2019-280-Minutes for Meeting April 24,2019 Recorded 7/2/2019� 0-t E S COG
441
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
10:00 AM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-280
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 07/02/2019 9:49:29 AM
�G��VT.£SCOGZ< IIIIIII(�I�IIIII�III�IIIIIIIIII
2019-280
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
i MIA2CJI"t. 3 �l� i`� i. ♦ • M�
Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom
Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel;
and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and identified representatives of the
media were in attendance.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal v ebsite http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:00 am
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CITIZEN INPUT: None offered
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda.
Move approval
Second
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 8
VOTE: ADAI R: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consent Agenda Items:
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-008, Appropriating
New Grant Funds and Increasing FTE in the Health Services Fund
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-011, Budget
Adjustment in the Finance Fund
3. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2019-011, Declaring Certain
Deschutes County Personal Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale
4. Consideration of Board Signature of letter Appointing Tod Watkins to the
Howell's Hilltop Acres Special Road District
ACTION ITEMS:
5. READING OF A PROCLAMATION: Recognizing April 2019 as National
County Government Month
Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer presented the proclamation that
acknowledges services provided through Deschutes County. Ms. Hale also
reported on the County College offering each year giving residents the
opportunity to learn about all departments of Deschutes County.
DEBONE: Move approval of the Proclamation
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
ADAI R: Yes
HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Henderson read the proclamation into the record.
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 8
6. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2019-228, Notice of
Intent to Award Letter to Central Oregon Roofing for Re -Roof of the
Facilities/IT Warehouse in Bend, Oregon
Lee Randall, Facilities Director presented the notice of intent and explained
both projects listed as Items #6 and #7.
DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2019-228
ADAIR: Second
VOTE:
DEBONE:
D•
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes.
Motion Carried
7. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2019-229, Notice of
Intent to Award Letter to Arrow Roofing & Sheet Metal for Roof
Replacement at the Annex/Downtown Clinic, 1128 NW Harriman, Bend,
Oregon
ADAIR: Move approval of Document No. 2019-229
DEBONE: Second
VOTE:
ADAI R:
DEBONE:
HENDERSON:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes.
Motion Carried
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2019-009 - Historic Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Text Amendments
Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department outlined the hearing
procedures. There being no declared conflicts of interest or bias and no
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 8
challenges of the Commissioners, Commissioner Henderson opened the
public hearing. Ms. Saltzman presented the staff report. Commissioner
Henderson called for public testimony.
Chris Breitenstein, lives in rural Deschutes County and provided testimony
regarding her impression of rules for accessory dwellings.
Hearing no further public testimony, the Commissioners discussed the item
and requested further information for review. Commissioner Henderson
suggested postponing the deliberations for one week. County Counsel Doyle
recommended continuing the public hearing to a date certain.
The record will remain open and the public hearing will resume at 10:00 a.m.
on Wednesday, May 15.
9. DELIBERATIONS: Price Marijuana Production Appeal, 7055 McKenzie
Canyon Road, Terrebonne
Matt Martin, Community Development Department presented regarding the
proposed marijuana production. Commissioner Henderson commented on
his disappointment that the residents of the rural county were never allowed
to vote on having marijuana production facilities as it impacts the livability of
this area. Commissioner Adair concurs with Commissioner Henderson and
commented on the distance from law enforcement and fire services.
Commissioner DeBone commented on the transition in our society and land
use for the whole county.
Mr. Martin presented the decision matrix addressing the issue areas of siting
and fence standards of the wildlife area combining zone, the sensitive bird
and mammal habitat combining zone, separation from youth activity centers,
access, lighting, odor, noise, water, utility verification, enforcement, fire
protection and fire risk, quality of life and property values, safety & security,
road & traffic impacts, and property ownership.
Regarding the sensitive bird and mammal habitat combining zone,
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 8
Commissioner Adair feels the County needs to acknowledge the golden
eagles on this property need to be protected in accordance with state and
federal law.
RECESS: At the time of 12:00 noon the Board took a recess and the meeting was
reconvened at 12:06 p.m.
Discussion was continued on the decision matrix.
Commissioner Adair commented the Board has not received a requested
water rights letter from Three Sisters regarding the proposed use on this
property.
The Board determined that the deliberations will be continued until
Wednesday, May 1 at 10:00 a.m.
RECESS: At the time of 12:20 p.m. the Board took a recess and the meeting was
reconvened at 1:34 p.m. in the Allen Conference Room. This portion of the meeting
was not audio or video recorded.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Statewide Transportation Improvement Funding Recommendations
Management Analyst Judith Ure, Michelle Rhoads and Derek Hofbauer of
COIC, Theresa Conley of ODOT, and Andrea Brent of Cascade East Transit
presented a response to the request of information from Monday's Board of
Commissioner's Meeting. A memo summarizing fleet management was
reviewed (attached to the record). Ms. Ure explained if the proposed project
plan is approved at this time, the bus purchases can be discussed in the
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 8
future.
Discussion held on the public transportation service provider project ranking.
Ms. Rhoads recommends the Board to consider including funding the
projects to support the Redmond fixed -route planning feasibility study and
the additional service between La Pine and Sunriver. Commissioner
Henderson agrees with Ms. Rhoads recommendation and stated he doesn't
want to re -rank the projects at this time but move forward since the group is
confident all of the projects will be approved/funded. Commissioners
DeBone and Adair expressed support.
Commissioner Henderson commented on the need for snow removal to
clear out snow at the bus stops in and around Bend.
The Board expressed support of working together on future projects.
ADAIR: Move approval of recommendations of the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Fund Advisory Committee and
authorize staff to prepare and submit the County's Statewide
Transportation Improvement Fund grant application to the
Oregon Department of Transportation
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Chair vote yes. Motion Carried
COMMISSIONER UPDATES:
• Commissioner Henderson met with Dr. George Conway, Health Services
Director and St. Charles representatives yesterday regarding the proposed
Crisis Stabilization Center. Commissioner DeBone commented on the
investment for our community and of the importance of involving St. Charles
in this process.
Commissioner DeBone noted the Board still needs to make an appointment
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 8
to the Central Oregon Health Council. Commissioner DeBone offered to take
the appointment. Commissioner Henderson recommended appointment of
Commissioner Adair to the COHC. Commissioner Adair consented to accept
the appointment.
• Commissioner Adair stated that the appointment for the East Cascades
Works also needs to be voted on.
RECESS: At the time of 2:40 p.m. the Board took a recess and the meeting was
reconvened at 2:53 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 2:53 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:15 p.m.
OTHER ITEMS Continued:
Committee Appointments:
DEBONE: Move appointment of Commissioner Adair to the Central
Oregon Health Council and Commissioner DeBone as alternate.
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: DEBONE Yes
ADAIR Yes
HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 8
ADAIR: Move appointment of Commissioner DeBone to the East
Cascades Works
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
• Commissioner DeBone recommended having a more clear agenda set for
the Monday and Wednesday meetings.
Commissioner DeBone was contacted regarding a concern about the Knott
Road area chip seal project being done during the night-time hours.
m,`'
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.
A �Mj
RECORDING
E ORinnING C R' � i
ffnifful
BOCC MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 PAGE 8 OF 8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
BOCC MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2019
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit
www.deschutes.org/meetfts. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are
anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-008, Appropriating New
Grant Funds and Increasing FTE in the Health Services Fund
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2019-011, Budget Adjustment
in the Finance Fund
3. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2019-011, Declaring Certain
Deschutes County Personal Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale
4. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Tod Watkins to the Howell's
Hilltop Acres Special Road District
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Page 1
of 3
ACTION ITEMS
5. 10:10 AM READING of a PROCLAMATION: Recognizing April 2019 as National
County Government Month - Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer
6. 10:20 AM Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2019-228, Notice of
Intent to Award Letter to Central Oregon Roofing for Re -Roof of the
Facilities/IT Warehouse in Bend, Oregon - Lee Randall, Facilities Director
7. 10:30 AM Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2019-229, Notice of
Intent to Award Letter to Arrow Roofing & Sheet Metal for Roof
Replacement at the Annex/Downtown Clinic, 1128 NW Harriman,
Bend, Oregon. - Lee Randall, Facilities Director
8. 10:40 AM PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2019-009 - Historic ADU Text
Amendments - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
9. 11:30 AM DELIBERATIONS: Price Marijuana Production Appeal, 70355 McKenzie
Canyon Road, Terrebonne - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
BREAK: A Recess will be taken from approximately 12:00 to 12:30
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation, ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To
request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Page 2
of 3
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcolendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Page 3
of 3
vI ES CSG
Z
o'Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of April 24, 2019
DATE: April 17, 2019
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance No. 2019-009 - Historic ADU Text Amendments
The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider Ordinance No.
2019-009, text amendments incorporating changes to state law regarding the conversion of a
historic home to an accessory dwelling unit in rural residential areas.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner
DATE: April 17, 2019
SUBJECT: Historic ADU Text Amendments - Public Hearing
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on April 24, 2019 to
consider Ordinance No. 2019-009, text amendments incorporating changes to state law regarding
historic accessory dwelling units per House Bill 3012. A work session was held with the Board on April
15, 2019,' at which time the proposed amendments and findings were provided.
OVERVIEW
House Bill 3012 passed in 2017, authorizing—but not requiring—counties to allow a historic home
located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a new
single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel. As described in the bill, the
definition of "historic" means simply that the home was constructed in 1945 or before.
In Deschutes County, the proposed text amendments would apply to properties that are two acres
or more in size, and located in the MUA, RR -10, UAR-10, or SR -2 1/2 zoning districts. Staff analysis
indicates that approximately 113 properties in the county would be eligible to utilize the provisions
of Ordinance No. 2019-009.
111. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO AMENDMENTS
In the April 15 work session, the Board suggested the following change to the amendments:
1 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?0=2326
Short -Term Rentals
The proposed amendments state that short-term rentals (30 consecutive days or less) are not
permitted in both dwellings simultaneously.
III. PREVIOUS HEARINGS BODY RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 14,201 9.2 One individual
testified in support of the application; the individual recommended allowing the placement of
manufactured homes in addition to new single-family dwellings, and recommended not requiring
any type of owner occupancy (see below for further discussion of these options).
Following testimony, the Planning Commission closed both the oral and written portions of the
record and commenced deliberation. In order to review minor changes suggested during initial
deliberation, deliberation continued to a second session on March 28, 2019, at which time the text
amendments were unanimously approved.'
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
As of the time of submittal of this memorandum, no written public comments have been received.
V. NEXT STEPS
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can:
• Continue the hearing to a date certain;
• Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain; or
• Close the hearing and commence deliberations.
Attachments
1. Ordinance No. 2019-009 and Corresponding Exhibits
Exhibit A: DCC Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone - MUA
Exhibit B: DCC Chapter 18.60, Rural Residential Zone - RR -10
Exhibit C: DCC Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Exhibit D: DCC Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone UAR-10
Exhibit E: DCC Chapter 19.20, Suburban Low Density Residential Zone - SR 2'/2
Exhibit F: DCC Chapter 19.92, Interpretations and Exceptions
Exhibit G: Staff Findings
z https•//deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2315
3 https://deschutescountvor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?0=2317
Page 2 of 2
REVIEWED
LE AL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Titles 18 and 19 to Incorporate Changes to State Law * ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Allowing a Historic Home Located in a Rural
Residential Area to be Converted to an Accessory
Dwelling Unit and a New Single -Family Dwelling to
be Constructed on the Same Lot or Parcel.
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) initiated amendments
(Planning Division File No. 247 -19 -000137 -TA) to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Chapters 18.32,
Multiple Use Agricultural Zone — MUA; 18.60, Rural Residential Zone — RR -10; 18.116, Supplementary
Provisions; Title 19, Chapters 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone UAR-10; 19.20, Suburban Low Density
Residential Zone — SR 2'/i; and 19.92, Interpretations and Exceptions, to incorporate changes to state law allowing
a historic home located in a rural residential area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a new single-
family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on March 28,
2019, and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a unanimous
recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2019, and
concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Code Titles 18 and 19;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone — MUA, is amended to
read as described in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.60, Rural Residential Zone — RR -10, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone UAR-10, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. AMENDMENT. DCC 19.20, Suburban Low Density Residential Zone — SR 2 'h, is
amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 6. AMENDMENT. DCC 19.92, Interpretations and Exceptions, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "F" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 7. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "G" attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Dated this of , 2019 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of 1St Reading:
Date of 2" a Reading:
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE
day of , 2019.
day of , 2019.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Philip G. Henderson
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Effective date: day of 12019.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE - MUA
18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18.
B. A single family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
C. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product.
D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
E. Class III road or street project.
F. Noncommercial horse stables, excluding horse events.
G. Horse events, including associated structures, involving:
1. Fewer than 10 riders;
2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or
3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days.
Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants,
trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events.
H. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
1. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
J Accessory Dwelling Units subject to DCC 18.116.350.
(Ord. 2019-009 �1, 2019; Ord. 2004-002 §3, 2004; Ord. 2001-039 §2,200 1; Ord. 2001-016 §2,2001;
Ord. 94-008 §10, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §4, 1993; Ord. 93-001 §l, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord.
91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §18, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §6, 199 1)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 18.60. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - RR -10
18.60.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
A. A single-family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
B. Utility facilities necessary to serve the area including energy facilities, water supply and treatment
and sewage disposal and treatment.
C. Community center, if shown and approved on the original plan or plat of the development.
D. Agricultural use as defined in DCC Title 18.
E. Class I and 11 road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
F. Class III road or street project.
G. Noncommercial horse stables as defined in DCC Title 18, excluding horse events.
H. Horse events, including associated structures, involving:
1. Fewer than 10 riders;
2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or
3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days.
Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by
participants, trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse
events.
I. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
J. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
K Accessory Dwelling Units subject to DCC 18.116.350.
(Ord. 2019-009 §2, 2019; Ord. 2004-002 §7, 2004; Ord. 2001-039 §5, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001;
Ord. 94-008 §12,1994; Ord. 93-043 §8,1993; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §§30 & 31, 1991)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
18.116.010. Authorization of Similar Uses.
18.116.020. Clear Vision Areas.
18.116.030. Off -Street Parking and Loading.
18.116.031. Bicycle Parking.
18.116.035. Bicycle Commuter Facilities
18.116.036 Special Parking Provisions for the Sunriver Town Center District
18.116.040. Accessory Uses.
18.116.050. Manufactured Homes.
18.116.070. Placement Standards for Manufactured Homes.
18.116.080. Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.090. A Manufactured Home or RV as a Temporary Residence for Medical
Condition.
18.116.095. Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary Residence on an Individual Lot.
18.116.100. Building Projections.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.120. Fences.
18.116.130. Hydroelectric Facilities.
18.116.140. Electrical Substations.
18.116.150. Endangered Species.
18.116.160. Rimrock Setbacks Outside of LM Combining Zone.
18.116.170. Solar Height Restrictions.
18.116.180. Building Setbacks for the Protection of Solar Access.
18.116.190. Solar Access Permit.
18.116.200. Repealed.
18.116.210. Residential Homes and Residential Facilities.
18.116.215. Family Childcare Provider.
18.116.220. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and
Streams -Prohibitions.
18.116.230. Standards for Class I and II Road Projects.
18.116.240. Protection of Historic Sites.
18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
18.116.260. Rock Crushing Outside the SM Zone.
18.116.270. Conducting Filming Activities in All Zones.
18.116.280. Home Occupations.
18.116.290. Amateur Radio Facilities
18.116.300. Wind Energy Systems that Generate Less than 100 kW
18.116.310. Traffic Impact Studies
18.116.320. Medical Marijuana Dispensary
18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
18.116.340 Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
18.116.350 Accessory Dwelling Units in RR10 and MUA Zones
18 116 350. Accessory Dwelling Units in RR10 and MUA Zones
A. As used in this section:
1 "Accessory dwellin¢ unit" means a residential structure that is used in connection with or
that is auxiliary to a single-family dwelling.
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
2 "Area zoned for rural residential use" means land that is not located inside an urban growth
boundary as defined in ORS 195.060 and that is subject to an acknowledged exception to
a statewide land use planning goal relating to farmland or forestland and planned and zoned
by the county to allow residential use as a primary use.
3 "Historic home" means a single-family dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945.
4 "New" means that the dwelling being constructed did not previously exist in residential or
nonresidential form "New" does not include the acquisition, alteration, renovation or
remodeling of an existing structure.
5 "Place a manufactured home" means the placement of a manufactured home that did not
previously exist on the subject lot of record, it may include the placement of a
manufactured home that was previously used as a dwelling on another lot and moved to
the subiect lot of record.
6 "Single-family dwelling_" means a residential structure designed as a residence for one
family and sharing no common wall with another residence of any type.
B An owner of a lot or parcel within an area zoned for rural residential use (RR10 and MUA
zones) may construct a new single-family dwelling or place a manufactured home on the lot or
parcel, provided:
1 The lot or parcel is not located in an area designated as an urban reserve as defined in ORS
195.137;
2. The lot or parcel is at least two acres in size;
3. A historic home is sited on the lot or parcel -
4. The owner converts the historic home to an accessory dwelling unit upon completion of
the new single-family dwelling or placement of a manufactured home; and
5 The accessory dwelling unit may be required to comply with all applicable laws and
regulations relating to sanitation and wastewater disposal and treatment.
C The construction of an accessory dwelling under subsection (B) of this section is a land use
action subject to DCC 22.20.
D An owner that constructs a new single-family dwelling �or places a manufactured home under
subsection (B) of this section may not:
1 Subdivide partition or otherwise divide the lot or parcel so that the new single-family
dwelling or manufactured home is situated on a different lot or parcel from the accessory
dwelling unit.
2 Alter, renovate or remodel the accessory dwelling unit so that the square footage of the
accessory dwelling unit is more than 120 percent of the historic home's square footage at
the time construction of the new single-family dwelling commenced.
3 Rebuild the accessory dwelling unit if the structure is deemed a dangerous building due to
fire or other natural disaster, pursuant to the Unifonn Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings which defines "dangerous building" as "Whenever any portion thereof has been
damaged by fire earthquake wind flood or by any other cause to such an extent that the
structural strength or stability thereof is materially less than it was before such catastrophe
and is less than the minimum requirements of the Building Code for new buildings of
similar structure, purpose or location."
4 Construct an additional accessory dwelling unit on the same lot or parcel.
E A new single-family dwelling constructed or a manufactured home placed under this section
may by e required to be served by the same water supply source as the accessory dwelling unit.
F Owner occupancy of either the accessory dwelling unit or the new single-family dwelling is
not required However, the new single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit may
not be used simultaneously for short-tenn rentals of thirty (30) consecutive days or less.
(Ord. 2019-009 0, 2019)
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 19.12. URBAN AREA RESERVE ZONE UAR-10
19.12.020. Permitted Uses.
19.12.020. Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted:
A. Farm uses as defined in DCC Title 19.
B. Single-family dwelling.
C. Home occupation subject to DCC 19.88.140.
D. Other accessory uses and accessory buildings and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use
subject to DCC 19.92.020.
E. Day care center facilities subject to site review, DCC 19.76 and DCC 19.88.160.
F. Farm stands subject to DCC 19.76 and DCC 19.88.290.
G Accessory Dwelling Units subject to DCC 19.92.150.
(Ord. 2019-009 §4, 2019; Ord. 2008-14 §3, 2008; Ord. 91-001 §2,1991; Ord. 88-042 §4,1988)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 19.20. SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SR 2 1/2
19.20.020. Permitted Uses.
19.20.020. Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted:
A. Single-family dwelling.
B. Agriculture, excluding the keeping of livestock.
C. Home occupations subject to DCC 19.88.140.
D. Other accessory uses and accessory buildings and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use
subject to DCC 19.92.020.
E Accessory Dwelling Units subject to DCC 19.92.150.
(Ord. 2019-009, §5,2019, Ord. 93-018-1 §3,1993; Ord. 91-001 §4,1991, Ord. 88-042 §6,1988)
Page 1 of 1 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
Chapter 19.92. INTERPRETATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
19.92.010. General Exceptions to Lot Size Requirements.
19.92.020. Accessory Uses and Structures.
19.92.030. Exception to Height Regulations.
19.92.040. Establishment and Measure of Clear Vision Areas.
19.92.050. Exceptions to Yard Requirements.
19.92.060. Authorization for Similar Uses.
19.92.070. Existing Uses.
19.92.080. Pending Building Permits.
19.92.090. Repealed.
19.92.100. (Untitled).
19.92.110. Solar Height Restrictions.
19.92.120. Conservation Easements on Property Adjacent to Rivers and Streams; Prohibitions.
19.92.130. Fill and Removal Exceptions.
19.92.140 Existing Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
19.92.150. Accessory Dwelling Units in UAR-10 and SR -2 1/2 Zones
19.92.150. Accessory Dwelling Units in UAR-10 and SR -2 1/2 Zones
A. As used in this section:
1 "Accessory dwelling unit" means a residential structure that is used in connection with or that is
auxiliary to a single-family dwelling.
2 "Area zoned for rural residential use" means land that is not located inside an urban growth
boundary as defined in ORS 195.060 and that is subject to an acknowledged exception to a
statewide land use planning goal relating- to fannland or forestland and planned and zoned by the
county to allow residential use as a primary
3 "Historic home" means a single-family dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945.
4 "New" means that the dwelling beim constructed did not previously exist in residential or
nonresidential form "New" does not include the acquisition alteration renovation or remodeling
of an existing structure.
5 "Side -family dwelling" means a residential structure designed as a residence for one family and
sharing no common wall with another residence of any type.
B An owner of a lot or arcel within an area zoned for rural residential use (UAR-10 and SR -2 1/2 zones)
may construct a new single-family dwelling on the lot or parcel, provided:
1 The lot or parcel is not located in an area designated as an urban reserve as defined in ORS 195.137;
2. The lot or parcel is at least two acres in size;
3. A historic home is sited on the lot or parcel;
4 The owner converts the historic home to an accessory dwelling unit upon completion of the new
single-family dwelling; and
5 The accessory dwelling unit may required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations
relatingto sanitation and wastewater disposal and treatment.
C The construction of an accessory dwelling under subsection (B) of this section is a land use action
subject to DCC 22.20.
D An owner that constructs a new single-family dwelling under subsection (B) of this section may not:
1 Subdivide partition or otherwise divide the lot or parcel so that the new single-family dwelling is
situated on a different lot or parcel from the accessory dwelling unit.
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
2 Alter, renovate or remodel the accessory dwelling unit so that the square footage of the accessory
dwelling unit is more than 120 percent of the historic home's square footage at the time construction
of the new single-family dwelling commenced.
3 Rebuild the accessory dwelling unit if the structure is deemed a dangerous building due to fire or
other natural disaster, pursuant to the Unifonn Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings,
which defines "dangerous building" as "Whenever any portion thereof has been damaged by fire,
earthquake wind flood or by any other cause to such an extent that the structural strength or
stability thereof is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum
requirements of the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location."
4 Construct an additional accessory dwelling unit on the same lot or parcel.
E A new single-family dwelling constructed under this section ma berequired to be served by the same
water supply source as the accessory dwelling unit.
F Owner occupancy of either the accessory dwelling unit or the new single-family dwelling is not
required However, the new single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit may not be used
simultaneously for short -teen rentals of thirty (30) consecutive days or less.
(Ord. 2019-009 §6,2019)
Page 2 of 2 - EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009
FINDINGS
FILE NUMBER: 247 -19 -000137 -TA
APPLICANT: Deschutes County Community Development
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97703
PROPERTY: N/A
OWNER:
REQUEST: Text Amendments to the Deschutes County Code to incorporate changes to
state law regarding Historic Accessory Dwelling Units, per House Bill 3012.
STAFF CONTACT: Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Associate Planner
I. PROPOSAL:
The proposed text amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, County Zoning, and DCC
Title 19, Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, are detailed in the referenced ordinance attached
hereto with additional text identified by underline and deleted text by stFik Win, rough. Below are
summaries of the proposed changes.
DCC Chapter 18.32, MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE - MUA
DCC 18.32.0200) - Added accessory dwelling units subject to DCC 18.116.350 as an outright
permitted use
DCC Chapter 18.60, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - RR -10
DCC 18.60.020(K) - Added accessory dwelling units subject to DCC 18.116.350 as an outright
permitted use
DCC Chapter 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
DCC 18.116.350 - Added new subsection, Accessory Dwelling Units in RR10 and MUA Zones,
utilizing the provisions of HB 3012
DCC Chapter 19.12, URBAN AREA RESERVE ZONE UAR-10
DCC 19.12.020(G) - Added accessory dwelling units subject to DCC 19.92.150 as an outright
permitted use
DCC Chapter 19.20 SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SR 2 1/2
DCC 19.20.020(E) - Added accessory dwelling units subject to DCC 19.92.150 as an outright
permitted use
DCC Chapter 19.92, INTERPRETATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
DCC 19.92.150 - Added new subsection, Accessory Dwelling Units in UAR-10 and SR -2 1/2
Zones, utilizing the provisions of HB 3012
II. REVIEW CRITERIA:
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 19, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative plan
amendment. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is initiating one, the County bears the
responsibility for justifying that the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and
its existing Comprehensive Plan.
A. HOUSE BILL 3012
House Bill 3012 passed in 2017, authorizing—but not requiring—counties to allow a historic home
located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a
new single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel.
As described in the bill, the definition of "historic' means simply that the home was constructed in
1945 or before—not that the property is a designated Goal 5 resource.
It is important to note that HB 3012 stipulates "(5) A county may impose additional conditions of
approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling or conversion of a historic home to an
accessory dwelling unit under this section." Staff research found several categories of options
utilized by other counties in Oregon. Ultimately, the proposed text amendments included the
following additional conditions or clarifications:
Manufactured homes
The amendments allow placement of a manufactured home in addition to a new single-family
dwelling in MUA and RR -10 zones (manufactured homes are permitted in these zones already).
just as any new single-family dwelling must comply with existing Deschutes County Code, the
placement of a manufactured home would adhere to the provisions of the Deschutes County
Code.
Owner occupancy and short-term rentals
The amendments do not require owner occupancy of either unit; however, the text amendments
do not allow the two units to be rented simultaneously for periods of 30 days or less.
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 2 of 9
Owner occupancy was ultimately not required in an effort to recognize hardship situations that
could potentially threaten a property owner's abilityto maintain ownership, and, more generally,
to recognize that owner occupancy requirements could be a deterrent to a property owner
seeking to utilize this code provision.
"Lost to fire" language
The amendments clarify the phrase "lost to fire" and add text to include natural disasters as well
as fire. The amendments utilize language from the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings, which was adopted in its entirety under DCC 15.04.070, concerning the
definition of "dangerous building."
Water supply and wastewater requirements
As noted in HB 3012, the County may require the new single-family dwelling to be served by the
same water supply source as the accessory dwelling unit. The amendments retain the
permissive language (i.e. "may be required") in the proposed text amendments rather than
always require the same water source for the accessory dwelling unit and the new single-family
or manufactured home, allowing for variability of property conditions. To remain consistent, the
text amendments utilize the same permissive language for wastewater requirements.
Staff initiated the proposed changes and notified the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
111. FINDINGS:
A. CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES
1. Section 22.12.010.
Hearing Required
FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing will be held before the Deschutes
County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
2. Section 22.12.020, Notice
Notice
A. Published Notice
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a
statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under
consideration.
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 3 of 9
FINDING: This criterion will be met by notice being published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director
and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
FINDING: This criterion will be met when notice is posted in the bulletin board in the lobby of the
Deschutes County Community Development Department, 117 NW Lafayette, Bend.
C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except
as required by ORS 215.503.
FINDING: Given the proposed legislative amendments do not apply to any specific property, no
individual notices were sent.
D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice will be provided to the County public information official for wider media
distribution. This criterion has been met.
3. Section 22 12.030 Initiation of Legislative Changes.
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: The application was initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division, which received
a fee waiver. This criterion has been met.
4. Section 22.12.040. Hearings Bodv
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order.
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board
of Commissioners.
FINDING: These criteria will be met.
5. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 4 of 9
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance
FINDING: The proposed legislative changes included in File no. 247 -19 -000137 -TA will be
implemented by ordinances upon approval and adoption by the Board. This criterion will be met.
B. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
Finding: The amendments do not propose to change the structure of the County's citizen
involvement program. Notice of the proposed amendments was provided to the Bulletin for the
Planning Commission and Board public hearings. HB 3012 has been discussed by the Board in
several work sessions open to the public: first, during the Housekeeping Amendments legislative
process in the summer of 2018; next, at Board work sessions on November 5, 2018, and January 16,
2019. A Planning Commission work session was held February 19, 2019; a Planning Commission
public hearing was held on March 14, 2019. A public hearing will be held before the Board of County
Commissioners on April 24, 2019.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
Finding: This goal is met because ORS 197.610 allows local governments to initiate post
acknowledgments plan amendments (PAPA). An Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Department 35 -day notice was initiated on February 7, 2019. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on March 14, 2019, to be followed by a public hearing with the Board of County
Commissioners on April 24, 2019. The Findings document provides the adequate factual basis for
the amendments. The amendments to the Deschutes County Code will be adopted by ordinance,
as required by Goal 2, Part I. Any future development taking place pursuant to the proposed
amendments will be expressly defined and permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands, and Goal 4: Forest Lands
Finding: These Goals are not applicable because HB 3012 pertains to rural residential exception
lands only, not agricultural or forest lands. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-015-0000(3),
Definitions, states "Agricultural land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth
boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4."
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
Finding: This goal will be met. While the text amendments do not propose to change the County's
Plan policies or implementing regulations for Goal 5 open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and
natural resources, any future development taking place pursuant to the proposed amendments
will be expressly defined and permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012.
The conditions under which a historic home may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit as
stated in HB 3012 are "notwithstanding any local zoning or local regulation or ordinance
pertaining to the siting of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential use."
Deschutes County Code (DCC) utilizes the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone and the
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 5 of 9
Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone to help protect natural resources and conserve scenic and
historic areas and open spaces. Any future development occurring pursuant to the proposed text
amendments that fall under the LM or WA Combining Zones will be required to comply with
existing County regulations that maintain scenic and natural resources.
Lastly, it is important to note that while HB 3012 and the related proposed text amendments refer
to "historic homes," the definition of "historic" as it appears in this bill is simply a "single-family
dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945," and not a designated Goal 5 historic resource.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Finding: This goal is not applicable since the proposed text amendments do not propose to change
the County's Plan policies or implementing regulations for compliance with Goal 6. Any future
development taking place pursuant to the proposed amendments will be expressly defined and
permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012, and will be subject to code provisions that are
designed to protect air, water, and land resource quality.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Finding: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed text amendments do not propose to
change the County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding natural disasters and hazards. Any
future development taking place pursuant to the proposed amendments will be expressly defined
and permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
Finding: This Goal is not applicable because the proposed text amendments do not propose to
change the County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding recreational needs. Any future
development taking place pursuant to the proposed amendments will be expressly defined and
permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012.
Goal 9: Economy of the State
Finding: This goal is not applicable because Goal 9 and its implementing regulations focus on
economic analysis and economic development planning required in urban Comprehensive Plans.
The proposed amendments apply only to rural residential exception lands and do not propose to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 10: Housing
Finding: This goal is not applicable because, unlike municipalities, unincorporated areas are not
obligated to fulfill certain housing requirements. Any future development taking place pursuant to
the proposed amendments will be expressly defined and permitted by the provisions of state law
in HB 3012. The conditions under which a historic home may be converted to an accessory
dwelling unit as stated in HB 3012 are "notwithstanding any local zoning or local regulation or
ordinance pertaining to the siting of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential
use" and will be reauired to comply with existing County regulations.
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 6 of 9
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed text amendments do not propose to
change the County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding public facilities and services. No
development or land use changes are being proposed that impact public facilities.
Goal 12: Transportation
Finding: Goal 12 is implemented by Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 12. Local
governments are required to adopt a Transportation System Plan and land use regulations to
implement the TSP. This proposal does not include amendments to the County's TSP or
transportation -related land use regulations. No development or land use changes are being
proposed at this time that impact local or state transportation facilities. In addition, the text
amendments do not propose any changes to the functional classifications, performance standards,
or access management standards of any County roads or State highways. Any future development
taking place pursuant to the proposed amendments will be expressly defined and permitted by the
provisions of state law in HB 3012. The text amendments are consistent with Goal 12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
Finding: This goal is not applicable because the proposed text amendments do not propose to
change the County's Plan or implementing regulations regarding energy conservation. No
development or land use changes are being proposed that raise energy conservation issues.
Goal 14: Urbanization
Finding: This goal is not applicable because no expansion of an urban area is proposed by these
amendments, nor do the amendments propose to change the County's Plan or implementing
regulations regarding urbanization. Any future development taking place pursuant to the proposed
amendments will be expressly defined and permitted by the provisions of state law in HB 3012.
Goals 15 through 19
Finding: These goals are not applicable to the proposed text amendments because the County does
not contain these types of lands.
C. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands
Finding: As noted in the findings for Statewide Goal 3, these Goals are not applicable because HB
3012 pertains to . rural residential exception lands only, not to agricultural lands. Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-015-0000(3), Definitions, states "Agricultural land does not include
land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to
Goals 3 or 4."
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 7 of 9
Section 2.3, Forest Lands
Finding: As noted in the findings for Statewide Goal 3, these Goals are not applicable because HB
3012 pertains to rural residential exception lands only, not to forest lands.
Section 2.4, Goal 5 Overview
Goal 1 Protect Goal 5 Resources.
Finding: As noted in the Findings for Statewide Goal 5, while the proposed text amendments do not
propose to change the County's Plan policies or implementing regulations for Goal 5 open spaces,
scenic and historic areas, and natural resources, any future development taking place pursuant to
the proposed amendments will be expressly defined and permitted by the provisions of state law
in HB 3012.
The conditions under which a historic home may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit as
stated in HB 3012 are "notwithstanding any local zoning or local regulation or ordinance pertaining
to the siting of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for rural residential use." Deschutes County
Code (DCC) utilizes the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone and the Wildlife Area (WA)
Combining Zone to help protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces. Any future development occurring pursuant to the proposed text amendments that fall
under the LM or WA Combining Zones will be required to comply with existing County regulations
that maintain scenic and natural resources.
Lastly, it is important to note that while HB 3012 and the related proposed text amendments refer
to "historic homes," the definition of "historic" as it appears in this bill is simply a "single-family
dwelling constructed between 1850 and 1945," and not a designated Goal 5 historic resource.
Section 2.6, Wildlife Policies
Goal 1 Maintain and enhance a diversity of wildlife and habitats.
Policy 2.6.2 Promote stewardship of wildlife habitats and corridors, particularly those with
significant biological, ecological, aesthetic and recreational value.
Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites
Goal 1 Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces
and scenic views and sites.
Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually
important areas including those that provide a visual separation between
communities such as the open spaces between Bend and Redmond or lands that
are visually prominent.
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 8 of 9
Finding: As noted in the findings above, Deschutes County Code (DCC) utilizes the Landscape
Management (LM) Combining Zone and the Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone to help protect
natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Any future development
occurring pursuant to the proposed text amendments that fall under the LM or WA Combining
Zones will be required to comply with existing County regulations that maintain scenic and natural
resources. The proposed amendments are consistent with these goals and policies.
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Section 3.3, Rural Housing
Goal 1 Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes
County.
Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing
opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or
Oregon Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive Farm
Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones.
Finding: The proposed amendments directly address this policy. The passing of HB 3012 authorizes
counties to allow a historic home located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an
accessory dwelling unit and a new single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel.
The proposed text amendments adopt the language of HB 3012 directly, thereby ensuring a
diversity of housing opportunities in Deschutes County as stated in Policy 3.3.5.
V. CONCLUSION:
Based on the information provided herein, the staff recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the proposed text amendments to incorporate changes to state law
regarding Historic Accessory Dwelling Units, per House Bill 3012.
EXHIBIT G TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-009 Page 9 of 9
MEETING .BEG N S
UT ES COG
o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of April 24, 2019
DATE: April 17, 2019
FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
DELIBERATIONS: Price Marijuana Production Appeal, 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road,
Terrebonne
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Ted Price of McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC, applied for land use approval to establish marijuana
production in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne. The
proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 4,960 square feet of mature marijuana
plant canopy area the development of multiple structures and other ancillary improvements.
On August 31, 2018, staff issued an approval of the proposal. The approval was timely appealed.
The Board conducted a public hearing for the appeal on March 6 and 13, 2019.
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
DATE: April 24, 2019
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
RE: Deliberations: Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval
(File Nos. 247 -18 -000379 -AD / 754-A)
On April 24, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct will conduct
deliberations on an appeal, filed by Tim DiPaolo, in response to approval of a proposal to establish
marijuana production submitted by Ted Price of McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC.
1. BACKGROUND
Ted Price of McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC, applied for land use approval to establish marijuana
production in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Terrebonne. The
proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 4,960 square feet of mature marijuana
plant canopy area the development of multiple structures and other ancillary improvements.
On August 31, 2018, staff issued an approval of the proposal. The approval was timely appealed.
The Board conducted a public hearing for the appeal on March 6 and 13, 2019. At the conclusion
of oral testimony, the Board established a deadline for each of the open record periods. The
following materials (attached) were submitted into the record since the submittal of the staff memo
prior to the public hearing:
• 2019-04-03 Applicant Letter (Open Record Period 3 - Final Argument)
• 2019-03-20 Di Paolo Email (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal)
2019-03-20 Di Paolo Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-20 Wray (ODFW) Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-20 Stuber (USFW) Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-20 Pate Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-19 Price Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-15 Parks Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
• 2019-03-13 Board of Commissioner's Meeting Request to Speak Forms
• 2019-03-13 St. Clair Letter
• 2019-03-13 Applicant Letter
• 2019-03-13 DiPaolo Email
• 2019-03-11 DiPaolo Email
2019-03-11 DiPaolo Email
• 2019-03-07 Russell (Deschutes Co. Senior Transportation Planner) Memo
o Attachment 1 - Deschutes County Road Department Inventory Sheet
o Attachment 2 - ORS Chapter 368, County Roads
o Attachment 3 - Pages 80-81 from Deschutes County TSP
o Attachment 4 -Deschutes County Road Department Traffic Summary Sheet
o Attachment 5 - Board Resolution 2009-118, Road Moratorium
o Attachment 6 -Board Resolution 2013-020. Excerpt for SDCs
o Attachment 7 - ORS Chapter 223, System Development Charges
• 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal
o Wildlife Concentration (deer/elk)
o Wildlife Habitat (Golden Eagle Nests)
o Youth Activity Center Within 1,000 Feet
o Non -Legal Access
o Necessary Infrastructure Not Available (power and water)
0 2019-03-05 Vejrostek Letter
0 2019-03-04 St Clair Email
o 2019-03-04 Porraz Email
0 2019-03-04 Clock Letter
0 2019-03-04 Clark Letter
0 2019-03-03 Dykes Email
• 2019-03-06 Applicant Letter
o Exhibit A - FFA Letter
(Staff Note: No Exhibit B Submitted)
o Exhibit C - 911 Call Log
o Exhibit D - 2 Active Incidents in 2019
o Exhibit E - 6 Incidents in 2018
o Exhibit F - 4 Incidents in 2016
2019-03-06 Gibbs Letter
• 2019-03-06 Board of Commissioner's Meeting Request to Speak Forms
• 2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Presentation
2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Zoning Map
• 2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Vicinity Map
• 2019-03-06 Weidner (USFW) Email
• 2019-02-14 Deschutes County Sheriff Letter'
The complete record for the project has been presented to the Board over several meetings. The
following is a list of the meetings and materials provided at each:
1 The Deschutes County Sheriff Letter was previous provided to the Board but not submitted into the formal meeting record.
247-18-000379-AD/754-A
• September 12, 2018 Work Session 2: Record prior to the submittal of the notice of appeal.
• February 27, 2019 Work Session 3: Notice of appeal.
• March 6, 2019 Business Meeting: Regional map of subject property.
• March 13, 2019 Wednesday Morning Meetings: Same materials from March 6 meeting.
II. ISSUES RAISED
A number of issues were raised during the land use process. Staff has prepared a matrix that
identifies and summaries the issues and the Board decision points (Attachment 1). The matrix is
contains three areas:
• Identified Appeal Issues (Green) - Issues directed at applicable review criteria.
• Other Issues (Red) - Issues not associated with review criteria.
111. NEXT STEPS
The Board is scheduled to conduct deliberations at the business meeting on April 24.
Attachments:
1: Table 1. Issue Area Matrix
2: 2019-04-03 Applicant Letter (Open Record Period 3 - Final Argument)
3: 2019-03-20 Di Paolo Email (Open Record Period 2 - Rebuttal)
4: 2019-03-20 Di Paolo Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
5: 2019-03-20 Wray (ODFW) Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
6: 2019-03-20 Stuber (USFW) Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
7: 2019-03-20 Pate Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
8: 2019-03-19 Price Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
9: 2019-03-15 Parks Email (Open Record Period 1- New Information)
10: 2019-03-13 Board of Commissioner's Meeting Request to Speak Forms
11: 2019-03-13 St. Clair Letter
12: 2019-03-13 Applicant Letter
13: 2019-03-13 DiPaolo Email
14: 2019-03-11 DiPaolo Email
15: 2019-03-11 DiPaolo Email
16: 2019-03-07 Russell (Deschutes Co. Senior Transportation Planner) Memo
Attachment 1 - Deschutes County Road Department Inventory Sheet
Attachment 2 - ORS Chapter 368, County Roads
Attachment 3 - Pages 80-81 from Deschutes County TSP
z 9/12/18 Board Work Session: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=1910
3 2/27/19 Board Work Session: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2105
4 3/6/19 Board Work Session: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting aspx?ID=2108
5 3/13/19 Board Wednesday Morning Meeting: http://deschutescouniyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2110
247-18-000379-AD/754-A
Attachment 4 -Deschutes County Road Department Traffic Summary Sheet
Attachment 5 - Board Resolution 2009-118, Road Moratorium
Attachment 6 -Board Resolution 2013-020. Excerpt for SDCs
Attachment 7 - ORS Chapter 223, System Development Charges
17: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - Wildlife Concentration (deer/elk)
18: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - Wildlife Habitat (Golden Eagle Nests)
19: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - Youth Activity Center within 1,000 Feet
20: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - Non -Legal Access
21: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - Necessary Infrastructure Not Available (power and water)
22: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-05 Vejrostek Letter
23: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-04 St Clair Email
24: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-04 Porraz Email
25: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-04 Clock Letter
26: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-04 Clark Letter
27: 2019-03-06 Appellant Submittal - 2019-03-03 Dykes Email
28: 2019-03-06 Applicant Letter
Exhibit A - FFA Letter
Exhibit C - 911 Call Log
Exhibit D - 2 Active Incidents in 2019
Exhibit E - 6 Incidents in 2018
Exhibit F - 4 Incidents in 2016
29: 2019-03-06 Gibbs Letter
30: 2019-03-06 Board of Commissioner's Meeting Request to Speak Forms
31: 2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Presentation
32: 2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Zoning Map
33: 2019-03-06 Staff Hearing Vicinity Map
34: 2019-03-06 Weidner (USFW) Email
35: 2019-02-14 Deschutes County Sheriff Letter
247-18-000379-AD/754-A
w d N
O 6
++ d
w > tc
^\
ow
^-' u .p u
V m t m Z @ va
is `p
c
u `w u o -o u
L m Z w N
O
O p O L
'O o C C 0
>
a O C p C t
m bo m p p 0
w bo
io
c v> m e
_�
00
cc w c w
c o .. c c w .2 mN w w
T,.,
c
`o T TL
'-
p
u ._ c
o w «, c
p
o u w e
' '-
'°
2 A o vi u o D A D u
10
w u - =
m 0 u- --
Y N
w
¢
N N
c b4
a >, w v c c
¢ o
w M, c a o y v o0
oo a E w w a="
w 9
M" O a u o m o w w o
c T o ° E °: >
° `J
bb
y
v c= c r 3 `° w Lw. E Y °' N c C
w o 0 @ a'y� p
n C
U
m w
vci
O N> GD O
•N N N C C ..9
O om w
O O m O>
U v �� o^ wo2>
�m
m
w���>o om�gw�w?=°O E
�°
o 0 0 =o v E w
w' w
`m c a w L j v w o= v v v v°
F
''
ao c ao r o v v
wom6 ro o. " a s
n E
c m w
.�.. a '^ w N '^ a 3
'" w a L w c w :°_ o w w
°c°
c" w c
0 0 .c °- m e
w u m u o - o
„°, w
m
c 2 'L'' x o u `° `° ao m
•• a o u u r in
w c c �a m m o v> v
n
v a a c v c
a c;
w v
m= Y E au C)� N Y c owo v w a o c
0.n w c t o.
F
E 'N _
w w c E a c ._ L o m a E L m o
now H
v w o 2 3 15 w v
a c c
°° w
Y `o
w E ^ E L w u 2� o u
o Z 0 v a o °c
}
t 3
my c; v o
y
n m -o
o o a w° o
e°o u° ca c a w ^� 3 w c s c -o
"O uVr OL y D u -mp ° 3
W O
w H> w U c N u U¢
sm+
C W
L
72 W'O
, O w>
E N u w V
._
bD � V
C
v c c a o
'c
o c c
C u w w C i
O Lw 'O
w N i> L E o w c m E E c p
`o.
V E a L .O3 c °w' w w ` 3
aE
m
Ec
-o o O: $ `� ` ',-°, o° u v c c
ww°c-dc wmEn cao as w
waE w3m w30
r E o L w; L w o` v
F u F c -° F C a O C m
'.9 0 o
V1 U
t Y w w c o L w o y o o 9 w E c
F N m N F> U ui 6 O.
�a
°c
m m
c w °
� a o a
y`
u E -
c o
o C
N w c w a
L C ~ m
m'
Y
�°
E w Y w o
Y
3L o
-.
o,w_
of
0
6:
T
O . a
«+ ,a
Q
t w -o
° L= E w o
w
C ,-
Q
�c�
ov�`m wa
YO
c N O C ate+
d.'c
m
c a o w
C
a a O
C
w a
FL- YQ
`w o Q w m
w °
a c
r o to v
'
IA
w c
w cc O m N
O 'c N `°
oo
T 'O "
a'
m
m "OO
v
c m vwi Sc
6 A O m �'' N c p. �O Q « Fm-, O w
c u = v
M t°o m u `m' m `�° 'o
v v m'x
m ._ o .L.. T
m w
m o w°
N
w m m ;° o "- H ,La m 'C o f- m
'^ > u > w w
v
c w .w.. c a
c E
w >a o m u c .m. Y c N w �` w vi o w w E
0 4fY
Z
a4 v o am c
�w > u v o
4 o
o z u v E -oLcoo ° o 5 5 ;m w
m g.
E n w o v w° m
;�
m °' m a
c v
° w a u w B° g w v c c v Y c
Ec
O m L Y ..,
n oo @ n ac
,.. o- .`_' c
v p a m
v
v w
'° m w o v c v
w^ u° E o
m
*„
m w v w w n o E w
aL+ '.' E
w n L a p
L u w m
O O
'o
O
o y v �� w v o N _w Mw u
a c m w o > m m m t na
L Y w a c LL p u¢ u
a'
> w
'p O bA C C .° h" '� pp
.O C j> m C
'O Oa
h w ,L, O c -
"O G o C y C_ w a 0 O a C L 0 u
"Q'
3 w 3oN wvtac
wwn� E
wa
3cb�°p �wmaQ (,u W, ccmw°N�
E=
Z'
c c �3 0 w c w w a�
ram w m a
c Y
c N 4 0 40 a¢ o o E E o
Q,..
O w c N O o C
�"'
N
C
w m O O N
3 "° D. CO N F L w
O m
`O CM m, n LL N m 7i m J
C> i>
m w .� m
m m T
T uJ C
`O E O C C a w u ao O
m c
.d:
N
`� o.c - ono o.v o mo
n "o c w
aacocoonw °�°w
an °'
E
`inL u w c. m.° Ow Z`m
oo a od m $ a , w o
v
d.
a w � o a o
w w ° E m w o m
cc_ v _na ¢�-�v
a c 'o ¢
¢ c o¢,
n o
o ;n u
m - a ow e oo E E c
o
urEww=oc�
. .:
,.., ,� .-
v 3 F c L O Y m H o arm
w'Mso0o
IL- 3 y ,n 0
v m a
waY
L m o
F m c
cN3m wnEE¢aa
o w ... c u �, ° c c `w o o w. N v o 0 c
u c o m o ._ u ._ ._ > u a o O ._
a'C+ w t G
w
u C
N aao 0
LL O
p -p m N� W Q
N _
'
,: ¢ bo
C w C�
_
m 9 Z 6
;
N m v u
e m E o u 2
omov
E o
, E E O 2 2
``.
n c c
In N U y
o.
Q N U V~
W.
¢
T C
� An
T o15
S
o
+' to w
�..
O V
o
'm o o m C
a bo
my
w 'O °nm o�w
N
w
J I
o
'w7' .6
cw
mO
;
u
' '
O ib
cL
o
o o
u
0 o w E
(J p:,
w 2 w
wm
o Lw c
c a.o c a\ v.Z
L w wo
3 Y m
o w o °c v L a°
v.oa pm u�,
v
Q N V u U
c v
w m a "O T
Y V C p w J U
„- w C
W -p C= Z' o W U d
O C
w N o
m
° C a m -O
o H
C -a A d u n j L
yi % m 2
W
u
N u E C L O C .2 O L W
?j` u
G/ E
'.
Y c w
`p w w N L1
n n
O m
C N p
J CO a o j
O m m w >� p
'O >�
N N 'r,. C
p 'Y w
_ ry
a E C t ry t
N w O w =6 a y m 3 W
w
Ea -
o Y0 -ap C Z
m C w N
w w ,J� .�' Q
C w V N m
C
Q
C d
°
N aL+ N y N w
m
v
m Do
C@ Q
uai
° >`w
v
''..
o�r�
O V c
v
c Z` N >' w C
c 3L,,o4Y^
N C a C J Q 'fl C
EL. L., >•'o
I -o C
E � v w °
O> Y ii E .� u E o
'.:.
C J L m
°i
w N .O m
w
'N°
w w 0
_ J N O op ._
c a) "o m
`� W O O "O
.Y 'w
E
u
o 3
p w oo
r v v m
c° O
-a w E 'u o l- w v
w° wo N n:>
o w=
a
c v :D N a
LL w w o o
..
m.
m° m a '�-
o
o_ J
a m c
v w 9 c'
v y a v
w u c
a
E` m w m > E v
m no L E bo " o E o
o f
`o
' .
c Q o o
o E m 0 a m
�, u' n °
m I
m w c> m a !' A
_
.> '° v� L v
c r �' ._
= E
a
o v E u E t E 'c
2 0 __ o u E p w y
r..
N o .wc 2, _
O r
w �L.. >_
'c .v '" a w 3 w
C m
.3. c
C �' L m o m a o u ., E
w C
�' c
O
O O C N
� T+ C w u
E m w C Y -° W
> >. ?�
d
c c
> N Y -a N v -O V w N
"O
0 4 � v m
u
Y o c o f w
m w -o E c y¢
m ° mO` c w
m
m° AL
v w v N w v �e y w
m -o o'o_v21 0 >-c
LL>
w
'y:
aa. p C j
n U E J w
Y W �' w m a0 .J C
J
w J n a
U v > w N V LL N L
I C
U v b°o
C 2 r co W u
IL- N T N N
O N
i
3po -E
w L
3m
c 5 Q
L� oaw vEm
Bo
>`
nom owp'
-
C O y
N
O aa+ J A w p m
4=w
c '� a c u
0
m�
E o a
E
w v v N N w
N L
i�
>.
n C
E u° c�
m "O
y J 'w'
V C C C
n
C w p C
O n m
YO ba
w C
vi G C Oi `1 .0 O A N N E m
.h a:
F" 3
c c o
a
° a
m
E
m vwi a a c a 3> m vi
c ry w m G Q v
IL b.
Q E 2 a u �.
m O' Q
LL Q C
w °
N
u W m E
an E m
M O> C
°° N m C a G J 0
° tin
o E
O
c o N Y '�
Y L w 8; i ;o E .N
'
a
^ Y v n c m aN
boa
a c c wm o
J '� c E
°c o cb i y w c 2 w o E
N y w o « 'm >
.a. bc° wo r m
-w w v y w E v°
o ;; E •o E w a c
nJ'
m c w' o m
u Y w` o.
ou o N v Y c �' c o o c
a m c m t
C N E a; bo
c �` ._. P: 4 $ Jo- u° a o
m m N C m u_ O M
c
u w �+ C C
_ w ;.
u` C C W I v C V
._ w o u w � w v w
:.
c v m v a u.
goo ° A
Q
a o N E c u o E o
Q` �` o u
v '�>° > v ami v •Io E
V
N o'-
arn'-_ n °� N
o m
o
r V L m 0
IA
c L >,
o
to E
N
o o
_
J v
m
N
>b ._
> w m• v t
I
2
xK
0 9 w u c
v" o c o
Y o v oo
ba —D
u;> .v o m° u v° c n E c
a '" a Y c c u .+ '2 w o J `gym- — o 2 c
:$
o
?* V
r- m o v c wu
F c .° 3 I c
> i° E_ > u v ,a, n '" o. m u
o 4
c F`w, v
C Q
N o
v
r
s°. v
w ,cc o < i. u
,u � m
m• o ._
'pd in N m E Y
c v E
O C +' I u
ao _ oo N m m
m i. Z+ N >T
a m oo m m
W w b9 C
> a
'�..,
y�y 1-
a u>' E
c. c
On
.- ',�' w w o w'
n> °
N m o w C p O
E a I JCI 'o v Y m m cm: a
Y L w m o Q c a_ f]
w � w
_
m
bo
y 'O a vwi c ono
L J
_. o
o c o v S'
N 3 a m L V 3 E >' ° LL ._ w .. = L ca
m°. OU '-' m
y m w
{L i
O. Q'
1+ u o Q a O
vwi
'p E w a w " Q m
u T :.
2m 3 a 4 L a � N C Y a m m L .5.15
. L T w C N N C o>,
r E C
E O C u C
N Ou 0 o m r u
n a m Q
'O a "O M .O
N L m n H
i
Y V w y
Y C G
2 w n .'w-^ b0 w a
J O C C LL•. C N
w T .m..
G m N
N C
NU
LL w O w O V O
NJ,
N
"O I A O N O p o O Y T O O LL i O C N
.> 2
OU j "O
g Yf.
E
N a c w c
N@ Q
:: o � w
N y w o w N:
c y$ m o m c
w c w
a E -a ;�
E c m z Lw w c a c
� .v a .v . d
c 4
A
H!
m c a w p
o as v'°'�
,L,
«° 'o J �' "
i^ uc m v °
w" L w w LL '.-' 'w w u w m c m EIm
Y ' L w v
E_• c c c m E>,`w ac nc aoao_ o N.>
Q
n 3 c
c a
._ o f w :o a
E w v w m N E -O
o m 'o a
E Q o
m
_n°
Q E w L ¢<
'°
w
o
E E v
o L
_ a w o c" .a m
a a° c w
°: N ^
�_ L $ E w �' aNi J w v -o s I 'w w J w I
V m E r o P °c -°o H E v m o 5 H u° ° m
a u°
m
J
r
L
n
W L V"
I
�
O` m
y
•
d N O 'O
m N Cj�
M E C M
dF
'm`-
N
2 mop
m C
w E u 6
N C �+
Z
Q L>
z v u.
U
Emu
E E
N o Y
ap
F x
,,
pd on-v�t°�...
m<
Ov?
W
V Q vi
ani 0
w
w
w E
G
N
o
Z
v " _
c o
m ov E
y
r ow
Y
o ao oar cp
vi mw
-
3
nr
w j v
OL
0
A W N~ N w
N
N
N
d
w N C
•00 O "O -p W
c o
2 6T
N
O
v Y E
3
L w o
w
u
w u
w
w
n
N C
@ o o
t0
m
°c
y�
oY�°_°�E
ao c v '^ v
w y 0
v
_a «.
E
a
w
v = Y
c o
w •V� =
c v
O
L= W
N O
N
N
a
n
Y—C
Q N C
= 0 cl
c
a
N N
w acv o V E
O
7a+
'T Q O
�E
M ul
O�
C
n v
O w
WOC
oy
O
=
Qa�
a
oco
on
v `0 E
win
wO
i
C
u
C
N
3a W'GOE
t
ew
w
w N �1 y
O Q O
C C
N u
p vi
W N
.2Yp
N 1
3 m c o E
o f �
; N
w.o
�v.n
o w w
u
EvL-�
+' v
c 3
ns c
=
w L
w p
n u
c
w p- A
a E
w"
`o
L O°
n 3
Z v
w
w
w E
N O H V
o '" a
N
o
Z
v " _
c o
m ov E
y
r ow
Y
o ao oar cp
vi mw
-
3
nr
w j v
CSE
0
A W N~ N w
N
N
N
d
w N C
•00 O "O -p W
c o
2 6T
7 u M
O
v Y E
m
a
w ui
u v E'o w e
w M 0
V
u
n O
CC d
O
a
n
N C
@ o o
t0
m
°c
m
m
ao c v '^ v
w y 0
Y ¢ c>
cEa
E O w 'O
'O
tw7
N w
c
nd
n u OaOO �@
C
V VC p C
d N Op
c
a
N N
w acv o V E
w
N O H V
o '" a
N
o
Z
N
m ov E
y
Y
o ao oar cp
vi mw
z°°
p
3
nr
'N' 3
s
CSE
0
0
Q° S o w r-
3
c o
2 6T
7 u M
u
O C T
v oa c T 3
'^
m •o
o v E
o
m w c
L v oo.
L v
I w 2, m
O L, L C O `
3 w a
c 72 C
3 w o
C 72 c
C T 7 C w
W p
w p
O
vY� 0
O T'O
O "a
w y 0
Y ¢ c>
cEa
cEo
E z E a o a u°
tw7
° o
ro
m
a
n
N
y
� p
Om
bo
VIdi
W> > O u
7 u M
7 L
'O �D
s o6
Q 06
'07
J
W
H
6
W0
na u
u
u
u
ro
m
a
n
N
a
v
u N
w
C a G
V a d
o
N C .O
mr mvw,Ld.,Ld.
3 o ti
9
v d a d
-o` d d N o
T d C
N W m 0
d d
A D
.c
v
w m o
w w E o u
a
O
y
o m a
o;'
is
N �n
aL+
d Y d
Z
aL+ d
a m
c L
O
O N
O=
o O
V
N 0
O N O
O
w v
CL
-'
w
w oD
c
-' E
3
pati
¢ m
Amo
av
o C
d
w�3
vo
Hm__
`w.`t�%
o d 3
E ao
'^:c
Em
0
a; n 3
d
.oD
L c
O
a N w
0.4.
`! p
N 2 m
m N d
.N
d
y a
d
C
m
o
c
w o
>
0 0
c n
c
o
w
E d
w
-
N
w
d T
"°0 -
w Z
O
N c
0 0
N EO
m O
d
a
@
Q
T Cc
T
C a=+ -= ry m C
'�
c N°: o d
c o C N a
c
m m L 0m
m y
o
o a
^� o
" E°
n
'OM
Z
¢ m m
f- v=i n
!- ou u O
L
f-
a
u N
°i 3 ,L.+ No
C a G
V a d
o
N C .O
mr mvw,Ld.,Ld.
3 o ti
C
L L O V
v d a d
-o` d d N o
T d C
N W m 0
d d
A D
c
v
w m o
w w E o u
C C w
oa m
°o
o m a
o;'
m d m o m
a d E w v
w to
s=
$ v
sm
a m
`
�Ld.
n
o
o N
N �-. of2 w
N
Y
N m n
W d
-t
a
Y 3 '_
'� N
n
V= a H
.
U)
NO y0
d h d
o. bo Y a
U pp G C
_ m
`ou
d
E w
w C
a 0
w v i
°.w
3
in or N «�
Hm__
`w.`t�%
o d 3
E ao
'^:c
Em
0
a; n 3
d
d io~ w d t
m
A
u !^
o
-
3
c
°u c o
c o
°-' w o c
L t
a E
N
o
w
E d
�
v °•
m
C a o
`w
° a°
3:
w Z
d
N
^m
cwcam
�wm_3v�
;wnoo
Lww
c
c¢ W
C `0
C a=+ -= ry m C
'�
c N°: o d
c o C N a
c u
m y
m ._
u m
m a Y
N E P m e
an d t7 0
p c N m o
m
eD d lwu
n o
¢tri.
¢_
¢m�'�3=m
Crnc �u
¢wa•dp
¢vDD
E m
r E
s u M o
r N n u ° w
tL- o. E `a u
c
2 m_
'tun m a0 m mo
Q M
N M d `w m d u m
2 o6
U U V
o o o
N
' C
a
A
mr mvw,Ld.,Ld.
3 o ti
b0
d-d3o
a
a@ N y
die o
O w 'Y
Y d '� o
Ld
=0
C vii
d N t0
0. u N
= d w
d
o m a
o;'
'd
Y
d .o
u c
m o r
a m
o..� '�
�Ld.
? o
o
E o a
c °
d ,oma d
u w ad
0 r, a
N '�
° �' v
wLd, o
w a E
c :o o_
Y -p w
Y o_ .x
w o a
o c_
a n d
L N OC
w
-
3
c
°u c o
°c
m
o 0
°
E j
o
w
c"°^
u
m o
°'
o
m
n
C a o
`w
v
m Y
W d `0 =
°
=
Y
a m y 3
o y
n d L o
n° a
o
'x N c 0
.�
n v 3 0
.�
d E CL O`
—0 EN
L bD O 0 41
L rd-' y -C V
L
t 3
L
l7 i n
I- 'C C a=
I- vi N m 0
H= 0.
I- u O L n
F- a s
c
2 m_
'tun m a0 m mo
Q M
N M d `w m d u m
2 o6
U U V
o o o
C
0
00
w
w D
c
'O
O
O
C
C
O'
a
0
o �
°
c
c o
O
T
o u
c
o w
'°1' °
a
0 w
c
C O
C
u
d
C
N N
w>
H p y
u
0
Ou
m
C -O
d
O-
c
O
m
°
c-
a Z E
o
�maM
0
o w
E
y
a
0
N
M a
N
`
vii .V
N
N
`
N✓
O
@
v
.a
oc
u>
b
c
E
u
oE
w
m
m
m
W
o
i -
y0N
v
w
ZI
v m o c c
E
c o
v
m
m Q
D
&
c
v
°
.o
r u 1
c
u"
`-'
C>
f°
`-'
�
E e
m°
o
CL
�° o
a
o
E -0
.a
o w
m E H z
w
w
n
0-
w a
CL
E
E
u°
z
� O
u C
z
u 0.
z
z
z C F- 0 0
0
o
z
j
v
N
c
�
L%
O
0
O
p
w
Y
O
y
m
c
ti
G
a
,p
O
m
Q
-�
O
L
E
'3
m
E
C
L
W
w
3
v
w
�
°
v
w
v
O
ut
NO
C
�
L
aL+
a T
U
C
E
E
E
ov
w
w
n
°
O
u
O
O
L 0
F C
L
F
Q
z
z
z
o
c
o w w
a
c
z
0 0
v d
c
M
L
�a
L
w
;�
N
Q o E
B,
c
>
c
0
E
c
_
wv
c
w
w 0
-a
on
E
v a
u°
c
C
N
N
G
u
0 w
y
o
• a
• E
w
w
N
>
'O
w
�^'
L y N -
O -°
O
C
d
C
$
m
c
v
3 j5 z o
-0
w
Y
o
o
E
E
w o o
-0
m
v0
E
E
-cc
`m a' c
0
c
�-
°
c u
c
-o
«�,
u°c
u
• C
vi
"O
O'
NL
to
E N
0 C
• E
u"
°
w
oo a
m
o a
N A
w
m
L
j c
C
.> E
L
N c
c
c Y
N w C L
u
O
c
c
m
w m
c MM
C
c
a •o
w c
m A 3 2, c s
w
a° o
eo
no
w
c
°'
o c
a w
°' �° °° w E c
c v
i
• a
v
o
r
N
Y
u
0
c -0 o
0
m c
u o
w o
o
y o o Y i m
3 v
m
y
3
o
c°-�°
>,
E
N v
E L
E w
E
`o
o E�
c
c
w
c= w
u o
c c
w
r o
c w
v
c m 0 u
u o u m
�m
i E
0 c
a r
uO
uO
F-
u° u°
uO
c
c
m
?
a
r)
w m
w
r
N
E^
Id
.^-
y J
w -O
m
w 'o N
N c a
w w
N O C
o
O
a a
w
LL
April 1, 2019
David Mullan/Edwin Price/Doug Spencer
McKenzie Canyon Properties LLC
McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC
320 SW Century Dr., Ste. 405-234
Bend, OR 97702
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
Attn. Matt Martin, Associate Planner
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97703
RECEIVE'!.
Deschutes County CiDO
r'/ -e 909i/7 -19-00075q-4
Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision
File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD Applicant/Owner: Edwin Price and Marian Bertotti
Matt, Chair Henderson, Vice -Chair Adair and Commissioner DeBone
Please accept our closing statement regarding the above referenced matter before the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners. McKenzie Canyon Farm will be operating an agricultural farm on an EFU zoned property. We
chose an EFU zoned property as we wanted to be in an area compatible with farming and that expressly allowed
our use (a small scale craft cannabis farm). We do not believe that EFU zoning is intended to support residential
homes or hobby farms. EFU is Exclusive Farm Use, whether that be a cannabis farm, a pig farm or a feed lot
among many other possible farming activities all with varying degrees of sight, smell and noise factors.
Decisions on this Appeal should be decided solely on the merits of meeting Deschutes's County's Code
Standards. Appellant has met each standard as approved by county staff. Worries about would could happen in
the future or the personal biases of Cannabis should not enter into the decision-making process. Appellant
trusts that the Commissioners will keep focused on the facts and Code Standard in making their decision in the
matter.
Below we address each section of the Appellant's Appeal and ask that the Commissioners deny the Appellants
points of Appeal.
1) Wildlife/Eagle —The time to revise the status of Golden Eagles was before the application was approved
by county staff, not after extensive time, money and resources have been spent by the Applicant and
county staff operating under an already determined set of facts. County staff, in their findings approved
this section of the Burden Of Proof. Furthermore, Applicant has confirmed in previous testimony that it
will comply with all regulations and if necessary, adjust construction schedule and acquire any permit(s),
as to not disturb the eagles during nesting season. Therefore, Appellant's Section A of Appeal should be
denied.
2) Youth Activity Center —Applicant has gone out of its way to reconfirm that there is no registered (or in
any other way official) Youth Activity Center operating on the neighbor's property through contacts with
the Appellant's referenced 4H and FFA bodies. Both 4H and FFA have communicated to Applicant that
Calvin and Amanda Foster and Steven Calavan are not now and have never been registered as leaders
with and that their property is not now and has never been registered as a Youth Activity Center with
either organization. The Appellant has provided no evidence of a Youth Activity Center. Making a claim.
or submitting hearsay tgstimon ry dogs not create a fact (or a Youth Activity Centers). it is the Appellant's
burden to show proof of an operating Youth Activity Center and they did not do that. Therefore,
Applicant respectfully requests that the Commissioners deny Appellant's Section B of the Appeal.
Applicant also refers the Commissioners to review public testimony from Lindsey Pate submitted on
March 20, 2019 for further background and perspective on Youth Activity Centers.
3) Water, Power and Health/Safety—The Appellant makes arguments in the appeal and in much testimony
and public comments that have nothing to do with the Deschutes County Marijuana Land Use Code
Standards. Applicant has met the County Code Standards in these areas as determined by the County's
professional and very capable staff and as expressed in their findings contained in the Applicant's
Burden Of Proof. Therefore, Appellant's Section C and D of Appeal should be denied.
In closing, Applicant asks the Commissioners to focus on the Deschutes County Code Standards as has been
presented by county staff in their approved Administrative Decision. We have met the Deschutes County
Standard to all applicable sections of the Burden of Proof. We took forward to setting an example as a model
craft cannabis business for Deschutes County and the State of Oregon. We also look forward to being a positive
addition to the McKenzie Canyon community.
Regards,
David Mullan, Edwin Price and Doug Spencer
Partners, McKenzie Canyon harm LLC
1
Matt Martin
From: Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:29 PM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: 2019 TSID Water Rights.docx
Attachments: 2019 TSID Water Rights.docx; ATT00001.txt
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I just received this from TSID
March 19, 2019
Tim and Wendy DiPaolo
Re: Water Rights and allowable uses
Dear Tim and Wendy:
This letter is in regards to your questions regarding Three Sisters Irrigation District's
water rights and how they can be used.
Three Sisters Irrigation District (formerly Squaw Creek Irrigation District) has a
Certificate of Water Right, Number 74135, which confirms the right to use the waters of
Whychus Creek (formerly Squaw Creek) for IRRIGATION, POND MAINTENANCE,
INDUSTRIAL USE, AND STOCK WATER.
Water is only available during the irrigation season, which according to our Rules and
Regulations, is from April 1 to October 31. The right to the use of the water is restricted to
beneficial use on the lands or place of use.
Hopefully this answers your questions regarding Three Sisters irrigation District's water
rights. If you need additional information feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Linda Thompson
Office Administrator
PO Box 2230, Sisters, OR 97759
Phone 541-549-8815 Fax 541-549-8070
www.tsidweb.orQ officetsidweb.org
Matt Martin
From:
Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:19 PM
To:
Matt Martin
Subject:
Fwd: Letter
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: wendy dipaolo <willowcampcater@sbcglobal.net>
Date: March 20, 2019 at 12:47:36 PM PDT
To: Tim Dipaolo <timdi aaolo@grnail.com>
Subject: Letter
Tim and Wendy DiPaolo
70413 Mc Kenzie Canyon Rd
Terrebonne, Or 97760
541-923-8675
March 20, 2019
Attn: Deschutes County Commissioners
re: Case # 247 -18 -000379 -AD
First off please confirm that you're getting this. We would appreciate a response. We're not confidant that our letters
are being read by you.
We would like to take this opportunity to again address our concerns about the proposed pot grow operation next to
us on McKenzie Canyon rd.
As the appellants we have spent all of our savings on legal council and are now representing ourselves.
We'll just succinctly list our concerns again.
There are a multitude of problems with this application.
First and foremost, out of twenty two homes in our canyon, not one supports it.
Electric- lack of recorded easement prevents CEC from upgrading them to the required power demand. Applicant
stated that they would start small and only use the power that currently comes to the property. Said power is 200
amp, 3 phase 480 volts dedicated to a shared (by 4) ag well. The water is deemed irrigation not domestic. If they
were to use this electricity it would prevent the four of us from watering our third cutting. It should be said that the
electric bill for this well is being paid by one of'our neighbors- Ken Tisher, one of the four.
The two neighbors who could possibly offer easements have emphatically said they would no even consider it.
The unknown impact of this operation on the Golden Eagle nesting sight adjacent to the properties western edge -
within 300 feet.
Security- We live in an area that has no Sherrif patrol. Police will respond when called but are at least forty minutes
away. Pot is a cash business, it's not too far fetched to think that we cold be mistakingly thought of as the owners of
the operation. There are no fences separating us even though the applicants said there were. They were either lying
or mistaken.
Water: It is our understanding that because they will be using greenhouses they will need a "Nursery Water Right"
This is obtained through the district (TSID) and we don't believe they've done so. It should be said that the pipe
supplying water to our fields does not do so in the winter.
The Road: Mc Kenzie Canyon road is basically a one lane, rutty, marginally maintained (by it's residents) dirt road.
Dusty in the summer, frozen and snowy in the winter. There are many days we can't get out in the winter time. It's
not even a gravel road. We roughly see ten cars a day. The impact of trucks and workers associated with the grow
operation would greatly effect it.
Fire: We are not in a fire district. If there is a fire nobody comes. We're on our own.
Noise- Applicants would be allowed to make noise until 10:00 P.M.
This is a very quiet canyon and possibly the most remote in Deschutes County.
Noise (any noise) would impact our lives her considerably.
In closing we would like to urge you to turn down this application. If this application is approved we will probably
start looking for another place to live. A shame... we bought our farm fifteen years ago with the intent to live out our
days in Mc Kenzie Canyon. This is the first time something has mad us question that decision. We love our
neighbors (most) and we love the canyon.
Some false statements by the applicant:
That someone in the canyon offered to act as security if the need arose. No one we've talked to (almost everyone)
has admitted to offering this.
That applicants property is fenced. Not true. There is a floppy, falling down fence along the driveway on the far side
of his property. There are no fences separating their parcel from ours.
That there was a domestic well on the property. There is only an ag well, not domestic well, shared by four
neighbors.
That the road is a public road. Not true. Except for one 3/4 mile section deeded to the county in 1998 the rest is
private. We have submitted a map to back this up and it is in files. County records back this up.
We urge you to re read Liz Dickson's appeal submitted way before the first hearing. She's way better at explaining
this than we are.
Sincerely,
Wendy and Tim DiPaolo
Matt Martin
From: Simon Wray <Simon.N.Wray@state.or.us>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:30 PM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road
Attachments: 70355 McKenzie Canyon Rd 032019 .pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Matthew,
Please find attached ODFW's comment letter regarding Deschutes County file numbers: 247 -18 -000379 -AD and 247-18-
000754-A.
—Jimen
Simon Wray
Conservation Biologist
Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
East Region
61374 Parrell Road
Bend, OR 97702
541 633-1116
Simon, n.wray cDstate.or.us
rego'j"'i
>
March 20-2019
Matthew Martin
Deschutes County I'larining Dept.
117 :NW Lafayette A s,enue
Bend, Oregon 977 03
RE: file Numbers 247-18- 000379 -AD and '247- 18-0007 54-A
Mi', Martin:
Dep.ar rrrEC rit of l r II and N rldhI'V
1?enii t ra,�a�car� �a '(l2
The Deschutes County C:omprehensivc Plan; C.;hapter� 18.90 (Sensitive Bird. and Mammal Habitat
Coin.bining Zone- SBIv41d) section 18.90.020. provides golden eagle nests a 1.320 ft. (0.25nrile)
protection bu,f:fer.
ODFW is aware that Iv o golden eagle nests; located in proximity to the proposed development
referenced in Deschutes County Planning file numbers 247-18- 000379 -AD and 247-18-000754-
A, are not included in the Deschutes County Zoning Map or the county's Comprehensive Plan.
And as a result of this omission, the county has determined that the property in question is riot
subject to provisions in the SBMH combining zone (see. page 9 of document 247-18-000379-
AD/Price, dated August 31", 2018).
ODFW disagrees with that determination and conclude that the eagle nests should be afforded
SBMH Combining Zone protection. We base this on (1) Oregon Administrative Rule 660-023-
0030 and (2) a statement in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan that aligns with the intent
of Goal 5 and cites a responsibility to protect sensitive resources.
Specifically:
1. OAR Division 23 —Procedures And Requirements For Complying with Goal 5
OAR 660-023-0030 (1) states: "Inventories provide the information necessary to locate and
evaluate resources and develop programs to protect such resources." However, this section also
indicates that the inventory process is not always necessary prior to protecting a resource i.e.
"...the initial inventory step in section (2) of this rule is not applicable in chat a local
government may rely on information sUhnzitted by applicants and other participants in the local
process."
OREGON
fs Ak
Kish d bk'Ildllle
Of)FW is aware that the United States Fish and Wildlife. Service provided Deschutes County
v-ith information regarding the two golden caule nests in question. And the existence of the nests
has been brought to the county's attention by rnetnbers of the county's citizen, therefore,
absent their inclusion in the Lone Map or the county's Cornprehensive Plan. OAR 660-023-0030
alloN�.s for protection ofthe nests as stipulated by 18.90.020.
2. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Regarding the importatice of protecting sensitivee wildlife resources; the following conclusion on
page 3 oPDeschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan states: "The fish and ivihilye
resources of Desc°haltes County have ora trnpoiwly role lo plat in the ;naintenance ofihe
em,'ronaaaew that so n�uny local residents enjoy, and vvhich attracts so rstan'v visitors each yeah.
The vole of ibis reso�urc•e ill the local. economy also Tnusi not he overlooked .guru' jinolly, orrr
responsibility as gruarcr'ians of ihis incTeasiInat't° rare and irre}71aceob1c resource cannoi he
.lor��ottc:n."
ConsiderinLy the infor nation discussed in this letter. ODFAN' concludes that pursuant to section.
18,90.020 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, protection should be afforded to the
tvvo golden eagle nests located in proximity to the proposed development, referenced in
Deschutes County Planning file numbers 247-18- 000379 -AD and. 247-18-000734-A.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and for your consideration of inforrnatio�n contained
herein.
Please contact me if anything in this letter is unclear or the county wishes further discussion in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Simon Wray
Conservation Biologist
ODFW-Bast Region
61374 ParrelI Road
Bend, OR
541633-1116
:J1B)()1-1j1 \IwN
cc:
Sara Gregory (ODFW)
Corey Heath (ODFW)
Andrew Walch (ODFW)
Emily Weidner (USFWS)
Matt Martin
From: Stuber, Matthew <matthew_stuber@fws.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Matt Martin
Cc: Weidner, Emily; Angela Sitz; Watts, Katherine; David Leal
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: McKenzie Canyon Land Use Proposal
Hey Matt,
As we discussed on the phone a few moments ago, below are some additional comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on the Deschutes County Community Development Application - File Number 247 -18-
000379 -AD.
1) The facilities/activities proposed in this application - 6-8 additional buildings and other ancillary site
improvements - have been proposed within (approximately) 600ft of a known golden eagle nest. The proposed
activities will permanently alter the existing landscape and, although it is not detailed in the application, seem to
have a likelihood of catalyzing a long-term increase in human activity in close proximity to a known golden
eagle nest/territory. We think it is likely that the activities proposed will cause disturbance of the nearby golden
eagle nest/territory. Nest disturbance is a form of take (see definitions in 50 CFR 22.3) and, as such, is
prohibited by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668d).
2) Details on the exact nest locations and distances to proposed activities (and a statement on line of sight of
those proposed activities from the nest) are not included in the application. However, the Service generally
recommends, to minimize the risk of disturbing golden eagle nests, that permanent and substantial landscape
alterations not occur within one mile of a golden eagle nest site. This distance can be decreased to one-half mile
if the landscape alteration will not be in a direct line of sight from the nest in question. The same
recommendations apply for human activities that do not permanently alter the landscape, when conducted
during the breeding season.
3) The Service can issue permits to authorize eagle nest disturbance under limited circumstances. Permits can
be issued to authorize eagle take that will occur incidentally from an otherwise lawful activity when (among
other criteria) the applicant has a) avoided and minimized the likelihood of eagle take to the extent practicable,
b) agreed to monitor the nest for the permitted term (and beyond if warranted), and c) provided compensatory
mitigation to offset the predicted take at a ratio of 1.2:1. A full description of requirements/criteria for take
authorizations can be found at 50 CFR 22.26 (httpss:l/www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx? SID=055cf98 cf9a051558a2b8dae7c7d7d7a&mc=true&node=se50.9.22 126&rgn=div8).
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the above. Additionally, please feel free to
pass my contact information (email and/or phone) along to the applicant if they have questions or wish to know
more about the permit process.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.
Matt
Matthew J. Stuber ( Pacific Region Eagle Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I Div. of Migratory Birds
Office: 541-618-2201 1 Cell: 503-729-0178
Physical Address:
3040 Biddle Rd.
Medford, OR 97504
Visit our website to learn about eagles and eagle permits in the Pacific Region
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:57 AM Matt Martin <Matt.Marti n(�)deschutes.org> wrote:
Good Afternoon -
I just left a with Matt. I emphasized and additional comments must be received by 5:00pm today, March 20, to be
included in the project record for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
Thank You,
Matthew Martin, AICP I Associate Planner
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703
PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708
Tel: (541) 33�0-46201 wy%y%A deschutes.org[cd
Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to
constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any
person.
From: Weidner, Emily <emily weidner@fws.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:45 AM
To: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>
Cc: Matthew Stuber <matthew stuber@fws.gov>; Angela Sitz <angela sitz@fws.gov>
Subject: McKenzie Canyon Land Use Proposal
Hello Matthew,
just spoke with our regional eagle coordinator, Matt Stuber. The Service's Migratory Bird Program
has a different assessment of the risk to eagles near the McKenzie Canyon project area (247 -18-
000379 -AD). Please call or email Matt as soon as possible to discuss our recommended path
forward.
matthew stuber(a),fws.gov
603-729-0178
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Emily
Emily Weidner i Fish & Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Bend Field Office
63095 Deschutes Market Road
Bend, Oregon 97702
Direct: 541.312.6423 1 Cell: 971.334.1822
Matt Martin
From: Lindsey Pate <lindsey@glasshousegrown.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:53 PM
To: Matt Martin; Phil Henderson; Tony DeBone; Patti Adair
Subject: T. Price testimony File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD LP 3.19.19
Attachments: T. Price testimony File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD LP 3.19.19.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello Matt, Chair Henderson, Vice -Chair Adair and Commissioner DeBone,
I wanted to send you my testimony for File No. 247 -18 -000379 -AD directly, please let me know if you have any issues
viewing this and certainly feel free to reach out if you have any questions for me.
Thank you,
Lindsey Pate
CEO and Co -Founder at Glass House „Grown, Award Winning Craft Cannabis
President at Cascade_ Cannabis Association, Central Oregon's Cannabis Business Advocacy Group
I,,rndsey.(ii).glasslio isegiowil-ColiI
541-213-9306
G L A S S
H O U S E
G R O W N
March 16, 2019
1
Dear Chair Henderson, Vice -Chair Adair and Commissioner DeBone,
Thank you for letting me speak to why I support the staff's decision in approving the land use
application located on 70355 Mckenzie Canyon Rd, Terrebonne, OR 97760 for cannabis farming (File No.
247 -18 -000379 -AD). My name is Lindsey Pate and I live in Terrebonne on Exclusive Farm Use Land. I
served on the Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee (MAC), I am an owner of a craft
cannabis business and I am the president at Cascade Cannabis Association. Unfortunately, I grow more
and more concerned about the state of cannabis land use in Deschutes County. This appeal is a perfect
example of an application that meets the code and yet many resources, by the applicant, the County,
and the appellant, are being wasted as we dispute the validity of an agricultural farm crop being grown
on Exclusive Farm Use Land in Oregon.
Back when we starting discussing the regulations, it was stated many times by the current
Commissioners at the time, the Planning Commission at the time and by members on the MAC, that we
as a County wanted to create an opportunity for Craft Cannabis farmers to operate in the regulated
cannabis market here in Oregon. I have had a few opportunities to talk with the applicants and I am so
very pleased to see business owners who are operating above the law, with integrity and the vision for
building a Craft Cannabis farm. This is not an industrial farm as the appellant has stated many times, this
is a Craft Cannabis farmer with under 5000 square feet of mature canopy; compared to just about every
other business in Oregon and especially outside of Oregon, that is a very small canopy. It is a great size
for a farm to truly be a Craft Cannabis business and have attention to detail in their farming.
think it is important to remember that we are discussing a land use that is permissible for the
subject property's zoning and the applicant has proven the use can adhere to the code that was created
to govern local cannabis businesses in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. There are two
types of concerns mentioned in the staff report, those that can be addressed by the county code and
those that can not. In terms of the concerns that can be addressed by the code; the applicant has
provided a burden of proof that was deemed complete by planning staff to address the concerns for
Odor, Water, Light, Noise, Security, Electrical Service, Youth Activity centers and Wildlife Habitat. The
staff, who are both highly qualified and professional in their work, have deemed this application to be
complete, approved and have clearly stated in the decisions that those concerns have met the county's
code. I would also argue that the land use process has mechanisms for addressing the application in
terms of its fire safety and traffic impacts.
Concerns such as road condition, property values, visual impacts, quality of life, children living
nearby, assumed increase in crime as it relates to cannabis farming and property configurations do not
have standards in our code to justify denying this land use application. I ask the Board of County
Commissioners to focus on the code and the concerns that can be addressed by the current land use
process. If we, as a County, would like the ability to deny applications based on new standards, I believe
we need to start over again and re-establish an advisory committee to assess how the cannabis
�oow;
Integrity Service Excellence Transparency
March 16, 2019
2
regulations should be changed and how this will impact farmers and residential uses equally. However,
in the meantime, we cannot go outside of the scope our code provides here and now.
I would like to take a moment to discuss Youth Activity Centers. This has come up a number of
times: during the MAC we talked extensively on this, later as applications came in and precedent was set
on the code that was adopted and more recently when the new code was proposed. The issue has
always been how to define this and currently, the code has a clear standard to use. In my
understanding and from the discussions I have seen take place since 2015, it was never the intention to
have unregistered youth activity centers be considered part of the 1000 foot setback. As I understand
this particular case, the 4H activity is not registered as an official youth activity center. Furthermore, a
regulated cannabis farm is not a crime anymore, nor is using cannabis for medical reasons or for
responsible adult consumption. I believe our energy and resources are better used to address proper
education for our youth on cannabis use as we would for alcohol or prescribed medications.
Our land use process should not be so overly burdensome and lengthy that it prevents
law-abiding farmers from participating in a regulated system. When the State of Oregon voted to allow
adult cannabis consumption, local jurisdictions were given autonomy to opt in or out of cannabis
operations, and Deschutes County after, a very lengthy process choose to allow cannabis businesses in
our unincorporated land. The question is not should this business be allowed to operate but if it meets
the code. Please treat our cannabis farmers with respect and give them an equal opportunity to use
their farmland for just that, farming.
Thank you for you time,
Lindsey Pate
CEO and Co -Founder, Glass House Grown
President, Cascade Cannabis Association
541-923-0420
Resident in Terrebonne OR on EFU land.
Private Mailbox: 2660 NE Hwy 20, Ste 610-443 Bend, OR, 97707
Integrity Service Excellence Transparency
Matt Martin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Sue Price <wer24theroad@gmail.com>
Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:07 PM
Matt Martin
File #247-18-000379-AD/754-A
Ted land use letter.pdf; ATT00001.htm
1
March 19, 2019
Dear Chair Henderson, Vice -Chair Adair and Commissioner DeBone,
We have just spent considerable time studying the Findings and
Decisions Document for File Number 247 -18 -000379 -AD, approving
the Land Use Application for the craft cannabis farm located at
70355 McKenzie Canyon Rd, Terrebonne, Oregon 97760. In so doing
we believe that the Owner, Marian Bertotti, and the Applicant, Ted
Price have diligently worked to provide documentation to your
commission to insure that all sections of the land use codes will be
met and/or exceeded.
We are writing this letter to assure you that our son, Ted Price,
has worked very hard to acquire the knowledge to grow and provide
high quality craft cannabis for adult consumption. He was diagnosed
with dyslexia at an early age and has struggled to achieve his goals. In
spite of his disability he has worked hard and studied to become
extremely knowledgeable on the propagation and growth of craft
cannabis. He is caring and committed to cannabis farming and to
providing a quality product while staying within the scope of the laws
and land use requirements of the state of Oregon and Deschutes
County. He is only asking for an equal opportunity, with other farmers,
to grow and market his crop.
My husband and I are asking that you allow this young man to
achieve his dream of farming craft cannabis and demonstrating that
he will be a good neighbor to those families residing on McKenzie Road
in Terrebonne, Oregon.
Respectfully,
Jim and Sue Price
Matt Martin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
David Parks <mcrpmindy@gmail.com>
Friday, March 15, 2019 7:38 PM
Matt Martin
case # 247 - 18 - 000379 - AD
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mr. Martin,
Please forward this to the commissioners and confirm that you have received and forwarded. Thank you.
Dear Commissioners,
I will begin with an apology. Last Wed. Mar 13 when our neighbor dropped us off in front of the county build
my husband slipped on the pebbly gravel. He was not hurt but I found the incident worrying and I did allow it
to distract me. If I was not totally coherent or if I wasted the commissioners time in any way I am sorry.
Thankfully your decision to uphold the appeal is based in legalities. I will list the following 5 items that I
believe have legal bite.
1. Electrical easement. Everyone in the canyon knows there is no electrical easement to McKenzie Canyon
Farms At the meeting on March 13, the applicant spoke with total assurance that CEC told him that they did
have an easement. I may be wrong but it appeared that the applicant did not produce written proof that he was
correct in his statement of assured easement. BECAUSE the commissioners base their decision to honor the
appeal on legalities and since this county is long past doing business with a handshake alone, logic dictates that
at some time the applicant needs to show legal paperwork regarding easement. I am politely asking the
commissioners to check, double check and then get out the magnifying glass to check again that all aspects of
the electricity issue is legal.
2. Not one word from the applicants about the use of water has inspired in me that they understand water, usage
and basic irrigation rules. I can only begin to stress the importance of water and the importance of adhering to
the rules. Because the commissioners base their decision to honor the appeal on legalities I politely ask the
commissioners to double check that all aspects of the water issue is without loophole and completely legal.
3. Golden eagle nesting. I believe it was Muir who said that just knowing wildlife was still on the earth
sustained him. Let us preserve the eagles.
4. Wildlife overlay. There are 2 irrigation ponds on my ranch. At the end of the growing season while there is
still water in the district irrigation system my husband and I use our own money to fill both ponds to help
support wildlife over the winter. I am asking the commissioners to assure that all legal restrictions of the
wildlife overlay light, noise, public gatherings and fencing (to mention a few) will be met and adhered to by the
applicants. Some things are just not allowed under a wildlife overlay.
5. Attractive nuisance. By law and for safety reason all swimming pools even private ones on private property
have to be fenced. I feel very strongly that the fact that no one is in residence 24 hours a day on McKenzie
Canyon Farms creates an attractive nuisance. And as was stated by our county sheriff, criminal mischief has
increased in every area where marijuana is grown. McKenzie Canyon Farms will be the magnet that draws the
criminal element. The applicants seem to feel that the cameras and alarms that they have on their site is
sufficient, end of story. And maybe it is for them. But that means that every home in McKenzie Canyon is
potentially collateral damage. The first responsibility of government even at the county level is to protect their
citizens. The best way to protect the families living in McKenzie Canyon is to honor the appeal. We all have the
right to be safe.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ruth Parks
76425 McKenzie Canyon Road
Terrebonne, Oregon
Subject:
Name
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
-V�u�. V*\ Cir-"(" C C q n
Date:
Phone #s1
E-mail address
aIn Favor t>-,;- ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed
15�_rlll . /
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Q Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
T411V�_ / (
v� rEs c4�
2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Subject
Name
Addres
Citizen Input or Testimony
Phone #s
E-mail address 21,
® In Favor Neutral/Undecided 2 Opposed -lopjp/,ccei
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Commissioners, I have valid concerns about the safety and security of the families and
homes due to the proposed construction of a marijuana facility in Mckenzie Canyon. I
am aware that employees of the facility must undergo a cursory criminal background
check. This check is done in name only and does not use SS#'s. How many
disqualified employees will be missed without the use of SSVs as an employee
identifier?
Even good employees have friends and acquaintances who will, under various
circumstances, find their way to our canyon. Absolutely, some of these will have
criminal histories and continued criminal intent. The Deschutes County Sheriff has
stated that service calls to marijuana facilities are increasing. Remote rural families and
homes are exceptionally vulnerable to many crimes. Criminals will look upon Mckenzie
Canyon as a prime hunting ground. A call for help from McKenzie Canyon has a law
enforcement response time of one hour. Think of what harm can be done in that
amount of time.
The increased exposure of McKenzie Canyon to dubious persons associated with the
marijuana facility is a serious safety and security concern to the families in the canyon.
March 13, 2019
David Mullan/Edwin Price
McKenzie Canyon Properties LLC
McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC
320 SW Century Dr., Ste. 405-234
Bend, OR 97702
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Matt Martin, Associate Planner
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97703
Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision
File No. 247-18-000379 Applicant/Owner: Edwin Price and Marian Bertotti
Matt,
Attached please find a narrative of our rebuttal to appeal hearing testimony in the above reference matter.
We have heard lots of conjecture and NIMBY -ism from the Appellant and from some of the public comments
submitted. Applicant appreciates the fact that change can be alarming to people and that a common response
is to overreact to impending changes. From my own experience living and operating businesses in the vicinity of
various new building developments and road expansions I have lived on the NIMBY side of the table. I can say
that for me, more often than not the change is much less than originally feared and in some cases was even an
unexpected happy improvement to quality of life. We would like to now rebut, some of the conjecture and
misstatements of fact entered into the record by the Appellant and in public comments.
1) We have no intention to show the Foster's in a bad light. We simply believe the facts from the
Deschutes County 911 calls are not supportive of the claim that an active Youth Activity Center has been
operated on the property. As discussed at the March 6 hearing, it is up to the commissioners to weigh the
relevancy and significance of those facts. For the record, the Applicant is not the originator of the any 911 calls
to the neighboring property.
2) RE: 991 call to investigate elk hanging on property. Appellant's attorney claims it was a pig. Applicant
never witnessed the scene and was not the source of the 911 call. The sheriff's deputy that responded to the
call reported it as an elk after his own visual inspections. In either case, an animal left hanging on the property
for an extended period of time does not seem appropriate for a "Youth Activity Center" for health reasons and
possible safety issues by attracting predatory animals.
3) We have continued to have discussions the Oregon State 4H office. They continue to confirm that Calvin
and Amanda Foster Foster and Steven Calavan are not 4H leaders and there is not an active 4H Youth Activity
Center authorized on their property. Marilyn Lefineister, who is in charge of Oregon State 4H Volunteer
Development and Risk Management confirms the information That Candy Bottmeir from the Deschutes County
4H provided to us previously. Marilyn said if written confirmation is needed, the Deschutes County Attorney will
need to request that directly. Marilyn may be reached at 541-737-2794.
4) Appellant's attorney raised our relationship to the property as an issue for some unknown reason. To
clarify for the record, we have a lease to own contract with Dr. Marian Bertotti.
5) Appellant's attorney spoke extensively about large numbers of deer ranging between Redmond and
Sisters. Is she saying that no Recreational Grow facility should be allowed to operate in the entire area?
6) Much was made of the Golden Eagles in the canyon. We have reviewed the email submitted on March 6
by Emily Weidner. We acknowledge the 0.5 mile nest disturbance buffer during the nesting period. We further
acknowledge that no construction activity will occur within the nesting period, or if it does, a proper permit will
have been be issued to us.
7) Applicant commits to road upkeep and has actually already contributed when "the hat has been
passed". We believe the neighbors will be satisfied that we will do move than our fair share of road upkeep over
time.
8) Appellant's attorney raised numerous times that the Deschutes County sheriff is not in favor of our
application. We understand that he is biased against marijuana. The bottom line is that we have met the
standard for the issues he has raised; noise, odor and security.
9) Appellant's attorney and public comments keeps raising the issue of well water. FOR THE RECORD:
Applicant is not utilizing any well water for marijuana irrigation.
10) Three Sisters Irrigation District has advised the Applicant that the irrigation canal water can be used for
marijuana production. Linda Thompson from Three Sisters spoke the Oregon State Water Resource Office,
Water Rights Dept. She indicates that no permit is necessary to store irrigation canal water and in fact they
encourage the storage of water for agricultural needs outside of the date the irrigation canal is operational.
11) CEC has informed Applicant that they own protecting our power access due to the fact that they
neglected to acquire an easement when power was brought in and properties subdivided. We understand the
limits on upgrading the power at this time and Applicant has made a business decision to operate on a limited
scale until such time a additional power can be brought to the property.
In closing, I ask the Commissioners to focus on the facts and standards as has been presented by county staff in
their approved Administrative Decision. We have met the county standard in all applicable sections of the
Burden of Proof. Particularly re: Youth Activity Centers, the county staff was very detailed in their findings.
Conjecture about what could go wrong is not sufficient for the commissioners to deny an application. We look
forward to setting an example as a model craft cannabis business for the county and the state. We also look
forward to being a positive addition to the McKenzie Canyon community.
Regards,
David Mullan and Edwin Price
Matt Martin
From:
Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 13, 2019 4:35 PM
To:
Matt Martin
Cc:
willowcampcater@sbcglobal.net; eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com
Subject:
Mj grow
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Matt, I'm sorry to keep bugging you but I must say I'm very disappointed in the way the hearing went today. It's quite
obvious that nobody read my submittal ( or any of the others).
I'll repeat my point regarding electric . The only power coming to the applicants property goes only to the well shared
by 4 farms. The applicant states that they will start small using the power presently on the property while they pursue
an easementnt.Two points: number one, no one is going to give them an easement and number two, they cannot use
the power currently dedicated to the well and pond pumps. We use the well every summer when TSID water delivery
goes below 30 percent. For the applicant to just assume that they can use this power and none of the commissioners
questioned it is very discouraging. I don't want to dump this on you but apparently I'm not permitted to write to the
commissioners directly. I feel like this is slipping away and no one is paying attention to what we in McKenzie Canyon are
saying. Thank you for your consideration Sent from my iPhoneTim DiPaolo
Matt Martin
From: Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:51 AM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: Fwd: letter- will edit more before sending
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Wendy DiPaolo <dexters1 @icloud.com>
Date: March 7, 2019 at 4:38:36 PM PST
To: Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo(a)f;mail.com>
Subject: letter- will edit more before sending
Wendy and Tim DiPaolo
70413 McKenzie Canyon Rd.
Terrebonne, Or
97760
March 7, 2019
Attn: Matt Martin and the Board of County Commissioners
Re: Land use application being appealed (247 -18 -000379 -ad)
We were at yesterday's hearing and would like the opportunity to add a few more points.
#l: Last fall we suggested that the applicants call a meeting to meet all the neighbors and
address their concerns. We invited then candidate Patti Adair to attend. At yesterday's hearing
the applicants stated that Patti voiced her opposition to their grow at our meeting. This is not true.
She never once talked about it.
#2: Electric. The only power that comes to the applicant's property is a 200 amp, 3 phase,
480 volt service, dedicated to the irrigation well pump and pond pump. It is our understanding
that they cannot use one amp of that power any where else on the property. The irrigation well is
shared by four parcels (this was all one parcel when the well was put in.) Additionally there is no
legal easement to cross neighboring properties to allow CEC to do an upgrade (to approximately
a 1000 amp service that the grow would require) The applicant stated yesterday that they would
start small and use the existing power until they could come up with the power they need.
a: They can't touch the power to the well
b: Tim has been a builder for over forty years and there's no way you can get a permit to build a
house or business without verifying your power demand and source.
#3: Security. Mc Kenzie Canyon Rd is not patrolled by the Sherrif's Department.If you call them they will
respond but they are at least forty five minutes away. Because this used to be all one parcel there are no
fences between our properties. We live in the original house, built in the late 1800's and it appears that it is
all one parcel. Our concern is that since the Marijauna business is an all cash business it's not too far fetched
to think that someone could mistakingly think it was our operation and break into our house looking for
money.
Because we're in a Wildlife area combining zone (Ch. 18.88) they are only permitted security fences around a
10,000 sq. ft area (18.88.070, fence standards)
They're proposing nearly 18,000 sq. ft of buildings with parking and space between them which way exceeds
10,000 sq. ft.
Matt Martin
From: Tim Dipaolo <timdipaolo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:48 AM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: MCKENZIE CANYON Research 2015.pdf
Attachments: MCKENZIE CANYON Research 2015.pdf, ATT00001.txt
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
(.:�4
Mike Berry
From: Mike Berry
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 11:38 AM
To: George Kalb
Cc: Gregg Rossi
Subject: McKenzie Canyon Dedications in 14-11-13
Attachments: McKenzie Canyon Road Research 2015.pdf
George,
Attached are sketches of the only public right-of-way dedications I could find in our files for McKenzie Canyon Road.
To summarize, apparently only Partition Plat 1998-9 has dedicated approximately 3/4 of a mile of 60' and 30' wide right-
of-way, all in 14-11-13. The rest of the road was created as a private easement in 1972 deed 186/676.
Mike Berry, PLS
Deschutes County Surveyor
61150 S.E. 27th Street
Bend, Oregon 97702
B (541) 322-7112 Fax (541) 388-2719
Cell (541) 815-2352
mikVbCf i-0Aeschr.t1es.or.us
cc: Gregg Rossi, County Cartographer
(D u,
>
"rY CSJ �y t✓
L.
� Q
O
0
C
cs
3
o
� O. Er
o
OV
o 'v ._ a
w v
oUOOOa
c w a a
a
CL 0 4-
a o
;;t {- = rL
5
t '
N C y W" t
d
io
ac�vdvc
YoE—E�
V V Cf� CI
qi
�r V 0130L
. 4 to Rind
N
ci
_
-0 CO
F
L.
� Q
O
0
C
cs
3
o
� O. Er
o
OV
o 'v ._ a
w v
oUOOOa
L.
� Q
O
0
C
cs
V p= W
o
� O. Er
o
OV
o 'v ._ a
oUOOOa
c w a a
a
CL 0 4-
a o
;;t {- = rL
t '
N C y W" t
d
ac�vdvc
YoE—E�
V V Cf� CI
qi
�r V 0130L
. 4 to Rind
N
0
0
O
O
C1
MEMORANDUM
To: Matt
Martin, AICP, Associate Planner
P,
From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
Date: March 7, 2019
RE: Issues raised regarding McKenzie Canyon Road as part of appeal of an
approved marijuana production site (247-18-000379-AD/754-A)
Several questions emerged at the March 6, 2019, public hearing regarding McKenzie
Canyon Road and the subject property at 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road. (See Figure 1)
These related to status of the road, access, condition of the road, the road's operating
capacity, the potential of the Board adopting McKenzie Canyon Road into the County -
maintained system of roads, and earmarking the $20,905 transportation system
development charge (SDC) to McKenzie Canyon Road. Staff addresses each in this memo.
Figure 1. McKenzie Canyon Road, blue= private road section; yellow= public road section; red= subject property
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
e (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www,deschutes.org/cd
Status of McKenzie Canyon Road
Physically, McKenzie Canyon Road is a dirt road which connects to NW Lower Bridge Way,
a County collector, at the north end and Holmes Road, a County collector, at the south
end. For the bulk of its roughly 6 -mile -length, McKenzie Canyon Road is a private road.
The exception is the approximately 2,689 feet where the road crosses the south boundary
of the Lee and Debbie Smith property (70477 McKenzie Canyon Road, aka 14-11-13, Tax
Lot 400). This segment is a Local Access Road, which is a public right of way. (Please see
Attachment 1, Deschutes County Road Department Inventory.) However, a Local Access
Road is not a County -maintained road per Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 368.001(3).
(Please see Attachment 2, ORS 368.) Additionally, ORS 368.031(1) states the County is not
liable to improve a Local Access Road or keep it in repair. In sum, the abutting property
owners are responsible for the operation and maintenance of McKenzie Canyon Road for
both the private road portion and the Local Access Road portion.
The appellant's attorney calls for the County to regulate this roadway in order to protect
public health, safety, and welfare. Yet, the County has no regulatory authority for the bulk
of McKenzie Canyon Road as those segments are a private road; the County does have
access permitting authority for the small segment which is a Local Access Road, which is a
public road. However, that public segment of McKenzie Canyon Road does not abut the
subject property. The appellant's attorney presents no credible evidence in the form of
either crash reports from the State's data base or an analysis from a professional
transportation engineer that the road is inadequate.
Subject property's access to McKenzie Canyon Road
The segment of the road which provides access to subject property is a private road.
Therefore, Deschutes County has no authority to review that access. Deschutes County
access standards set forth in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.48.210(A) only apply to
public roads. Additionally, as the proposed marijuana production site is for less than
5,000 square feet, then the access review criteria of DCC 18.116.330(6)(8) do not apply.
The appellant's attorney in her brief accuses the applicant of evading the law (see page 5
of Notice of Appeal brief). Staff argues the opposite, the applicant is complying with
adopted County code.
Condition of McKenzie Canyon Road
The physical condition of a private road is not the concern of Deschutes County. Persons
who purchased property along McKenzie Canyon Road likely traveled that road prior to
acquiring land or owning or renting homes along this dirt road. No traffic study is
required for this land use application as it did not meet the review criteria for site plan
review (DCC 18.124) or the traffic study requirement of DCC 18.124.080x) or the traffic
study thresholds of DCC 18.116.310(0).
Page 2 of 5
McKenzie Canyon Road's operating capacity
Even if a traffic study were required, given the low volumes of average daily traffic (ADT)
on McKenzie Canyon Road and the low trip generation rates from the site, the most
probable result of a study would be to show the County's performance standard of LOS D
would have been met. Traffic studies only focus on levels of vehicle traffic and
operational analysis of an intersection; the physical condition of a road is not a
requirement of a traffic study. Finally, the County's standard for a County road segment is
a maximum of 9,600 ADT as set forth in the adopted 2010-2030 Transportation System
Plan (TSP) at Table 2.232. (Please see Attachment 3, Pages 80 and 81 from the TSP.)
The most current count (2015) for NW Lower Bridge Way is 478 ADT by Holmes Road.
(Please see Attachment 4, sheet from Deschutes County Road Department Traffic Count
Summary.) The County has no traffic volume counts for Holmes Road and would not
count McKenzie Canyon Road as it's a private road. Public testimony stated there were 22
fulltime homeowners on McKenzie Canyon Road. The most recent edition of the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual indicates a single-family generates 9.44
weekday trips per home. A first -order impression would be McKenzie Canyon Road would
have 208 weekday ADT (9.44 X 22). The ITE indicates a single-family home generates 0.99
weekday p.m. peak (4-6 p.m.) trips per unit. Thus, the anticipated weekday p.m. peak
volume would be 22 p.m. peak hour trips (22 X 0.99). The approximately 6 p.m. peak hour
trips from the marijuana production site would be an inconsequential increase in traffic
volume.
The AASHTO Green Book, which the County has adopted, considers anything below 400
ADT to be a low-volume road. In other words, McKenzie Canyon Road has remaining
operational capacity as do the intersections to which it connects. Staff assumes the
majority of the site traffic would use the NW Lower Bridge Way/McKenzie Canyon Road
intersection due to the shorter distance to/from the subject property.
Adopting McKenzie Canyon Road into County -maintained system of roads
Appellant's attorney has proposed that the Board accept McKenzie Canyon Road into the
County -maintained system of roads. This concept is problematic. The Board has had a
moratorium on accepting new roads into County -maintained system since 2006. Board
Resolution 2006-049 stated due to loss of timber receipts, the County would not accept
any new roads into the County -maintained system. Board Resolution 2009-118, which
superseded the 2006 resolution, gave the Board the discretion to accept new collectors or
arterials into the County -maintained system. (Please see Attachment 5, Board Resolution
2009-118) McKenzie Canyon Road is neither an arterial nor a collector in its functional
classification; McKenzie Canyon Road is classified as a local road. Thus the Board has no
ability to adopt the road into the County -maintained system.
Page 3 of 5
If appellants were to argue McKenzie Canyon Road's functional classification should be
changed from a local to an arterial or collector, staff notes there are already existing
collectors that parallel McKenzie Canyon Road. To the east is Buckhorn Road and to the
west is Holmes Road. Changing the functional classification from local to either collector
or arterial requires a comprehensive plan amendment. The Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) at Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060(1) identifies changing a
functional classification as a significant effect.
McKenzie Canyon Road's location, the close proximity of other collectors, and the low
population density served by the road, all argue for maintaining McKenzie Canyon Road's
functional classification as a local road.
Apply Transportation SDCs to McKenzie Canyon Road
The attorney for the appellants on page 6 requested the County earmark the $20,905 SDC
from the development for use on McKenzie Canyon Road. There are several reasons this
is not possible from a legal standpoint.
The County cannot spend public monies on a private road. Board Resolution 2013-020
specifically states SDCs are to be used for capital improvements. In Section 3 (Definitions),
at 3(D) a capital improvement is described as "shall mean a public facility or asset used for
Transportation in the unincorporated areas outside of the urban growth boundaries of
the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend." (Please see Attachment 6, excerpt from
Board Resolution 2013-020.) The plurality of McKenzie Canyon Road is a private road,
therefore the road is not eligible for SDCs.
ORS 223.297 states SDCs can only be spent on capital improvements. ORS 223.299(1)(b)
states capital improvements do not include operation or routine maintenance of
transportation facilities. ORS 307(2) requires SDCs can only be spent on capital
improvement projects which increase capacity. (Please see Attachment 7, ORS 223,
System Development Charges.)
The one brief segment of McKenzie Canyon Road that is a public road is a Local Access
Road. Under ORS 368.301 a County cannot legally spend funds to improve or repair a
Local Access Road, except in emergency circumstances. While a pre-existing unpaved
road may not be optimal, this does not rise to an emergency.
Even if it were legally possible to spend SDCs on McKenzie Canyon Road, Planning and
Road Department staff believe from a policy standpoint it is preferable to spend scarce
financial resources on the arterial and collector system. These are County -maintained
public roads with much higher traffic volumes, documented crash data, and serve
numerous County residents and tourists.
Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
The proposed marijuana production site has no transportation issues and complies with
the applicable approval criteria of DCC 18.116.330(B)(8).
Attachments: 1) Deschutes County Road Department Inventory Sheet
2) ORS Chapter 368, County Roads
3) Pages 80-81 from Deschutes County TSP
4) Deschutes County Road Department Traffic Summary Sheet
5) Board Res. 2009-118, Road Moratorium
6) Board Resolution 2013-020, excerpt for SDCs
7) ORS Chapter 223, System Development Charges
Page 5 of 5
var
J
J!w
F
w
s
W
Z
N
0
M W v
h
m
(`N?
J
n
o
LU
Orn
,hry
d
C
w
¢
o o
O ;O ¢ w
z 0 o r
a
w¢
o
o
m
z
v
z v
-: W
',: an d
d x'
d .,,. !
LU
J
I
W
w
J
0)
w
J
o
a
I,�
M CM?
':W
C
Ir
i0
C
C C
O
J
F-
J
J 0
U
A
i Cl)O
I CO?
0 � (00
wj
m
Cc
W A
n
0
0
Kre>
0 0
n
Ir
Q z
C c
iU
W .'D
E IE E
U
W
U W 06 iV
d y m
E > E
U (a
Q '''v la
-0
-0
N
iOE Ul N!
p6a f�
V I U I V
U
1.00
V
K
LL
R'
(0: C
N
(0
(0
D
U
m
!� l6 !'
d N 'C7 lm
I0
N
N
ip
0
0 0
0 0 !o io
U U U J J
i0
`: U
0
U
0
= U
i'i
U)
p
U) J
K a
U w w 0 c
Ir
:of
U
U
V .w
N
O
CU
O
O
C
N
W
W
m
W a
co
U
! U ! U
! O U U U U
U
U
U
O
U
O J
M
O tY
(O
:N IN O 'O
_ h
h
(O
'.M
M
N N N
ICO
M
'M
N
-, N_
C0
: J
_ F-
0
co
a
LU
1>
F,�
Co
z
a
U ¢ Lij
UO
C7
I�
z
a
¢ D Zw
,Z
w
U
Y
Z
n
n
. W
O
Lu
m d'
Q Z-: W Q:
U o w :ma
fax
W U
a
�J
W
V
tf)
0
M M! Oh
';.
�:(1)
0)
h
v
v
(O
<O
(LO
Ln
var
J
J!w
F
w
W
Z
0
w >>
W
J
U
LU
lU' Z
'.K C D
d
W
ZC9
w
¢
z w
O ;O ¢ w
,z
a
w¢
0�
ww;
W m
LL ,' 2 U! 0
-: W
',: an d
d x'
d .,,. !
O
I
W
01
0)
I,�
M CM?
':W
Ui
Ir
i0
F-
N
o Z
W'
I � N
Oh
i Cl)O
I CO?
0 � (00
wj
VO'
Cc
P,�
Kre>
0 U. v � v
A n
vv v v
N Z :N
c0 Z eoo
o Z:o z
w >: w
J
w U W
�(n w:o(n w
of W ;a W
Y Y
� I �
Chapter 368 Page 1 of 2
r%TWPW L,
GENERAL PROVISIONS
368.001 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
-----� (1) "County road" means a public road under the jurisdiction of a county that has been designated
as a county road under ORS 368.016.
(2) "County road official" means the roadmaster, engineer, road supervisor, public works director
or other administrative officer designated by the county governing body as being responsible for
administration of the road activities of the county.
(3) "Local access road" means a public road that is not a county road, state highway or federal
road.
(4) "Owner" means a vendee under a recorded land sale contract or, if there is no recorded land
sale contract, the holder of the record title of land if the vendee or holder has a present interest equal
to or greater than a life estate.
(5) "Public road" means a road over which the public has a right of use that is a matter of public
record.
(6) "Road" means the entire right of way of any public or private way that provides ingress to or
egress from property by means of vehicles or other means or that provides travel between places by
means of vehicles. "Road" includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Ways described as streets, highways, throughways or alleys;
(b) Road related structures that are in the right of way such as tunnels, culverts or similar
structures; and
(c) Structures that provide for continuity of the right of way such as bridges. [1981 c.153 §2]
368.005 [Amended by 1971 c.135 §1; repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
368.010 [Amended by 1963 c.501 §1; repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]
368.011 County authority to supersede statutes; limitations. (1) Except as otherwise provided
in this section, a county may supersede any provision in this chapter by enacting an ordinance
pursuant to the charter of the county or under powers granted the county in ORS 203.030 to 203.075.
(2) A county may not enact an ordinance to supersede a provision of this section or ORS 368.001,
368.016, 368.021, 368.026, 368.031, 368.051, 368.705, 368.710, 368.720 or 368.722. [1981 c.153 §3;
2007 c.679 §3]
368.016 County authority over roads; limitations. (1) Except as provided in this section or as
otherwise specifically provided by law, the exercise of governmental powers relating to a road within
a county is a matter of county concern.
(2) A county governing body:
(a) Does not have jurisdiction over any public road that is a state highway.
(b) Shall only take action involving a local access road within a city if the city governing body
consents to the action.
(c) May by resolution or order make any public road within its jurisdiction a county road.
(3) Any road that has a classification as a county road on November 1, 1981, shall retain that
classification unless the classification is changed under ORS 368.026 or as otherwise provided by
law.
(4) A county governing body may seek assistance from the Department of Transportation as
provided under ORS 366.155. [1981 c.153 §4; 1993 c.741 §44]
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors368.html 3/7/2019
Chapter 368
Page 2 of 2
368.021 County authority over trails. (1) A county governing body has the same jurisdiction
over trails as it has over local access roads.
(2) This section applies to trails that:
(a) Are easements over land or by watercourse that are not part of a road right of way;
(b) Provide certain forms of ingress to or egress from land or water or permit travel between
places;
(c) Do not provide vehicle access of the type provided by a road; and
(d) Are not under the jurisdiction of a state or federal agency. [1981 c.153 §5]
368.026 Withdrawal of county road status; report; notice; hearing. (1) A county governing
body shall use the following procedure to withdraw county road status from a portion of a county road
that is outside a city:
(a) The county governing body may initiate proceedings by having the county road official
prepare a report stating reasons for the proposed withdrawal and the effects the proposed withdrawal
may have on land abutting the county road proposed to be withdrawn.
(b) The county governing body shall fix a date for a hearing on the withdrawal.
(c) The county governing body shall provide for notice of the hearing on the proposed withdrawal
to be served on owners of land abutting the portion of county road proposed to be withdrawn. Notice
shall be served in the manner provided under ORS 368.401 to 368.426.
(d) Any interested person shall have access to the report prepared by the county road official
under this section from a day not less than 20 days prior to the date of hearing.
(e) At the hearing, the county governing body shall accept the report of the county road official
prepared under this section and shall accept testimony from persons favoring or objecting to the
proposed withdrawal.
(f) After completion of the procedures under this section, the county governing body may retain
the portion of county road as a county road or may by order or resolution declare county road status
withdrawn from all or part of the portion of the road under consideration.
(2) The withdrawal of county road status from any county road that is within a city is subject to
ORS 373.270.
(3) If a county governing body withdraws county road status from a portion of a county road, the
road shall continue to be a public road. [1981 c.153 §6]
368.031 County jurisdiction over local access roads. A local access road that is outside a city is
subject to the exercise of jurisdiction by a county governing body in the same manner as a county
road except as follows:
(1) A county and its officers, employees or agents are not liable for failure to improve the local
access road or keep it in repair.
(2) A county governing body shall spend county moneys on the local access road only if it
determines that the work is an emergency or if.
(a) The county road official recommends the expenditure;
(b) The public use of the road justifies the expenditure proposed; and
(c) The county governing body enacts an order or resolution authorizing the work and designating
the rverk to be eitiier a Single prVjeVt or a cVntlllulllg program.L'-/ I V.153 §7]
h"s://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors368.html 3/7/2019
5. Old Redmond -Bend Highway (yellow) / Tumalo Road (red)
6. Butler Market (red)/Hamby Road (northbound red, southbound yellow)
7. Neff Road (red)/Hamby Road (red)
8. US 20 (yellow) / Hamby -Ward roads (red)
9. Powell Butte Highway (yellow) / Neff Road (red)
10. Knott Road (post -mounted yellow)/China Hat Road (post -mounted red)
Previous locations on the state highway system that had flashing beacons became interchanges (US
97/Deschutes Market-Tumalo roads and US 97/South Century Drive) or were replaced by traffic signals
in urban locations (Burgess/Huntington).
Performance Standards
Both Deschutes County and ODOT set mobility standards for their respective facilities to ensure the
roads and highways operate safely and efficiently. Previously, both the County and ODOT used LOS
but the State in 1999 shifted to volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. These performance standards are used to
identify current or future deficiencies, assess proposed transportation improvement projects, and to
review the effects of proposed land use applications upon County roads and/or State highways.
Levels of Service (standard for County roads)
In order to effectively communicate about traffic flow and traffic capacity conditions, the engineering and
planning professions have adopted a concept of level of service to describe traffic conditions and
associated traffic flow rates. Six levels of service designations ranging from A to F are typically
recognized by the transportation professions. For County roads LOS concerns the capacity of a given
segment to accommodate a moving stream of vehicles. The LOS description generally describes a
motorist's perception in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, free flow vs. interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. LOS A has free-flow traffic whereas LOS F is stop and go traffic. The
County sets LOS D as the mobility standard for existing roads and LOS C for new County roads. At
LOS D, traffic is approaching unstable flow rates whereas LOS C traffic flow is stable.
For rural, two-lane roads in the County, the peak hour traffic volumes were assumed to be ten percent
(10%) of the average daily traffic amount, then further adjusted to reflect a desirable flow rate. For
Deschutes County, LOS was determined based on the relationship of general capacity to average daily
traffic (ADT) for level terrain. For a ten percent (10%) peak hour flow, the corresponding ADT and
LOS are identified in Table 2.2.T2. LOS D was selected as it allows traffic to flow overall at acceptable
rates. Establishing a LOS B or LOS C as the standard would result in the County constructing multilane
roadways on roads that do see much traffic. An urban analogy would be building a parking lot to
accommodate the demand of the retail rush on the day after Thanksgiving.
F .
EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 80 of 268
Table 2.2.T2
Generalized County Road Segment ADT and LOS
Level of Service
Characteristics
ADT
A
A free-flow condition with individual users unaffected by the
<1,700
presence of others in the traffic stream.
Stable flow with a high degree of freedom to select speed
B
and operating conditions but with some influence from
1,701-3,400
other users.
Restricted flow which remains stable but with significant
C
interactions with others in the traffic stream. The general
3,4001-5,700
level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this
level.
High-density flow in which speed and freedom to maneuver
D
are severely restricted and comfort and convenience have
5,701-9,600
declined even though flow remains stable.
E
Unstable flow at or near capacity levels with poor levels of
9,601-16,299
comfort and convenience.
Forced flow in which the amount of traffic approaching a
given point exceeds the amount that can be served and
F
queues form which are characterized by stop and go waves,
> 16,300
poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and
increased accident exposure.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual; Deschutes County staff
The remaining capacity of a roadway forms the basis for most transportation planning and design
decisions and actions. Table 2.273 and Figures 2.2.F9 -F 12 identify the estimated LOS for County roads
in 2009.
Most planning applications deal with future conditions and involve estimates of traffic, transit or
pedestrian flows. Therefore, reasonable order -of -magnitude estimates of capacity are usually adequate.
Transportation capacity reflects the ability of a roadway to carry vehicles or people, under the prevailing
conditions of operation. In general, capacity represents the maximum hourly rate (usually the peak
hour) at which a number of people or vehicles pass a given point within a specific time period under
prevailing conditions. The desirable flow rate is usually somewhat less since it introduces the qualitative
aspect of a specified LOS.
The above discussion focused on roadway segments, but LOS is also used for intersections, both
signalized and unsignalized. For an intersection, the LOS is based on the amount of delay in seconds for
drivers to either enter or cross an intersection. With the three exceptions described above, all
intersections in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County are currently unsignalized. Two-way
stop or yield controls are common on arterial streets and highways. As cross -street volumes increase,
these intersections can reach capacity limits and produce significant delays to cross -street vehicles as
well as accident potential. Four-way stop control is often an interim phase preceding signalization.
Calculations of unsignalized intersection capacity are based on a simplifying assumption that minor street
traffic does not affect the traffic flow on the major street. In reality, when congestion occurs, the major
flows are probably affected to some degree by minor street traffic and left turns, all conflicting traffic
movements affect minor street traffic.
EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE 2012-005 Page 81 of 268
I
L
1
rn
0
N
m
r
O
N
ti
r
O
N
NM
��
M000
Cl
N
rMi�
nw
ww
N
LO
N
O
I-
r
p
N
co
I`-
V'
NN--
O
N
N
d'
T
p
N
r
N
N
M
N
�_
rn
00
M
O
W
u')
M
O
N
N
r
o0
r�
(O1�
rn
r
co
�
co
O
co
ti
Q
V
M
O
N
N
o
a
a
L
p
a
a
>
a
@
2
a
Y
p
a
a
s
S
E
>
`Go
=
Q
a
'S
S
a
d
m
a
p
c
@
N
O
0
0
0
@
O�
iu
cG
@
@
ti
�
@
V)af
O
=LLrn
r
a�
cse
C
F"
O
@
N
N
@
•C
N
a)
O)
Qco
N
N
@
>
cY7
@
"-
@
O
rnarn
L
(n
I-
c
.0
E
a,
N
>i
@
)
CL
Q
F--
cn
�
(n
a
pp
m
U
C9
Ci
(n
m
�
H
Q
(�
W
=
3:
T
Z
Z
m
u7
S
S
IY
a
(n
S
@
'`
�
(�
w.
O
4-
O
-
O
,�
p
w
O
r-
O
-
p
T
O
,�
p
v-
0
S
.�
-
0
,�
0
4-
0
�
0
�
0
y-
0
,�-
o
�
0
S
0
�
0
,�-
0
"-
0
y..
0
�
0
,.-
0
,�-
0
w-
0
�
0
M
0
,.-
0-
U
,"-
0(D
U)
�
.s..
0
v-
0
S
0
W
0
N
3
=
'�
+�
'�
O
"C
7
'L
7@
to
to
N
O
UJ
7
7
U)
U)
N
+'
0
U1
N=
3
Q)
O
N
N
N
U)
in
W
0
0
C
0
7
0
0
7
0
7
0
0
0
0
0@?
to
@
�z(n(n5
O
O
O>>
O>
@
@@@>>
N
O
(n�jLu
N
@
N
�
N
0
U)
0@
co
W
@>>
Lu
V
N
E
a)U)
O
@@
W
W
fn(n(nZ(n
N
N
N
N
N
(nZ(nZ(nW
u1
N
N
m
N
U)
N
to
Ili
U)
'n
a�
N
m
U)
f/)
a�
Zz
(fl
to
a�
W
fn
m
W
fn
v
W>
Vl
O
N
a�
to
m
to
N
m
N
a�
t/1
a�
@@
N
a)
N
)
N
a�
N
0
N
N
N
O
a�
N
T
N
a�
N
a�
'
a�
a�
a)
a�
'E
'E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
°—�'
a
o
f
.E
E
E
E
It
u�cO�QooOOo0coo0ogC
C)
OOO�000LO000a0Oo0tOLaoU')oO�o
CD
O
O
O
O
v-
V'
r
r'
r
r
O
O
O
r
O
r
r
r
O
r
N
r
r
r
Q
r
7
�-
O
r
0
0
C�
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
0101c)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
10
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
Q
W
O
O
0
0
Q
a
t0
V'
UJ
Q
M
is
10
CO
N
N
r
O
U)
O
O
O
M
Q
N
r
W
00
co
CO
N
d'
00
.-
W
co
co
M
U7
ilq
'�
00
W
c9
N
U)
O
N
1It
V'
CO
O
1-
O
�j
CO
O
r
o
O
Cl
LO
"t
O
•-
p
O
O
f
N
O
O
CO
N
M
0
r
c
0
0
co
'7
o6
6
O
tC)
O
M
O
<i'
O
O
M
N
CO
r
O
r
M
U)
M
O
O
O
O
co
C)
N
r
U)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
0
0
0
0
U')
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
0
0
Cl
0
N
M
1
r
r
r
r
UJ
r
r
r
N
M
CO
tom-
r
U)
F�
r
r
r
(O
T
V
M
N
I�
M
O
O
O
O
O
00
rt
'V
T
a0
M
op
M
0
0
0
O
N
O
a7
N
Q
m
00
w
00
LO
LO
N
N
IL
I'-
t`
'--
ti
N
n
!�
e
r
N
N
Q
N
co
6
co
V'
0
d'
0
4
0
r
f--
O
N
M
!'-
M
f'-
M
r-
❑
�-
r
r-
r
r
N
M
N
N
a
a
a
v
a
a
a
a
O
a
Z
�
f
O
of
OO
O
O
O
O
OY
�
W
6
a
29
C
aN
Q)
>
B
>72
aCU7
=
>
Q
LL
LL
C
C
C
C
C
��
@
��N
mQ
m@U
wakG@
ckaC@r
La'.K@Y
EC
NO
0
W
W
to
co
p
O
OLL
C
NO4
QN
�
W
OCC
00
J
O
O
O
Cp
Gc
Z
Z
ZY
�
z
W
m
@
REVIEW$D
L GAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution Declaring a Suspension on the
Establishment of New County Roads.
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-118
WHEREAS, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 has been
amended and reauthorized for federal fiscal year 2008-2011 ("Forest Safety -Net"), and
WHEREAS, the Forest Safety -Net legislation provides a decreasing revenue stream over the life
of the act and sunsets in federal fiscal year 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Forest Safety -Net funding constitutes over 20% of Deschutes County's annual
dedicated road fund revenue, and
WHEREAS, reauthorization of the Forest Safety -Net and receipt of any associated federal
funding beyond federal fiscal year 2011 is uncertain, and
WHEREAS, the 2009 Oregon Legislature approved a six -cent -a -gallon increase in the state's
gasoline tax (to be fully implemented after two consecutive quarters of employment growth or Januari 1,
2011, whichever comes first) and increases in various motor vehicle fees, and
WHEREAS, these tax and fee increases will bring an additional $3 million to Deschutes Coun y
when fully implemented, and
WHEREAS, although the motor vehicle revenue will increase, people are driving less resulting in
less -than -budgeted revenues, and
WHEREAS, even with the motor vehicle tax and fee increases, the five-year projection of road
fund revenues shows that Deschutes County will not have adequate resources to maintain and preserve
the existing county road system, and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County's Transportation System Plan, section 5.2, policy 8.b. states:
Deschutes County shall not add any miles of new road to the system unless the following issues are
satisfied.... b. the county can financially absorb the additional maintenance requirements; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
---�Section 1. That the County hereby suspends the establishment of new County Roads until
county road road funds are deemed adequate in the judgment of the Board to meet the maintenance and
preservation needs of the county road system, subject to Section 4.
PAGE 1 OF 2- RESOLUTION No. 2009-118
Section 2. That the County will accept petitions for the creation of new Local Improvement
Districts provided full maintenance responsibility for the improved road is assured by a special road
district or incorporated homeowners association.
Section 3. That the County will not accept any local roads created by new development into the
County maintained system until county road funds are deemed adequate in the judgment of the Board to
meet the maintenance and preservation needs of the county road system.
Section 4. That the Board may establish roads that are functionally classified as Arterials or
Collectors.
Section
Section 5. That this Resolution shall supersede Resolution 2006-049.
Dated this - ) of O�itf-2009
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2- RESOLUTION No. 2009-118
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY , REGON
TAMWBAN, CHAIR
DENNIS R. LUKE, VICE CHAIR
ALAN UNGER, COMMISSIONER
MTACW)\y(
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. The Board in Resolution No. 2008-059 adopted the report, titled Transportation System
Development charge Study prepared by FCS Group Inc. and DKS Associates, dated March 2008 (FCS Group
Report) which is hereby amended by a report titled "Transportation System Development Charge Update",
dated April, 2013, prepared by Deschutes County Road Department, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
by reference (herein "Methodology" or "Methodology Report!). In the event of a conflict between the FCS
Report and Methodology Report, the latter shall control. The Board authorizes the assessment and collection of
transportation system development charges ill the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County.
Section 2. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit "B," and
incorporated by reference ("Capital Improvement Plan"), The Capital Improvement Plan hereby supersedes the
capital improvement plan which was adopted as part of Resolution No. 2008-059.
Section 3. DEFINITIONS.
(A) "Applicant' shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development
permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend.
(B) "Building" shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels
or property of any kind.
(C) "Building Permit' shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or
siting of any building.
(D) "Capital Improvement" shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the
unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters,
Redmond and Bend.
(E) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the
unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of
residency, or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is
located within the unincorporated area of L)eschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries
of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend.
(F) "County" shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon.
(G) "Department" shall mean the Deschutes County Road Department.
(H) "Development' shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in
the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements
or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements.
(1) "Development Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate, issued by Deschutes
County, other than a building permit, authorizing development.
(J) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that
obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of
services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner.
(K) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution
Page 2 of 11 — Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
Chapter 223 Page 1 of 6
LTi A�. �J � ��,Ji �
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
223.297 Policy. The purpose of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 is to provide a uniform framework for
the imposition of system development charges by local governments, to provide equitable funding for
orderly growth and development in Oregon's communities and to establish that the charges may be
used only for capital improvements. [ 1989 c.449 § 1; 1991 c.902 §25; 2003 c.765 § 1; 2003 c.802 § 17]
Note: 223.297 to 223.314 were added to and made a part of 223.205 to 223.295 by legislative
action, but were not added to and made a part of the Bancroft Bonding Act. See section 10, chapter
449, Oregon Laws 1989.
223.299 Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.314. As used in ORS 223.297 to 223.314:
(1)(a) "Capital improvement" means facilities or assets used for the following:
(A) Water supply, treatment and distribution;
(B) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal;
(C) Drainage and flood control;
(D) Transportation; or
(E) Parks and recreation.
°�-- (b) "Capital improvement" does not include costs of the operation or routine maintenance of
capital improvements.
(2) "Improvement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed.
(3) "Reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already
constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government
detennines that capacity exists.
(4)(a) "System development charge" means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a
combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or
issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement. "System
development charge" includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is
greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average cost of inspecting
and installing connections with water and sewer facilities.
(b) "System development charge" does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local
improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of
complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision, expedited land division
or limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 §2; 1991 c.817 §29; 1991 c.902 §26; 1995 c.595 §28; 2003
c.765 §2a; 2003 c.802 §18]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.300 [Repealed by 1975 c.642 §26]
223.301 Certain system development charges and methodologies prohibited. (1) As used in
this section, "employer" means any person who contracts to pay remuneration for, and secures the
right to direct and control the services of, any person.
(2) A local government may not establish or impose a system development charge that requires an
employer to pay a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee based on:
(a) The number of individuals hired by the employer after a specified date; or
(b) A methodology that assumes that costs are necessarily incurred for capital improvements when
an employer hires an additional employee.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.html 3/7/2019
Chapter 223
Page 2 of 6
(3) A methodology set forth in an ordinance or resolution that establishes an improvement fee or a
reimbursement fee shall not include or incorporate any method or system under which the payment of
the fee or the amount of the fee is detennined by the number of employees of an employer without
regard to new construction, new development or new use of an existing structure by the employer.
[ 1999 c.1098 §2; 2003 c.802 §19]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.302 System development charges; use of revenues; review procedures. (1) Local
governments are authorized to establish system development charges, but the revenues produced
therefrom must be expended only in accordance with ORS 223.297 to 223.314. If a local government
expends revenues from system development charges in violation of the limitations described in ORS
223.307, the local government shall replace the misspent amount with moneys derived from sources
other than system development charges. Replacement moneys must be deposited in a fund designated
for the system development charge revenues not later than one year following a determination that the
funds were misspent.
(2) Local governments shall adopt administrative review procedures by which any citizen or other
interested person may challenge an expenditure of system development charge revenues. Such
procedures shall provide that such a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure of the
system development charge revenues. The decision of the local government shall be judicially
reviewed only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
(3)(a) A local government must advise a person who makes a written objection to the calculation
of a system development charge of the right to petition for review pursuant to ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
(b) If a local government has adopted an administrative review procedure for objections to the
calculation of a system development charge, the local government shall provide adequate notice
regarding the procedure for review to a person who makes a written objection to the calculation of a
system development charge. [1989 c.449 §3; 1991 c.902 §27; 2001 c.662 §2; 2003 c.765 §3; 2003
c.802 §20]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.304 Determination of amount of system development charges; methodology; credit
allowed against charge; limitation of action contesting methodology for imposing charge;
notification request. (1)(a) Reimbursement fees must be established or modified by ordinance or
resolution setting forth a methodology that is, when applicable, based on:
(A) Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements;
(B) Prior contributions by existing users;
(C) Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons;
(D) The value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of the existing
facilities; and
(E) Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee.
(b) The methodology for establishing or modifying a reimbursement fee must:
(A) Promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to
the cost of existing facilities.
(B) Be available for public inspection.
(2) Improvement fees must:
(a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is
available for public inspection and demonstrates consideration of-
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.html 3/7/2019
Chapter 223
Page 3 of 6
(A) The projected cost of the capital improvements identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant
to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related; and
(B) The need for increased capacity in the system to which the fee is related that will be required
to serve the demands placed on the system by future users.
(b) Be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available
system capacity for future users.
(3) A local government may establish and impose a system development charge that is a
combination of a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee, if the methodology demonstrates that
the charge is not based on providing the same system capacity.
(4) The ordinance or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee shall also provide
for a credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified public improvement. A "qualified
public improvement" means a capital improvement that is required as a condition of development
approval, identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development
approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular
development project to which the improvement fee is related.
(5)(a) The credit provided for in subsection (4) of this section is only for the improvement fee
charged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for qualified public improvements
under subsection (4)(b) of this section may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such
improvement that exceeds the local government's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed
to serve the particular development project or property. The applicant shall have the burden of
demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit under subsection (4)(b) of this
section.
(b) A local government may deny the credit provided for in subsection (4) of this section if the
local government demonstrates:
(A) That the application does not meet the requirements of subsection (4) of this section; or
(B) By reference to the list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, that the improvement for which
credit is sought was not included in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309.
(c) When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater
than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development
approval, the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases
of the original development project. This subsection does not prohibit a local government from
providing a greater credit, or from establishing a system providing for the transferability of credits, or
from providing a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant
to ORS 223.309, or from providing a share of the cost of such improvement by other means, if a local
government so chooses.
(d) Credits must be used in the time specified in the ordinance but not later than 10 years from the
date the credit is given.
(6) Any local government that proposes to establish or modify a system development charge shall
maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to adoption or
amendment of a methodology for any system development charge.
(7)(a) Written notice must be mailed to persons on the list at least 90 days prior to the first hearing
to establish or modify a system development charge, and the methodology supporting the system
development charge must be available at least 60 days prior to the first hearing. The failure of a
person on the list to receive a notice that was mailed does not invalidate the action of the local
government. The local government may periodically delete names from the list, but at least 30 days
prior to removing a name from the list shall notify the person whose name is to be deleted that a new
written request for notification is required if the person wishes to remain on the notification list.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.hti-nl 3/7/2019
Chapter 223
Page 4 of 6
(b) Legal action intended to contest the methodology used for calculating a system development
charge may not be filed after 60 days following adoption or modification of the system development
charge ordinance or resolution by the local government. A person shall request judicial review of the
methodology used for calculating a system development charge only as provided in ORS 34.010 to
34.100.
(8) A change in the amount of a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee is not a modification of
the system development charge methodology if the change in amount is based on:
(a) A change in the cost of materials, labor or real property applied to projects or project capacity
as set forth on the list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309; or
(b) The periodic application of one or more specific cost indexes or other periodic data sources. A
specific cost index or periodic data source must be:
(A) A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time
period for materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three;
(B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for
reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate
ordinance, resolution or order. [1989 c.449 §4; 1991 c.902 §28; 1993 c.804 §20; 2001 c.662 §3; 2003
c.765 §§4a,5a; 2003 c.802 §21]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.305 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 § I]
223.307 Authorized expenditure of system development charges. (1) Reimbursement fees may
be spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed
including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.
(2) Improvement fees may be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including
expenditures relating to repayment of debt for such improvements. An increase in system capacity
may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by
existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement
fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide service for future users.
(3) System development charges may not be expended for costs associated with the construction
of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements
or for the expenses of the operation or maintenance of the facilities constructed with system
development charge revenues.
(4) Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charge
revenues must be included in the plan and list adopted by a local government pursuant to ORS
223.309.
(5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, system development charge revenues
may be expended on the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,
including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual
accounting of system development charge expenditures. [1989 c.449 §5; 1991 c.902 §29; 2003 c.765
§6; 2003 c.802 §22]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.309 Preparation of plan for capital improvements financed by system development
charges; modification. (1) Prior to the establishment of a system development charge by ordinance
or resolution, a local government shall prepare a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan,
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.html 3/7/2019
Chapter 223
Page 5 of 6
master plan or comparable plan that includes a list of the capital improvements that the local
government intends to fund, in whole or in part, with revenues from an improvement fee and the
estimated cost, timing and percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the
improvement fee for each improvement.
(2) A local government that has prepared a plan and the list described in subsection (1) of this
section may modify the plan and list at any time. If a system development charge will be increased by
a proposed modification of the list to include a capacity increasing capital improvement, as described
in ORS 223.307 (2):
(a) The local government shall provide, at least 30 days prior to the adoption of the modification,
notice of the proposed modification to the persons who have requested written notice under ORS
223.304 (6).
(b) The local government shall hold a public hearing if the local government receives a written
request for a hearing on the proposed modification within seven days of the date the proposed
modification is scheduled for adoption.
(c) Notwithstanding ORS 294.160, a public hearing is not required if the local government does
not receive a written request for a hearing.
(d) The decision of a local government to increase the system development charge by modifying
the list may be judicially reviewed only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100. [1989 c.449 §6; 1991
c.902 §30; 2001 c.662 §4; 2003 c.765 §7a; 2003 c.802 §23]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.310 [Amended by 1957 c.397 §3; repealed by 1971 c.325 §11
223.311 Deposit of system development charge revenues; annual accounting. (1) System
development charge revenues must be deposited in accounts designated for such moneys. The local
government shall provide an annual accounting, to be completed by January 1 of each year, for
system development charges showing the total amount of system development charge revenues
collected for each system and the projects that were funded in the previous fiscal year.
(2) The local government shall include in the annual accounting:
(a) A list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole or in part, with system
development charge revenues; and
(b) The amount of revenue collected by the local government from system development charges
and attributed to the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, as described
in ORS 223.307. [1989 c.449 §7; 1991 c.902 §31; 2001 c.662 §5; 2003 c.765 §8a; 2003 c.802 §24]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.312 [1957 c.95 §4; repealed by 1971 c.325 §1]
223.313 Applicability of ORS 223.297 to 223.314. (1) ORS 223.297 to 223.314 shall apply only
to system development charges in effect on or after July 1, 1991.
(2) The provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 shall not be applicable if they are construed to
impair bond obligations for which system development charges have been pledged or to impair the
ability of local governments to issue new bonds or other financing as provided by law for
improvements allowed under ORS 223.297 to 223.314. [1989 c.449 §8; 1991 c.902 §32; 2003 c.802
§25]
Note: See note under 223.297.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.html 3/7/2019
Chapter 223
Page 6 of 6
223.314 Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use
decision. The establishment, modification or implementation of a system development charge, or a
plan or list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, or any modification of a plan or list, is not a land use
decision pursuant to ORS chapters 195 and 197. [1989 c.449 §9; 2001 c.662 §6; 2003 c.765 §9]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.315 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 § I]
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills—laws/ors/ors223.htrnl 3/7/2019
WILDLIFE CONCENTRATION
(deer and elk)
Page 1 of 1
Mule deer migration begins Oct.1
The Oregon Department of Transportation reminds drivers to watch for doer on Deer, elk and
roadways as migration gets underway, Collision numbers are from last season. vehicle collision
halt spots
Warm Springs we Lowest:
Indian Warm Springs _ _ _ 0-3 per square mile
ReservationJeiterson county Medfum tow:
3.10 per sq. mite
142 collisions I Medium:
fAetofips Madras j 10-20 per sq. mile
Medium high;
8060
Culver 20.38 per sq. mile
am Highest:
36-84 per sq. mile
C
o Over or elk and
Q`NoitHar
- Prineville vehicle collisions
_.32 coilislons,,-
Butte
Deschutes County
1,013 collisions
eA'La Moe
Source; Otncpn Depaitmnt of TranN.,oriwtion
Post/Paulina Hkay.
Crook County
261 collisions
The OU11011n iglu rriwp
Exhibit
of _..
https://www.bendbulletin.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common. streams. StreamServer.cls?S... 3/5/2019
WILDLIFE HABITAT
(Golden Eagle Nests)
Bertotti/Price TL 100
Proximity to BLM
Exhibit
Page of
YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER WITHIN 1,000 FEET__.-----
Exhibit momoxm=i
Page of
NON -LEGAL ACCESS
Exhihit
Page of
NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE NOT AVAILABLE
(power and water)
Exhibit
page of
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Date: March 5, 2019
From: Mr. and Mrs. Vejrostek
70481 McKenzie Canyon Road
Terrebonne, OR 97760
Subject: Appeal to the approved Administrative Determination for marijuana production on McKenzie Canyon
Road.
I am an engineer, retired disable veteran, prior WA state County Works Director and finally now a resident on
McKenzie Canyon Road. I wish to support the idea of NOT allowing a large marijuana facility on this private (with
public access) road. By allowing this to be approved, you are placing a huge work maintenance problem on myself
as well as a substantial one on all the residents. ALL this new traffic will pass by my ranch which is already a
problem. This facility is huge and will place large vehicle impacts on an already deteriorating road. There is no
way this road can support the amount of traffic that will accompany this facility, without substantial improvements
and constant maintenance. If you force this facility onto us, you need to accept the road on the county maintenance
system for both improvements and maintenance activities.
Additionally, this is not the normal type farm activity along this road. Yes, there maybe some marijuana activities
around, but nothing to compare to size of this projected operation. Anyone can see this is a business, not.iust. a
farming activity. It is far from a normal type activity conducted in the area. I assume that is why the AD is
required and wish to support not changing, modifying and being destructive to this area. It would have been well
advised for the buyer to have developed what would happen here, prior to making the purchase. The buyer could
have even set the requirements of the AD being approved in the buying agreement, thus not taken the liability onto
himself.
I believe that county government should work for the majority of the county residence (in this case the residence),
and not force something they so adamantly disagree with. YOU can disapprove this AD and allow whatever the
applicant wants to do to further their request.
Nancy is to have surgery on Monday, March 5, with a scheduled release date on March 6, thus we cannot attend
your meeting. I request this letter to be read into the file, and provide any remaining time to the Wendy and Tim
DiPaolo.
Exhibit
Pais of
From: WILLIAM or KATHRYN STCLAIR <canyonview@hu%hes.net>
Subject: Re: Wednesday's meeting - Bill's talk
Date: March 4, 2019 at 12:20:43 PM PST
To: Wendy DiPaolo <dextersl@icloud.com>
Wendy,
Here is Bill's script for Wednesday:
Good morning commissioners, my name is William St Clair. I have lived with my wife in
Mckenzie Canyon for seven years. Upon completion of a dramatic and hectic military
career my wife and I came home to our native Oregon. We wanted to settle in a place
with natural beauty, abundant wild life and a community of good neighbors. We found
exactly that place in Mckenzie Canyon.
I strongly support land use ordinances in their primary function of preserving and
protecting the existing character of an area. Commissioners, I ask you to consider the
following: A thirty decibel noise may seem reasonable but in a place that is normally
only filled with birdsong and the sound of wind in the trees it will be like a freight train
passing by. Any odor other.. than juniper, sage, and fresh cut hay is going to be
objectionable. The light pollution from a single 60 watt light bulb washes out the
brightest stars. The constant activity, traffic, and noise from this facility will drive out the
wildlife that make McKenzie Canyon their home.
It is clear that land use ordinances have failed in their primary function of protecting
Mckenzie Canyon's character. It is the duty of this commission to correct this
failure. Once areas like Mckenzie Canyon are used up they will never come back.
Exhibit
13ageof
From: eracefam4 yahoo.com
Subject: Meeting
Date: March 4, 2019 at 11:32:44 AM PST
To: dextersl@icloud.corn
Due to our work schedules we are unable to make the meeting but we did want to express our
concerns.
We have lived in McKenzie canyon for 26 years. We live half a mile in from lower bridge road. Our home
sits approximately So feet off the gravel road. What that means is that we have neighbors drive past our
house through out the day. Over the past 26 years there has been an increase in the cars that drive the
dirt road that is in front of our house, as more people have settled in the canyon . And we can tell the
difference in someone that lives here and the occasional visitors by the speed in which they go flying
past, and the dust and rocks that are kicked up towards our house.To think that we would have a large
steady stream of business level traffic driving past our house on a dirt and rock road, is needless to say,
extremely concerning. Our privately maintained road is not very wide. We slow as we pass one another
to make sure we give enough room and as a courtesy. We have children that walk home from the bus
stop that sits at the start of the canyon. Our road was originally cleared for wagon and horse travel
when this canyon was homesteaded. it's not equipped, nor was it ever intended to be a high traffic
route.
1 do not feel it is adequate to take on the increase and level of traffic that a large fully staffed industrial
style operation would bring. There is a significant difference between a family run farm with 1 or 2
occasional farmhands and a business with a steady stream of rotating staff with no personal investment
to the people living in area they will be commuting through. Not to mention, the large heavy trucks
expected to travel back and forth throughout the day.
Our concerns on this are purely on a functional, purpose and quality of location matter. And whether
this is appropriate for the area resources expected to be used on a daily basis.
Gilbert and Grace Porraz
Exhibit
—
Page of
4 March 2019
Topic: McKenzie Canyon Proposed Marijuana Grow
To: Deschutes County Commissioners:
My wife, Julie, and I retired from teaching high school and grade school in
Newport, OR 16 years ago and chose to move to this rather remote region
of Deschutes County. Living here in McKenzie Canyon involves numerous
inconveniences: no garbage service, no mail delivery, no fire department
coverage, longer distances to go to any town to buy anything at all, down
and back an 8 mile long rough dusty dirt road in summer and a rutted
muddy or frozen snowy road in the winter. Help is a long long ways away
out here ...in case of excessive snow fall, or wildfire, or crime or a health
emergency. Julie and I were snowbound just recently for 11 days straight.
And during the great snow storm of 2017 we were snowbound for 20 days!
Fine, we understood that is the way it is. The way it could go. A
possibility. So when it happened, we accepted it. It can be very hard
living out here, even dangerous at times.
All those problems are worth it to those of us who chose live down in
McKenzie Canyon and up the rocky spur "road" to the rimrock plateau
above. Eyes wide open, we all chose our futures. For example: When I
was wavering about living way out here, or to moving to Corvallis instead,
it was my wife who said, "Come on honey, let's have one more big
adventure!" And we have had adventure after adventure here. Boy have
we! Over all, it's an absolutely wonderful place to live. I don't think even
one day has gone by that I don't notice a hawk soaring, or a wildflower, or
the deer and elk herds, a sunrise, the chickadees that eat out of our
hands, the red splash of a sunset, a million stars, the cloud patterns, the
mountains ...and stop and say to myself, "Now isn't that something!!" In
fact, I've told myself the week that stops happening, it's time to move.
McKenzie Canyon a unique place in Oregon. In all of America, even. I've
been around, and I'm not exaggerating about that. My larger point is, we
all chose to live here knowing all the numerous downsides. Understood all
we were up against and accepted it. Accepted all the harm and problems
that nature could bring. But not what humans might do.
Exhibit
Page of _T--
The DiPaulos (along w the rest of us) moved here when recreational
marijuana was illegal and appeared it would remain that way for a long
long time. That was our reasonable understanding. And it still is illegal in
the eyes of the US government. Totally impossible for them to even
imagine that an industrial scale marijuana grow & processing facility, with a
huge footprint and building ...that would bring with it, traffic, smells, urban
ugliness, wildlife disruption, water & electricity issues ...would ever
happen. Let alone be located immediately next door to them, or by any of
us. Smack in the middle of our remote, rural "paradise". Like if all of a
sudden, Oregon & County land use regulations were thrown out and
condominiums, land fills and industry were allowed to move into this rural
canyon. But the rules did change. Unimaginably. Suddenly and
drastically. But that doesn't mean it should or has to, here, in this case.
There are hundreds of locations in Deschutes Co alone where this
business could locate and be far far less disruptive. Have far less impact.
With fewer conflicts. Be far more suitable.
A little perspective. Ten years ago, I wrote a book on the history of
McKenzie Canyon and the other canyons nearby, titled "I've Seen It Snow
On The 4th of July". This canyon has a story ...the DiPaulo's property in
particular. Do you know that the people most impacted by this proposal,
the DiPaulo's, moved here from California ...not just to Oregon? No, to
RIGHT HERE! To THAT EXACT PLACE! Do you know Tim and Wendy
bought a long abandoned, trashed farmhouse? That that house has a
history ...was built in the 1890's? That is a very long time ago in terms of
Deschutes County history. That it was very first house and only house in
the canyon for decades? That until the the 1960's that ranch included ALL
of McKenzie Canyon? That the Dipaolo's could have easily torn the
house down and built a modern house, but chose instead the huge and
complex job of repairing and renovating it instead. To save it, for all of us
in Deschutes County. It's clearly a historic site. What they did is heroic!
Do you know that today, the old Howard, Monical, Gillworth ...now
DiPaulo place is the gathering spot for all of us in the canyon?
Now an industrial scale marijuana project might be located on the
immediate adjoining property? Right in their "backyard". Clearly visible, a
few dozen yards away, every time they step outdoors. No, don't allow it.
Is this how the county "rewards" Tim and Wendy for all they have done ...
for choosing to live here ...by putting the huge growing facility right next
door, which they, understandably, oppose? Please don't unnecessarily
wreck this paradise for all of us. Please.
Sincerely,
Barry M. & Julie A. Clock
70130 McKenzie Canyon Rd
PO Box 2237
Sisters, OR 97759
(541) 504-1396
March 4, 2019
Amanda Clark
70090 Mckenzie Canyon Rd.
Sisters, OR 97759-9316
Phone: 541-771-0946
939aclarkQomail.com
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
I am writing to appeal the industrial marijuana production operation proposal for 70355
Mckenzie Canyon Road in Sisters, Oregon. I am profoundly concerned upon reading the
proposal and believe that the stated operation is not sustainable for the selected location.
A marijuana production operation including the existing shop building plus an addition, five
greenhouses, two storage structures, a trim building and "other associated site improvements"
constitutes an industrial scale production, processing and distribution center. It can be
assumed that lighting and security measures will be necessary to protect such an investment
as well. The proposal states that the mature plant canopy size will be 4,960 square feet in area.
This just so happens to be a mere 40 square feet less than The 5,000 total which would require
the property owners to obtain written consent from all land owners on our private road.
As there is no residence on the property or in the proposal one must conclude that all
employees would be commuting daily, exponentially increasing daily road traffic. Mckenzie
Canyon is a private, single lane dirt road which is maintained only by the residents who use it.
A significant increase in traffic, including large trucks, due to commuting employees and
transportation of product poses a threat to safety of residents and the integrity of the road
itself.
Our road is populated by a diverse community of people who have chosen to sacrifice much in
the way of convenience to live in this unique place. We are respectful of each other and
understand that we must be mindful of our impact on our neighbors in the decisions that we
make. The fact that this property will be owned and maintained by parties not in residence is a
major concern. Not only would they be unaware of the daily impact that their operations are
having, they would also be unavailable for potential emergencies, alarms and other issues
related to their property. That shifts the burden to their immediate neighbors. With a
significantly delayed response time for any law enforcement or fire department responders that
is a totally unreasonable expectation.
Mckenzie Canyon Road is an extremely remote road inhabited by both full and part-time
residents who are very sensitive to our impact on the environment we live in. We live in
harmony with the many wild species that share the canyon including deer, elk, cougars, golden
eagles and many more. The lighting, noise, traffic and physical presence of such a major
development would be very disruptive to many of these animals, especially the more sensitive
species.
My husband, two young children and I moved to our property on Mckenzie Canyon Road over
seven years ago. We cherish the natural beauty, minimal noise pollution and traffic and the
special community that we've found here. It is a haven for diverse wildlife and a sanctuary for
those of us who call it home. These things make it worth it for us to face the inherent adversity
of living in such a remote location. The intrusion of this operation would greatly impact our
quality of life. Please don't allow the loss of this exceptional place to be another unintended
consequence of recreational marijuana legalization.
Exhibit
Page of
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Amanda and Kris Clark
From: Evelyn Dykes <pipertwhl7[a�yahoo.com>
Subject: My letter for meeting
Date: March 3, 2019 at 10:52:23 AM PST
To: dexters2 icloud.com
I Evelyn Dykes and Dana Dykes reside on McKenzie Canyon Road we are against the proposed marijuana
grow next to the Dipalos property, The wildlife and the privately maintained canyon road cannot
withstand the kind of activities and traffic this business would bring to our small farming community.
Sincerely
Evelyn and Dana Dykes
Sent from my Whone
Exhibit
Page. of
David Mullan/Edwin Price
McKenzie Canyon Properties LLC
McKenzie Canyon Farm LLC
320 SW Century Dr., Ste. 405-234
Bend, OR 97702
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
Attn: Matt Martin, Associate Planner
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97703
Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision
File No. 247-18-000379 Applicant/Owner: Edwin Price and Marian Bertotti
Matt,
Attached please find narrative with associated exhibits to be entered into the record for the above
reference Administrative Decision and specifically the criteria addressed in the Appeal.
1) Appellant's request for a De Novo hearing.
Applicant's understanding is that this means to conduct tis hearing based only on information
and records associated with the Appeal and not the work completed by county staff on the land
use application burden of proof. If Applicant is understanding this correctly, we believe this
usurps the county staff's responsibility for conducting land use application reviews, leaves
important factual information out of the discussion and should therefore a De Novo hearing
should not be allowed.
2) Deschutes County Code 18.88. Wildlife Area Combining Zone and 18.90. Sensitive Bird and
Mammal Habitat Combining Zone.
Applicant and county staff covered the requirements for this section of the code in it's initial
pre -planning meeting. Applicant took care in constructing it's site plan to not erect barriers or in
any other way impede or disturb wildlife. Furthermore, per the Approved Administrative
Decision we have met county requirements.
3) Deschutes County Code 18.116.330. Supplemental Provisions / Mariivana Production Processing
and Retailing.
a) Appellant claims Water and Power feasibility not met.
Per the Approved Administrative Decision we have met county requirements. In addition,
Applicant would like to add to record that our plan does not include irrigating with well water as
claimed by Appellant. Applicant also has discussed plans with CEC for eventual upgrading of
power to the canyon. At that time we will acquire necessary easements to bring power to the
property. Until then we have a plan to operate the business on a limited scale using the power
resources currently available to us.
b) Appellant claims that neighboring property (Ca lava n/Foster) is an active Youth Activity Center
Appellants claims of a Youth Activity Center are false. Both 4H and FFA confirm that Steve
Calavan, Calvin Foster and Amanda Foster are not now and have never been leaders/instructors
with either organization and that no affiliated Youth Activity Center has ever operated at the
property in question. Supporting exhibits attached:
(1) FFA Letter - Exhibt A
(ii) 4H notes from phone calls (We expect to receive written response from 4H legal
team, please keep record open to receive this when available) Exhibit B
(iii) Further records from Deschutes County 911 Office indicating an environment
not conducive to a Youth Activity Center. These 911 incidents cover solid waste
violations, Game Violations and Animal Neglect.
1. 911 call log history. 39 calls total on history of property. Details on 4 of
these incidents entered into record covering a span from Sept 2016 to Jan
of 2019. Exhibit C
(iv) 2 active incidents in 2019 — Exhibit D
(v) 6 incidents in 2018 — Exhibit E
(vi) 4 incidents in — 2016 — Exhibit F
Thank you for your time and attention in reviewing this information.
Regards,
David Mullan and Edwin Price
gialt',ki+ A
dmullan@outlook.com
From:
Lee Letsch <Lee@oregonffa.com>
Sent:
Thursday, February 28, 2019 7:07 PM
To:
Ted Price
Cc:
David Mullan; Doug Spencer
Subject:
Re: FFA leadership requirements
Ted,
As I shared with you via the phone, the FFA has constitutional requirements to be an FFA leader (or advisor as
we call them). The Official Chapter Advisor(s) shall be the Agriculture Teacher(s) licensed in Agricultural
Education and employed by the school district where the FFA chapter resides. The school district's licensed
agriculture instructor(s) shall teach state approved Agriculture Education courses. Supervision of members at
all FFA Activities shall be under the direct control of the Chapter Advisor(s) as determined by the Board of
Directors.
None of the individuals listed below in your email are advisors in Oregon. Additionally at this time, I do not
have record of a Ryan Foster as an FFA member in Oregon.
Sincerely,
18 'ef1,rtlj7td
t'o r -v otII.,, U'K >.�I
�t7{a
up; r 1>'7t
Vlars`noriiy, Achiever. i. elibe) "adve. Arranger. Responsibility.
"FFA makes a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for PREMIER
LEADERSHIP, PERSONAL GROWTH and CAREER SUCCESS through Agriculture Education."
"The Oregon FFA Association is a resource and support organization that does not select, control or supervise
local chapter or individual member activities except as expressly provided for in the state FFA constitution,
bylaws or policies."
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:21 PM Ted Price wrote:
Hello Lee,
Per our conversation on the phone a little while ago, all I'm asking from is for a letter from the the state FFA stating
what the requirements are to be a leader with the FFA and that Steve Calavan, Calvin and Amanda Foster are not
registered at this time with the state. Nor is the Fosters boy Ryan Foster registered with them. Thank you Lee.
Sincerely,
Ted Price
4.
I -
Ex ka L
---------------------- -------[xl+
Premises History for 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD in RED
+---+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+--------------------+---+
1 Call I Date (Time I Location I Call Type jDsp1
+---+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+--------------------+---+
19022181 01/21/19 13:57 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLAI2
19003253 01/04/1907:34 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON GAME/ANGLING COMPLAI 2
3 18361056 11/20/18 15:52 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
4 18245099108/09/18 15:56 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 7
5 18244620 08/09/18 11:14 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ICODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 12
6118243435 08/08/18 14:38 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
7 18234459 08/01/18111:22 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLL-UP R5 12
18:25 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL COMPLAINT 2
�18228674 07/27/18
1 4 16292846 09/30/16 17:11 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 7
10 16292402 09/30/16 11:43 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ICODE 6 FOLL-UP R5 2
11 16292291 09/30/16 10:23 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ICODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
6291646 09/29/16 16:53 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL COMPLAINT 2
13114288135 10/10/14 13:49 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON (CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4
14 14281533 10/04/14 09:04170345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL COMPLAINT 2
1 15 1427956610/02/14 12:24 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON (CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLAI2
16 12210010 10/11/12 08:23170345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL CONTROL/DOG P 7
1 17 12208750 10/09/12 12:06170345 MCKENZIE CANYON JANIMAL CONTROL/DOG P2
18 12203486 10/01/12114:1970345 MCKENZIE CANYON 1CODE 6 FOLL-UP R512
+----+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+------------------pg 1/1?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------t
Premises History for 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD in RED
+---+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+--------------------+---+
1 Call 1 Date ITime 1 Location 1 Call Type 1Dsp1
+---+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+-------------
19>12199690109/26/12109:15170345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL CONTROL/DOG P17-
20 12128048 06/29/12110:33 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON (ANIMAL CONTROL/DOG PI2
21 1100381301/06/11 12:25 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
2211026692 9 12/23/10 10:09 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
23 10214966 10/10/10 12:08 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 I7
24 10206977109/29/10 16:58 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLL-UP R5 �7
`25 10205853 09/28/10 12:12 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 7
26 10159997108/01/10 09:45 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 I7
27 10153310107/24/.10109:28170345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 2
28 10152549 07/2310 11:54 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON 1CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 17 1
29 10071792 04/11/10 12:31 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 17 1
30 10042195103/01/10114:43 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ICODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 I
7
31 10037202102/22/10117:18 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ICODE 32 10033459102/17/10 14:46 70345 MCKENZIE CANYONCODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R4 7
33 10030430102/13/10 11:05 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON 6 FOLL-UP R5 2 1
34 10025078102/06/10 08:01 70345 MCKENZIE CANYONCODE 6 FOLL-UP R5 2
35 10024354102/05/10 08:50 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON 1CODE 6 FOLL-UP R5 2 1
36`10023960 02/04/10116:09170345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL COMPLAINT 2 1
+---+--------i--------+-----+----------------------+------------------pg 2/2?
--------------------------------------------(xl+
I Premises History for 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD in RED
-+--------------------+---+
Call I Date ITime I Location I Call Type jDspj
+---+--------+--------+-----+----------------------+--------------------+---+
37>10022033 02/02/10 09:56 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON ANIMAL COMPLAINT 7
J
39109229463 1062294641101/01/06103:19170345 MCKENZIE CANYON PUBLIC12:40 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON CIVILPASSIST ROBLEM R4 2
1 I I
-------------
-------------------- pg 3/3
Call 19022181 File Date 01/21/2019 Opr saraci ICN. Unit. Status
Location 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD Juris RED IDESCHUTES COUNTY
Type CODE4 Svc P Agcy DCSO Area P5 Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5 1 SOUTH
Remarks (CODE/ORDINANCE VIOLATION R4) IP? N Pty 4 How? 5 1028 1OD24 OutVeh
Ol ISSUED 30 DAY WARNING FOR CODE VIOLATION FOR THE 14:40:22 1 1OD26 Clear
02 SOLID WASTE AND PLACED THEM ON A 30 WATCH FOR THE 14:40:22 1 IOD29 Clear.
03 ANIMAL WELFARE 14:40:22 1 LOCAL
1090 1OA14 Arrvd
I 1053 Clear
Last DEPUTY First CONARD, LAURA Phone I IOS4 Clear
Address 1093 1OD31 Arrvd
Cross Streets Rec POD 12 BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 38 1978 1OD38 Arrvd
01 HOLMES RD I NORTH
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA+ 1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 IOD48 Enrout
I WEST
I 10D50 Clear
I DOWNTOWN
I 1OL21 Clear
I DESK
UNIT NAME RCVD DISP ARVD CLRD CLS Backup Units 1
1OL72 CONARD, LAURA 1357 EVNT 1357 1456 WAR ISu: 0 P3: 0
(P1: 0 P4: 3
CMD: IP2: 0 P5: 3
Call 19003253 File Date
01/04/2019 Opr meganh
Location 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD
Juri$ RED
Type GAME Svc P Agcy DCSO Area P5
Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5
Remarks (GAME/ANGLING COMPLAINT)
IP? N Pty 4 How? 1
01 ELK HANGING IN THE FRONT YARD
07:34:29
02 FOR 2 MONTHS
07:34:33
03 BAG IS ROTTED OUT NOW
07:34:38
04 RP WANTS TO BE ANON
07:35:09
05+ AREA CHECK AND PHO CONT W/ DISPO
07:36:26
Last First 401ma
Phone
Address ;AREA CHECK AND PHO CONT
Cross Streets Rec POD 6 BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 37
01 HOLMES RD 01 1OD55
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA+
UNIT NAME RCVD DISP ARVD CLRD CLS Backup Units
5172 SOGGE, SCOTT 0734 0748 0757 SBC IOD55
Ack: Zetron 26 station 1 unit 1 state 1 PA Off.
CMD:
ICN. Unit. Status
IDESCHUTES COUNTY
I SOUTH
1028 1OQ24 OutVeh
I 1OD26 Clear
1OD29 Clear
I LOCAL
1090 1OA14 Arrvd
I 10S3 Clear
I 10S4 Clear
1093 1OD31 Arrvd
1978 1OD38 Arrvd
I NORTH
1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 1OD48 Enrout
1 WEST
1OD50 Clear
DOWNTOWN
1 1OL21 Clear
I DESK
ISu: 0 P3: 0
IPl: 0 P4: 4
IP2: 0 P5: 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Remarks Detail for Call 19003253 page 1
Remarks ......................................... bate.
ELK HANGING IN THE FRONT YARD 01/04
FOR 2 MONTHS 01/04
BAG IS ROTTED OUT NOW 01/04
RP WANTS TO BE ANON 01/04
AREA CHECK AND PHO CONT W/ DISPO 01/04
RP IS A PASSERBY 01/04
HAS SEEN IT HANGING THERE FOR 2 MONTHS 01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
01/04
Show Remarks:
of 5
Time.... Operator POD
07:34:29 meganh 6
07:34:33 meganh 6
07:34:38 meganh 6
07:35:09 meganh 6
07:36:26 meganh 6
07:36:53 meganh 6
07:36:59 meganh 6
07:38:28 janellev 12
07:38:33 janellev 12
07:38:36 janellev 12
07:41:01 janellev 12
07:41:03 janellev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:04 janeilev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:04 janellev 12
07:41:05 janellev 12
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Remarks Detail for Call 19003253 page 2 cf 5
Remarks. ..................................... Date. Time. ..
01/04 07:41:05
01/04 07:41:05
---- 01/04 07:41:06
1/04 07:41:18
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
I/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:19
1/04 07:41:20
01/04 07:49:07
01/04 07:49:07
01/04 07:49:11
01/04 07:49:11
01/04 07:49:22
DCSO call 19003253 queued for transfer to OSP.
DCSO GAME (GAME/ANGLING COMPLAINT)
OSP grantHandOff Yes.
RCVD Y
OSP - DO YOU HAVE A UNIT THAT CAN HANDLE?
Show Remarks:
Operator
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
janellev
*angelag
*angelag
angelag
POD
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1
1
0
0
1
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Remarks Detail for Call 19003253
Rom�rlrc
GAME [Dispatch]
DESCH 911 -- GAME TROOPER WILL HANDLE
Show Remarks:
page 3
of 5
Date.
Time....
Operator
POD
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:49:09
*888888
0
01/04
07:51:11
*58649
0
01/04
07:51:11
*58649
0
01/04
07:51:11
*58649
0
01/04
07:51:19
janellev
12
01/04
07:51:15
*5172
0
01/04
07:51:39
*55958
0
Call 18234459 File Date
08/01/2018 Opr nickg
ICN.
Unit. Status
Location 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD
Juris RED
IDESCHUTES COUNTY
Type C65 Svc P Agcy DCSO Area 25
Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5
1
SOUTH
Remarks (CODE 6 FOLL-UP R5)
IP? N Pty 5 How? 1
1028
1OD24 OutVeh
01 ORIG ZOOK
11:24:23
I
1OD26 Clear
02 RE: HORSE NEGLECT
1.1:24:27
!
1OD29 Clear
03 PHO CONT
11:24:28
1
LOCAL,
04 Call 18234459 has been linked to
call 18228674. 11:25:04
1090
1OA14 Arrvd
05+ Call 18235664 has been linked to
call 18234459. 10:34:11
I
1053 Clear
Last CLARK First AMANDA
Phone 541-771-0946
I
1054 Clear
Address ;PHO CONT
1093
IOD31 Arrvd
Cross Streets Rec POD 8
BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 32
1978
1OD38 Arrvd
01 HOLMES RD 01 10D56
I
NORTH
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA+
1104
1OD40 DspAck
1092
1OD48 Enrout
WEST
10D50 Clear
I
DOWNTOWN
1OL21 Clear
DESK
UNIT NAME RCVD DISP ABVD
CLRD CLS Backup Units
I
1OD56 JONES, CHRISTOP 11.22 1125
1150 SBC
(Su:
1 P3: 1
IPI:
0 P4: 3
CMD:
IP2:
0 P5: 1
Remarks Detail for Call 18234459 page 1 of 1
## Remarks... ...................................... Date. Time.... Operator POD
1 ORIG ZOOK 08/01 11:24:23 nickg 8
2 RE: HORSE NEGLECT 08/01 11:24:27 nickg 8
3 PHO CONT 08/01 11:24:28 nickg 8
4 Call 18234459 has been linked to call 18228674. 08/01 11:25:04 *nickg 8
5 Call 18235664 has been linked to call 18234459. 08/02 10:34:11 *sar_aci 12
6 3L93 Enrout 08/02 10:50:34 meganh 6
Show Remarks:
F
16291646 File 9/
Call Date (tv�016 Opr rol.')inma !CN. Unit. Status
Location 70345 MCt�E'NZIE CANYON RD Juris RED IDESCHUTES COUNTY
Type ANIM Svc P Agcy DCSO Area PS Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5 1 SOUTH
Remarks (ANIMAL COMPLAINT) !P? N Pty 5 How? 1 1028 10D24 OutVeh
01 HORSES IN SMALL PEN 16:53:44 1 IOD26 Clear
02 DRY LOT 16:54:25 1 1OD29 Clear
03 NO FOOD OR WATER SEEN 16:53:49 1 LOCAL
04 HORSES ARE 'A LITTLE THIN' 16:55:20 1090 10A14 Arrvd
05-2 PHO CONT 16:55:23 1 1053 Clear
Last SMITH First TAMMY Phone 541-480-7384 1 1054 Clear
Address ;PHO CONT 1093 IOD31 Arrvd
Cross Streets Rec POD 3 BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 27 1978 IOD38 Arrvd
01 HOLMES RD 01 ACO( -1) I NORTH
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA+ 1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 IOD48 Enrout
WEST
IOD50 Clear
DOWNTOWN
1OL21 Clear
DESK
UNIT NAME RCVD DISP ARVD CLRD CLS Backup Units I
1OK94 LAWRENCE, CHRIS 1653 1722 1858 IFO [Su-, I P3: I
IPI: 0 P4; 2
CMD: IP2, 0 P5: 1
Remarks Detail for Call 16291646 page 1
#t�# Remarks.....a................................... Date.
1 HORSES IN SMALL PEN 09/29
2 DRY LOT 09/29
3 NO FOOD OR WATER SEEN 09/29
4 HORSES ARE 'A LIT'T'LE THIN' 09/29
5 PHO CONT 09/29
6 Unit not available for dispatch. 09/29
7 Call holding for unit 1OK94. 09/2.9
8 Call 16291785 has been linked to call 16291646. 09/29
9 Call 16292291 has been linked to call 16291646. 09/30
10 10K94 Enrout 09/30
11 Call 16292402 has been linked to call 16291646. 09/30
Show Remarks:
of 1
Time.... Operator POD
1.6:53:44 robinma 3
16:54:25 robinma 3
16:53:49 robinma 3
16:55:20 robinma 3
16:55:23 robinma 3
17:13:44 *janelle 12
17:14:28 *janelle 12
20:14:08 *lindsey 12
10:23:54 *chrstna 11
10:23:57 chrstna 11
11:45:31 *janelle 12
Call 16291785 File Date
Location 70023 MCKENZIE CANYON RD
Type ANIM Svc P Agcy DCSO Area P5
Remarks (ANIMAL COMPLAINT)
01 2ND HAND INFO
02 HORSES WITHOUT FOOD/WATER
03 PHO CONT
04 Call 16291785 has been !linked to c
05 1OK94 Enrout
Last STEELHAMMER First JOAN
Address ;PHO CONT
09/29/20116 Opr camil-I'les
Juris STS
Dist 141" Zn SO Bt 5
IP? N Pty 5 How? I
19:00:39
19:01:25
19:01:27
11 16291646. 20:14:08
10:23:57
Phone 541-419-3717
Cross Streets Rec POD 11 BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 0
01 HOLMES RD 01 ACO(-],)
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA4-
UNIT NAME
10N50 TURPEN, KEVIN
CMD
RCVD DISP ARVD CLRD CLS Backup Units
1859 1909 2017 SBC
JCN. Unit. Status
I DESCHUTES COUNTY
I SOUTH
1028 IOD24 OutVeh
I IOD26 Clear
i IOD29 Clear
I LOCAL
1090 10A14 Arrvd
I I0S3 Clear
I 10S4 Clear
1093 1OD31 Arrvd
1978 10D38 Arrvd
NORTH
1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 1OD48 Enrout
WEST
1OD50 Clear
DOWNTOWN
10L21 Clear
DESK
!Su- I P3: 1
jpl: 0 P4: I
(P2: 0 P5: i
Call 16292291 F-1le Date 09/30/2016 Opr chrstna
Location 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD Juris RED
Type C6 Svc P Agcy DCSO Area PS Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5
Remarks (CODE 6 FOLLOW-UP R41 IP? N Pty 4 How? 5
01 Call 16292291 has been linked to call 16291646. 1-0.23:54
02 101<94 Enrout 10:23-57
03 1 CHECKED ON THE HORSES WELFARE. THE HORSES HAD 11:14:39
04 WATER, THERE WAS FEED ON THE PROPERTY HOWEVER IT 11:14:39
05+ WASNT IN THE PEN. THE OWNERS WERE NOT ON SCENE. 11:14:39
Last OFFICER First LAWRENCE, CHRIS Phone
Address
Cross Streets Rec POD 11 BOLO N HAZ N EL N Ph 28
01 HOLMES RD
02 Nliq LOWER BRIDGE WA -
UNIT NAME RCVD DISP ARVD CLRD CLS Backup Units
1OK94 LAWRENCE, CHRIS 1023 EVNT 1023 1114 DA
CMD
ICN. Unit, Status
IDESCHUTES COUNTY
I SOUTH
1028 1OD24 OutVeh
I IOD26 Clear
I IOD29 Clear
i LOCAL
1090 10A14 C-4
1053 Clear
1054 Clear
1093 IOD31 Arrvd
1978 I-OD38 Arrvd
I NORTH
1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 1OD48 Enrout
I WEST
I IOD50 Clear
I DOWNTOWN
1OL21 Clear
DESK
Isu: I P3:
1pl: 0 P4:
IP2: 0 P5:
2
3
4
7
8
Remarks Detail for Call 16292291 page 1
Remarks......................................... Date.
Call 16292291 has been linked to call 16291646. 09/30
1OK94 Enrout 09/30
I CHECKED ON THE HORSES WELFARE. THE HORSES HAD 09/30
WATER, THERE WAS FEED ON THE PROPERTY HOWEVER IT 09/30
WASNT IN THE PEN. THE OWNERS WERE NOT ON SCENE. 09/30
HORSES APPEARED SLIGHTLY UNDERWEIGHT. LEFT DOOR 09/30
HANGER FOR CONTACT. IOX94 09/30
Call 16292402 has been linked to call 16292291. 091/30
Show Remarks:
of 1
Time..., Operator POD
10:23:54 *chrsLna 11
10:23:57 chrstna 11
11:14:39 chrisl K94
11:14:39 chrisl K94
11!14:39 chrisl K94
11:14:39 chrisl K94
11:14:39 chrisl K94
11:45:40 *janelle 12
Call 16228674 File Date 07/27/2018 Opr stevew
Location 70345 MCKENZIE CANYON RD Juris RED
Type ANIM Svc P Agcy DCSO Area P5 Dist 1411 Zn SO Bt 5
Remarks (ANIMAL COMPLAINT) TP? N Pty 5 How-, 1
01 POSS HORSE NEGLECT 18:26:02
02 7-8 HORSES 18:26:09
03 UNK IF THEY HAVE WATER 18:26:27
04 1 CONTACTED A HALE AT THE ADDRESS AND SHARED WITH 18:59:01
05+ HIM THE CONCERN. HE WALKED ME OUT TO THE 18:59:01
Last CLARK First AMANDA Phone 541-923-1553
Address ;NO RP CONT
Cross Streets Rec POD 15 BOLO N HAZ N EL N PH 31
01 HOLMES RD 01 ACO{ -1)
02 NW LOWER BRIDGE WA+
UNIT NAME
10N51 ZOOK, SHANE
CMD
RCVD DISP A.RVD CLRD CLS Backup Units
1825 1832 '•._850 1.859 SRC 1OD56
ICN. Unit. Status
IDESCHUTES COUNTY
I SOUTH
1028 IOD24 OutVeh
IOD26 Clear
IOD29 Clear
LOCAL
1090 10A14 Arrvd
I 10S3 Clear
I 10S4 'Clear
1093 1OD31 Arrvd
1978 IOD38 Arrvd
I NORTH
1104 1OD40 DspAck
1092 1OD48 Enrout
I WEST
I-OD50 Clear
DOWNTOWN
1OL21 Clear.
DESK
(Su: 0 P3: I
I Pl: 0 P4: 4
IP2: 0 P5: I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Remarks Detail foz Call 18223674 page 1
of 1
Remarks .............. ... ...........I.......
Date.
Time....
Operator
POD
POSS HORSE NEGLECT
07/27
18:26:02
stevew
15
7-8 HORSES
07/27
18:26:09
stevew
15
UNK IF THEY HAVE WATER
07/27
18:26:27
stevew
15
I CONTACTED A MALE AT THE ADDRESS AND SHARED WIT+07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
HIM THE CONCERN. HE WALKED ME OUT TO THE
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
PASTURE, TO A WATER TUB, WHICH THE HORSES CAN
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
DRINK FROM. I COULD ALSO SEE THAT THEY HAD
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
IRRIGATION LINES, WHICH WERE CAUSING WATER TO RU+Q7/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
DOWN IN A SMALL STREAM ACROSS THE PASTURE WHERE
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
THE HORSES WERE LOCATED. THERE WAS PLENTY OF
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
WATER FOR THE ANIMALS TO DRINK. THE HORSES WERE
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
ALL UP AT THE UPPER END OF THE PASTURE, SO I
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
COULD NOT SEE THEIR OVERALL CONDITION,BUT FROM A
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
DISTANCE, THEY APPEARED TO OKAY.
07/27
18:59:01
shanez
N51
Call 18234459 has been linked to call 18228674.
08/01
11:25:04
*nickg
8
3L93 Enrout
08/02
10:50:34
mega.nh
6
Call 18244620 has been linked to call 1.8228674.
08/09
11:15:53
*kellyl
12
Show Remarks:
March 6, 2019
Hello Deschutes County Commissioners,
Thank you for allowing the time for our Community of McKenzie Canyon to speak
on our behalf regarding the proposed development for our community.
My name is Jacquie Gibbs and I wish to speak to the sense of true community
which is a major part of the Community of McKenzie Canyon — especially in
maintaining reasonable "driving" conditions for our six miles of private road.
it is my opinion that the "for" or "against" support of growing a crop of marijuana
is not a factor in regard to the proposed development. Having had a variety of
conversations I have determined residents of McKenzie Canyon come from many
and varied positions in this regard.
My husband and I are in our 25' year of "life in McKenzie Canyon" residing at
70177 McKenzie Canyon Road.@ When we moved here there were 13 living -on-
site residences. Currently there are 22 living -on-site residences.
Basically, the first efforts in maintaining our private road was accomplished by
those who had appropriate equipment to do so. To my knowledge, the first time
it was believed additional resources were needed, three or four residents
contributed financially to have an outside business grade the road — this was
brought about by the sense of contributing one's "fair share".
Today, being one of the primary persons facilitating having an outside business
grade our private road once a year, I can attest that all living -on-site residents
contribute toward road upkeep in some way. This is brought about by providing
equipment, fuel, labor, and/or monetary contributions. Even some who are not
living -on-site residents, but who own property bordering our private road, very
willingly make monetary contributions.
I believe all of us residing in McKenzie Canyon have a sense of belonging to
something bigger/larger than "ourselves" even if not "belonging" to every facet
involved in maintaining a sense of "belonging"! In other words, we do not all
agree on everything needed in caring for our private road, BUT we all agree in
getting along and supporting life in McKenzie Canyon as a true community — NOT
because "community" is our goal, BUT because "community" is a gift we give each
other. I believe it to be a "gift' because those involved have cultivated a capacity
for connectedness.
My husband and I have questions and concerns regarding a venture being
developed in McKenzie Canyon but not supported by a living -on-site resident of
the McKenzie Canyon Community.
In closing, I vow to lend my support to helping those desiring this development to
find a more suitable place for its development.
Thank you.
BOARD OF COMNUSSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: ;Q-r-1 24-4p- ro a t� Date: 3
Name tW 6
Address ! %'
1 '717
Phone #s rs �j2 3 X 2 47
E-mail address
❑ In Favor F� Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
cs
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
o y�
�REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject:
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address n1r /'9� • ?l�' 4692=—
In
692 -In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
** SUBMIT TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
�JzEs CO
BOARD OF COM1 USSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
� ,e� �- JC��....-f � w---
Subject: t,.�-� - � k Date:
Name U,,J e,,.� P —0-+ d,4 21 v
Address -7o4
%
Phone #s s''`f7 41 a 3
E-mail address C
n in Favor 0 Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
if so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
** SUBMIT TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
��-arcs c
BOARDOF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
,�U 0
2
Subject: t ���!U,� C,4�
'Gt�VjQ,, Date: 7 T
Name
Address %apt! c 2"im
Phone #s
#s
E-mail address. udCd k4� CaL" l
F1
In Favor Q NeutraWndecided 16 -Opposed
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record)'!
** SUBMIT TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
C04
Q ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: F.fQ t„-ker 2.ti7- /1? -op%a"zsw _,4 Date: 3 /6 lig
Name ��5s
Address
4,t s OR S77S9 —
Phone #s sK!
E-mail address
In Favor 0 Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-1 Yes Xo
If so please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
** SUBN IT TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
c
0
._
401
u
0
L
a
L
m
OE;
Q
M
IN
LM
O
O
00
O l
000
17
00
7 N
n
d' y -
N p
o;
Z4)
CL
�= a
L..
J
C V1
E
m L
�U-
%%j c:
00
C: C:o
p
o
� u �
N
U N�
u-0
Ln
•L �
Ln
M-0 E
H m M
u_
10 CLCL
V CLCL
444
O
Ln
4-1
ai
4-J
E
0 roc
_0E
w
wV
S?
>
0
-6j
C:
Ln
4--d
C:
5;0
w
>,
in
0
0 Q.
r-
ou
Ln
E
>1
_0
w
4--J
Ul
ul
cu
0)
4-J
C
C
N Z7
E
ul
w
0
ro
0
ul
E
4--J
o
E
w
Ul
E
o
4-J
w
4-J
.2
4-1 ';,-
(D
4-
as
4-J
4-J
L-
0
Ln
Ln
4-J
-a 4--J
0-
4-j
CL
0
4--J
w
C:
C:
.Ln
0
0
V)
L-
4-J
C:
4- ro41
CL
0
W
C: C:
=
L-
CL
V,
QJ
0 0
-0
CL
0
a)
4-
C-
m
N
4-j
C
.2
Ln
M
0
W
1--
M
"Ej
w
u
a)a) C16
4-J
Ln
Z3
Q
a)
Ln
r-
4-J
ro
Ln
0
w
iz
-C
4-J
H
0
ow0
L
a
Y
L
h
f v
r:
O
LM
CL
i
p
ri
`i�
V
Q
�
•�
O
O
Q
V
Q
0
C:�
i
N
0
ago
4
LL
C:
_
�X
n1
• r
�
W
O
i
t
cu
1�
4-%V
V(
}W
..
f
4-0
Q)
C:
N
.
�fo
4J
A,
O
bo
0
ca
i
m
*�
O
v
ra
•�
T0
W
CL
1, .,
(A
06
(10�
•r
a)
/�
W
3
•
li.l
C)
t31
b4
.
m
O
i
O
O
4
d'
Ln
F--
cn
V)
L7
O
r,
4,
LU
LU
f
t�? r
t'
!
!
f`
itX
s
a
�
��
._
C."
` -:.�
.1
pyo
i ( P,�.•. .
0
Cil
T
u
T
u
ru
i
O
E
((O
T
A
W
u
-J
V 7
0
O
fu
CL
Ln
fi;
L J
I.'
c
O
V
O
L
a
m
L
m
r
LL
ro C:
O O
Q� >k
C C
O ro
U
U N
A
N
N
V
.F
m
0
Q7
i
M
E
® Subject Property
County Zoning
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
FLOOD PLAIN
SI STE RS/C LOVE RDALE SUBZONE
LOWER BRIDGE SUBZONE
247 -18 -000379 -AD / 754-A
Applicant: Ted Price, McKenzie Canyon Farms LLC
Taxlot Numbers: 14.11-23100
Address: 70355 McKenzie Canyon Road, Bend
03/00/2019
Matt Martin
From: Weidner, Emily <emily_weidner@fws.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:39 AM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: Deschutes Co. Land Use Proposal - Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello Matthew,
Our office received a Notice of Public Hearing from Deschutes County Community Development
Department on February 15, 2019 (file numbers 247 -18 -000379 -AD & 247-18-000754-A). We
appreciate the County's coordination and the opportunity to provide feedback. I wanted to reiterate
the Service's comments per the original notice of application, received August 27, 2018. Any activity
that might result in disturbance would require a permit.
Per 2018 golden eagle nest location shapefile, there are two nests in the vicinity of the proposed
project. The eagles within that territory had a successful nest attempt in 2015, with one fledgling
documented. The nest was occupied in 2018 with evidence of eggs but had an unknown outcome. At
this point, the assumption is the nest(s) are occupied until surveys conclude otherwise. Occupancy
surveys occur March through August and document egg laying, incubation/hatching, nestling period,
and fledgling period.
The property falls within a 0.5 -mile nest disturbance buffer. No construction activities can occur
within the buffer zone during the nesting season until chicks have fledged. If nesting birds are
present, restricting project activities to outside the nesting season is a way to avoid disturbance and
minimize impacts. This means restricting project activities during the nesting season (January 1
through August 31). If project activities cannot occur outside the nesting season, then a permit will be
required.
You noted that the owner plans to use a light -deprivation system in the evening from 18:40 - 07:20 to
block any light transmission outside of the structure. Is that still part of the plan? We also have
concerns about whether or not anticoagulant rodenticides will be used in conjunction with crop
production. Additionally, will there be tree or vegetation removal as a part of the project?
Once again, we would appreciate additional coordination between the Service and the project
applicant. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Emily Weidner
Emily Weidner I Fish & Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Bend Field Office
63095 Deschutes Market Road
Bend, Oregon 97702
Direct: 541.312.6423 1 Cell: 971.334.1822
DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
L. Shane Nelson, Sheriff
Proudly Serving Our Community
Mm
Deschutes County CDD
Comment from Sheriff L. Shane Nelson:
Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this
type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in
conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.
In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow
operations are increasing.
There should be no deviation or any exceptions made to any state or county
regulations on the books. No new grows or retail operations should be approved.
• Marijuana production is against Federal Law
• There are several rural residents who have issues with smell, sound and
sight issues related to marijuana grows and how these affect quality of Life.
• For the last 2 years there has been an overproduction of marijuana in our
state.
Our Sources are:
• U.S Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon, former OSU Professor Seth
Crawford, Draft OSP Marijuana Analysts report and the recent marijuana
report from the Oregon/Idaho HIDTA.
Main Office
63333 W. Highway 20
Bend, OR 97703
541-388-6655
sheriff. deschutes.org
Adult jail
63333 W. Highway 20
Bend, OR 97703
541-388-6661
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on March 6, 2019, at 10:00
a.m. in the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Hearing Room at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend,
to take testimony on the following item:
FILE NUMBERS: 247 -18 -000379 -AD (247-18-000754-A)
SUBJECT: Appeal of an approved Administrative Determination to establish marijuana
production in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone with a maximum 4,960
square feet of mature plant canopy.
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Ted Price
Marian Bertotti
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 70355 McKenzie Canyon
Road, Terrebonne, and is identified on County Assessor's Map 14-11-23 as
Tax Lot 100.
STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
541-330-4620; matt.martin@deschutes.org
DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and l-ittp:8dial.deschut�
STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone - EFU
B. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone - WA
C. Chapter 18.90, Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat Combining Zone - SBMH
D. Chapter 18.96, Flood Plain Zone - FP
E. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
117 hVv i ,fay. ie 1w, «f,, ��trrr7, C7rt }ref .. i,}� O Hlo 0,05 Rervl,
!:il�
DRAFT STIF Plan Projects - Deschutes County STIF Advisory Committee Ranking and 130% Project List for Review by Deschutes County Board of Commissioners - April 24, 2019
ZT,
nROFT npcchufps Cnunfv PrnnnsPd STIF Puhlic Transnortation Service Provider Proiects. FY 2019-2021
Page 1
n
:v
ry �, yy
2`' d
s�
vt`o
r>a rs,a� J.
t•i u�
a�
s
�u
,a =.cam,..
@ ,✓
".d
�
o-,
r
�
ti
r.
,xve
wr.
L-i-1111,
dimm ""
`"on
Covers costs associated with Deschutes County STIF program administration.
I w
Administration
$14,049
$14,049
FY2019-2021
N/A
N/A
.tib
Deschutes
1
35
Deschutes County Program
Administration
1
Sustainable Funding for Route 30
Secure sustainable funding source to replace 5311 (f) discretionary funds, which CET applies for to
Service
$44,553
$44,553
FY 2020-2021
X
La Pine
2
La Pine - Bend
cover portions of the cost of Route 30.
9
Community Connector Weekday
Add 2 weekday trips on Routes 24 & 26 (interlined), with Deschutes and Crook Counties each
Service
$74,962
$37,482
FY 2021
X
Redmond,
3
Frequency: Routes 24 & 26
paying 50% of the cost. Includes service to Redmond Air ort and COCC-
Prineville, Bend
33
Implement Reduced Fare
Implement Reduced Fare Program for low-income
Programs
$100,000
$100,000
FY 2021
N/A
N/A
Systemwide
4
Program
individuals or pilot first -last mile program for low-income individuals.
21
Bend Service Coverage -
Create new local route serving northeast Bend, specific service design (e.g., new fixed -route,
Service, Buses,
$810,370
$810,370
FY 2020-2021
X
Bend
5
Northeast
existing route extension, flex -route, or on -demand) to be identified based on TDP service plan.
Bus Stops/
Includes allowance for a vehicle and bus stops and secondary transit/mobility hub
Stations
improve ents.
10
Community Connector Weekday
Add 3 weekday trips (e.g., 2 midday and 1 afternoon) on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond) with
Service
$202,545
$55,502
FY 2020-2021
X
Madras &
6
Frequency / Additional Trips -
Jefferson County paying 2/3 of the operating costs. Additional stops to be determined to meet
Redmond
Route 22
medical and shopping needs.
4
Community Connector Saturday
Introduce five Saturday round trips on Route 24 (Redmond -Bend).
Service
$57,134
$57,134
FY 2020-2021
X
Redmond &
7
Service - Route 24
Bend
12
Community Connector Evening
Add one additional later evening weekday trip on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond), to better serve
Service
$73,520
$36,761
FY 2020-2021
X
Madras &
8
Trips - Route 22
commuter needs, with Jefferson and Deschutes Counties each paying 50% of the cost.
Redmond
30
Redmond Local Circulator
Implement limited deviated fixed-route/on-demand service in Redmond. Assumes 2 buses with
Service, Bus,
$565,000
$565,000
FY 2020-2021
X
Redmond
9
approxi atel5 hours of service per weekday, for a total of 10 hours er da
Shelters
22
Bend Service Coverage -
Create new local route serving southeast Bend, specific service design (e.g., new fixed -route,
Service, Buses,
$810,370
$810,370
FY 2020-2021
X
Bend
10
Southeast
existing route extension, flex -route, or on -demand) to be identified based on TDP service plan.
Bus
Includes allowance for a vehicle and bus stops and secondary transit/mobility hub
Stops/Stations
improve enfs.
17*
Bend Primary Transit Network
Provide up to 15-20 minute peak hour service on select routes. Assumes additional peak buses for
Service, Buses
$1,734,107
$1,734,107
FY 2021
X
Bend
11
Fixed -Route Frequency
Routes 1, 4, 7, and a short route between Hawthorne Station and downtown Bend (either
standalone or interlined with other routes). *This service will increase frequency
29
Sustainable Funding for Route 24
Secure sustainable funding source to replace 5311 (f) discretionary funds, which CET applies for to
Service
$44,553
$44,553
FY 2020-2021
X
Redmond &
12
Redmond - Bend
cover portions of the cost of Route 24.
-_.-__Bend
3
Community Connector Evening
Add one additional later evening weekday trip on Route 24 (Redmond -Bend).
Service
$37,482
$37,482
FY 2021
X
Redmond &
13
Trips - Route 24
Bend
2
Additional Vehicle for Route 24
Purchase vehicle (or matching funds) for Route 24 to increase frequency between Redmond and
Buses
$175,000
$175,000
FY 2020
X
Redmond &
14
Bend.
Bend
7
Community Connector Weekday
Add 1 morning, midday, or afternoon trip on Route 29 (Sisters -Bend) for medical and shopping
Service
$55,502
$55,502
FY 2020-2021
X
Sisters & Bend
15
Frequency / Additional Trips -
needs, with additional stops to be determined.
Route 29
28
Additional Vehicle for Route 26/24
Purchase vehicle (or matching funds) for Routes 24/26, with Deschutes and Crook Counties each
Buses
$175,000
$87,500
FY 2020
X
Redmond,
16
paying 50% of the cost, to increase frequency between Prineville, Redmond, and Bend
Bend, &
interlined and add stops at Redmond Airport and COCC.
Prineville
6
Community Connector Saturday
Introduce 3 Saturday round trips on Route 30 to meet medical, shopping and employment
Service
$34,280
$34,280
FY 2020-2021
X
Bend & La
17
Service - Route 30
needs, with additional local stops to be determined.
I
I
Pine
14
Community Connector Saturday
Introduce three Saturday round trips on Route 26 (Prineville -Bend), with Crook County paying 2/3
Service
$73,521
$24,507
FY 2020-2021
X
Prineville &
18
Service - Route 26
of the cost and Deschutes Count 1/3 of the cost.
Redmond
13
Community Connector Saturday
Introduce three Saturday round trips on Route 22 (Madras -Redmond), with Jefferson County
Service
$73,548
$24,507
FY 2020-2021
X
Madras &
19
Service - Route 22
paying 2/3 of the cost and Deschutes Count 1/3 of the cost.
Redmond
Transit -supportive capital
Develop and fund a program to fund (or match other local funds) for ongoing transit -supportive
Bus
16
improvements program
capital improvements including bus stop amenities, stop accessibility, and bicycle/pedestrian
Stops/Stations
$100,000
$100,000
FY 2021
N/A
N/A
Systemwide
20
access/crossings.
Page 1
Z abod
•s;sll 010£! pua % w c un 6ululpwa p1
wa vvcJ a
ft Q L17 VLy OJ •OfN I LoUL L Nv"A ZoOUL u1 OfavrJ f,wlvJd Ivfvl UUV 9E8 65 -34bi!I I%VV L puTJ lSUUL ay{ u1 a!gn!!nAV spund pa;vuipg ID;o1 008'696
ZS All GO£L a44 u► a!gA!!pnb spunk pa;pw!;s3
C9L'8IV4
09L'L68'4
OS`_3�80`Z-
suollolS/s olS
•sgnH puoUJpad puo u0401S auJ0L4m0H
9£
lueu J .p
•sgnq . gpow aanlnl pub qnH Pu0UJPed 01111 'u0401- GUJogIMOH lO Suo!}Ols lIsuc)4 id,, bu1uI01U10UJ
s olS sn8 1 sall1113o j
OZOZ Ad
000'08$
saingosaQ
X
aql to ap!slno suo!#cool qng l!suoJl AJOpuooas paboubls uoipwjoIui aUJ1l-1OGJ ap!Aoad
OZOZ AJ
089'661$
089'661$
lol!do:D
puO 'loAOUJeJ Mous 'buluoalo u! Aouaiollla GJ0GJ3 PUO anoadwi of luewdlnbe 101!dao GJ!nboy
aloS puo uoelZ) paou0gu3
Z17
lunoZ) saingosaa ulgl!M seo!lo luawa our)w puowep uollolao suoal
p!sgnS pu-o uollowoad
f!
.�
eYl1AA1I InICA�
�N:'••--+�'•z'
'JGAIn3 puo snopleW u! aoimas
y/ /IN
i��� i
LC.VC, AJ
UUU'UL$
U0uO21
..,, .....G...
��ua�Vad
.. G... ... ...�
abum 0-JUz-:0 011 UJr:)Jb VJd 100duc)A JaA01dUJa UIJ aLIPISgfIS Plait alOUJOJd Ol SaOIAAGS loojlUoo
wr)JbOJd 1000UDA JGAOIdUJ�
178
suolloaadp
l000l puowap-uo Jol (9## loefoJd Aluno:) uosaallar) loefoad uolloollddo jIiS s,Aluno:D uosaella(`
JeA!d pa�ooJo
suollolS/s oIS
X
tZOZ-OZOZ Aj
000'98$
000'98$
'GolAJGS
bu!6oJanei 'AOp Jed sanog 8 puo �aaM aad SAop Z gonad JeAld pa)ooJ� of eoimas aonpoJlul
gouOd JGA!d PG�OOJZ) oI aolAJGS
l17
000'09$
000'09$
sn8
louolloaado llsuoal puo 'ssa000 uoulsaped 'uollols luawaldwi puo ublsap of saeupod gl!M lJoM
'AlaloS 'ssaooy 0OIIDlS auJoglMOH
8 t
—..__ opanloS- OpuOW
-pua8 Ul pappo s ols snq Mau louoil ppo gl!M 'spaau
6Z alnod - aouuaS
Z£
aopues
JoaA aad sAop 8t8 Jeno Aop aad aoimas to sanog 8I PUD alo!gaA yQy 11Ouas Guo to asogoJnd
Aboiouuoai
IZOZ-OZOZ A�
086'178$
pua8
aolmaS
X
1Z0Z Aj
1718'909$
b 18'909$
'suolloaado
au# bulppo Aq l!suoJl of suo!loauuoo alp (sol puo (sig luewaldwi of 96# loefoJd saouoqu3
golods!a puowea-up Jol laoddnS
017
UolIOUJJoIuI
'sao!AJas papuO xa puo Mau of
gooaJlno
W
'901maS
ao!nJas
JGAlJunS puo auld
IZ06-0606 A�
688'L9 It
JanuunS'au!d Ol
SWr)JbOJd
X
1ZOZ-OZOZ AA
088'99$
088'99$
Suolloaado
to sAop 01 louoilppo uo puo Aop Jad sanog eopues iouoil ppo 17 bulppo Aq 8Z# loefoJd saouoqu3
of ueemlaq of aoimaS iouoll!ppy
68
aououalulow UJals s'8 5U1UIDJj lan0Jl'U0Il001lllaao yQy' l!Jnoas'8 labs
0£
suolltolS/S ol$
X
V/N
IZOZ-UZUZ A�
000'9LL$
000'9LL$
suo!}OJado
'aoimas Jawolsno) aomies l!suoJl peouoqua laoddns of sloualow puo Vols suo!loJado !ouoll!ppy
IJoddnS uolsuodx3 13Z)
Z8
sn8 'sn8 'eoimaS
'sasuadxa louollmado puo lol!doo paloloosso puo (Aop!Jj
puou pad ui aoimeS a}nod-pexis
puouaped
X
1ZOZ-OZOZ A�
L t8't788$
L t8'V88$
'suolloaado
-AOpuoW) Aop Jed gooe sanog 01 Iouoll!ppo uo to sasnq oMl bulppo Aq L8# loefoJd saouoqu3
Jol lol!do:D puo ao!AJaS lou01l!ppy
88
'paupialap aq of sdols louoil ppo gl!M 's aau
p
- sdu ouo!
l l l ppy / AouanbaJj
6Z
8 eU1d 01
'aanlonJlsoJlui
IZOZ-0606 Aj
Z09'99$
�-
609'99$
aolmaS
6ulddogs puo loolpaw Jol (pua8-aul(i ol) 08 elnod uo dial uoouaallo Jo 'Aopp!w '5uivaow t ppy
Aop�,gaM Jopewoo Al!unwwoo
g
JanuunS
luopdwoo yQy p'iJo 'saapoei aJol oluoJloala 's�ooJ elp so Bons sasuadxa lol!doo sapnioul -(Aop!Jj
puouapad _.
X
1 Z0Z-UZOZ AA
L I8' -6Z$
L I8'176Z$
suo!loaado
-Aopuov�) Aop .'ad gooa sanog 0 t to sasnq oMi ql!M aoimas amoJ-paxll Jo} 08# }oafoad SGouoqu8
puo� �apad ui aoc imaS e#nod-pax!,
�8
U68t9 t$
J6�;` 19 J$
sn8-ao!AJaS
GIOlgGA o JO asogoJnd bu!pnou! 'JGA!JunS bu!AJas oslo 'euld of ui aoimas bu!lopoJ!o 10001 ppy
aowaS l000l Al!z) IIows
8Z
-
-
pnlS Al!1rq!soGj/ atuuold
-
puouapad
V/N
V/N
OZOZ lk
000,09t
000 O9$
buluuold
puowpad u1 suo!l000l dols/alnoJ puo l!suoJl alnoJ-pax!# eupialap of Apnls Al!l!q!soal/6uluuold
a#nod-pax! puowpad
98
v
-
,� ryl'+`''
t
e�
i
f�% J
;,�.. y � ` - H
pp
+a d
of F'i'a
.e
xY`
s
'.i`✓..
^ '.;3'.
t"aa
?x
5 ' .•¢" y..Zvi
s<�^< -. `k.
a"
.�r` o - .,j Y:k
b � Fri , �. r
v,T'"K,
r
h '
�, •u'°
v
to
u�.^k
.aS�G'
t S
a.
i
<
a
'Jnoq ane
e
�"�.
y ,o
r,
r 3. r
r z
a`E , A
�
Yn
{
:... w. , k.-�.1. ..>.. r.,
.. . h' < E, a
_ . r..
n.,ai��:�,'.-'.z^v-,cvc-.a`?.>e;:,a�4F�>E.�
. a
S�d.t •,i k..
.... - S.S
.. ..
.. r=sE.fn'�L.
�i';v_ .i. `✓ ..
<.
N'l h -�<
$�"i&3 !i - "
4S�:i�,.. �.i ...
F. .. �e:.r �a,.ro,.sv=''v..�J�
.. ft..
�: �
o,:�. .. ,.
.¢
z•V< . '-" � v U','
.6.�.-a, v<..
v. -.
.?� .'°Y.".
�. . ^;
"..�`k _ , .:'G»°a�to..i.� .W�:
-_ ...... „ 1. ,- . ..a -,
,o ..- s
w.rya� r �. a -v, + E pow i ♦ ... ..,r ,' x.. ., . .rd w„. '.
'. � < ."-
4 m' +`.• *2 .. 1nm`n � .. t . > ✓' ,ice v .. .. :
{ .av .
..a✓" , Su:. Y
`e X' aro ' �E-t` � �.
�'....�wz. ''��+.m'pv.. �,`
.. r . +4yv
'�"'�^�'`d. �2am.�a;
�����
*wd 08:9 Jo 00:9 pun wo 00 8 Jo 08:L aJo sanoq aoimas5Z
.4i�°..a.
_x
.. .
eY
...
,2 . .e"
..<.,,ni°"' m, .savn .. yia%G-">�'J-., h'�.�msl'�^.b�-szz..52.-u��w ..,°da.,o K.`-�$�.s, .,z���. ,?>?:
'..^��^Ei '�.-_..:. �✓,c.23�_?'�F"�
IZOZ-OZOZ A�
/cW11 1 C :Lsn oinn 1 aw w shun l 6u►umwaw
11 °%0£ L pup %00 L OL14 04u! p04paodaoou1 eq o} M0189 sPafoM 4044 pesodWd
nnn'acc'iF •tcm omni =Ht n/ 911`11n11nAM cnun I
6 106'bZ 1!Jdy - saauolssiwwoo to pJ000 Aluno:) saingosaQ Aq MGIAGd Jol lsll loafoad %081 PUO 6UI� UDd aell!UJUJOD AJOSIApy �11S Alunoo saingosaa - sloafoad uold jIlS ljb'da
C9L'8IV4
09L'L68'4
lViol
suollolS/s olS
•sgnH puoUJpad puo u0401S auJ0L4m0H
9£
ap!MUJalsAS
V/N
V/N
OZOZ Ad
000'08$
000'0£$
sn8 'AbolOugoai
aql to ap!slno suo!#cool qng l!suoJl AJOpuooas paboubls uoipwjoIui aUJ1l-1OGJ ap!Aoad
A6olougoai uo!}owiolul awil-load
V6
lunoZ) saingosaa ulgl!M seo!lo luawa our)w puowep uollolao suoal
p!sgnS pu-o uollowoad
f!
.�
eYl1AA1I InICA�
�N:'••--+�'•z'
V/AI
V / IN
y/ /IN
i��� i
LC.VC, AJ
UUU'UL$
.......n •.1.
UUU Uc�
..,, .....G...
��ua�Vad
.. G... ... ...�
abum 0-JUz-:0 011 UJr:)Jb VJd 100duc)A JaA01dUJa UIJ aLIPISgfIS Plait alOUJOJd Ol SaOIAAGS loojlUoo
wr)JbOJd 1000UDA JGAOIdUJ�
178
suollolS/s oIS
uollolS auaoglMoH to SIUGUJanoJ UJ!
SIUGUJenoJ UJI louolloaa p puO
££
PUGS
X
OZOZ A�
000'09$
000'09$
sn8
louolloaado llsuoal puo 'ssa000 uoulsaped 'uollols luawaldwi puo ublsap of saeupod gl!M lJoM
'AlaloS 'ssaooy 0OIIDlS auJoglMOH
8 t
-pua8 Ul pappo s ols snq Mau louoil ppo gl!M 'spaau
6Z alnod - aouuaS
Z£
saalsis'8 pua8
X
IZOZ-OZOZ A�
086'178$
08Z'1/8$
aolmaS
luawAoldwe puo 6ulddogs 'loo!paUJ }aaUJ 0166 alnod uo sdul-punoi AopanjoS 8 aonpoJlul
AopanlOS Joloauuoo Al!unUJUJoz)
9
UolIOUJJoIuI
'sao!AJas papuO xa puo Mau of
gooaJlno
W
ap mwapAS
V/N
V/N
IZ06-0606 A�
688'L9 It
688'L9 t$
SWr)JbOJd
palolaJ bUIUloJI IGAOJI puo gooaJlno puo 'suolloolunwwoo 'bu!la�jow lonpuoo of spun( SGP!AOJd
puo 'uolloo!unwwo3 '6ullajJoW
9Z
aououalulow UJals s'8 5U1UIDJj lan0Jl'U0Il001lllaao yQy' l!Jnoas'8 labs
0£
ep!MUJelsAS
X
V/N
IZOZ-UZUZ A�
000'9LL$
000'9LL$
suo!}OJado
'aoimas Jawolsno) aomies l!suoJl peouoqua laoddns of sloualow puo Vols suo!loJado !ouoll!ppy
IJoddnS uolsuodx3 13Z)
Z8
08 alnod
pua8
'paupialap aq of sdols louoil ppo gl!M 's aau
p
- sdu ouo!
l l l ppy / AouanbaJj
6Z
8 eU1d 01
X
IZOZ-0606 Aj
Z09'99$
�-
609'99$
aolmaS
6ulddogs puo loolpaw Jol (pua8-aul(i ol) 08 elnod uo dial uoouaallo Jo 'Aopp!w '5uivaow t ppy
Aop�,gaM Jopewoo Al!unwwoo
g
JanuunS
au!d of - sluauaaouogu3
OZ
OZ
zr o i
I
A
t ZU6-U(UZ Al
U68t9 t$
J6�;` 19 J$
sn8-ao!AJaS
GIOlgGA o JO asogoJnd bu!pnou! 'JGA!JunS bu!AJas oslo 'euld of ui aoimas bu!lopoJ!o 10001 ppy
aowaS l000l Al!z) IIows
8Z
Ilonuow auop si burpaqos asuo sat-puowap llugjjno .'sa!l!j!go oo aolAap
--- T
- aIMWG SA
p. l S
Y/N
y/
tZOZ k.
000'006$ 1000'00Z$
-
A6olougz)el
I alpow pub bUijmpaUas K ubwap-uo poddnS Ol saIIIIIgod6o 6ulpnlbul 'walsAs uoiodslp aJn�m-A
-
Aroopwoe1 u-)IK)dSin punwen-tin
o�
'Jnoq ane
9Z
PUGS
X
1ZOZ AJ
000'006$
000'006$
a3waS
s! AouanbaJl bu!lslx3 -pua8 to Alp eql ui salnoJ pelas uo AouenbaJl AopanloS alnuiw-08 ap!AOJd
AouenbaJj AopanloS pua8
OZ
*wd 08:9 Jo 00:9 pun wo 00 8 Jo 08:L aJo sanoq aoimas5Z
pua8
X
IZOZ-OZOZ A�
091'LZZ$
091'LZ6$
aolmaS
AoPanloS bulls!x3 '(yQy puo alnoa-paxll) wdL - woL ol_pua8 u!_sanoq aovues AOpanloS pualx3
sanOH aolHaas AopanpS-pua8
61
saals!S - sluauaa0uOgu3
�Z
saals!S
X
1606 AJ
699'86$
699'86$
ao!naaS
(�aaM Aad Aop 1 Aluo AlluaJJno) saals!S ui aoimas ap!d-y-lo!Q to Aop louo!l!ppo auo ap!noJd
aoimaS l000l AI!3 IIowS
l8
SIUtJJ pato pluo Jol spun( buit4olow
golow 1O501
£Z
ep!MwGjsAS
V/N
V/N
OZOZ A�
000'tZb$
000' IZI7$
sasn8
%OZ sawnssy 'salolgaA UOISSIWe-Mol Jo/puo J00II-Mol buulnboo 6ulpnlou! 'sGp1L4eA 6U160 aooldad
woJ6oJd luaw000ldad alo!gGn
LZ
GII!AaUlJd
-Isoo agl to %og 6ulAod gone sallunoo saingosaQ puo �ooJo ql!M 'spaau JaInwwoo
9Z alnod - sdui
ZZ
'g puouapad
X
tZOZ-OZOZ Aj
t9L'LZ$
l I9'179$
aolmaS
ames Jallaq of '(PUOUJPad-a11!Aauud) 9Z alnod uo dul Aop�aem 6UIUaAG Je101 louolllppo auo ppy
6UIUGA3 JoloauuoD Al!unwwoo
1 I
'17 puo [ salnod 1]3 Jol laaJlS
sluauaanoJ wl ssaooy
LZ
PUGS
X
IZOZ A�
000'091$
000'09 t$
Aluoud I!suoai
PJC UO sluaUJeAoadwi AlypopeJ puo 'peads 'sse000 luawaldwi puo uold of saaupod gl!M �1JoM
puo Al!1po!lad g peadS leaalS pie
91
6 106'bZ 1!Jdy - saauolssiwwoo to pJ000 Aluno:) saingosaQ Aq MGIAGd Jol lsll loafoad %081 PUO 6UI� UDd aell!UJUJOD AJOSIApy �11S Alunoo saingosaa - sloafoad uold jIlS ljb'da
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Cound!
NE Hawthorne Ave. Be • OR 97701 541-548-8163• • •
C 0 U N C I L
Memorandum
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Michelle Rhoads, COIC Transportation Manager
Date: April 24, 2019
Re: Fleet Management
A forward -compatible approach is an industry best -practice when investing in vehicles performing public transit
services to assure that the vehicles meet current and anticipated needs for duration of their useful life cycle.
COIC intends to sustain this approach when procuring vehicles for implementing the new STIF services.
Considerations When Ordering Vehicles:
Buses are typically tailor ordered to assure a safe, efficient, appropriately equipped fleet that is also
standardized when possible to minimize inventory of parts and supplies. Due to the significant capital
investment, the size and configuration of a bus is carefully considered before ordering to allow optimal flexibility
in meeting the needs of the public transit system as it evolves over time. As an example, the 2017 introduction
of the low -floor, ADA ramp -equipped heavy-duty transit buses in Bend has improved on-time performance on
high -usage transit corridor routes 1, 4 and 7, in part because of a significant decrease in time required for
boarding by riders with ADA -accessibility needs as well as enhancing the rider's independence and mobility.
Further, these buses operated with high effectiveness during the inclement weather of February 2019.
The vast majority of buses are produced and tailored for specific customers. Very few are built as stock units for
a dealer to place on the lot for immediate sale. It is more cost-effective and efficient to assure the desired
equipment is installed on the bus at the factory. Not all equipment can be added or changed later and when it
can be retrofitted, the cost is typically greater. An example is the correctly sized HVAC system for Central
Oregon extreme temperature differences between winter and summer.
Procurement Process:
Agencies using Oregon Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit Division (RPTD) grant funds must
use the Oregon Department of Administrative Services state price agreement unless pre -approved by RPTD to
use a different method. A provider may conduct a competitive RFP process similar to the process described
above to select a vehicle not on the State Price Agreement. Public agency procurement process can require a
minimum of 12 weeks to assure legally required advertising, selection and contracting process. STIF-supported
service enhancements occurring throughout the state of Oregon are currently lengthening the lead time to get a
bus into production once under contract.
According to FTA C 5010.1E, a transit provider may purchase a used or remanufactured vehicle following the
same procurement process as for a new vehicle, outlined in FTA Procurement Circular 4220.1F. This would
include an RFP sent to all available vendors and an analysis for Best Value over the lifecycle of the vehicle. The
full 'useful life' of a refurbished vehicle begins with the date that vehicle is put into service. For example, for a
Cat B the 10 year or 350,000 mile useful life begins again. Used, non -refurbished vehicles would typically be
purchased with local funds.
Attachment: Oregon Vehicle Description and Useful Life Benchmarks
Oregon Vehicle Description and Useful Life Benchmarks
* Vehicles 22 ft. or longer require at least 2 ADA stations; 1 ADA station required if less than 22 ft.
Note: Photos are for reference only -provided as examples; from ODOT RPTD files.
ODOT Rail & Public Transit Updated March 2017
Approx.
Useful
Expected
Oregon Rail & Public
GVWR
No.
Approx
Life
Price
Delivery
Transit Division Category
(pounds)
Seats
Length*
Minimum
Range
time
(months)
A: Large, Heavy -Duty Transit
Bus
33,000—
35-40+
35 ft. - or
12 years or
$241,000—
24+
40,000
greater
500,000
$800,000
miles
mss°
B: Medium -Size, Heavy -Duty
10 years or
Transit Bus
26,000—
25-35
30 ft. —
350,000
$79,700—
12-24
s
33,000
35 ft.
miles
$335,000
C: Medium -Size, Medium-
7 years or
Duty Transit Bus & Truck
15,000 —
16-30
25 ft. —
200,000
$6S,302—
6-18
Chassis Cutaway
26,000
30 ft.
miles
$120,000
Ft
M
D: Medium -Size, Light -Duty
5 years or
Bus &Van Chassis
10,000—
12-16
20 ft. —
150,000
$47,000—
6-9
Cutaway Bus
16,000
25 ft.
miles
$115,000
E 1: Small, Light -Duty Bus;
6,000— 3-14 E 1: 4 years or $35,000— 3-6
E 2: Modified Vans;
14,000 20-22 ft. 100,000 $65,000
E,3: Modified Minivans
-,o- E 2/E 3: miles
< 20 ft.
Small Standard Vehicles — Are not allowed to be purchased with FTA funds and are not included on the ODOT Rail &
Public Transit Division Price Agreement contracts.
However, when not using FTA funds these vehicle types may be on the Department of Administrative Services
statewide contracts. Check ORPIN online at: https://orpin.oregon.gov/open.dll/welcome
E 4: Vans
E 5: Minivans
6,000—
3-14
< 20 ft.
4 years or
$20,000—
1-3
E 6: Station wagons
14,000
100,000
$40,000
E 7: Sedans
miles
* Vehicles 22 ft. or longer require at least 2 ADA stations; 1 ADA station required if less than 22 ft.
Note: Photos are for reference only -provided as examples; from ODOT RPTD files.
ODOT Rail & Public Transit Updated March 2017