2020-90-Ordinance No. 2020-002 Recorded 3/4/2020REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2020-90
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 03/04/2020 3:38:28 PM
COG��
" 2020-90
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan,
to Adjust the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and
Comprehensive Plan Designations for Certain
Properties, and Title 18, the Deschutes County
Zoning Map, to Adjust Zoning for Certain Properties.
* ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
WHEREAS, Deschutes County initiated amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to
adjust the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") by changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to
"Agricultural" for those lands leaving the UGB and to "Urban Growth Boundary" for those lands entering the
UGB; and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County initiated amendments to the Deschutes County Zoning Map to rezone
those lands leaving the UGB as Exclusive Farm Use and to rezone those lands entering the UGB as Urban
Holding 10; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Management Agreement between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond
states that Urban Growth Boundary Amendments shall be approved by both Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners ("Board") and the Redmond City of Council; and
WHEREAS, the Redmond City Council approved Ordinance 2020-001 on January 14, 2020 to adjust
the UGB, subject to approval by the Board; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
November 19, 2019, before a Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on December 24, 2019, the Hearings
Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone change; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was
held on February 5, 2020, before the Board; now, therefore,
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and deleted
language set forth in str-iko4,,.,,ugh.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Urban Growth
Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit B attached and incorporated by reference herein, with
new language underlined and deleted language set forth in st fi , eug .
Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History,
is amended to read as described in Exhibit C attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined and deleted language set forth in +�'��.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to
change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit D from Agriculture to Redmond Urban
Growth Boundary and for certain property described in Exhibit E from Redmond Urban Growth Boundary to
Agriculture, each as depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit F, with each exhibit attached and incorporated by
reference herein, and.
Section 5. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation for
certain property described in Exhibit D from Exclusive Farm Use to Urban Holding 10 and for certain property
described in Exhibit E from Redmond Industrial (M 1 and M2) to Exclusive Farm Use, each as depicted on the
map set forth as Exhibit G, with each exhibit attached and incorporated by reference herein, and.
Section 6. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of
the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit H, and incorporated by reference herein.
Dated this of (' , 2020
__j
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESC1 UTES COUNTY, OREGON
t
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary PHILIP G
Date of 1' Reading: day ofp6byVan1,2020.
Date of 2"d Reading: day of F�L ko-r i,2020.
0 '
RSON, Commissi
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair _
Anthony DeBone
Philip G. Henderson
Effective date: day of 2020.
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
Chapter 23.01 (2/2020)
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
EXHIBIT A
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
Il. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
MM. The Deschutes CountyComprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002 are incomorated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2020-002 &1, 2020; Ord. 2020-001_§26, 2020; Ord. 2019-019 §2, 2019; Ord. 2019-016 §3,
2019; Ord. 2019-006 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-011 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-004 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003
§1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 §1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005
§2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007
§1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022
§1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 §
1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12
§1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009
§2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §l, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016
§ 1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 § 1 through 12, 2011;
Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 § 3, 2011)
Chapter 23.01 (2/2020)
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
EXHIBIT A
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
Chapter 23.01 (2/2020)
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
EXHIBIT B
seou*ow 4.2 vrbaw'ZatW1&
Background
This section describes the coordination between the County and the cities of Bend, La Pine,
Redmond and Sisters on Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Reserve Areas (URAs).
Statewide Planning Goal 2 recognizes the importance of coordinating land use plans.
"City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions
related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and
counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268."
Oregon Revised Statute 197.015(5) goes further to define comprehensive plan coordination.
"A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic
and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and
accommodated as much as possible."
Population
An important basis for coordinating with cities is adopted population projections. Having an
estimate of anticipated population is the first step to planning for future growth and
conservation. ORS 195.025(I) requires counties to coordinate local plans and population
forecasts. The County oversees the preparation of a population forecast in close collaboration
with cities. This is important because the population of the County has increased significantly in
recent decades and a coordinated approach allows cities to ensure managed growth over time.
Table 4.2.1 — Population Growth in Deschutes County 1980 to 2010
Sources
1980
1990
2000
2010
Population Research Center July I estimates
62,500
75,600
116,600
172,050
US Census Bureau April I counts
62,142
74,958
115,367
157,733
Source: As noted above
In 1996 Bend, Redmond, Sisters and the County reviewed recent population forecasts from the
Portland State University Center Population and Research Center (PRC) and U.S. Census
Bureau, Department of Transportation, Woods and Poole, Bonneville Power Administration
and Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis. After reviewing these
projections, all local governments adopted a coordinated population forecast. It was adopted by
Deschutes County in 1998 by Ordinance 98-084.
The results of the 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared by the
PRC revealed that the respective populations of the County and its incorporated cities were
growing faster than anticipated under the 1998 coordinated forecast. The cites and the County
re-engaged in a coordination process between 2002 and 2004 that culminated with the County
adopting a revised population forecast that projected population to the year 2025. It was
adopted by Ordinance 2004-012 and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals on March 28,
2005.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
The following table displays the 2004 coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County
and the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters.
Table 4.2.2 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025
Year
Bend UGB
Redmond UGB
Sisters UGB
Unincorporated
County
Total County
2000
52,800
15,505
975
47,320
116,600
2005
69,004
19,249
1,768
53,032
143,053
2010
81,242
23,897
2,306
59,127
166,572
2015
91,158
29,667
2,694
65,924
189,443
2020
100,646
36,831
3,166
73,502
214,145
2025
109,389
45,724
3,747
81,951
240,811
Source: 2004 Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County
The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop the 2000-2025
coordinated forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated
Population Forecast 2000-2025: Findings in Support of Forecast."
The fourth city in Deschutes County is the City of La Pine. Incorporated on November 7,
2006, the City of La Pine's 2006 population estimate of 1,590 was certified by PRC on
December 15, 2007. As a result of La Pine's incorporation, Deschutes County updated its
Coordinated Population Forecast with Ordinance 2009-006.
The purpose of this modification was to adopt a conservative 20 year population forecast for
the City of La Pine that could be used by city officials and the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development to estimate its future land need and a UGB.
The following table displays the coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, the
UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and La Pine from 2000 to 2025. By extending
the growth rate to the year 2025, La Pine's population will be 2,352. The non -urban
unincorporated population decreases by 2,352 from its original projection of 81,951, to 79,599.
Table 4.2.3 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025, Including La Pine
Year
Bend
UGB
Redmond
UGB
Sisters
UGB
La Pine
UGB
Unincorporated
County
Total County
2000
52,800
15,505
975
-
47,320
116,600
2005
69,004
19,249
1,768
-
53,032
143,053
2010
81,242
23,897
2,306
1,697
57,430
166,572
2015
91,158
29,667
2,694
1,892
64,032
189,443
2020
100,646
1 36,831
3,166
2,110
71,392
214,145
2025
109,389
1 45,724
3,747
2,352
79,599
240,811
Source: 2004 Coordinated Population Forecast for Deschutes County - updated 2009
2030 Population Estimate
This Comprehensive Plan is intended to manage growth and conservation in the
unincorporated areas of the County until 2030. Because the official population forecast extends
only to 2025, County staff used conservative average annual growth rates from the adopted
population forecast to estimate population out to 2030. The following table estimates
Deschutes County population by extending the adopted numbers out an additional five years.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT B
Table 4.2.4 — Deschutes County 2030 Population Forecast
Year
Bend
Redmond
Sisters
Lo Pine
Unincorporated
Total County
UGB
UGB
UGB
UGB
County
2030
119,009
51,733
4,426
2,632
88,748
266,538
Snurre• Countv estimates
based on the 2004
Coordinated Population
Forecast as shown below
Bend's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 1.70%
Redmond's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.50%
Sisters' based their population on forecasted rates of building growth, residential housing units, and persons per dwelling unit
La Pine's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20%
Deschutes County's unincorporated area average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.20%
As the pie chart below indicates, if population occurs as forecasted, 67% of the County's
population will reside in urban areas by 2030.
Sisters
2%
1
Unincorporated
Area Bend
33% 45%—
I
La Rne Redmond
.1% — .19%
Figure 4.1 Deschutes County 2030
Estimated Population
Such growth will undoubtedly require strategically managing the provision of public services and
maintaining adequate amounts of residential, commercial and industrial lands. Growth pressures
will also require programmatic approaches to maintain open spaces, natural resources, and
functional ecosystems that help define the qualities of Deschutes County.
Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
Bend
The City of Bend legislatively amended its UGB as part of a periodic review acknowledgment in
December 2004. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted
concurrent ordinances that expanded the Bend UGB by 500 acres and satisfied a 20 year
demand for industrial land.
In July 2007, the Bend -La Pine School District received approvals to expand the City of Bend
UGB to include two properties for the location of two elementary schools, one at the Pine
Nursery, the other on Skyliner Road. In 2014, the Bend -La Pine School district received
approval to include a 33-acre site within the UGB near Skyliners Road to facilitate the
construction of a public middle school.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved a legislative
amendment to the Bend UGB in September 2016. The adopted amendment added 2,380 acres
of land intended to satisfy a 20-year land need for needed housing, employment, and public uses
from 2008 to 2028. The adopted UGB amendment also satisfied the terms of a 2010 Remand
Order from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (10-REMAND-
PARTIAL ACKNOW-001795).
The City of Bend UGB amendment identified 5 existing neighborhood typologies within the
City, with the "Transect" being the defined neighborhood typology which "provides a
transitional residential development pattern from urban to rural using a variety of housing types
integrated with the surrounding natural landscape to minimize the impact on sensitive
ecosystems, wildlife and to reduce the risk of wildfire." The City applied this Transect concept
to specific areas added to the UGB identified as the "Shevlin Area" and the "West Area" and
created area -specific policies for those areas to recognize the unique characteristics of the area
and create a transition from higher densities within the city to lower densities extending
westward to the City of Bend UGB . In coordination with the city, Deschutes County has
continued this concept for the areas in the county on the west side of Bend adjacent to the
"Shevlin" and "West Area" in its Rural Housing elements and policies found in Chapter 3 of this
Comprehensive Plan.
The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved an applicant -
initiated, quasi-judicial application to adjust the Bend UGB in 2019. The adjustment removed
4.02 acres of land from the Bend UGB and added approximately 8.18 acres for a net increase of
4.16 acres. The adjustment accommodated the Skyline Ranch Road right-of-way because the
previous alignment was deemed topographically infeasible.
Sisters
The City of Sisters legislatively amended its UGB in September 2005 when its City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Sisters UGB
expansion covered 53 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential, commercial, light
industrial, and public facility land. In March 2009, Sisters amended their UGB to facilitate the
establishment of a 4-acre fire training facility for the Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District.
Redmond
The City of Redmond legislatively amended its UGB in August 2006 when its City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Redmond UGB
expansion covered 2,299 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential and neighborhood
commercial land.
In February 2019, Redmond amended its UGB through a joint process when its City Council
and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. This expansion
covered 949 acres in total: 789 acres was designated for large lot industrial development in
accordance with the Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Lands Program, and 160
acres allowed for the expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon
Military Department's National Guard Armory.
4 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT B
The Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved an applicant -
initiated quasi-judicial application to adjust the Redmond UGB in 2020. The adjustment added
approximately 156 acres of land into the Redmond UGB in exchange for removing equivalent
area of land from the UGB The exchange property is being offered to better achieve land
needs that were detailed in the 2012 Senate Bill 1544 by providing more development ready
land within the Redmond UGB.
La Pine
In 2012 La Pine adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. La Pine established a UGB that matches
the city limits, because the City contains sufficient undeveloped land for future housing,
commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period. The Plan map includes land use
designations intended to provide an arrangement of uses to ensure adequate and efficient
provision of public infrastructure for all portions of the City and UGB.
Urban Reserve Area
Redmond
In December 2005, Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
5,661 acre URA for the City. It is the first URA in Central Oregon because most cities find
planning farther into the future than the 20-year UGB timeframe, challenging.
Coordination
As noted above, Statewide Goal 2 and ORS promote land use planning coordination. The
purposes of the urbanization goals and policies in this section are to provide the link between
urban and rural areas, and to provide some basic parameters within which the urban areas of
Deschutes County can develop, although the specific comprehensive plan for each community
remains the prevailing document for guiding growth in its respective area. These policies permit
the County to review each city's comprehensive plan to ensure effective coordination.
The Redmond and Deschutes County Community Development Departments received the Oregon
Chapter of American Planning Association's (OAPA) Professional Achievement in Planning Award in
2006 for the "Redmond Urban Reserve Area / Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Project.".
The following quote taken from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's 2006
Awards Program shows why the Redmond Community Development Department was chosen for this
award.
"An outstanding effort fort to address Redmond's rapid population growth, including the successful
designation of an Urban Reserve and the imminent designation of an Urban Growth Boundary, a
"Framework Plan" with a requirement for master planning, and the establishment of "Great
Neighborhood Principles."
Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis
During the 1990s, the Central Oregon region experienced a dramatic transformation from an
economy concentrated largely in wood products into a service based economy serving a
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
growing and diverse tourism and household base. Accelerated in -migration and tourism growth
gave way to rapid economic expansion, escalation in home prices, and a systematic shift in the
local economy from goods producing activities to service oriented industries. While initially
representing a diversification of the local economy, this shift led to an over -reliance upon these
types of industries.
During the recent recession, the regional economy's vulnerabilities became apparent. Suitable
land for today's industrial development forms emerged as one of Oregon's most severe
development challenges. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties
and their respective cities, undertook an unprecedented regional evaluation of the economic
opportunities and constraints associated with users of large industrial parcels in the Central
Oregon region. The purpose of this evaluation was to aid in providing a more diversified
economic base for the region that would accommodate industrial uses with a need for larger
lots than possibly may be currently available in any of the Central Oregon cities. As part of that
evaluation, Deschutes County hired a consultant to draft an analysis of Central Oregon's
opportunities, competitiveness, ability, and willingness to attract more basic industries. The
analysis focused specifically on industries that require large lots. The result was a document
called the Central Oregon Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, and was the basis for
Ordinance 201 1-017, dated May 31, 2011.
Ordinance 201 1-017 was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by 1,000 Friends of
Oregon (" 1,000 Friends"). The appeal was stayed in early 2012 to allow Deschutes County, the
Governor's Office, and 1,000 Friends to explore a settlement, which was ultimately reached in
April, 2012. The settlement consisted of policy concepts focusing entirely on Central Oregon's
short-term need for large -lot industrial sites as well as a commitment from the Department of
Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") to initiate rule -making that summer. The three
counties, their respective cities, 1,000 Friends, and DLCD staff then engaged in drafting a
proposed rule. In August, the final draft of that rule was then sent to the Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"). As a result, in November, the LCDC
adopted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-0045. That rule
provides that that the large lot industrial land need analysis agreed upon by all of the parties,
once adopted by each of the participating governmental entities, would be sufficient to
demonstrate a need for up to nine large industrial sites in Central Oregon. Six of the sites will
be made available initially. Three more sites may be added under the rule as the original sites
are occupied. After the adoption of the new OARs, Deschutes County voluntarily repealed
Ordinance 201 1-017 and adopted a new ordinance, Ordinance 2013-002, in accordance with
the OARs.
Utilizing the new OARS, Ordinance 2013-002 emphasized Central Oregon' short term need for
a critical mass of competitive and diverse vacant, developable industrial sites. An additional
necessary component is an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the region's
jurisdictions and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC"). Through the IGA,
COIC will provide oversight of the short-term land supply of large -lot industrial sites to enable
the region to become competitive in industrial recruitment. Once each of the three counties
and their respective cities adopt similar ordinances and enter into an IGA with COIC, the large
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT B
lot sites will enable industrial recruitment opportunities to attract potential industrial users to
consider the region that may not have otherwise without the availability of these large lots.
The IGA between COIC and the region's cities and counties was executed on April 9, 2013.
Participating local governments will review the program after all nine sites have been occupied
or after ten years, whichever comes first
In February 2019, Deschutes County adopted Ordinance No. 2019-003, which implemented
the large lot industrial policies defined by Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040
and 660-024-0045. The ordinance amended the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map to
allow for 789 acres of a 949-acre parcel owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands to
be incorporated into the City of Redmond's UGB (the remaining 160 acres were transferred
into the UGB pursuant to different criteria). This site, referred to as the South Redmond Tract,
was submitted to the Large Lot Industrial Lands program by the City of Redmond in 2015 after
an extensive analysis of several potential sites utilizing the criteria of the adopted Central
Oregon Large Lot Industrial Lands Needs Analysis ("the Analysis"). COIC accepted the
property into the Large Lot Industrial (LLI) program on May 7, 2015. Subsequently, the City of
Redmond amended its zoning code to add a Large Lot Industrial Zone, which addresses the
requirements of the LLI program and ensures that properties with this zoning designation are
to be utilized solely for large lot industrial or directly related purposes.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 7
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
se0eww -+.2 Rrbaw�Zat*ow 1>0L*L'0,Les
Goals and Policies
Goal I Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support
urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an
orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands.
Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create
and/or amend their urban growth boundaries.
Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas.
Policy 4.2.3 Review the idea of using rural reserves.
Goal 2 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban
growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but
outside city boundaries.
Policy 4.2.4 Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban
growth boundaries but outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.5 Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use
inside urban growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.6 Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and
location of public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans.
Policy 4.2.7 Adopt by reference the comprehensive plans of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and
Sisters, as the policy basis for implementing land use plans and ordinances in
each city's urban growth boundary.
Goal 3 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies
and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside
urban reserve areas.
Policy 4.2.8 Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive
Plan Map and regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA)
Combining Zone in Deschutes County Code, Title 18.
Policy 4.2.9 In cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent
with their respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-021-0050 or its successor.
Policy 4.2.10 The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA.
a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the
orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are
brought into the urban growth boundary.
b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT B
c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone
changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that
generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the
RU RA.
d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law
and the County Zoning Ordinance.
e. New arterial and collector rights -of -way in the RURA shall meet the right-of-
way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is
greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards.
f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights -
of -way, as designated on the County's Transportation System Plan.
g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was
permitted before the RURA designation.
Policy 4.2.1 1 Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800
acres in the RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's
urban growth boundary.
Goal 4 To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating
public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and
state economic development objectives in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.12 Deschutes County supports a multi -jurisdictional cooperative effort to pursue a
regional approach to establish a short-term supply of sites particularly designed
to address out -of -region industries that may locate in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.13 Deschutes County recognizes the importance of maintaining a large -lot
industrial land supply that is readily developable in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.14 The Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis
("Analysis"), adopted by Ordinance 2013-002 is incorporated by reference
herein.
Policy 4.2.15 Within 6 months of the adoption of Ordinance 2013-002, in coordination with
the participating local governments in Central Oregon, Deschutes County shall,
execute an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council ("COIC") that specifies the process of allocation of
large lot industrial sites among the participating local governments.
Policy 4.2.16 In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling
coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its
comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction
legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant
sites.
Policy 4.2.17 Deschutes County supports Economic Development of Central Oregon
("EDCO"), a non-profit organization facilitating new job creation and capital
investment to monitor and advocate for the region's efforts of maintaining an
inventory of appropriate sized and located industrial lots available to the market
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
Policy 4.2.18 Deschutes County will collaborate with regional public and private
representatives to engage the Oregon Legislature and state agencies and their
commissions to address public facility, transportation and urbanization issues
that hinder economic development opportunities in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.19 Deschutes County will strengthen long-term confidence in the economy by
building innovative public to private sector partnerships.
10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.2020-002
EXHIBIT C
Seoewt , 5.12. Le@LSLatWe t- -StOT
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System Plan
(added)
La Pine Urban Growth
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
Boundary
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
County
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
EXHIBIT C
Comprehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area)
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
EXHIBIT C
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
refinement of the West Area
Master Plan Area I boundary.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
2019-016
1 1-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments relating to
2020-001
1-8-20/4-20-20
23.01.01, 2.6, 3.5, 5.2
Religious Institutions to
ensure compliance with
RLU 1 PA.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The exchange
property is being offered to
better achieve land needs that
were detailed in the 2012 SB
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
1544 by providing more
development ready land
within the Redmond UGB.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB. .
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2020-002
EXHIBIT D
INCLUSIVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the Southwest one -quarter of Section 11 and located in the Northwest one -
quarter of Section 14, Township 15 North, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County,
Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the West one -quarter corner Section 11 marked with a 3 1/4" Aluminum Cap; thence
along the East-West centerline of said Section 11, South 89°53'52" East 1380.59 feet; thence leaving the
East-West centerline of Section 11 South 0'00'00" East 5277.91 feet to a point on the East-West
centerline Section 14; thence along the East-West centerline of Section 14 North 89°50'07" West
1352.05 feet to the West one -quarter corner Section 14 marked with a 2 1/2" Brass Cap; thence along
the West line of the Northwest one -quarter of Section 14 North 0'22'55" West 2638.63 feet to the
Section corner common to sections 10, 11, 14, and 15 marked with a 3 1/4" Brass Cap; thence along the
common line between Section 11 and Section 14 South 89°51'49" East 657.55 feet to the West -West
1/64th corner marked with a 3/4" Iron Pipe; thence North 0'14'53" West 659.55 feet to the Southwest -
Southwest 1/641h corner marked with a 3/4" Iron Pipe; thence North 89051'13" West 657.56 feet to the
South -South 1/64th corner marked with a 3/4" Iron Pipe, said point also being on the West line of
Section 11; thence along the West line of Section 11 North 0°14'02" West 1979.15 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described lands contain 155.80 acres of land, more or less.
EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
EXHIBIT E
EXCLUSIVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A Parcel of land located in the Southeast one -quarter and Southwest one -quarter of Section 14,
Township 15 North, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the center one -quarter Section 14; thence along the East-West centerline of Section 14
South 89°50'06" East 1311,57 feet to the Center East 1/161h corner of Section 14; thence along the
North -South centerline of the Southeast one -quarter of Section 14 South 0016'25" East 1596.84 feet to a
point; thence leaving the North -South centerline of the Southeast one -quarter South 60°31'00" West
2123.78 feet to a point on the South line of Southwest one -quarter of Section 14; thence along said
South line North 89°58'07 West 1077.47 feet to a point; thence leaving the South line of Section 14
North 0°25'21" West 2650.02 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of Section 14; thence along the
East-West centerline of Section 14 South 89°50'07" East 1626.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described lands contain 156 acres of land, more or less.
EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PLAN AMENDMENT MAP
Legend Patti Adair, Chair
1EMO We Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Exhibit "F"
ra= ofmie+ to Ordinance 2020-002 Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary
Redmond Urban Growth Boundary Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner
Comprehensive Plan
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
AG - Agriculture 0 312.5 625 1,250 1,875
SM - Surface Mining Feet Dated this day of , 2020
9 January 22, 2020 Effective Date: , 2020
City of
Redmond
URA
se
SE USFS DR
Legend
ME M
® Proposed Urban Growth Boundary
Proposed Zone Change Boundary
Redmond Urban Growth Boundary
Urban Holding Zone (UH10)
County Zoning
EFUAL - Alfalfa Subzone
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone
SM - Surface Mining
Zone Change from -
lusive Farm Use (EFU
to
Urban Holding (UH10)
Zone Change from;
Industrial (M1 & M2)
to
Exclusive Farm Use (EFUAL)
PROPOSED
ZONING MAP
Exhibit "G"
to Ordinance 2020-002
0 312.5 625 1,250 1,875
Feet
January 22, 2020
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this_ day of , 2020
Effective Date: , 2020
Mailing Date:
EXHIBIT H Tuesday, December 24, 2019
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: 247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC'
APPLICANT/OWNER: Deschutes County, Property & Facilities
PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reconfigure the
Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by adding approximately 156 acres
of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB.
STAFF REVIEWER:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
HEARINGS BODY:
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
The Applicant also requests a Zone Change for each area of reconfigured and
exchanged land. The land being added to the UGB will change from Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) to a combination of Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy
Industrial (M-2). The land being removed from the UGB will change from a
combination of M-1 and M-2 to EFU, specifically.
There will be no change in the amount of industrial zoned land in the City of
Redmond nor is there a change in the amount of agricultural land in
Deschutes County.
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.org 1 541-317-3150
November 19, 2019
Hearings Officer
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.16. Exclusive Farm Use Zone
Chapter 18.24. Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone
Chapter 18.52. Surface Mining Zone
Chapter 18.56. Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone
Chapter 18.80. Airport Safety Combining Zone
Chapter 18.84. Landscape Management Combining Zone
Chapter 18.136. Amendments
Title 20, Redmond Urban Reserve Area
Chapter 20.36. Amendments
1 The Applicant submitted a concurrent request to the City of Redmond. The associated file number for the City of Redmond
is 711-19-000163-PA.
EXHIBIT H TO ORDINANCE 2020-002
EXHIBIT H
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 1002 NE 17th Street, Redmond, and identified on
County Assessor's tax map 15-13 (index map) as tax lot 103. The subject property is shown in its entirety on
the following map:
Y'
�elLL
p :{
� 'gG
P
fdhOt.�AV[
>
Subject
LU
Property
p�.�
(highlighted)
I Asa
r
;� REDMOND
REanorD
726
URBAN GR,,,
Z.
B"SUtVDARY
LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record as it is recognized as Parcel 1 of Partition Plat
2001-29 and subsequently adjusted through property line adjustment LLA-01-07.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 2 of 41
EXHIBIT H
ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The subject property is within the jurisdiction of both Deschutes County
and City of Redmond. The proposal involves two areas, each approximately 156 acres in size, within the
subject property that will be exchanged by Deschutes County and City of Redmond. For reference, the
Inclusion andtxclusion Properties are shown below on a map submitted by the Applicant.
PROPOSED UGB
INCLUSION
(155.8J ACRES +f-)
PROPOSED UGB
EXCLUSION
(156 ACRES +; -)
Inclusion Property: The region of property proposed to be added to the Redmond UGB — referred to as the
"Inclusion Property" — is located along the eastern boundary of the current UGB. The existing zoning for this
region of the,, -,property is Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa Subzone (EFU-AL). The existing plan designation is
Agriculture.
Exclusion Property: The other region of the property proposed to be removed from the Redmond UGB —
referred to asAhe "Exclusion Property" — is located along the eastern boundary of the current Redmond UGB
and abutting the southeast corner of the Inclusion Property. The existing zoning for this region of the property
is Light Industrial (M-1) for approximately 111 acres and Heavy Industrial (M-2) for approximately 45 acres.
The existing plan designation for this region is Urban Industrial -Light and Urban Industrial -Heavy, respectively.
Hearings Officer DeciMon
247-19-000648-PA a6e 247-19-000649-ZC Page 3 of 41
EXHIBIT H
The subject property also includes the following Deschutes County zone designations of Surface Mining (SM)
Zone, Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) and the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA), Airport Safety (AS)
and Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zones. Additional Redmond UGB zoning designations include
Limited Service Commercial (C-4).
SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 1,610 acres in size and is located along the eastern
boundary of the Redmond UGB. Oregon Highway 126 abuts the southern boundary of the property. The
property has varying terrain with "40 feet of elevation change", according to the , and includes native
vegetation such as juniper trees and groundcover (e.g. shrubs and grasses). According to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) for Deschutes County and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), respectively, the subject
property is not located in the 100-year flood plain nor does it contain mapped wetlands.
Inclusion Property: The Inclusion Property consists of 156 acres of farm -zoned land but is currently vacant,
not farmed, and does not contain irrigation water rights. The site is has numerous undesignated off -road
vehicle roads, trails, and paths. The site has a history of being used as homeless camps. The Inclusion Property,
according to the , does not have "any areas of known contamination and/or needed remediation prior to
development."
Exclusion Property: The Exclusion Property consists of approximately 111 acres of land zoned for light
industrial and 45 acres of land zoned for heavy industrial. The site is currently vacant, not farmed, and does
not contain irrigation water rights. Highway 126 is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Exclusion
Property. As with the Inclusion Property, the site contains multiple undesignated off -road vehicle roads, trails,
and paths. The Applicant indicates that portions of the Exclusion Site have a history of being used as a solid
waste deposal site and a shooting range for the Redmond Rod and Gun Club and the Deschutes County
Sherriff. The Exclusion Property's historic uses, according to the Applicant, "will require remediation prior to
development." The Applicant's representation that remediation of the Exclusion Property will be required is
corroborated by comments made Patrick Brady at the public hearing and in a subsequent open record
submittal.
SOILS: According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the Inclusion and Exclusion
Sites, there are three mapped soil units.
35B Deschutes-Stukel complex, dry 0-8 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 50 percent Deschutes
soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting
inclusions. The Deschutes soil is well drained with moderately rapid permeability and an available water
capacity of about 4 inches. The Stukel soil is well drained, with moderately rapid permeability and an
available water capacity of about two inches. The contrasting inclusions consist of Redmond soils in
swales, soils that have a loamy sand surface layer, and rock outcroppings. Major uses for this soil type
include livestock grazing and irrigated cropland.
104A Redmond sandy loam, 0-3 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 85 percent Redmond soil
and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The soil is well drained with moderate
permeability and an available water capacity of about 4 inches. The contrasting inclusions consist of
Buckbert, Deschutes and Houstake soils in swales, along with Stukel soils on ridges. The major use for this
soil type is irrigated crop land and livestock grazing.
142B Stukel-Rock outcrop - Deschutes complex, dry 0-8 percent slopes. This soil unit is comprised of 20
percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil, 30 percent rock outcrop, and similar
inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soil is well drained with moderately rapid
permeability and an available water capacity of about 4 inches. The Stukel soil is well drained, with
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 4 of 41
EXHIBIT H
moderately rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about two inches. The contrasting
inclusions consist of Redmond and Houstake soils in swales. Major uses for this soil type include livestock
grazing.
SURFACE MINE DESIGNATION: The subject property includes approximately 319 acres of land identified as
Surface Mining (SM) Site No. 482 on the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and is
further identified as the Negus Transfer Station and Recycle Center. The proposed Inclusion Land is just south
of but does not include this region of the property.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is approximately 1,610 acres. However, the proposed land
exchange is held within these 1,610 acres and includes two regions 156 acres each (312 acres total). The
Applicant provides the following analysis surrounding the two subject 156-acre sites, including the remaining
regions of the subject property and neighboring properties.
The area surrounding the Inclusion and Exclusion lands can be described as the Redmond urban
periphery.
South - To the south is the Redmond - Roberts Field Municipal Airport, which is within the Redmond
UGB and City Limits, zoned Airport. The Redmond - Roberts Field Municipal Airport is the major
commercial airport serving Central Oregon.
Southwest - To the southwest is 250 acres of vacant land owned by the Central Oregon Irrigation
District ("COID"). This land is within the Redmond UGB and City Limits, it is zoned Light Industrial ("M-
1 "), Limited Service Commercial ("C-4"), and Park Reserve Open Space ("OSPR").
West - To the west, between the extension of Kingwood Avenue and Antler Avenue, is an M-2 zoned
area that is within the Redmond UGB and City Limits. This area is being developed with industrial uses.
North of the Kingwood Avenue extension (to the west), the land is located outside of the Redmond
UGB and City Limits, zoned EFU-AL and Rural Residential -10 Acre Minimum ("RR-10"), and generally
undeveloped or developed with low -density residential uses.
North and East - The areas to the north and east contain Deschutes County owned land, located
outside of the Redmond UGB and City Limits. These areas are zoned EFU-AL and Surface Mine ("SM").
The Applicant also highlights those uses found on the county -owned lands located to the north and east to
include the Negus Transfer Station, Redmond Area Park Recreation District sport fields, radio transmission
tower, natural gas pipeline, high voltage power line, and the Antler Avenue unimproved right-of-way.
Otherwise, the area is undeveloped and has relatively level topography with rock outcroppings and native
vegetation. Further east are public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Most of the
surrounding area lies within Redmond Urban Reserve Area.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 5 of 41
EXHIBIT H
LAND USE HISTORY: The following land use applications, identified below by their file numbers and
description, relate to the subject property. With an exception of the Negus Transfer Station, the uses reviewed
below are no longer located on the subject property via relocation to another property or are located on a
parcel that has since been separated from the parent parcel.
CU-81-89
Conditional Use permit for a ballpark in the EFU Zone
V-81-29
Variance to allow advertising signs at ballpark; no decision
Site Plan review for auto recycling storage yard in the M-2 Zone
SP-84-41
withdrawn
SP-86-51
Site Plan review for log storage and whole log chipping in the M-1 Zone
Conditional Use permit for a caretaker's residence at the Redmond Rod
CU-91-137
and Gun Club
CU-92-165
Alteration of a Nonconforming Use to change the Negus Landfill to a
SP-92-130
transfer station and recycling center; denied
CU-92-214
Conditional Use permit and Site Plan reviewto change the Negus Landfill
SP-92-170
to a transfer station and recycling center; approved
TU-92-64
Conditional Use permit for a caretaker's residence at the Redmond Rod
CU-93-31
and Gun Club
Conditional Use permit improve and relocate Redmond Rod and Gun
CU-07-13
Club facilities
PRPOPOSAL: The Applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment ("plan amendment") to reconfigure
the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary by adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange
for removing equivalent area of land from the UGB. The request also includes an associated Zone Change (also
known as a zone map amendment) for each area of reconfigured and exchanged land. There will be no change
in the amount of industrial -zoned land in the City of Redmond, nor a change in the amount of agricultural land
in Deschutes County. As described above, the region of property to be added to the Redmond UGB is referred
to herein as the Inclusion Property (or Inclusion Site or Land). In addition, the region of the property proposed
for removal from the Redmond UGB is referred to herein as the Exclusion Property (or Exclusion Site or Land).
The proposed zone changes are illustrated on the following map provided by the .
The plan designation and primary zone change information is noted below.
Inclusion Property
Exclusion Property
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Current Proposed
Primary Zone _
Current Proposed
Area
(acres)
Agriculture
Urban Industrial
EFU
M-1
111
Agriculture
Urban Industrial
EFU
M-2
45
Urban Industrial
Agriculture
M-1
EFU
111
Urban Industrial
Agriculture
M-2
EFU
45
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 6 of 41
EXHIBIT H
The County combining zone change information is noted below.
Combining Zone
Current Proposed
Inclusion Property I RURA, SMIA, AS I --
Exclusion Property I -- ( RURA, AS
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and received the
following comments.
Deschutes County Transportation Planner: On November 8, 2019, Peter Russell, Senior Transportation
Planner submitted the following comments.
1 have reviewed the materials for 247-19-000648-PA/649-ZC, which involves a transfer of 156
acres of County land with the same amount of City of Redmond land and adjusting the Urban
Growth Boundary for property described on the County Assessor Map at 15-13-00, Tax Lot 103
along the eastern side of Redmond. The exchange would remove less developable lands from the
UGB in exchange for including more developable lands. The burden of proof included a traffic
analysis dated Aug. 19, 2019, prepared by Transight Consulting to assess compliance with
Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The
traffic study also assessed consistency with the TPR work related to the Senate Bill (SB) 1544 land
exchange from 2012.
I agree with the traffic report's methodology, conclusions, and recommendations and find it
complies with the TPR.
The following agencies did not respond or had no significant comments: Central Electric Cooperative, Central
Oregon Irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County
Senior Transportation Planner, Oregon Department of Aviation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation, Pacific Power and Light, Redmond Airport,
Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District, Redmond Fire and Rescue, Redmond Planning Division,
Redmond Public Works, Bureau of Land Management— Prineville District, and Watermaster— District 11.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this proposal to all property owners within 750 feet
of the subject property. The following comments were submitted by Izaac Ross and Jenni Carver -Ross on
October 25, 2019.
We are writing today so that we can express our concern for the proposed zone change outlined in this
application (e.g. File Numbers: 247-1900548-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC and 711-19-000163-PA). We
want to be clear that we do not approve of this zone change under the said proposal. The proposed
zone change excludes our lot which is positioned between the current UGB and the lots in question.
Logically our lot should be brought into the UGB before the lot(s) in the said proposal or at the least in
conjunction with the said lots. Jenni and 1 propose two options. Please accept this rebuttal or appeal
into the overall conversation. We will also plan to attend the public hearing to voice our concern.
1. Combine our lot into the proposal. This exchange would bring our land into the (UGBJ and
change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to a combination of Light Industrial (M-1)
and Heavy Industrial (M-2).
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 7 of 41
EXHIBIT H
2. Deny the proposal in the said re -zoning application (e.g. File Numbers: 247- 1900648-PA and
247-19-000649-ZC and 711-19-000163-PA).
The Applicant provides the following response on November 1, 2019 (referenced aerial photo is incorporated
herein by reference).
Thank you for forwarding the comment letter from the Ross'. The attached aerial photo shows the
relationship between the Ross" property and the Inclusion Area of the UGB adjustment application.
While the Ross' are correct that their property abuts the overall property (1513000000103), it does
not adjoin the inclusion area which is the subject of the application. Also, since this is a quasi-judicial
application specific to an "acre for acre" adjustment and not a legislative UGB expansion for additional
industrial lands, their proposal to include their property in the Redmond UGB as part of this project is
not applicable.
The Hearings Officer agrees with the Applicant's response to the above comments. For the reasons explained
below, this is a quasi-judicial acre -for -acre adjustment; not a legislative amendment. Mr. Ross and Ms. Carver -
Ross may wish to discuss with the City of Redmond and Deschutes County what options there are for bringing
their property into the UGB. However, this is not the property proceeding for doing so.
As noted above, Mr. Brady testified at the public hearing and provided additional written comments during
the open record period. Mr. Brady is the Chairman of a business called EzraTerra, which "acquires
contaminated properties for cleanup and redevelopment." P. Brady, Open Record Submittal, pg. 1.2 Mr. Brady
expresses concerns that the County has not exercised due care in protecting the public from toxic dusts. In
short, Mr. Brady contends contamination and drug use on the Exclusion Property will limit development
opportunities and, by rezoning to EFU, the Exclusion Property will remain in state of blight that threatens
public health. Accordingly, according to Mr. Brady, the proposal violates various approval criteria and
Comprehensive Plan policies. The criteria and policies identified by Mr. Brady are as follows:
Deschutes County Code
18.16.010. Purpose (EFU Zone)
18.84.020. Applicant of Provisions (Landscape Management Combining Zone)
18.136.020. Rezoning Standards (subsections A, B, & D)
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Policy 2.9. Environmental Quality
Policy 3.S. Natural Hazards
The Hearings Officer will address the cited approval criteria and policies below.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B)
of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated
October 30, 2019 indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on October 30, 2019.
2 The subject line in Mr. Brady's open record submittal notes that the record was only held open five days. This appears to be
mistake, but to ensure that the record is clear, the Hearings Officer notes the record was held open seven days (November
19th to November 26th)
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 8 of 41
EXHIBIT H
REVIEW PERIOD: The applications for 247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC were submitted to the
Planning Division on August 23, 2019. According to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.20.040(D), the review of
the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period.
Ill. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
In order to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change request, the proposal must comply
with the criteria found in statutes, statewide planning goals and guidelines and their implementing
administrative rules, County comprehensive plan, and land use procedures ordinance. Each of these approval
criteria is addressed in the findings below.
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES
Section 18.16.010. Purpose.
A. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve
as a sanctuary for farm uses.
B. The purposes of this zone are served by the land use restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
and in DCC 18.16 and by the restrictions on private civil actions and enforcement actions set forth in ORS
30.930 through 30.947.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB. The land being added to the UGB will change from EFU zoning to a combination of Light and Heavy
Industrial (M-1 and M-2, respectively). The land being removed from the UGB will change from a combination
of M-1 and M-2 to EFU, specifically.
There are differing opinions as to the importance of DCC 18.16.010. The Applicant takes the position that the
"applicable criteria are intended to assess what property is most appropriate to be included within an
established [UGB] ..." Further, the Applicant takes the position that at the time future use occurs Exclusion
Property, "the suggested remediation actions will be employed." J. Lewis, Applicant Rebuttal, pgs. 1-2.
On the other hand, Mr. Brady implies that because the Exclusion Property will be taken out of Industrial and
put into EFU zoning, the Exclusion Property must be examined to determine whether appropriate for farm
use. P. Brady, Open Record Submittal, pg. 3. His contention is that "due to the extensive RCRA characteristic
hazardous waste lead soils, landfill debris and apparent residual AFFF fire fighting foam contamination" the
Exclusion Property will not support farming or livestock operations.
As noted above, the Applicant believes that at the time the property is put to farm use remediation of the
Exclusion Property will be employed. There is an open question as to what remediation is necessary. Some
remediation is more affordable than others. While remediation may increase the cost to allow the property
to be put into farm use, because remediation is a possibility, the Hearings Officer finds the Exclusion Property
will nonetheless be preserved for farm use and serve as a sanctuary for farm use. Lastly, nothing in DCC
18.16.010 requires that, in a case like this, where there is an acre -for -acre exchange, that the new farm land
must be of the same quality as the old farm land. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the general
statements contained in DCC 18.16.010 are met.
That said, DCC 18.16.010 is a purpose statement. The Hearings Officer believes DCC 18.16.010 is a generally
worded expression of a goal or objective to preserve farm land. See Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or LUBA 178,
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 9 of 41
EXHIBIT H
185-186 (1990). Nothing in DCC 18.16.010 imposes an affirmative duty to consider the language as an approval
criterion. Thus, as an alternative to the Hearings Officer's above finding, he also notes DCC 18.16.010, as a
purpose statement, may not be an approval criterion.
CHAPTER 18.24. REDMOND URBAN RESERVE AREA COMBINING ZONE
Section 18.24.10. Purposes.
The Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone implements the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan for those areas designated as urban reserve. The RURA Combining Zone maintains
lands for rural uses in accordance with state law, but in a manner that ensures a range of opportunities for
the orderly, economic, and efficient provision of urban serves [sic] when these lands are included in the
Redmond Urban Growth Boundary.
Section 18.24.070. Limitations for Future Urban Development
The following limitations shall apply to uses allowed by DCC 18.24.020 and 18.24.030. Zone changes and
plan amendments involving land within the RURA Combining Zone and Multiple Use Agricultural, Surface
Mining, or Rural Residential zoning districts that propose more intensive uses, including higher residential
density, than currently allowed are prohibited.
FINDING: The proposed Inclusion Property falls within the RURA Combining Zone while the Exclusion Property
falls within the UGB but not the RURA. As proposed, the RURA Zone will be removed from the Inclusion
Property and added to the Exclusion Property intended future urban development as documented in the
Redmond Eastside Framework Plan. However, the proposal does not include uses that are more intensive
then what is already permitted in each respective zone. In this case, the RURA is not in combination of the
Multiple Use Agricultural or Rural Residential zoning districts. The proposed Inclusion Property is adjacent to
but does not include the Surface Mining Zone.
CHAPTER 18.52. SURFACE MINING ZONE
Section 18.52.010. Purpose.
The purposes of the Surface Mining Zone are:
A. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
FINDING: The overall subject property includes approximately 319 acres of land identified as Surface Mine
Site No. 482 on the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and is further identified as the
Negus Transfer Station and Recycle Center. The Applicant's request for a plan amendment and zone change
involves land zoned EFU and a combination of M-1 and M-2 that fall within the Redmond UGB. According to
the Applicant, the proposed Inclusion Property is just south of but does not include the SM-zoned region of
the subject property.
The Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies associated with the SM Zone are addressed below. In addition,
a SMIA Zone change is addressed in the following finding under DCC 18.56.020. The Hearings Officer notes
that the effect of the proposed conversion of lands will remove the protections currently afforded to the
neighboring surface mine operation. Notwithstanding said removal of protections the Hearings Officer finds
the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 10 of 41
EXHIBIT H
CHAPTER 18.56. SURFACE MINING IMPACT AREA COMBINING ZONE
Section 18.56.020. Location.
The SMIA zone shall apply to all property located within one half mile of the boundary of a surface mining
zone. However, the SMIA zone shall not apply to any property located within an urban growth boundary,
city or other county. The extent and location of the SMIA Zone shall be designated at the time the adjacent
surface mining zone is designated.
FINDING: The request for a plan amendment and zone change, if approved, will reconfigure the Redmond
UGB by adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land
from the UGB. A portion of the Inclusion Property falls within the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone
(SMIA) associated with Surface Mining Site No. 482 (Negus Transfer Station). This transition from County -
zoned lands to Redmond UGB-zoned lands would also remove the existing County SMIA zoning from this
portion of the Inclusion Property. As stated in the foregoing finding, the exchange of land and change to the
SMIA Zone essentially removes the protections that are afforded to Site No. 482 in this area.
The Hearings Officer is unaware of similar protections to protect surface mining areas from uses within
Redmond's UGB. As noted, the Negus Transfer Station, operated and owned by Deschutes County, did not
express concern about the rezone and plan amendment due to the potential impact on the landfill. As a result,
the Hearings Officer assumes the risk of potential noise or dust sensitive uses on the Inclusion Property must
be limited. Moreover, both staff and Applicant represented that the proposed zoning likely does not permit
noise or dust sensitive uses, thus leading to no reduction in Goal 5 protection. No party contended otherwise.
The Exclusion Property is further south of the SM Site No. 482 and does not include the associated SMIA
designation. Therefore, rezoning the Exclusion Property will not affect the SMIA.
All that said, DCC 18.56.020 merely describes the location of the SMIA Combining Zone. As best that the
Hearings Officer can tell, this Section of the Code merely clarifies that Chapter 18.56 will not apply to the
Inclusion Property once brought into the UGB. Nothing in DCC 18.56.020 prohibits the Inclusion Property from
being brought into the UGB and, consequently, out of the SMIA. Again, the Hearings Officer finds it telling that
the owner of Surface Mining No. 482 did not express any concern and assumes Deschutes County, as the
owner/operator of the landfill, is not concerned that future property owners in the Inclusion Property might
complain about the Negus Transfer Station.
CHAPTER 18.80. AIRPORT SAFETY COMBINING ZONE
Section 18.80.020. Application of Provisions.
The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary
surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces
and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identifies dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and
zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth
Boundaries. The Redmond Airport is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, and located wholly within
the Redmond City Limits....
FINDING: The lands proposed for exchange are entirely within the County Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
associated with the Redmond Airport (Robert's Field). City of Redmond has land use regulations that also
protect the Redmond Airport. This transition from County -zoned lands to Redmond UGB-zoned lands, as
proposed, will remove the existing County AS zoning from the Inclusion Property and add the County AS zoning
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 11 of 41
EXHIBIT H
to the Exclusion Property. A similar exchange of zoning regulations will occur within the Redmond UGB as
proposed. Transportation and airport policies are discussed below in more detail.
The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is not subject to the County AS Zone review as no development is
proposed at this time for the Exclusion Property. When development is proposed in the future, the County
will review compliance with AS Zone regulations.
Section 18.80.026. Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications.
Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions,
including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided
to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property
owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. (ORS 836.623(1); OAR
738-100-010; ORS 215.416(6); ORS 227.175(6)]
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports:
A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when the property, or a
portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000
feet of the sides or ends of a runway:
B. Notice of land use and limited land use applications shall be provided within the following timelines.
1. Notice of land use or limited land use applications involving public hearings shall be provided prior
to the public hearing at the same time that written notice of such applications is provided to
property owners entitled to such notice.
2. Notice of land use or limited land use applications not involving public hearings shall be provided at
least 20 days prior to entry of the initial decision on the land use or limited land use application.
3. Notice of the decision on a land use or limited land use application shall be provided to the airport
sponsor and the Department of Aviation within the some timelines that such notice is provided to
parties to a land use or limited land use proceeding.
4. Notices required under DCC 18.80.026(B)(1-3) need not be provided to the airport sponsor or the
Department of Aviation where the land use or limited land use application meets all of the following
criteria:
a. Would only allow structures of less than 35 feet in height;
b. Involves property located entirely outside the approach surface,
c. Does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that emit smoke, dust or steam; sanitary
landfills or water impoundments; or radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission
facilities or electrical transmission lines; and
d. Does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation.
FINDING: As stated in the Staff Report, the Planning Division mailed notice of the proposed land use application
and scheduled public hearing at the same time that written notice of such applications was provided to property
owners entitled to such notice. Per the Staff Report, notice was also mailed to Oregon Department of Aviation
and Redmond Airport. No comments were received.
CHAPTER 18.84. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE
Section 18.84.020. Application of Provisions.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape
management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of this
chapter shall also apply to all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and
scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise identified a landscape
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 12 of 41
EXHIBIT H
management corridors in the comprehensive plan and the County Zoning Map. The distance specified above
shall be measured horizontally from the centerline of designated landscape management roadways or from
the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape management river or stream. The
limitation in this section shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices.
FINDING: Highway 126 is identified on the County Zoning Map as the landscape management feature.
Pursuant to the Staff Report, the Exclusion Property is adjacent to, but outside of, the County LM Zone. The
Inclusion Property, further north from Highway 126, does not fall within the LM Zone. The location of the LM
Zone will not be affected by this amendment.
Mr. Brady notes that the Exclusion Property, which is adjacent to Hwy 126, is a blight. He contends that if
rezoned to EFU, "all value will be removed from the site and guarantee perpetual blight conditions in the
foreseeable future." P. Brady, Open Record Submittal, pg. 4.
As noted above, Staff indicates that the Exclusion Property is not within the LM zone. Even if the Exclusion
Property is in the LM zone, the LM Zone will remain applicable and apply to future development of the
property. In other words, changing the underlying zone will not impact the protections of the LM zone.
Moreover, the Hearings Officer finds that, while Mr. Brady's position raises a legitimate public concern, it does
not explain how the concern can be addressed by applying DCC 18.84.020.
CHAPTER 18.136. AMENDMENTS
Section 18.136.010. Amendments.
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes
shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall
be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject
to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a quasi-judicial map amendment to change the comprehensive plan
designation and zone from/to Agriculture to/from Urban Industrial. The Applicant filed the appropriate
applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The proposal is being reviewed under the procedures of
DCC Title 22.
Section 18.136.020. Rezoning Standards.
The Applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning
the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the Applicant are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's
introductory statement and goals.
FINDING: In previous Hearings Officer's decisions, the Hearings Officers have found that comprehensive plan
goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial zone changes. This Hearings
Officer agrees. Instead, County goals and policies are implemented through the zoning ordinance, and thus if
the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance it also will be
consistent with the plan.
Nevertheless, some provisions of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan are the relevant provisions of the
plan that should be considered in reviewing applications to change the zoning of EFU to a plan designation of
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 13 of 41
EXHIBIT H
urban industrial and Redmond zoning of Light and Heavy Industrial. Similarly, the relevant provisions should
be considered to change the zoning of Redmond Light and Heavy Industrial to a plan designation of agriculture
and zoning of EFU. Those relevant to this application, including the provisions cited by Mr. Brady, are
addressed below. Other provisions of the plan do not apply.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
proposed zone classification.
FINDING: For the Inclusion Property, the Applicant proposes a zone change from EFU to Redmond Light
Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2). Similarly, for the Exclusion Property, an equal area of land is
proposed to change from Redmond Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2) to EFU.
Mr. Brady contends that the Exclusion Property is better suited to serve the purpose and needs of the existing
zoning designation (industrial). His argument is based on the premise that the current zoning keep the value
of the property high enough that remediation makes financial sense. In other words, if that is the case, it is
more likely that a developer will pay for remediation to address the existing contamination. Mr. Brady also
explains that the contamination and drug use on the Exclusion Property has deterred development on nearby
property. He lists several properties that have gone unsold and explains his belief that the reason they have
not sold is the result of the condition of the Exclusion Property.
Even if Mr. Brady is correct, the Hearings Officer is unsure how that relates to this standard. As the Applicant
explains, and the Hearings Officer agrees, the Inclusion Property is more well suited for industrial use because
it nearer services and fits into the existing development pattern. Regarding the Exclusion Property, the
purpose of the EFU zone, as noted above, is to preserve agricultural land. Although it has its blemishes, the
Exclusion Property will be preserved as farm land. Nothing requires that the farmland be immediately
farmable.
Inclusion Property: Since the Inclusion Property is closer to current development and services (including
planned services), the Hearings Officer finds the Inclusion Property is more readily developable than the
Exclusion Property for urban level development, and thus the exchange would better address the purpose
and intent of the proposed zone classifications (Redmond Light Industrial, M-1, and Heavy Industrial, M-2).
Exclusion Property: Since the Exclusion Property is further from urban services and development, it is better
suited for farm use. Although the Exclusion Property will require remediation, the Applicant is working on
addressing remediation requirements with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and will employ
the required remediation before future farm use. Moreover, it is not lost on the Hearings Officer that the
Inclusion Property (nearer and more impacted by urban development) is not in active farm use. Neither parcel
appears to be real ideal for farm use. The Exclusion Property will serve the same purpose as the Inclusion
Property; 156 acre'/- to preserve land for future farm use. Thus, the Hearings Officer finds that the change in
classification for the Exclusion Property from industrial to agriculture is consistent with the intent of the EFU
zone.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the
following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained
within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The proposed land exchange has the intention to support orderly, efficient, and cost-effective siting
of urban public facilities and services for the industrial lands within the Redmond UGB. The proposed Inclusion
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 14 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Property is adjacent to a grid street system, wherein utilities, facilities, and streets would be able to be
extended and provided in the road rights -of -way. The Exclusion Property, in comparison, contains locational
and topographical constraints, as it is further away from these facilities and services. Moreover, the Exclusion
Property will require remediation of the site based on historic use of the property. As discussed throughout
this decision, the impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies
contained within the County Comprehensive Plan.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was
made in the zoning of the property in question.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB. The Inclusion Property will change from EFU zoning to a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial
(M-1 and M-2, respectively). The Exclusion Property will change from a combination of M-1 and M-2 industrial
zoning to EFU, specifically. The Applicant states the following regarding the change in circumstances.
Since the area of the Exclusion Site (and surrounding properties) was brought into the City of Redmond
UGB to accommodate a regional large lot industrial land need, other industrial land in the City of
Redmond have continued to develop extending facilities and service along the eastern boundary of
the City Limits. During this time of development, the County (land owner) has attempted to develop
and/or market the property. The ongoing property assessment has uncovered the fact that with recent
development, the Exclusion property is a greater distance away from developed facilities and services
and the Inclusion Site is more readily developable. The recent development pattern provides an
adequate change in circumstance to necessitate the need to revise location of the UGB to
accommodate Large Lot Industrial Land. (emphasis added)
On the other hand, Mr. Brady contends that there has been no change in circumstances. P. Brady, Open
Record Submittal, pg. 11. Instead, he believes what the Applicant cites as a change of circumstance is merely
a symptom of the contamination and drug use on the Exclusion Property.
The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr. Brady that the failure of the property to sell or be traded to the
Department of State Lands is not relevant to this criterion. However, the fact that other industrial land in the
City of Redmond has continued to develop, extending facilities and services along the eastern boundary,
making the Inclusion Property more readily developable is a change of circumstance. The Hearings Officer,
finds there has been a change in circumstances that represents a change in circumstances under this criterion.
Title 20, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Ordinance
CHAPTER 20.36. AMENDMENTS
Section 20.36.010. Authorization to Initiate Amendments.
A. An amendment to the text of DCC Title 20 or a legislative amendment to a zoning or plan map may be
initiated by either the City, the Board, Planning Commission or an Owner.
B. Quasi-judicial plan map amendments shall be initiated by an Owner.
C. An Owner shall initiate a request for an amendment by filing an application with the Director.
FINDING: The Applicant is requesting a quasi-judicial UGB reconfiguration together with a Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change. The proposal has been initiated by owner, Deschutes
County, by filing concurrent applications with the City of Redmond and Deschutes County.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 15 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Section 20.36.020. Zone -Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The Hearings Body shall hold a public hearing on a quasi-judicial zone change or Comprehensive Plan
amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Management Agreement.
FINDING: The Applicant submitted a copy of the joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond
and Deschutes County (DC Document No. 2007-110). The initial public hearings were held before a County
Hearings Officer and the Redmond Planning Commission for their respective applications. The Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County.
Section 20.36.030. Criteria for Map Amendments.
For all zoning or Comprehensive Plan map amendments, the Applicant shall show the proposed change:
A. Conforms with the applicable state statutes;
B. Conforms with the applicable state wide planning goals and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
whenever they are determined to be applicable;
C. Conforms with the City Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: As detailed throughout this report, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal before the County for
the UGB reconfiguration, plan amendment, and zone change conforms to the applicable state statutes, state
wide planning goals, and Oregon Administrative Rules. Conformance with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan
will be reviewed as part of the city process.
Section 20.36.040. Legislative Amendment Procedure.
Except as set forth herein, legislative zone, plan or map changes shall be heard pursuant to the procedures
set forth in the Joint Management Agreement.
FINDING: The Applicant is requesting a quasi-judicial plan and map amendment. Although this criterion is not
applicable, the Hearings Officer believes that this application has been and will be processed in accordance
with the procedures of the Joint Management Agreement between the City of Redmond and Deschutes
County.
Section 20.36.050. Limitations on Reapplications.
A. No application of a owner for an amendment to the text of DCC Title 20, to the City Comprehensive Plan
map or to the Title 20 zoning map shall be considered by the Hearings Body within a six month period
immediately following a previous denial application.
B. If, in the opinion of the Hearings Body, however, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it,
the Hearings Body may permit a new application.
FINDING: In the event that reapplication becomes necessary, the Hearings Officer cites them to that Applicant
understands that these provisions will apply.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 16 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
CHAPTER 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Section 1.3 Land Use Planning
Goals and Policies
Goal Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective
evaluation of facts.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the
UGB. The adjustment is necessitated by a change in circumstances (as explained above), which are based the
evaluation of on development patterns and available services as it relates to the regional large lot industrial lands
program (County Ordinance 2013-002).
The County will follow procedures outlined in Title 22, the Deschutes County Development Procedures
Ordinance, in order to ensure a land use process that is open and based on objective evaluation of facts.
Goal 2 Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues.
FINDING: The proposal requires review from both the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. The Applicant
submitted concurrent applications to both jurisdictions. A public hearing was held before the Hearings Officer
on November 19, 2019. In addition, the City of Redmond held public hearing on November 18, 2019 before its
Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Applicant met with County and City staff to discuss their proposal. Given
the structure of the UGB amendment process and the Applicant's willingness to engage both the County and the
City, the Hearings Officer concludes this proposal is based on a cooperative partnership process for regional
planning and is consistent with this goal.
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands
Goals and Policies
Goal Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB. The Inclusion Property falls within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone. The Exclusion
Property falls within the UGB but not the RURA. As proposed, the RURA Zone will be removed from the
Inclusion Property and added to the Exclusion Property intended future urban development as documented
in the Redmond Eastside Framework Plan. The proposed Inclusion Property will change from Comprehensive
Plan designated and zoned EFU to a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial (M-1 and M-2, respectively).
The proposed Exclusion Property will change from a combination of M-1 and M-2 industrial zoning to
Comprehensive Plan designated and zoned EFU. As noted previously, both the Inclusion and Exclusion Lands
have similar soil types, vegetation, and are devoid of water for irrigation. The Applicant states that these two
areas are "substantially equivalent" and thus "the exchange of the lands will retain an equal amount of
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 17 of 41
EXHIBIT H
agricultural land and EFU zoned land in Deschutes County." The Hearings Officer notes that the Exclusion
Property does have contamination issues that do not exist on the Inclusion Property. However, because the
EFU zone is intended to preserve agricultural land, which can be accomplished regardless of contamination,
and because it is an acre -for -acre exchange, this policy goal is achieved.
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as
non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon
Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: As detailed in the Findings of Fact above, the Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change
(zone map amendment). The County allows this request. Moreover, the proposed amendments are allowed
by all applicable Oregon State Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules (see above and below).
Goal 3 Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging
agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
FINDING: Similar to Policy 2.2.1 discussed above, the proposal includes a substantially equivalent exchange of
land that will maintain the same amount of Comprehensive Plan designated and farm -zoned (EFU) land in
Deschutes County. The proposal involves a reconfiguration of the Redmond UGB by adding 156 acres into the
UGB in exchange for removing the same amount of land from the UGB. The Inclusion Land will change from a
Comprehensive Plan designated and farm -zoned area to a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial zoning. In
return, the proposed Exclusion Property will change from a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial zoning to
Comprehensive Plan designated and farm -zoned. As noted previously, both the Inclusion and Exclusion Lands
have similar soil types, vegetation, and are devoid of water for irrigation. Based on this information, the proposal
is consistent with this policy.
Section 2.3 Forest Lands
FINDING: The proposal does not impact any forest lands. Therefore, the provisions of this section are not
applicable.
Section 2.5 Water Resources
FINDING: The proposal does not impact any water resources and thus this section is not applicable.
Section 2.6 Wildlife
FINDING: The proposal does not affect lands identified in the County's Goal 5 inventories for the protection
of wildlife and thus the provisions of this section are not applicable.
Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites
FINDING: As noted previously, a portion of the subject property falls within the Highway 126 scenic view
corridor and thus includes the associated Landscape Management Combining Zone. The Exclusion Property
is adjacent to, but outside of, the County LM Zone. The Inclusion Property, which is further north of Highway
126, does not fall within the LM Zone. Based on this information, the proposal does not impact any lands that
have been designated open space, scenic views and thus provisions of this section are not applicable.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 18 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Section 2.8 Energy Resources
Background
Land use decisions often have a direct effect on energy use and conservation. How communities and
buildings are designed and what transportation and utility options are available all impact energy usage.
Energy is addressed in the Oregon land use system through Statewide Planning Goal 13, Energy, which
requires land uses to be managed for energy conservation, based on sound economic principles.
A prime method of managing land for energy conservation is to design communities to be compact and
walkable, so as to limit the need for automobiles and conserve fossil fuel. For a rural county, these types of
transportation related energy savings are limited. Instead the County can focus on other conservation
measures.
The second energy issue to be addressed is how to promote alternative energy generation, while managing
the inevitable impacts. The impacts and problems stemming from traditional fossil fuel energy sources such
as oil and coal are clear, but little agreement exists over a solution. As of 2010 there is an emphasis on
promoting sustainable, alternative power generation from wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric or
geothermal.
FINDING: Although the goals and policies of the energy resources section are not specifically relevant to the
proposal, the Applicant states the following as it relates the above noted background of the resource.
The proposed land exchange will improve upon the location of 156 acres of land that is intended for
urban industrial development. The proposed land exchange and associated Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment will relocate urban land for industrial development to a
location that is closer to existing urban water, sewer, and transportation facilities, along with utilities.
The proposed land exchange will facilitate a more compact development pattern and better manage
land for energy conservation, which is consistent with this section.
The Hearings Officer agrees with the Applicant.
Section 2.9 Environmental Quality
Background
... Two primary methods for the County to promote careful stewardship of the environment are by setting
a good example through County actions and by providing information to the community on a variety of
environmental issues. Additionally the County can thoughtfully manage the impacts of growth on the
environment in cooperation with other agencies, organizations and jurisdictions.
FINDING: The Applicant notes that the proposed Inclusion Property does not have any known areas of
contamination and/or needed remediation prior to development. The Applicant further notes that based on
the historic use of being shooting ranges for the Redmond Rod and Gun Club and the Deschutes County Sheriff
and an unpermitted disposal area, the Exclusion Property will require remediation prior to development. The
Applicant has indicated that a very specific remediation plan has been prepared by APEX, an environmental
consulting firm. The remediation plan is currently under review by Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ).
According to the remediation plan, as stated by the Applicant, the nature and extent of the contamination
appears to be confined to the surface of the soils. Based on the groundwater depths of greater than 300 feet,
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 19 of 41
EXHIBIT H
together with the type of contamination, the report notes that contamination does not impact groundwater.
Contaminants are primarily "lead associated with shot and bullets, and benzo(a)pyrene from binders in clay
pigeons." The unofficial disposal area includes low concentrations of metals and organic chemicals, according
to the report, that have not migrated to underlying soil.
Mr. Brady appears to contend that, since the County is the responsible party, the findings should be treated
cautiously. See P. Brady, Open Record Submittal, pg. 13. For the sake of this Decision, the Hearings Officer will
assume that Mr. Brady is correct that the County is the responsible party. In that regard, the Hearings Officer
agrees that statements made by the County should be reviewed with some level of skepticism. However, the
County's representations appear to be based on the recommendation of a 3rd party consultant that is an
expert in this area.
More importantly, though, the County does not appear to be hiding information from the public regarding
the condition of this Exclusion Property and is work with the DEQ to address issues on the Exclusion Property.
Those actions are consistent with the Policy.
The Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the two areas will not affect the quality of the air, water, and land
resources. Deschutes County has adopted policies to protect the air, water, and land resources and to situate
pollution -causing development accordingly. Moreover, the remediation plan for the Exclusion Property will
ensure clean-up of the property will be completed in conjunction with development and will meet all DEQ
requirements.
The proposed land exchange, however, will allow for more compact development pattern by incorporating
the Inclusion Property in the Redmond UGB The proposed land exchange was devised through the
cooperation of County and City agencies to manage growth impacts to the environment, specifically this
eastern region of the City of Redmond.
Section 2.10 Surface Mining
Goals and Policies
Goal Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while minimizing adverse impacts of
extraction, processing and transporting the resource.
Policy 2.10.1 Goal 5 mining inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed.
FINDING: The overall subject property includes approximately 319 acres of land identified as SM Site No. 482
on the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and is further identified as the Negus
Transfer Station and Recycle Center. As proposed, the Inclusion Property is just south of, but does not include,
the SM-zoned region of the subject property. The Inclusion Property, as proposed, will be zoned M-1 and M-
2, both of which will allow for landfills and similar uses.
The request for a plan amendment and zone change, if approved, will reconfigure the Redmond UGB by adding
approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the UGB.
A portion of the Inclusion Property falls within the SMIA Zone associated with Site No. 482. The Goal 5 mine
resource is protected by the SMIA Zone. This transition, however, from County -zoned lands to Redmond UGB-
zoned lands would remove the SMIA zoning from this portion of the Inclusion Property and thus removes the
protections that are afforded to Site No. 482 in this area. While similar protections within Redmond UGB do
not appear to exist, no one contends the proposed industrial zoning will permit new noise or dust sensitive
uses. Thus, there is likely no reduction in Goal 5 protection.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 20 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Notwithstanding the above information, the Applicant has indicated that the County plans to continue use
the Negus Transfer Station. In the long-term, however, the site may be reclaimed in accordance with all
applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Through the reclamation process, the County will coordinate
with DOGAMI.
Based on the above information, the Hearings Office finds the proposed amendment is consistent with this
policy and will not interfere with the neighboring Goal 5 resource.
Policy 2.10.3 Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with conflicting resources and uses.
FINDING: As addressed in a foregoing finding, the requested plan amendment and zone change will
reconfigure the Redmond UGB by adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for
removing equivalent area of land from the UGB. A portion of the Inclusion Property falls within the Surface
Mining Impact Area Combining Zone associated with Surface Mining Site No. 482. This transition from County -
zoned lands to Redmond UGB-zoned lands would also remove the existing County SMIA zoning from this
portion of the Inclusion Property and thus remove the protections afforded to a Goal 5 resource. As noted
above, the Hearings Officer is unaware of similar protections within the Redmond UGB. The Exclusion Property
is further south of the SM Site No. 482 and does not include the associated SMIA designation. Therefore, the
Exclusion Property will not be affected by this amendment.
Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Resources
FINDING: There is no evidence of cultural or historic resources on either the Inclusion or Exclusion Properties.
The proposal does not affect cultural or historic resources; therefore, the provisions of this section are not
applicable.
CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Section 3.3 Rural Housing
Goals and Policies
Goal Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County.
FINDING: The proposed UGB adjustment results in approximately 156 acres that will added to the Redmond
UGB and the same amount being removed from the UGB and rezoned EFU. The requested zone change
application addresses the 156 acres proposed to be removed from the Redmond UGB and placed into
Deschutes County jurisdiction. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed exchange of land will not adversely
impact the rural character and safety of housing in the unincorporated Deschutes County, as neither the
proposed Inclusion Property nor the Exclusion Property is not planned to be used for housing. Therefore, the
proposal complies with the rural housing Goal 1.
Goal 2 Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing.
FINDING: The policies identified under Goal 2 are not applicable to this application.
Section 3.4 Rural Economy
Goal and Policies
Goal Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy
environment.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 21 of 41
EXHIBIT H
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the
UGB. The land to be removed, the Exclusion Property, is part of a regional large -lot industrial land supply that
was adopted by County Ordinance 2013-002.
Through the process of adopting Ordinance 2013-002, a regional industrial land needs analysis was conducted,
in addition to, a look at maintaining a stable and sustainable rural economy. By shifting this large -lot industrial
land closer to developing areas of the City of Redmond, the Inclusion Property will be more readily available
for development. This is based on current development trends in this region of the city and the availability
and extension of facilities and services for such uses. The Exclusion Property, however, is of greater distance
from developed facilities and services. Moreover, development of the Exclusion Property will require
remediation based on historic uses of the site. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed land exchange is
consistent with the goals and policies for a rural economy in the unincorporated Deschutes County as
addressed here and through Ordinance 2013-002.
Section 3.5 Natural Hazards
Goals and Policies
Goal Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards.
FINDING: The potential natural hazards for the Inclusion and Exclusion Lands are similar. Based on the
information provided with the application, hazards include low radon potential, moderate earthquake
shaking, and small areas of moderate landslide hazards. There are no mapped flood or volcano hazards.
Additional hazards include wildfire and winter storm risks, which are identified in the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The Hearings Officer finds that the goals and policies of this section not applicable or relevant to this
proposal.
Mr. Brady contends the Applicant missed the most threatening natural hazard: dust storms. P. Brady, Open
Record Submittal, pg. 17. Mr. Brady cites the State of Oregon Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) Risk
Assessment and note that Deschutes County is one of the counties in Oregon that has dust storms. Due to the
proneness of our region to dust storms, he is concerned that the lead contamination can be spread.
The Hearings Officer finds that the distribution of the lead contamination by dust storms is a legitimate public
concern. Given the stated potential impact on public health, it is an issue the public agencies should examine
if they are not already. However, the Hearings Officer does not believe Section 3.5 of Comprehensive Plan
applies to this issue in a way that prohibits the plan amendment and zone change.
Section 3.5 lists potential natural hazards and polices to address those hazards. Those hazards are: (1) wildfire,
(2) flooding, (3) volcanic eruptions, (4) earthquakes, and (5) winter storms. Dust storms are not one of the
stated hazards. Even if dust storms are a natural hazard that Policy 3.5 is intended to apply to, it is unclear
how an acre -for -acre exchange increase that threat to the public.
Moreover, as stated by the Applicant it is waiting on DEQ for a final determination regarding remediation and
that it anticipates remediation when the Exclusion Property is put into future use. Thus, the Applicant appears
to be engaged in solving the contamination issue.
Lastly, there is no guarantee that keeping the Exclusion Property zoned for industrial use will solve the
problem any quicker. The contamination issues remains unsolved after many years despite its current zoning.
Although Mr. Brady expresses a desire to purchase the Exclusion Property, no sale has ever materialized. It
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 22 of 41
EXHIBIT H
takes two parties to consummate a real estate sale, which indicates to the Hearings Officer that despite Mr.
Brady's desire to purchase the property, it remains economically unviable to employ remediation even with
the industrial zoning.
For the above reasons, the Hearings Officer does not believe the acre -for -acre exchange limits the County's
ability to protect people, infrastructure and property from natural hazards under Policy 3.5.
Section 3.6 Public Facilities and Services Policies
Goal and Policies
Goa11 Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services.
Policy 3.6.11 Where possible, locate utility lines and facilities on or adjacent to existing public or private
right-of-ways and to avoid dividing farm or forest lands.
FINDING: The policies identified under Goal 1 are not applicable to this application. However, the Hearings
Officer notes that the land exchange proposed here has the intention to support orderly, efficient, and cost-
effective siting of urban public facilities and services for the industrial lands within the Redmond UGB. For
example, the Inclusion Property is adjacent to a grid street system, wherein utilities, facilities, and streets would
be able to be extended and provided in the road rights -of -way. The Exclusion Property, in comparison, contains
locational and topographical constraints, as it is further away from these facilities and services.
Section 3.7 Transportation
FINDING: The Transportation planning program has been summarized and incorporated into the Deschutes
County Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), which was adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 and is contained with
Appendix C of the County Comprehensive Plan. The applicable goals and policies of the TSP are addressed
below under Appendix C.
CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies
Goal Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and
urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands.
Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend
their urban growth boundaries.
Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas.
FINDING: The proposed Inclusion Property falls within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone
while the Exclusion Property falls within the UGB but not the RURA. The proposed UGB amendment and
subsequent zone changes were selected to accommodate a change of circumstances that involves current
development trends and availability of services, which will allow for a more readily available lands for
continued industrial development in Redmond. For example, the Inclusion Property can be developed in a
more timely, orderly, and efficient manner with public facilities and infrastructure nearby compared to the
Exclusion Property, which has locational and topographical constraints.
The proposal amendments and zone changes require review from both the City of Redmond and Deschutes
County. The Applicant submitted concurrent applications to both jurisdictions. The City and County
coordinated separate public hearings before the Redmond Planning Commission and a County Hearings
Officer that will review their respective applications. Furthermore, the Applicant met with City and County
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 23 of 41
EXHIBIT H
staff to discuss their proposal. Notice of the application and public hearing was mailed to property owners
within 750 feet of the subject area for the County application. Two comments were received from the public
which have been addressed in this Decision. Lastly, the two public hearings — November 18 with the Redmond
Planning Commission and November 19 with the County Hearings Officer —were open to the public and the
public will be encouraged to provide testimony. The Hearings Officer concludes there has been adequate
coordination with cities, special districts, and stake holders to provide an orderly and efficient transition
between urban and rural lands. The Hearings Officer finds compliance with applicable urbanization policies
has been demonstrated.
Goal2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands
inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries.
Policy 4.2.4 Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban growth
boundaries but outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.5 Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use inside urban
growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities.
Policy 4.2.6 Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and location of
public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans.
FINDING: As noted, the proposed Inclusion Property falls within the RURA Zone while the Exclusion Property
falls within the UGB and thus both being considered to be located within the Redmond urban growth area.
The City of Redmond's Eastside Framework Plan provides a planning concept for this area. Therefore, the
proposed amendments will be consistent with the plan. The Applicant states the following
The Applicant understands that the Inclusion Property may be located within the City of Redmond
UGB, but outside of the City Limits for a short time period (prior to annexation), however, it is planned
that upon approval, annexation will follow. Conformance to the City of Redmond Eastside Framework
Plan ensures consistency with this policy.
The Deschutes County and City of Redmond have negotiated an intergovernmental agreement, which was
provided with the submitted application materials. The agreement coordinates development of lands held
within the UGB but outside the city limits of Redmond. Although the proposed amendment and zone change
will change the lands that are subject to this agreement, it will not alter the terms of the agreement.
Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside
urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas.
Policy 4.2.8 Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive Plan Map and
regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone in Deschutes
County Code, Title 18.
FINDING: Deschutes County adopted Chapter 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone, together
with Title 20, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Ordinance. The proposed amendment and zone change will
modify the land designation and zoning; however, it will not modify the implementation of these codes.
Policy 4.2.9 in cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent with their
respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-
021-0050 or its successor.
FINDING: Deschutes County and the City of Redmond have adopted a RURA Agreement consistent with their
respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of OAR 660-021-0050. Although the proposed
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 24 of 41
EXHIBIT H
amendment and zone change will modify the land designation and zoning, it will not modify the
implementation of this agreement.
Policy 4.2.10 The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA.
a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the orderly, economic
and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are brought into the urban
growth boundary.
FINDING: As noted previously, the proposed UGB amendment and subsequent zone changes were selected
to accommodate a change of circumstances that involves current development trends and availability of
services, which will allow for a more readily available lands for continued industrial development in Redmond.
The Inclusion Property can be developed in a timelier, more orderly, and efficient manner because of the
neighboring public facilities and infrastructure. The Exclusion Property has locational and topographical
constraints. The Applicant is not proposing new parcels to be created with this project.
b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres.
FINDING: The Applicant is not proposing new parcels to be created with this project.
c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or
plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that generate more traffic,
than were allowed prior to the establishment of the RURA.
FINDING: The proposed Inclusion Property falls within the RURA Combining Zone while the Exclusion Property
falls within the UGB but not the RURA. The Applicant is requesting the Inclusion property be brought into the
UGB (with associated zone changes), which results in the removal of the RURA Zone and thus not subject to
this policy. However, the Exclusion Property will be removed from the UGB and the RURA Zone will be added.
The Exclusion Property will be zoned EFU, which does not allow more intensive uses than the current industrial
zones. This policy is further implemented through the Deschutes Zoning Ordinance, which would apply to any
future amendments or zone changes.
d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law and the
County Zoning Ordinance.
FINDING: The Exclusion Property will be rezoned to EFU with this proposal. The Applicant is not proposing a
partition.
e. New arterial and collector rights -of -way in the RURA shall meet the right-of-way
standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is greater, but be
physically constructed to Deschutes County standards.
f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights -of -way, as
designated on the County's Transportation System Plan.
g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted before
the RURA designation.
FINDING: The Applicant is not proposing new arterial or collector rights -of -way in the proposed RURA Zone.
In addition, the proposal does not include new development, including a single-family dwelling. These policies
are not applicable or relevant to this proposal.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 25 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Policy 4.2.11 Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800 acres in the
RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's urban growth boundary.
FINDING: The City of Redmond Eastside Framework Plan includes the master plan of the County -owned
subject property. Per staff, the proposed UGB land exchange, plan amendment and zone changes are
consistent with the City of Redmond Eastside Framework Plan. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the
plan that was established to implement this policy.
Goal To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and
regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.12 Deschutes County supports a multi jurisdictional cooperative effort to pursue a regional
approach to establish a short-term supply of sites particularly designed to address out -of -
region industries that may locate in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.13 Deschutes County recognizes the importance of maintaining a large -lot industrial land
supply that is readily developable in Central Oregon.
Policy 4.2.14 The Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis ("Analysis"), adopted
by Ordinance 2013-002 is incorporated by reference herein.
FINDING: The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB. The land to be removed, the Exclusion Property, is part of a regional large -lot industrial land supply
that was adopted by County Ordinance 2013-002. However, by shifting this large -lot industrial land closer to
developing areas of the City of Redmond, the Inclusion Property will be more readily available for
development. This is based on current development trends in this region of the City of Redmond and the
availability and extension of facilities and services for such uses. The Exclusion Property, however, is of
greater distance from developed facilities and services. Moreover, development of the Exclusion Property
will require remediation as a result on historic uses of the site. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the
proposed land exchange would address these policies and the intent of the large -lot industrial land program.
Policy 4.2.15 Within 6 months of the adoption of Ordinance 2013-002, in coordination with the
participating local governments in Central Oregon, Deschutes County shall, execute an
intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
("COIC") that specifies the process of allocation of large lot industrial sites among the
participating local governments.
FINDING: Deschutes County and City of Redmond have negotiated an intergovernmental agreement, which
was provided with the submitted application materials. The proposed land exchange modifies the location of
industrial land but not the amount of industrial land. Therefore, the proposal will not result in changes to the
existing agreement or consistency with this policy.
Policy 4.2.16 In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling coordination
duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its comprehensive plan when
participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process
designate regionally significant sites.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's response, in part provided below, is a sufficient response
to this policy criterion.
Deschutes County has previously fulfilled its duties and updated its comprehensive plan to account for
a regional large lot industrial land need in Redmond. The current proposal does not modify the land
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 26 of 41
EXHIBIT H
need, but does modify the exact location of the land that is available to address the need. As detailed
in Section V - Discussion; Conclusions - State of Oregon, OAR 660-070 allows a jurisdiction to rely upon
the adopted Land Need analysis for Economic Lands when reconfiguring an Urban Growth Boundary
and there is no change in the amount of substantially equivalent land (which is the case for the current
application). Given that documenting a land need is not applicable, the provisions of 660-024-0040
are not applicable. Furthermore regarding 660-024-0045, only subsections (7) and (8) address the
process for selecting regional large lot sites...
The City and County have previously determined that other land within the Redmond UGB is not
available to accommodate the Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Needs, thus considering land within
the UGB as potential exchange land is not practical or required at this time. Also, as detailed in Section
V - Discussion; Conclusions - State of Oregon, the Land Exchange conforms to Goal 14 and the
applicable locational requirements.
As detailed in this section, the proposal is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan Policy.
Policy 4.2.17 Deschutes County supports Economic Development of Central Oregon ("EDCO"), a non-
profit organization facilitating new job creation and capital investment to monitor and
advocate for the region's efforts of maintaining an inventory of appropriate sized and
located industrial lots available to the market
FINDING: As proposed, the Inclusion Property will be more readily available for development based on not
only development trends, but also the availability and extension of facilities and services for such uses in that
region of the city. The Applicant provided a letter in support from EDCO. The Hearings finds consistency with
this policy based on the comments provided by EDCO.
Policy 4.2.18 Deschutes County will collaborate with regional public and private representatives to
engage the Oregon Legislature and state agencies and their commissions to address public
facility, transportation and urbanization issues that hinder economic development
opportunities in Central Oregon.
FINDING: In regards to this proposal, representatives of Deschutes County have collaborated with regional
public and private entities including Oregon Division of State Lands, EDCO, and Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development to address public facilities, transportation, and urbanization issues.
APPENDIX C, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
The goals and policies to coordinate and implement the TSP are as follows:
Goal 1
1. Achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation and communication
system. This system includes roads, rail lines, public transit, air, pipeline, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. The Deschutes County transportation system shall be designed to serve the existing and
projected needs of the unincorporated communities and rural areas within the County. The system shall
provide connections between different modes of transportation to reduce reliance on any one mode.
FINDING: Highway 126 is adjacent to the Exclusion Property and several roads within the City of Redmond
jurisdiction are adjacent to the Inclusion Property. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Report prepared by
Transight Consulting, LLC with the application. The report concluded that the proposed UGB reconfiguration
would not create any significant impacts on the transportation system, if approved. The report was reviewed
by the County Transportation Planner, who determined compliance with the TSP.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 27 of 41
EXHIBIT H
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified
economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism.
Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for
plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not
exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system.
FINDING: This policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification, and
capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. Highway 126, an arterial, is located south of
the Exclusion Property. The proposal does not alter this facility. However, the exchange of the large -lot
industrial land to the Inclusion Property will result in a decreased need to connect to the facility, which results
in a decrease in safety issues for this facility, as indicated by the Applicant. The Applicant submitted a traffic
report with the application. The report was reviewed by the County Transportation Planner, who determined
compliance with the TSP. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Goal 5
5. Maintain an access management system adequate to protect the quality and function of the arterial
and collector street system.
FINDING: Highway 126 is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Exclusion Property. The proposal does not
alter this facility. As indicated in the previous finding, the proposal will lessen the need for access points to
this facility and thus decrease the number of trips directly onto this facility. The Hearings Officer finds the
proposal is consistent with goal and policies of this section.
AIRPORT PLAN
Goal 16
16. Protect the function and economic viability of the existing public -use airports, while ensuring public
safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports
and for private airports with three or more based aircraft.
FINDING: The lands proposed for exchange are entirely within the County Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
associated with the Redmond Airport. Deschutes County and City of Redmond have land use regulations (e.g.
sound, noise, glaze, building heights, and incompatible uses) that protect the Redmond Airport. This transition
from County -zoned lands to Redmond UGB-zoned lands, as proposed, will remove the existing County AS
zoning from the Inclusion Property and add the County AS zoning to the Exclusion Property. A similar exchange
of zoning regulations will occur within the Redmond UGB as proposed.
The proposal is not subject to the County AS Zone review as no development is proposed at this time for the
Exclusion Property. When development is proposed in the future, the County will review compliance with AS
Zone regulations, which further ensure consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Otherwise, the proposed exchange of land will not directly affect consistency with the goal and policies
addressed here.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Goal 18
18.1 In order to optimize the carrying capacity of the County road system, provide cost effective
transportation improvements and implement strategies that shall improve the efficiency and function
of existing roads.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 28 of 41
EXHIBIT H
FINDING: As discussed in a foregoing finding, Highway 126 is adjacent to the proposed Exclusion Property.
The proposed land exchange will not alter this facility but instead decrease the need for access to the highway
and thus reduce the number of trips directly onto this facility. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is
consistent with goal and policies of this section.
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (OAR 660-012)
OAR 660-012-0060. Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation
(including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then
the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would.
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation
demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect
of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(2) Where a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, compliance with section
(1) shall be accomplished through one or a combination of the following:
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or
services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this
division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or
include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or
service will be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile
travel and meet travel needs through other modes.
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the
transportation facility.
(e) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or
similar funding method, including transportation system management measures, demand
management or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall as part of the
amendment specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be
provided.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 29 of 41
EXHIBIT H
(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that
would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses
are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where:
(a) The facility is already performing below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified
in the TSP or comprehensive plan on the date the amendment application is submitted;
(b) in the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as
set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified
function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted TSP;
(c) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the
amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the
time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or
measures,
(d) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph
(4)(d)(C); and
(e) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and
timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to
avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local
government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed
amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement
into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written
statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (d) of this
section.
FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan. The proposed amendments include reconfiguring the Redmond UGB by
adding approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from
the UGB. The Inclusion Property will change from EFU zoning to a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial.
The Exclusion Property will change from a combination of M-1 and M-2 to EFU, specifically. The Applicant is
not proposing any land use development of either property at this time.
The Applicant submitted a traffic report with the application. The report was reviewed by the County
Transportation Planner, who agreed with the report's conclusions. Based on the report, the Hearings Officer
finds that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will be consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area. The Hearings Officer
also finds the proposed changes will not change the functional classification of any existing or planned
transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional classification system. The changes
will not allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access, which are inconsistent
with the functional classification of nearby transportation facilities. Furthermore, it will not reduce the
performance standards of the facilities below the minimum acceptable level the County's transportation
system plan.
(4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation
facility and service providers and other affected local governments.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change was sent to several public agencies.
Those agencies include Deschutes County Road Department and County Transportation Planner, Oregon
Department of Transportation, Redmond Planning Department, Redmond Public Works, Redmond Fire and
Rescue, Redmond Airport, Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District, Bureau of Land Management, Central
Electric Cooperative, Pacific Power, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Oregon Department of Aviation, and
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 30 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Water Resources Department — District 11. The submitted responses are listed in the foregoing Basic Findings
section. The Hearings Officer finds that this notice complies with the requirement noted
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS (OAR 660-015)
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.
FINDING: During the plan amendment and zone change process, public notice of the proposal was provided
to affected agencies and property owners in the surrounding area. Planning staff mailed and published notice
of the proposal and public hearing. The County held a public hearing before a hearings officer. The City of
Redmond will hold a public hearing before the Redmond Planning Commission. Goal 1 is met.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related
to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
FINDING: In accordance with Goal 2, the Applicant has submitted an application to the County and the City of
Redmond for the plan amendment and zone change. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan
amendment and zone change satisfies this goal because the proposal has been reviewed in accordance with
the County's acknowledged planning review process.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
FINDING: The proposal includes a substantially equivalent exchange of land that will maintain the same
amount of Comprehensive Plan designated and farm -zoned (EFU) land in Deschutes County. The proposal
involves a reconfiguration of the Redmond UGB by adding 156 acres into the UGB in exchange for removing
the same amount of land from the UGB. The Inclusion Land will change from a Comprehensive Plan designated
and farm -zoned area to a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial zoning. In return, the proposed Exclusion
Property will change from a combination of Light and Heavy Industrial zoning to Comprehensive Plan
designated and farm -zoned. The proposal does not impact any agricultural lands within the City of Redmond.
Both the Inclusion Land and Exclusion Land share soil types (the sites do not have class I, II, III, or IV soils),
vegetation, and lack of water for irrigation. The Applicant provides a comprehensive assessment, an
alternative analysis, and compatibility of the use with surrounding and related agricultural land and the
retention of an equivalent amount of soils. Based on this information, the proposal is consistent with this
policy.
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by
making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting
of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 31 of 41
EXHIBIT H
FINDING: The subject property is not identified as forest lands on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
map. As indicated previously, the subject property is identified as agriculture under the County
Comprehensive Plan. Goals 4 does not apply.
Goal 5: Natural Resources Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.
FINDING: Goal 5 resources are listed in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. There is an identified Goal 5
resource on the subject property but neither the Inclusion nor the Exclusion Lands include the inventoried
Goal 5 resource.
Mineral and aggregate resources: Surface Mine Site No. 482, Negus Transfer Station, is located on the subject
property. The Inclusion Property is just south of but outside of Site No. 482. As noted previously, a portion of
the Inclusion Property falls within the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone associated with SM Site
No. 482, which offers protections to the Goal 5 resource. This transition from County -zoned lands to Redmond
UGB-zoned lands would also remove the existing County SMIA zoning from this portion of the Inclusion
Property. The Hearings Officer is unaware of similar protections offered within the Redmond UGB. The
proposed industrial zoning likely does not permit new noise or dust sensitive uses and thus no reduction in
Goal 5 protection. The Exclusion Property is further south of the SM Site No. 482 and does not include the
associated SMIA designation. Therefore, the Exclusion Property will not be affected by this amendment.
Energy sources: The subject property is not known to have significant energy resources, such as natural gas,
oil, coal, or geothermal heat.
Fish and wildlife habitat: The subject property is located outside of the County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone.
The site has no designated fish habitat. There are no identified threatened or endangered species present at
the site.
Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas, including desert areas: There are no identified
ecologically or scientifically significant areas present on the subject property.
Outstanding scenic views: Nothing about the property indicates it has a significantly better view than other
sites in the vicinity. As noted in a previous finding, Highway 126 is identified on the County Zoning Map as a
scenic corridor in Deschutes County. The Exclusion Property is adjacent to, but outside of, the associated
County LM Zone. The Inclusion Property, further north from Highway 126, does not fall within the LM Zone.
Water areas wetlands watersheds, and groundwater resources: There are no wetlands or watersheds within
the subject site. There is no identified groundwater resources present at the site.
Wilderness areas: The subject property does not meet the definition of "wilderness areas" as described within
the Oregon State Goals and Guidelines.
Historic areas, sites, structures, and obiects: The subject property does not have structures listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. No structures or places of historical significance have been determined to
exist on the property. There are no County designated historically significant sites within the vicinity of the
property.
Cultural areas: The site has no known cultural resources.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 32 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
FINDING: The proposal includes a substantially equivalent exchange of land with the Redmond UGB and
Deschutes County. The Inclusion Property that will be added to the Redmond UGB is not known to have any
areas of contamination and/or needed remediation prior to development.
Development of the Exclusion Property, land taken out of the Redmond UGB and into County EFU Zone, will
require remediation based on historic uses of the site. As discussed previously, the Exclusion Property includes
the Redmond Rod and Gun Club, a former shooting range used by the Deschutes County Sheriff, and an
unpermitted disposal area. The Applicant has indicated that a remediation plan has been prepared by
environmental consulting firm, APEX. The remediation plan is currently under review by DEQ. The Applicant
does not propose a use for the Exclusion Property at this time.
Addressed in a foregoing finding, the nature and extent of the contamination, according to the remediation
plan, appears to be confined to the surface of the soils. Since groundwater depths are primarily greater than
300 feet, together with the low migration levels of the contamination, the report notes that contamination
does not impact groundwater. Contaminants are primarily "lead associated with shot and bullets, and
benzo(a)pyrene from binders in clay pigeons." The unofficial disposal area includes low concentrations of
metals and organic chemicals, according to the report, that have not migrated to underlying soil.
Rezoning the two regions will not affect the quality of the air, water, and land resources. Deschutes County
has adopted policies to protect the air, water, and land resources and to situate pollution -causing
development accordingly. Moreover, the remediation plan for the Exclusion Property will ensure clean-up of
the property will be completed in conjunction with development and will meet all DEQ requirements.
Goal 7: Areas Subiect to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDING: The potential natural hazards for the Inclusion and Exclusion Lands are similar. Based on the
information provided with the application, hazards include low radon potential, moderate earthquake shaking,
and small areas of moderate landslide hazards. There are no mapped flood or volcano hazards. Additional
hazards include wildfire and winter storm risks, which are identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Deschutes County has adopted policies to protect against natural hazards, which are adequate to ensure
consistency with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, here appropriate, to provide
for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
FINDING: This goal is not applicable because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not reduce
or eliminate any opportunities for recreational facilities either on the subject property or in the area.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 33 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the
health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
FINDING: This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities. The Exclusion Property is part of a regional large -lot industrial land supply that was adopted by
County Ordinance 2013-002. Through the process of adopting Ordinance 2013-002, a regional industrial land
needs analysis was conducted. Additionally, maintaining a stable and sustainable rural economy was
evaluated. The proposed shift of the large -lot industrial land so that it will be closer to developing areas of the
City of Redmond will allow the Inclusion Property to be more readily available for development. Development
trends in this region of the city, together with the availability and extension of facilities and services for such
uses, support this proposed land exchange. In comparison, the Exclusion Property is of greater distance from
developed facilities and services. Moreover, development of the Exclusion Property will require remediation
based on historic uses of the site. The Hearings Officer finds the Inclusion Lands address a specific need and
contain the needed site characteristics and thus the proposal is consistent with Goal 9 as addressed here and
through Ordinance 2013-002.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDING: The plan amendment and zone change do not reduce or eliminate any opportunities for housing on
the subject property or in the area. This goal is not applicable.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as
a framework for urban and rural development.
FINDING: The proposal to shift the large -lot industrial land from the Exclusion Site to the Inclusion Site allows
future development to be within close proximity of available facilities and services and thus lending to a more
orderly and efficient arrangement as demonstrated by the Applicant. The Exclusion Property, however, is of
greater distance from such facilities and services making development less orderly and efficient. According to
the, the proposed exchange is consistent with current public facilities master plans. The Hearings Officer finds
the proposal is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
FINDING: This goal is implemented through OAR 660-012, commonly known as the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR), which is addressed in a previous finding. The Applicant provides a traffic report, which was
reviewed by the County Transportation Planner who determined compliance with the planning rule.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 34 of 41
EXHIBIT H
FINDING: This goal seeks that "land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." The proposed
Inclusion Property and Exclusion Property are located within close proximity of each other. However, the
exchange of large -lot industrial land to the Inclusion Property allows for better service of existing
transportation and utility infrastructure and thus more energy efficient. In comparison, the Exclusion Property
is further away from such facilities and services, which creates an island of land that would require the
extension of service and thus be costly and energy intensive. The proposal is consistent with Goal 13 because
of the locational efficiencies provided by the Inclusion Lands.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to accommodate urban population
and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for
livable communities.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the specific findings4 below by the Applicant are sufficient to comply with
Goal 14.
Goal 14 requires that all cities develop an urbanization framework as part of their comprehensive plan,
appropriate implementing measures, and to periodically review the supply of land within the urban
growth boundary. A unique review framework, the Eastside Framework Plan, has been established by
Deschutes County and the City of Redmond, which directs development in the area of the proposed
land exchange. Because urbanization policies have been adopted as part of Redmond's acknowledged
Comprehensive Plan and the Eastside Framework Plan, along with the fact that implementing
measures have been established, the City of Redmond's planning framework is consistent with Goal
14.
There are also six factors that are evaluated to ensure consistency with Goal 14, which emphasize two
central questions: is there enough land within the UGB to accommodate future population growth
over 20 years, and if not, which land is suitable to bring within the existing UGB. These factors were
evaluated in Section V.B of this report. As demonstrated therein, there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with all of them.
For these reasons, the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 14.
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
FINDING: These Goals are not applicable because the proposed amendment and zone change area is not
within the Willamette Greenway, and does not possess any estuarine areas, coastal shorelands, beaches and
dunes, or ocean resources.
DIVISION 24, URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES (OAR 660-024)
Section 660.024.0020. Adoption or Amendment of a UGB.
4 The referenced "Section V.B of this report" addresses alternative compliance of OAR 660-024-0070, UGB Adjustments, which
is addressed in Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 35 of 41
EXHIBIT H
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a
UGB, except as follows:
FINDING: All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable with the proposed UGB
amendment. Based on the findings below, no exception is provided to this requirement.
(a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR chapter 660, division 4, is not applicable unless a local
government chooses to take an exception to a particular goal requirement, for example, as provided
in OAR 660-004-0010(1);
FINDING: These provisions are not applicable to this application since this proposal is not seeking a goal
exception.
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable;
FINDING: Goal 3 is applicable in this case; however, Goal 4 is not applicable.
(c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR chapter 660, division 23, apply only in areas added to the UG8,
except as required under OAR 660-023-0070 and 660-023-0250,
FINDING: Goal 5 resources are listed in the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. There is an identified Goal 5
resource on the subject property but neither the Inclusion nor the Exclusion Lands include the inventoried
Goal 5 resource.
(d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a
UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the
zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning that does
not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the
zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary;
FINDING: The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 are applicable in this case.
(e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within the Willamette River
Greenway Boundary;
(f) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within a coastal
shorelands boundary;
(g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment.
FINDING: The above three provisions are not applicable to the proposal. The subject property is not within
the Willamette River Greenway Boundary or within a coastal shorelands boundary, and the proposal is a UGB
amendment.
(2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the city and county plan and zone maps at a
scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels are included in the UGB. Where a UGB does
not follow lot or parcel lines, the map must provide sufficient information to determine the precise UGB
location.
FINDING: The proposed UGB and amendments to the UGB are shown on the city and county plan and zone
maps at a scale sufficient to determine the precise UGB location. The location does not align with lot or parcel
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 36 of 41
EXHIBIT H
lines, in this case, and so the Inclusion and Exclusion Properties are defined with a metes and bounds legal
descriptions.
Section 660.024.0070. UGB Adjustments.
(1) A local government may adjust the UGB at any time to better achieve the purposes of Goal 14 and this
division. Such adjustment may occur by adding or removing land from the UGB, or by exchanging land
inside the UGB for land outside the UGB. The requirements of section (2) of this rule apply when
removing land from the UGB. The requirements of Goal 14 and this division [and ORS 197.298] apply
when land is added to the UGB, including land added in exchange for land removed. The requirements
of ORS 197.296 may also apply when land is added to a UGB, as specified in that statute. If a local
government exchanges land inside the UGB for land outside the UGB, the applicable local government
must adopt appropriate rural zoning designations for the land removed from the UGB prior to or at the
time of adoption of the UGB amendment and must apply applicable location and priority provisions of
OAR 660-024-0060 through 660-020-0067.
FINDING: Because the Applicant proposes an adjustment by exchanging land inside the UGB for land outside
the UGB, the Hearings Officer understands the requirements of Goal 14 and this division (OAR 660.024.0070)
[and ORS 197.298] apply. In addition, the County must:
1) ...adopt appropriate rural zoning designations for the land removed from the UGB prior to or at the
time of adoption of the UGB amendment, and
2) apply applicable location and priority provisions of OAR 660-024-0060 through 660-020-0067s.
The Applicant requests a plan amendment and zone change to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by adding
approximately 156 acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the UGB.
The Applicant provides the following response regarding UGB adjustments.
The requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 14 relating to urbanization, as implemented by ORS
Chapter 197 and OAR 660-024, require that important questions be evaluated in order to show that a
net expansion of an acknowledged UGB is necessary to meet the community's established need for an
adequate supply of urban land. Broadly speaking, these factors include 1) the demand for additional
land based on a population forecast, as well as 2) the exact type of land needed. Under a standard
urbanization proposal with a net increase in UGB land, sufficient evidentiary support must be provided
to demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with both of these factors.
In this case, however, the proposal is for an exchange of land with parallel comprehensive plan
designations. The end result of this type of UGB reconfiguration will be an unchanged inventory in the
amount of urban land, with the same ratio of urban land and rural land as previously existed.
Based on this information, the Applicant addresses OAR 660.024.0070(3) in more detail below.
The Hearings Officer finds that this proposal includes measures to adopt appropriate rural zoning designations
for the land removed from the UGB prior to or at the time of adoption of the UGB amendment. Of the sited
OARS, the Hearings finds that the following apply:
• 660-024-0065, Establishment of Study Area to Evaluate Land for Inclusion in the UGB
• 660-024-0067, Evaluation of Land in the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB; Priorities
s This reference appear to be a typo in statute. The Hearings Officer assumes this reference is to OAR 660-024-0060 through
660-024-0067
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 37 of 41
EXHIBIT H
These are addressed under subsection (3), below.
(2) A local government may remove land from a UGB following the procedures and requirements of ORS
19Z764. Alternatively, a local government may remove land from the UGB following the procedures
and requirements of 197.610 to 197.650, provided it determines:
(a) The removal of land would not violate applicable statewide planning goals and rules,
(b) The UGB would provide a 20-year supply of land for estimated needs after the land is removed, or
would provide roughly the same supply of buildable land as prior to the removal, taking into
consideration land added to the UGB at the same time;
(c) Public facilities agreements adopted under ORS 195.020 do not intend to provide for urban services
on the subject land unless the public facilities provider agrees to removal of the land from the UGB
and concurrent modification of the agreement;
(d) Removal of the land does not preclude the efficient provision of urban services to any other
buildable land that remains inside the UGB; and
(e) The land removed from the UGB is planned and zoned for rural use consistent with all applicable
laws.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer reads subsection (1) to say that subsection (2) does not apply to exchanges of
land, as subsection (1) treats additions, removals, and exchanges separately. Subsection (2) applies to
removals (not exchanges).
(3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government considering an exchange of land
may rely on the land needs analysis that provided a basis for its current acknowledged plan, rather than
adopting a new need analysis, provided.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer understands this section to provide an exception to sections (1) and (2) of this
rule, subject to the criteria below.
(a) The amount of buildable land added to the UGB to meet:
(A) A specific type of residential need is substantially equivalent to the amount of buildable
residential land removed, or
(B) The amount of employment land added to the UGB to meet an employment need is substantially
equivalent to the amount of employment land removed, and
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that this proposal meets subsection (B) since there is a equal exchange
of employment lands.
(b) The local government must apply comprehensive plan designations and, if applicable, urban zoning
to the land added to the UGB, such that the land added is designated.
(A) For the same residential uses and at the same housing density as the land removed from the
UGB, or
(B) For the same employment uses as allowed on the land removed from the UGB, or
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that this proposal meets subsection (B) since the zone designation will
just be switched from the Exclusion Property to the Inclusion Property.
(C) If the land exchange is intended to provide for a particular industrial use that requires specific
site characteristics, only land zoned for commercial or industrial use may be removed, and the
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 38 of 41
EXHIBIT H
land added must be zoned for the particular industrial use and meet other applicable
requirements of ORS 197A.320(6).
FINDING: The Applicant's response, provided below, responds to the above criteria together.
Several important implications stem from a UGB exchange proposal, as opposed to a net UGB
expansion or reduction. First and foremost, the burden of proof does not require a clear demonstration
that there is a need for more urban land, because no appreciable additional urban land will be included
within the boundary. OAR 660-024-0070 stipulates that: "a local government considering an exchange
of land may rely on its acknowledged population forecast and land needs analysis, rather than adopt
a new forecast and need analysis, provided the land added to the UGB is planned for the same uses."
In terms of a UGB reconfiguration such as the one proposed here, no additional analysis of population
and land need is required, which significantly reduces the scope of a "needs analysis" because the land
to be added is planned for the some uses.
Subsection (a)(A) pertains to residential land and is therefore not relevant to this proposal. Subsection
(a)(B) is relevant and pertains to the exchange of employment land. The manner in which substantial
equivalency is used herein relates specifically to the amount of land. With regard to the type of land,
the language makes a clear and important distinction between suitable and developable employment
land to be added and suitable and developed employment land to be removed. Neither the Inclusion
Land nor the Exclusion Land areas contain otherwise developed lands, so the accounting of
employment land is limited that which is suitable.
Therefore, the accounting of suitable employment land for inclusion is to be based on land that is
suitable to meet a specific employment need and the amount of suitable land for removal is to be
based on land that is suitable employment land without limitations on specific types, uses or needs.
Exhibit R the Alternatives Analysis, includes an ESEE and Goal 14 Analysis, which demonstrates the
manner in which the subject Inclusion Property is suitable to meet a specific type of employment need,
specifically industrial lands detailed in the 2012 Senate Bill 1544. More specifically, the
aforementioned Exhibit demonstrates the comparative ways in which the Exclusion Site is generally
suitable for employment uses, however it is comparatively less appropriate for industrial lands detailed
in the 2012 Senate Bill 1544 based on a comprehensive and thorough ESEE and Goal 14 boundary
location alternatives analysis.
The accounting of Inclusion Land and Exclusion Land thusly, equates to the amount of suitable
employment land to be included for a specific type of employment land compared to the amount of
exclusion land generally suitable for employment. As evidenced by Exhibits K and L the Inclusion Site
is 156 acres and the Exclusion Site is 156 acres of similarly developable land, thus substantially
equivalent.
In regards to Subsection (b)(A), the proposal will not impact residential lands or densities, therefore
that subsection does not apply. In regards to Subsection (b)(B), the Exclusion Lands and the Inclusion
Lands will directly swap plan designations and zoning, thereby providing an equal amount of land for
employment uses in the Redmond UGB. In regards to Subsection (b)(C), the proposal will exchange
industrial land for the uses established in the 2012 Senate Bill 1544. The proposed exchange will
provide more development ready land within the Redmond UGB, by removing 111 acres of M-1 zoned
land and 45 acres of M-2 zoned land, and replacing it with the some industrial acres of the some zones
(111 acres of M-1 and 45 acres of M-2).
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 39 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Regarding applicable requirements of ORS 197A.320(6)6, the Applicant continues with the following:
The exchange property is being offered to better achieve land needs that were detailed in the 2012
Senate Bill 1544 (Exhibit O). As detailed in the Exhibit, this Bill was adopted to accommodate a
particular large lot industrial land type, as detailed therein, amongst other characteristics, the needed
land includes:
• Reliable large -lot, high -value employment sites
• A large site that can be served readily with infrastructure
• A site adjacent to the city's employment and industrial lands
• A site adjacent to Oregon Route 126
• A site close to the Redmond airport, and
• A framework plan for the site that identifies industrial zoning and service commercial zoning
Given the provisions of this section, along with the goal and intent of the 2012 Senate Bill 1544, an
Alternative Lands study area is included in this application (Exhibit R) and it is limited to properties
that are immediately adjacent to the land defined in the 2012 Senate Bill 1544 (and could
comprehensively maintain these site characteristics).
When considering the site specific needs of large -lot, high -value, readily served with infrastructure,
adjacent to employment and industrial lands, adjacent to Oregon Route 126, close proximity to the
Redmond Airport, and an area where the framework plan identifies industrial zoning and service
commercial uses, the Alternatives Analysis documents that the Inclusion Property is the most suitable
property of the Alternatives Analysis. As documented herein and in the Alternatives Analysis, the
proposal meets the applicable requirements of ORS 197A.320(6)
CONCLUSION - As detailed above, OAR 660-024-0070(3) precludes the need for new land needs
analyses. Furthermore, as documented above and referenced in the Alternatives Analysis, with an
ESEE and Goal 14 Boundary Analysis, the proposal conforms to all applicable approval criteria, those
listed in OAR 660-024-0070(3).
The Applicant believes in this case that "demonstration of direct or indirect compliance with OAR 660-024-
0070(1) and (2) (and subsequently the Priority Lands Statute) is not required." While the language of OAR 660-
024-0070 is unclear, no party provides a counter argument, so the Hearings Officer ultimately agrees with the
Applicant. Staff notes it in its Staff Report that it is aware of only one other case in Oregon that involved an
equal exchange UGB adjustment where DLCD accepted the same or similar arguments. In 2015 Lake County
Board of Commissioners and the Town of Lakeview approved an equal exchange UGB amendment in 2015
(Lake County File 15-0043-CPAUGB).
s ORS 197A.320(6) states,
(6) When the primary purpose for expansion of the urban growth boundary is to accommodate a particular industry use
that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that requires specific site characteristics
and the site characteristics may be found in only a small number of locations, the city may limit the study area to
land that has, or could be improved to provide, the required site characteristics. Lands included within an urban
growth boundary for a particular industrial use, or a particular public facility, must remain planned and zoned for the
intended use:
(a) Except as allowed by rule of the commission that is based on a significant change in circumstance or the passage
of time; or
(b) Unless the city removes the land from within the urban growth boundary.
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 40 of 41
EXHIBIT H
Alternatively, in the event the Board of County Commissioners finds that the UGB exchange is not exempt
from the entirety of OAR 660-024-0070(1) and (2), or in part, and compliance with OAR 660-024-0070 in its
entirety applies, the Hearings Officer notes that the Applicant has addressed all subsections of OAR 660-024-
0070 in the submitted Application Narrative (or Burden of Proof Statement) and referenced herein.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the request to
exchange two regions, 156 acres each, of the subject property and change the associated City of Redmond
and Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designations and zones for a UGB reconfiguration. The Applicant
has met the burden of proof through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC
Title 18 (Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable
sections of OAR and ORS. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer recommends the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners approve the requested plan amendment and zone change.
The Applicant submitted a concurrent request to the City of Redmond (file no. 711-19-000163-PA). The
Hearings Officer understands the Redmond Planning Commission reviewed the application on November 18,
2019, and recommended approval to the Redmond City Council.
Dated this 24th day of December, 2019.
Will Van Vactor, Hearings Officer
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC Page 41 of 41
v`(E S COG
Q 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 February 26, 2020
DATE: February 12, 2020
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING: Ordinance No. 2020-002, Redmond UGB
Amendment
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on February 5, 2020 to
consider an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) adjustment and amendments to Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps through file numbers 247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-
ZC. The purpose of the amendments is to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by adding approximately 156
acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the UGB. The
exchange property is intended to better satisfy industrial land needs that were identified in the 2012
Senate Bill 1544 by providing more development -ready land within the Redmond UGB. Following the
public hearing on February 5, 2020, the Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance approving the plan
amendment and zone change. The ordinance is now presented to the Board for consideration of
second reading.
City of Redmond has concurrently reviewed this proposal through Redmond file number. 711-19-
000163-PA. Redmond City Council adopted the proposal on January 14, 2020 through Ordinance
2020-001, contingent on Board approval.
The Board will hold a second reading of Ordinance No. 2020-002 on February 26, 2020. This is the
second of two required ordinance readings. The first was conducted on February 12, 2020. Exhibit B
and Exhibit C of the attached ordinance have been updated to reflect format changes to the document
header but otherwise the attached ordinance is unchanged from the first version.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
E S COG
o-A 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 February 12, 2020
DATE: February 5, 2020
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
FIRST READING: Ordinance No. 2020-002, Redmond UGB Amendment
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on February 5, 2020 to
consider an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) adjustment and amendments to Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning maps through file numbers 247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-
ZC. The purpose of the amendments is to reconfigure the Redmond UGB by adding approximately 156
acres of land into the UGB in exchange for removing equivalent area of land from the UGB. The
exchange property is intended to better satisfy industrial land needs that were identified in the 2012
Senate Bill 1544 by providing more development -ready land within the Redmond UGB. Following the
public hearing on February 5, 2020, the Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance approving the plan
amendment and zone change. Staff has provided the requisite documents for the Board to consider
first reading if deemed appropriate.
City of Redmond has concurrently reviewed this proposal through Redmond file number. 711-19-
000163-PA. Redmond City Council adopted the proposal on January 14, 2020 through Ordinance
2020-001, contingent on Board approval.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner