit H of the
burden of proof. The memorandum was created by Kittleson & Associates and analyzes the entire
South Redmond Tract, not only the subject property within this application. Generally, the traffic
study report major impacts to the transportation system could be mitigated by transportation
system improvements planned by the City of Redmond.
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
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 50 of 55
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,
(e) 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.
(2) In meeting the purposes described in section (1), coordinated land use and
transportation plans should ensure that the planned transportation system supports a
pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid the air pollution, traffic
and livability problems faced by other large urban areas of the country through
measures designed to increase transportation choices and make more efficient use of
the existing transportation system.
(3) The extent of planning required by this division and the outcome of individual
transportation plans will vary depending on community size, needs and circumstances.
Generally, larger and faster growing communities and regions will need to prepare
more comprehensive and details plans, while smaller communities and rural areas will
have more general plans. For all communities, the mix of planned transportation
facilities and services should be sufficient to ensure economic, sustainable and
environmentally sound mobility and accessibility for all Oregonians. Coordinating land
use and transportation planning will also complement efforts to meet other state and
local objectives, including containing urban development, reducing the cost of public
services, protecting farm and forest land, reducing air, water and noise pollution,
conserving energy and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to
global climate change.
(a) In all urban areas, coordinated land use and transportation plans are intended to
provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation and to enhance, promote and
facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel by planning a well-
connected network of streets and supporting improvements for all travel modes.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 51 of 55
(b) In urban areas that contain a population greater than 25,000 persons, coordinated
land use and transportation plans are intended to improve livability and
accessibility by promoting the provision of transit service where feasible and more
efficient performance of existing transportation facilities through transportation
system management and demand management measures.
(c) Within metropolitan areas, coordinate land use and transportation plans are
intended to improve livability and accessibility by promoting changes in the
transportation system and land use patters. A key outcome of this effort is the
reduction in reliance on single occupant automobile use, particularly during peak
periods. To accomplish this outcome, this division promotes increased planning for
alternative modes and street connectivity and encourages land use patterns
throughout urban areas that make it more convenient for people to walk, bicycle,
use transit, use automobile travel more efficient, and drive less to meet their daily
needs. The result of applying these portions of the division will vary within
metropolitan areas. Some parts of urban areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian
districts, transit -oriented developments and other mixed-use, pedestrian friendly
centers, will be highly convenient for a variety of modes, including walking, bicycling
and transit, while others will be auto -oriented and include more modest measures
to accommodate access and circulation by other modes.
(4) This division sets requirements for coordination among affected levels of government
and transportation service providers for preparation, adoption, refinement,
implementation and amendment of transportation system plans. Transportation system
plans adopted pursuant to this division fulfill the requirements for public facilities
required under ORS 19Z 712(2)(e), Goal 11 and chapter 660, division 11, as they relate to
transportation facilities. The rules in this division are not intended to make local
government determinations "land use decision" under ORS 197.015(10). The rules
recognize, however, that under existing statutory and case law, many determinations
relating to the adoption and implementation of transportation plans will be land use
decisions.
FINDING: The traffic study provided by Kittleson and Associates denotes two areas of significant
impact to the transportation system within the areas. One being the intersection of 21 st Street and
Airport Way and the other being the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Yew Avenue.
The study notes the significant impact at 21 St Street and Airport Way could be mitigated with the
installation of a median to restrict right -in -right -out movements at the intersection. The study notes
the impact at Canal Boulevard and Yew Street would require additional analysis as any
improvements would likely have a major impact to right-of-way and neighboring properties. The
applicant states this would be addressed as part of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP)
update. Staff consulted Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, to
determine compliance with these provisions. Mr. Russell provided the following comments:
l have reviewed the traffic study dated March 12, 2018, for the Redmond UGB expansion and
comprehensive plan amendment of 949 acres for the Redmond large lot industrial area, the Deschutes
County Fairgrounds expansion, and the Oregon Military Department (OMD). The traffic study found all
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 52 of 55
intersections either performed acceptably at the end of the planning horizon (2040) or could rely on
mitigations which have funding or a reasonable expectation of funding. The land use application thus
complies with Goal 12 and the transportation planning rule (TPR). The one exception was the intersection
of 21st St/Airport Way. The traffic report identified a raised median as a possible mitigation, but deferred
to the City of Redmond's Transportation System Plan (TSP) which is being updated. While currently there
is no specific development being proposed, County staff notes the impacts of large lot industrial sites can
be mitigated through non -construction measures as well such as shift changes beginning/ending out of
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and transportation demand management (TDM) measures (vanpools,
transit passes for employees, enhanced facilities for bicycling, etc.)
None of the studied intersections are under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The affected intersections
are either ODOT facilities or City of Redmond streets. The traffic study was scoped and reviewed in
coordination with ODOT, City of Redmond, and Deschutes County. The agencies have reviewed the
completed traffic study's recommendations. Those road authorities whose facilities were significantly
affected (ODOT and City of Redmond) have not submitted adverse comments on the UGB expansion and
the proposed land use changes in response to being notified. They could provide comment at the public
hearing. Construction of a raised median at 21st/Airport Way to change the current accesses into right -
in, right -out only (RIRO) is a relatively low cost improvement. It is not unreasonable to assume this future
mitigation would be funded by either subsequent development or a combination of development and
ODOT and/or City of Redmond.
As the impacts are planned to be mitigated in conjunction with the City of Redmond's TSP update
and will be reviewed in the concurrent applications through the City of Redmond, staff finds these
provisions are met.
(5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an
exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on
rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-002&
FINDING: The applicant is not seeking a goal exception for the proposal, therefore this section does
not apply.
(6) in determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with planned
transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give
full credit for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a) -(d)
below,
FINDING: The application is not located in a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood
as defined in Section (8) of this rule, therefore, this section does not apply.
(7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which
meet all of the criteria listed in subsections (a) -(c) below shall include an amendment
to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street
plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 53 of 55
plan to provide for on-site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned
arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the
requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3):
(a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more
acres of land for commercial use,
(b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with
OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with
Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, and
(c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as
provided in section (1).
FINDING: The applicant will redesignate property as Urban Growth Area with future plans to rezone
within the City of Redmond to Public Facilities and Fairgrounds. The City of Redmond has already
adopted a TSP and subsequent plans. Staff finds this section does not apply.
(9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an
amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met.
FINDING: The subject application is for a comprehensive plan map designation change and does
not include a zoning map designation change. Therefore this section does not apply.
(10) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend a
functional plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying
performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to
capacity ratio or V/C), delay or travel time if the amendment meets the requirements
of subsection (a) of this section. This section does not exempt a proposed amendment
from other transportation performance standards or policies that may apply including,
but not limited to, safety for all modes, network connectivity for all modes (e.g.
sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight vehicles of a size and frequency
required by the development.
(a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section if it.
(A) Is a map or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal
mixed-use area (MMA); and
(8) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of
the MMA as described in the findings designating the MMA.
FINDING: The subject property is not located within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA). Therefore
this section does not apply.
(11) A local government may approve an amendment with partial mitigation as provided
in section (2) of this rule if the amendment complies with subsection (a) of this section,
the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (b) of this section, and the local
government coordinates as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 54 of 55
FINDING: As a mitigation measure for the significant impact to Canal Boulevard and Yew Avenue
intersection has not yet been identified but will be identified as part of the Redmond TSP update,
staff asks the Hearings Officer to determine if this section is applicable.
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
197A - Comprehensive Land Use Planning
197A.300 Amendment of Urban Growth Boundaries Outside Metro
FINDING: The statute is implemented through Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 24.
Analysis for the requirements under Division 24 and Division 12, Goal 14 -Urbanization have been
addressed previously in this report.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Hearings Officer: Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions and the record herein and
noting the absence of any contrary evidence or argument, the application is APPROVED, subject to
final approval by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to DCC 22.28.030.
DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
Dan R. Olsen
December 10, 2018
Hearings Officer Decision 247 -18 -000752 -PA
EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 55 of 55