Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2020-401-Minutes for Meeting November 09,2020 Recorded 12/1/2020wTES CO
o� BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541 ) 388-6570
• 11
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2020_401
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' .journal 12/01 /2020 9:07:39 AM
2020-401
1 1x
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
Monday, November 9, 2020 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS
VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone and Commissioner Phil Henderson. Also
present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (via Zoom conference
call and in person); and Samantha Pepper, Board Administrative Assistant (via Zoom conference call).
Attendance was limited due to Governor's Virus Orders.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.a5px
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT:
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda.
HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 1 OF 9
VOTE: HENDERON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-064, Approving and
Confirming the Sale of Certain Real Property Acquired by Deschutes County
ACTION ITEMS:
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Property Line Adjustments and 10-Lot Subdivision in
the Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) Zone.
County Associate Planner Kyle Collin explains the process of the public
hearing. He goes on to explain the staff report. Commissioner DeBone asked
for clarity of the lot line adjustment and if the lot sizes have to be at least 10
acres. Commissioner Henderson mentions that building along a river there is
rlecivn re;iie;ni Cnmmiccinner I-lenrlarcnn ackerl abni it exrantinnc to the high
water mark and 100 foot setback. Commissioner Adair clarifies issue
regarding condition EE and the appellant's request. Attorney Laura Craska
Cooper introduces her clients, the Smallwoods. Scott Smallwood explains
why they choose this property to further develop so they could provide for
friends and family. Commissioner Henderson asked Ms. Cooper why they
want the county to enforce the road agreement instead of the private
parties. Ms. Cooper states that they will too. She also adds that they have
been in conversation with the Forest Service and BLM on natural habitat and
wildlife passes. The Smallwoods Engineer, Scott Gilbride explains that there
will be no development near the rim of the Deschutes River. Commissioner
DeBone asked him to explain what a terrence is. Keith Dagostino explains
that the high water mark does not touch lots 3, 7 or 8. Ms. Cooper again
requests removing condition EE. Commissioner DeBone asks staff for a map
with the high water mark line on it. Mr. Dagostino explains that the high
water mark is shown on the topography map. Mr. Smallwood adds that he
and his wife are working hard to comply with design standards but they are
not easy to follow in county code. Attorney Liz Fancher introduces herself.
She represents the property to the south owned by Elkins. She explains her
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 9
client's concern for the maintenance of the road. Commissioner Henderson
asked how many houses are on the Pacific Cascade Heights Rd. Response:
there are 14, 10 acre lots.
Commissioner Adair closes the public hearing. Commissioners agree to
extend the written record until November 30tn. Deliberations will commence
on December 9tn
3. Fair & Expo Quarter 1 Update
County Fair and Expo Director Geoff Hinds introduces the Deschutes County
Fair Board as part of this presentation. Mr. Hinds updates Commissioners on
the Fair and Expo operations and financials. Handout included.
RECESS: At the time of 11:24 a.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened the
meeting at 11:28 a.m.
4. Consideration of Grant Application for Quick Deploy Shelter.
Emergency Manager Nathan Garibay explains that the Sheriffs Office is
requesting authorization to apply for grant for a quick deploy shelter which
would be used for incident command operations.
DEBONE: Move Board approval in support of application for
quick deploy shelter.
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 9
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
5. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2020-293, St. Charles
Psychiatric Emergency Services/Sage View Agreement.
Behavioral Health Deputy Directorjanice Garceau explains the agreement.
The delay was caused by contract review and insurance issues at St. Charles.
Those have been resolved.
DEBONE: Move approval of Board signature of Document
No. 2020-293.
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
6. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2020-770, a
Revocable License for Dr. Jeanne Young, DC, DIBCN.
Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp explained the revocable license for
Dr. Jeanne Young. Dr. Young operates a mobile COVID19 testing unit and has
been CARES Act funded by the County to service high need populations. This
license would allow her to park her service van in the west parking lot of the
Deschutes County Services Building. This license would expire on December
31, 2020.
HENDERSON: Move approval of Board signature of Document
No. 2020-770.
DEBONE: Second
VOTE:
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 9
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No 2020-710,
Replacement of DCSO's Exterior Siding and Windows as Needed to
Building 10.
Sheriffs Office Business Manager Joe Brundage explains the need to replace
siding and windows of the Sheriffs Office Administration Building.
Commissioner Henderson adds that he appreciates the Sheriffs Office
getting bids for this project.
DEBONE: Move approval of Board signature of Document
2020-710.
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
Ar)AIR- Chair vntPc \/PC Mntinn CarriPrl
LUNCH RECESS: At the time of 11:50 a.m. the Board took a lunch recess and
reconvened the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
8. COVID19 Update
Public Health Director Nahad Sadr- Azodi briefly presents the most recent
COVID19 update. Commissioner Henderson mentions a letter sent to the
Board from the Bend- La Pine Schools. Commissioner Adair asks if Mr. Sadr-
Azodi has thoughts as to why some schools in the region are opening and
some are not. Mr. Sadr- Azodi states the importance of wearing a mask and
social distancing. Commissioner Henderson adds that many businesses in
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 9
the county have been realizing significant fiscal impacts due to the virus.
Commissioner DeBone clarifies that Bend- La Pine schools has sent a letter
to the Commissioners to consider imposing local restrictions on businesses
in order to assist in getting the positive COVID numbers down. Commissioner
Adair asks Mr. Sadr- Azodi to provide a breakdown on cases in the hospital
and from where each patient came from. Commissioner Henderson adds
that 16% of the positive cases are asymptomatic.
9. CARES Act Funding Update
Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn updates Commissioners on CARES Act
funding distribution. Commissioner Adair asks for an update on the
community survey and navigator spending. Commissioner Adair also
mentions the left over amount for FMLA Expanded Leave funds that if
unused can be put towards business grants. Mr. Munn adds that Mosaic
Medical and the Health Department are in communication to use testing
funds and will have an update to Commissioners next Friday. Commissioner
Ariair ackpri Whn is rininu tha Inn¢ term rare farility ta-,tinsy Mr Anriarcnn
suggests bringing back options for this funding next week. Commissioner
Adair asks were the recently obtained ventilators are.
10. Discussion on BioCarbon Solutions Proposal
Director of Solid Waste Timm Schimke updates Commissioners on the
proposal. He asks Commissioners if they would like to continue reviewing the
Bio Carbon proposal or go another route. There was discussion of other
options that could be available. Discussion to follow at future meeting.
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 6 OF 9
11. Housing Strategies Project Discussion
Associate Planner Tanya Saltzman introduces the Housing Strategies Project
discussion. Ms. Saltzman presented the Commissioners with a draft Rural
Housing Profile. Commissioner DeBone suggests getting community citizens
in reading this and informing everyone of information it provides.
Community Development Director Nick Lelack mentions that he received the
legislative action the ADUs will be on the legislative agenda for next year.
Discussion will follow at a future BOCC meeting.
Commissioner Adair excuses herself for the following discussion.
12. Consideration: Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision on a Proposal to
Construct a New Hydroelectric Facility in Conjunction with the
irrigatinn System Owned and Operatedd by the Three Sisters irrigation
District (TSID) and a Lot of Record Verification for the Subject Property
Planning Associate Tarik Rawlings introduces the appeal of the Hydroelectric
Facility in Conjunction with the Irrigation System Owned and Operated by the
Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID) and a Lot of Record Verification appeal.
Commissioner DeBone states that he would like to hear the appeal.
Commissioner Henderson realizes that this topic will end up at LUBA but he
is willing to hear the appeal. Peter Gutowsky mentions timing issues given
the Board schedule around the upcoming holidays. Assistant Legal Counsel
Adam Smith notes the certainty of the hearing occurring in the New Year
with a new BOCC Board. He suggested that for today, the Commissioners
simply agree to hear the appeal. Staff will then work with the parties on
scheduling.
HENDERSON: Move approval of Board signature of Order No.
2020-060 hearing the appeal de novo.
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 7 OF 9
VOTE: HEDNERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Absent
OTHER ITEMS:
• Mr. Anderson asked for feedback on the DRRH joint meeting agenda for next
week.
• Commissioner Adair mentioned that she had interviews for the behavioral
health board last week.
• Commissioner Henderson thanks his fellow Commissioners for a great 4
years.
• Commissioner DeBone met with the new La Pine city manager last week.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of the Board went into Executive Session at 3:29 p.m. under ORS
192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:38 p.m.
Staff was directed to proceed as discussed.
At the time of the Board went into Executive Session at 3:38 p.m. under ORS
192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:56 p.m.
Staff was directed to proceed as discussed.
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 8 OF 9
At the time of the Board went into Executive Session at 3:57 p.m. under ORS
192.660 (2) (f) Consider exempt records and documents. The Board came out of
Executive Session at 4:16 p.m. Informational only.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:16 PM
i
DATED this6 Day of&w4ff 2020 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTI A AIR, CHAP
;ail ff
tr
� t_ � � ., to €� ( � `• f .. ''Z ..
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020 PAGE 9 OF 9
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.orZ
BOCC MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
9:00 AM, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
This meeting is open to the public, and allows the Board to gather information and give direction to staff. Public
comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
MEETING FORMAT
In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order
20-16 (later enacted as part of HB 4212) directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever
possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings.
Since May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners have been
conducted primarily in a virtual format. Attendance/Participation options include:
Live Stream Video: Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the
Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetings.
In Person Attendance: Limited due to Virus restrictions. Please contact Sharon Keith at
sharon.keithPdeschutes.org prior to the meeting to request in person attendance.
Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any
meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by submitting an email to:
citizen in put@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. Citizen input received before
the start of the meeting will be included in the meeting record.
Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for
consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom
meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, November 9, 2020 Page 1
of 4
through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the
Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to
present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are
providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room until the time of testimony,
staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited for testimony. Detailed
instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be announced at the outset of the
public hearing.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-064, Approving and
Confirming the Sale of Certain Real Property Acquired by Deschutes County
ACTION ITEMS
2. 9:00 AM PUBLIC HEARING: Property Line Adjustments and 10-Lot Subdivision in
the Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) Zone - Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
3. 10:30 AM Fair & Expo Quarter 1 Update - Geoff Hinds, Fair & Expo Director
4. 11:00 AM Consideration of Grant Application for Quick Deploy Shelter - Nathan
Garibay, Emergency Manager
5. 11:10 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2020-293. St.
Charles Psychiatric Emergency Services/Sage View Agreement -,Janice
Garceau, BH Deputy Director
6. 11:15 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2020-770, a
Revocable License for Dr. Jeanne Young, DC, DIBCN. - Kristie Bollinger,
Property Manager
7. 11:20 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Document No 2020-710,
Replacement of DCSO's Exterior Siding and Windows as Needed to
Building 10. -Joe Brundage,
LUNCH RECESS
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, November 9, 2020 Page 2
of 4
8. 1:00 PM COVID19 Update
9. 1:30 PM CARES Act Funding Update
10. 1:40 PM Discussion on BioCarbon Solutions Proposal - Timm Schimke, Director of
Solid Waste
11. 2:00 PM Housing Strategies Project Discussion - Tanya Saltzman, Associate
Planner
12. 2:20 PM Consideration: Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision on a Proposal to
Construct a New Hydroelectric Facility in Conjunction with the
Irrigation System Owned and Operated by the Three Sisters Irrigation
District (TSID) and a Lot of Record Verification for the Subject Property
- Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
13. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation
14. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation
ADJOURN
To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, November 9, 2020 Page 3
of 4
Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past
meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs
and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need
accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, November 9, 2020 Page 4
of 4
1 E S CO
�� G2
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 Monday Meeting of November 9, 2020
DATE: November 2, 2020
FROM: Kyle Collins, Community Development, 541-383-4427
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING: Property Line Adjustments and 10-Lot Subdivision in the Urban Area
Reserve (UAR10) Zone
The Applicants have requested two property line adjustments to increase the size of the subject
property (located at 19800 Pacific Heights Road) to 100.1 acres. Concurrent with the property line
adjustments, the Applicants requested a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision in Urban
Area Reserve (UAR10) Zone.
I I_ _ subject
public
I leari cull. vv. ' 1 Fi1 IC11 IJ. al 11163 nFfi.-..r uck.irion hic, i approved
1 IIC SUU�CCI pllulll 1ICdl Ing IUIIUVVJ gill appeal vl a In lal r Ical n ISM vrll�cl uc�l�lvl l vvl nil l appr vvcu
the proposal on August 13, 2020.
TO:
FROM:
117_VI 1 : 9
MEMORANDUM
Board of County Commissioners
Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
November 2nd, 2020
RE: Public Hearing to Address an Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision on a Property Line
Adjustment and Tentative Plan review for a 10-lot subdivision in the Urban Area
Reserve Zone (UAR10).
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on November 9, 2020 to
hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision (File Nos. 247-19-000913-LL, 247-19-000914-TP)
approving a 10-lot subdivision in the UAR10 Zone.
I. BACKGROUND
The property subject to this application is located approximately 0.6 miles northwest of the City of
Bend. The specific location is noted in the following table:
Map Number & Tax Lot
Address
17-12-07, 501
119800 Pacific Heights Road, Bend, OR 97703
The Applicants, Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood, have requested two property line adjustments to
increase the size of the subject property to 100.1 acres. Concurrent with the property line
adjustments, the Applicants requested a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision.
The subject property is 100.00 acres in size (100.1 acres after the proposed property line
adjustments) and is irregular in shape. The subject property is currently undeveloped and has a
vegetative cover of juniper trees, sagebrush, and other native vegetation. The site is primarily level,
with a large descent towards the Deschutes River canyon along the western and northwestern
portion of the parcel. The property is accessed via Pacific Heights Road, a rural local right-of-way to
the east, which extends from OB Riley Road. A private airstrip identified on Deschutes County
Zoning Maps is located in the central portion of the property.
11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q� (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd
II. HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
Deschutes County Hearings Officer Will Van Vactor rendered a final decision approving the
Applicant's request for a property line adjustment and a 10-lot subdivision in the UAR10 Zone. A
primary point of contention during the initial public hearing addressed the issue of when Site Plan
Review is required for development within the Deschutes River Corridor. As a part of that final
decision, the Hearings Officer included the following findings as they relate to DCC 19.76.090,
Deschutes River Corridor Design Review:
A portion of the subject property is located within the Deschutes River Corridor. However, staff
notes that while a portion of the subject property is located within this area, the proposed
application is for a series of property line adjustments and a 10-lot residential subdivision. As
such, no "new development, structures, additions and exterior alterations to structures,
including outside storage and off-street parking lots" are proposed on the subject property. For
these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that this proposed tentative plan project is not subject
to a Design Review Process.
Regarding future development, though, the Nyes, contend that DCC 19.76.090 requires Design
Review for any lot partially within the Deschutes River Corridor. On the other hand, the
Applicant's attorney contends such review is only required for improvements constructed within
100 feet of the high water mark.
DCC 19.04 defines "Deschutes River Corridor" as "all property within 100 feet of the ordinary
high water mark of the Deschutes River. The ordinary high water mark shall be as defined in
DCC 19.04.040." The interpretations provided bythe Nyes and the Applicant as noted both seem
reasonable. Ultimately, though, the Code provides the necessary context in which to interpret
whether only land within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark is subject to design review, or
whether property that is at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark is
subject to design review, even for improvements are more than 100 feet outside the high water
mark.
The drafters' intent can be discerned by reading the whole of DCC 19.76.090. Subsection (D)
imposes minimum standards on development subject to design review in the Deschutes River
Corridor. One standard is the minimum setback. The minimum setback for buildings in the
Corridor is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. DCC 19.76.090(D)(1). If the design review
only applies to land within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark, but development is
prohibited within 100 feet of high water mark by the setback, the remaining development
standards, including the minimum standards and site and design review criteria, would be
pointless since all development would fall outside the Corridor as a result of the setback. In other
words, the building height, conservation, compatibility, and colors and materials provisions
would never be implicated since no development would occur within 100 feet of the high water
marker pursuant to the setback. The Hearings Officer does not believe that was the intent of the
drafters.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 2 of 8
Accordingly, the Hearings Officer agrees with the interpretation provided by the Nyes' attorney
that the design review under 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any
lot partially within the corridor.
With that interpretation in mind, the Hearings Officer finds any "new development, structures,
additions and exterior alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking
lots" which are proposed on a lot that falls at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark is subject to the design review process. To ensure compliance future development
within the subdivision complies with the requirements of this criterion, the Hearings Officer
adopts the following condition of approval.
Future Development: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision
shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
As noted above, the Hearings Officer finds both interpretations plausible. On appeal, the
Applicants specifically request the Board address this issue.
III. APPEAL
The Applicants submitted a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's final decision on August 26, 2020.
Specifically, the Applicants have requested review of the findings listed above as they relate to DCC
19.76.090. To support the appeal, the Applicants provided the following materials:
Statement of Issue Relied Upon for Appeal - DCC 22.32.020(A)
The Applicant respectfully appeals the Corrected Hearings Officer Decision, which was mailed
August 7, 2020 (the "Decision"), for the limited reasons set forth below. Specifically, the Applicant
appeals the imposition of Condition of Approval EE. "Design Review: Future development on lots
3,4,5,6,7, and B of the proposed subdivision shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC
19.76.090."
The Applicant believes that this condition of approval is not warranted by County Code, and that
the Hearings Officer incorrectly interpreted the applicability and terms of DCC 19.76.090.
Accordingly, the Applicant asks the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to hear this
appeal, to review this condition, and to delete the condition from the Tentative Plan Approval
(247-19-000914-TP).
Background
DCC 19.76.090(C) states as follows:
"Design Review Procedure. All new development, structures, additions and exterior
alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots within the
Deschutes River Corridor, are subject to a Design Review Process." (Emphasis added).
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 3 of 8
DCC 19.04.040 defines the "Deschutes River corridor" (Sic) as:
*[A]II property within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Deschutes River, The
ordinary high water mark shall be as defined in DCC 19.04.040." (Emphasis added).
Thus, under County Code, improvements to be built within 100 feet of the ordinary high water
mark of the Deschutes River are subject to the Design Review Process under DCC 19.15.090. But
improvements to be built outside that 100 feet are not.
The Hearings Officer changed the language of the Code by determining that "design review
under DCC 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any lot partially within
the corridor." Decision, Pg. 61. (Emphasis added). The Decision thus requires that "[f]uture
development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision shall be subject to Site Plan
review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090." Id. at 62.
This application of DCC 19.76.090 is directly contradicted by the plain language in the code. A
portion of each of lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision does extend into the
Deschutes River Corridor. However, the topography of these lots will preclude any development
from occurring within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Deschutes River. In fact,
the topography would even prevent development within 200 feet from the high water mark of
the Deschutes River.
In short, County code requires site plan review under DCC 19.76.090 only for improvements
within the Deschutes River Corridor, meaning within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark
of the Deschutes River. The Hearings Officer's interpretation, which is not justified by the plain
language of the code, would instead redraft the code to require such design review if any portion
of a lot to be developed is within the Deschutes River Corridor, regardless of how big the lot is,
regardless of how far it extends away from the River, and regardless of how far away the
proposed development is to occur.
The Hearings Officer's stated that his decision was driven by the fact that DCC 19.76.090.(D).1.
establishes a minimum setback of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Given this, he
wrote, the drafters of the Code must have intended that the site and design review in the
Deschutes River Corridor must apply to more than just the first 100 feet from the ordinary high
water mark. Otherwise, he reasoned, why would there be a design review for just the first 100
feet from the high water mark if there's already a 100 foot setback from the high water mark, In
short, he believes that the Applicant's reading of the Code would render the design review
process and site and design review criteria extraneous and never used.
But the Hearings Officer is mistaken because under the Applicant's reading of the plain
language, the design review process still applies in two situations: (i) when an applicant can
justify constructing improvements closer to the River than 100 feet; and (ii) when a parcel is
within the Deschutes River Corridor, but not within the land that is subject to the 100 foot
setback, as specified in DCC 19.76.090.(D).1.(a) and (b)
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 4 of 8
The Hearings Officer's logic only works if you stop reading DCC 19.76.090.(D).1 after the first 24
words. The rest of that section states that the 100 feet setback applies "unless the applicant can
demonstrated that a lesser setback is warranted, due to log size and shape, topography,
preservation of natural vegetation, view corridors, and subject to the criteria in DCC
19.76.090.(E)." In other words, the site and design review criteria under DCC 19.76.090.(E)
specifically apply if the applicant has requested a lesser setback than 100 feet.
In addition, the Applicant notes that the section of the code on the 100-foot setback only applies
to specific parcels of land in the Deschutes River Corridor (see DCC 19.76.090.(D).1.a and b.).
Thus, there are other parcels of land in the County that might be partially located within the
Deschutes River Corridor (i.e., within 100 feet of the high water mark of the River) but that are
NOT subject to the 100 foot setback in this section. The site and design review criteria of DCC
19.76.090.(E) would apply to those portions of land, too. The Hearings Officer is mistaken in
thinking that the Applicant's reading of the plain language of the code creates an inconsistency
within the code.
The Applicant appeals the Hearings Officer's conclusion as it incorrectly interprets the language
of DCC 19.76.090 and improperly extends the Design Review process of DCC 19.76.090 to
development outside of the Deschutes River Corridor.
The Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") limit
the appeal to these issues.
Reasons Whv the Board of -Co nty Commissioners Should Review the Lower Hearings Bodv's
Decision - DCC 22.32.020(B)
The Hearings Officers' interpretation of DCC 19.76.090 effectively redrafts DCC 19.76.090 and
circumvents the formal process of public participation and decision by the people's elected
representatives. The Hearings Officer's role is to apply the Deschutes County Code (the "Code"),
or, when necessary, interpret the Code, but not to add language or change the plain language
to impose additional requirements. The Decision currently exceeds this limited scope and
effectively adds language to DCC 19.76.090. The Code represents the intent and will of the
residents of Deschutes County and its meaning should be determined by the Board as their
elected representatives. Such an important decision should not be decided by the Hearings
Officer or the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Code's intent and meaning should reflect the
intent of Deschutes County's elected representatives, and thus review by the Board is necessary
to correct the Hearings Officer's mistake.
Furthermore, the Decision places an undue burden upon the Applicant as well as all Deschutes
County land owners who may have a portion of their properties within the Deschutes River
Corridor. The design review process will require significant delays (likely adding 6 or more
months of delay), cost, expense, and unnecessary development requirements, which were not
intended by the Code, Property owners who wish to develop a significant distance from the
Deschutes River Corridor will now be required to comply with the design review process if even
a small portion of their lot extends into the Deschutes River Corridor. In a plain reading of DCC
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 5 of 8
19.76.090, it is clear that these requirements should only apply to development within the
Deschutes River Corridor and the additional requirements resulting from the Decision should
not be imposed upon Deschutes County residents.
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
Staff notes that no other portion of the Hearings Officer decision has been appealed or disputed
beyond those sections outlined in DCC 19.76.090, either bythe Applicant or other interested parties.
At present, staff believes that either interpretation of DCC 19.76.090 provided by both the Hearings
Officer and the Applicant is plausible. However, staff notes that unless an applicant were to
specifically request a variance to the 100-foot river setback distances outlined in DCC
19.76.090(D)(1), the provisions of DCC 19.76.090 will no longer apply to all remaining properties
located within the Deschutes River Corridor should the Board concur with the argument outlined
above by the Applicants.
Additionally, staff finds that should the Board uphold the Hearings Officer decision to require Site
Plan review for those parcels in the Deschutes River Corridor, they should also provide clarity on
the review body which will conduct the Site Plan review. Staff notes that DCC 19.76.090(A)(5)
identifies the "Bend Urban Area Planning Commission" as the appropriate review body. However,
staff points out this commission no longer exists as a functional review body.
As guidance, staff points out that in a previous decision concerning the Deschutes River Corridor
Design Review standards of DCC 19.76.090, staff referred the application to the Deschutes County
Planning Division as an appropriate replacement review body (247-15-000333-CU, 334-SP).
V. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The applications for file nos. 247-19-000913-LL and 247-19-000914-TP were submitted on
December 30, 2019. The applications were deemed incomplete and an incomplete letter was sent
on January 29, 2020. The Applicants provided additional information and the applications were
subsequently deemed complete on March 3, 2020. On March 30, 2020, the Applicants submitted a
written request to extend the land use review clock by 90 days.
Subsequently, Deschutes County Hearings Officer Will Van Vactor issued a final decision approving
the development proposal on August 14, 2020. Staff notes that a corrected Hearings Officer decision
was mailed on August 17, 2020 to account for a scrivener's error on the initial mailed decision, which
incorrectly stated that the final decision was rendered on July 13, 2020. Staff finds that no parties
have formally objected to the corrected mailing date at this time, and the final appeal period for the
Hearings Officer decision closed on August 26, 2020.
Subsequently, Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood, the applicants for the initial proposal, submitted a
Notice of Appeal for the Hearings Officer's decision on August 26, 2020, before the close of the
appeal period (file no. 247-20-000580-A).
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 6 of 8
As noted above, the Applicants submitted a written request to extend the land use review clock by
90 days. Additionally, on August 28, 2020 and September 9, 2020 respectively, the Applicants
submitted written requests to extend the land use review clock by an additional 61 days.
Based on the written extension requests, the new date the County must take final action on these
applications is December 31, 2020.
Attachments:
Document
Item No.
2020-11-02 - L Cooper Comments
48
2020-10-31 - L Fancher Comments
47
2020-10-15 - Bulletin Affidavit
46
2020-10-14 - Order No. 2020-058 (Waiving Transcript Requirements)
45
2020-10-13 - Notice of Public Hearing
44
2020-09-09 - Order No. 2020-053 (Calling -Up Review)
43
2020-09-08 - L Cooper Email RE Clock Extension
42
2020-08-28 - L Cooper Email RE Clock Extension
41
2020-08-26 - Notice of Appeal
40
2019-08-17 - Corrected Hearings Officer Decision
39
2020-08-14 - Hearings Officer Decision
38
2020-07-21 - S McGilp Email RE Applicant Final Response
37
2020-07-14 - L Fancher Email RE Rebuttal
36
2020-07-14 - B HedRpeth email RE Rebuttal
35
2020-06-30 - S Dahlen Comments 2
34
2020-06-30 - S Dahlen Comments
33
2020-06-30 - R Kelleher (Pacific Heights Road Dept) Comments
32
2020-06-30 - M McGean Comments
31
2020-06-30 - L Fancher Comments
30
2020-06-30 - L Cooper Comments
29
2020-06-26 - L Whitcomb (OPRD) Comments
28
2020-06-25 - Staff Report
27
2020-06-24 - L Cooper email RE BPRD comments
26
2020-06-11 - R Scheid (Bldg Div) Comments
25
2020-06-10 - Bulletin Affidavit
24
2020-06-09 - Notice of Public Hearing
23
2020-06-04 - L Fancher Comments
22
2020-04-24 - J Shockley Email
21
2020-03-30 - L Cooper Email RE Clock Extension
20
2020-03-25 - S Dahlen Comments
19
2020-03-03 - Revised Tentative Plan
18
2020-03-03 - Incomplete Response
17
2020-03-02 - K Collins Email RE Cul-de-sac information
16
2020-01-30 - P Russell (Sr Trans Planner) Comments
15
2020-01-30 - C Smith (Road Dept) Comments
14
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 7 of 8
2020-01-29 - S Bodo (BPRD) Comments
13
2020-01-29 - L Medina (Bend Fire) Comments
12
2020-01-29 - Incomplete Letter
11
2020-01-28 - B Tinsley (OPRD) Comments
10
2020-01-24 - R Kelleher (Pacific Heights Road Dept) Comments
9
2020-01-24 - M McGean Comments
8
2020-01-14 - T Cleveland (Env. Soils) Comments
7
2019-01-14 - Notice of Application
6
2020-01-08 - Prior Notice Email
5
2020-01-06 - Wetland Land Use Notice Response
4
2019-12-31 -Pacific Power Will Serve Letter
3
2019-12-30 - 19-914-TP Application Materials
2
2019-12-30 - 19-913-LL Application Materials
1
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 8 of 8
B R I X I LAW
November 2, 2020 .
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
C/o Kyle Collins, Association Planner
kvle.collins@deschutes.orq
Re: File Nos. 247-19-0009.13-LL and 247-19-000914-TP
Dear Board of Commissioners:
This firm represents Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood, the "Applicant" and Appellant pursuant
to the above -referenced applications, and the owners of the subject property. Please accept
this letter on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant.
The Applicant appeals the Corrected Hearings Officer Decision, which was mailed August 17,
2020 (the "Decision"), because the Applicant/Appellant believes the Hearings Officer
improperly imposed Condition of Approval EE. "Design Review: Future development on lots
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant
to DCC 19.76.090."
The Applicant believes that this condition of approval is not warranted by County Code, and
that the Hearings Officer incorrectly interpreted the applicability and terms of DCC
19.76.090. Accordingly, the Applicant asks the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
to delete the condition from the Tentative Plan Approval (247-19-000914-TP).
In all other respects, the Applicant agrees with the Decision and requests that the Board of
rnmmiccinnars ramnvP C'nnditinn FF and affirm the balance of the Decision
Background
DCC 19.76.090(C) states as follows:
"Design Review Procedure. All new development, structures, additions and exterior
alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots within
the Deschutes River Corridor, are subject to a Design Review Process." (Emphasis
added).
DCC 19.04.040 defines the "Deschutes River corridor" (Sic) as:
"[A]II property within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Deschutes
River. The ordinary high water mark shall be as defined in DCC 19.04.040."
(Emphasis added).
Thus, under County Code, improvements to be built within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of the Deschutes River are subject to the Design Review Process under DCC
19.15.090. But improvements to be built outside that 100 feet are not.
1. Hearings Officer's Decision Contradicts Plain Code Language:
The Hearings Officer changed the language of the Code by determining that "design review
under DCC 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any lot partially
within the corridor." Decision, Pg. 61. (Emphasis added). The Decision thus requires that
{oo14so32M
"[f]uture development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision shall be
subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090." Id. at 62.
This application of DCC 19.76.090 is directly contradicted by the plain language in the code.
A portion of each of lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision does extend into the
Deschutes River Corridor. However, the topography of these lots will preclude any
development from occurring within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the
Deschutes River. In fact, the topography would even prevent development within 200 feet
from the high water mark of the Deschutes River.
In short, County code requires site plan review under DCC 19.76.090 only for improvements
within the Deschutes River Corridor, meaning within 100 feet of the ordinary high water
mark of the Deschutes River. The Hearings Officer's interpretation, which is not justified by
the plain language of the code, would instead redraft the code to require such design review
if any gortion of a lot to be developed is within the Deschutes River Corridor, regardless of
how big the lot is, regardless of how far it extends away from the River, and regardless of
how far away the proposed development is to occur.
2. Hearings Officer's Decision Relies on Flawed Logic.
The Hearings Officer's imposition of Condition EE is also erroneous because it relies on
flawed logic. Essentially, the Hearings Officer determined that the plain language of the
code rendered part of the code irrelevant, and, therefore, the plain language must not mean
what it says. For the reasons described below, he was mistaken. The plain language is
internally consistent and there is no need to interpret the code to mean something else.
The Hearings Officer's stated that his decision was driven by a belief that there were two
reasonable interpretations of DCC 19.76.090. In the Decision, he stated his belief that the
statute could reasonably be interpreted to apply design review either:
(i) to the land that is within 100 feet of the high water mark of the Deschutes
River, which the applicant argued; OR
(ii) to all land within a lot, if any portion of the lot is within 100 feet of the high
water mark of the Deschutes River, which an opponent argued.
Because of an erroneous reading of the text of DCC 19.76.090.D1., the Hearings Officer
concluded that the drafters of the statute must have intended the latter. In other words, the
Hearings Officer embarked on a statutory analysis to justify an interpretation of the statute
that contradicts the plain language of the statute.
Oregon law is clear that it is not a decision -maker's role to change the language of a
statute: "Where statutes are clear in there terms, there is no need to, rather it is improper
to, proceed with the application of rules of statutory construction." State v. Hillier, 22
Or.App 57 (1975).
In this case, the Hearings Officer contradicted the plain language (as noted above) of the
statute and found a problem with that plain language that does not exist.
His rationale was as follows:
(i) The definition of Deschutes River Corridor refer to the first 100 feet from the high
water mark of the River;
(ii) The code says that design review applies within the Deschutes River Corridor;
{00145032;1}
(iii) But section 19.76.090.D.1 establishes a 100-foot setback;
(iv) If design review only occurs within the 100-foot strip and that 100-foot strip is
also a mandatory setback, then there would never been need for design review;
(v) Thus, the drafters must not have intended that design review only apply within
the Deschutes River Corridor;
(vi) The drafters must have intended that design review apply to the entire lot or
parcel if ANY portion of such lot/parcel is within the Deschutes River Corridor.
The Hearings Officer relies upon his perceived flaw in the statute: If design review only
applies to the first 100 feet, and there is a 100-foot setback, then there will never be design
review.
In reaching this conclusion, the Hearings Officer missed an important fact - the 100-foot
setback does not always apply AND the statute allows for exceptions to the 100-
foot setback. The design review process and criteria are intended for these two situations.
Those two situations are: (i) when an applicant can justify constructing improvements closer
to the River than 100 feet; and (ii) when a parcel is within the Deschutes River Corridor, but
not within the land that is subject to the 100 foot setback, as specified in DCC
19.76.090.(D).i.a. and b. In fact, DCC 19.76.090.D. even specifically notes that if an
applicant can justify a less-than-100-foot setback, then his/her application is subject to the
criteria in DCC 19.76.090.E (i.e., the design review criteria).
In summary, contrary to the Hearings Officer's conclusion, the code is clear and internally
consistent. The Deschutes River Corridor is only 100 feet. Design review under 19.76.090
does only apply to that Corridor. And, while there are some properties that will be subject to
the 100 foot setback and will, therefore, not be subject to design review, there are other
Drooerties in the Corridor that will not be subject to the 100-foot setback and, therefore, will
be subject to design review. There is no need for the Hearings Officer to redraft the code to
mean something other than its plain language. It should be applied as written.
3. Conclusion.
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Applicant's other submissions and at the hearing,
the Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of Commissioners reverse the Hearings
Officer with respect to Condition EE, and find that the Design Review process and criteria of
DCC 19.76,090 only apply to development within the Deschutes River Corridor, i.e.,
development within 100 feet of the high water mark of the Deschutes River. Thus, the
Applicant/Appellant requests that the Board of Commissioners either remove Condition EE
altogether, or adopt the following:
EE. Desian Review. For future development on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of
the proposed subdivision, any portion of development that is proposed to be
located within the Deschutes River Corridor, as defined in DCC 19.04.040, will
be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
Sincerely,
Z-aW� CA a,G ('er< ,
Laura Craska Cooper
{00145032;1}
LIZ FANCHEZ, A7-7-02NEY
October 31, 2020
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CIO KYLE COLLINS
DESCHUTES COUNTY CDD
117 NW LAFAYETTE AVENUE
BEND, OR 97703
Re: 247-19-000914-TP and 247-19-00913-LL
I am writing on behalf of the Edward J. Elkins, Doris E. Elkins and the Elkins Family
Revocable Trust (collectively referred to as "Elkins"). The Elkins own a 312.39-acre tract
of land zoned UAR-10 that adjoins the southern boundary of the Smallwood Property.
Both the Smallwood Property and Pacific Cascade Heights ("PCH") subdivision were once
part of the Elkins property.
-2-
Requested Action
The Elkins ask the Board to adopt a finding missing from the appealed decision —
that DCC 17.16.105 does not require the Smallwoods to maintain Pacific Heights Road in
the PCH subdivision because maintenance of the road was assigned to the PCH by a
maintenance covenant.
The Elkins also asks the Board to delete Condition of Approval EE of the appealed
decision. It erroneously requires Deschutes River Corridor Design Review approval for
development located outside of the Deschutes River Corridor — not inside it the corridor as
plainly required by the code.
Background
In 2005, the Elkins sold the Pacific Cascade Heights ("PCH") property to Brooks Land and
Cattle Company, LLC ("Brooks"). Elkins retained an easement over the PCH property for
use by the Smallwood and Elkins properties and Brooks was required to maintain the road
(now Pacific Heights Road) for use by the Elkins and Smallwood properties.
In 2011, Deschutes County issued a tentative plan approval for the Pacific Cascade Heights
subdivision. The decision required that the developer record a road maintenance covenant
that would require the PCH homeowners to maintain all PCH subdivision roads. This same
requirement has been applied to the Smallwood subdivision and will apply to any
subdivision of the Elkins property.
In May 2017, Elkins agreed to release the easement over the Brooks/PCH property if
Pacific Heights Road was dedicated, improved and "open for use by the public." Deschutes
Official Records 2017-020127, p. 3. In October 2017, Deschutes County approved the
final plat of PCH without public review. A Maintenance Covenant was recorded that
erroneously allows PCH HOA to "opt out" of the maintenance covenant if the road is used
by any member of the public to access their property. If PCH roads are used to function as
public roads to access the Smallwood, Elkins or QRR properties, the PCH HOA may vote
to discontinue road maintenance of the streets in its subdivision.
In the review of the Juniper Rim subdivision, the County staff raised the issue of whether
DCC 17.16.105 requires the Smallwoods to maintain Pacific Heights Drive in the PCH
subdivision in order to obtain approval of the Juniper Rim subdivision.' The hearings
officer found that Smallwoods need not maintain Pacific Height Road because PCH HOA
has not yet opted out of the faulty Maintenance Covenant. The hearings officer essentially
"kicked the can down the road" until the Elkins property is subdivided. At that time, the
burden of maintaining Pacific Cascade Heights for use by Juniper Rim and PCH may fall
entirely on Elkins homeowners. We ask that you decide this issue now.
1 If DCC 17.16.105 and the Maintenance Covenant are interpreted to require Smallwood
or Elkins to pay for all maintenance costs for Pacific Cascade Heights Road, it is not clear
that Pacific Heights Road was ever opened for public use and that the Brooks easement
that crosses platted lots in the PCH subdivision has been eliminated.
-3-
Road Maintenance Responsibility for Pacific Heights Road in PCH Subdivision
Should Not be Shifted from PCH HOA to Smallwood or Elkins
PCH HOA claims that Smallwood must enter into a private agreement with it to maintain
Pacific Heights Road within the boundaries of the PCH subdivision in order to obtain
approval of its land use application. No provision of the County Code gives the County
the authority to require the Smallwoods to enter into an agreement with the PCH HOA.
The only code provision that might be interpreted to shift all road maintenance costs for
Pacific Heights Road to the Juniper Rim HOA or, in the future, to Elkins is DCC
17.16.105.2 We believe the correct interpretation of DCC 17,16.105 is that it was satisfied
in 2017 by the filing of the PCH Maintenance Covenant. That covenant assigned
maintenance responsibility to the PCH HOA. This is all that was required by the code.
The inclusion of an "opt out" clause accepted by the County without notice to Elkins does
not mean maintenance responsibility was not assigned as require.
The following is the text of the code:
Section 17.16.105. Access to Subdivisions
No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads
constructed to County standards and by roads under one of the following conditions:
A. Public roads with maintenance responsibility accepted by a unit of local or
state government or assigned to landowners or homeowners association by
covenant or agreement; or
C. This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved
collector or arterial or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to
such a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the
subdivision from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards that
maintenance responsibility for the roads has been assigned as required by this
section.
According to DCC 17.16.105.C, maintenance responsibility for Pacific Heights Road must
be assigned to the PCH HOA. It has been assigned. This means that Pacific Heights Road
is one for which "maintenance responsibility for the roads has been assigned as required"
Z The QRR property shown on the map on page 1 is zoned EFU. If it uses PCH roads for
access, the PCH Maintenance Covenant allows the PCH HOA owners to opt out of
maintaining PCH roads. It is unlikely this property will be subdivided given its zoning so
it has been assumed that the Elkins property will be the next property to be subdivided and
the one that might end up being required to pay the full cost of maintaining Pacific Heights
Drive.
-4-
by "covenant" and no additional agreement or assignment of responsibility is required.3
We ask that the County so find so that it is clear that Elkins will not be required to pay the
full cost of maintaining Pacific Heights Road when they seek to subdivide their property.
Such a requirement would be clearly unreasonable and unfair — especially given the fact
that it will place the burden of the County's error in allowing an opt out clause in the
Maintenance Agreement upon the Elkins.
Deschutes River Corridor Design Review
The tentative plan decision erroneously requires design review of structures built outside
of the Deschutes River Corridor. It is clear from the code that DRC review is required for
development "within" the corridor — not outside of it.
DCC 19.76.090(C) unambiguously states:
11[a]11 new development, structures *** within the Deschutes River
Corridor are subject to a Design Review process."
The Deschutes River Corridor is defined by DCC 19.04.040 as:
"all property within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the
Deschutes River."
Condition EE that requires DRC review for development that will occur outside of
+U- rnvr -.4A mil, -1A I— qf.« ,1—
111G L/1\V t/V111UVr J110"M VV u1.11-11.
The condition of approval should also be removed because DCC 19.76.090 is not a
relevant approval criterion for review of a subdivision. Instead, it is a site plan
review criterion. It will apply if and when new development is proposed to occur
within the Deschutes River Corridor — not during review of a subdivision
application.
Sincerely,
Liz TP1' cA er
Liz Faucher
3 Road maintenance of all PCH roads was required by the tentative plan approval, Exhibit
B, and DCC 17.48.160.A. The Maintenance Covenant was accepted by Deschutes County
as meeting the requirement that maintenance responsibility for PCH roads be "assigned"
to the HOA.
644 NW BROADWAY STREET BEND, OREGON • 97703
PHONE: 541-385-3067 FAX: 541-385-3076
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
I, Tonya McKiernan, a citizen of the United State and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eigh-
teen years, and not part to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
The Bulletin
PO Box 6020, Bend, Oregon 97708
a daily newspaper of general circulation, published in the aforesaid county and state as defined by
ORS 192.010 and ORS 192.020, that
Acct Name: DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEV.
PO Number: OCT 19 2')I
Legal Description: Legal Notice
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING By: ..............
GOVERNOR'S ORDER
On April 15, 2020, Governor Brown directed state and local governments to
take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in decision -making,
helping ensure the continued operation of local
a printed copy of which is hereto affixed was published in each regular and entire issue of the said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to wit:
10/15/2020
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
signature
Dated at Bend, Oregon, this 15th day of October, 2020
AdName: 129968 C 4k,
State of Oregon, County of Deschutes
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this OFFICIAL STAMP
day of , 2(k�-V by LINDA LEA PRESTON
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
f' COMMISSION NO.9M4
•l. 7t. 4 - ' I COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 6, 2024
Notary Public for Oregon
No. ----
In the .,_ Court of the
STATE OF OREGON
for the
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Filed
By _
From the office of
Attorney for . _ _
A04 THE BULLETIN • THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2020 TO PLACE AN AD CALL CLASSIFIED • 541-385.5809
The Bulletin
IASSIFIEDSCreate or find Classifieds at www.bendbulletin.com
�'GenewallNlerchan'��se
ate:.
r t
\
.f,
24-hour message line:
Classified telephone hours:
541-385-5809
Subscriber services: Monday - Friday 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Place, cancel or extend an ad
541-385-5800
On the web at:
Subscribe or manage your subscription The Bufliefin
www.bendbuiletin.com
EmPaW ERtN..........—
The Bulletin`: 320 SW Upp.er Terrace Drive, Suite #200, Bend, Oregon 97702
210
Pe564vppaes
�
Guna,id,ndt aP0ana
483
CommanRy
t �"•
Wrege SNes Oerorel
11 .
9a1
AW.Omobilea Trvcta,
Avlolahni-ana
I tllot
LsgelNNma6
I P401k NoaDaS
to01
-. L69HNUkos6 ''
PUNK NoaD4a
man SM1aptfeN
Puppka, AKC, Reg.,
NMas C-GO Eiger
$p NSx5410 Ha.
Saeking dr— to take
fpaatlyy to runtyurm Wdl
Fri 65at 1W16-R
E-33"',
(4F; 3Ma6y Nov.B
32Wa69anan55ket 5x520 ga.
P,
p115419]7G56pPloase
ad.,i"3p.m-ond
Ia�ouireghdtl.2028
510<59 589815]50)
51895. 841-771-8958
W Nne, Oregwl.
Gaines CI. off Taped
_
AKC ailverhvh'da'ohx
�It5a41]B]
?
Se0
SubasaF3UHNin
BW
Bond.
Rog 9a!6e5. b]
Emdot3p.s
m
5e4b3T9F5a.5
4F5R8
BMamm'1
33i
tvantt0 &20rya a Mnt
Ss+— -Asa —twr
S., B¢na.HousehoN
Looking la tenM'I Fame
rtrotl,at4ly to Pine to
J
a4td0Sa80s
t�c�o�ls, Smal genemm
C, piano to
,fate
Bend arm. F10me owner
DD enm
FltmitwebA Y
2H
gve aIN
we y ad
kr28Y iHere ;el Gu
541.39b1817
Guth I loueseat
Byry&tg ldBterWe
O
MEOTO sELLI
CUNIRE03
bro'«n leather rs
xh entl 9ootl
Ha,a thtadwhirdava
Abbas ConalrudioJ
VEHICLE?
GIITheB0llntn
NN.WE911faE FEEIIB�a BEEr541.9153620
oontl &503.
Top S i/F.rcaaom
Rots Protluar
tlp;ace an ad
iAsrtaboaa
OakT a'e wlGa
55C054t.B5%_'
e�3,.r.:,bm�
sskaRrueml
Gaspe b Shoo sale.
84 a q
fl ear l'rala sad eaes�
s�iaoa-ztst
im
® Veteran reporters
a Print and online
® More dining reviews
directories for food
and food trend stories
trucks, breweries and
cannabis stores
is Most read online
a Most widely distributed
entertainment guide
entertainment
■ Most extensive food
magazine
truck guide in Central
. Weekly instagram
Oregon
photo contest
a Local movie reviewer
EMPOWERING OUR COMMUNITY
PUBB I N ES EVEFIN
RSDAY TNJELR tlLEi 11N
S
AT BENEFlTS for aa�inat the
ATWORK ETHl(d pteeenl ghon
algarock "dn-a vcuMara '.
tl stag to Ihee acryaor
peepa?a meet ng RE INn@Ave
OH 0]r01,
you a 'aho shi, to,, ah-ha s
you W otnera the a
isT t h-e magng banao, Ai I ,
roe wo.aa? .naea i,ylu
y m01 t21Ng wak kh I hon,
t
cWture? of the Cou 1.1
o� ueia r`se
ana.e a re- wyet
doar opporWnty (0 to Lino
e ib, bated a
wb
eovean .a looting ashee on
OdMill
GGovad d
di;ec(ed slate an,
`ocalo Igor ernmenis
teaes Rto lady
EE partldpa-
limindell.g th.
Ing. hwafouni ensure
vs spas.' opeo-
.ton of to d gov-
do rry of essanOn,
I
gg t
COv10.19 uoutbrehe
ak
""T" Ve o:tlet No.
20 16). Th. order di-
rects state aaq local
gov¢mment bodies
to ho:tl pubic meet -
as and readnga
by 1¢lephone. Ndeo
0!har kor
romano,he a., possEZ, d
oaPV hM'
with a m
to aslen
send the uNk
id= aIhpowua,rs9
For lha reasons Iden
ad bwa Iho
Deschutes Conn"eonrd of Gmma
1 condo.'
the puU,. heating
d. Sad Eel o e vMe sand lel�ph
Ivitl(q h 191evhon�
"'P."tn teSpRlidmony
Isa-lase Opl ons
insparEwpaMg
pu.' h0arng
t dl hnied Ia the
rnu i, Hearing Pan
i pahoh aa..n.
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
Sw3 and
Ann Smah
Th.. ap,WngP d 1
RIGadj —on, to
sth.
f001
1NyeOwop 1 P per-
� 9 H
fgeently the a�pr-
o,,t,. ton in in.
Utben Area Reserce
Zone IUArlid.
=ArON:
The "t, Property
Ilan an as5l9nad ec
dress d Q. a HegPa-
c hts Road.
hionid. on CODniy
Aasessw Tax Map
i— al,, oa Tax Lot
ME
when
Da"ocuhol On ers a'o
avaifaNe o
rnver.c¢ag�
a�hulhn,wa coanry
:mn elnkasoi
perrepa'a In a!1 pro
pp en�tl eUi+Ne
ihirSRse tMcefion
pk� iNe to peo-
vilhdsabeRes.11
yw need aaomtr,�
tla9ons to mako par-
p'dpa
ease , -tang tact , doe
ste0 boa IdeNl-
Iretl awro.
Plaumn ta, 1.
Paasbtl .
All real estate
adver"'
]8]2]Sg
Dst tEia 5w, m
par 1 t
to Iha Fedemi
regRguia. W 10 dorm
Fan H—ing Acl,
Ioetl the Zoom spa
to your deNo
• Members I the
whits makes Rillogal
tOeMerlise any
vMlation.,
Vi¢meeting va tale-
phone, dial 1Z
248-7]99, When
tlscdmina� bawd
On ma. wlor. religion,
Iporo�mWeggtl, data,ta er
ID 83890MMD
hand—
la -al status.,
I
• Wrdkso
g
Ee sbMt
o�
fed to the tl
Nee% the
I k y
on.
d L
D ,a Subm,s
wo mt of know ,gy
d below
mr da:ax
Iretry edverli5 rlg
g rang
peen b UeU.
�p sal aelare
• II DaHidpe:iw,
dyudng Ne Irearirg
,yyU Is n v,olahon of
thk lmvih
Pkr
,land is otiao,_
heeb anod
efihd,old-11to95
e ins puNk can
tek
.tivart�sede
on as ecwl
P��de
Pa m at 10 e m
the B.a..
Sawyer Rooms I
PopoouATo'
tnoh, Th O.'n
Vheco Deachuka Ser
Camel, 130D
Ctass,heds
NW Wal sh.al
Bend. Please be
1'he Bulletin
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Order to Waive Transcript Requirements
under DCC 22.32.024 for File Nos. 247-19- * ORDER NO.2020-058
000913-LL and 247-19-000914-TP.
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2020, the Hearings Officer approved Application Nos. 247-19-
000913-LL and 247-19-000914-TP; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2020, Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood, the Applicants, appealed
(File No. 247-20-000580-A) the Hearings Officer's decision in File Nos. 247-20-000913-LL and 247-
20-000914-TP; and
WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County
Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has acceptea review or these applications on appeall pursuant to
Board Order no. 2020-053; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 22.32.024, the Board waives the requirement that the
appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
DATED this J-4 day of O .2020.
ATTEST: r
Recording Secretary
ORDER No. 2020-058
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ^^ESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
kD-X��
(mow
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
Z2�0.
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
ab
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GOVERNOR'S ORDER
On April 15, 2020, Governor Brown directed state and local governments to take necessary
measures to facilitate public participation in decision -making, helping ensure the continued
operation of local government and the delivery of essential services during the COVID-19 outbreak
(Executive Order No. 20-16). The order directs state and local government bodies to hold public
meetings and hearings by telephone, video or other electronic or virtual means whenever possible,
and to provide the public with a mechanism to listen or virtually attend the public meeting or
hearing at the time it occurs.
For the reasons identified above, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will conduct the
public hearing described below by video and telephone. If participation by video and telephone is
not possible, in -person testimony is available. Options for participating in the public hearing are
detailed in the Public Hearing Participation section.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FILE NUMBERS: 247-19-000913-LL, 247-19-000914-TP, and 247-20-000580-A
OWNER: Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood
APPI Ir-AKIT• crntt and C;;rnl Ann Smallwood
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a property line adjustment to increase the size of
the subject property to approximately 100.1 acres. Subsequently, the
applicant is requesting a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision in the
Urban Area Reserve Zone (UAR10).
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 19800 Pacific Heights Road,
Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-12-07, as Tax
Lot 501.
HEARING DATE: Monday, November 91", 2020
HEARING START: 10:00 am
STAFF CONTACT: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org, 541-383-4427
DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org
PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPATION
• If you wish to provide testimony during the public hearing, please contact the staff planner
by 5 pm on Friday, November 6t", 2020. Testimony can be provided as described below.
Members of the public may listen, view, and/or participate in this hearing using Zoom.
Using Zoom is free of charge. To login to the electronic meeting online using your
computer, copy this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us//83890003190?pwd=cUdsWnFGbVNnSXdDaGx6NEQ5ZWxWZz09
Where prompted, please enter the following passcode: 737275
Using this option may require you to download the Zoom app to your device.
• Members of the public can access the meeting via telephone, dial 1-346-248-7799. When
prompted, enter the following: Webinar ID: 838 9000 3190
• Written comments can also be submitted to the record. Please see the Document
Submission section below for details regarding written submittals.
If participation during the hearing by video and telephone is not possible, the public can
provide testimony in person at 10 am in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes
Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend. Please be aware that County staff will enforce
the 6-foot social distancing standard in the hearing room. Additionally, all participants
attending in person must wear a face covering at all times, except when providing testimony.
While the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners business meeting will begin at 10 am
on Monday, November 91", 2020, the specific start time of the public hearing proceedings will
not be identified until the agenda for that days session has been finalized. All participants
wishing to provide testimony are advised to check the finalized agenda for November 91"
2020, listed in the Deschutes County Public Meeting Portal no less than 24 hours prior to the
start of the business meeting. The Public Meeting Portal can be found at the following link:
https•//deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
Copies of the staff report, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost and
can be purchased for 25 cents a page. The staff report should be made available 7 days prior to the
date set for the hearing. Documents are also available online at www.deschutes.org.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities.
This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make
participation possible, please contact the staff planner identified above.
Caroline House
From:
Laura Craska Cooper <Icooper@brixlaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:13 PM
To:
Kyle Collins
Cc:
Adam Smith
Subject:
247-19-000914-TP: Land Use Time Clock
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Kyle and Adam,
Please accept this email as a request by my clients, Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood, to extend the land use time clock on
the above -referenced tentative plat matter until December 31, 2020. Since neither the Smallwoods, nor anyone else,
appealed the decision on the property line adjustments that were processed simultaneously with the tentative plat, we
are assuming the property line adjustment decisions are final and no extension is necessary. But if I am mistaken, please
let me know.
Thank you,
Laura
Laura Craska Cooper I Partner
Brix Law LLP
15 SW Colorado Ave., Suite 3 1 Bend, Oregon 97702
T: (M11 893-0081 1 F: (cooper@brixlaw.com
Web
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, may contain confidential or privileged
information of BRIX Law LLP and/or its clients. This transmission is for the sole use of the recipient(s) to whom it is
addressed. if you have received this transmission in error or have reason to believe you are not authorized or intended
to receive it, please delete all electronic copies of it, destroy all paper copies, and notify the sender immediately. Any
unauthorized review, dissemination, disclosure or distribution or other use of the message (including attachments) is
strictly prohibited.
Tracy Griffin
From: Laura Craska Cooper <Icooper@brixlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 12:18 PM
To: Kyle Collins
Subject: Smallwood Appeal
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Kyle,
The Smallwoods will agree to extend the 150-day land use clock from October 31, 2020 to November 30, 2020. We do
hope, though, that the Board will hear the appeal and issue a decision before that date. But we understand if the
additional time is needed.
Thanks,
Laura
Laura Craska Cooper I Partner
Brix Law LLP
15 SW Colorado Ave., Suite 3 1 Bend, Oregon 97702
T: (541) 693-0061 1 E: Icooper@brixlaw.com
Web
Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, may contain confidential or privileged
information of BRIX Law LLP and/or its clients. This transmission is for the sole use of the recipient(s) to whom it is
addressed. If you have received this transmission in error or have reason to believe you are not authorized or intended
to receive it, please delete all electronic copies of it, destroy all paper copies, and notify the sender immediately. Any
unauthorized review, dissemination, disclosure or distribution or other use of the message (including attachments) is
strictly prohibited.
ES ,OW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE: $4,163.00
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. (See attached)
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review
by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is
desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board
should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22.
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading
delineating the color areas shall also be provided.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter
22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the
items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any
additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal
(DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal
advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): Scott & Carol Ann Smallwood Phone: (541 ) 617-1309
Mailing Address: c/o Brix Law LLP, 15 SW Colorado Ave, Ste 3 City/State/Zip: $end, OR 97702
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-19-000914-TP
Property Description: Township 175 Range 12E— Section 7 Tax Lot501
Appellant's Signature: See Attached
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY
THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE
RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER
THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FORTHE DENOVO HEARING
OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P O Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q� (541) 388-6575 @ cddtq)descILA tes,org @ wvvw deschUteS org/cd
Rev 5/18
Tarik Rawlings
From: Kyle Collins
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 9:15 AM
To: _CDD Current Planners
Subject: Smallwood Subdivision- BOCC Appeal Fees
Hey all,
Re: Smallwood Subdivision (Juniper Rim), 19-913-LL and 19-914-TP.
The Hearings Officer decision for the above files (approval) was issued today. The appeal period ends on Wednesday,
August 26'h
Any appeals will go to the Board so here's the fee/deposit break -down:
Base fee/deposit = $2,759.00+ 20% of LL/TP (see below)
LL fee was $584.00 x 20% = $116.80
TP fee was $3,941.25 x 20% = $1,287.20
Thanks,
ICyle,Cgllins I Associate Planner
C)I"SClMi_'S CC;;tl`diN "OMIff U»('r; LzEI%I l..a'1'i0t.!\"
117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703
PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708
Tel: 541 383-4427 1www•deschutes,nr cd
000
Let us know how we're doing; Customer Feedback Survey
Disclaimer; Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22,20.005 and shall not be deemed to
constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03B23572-166F-4A24-A884-2BA05A2BB06F
Land Use Application Authorization
The undersigned, Scott Smallwood and Carol Ann Smallwood (collectively, "Owner"),
hereby authorize Laura Craska Cooper of Brix Law LLP to file an appeal with Deschutes
County, Oregon, regarding the Hearings Officer's Decision in the Tentative Plan Approval
(247-19-000914-TP).
Dated as of this 26 day of August 2020. occusioned by:
aaAoaat�..
Carol Ann Smallwood
Scott Smallwood
(00141926;1 } 1 V:\wdocs\clntfls\3299\001\00141926.DOC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7082C73C-A495-451F-86E6-50A6BDAFD006
Land Use Application Authorization
The undersigned, Scott Smallwood and Carol Ann Smallwood (collectively, "Owner"),
hereby authorize Laura Craska Cooper of Brix Law LLP to file an appeal with Deschutes
County, Oregon, regarding the Hearings Officer's Decision in the Tentative Plan Approval
(247-19-000914-TP).
Dated as of this 26 day of August 2020.
Carol Ann Smallwood
FD—Sig.0by;
alt SWA, 64
Scott rna�`I ow od
(00141926;1) 1 V:\wdocs\cl nt 0s\3299\00I \00I 41926.1)pC
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-19-000914-TP
Appellant: Scott & Carol Ann Smallwood
Appellant's Attorney: Laura Craska Cooper, Brix Law LLP
Statement of Issue Relied Upon for Appeal - DCC 22.32.020(A
The Applicant respectfully appeals the Corrected Hearings Officer Decision, which was
mailed August 17, 2020 (the "Decision"), for the limited reasons set forth below.
Specifically, the Applicant appeals the imposition of Condition of Approval EE. "Design
Review: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision shall be
subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090."
The Applicant believes that this condition of approval is not warranted by County Code, and
that the Hearings Officer incorrectly interpreted the applicability and terms of DCC
19.76.090. Accordingly, the Applicant asks the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
to hear this appeal, to review this condition, and to delete the condition from the Tentative
Plan Approval (247-19-000914-TP).
Background
DCC 19.76.090(C) states as follows:
"Design Review Procedure. All new development, structures, additions and exterior
alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots within
the Deschutes River Corridor, are subject to a Design Review Process." (Emphasis
added).
DCC 19.04.040 defines the "Deschutes River corridor" (Sic) as:
"[A]II property within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Deschutes
River. The ordinary high water mark shall be as defined in DCC 19.04.040."
(Emphasis added).
Thus, under County Code, improvements to be built within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of the Deschutes River are subject to the Design Review Process under DCC
19.15.090. But improvements to be built outside that 100 feet are not.
The Hearings Officer changed the language of the Code by determining that "design review
under DCC 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any lot partially
within the corridor." Decision, Pg. 61. (Emphasis added). The Decision thus requires that
"[f]uture development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision shall be
subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090." Id. at 62.
This application of DCC 19.76.090 is directly contradicted by the plain language in the code.
A portion of each of lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed subdivision does extend into the
Deschutes River Corridor. However, the topography of these lots will preclude any
development from occurring within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the
Deschutes River. In fact, the topography would even prevent development within 200 feet
from the high water mark of the Deschutes River.
In short, County code requires site plan review under DCC 19.76.090 only for improvements
within the Deschutes River Corridor, meaning within 100 feet of the ordinary high water
mark of the Deschutes River. The Hearings Officer's interpretation, which is not justified by
the plain language of the code, would instead redraft the code to require such design review
{00141886;4} Page 1 of 3
if any portion of a lot to be developed is within the Deschutes River Corridor, regardless of
how big the lot is, regardless of how far it extends away from the River, and regardless of
how far away the proposed development is to occur.
The Hearings Officer's stated that his decision was driven by the fact that DCC
19.76.090.(D).1. establishes a minimum setback of 100 feet from the ordinary high water
mark. Given this, he wrote, the drafters of the Code must have intended that the site and
design review in the Deschutes River Corridor must apply to more than just the first 100
feet from the ordinary high water mark. Otherwise, he reasoned, why would there be a
design review for just the first 100 feet from the high water mark if there's already a 100
foot setback from the high water mark. In short, he believes that the Applicant's reading of
the Code would render the design review process and site and design review criteria
extraneous and never used.
But the Hearings Officer is mistaken because under the Applicant's reading of the plain
language, the design review process still applies in two situations: (i) when an applicant can
justify constructing improvements closer to the River than 100 feet; and (ii) when a parcel
is within the Deschutes River Corridor, but not within the land that is subject to the 100 foot
setback, as specified in DCC 19.76.090.(D).l.(a) and (b)
The Hearings Officer's logic only works if you stop reading DCC 19.76.090.(D).l after the
first 24 words. The rest of that section states that the 100 feet setback applies "unless the
applicant can demonstrated that a lesser setback is warranted, due to log size and shape,
topography, preservation of natural vegetation, view corridors, and subject to the criteria in
DCC 19.76.090.(E)." In other words, the site and design review criteria under DCC
19.76.090.(E) specifically apply if the applicant has requested a lesser setback than 100
feet.
to addition. the Applicant notes that the section of the code on the 100-foot setback only
applies to specific parcels of land in the Deschutes River Corridor (see DCC
19.76.090.(D).l.a and b.). Thus, there are other parcels of land in the County that might be
partially located within the Deschutes River Corridor (i.e., within 100 feet of the high water
mark of the River) but that are NOT subject to the 100 foot setback in this section. The site
and design review criteria of DCC 19.76.090.(E) would apply to those portions of land, too.
The Hearings Officer is mistaken in thinking that the Applicant's reading of the plain
language of the code creates an inconsistency within the code.
The Applicant appeals the Hearings Officer's conclusion as it incorrectly interprets the
language of DCC 19.76.090 and improperly extends the Design Review process of DCC
19.76.090 to development outside of the Deschutes River Corridor.
The Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board")
limit the appeal to these issues.
Reasons Why the Board of County Commissioners Should Review the Lower Hearings Body's
Decision - DCC 22.32.020(B)
The Hearings Officers' interpretation of DCC 19.76.090 effectively redrafts DCC 19.76.090
and circumvents the formal process of public participation and decision by the people's
elected representatives. The Hearings Officer's role is to apply the Deschutes County Code
(the "Code"), or, when necessary, interpret the Code, but not to add language or change
the plain language to impose additional requirements. The Decision currently exceeds this
limited scope and effectively adds language to DCC 19.76.090. The Code represents the
intent and will of the residents of Deschutes County and its meaning should be determined
by the Board as their elected representatives. Such an important decision should not be
decided by the Hearings Officer or the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Code's intent and
{oo141886;41 Page 2 of 3
meaning should reflect the intent of Deschutes County's elected representatives, and thus
review by the Board is necessary to correct the Hearings Officer's mistake.
Furthermore, the Decision places an undue burden upon the Applicant as well as all
Deschutes County land owners who may have a portion of their properties within the
Deschutes River Corridor. The design review process will require significant delays (likely
adding 6 or more months of delay), cost, expense, and unnecessary development
requirements, which were not intended by the Code. Property owners who wish to develop a
significant distance from the Deschutes River Corridor will now be required to comply with
the design review process if even a small portion of their lot extends into the Deschutes
River Corridor. In a plain reading of DCC 19.76.090, it is clear that these requirements
should only apply to development within the Deschutes River Corridor and the additional
requirements resulting from the Decision should not be imposed upon Deschutes County
residents.
For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Board review the Decision for
the limited reasons set forth above and delete Condition of Approval EE from the Tentative
Plan Approval (247-19-000914-TP).
fOO141886;41 Page 3 of 3
CORRECTED HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
On August 14, 2020, the county mailed the Hearings Officer decision which included a July 13, 2020
date of decision on page 67 of the decision. The date of decision is corrected to August 13, 2020.
FILE NUMBERS: 247-19-000913-LL, 247-19-000914-TP
OWNER/ Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests two property line adjustments to increase the
size of the subject property to 100.1 acres. Concurrent therewith, the
Applicant requests a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision in
the Urban Area Reserve Zone (UAR10).
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 19800 Pacific Heights
Road, Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-
12-07, as Tax Lot 501.
STAFF CONTACT: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-383-4427
Email: Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org
DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from:
a b iildingpermitc oregon rtnv and http://dial.deschi-,tes.org
org
vvvv"vv.uu�iu�i igNc� i i n�a.v� cgvi i.gvv and i ���N.i i uiu�.u....a�.� �... ..�
I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code
Title 17 - Subdivisions
Chapter 17.12, Administration and Enforcement
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development
Plans
Chapter 17.24, Final Plat
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards
Chapter 17.44, Park Development
Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications
Title 18 - County Zoning
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Title 19 - Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone (UAR10)
Chapter 19.72, Flood Plain Combining Zone (FP)
Chapter 19.76, Site Plan Review
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000913-LL; 247-19-000914-TP Page 1 of 67
Title 22- Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Oregon Revised Statutes (OAR) Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 19800 Pacific Heights Road,
Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-12-07, as Tax Lot 501
LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record identified as Parcel 1 of Minor
Partition MP-80-70. The subject property was altered to its current configuration pursuant to
property line adjustment file no. 247-18-000311-LL.
ZONING: The subject property is zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) and is designated
Urban Reserve Area on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map. A small area in the
northwest portion of the subject property is located in the Flood Plain Zone (FP).'
PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests two property line adjustments to increase the size of
the subject property to 100.1 acres. Concurrent with the property line adjustments, the
Applicant requests a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision in the Urban Area
Reserve Zone (UAR10).
SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 100.00 acres in size (100.1 acres after the
proposed property line adjustments) and is irregular in shape. The subject property is
undeveloped and has a vegetative cover of juniper trees, sagebrush, and other native
vegetation. The site is primarily level, with a steep descent towards the Deschutes River
canyon along the western and northwestern portion of the parcel. The property is accessed
via Pacific Heights Road, a rural local right-of-way to the east which extends from O.B. Riley
Road. A private airstrip identified on Deschutes County Zoning Maps is located in the central
portion of the property.'
SURROUNDING LAND USES: To the west, the subject property is bounded by the
Deschutes River. West of the river are several larger properties within the Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) Zone. To the east of the subject property is the Pacific Cascade Heights
subdivision. The Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision contains several parcels developed
with single-family dwellings in the UAR10 Zone. To the south of the subject property are two
(2) additional parcels in the UAR10 Zone (Tax Lots 601 and 503), both of which are
undeveloped. To the west and north of the subject property is a large parcel that is split
zoned (UAR10 and EFU). The large parcel is publicly owned and operated by the Oregon
The staff report noted there was a mapping error that led to uncertainty regarding whether the property
might partially be located in the Airport Safety Combining Zone. It was determined the property is not in that
zone.
2 The Hearings Officer understands the airstrip has been, or will be, abandoned.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 2 of 67
Parks and Recreation Department as a portion of Tumalo State Park. There are several
parcels designated as a Surface Mining site (County Assessor Tax Map 17-12-18, as Tax Lot
100; and County Assessor Tax Map 17-11-13, as Tax Lots 100, 103, 104, 200, 504, and 505)
approximately 0.16 miles to the southwest of the subject property. Properties
approximately 0.3 miles to the east and northeast of the subject property are located in the
Multiple Use Agricultural Zone and are principally developed with single-family dwellings.
The Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Bend is located approximately 0.57 miles east
of the subject property.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of
Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The Applicant submitted a
Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated January 131h, 2020, indicating the Applicant posted
notice of the land use action on the same day. Notice of this application was provided to all
property owners within 250 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed subdivision.
Notice of the public hearing was mailed on June 9, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comments received in response to the notice of application are
discussed here. Comments received at the public hearing and during the open record
period are addressed below.
Rob Kelleher, representing the homeowners association of the Pacific Cascade Heights
subdivision to the east raised issues regarding the effect of a road maintenance agreement
for Pacific Heights Road, the local right-of-way which provides access to the subject parcel.
The correspondence is quoted in part below and included in full in the record.
The recently completed Pacific Cascade Heights Development sits immediately to the east
of the Smallwood subdivision. The Smallwood subdivision application identifies road
access to the new subdivision via Pacific Heights Road. As identified on the enclosed Road
Maintenance Covenant for Pacific Cascade Heights, the property owners of Pacific
Cascade Heights are solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roads within
Pacific Cascade Heights including both Pacific Heights Road and Northern Estates Drive.
The application for File No. 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP does not include a road
maintenance agreement or covenant for their use of Pacific Heights Road. Based on the
terms of the Pacific Cascade Heights Road Maintenance Covenant, Section 4, if either of
the Roads in Pacific Cascade Heights are used to gain access to real estate that is not part
of the Pacific Cascade Heights property and that access does not included a satisfactory
road maintenance agreement or covenant then we can terminate the Pacific Cascade
Heights road maintenance covenant.
Pacific Cascade Heights requests that Deschutes County either accept all the road
maintenance and repair of Pacific Heights Road upon acceptance of application 247-19-
000913-LL, 19-914-TP, or stipulate approval of application 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP
shall be based on a mutually agreeable road maintenance agreement or covenant
between Pacific Cascade Heights and the Smallwood subdivision.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 3 of 67
Additional comments were received from several neighboring property owners which fall
into the following general categories:
• Access to adjacent public lands;
• Wildlife habitat preservation;
• Application of the Landscape Management Combining Zone approval criteria;
• Application of the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone approval criteria;
• Design standards of the Oregon Scenic Waterways program; and
• Setback standards to adjacent river corridors and waterways.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and
received the following comments:
Deschutes County Building Division, Randy Scheid
NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during
the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
Deschutes Countv Senior Transportation Planner -Peter Russell
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-19-000914-LL/914-TP for a 10-unit subdivision
on 100 acres in the Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) and Flood Plain (FP) zones at 63765 OB Riley
Road, aka 17-12-07, Tax Lot 501.
The applicant has submitted a Site Traffic Report (STR) which complies with Deschutes County
Code (DCC) 18.116.310. Staff has reviewed the Aug. 2, 2019, traffic study submitted by the
applicant's consultant, Transight Consulting, and agrees with the STR's methodology, findings,
and recommendations.
The property will be accessed via Pacific Heights Road, which is a public road not maintained by
Deschutes County, which is otherwise known as a Local Access Road. Functionally, Pacific Heights
is classified as a local road. The County still remains the permitting authority. The applicant will
need to ensure the roads serving the subdivision are constructed to County standards as well as
having a maintenance agreement that complies with DCC 17.16.105.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,448
per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined a local trip rate of 0.81 p.m. peak hour
trips per single-family dwelling unit, therefore the applicable SDC is $3,603 ($4,448 X 0.81) per
each lot. The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy
is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 4 of 67
Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Todd Cleveland
Each lot or parcel of the proposed subdivision must have a complete approved site evaluation
prior to final plat approval.
Deschutes County Road Department, Cody Smith
I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file number, proposing a 10-
lot subdivision of Tax Lot 501 in 17-12-07. The subject property is accessed by Pacific Heights
Rd. Road Department records indicate that Pacific Heights Rd has the following attributes where
it abuts the subject property.,
• Road Status - Local Access Road (Public, Not County Maintained)
• Surface Type - Asphalt Concrete
• Surface Width - 24 ft
• Functional Classification - Rural Local
• Right of Way Width - 60 ft.
• Right of Way Instrument - Pacific Cascade Heights Subdivision Plat (2017-42220)
The proposed tentative plan includes an extension of Pacific Heights Road that terminates at the
southern boundary of the subject property and an intersecting loop road to provide access to the
proposed lots.
Deschutes Countv Road Department requests that approval of the proposed subdivision
be subject to the following conditions:
Prior to construction of public road improvements:
• Applicant shall submit road improvement plans to Road Department for approval
prior to commencement of construction pursuant to DCC 17.40.020 and 17.48.060.
The roads shall be designed to the minimum standard for a local road within a
subdivision pursuant to 17.48.160 and 17.48A. Road improvement plans shall be
prepared in accordance with all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
• Applicant shall submit final improvement plans with all required approval signatures
to Road Department.
Prior to final plat approval by Road Department:
• Applicant shall complete road improvements according to the approved plans and all
applicable sections of DCC 17.48. Improvements shall be constructed under the
inspection of a register professional engineer consistent with ORS 92.097 and DCC
17.40.040. Upon completion of road improvements, applicant shall provide a letter
from the engineer certifying that the improvements were constructed in accordance
with the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
• Maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned to a home
owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A),
and 17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit covenant to Road Department for review
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 5 of 67
and shall record covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall
include the following note: PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE. • THE OWNERS AND TENANTS
OF LOTS PLATTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND
REPAIR ALL PUBLIC ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS A UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL
DISTRICT FORMALLYACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
All easements of record or existing rights of way shall be noted on the final plat
pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (H).
The surveyor preparing the plat shall, on behalf of Applicant, submit information
showing the location of the existing roads in relationship to the rights of way to
Deschutes County Road Department. This information can be submitted on a
worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the final plat. All existing road
facilities and new road improvements are to be located within legally established or
dedicated rights of way. In no case shall a road improvement be located outside of a
dedicated road right of way. If research reveals that inadequate right of way exists or
that the existing roadway is outside of the legally established or dedicated right of
way, additional right of way will be dedicated as directed by Deschutes County Road
Department to meet the applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 or other County road
standards. This condition is pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (G) and
17.24.070(E)(8).
Applicant shall submit as -constructed improvement plans to Road Department
pursuant to DCC 17.24.070(E)(1).
Applicant shall submit plat to Road Department for approval pursuant to DCC
17.24.060(R)(2), 100, 110, and 140.
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
• Applicant or their successors in interest for the subject property shall obtain driveway
access permits for all driveway accesses pursuant to DCC 12.28.050 and 17.48.210(A).
Bend Parks and Recreation District Sarah Bodo
Please accept the following comments from BPRD for this application:
• Since the property is within the urban area reserve zone, Deschutes County Code 17.44.030
will apply, requiring that the property annex to the Bend Park and Recreation District prior to
approval of the subdivision application.
The property owner should be aware that a trail easement held by the state of Oregon for the
Deschutes River Trail exists on the property. BPRD would encourage the developer to provide
access to the trail for future residents.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Bridget Tinsley
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 6 of 67
This email is a follow up to our phone call yesterday and it relates to the Smallwood property
adjacent to Tumalo SP's southern parcels.
Other than the existing Deschutes River Trail easement across the corner of the Smallwood
property, there are no other access easement requests anticipated in the near future on the
southern parcels of Tumalo State Park. The park manager and district supervisor confirmed this
information for me yesterday.
Bend Fire Department, Larry Medina
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS:
Approved vehicle access for fire fighting shall be provided to all construction
or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of
temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be
provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle
loading under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until
permanent access roads are available. 2014 OFC 3310.1
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for everyfacility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction.
The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this
section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 2014 OFC 503.1.1
Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved securitygates in accordance with
Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches. Where afire hydrant is located on afire apparatus road, the minimum
width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Traffic calming along afire apparatus
road shall be approved by the fire code official. Approved signs or other approved
notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided
for fire apparatus roads to prohibit parking on both sides of fire lanes 20 to 26 feet
wide and on one side of fire lanes more than 26 feet to 32 feet wide. 2014 OFC
503.2.1, D103.1, 503.4.1, 503.3
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced
(asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather
driving capabilities. Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire
department. All dead-end turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and
elevated surfaces shall be constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB-17. The
maximum grade of fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire
apparatus access road gates with electric gate operators shall be listed in
accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed,
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 7 of 67
constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. A Knox®
Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC D102.1, 503.2.4,
FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES.
An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire
protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or
portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. Prior to application of Building Permits contact the Bend Fire
Marshal's office at 541-322-6308 to discuss an approved fire protection water
supply.
OTHER FIRE SERVICE FEATURES.
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building
numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly
legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum 4
inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a
private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument,
pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address
numbers shall be visible under low light conditions and evening hours. Provide
illumination to address numbers to provide visibility under all conditions. Address
signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An
address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department
website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours.
Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Grey Wolf
There are/may be wetlands, waterways or other water features on the property that are subject
to the State Removal -Fill Law based upon a review of wetland maps, the county soil survey and
other available information. The National Wetlands Inventory shows wetland, waterway or other
water features on the property. The property includes or is adjacent to a State Scenic Waterway.
A state permit will not be required for the proposed project because, based on the submitted site
plan, the project avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, waterways, or other waters.
A state permit is required for 50 cubic yards or more of fill removal or other ground alteration in
wetlands, below ordinary high water of waterways, within other waters of the state, or below
highest measured tide. A state permit is required for any amount of fill or removal activity within
State Scenic Waterways.
Based on review of mapping or other documents submitted, it appears the project ('Tentative
plat for a subdivision.'9 will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, waterways or other waters of the
state.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 8 of 67
Since future activity appears to fall within the buffer for a State Scenic Waterway (Deschutes
River), it is recommended that you contact Oregon Parks and Recreation Department prior to site
development.
This is a preliminaryjurisdictional determination and is advisory only. This report is for the State
Removal -Fill law only. City or County permits may be required for the proposed activity.
For information on permitting, use of a state-owned water, wetland determination or delineation
report requirements please contact the respective DSL Aquatic Resource, Proprietary or
jurisdiction Coordinator for the site county. The current list is found at.
http://www. oregon.gov/dsl/ww/pages/wwstaff. aspx
The current Removal -Fill permit and/or Wetland Delineation report fee schedule is found at.
https://www. oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Documents/Removal-FillFees. pdf
Response Phone: 503-986-5321.
The following agencies did not respond: Deschutes County Assessor, Bend/La Pine School
District, Deschutes County Surveyor, Pacific Power and Light, Watermaster District 11, Bend
Cable Communications, Bend City Engineering, Bend Growth Management Department,
Bend Planning Department, Bend Public Works Department, Cascade Natural Gas
Company, Central Electric Co -Op, Central Oregon Irrigation District, the Army Corps of
Fngineers. Centurvlink. Deschutes Countv Property Address Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Swalley Irrigation District.
REVIEW PERIOD: The applications for file nos. 247-19-000913-LL and 247-19-000914-TP
were submitted on December 301h, 2019. The applications were deemed incomplete and an
incomplete letter was sent on January 29th, 2020. The Applicant provided additional
information and the application was subsequently deemed complete on March 3rd, 2020.
On March 30th, the Applicant submitted a written request to extend the land use review
clock by 90 days.
Based on the written extension request, the new date the County must take final action on
this application on October 29th, 2020.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
A. Property Line Adjustment Application
Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions
Section 92.192. Property line adjustment: zoning ordinances: size of unit of land.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 9 of 67
FINDING: The Applicant is requesting to move the common property lines between the subject
property (Tax Lot 501) and neighboring Tax Lots 601 and 503 respectively. The proposed
adjustment will add 0.05 acres of land from Tax Lot 601 to Tax Lot 501, and add 0.05 acres of land
from Tax Lot 503 to Tax Lot 501. The proposed adjustments will result in the following
configuration:
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 10 of 67
Proposed Adjustment 1
TAXLOT 171207-502
1084.81' TAXLOT
17120700-108
w
�
a
LEGAL PARCEL
z
TRACT 3
r M
247-18-311-LL
© 2�
TAXLOT
TAXLOT 171207-501
17120700-107
AREA BEFORE ADUSTMENT-100.00 Acres
°i
'
AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT-100.05
Acres
N
�
re There ano exWing structures exw;yw
diiVosol systems, nor Noter Rights on
sewage
h Fbrcel.
rn
t`
Ch
n
w
U
p
Usilag RoadAccese. and ViNty
$4
TAXLOT
r
Easement A eement pre 2018-02b641
OftCo. O.R.
17120700-106
�Y
z
EXISTING.•-
PROPERTY LINE - '
PACIFIC y14,Ic lrs
�
•,- r- ^--
ROAD
N89'34'QO'4Y 1321,23'
. �/ �
r
'3400 W 1055.76'
I AAt. V I
17120700-105
�!
LEGAL PARCEL
NEW PROPERTY LINE
TRACT 1
�FPPR-
(SED
FT 1.80 FEET SOUTH)247-18-05-LL0
00
TAXLOT 171207-601
LEGAL PARCEL
TRACT 4 LL-18-311
There are no existing structures,
extstfn9 ssrroga di asol s terns,
R(gi4lds in thi Tax lot
TAXLOT 171207-503
r.-
�T nar 16bC� w+
P�
AREA BEFORE ADL)5l UTw,176.T Acres
1� AREA
i
AFTER ADJUSTMENT =176.05 Acres
S89'30'44"E 1320.90' Ad
S89'30'09'E 10t36.16'
S.CALE 1 A-
TAXLOT 171218-105
00
0 .200 400 80Ci
LEGAL PARCEL
I
MW
TRACT 4 LL-18-311
( FEE `I'�)
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 11 of 67
Proposed Adjustment 2
TAXLOT 171207-502
31'w 1084.81' TAXLOT
171207DO-108
LEGAL PARCEL - -.-
TRACT 3
247-18-311-LL
TAXLOT
TAXLOT 171207-501 171207DO-107
AREA BEFORE ADUSTMENT=101100 Acres
AREA AFTER AOJUS7M[NT =100.05 Acres
N
Them are no existing stn4lu existing sewage
ah
dt"of systems, nor Water Rlgh s an is Poled_ a,
o m
n
u
C7
N TAXLOT
s<� 17120700-106
¢a Existing Raad,Access, and Uflityy
F-!► - Easement Agreaneni per 2010-025641 S
o EXISd1NG Dee. Ca. O.R. z
PROPERTY LINE PACIFIC h1E/6yrs
ROAD
td89.34'00'W 1 321.2' TAXLOT
f— N8V34 00"W 1065.76-
17120700-105
w PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY LINE `' 71aneyare 04D eat mg syCI Ieer,
N (SHIFT 1.80 FEET SOUTH) nor ribtt° ogoo sP �
a v nor er R is on this "P 1vX,
o LEGAL PARCEL LEGAL PARCEL OD
z °° TRACT 1 TRACT 4 LL--18-311 #
247-18-05-LL TAXLOT 171207-503
TAXLOT 171207-601 z N o
AREA BEFORE AOUSTMENTw24.9 Acres I N
AREA AFTER AOJSTMEINT =24.85 Acres i
S89'30'44"E 13
less
TAXLOT 171218-105 18 SCALE
400 0 200 400 � � 1800
77-1
MEMME
( FFE T )
A property line adjustment is defined by ORS 92.010(12) and Deschutes County Code 17.08.030 as:
"A relocation or elimination of all or a portion of the common property line between
abutting properties that does not create an additional lot or parcel."
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 12 of 67
The Applicant proposes to relocate common property lines between three existing legal lots of
record. The purpose of the adjustment is to increase the size of the subject property to allow for
10 individual lots to be created pursuant to the subject subdivision application. The adjustment is
also subject to ORS 92.192(2). No new unit of land will be created.
(2) Except as provided in this section, a lawfully established unit of land that is reduced
in size by a property line adjustment approved by a city or county must comply with
applicable zoning ordinances after the adjustment.
FINDING: The subject property (Tax Lot 501) is a legal lot of record identified as Parcel 1 of Minor
Partition MP-80-70. The subject property was altered to its current configuration pursuant to a
prior property line adjustment (File No. 247-18-000311-LL).
Tax Lot 503 is part of a larger unit of land ("The Tract") that is +/- 176.12 acres in size identified on
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-12-07 as Tax Lot 503, and Assessor's Map 17-12-18 as Tax Lot
105. The Tract is recognized as one legal lot of record because it was platted as Parcel 1 of MJP-79-
8 and reconfigured by a series of property line adjustments (LL-06-118, LL-08-52, LL-08-73, LL-10-
35, LL-10-36, LL-10-45, 247-18-000005-LL, and 247-18-000311-LL).
Tax Lot 601 is recognized as one legal lot of record because it was platted as Parcel 2 of MP-80-70
and reconfigured via property line adjustment file no. 247-18-000005-LL.
All properties are zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR10). All restrictions for this zone continue to
apply.
The property sizes before and after the adjustments are:
Tax Lot 501
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 100.00 acres.
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 100.10 acres
Tax Lot 503 (The Tract)
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 176.10 acres3
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 176.05 acres
Tax Lot 601
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 24.90 acres4
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 24.85 acres
3 Staff noted that the size of this parcel was listed as 176.12 acres pursuant to land use decision 247-18-
000311-LL
4 Staff noted that the size of this parcel was listed as 24.88 acres pursuant to land use decision 247-18-
000005-LL
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 13 of 67
The Tract and Tax Lot 601 will be reduced in size by the proposed adjustments. After the
adjustment, Tax Lot 601 will be 24.85 acres and will comply with applicable zoning ordinances, as
the minimum lot size in the UAR10 Zone is 10 acres. In addition, The Tract will meet the minimum
lot size of the UAR10 Zone, with a resultant size of 176.05 acres.
Conclusion:
No new unit of land will be created. All properties are zoned UAR10. All restrictions for these zones
continue to apply.
The Hearings Officer finds the proposed property line adjustments meet the requirements as
established and can be tentatively approved. This tentative approval only confirms that the
proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria necessary for property line adjustments.
All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject properties.
In order to obtain final approval:
1. Except as provided in ORS 92.060(7-9), the adjusted property lines shall be surveyed and
monumented by a registered professional land surveyor and a survey complying with ORS
209.250, shall be filed with the County Surveyor. A copy of the filed survey shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Property line adjustments of properties each over
10 acres in size are not required to file a survey according to ORS 92.060(8).
2. New deeds. reflecting the new adiusted Droperties, shall be recorded with the Deschutes
County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deeds shall be submitted to the Planning
Division. The adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of
the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties
with proper acknowledgment.
A property line adjustment may have an effect on any completed septic site evaluations for
the properties involved. You may wish to check with the Environmental Soils Division
regarding this matter. A property line adjustment may also affect any water rights
appurtenant to your property. If you have a water right, you should contact your irrigation
district before the property line adjustment is surveyed.
B. Tentative Plan Application
SECTION 92.090. APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT NAMES; REQUISITES FOR APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION OR PARTITION PLAN OR PLAT.
(1) Subdivision plat names shall be subject to the approval of the county surveyor or,
in the case where there is no county surveyor, the county assessor. No tentative
subdivision plan or subdivision plat of a subdivision shall be approved which bears
a name similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other subdivision in
the same county, unless the land platted is contiguous to and platted by the some
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 14 of 67
party that platted the subdivision bearing that name or unless the party files and
records the consent of the party that platted the contiguous subdivision bearing
that name. All subdivision plats must continue the lot numbers and, if used, the
block numbers of the subdivision plat of the same name last filed. On or after
January 1, 1992, any subdivision submitted for final approval shall not use block
numbers or letters unless such subdivision is a continued phase of a previously
recorded subdivision, bearing the same name, that has previously used block
numbers or letters.
FINDING: As noted in the Burden of Proof Statement (pg. 4), the Applicant anticipates a condition
of approval that the subdivision name will be approved by the County Surveyor. Staff also
recommended a similar condition of approval. The Hearings Officer therefore adopts the following
condition of approval.
Subdivision Name: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision plat name shall be approved by
the County Surveyor.
(2) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan for a proposed
partition shall be approved unless:
(a) The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining property as to
width, general direction and in all other aspects unless the city or county
determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern.
FINDING: Only one platted road abuts the proposed subdivision; Pacific Heights Road as platted
within the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. The proposed tentative plan shows that the new
road will conform to the approved subdivision plat for Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative
plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and
streets are set forth thereon.
FINDING: The proposed roadway will be a dedicated public right-of-way. This criterion does not
apply.
(c) The tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning ordinances and
regulations and the ordinances and regulations adopted under ORS 92.044
that are then in effect for the city or county within which the land described
in the plan is situated.
FINDING: This decision identifies applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with
those ordinances. As noted herein, the tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning
ordinances and regulations and the ordinances and regulations adopted under ORS 92.044.
(3) No plat of a proposed subdivision or partition shall be approved unless:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 15 of 67
(a) Streets and roads for public use are dedicated without any reservation or
restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street
or road and easements for public or private utilities.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan
of such subdivision or partition have been approved by the city or county.
(c) The subdivision or partition plat complies with any applicable zoning
ordinances and regulations and any ordinance or regulation adopted under
ORS 92.044 that are then in effect for the city or county within which the
land described in the subdivision or partition plat is situated.
(d) The subdivision or partition plat is in substantial conformity with the
provisions of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition, as approved.
(e) The subdivision or partition plat contains a donation to the public of all
sewage disposal and water supply systems, the donation of which was made
a condition of the approval of the tentative plan for the subdivision or
partition plat.
(f) Explanations for all common improvements required as conditions of
approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision or partition have been
recorded and referenced on the subdivision or partition plat.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that subsections (b) and (e) do not apply to this application.
Subsection (c) is addressed above under another criterion containing the same language.
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met with the following conditions of approval.
Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated without any
reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road
and easements for public or private utilities.
Conformity to Tentative Plan: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision final plat shall be in
substantial conformity with the provisions of the tentative plan for the subdivision, as approved.
Explanations: Prior to final plat approval, explanations for any common improvements required
as conditions of approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision shall be recorded and referenced
on the subdivision plat.
(4) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has
received and accepted.
(a) A certification by a city -owned domestic water supply system or by the
owner of a privately owned domestic water supply system, subject to
regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, that water will be
available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat,
(b) A bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider to the city or county that a domestic water supply system will be
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 16 of 67
installed by or on behalf of the subdivider to the lot line of each and every
lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, and the amount of any such
bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider shall be determined by a registered professional engineer,
subject to any change in such amount as determined necessary by the city
or county, or
(c) In lieu of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a statement that no
domestic water supply facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot
depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a domestic water
supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and endorsed by the city or county, shall be filed by the
subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the
commissioner in any public report made for the subdivision under ORS
92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or
the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control
Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement to each prospective
purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the
purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the lot. The
subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the purchaser upon delivery of
such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt to the
commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject
to inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date
the receipt is taken.
FINDING: The Applicant proposes individual wells to each property for water supply, therefore,
subsection (c) applies. The Hearings Officer includes the following condition of approval to ensure
compliance with the above criterion:
Domestic Water Supply Statement: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide
Deschutes County with a statement that no domestic water supply facility will be provided to the
purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a domestic water
supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the subdivider and endorsed by
the city or county, shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall be
included by the commissioner in any public report made for the subdivision under ORS 92.385
(Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or the subdivision is otherwise
exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the
statement to each prospective purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the
purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the lot. The subdivider shall take a signed
receipt from the purchaser upon delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of
the receipt to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject to
inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date the receipt is taken.
(5) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has
received and accepted.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 17 of 67
(a) A certification by a city -owned sewage disposal system or by the owner of a
privately owned sewage disposal system that is subject to regulation by the
Public Utility Commission of Oregon that a sewage disposal system will be
available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat,
(b) A bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider to the city or county that a sewage disposal system will be
installed by or on behalf of the subdivider to the lot line of each and every
lot depicted on the proposed subdivision plat, and the amount of such bond,
irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance shall be determined
by a registered professional engineer, subject to any change in such amount
as the city or county considers necessary, or
(c) In lieu of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a statement that no
sewage disposal facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted
in the proposed subdivision plat, where the Department of Environmental
Quality has approved the proposed method or an alternative method of
sewage disposal for the subdivision in its evaluation report described in ORS
454.755 (Fees for certain reports on sewage disposal) (1)(b). A copy of any
such statement, signed by the subdivider and indorsed by the city or county
shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall
be included by the commissioner in the public report made for the
subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report
has been waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon
Subdivision Control Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement
to each prospective purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the
signing by the purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the
lot. The subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the purchaser upon
delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt
to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state,
subject to inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after
the date the receipt is taken.
FINDING: The Applicant proposes private on -site subsurface sewage disposal systems and that the
proposed lots will not be supplied by a city -owned or privately -owned sewage disposal system,
therefore, subsection (c) applies. The following condition of approval is adopted by the Hearings
Officer to ensure this criterion is met:
Sewage Disposal Statement: Prior to final plat approval, a statement that no sewage disposal
facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, where
the Department of Environmental Quality has approved the proposed method or an alternative
method of sewage disposal for the subdivision in its evaluation report described in ORS 454.755
(Fees for certain reports on sewage disposal) (1)(b). A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and indorsed by the city or county shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate
Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in the public report made for the
subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 18 of 67
the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law, the subdivider
shall comply with the applicable provisions of ORS 92.090(5)(c).
(6) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of subdivision or partition located within the boundaries of an irrigation district,
drainage district, water control district, water improvement district or district
improvement company shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or
county has received and accepted a certification from the district or company that
the subdivision or partition is either entirely excluded from the district or company
or is included within the district or company for purposes of receiving services and
subjecting the subdivision or partition to the fees and other charges of the district
or company.
FINDING: This criterion is applicable because the record indicates the subject property is located
partially within the Swalley Irrigation District. The following condition of approval is adopted to
ensure compliance with the above criterion.
Irrigation Certification: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit to the county a
certification from the district or company that the subdivision or partition is either entirely
excluded from the district or company or is included within the district or company for purposes
of receiving services and subjecting the subdivision or partition to the fees and other charges of
the district or company.
TITLE 17 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, SUBDIVISIONS
Chapter 17.12, Administration and Enforcement
Section 17.12.080. Statement of Water Rights.
All applicants for a subdivision or partition shall be informed by the Planning Director or
his designee of the requirement to include a statement of water rights on the final plat.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer includes the above criterion to inform the Applicant of the
requirement to include statement of water rights on the final plat.
Section 17.12.100. Sale of Subdivision Lots Prohibited Before Final Approval.
No person shall sell any lot in any subdivision until final approval of the land division has
been granted by the County. Final approval occurs when the plat of the subdivision or
partition is recorded with the County Clerk. No person shall negotiate to sell any lot in a
subdivision until a tentative plan has been approved.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer includes this criterion to inform the Applicant of these
requirements.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 19 of 67
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans.
Section 17 16 040. Protective Covenants and Homeowner Association Agreements.
Landowner covenants, conditions, and restrictions and homeowner association
agreements are not relevant to approval of subdivisions and partitions under DCC Title 17,
unless otherwise determined by the County to carry out certain conditions of approval,
such as road maintenance or open space preservation. Any provisions in such agreements
not in conformance with the provisions of DCC Title 17 or applicable zoning ordinances are
void.
FINDING: As noted below, there is an issue regarding a road maintenance maintenance covenant.
It is discussed in detail under DCC 17.16.105. This DCC 17.16.040 appears to be a statement
regarding the relevance of covenants, conditions, and restrictions in regard to the Countys review
of subdivision applications.
Section 17.16.100. Required Findings for Approval.
A tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning
Director or Hearings Body finds that the subdivision as proposed or modified would meet
the requirements of this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code and is in compliance
with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall include, but not be limited to, the
following,
A. The subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in
the area, and provides for the preservation of natural features and resources such
as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special terrain features, agricultural and
forest lands and other natural resources.
FINDING: Compliance with Titles 17, 18, and 19 of the Deschutes County Code is addressed in
findings in this decision. The requirements of the Comprehensive Plan are codified within the Titles
identified above. Because no change to the Comprehensive Plan is sought by this application,
conformance with Titles 17, 18, and 19 establishes conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Contribution to Orderer Development:
In response to this criterion as it relates to orderly development, the Applicant stated:
Property to the north is zoned EFU-TRB and owned by Oregon Parks & Recreation
Department. Some of the property to the west is zoned UAR and is undeveloped.
Some of the property to the west is zoned EFU-TRB and is also owned by Oregon
Parks & Recreation Department. The properties to the east are zoned UAR and are
part of the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. The properties to the south are zoned
UAR and are undeveloped. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the current
rural development pattern within the UAR10 zone. The subdivision includes a public
road and proposed electrical power consistent with County standards and policies,
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 20 of 67
and which contributes to orderly development in the area by providing the
appropriate framework for transportation systems and utility systems connectivity
through the subject property and to the adjacent properties.
The Applicant further stated in its July 71h, 2020, submittal:
The Applicant also notes that the subdivision will contribute to the orderly
development and land use patterns in the area. Given its UAR designation and
proximity to the City, the site is a natural transition from the more urban
development in the City and the more rural nature of the County. The proposed low
density development is exactly the type that is envisioned by the LIAR zone. The
extension of Pacific Heights Road will allow further development provide additional
connectivity in the area. The extension of power to the site will also allow further
development in the area in the future. In addition, developing this site to the west of
the Existing Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision is a natural progression of
development in the area just outside the City of Bend.
While there were some general comments regarding the "orderly development" of the area made
in opposition to the application, the bulk of public comments related to this criterion do not
address orderly development, but instead address the natural features component. Accordingly,
those comments are addressed below.
The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal contributes to the orderly development and land use
nattArnc of the area fnr the reasnns stated by the Applicant and auoted above.
Preservation of Natural Resources and Features
Upon review of the submitted tentative plan and the presence of significant natural features onsite
(the Deschutes River and associated canyon), staff sent the following request in the incomplete
letter:
Staff notes that both the Deschutes River and the associated river canyon which abut the
western boundary of the subject property constitute "natural features and resources" which
should be provided preservation. Additionally, staff notes that at least six (6) of the
proposed subdivision parcels will include significant portions of these natural features. The
submitted application materials, including the tentative plan, do not provide information
which addresses how the proposed subdivision will provide for the preservation of these
natural features and resources. Please provide supplementary information which describes
steps that will be taken by the Applicant to provide for the preservation of the Deschutes
River, the Deschutes River canyon, and special terrain features such as rimrock areas.
The Applicant subsequently provided the following response to the request above in the
incomplete response materials:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 21 of 67
Staff has noted that the Deschutes River and the river canyon abut the western boundary
of the property and constitute "natural features and resources". Staff has asked about the
protection measures proposed by the Applicant to protect these resources along with the
rimrock areas on several of the proposed lots.
The Applicant proposes to record a deed restriction (which may be a part of the Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the newJuniper Rim Subdivision) that includes
the following provisions:
1. No permanent improvements may be installed on the property below the canyon rim;
2. No utilities on the property may be installed below the canyon rim;
3. No fill, alterations or course changes may be made to the Deschutes River on the
property;
4. All improvements within 100 feet of the canyon rim shall be of color tones that occur in
nature and in local surroundings;
5. All development, including at -grade terraces, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet
from the edge of the canyon rim;
6. Trees at the edge of the canyon rim or over the rim into the canyon may not be removed
unless they are dead or diseased and posing a risk of personal injury or property
damage;
7. Exterior lighting will be down light or directed specifically toward objects.
8. The foregoing provisions may not be altered or revoked without the prior written
approval of the director of current planning for Deschutes County.
c). The design guidelines to be adopted pursuant to the luniper Rim Subdivision Owners'
Association will provide that homes will be grounded to the site with their massing and
forms. Low profile structures and roof lines are encouraged. Massing should aim for a
mountain form; if the home is two stories, the second floor should occur in the middle
of the overall massing, and overall heights should be minimized. The guidelines will
further provide that garages, accessory buildings, and utility services should be screened
from primary canyon views as reasonably practical. Outbuildings will be designed with
the same quality and care as the primary residence and with similar material qualities.
Native rock outcroppings will be preserved as much as reasonably practical within home
designs. Rock outcroppings may be expanded within designs with native lichen covered
rock to tie in new developments to natural site features. Native trees (primarily Junipers
with some Ponderosa Pines) will be carefully evaluated within each homesite's
development area. Larger select trees with "character shapes" will be preserved within
home designs as much as reasonably practical. Ghost trees, snags or fallen trees are
encouraged to remain as wildlife habitat or as sculptural landscape elements. Tree
preservation techniques will be utilized during construction to avoid damaging the
remaining trees. This would include maintaining a minimum 10' clearance away from
trunks and drip lines for excavation, clean cutting any roots during excavation
operations and hand digging at times near roots or under drip lines. Trees and drip lines
will be protected with fencing to avoid compaction around tree bases. All sites will be
surveyed by a licensed surveyor prior to design work to help identify these crucial
features. Open space between home sites will be largely preserved in natural states.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 22 of 67
Efforts will be made to limit construction impacts - fencing will be used to contain the
perimeters of development to limited areas - so native surrounding areas do not get
damaged or compacted with vehicular traffic. Owners will be encouraged to foster a
sense of stewardship for the site - both for the natural values of the site and with their
design and construction efforts.
Prior to or after the public hearing comments were received into the record that reference this
criterion. Scott Dahlen stated that the above proposed deed restrictions as written do not provide
any meaningful protection of the river canyon or the river itself. He believes as written the deed
restrictions would allow picnic tables or gazebos so long as they are temporary. Mr. Dahlen also
expressed concern that the deed restrictions will allow for the clearing of all vegetation below the
rim.
The Applicant responds to Mr. Dahlen's comments by noting that the deed restrictions specifically
prohibit the removal of trees below the canyon rim unless they are dead or diseased and pose a
risk of personal injury or property damage. The Hearings Officer interprets this to mean dead and
diseased trees will only be removed when they pose a risk to person or property. The Hearings
Officer notes that this proposed deed restriction (#6) does not include vegetation. The Applicant
concedes this and notes that they do not object to expanding the restriction to include both trees
and vegetation. The Hearings Officer believes expanding the restriction to include vegetation will
further protect the river canyon as a natural feature. Thus, the proposed deed restriction #6 should
apply to both trees and vegetation.
Regarding Mr. Dahlen's concern about temporary uses, such as picnic tables, the Hearings Officer
notes that OPRD submitted a comment that states all structures and improvements (regardless of
permanence) are subject to a 20-foot setback form the rimrock. The Applicant has noted they do
not object to including in the deed restrictions a note about development being subject to State
Scenic Waterway Rules. Moreover, the deed restrictions prohibit development within 20 feet of the
canyon rim (the definition of which is addressed below). The Hearings Officer, though, is not aware
of any regulation that would prohibit items that are not considered improvements or structures
that are temporarily placed on private property near the river or in the canyon, such a temporary
table. Nor is such a regulation cited by Mr. Dahlen.
Next, Sanders and Danielle Nye, through their attorney, submitted comments relating to this
criterion. The Nyes ask that the Applicant be required to identify and inventory significant natural
features and terrain prior to the approval of the tentative plan. Specifically, the Nyes contend that
the rock outcroppings, rimrock, and big trees that are lining, facing, or visible from the Deschutes
River Canyon should be considered "significant" enough to be inventoried.
The Applicant responded to these comments in their July 7tn and July 21 St submittals. In summary,
the Applicants responded by stating:
• The rimrock is mapped and shown on the tentative plan by the contour lines, from which
can be depicted the area that exceeds 45 degrees in slop meeting the definition of rimrock
in Title 18. The canyon, according to the Applicant is everything west (generally) of that line.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 23 of 67
• The Applicant agrees to a condition requiring on -site confirmation with the County staff of
the location of the rim on each lot before constructing homes.
• The Applicant agrees to not remove trees or vegetation below the rim.
• The Applicant agrees to allow no fill, alterations, or course changes to the river.
• The Applicant agrees to a setback from the rim edge.
• The Applicant notes that, as shown on tentative plan, the area to be preserved "is going to
be more that 200 feet back from and more that 200 feet above the river".
• To protect wildlife the deed restrictions will include a prohibition on perimeter fencing.
• Each home will be subject to OPRD approval and the Applicant has no objection to a deed
restriction to include a specific acknowledgment of the OPRD program and requirement to
comply therewith.
• There is no requirement that identify and inventory natural features and terrain on site.
According to the Applicant, the key natural features on the site are the river, the rimrock,
and vegetation in and on the canyon.
The Hearings Officer agrees with the Applicant that there is not a requirement in DCC 17.16.100(A)
to inventory the natural features and resources on the subject property. So while the Hearings
Officer agrees with the Nyes that an inventory would be helpful, it is not a requirement in the Code.
That said, some identification of the natural features and resources is required to ensure
preservation. The language in the code implies that the natural features and resources to be
preserved are relatively significant features, such as water bodies and terrain features. This is
confirmed in Broken Top Community Assoc. v. Deschutes County, 54 Or LUBA 84 (2007), where LUBA
nntari that natura_ I features to be considered under DCC 17.16.100(A) must be relatively_ significant
natural features; not individual trees or minor topographic features.
Such significant features were identified by the Applicant in its application, hearings testimony, and
subsequent submittals. According to the Applicant, such on -site features include the river, canyon
rim, and vegetation in the canyon. Similarly, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is
primarily concerned with the rimrock and the vegetation between the canyon and development
(so that vegetation in the canyon and on or near the rimrock). Email from Laurel Hillman, July 7t"
2020. Moreover, the features identified by the Applicant do not vary significantly from what the
Nyes identify in the July 14t" letter, identifying the rock outcroppings, rimrock, and big trees that
line, face or are visible from the Deschutes River canyon.
In light of the above, the Hearings Officerfinds the natural resources and features to be to reviewed
for preservation are the river, rimrock and canyon, and trees and vegetation.
One point of uncertainty is what constitutes rimrock. The Applicant contends we should adopt the
definition of "rimrock" included in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. Cooper Ltr, July 7t", 2020.
Title 18 defines "rimrock" as:
"Rimrock" means any ledge, outcropping or top or overlying stratum of rock, which forms a
face in excess of 45 degrees, and which creates or is within the canyon of the following rivers
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 24 of 67
and streams (1) Deschutes River ... For the purpose of DCC Title 18, the edge of the rimrock
is the uppermost rock ledge or outcrop of rock.
Thus, the Applicant contends that the rimrock:
"is where the contour lines (denoting elevation) start to be located very close together (as
noted on the tentative plan, the tentative plan depicts two -foot interval elevations lines;
where such lines are located less than two feet part horizontally, the ground surface is in
excess of 45 degrees in slope, meeting the definition of rimrock per Title 18) and the map
appears to darken; it's an easy line to see when looking at tentative plan from right to left.
The line is generally to the west (and north, in the case of proposed Lot 4). The canyon is
everything west of that line. Pursuant to the Applicant's proposal, the canyon and the
vegetation in the canyon will be protected."
With that description of the rimrock, and upon review of the tentative plan, the Hearings Officer
believes the canyon rim/rimrock is adequately identified. A line can be drawn along a mostly
north/south course (except towards the northern end of the subject property where proposed Lot
4 is located) where the canyon rim suddenly drops. This clearly demarcates the location of the
canyon rim/rimrock for the sake of preservation. It also defines the area in which trees and
vegetation need to be preserved. The river itself is clearly identified on the tentative plan, only
crossing onto the property in the northwest corner.
Moreover, the Hearings Officer believes the natural resources and features can be preserved, as
rani jrarl by this criterion, by adopting the above listed deed restrictions with a couple of
modifications and additions as follows:
• Deed Restriction #5 to note that there is a minimum 20 foot setback from the rimrock for
all structures and improvements (regardless of permanence) in compliance with OAR 736-
040-0072.
• Deed Restriction #6 to include both preservation of trees and vegetation.
• Additional restriction to include requirement that no perimeter fencing be permitted to
protect wildlife (temporary fencing during construction in the immediate vicinity of
development to contain and limit impact are permitted).
• An acknowledgement that development is subject to OAR 736-040-0072, OAR 736-040-0035,
and OAR 736-040-0040(1)(c)(B).
• For those lots subject to review under the above referenced OARs, a reference to the
requirement that they submit individual NOls for development or modification of the
landscape for each individual property.
The deed restrictions, with these modifications, preserve the canyon from development, protect
trees and vegetation in the canyon and protects the rimrock with the setback. Accordingly, the
natural features and resources are preserved.
Lastly, the Hearings Officer finds that the County should have enforcement authority over the deed
restrictions, as suggested by the Applicant in its July 7th submittal. Without such authority, it is
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 25 of 67
possible that future owners, who would typically have that authority, may elect not to enforce the
provisions against themselves or their neighbors. To ensure compliance, the County should have
the ability to enforce the deed restrictions to ensure the preservation of the natural features and
resources described herein.
The Hearings Officer finds that DCC 17.16.100(A) can be met by the Applicant with the adoption of
the following condition of approval:
Deed Restrictions: Prior to selling any lots, the Applicant shall record deed restrictions in
substantially the same form as outlined above and subject to the modification and amendments
required by the Hearings Officer, including the County's ability to enforce the deed restrictions.
B. The subdivision would not create excessive demand on public facilities, services
and utilities required to serve the development.
FINDING: In response to this criterion, the Applicant stated:
As previously noted, the property will have on -site waste disposal systems and lot
owners will use private wells as a water source. The Applicant is speaking with
PacifiCorp to provide power to the subdivision. The Applicant proposes as a condition
of approval that it obtain a will serve letter from PacifiCorp, indicating an ability to
provide such service to the proposed subdivision.
ThP ciihmittPH Site Traffic Renort Analvsis. nrenared by loe Bessman of Transieht
Consulting, LLC, confirms that the affected public transportation system will not be
overburdened, nor materially affected by the proposed project, and its relatively
minor traffic impacts.
The subject land is currently included within the Bend Rural Fire Protection District #2
for fire protection and emergency services. The proposed development with
improved roads, utilities, and access, is likely to reduce any fire threats or concerns
as compared to the current natural setting, and will improve emergency services
access.
The Applicant subsequently provided a will -serve letter from Pacific Power dated December 31,
2019, that it is willing and able to provide electrical service to the proposed development.
The Fire Department and Road Department made recommendations regarding this criterion. No
other infrastructure, public facilities, service or utilities deficiencies have been identified in the
record.
With the adoption of the Fire Department's and Road Department's recommendations as
conditions of approval, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 26 of 67
C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of Oregon
Revised Statutes Section 92.090.
FINDING: The relevant provisions of ORS 92.090 and the proposal's compliance with those
provisions are addressed in the findings above. The application meets the requirements of ORS
92.090.
D. For subdivision or portions thereof proposed within a Surface Mining Impact Area
(SMIA) zone under DCC Title 18, the subdivision creates lots on which noise or dust
sensitive uses can be sited consistent with the requirements of DCC 18.56, as
amended, as demonstrated by the site plan and accompanying information
required under DCC 17.16.030.
FINDING: The subject property is not within a Surface Mining Impact Area Zone. Staff noted that a
minor portion of the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) Combining Zone does appear to fall within
the subject property. However, after discussion with the Deschutes County Systems Analyst, staff
stated that this minor portion of the SMIA Zone on the subject property is the result of a mapping
error, rather than an accurate reflection of SMIA zoning provisions applicable to the subject
property. No party disputed this statement.
This criterion does not apply.
E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County Surveyor
FINDING: This requirement has already been added as a recommended condition of approval
under ORS 92.090(1) above.
Section 17.16.105. Access to Subdivisions.
No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads
constructed to County standards and by roads under one of the following conditions:
A. Public roads with maintenance responsibility accepted by a unit of local or state
government or assigned to landowners or homeowners association by covenant or
agreement, or
B. Private roads, as permitted by DCC Title 18, with maintenance responsibility
assigned to landowners or homeowners associations by covenant or agreement
pursuant to ORS 105; or
C. This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved
collector or arterial or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such
a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision
from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards that maintenance
responsibility for the roads has been assigned as required by this section.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 27 of 67
The subdivision will have access to O.B. Riley Road, a County Road (rural collector
classification), via Pacific Heights Road, a publicly -dedicated road that has been
accepted by the County. The Applicant proposes to form a homeowners association
that will be responsible for maintenance of Juniper Rim Loop.
The Road Department requests that all public roads within the subdivision be assigned to a
homeowners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A) and
17.48.180(E). As part of that condition of approval, the Road Department also asked that the final
plat include the following note:
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS PLATTED BY
THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL PUBLIC
ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT
FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
As noted above, the neighboring homeowners association submitted the following comment
regarding ongoing maintenance of the already constructed Pacific Heights Road located in the
Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision:
The recently completed Pacific Cascade Heights Development sits immediately to the east
of the Smallwood subdivision. The Smallwood subdivision application identifies road access
fn the naw eiihrlivitinn via Pacific Heights Road. As identified on the enclosed Road
Maintenance Covenant for Pacific Cascade Heights, the property owners of Pacific Cascade
Heights are solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roads within Pacific
Cascade Heights including both Pacific Heights Road and Northern Estates Drive.
The application for File No. 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP does not include a road
maintenance agreement or covenant for their use of Pacific Heights Road. Based on the
terms of the Pacific Cascade Heights Road Maintenance Covenant, Section 4, if either of the
Roads in Pacific Cascade Heights are used to gain access to real estate that is not part of the
Pacific Cascade Heights property and that access does not included a satisfactory road
maintenance agreement or covenant then we can terminate the Pacific Cascade Heights
road maintenance covenant.
Pacific Cascade Heights requests that Deschutes County either accept all the road
maintenance and repair of Pacific Heights Road upon acceptance of application 247-19-
000913-LL, 19-914-TP, or stipulate approval of application 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP
shall be based on a mutually agreeable road maintenance agreement or covenant between
Pacific Cascade Heights and the Smallwood subdivision
In response, the Applicant initially noted that it had agreed in principal with the Pacific Cascades
Heights owners association to sign a maintenance agreement to pay proportionate share of the
costs of maintain the existing portion of Pacific Heights Road. Prior to the record closing, the
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 28 of 67
Applicant noted that no agreement had been signed. Instead, the Applicant submitted into the
record on July 7th a "Road Maintenance Covenant." The covenant requires, amongst other things,
that the new road in the proposed subdivision be constructed to Deschutes County Road standards
and all applicable legal requirements. It also requires that the owners of lots in the proposed
subdivision will improve, repair, and maintain the road in good condition and repair to applicable
Deschutes County Road Standards. Also of note, is the "Termination" provision which states:
Termination: This Covenant may not be terminated unless and until either: (a) either
the Deschutes County Road Department consents to such termination; or (b)
Deschutes County accepts maintenance obligations with respect to the [r]oad.
The Elkins Family Revocable Trust (the "Elkins"), who the property south of the proposed
subdivision, through their attorney, objected to the Applicant recording a covenant similar to the
on one recorded for Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision (allowing them to terminate the covenant
if down road property owners began used Pacific Heights Road). The Elkins subsequently noted,
though, that they agreed with the Applicant's Road Maintenance Covenant subject to some
changes. The Elkins suggested following language regarding termination:
Termination: This Covenant may not be terminated unless and until Deschutes
County or another unit of federal, state or local government or special district
formally accepts maintenance responsibility with respect to the Road according to
applicable laws.
ThP Flkins' attornev contends that there is no authority in the Code to allow for the Road
Department to consent to termination of the maintenance obligation.
In light of the above comments, the Hearings Officer believes there are two issues for him to decide.
First, whether or not the tentative plan decision should include a condition of approval requiring
the parties, including the Applicant and the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association, to
enter a maintenance agreement for the portion of Pacific Heights Road located in the Pacific
Cascade Heights subdivision. And second, if the answer to the first question is "no", whether or not
the Elkins requested revisions to the proposed maintenance covenant are necessary.
In response to the first issue, the Hearings Officer notes that the Pacific Cascade Heights
homeowners association did not cite any code provision that would require a joint maintenance
agreement in this case. Moreover, the Hearings Officer is unaware of any such requirement in the
Code. Instead, the code, including this provision, focuses on ensuring access via a public road that
currently exists and that the new road to be constructed within the subdivision be built and
maintained to county standards. The Hearings Officer will not condition approval of the tentative
plan on Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association and the Applicant making an agreement
regarding the maintenance of Pacific Heights Road.
The consequence of not requiring a joint maintenance agreement is that the Pacific Cascade
Heights homeowners association may elect to void their current maintenance agreement. It is
unclear why the termination provision in the Pacific Cascade Heights maintenance agreement was
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 29 of 67
allowed to be recorded in its current form. Perhaps it was an oversight by the County. If the
homeowners association elects to void the maintenance covenant, that section of Pacific Heights
Road running through the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision may go without maintenance. That
would be to the detriment of the Pacific Cascade Heights owners as well as the downstream
property owners who rely on that road for access. Thus, reaching a mutually agreeable
maintenance agreement between the users of the road seems beneficial to all. However, the
Hearings Officer is not aware of any code provision that authorizes him to require the parties to
enter such an agreement as a condition of development. To do so would essentially put all
downstream property owners at the whim of the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association.
The next question, then, is whether or not the requested changes suggested by the Elkins should
be required in the Road Maintenance Covenant. The Hearings Officer finds that there is no
authority in the code to allow the Road Department to waive continuing maintenance obligations.
Instead, this code section contemplates that such maintenance obligation will only go away upon
assignment to another governmental entity or road district assuming responsibility for
maintenance. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer finds the requested revisions made by the Elkins
should be incorporated into the maintenance covenant.
In summary, what this code provision does require is that a proposed subdivision be accessed by
roads constructed to County standards and by roads under one of three conditions. DCC
17.16.105(a)-(c). One of those conditions is the access road be a public road with maintenance
responsibility accepted either by a governmental entity or assigned to landowners or a
homeowners association by a covenant or agreement. DCC 17.16.105(a). In this case, it is
iincIi-.niitPri that Pacific Heiehts road is a public road. It is also further undisputed that Pacific
Heights Road, extending from O.B. Riley Road to the boundary of the proposed subdivision, is
currently maintained by the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association. Thus, the proposed
subdivision is accessed by a public road with maintenance responsibility assigned to a
homeowners association (Pacific Cascade Heights). The evidence in the record demonstrates
compliance with this criterion as written.
For the reasons stated in this finding as well as in the finding above for DCC 17.16.040, including
the below adopted conditions of approval, this criterion can be met.
Road Maintenance: The maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned to
a home owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A), and
17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit the covenant in substantially the same form as submitted for
review to the Hearings Officer, subject to the changes noted above, to the Road Department for
review and shall record the covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall include the following note:
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS PLATTED BY
THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL PUBLIC
ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL DISTRICT
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 30 of 67
FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
Section 17.16.115. Traffic Impact Studies.
A. The traffic studies will comply with DCC 18.116.310.
FINDING: The Applicant submitted a Site Traffic Report, as required by DCC 18.116.310, prepared
by a professional engineer. The Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County examined the
Applicant's Site Traffic Report and its methodologies, conclusions, and recommendations and
found it complies with the applicable provisions of 18.116.310. This criterion is met.
Chapter 17.24, Final Plat.
Section 17.24.120. Improvement Agreement.
A. The subdivider may, in lieu of completion of the required repairs to existing streets
and facilities, and improvements as specified in the tentative plan, request the
County to approve an agreement between himself and the County specifying the
schedule by which the required improvements and repairs shall be completed,
provided, however, any schedule of improvements and repairs agreed to shall not
exceed on(e] year from the date the final plat is recorded, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 17.24.120(F) below. The agreement shall also provide the following.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer understands that Section 17.24 of the Code applies to final plats.
DCC 17.24.120 specifically applies to Improvement Agreements if certain improvements will not be
made prior to final plat approval. The Applicant is not currently requesting an improvement
agreement. Any such request made in the future will need to comply with the applicable criteria
for improvement agreements.
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards.
Section 17.36.020. Streets.
A. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to
existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and
safety, and the proposed use of land to be served by the streets. The street system
shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system for all modes of transportation,
including pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, with intersection angles, grades,
tangents and curves appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the
terrain. The subdivision or partition shall provide for the continuation of the
principal streets existing in the adjoining subdivision or partition or of their
property projection when adjoining property which is not subdivided, and such
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 31 of 67
streets shall be of a width not less than the minimum requirements for streets set
forth in DCC 17.36.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
Consideration has been taken for existing and planned streets, topography conditions,
public convenience and safety, and the proposed land use when designing the street layout
of the proposed Tentative Plan. Pacific Heights Road is being extended from the adjoining
Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. Proposed streets meet the minimum requirements for
street widths.
juniper Rim Loop will be constructed to subdivision standards per County requirements for
a local road. The Applicant proposes to form an owners' association to maintain juniper
Loop Road.
The proposed street designs, including the location, width, and grades for the road within the
proposed subdivision, are shown on the submitted Tentative Plan.
The Hearings Officer believes that, as conditioned by the Road Department requirements, this
proposal will comply with this criterion.
B. Streets in subdivisions shall be dedicated to the public, unless located in a
destination resort, planned community or planned or cluster development, where
madc can be privately owned. Planned developments shall include public streets
where necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic.
FINDING: The proposed streets are required to be dedicated to the public. A condition of approval
to require the public dedication of the proposed streets will ensure such dedication occurs.
Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated without any
reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road
and easements for public or private utilities.
Section 17.36.040. Existing Streets.
Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or within a tract, are of inadequate width to
accommodate the increase in traffic expected from the subdivision or partition or by the
County roadway network plan, additional rights of way shall be provided at the time of
the land division by the applicant. During consideration of the tentative plan for the
subdivision or partition, the Planning Director or Hearings Body, together with the Road
Department Director, shall determine whether improvements to existing streets adjacent
to or within the tract, are required. If so determined, such improvements shall be required
as a condition of approval for the tentative plan. Improvements to adjacent streets shall
be required where traffic on such streets will be directly affected by the proposed
subdivision or partition.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 32 of 67
FINDING: The Applicant proposes access to the subdivision via existing privately -maintained and
County -maintained roads. The County Road Department did not identify the need for
improvements to presently existing segments of streets.
Section 17.36.050. Continuation of Streets.
Subdivision or partition streets which constitute the continuation of streets in contiguous
territory shall be aligned so that their centerlines coincide.
FINDING: One of the proposed new roadways will be a continuation of Pacific Heights Road, with
the centerlines coinciding. This standard will be met.
Section 17.36.060. Minimum Right of Way and Roadway Width.
The street right of way and roadway surfacing widths shall be in conformance with
standards and specifications set forth in DCC 17.48. Where DCC refers to street standards
found in a zoning ordinance, the standards in the zoning ordinance shall prevail.
FINDING: The street right-of-way and surfacing widths comply with the standards of DCC 17.48, as
reviewed and conditioned herein. The Deschutes County Road Department requested several
conditions of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion, which are recommended as
conditions of approval included throughout this decision. Additionally, all road designs will be
reviewed and approved by the County Road Department prior to approval of the final plat. The
Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be met under the proposal, when combined with the
proposed conditions.
Section 17.36.070. Future Resubdivision.
Where a tract of land is divided into lots or parcels of an acre or more, the Hearings Body
may require an arrangement of lots or parcels and streets such as to permit future re -
subdivision in conformity to the street requirements and other requirements contained in
DCC Title 17.
FINDING: All proposed lots are more than one -acre in size. The lots are arranged along the new
extension of Pacific Heights Road or Juniper Rim Loop, providing adequate arrangement and
frontage for a future re -subdivision. This criterion will be met.
Section 17.36.080. Future extension of streets.
When necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,
streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision or partition.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 33 of 67
As shown on the Tentative Plat, the Applicant proposes extending Pacific Heights
Road through the property to the boundary with the property to the south, which will
permit a future connection.
Upon review of the submitted tentative plan, staff sent the following request in the incomplete
letter:
Staff notes that three (3) lots adjacent to the subject property are potentially large enough
to permit future division under the current zoning criteria. These lots are identified as
follows:
Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 502
o Zoning: Exclusive Farm Use, Flood Plain
Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 601
o Zoning: Urban Area Reserve
- Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 503
o Zoning: Urban Area Reserve
Based on the submitted application materials, the Applicant proposes to extend Pacific
Heights Road to provide future access to the property directly south of the subject parcel
identified as Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 503. However, the remaining streets associated
with the proposed development, including the proposed Juniper Rim Loop, will not extend
to the boundaries of the remaining two parcels described above. Staff notes that to give
access to or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended
to the boundary of the subdivision or partition.
Please provide additional information describing how streets shall be extended to the
boundary of the remaining two parcels described above as Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 502
and Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 601 (figures below):
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 34 of 67
Tax Lot 601
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 35 of 67
Tax Lot 502
The Applicant provided the following information concerning this criterion in the incomplete
response materials:
Staff has noted that the Applicant has not proposed to stub roads to Tax Lot 502 to the
north or to Tax Lot 601 to the south. With respect to Tax Lot 601, the property owners, Ed
and Doris Elkins, have advised the Applicant that they do not want a road stubbed to Tax
Lot 601. See the enclosed February 14, 2020 email from their lawyer, Kevin Keillor. The
Elkinses also own Tax Lot 503, and the Applicant has proposed extending Pacific Heights
Road to the boundary of Tax Lot 503. Based upon this, the owners of Tax Lot 601 prefer to
provide access to Tax Lot 601 through Tax Lot 503. Thus, stubbing a road to Tax Lot 601 is
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 36 of 67
not "necessary to give access" or to "permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land...."
Thus, no street extension to Tax Lot 601 is needed.
With respect to Tax Lot 502, that parcel is owned by the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department. The Applicant has made several attempts to reach a representative from the
Department to discuss future plans (the local representative advised that such issues are
handled out of Salem and not locally). Given the public ownership, the existing recreational
uses of the park there (hiking and enjoying nature and river views), subdivision or other
development seems unlikely. Considering that subdivision of this parcel is not addressed or
planned in the current (1986) Parks Master Plan for Deschutes County, and the District has
not commented on this application, the Applicant believes there is no need for a road to be
stubbed to the boundary of Tax Lot 502 at this time. The Applicant believes that constructing
one at this time in the vague possibility that it might be used at some time in the distant
future (at which point it would likely need to be reconstructed because of damage from the
elements and to bring it up to then -applicable code standards) seems a terrible waste and
an unnecessary environmental impact. If the County is concerned about possible future
access, the Applicant proposes the imposition of a condition of approval requiring the
dedication of right-of-way for a future road, if it is ever needed.
Mr. Dahlen stated in his June 30, 2020, email that in regards "to the road connectivity to the north
notwithstanding the sentiments of the current Oregon Parks and Recs Management, connectivity
is a requirement as noted by county staff in the 'incomplete' letter and this requirement cannot be
waived by an adjoining property owner, [i]t is entirely possible that future managers of [OPRD] will
want to nmviria river arrats from the rpacific Heiehtsl road and this should be permanently
blocked by a shortsighted approval." Mr. Dahlen does not cite the relevant code section this
argument relates to, but the Hearings Officer believes it is directed at this DCC 17.36.080.
The Applicant responded by noting that OPRD has "expressly stated that a road is not necessary
for a future partition or subdivision and is not needed for access. The Applicant and OPRD have
agreed upon an easement that will provide the access that OPRD anticipates needing." Cooper Ltr,
July 21, 2020. OPRD does not want a road stubbed to its adjacent boundary (to the north of the
subject property) because it is contrary to the statement purpose of the property, which is
conservation. According to the Applicant, a stubbed road might lead to trespassing that could
damage sensitive ecosystems, harass wildlife, or lead to fires. Cooper Ltr, July 7, 2020. To confirm
the understanding between the Applicant and OPRD, the Applicant submitted an email and form
easement that has been approved by OPRD to allow pedestrian and vehicular access to OPRD's
property for use by OPRD employees and contractors to inspect and maintain OPRD's property.
However, the Hearings Officer notes the easement would not allow the public access, should the
OPRD property be put to different use in the future.
Mr. Dahlen's interpretation of this code section is reasonable. However, the Hearings Officer
interprets DCC 17.36.080 differently. As the Hearings Officer interprets this code section, it is
intended (1) to ensure access, or (2) to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land by
requiring, if necessary, streets to be extended to the boundary of the subdivision. Put otherwise, if
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 37 of 67
necessary, to give access or allow for satisfactory future division of adjoining land, then streets
must be extended to the subdivision boundary.
In the case of Tax Lot 502 to the north of the subjection property, the Applicant and OPRD have
agreed to an access easement. DCC 17.36.080 does not state the extent to which access must be
allowed. In this case, though, the property owner (OPRD) has consented to access as permitted by
the proposed easement. Thus, with a condition of approval requiring that the easement be
recorded, access to Tax Lot 502 can be ensured.
Perhaps slightly less clear is whether a street must be stubbed to the boundary to allow
"satisfactory" future division of Tax Lot 502. The code does not state to whose satisfaction future
division must be ensured. In this case, the Hearings Officer considered that perhaps it was the
County's satisfaction (but Staff did not make that argument), the public's satisfaction, or the
adjoining property owner's satisfaction. Ultimately, the Hearings Officer concluded it should be to
the adjoining property owners satisfaction since it is their property to divide or not. In this case,
OPRD has conveyed that they intend to manage the land for conservation and that access to the
OPRD property risks harm to the ecosystem, wildlife, and increases the risk of fire. Accordingly, in
light of the adjacent property owner's position, the Hearings Officer finds it is not necessary to
require a stubbed road to Tax Lot 502 to allow "satisfactory" future division. OPRD has stated it is
not necessary.
With that interpretation in mind, the Hearings Officer turns to Tax Lot 601 to the south. In this case,
Tax Lots 601 and 503, both to the immediate south of the proposed subdivision, are owned by the
camp Ianrinw_nPr. the Elkins Familv Revocable Trust (the "Elkins"). Again, the Applicant has been in
contact with the landowner. In this case, the Applicant and the Elkins have agreed to an access
easement providing access to Tax Lot 601. A copy of the proposed easement is included with
applicant's submittal dated July 71h, 2020. The proposed easement includes an agreement to
dedicate the right of way for a road in the event the Elkins need it in the future to develop their
property. The Elkins confirmed in a letter from their attorney dated July 7th, 2020, they believe this
satisfactory to allow access to Tax Lot 601. The Hearings Officer also notes that the Applicant's
tentative plan shows Pacific Heights Road being stubbed to the northern property line of Tax Lot
503. Since Tax Lot 503 and Tax Lot 601 are in common ownership, they have control over access
to Tax Lot 601 should the Elkins elect to continue a road from Tax Lot 503 to Tax Lot 601 for future
division (in addition to the proposed easement).
For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant can meet the requirements of DCC
17.36.080 with the following conditions of approval.
Access to Tax Lot 502: The Applicant shall execute an easement in substantially the same form as
attached to the letter from Ms. Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 4 prior to recording the final plat.
The easement shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
Access to Tax Lot 601: The Applicant shall execute an easement in substantially the same form as
attached to the letter from Ms. Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 5 prior to recording the final plat.
The easement shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 38 of 67
Section 17.36.100. Frontage Roads.
If a land division abuts or contains an existing or proposed collector or arterial street, the
Planning Director or Hearings Body may require frontage roads, reverse frontage lots or
parcels with suitable depth, screen planting contained in a non -access reservation along
the rear or side property line, or other treatment necessary for adequate protection of
residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. All frontage
roads shall comply with the applicable standards of Table A of DCC Title 17, unless
specifications included in a particularzone provide otherstandards applicable to frontage
roads.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision does not abut or contain an existing or proposed collector or
arterial street. This criterion is not applicable.
Section 17.36.120. Street Names.
Except for extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate
or be confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street
names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the County and shall
require approval from the County Property Address Coordinator.
FINDING: This criterion can be met with the following condition of approval.
Street Names, All roads shall be named in conformance with the provisions of the Deschutes
County uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16. Except for extensions of existing
streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the name of an
existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names and numbers shall conform to the
established pattern in the County and shall require approval from the County Property Address
Coordinator.
Section 17.36.130. Sidewalks.
A. Within an urban growth boundary, sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of a
public road or street and in any special pedestrian way within the subdivision or
partition, and along any collectors and arterials improved in accordance with the
subdivision or partition.
B. Within an urban area, sidewalks shall be required along frontage roads only on the
side of the frontage road abutting the development.
C. Sidewalk requirements for areas outside of urban area are set forth in section
17.48.175. In the absence of a special requirement set forth by the Road
Department Director under DCC 17.48.030, sidewalks and curbs are never required
in rural areas outside unincorporated communities as that term is defined in Title
18.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 39 of 67
FINDING: These criteria are not applicable to the proposed development because the subject
property is located outside of an acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Sidewalks are not
required for this subdivision pursuant to subsection (C) above.
Section 17 36 140 Bicycle Pedestrian and Transit Requirements.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation within Subdivision.
A. The tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall provide for bicycle and
pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements within the subdivision and to
nearby existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, such as schools,
shopping areas and parks in a manner that will.
1. Minimize such interference from automobile traffic that would discourage
pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips;
Z Provide a direct route of travel between destinations within the subdivision
and existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, and
3. Otherwise meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, considering the
destination and length of trip.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
The proposed planned development is accessed via public roads to the proposed lots.
Bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be accommodated on the proposed roads that will be
constructed to the standards for a rural local road. Because of the rural nature of the area
and the low_ volume of vehicular traffic, pedestrian and bicvcle transportation can be easily
and safely accommodated on the proposed roads. There are no existing or planned
neighborhood activity centers nearby.
Staff stated there is an existing neighborhood activity center nearby. Specifically, the western and
northern boundaries of the subject property are abutted by several properties included in Tumalo
State Park which is operated by Oregon Parks and Recreation. While the Site Traffic Report
indicated a relatively low number of daily vehicle trips, staff was unclear if bicycle trips could be
accomplished using the existing and proposed roads, particularly if additional access to state park
property is required as a part of this development.
The Applicant responded, "...the remote location of the property and the fact that that ODPR
property immediately to the north of the [subject property] is intended for conservation and not
recreation means that neither a dedicated bike trail nor a dedicated bike lane is necessary." Cooper
Ltr, July 7th, 2020. In support of the Applicant's position, Transight Consulting submitted supporting
analysis explaining why a bicycle connection on Pacific Heights Road is not necessary.
OPRD commented in a letter dated June 26th, 2020, that it did not want a stub road or bicycle path
connecting to its property (Tax Lot 601) because it would encourage public to enter that portion of
the park that is not suited for large-scale recreation. The letter further notes that this portion of
the park is intended for conversation, not recreation and that the southern portion (adjacent to
the subject property) is not contiguous to the northern part of the park.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 40 of 67
The Hearings Officer is not aware of a stand-alone definition of "neighborhood activity centers."
However, in at least two locations within DCC 17.36, it is noted neighborhood activity centers
include locations like schools, shopping malls, and parks. There is no evidence in the record that a
school or shopping area exists near the subject property. The question, then, is whether the
portion of Tumalo State Park that to the immediate north of the subject property is a neighborhood
activity center. The initial reaction might be that the state park would constitute a neighborhood
activity center. However, based on comments from the Applicant and OPRD, the Hearings Officer
questions this conclusion.
Title 17 does not include a definition for "park". Although not directly relevant, Title 18 of the Code
defines "public park" as:
"...an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation that provides the
resource base for the following activities: picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping,
and hiking or nature oriented recreation such as viewing and studying nature and wildlife
habitat, and may include play area and accessory facilities that support the activities listed
above."
In this case, use of the work "park" is in regard to "neighborhood activity centers", including parks,
shopping area and schools. Such uses typically are associated with regular and constant public use.
Moreover, the definition of parks in Title 18 of the Code implies recreational use by the public.
Given that this portion of the state park is isolated from main part of the state park, is intended for
rnn�zAnvafin►, (not recreatinn) and has limited public use; the Hearings Officer concludes it does not
constitute a neighborhood activity center. Thus, the Hearings Officer finds that DCC 17.36.140(A)
does not require a bicycle path leading to the adjacent park.
Moreover, as explained in the memorandum from Transight Consulting dated July 71", 2020, the
public portions of Tumalo State Park and Riley Ranch Nature Reserve (managed by BPRD) are
accessed via O.B. Riley Road, which contains bicycle lanes and is designated as a Bicycle Route. The
memorandum notes that Pacific Heights Road only serves a small number of residences (24
including the 10 proposed lots that are subject of this application). Given the low level of traffic,
according to Transight, the cyclists will be supported within the low speed shared use environment.
The record does not contain a response from any party regarding Transight Consulting's
memorandum.
For the above reasons, as explained by the Applicant's attorney and traffic engineer, the Hearings
Officer finds this criterion is met.
B. Subdivision Layout.
1. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets shall be allowed only where, due to
topographical or environmental constraints, the size and shape of the
parcel, or a lack of through -street connections in the area, a street
connection is determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to be
infeasible or inappropriate. In such instances, where applicable and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 41 of 67
feasible, there shall be a bicycle and pedestrian connection connecting the
ends of cul-de-sacs to streets or neighborhood activity centers on the
opposite side of the block.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
The Applicant is proposing a loop road, which is the most appropriate road design,
considering the topography and the desire to minimize pavement through the subdivision.
Accordingly, this design is the most efficient design. No streets currently exist to the north,
west or south. No future streets are likely to the north (because the land is park property)
or to the west (because of the rim and the river). The Applicant is proposing a connection
to, and extension of Pacific Heights Road from the east.
The Applicant's tentative plan, titled "Supplementary Materials - Revised Tentative Plan 3-3-
20" in the record, shows that the applicant is planning for a loop road with a stubbed road
at the southern boundary. The Applicant's explanation indicates that development to the
west and north are not feasible. The stubbed road to the south will allow for development
to the south. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is met.
Z Bicycle and pedestrian connections between streets shall be provided at mid
block where the addition of a connection would reduce the walking or
cycling distance to an existing or planned neighborhood activity center by
400 feet and by at least 50 percent over other available routes.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
There are no existing or planned neighborhood activity centers in the vicinity of the
proposed subdivision.
Staff expressed concern that the subdivision is located near an existing neighborhood activity
center, specifically Tumalo State Park. As explained previously, the Hearings Officer does not
believe that portion of Tumalo State Park constitutes a neighborhood activity center because it is
intended for conservation and not public recreation. Therefore, pedestrian and bicycle connection
to Tumalo State Park to the immediate north of the subject property is not required. This criterion
is met.
3. Local roads shall align and connect with themselves across collectors and
arterials. Connections to existing or planned streets and undeveloped
properties shall be provided at no greater than 400 foot intervals.
4. Connections shall not be more than 400 feet long and shall be as straight as
possible.
FINDING: The proposed extension of Pacific Heights Road and Juniper Rim Loop do not cross a
collector or arterial road. There is no opportunity to align and connect with existing or planned
streets.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 42 of 67
C. Facilities and Improvements.
1. Bikeways may be provided by either a separate paved path or an on -street
bike lane, consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17.
2. Pedestrian access may be provided by sidewalks or a separate paved path,
consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17.
3. Connections shall have a 20 foot right of way, with at least a 10 foot usable
surface.
FINDING: The proposed roads within the subdivision, and all roads leading to the subdivision with
the exception of OB Riley Road approximately 0.57 miles to the east, are public local roads, with
very low anticipated traffic volumes due to the project location and scope of development. OB Riley
Road is a designated collector street. Due to the presence of OB Riley Road and Tumalo State Park
adjacent to the subject property, staff was uncertain if separate bikeways should be required and
requests the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue. Staff noted that separate
bikeways or bike lanes are not warranted, nor required for local roads.
As previously discussed, the presence of a portion of Tumalo State Park that is intended for
conservation use and not recreational use, does not warrant bikeway or pedestrian access.
Additionally, given the low anticipated traffic volumes on Pacific Heights Road (as stated by the
Applicant's traffic engineer), which leads to O.B. Riley Road, there is no need for bikeways or
pedestrian access to O.B. Riley Road.
Section 17.36.150. Blocks.
A. General. The length, width and shape of blocks shall accommodate the need for
adequate building site size, street width and direct travel routes for pedestrians
and cyclists through the subdivision and to nearby neighborhood activity centers,
and shall be compatible with the limitations of the topography.
B. Size. Within an urban growth boundary, no block shall be longer than 1,200 feet
between street centerlines. In blocks over 800 feet in length, there shall be a cross
connection consistent with the provisions of DCC 17.36.140.
FINDING: The proposal is for 10 lots situated along a central loop road for access. The subject
property is not within an Urban Growth Boundary. The lots are all approximately 10.01 acres in
size.
Based on comments from the Road Department, staff believes the length, width and shape of
blocks shall accommodate the need for adequate street width. Given the 10.0-acre lot sizes, there
will be adequate building site area.
As noted previously, the Hearings Officer has concluded that the adjacent park land to the north
does not constitute a neighborhood activity center given the lack of large-scale public use since it
is not intended for recreational use. Therefore, there is no need for direct travel routes for
pedestrians and cyclists.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 43 of 67
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met.
Section 17.36.160. Easements.
A. Utility Easements. Easements shall be provided along property lines when
necessary for the placement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide
the subdivision or partition with electric power, communication facilities, street
lighting, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines or drainage. Such easements shall be
labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the tentative and final plat, they shall be at
least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pole
guyline easements along the rear of lots or parcels adjacent to unsubdivided land
may be reduced to 10 feet in width.
B. Drainage. If a tract is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainageway, channel
or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right of way
conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse, or in such further width
as will be adequate for the purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major
watercourses or drainageways may be required.
FINDING: To meet this criterion the Hearings Officer adopts the below condition of approval
Utility Easements: Prior to final plat approval, all required utility easements shall be shown on
the final plat. Easements shall be provided along property lines when necessary for the placement
of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or partition with electric
power, rnmmi miratinn facilities street lighting_ fewer lines, water lines, gas lines or drainage. Such
easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the tentative and final plat; they shall be
at least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pole guyline
easements along the rear of lots or parcels adjacent to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10
feetin width.
Regarding Criterion (B), the Hearings Officer does not believe it is applicable due to the fact that
the Deschutes River abuts the subject property at the very northwest corner, but does not traverse
the parcel.
Section 17.36.170. Lots. Size and Shape.
The size, width and orientation of lots or parcels shall be appropriate for the location of
the land division and for the type of development and use contemplated, and shall be
consistent with the lot or parcel size provisions of DCC Title 18 through 21, with the
following exceptions:
A. In areas not to be served by a public sewer, minimum lot and parcel sizes shall
permit compliance with the requirements of the Department of Environmental
Quality and the County Sanitarian, and shall be sufficient to permit adequate
sewage disposal. Any problems posed by soil structure and water table and related
to sewage disposal by septic tank shall be addressed and resolved in the applicant's
initial plan.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 44 of 67
B. Where property is zoned and planned for business or industrial use, other widths
and areas may be permitted by the Hearings Body. Depth and width of properties
reserved or laid out for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to
provide for the off street service and parking facilities required by the type of use
and development contemplated.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The size, width, and orientation of lots are appropriate for the location of the
subdivision in a UAR10 zoning district and residential. The proposed development
creates ten lots that are appropriate for development with single-family homes. The
development complies with the lot size provisions of Title 19, the applicable title.
The minimum lot sizes are large enough to permit compliance with DEQ and County
Sanitarian requirements for sewage disposal systems. There are no unusual
problems caused by the soil structure or water table that negatively impact sewage
disposal by septic tank.
The size, width, and orientation of the lots are appropriate to the proposed residential use. The
proposed lots will be approximately 10.01 acres in size, allowing for multiple alternative locations
for subsurface sewage disposal systems. No known problems with the soil structure or the water
table are represented in the record. This proposal can comply with the required structural
setbacks, as discussed and conditioned in this decision. Subsection (B) above does not applyto this
nrnnnca) Thaca rritaria will hp mPt.
Section 17.36.180. Frontage.
A. Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when located in a planned
development or cluster development, a private road, for at least 50 feet, except for
lots or parcels fronting on the bulb of a cul de sac, then the minimum frontage shall
be 30 feet, and except for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management roads. In the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Residential Center
District, lot widths may be less than 50 feet in width, as specified in DCC 1&61,
Table 2. La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Zoning Standards. Road frontage
standards in destination resorts shall be subject to review in the conceptual master
plan.
FINDING: As shown on the submitted tentative plan, each lot has a minimum frontage of 50 feet
along the proposed extension of Pacific Heights Road or Juniper Rim Loop, which are to be
dedicated to the public upon plat of the subdivision, and therefore this criterion is satisfied.
B. All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved streets
wherever practical.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 45 of 67
FINDING: The side lot lines are perpendicular or radial to the proposed extension of Pacific Heights
Road or juniper Rim Loop as nearly as practicable. Due to the meandering nature of both Pacific
Heights Road and juniper Rim Loop responding to existing topography, some of the proposed side
lot lines are not perpendicular or radial so as to form regular, square, buildable lots. This is
consistent with surrounding development on Pacific Heights Road.
Section 17.36.190. Through Lots.
Lots or parcels with double frontage should be avoided except where they are essential to
provide separation of residential development from major street or adjacent
nonresidential activities to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and
orientation. A plantingscreen easement of at least 10 feet in width and across which there
shall be no right of access may be required along the lines of lots or parcels abutting such
a traffic artery or other incompatible use.
FINDING: Two of the proposed lots will have double frontage (Lots 1 and 9 on the revised tentative
plan). The properties will require double frontage for two specific reasons:
The topography of the subject property, specifically the adjacent Deschutes River Canyon
to the west, requires that a loop road be constructed through the site to provide safe and
efficient access for future residents and public safety personnel. The orientation of the
proposed loop road (Juniper Rim Loop), will cause these two properties to have double
frontage which cannot be avoided under a loop road access scenario.
The Applirant iq required to extend right-of-wav access to neighboring Tax Lot 503, and
potentially neighboring Tax Lots 601 and 502, pursuant to DCC 17.36.080. The required
street extensions to neighboring properties, in conjunction with the loop road described
above for safe access and the restricted topography of the area, requires that at least
certain properties developed onsite will be subject to double frontage.
This criterion is met.
Section 17.36.210. Solar Access Performance.
A. As much solar access as feasible shall be provided each lot or parcel in every new
subdivision or partition, considering topography, development pattern and existing
vegetation. The lot lines of lots or parcels, as far as feasible, shall be oriented to
provide solar access at ground level at the southern building line two hours before
and after the solar zenith from September 22nd to March 21st. If it is not feasible
to provide solar access to the southern building line, then solar access, if feasible,
shall be provided at 10 feet above ground level at the southern building line two
hours before and after the solar zenith from September 22nd to March 21st, and
three hours before and after the solar zenith from March 22nd to September 21st.
B. This solar access shall be protected by solar height restrictions on burdened
properties for the benefit of lots or parcels receiving the solar access.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 46 of 67
C. If the solar access for any lot or parcel, either at the southern building line or at 10
feet above the southern building line, required by this performance standard is not
feasible, supporting information must be filed with the application.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The proposed 10-acre residential lot sizes will be adequate to maximize solar access
for future dwellings on the lots. Compliance with solar setbacks will be determined at
the building permit stage.
At approximately 10.01 acres, the proposed lots will be adequate to allow solar access for all
dwellings. All structures will be required to comply with the solar requirements of DCC 18.116.180.
These criteria will be met.
Section 17 36 230. Grading of Building Sites.
Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards, unless physical
conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made
usable by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
n. when filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit plans
showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community
Development Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development
Director shall consider the need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent
property. Grading shall be finished in such a manner as not to create steep banks
or unsightly areas to adjacent property.
FINDING: No grading or fill has been proposed by the Applicant. To ensure compliance with this
provision, the Hearings Officer adopts these criteria as conditions of any approval.
Grading: Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards, unless physical
conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made usable
by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
D. When filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit plans
showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community Development
Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development Director shall consider the
need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent property. Grading shall be finished in such
a manner as not to create steep banks or unsightly areas to adjacent property.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 47 of 67
Section 17.36.260. Fire Hazards.
Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall
be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident
evacuation.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The proposed configuration only includes one point of access to Pacific Heights Road.
While the Applicant does propose extending Pacific Heights Road to the south
property line, the road will not be constructed until that property develops. No
connection is possible to the north (because it is park land) or to the west (because of
the rim and the river). Thus, a second access point is not feasible at this time.
Additionally, staff notes that no comments were received from Larry Medina, Deputy Fire Chief for
the Bend Fire Department, related to a possible secondary access point to the proposed property.
Larry Medina provided the following comments as they relate to the proposed development:
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion
of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire
apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend
to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
hi iilriinu nr farilit\i...
An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection
shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are
hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction...
Staff concurred that no secondary access is currently possible given the surrounding existing
development pattern and topographical constraints. The Hearings Officer agrees and finds this
criterion is met.
Section 17.36.270. Street Tree Planting.
Street tree planting plans, if proposed, for a subdivision or partition, shall be submitted
to the Planning Director and receive his approval before the planting is begun.
FINDING: No street trees have been proposed by the Applicant.
Section 17.36.280. Water and Sewer Lines.
Where required by the applicable zoning ordinance, water and sewer lines shall be
constructed to County and City standards and specifications. Required water mains and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 48 of 67
service lines shall be installed prior to the curbing and paving of new streets in all new
subdivisions or partitions.
FINDING: No water or sewer lines are required by the applicable zoning ordinance. Water delivery
and waste disposal is proposed through private, individual wells and onsite septic systems.
Section 17.36.290. Individual Wells.
in any subdivision or partition where individual wells are proposed, the applicant shall
provide documentation of the depth and quantity of potable water available from a
minimum of two wells within one mile of the proposed land division. Notwithstanding DCC
17.36.300, individual wells for subdivisions are allowed when parcels are larger than 10
acres.
FINDING: The application materials state:
Private individual wells are proposed for the project. The Applicant has provided Oregon
Water Resources Department well logs, DESC 61077 and DESC 61390, located within one
mile of the Tentative Plan (both in the adjacent Pacific Cascade Heights Subdivision),
documenting the availability of potable water. This subdivision proposes a minimum lot size
of 10 acres. As a result, DCC 17.36.300 does not apply.
Based on the revised tentative plan, all lots in the proposed subdivision will be 10.01 gross acres
in Ci`c Thcrcfnra individual wells are allnwed.
Section 17.36.300, Public Water System.
in any subdivision or partition where a public water system is required or proposed, plans
for the water system shall be submitted and approved by the appropriate state or federal
agency. A community water system shall be required where lot or parcel sizes are less
than one acre or where potable water sources are at depths greater than 500 feet,
excepting land partitions. Except as provided for in sections 17.24.120 and 17.24.130, a
required water system shall be constructed and operational, with lines extended to the
lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed subdivision or partition plat, prior
to final approval.
FINDING: Pursuant to DCC 17.36.290, private individual wells are allowed for subdivisions when
parcels are larger than 10 acres. This criterion does not apply.
Chapter 17.44, Park Development.
Section 17.44.010. Dedication of Land.
A. For subdivisions or partitions inside an urban growth boundary, the developer shall
set aside and dedicate to the public for park and recreation purposes not less than
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 49 of 67
eight percent of the gross area of such development, if the land is suitable and
adaptable for such purposes and is generally located in an area planned for parks.
FINDING: The subject property is not within an urban growth boundary.
B. For subdivisions or partitions outside of an urban growth boundary, the developer
shall set aside a minimum area of the development equal to $350 per dwelling unit
within the development, if the land is suitable and adaptable for such purposes
and is generally located in an area planned for parks.
C. For either DCC 17.44.010 (A) or (B), the developer shall either dedicate the land set
aside to the public or develop and provide maintenance for the land set aside as a
private park open to the public.
D. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall determine whether or not such land
is suitable for park purposes.
E. if the developer dedicates the land set aside in accordance with DCC 17.44.010 (A)
or (B), any approval by the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall be subject to
the condition that the County or appropriate park district accept the deed
dedicating such land.
F. DCC 17.44.010 shall not apply to the subdivision or partition of lands located within
the boundaries of a parks district with a permanent tax rate.
FINDING: As discussed below, the Applicant has proposed to annex to the Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District. Thus, per subsection (F), DCC 17.44.010 does not apply.
Section 17.44.030. Annexation Agreement.
No partition or subdivision of land lying within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary,
including the urban reserve areas, but outside the boundaries of the Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District, shall be approved unless the landowner has signed an annexation
agreement with the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District.
FINDING: The proposed partition is located inside the Urban Reserve Area and based on the
current Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, the property is outside the
boundaries of the district. Based on the application materials, the Applicant agrees to sign an
annexation agreement with the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District. The Hearings Officer
therefore adopts the following condition of approval.
Park District Annexation: The applicant shall sign an annexation agreement with Bend Metro Park
and Recreation District and submit a copy of the agreement to the Planning Division prior to final
plat approval.
Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications.
Section 17 48.100. Minimum Right of Way Width.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 50 of 67
The minimum right of way width is 60 feet unless specified otherwise in Table A (or in any
right of way specifications set forth for a particular zone in a zoning ordinance). (See Table
A set out at the end of DCC Title 1Z)
FINDING: The proposed right-of-way dedication for both the Pacific Heights Road extension and
Juniper Rim Loop through the subdivision is 60 feet in width, meeting the requirements of this
section and Table A.
Section 17.48.110. Turn Lanes.
When a turn lane is required, it shall be a minimum of 14 feet in width, except where road
specifications in a zoning ordinance provide for travel lanes of lesser width. Additional
right of way may be required.
FINDING: No turn lane is proposed or required.
Section 17 48.120 Partial Width Roads.
Partial width roads or half streets shall not be allowed.
FINDING: No partial width road or half streets are proposed.
Section 17.48.130. Road Names.
All roads shall be named in conformance with the provisions of the Deschutes County
uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16.
FINDING: This criterion can be met with the condition of approval previously required regarding
street names.
Section 17.48.140. Bikeways.
A. General Design Criteria.
1. Bikeways shall be designed in accordance with the current standards and
guidelines of the Oregon (ODOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for
Development of New Bicycle Facilities, and the Deschutes County Bicycle
Master Plan. See DCC 17.48 Table B.
2. All collectors and arterials shown on the County Transportation Plan map
shall be constructed to include bikeways as defined by the Deschutes County
Bicycle Master Plan.
3. If interim road standards are used, interim bikeways and/or walkways shall
be provided. These interim facilities shall be adequate to serve bicyclists
and pedestrians until the time of road upgrade.
B. Multi -use Paths.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 51 of 67
1. Multi -use paths shall be used where aesthetic, recreation and safety
concerns are primary and a direct route with few intersections can be
established. If private roads are constructed to a width of less than 28 feet,
multi -use paths shall be provided.
2. Multi -use paths are two-way facilities with a standard width of 10 feet, but
with a 12 foot width if they are subjected to high use by multiple users.
These paths shall meet County multi -use path standards and shall connect
with bike facilities on public roads.
C. Bike Lanes. Six-foot bike lanes shall be used on new construction of curbed
arterials and collectors.
D. Shoulder Bikeways.
1. Shoulder bikeways shall be used on new construction of uncurbed arterials
and collectors.
2. Shoulder bikeways shall beat least four feet wide. Where the travel lane on
an existing arterial or collector is not greater than eleven feet, the bikeway
shall be a minimum of four feet wide.
E. Mountain Bike Trails.
1. Mountain bike (dirt or other unpaved surface) trails may be used as
recreational or interim transportation facilities.
2. Trails used for transportation shall have a two foot minimum tread width
and a six-foot minimum clearing width centered over the trail, and a
minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. Trails used solely for
recreational use may be narrower with less clearing of vegetation.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer has previously found that bikeways and pedestrian connections
are not required. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Section 17 48 160 Road Development Requirements - Standards.
A. Subdivision Standards. All roads in new subdivisions shall either be constructed to
a standard acceptable for inclusion in the county maintained system or the
subdivision shall be part of a special road district or a homeowners association in
a planned unit development.
FINDING: The proposed road extension is required to be constructed to a standard acceptable for
inclusion in the County -maintained road system, however, maintenance of the road extension will
be the responsibility of the owners of the subdivision lots. A previous condition of approval was
adopted to ensure road maintenance.
B. Improvements of Public Rights of Way.
1. The developer of a subdivision or partition will be required to improve all
public ways that are adjacent or within the land development.
2. All improvements within public rights of way shall conform to the
improvement standards designated in DCC Title 17 for the applicable road
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 52 of 67
classification, except where a zoning ordinance sets forth different
standards for a particular zone.
FINDING: The Applicant has proposed improvements and the Hearings Officer adopts the
following condition of approval to ensure compliance with these criteria.
Road Improvements: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall construct the extension of
Pacific Heights Road andjuniper Rim Loop (proposed loop road) through the subdivision according
to the submitted tentative plan and accordance with the applicable provisions of Title 17.
C. Primary Access Roads.
1. The primary access road for any new subdivision shall be improved to the
applicable standard set forth in Table A.
Z The applicable standard shall be determined with reference to the road's
classification under the relevant transportation plan.
3. For the purposes of DCC 17.4& 160 a primary access road is a road leading to
the subdivision from an existing paved county, city or state maintained road
that provides the primary access to the subdivision from such a road.
FINDING: Pacific Heights Road is the primary access road to this subdivision and presently
complies with these criteria.
D. Secondary Access Roads. When deemed necessary by the County Road Department
or Community Development Department; a secondary access road shall be
constructed to the subdivision. Construction shall be to the same standard used for
roads within the subdivision.
FINDING: The subdivision will have a single access road for general use which is Pacific Heights
Road. Due to the number of lots proposed and the layout of the subdivision, the Hearings Officer
finds a secondary general access road is not required.
E. Stubbed Roads. Any proposed road that terminates at a development boundary
shall be constructed with a paved cul-de-sac bulb.
FINDING: Upon review of the submitted tentative plan staff sent the following request in the
incomplete letter:
Based on the submitted application materials, the proposed extension of Pacific Heights
Road will terminate at the boundary of the subdivision development along the southern
property line. However, the submitted tentative plan does not appear to illustrate this road
with a paved cul-de-sac bulb. Please provide additional information, including a modified
tentative plan, which demonstrates that all proposed roads which terminate at a
development boundary, including the extension of Pacific Heights Road, will be constructed
with a paved cul-de-sac bulb.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 53 of 67
The Applicant subsequently provided the following response to request above in the incomplete
response materials:
As shown on the updated Tentative Plan, the Applicant proposes to construct a cul-de-sac
at the terminus of any roads that stub to undeveloped, adjacent property, in lieu of cul-de-
sacs [sic]. The Applicant did ask for the ability to replace each cul-de-sac with an alternative
hammerhead design, subject to approval by the Fire Department. The alternative
hammerhead would be identical to the stubbed road treatment at boundaries, recently
approved by the County and Fire Department, and constructed in the adjacent Pacific
Cascade Heights Subdivision. A hammerhead would be preferable, as it disturbs less land,
requires less grading and asphalt pavement that is ultimately wasted, and results in less
adverse impact to the environment, while serving the same purpose. However, staff has
indicated that there is no flexibility on this criterion, and, accordingly, the Applicant is
proposing to comply, as noted on the enclosed updated Tentative Plan.
The Hearings Officer finds the language in the code provides no flexibility regarding the cul-de-sac
requirement. The updated tentative plan depicts a cul-de-sac where Pacific Heights Road abuts Tax
Lot 503 to the south. The Applicant is therefore in compliance with this criterion.
F. Cul-de-sacs.
1. Cul-de-sacs shall have a length of less than 600 feet, unless a longer length
is approved by the applicable fire protection district, and more than 100 feet
from the center of the bulb to the intersection with the main road.
The maximum gr d on the bulb shall be four percent,
FINDING: Staff refers to the findings above concerning DCC 17.48.160(E) and requests that the
Hearings Officer make specific findings on this issue.
The updated site plan shows a single cul-de-sac bulb, adjacent to neighboring Tax Lot 503. It shows
that the cul-de-sac will comply with these standards. The Hearings Officer adopts the following
condition of approval.
Cul-de-sacs: Any cul-de-sac to be constructed shall comply with the requirements of DCC
17.48.160(F).
Section 17.48.190. Drainage,
A. Minimum Requirements.
1. Drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to receive and/or
transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon
Stormwater Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
and all surface drainage water coming to and/or passing through the
development or roadway.
z The system shall be designed for maximum allowable development.
B. Curbed Sections.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 54 of 67
C. Noncurbed Sections.
1. Road culverts shall be concrete or metal with a minimum design life of 50
years.
z All cross culverts shall be 18 inches in diameter or larger.
3. Culverts shall be placed in natural drainage areas and shall provide positive
drainage.
D. Drainage Swales. The Design Engineer is responsible to design a drainage swale
adequate to control a design storm as defined in the Central Oregon Stormwater
Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council.
E. Drainage Plans. A complete set of drainage plans including hydraulic and
hydrologic calculations shall be incorporated in all road improvement plans.
F. Drill Holes. Drill holes are prohibited.
G. Injection wells (drywells) are prohibited in the public right-of-way.
FINDING: In response to this criterion, the Applicant stated:
The Applicant is agreeable to a condition of approval demonstrating compliance with the
above criteria to the County Engineer via the required Road Improvement (Construction)
Plans, before public road construction, as is typical. The submitted Tentative Plan Roadways
Typical Section indicates the required County public road drainage ditches. Drainage swales,
and any necessary drainage facilities to address the above criteria will be provided in the
required Construction Plans, subject to the County Engineer's approval, as is typical.
The Applicant notes that there are no defined nor particular natural drainage courses on or
across the subject property, except of course for the Deschutes River, which just touches
the northwest corner of the property, which is some 200 feet below the developable
property, and will not be affected by the proposed subdivision infrastructure.
Curbs are neither proposed nor required for the proposed subdivision. The Hearings Officer
adopts the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion.
Drainage: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide certification by a licensed
professional engineer that any drainage facilities have been designed and constructed to receive
and/or transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon Stormwater
Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and all surface drainage water
coming to and/or passing through the development or roadway. All drainage features and designs
shall comply with DCC 17.48.190.
Section 17.48.210. Access.
A. Permit Required. Access onto public right of way or change in type of access shall
require a permit. Permits are applied for at offices of the Community Development
Department.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 55 of 67
B. Access Restrictions and Limitations. The creation of access onto arterials and
collectors is prohibited unless there is no other possible means of accessing the
parcel. In any event, residential access onto arterials and collectors shall not be
permitted within 100 feet of an intersection or the maximum distance obtainable
on the parcel, whichever is less.
FINDING: No access to arterial or collector roads from a proposed subdivision lot is proposed. The
following condition of approval is adopted to ensure compliance with this criterion.
Driveway Approach Permits: Prior to the issuance of building permits on each lot, a driveway
approach permit shall be obtained for each approach to the continuation of Pacific Heights Road
orJuniper Rim Loop.
TITLE 19 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, BEND URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) Zone.
Section 19.12.020. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted.
A. A single-family dwelling
FINDING: The proposed subdivision will create parcels for residential use. Single-family dwellings
arc permitted niiitright in the I IAR1n 7nne,
Section 19.12.050. Lot requirements.
The following requirements shall be observed.
A. Lot Area. Each lot shall have a minimum area of 10 acres.
FINDING: "Lot Area" as defined in DCC 19.04.040 includes the area of the adjacent street
dedications for lots 2.5 acres or greater in size. The following table shows the area in acres for
each lot proposed on the submitted tentative plan.
Lot Number
Gross Lot Area (acres)
1
10.01
2
10.01
3
10.01
4
10.01
5
10.01
6
10.01
7
10.01
8
10.01
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 56 of 67
9 10.01
10 10.01
B. Lot Width. Each lot shall have a minimum average width of 300 feet with a
minimum street frontage of 150 feet.
FINDING: The Applicant is proposing to extend the right of way associated with Pacific Heights
Road, and create a new loop road (tentatively named juniper Rim Loop), with each new parcel
fronting along the newly extended road way or the new loop road. After these improvements, the
smallest minimum average width of each parcel will be 300 feet, and the smallest minimum street
frontage will be 150 feet. This criterion will be met.
C. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the existing street
right-of-way line or the ultimate street right of way as adopted on the
Comprehensive Plan or Official Map, except that any lot of record less than one
acre in size lawfully created prior to (effect date of this title) shall have a minimum
front yard of 30 feet.
D. Side Yard. There shall be a minimum side yard of 10 feet.
E. Rear Yard. There shall be a minimum rear yard of 50 feet.
F. Solar Setback. The solar setback shall be as prescribed in DCC 19.88.210.
FINDING: There are no existing structures on the subject property. Future houses and buildings
on these remaining lots will need to comply with the setback requirements of this section.
Solar setbacks as prescribed in DCC 19.88.210 apply to new or altered structures only; no new or
altered structures are proposed with this land division application, and therefore this section does
not apply to this land division application.
Chapter 19.72, Flood Plain Combining Zone.
Section 19.72.020. Application of FP Zone.
A. The FP Combining Zone shall apply to the area identified on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) as special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 year flood and
f/oodway areas. The FIA Flood Insurance Study for Bend and the FIRM map are
hereby adopted and by this reference included herein. The A and AE zones shown
on the FIRM map are hereby zoned FP.
FINDING: Staff notes that a portion of the subject property is located within the Flood Plain
Combining Zone, therefore the provisions of this chapter apply to the proposed project.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 57 of 67
Flood Plain Combining Zone on Subject Property
B. When base flood elevation data has not been provided on the FIRM, the Planning
Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and
f/oodway data available from a federal, state or other source in order to administer
DCC 19.72.020.
C. Information to be obtained and maintained.
1. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance
Study or as required in DCC 19.72.020(B), record the actual elevation (in
relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
new or substantially improved structures and whether or not the structure
contains a basement.
2. For all new or substantially improved flood proofed structures, record the
actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the structure's lowest
floor. Obtain and maintain the flood proofing certifications required in DCC
19.72.070(B).
FINDING: Base flood elevation data has been provided on the FIRM.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 58 of 67
Section 19.72.040. Alteration of Watercourses.
A. Prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, notice of the proposed
alteration shall be given to affected, adjacent communities and the State
Department of Water Resources and evidence of such notification submitted to the
Federal Insurance Administration.
B. The applicant shall maintain the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse
so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished.
FINDING: No alteration of a watercourse is proposed under the current application.
Section 19.72.050. Permit for Use or Development in an FP Zone.
No development shall occur in an FP Zone unless a permit has been received for the work.
Except for improvement of an existing structure which is less than substantial, as
determined by the County, no permit shall be issued unless the work will be reasonably
safe from flooding, and otherwise complies with this title. All necessary state, federal and
local permits will be obtained as a condition of approval on any permit in an FP Zone. The
following information shall be submitted with the permit application:
A. The location of the property with reference to channel locations and flood profile
elevations.
B. The existing topography and proposed grading plan for the property. Contour
intervals shall not be more than one foot for ground slopes up to five percent and,
for areas immediately adjacent to a stream; two -foot for ground slopes between
five and 10 percent and five foot for greater slopes.
C. The location of existing and proposed diking or revetments, if any.
D. Review of building permits. Where elevation data is not available either through
the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for
building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be
reasonably safe from flooding.
FINDING: While a small portion of the subject property is included in the Flood Plain Combining
Zone, no portion of the proposed subdivision development will affect the Flood Plain area of the
site. All areas of the subject property which are affected by the Flood Plain Combining Zone are
located at the base of the Deschutes River canyon, approximately 210 feet below the nearest
potential building sites. Additionally, any future physical development of the property which will
affect the Flood Plain will be subject to the standards outlined above.
Section 19 72 090 Land Development Standards in a Flood Hazard Area.
No development shall occur in an FP Zone unless a permit has been received for the work.
Except for improvement of an existing structure which is less than substantial, as
determined by the County, no permit shall be issued unless the work will be reasonably
safe from flooding, and otherwise complies with this title. All necessary state, federal and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 59 of 67
local permits will be obtained as a condition of approval on any permit in an FP Zone. The
following information shall be submitted with the permit application:
A. In addition to the terms of DCC 19.72.070 and 19.72.080, a subdivision or other land
development, including all utility facilities, within an FP zone shall be designed and
constructed to minimize flood damage, including special provisions for adequate
drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
B. A land development which will alter or relocate a watercourse shall be designed,
constructed and maintained to retain the flood -carrying capacity of the
watercourse.
C. A proposed land development of greater than either 50 lots or five acres shall
include data showing the base flood elevation.
FINDING: As stated above, while a small portion of the subject property is included in the Flood
Plain Combining Zone, no portion of the proposed subdivision development will affect the Flood
Plain area of the site. All areas of the subject property which are affected by the Flood Plain
Combining Zone are located at the base of the Deschutes River canyon, approximately 210 feet
below the nearest potential building sites. Additionally, the submitted tentative plan includes data
showing the base flood elevation for the Deschutes River adjacent to the subject property.
Chapter 19.76, Site Plan Review.
Section 19.76.090 Deschutes River Corridor Design Review.
The following uses are permitted.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Deschutes River Corridor Design Review to ensure
compliance with the objectives of DCC Title 19 and the goals and policies relating
to the Deschutes River in the Bend Area General Plan. The purpose shall also be to:
1. Recognize and respect the unusual natural beauty and character of the
Deschutes River.
2. Conserve and enhance the existing riparian zone along the Deschutes River.
3. Allow the community flexibility in reviewing development proposals within
the Areas of Special Interest that are designated on the Bend Area General
Plan.
4. Maintain the scenic quality of the canyon and rimrock areas of the
Deschutes River.
S. Conserve and enhance property values.
In considering Design Plan the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission shall
take into account the impact of the proposed development on nearby
properties, on the capacity of the street system, on land values and
development potential of the area, and on the appearance of the street and
community.
B. The following areas and uses are exempt from the Deschutes River Design Review
process:
1. Public streets and utility facilities existing as of the date of adoption of DCC
Title 19. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in DCC Title 19, a
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 60 of 67
variance maybe granted to the mandatory 40 foot setback for future public
streets and utility facilities.
z Irrigation facilities, canals and flumes existing as of the date of adoption of
DCC Title 19.
C. Design Review Procedure. All new development, structures, additions and exterior
alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots
within the Deschutes River Corridor, are subject to a Design Review process.
FINDING: A portion of the subject property is located within the Deschutes River Corridor.
However, staff notes that while a portion of the subject property is located within this area, the
proposed application is for a series of property line adjustments and a 10-lot residential
subdivision. As such, no "new development, structures, additions and exterior alterations to
structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots" are proposed on the subject
property. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that this proposed tentative plan project is
not subject to a Design Review Process.
Regarding future development, though, the Nyes, contend that DCC 19.76.090 requires Design
Review for any lot partially within the Deschutes River Corridor. On the other hand, the Applicant's
attorney contends such review is only required for improvements constructed within 100 feet of
the high water mark.
DCC 19.04 defines "Deschutes River Corridor" as "all property within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark of the necrhiitec River, The nrdinary high water mark shall be as defined in DCC
19.04.040." The interpretations provided by the Nyes and the Applicant as noted both seem
reasonable. Ultimately, though, the Code provides the necessary context in which to interpret
whether only land within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark is subject to design review, or
whether property that is at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark is subject
to design review, even for improvements are more than 100 feet outside the high water mark.
The drafters' intent can be discerned by reading the whole of DCC 19.76.090. Subsection (D)
imposes minimum standards on development subject to design review in the Deschutes River
Corridor. One standard is the minimum setback. The minimum setback for buildings in the Corridor
is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. DCC 19.76.090(D)(1). If the design review only applies
to land within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark, but development is prohibited within 100
feet of high water mark by the setback, the remaining development standards, including the
minimum standards and site and design review criteria, would be pointless since all development
would fall outside the Corridor as a result of the setback. In other words, the building height,
conservation, compatibility, and colors and materials provisions would never be implicated since
no development would occur within 100 feet of the high water marker pursuant to the setback.
The Hearings Officer does not believe that was the intent of the drafters.
Accordingly, the Hearings Officer agrees with the interpretation provided by the Nyes' attorney that
the design review under 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any lot
partially within the corridor.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 61 of 67
With that interpretation in mind, the Hearings Officer finds any "new development, structures,
additions and exterior alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking
lots" which are proposed on a lot that falls at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark is subject to the design review process. To ensure compliance future development
within the subdivision complies with the requirements of this criterion, the Hearings Officer adopts
the following condition of approval.
Future Development: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision
shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
As noted above, the Hearings Officer finds both interpretations plausible. If this issue comes up on
appeal, the Board of County Commissioners may want to carefully analyze this provision and
provide further explanation as to how it interprets this code section.
IV. DECISIONS:
Lot Line Adjustment (247-19-000913-LL)
Based on the above Findings, the Hearings Officer APPROVES the lot line adjustment. This approval
is tentative and only confirms that the proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria
necessary for property line adjustments. All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject
properties.
In order to obtain final approval:
1. Except as provided in ORS 92.060(7-9), the adjusted property lines shall be surveyed and
monumented by a registered professional land surveyor and a survey complying with ORS
209.250, shall be filed with the County Surveyor. A copy of the filed survey shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Property line adjustments of properties each over
10 acres in size are not required to file a survey according to ORS 92.060(8).
2. New deeds, reflecting the new adjusted properties, shall be recorded with the Deschutes
County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deeds shall be submitted to the Planning
Division. The adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of
the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties
with proper acknowledgment.
A property line adjustment may have an effect on any completed septic site evaluations for
the properties involved. You may wish to check with the Environmental Soils Division
regarding this matter. A property line adjustment may also affect any water rights
appurtenant to your property. If you have a water right, you should contact your irrigation
district before the property line adjustment is surveyed
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 62 of 67
Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary
permits from the Deschutes County Building Division, the Deschutes County Environmental
Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as any required state and
federal permits.
Tentative Plan Approval (247-19-000914-TP)
Based on the above Findings, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the tentative plan subject to
the following conditions of approval.
A. Approval: This approval is based upon the information submitted by the Applicant. Any
substantial change will require a new application.
B. Final Plat: The final plat shall be prepared in accordance with Title 17 of the Deschutes
County Code.
C. PropeU Line Adjustments: Prior to final plat approval, all conditions of the property line
adjustment approved in Deschutes County file number 247-19-000913-LL shall be satisfied.
D. Site Evaluation: The 10 residential lots shall obtain septic site evaluation approval prior to
final plat approval.
E. Conformity to Tentative Plan: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision final plat shall
ho in ci ihctantiA rnnfnrmity with thin nrnvisinns of the tentative Dian for the subdivision, as
approved.
F. Explanations: Prior to final plat approval, explanations for all common improvements
required as conditions of approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision shall be recorded
and referenced on the subdivision plat.
G. Domestic Water Supply Statement: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide
Deschutes County with a statement that no domestic water supply facility will be provided
to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a
domestic water supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and endorsed by the city or county, shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real
Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in any public report made
for the subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has
been waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control
Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement to each prospective purchaser of
a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the purchaser of the first written
agreement for the sale of the lot. The subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the
purchaser upon delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt
to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject to
inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date the receipt is
taken.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 63 of 67
H. Sewage Disposal Statement: Prior to final plat approval, a statement that no sewage
disposal facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat, where the Department of Environmental Quality has approved the
proposed method alternative or other method of sewage disposal for the subdivision in its
evaluation report described in ORS 454.755(I)(b). A copy of any such statement, signed by
Applicant and indorsed by Deschutes County shall be filed by the Applicant with the Oregon
Real Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in the public report
made for the subdivision under ORS 92.385. If the making of a public report has been
waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law,
Applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of ORS 92.090(5)(c).
I. Irrigation District Certification: Prior to final plat approval, Applicant shall submit to
Deschutes County a certification from Swalley Irrigation District that the subdivision is either
entirely excluded from the District, or is included within the District for purposes of receiving
services and subjecting the subdivision to the fees and other charges of the District.
J. Easements of Record: Prior to final plat approval, all easements of record or existing
rights of way shall be noted on the final plat pursuant DCC 1724.060(E), (F), and (H).
K. Road Plans: Prior to construction of public road improvements, the Applicant shall
submit road improvement plans to Road Department for approval prior to commencement
of construction pursuant to DCC 17.40.020 and 17.48.060. The roads shall be designed to
the minimum standard for a local road within a subdivision pursuant to 17.48.160 and
17.4RA: Rnad improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable
sections of DCC 17.48.
L. Final Improvement Plans: Prior to construction of public road improvements, the
Applicant shall submit final improvement plans with all required approval signatures to
Road Department.
M. Road Improvements: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall complete road
improvements according to the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection of a register professional engineer
consistent with ORS 92.097 and DCC 17.40.040. Upon completion of road improvements,
applicant shall provide a letter from the engineer certifying that the improvements were
constructed in accordance with the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
N. Road Maintenance: Maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned
to a home owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105,
17.48.160(A), and 17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit covenant to Road Department for
review and shall record covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall include
the following note:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 64 of 67
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS
PLATTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND
REPAIR ALL PUBLIC ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OR A SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
O. Location of Roads: At the time of final plat submittal, the surveyor or engineer preparing
the plat shall, on behalf of Applicant, submit information showing the location of the existing
roads in relationship to the rights of way to Deschutes County Road Department. This
information can be submitted on a worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the
final plat. All existing road facilities and new road improvements are to be located within
legally established or dedicated rights of way. In no case shall a road improvement be
located outside of a dedicated road right of way. If research reveals that inadequate right
of way exists or that the existing roadway is outside of the legally established or dedicated
right of way, additional right of way will be dedicated as directed by Deschutes County Road
Department to meet the applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 or other County road
standards.
P. As -Constructed Plans: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit as -
constructed improvement plans to Road Department pursuant to DCC 17.24.070(E)(1).
Q. Water Rights: A statement of water rights shall be included on the final subdivision plat.
R. No Lot Sales: No lots to be created by this tentative plan application shall be sold prior to
recordation of the final plat with the Deschutes County Clerk.
S. Fire Department Requirements: The Applicant shall meet the requirements set forth by the
Bend Fire Department in their comments reprinted on pages 7 and 8 of this Decision. Fire
Department approval shall be evidenced by subdivision letter submitted to Deschutes
County Planning prior to final plat approval confirming conformance with applicable fire
safety regulations.
T. Subdivision Name: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision name shall be approved by
the Deschutes County Surveyor.
U. Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated
without any reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any
such street or road and easements for public or private utilities.
V. Utility Easements: Prior to final plat approval, all required utility easements shall be
shown on the final plat. Easements shall be provided along property lines when necessary
for the placement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or
partition with electric power, communication facilities, street lighting, sewer lines, water
lines, gas lines or drainage. Such easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 65 of 67
the tentative and final plat; they shall be at least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines
where possible, except utility pole guyline easements along the rear of lots or parcels
adjacent to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10 feet in width.
W. Grading and Filling: Grading: Grading of building sites shall conform to the following
standards, unless physical conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made
usable by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
D. When filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit
plans showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community
Development Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development
Director shall consider the need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent
property. Grading shall be finished in such a manner as not to create steep banks or
unsightly areas to adjacent property.
X. Park District Annexation: The applicant shall sign an annexation agreement with Bend
Metro Park and Recreation District and submit a copy of the agreement to the Planning
Division prior to final plat approval.
Y. Cul-de-Sacs: All required cul-de-sac bulbs shown on the final tentative plan shall meet the
ren, drPmants of DCC 17.48.160(F).
Z. Drainage: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide certification by a licensed
professional engineer that any drainage facilities have been designed and constructed to
receive and/or transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon
Stormwater Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and all surface
drainage water coming to and/or passing through the development or roadway. All
drainage features and designs shall comply with DCC 17.48.190.
AA. Continuing Obligation: All references to Applicant in this approval, including conditions, also
refers to any successor in interest of Applicant's rights (including development rights) in the
Subject Property. The intent of this approval is to assure the County that anyone claiming
rights under this approval is to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein.
BB. Street Names: All roads shall be named in conformance with the provisions of the
Deschutes County uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16. Except for
extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be
confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names
and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the County and shall require
approval from the County Property Address Coordinator.
CC. Driveway Approach: Prior to the issuance of building permits on each lot, a driveway
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 66 of 67
approach permit shall be obtained for each approach to the continuation of Pacific Heights
Road or Juniper Rim Loop.
DD. Deed Restrictions: Prior to selling any lots, the Applicant shall record deed restrictions in
substantially the same form as outlined above and subject to the modification and
amendments required by the Hearings Officer, including the County's ability to enforce the
deed restrictions.
EE. Design Review: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision
shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
FF. Access to Tax Lot 502: Prior to selling any lots in the subdivision, the Applicant shall
execute an easement in substantially the same form as attached to the letter from Ms.
Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 4 prior to recording the final plat. The easement shall be
recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
GG. Access to Tax Lot 601: Prior to selling any lots in the subdivision, the Applicant shall
execute an easement in substantially the same form as attached to the letter from Ms.
Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 5 prior to recording the final plat. The easement shall be
recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
Other permits may be required. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary
permits from the Deschutes County Building Division, the Deschutes County Environmental
Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as any required state and
federal permits.
VI. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
This tentative plan approval shall be void after two years from the date this decision becomes final,
unless the final plat has been submitted to the Planning Division for final approval within that time
period, an extension is sought under DCC 22.36.010, or the preliminary plat approval has been
initiated as defined in DCC 22.36.020.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a
party of interest.
Will Van Vactor, Hearings Officer
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 67 of 67
HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
FILE NUMBERS: 247-19-000913-LL, 247-19-000914-TP
OWNER/ Scott and Carol Ann Smallwood
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests two property line adjustments to increase the
size of the subject property to 100.1 acres. Concurrent therewith, the
Applicant requests a tentative plan approval for a 1 Not subdivision in
the Urban Area Reserve Zone (UAR10).
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 19800 Pacific Heights
Road, Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-
12-07, as Tax Lot 501.
STAFF CONTACT: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-383-4427
Email: Kyle.Collins@deschutes.org
DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org
I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code
Title 17 - Subdivisions
Chapter 17.12, Administration and Enforcement
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development
Plans
Chapter 17.24, Final Plat
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards
Chapter 17.44, Park Development
Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications
Title 18 - County Zoning
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Title 19 - Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve Zone (UAR10)
Chapter 19.72, Flood Plain Combining Zone (FP)
Chapter 19.76, Site Plan Review
Hearings Officer Decision
247-19-000913-LL; 247-19-000914-TP Page 1 of 67
Title 22- Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Oregon Revised Statutes (OAR) Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions
Ill. BASIC FINDINGS:
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 19800 Pacific Heights Road,
Bend; and is further identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-12-07, as Tax Lot 501
LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record identified as Parcel 1 of Minor
Partition MP-80-70. The subject property was altered to its current configuration pursuant to
property line adjustment file no. 247-18-000311-LL.
ZONING: The subject property is zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) and is designated
Urban Reserve Area on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map. A small area in the
northwest portion of the subject property is located in the Flood Plain Zone (FP).'
PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests two property line adjustments to increase the size of
the subject property to 100.1 acres. Concurrent with the property line adjustments, the
Applicant requests a tentative plan approval for a 10-lot subdivision in the Urban Area
Reserve Zone (UAR10).
CITE DESCRIPTION: The siihiect property is 100.00 acres in size (100.1 acres after the
proposed property line adjustments) and is irregular in shape. The subject property is
undeveloped and has a vegetative cover of juniper trees, sagebrush, and other native
vegetation. The site is primarily level, with a steep descent towards the Deschutes River
canyon along the western and northwestern portion of the parcel. The property is accessed
via Pacific Heights Road, a rural local right-of-way to the east which extends from O.B. Riley
Road. A private airstrip identified on Deschutes County Zoning Maps is located in the central
portion of the property.'
SURROUNDING LAND USES: To the west, the subject property is bounded by the
Deschutes River. West of the river are several larger properties within the Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) Zone. To the east of the subject property is the Pacific Cascade Heights
subdivision. The Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision contains several parcels developed
with single-family dwellings in the UAR10 Zone. To the south of the subject property are two
(2) additional parcels in the UAR10 Zone (Tax Lots 601 and 503), both of which are
undeveloped. To the west and north of the subject property is a large parcel that is split
zoned (UAR10 and EFU). The large parcel is publicly owned and operated by the Oregon
Parks and Recreation Department as a portion of Tumalo State Park. There are several
The staff report noted there was a mapping error that led to uncertainty regarding whether the property
might partially be located in the Airport Safety Combining Zone. It was determined the property is not in that
zone.
' The Hearings Officer understands the airstrip has been, or will be, abandoned.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 2 of 67
parcels designated as a Surface Mining site (County Assessor Tax Map 17-12-18, as Tax Lot
100; and County Assessor Tax Map 17-11-13, as Tax Lots 100, 103, 104, 200, 504, and 505)
approximately 0.16 miles to the southwest of the subject property. Properties
approximately 0.3 miles to the east and northeast of the subject property are located in the
Multiple Use Agricultural Zone and are principally developed with single-family dwellings.
The Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Bend is located approximately 0.57 miles east
of the subject property.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of
Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The Applicant submitted a
Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated January 13`", 2020, indicating the Applicant posted
notice of the land use action on the same day. Notice of this application was provided to all
property owners within 250 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed subdivision.
Notice of the public hearing was mailed on June 9, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comments received in response to the notice of application are
discussed here. Comments received at the public hearing and during the open record
period are addressed below.
Rob Kelleher, representing the homeowners association of the Pacific Cascade Heights
subdivision to the east raised issues regarding the effect of a road maintenance agreement
for Pacific Heights Road, the local right-of-way which provides access to the subject parcel.
The correspondence is quoted in part below and included in full in the record.
The recently completed Pacific Cascade Heights Development sits immediately to the east
of the Smallwood subdivision. The Smallwood subdivision application identifies road
access to the new subdivision via Pacific Heights Road. As identified on the enclosed Road
Maintenance Covenant for Pacific Cascade Heights, the property owners of Pacific
Cascade Heights are solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roads within
Pacific Cascade Heights including both Pacific Heights Road and Northern Estates Drive.
The application for File No. 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP does not include a road
maintenance agreement or covenant for their use of Pacific Heights Road. Based on the
terms of the Pacific Cascade Heights Road Maintenance Covenant, Section 4, if either of
the Roads in Pacific Cascade Heights are used to gain access to real estate that is not part
of the Pacific Cascade Heights property and that access does not included a satisfactory
road maintenance agreement or covenant then we can terminate the Pacific Cascade
Heights road maintenance covenant.
Pacific Cascade Heights requests that Deschutes County either accept all the road
maintenance and repair of Pacific Heights Road upon acceptance of application 247-19-
000913-LL, 19-914-TP, or stipulate approval of application 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP
shall be based on a mutually agreeable road maintenance agreement or covenant
between Pacific Cascade Heights and the Smallwood subdivision.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 3 of 67
Additional comments were received from several neighboring property owners which fall
into the following general categories:
• Access to adjacent public lands;
• Wildlife habitat preservation;
• Application of the Landscape Management Combining Zone approval criteria;
• Application of the Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone approval criteria;
• Design standards of the Oregon Scenic Waterways program; and
• Setback standards to adjacent river corridors and waterways.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and
received the following comments:
Deschutes County Building Division, Randy Scheid
NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during
the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-19-000914-LL/914-TP for a 10-unit subdivision
on 100 acres in the Urban Area Reserve (UAR-10) and Flood Plain (FP) zones at 63765 OB Riley
Road, aka 17-12-07, Tax Lot 501.
The applicant has submitted a Site Traffic Report (STR) which complies with Deschutes County
Code (DCC) 18.116.310. Staff has reviewed the Aug. 2, 2019, traffic study submitted by the
applicant's consultant, Transight Consulting, and agrees with the STR's methodology, findings,
and recommendations.
The property will be accessed via Pacific Heights Road, which is a public road not maintained by
Deschutes County, which is otherwise known as a Local Access Road. Functionally, Pacific Heights
is classified as a local road. The County still remains the permitting authority. The applicant will
need to ensure the roads serving the subdivision are constructed to County standards as well as
having a maintenance agreement that complies with DCC 17.16.105.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $4,448
per p.m. peak hour trip. County staff has determined a local trip rate of 0.81 p.m. peak hour
trips per single-family dwelling unit, therefore the applicable SDC is $3,603 ($4,448 X 0.81) per
each lot. The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy
is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 4 of 67
Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Todd Cleveland
Each lot or parcel of the proposed subdivision must have a complete approved site evaluation
prior to final plat approval.
Deschutes County Road Department, Cody Smith
I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file number, proposing a 10-
lot subdivision of Tax Lot 501 in 17-12-07. The subject property is accessed by Pacific Heights
Rd. Road Department records indicate that Pacific Heights Rd has the following attributes where
it abuts the subject property.
• Road Status - Local Access Road (Public, Not County Maintained)
• Surface Type - Asphalt Concrete
• Surface Width - 24 ft.
• Functional Classification - Rural Local
• Right of Way Width - 60 ft.
• Right of Way Instrument - Pacific Cascade Heights Subdivision Plat (2017-42220)
The proposed tentative plan includes an extension of Pacific Heights Road that terminates at the
southern boundary of the subject property and an intersecting loop road to provide access to the
proposed lots.
Deschutes County Road Department requests that approval of the proposed subdivision
he ciihiort to the following conditions:
Prior to construction of public road improvements:
• Applicant shall submit road improvement plans to Road Department for approval
prior to commencement of construction pursuant to DCC 17.40.020 and 17.48.060.
The roads shall be designed to the minimum standard for a local road within a
subdivision pursuant to 17.48.160 and 17.48A. Road improvement plans shall be
prepared in accordance with all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
• Applicant shall submit final improvement plans with all required approval signatures
to Road Department.
Prior to final plat approval by Road Department:
• Applicant shall complete road improvements according to the approved plans and all
applicable sections of DCC 17.48. Improvements shall be constructed under the
inspection of a register professional engineer consistent with ORS 92.097 and DCC
17.40.040. Upon completion of road improvements, applicant shall provide a letter
from the engineer certifying that the improvements were constructed in accordance
with the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
• Maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned to a home
owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A),
and 17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit covenant to Road Department for review
and shall record covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 5 of 67
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall
include the following note: PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS
OF LOTS PLATTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND
REPAIR ALL PUBLIC ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS A UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL
DISTRICT FORMALLYACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
• All easements of record or existing rights of way shall be noted on the final plat
pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (H).
• The surveyor preparing the plat shall, on behalf of Applicant, submit information
showing the location of the existing roads in relationship to the rights of way to
Deschutes County Road Department. This information can be submitted on a
worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the final plat. All existing road
facilities and new road improvements are to be located within legally established or
dedicated rights of way. In no case shall a road improvement be located outside of a
dedicated road right of way. If research reveals that inadequate right of way exists or
that the existing roadway is outside of the legally established or dedicated right of
way, additional right of way will be dedicated as directed by Deschutes County Road
Department to meet the applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 or other County road
standards. This condition is pursuant to DCC 17.24.060(E),(F), and (G) and
17.24.070(E)(8).
• Applicant shall submit as -constructed improvement plans to Road Department
mirvinnt to nr-C 17:24_070(F)(1).
• Applicant shall submit plat to Road Department for approval pursuant to DCC
17.24.060(R)(2), 100, 110, and 140.
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
• Applicant or their successors in interest for the subject property shall obtain driveway
access permits for all driveway accesses pursuant to DCC 12.28.050 and 17.48.210(A).
Bend Parks and Recreation District Sarah Bodo
Please accept the following comments from BPRD for this application:
• Since the property is within the urban area reserve zone, Deschutes County Code 17.44.030
will apply, requiring that the property annex to the Bend Park and Recreation District prior to
approval of the subdivision application.
• The property owner should be aware that a trail easement held by the state of Oregon for the
Deschutes River Trail exists on the property. BPRD would encourage the developer to provide
access to the trail for future residents.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Bridget Tinsley
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 6 of 67
This email is a follow up to our phone call yesterday and it relates to the Smallwood property
adjacent to Tumalo SP's southern parcels.
Other than the existing Deschutes River Trail easement across the corner of the Smallwood
property, there are no other access easement requests anticipated in the near future on the
southern parcels of Tumalo State Park. The park manager and district supervisor confirmed this
information for me yesterday.
Bend Fire Department, Larry Medina
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS:
Approved vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided to all construction
or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of
temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be
provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle
loading under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until
permanent access roads are available. 2014 OFC 3310.1
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction.
The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this
section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility, 2014 OFC 503.1.1
Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with
Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches. Where afire hydrant is located on afire apparatus road, the minimum
width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Traffic calming along afire apparatus
road shall be approved by the fire code official. Approved signs or other approved
notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided
for fire apparatus roads to prohibit parking on both sides of fire lanes 20 to 26 feet
wide and on one side of fire lanes more than 26 feet to 32 feet wide. 2014 OFC
503.2.1, D103.1, 503.4.1, 503.3
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced
(asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather
driving capabilities. Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire
department. All dead-end turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and
elevated surfaces shall be constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB-17. The
maximum grade of fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire
apparatus access road gates with electric gate operators shall be listed in
accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed,
constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. A Knox®
Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC D102.1, 503.2.4,
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 7 of 67
FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES:
An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire
protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or
portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. Prior to application of Building Permits contact the Bend Fire
Marshal's office at 541-322-6308 to discuss an approved fire protection water
suppi.
OTHER FIRE SERVICE FEATURES:
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building
numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly
legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum 4
inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a
private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument,
pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address
numbers shall be visible under low light conditions and evening hours. Provide
illumination to address numbers to provide visibility under all conditions. Address
signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An
address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department
website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours.
Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Grey Wolf
There are/may be wetlands, waterways or other water features on the property that are subject
to the State Removal -Fill Law based upon a review of wetland maps, the county soil survey and
other available information. The National Wetlands Inventory shows wetland, waterway or other
water features on the property. The property includes or is adjacent to a State Scenic Waterway.
A state permit will not be required for the proposed project because, based on the submitted site
plan, the project avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, waterways, or other waters.
A state permit is required for 50 cubic yards or more of fill removal or other ground alteration in
wetlands, below ordinary high water of waterways, within other waters of the state, or below
highest measured tide. A state permit is required for any amount of fill or removal activity within
State Scenic Waterways.
Based on review of mapping or other documents submitted, it appears the project ('Tentative
plat for a subdivision.') will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, waterways or other waters of the
state.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 8 of 67
Since future activity appears to fall within the buffer for a State Scenic Waterway (Deschutes
River), it is recommended that you contact Oregon Parks and Recreation Department prior to site
development.
This is a preliminary jurisdictional determination and is advisory only. This report is for the State
Removal -Fill law only. City or County permits may be required for the proposed activity.
For information on permitting, use of a state-owned water, wetland determination or delineation
report requirements please contact the respective DSr' Aquatic Resource, Proprietary or
jurisdiction Coordinator for the site county. The current list is found at:
http://www. oregon.gov/dsl/ww/pages/wwstaff. aspx
The current Removal -Fill permit and/or Wetland Delineation report fee schedule is found at.
https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Documents/Removal-FillFees. pdf
Response Phone: 503-986-5321.
The following agencies did not respond: Deschutes County Assessor, Bend/La Pine School
District, Deschutes County Surveyor, Pacific Power and Light, Watermaster District 11, Bend
Cable Communications, Bend City Engineering, Bend Growth Management Department,
Bend Planning Department, Bend Public Works Department, Cascade Natural Gas
Company, Central Electric Co -Op, Central Oregon Irrigation District, the Army Corps of
Engineers, Centurylink, Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator, Oregon
Department of rich and Wilrilifeand C1A1a11ey Irrigatinn nktrirt,
REVIEW PERIOD: The applications for file nos. 247-19-000913-LL and 247-19-000914-TP
were submitted on December 30th, 2019. The applications were deemed incomplete and an
incomplete letter was sent on January 29th, 2020. The Applicant provided additional
information and the application was subsequently deemed complete on March 3rd, 2020.
On March 30th, the Applicant submitted a written request to extend the land use review
clock by 90 days.
Based on the written extension request, the new date the County must take final action on
this application on October 29th, 2020.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
A. Property Line Adjustment Application
Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions
Section 92.192. Property line adjustment: zoning ordinances: size of unit of land.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 9 of 67
FINDING: The Applicant is requesting to move the common property lines between the subject
property (Tax Lot 501) and neighboring Tax Lots 601 and 503 respectively. The proposed
adjustment will add 0.05 acres of land from Tax Lot 601 to Tax Lot 501, and add 0.05 acres of land
from Tax Lot 503 to Tax Lot 501. The proposed adjustments will result in the following
configuration:
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 10 of 67
Proposed Adjustment 1
TAXLOT 171207-502
1084.81' J
TAXLOT
171207DO-108
vz
x
LEGAL PARCEL
TRACT 3
z
r
247-18-311-LL
4 Z M
TAXLOT
TAXLOT 171207-501
17120700-107
AREA BEFORE ADUSTMENT®100.00 Acres
AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT =100.05 Acres
CV
Cl
lbare am no existing stfuctWeH "i3iiTi� AONOQO
dfapaaot speterns, nor Water R;1. an tllla fhreN.
rn
r
1
N
a
►`
w
u
O
Existing RoadAccess, and Utlit
I141
0
{+
TAXLOT
Eassment A aenlent peer 2A18
Oft Co. O.R.
�
171207DO-106
o
EXISTING
z
R
oti
PROPERTY LINE � ��
PACIFIC k,%Wr
S
ROAD
i
N89'34.00*W 132123' /
TAXLOT
N119'34 Ofl W 1085.76`
17120700-105
LEGAL PARCEL PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY LINE.
a
TRACT 1 (SH)FT 1.80 FEET SOUTH)
N
Q
247-18-05-LL
z
TAXLOT 171207-601 � � LEGAL PARCEL
TRACT 4 LL-18-311
There are no existing structures, TAXLOT 171207-503
axtalt sa.+aga disposal s terns,
Wafer Ruts thi iax let
C+
�T nsr wathh� AREA BEFORE ADU51MENT-176.1 Acres
Pare
AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT =176.05 Acres
I
S89'30'44"E 1320.90' S89'30'09"E totd6.16'
SCAt E 1 TAXLOT 171216-105
00
0 200 400 800 LEGAL PARCEL
TRACT 4 LL-18-311
rE .1
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 11 of 67
Proposed Adjustment 2
TAXLOT171207-502
et' TAXLOT
17120700-108
4J
�J
LEGAL PARCEL
-- _-
TRACT 3
a
247-18-311-LL
TAXLOT
TAXLOT 171207-501
171207DO-107
AREA BEFORE ADUSIMENT=100..00 Acres
�
AREA AFTER ADJUSTMENT =100.05 Acres
ry
u�7
There are no existing structures existing sewage
diaposat sysients, nor Wahr Rights on Is Pat4t.
a, J
o
m -k
h+
W U
N TAXLOT
¢N
t-- d
Existing Rood.Acces% and WAR y
Easement Agreemamt per 201 ti-OZ6t 41
� 171207DO-106
o
EXISTING °e'' C. °'R' �
Z
r
PROPERTY LINE �� l
�'/
PACIFIC / Gy,,rs
ROAD
NE39'3A'00.WP 132T.2 '
N89' Oil W 1085.76
innt,VI
171207DO-105
w
PROPOSED NEW PROPERTY LINE Thee no exighg stru��csstures.
a
ggore
(SHIFT 1.80 FEET SOVTN) natMef Rots se"IxIcioonspfixd sfaamd.
M y
o
LEGAL PARCEL m LEGAL PARCEL
to
Z °°
TRACT 1 TRACT 4 LL-18-311
247-18--05-LL 8 N TAXLOT 171207-503
TAXLOT 171207-601 Z
n
AREA BEFORE AOUSTMENTa24.9 Acres 1
00
00
AREA AFTER ADA)STMENT =24.85 Acres
S89'30'44'E 13 .9 .
TAXLOT 171218-105 13 SCALE
1600
400 0 200
1777
400___.__._
( FEET
>•etttatt�t�
—
A property line adjustment is defined by ORS 92.010(12) and Deschutes County Code 17.08.030 as:
"A relocation or elimination of all or a portion of the common property line between
abutting properties that does not create an additional lot or parcel."
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 12 of 67
The Applicant proposes to relocate common property lines between three existing legal lots of
record. The purpose of the adjustment is to increase the size of the subject property to allow for
10 individual lots to be created pursuant to the subject subdivision application. The adjustment is
also subject to ORS 92.192(2). No new unit of land will be created.
(2) Except as provided in this section, a lawfully established unit of land that is reduced
in size by a property line adjustment approved by a city or county must comply with
applicable zoning ordinances after the adjustment.
FINDING: The subject property (Tax Lot 501) is a legal lot of record identified as Parcel 1 of Minor
Partition MP-80-70. The subject property was altered to its current configuration pursuant to a
prior property line adjustment (File No. 247-18-000311-LL).
Tax Lot 503 is part of a larger unit of land ("The Tract") that is +/- 176.12 acres in size identified on
Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-12-07 as Tax Lot 503, and Assessor's Map 17-12-18 as Tax Lot
105. The Tract is recognized as one legal lot of record because it was platted as Parcel 1 of M)P-79-
8 and reconfigured by a series of property line adjustments (LL-06-118, LL-08-52, LL-08-73, LL-10-
35, LL-10-36, LL-10-45, 247-18-000005-LL, and 247-18-000311-LL).
Tax Lot 601 is recognized as one legal lot of record because it was platted as Parcel 2 of MP-80-70
and reconfigured via property line adjustment file no. 247-18-000005-LL.
All properties are zoned Urban Area Reserve (UAR10). All restrictions for this zone continue to
apply.
The property sizes before and after the adjustments are:
Tax Lot 501
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 100.00 acres.
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 100.10 acres
Tax Lot 503 (The Tract)
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 176.10 acres3
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 176.05 acres
Tax Lot 601
Acreage before the adjustment: +/- 24.90 acres4
Acreage after the adjustment: +/- 24.85 acres
3 Staff noted that the size of this parcel was listed as 176.12 acres pursuant to land use decision 247-18-
000311-LL
4 Staff noted that the size of this parcel was listed as 24.88 acres pursuant to land use decision 247-18-
000005-LL
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 13 of 67
The Tract and Tax Lot 601 will be reduced in size by the proposed adjustments. After the
adjustment, Tax Lot 601 will be 24.85 acres and will comply with applicable zoning ordinances, as
the minimum lot size in the UAR10 Zone is 10 acres. In addition, The Tract will meet the minimum
lot size of the UAR10 Zone, with a resultant size of 176.05 acres.
Conclusion:
No new unit of land will be created. All properties are zoned UAR10. All restrictions for these zones
continue to apply.
The Hearings Officer finds the proposed property line adjustments meet the requirements as
established and can be tentatively approved. This tentative approval only confirms that the
proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria necessary for property line adjustments.
All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject properties.
In order to obtain final approval:
1. Except as provided in ORS 92.060(7-9), the adjusted property lines shall be surveyed and
monumented by a registered professional land surveyor and a survey complying with ORS
209.250, shall be filed with the County Surveyor. A copy of the filed survey shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Property line adjustments of properties each over
10 acres in size are not required to file a survey according to ORS 92.060(8).
NOW riporic raflartinu tha nPw adhisteci nrnnerties. shall be recorded with the Deschutes
County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deeds shall be submitted to the Planning
Division. The adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of
the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties
with proper acknowledgment.
A property line adjustment may have an effect on any completed septic site evaluations for
the properties involved. You may wish to check with the Environmental Soils Division
regarding this matter. A property line adjustment may also affect any water rights
appurtenant to your property. If you have a water right, you should contact your irrigation
district before the property line adjustment is surveyed.
B. Tentative Plan Application
SECTION 92.090. APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT NAMES; REQUISITES FOR APPROVAL OF A
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION OR PARTITION PLAN OR PLAT.
(1) Subdivision plat names shall be subject to the approval of the county surveyor or,
in the case where there is no county surveyor, the county assessor. No tentative
subdivision plan or subdivision plat of a subdivision shall be approved which bears
a name similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other subdivision in
the same county, unless the land platted is contiguous to and platted by the same
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 14 of 67
party that platted the subdivision bearing that name or unless the party files and
records the consent of the party that platted the contiguous subdivision bearing
that name. All subdivision plats must continue the lot numbers and, if used, the
block numbers of the subdivision plat of the same name last filed. On or after
January 1, 1992, any subdivision submitted for final approval shall not use block
numbers or letters unless such subdivision is a continued phase of a previously
recorded subdivision, bearing the same name, that has previously used block
numbers or letters.
FINDING: As noted in the Burden of Proof Statement (pg. 4), the Applicant anticipates a condition
of approval that the subdivision name will be approved by the County Surveyor. Staff also
recommended a similar condition of approval. The Hearings Officer therefore adopts the following
condition of approval.
Subdivision Name: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision plat name shall be approved by
the County Surveyor.
(2) No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative plan for a proposed
partition shall be approved unless:
(a) The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of
subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining property as to
width, general direction and in all other aspects unless the city or county
determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern.
FINDING: Only one platted road abuts the proposed subdivision; Pacific Heights Road as platted
within the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. The proposed tentative plan shows that the new
road will conform to the approved subdivision plat for Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly indicated on the tentative
plan and all reservations or restrictions relating to such private roads and
streets are set forth thereon.
FINDING: The proposed roadway will be a dedicated public right-of-way. This criterion does not
apply.
(c) The tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning ordinances and
regulations and the ordinances and regulations adopted under ORS 92.044
that are then in effect for the city or county within which the land described
in the plan is situated.
FINDING: This decision identifies applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with
those ordinances. As noted herein, the tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning
ordinances and regulations and the ordinances and regulations adopted under ORS 92.044.
(3) No plat of a proposed subdivision or partition shall be approved unless:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 15 of 67
(a) Streets and roads for public use are dedicated without any reservation or
restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street
or road and easements for public or private utilities.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan
of such subdivision or partition have been approved by the city or county.
(c) The subdivision or partition plat complies with any applicable zoning
ordinances and regulations and any ordinance or regulation adopted under
ORS 92.044 that are then in effect for the city or county within which the
land described in the subdivision or partition plat is situated.
(d) The subdivision or partition plat is in substantial conformity with the
provisions of the tentative plan for the subdivision or partition, as approved.
(e) The subdivision or partition plat contains a donation to the public of all
sewage disposal and water supply systems, the donation of which was made
a condition of the approval of the tentative plan for the subdivision or
partition plat.
(f) Explanations for all common improvements required as conditions of
approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision or partition have been
recorded and referenced on the subdivision or partition plat.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that subsections (b) and (e) do not apply to this application.
Subsection (c) is addressed above under another criterion containing the same language.
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met with the following conditions of approval.
Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated without any
reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road
and easements for public or private utilities.
Conformity to Tentative Plan: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision final plat shall be in
substantial conformity with the provisions of the tentative plan for the subdivision, as approved.
Explanations: Prior to final plat approval, explanations for any common improvements required
as conditions of approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision shall be recorded and referenced
on the subdivision plat.
(4) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has
received and accepted.
(a) A certification by a city -owned domestic water supply system or by the
owner of a privately owned domestic water supply system, subject to
regulation by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, that water will be
available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat;
(b) A bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider to the city or county that a domestic water supply system will be
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 16 of 67
installed by or on behalf of the subdivider to the lot line of each and every
lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, and the amount of any such
bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider shall be determined by a registered professional engineer,
subject to any change in such amount as determined necessary by the city
or county, or
(c) In lieu of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a statement that no
domestic water supply facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot
depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a domestic water
supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and endorsed by the city or county, shall be filed by the
subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the
commissioner in any public report made for the subdivision under ORS
92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or
the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control
Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement to each prospective
purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the
purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the lot. The
subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the purchaser upon delivery of
such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt to the
commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject
to inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date
the receipt is taken.
FINDING: The Applicant proposes individual wells to each property for water supply, therefore,
subsection (c) applies. The Hearings Officer includes the following condition of approval to ensure
compliance with the above criterion:
Domestic Water Supply Statement: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide
Deschutes County with a statement that no domestic water supply facility will be provided to the
purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a domestic water
supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the subdivider and endorsed by
the city or county, shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall be
included by the commissioner in any public report made for the subdivision under ORS 92.385
(Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or the subdivision is otherwise
exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the
statement to each prospective purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the
purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the lot. The subdivider shall take a signed
receipt from the purchaser upon delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of
the receipt to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject to
inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date the receipt is taken.
(5) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of a subdivision shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or county has
received and accepted.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 17 of 67
(a) A certification by a city -owned sewage disposal system or by the owner of a
privately owned sewage disposal system that is subject to regulation by the
Public Utility Commission of Oregon that a sewage disposal system will be
available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat,
(b) A bond, irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance by the
subdivider to the city or county that a sewage disposal system will be
installed by or on behalf of the subdivider to the lot line of each and every
lot depicted on the proposed subdivision plat, and the amount of such bond,
irrevocable letter of credit, contract or other assurance shall be determined
by a registered professional engineer, subject to any change in such amount
as the city or county considers necessary; or
(c) In lieu of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, a statement that no
sewage disposal facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted
in the proposed subdivision plat, where the Department of Environmental
Quality has approved the proposed method or an alternative method of
sewage disposal for the subdivision in its evaluation report described in ORS
454.755 (Fees for certain reports on sewage disposal) (1)(b). A copy of any
such statement, signed by the subdivider and indorsed by the city or county
shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate Commissioner and shall
be included by the commissioner in the public report made for the
subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report
has been waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon
Subdivision Control law the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement
to each prospective purchaser of a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the
signing by the purchaser of the first written agreement for the sale of the
lot. The subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the purchaser upon
delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt
to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state,
subject to inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after
the date the receipt is taken.
FINDING: The Applicant proposes private on -site subsurface sewage disposal systems and that the
proposed lots will not be supplied by a city -owned or privately -owned sewage disposal system,
therefore, subsection (c) applies. The following condition of approval is adopted by the Hearings
Officer to ensure this criterion is met:
Sewage Disposal Statement: Prior to final plat approval, a statement that no sewage disposal
facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, where
the Department of Environmental Quality has approved the proposed method or an alternative
method of sewage disposal for the subdivision in its evaluation report described in ORS 454.755
(Fees for certain reports on sewage disposal) (1)(b). A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and indorsed by the city or county shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real Estate
Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in the public report made for the
subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has been waived or
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 18 of 67
the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law, the subdivider
shall comply with the applicable provisions of ORS 92.090(5)(c).
(6) Subject to any standards and procedures adopted pursuant to ORS 92.044, no plat
of subdivision or partition located within the boundaries of an irrigation district,
drainage district, water control district, water improvement district or district
improvement company shall be approved by a city or county unless the city or
county has received and accepted a certification from the district or company that
the subdivision or partition is either entirely excluded from the district or company
or is included within the district or company for purposes of receiving services and
subjecting the subdivision or partition to the fees and other charges of the district
or company.
FINDING: This criterion is applicable because the record indicates the subject property is located
partially within the Swalley Irrigation District. The following condition of approval is adopted to
ensure compliance with the above criterion.
Irrigation Certification: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit to the county a
certification from the district or company that the subdivision or partition is either entirely
excluded from the district or company or is included within the district or company for purposes
of receiving services and subjecting the subdivision or partition to the fees and other charges of
the district or company.
TITLE 17 OF THE DESCHUTES POI IMTv fnnF, 4MRniviSinNS
Chapter 17.12, Administration and Enforcement
Section 17 12.080. Statement of Water Rights.
All applicants for a subdivision or partition shall be informed by the Planning Director or
his designee of the requirement to include a statement of water rights on the final plat.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer includes the above criterion to inform the Applicant of the
requirement to include statement of water rights on the final plat.
Section 17 12 100 Sale of Subdivision Lots Prohibited Before Final Approval.
No person shall sell any lot in any subdivision until final approval of the land division has
been granted by the County. Final approval occurs when the plat of the subdivision or
partition is recorded with the County Clerk. No person shall negotiate to sell any lot in a
subdivision until a tentative plan has been approved.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer includes this criterion to inform the Applicant of these
requirements.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 19 of 67
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans.
Section 17 16 040 Protective Covenants and Homeowner Association Agreements.
Landowner covenants, conditions, and restrictions and homeowner association
agreements are not relevant to approval of subdivisions and partitions under DCC Title 17,
unless otherwise determined by the County to carry out certain conditions of approval,
such as road maintenance or open space preservation. Any provisions in such agreements
not in conformance with the provisions of DCC Title 17 or applicable zoning ordinances are
void.
FINDING: As noted below, there is an issue regarding a road maintenance maintenance covenant.
It is discussed in detail under DCC 17.16.105. This DCC 17.16.040 appears to be a statement
regarding the relevance of covenants, conditions, and restrictions in regard to the County's review
of subdivision applications.
Section 17.16.100. Required Findings for Approval.
A tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning
Director or Hearings Body finds that the subdivision as proposed or modified would meet
the requirements of this title and Titles 18 through 21 of this code and is in compliance
with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall include, but not be limited to, the
following.
A. Elie subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in
the area, and provides for the preservation of natural features and resources such
as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special terrain features, agricultural and
forest lands and other natural resources.
FINDING: Compliance with Titles 17, 18, and 19 of the Deschutes County Code is addressed in
findings in this decision. The requirements of the Comprehensive Plan are codified within the Titles
identified above. Because no change to the Comprehensive Plan is sought by this application,
conformance with Titles 17, 18, and 19 establishes conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Contribution to Orderly Development:
In response to this criterion as it relates to orderly development, the Applicant stated:
Property to the north is zoned EFU-TRB and owned by Oregon Parks & Recreation
Department. Some of the property to the west is zoned UAR and is undeveloped.
Some of the property to the west is zoned EFU-TRB and is also owned by Oregon
Parks & Recreation Department. The properties to the east are zoned UAR and are
part of the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. The properties to the south are zoned
UAR and are undeveloped. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the current
rural development pattern within the UAR10 zone. The subdivision includes a public
road and proposed electrical power consistent with County standards and policies,
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 20 of 67
and which contributes to orderly development in the area by providing the
appropriate framework for transportation systems and utility systems connectivity
through the subject property and to the adjacent properties.
The Applicant further stated in its July 71h, 2020, submittal:
The Applicant also notes that the subdivision will contribute to the orderly
development and land use patterns in the area. Given its UAR designation and
proximity to the City, the site is a natural transition from the more urban
development in the City and the more rural nature of the County. The proposed low
density development is exactly the type that is envisioned by the UAR zone. The
extension of Pacific Heights Road will allow further development provide additional
connectivity in the area. The extension of power to the site will also allow further
development in the area in the future. In addition, developing this site to the west of
the Existing Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision is a natural progression of
development in the area just outside the City of Bend.
While there were some general comments regarding the 'orderly development" of the area made
in opposition to the application, the bulk of public comments related to this criterion do not
address orderly development, but instead address the natural features component. Accordingly,
those comments are addressed below.
The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal contributes to the orderly development and land use
nmttarnc of tha araa fnr thin raacnnc ctatarl by thin Annlirant anri ni oted above.
Preservation of Natural Resources and Features
Upon review of the submitted tentative plan and the presence of significant natural features onsite
(the Deschutes River and associated canyon), staff sent the following request in the incomplete
letter:
Staff notes that both the Deschutes River and the associated river canyon which abut the
western boundary of the subject property constitute "natural features and resources" which
should be provided preservation. Additionally, staff notes that at least six (6) of the
proposed subdivision parcels will include significant portions of these natural features. The
submitted application materials, including the tentative plan, do not provide information
which addresses how the proposed subdivision will provide for the preservation of these
natural features and resources. Please provide supplementary information which describes
steps that will be taken by the Applicant to provide for the preservation of the Deschutes
River, the Deschutes River canyon, and special terrain features such as rimrock areas.
The Applicant subsequently provided the following response to the request above in the
incomplete response materials:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 21 of 67
Staff has noted that the Deschutes River and the river canyon abut the western boundary
of the property and constitute "natural features and resources". Staff has asked about the
protection measures proposed by the Applicant to protect these resources along with the
rimrock areas on several of the proposed lots.
The Applicant proposes to record a deed restriction (which may be a part of the Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the newJuniper Rim Subdivision) that includes
the following provisions:
1. No permanent improvements may be installed on the property below the canyon rim;
2. No utilities on the property may be installed below the canyon rim;
3. No fill, alterations or course changes may be made to the Deschutes River on the
property;
4. All improvements within 100 feet of the canyon rim shall be of color tones that occur in
nature and in local surroundings;
5. All development, including at -grade terraces, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet
from the edge of the canyon rim;
6. Trees at the edge of the canyon rim or over the rim into the canyon may not be removed
unless they are dead or diseased and posing a risk of personal injury or property
damage;
7. Exterior lighting will be down light or directed specifically toward objects.
8. The foregoing provisions may not be altered or revoked without the prior written
approval of the director of current planning for Deschutes County.
Q Tkn Ancian c iirialinac to ha arinntari ni irci iant to the luniner Rim Subdivision Owners'
Association will provide that homes will be grounded to the site with their massing and
forms. Low profile structures and roof lines are encouraged. Massing should aim for a
mountain form; if the home is two stories, the second floor should occur in the middle
of the overall massing, and overall heights should be minimized. The guidelines will
further provide that garages, accessory buildings, and utility services should be screened
from primary canyon views as reasonably practical. Outbuildings will be designed with
the same quality and care as the primary residence and with similar material qualities.
Native rock outcroppings will be preserved as much as reasonably practical within home
designs. Rock outcroppings may be expanded within designs with native lichen covered
rock to tie in new developments to natural site features. Native trees (primarily Junipers
with some Ponderosa Pines) will be carefully evaluated within each homesite's
development area. Larger select trees with "character shapes" will be preserved within
home designs as much as reasonably practical. Ghost trees, snags or fallen trees are
encouraged to remain as wildlife habitat or as sculptural landscape elements. Tree
preservation techniques will be utilized during construction to avoid damaging the
remaining trees. This would include maintaining a minimum 10' clearance away from
trunks and drip lines for excavation, clean cutting any roots during excavation
operations and hand digging at times near roots or under drip lines. Trees and drip lines
will be protected with fencing to avoid compaction around tree bases. All sites will be
surveyed by a licensed surveyor prior to design work to help identify these crucial
features. Open space between home sites will be largely preserved in natural states.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 22 of 67
Efforts will be made to limit construction impacts - fencing will be used to contain the
perimeters of development to limited areas - so native surrounding areas do not get
damaged or compacted with vehicular traffic. Owners will be encouraged to foster a
sense of stewardship for the site - both for the natural values of the site and with their
design and construction efforts.
Prior to or after the public hearing comments were received into the record that reference this
criterion. Scott Dahlen stated that the above proposed deed restrictions as written do not provide
any meaningful protection of the river canyon or the river itself. He believes as written the deed
restrictions would allow picnic tables or gazebos so long as they are temporary. Mr. Dahlen also
expressed concern that the deed restrictions will allow for the clearing of all vegetation below the
rim.
The Applicant responds to Mr. Dahlen's comments by noting that the deed restrictions specifically
prohibit the removal of trees below the canyon rim unless they are dead or diseased and pose a
risk of personal injury or property damage. The Hearings Officer interprets this to mean dead and
diseased trees will only be removed when they pose a risk to person or property. The Hearings
Officer notes that this proposed deed restriction (#6) does not include vegetation. The Applicant
concedes this and notes that they do not object to expanding the restriction to include both trees
and vegetation. The Hearings Officer believes expanding the restriction to include vegetation will
further protect the river canyon as a natural feature. Thus, the proposed deed restriction #6 should
apply to both trees and vegetation.
Raanrrlina Mr nahlPn'q rnnrPrn ahnut temnnrary uses. such as picnic tables. the Hearings Officer
.....b....,....b .... .. .... .. _.. - __..__. .. - ----- -----r -- --� - -
notes that OPRD submitted a comment that states all structures and improvements (regardless of
permanence) are subject to a 20-foot setback form the rimrock. The Applicant has noted they do
not object to including in the deed restrictions a note about development being subject to State
Scenic Waterway Rules. Moreover, the deed restrictions prohibit development within 20 feet of the
canyon rim (the definition of which is addressed below). The Hearings Officer, though, is not aware
of any regulation that would prohibit items that are not considered improvements or structures
that are temporarily placed on private property near the river or in the canyon, such a temporary
table. Nor is such a regulation cited by Mr. Dahlen.
Next, Sanders and Danielle Nye, through their attorney, submitted comments relating to this
criterion. The Nyes ask that the Applicant be required to identify and inventory significant natural
features and terrain prior to the approval of the tentative plan. Specifically, the Nyes contend that
the rock outcroppings, rimrock, and big trees that are lining, facing, or visible from the Deschutes
River Canyon should be considered "significant" enough to be inventoried.
The Applicant responded to these comments in their July 7th and July 21 St submittals. In summary,
the Applicants responded by stating:
• The rimrock is mapped and shown on the tentative plan by the contour lines, from which
can be depicted the area that exceeds 45 degrees in slop meeting the definition of rimrock
in Title 18. The canyon, according to the Applicant is everything west (generally) of that line.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 23 of 67
• The Applicant agrees to a condition requiring on -site confirmation with the County staff of
the location of the rim on each lot before constructing homes.
• The Applicant agrees to not remove trees or vegetation below the rim.
• The Applicant agrees to allow no fill, alterations, or course changes to the river.
• The Applicant agrees to a setback from the rim edge.
• The Applicant notes that, as shown on tentative plan, the area to be preserved "is going to
be more that 200 feet back from and more that 200 feet above the river".
• To protect wildlife the deed restrictions will include a prohibition on perimeter fencing.
• Each home will be subject to OPRD approval and the Applicant has no objection to a deed
restriction to include a specific acknowledgment of the OPRD program and requirement to
comply therewith.
• There is no requirement that identify and inventory natural features and terrain on site.
According to the Applicant, the key natural features on the site are the river, the rimrock,
and vegetation in and on the canyon.
The Hearings Officer agrees with the Applicant that there is not a requirement in DCC 17.16.100(A)
to inventory the natural features and resources on the subject property. So while the Hearings
Officer agrees with the Nyes that an inventory would be helpful, it is not a requirement in the Code.
That said, some identification of the natural features and resources is required to ensure
preservation. The language in the code implies that the natural features and resources to be
preserved are relatively significant features, such as water bodies and terrain features. This is
confirmed in Broken Top Community Assoc. v. Deschutes County, 54 Or LUBA 84 (2007), where LUBA
nntcri that nati iraI fPati irac to ha rnnciderPd under DC C 17.16.100(A) must be relatively significant
natural features; not individual trees or minor topographic features. V
Such significant features were identified by the Applicant in its application, hearings testimony, and
subsequent submittals. According to the Applicant, such on -site features include the river, canyon
rim, and vegetation in the canyon. Similarly, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is
primarily concerned with the rimrock and the vegetation between the canyon and development
(so that vegetation in the canyon and on or near the rimrock). Email from Laurel Hillman, July 7t"
2020. Moreover, the features identified by the Applicant do not vary significantly from what the
Nyes identify in the July 14t" letter, identifying the rock outcroppings, rimrock, and big trees that
line, face or are visible from the Deschutes River canyon.
In light of the above, the Hearings Officer finds the natural resources and features to be to reviewed
for preservation are the river, rimrock and canyon, and trees and vegetation.
One point of uncertainty is what constitutes rimrock. The Applicant contends we should adopt the
definition of "rimrock" included in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. Cooper Ltr, July 7t", 2020.
Title 18 defines "rimrock" as:
"Rimrock" means any ledge, outcropping or top or overlying stratum of rock, which forms a
face in excess of 45 degrees, and which creates or is within the canyon of the following rivers
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 24 of 67
and streams (1) Deschutes River ... For the purpose of DCC Title 18, the edge of the rimrock
is the uppermost rock ledge or outcrop of rock.
Thus, the Applicant contends that the rimrock:
"is where the contour lines (denoting elevation) start to be located very close together (as
noted on the tentative plan, the tentative plan depicts two -foot interval elevations lines;
where such lines are located less than two feet part horizontally, the ground surface is in
excess of 45 degrees in slope, meeting the definition of rimrock per Title 18) and the map
appears to darken; it's an easy line to see when looking at tentative plan from right to left.
The line is generally to the west (and north, in the case of proposed Lot 4). The canyon is
everything west of that line. Pursuant to the Applicant's proposal, the canyon and the
vegetation in the canyon will be protected."
With that description of the rimrock, and upon review of the tentative plan, the Hearings Officer
believes the canyon rim/rimrock is adequately identified. A line can be drawn along a mostly
north/south course (except towards the northern end of the subject property where proposed Lot
4 is located) where the canyon rim suddenly drops. This clearly demarcates the location of the
canyon rim/rimrock for the sake of preservation. It also defines the area in which trees and
vegetation need to be preserved. The river itself is clearly identified on the tentative plan, only
crossing onto the property in the northwest corner.
Moreover, the Hearings Officer believes the natural resources and features can be preserved, as
roni iirorl by this rritarinn by winntinu the above listed deed restrictions with a couple of
modifications and additions as follows:
• Deed Restriction #5 to note that there is a minimum 20 foot setback from the rimrock for
all structures and improvements (regardless of permanence) in compliance with OAR 736-
040-0072.
• Deed Restriction #6 to include both preservation of trees and vegetation.
• Additional restriction to include requirement that no perimeter fencing be permitted to
protect wildlife (temporary fencing during construction in the immediate vicinity of
development to contain and limit impact are permitted).
• An acknowledgement that development is subject to OAR 736-040-0072, OAR 736-040-0035,
and OAR 736-040-0040(1)(c)(B).
• For those lots subject to review under the above referenced OARs, a reference to the
requirement that they submit individual NOIs for development or modification of the
landscape for each individual property.
The deed restrictions, with these modifications, preserve the canyon from development, protect
trees and vegetation in the canyon and protects the rimrock with the setback. Accordingly, the
natural features and resources are preserved.
Lastly, the Hearings Officer finds that the County should have enforcement authority over the deed
restrictions, as suggested by the Applicant in its July 7th submittal. Without such authority, it is
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 25 of 67
possible that future owners, who would typically have that authority, may elect not to enforce the
provisions against themselves or their neighbors. To ensure compliance, the County should have
the ability to enforce the deed restrictions to ensure the preservation of the natural features and
resources described herein.
The Hearings Officer finds that DCC 17.16.100(A) can be met by the Applicant with the adoption of
the following condition of approval:
Deed Restrictions: Prior to selling any lots, the Applicant shall record deed restrictions in
substantially the same form as outlined above and subject to the modification and amendments
required by the Hearings Officer, including the County's ability to enforce the deed restrictions.
B. The subdivision would not create excessive demand on public facilities, services
and utilities required to serve the development.
FINDING: In response to this criterion, the Applicant stated:
As previously noted, the property will have on -site waste disposal systems and lot
owners will use private wells as a water source. The Applicant is speaking with
PacifiCorp to provide power to the subdivision. The Applicant proposes as a condition
of approval that it obtain a will serve letter from PacifiCorp, indicating an ability to
provide such service to the proposed subdivision.
ThThe �� ihmitteri (Zito Traffic Rannrt Analvcic nranararl by Ina Raccman of TranCiuht
e ouv�ii���.-.0 .,i _ .. u� — ...,r.. , , .......J-.-, P.....r--...... ...! J--' ---......_... _. .. �.._.a.
Consulting, LLC, confirms that the affected public transportation system will not be
overburdened, nor materially affected by the proposed project, and its relatively
minor traffic impacts.
The subject land is currently included within the Bend Rural Fire Protection District #2
for fire protection and emergency services. The proposed development with
improved roads, utilities, and access, is likely to reduce any fire threats or concerns
as compared to the current natural setting, and will improve emergency services
access.
The Applicant subsequently provided a will -serve letter from Pacific Power dated December 31,
2019, that it is willing and able to provide electrical service to the proposed development.
The Fire Department and Road Department made recommendations regarding this criterion. No
other infrastructure, public facilities, service or utilities deficiencies have been identified in the
record.
With the adoption of the Fire Department's and Road Department's recommendations as
conditions of approval, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 26 of 67
C. The tentative plan for the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of Oregon
Revised Statutes Section 92.090.
FINDING: The relevant provisions of ORS 92.090 and the proposal's compliance with those
provisions are addressed in the findings above. The application meets the requirements of ORS
92.090.
D. For subdivision or portions thereof proposed within a Surface Mining Impact Area
(SMIA) zone under DCC Title 18, the subdivision creates lots on which noise or dust
sensitive uses can be sited consistent with the requirements of DCC 18.56, as
amended, as demonstrated by the site plan and accompanying information
required under DCC 17.16.030.
FINDING: The subject property is not within a Surface Mining Impact Area Zone. Staff noted that a
minor portion of the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) Combining Zone does appear to fall within
the subject property. However, after discussion with the Deschutes County Systems Analyst, staff
stated that this minor portion of the SMIA Zone on the subject property is the result of a mapping
error, rather than an accurate reflection of SMIA zoning provisions applicable to the subject
property. No party disputed this statement.
This criterion does not apply.
E. The subdivision name has been approved by the County Surveyor
FINDING: This requirement has already been added as a recommended condition of approval
under ORS 92.090(1) above.
Section 17.16.105. Access to Subdivisions.
No proposed subdivision shall be approved unless it would be accessed by roads
constructed to County standards and by roads under one of the following conditions:
A. Public roads with maintenance responsibility accepted by a unit of local or state
government or assigned to landowners or homeowners association by covenant or
agreement, or
B. Private roads, as permitted by DCC Title 18, with maintenance responsibility
assigned to landowners or homeowners associations by covenant or agreement
pursuant to ORS 105; or
C. This standard is met if the subdivision would have direct access to an improved
collector or arterial or in cases where the subdivision has no direct access to such
a collector or arterial, by demonstrating that the road accessing the subdivision
from a collector or arterial meets relevant County standards that maintenance
responsibility for the roads has been assigned as required by this section.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 27 of 67
The subdivision will have access to O.B. Riley Road, a County Road (rural collector
classification), via Pacific Heights Road, a publicly -dedicated road that has been
accepted by the County. The Applicant proposes to form a homeowners association
that will be responsible for maintenance of Juniper Rim Loop.
The Road Department requests that all public roads within the subdivision be assigned to a
homeowners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A) and
17.48.180(E). As part of that condition of approval, the Road Department also asked that the final
plat include the following note:
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS PLATTED BY
THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL PUBLIC
ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT
FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
As noted above, the neighboring homeowners association submitted the following comment
regarding ongoing maintenance of the already constructed Pacific Heights Road located in the
Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision:
The recently completed Pacific Cascade Heights Development sits immediately to the east
of the Smallwood subdivision. The Smallwood subdivision application identifies road access
to the nPw -.iihdiviSinn via Pacific Heights Road. As identified on the enclosed Road
Maintenance Covenant for Pacific Cascade Heights, the property owners of Pacific Cascade
Heights are solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roads within Pacific
Cascade Heights including both Pacific Heights Road and Northern Estates Drive.
The application for File No. 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP does not include a road
maintenance agreement or covenant for their use of Pacific Heights Road. Based on the
terms of the Pacific Cascade Heights Road Maintenance Covenant, Section 4, if either of the
Roads in Pacific Cascade Heights are used to gain access to real estate that is not part of the
Pacific Cascade Heights property and that access does not included a satisfactory road
maintenance agreement or covenant then we can terminate the Pacific Cascade Heights
road maintenance covenant.
Pacific Cascade Heights requests that Deschutes County either accept all the road
maintenance and repair of Pacific Heights Road upon acceptance of application 247-19-
000913-LL, 19-914-TP, or stipulate approval of application 247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP
shall be based on a mutually agreeable road maintenance agreement or covenant between
Pacific Cascade Heights and the Smallwood subdivision
In response, the Applicant initially noted that it had agreed in principal with the Pacific Cascades
Heights owners association to sign a maintenance agreement to pay proportionate share of the
costs of maintain the existing portion of Pacific Heights Road. Prior to the record closing, the
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 28 of 67
Applicant noted that no agreement had been signed. Instead, the Applicant submitted into the
record on July 7th a "Road Maintenance Covenant." The covenant requires, amongst other things,
that the new road in the proposed subdivision be constructed to Deschutes County Road standards
and all applicable legal requirements. It also requires that the owners of lots in the proposed
subdivision will improve, repair, and maintain the road in good condition and repair to applicable
Deschutes County Road Standards. Also of note, is the "Termination" provision which states:
Termination: This Covenant may not be terminated unless and until either: (a) either
the Deschutes County Road Department consents to such termination; or (b)
Deschutes County accepts maintenance obligations with respect to the [r]oad.
The Elkins Family Revocable Trust (the "Elkins"), who the property south of the proposed
subdivision, through their attorney, objected to the Applicant recording a covenant similar to the
on one recorded for Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision (allowing them to terminate the covenant
if down road property owners began used Pacific Heights Road). The Elkins subsequently noted,
though, that they agreed with the Applicant's Road Maintenance Covenant subject to some
changes. The Elkins suggested following language regarding termination:
Termination: This Covenant may not be terminated unless and until Deschutes
County or another unit of federal, state or local government or special district
formally accepts maintenance responsibility with respect to the Road according to
applicable laws.
Thin Flkinc' attnrnav rnntPnrlc that thPrP is no authoritv in the Code to allow for the Road
Department to consent to termination of the maintenance obligation.
In light of the above comments, the Hearings Officer believes there are two issues for him to decide.
First, whether or not the tentative plan decision should include a condition of approval requiring
the parties, including the Applicant and the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association, to
enter a maintenance agreement for the portion of Pacific Heights Road located in the Pacific
Cascade Heights subdivision. And second, if the answer to the first question is "no", whether or not
the Elkins requested revisions to the proposed maintenance covenant are necessary.
In response to the first issue, the Hearings Officer notes that the Pacific Cascade Heights
homeowners association did not cite any code provision that would require a joint maintenance
agreement in this case. Moreover, the Hearings Officer is unaware of any such requirement in the
Code. Instead, the code, including this provision, focuses on ensuring access via a public road that
currently exists and that the new road to be constructed within the subdivision be built and
maintained to county standards. The Hearings Officer will not condition approval of the tentative
plan on Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association and the Applicant making an agreement
regarding the maintenance of Pacific Heights Road.
The consequence of not requiring a joint maintenance agreement is that the Pacific Cascade
Heights homeowners association may elect to void their current maintenance agreement. It is
unclear why the termination provision in the Pacific Cascade Heights maintenance agreement was
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 29 of 67
allowed to be recorded in its current form. Perhaps it was an oversight by the County. If the
homeowners association elects to void the maintenance covenant, that section of Pacific Heights
Road running through the Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision may go without maintenance. That
would be to the detriment of the Pacific Cascade Heights owners as well as the downstream
property owners who rely on that road for access. Thus, reaching a mutually agreeable
maintenance agreement between the users of the road seems beneficial to all. However, the
Hearings Officer is not aware of any code provision that authorizes him to require the parties to
enter such an agreement as a condition of development. To do so would essentially put all
downstream property owners at the whim of the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association.
The next question, then, is whether or not the requested changes suggested by the Elkins should
be required in the Road Maintenance Covenant. The Hearings Officer finds that there is no
authority in the code to allow the Road Department to waive continuing maintenance obligations.
Instead, this code section contemplates that such maintenance obligation will only go away upon
assignment to another governmental entity or road district assuming responsibility for
maintenance. Accordingly, the Hearings Officer finds the requested revisions made by the Elkins
should be incorporated into the maintenance covenant.
In summary, what this code provision does require is that a proposed subdivision be accessed by
roads constructed to County standards and by roads under one of three conditions. DCC
17.16.105(a)-(c). One of those conditions is the access road be a public road with maintenance
responsibility accepted either by a governmental entity or assigned to landowners or a
homeowners association by a covenant or agreement. DCC 17.16.105(a). In this case, it is
inrlicriitor! th't Da`ifi` Waiahtc rnad is a nlIhlir read It ii alsn filrthPr iindi-muted that Pacific
�..,,......_ r
Heights Road, extending from O.B. Riley Road to the boundary of the proposed subdivision, is
currently maintained by the Pacific Cascade Heights homeowners association. Thus, the proposed
subdivision is accessed by a public road with maintenance responsibility assigned to a
homeowners association (Pacific Cascade Heights). The evidence in the record demonstrates
compliance with this criterion as written.
For the reasons stated in this finding as well as in the finding above for DCC 17.16.040, including
the below adopted conditions of approval, this criterion can be met.
Road Maintenance: The maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned to
a home owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105, 17.48.160(A), and
17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit the covenant in substantially the same form as submitted for
review to the Hearings Officer, subject to the changes noted above, to the Road Department for
review and shall record the covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall include the following note:
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS PLATTED BY
THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL PUBLIC
ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR A SPECIAL DISTRICT
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 30 of 67
FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS
ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
Section 17.16.115. Traffic Impact Studies.
A. The traffic studies will comply with DCC 1&116.310.
FINDING: The Applicant submitted a Site Traffic Report, as required by DCC 18.116.310, prepared
by a professional engineer. The Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County examined the
Applicant's Site Traffic Report and its methodologies, conclusions, and recommendations and
found it complies with the applicable provisions of 18.116.310. This criterion is met.
Chapter 17.24, Final Plat.
Section 17.24.120. Improvement Agreement.
A. The subdivider may, in lieu of completion of the required repairs to existing streets
and facilities, and improvements as specified in the tentative plan, request the
County to approve an agreement between himself and the County specifying the
schedule by which the required improvements and repairs shall be completed,
provided, however, any schedule of improvements and repairs agreed to shall not
exceed onf'e] year from the date the final plat is recorded, except as otherwise
allowed by DCC 17.24.120(F) below. The agreement shall also provide the following.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer understands that Section 17.24 of the Code applies to final plats.
DCC 17.24.120 specifically applies to Improvement Agreements if certain improvements will not be
made prior to final plat approval. The Applicant is not currently requesting an improvement
agreement. Any such request made in the future will need to comply with the applicable criteria
for improvement agreements.
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards.
Section 17.36.020. Streets.
A. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to
existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and
safety, and the proposed use of land to be served by the streets. The street system
shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system for all modes of transportation,
including pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, with intersection angles, grades,
tangents and curves appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the
terrain. The subdivision or partition shall provide for the continuation of the
principal streets existing in the adjoining subdivision or partition or of their
property projection when adjoining property which is not subdivided, and such
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 31 of 67
streets shall be of a width not less than the minimum requirements for streets set
forth in DCC 17.36.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
Consideration has been taken for existing and planned streets, topography conditions,
public convenience and safety, and the proposed land use when designing the street layout
of the proposed Tentative Plan. Pacific Heights Road is being extended from the adjoining
Pacific Cascade Heights subdivision. Proposed streets meet the minimum requirements for
street widths.
Juniper Rim Loop will be constructed to subdivision standards per County requirements for
a local road. The Applicant proposes to form an owners' association to maintain Juniper
Loop Road.
The proposed street designs, including the location, width, and grades for the road within the
proposed subdivision, are shown on the submitted Tentative Plan.
The Hearings Officer believes that, as conditioned by the Road Department requirements, this
proposal will comply with this criterion.
B. Streets in subdivisions shall be dedicated to the public, unless located in a
destination resort, planned community or planned or cluster development, where
roao+s .M. be pri�inte/y A��VnOd� Planned developments shall include public strP_P_ts
r- - -
where necessary to accommodate present and future through traffic.
FINDING: The proposed streets are required to be dedicated to the public. A condition of approval
to require the public dedication of the proposed streets will ensure such dedication occurs.
Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated without any
reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road
and easements for public or private utilities.
Section 17.36.040. Existing, Streets.
Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or within a tract, are of inadequate width to
accommodate the increase in traffic expected from the subdivision or partition or by the
County roadway network plan, additional rights of way shall be provided at the time of
the land division by the applicant. During consideration of the tentative plan for the
subdivision or partition, the Planning Director or Hearings Body, together with the Road
Department Director, shall determine whether improvements to existing streets adjacent
to or within the tract, are required. If so determined, such improvements shall be required
as a condition of approval for the tentative plan. Improvements to adjacent streets shall
be required where traffic on such streets will be directly affected by the proposed
subdivision or partition.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 32 of 67
FINDING: The Applicant proposes access to the subdivision via existing privately -maintained and
County -maintained roads. The County Road Department did not identify the need for
improvements to presently existing segments of streets.
Section 17.36.050. Continuation of Streets.
Subdivision or partition streets which constitute the continuation of streets in contiguous
territory shall be aligned so that their centerlines coincide.
FINDING: One of the proposed new roadways will be a continuation of Pacific Heights Road, with
the centerlines coinciding. This standard will be met.
Section 17 36 060. Minimum Right of Way and Roadway Width.
The street right of way and roadway surfacing widths shall be in conformance with
standards and specifications set forth in DCC 17.48. Where DCC refers to street standards
found in a zoning ordinance, the standards in the zoning ordinance shall prevail.
FINDING: The street right-of-way and surfacing widths comply with the standards of DCC 17.48, as
reviewed and conditioned herein. The Deschutes County Road Department requested several
conditions of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion, which are recommended as
conditions of approval included throughout this decision. Additionally, all road designs will be
r—A—A—A nnA nnnrnvorl by tho rr%i inty Rnari r)anartmant nrinr to annrrnial of tha final nlat- The
iCVICVvGu u..0 uNN.vv....� ...y 1.— J I....,... 1.1— -..-11._._.. _. -.._ ...._- r - - - -
-
Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be met under the proposal, when combined with the
proposed conditions.
Section 17.36.070. Future Resubdivision.
Where a tract of land is divided into lots or parcels of an acre or more, the Hearings Body
may require an arrangement of lots or parcels and streets such as to permit future re -
subdivision in conformity to the street requirements and other requirements contained in
DCC Title 17.
FINDING: All proposed lots are more than one -acre in size. The lots are arranged along the new
extension of Pacific Heights Road or juniper Rim Loop, providing adequate arrangement and
frontage for a future re -subdivision. This criterion will be met.
Section 17.36.080. Future extension of streets.
When necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land,
streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision or partition.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 33 of 67
As shown on the Tentative Plat, the Applicant proposes extending Pacific Heights
Road through the property to the boundary with the property to the south, which will
permit a future connection.
Upon review of the submitted tentative plan, staff sent the following request in the incomplete
letter:
Staff notes that three (3) lots adjacent to the subject property are potentially large enough
to permit future division under the current zoning criteria. These lots are identified as
follows:
Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 502
o Zoning: Exclusive Farm Use, Flood Plain
Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 601
o Zoning: Urban Area Reserve
- Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 503
o Zoning: Urban Area Reserve
Based on the submitted application materials, the Applicant proposes to extend Pacific
Heights Road to provide future access to the property directly south of the subject parcel
identified as Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 503. However, the remaining streets associated
with the proposed development, including the proposed Juniper Rim Loop, will not extend
to the hni inrinriac of tha remaining twn narcPls dPscrihPd ahnvP-. Staff notes that to give
— ... ..._ ._..._......o -•-- r-..--.----- --- ------- - - -- --- -- - -
access to or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended
to the boundary of the subdivision or partition.
Please provide additional information describing how streets shall be extended to the
boundary of the remaining two parcels described above as Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 502
and Map and Tax Lot: 17-12-07, 601 (figures below):
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 34 of 67
Tax Lot 601
[Intentionally Left Blank]
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 35 of 67
Tax Lot 502
The Applicant provided the following information concerning this criterion in the incomplete
response materials:
Staff has noted that the Applicant has not proposed to stub roads to Tax Lot 502 to the
north or to Tax Lot 601 to the south. With respect to Tax Lot 601, the property owners, Ed
and Doris Elkins, have advised the Applicant that they do not want a road stubbed to Tax
Lot 601. See the enclosed February 14, 2020 email from their lawyer, Kevin Keillor. The
Elkinses also own Tax Lot 503, and the Applicant has proposed extending Pacific Heights
Road to the boundary of Tax Lot 503. Based upon this, the owners of Tax Lot 601 prefer to
provide access to Tax Lot 601 through Tax Lot 503. Thus, stubbing a road to Tax Lot 601 is
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 36 of 67
not "necessary to give access" or to "permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land...."
Thus, no street extension to Tax Lot 601 is needed.
With respect to Tax Lot 502, that parcel is owned by the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department. The Applicant has made several attempts to reach a representative from the
Department to discuss future plans (the local representative advised that such issues are
handled out of Salem and not locally). Given the public ownership, the existing recreational
uses of the park there (hiking and enjoying nature and river views), subdivision or other
development seems unlikely. Considering that subdivision of this parcel is not addressed or
planned in the current (1986) Parks Master Plan for Deschutes County, and the District has
not commented on this application, the Applicant believes there is no need for a road to be
stubbed to the boundary of Tax Lot 502 at this time. The Applicant believes that constructing
one at this time in the vague possibility that it might be used at some time in the distant
future (at which point it would likely need to be reconstructed because of damage from the
elements and to bring it up to then -applicable code standards) seems a terrible waste and
an unnecessary environmental impact. If the County is concerned about possible future
access, the Applicant proposes the imposition of a condition of approval requiring the
dedication of right-of-way for a future road, if it is ever needed.
Mr. Dahlen stated in his June 30, 2020, email that in regards "to the road connectivity to the north
notwithstanding the sentiments of the current Oregon Parks and Recs Management, connectivity
is a requirement as noted by county staff in the 'incomplete' letter and this requirement cannot be
waived by an adjoining property owner, [i]t is entirely possible that future managers of [OPRD] will
want to nrnvirlp river arrpcc frnm thin rparifir Hpightsl road and this should be Dermanently
blocked by a shortsighted approval." Mr. Dahlen does not cite the relevant code section this
argument relates to, but the Hearings Officer believes it is directed at this DCC 17.36.080.
The Applicant responded by noting that OPRD has "expressly stated that a road is not necessary
for a future partition or subdivision and is not needed for access. The Applicant and OPRD have
agreed upon an easement that will provide the access that OPRD anticipates needing." Cooper Ltr,
July 21, 2020. OPRD does not want a road stubbed to its adjacent boundary (to the north of the
subject property) because it is contrary to the statement purpose of the property, which is
conservation. According to the Applicant, a stubbed road might lead to trespassing that could
damage sensitive ecosystems, harass wildlife, or lead to fires. Cooper Ltr, July 7, 2020. To confirm
the understanding between the Applicant and OPRD, the Applicant submitted an email and form
easement that has been approved by OPRD to allow pedestrian and vehicular access to OPRD's
property for use by OPRD employees and contractors to inspect and maintain OPRD's property.
However, the Hearings Officer notes the easement would not allow the public access, should the
OPRD property be put to different use in the future.
Mr. Dahlen's interpretation of this code section is reasonable. However, the Hearings Officer
interprets DCC 17.36.080 differently. As the Hearings Officer interprets this code section, it is
intended (1) to ensure access, or (2) to permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land by
requiring, if necessary, streets to be extended to the boundary of the subdivision. Put otherwise, if
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 37 of 67
necessary, to give access or allow for satisfactory future division of adjoining land, then streets
must be extended to the subdivision boundary.
In the case of Tax Lot 502 to the north of the subjection property, the Applicant and OPRD have
agreed to an access easement. DCC 17.36.080 does not state the extent to which access must be
allowed. In this case, though, the property owner (OPRD) has consented to access as permitted by
the proposed easement. Thus, with a condition of approval requiring that the easement be
recorded, access to Tax Lot 502 can be ensured.
Perhaps slightly less clear is whether a street must be stubbed to the boundary to allow
"satisfactory" future division of Tax Lot 502. The code does not state to whose satisfaction future
division must be ensured. In this case, the Hearings Officer considered that perhaps it was the
County's satisfaction (but Staff did not make that argument), the public's satisfaction, or the
adjoining property owner's satisfaction. Ultimately, the Hearings Officer concluded it should be to
the adjoining property owner's satisfaction since it is their property to divide or not. In this case,
OPRD has conveyed that they intend to manage the land for conservation and that access to the
OPRD property risks harm to the ecosystem, wildlife, and increases the risk of fire. Accordingly, in
light of the adjacent property owner's position, the Hearings Officer finds it is not necessary to
require a stubbed road to Tax Lot 502 to allow "satisfactory" future division. OPRD has stated it is
not necessary.
With that interpretation in mind, the Hearings Officer turns to Tax Lot 601 to the south. In this case,
Tax Lots 601 and 503, both to the immediate south of the proposed subdivision, are owned by the
camp Innrin\Ainor rha Flkinc Family Revocable Trust (the "Elkins"l_ Again; the Applicant has been in
contact with the landowner. In this case, the Applicant and the Elkins have agreed to an access
easement providing access to Tax Lot 601. A copy of the proposed easement is included with
applicant's submittal dated July 71h, 2020. The proposed easement includes an agreement to
dedicate the right of way for a road in the event the Elkins need it in the future to develop their
property. The Elkins confirmed in a letter from their attorney dated July 7th, 2020, they believe this
satisfactory to allow access to Tax Lot 601. The Hearings Officer also notes that the Applicant's
tentative plan shows Pacific Heights Road being stubbed to the northern property line of Tax Lot
503. Since Tax Lot 503 and Tax Lot 601 are in common ownership, they have control over access
to Tax Lot 601 should the Elkins elect to continue a road from Tax Lot 503 to Tax Lot 601 for future
division (in addition to the proposed easement).
For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant can meet the requirements of DCC
17.36.080 with the following conditions of approval.
Access to Tax Lot 502: The Applicant shall execute an easement in substantially the same form as
attached to the letter from Ms. Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 4 prior to recording the final plat.
The easement shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
Access to Tax Lot 601: The Applicant shall execute an easement in substantially the same form as
attached to the letter from Ms. Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 5 prior to recording the final plat.
The easement shall be recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 38 of 67
Section 17.36.100. Frontage Roads.
If a land division abuts or contains an existing or proposed collector or arterial street, the
Planning Director or Hearings Body may require frontage roads, reverse frontage lots or
parcels with suitable depth, screen planting contained in a non -access reservation along
the rear or side property line, or other treatment necessary for adequate protection of
residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. All frontage
roads shall comply with the applicable standards of Table A of DCC Title 17, unless
specifications included in a particular zone provide other standards applicable to frontage
roads.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision does not abut or contain an existing or proposed collector or
arterial street. This criterion is not applicable.
Section 17.36.120. Street Names.
Except for extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate
or be confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street
names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the County and shall
require approval from the County Property Address Coordinator.
FINDING: This criterion can be met with the following condition of approval.
c1-roe* Kln. pc- All rnmric ch-ill ha namarl in rnnfnrmanre with the provisions of the Deschutes
..... ........�� _._.. _.._
County uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16. Except for extensions of existing
streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the name of an
existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names and numbers shall conform to the
established pattern in the County and shall require approval from the County Property Address
Coordinator.
Section 17.36.130. Sidewalks.
A. Within an urban growth boundary, sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of a
public road or street and in any special pedestrian way within the subdivision or
partition, and along any collectors and arterials improved in accordance with the
subdivision or partition.
B. Within an urban area, sidewalks shall be required along frontage roads only on the
side of the frontage road abutting the development.
C. Sidewalk requirements for areas outside of urban area are set forth in section
17.4& 175. In the absence of a special requirement set forth by the Road
Department Director under DCC 17.4&030, sidewalks and curbs are never required
in rural areas outside unincorporated communities as that term is defined in Title
M
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 39 of 67
FINDING: These criteria are not applicable to the proposed development because the subject
property is located outside of an acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary. Sidewalks are not
required for this subdivision pursuant to subsection (C) above.
Section 17 36 140 Bicycle Pedestrian and Transit Requirements.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation within Subdivision.
A. The tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall provide for bicycle and
pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements within the subdivision and to
nearby existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, such as schools,
shopping areas and parks in a manner that will.
1. Minimize such interference from automobile traffic that would discourage
pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips;
2. Provide a direct route of travel between destinations within the subdivision
and existing or planned neighborhood activity centers, and
3. otherwise meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, considering the
destination and length of trip.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows.
The proposed planned development is accessed via public roads to the proposed lots.
Bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be accommodated on the proposed roads that will be
constructed to the standards for a rural local road. Because of the rural nature of the area
and thin IMAI vnlI IMP of vahirular traffir. nedestrian and bicvcle transportation can be easilv
and safely accommodated on the proposed roads. There are no existing or planned
neighborhood activity centers nearby.
Staff stated there is an existing neighborhood activity center nearby. Specifically, the western and
northern boundaries of the subject property are abutted by several properties included in Tumalo
State Park which is operated by Oregon Parks and Recreation. While the Site Traffic Report
indicated a relatively low number of daily vehicle trips, staff was unclear if bicycle trips could be
accomplished using the existing and proposed roads, particularly if additional access to state park
property is required as a part of this development.
The Applicant responded, "...the remote location of the property and the fact that that ODPR
property immediately to the north of the [subject property] is intended for conservation and not
recreation means that neither a dedicated bike trail nor a dedicated bike lane is necessary." Cooper
Ltr, July 7th, 2020. In support of the Applicant's position, Transight Consulting submitted supporting
analysis explaining why a bicycle connection on Pacific Heights Road is not necessary.
OPRD commented in a letter dated June 26th, 2020, that it did not want a stub road or bicycle path
connecting to its property (Tax Lot 601) because it would encourage public to enter that portion of
the park that is not suited for large-scale recreation. The letter further notes that this portion of
the park is intended for conversation, not recreation and that the southern portion (adjacent to
the subject property) is not contiguous to the northern part of the park.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 40 of 67
The Hearings Officer is not aware of a stand-alone definition of "neighborhood activity centers."
However, in at least two locations within DCC 17.36, it is noted neighborhood activity centers
include locations like schools, shopping malls, and parks. There is no evidence in the record that a
school or shopping area exists near the subject property. The question, then, is whether the
portion of Tumalo State Park that to the immediate north of the subject property is a neighborhood
activity center. The initial reaction might be that the state park would constitute a neighborhood
activity center. However, based on comments from the Applicant and OPRD, the Hearings Officer
questions this conclusion.
Title 17 does not include a definition for "park". Although not directly relevant, Title 18 of the Code
defines "public park" as:
"...an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation that provides the
resource base for the following activities: picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping,
and hiking or nature oriented recreation such as viewing and studying nature and wildlife
habitat, and may include play area and accessory facilities that support the activities listed
above."
In this case, use of the work "park" is in regard to "neighborhood activity centers", including parks,
shopping area and schools. Such uses typically are associated with regular and constant public use.
Moreover, the definition of parks in Title 18 of the Code implies recreational use by the public.
Given that this portion of the state park is isolated from main part of the state park, is intended for
rnncarxiatinn runt r-PrrPafinn1 and hay limited nublic use. the Hearings Officer concludes it does not
constitute a neighborhood activity center. Thus, the Hearings Officer finds that DCC 17.36.140(A)
does not require a bicycle path leading to the adjacent park.
Moreover, as explained in the memorandum from Transight Consulting dated July 7th, 2020, the
public portions of Tumalo State Park and Riley Ranch Nature Reserve (managed by BPRD) are
accessed via O.B. Riley Road, which contains bicycle lanes and is designated as a Bicycle Route. The
memorandum notes that Pacific Heights Road only serves a small number of residences (24
including the 10 proposed lots that are subject of this application). Given the low level of traffic,
according to Transight, the cyclists will be supported within the low speed shared use environment.
The record does not contain a response from any party regarding Transight Consulting's
memorandum.
For the above reasons, as explained by the Applicant's attorney and traffic engineer, the Hearings
Officer finds this criterion is met.
B. Subdivision Layout.
1. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets shall be allowed only where, due to
topographical or environmental constraints, the size and shape of the
parcel, or a lack of through -street connections in the area, a street
connection is determined by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to be
infeasible or inappropriate. In such instances, where applicable and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 41 of 67
feasible, there shall be a bicycle and pedestrian connection connecting the
ends of cul-de-sacs to streets or neighborhood activity centers on the
opposite side of the block.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
The Applicant is proposing a loop road, which is the most appropriate road design,
considering the topography and the desire to minimize pavement through the subdivision.
Accordingly, this design is the most efficient design. No streets currently exist to the north,
west or south. No future streets are likely to the north (because the land is park property)
or to the west (because of the rim and the river). The Applicant is proposing a connection
to, and extension of Pacific Heights Road from the east.
The Applicant's tentative plan, titled "Supplementary Materials - Revised Tentative Plan 3-3-
20" in the record, shows that the applicant is planning for a loop road with a stubbed road
at the southern boundary. The Applicant's explanation indicates that development to the
west and north are not feasible. The stubbed road to the south will allow for development
to the south. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is met.
2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections between streets shall be provided at mid
block where the addition of a connection would reduce the walking or
cycling distance to an existing or planned neighborhood activity center by
400 feet and by at least 50 percent over other available routes.
FINDING: The Applicant has responded to this criterion as follows:
There are no existing or planned neighborhood activity centers in the vicinity of the
proposed subdivision.
Staff expressed concern that the subdivision is located near an existing neighborhood activity
center, specifically Tumalo State Park. As explained previously, the Hearings Officer does not
believe that portion of Tumalo State Park constitutes a neighborhood activity center because it is
intended for conservation and not public recreation. Therefore, pedestrian and bicycle connection
to Tumalo State Park to the immediate north of the subject property is not required. This criterion
is met.
3. Local roads shall align and connect with themselves across collectors and
arterials. Connections to existing or planned streets and undeveloped
properties shall be provided at no greater than 400 foot intervals.
4. Connections shall not be more than 400 feet long and shall be as straight as
possible.
FINDING: The proposed extension of Pacific Heights Road and Juniper Rim Loop do not cross a
collector or arterial road. There is no opportunity to align and connect with existing or planned
streets.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 42 of 67
C. Facilities and Improvements.
1. Bikeways may be provided by either a separate paved path or an on -street
bike lane, consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17.
2. Pedestrian access may be provided by sidewalks or a separate paved path,
consistent with the requirements of DCC Title 17.
3. Connections shall have a 20 foot right of way, with at least a 10 foot usable
surface.
FINDING: The proposed roads within the subdivision, and all roads leading to the subdivision with
the exception of OB Riley Road approximately 0.57 miles to the east, are public local roads, with
very low anticipated traffic volumes due to the project location and scope of development. OB Riley
Road is a designated collector street. Due to the presence of OB Riley Road and Tumalo State Park
adjacent to the subject property, staff was uncertain if separate bikeways should be required and
requests the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue. Staff noted that separate
bikeways or bike lanes are not warranted, nor required for local roads.
As previously discussed, the presence of a portion of Tumalo State Park that is intended for
conservation use and not recreational use, does not warrant bikeway or pedestrian access.
Additionally, given the low anticipated traffic volumes on Pacific Heights Road (as stated by the
Applicant's traffic engineer), which leads to O.B. Riley Road, there is no need for bikeways or
pedestrian access to O.B. Riley Road.
Section 17.36.150. Blocks.
A. General. The length, width and shape of blocks shall accommodate the need for
adequate building site size, street width and direct travel routes for pedestrians
and cyclists through the subdivision and to nearby neighborhood activity centers,
and shall be compatible with the limitations of the topography.
B. Size. Within an urban growth boundary, no block shall be longer than 1,200 feet
between street centerlines. In blocks over 800 feet in length, there shall be a cross
connection consistent with the provisions of DCC 17.36.140.
FINDING: The proposal is for 10 lots situated along a central loop road for access. The subject
property is not within an Urban Growth Boundary. The lots are all approximately 10.01 acres in
size.
Based on comments from the Road Department, staff believes the length, width and shape of
blocks shall accommodate the need for adequate street width. Given the 10.0-acre lot sizes, there
will be adequate building site area.
As noted previously, the Hearings Officer has concluded that the adjacent park land to the north
does not constitute a neighborhood activity center given the lack of large-scale public use since it
is not intended for recreational use. Therefore, there is no need for direct travel routes for
pedestrians and cyclists.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 43 of 67
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met.
Section 17.36.160. Easements.
A. Utility Easements. Easements shall be provided along property lines when
necessary for the placement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide
the subdivision or partition with electric power, communication facilities, street
lighting, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines or drainage. Such easements shall be
labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the tentative and final plat, they shall be at
least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pole
guyline easements along the rear of lots or parcels adjacent to unsubdivided land
maybe reduced to 10 feet in width.
B. Drainage. if a tract is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainageway, channel
or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right of way
conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse, or in such further width
as will be adequate for the purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major
watercourses or drainageways may be required.
FINDING: To meet this criterion the Hearings Officer adopts the below condition of approval
Utility Easements: Prior to final plat approval, all required utility easements shall be shown on
the final plat. Easements shall be provided along property lines when necessary for the placement
of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or partition with electric
power, rnmmi iniratinn farilitiec street lighting- sewer lines. water lines. gas lines or drainage. Such
�.,........, ...... ...._... _•----•-----o---...o•------ ------� - - - --- ---- o--------- ---__--.--_-. -
easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on the tentative and final plat; they shall be
at least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines where possible, except utility pole guyline
easements along the rear of lots or parcels adjacent to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10
feet in width.
Regarding Criterion (B), the Hearings Officer does not believe it is applicable due to the fact that
the Deschutes River abuts the subject property at the very northwest corner, but does not traverse
the parcel.
Section 17.36.170. Lots. Size and Shape.
The size, width and orientation of lots or parcels shall be appropriate for the location of
the land division and for the type of development and use contemplated, and shall be
consistent with the lot or parcel size provisions of DCC Title 18 through 21, with the
following exceptions:
A. in areas not to be served by a public sewer, minimum lot and parcel sizes shall
permit compliance with the requirements of the Department of Environmental
Quality and the County Sanitarian, and shall be sufficient to permit adequate
sewage disposal. Any problems posed by soil structure and water table and related
to sewage disposal by septic tank shall be addressed and resolved in the applicant's
initial plan.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 44 of 67
B. Where property is zoned and planned for business or industrial use, other widths
and areas may be permitted by the Hearings Body. Depth and width of properties
reserved or laid out for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to
provide for the off street service and parking facilities required by the type of use
and development contemplated.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The size, width, and orientation of lots are appropriate for the location of the
subdivision in a UAR10 zoning district and residential. The proposed development
creates ten lots that are appropriate for development with single-family homes. The
development complies with the lot size provisions of Title 19, the applicable title.
The minimum lot sizes are large enough to permit compliance with DEQ and County
Sanitarian requirements for sewage disposal systems. There are no unusual
problems caused by the soil structure or water table that negatively impact sewage
disposal by septic tank.
The size, width, and orientation of the lots are appropriate to the proposed residential use. The
proposed lots will be approximately 10.01 acres in size, allowing for multiple alternative locations
for subsurface sewage disposal systems. No known problems with the soil structure or the water
table are represented in the record. This proposal can comply with the required structural
setbacks, as discussed and conditioned in this decision. Subsection (13) above does not apply to this
proposal Thocc rritcria Will ha mint
Section 17.36.180. Frontage.
A. Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when located in a planned
development or cluster development, a private road, for at least 50 feet, except for
lots or parcels fronting on the bulb of a cul de sac, then the minimum frontage shall
be 30 feet, and except for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management roads. In the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Residential Center
District, lot widths may be less than 50 feet in width, as specified in DCC 1&61,
Table 2. La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Zoning Standards. Road frontage
standards in destination resorts shall be subject to review in the conceptual master
plan.
FINDING: As shown on the submitted tentative plan, each lot has a minimum frontage of 50 feet
along the proposed extension of Pacific Heights Road or Juniper Rim Loop, which are to be
dedicated to the public upon plat of the subdivision, and therefore this criterion is satisfied.
B. All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved streets
wherever practical.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 45 of 67
FINDING: The side lot lines are perpendicular or radial to the proposed extension of Pacific Heights
Road or juniper Rim Loop as nearly as practicable. Due to the meandering nature of both Pacific
Heights Road and Juniper Rim Loop responding to existing topography, some of the proposed side
lot lines are not perpendicular or radial so as to form regular, square, buildable lots. This is
consistent with surrounding development on Pacific Heights Road.
Section 17.36.190. Through Lots.
Lots or parcels with double frontage should be avoided except where they are essential to
provide separation of residential development from major street or adjacent
nonresidential activities to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and
orientation. A planting screen easement of at least 10 feet in width and across which there
shall be no right of access may be required along the lines of lots or parcels abutting such
a traffic artery or other incompatible use.
FINDING: Two of the proposed lots will have double frontage (Lots 1 and 9 on the revised tentative
plan). The properties will require double frontage for two specific reasons:
• The topography of the subject property, specifically the adjacent Deschutes River Canyon
to the west, requires that a loop road be constructed through the site to provide safe and
efficient access for future residents and public safety personnel. The orientation of the
proposed loop road (Juniper Rim Loop), will cause these two properties to have double
frontage which cannot be avoided under a loop road access scenario.
Thn Anniirnnt is ronj iirorl to avtenr�l right-of-way access to neighhnrinu Tax I nt rnl anti
O tic rNNna.u. a. .. ....Ma.... �.... .,... ..,......... right-of-way .....) ... .._.b. ..,......� ...... _....
potentially neighboring Tax Lots 601 and 502, pursuant to DCC 17.36.080. The required
street extensions to neighboring properties, in conjunction with the loop road described
above for safe access and the restricted topography of the area, requires that at least
certain properties developed onsite will be subject to double frontage.
This criterion is met.
Section 17.36.210. Solar Access Performance.
A. As much solar access as feasible shall be provided each lot or parcel in every new
subdivision or partition, considering topography, development pattern and existing
vegetation. The lot lines of lots or parcels, as far as feasible, shall be oriented to
provide solar access at ground level at the southern building line two hours before
and after the solar zenith from September 22nd to March 21st. if it is not feasible
to provide solar access to the southern building line, then solar access, if feasible,
shall be provided at 10 feet above ground level at the southern building line two
hours before and after the solar zenith from September 22nd to March 21st, and
three hours before and after the solar zenith from March 22nd to September 21st.
B. This solar access shall be protected by solar height restrictions on burdened
properties for the benefit of lots or parcels receiving the solar access.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 46 of 67
C. If the solar access for any lot or parcel, either at the southern building line or at 10
feet above the southern building line, required by this performance standard is not
feasible, supporting information must be filed with the application.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The proposed 10-acre residential lot sizes will be adequate to maximize solar access
for future dwellings on the lots. Compliance with solar setbacks will be determined at
the building permit stage.
At approximately 10.01 acres, the proposed lots will be adequate to allow solar access for all
dwellings. All structures will be required to comply with the solar requirements of DCC 18.116.180.
These criteria will be met.
Section 17.36.230. Grading of Building Sites.
Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards, unless physical
conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made
usable by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
D. When filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit plans
showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community
Development Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development
Director shall consider the need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent
property. Grading shall be finished in such a manner as not to create steep banks
or unsightly areas to adjacent property.
FINDING: No grading or fill has been proposed by the Applicant. To ensure compliance with this
provision, the Hearings Officer adopts these criteria as conditions of any approval.
Grading: Grading of building sites shall conform to the following standards, unless physical
conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made usable
by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
D. When filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit plans
showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community Development
Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development Director shall consider the
need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent property. Grading shall be finished in such
a manner as not to create steep banks or unsightly areas to adjacent property.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 47 of 67
Section 17.36.260. Fire Hazards.
Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall
be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident
evacuation.
FINDING: The application materials state:
The proposed configuration only includes one point of access to Pacific Heights Road.
While the Applicant does propose extending Pacific Heights Road to the south
property line, the road will not be constructed until that property develops. No
connection is possible to the north (because it is park land) or to the west (because of
the rim and the river). Thus, a second access point is not feasible at this time.
Additionally, staff notes that no comments were received from Larry Medina, Deputy Fire Chief for
the Bend Fire Department, related to a possible secondary access point to the proposed property.
Larry Medina provided the following comments as they relate to the proposed development:
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion
of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire
apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend
to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
hi jilrlina nr fnrilh/
An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection
shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are
hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction...
Staff concurred that no secondary access is currently possible given the surrounding existing
development pattern and topographical constraints. The Hearings Officer agrees and finds this
criterion is met.
Section 17.36.270. Street Tree Planting.
Street tree planting plans, if proposed, for a subdivision or partition, shall be submitted
to the Planning Director and receive his approval before the planting is begun.
FINDING: No street trees have been proposed by the Applicant.
Section 17.36.280. Water and Sewer Lines.
Where required by the applicable zoning ordinance, water and sewer lines shall be
constructed to County and City standards and specifications. Required water mains and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 48 of 67
service lines shall be installed prior to the curbing and paving of new streets in all new
subdivisions or partitions.
FINDING: No water or sewer lines are required by the applicable zoning ordinance. Water delivery
and waste disposal is proposed through private, individual wells and onsite septic systems.
Section 17.36.290. Individual Wells.
In any subdivision or partition where individual wells are proposed, the applicant shall
provide documentation of the depth and quantity of potable water available from a
minimum of two wells within one mile of the proposed land division. Notwithstanding DCC
17.36.300, individual wells for subdivisions are allowed when parcels are larger than 10
acres.
FINDING: The application materials state:
Private individual wells are proposed for the project. The Applicant has provided Oregon
Water Resources Department well logs, DESC 61077 and DESC 61390, located within one
mile of the Tentative Plan (both in the adjacent Pacific Cascade Heights Subdivision),
documenting the availability of potable water. This subdivision proposes a minimum lot size
of 10 acres. As a result, DCC 17.36.300 does not apply.
Based on the revised tentative plan, all lots in the proposed subdivision will be 10.01 gross acres
in 671n Tharafnra inrlivirii ml wall-, ara allnwarl.
Section 17.36.300, Public Water System.
In any subdivision or partition where a public water system is required or proposed, plans
for the water system shall be submitted and approved by the appropriate state or federal
agency. A community water system shall be required where lot or parcel sizes are less
than one acre or where potable water sources are at depths greater than 500 feet,
excepting land partitions. Except as provided for in sections 17.24.120 and 17.24.130, a
required water system shall be constructed and operational, with lines extended to the
lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed subdivision or partition plat, prior
to final approval.
FINDING: Pursuant to DCC 17.36.290, private individual wells are allowed for subdivisions when
parcels are larger than 10 acres. This criterion does not apply.
Chapter 17.44, Park Development.
Section 17.44.010. Dedication of Land.
A. For subdivisions or partitions inside an urban growth boundary, the developer shall
set aside and dedicate to the public for park and recreation purposes not less than
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 49 of 67
eight percent of the gross area of such development, if the land is suitable and
adaptable for such purposes and is generally located in an area planned for parks.
FINDING: The subject property is not within an urban growth boundary.
B. For subdivisions or partitions outside of an urban growth boundary, the developer
shall set aside a minimum area of the development equal to $350 per dwelling unit
within the development, if the land is suitable and adaptable for such purposes
and is generally located in an area planned for parks.
C. For either DCC 17.44.010 (A) or (B), the developer shall either dedicate the land set
aside to the public or develop and provide maintenance for the land set aside as a
private park open to the public.
D. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall determine whether or not such land
is suitable for park purposes.
E. if the developer dedicates the land set aside in accordance with DCC 17.44.010 (A)
or (B), any approval by the Planning Director or Hearings Body shall be subject to
the condition that the County or appropriate park district accept the deed
dedicating such land.
F. DCC 17.44.010 shall not apply to the subdivision or partition of lands located within
the boundaries of a parks district with a permanent tax rate.
FINDING: As discussed below, the Applicant has proposed to annex to the Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District. Thus, per subsection (F), DCC 17.44.010 does not apply.
Section 17 44.030. Annexation Agreement.
No partition or subdivision of land lying within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary,
including the urban reserve areas, but outside the boundaries of the Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District, shall be approved unless the landowner has signed an annexation
agreement with the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District.
FINDING: The proposed partition is located inside the Urban Reserve Area and based on the
current Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, the property is outside the
boundaries of the district. Based on the application materials, the Applicant agrees to sign an
annexation agreement with the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District. The Hearings Officer
therefore adopts the following condition of approval.
Park District Annexation: The applicant shall sign an annexation agreement with Bend Metro Park
and Recreation District and submit a copy of the agreement to the Planning Division prior to final
plat approval.
Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications.
Section 17 48.100. Minimum Right of Way Width.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 50 of 67
The minimum right of way width is 60 feet unless specified otherwise in Table A (or in any
right of way specifications set forth for a particular zone in a zoning ordinance). (See Table
A set out at the end of DCC Title 17.)
FINDING: The proposed right-of-way dedication for both the Pacific Heights Road extension and
Juniper Rim Loop through the subdivision is 60 feet in width, meeting the requirements of this
section and Table A.
Section 17.48.110. Turn Lanes.
When a turn lane is required, it shall be a minimum of 14 feet in width, except where road
specifications in a zoning ordinance provide for travel lanes of lesser width. Additional
right of way may be required.
FINDING: No turn lane is proposed or required.
Section 17 48 120 Partial Width Roads.
Partial width roads or half streets shall not be allowed.
FINDING: No partial width road or half streets are proposed.
Section 17.48.130. Road Names.
All roads shall be named in conformance with the provisions of the Deschutes County
uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16.
FINDING: This criterion can be met with the condition of approval previously required regarding
street names.
Section 17.48.140. Bikeways.
A. General Design Criteria.
1. Bikeways shall be designed in accordance with the current standards and
guidelines of the Oregon (ODOT) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for
Development of New Bicycle Facilities, and the Deschutes County Bicycle
Master Plan. See DCC 17.48 Table B.
2. All collectors and arterials shown on the County Transportation Plan map
shall be constructed to include bikeways as defined by the Deschutes County
Bicycle Master Plan.
3. if interim road standards are used, interim bikeways and/or walkways shall
be provided. These interim facilities shall be adequate to serve bicyclists
and pedestrians until the time of road upgrade.
B. Multi -use Paths.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 51 of 67
1. Multi -use paths shall be used where aesthetic, recreation and safety
concerns are primary and a direct route with few intersections can be
established. If private roads are constructed to a width of less than 28 feet,
multi -use paths shall be provided.
2. Multi -use paths are two-way facilities with a standard width of 10 feet, but
with a 12 foot width if they are subjected to high use by multiple users.
These paths shall meet County multi -use path standards and shall connect
with bike facilities on public roads.
C. Bike Lanes. Six-foot bike lanes shall be used on new construction of curbed
arterials and collectors.
D. Shoulder Bikeways.
1. Shoulder bikeways shall be used on new construction of uncurbed arterials
and collectors.
2. Shoulder bikeways shall be at least four feet wide. Where the travel lane on
an existing arterial or collector is not greater than eleven feet, the bikeway
shall be a minimum of four feet wide.
E. Mountain Bike Trails.
1. Mountain bike (dirt or other unpaved surface) trails may be used as
recreational or interim transportation facilities.
2. Trails used for transportation shall have a two foot minimum tread width
and a six-foot minimum clearing width centered over the trail, and a
minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. Trails used solely for
recreational use may be narrower with less clearing of vegetation.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer has previously found that bikeways and pedestrian connections
are not required. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Section 17 48 160. Road Development Requirements - Standards.
A. Subdivision Standards. All roads in new subdivisions shall either be constructed to
a standard acceptable for inclusion in the county maintained system or the
subdivision shall be part of a special road district or a homeowners association in
a planned unit development.
FINDING: The proposed road extension is required to be constructed to a standard acceptable for
inclusion in the County -maintained road system, however, maintenance of the road extension will
be the responsibility of the owners of the subdivision lots. A previous condition of approval was
adopted to ensure road maintenance.
B. Improvements of Public Rights of Way.
1. The developer of a subdivision or partition will be required to improve all
public ways that are adjacent or within the land development.
2. All improvements within public rights of way shall conform to the
improvement standards designated in DCC Title 17 for the applicable road
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 52 of 67
classification, except where a zoning ordinance sets forth different
standards for a particular zone.
FINDING: The Applicant has proposed improvements and the Hearings Officer adopts the
following condition of approval to ensure compliance with these criteria.
Road Improvements: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall construct the extension of
Pacific Heights Road and Juniper Rim Loop (proposed loop road) through the subdivision according
to the submitted tentative plan and accordance with the applicable provisions of Title 17.
C. Primary Access Roads.
1. The primary access road for any new subdivision shall be improved to the
applicable standard set forth in Table A.
2. The applicable standard shall be determined with reference to the road's
classification under the relevant transportation plan.
3. For the purposes of DCC 17.4& 160 a primary access road is a road leading to
the subdivision from an existing paved county, city or state maintained road
that provides the primary access to the subdivision from such a road.
FINDING: Pacific Heights Road is the primary access road to this subdivision and presently
complies with these criteria.
D. Secondary Access Roads. When deemed necessary by the County Road Department
Or Cai'.'::.':1'::C.ity Development Department a sPrnndary arress road shall be
constructed to the subdivision. Construction shall be to the same standard used for
roads within the subdivision.
FINDING: The subdivision will have a single access road for general use which is Pacific Heights
Road. Due to the number of lots proposed and the layout of the subdivision, the Hearings Officer
finds a secondary general access road is not required.
E. Stubbed Roads. Any proposed road that terminates at a development boundary
shall be constructed with a paved cul-de-sac bulb.
FINDING: Upon review of the submitted tentative plan staff sent the following request in the
incomplete letter:
Based on the submitted application materials, the proposed extension of Pacific Heights
Road will terminate at the boundary of the subdivision development along the southern
property line. However, the submitted tentative plan does not appear to illustrate this road
with a paved cul-de-sac bulb. Please provide additional information, including a modified
tentative plan, which demonstrates that all proposed roads which terminate at a
development boundary, including the extension of Pacific Heights Road, will be constructed
with a paved cul-de-sac bulb.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 53 of 67
The Applicant subsequently provided the following response to request above in the incomplete
response materials:
As shown on the updated Tentative Plan, the Applicant proposes to construct a cul-de-sac
at the terminus of any roads that stub to undeveloped, adjacent property, in lieu of cul-de-
sacs [sic]. The Applicant did ask for the ability to replace each cul-de-sac with an alternative
hammerhead design, subject to approval by the Fire Department. The alternative
hammerhead would be identical to the stubbed road treatment at boundaries, recently
approved by the County and Fire Department, and constructed in the adjacent Pacific
Cascade Heights Subdivision. A hammerhead would be preferable, as it disturbs less land,
requires less grading and asphalt pavement that is ultimately wasted, and results in less
adverse impact to the environment, while serving the same purpose. However, staff has
indicated that there is no flexibility on this criterion, and, accordingly, the Applicant is
proposing to comply, as noted on the enclosed updated Tentative Plan.
The Hearings Officer finds the language in the code provides no flexibility regarding the cul-de-sac
requirement. The updated tentative plan depicts a cul-de-sac where Pacific Heights Road abuts Tax
Lot 503 to the south. The Applicant is therefore in compliance with this criterion.
F. Cul-de-sacs.
1. Cul-de-sacs shall have a length of less than 600 feet, unless a longer length
is approved by the applicable fire protection district, and more than 100 feet
from the center of the bulb to the intersection with the main road.
The maximum grar/o nn the bulls shall be four percent.
FINDING: Staff refers to the findings above concerning DCC 17.48.160(E) and requests that the
Hearings Officer make specific findings on this issue.
The updated site plan shows a single cul-de-sac bulb, adjacent to neighboring Tax Lot 503. It shows
that the cul-de-sac will comply with these standards. The Hearings Officer adopts the following
condition of approval.
Cul-de-sacs: Any cul-de-sac to be constructed shall comply with the requirements of DCC
17.48.160(F).
Section 17.48.190. Drainage.
A. Minimum Requirements.
1. Drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to receive and/or
transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon
Stormwater Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
and all surface drainage water coming to and/or passing through the
development or roadway.
2. The system shall be designed for maximum allowable development.
B. Curbed Sections.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 54 of 67
C. Noncurbed Sections.
1. Road culverts shall be concrete or metal with a minimum design life of 50
years.
z All cross culverts shall be 18 inches in diameter or larger.
3. Culverts shall be placed in natural drainage areas and shall provide positive
drainage.
D. Drainage Swales. The Design Engineer is responsible to design a drainage Swale
adequate to control a design storm as defined in the Central Oregon Stormwater
Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council.
E. Drainage Plans. A complete set of drainage plans including hydraulic and
hydrologic calculations shall be incorporated in all road improvement plans.
F. Drill Holes. Drill holes are prohibited.
G. Injection wells (drywells) are prohibited in the public right-of-way.
FINDING: In response to this criterion, the Applicant stated:
The Applicant is agreeable to a condition of approval demonstrating compliance with the
above criteria to the County Engineer via the required Road Improvement (Construction)
Plans, before public road construction, as is typical. The submitted Tentative Plan Roadways
Typical Section indicates the required County public road drainage ditches. Drainage swales,
and any necessary drainage facilities to address the above criteria will be provided in the
required Construction Plans, subject to the County Engineer's approval, as is typical.
The Applicant notes that there are no defined nor particular natural drainage courses on or
across the subject property, except of course for the Deschutes River, which just touches
the northwest corner of the property, which is some 200 feet below the developable
property, and will not be affected by the proposed subdivision infrastructure.
Curbs are neither proposed nor required for the proposed subdivision. The Hearings Officer
adopts the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion.
Drainage: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide certification by a licensed
professional engineer that any drainage facilities have been designed and constructed to receive
and/or transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon Stormwater
Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and all surface drainage water
coming to and/or passing through the development or roadway. All drainage features and designs
shall comply with DCC 17.48.190.
Section 17.48.210. Access.
A. Permit Required. Access onto public right of way or change in type of access shall
require a permit. Permits are applied for at offices of the Community Development
Department.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 55 of 67
B. Access Restrictions and Limitations. The creation of access onto arterials and
collectors is prohibited unless there is no other possible means of accessing the
parcel. in any event, residential access onto arterials and collectors shall not be
permitted within 100 feet of an intersection or the maximum distance obtainable
on the parcel, whichever is less.
FINDING: No access to arterial or collector roads from a proposed subdivision lot is proposed. The
following condition of approval is adopted to ensure compliance with this criterion.
Driveway Approach Permits: Prior to the issuance of building permits on each lot, a driveway
approach permit shall be obtained for each approach to the continuation of Pacific Heights Road
orJuniper Rim Loop.
TITLE 19 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, BEND URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 19.12, Urban Area Reserve (UAR10) Zone.
Section 19.12.020. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted.
A. A single-family dwelling
FINDING: The proposed subdivision will create parcels for residential use. Single-family dwellings
nre nonrmittori r%i it -right in than i IAR1 n 7nnP
Section 19.12.050. Lot requirements.
The following requirements shall be observed:
A. Lot Area. Each lot shall have a minimum area of 10 acres.
FINDING: "Lot Area" as defined in DCC 19.04.040 includes the area of the adjacent street
dedications for lots 2.5 acres or greater in size. The following table shows the area in acres for
each lot proposed on the submitted tentative plan.
Lot Number
Gross Lot Area (acres)
1
10.01
2
10.01
3
10.01
4
10.01
5
10.01
6
10.01
7
10.01
8
10.01
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 56 of 67
9 10.01
10 10.01
B. Lot Width. Each lot shall have a minimum average width of 300 feet with a
minimum street frontage of 150 feet.
FINDING: The Applicant is proposing to extend the right of way associated with Pacific Heights
Road, and create a new loop road (tentatively named Juniper Rim Loop), with each new parcel
fronting along the newly extended road way or the new loop road. After these improvements, the
smallest minimum average width of each parcel will be 300 feet, and the smallest minimum street
frontage will be 150 feet. This criterion will be met.
C. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the existing street
right-of-way line or the ultimate street right of way as adopted on the
Comprehensive Plan or Official Map, except that any lot of record less than one
acre in size lawfully created prior to (effect date of this title) shall have a minimum
front yard of 30 feet.
D. Side Yard. There shall be a minimum side yard of 10 feet.
E. Rear Yard. There shall be a minimum rear yard of 50 feet.
F. Solar Setback. The solar setback shall be as prescribed in DCC 19.88.210.
FINDING: There are no existing structures on the subject property. Future houses and buildings
on these remaining lots will need to comply with the setback requirements of this section.
Solar setbacks as prescribed in DCC 19.88.210 apply to new or altered structures only; no new or
altered structures are proposed with this land division application, and therefore this section does
not apply to this land division application.
Chapter 19.72, Flood Plain Combining Zone.
Section 19.72.020. Application of FP Zone.
A. The FP Combining Zone shall apply to the area identified on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) as special flood hazard areas inundated by 100-year flood and
f/oodway areas. The FIA Flood Insurance Study for Bend and the FIRM map are
hereby adopted and by this reference included herein. The A and AE zones shown
on the FIRM map are hereby zoned FP.
FINDING: Staff notes that a portion of the subject property is located within the Flood Plain
Combining Zone, therefore the provisions of this chapter apply to the proposed project.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 57 of 67
Flood Plain Combining Zone on Subject Property
B. When base flood elevation data has not been provided on the FIRM, the Planning
Director shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and
f/oodway data available from a federal, state or other source in order to administer
DCC 19.72.020.
C. Information to be obtained and maintained.
1. Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance
Study or as required in DCC 19.72.020(8), record the actual elevation (in
relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
new or substantially improved structures and whether or not the structure
contains a basement.
2. For all new or substantially improved flood proofed structures, record the
actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the structure's lowest
floor. Obtain and maintain the flood proofing certifications required in DCC
19.72.070(8).
FINDING: Base flood elevation data has been provided on the FIRM.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 58 of 67
Section 19.72.040. Alteration of Watercourses.
A. Prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, notice of the proposed
alteration shall be given to affected, adjacent communities and the State
Department of Water Resources and evidence of such notification submitted to the
Federal Insurance Administration.
B. The applicant shall maintain the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse
so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished.
FINDING: No alteration of a watercourse is proposed under the current application.
Section 19 72 050 Permit for Use or Development in an FP Zone.
No development shall occur in an FP Zone unless a permit has been received for the work.
Except for improvement of an existing structure which is less than substantial, as
determined by the County, no permit shall be issued unless the work will be reasonably
safe from flooding, and otherwise complies with this title. All necessary state, federal and
local permits will be obtained as a condition of approval on any permit in an FP Zone. The
following information shall be submitted with the permit application:
A. The location of the property with reference to channel locations and flood profile
elevations.
B. The existing topography and proposed grading plan for the property. Contour
intervals shall not be more than one foot for ground slopes up to five percent and,
for areas immediately a! jacent to a .stream, two -foot for ground slopes between
five and 10 percent and five-foot for greater slopes.
C. The location of existing and proposed diking or revetments, if any.
D. Review of building permits. Where elevation data is not available either through
the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for
building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be
reasonably safe from flooding.
FINDING: While a small portion of the subject property is included in the Flood Plain Combining
Zone, no portion of the proposed subdivision development will affect the Flood Plain area of the
site. All areas of the subject property which are affected by the Flood Plain Combining Zone are
located at the base of the Deschutes River canyon, approximately 210 feet below the nearest
potential building sites. Additionally, any future physical development of the property which will
affect the Flood Plain will be subject to the standards outlined above.
Section 19 72 090 Land Development Standards in a Flood Hazard Area.
No development shall occur in an FP Zone unless a permit has been received for the work.
Except for improvement of an existing structure which is less than substantial, as
determined by the County, no permit shall be issued unless the work will be reasonably
safe from flooding, and otherwise complies with this title. All necessary state, federal and
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 59 of 67
local permits will be obtained as a condition of approval on any permit in an FP Zone. The
following information shall be submitted with the permit application:
A. In addition to the terms of DCC 19.72.070 and 19.72.080, a subdivision or other land
development, including all utility facilities, within an FP zone shall be designed and
constructed to minimize flood damage, including special provisions for adequate
drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
B. A land development which will alter or relocate a watercourse shall be designed,
constructed and maintained to retain the flood -carrying capacity of the
watercourse.
C. A proposed land development of greater than either 50 lots or five acres shall
include data showing the base flood elevation.
FINDING: As stated above, while a small portion of the subject property is included in the Flood
Plain Combining Zone, no portion of the proposed subdivision development will affect the Flood
Plain area of the site. All areas of the subject property which are affected by the Flood Plain
Combining Zone are located at the base of the Deschutes River canyon, approximately 210 feet
below the nearest potential building sites. Additionally, the submitted tentative plan includes data
showing the base flood elevation for the Deschutes River adjacent to the subject property.
Chapter 19.76, Site Plan Review.
Section 19 76 090 Deschutes River Corridor Design Review.
The fo1lowing uses are parmittpd
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Deschutes River Corridor Design Review to ensure
compliance with the objectives of DCC Title 19 and the goals and policies relating
to the Deschutes River in the Bend Area General Plan. The purpose shall also be to:
1. Recognize and respect the unusual natural beauty and character of the
Deschutes River.
2. Conserve and enhance the existing riparian zone along the Deschutes River.
3. Allow the community flexibility in reviewing development proposals within
the Areas of Special Interest that are designated on the Bend Area General
Plan.
4. Maintain the scenic quality of the canyon and rimrock areas of the
Deschutes River.
S. Conserve and enhance property values.
In considering a Design Plan the Bend Urban Area Planning Commission shall
take into account the impact of the proposed development on nearby
properties, on the capacity of the street system, on land values and
development potential of the area, and on the appearance of the street and
community.
B. The following areas and uses are exempt from the Deschutes River Design Review
process:
1. Public streets and utility facilities existing as of the date of adoption of DCC
Title 19. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in DCC Title 19, a
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 60 of 67
variance maybe granted to the mandatory 40 foot setback for future public
streets and utility facilities.
2. Irrigation facilities, canals and flumes existing as of the date of adoption of
DCC Title 19.
C. Design Review Procedure. All new development, structures, additions and exterior
alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots
within the Deschutes River Corridor, are subject to a Design Review process.
FINDING: A portion of the subject property is located within the Deschutes River Corridor.
However, staff notes that while a portion of the subject property is located within this area, the
proposed application is for a series of property line adjustments and a 10-lot residential
subdivision. As such, no "new development, structures, additions and exterior alterations to
structures, including outside storage and off-street parking lots" are proposed on the subject
property. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that this proposed tentative plan project is
not subject to a Design Review Process.
Regarding future development, though, the Nyes, contend that DCC 19.76.090 requires Design
Review for any lot partially within the Deschutes River Corridor. On the other hand, the Applicant's
attorney contends such review is only required for improvements constructed within 100 feet of
the high water mark.
DCC 19.04 defines "Deschutes River Corridor" as "all property within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark garI, o� the �f the ecrhi itac Ri,,nr Tho nrriina xi high water mark shall be as defined in DCC
� �fl
19.04.040." The interpretations provided by the Nyes and the Applicant as noted both seem
reasonable. Ultimately, though, the Code provides the necessary context in which to interpret
whether only land within 100 feet of the ordinary highwater mark is subject to design review, or
whether property that is at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark is subject
to design review, even for improvements are more than 100 feet outside the high water mark.
The drafters' intent can be discerned by reading the whole of DCC 19.76.090. Subsection (D)
imposes minimum standards on development subject to design review in the Deschutes River
Corridor. One standard is the minimum setback. The minimum setback for buildings in the Corridor
is 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. DCC 19.76.090(D)(1). If the design review only applies
to land within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark, but development is prohibited within 100
feet of high water mark by the setback, the remaining development standards, including the
minimum standards and site and design review criteria, would be pointless since all development
would fall outside the Corridor as a result of the setback. In other words, the building height,
conservation, compatibility, and colors and materials provisions would never be implicated since
no development would occur within 100 feet of the high water marker pursuant to the setback.
The Hearings Officer does not believe that was the intent of the drafters.
Accordingly, the Hearings Officer agrees with the interpretation provided bythe Nyes' attorneythat
the design review under 19.76.090 should occur for any development that occurs on any lot
partially within the corridor.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 61 of 67
With that interpretation in mind, the Hearings Officer finds any "new development, structures,
additions and exterior alterations to structures, including outside storage and off-street parking
lots" which are proposed on a lot that falls at least partially within 100 feet of the ordinary high
water mark is subject to the design review process. To ensure compliance future development
within the subdivision complies with the requirements of this criterion, the Hearings Officer adopts
the following condition of approval.
Future Development: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision
shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
As noted above, the Hearings Officer finds both interpretations plausible. If this issue comes up on
appeal, the Board of County Commissioners may want to carefully analyze this provision and
provide further explanation as to how it interprets this code section.
IV. DECISIONS:
Lot Line Adjustment (247-19-000913-LL)
Based on the above Findings, the Hearings Officer APPROVES the lot line adjustment. This approval
is tentative and only confirms that the proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria
necessary for property line adjustments. All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject
properties.
In order to obtain final approval:
1. Except as provided in ORS 92.060(7-9), the adjusted property lines shall be surveyed and
monumented by a registered professional land surveyor and a survey complying with ORS
209.250, shall be filed with the County Surveyor. A copy of the filed survey shall be
submitted to the Planning Division. Property line adjustments of properties each over
10 acres in size are not required to file a survey according to ORS 92.060(8).
2. New deeds, reflecting the new adjusted properties, shall be recorded with the Deschutes
County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deeds shall be submitted to the Planning
Division. The adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of
the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties
with proper acknowledgment.
A property line adjustment may have an effect on any completed septic site evaluations for
the properties involved. You may wish to check with the Environmental Soils Division
regarding this matter. A property line adjustment may also affect any water rights
appurtenant to your property. If you have a water right, you should contact your irrigation
district before the property line adjustment is surveyed
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 62 of 67
Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary
permits from the Deschutes County Building Division, the Deschutes County Environmental
Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as any required state and
federal permits.
Tentative Plan Approval (247-19-000914-TP)
Based on the above Findings, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the tentative plan subject to
the following conditions of approval.
A. Approval: This approval is based upon the information submitted by the Applicant. Any
substantial change will require a new application.
B. Final Plat: The final plat shall be prepared in accordance with Title 17 of the Deschutes
County Code.
C. Property Line Adjustments: Prior to final plat approval, all conditions of the property line
adjustment approved in Deschutes County file number 247-19-000913-LL shall be satisfied.
D. Site Evaluation: The 10 residential lots shall obtain septic site evaluation approval prior to
final plat approval.
E. Conformity to Tentative Plan: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision final plat shall
kn in ci ihctnntiml rnnfnrmity With tha nrrwicinnc of tha tentative elan fnr the Subdivision, as
approved.
F. Explanations: Prior to final plat approval, explanations for all common improvements
required as conditions of approval of the tentative plan of the subdivision shall be recorded
and referenced on the subdivision plat.
G. Domestic Water Supply Statement: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide
Deschutes County with a statement that no domestic water supply facility will be provided
to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed subdivision plat, even though a
domestic water supply source may exist. A copy of any such statement, signed by the
subdivider and endorsed by the city or county, shall be filed by the subdivider with the Real
Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in any public report made
for the subdivision under ORS 92.385 (Examination). If the making of a public report has
been waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control
Law, the subdivider shall deliver a copy of the statement to each prospective purchaser of
a lot in the subdivision at or prior to the signing by the purchaser of the first written
agreement for the sale of the lot. The subdivider shall take a signed receipt from the
purchaser upon delivery of such a statement, shall immediately send a copy of the receipt
to the commissioner and shall keep any such receipt on file in this state, subject to
inspection by the commissioner, for a period of three years after the date the receipt is
to ken.
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 63 of 67
H. Sewage Disposal Statement: Prior to final plat approval, a statement that no sewage
disposal facility will be provided to the purchaser of any lot depicted in the proposed
subdivision plat, where the Department of Environmental Quality has approved the
proposed method alternative or other method of sewage disposal for the subdivision in its
evaluation report described in ORS 454.755(I)(b). A copy of any such statement, signed by
Applicant and indorsed by Deschutes County shall be filed by the Applicant with the Oregon
Real Estate Commissioner and shall be included by the commissioner in the public report
made for the subdivision under ORS 92.385. If the making of a public report has been
waived or the subdivision is otherwise exempt under the Oregon Subdivision Control Law,
Applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of ORS 92.090(5)(c).
Irrigation District Certification: Prior to final plat approval, Applicant shall submit to
Deschutes County a certification from Swalley Irrigation District that the subdivision is either
entirely excluded from the District, or is included within the District for purposes of receiving
services and subjecting the subdivision to the fees and other charges of the District.
J. Easements of Record: Prior to final plat approval, all easements of record or existing
rights of way shall be noted on the final plat pursuant DCC 1724.060(E), (F), and (H).
K. Road Plans: Prior to construction of public road improvements, the Applicant shall
submit road improvement plans to Road Department for approval prior to commencement
of construction pursuant to DCC 17.40.020 and 17.48.060. The roads shall be designed to
the minimum standard for a local road within a subdivision pursuant to 17.48.160 and
17 ASZA Pnari imnrrnramnnt nlanc shall ha nrPnarPrl in accordance with all anolicable
sections of DCC 17.48.
L. Final Improvement Plans: Prior to construction of public road improvements, the
Applicant shall submit final improvement plans with all required approval signatures to
Road Department.
M. Road Improvements: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall complete road
improvements according to the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection of a register professional engineer
consistent with ORS 92.097 and DCC 17.40.040. Upon completion of road improvements,
applicant shall provide a letter from the engineer certifying that the improvements were
constructed in accordance with the approved plans and all applicable sections of DCC 17.48.
N. Road Maintenance: Maintenance of all public roads within the subdivision shall be assigned
to a home owners association by covenant pursuant to DCC 17.16.040, 17.16.105,
17.48.160(A), and 17.48.180(E). Applicant shall submit covenant to Road Department for
review and shall record covenant with the County Clerk upon Road Department approval. A
copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to final plat approval. Further, the final plat signature sheet shall include
the following note:
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 64 of 67
PUBLIC ROAD MAINTENANCE: THE OWNERS AND TENANTS OF LOTS
PLATTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE HEREBY ASSIGNED TO MAINTAIN AND
REPAIR ALL PUBLIC ROADS CREATED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IN GOOD ORDER
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A UNIT OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OR A SPECIAL DISTRICT FORMALLY ACCEPTS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR SAID PUBLIC ROADS ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE LAWS.
O. Location of Roads: At the time of final plat submittal, the surveyor or engineer preparing
the plat shall, on behalf of Applicant, submit information showing the location of the existing
roads in relationship to the rights of way to Deschutes County Road Department. This
information can be submitted on a worksheet and does not necessarily have to be on the
final plat. All existing road facilities and new road improvements are to be located within
legally established or dedicated rights of way. In no case shall a road improvement be
located outside of a dedicated road right of way. If research reveals that inadequate right
of way exists or that the existing roadway is outside of the legally established or dedicated
right of way, additional right of way will be dedicated as directed by Deschutes County Road
Department to meet the applicable requirements of DCC Title 17 or other County road
standards.
P. As -Constructed Plans: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit as -
constructed improvement plans to Road Department pursuant to DCC 17.24.070(E)(1).
Q. Water Rights: A statement of water rights shall be included on the final subdivision plat.
R. No Lot Sales: No lots to be created by this tentative plan application shall be sold prior to
recordation of the final plat with the Deschutes County Clerk.
S. Fire Department Requirements: The Applicant shall meet the requirements set forth by the
Bend Fire Department in their comments reprinted on pages 7 and 8 of this Decision. Fire
Department approval shall be evidenced by subdivision letter submitted to Deschutes
County Planning prior to final plat approval confirming conformance with applicable fire
safety regulations.
T. Subdivision Name: Prior to final plat approval, the subdivision name shall be approved by
the Deschutes County Surveyor.
U. Road Dedication: Prior to final plat approval, roads for public use shall be dedicated
without any reservation or restriction other than reversionary rights upon vacation of any
such street or road and easements for public or private utilities.
V. Utility Easements: Prior to final plat approval, all required utility easements shall be
shown on the final plat. Easements shall be provided along property lines when necessary
for the placement of overhead or underground utilities, and to provide the subdivision or
partition with electric power, communication facilities, street lighting, sewer lines, water
lines, gas lines or drainage. Such easements shall be labeled "Public Utility Easement" on
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 65 of 67
the tentative and final plat; they shall be at least 12 feet in width and centered on lot lines
where possible, except utility pole guyline easements along the rear of lots or parcels
adjacent to unsubdivided land may be reduced to 10 feet in width.
W. Grading and Filling: Grading: Grading of building sites shall conform to the following
standards, unless physical conditions demonstrate the property of other standards:
A. Cut slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to one and one half feet
horizontally.
B. Fill slope ratios shall not exceed one foot vertically to two feet horizontally.
C. The composition of soil for fill and the characteristics of lots and parcels made
usable by fill shall be suitable for the purpose intended.
D. When filling or grading is contemplated by the subdivider, he shall submit
plans showing existing and finished grades for the approval of the Community
Development Director. In reviewing these plans, the Community Development
Director shall consider the need for drainage and effect of filling on adjacent
property. Grading shall be finished in such a manner as not to create steep banks or
unsightly areas to adjacent property.
X. Park District Annexation: The applicant shall sign an annexation agreement with Bend
Metro Park and Recreation District and submit a copy of the agreement to the Planning
Division prior to final plat approval.
Y. Cul-de-Sacs: All required cul-de-sac bulbs shown on the final tentative plan shall meet the
requinrements ovf nrr 17.d52.1rn/1
. --- . • w. %. 1.
Z. Drainage: Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall provide certification by a licensed
professional engineer that any drainage facilities have been designed and constructed to
receive and/or transport at least a design storm as defined in the current Central Oregon
Stormwater Manual created by Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and all surface
drainage water coming to and/or passing through the development or roadway. All
drainage features and designs shall comply with DCC 17.48.190.
AA. Continuing Obligation: All references to Applicant in this approval, including conditions, also
refers to any successor in interest of Applicant's rights (including development rights) in the
Subject Property. The intent of this approval is to assure the County that anyone claiming
rights under this approval is to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein.
BB. Street Names: All roads shall be named in conformance with the provisions of the
Deschutes County uniform road naming system set forth in DCC Title 16. Except for
extensions of existing streets, no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be
confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names
and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the County and shall require
approval from the County Property Address Coordinator.
CC. Driveway Approach: Prior to the issuance of building permits on each lot, a driveway
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 66 of 67
approach permit shall be obtained for each approach to the continuation of Pacific Heights
Road or Juniper Rim Loop.
DD. Deed Restrictions: Prior to selling any lots, the Applicant shall record deed restrictions in
substantially the same form as outlined above and subject to the modification and
amendments required by the Hearings Officer, including the County's ability to enforce the
deed restrictions.
EE. Design Review: Future development on lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed subdivision
shall be subject to Site Plan review pursuant to DCC 19.76.090.
FF. Access to Tax Lot 502: Prior to selling any lots in the subdivision, the Applicant shall
execute an easement in substantially the same form as attached to the letter from Ms.
Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 4 prior to recording the final plat. The easement shall be
recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
GG. Access to Tax Lot 601: Proir to selling any lots in the subdivision, the Applicant shall
execute an easement in substantially the same form as attached to the letter from Ms.
Cooper dated July 7, 2020, as Item 5 prior to recording the final plat. The easement shall be
recorded as soon as is reasonably practical after the final plat is recorded.
Other permits may be required. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary
permits from the Deschutes County Building Division, the Deschutes County Environmental
Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as any required state and
federal permits.
VI. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
This tentative plan approval shall be void after two years from the date this decision becomes final,
unless the final plat has been submitted to the Planning Division for final approval within that time
period, an extension is sought under DCC 22.36.010, or the preliminary plat approval has been
initiated as defined in DCC 22.36.020.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a
party of interest.
Dated this 131h day of July, 2020.
"AftuAir
Will Van Vactor, Hearings Officer
247-19-000913-LL, 19-914-TP Page 67 of 67
L�OI E s C
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 Monday Meeting of November 9, 2020
DATE: November 5, 2020
FROM: Geoff Hinds, Fair and Expo Center,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Fair & Expo Quarter 1 Update
g
x OD U 00 w w
n
41 8 � A
N 0
uj
LU
ce
ce
IAq
N® 0 N vi G
M
Z
LAJ
0
D N 0
LU
>.
2
ce
co
m
c
C)
0 (L
co
N00
0
o W� F-�
W on
0
MO
C .0 CL
0 = E E
U. S? 100
X
4- C";j
co
LU
>0
0 w
LL
CM m
O� DOW
ce
LL >.
I A
0
w
0
cc
ce.
W
: E E
ro+pp 0
C'm (00
Z
0
-0
w
>
x
irtl
LL.
12
X Lu
Ak
W
m
LU
LL.
0
c
LU
c
e g- e
z
Lu
CL
X
LU
c
LU
c
to
LU
>
LA
Go
c
z
Ln
00
c
UJ
00
ft
4A
40
IL
00
4)
LU
L.
c
C(
IW6
o
CU w
CL
x
tA
(D LU
0
LAA
W,
w 0
'm E
CL
Z
V
X
Lu
LU
>m
ao
IM
VM
0
LA.
x
LU
On C
co
LJ
U3
>
cm
N
0 Ix
z
LL.
0
LL.
toi
Z
m
w
w
r
m
Z 0
2
um
ix
UJ
w
%D
qe
Ln
to
c
m
40
0
I �
m Eu trk$saar e'syA �� b$# ye #sa
'° �a #kWk�###&� •: $$ , 3#k key$. k..$
goo4
rn�
CD' kizfR; 6sx
0
Q
a
X
s
w
F
V
P
Im'
Im
tAw
ce
0
Cie
LU
`e
I
0
W IA
cle 4m
Q
W �
D
WYd
W Z
W
rUJ
ce
N li
N q
U m
9l '>
a
CL
E
O
^U
.i L C
Q
0U-)=d
� V
r _ d
�C tOc�v�
++ roa
O N
+0�' C vCL
v°
W cn cR
>
M A
W W W Y
C
O
a
tV �
n a`
Q
d m U C] W
0 0 0 0 0 l�P O G O
,Od N ry V Oi
O P P O O N O Q O
Q Q Q A
�-
V M
yy N V
1-
xD
r V N
O O g P O O q P P
M r 43 N 1f5 � O M� N
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p g P O P P 0 0 0 O
O g 0 0 53 O O� O Vr
us ttr of
L6
0
in
LU
IA
LU
z
ILLU
LU
ce
LU x
ui
ce
C#4
�.o
4
%0
IA
LIJ
r-
LA
I
>
JA
z
W.
Ln
LA
M
m
co
UJ
M
T--
Le;
X
LU
mLL.
0
o
IL
X
N
(LALA
Z LU
LA
LAJ
X IL Ln
Ln
V,
0
LL-
1w
ui rA
rm
ce
LU
V-
r4 cn
L
LL.zO
LLM
I
it
M
co
00"%
Ln
%D
O
Ln
40
m
1.
co
IV
Ln
c
7-
o
0
401
0
4mo
0)
R
c
>
9?
r.
>
VA
z
401
Ln
Ln
m
�a���c
4-1
V-
to%-
z
0
A
M
-KO
L16
WA
•�
IA
O
CL
W
•� Li.
L16 7
L6
O
V
a+
C
�
a
47
C
"
"m
V
CC
u
E
d
m
C
C
V
�°
0
O
L
oiS
:a
a:
V
�,
c
O
L
w
'ClC
C
i+
C
L
U
IM
Q
a
y
l7
J
X
O
y
O
=
tJ
00
G
a
0
_O
Z
4
u
O
d
s
7
H
�7
o+
3
m
p
O
m
>
eo
0
s
u
.L yIM
�
v
V
C
L
41
G
o
s
E.
a o
V V
V
G
0))
j
r i
_
O
1
N
W
Z
d
o�o
W
C
r
W
�
V
Z
~G
o
W
W
N
z
�
A
CZ
O
�.
d
O
z
m
v
zZ
c
d
ZMA
__
`'sW
a
w/
o
to
N
N
zW
ayW
=
om
Z�N
7�
W
Q
a
W
°g
D
W
W
a
H
5
H
O�
%D
N
0
W
Z
AMZ
LU
V
O
c
z
m
W
l►
~
N
W
ZZ
z
�
w
r F
a
W
H
U6
Q
JNly
3S Q
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of November 9, 2020
DATE: November 5, 2020
FROM: Nathan Garibay, Sheriff's Office,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Grant Application for Quick Deploy Shelter
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Deschutes County Sheriffs Office is requesting permission to seek private foundation funds
from the TC Energy (Trans Canada) to purchase a quick deploy shelter to be used by the
Incident Management Team and/or Search and Rescue.
Tho nroforrorl choltor is n innorl rlon1mm ni drk x/ with twn nPnnlP ant ran hP unnraded as
711� N��.�viivv v�-- w .-Zjzj -, ..... �,....�.. ..�..........7 ...... ..... r..,_r.._, -- --.. -- -'r �----'--- ---
needed. The cost of the shelter is $11,719 with shipping.
This shelter would be used for mobile incident command posts, supporting Search and Rescue
missions, or expanding our mobile alternate Emergency Operations Center.
ATTENDANCE: Nathan Garibay, Emergency Services Manager
V
lf1
0
O
�i
0
0
o °' 3 o ID o
c_
f3 A- ~'• M N 'a N
I' N. f5 O ry 'O•r !a fp O
O rr f1. LU fD Dj J
Er J
fn 7 B 3 CL H 7
!, O-!�rD
M 0 O O
X n O n
v N
o m d o Z fD CL7C N O
� rD 01 0 fv 7
n =h -10, N 1-1 0 -C
) ma y ro o c p c<
Q
fD = 3 O �• O C
i .6 rt � tV � r•r O
rD E cL N, w 3 ao 0
(D re 7C
d
3 n = ? of n
-n iS rD v, N c
CD
)• (D `L 3 O 7 Q O
(D �r d
L N 3 O 6 0
cm
M I
D
'O
v
c
CL a
D c
a c'
D
a
0
c
7
� K
m
N
a ,
I o M .. C
lID
olm
1 `.
W =a
tD
N
'n
a 0
cr c
D o
0 d
sn
00 O
N Sn
W N
A
ko LP
W N
14 uj
cn
OM
;3
rn C 3 3
Oct m
O o S 3 ,C-r
rr m
O L O It
N � m
O m tDD 0
3 v 3
Dai A m bo '
O w S
°
0 3 o N c
c, O S O m
OO 3 w a S
D1 S < N O
ID
N
a Oyt-
N O O
uj N G
V 3 N 3
`Y•+ `r-,r D_ tp to
Doi < W O ID
to m o 0 3
A � tvi aq
a
N 'S CU S
�m C N
fl.< n.o
tU 3 D,
CL 3 0 O• 3
0 + C m e
O' II 3 X 0)
OLl Q-f ID a <
d tD 3 m
N kD Q d
IZ p ((DD
co
F-�
z
m
3
N
D
m
z
m
m
0
3
a
Ol
O
O
0
O
0
cn
O
O
0
O
N
90
0
to
O
G A
ID �
d m
CD S
a =
or
3
CD 3 0
� C
If 3
N
Ol
O
O N O
< o
N N S
n m
O 0. N
O m
t0 O ID
y N
a O 3
n � n
N
0
0
to
o m
o =
m O
n
3
3 �
Oct �
D
N
n
O
C
v
m
0
c
3
3
m
z
m
m
0.
m
fu
r.
7
Ln
m
rD
m
N
O
O
0
0
O
N
O
O
0
O
a n N d d to r 0 to
m Dl n 3 to IT S 3,
m < no 0 0
a m m Dai O vmi C p. 3
H !^ to n ' CL-h O 0 C vmi LID N C K,do
O w 6 fD �• O 2s 3 3 a
S O- 3 m K O CLm
Op
(mD O D3o d t/) � _ K O'
G ID =r of n
3 0_ N tNll Ol 0) m a,0 OQ _: 0 cr N r* -ti 3
S d m 3 00 0 N w
n — � 3 N
ID Dr 3 t z �. C ID to
a N 5o EF a
-0 . O m
m C m 7 3 O CL
O 0 rOr, n 1/f rD a. d S
m Dl W CL
3 N 0 O O X
3 H O N C 3 IQ fD
.00-r C y O .� � m P 7
m m 3 o v .* 3 0 r `nD
N O C C rr a 3 m C
O ' SET (D
3' m m m 3
rD N
6 0 cu 0 FA
O a O
3 a �' N
0 N J
C O O
d 3 o, O
no D
m ;:i (D — a
O) 3 w d a
? O. 0 O<
L CD @ 3
'r Oq
n• S m N S
G
C CD
3 m 3 n z
a r ;
EOSi N
N � —
O
ID -i
3
m 0 W
3
CL CD
m ao 3
n, 0 m O.
d N n O 7
m o w ao
., �, N m
3 o m
m o
6 3 n 7 v
c 0 m CL 3
S 3 Z ? o
N
3 < m O
t 3
m N o Di
3 O .N•e
w �
D
N
S
d
r+
3-
20
0
n
d
m
2
m
In
z
a
a
6
UWi
A
W
W
co
N
v
0
„
°o
n
O
o
_
Q
<
°
-i
w
C L
[Ci
p
S
N
< .
7c
y
CD
(De
fD
Z
0
0
<
3
0)
0
S
z
Da
+
<
R
p
(DD
N
3
?
v
°
s
°-
v
m
n
+3
o
=1
0
m
w
y
Z
rn
K
m
Da
S
Q
O
3
A
rY
Ln
O
O
Y
O
1
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
o
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
W
1
W
V
O
O
VO
p
W
N
p0
W
V
O
�-
N
N
Ln
WO
N
0)
V
O
p0
i
i
l0
N
p
l0
ID Dq =r n 0
x S D, o
°' g s n
D, o
3 2 c 5 F
m o
no o '-'
n o o°
z O i
n o
c -° 0
0
w N
0 0
d m 3 as o �D m
o a �
0 fl
g m m` N
o x v m
m y v
m Q S< rr 0
m *
3 m O
m 0 m
d Q n
O
' 0
<
O
�.
O °
0 v
N Q J
Q m
W Q°1 y �'
c
Q
N
O
N m 3 n
N n n
3 m N N
T.
(D V cn
v, N O N
Cr rD
m N
m
X vi O
fll fJ
O O DO
'^ 0 co N ,+ (D 'G
to 3
S O a DJ O N
m Q as ° m 3
N
m ¢D o 3 *.
0
w o
m m a O
s o
°—' Q
s v p
o E o o n 3 or
o m =*. o
EL r"a 7
-y. 7 N n D O
° a °�' o
C �! o -O
6 m a
$
N 0 5 Q\
o w m
_, m C
3 0 3
j m o
v
3 o m
a
T. C
m 0
v�i 3 o O 7 N.
m =
1-� N
� o Do
N.
O O
3 a.
N O
5
S 7 7 S
0: u• S
�•
? C S
M N fl-
O of °ti' to
O fD V 01
Ci N
O C F+ ,6 �'
'•r
.`•r w S O_ 3
m Q m
N
< A N DJ
CL
N O
3 Q y
N 7 x n
`FVa
7 O v, 00
n
0 Li m O H
O m O m
fl_ O
DWl y
d '6
,m—'
a C
D
N
2 O O d �?
0 0 A N A
O
7 O_ O m O
',�' D) O A
DO I--+
N In -Os O
O 7
0
C = �. N �^
to
O .•t
N O m Q
7 t•+ -O
O
� N
fD
D
~ N ti.
p
'6 O 0 m ID "O
3 O. 3 S
ID
fD �. W<
�n OJ m m
rr, O y 3
n 0 0 '_*. rr 3
Gl 3 N ti,
'+ N O
7 fl- 7 :-r; O
v
G
v v
O. O
n
0
m 0<
m y S
F O r
O
0 0
n K
O .O' fD \ Q [mi v
"0 ID Q 3 m G
<\ 0 m
n_ 3 fl- X
S "O
S 6 y a N ID
D 0 -n 0 m C
w O 3 O
D ry C
7 .O m -.
N 3 3
T 00
v .< Q
m '*
m
_ Q
Ql
m p
3 •6 fl. C
C O O W 7
(m/i rr ,'
D m (D (D
n. -_rt S N
6 y m O
6 0 fD
O w CD
N O
O O 6
-�. m •0 On a) ti', O_
v' N CL Np Ul m
C N 'O O'
'6 N N ID
qQ mj Q
= d
,G �. 3
m V
L O
N aQ N
X O � O N `J 7 ca
00
O O DU N m O
fl. C o n —
I -
A O O O n
p
N N " m
O
(D - , m
O O
C C
c C m
O m
N N N `^ A °_ Q
3 3 Vf •O
N v� N C Q;
W O 3� O
Q m m
S W O
Q. Qi
v O p
"O
O•
n DD �' !^, W Di S
7 •O 'A m O
O v, O_ 7
O fD �_
3 3
F ri ° 7
'mr
m v, O
•O ;; � < 3
m N d
O vi a.
.�•r
y O .
vi m 3
N 3
.Vy O DJ
V O 7
O rr 3 v, v
3 �' m Vf 3 �n <
OA :� 3 •O
`< n A Q-
O
0) w
1-� — 3 7 .•'
�-•� Q O. S O
rr rr vi
S m S fmY
DJ m "�; flr m
:-' S Qc7
Di
O- =*. °O H
3 0 m
X Ott
Z a .'�.
O
�p
Dl X
"6
O O Q
O m
m (n m V vi m
Oc7 3 W 3 m r-' to
Q. re 7 Di
S () N A m
0 m
0
O ti.
m S<
CC .+ a '+;
S o O
3 n CC
3
'6 Z.
::Dr
< 3 m.
•O m
7
O •x0
C 3 X AO D n v'
p
y = O
\
C N m
m m O C 7
G
m o O m n
m m O
m a. V.*
p_ m
po O m
_Q
m, n 0 V O_ 7 fD
<
0 DSO
O 7 m
D) rD rt �' N
N 3 �'
•O "6
a a. O
N
p: O_
O 7 p_ m m w O..
v N -p l~n
rm—r
C
O G O• '' (� X
m 7 i/} 7c
•O �,
„��
O fD =
7
m M m
f� O
D�—i
O. 3
7
'�•r
m m
Z .� m < n 'O O m
=4 O r* d
m< m p •O
m •+
-^ m r
m F
Q H m
N O v, K
T
v�
N O_ v_+ 7
OL1
n O
rr 3 .6
(n
m
m
O 7
O O O_
._. O
0 �G n 'O
< O' = 'O N O_
N
O
0
fl) C
rr H 7 N
n
O� f�D
n O m
m F 3 vi N
`* O
O 7
:� p
N 7
O DO
_h — F,
m C O
m �''' O Ol A '+
3 S 7 O_ d N S
3
N OA fmii
m Q 0^ n
rD y
S m N x
m N T T
7 C
a4 O O -o 3
Dl fl• -O
m v_
�' S( O 'O
�.
m 7• p
m
,Oy. v
a• or `L
fD O
t-� N
CL Q O
�` V
0 _* m
O' O O 0 0 0
m C C
n -n
m O= Ol a)
< O
ID OM06 S
00 oA
N DO =
O m O
`< m
3
Ol
O o_ 3..
m
m
N
NO
.� 3
�• .. fn °
0)
G N
n m S
Cr,
j C Ol m
v
0) 7 .•(
e 3
m rt
=
O
"�' A N
d
< N
m O 7 (D
O4
N F
Q. 7 3
'•i
1n �. 7
Q
°
0 m V S
Q _
° ••'
S O
C
.O
Q
3
m
m
v
N
r)
r)
W
3
T
3
S
v
O
Q
W�
r
3
m
rD
m
(D
m
p
n
<
of D,
01
o'a
n
(D
S
m
LA
T03
m
O
n
m
K
Ol
cu
Oil
m
-
(D
(D
m
rt
VU
R
O
=
=r
7'
O'
Q
3
m
3
o
Ln
v
(n
m
n
'.
n
�
O
F)
n
m
r)
Ol
O
A
O
O
0
N
O
0
O
0
0
A
V
Ul
J
Ul
O
A
O
00
0
a)
O
�
W
v
In
N
N
w
00
O
Ln
Ql
O
N
In
A
w
�
V
N
N
W
0
O
Ln
Ql
O
N
Ln
N
0
w
V
O
O
O
O
0
00
C m ❑. p O
l0
m H O m m m
O S [)
p n O -Oi. _S F+
'O N O 3
O p N
m
vc d < N N
W
p r N a n m
n
N N DJ c S
O 3 0 O 3 S O
- N pr 5 t
Q Q O
O
p = H V
N = p N
O
N
Q Ol 3 m N
p 3 0 3 fD
ql .� 3 Q p
3 O N O .t m 01
'< m N
<'i -n N 7 6
Q n (D c
N N
DC =^ N
n
(n m n O
O
S
L N :1 N O Oil
ID
p
O_ O n O
y O) yn,
Oi Op �--� O, O
'py,
p -n N fD c m D
F O O
iA
�'
0 O G 0 >
n
C O r+ C W
N
Gi v
ci �^ t� K
rD in fn' ID O O W V
N 3 cr Q 7 O' 'O
- W
O
p P m N O
m
S 'N•r
O
m N �p
C
Q "c c �. N� 3
O.
O_ �. n Q S n'
O' Oro
np
wp (O -n
H
n Ol Oro
W n c
o. O 'Q
n 0 'O
= 'O '* _ y (O
O m fl- N p '�
p p 3 "" (n O
S Oq Oq ,'�' n
=r,
m rr
y w
N N m n O_
0
p m- s OroO: rD
°c
c N m O
m '+ N N W A X 0
_
N N O
p O
3
O o o m
v
3
0 °N' n p p 6
00 Q o
6� D�
a d
" fD o m m dP � vq
m n.
rD �� 3 �+ m�
v
n F v
m y
m
ET ,<
v m aq S
or n
c, PT m a
G
y
O
0
N o n S N
y
N
7r fl. Vf 3 p p N
to '6 p C
y
O. N _ Q
3 p sn �
-Q- .O.r ,'7* =-
< 3
S fl' 0 (tq
a fD C r+, (D
2 rD D N K•
p_ ?r N
O' n
7c
(D M N
.V' ? <
W O m O n
W
m 'O N fD
3
N m 1A = 7 N
Dnj
K O' -0 0 Q_ _
�"a
,< Q 0
Lu'
01
O O m
O
m
.< �' �' Ol O (D
m rD
❑. T fl- m p•
'L n "6 < "* C O C
O. O 3 �' O Oq
r n N
.,
0 p
m 7 -Q
m AO
(n in v N Oq S
d S d> m v m
3 (D 3 v
v 3 O or y
O N S CD .O c "
3 O O' 'O
-�, in y N _N
rr n r! 0 p
Op
m -Q v
N
O
p
=r
N q/ CL w to
<
m a 7r p 3 m
7r p 7r
n
y '6 -• m In O .e OQ
Dp
K p m O _
N O A
N n
V
c
7r ? m =
m (n O'
3 m
G) O w n C .Y O
'Y p (O - S 7
v� Q. M.
d
p Ol - -
'^ or
Op S p 3 w
m O CL .�-� Op '^
"
eM y ?r
O n OJ Ol m
T O
p
O. m
l0
y
-O
m m v
_
v, n
p (� m I- o
Q. p
(D o
O p c v, n
v c o
w r+ (D �O G
". v N
p
"
n p
N Oq
(' S
n (n m v+
3
m O m
<
N Q
-< O a-
o
O
o c
o°
o� o
a° �_
o v v c
n Q o C
V n
F, g= cr
N S m "t O�
n p- O-n C S m O
Oq S x 7c S
Q p Q. N SOQi
p
m
S(Q
<
O
-c>S O
NN
N O
Q
flV
CO).
O �
O
fl
z.
d
O(
+ O x
n
•
cpa
(D0
N
(D OO
d
Fm.
LD.m Lo
aQ
_j
d
Q_
n
3
.
LN
;r cu
AdQ
V
OpO
0
0
C
'O
O.
3
m
m
0
0
a
A
A
W
O
N
W
W
FW-+
V
A
A
01
N
In
l0
N
Ln
V
O
J
W
ul
V
O
A
V
W
W
O
A
O
00
00
Q1
N
O
c
o,
0
N-0
Q
0�i
(D
r.
•0
°
n
CL
n
<
m
°
<
v
C
m
CU
MX
fl
m2
C
p
a
3
p
too
v
oa
fD
�'.
0
0)
c
N
o
V
=
W
O
3
0C.
t0
-
O
X
(�
picuN
O
n
0
C
'^
S
N
o
H
O
O
<
K
O_
n
3
C)
lu
3
n
v*
fD
rOr,
n
Z
rD
0
O
(D
Da
�
0
c
N
3
0
o
m
0
o,
3
3
��-
-0
0
v
0
a
n
cu
<'
n
(D
C
�
3
C.
N
N
O
N
LnLn`0j
O
A
O
0
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
O
1
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
pppOpppppi
w
O
A
�
00
O
O
O
I
I
p
I
W
A
N
N
W
O1
Pi
O
0 W
O
W
F
00
O
O
0
lD
00
00
W
O
O
O
V
't In I--�
n. 3 N
F-�
CT O) N ;o u�. �-r w O Q W
rD
(� n 1-� N
S O
F lT 2 O' �A < to 3 )-+
W 00- O
r?D r)
N <
vCi '�O (D N. o Q i/} o
O �n N
C
'NO
O O- "O V 00
N D 0- O =3
n O O O
(D O rD a N
n (D 3• C
3 0
O
N
O 'nr `n O
N< CD 3 O H n W a N
O N O N N
_-
3 3 0l .•' O O n N
.I. N
O' �. 0 N O
(D S 3 Q
O
c
v� rD CL n < 0 O p O
V1 it "< (D (D 3 3 O D
N rD O O O
A TI
O O O
�.
V1 V1
' c .N+ rD N
n
0
C n 3
N 5 N .O 3
O `< T C
(D
Q O O) 3 0)
N n
fD fl! n x •w, 0 rr
°—)
3
((D
D) N O to v r. O O
n(D i� 3
0_
O 3 3
�• °-'. z 0 c' 3
@
O p x 3 N N 3 rD <n S
O N n
N DOi chi Dmi rn a n '�*
�--+ n _ aj
O O m
K
rr
rt 0 S M .+ y rD CH i
rD n ON rD
C. O O C 3- Q
r 0 ,ny. ct
N C 3 N ID O
vi
.�. (D (D O O - 3 to
0 N O (D D)
H '`�' O 07 '* N N
.O•r
0 3 �^ rDi 0- 0Si 0 3
n
or 3 j n n rD n O, - O N
3 QC 0 v� O O
,3-r O
rD (p W�
m 3 C 3 3' .0
0- O
'•r 3
O ('1 (D:3C G I--� j
N
QO S 3' r•r
N S C: Q r0•f S 3 �' C
n
7 Z O S cu
or N
3 3 :3 0. d =3 N 0[1 O
!D 0 <
1 O A 3 3 w N N r•'
M (D N d
n
:D
3 N '^ 7c 0 n C O p
O
rD O- Q
rL C
3' Oi) < v, p rD
O ^
rL C C 3
3 m Cl; (D
rr N 0 7- O N n
-O
C. Vf rr CT '"' C-
Q N Cr N O 'B C om O
X r
C O O O
N
N 0 p
v� 3
.�
N D 0 N Q
O d
p
a O M N 'O �+' - (�D Ol
O
N v 00
0 'O
p rr DSi fD N r3•r
� @
O
r_ '^ p cr N N O
n
N
_3
X (D 00 (D 3' O
�. Q n N ''T 3 Q )"' H
(D
rD �• Q
E O .+
p r<D 0 ID 0 3
D 0q' C (D (D (D V O.
�' Q
v�
3
O S O 0 0= Q C f"' v+
2 n 0 ON ,G N. O D
(D �f
01� N
O 7c v� 0
� i/� C
q O_ 3 A N ID
ID
N
3
0 3 {/f
rD W0.
m
O 3 X
(D 0 (D CO: n
C N a
D 00 3 C 3 O
t-+ F .3•r O 0) (D H N-
rro N -I
Q G rt v'. p 3 (D
c d �' 3 N d �. < 3<
O< (D O_ 3• j N v C.
rr N
N 7 (�D O 3
< 0 a 0) 3 V
O
R p 7c )..� v O Q cn a 0)
v�i
C - H
(D
n `Qi rOj
P O O) C -•
o:3 C i* 0 CD f (
rDD
O vCi O (Oi m° O a
F• d M
rD N, ? G d
Ei
n Q fl- C '3•r O Q
3 01 W v K 'O N -s x. 3
(D 3Cr - (D Pf
G O c 3 = O) 3
0 N 0 rL 3 ,6
u' 3 d
v� O N 0 O) (D '; 3 W
O (D F<
O n N =< n fl
H _ 00
U "O -n O) a N
C O N Q .-' N 3 p .�•' 3
-d v O O
5 N OA
C o• Gi
"�' d
,Y 3' y D 0 '*
C. 1/f
6 ,Oy,
N
N
O 0
rD ti
A
0 r
i N e3•t 3 �•
3 N 00
N Q 0) - N enr S
d C'1 0_ 3 O. 3• 0 (D
-�
O !^
n < 00 3 3
N 0) .O .� 0 0
O m
Ln
n rr v3i
3
0 3
'C•r O
v00i
o N
CD x
°°
in N cm
n
0
o) n
c S
r
M
;a IA
rc' O
r
T
C rt
3
Q
aO
O M
tD
Q
0 3
d
ul
c
M
m
'O
O
yr
f0
G
C
Q
t+
N
O
W
N
O
N O o m
d
7
O O O 00
m Z
Na
T 3 C
3 fl m
cr
CD
2 S o s =
O c of
X
3 v w
fD 3 3
N' N
O
3
_h n -i N O O ;:r 5 d D
O S
a= ro c- 3 `v° m 3 p 3
M d S 0 < C C c rat• < n re C
d Ol
3-0 oCFO ff w3 p 3 m
N d
CrN d F C ` `n ffDD
rD N y SU' N .3} S C' 3
d
rr r3D 3 3 A 'C p vim+ ci m
S < 0 N d
ID rD �' O vOi O d v _ -O 3
d y ; rD C H ID
-;+ O
d, rnr n r): N -o p_ 3 n� H
d rD fD
D
N N rr O• f'' d H
N
A 0 of w O < fD 3 N
S? ID
Q r) � C N N 7
fD n N d 0 fD H X 0 n d
D) fD 3 O d 'O vi p r
rD d v j O c =ti vi
fD DO N rD N D1 n 'O O n O<
,ft rD< D'•"i (D -�ii n O O O.
p fD Q C (OD
.3_'• rD
rr `�-r d
CD VOi fM W v+ d S 3 C fT
n• rDh C N C N @ '<
.�+ O <O O OA O O V
O �
A N 3 rr D-1 O n 0 fD
O< 3 m 3 q
O � O r O
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meetina of November 9, 2020
DATE: November 4, 2020
FROM: Timm Schimke, Solid Waste, 541-317-3177
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion on BioCarbon Solutions Proposal
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
BioCarbon Solutions has approached the County with a proposal to process solid waste generated in
the County and convert it to energy products. The company presented the proposal to the Board of
Commissioners on August 3, 2020. At a follow up discussion on the project in September, the Board
asked us to inquire with the consultants who developed the County's Solid Waste Management Plan
ioIAIRA X a., ,r,..,..i,.r nrJ mrinn +n ro,do,ei IQinrnrhnn'c nrnnncni nnrll makes rerr)mmenrlatinnC
kQVVIVIP� LV UGVt;IVV a scope a114 �./�IVG lv lvvia. vv vwvuir✓vv N'vNvvu
I have attached a scope and price for a review of the proposal from GBB, Inc. who developed that
portion of the SWMP addressing waste to energy conversion technologies. The SWMP determined
that such technologies were not feasible for Deschutes County at the time primarily due to cost. The
plan also recommended that the County not consider technologies that had not established a
commercially viable project in this country that we could visit and review. The GBB proposal consists of
interaction with BioCarbon Solutions to obtain needed information and the generation of a report on
their proposal. The review proposal also includes an update to the management plan that will look
more broadly at the state of conversion technology. The SWMP recommends periodic updates (3 to 5
years) of new technologies anticipating that at some point, such technologies may become a viable part
of solid waste management in Deschutes County.
We would like to confirm that the Board is ready to move forward with a review of BioCarbon Solution's
proposal by GBB, Inc., make amendments to the proposal, or if you would like to proceed in a different
direction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: GBB, Inc has proposed to review the BioCarbon Solutions proposal
as outlined above for $15,000.00
ATTENDANCE: Timm Schimke
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Timm Schimke, Director CONSULTANTS
Department of Solid Waste
Deschutes County, Oregon
61050 S.E. 27th,
Bend, OR 97702
VIA EMAIL: TimmsCDdeschutes.org
RE: Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Dear Timm,
It was great to catch up with you last week. As requested, outlined below are our thoughts regarding how
best to conduct the review of a proposal put forth by Bio Carbon Solutions Global ("BCSG") to construct,
own, and operate a waste -to -fuels facility in Deschutes County, OR ("County"), as well as review and update
the Providing a Roadmap for a Sustainable Future Report ("Report").
As a national solid waste management consulting firm, GBB has been on the front lines of the industry since
1980, planning and implementing integrated waste management programs that are designed to provide
cost-effective services, protect the environment, and conserve natural resources. With its extensive
expertise and consultants with complementary experience and business skills, GBB is uniquely positioned
and qualified to provide communities like yours with valuable insight and assistance to better address the
market and/or to develop new markets and business opportunities surrounding the solid waste industry.
1. Project Understanding
GBB was a member of the consulting team which prepared the Report which analyzed the County's solid
waste management system ("System") and which set out a vision for future System improvements to make
the System more sustainable. The Report found in part that, at its current fill rate, the County's Knott Landfill
had 9-10 years of disposal capacity remaining. At that point in the future, there would be no in -County solid
waste management capacity to serve the needs of the County's residents and businesses. While the Report's
final recommendation regarding future disposal capacity was that the County should proceed with the
development of a replacement landfill, it noted waste conversion technologies that held promise for the
County and recommended that the County should review the progress of promising technologies
periodically. Three specific technologies were identified:
Organic Waste composting / anaerobic digestion,
Mixed Waste Processing with Engineered Fuel production,
Mixed Waste Processing with Bio-Fuel production.
The proposal put forth by BCSG appears to fall into the latter category, Mixed Waste Processing with Biofuel
production. GBB conducted a cursory review of the August 3, 2020 BCSG slide presentation and what we
believe to be the BCSG website, http://biocarbonsolutionsgiobal.com/. We did not find sufficient
information from these sources to provide any meaningful advice to Deschutes County. We have outlined
below an approach to conducting a conceptual -level review of the specific BCSG proposal, and to provide a
general update of the three identified technologies in the Report.
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 510
McLean, VA 22102
Phone 703-573-5800
www.gbbinc.com
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
2. Approach
2.1 Task 1- Kickoff & Review the BCSG Proposal
Methodolo
Shortly after receiving a Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the County, GBB will schedule a kickoff call with the
County (not including BCSG) and prepare and transmit a Request for Information ("RFI") to BCSG seeking
conceptual level information including:
• A narrative summary description of the proposed facility;
• Reference facility information;
• Feedstock specifications;
• A block flow diagram depicting the major processing units;
• Identification of the major processing equipment and system suppliers such as the gasifier,
syngas clean up system, syngas conversion system, etc.;
• A mass flow diagram showing the major input and output streams; and
• A conceptual site arrangement plan.
Upon receipt of the requested information, GBB will arrange up to three (3) virtual meetings with BCSG to
review the information to ensure our understanding of the proposal. Meetings will be held using an online
meeting platform of choice (we typically use Microsoft Team, Zoom, Skype for Business or GoToMeeting).
We will then prepare a Technical Memorandum (the "Memo") using MS Word summarizing our findings. We
will issue one draft of the Memo for review and comment by the County's Department of Solid Waste (the
"Department") and upon receipt of consolidated comments, revise and issue a final version of the Memo
and deliver in PDF format.
Deliverables
• RFI to BCSG
• Attendance at up to three (3) virtual meetings with BCSG
• One (1) Draft. Memo in MS Word format
• One (1) Final memo in PDF format
2.2 Task 2 - Waste Conversion Technology Section Update
ethodo@o
Since the issuance of the Report, several waste conversion technologies and projects have made major
progress. GBB will prepare an update of Alternative Technologies and Solid Waste Disposal, which is section
6 of the Providing a Roadmap for a Sustainable Future Report. The update will focus upon the three waste
conversion technologies identified as of interest to the County. Among the projects we will review are:
Mixed Waste Processing with solid fuel or product production
• Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District, Davis County, Utah
• Repower South, Monks Corner, South Caroline
• Entsorga, Martinsburg, West Virginia
• Fiberight, Hampden, Maine
• Georgia Pacific, Toledo, Oregon
• Continuous Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Biofuels production
• Fulcrum, Reno, Nevada
���SOLD STE �'y ,C (y
""' EMENT Page 2 OI .I,J
...suLT—
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
2.3 Task 3 - Presentation to the County
GBB will synthesize its research and findings into a PowerPoint presentation (the "Presentation") to update
County leadership. We will prepare and submit one draft Presentation for review and comment by the
Department. After the receipt of the Department's consolidated comments, we will prepare and submit a
final Presentation.
GBB will present its Presentation to County leadership virtually using an online meeting platform of choice.
We will be prepared to answer questions regarding the Presentation's contents. We anticipate the
presentation may take up to one (1) hour.
echo pLo y
• One draft of presentation provided in MS PowerPoint format, for review and comment by
Deschutes County within one (1) week of the draft report being submitted by GBB.
• One (1) final presentation provided in MS PowerPoint and PDF formats.
• Attendance at final virtual presentation.
3. Project Assumptions
Overall project assumptions include:
• As of the time of this proposal, all meetings are assumed to occur virtually.
• All written feedback from Deschutes County will be provided in a consolidated format from all
team members. Written feedback will be provided within the native format of the document
for which feedback is being provided, to the extent possible.
• Requests for additional meetings, research questions or activities, written content, or
deliverables may incur additional time and expense charges.
• Once the team has agreed on project/task/deliverable direction and/or approvals have been
given as to the direction and status of those items, subsequent changes in direction may incur
additional time and expense charges.
• Revisions requested on written deliverables that significantly affect or change the overall
direction of the deliverable, or are inconsistent with previous direction, may incur additional
time and expense charges.
4. Meetings
Based on our estimates of meeting time required, we have included in our Basic Services Fee up to the
following number of Meetings. Virtual Meetings are assumed to be conducted via telephone,
teleconference, or a web -based conferencing application (such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Skype for
Business, or GoToMeeting). Additional meetings/travel requested will be billed on a time and expenses basis.
Virtual Meetings Physical Meetings'
Task (up to 1 hour each) Y g
1. Review the BCSG Proposal 4 0
2. Waste Conversion Technology Section Update 0 0
3. Presentation to the County 2 0
Total: 6 0
1 Note: No physical meetings are included in our fee estimate.
.....
Ol D
-RA
G
�� ..... W STE E.ENT Page OI .I. �✓
CONS -ANT
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
5. Key Personnel
There are three (3) key personnel who will bring their skills and specialized solid waste management and
technology expertise to this project.
The GBB Team will be led by me, Stephen Simmons, GBB President. In addition to my corporate duties as
President, I lead many of our waste conversion assessment projects. A copy of my resume is provided in
Attachment D.
Joining me will be Stephen Goff, GBB Principial Associate. Steve is a 30+ year waste to energy executive
with a deep background in technology research and development. Steve is the former Vice President of
Research and Development with Covanta Energy, the leading operate of waste -to -energy facilities in North
America. See attachment D for his resume.
Rounding out the GBB Team will be Doug Drennan of J.R. Miller & Associates (JRMA). Doug is very familiar
with Deschutes County's solid waste system having served as the Project Manager of the JRMA / GBB team
which wrote the Report. Other GBB staff may be utilized as needed to research, analyze, and draft.
GBB is prepared to begin this assignment immediately upon the receipt of contact or purchase order and a
release to proceed ("notice to proceed" (NTP)). GBB will schedule a kickoff call with the County transmit the
RFI to BCSG and within two weeks of receiving an NTP, and then schedule the three (3) virtual meetings with
BCSG thereafter.
Once we have received and confirmed the requested information from BCSG, we will require approximately
three weeks for its review. Our draft Memo will be available four (4) weeks after the receipt of the requested
BCSG information. Within six (6) weeks of the receipt of the BCSG information, we will provide the draft
Presentation to the Department for review and comment. We will provide the final Presentation document
two (2) weeks after receiving the Department comments. The final virtual presentation with the County
leadership will be scheduled at the convenience of the County.
7. Fees and Payment Terms
GBB proposes to perform the work described above for a fixed fee of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000).
The first payment, five thousand dollars ($5,000 USD), will be due and payable upon the execution of this
agreement. A second payment of five thousand dollars ($5,000 USD) will be due upon the issuance of the
final Memo described in Task 1. The third payment of five thousand dollars ($5,000 USD) will be due upon
issuance of the Final presentation to the Department at the conclusion of task 3.
Any extra work authorized by the Department under this agreement will be conducted on a time and
expense basis uses the fees and rates provided in Attachment B. GBB prefers all payments be made
electronically. GBB's wiring instructions are included in Attachment B. Please refer to Gershman, Brickner &
Bratton, Inc. General Terms and Conditions for Professional Services, for a complete list of terms and
conditions that apply to this arrangement in Attachment C.
In the event additional work is agreed upon, GBB will either propose an additional fee quote or invoice in
accordance with the attached compensation rate and fee schedule (Attachment A), which will not be subject
to adjustment through December 31, 2020. Our invoices will be addressed to you referencing this matter.
z Note: All timefromes and durations are estimated at this time and will be determined with Deschutes County upon
acceptance of this proposal.
G��SOLID WASTE (' /n� F
'"', EM1IENT Page N C%I �9
CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
8. Terms & Conditions
This proposal relies on the full cooperation of the team to inform us of any changes made during and/or
after phases of the work. This includes providing GBB with all documentation and information that will affect
our work. Fees are based on the project requirements and schedule presented at this time. Delays or
acceleration in the project schedule may result in claims for additional fee. GBB maintains professional and
public liability insurance. Time records and reimbursable expense records are maintained on a generally
recognized accounting basis.
All data and information contained herein and provided by GBB in response to a request for a proposal is
considered confidential and proprietary. Please refer to Attachment C, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
General Terms and Conditions for Professional Services, for a complete list of terms and conditions that apply
to this proposal.
9. Acceptance of Services Agreement
We are confident that we can provide a valuable service, and we look forward to your consideration of our
resources. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
If this proposal agrees with your understanding of the project, and you agree with the proposed terms under
which we will perform services, we are willing for this Proposal to serve as a Work Order by placing your
signature below and paying the initial payment as described in the Fees section above
Sincerely,
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Steve Simmons, GBB President
Phone: (703) 573-5800, Mobile: (610) 742-4611, Email ssimmons@gbbinc.com
CC: Doug Drennan, JRMA
Attachments:
A. GBB Compensation and Rate Schedule
B. Wiring Instructions
C. GBB Standard Commercial Terms and Conditions
D. Resumes for Key Personnel
Client Approval
Authorized By:
For Deschutes County, OR
Date:
soy o waste
MAN- M1 Page 5 or 19
BB CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Attachment A
2020 - Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB)
Compensation Rate and Fee Schedule (1, 2, 3, 4)
Fees for our services are based upon the time worked on a project by professional, technical, and clerical
personnel using the following hourly rates by Project Role:
PROJECT ROLE
Administrative Support / Research Assistant
Consultant I / Engineer I
Consultant II / Engineer II / Contract Administrator / Associate
Project Engineer / Senior Consultant
Project Manager
Senior Project Manager / Senior Project Engineer
Senior Principal Associate, Principal Associate, Associate Engineer
Project Principal (Vice President)
Senior Project Principal (Senior Vice President, President)
Founder Owner Associate
TECHNOLOGY FEE
($USD PER HOUR)
75.00
100.00
123.00
145.00
160.00
180.00
193.00
210.00
255.00
284.00
A fee of 3% of labor charges will be included to cover all costs associated with computers, software, phones,
miscellaneous reproduction.
EXPENSES (3)
CHARGE
Mileage on Personal Car
Current IRS rates per mile
Local Travel Expenses (tolls, parking, ground transportation, metro)
As Incurred
Lodging / Meals / Meeting Expenses
As Incurred
Airfare(l) / Train Fare Coach Class, Discount Fares when available
Car Rental
Discount Rate
International Telephone Calls
As incurred
Graphics, Art, Wide -format Printing, Mass Reproduction
As Incurred
Messenger and Delivery Service
As Incurred
Subcontractors
As Incurred
Project Equipment, Rentals, and Supplies
As Incurred
Translation Services
As Incurred
Ill Effective July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020. Subject to January 1s' annual increase based on CPI.
Ill For payments not received within 30 days of invoicing date, interest charge of 1.00 % per month
will be applied.
(3) A Fee of 10 percent applied to expenses, including subcontractors.
(4) When gate -to -gate travel of over eight (8) hrs. is required, Business Class Airfare will be purchased, and 50% of gate -to -gate
travel time will charged. Please provide GBB at least 3 weeks' prior notice for scheduling airfare.
SOLD WASTE Page /' 6
GEM1IENT Page of 19
�� CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Attachment B
Wiring Instructions
If funds are transferred from a US bank:
Bank Account Name: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., General Account
Local Branch Address: First Virginia Community Bank
11325 Random Hills Road, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22030
Bank Account Number: 123794
Bank Routing Number for incoming wires 056 009 505
If the funds are transferred from a foreign bank:
Via Swift Format MT103
Field 56A Intermediary Institution:
Pacific Coast Bankers' Bank
San Francisco, CA 94104
ABA: 121042484
SWIFT CODE — PCBBUS66
Field 57D Beneficiary Bank:
Address:
First Virginia Community Bank
11325 Random Hills Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Acct # with Pacific Coast Bankers' Bank: 056009505
*Field 59 Beneficiary Customer:
Name: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Address: 2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 510
McLean, VA 22102
Account Number: **US056009505123794
Page 7 of 19
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review& Report Update
October 7, 2020
Attachment C
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
General Terms and Conditions for Professional Services
WHEREAS based on the attached Letter Agreement, between Deschutes County, Oregon (hereinafter called "CLIENT"),
intends to engage Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, (hereinafter called "GBB") to provide certain
professional consulting services (hereinafter called the "PROJECT") as more specifically described in the Letter
Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the CLIENT and GBB do hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES — GBB shall perform the PROJECT effort as outlined in the attached Letter Agreement.
ARTICLE 2. PROJECT SCHEDULE — GBB is authorized to begin the Project as of the date that authorization to proceed is
received and the Project shall be completed according to a schedule mutually agreed upon between the CLIENT and
GBB. The schedule may be adjusted, in accordance with these Terms and Conditions as mutually agreed upon between
the CLIENT and GBB.
ARTICLE 3. CHANGES IN SCOPE AND PROJECT SCHEDULE — If unanticipated events occur during the PROJECT, whereby
a change in direction, additional effort, or suspension of work is required, the scope of services may change. Cost and
schedule commitments shall be subject to renegotiation for unreasonable delays caused by the CLIENT'S failure to
provide specified facilities or information, or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences or force majeure, such as
fires, floods, riots, strikes, unavailability of labor or materials, delays or defaults by suppliers of materials or services,
process shutdown, acts of God or of the public enemy, or acts or regulations of any governmental agency. Temporary
work stoppage caused by any of the above may result in additional costs (reflecting a change in scope) beyond that
outlined in the Letter Agreement.
ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLIENT — The CLIENT will: (1) Upon request by GBB, furnish GBB with copies of
data, reports, surveys, and all other materials and information available to the CLIENT, whether or not identified by
GBB as being required for this PROJECT which are now or during the duration of the PROJECT in the CLIENT'S possession;
anrl M Prmfirla and acaimp rpcnnncihility for the accuracv and completeness of data it provides for the PROJECT, and
indemnify and hold GBB harmless against all losses or claims, including attorney's fees, arising or allegedly arising from
acts of the CLIENT or any of its employees or agents or that are based upon information, representations, reports or
data furnished, prepared or approved by the CLIENT or its designee for use by GBB.
ARTICLE 5. PAYMENT — Payment for GBB'S services shall be in accordance with Letter Agreement. Payment for
additional services rendered by GBB, if any, shall be as negotiated. All payments to GBB are due and payable within
thirty (30) days of submission of invoice to CLIENT. Any invoices unpaid after thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the
rate of one percent per month.
ARTICLE 6. INSURANCE — GBB shall, during the performance under the Letter Agreement, keep in force the following
insurance: (1) Workman's Compensation Insurance, including Employer's Liability Insurance for its employees; (2)
Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, covering bodily injuries and property damage with a combined single limit
of $1,000,000; (3) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance, including operation of owned, non -owned and hired
automobiles, covering bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of $1,000,000; and
(4)Umbrella/Excess Liability Insurance of $1,000,000.
ARTICLE 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR - GBB'S services shall be furnished by GBB as an independent contractor and
nothing herein contained shall be construed to create a relationship of employer/employee or master -servant, but all
payments made hereunder, and all services performed shall be made and performed by GBB as an independent
contractor.
ARTICLE 8. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - GBB shall be responsible for the performance of services in accordance with
the standard of practice ordinarily exercised by the profession at the time and within the locality where the services
are performed. Services are not subject to, and GBB does not provide, any warranty or guarantee, express or implied,
including warranties or guaranties contained in any uniform commercial code. Any such warranties or guaranties
contained in any purchase orders, requisitions or notices to proceed issued by CLIENT are specifically objected to. GBB
bases its decisions and its recommendations solely on the conditions about which GBB is aware during its performance
of services to the CLIENT and is not responsible for the impact of any actions by the CLIENT or others after this period.
GBB shall not disclose or permit disclosure of any information designated by the CLIENT as confidential, except to its
SOLID WASTE
1ANAGELIENT Page 8 of 19
G�� CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
employees and those who need such information in order to properly execute the services of the Letter Agreement.
Where applicable, statements concerning probable cost estimates prepared by GBB as may be required by the Scope
of Services represent its judgment as a professional familiar with the solid waste management industry. Accordingly,
GBB cannot and does not guarantee that prices will not vary from any statement of probable construction cost or other
cost estimates, including life cycle cost projections, prepared by it for the PROJECT. All documents including Drawings
and Specifications prepared or furnished by GBB (and GBB'S independent professional associates and subcontractors)
pursuant to the Letter Agreement are instruments of service in respect to the PROJECT and GBB shall retain an
ownership and property interest therein whether or not the PROJECT is completed. The Letter Agreement does not
create any right or benefits for parties other than GBB and the CLIENT.
ARTICLE 9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT — The Letter Agreement may be terminated by either party by thirty (30)
days written notice to the other party without cause or by mutual written agreement of the parties. If the Letter
Agreement is terminated, GBB shall be paid for the extent of services performed until the effective date of termination
plus any expenses of termination.
ARTICLE 10. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY — In accordance with applicable law, GBB shall not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, creed, color, sex, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, personal appearance, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation or ideology, ancestry,
national origin, veteran status, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona
fide occupational qualification.
ARTICLE 11. INDEMNIFICATION - GBB shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CLIENT and CLIENT'S employees and
agents from and against any claims, suits, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the
extent that they are based upon claims of negligent acts, errors or omissions solely of GBB or any of its employees or
agents. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Letter Agreement, GBB'S liability to the CLIENT for any claims,
liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees arising out of or relating to the
Letter Agreement, including GBB'S negligence, errors or omissions, shall not exceed the greater of $50,000 or the value
of work-erformed by GBB and CLIENT herehv releases GBB from anv liability above such amount. The CLIENT and GBB
shall not be liable to each other in any event for interest (except as otherwise provided); loss of anticipated revenues,
earnings or profits; increased expense of operations; loss by reason of shutdown or non -operation due to late
completion or otherwise; or consequential damages. The CLIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless GBB and
its agents and employees from and against any claims, suits, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable actual
attorneys' fees, to the extent that they are based upon the claims of negligent acts, errors or omissions of the CLIENT
or any of its employees or agents. The CLIENT shall reimburse GBB for all expenses, including attorneys' fees, paid or
otherwise incurred to successfully enforce the provisions of this Article if the CLIENT refuses to defend, indemnify or
hold GBB harmless as provided.
ARTICLE 12. DELEGATION OF DUTIES — Neither the CLIENT nor GBB shall delegate its duties in the Letter Agreement
without the written consent of the other party.
ARTICLE 13. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT — The Letter Agreement and these Terms and Conditions represent the entire
integrated agreement between CLIENT and GBB and supersede all prior negotiations, representations or agreements,
either written or oral, for this PROJECT.
ARTICLE 14. GOVERNING LAW — The Letter Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under, and all respective
rights and duties of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Maryland.
ARTICLE 15. SEVERABILITY — In the event any provisions of the Letter Agreement or these terms and Conditions shall
be held to be impossible, invalid, and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the
parties hereto. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition, or covenant shall not be construed
by the other party as a waiver of subsequent breach of the same by the other party.
hNASOLID WASTE
-l-T Page 9 of 19
G�� CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Education
Professional Certificate, Energy Policy &
Sustainability, University of Denver, CO
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of
Missouri —Rolla, Rolla, MO
Areas of Specialty
Long-term Solid Waste Management
Planning
Disposal Infrastructure Development
Waste -to -Energy Technology Analysis
Due Diligence
Resource Recovery Parks/Eco-parks
Expert Witness
Select Multi -year Clients
Prince William County, VA
Kent County, MI
Wasatch Integrated Waste Mgmt, District, UT
Select Publications & Speeches
What's New in Waste Conversion Technology,
published in the Aug. 2019 issue of Waste
Today
The Future of Franchising, presented at
Waste Expo in May 2019
Creating an Industrial Ecosystem —Building a
circular economy starting with what was supposed
to be a landfill expansion, published in the
January/February 2019 issue of MSW Management
magazine
Recent Interviews
Interviewed in the October 2019 issue of
Chemical & Engineering News in a feature
entitled The Race Is On To Repurpose Garbage
Interviewed in the September 2019 issue of
Waste360 as part of a feature entitled Solid
Recovered Fuels: The Next Frontier for Fossil
Fuel Alternatives?
Interviewed in the December 2018 issue of
Waste Today in a feature entitled Executive
Q&A: GBB President Steve Simmons
Attachment D - Resumes
Stephen Simmons
Mr. Simmons, GBB President, is a sustainable development business leader
with more than 35 years of experience in the environmental services and
energy industries. He is highly experienced in program and project
management, new business development, waste and power marketing,
technology evaluation, business financial modeling, profit and loss
management, facility design, procurement, and construction having worked
with leading international engineering/consulting firms and energy
companies.
As the President of GBB, he provides leadership for a team of executives,
consultants and subject matter experts in the field of solid waste
management who are dedicated to helping clients transition their policies,
programs, and infrastructure to long-term sustainable and economical
systems.
He frequently serves as the Company's Officer -in -Charge for engagements
involving waste processing and conversion, technology evaluation and
selection, market assessments, acquisition due diligence, expert witness, and
contract negotiations.
Throughout his career, Steve has helped communities and companies
develop programs and projects implementing the 3 P's of sustainability:
planet, people, profit. He has extensive renewable energy experience, having
managed the development, construction, and operation of renewable energy
projects with capital budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These
facilities have produced millions of megawatt -hours of renewable energy,
displacing millions of tons of fossil fuels.
Prior to joining GBB, he worked with Duke Energy, where he led a new
business development team focused on the biopower sector. Facilities were
developed that converted forestry waste into clean renewable energy.
As an asset and P&L manager with American Ref Fuel (now Covanta Energy),
he directed the sales, marketing, governmental, and community affairs
efforts of renewable energy business unit with $65 million in annual sales and
125 employees. His team took on the troubled facility and brought it from an
annual $10 million loss to a $5 million profit in 3 years, winning an award
from the Pennsylvania Governor for Environmental Excellence with its
community outreach program.
Representative Consulting Experience
Officer -in -Charge of a series of projects for the Prince William County, VA
Department of Public Works including an anaerobic digestion / composting
system to process source separated food waste and leaf/yard waste; a 1.3
MW solar farm located on closed portions of the county landfill; an
alternative waste conversion technology demonstration center; and a K-12
Page 10 of 19
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
and community education center. The projects are a combined effort by the County to develop a renewable
energy park at the site of its 1,000 ton per day landfill.
Officer -in -Charge for the development of a master plan for a Sustainable Business Park and effort to develop
facilities and infrastructure to divert 90% of MSW from the landfill by 2030 for the Kent County, MI
Department of Public Works. And Officer -in -Charge of the GBB Project Team providing waste -to -energy
facility monitoring and inspections services for the Kent County, MI Department of Public Works.
Served as the Independent Consultant for waste and recycling markets to Ultra Capital LLC supporting their
investment in Fiberight MBT facility in Hampden, ME. Wrote consultant's reports in support of issuance of
revenue bonds to construct the facility.
Officer -in -Charge of a report on waste and energy developed for the Marion County Department of
Environmental Services to support contract renewal negotiations with the County's Energy from Waste
facility operator.
Officer -in -Charge for the development of a feasibility study for an organic waste management facility
featuring anaerobic digestion and composting for the Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians.
Officer -in -Charge of due diligence assignments for multiple confidential private sector clients seeking to
acquire waste collection and conversion businesses.
Researched and reviewed military/government steam sales agreements, prepared comparison matrix, and
provided input on steam sales approach as member of the GBB Project Team that performed a 10-year
energy recovery facility operations and capital plan for Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District, UT.
Conducted a condition assessment of the Lee County, FL WTE facility. Analyzed available energy conversion
technologies and developed project options as a part of the County's 20-year strategic plan.
Author of a report comparing MSW gasification technologies for the USVI Waste Management Authority.
Officer -in -Charge of a GBB Project Team assisting a confidential European company seeking a Comfort Letter
from the EPA under its Non -Hazardous Secondary Materials program for an advanced mechanical, biological
treatment process.
Technology Review Expertise
Over the years, he has reviewed and visited a wide range of plants:
A&B Sugar Mill
Location
Maui, HI
TechnologyPlant
Bagasse / Oil
•
Visit
Bartow
Bartow, FL
Combined Cycle Gas
•
Technology review
BCH
NC
RDF
•
Due Diligence
Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
Mass burn
•
Due Diligence
Boise Cascade Paper Mill
Wallula, WA
Stoker Boiler
•
Visit
Camden
Camden, NJ
Mass burn
•
Due Diligence
Chalmette Refinery
Chalmette, LA
FCC - Power recovery train /
waste heat boiler
Eng. & Construction
Convent Refinery
Convent, LA
FCC - Power recovery train /
waste heat boiler, CO Boiler,
Heavy oil & hydrogen furnace,
Crude & vacuum oil heaters
•
Eng. & Construction
Delaware Valley
Chester, PA
Mass burn
•
O&M
Dusseldorf
Dusseldorf, Germany
Mass burn
o
Technology review
Energy Answers
Albany, NY
RDF
•
Visit
Ensyn Technologies
Ottawa, Canada
Pyrolysis
I•
Due Diligence
10110 WAS
1SNT Page 11. of 19
GBB CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Essen
Location
Essen, Germany
TechnologyPlant
Mass burn
•
Technology review
Essex County
Newark N1
Mass burn
•
Eng. & Construction
Evergreen Power,
Reading, PA
CFB Boiler
•
O&M
Evergreen Recycling
Newark, NJ
MRF
•
Inspection
Exeter
Exeter, CT
TDF
•
Due Diligence
Ford Heights
Chicago, IL
TDF
•
Due Diligence
GreenWaste Recovery
San Jose, CA
MRF
Inspection
Hamm
Hamm, Germany
Mass burn
•
Technology review
Harrisburg
Harrisburg, PA
Mass burn
•
Visit
Haverhill
Haverhill, MA
Mass burn
•
Visit
Hempstead
Hempstead, NY
Mass burn
•
O&M
HERC
Hennepin, MN
Mass burn
•
Visit
Jonesboro
Jonesboro, ME
CFB Boiler
•
Due Diligence
Keane College
Keane, NH
Gasification
•
Visit
Kent County
Grand Rapids, MI
Mass Burn
•
Inspection
Kent County MRF
Grand Rapids, MI
MRF
•
Inspection
Kerfeld
Kerfeld, Germany
Mass burn
•
Technology review
Kimberly Clark
Chester, PA
CFB Coal
Visit
Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA
Mass Burn
•
Visit
Lee County
Ft. Meyers, FL
Mass Burn
•
Inspection
London
London, UK
Mass burn
•
Visit
Lowes Southern Clay
Sikeston, MO
Gasification
•
O&M
Marion County
Brooks, OR
Mass Burn
•
Due Diligence
MERC
Biddeford, ME
RDF
•
Due Diligence
Mid -Conn
Harford, CT
RDF
•
Due Diligence
MRWMn
I Marina rA
MRF
•
Inspection
Montgomery
Conshohocken, PA
Mass burn
•
Inspection
Montgomery County
Montgomery County, MD
Mass burn
•
Inspection
Munich
Munich, Germany
Mass burn
•
Inspection
Navy Yard
Philadelphia, PA
CHP - Residual Oil
Due Diligence
Newby Island
Milpitas, CA
MRF
•
Inspection
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls, NY
Mass burn
•
Inspection
North Powder LP
La Grande, OR
Gasification
•
O&M
Oberhausen
Oberhausen, Germany
Mass burn
•
Technology review
Palm Beach #2
West Palm Beach, FL
Mass burn
•
Visit
Plasco Trail Road
Ottawa, Canada
Plasma Gasification
•
Technology review
Port Arthur Refinery
Port Arthur, TX
Hydrogen reformer furnace
•
Eng. & Construction
Port Townsend Papermill
Port Townsend, WA
Stoker Boiler / Black Liquor
•
Visit
Pulaski Hwy Incinerator
Baltimore, MD
Mass burn
•
Due Diligence
Rayonier Paper Mill
Fernandina Beach, FL
CFB Boiler
•
Visit
Rotterdam
Rotterdam, Netherland
Mass burn
•
Technology review
SEMASS
Rochester, NY
RDF
•
Visit
Sunnyvale SMaRT
Sunnyvale, CA
Mixed Waste Processing
•
Due Diligence
SE Public Service Author.
Chesapeake, VA
RDF
•
Due Diligence
SPI Lumber Mill
Hoquiam, WA
Stoker Boiler
•
Visit
Springfield
Springfield, MA
Mass burn
•
Due Diligence
Sunbury
Sunbury, PA
Pulverized Coal
Due Diligence
York County
York, PA
Mass burn
•
Visit
West Enfield
West Enfield, ME
CFB Boiler
•
Due Diligence
Zanker Recycling
San Jose, CA
MRF
•
Inspection
Zero Waste Energy
San Jose, CA
Anaerobic Digestion
•
Inspection
Rearesentative Private Sector Experience
Fuel Sourcing Manager, Evergreen Community Power (2013-2015)
Page 12 of 19
CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Directed fuel sourcing and merchant power sales for a 25 MW combined heat and power facility fueled
with waste derived biomass.
Project Development Consultant, Plasco Energy Group (2011-2012)
Focused upon creating renewable energy from municipal solid waste using a proprietary plasma gasification
process, led project development efforts in the United States and Caribbean Basin.
Vice President, Business Development, of ADAGE LLC, Duke Energy (2007-2010)
As the officer in charge of new business development for ADAGE LLC, a joint venture company established
by Duke Energy Renewables, led a team of 4 project developers focused upon the development,
construction, and operation of a 600 MW portfolio of biomass fueled, power generation plants.
Vice President, Commercial Development, Losonoco Inc. (2006-2007)
Led the negotiation of feedstock supply and fuel off take agreements for this biofuels start up. Negotiated
corn feedstock supply and ethanol agreements for a proposed 50 mm gpy corn ethanol plant located in
Bartow, FL. Also negotiated oilseed feedstock supply, biodiesel off take and site lease option agreements for
a proposed 10 mm gpy seed crushing and biodiesel plant to be in Clarkston, WA.
Founding and Managing Member, Mainland Technologies (2002-2006)
As part of a consulting practice serving the energy and environmental services sector, provided business
development, project management, and acquisition services to small and medium sized companies:
• Developed and implemented a waste -by -rail marketing strategy for a privately held solid waste
landfill company.
• Prepared rail and barge transportation options for a solid waste management company in support
of a $7.5 billion proposal to manage New York City's solid waste.
Business Manager, American Ref Fuel Company (1997-2002)
Was responsible for directing business development efforts, managing waste and energy revenue
generation, and implementing public and community affairs programs throughout the mid -Atlantic region.
The principal facility was the 3,500 tpd waste -to -energy facility located in Chester, PA. As a key leader of the
acquisition and turn -around team, the EBIT of this distressed facility was transformed from an annual $10
million per year loss, to a $5 million per year profit within 3 years.
Directed efforts to develop and propose long term waste export and disposal options for the New York City
Department of Sanitation. Also led technical and business due diligence investigations for multiple operating
waste -to -energy facilities including the 1,050 tpd Camden, NJ facility (mass burn), the 3,300 tpd Chester, PA,
facility (mass burn), the 2,850 Hartford, CT facility (RDF), the 31 MW Sterling CT facility (TDF), and the 2,000
tpd facility in Norfolk, VA (RDF), as their owners divested of their equity interest.
Project Manager, American Ref Fuel Company (1987-1997)
Led multiple project management and technical teams focused upon the permitting, design, and
construction of waste -to -energy facilities.
As the owner's Project Engineer for the team that designed and built the 2,800 tpd per day mass burn Essex
County Resource Recovery Facility, his area of responsibility included chute -to -stack equipment supply,
fabrication, and installation consisting of three, 933 tpd boilers and associated acid gas scrubbers with
electrostatic precipitators. Also included under his scope were the combustion residue conveying and post
combustion metal recovery systems.
As an Owner's Project Manager, led technical and environmental teams supporting the development and
permitting of proposed waste -to -energy facilities including a 1,500 tpd facility in Bridgewater, MA and a
1,500 tpd facility in Green Island, NY.
SO 1 WASTE
GBB-NAG-ENT Page 1.3 of 10
CONSOITANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Complete List: Publications & Speeches
• Simmons, Stephen (Panelist) (2020, June). "Legislation and Policies Needed to Reach Zero Waste to
Landfill by 2040," presented at Virtual SWANApalooza.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2020, May). "Planning for Resilience: Incorporating Resilience Thinking into
Solid Waste Management Planning," presented at GBB Access! Web Briefing.
• Simmons, Stephen and Davis, Paige (Co-authors) (2020, April). "What is the true cost of zero waste to
landfill infrastructure?", published in Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2020, January). "Opportunities for Florida: Zero Waste to Landfill and
Creating a Circular Economy," presented at the SWANA Florida / Recycle Florida Today Joint Summit,
Lake Buena Vista, FL.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2019, October). "Our Circular Economy: Transforming Ideas into Action,"
presented at WASTECON, Phoenix, AZ.
• Simmons, Stephen (Author) (2019, August). "What's New in Waste Conversion Technology," published in
Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2019, May). "The Future of Franchising," presented at WasteExpo, Las
Vegas, NV.
• Simmons, Stephen; Porter, Jennifer; and Wieland, Kristen (co-authors) (2019, January/February).
"Creating an Industrial Ecosystem — Building a circular economy starting with what was supposed to be
a landfill expansion," published in MSW Management magazine.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2018, October). "Energy Recovery in Resource Recovery Parks: The Kent
County, MI Project," presented at the Waste -to -Energy Research and Technology Council Bi-Annual
Conference, New York, NY.
• Simmons, Stephen (Author) (2018, September). "The Future Ain't What It Used to Be," published in
Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2018, May). "Advances in the Development of Resource Recovery Parks,"
presented at the North Aiiier!Caii v✓aste-to-Liiergy Cvnferei��c, La ii�a$ter, PA.
• Simmons, Stephen (Author) (2018, January). "Waste Conversion Technology Projects Advance in 2017,"
published in Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2018, January). "Waste -to -Energy Technologies," presented at the Arizona
Tribal Energy Association Meeting, Phoenix, AZ.
• Simmons, Stephen (Author) (2017, November). "Is the US Ready for a Paradigm Shift in Solid Waste
Management?" published in Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, October). "Waste Conversion Technologies for Minnesota,"
presented at the Recycling Association of Minnesota / SWANA Conference, Brooklyn Park, MN.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, October). "Kent County, MI, Resource Recovery Park," presented at
the Renewable Energy from Waste Conference Webinar
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, September). "Waste Conversion Technologies for Pennsylvania,"
Keystone SWANA / Pennsylvania Waste Industries Association Conference, Harrisburg, PA.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, June). "Circular Economy Actions: Cities and Solid Waste
Management," presented at the Sustainability and Circular Economy Summit, Washington, DC.
• Simmons, Stephen (Author) (2017, May). "Better Waste Management Can Help Reduce Greenhouse
Gases... Says Science!" published in Waste Today.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, February). "Training: Waste Conversion Technologies 101,"
presented at the SWANA Northern New England Chapter Seminar, Portland, ME.
• Simmons, Stephen (Moderator) (2016, November). "Advancing Gasification and Pyrolysis," presented at
the Renewable Energy from Waste Conference, Long Beach, CA.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2016, November). "Status of Waste Conversion Technologies," presented
at the Pre -Conference Workshop of the Renewable Energy from Waste Conference, Long Beach, CA.
• Simmons, Stephen; Arsova, Ljupka (Authors) (2016, June). "Permission to Perform," published in the
Renewable Energy from Waste magazine.
so��o WASTE
GBB ""' ... Page 14 of 29
ULT CONSANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2016, June). "Bio-digester Case Study and Organics Reuse," presented at
the Reuse Summit, Louisville, KY.
• Simmons, Stephen (Moderator) (2016, May). "How are Local Governments Navigating the Challenges and
Opportunities in Today's WTE Market?" presented at the North American Waste -to -Energy Conference,
West Palm Beach, FL.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2016, March). "Status of Processing and Conversion of MSW Technologies,"
Emerging Issues in Waste Management and Remediation Conference, West Windsor, NJ.
• Simmons, Stephen and Arsova, Ljupka (Speakers) (2016, February). "Renewable Energy from Waste in
the U.S.: Status and Trends for the Future," presented at the Lorman Educational Services Webinar.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2014, April). "Biomass Conversion Technologies," presented at the
Princeton University Energy Policy Seminar, Princeton, NJ.
• Simmons, Stephen (Speaker) (2013, January). "Waste -to -Energy Technology Update," presented at the
Waste -to -Energy Development and Finance Summit, Chicago, IL.
• Simmons, Stephen (Moderator) (2013, January). "Waste Management and Landfill Industry
Perspectives," presented at the Waste -to -Energy Development and Finance Summit, Chicago, IL.
SOLID WASTE (`,(
G MENT Page .1.5 o1� 19
CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Education
M.S., Chemical Engineering, Lehigh
University, Easton, PA
B.S., Chemical Engineering (Magna Cum
Laude), Villanova University, Villanova, PA
Continuing Professional Education
Financial Analysis, University of Chicago
Graduate School of Business Executive
Education
Managing Technical Professionals, MIT Sloan
Executive Education
Managing Technology Development,
Wharton Executive Education
_s r It
Areas u� JpeLia_icy
Waste -to -Energy
Emissions Control
Energy Production
Technology Risk Assessment/Management
Research and Development
Patents
Holds nine U.S. Patents in the fields of waste
combustion, ash treatment and gas
separations
Selected Presentations
Designing the WtE Facility of the Future,
presented at the North American Waste -to -
Energy Conference in April 2017
Stephen Goff
GBB Principal Associate
Mr. Goff, GBB Principal Associate, has over 35 years of experience with
extensive expertise guiding technology development and engineering in the
Energy -from -Waste and other environmental and high -temperature process
industries. He led teams, effectively communicated, and collaborated across
functions and with all levels of leadership to develop roadmaps for decision -
making and avoiding risk. He led research and development initiatives,
presented recommendations to improve processes and created best practices
that helped maximize performance, productivity, and profitability.
Most recently, prior to becoming a consultant, he was Vice President at Covanta
Energy where he was responsible for the process and controls engineering
functions and leading the company's efforts to develop and commercialize new
technologies for recovering energy and value from waste. He joined Covanta
when the firm acquired American Ref -Fuel Company.
Representative Private -Sector Experience
Vice President of Process and Control Technology, Covanta Energy (2017-2019)
Led a team of 20 engineering professionals responsible for all process and
control engineering activities, including the engineering and review of new
plant designs and existing plant modifications, and the performance monitoring
of Covanta's 40 waste -to -energy facilities.
Led a cross -functional team to develop a state-of-the-art central data
management system for monitoring plant and equipment performance that
provided real-time reporting of key process parameters and equipment
condition data.
Also worked closely with Covanta's Environmental group to ensure continuous
emissions compliance at all facilities and provided technical support to
Covanta's ongoing effort to develop and commercialize beneficial ash reuse
applications.
Vice President of Research and Development, Covanta Energy (2006-2017)
Led and directed the development or acquisition of new technologies to
advance Covanta's leadership in the waste -to -energy industry, and to support
new business initiatives.
Research & Development at Covanto Energy,
presented at the Symposium on Megacity Led the evaluation and testing of alternative waste conversion technologies
Waste Management in April 2016 based on gasification, pyrolysis, autoclaving and anerobic digestion. This work
New Process for Achieving Very Low NOx, led to the development of a patented gasification/combustion process for
presented at the North American waste -to- unprocessed MSW that was commercialized at Covanta's Tulsa, Oklahoma
Energy Conference in May 2009 facility.
MSW Gasification — Understanding the Along with his group, worked closely with the Operations, Engineering and
Challenges, presented at the North American
Waste -to -Energy Conference in May 2008 Environmental groups to identify, evaluate and demonstrate new technologies
related to solid waste combustion, boiler design, corrosion and fouling control,
energy production, emissions control, and ash management. As part of this
Page 1.6 of 19
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
work, he led the development and commercialization of a patented Low NOx technology that was
successfully installed in over 20 Covanta commercial units.
Also directed an in-house computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program that led to the development of three-
dimensional CFD models of Covanta's mass -burn municipal solid waste boilers that were used to justify
boiler design improvements in several facilities.
Director of Process Engineering, Covanta Energy (2005-2006)
Directed the Process Engineering group, providing technical support to Covanta's waste -to -energy facilities.
Managed a team of eight senior engineers responsible for combustion control, boiler reliability, power cycle
optimization and emissions control equipment performance.
Responsible for Covanta's Technical Standards program, which defines critical operations and maintenance
requirements for the operating facilities. Revised the content and administration of the program to improve
overall effectiveness and integrate the technical philosophies of Covanta and American Ref -Fuel, following
their acquisition.
Director of Engineering, American Ref -Fuel Company (2003-2005)
Responsible for all engineering and technology activities, prior to Covanta's acquisition of American Ref -
Fuel. Established a program to prioritize and track engineering activities at all plant locations, integrate them
with Corporate Engineering, and ensure alignment with Operations.
Led the design and set-up of an automated, company -wide plant data tracking system, yielding daily and
monthly reports comparing performance to set operating criteria. These systems continue to provide
reliable data to Operations for day-to-day decisions, and to Engineering for performance analysis and
optimization.
Also led the revamping the Equipment Condition Assessment Program to ensure alignment between
Operations and Engineering on major maintenance planning.
Manager of Process Engineering, American Ref -Fuel Company (2000-2003)
Formed the Process Engineering group and established/managed a company -wide program to define the
optimum operating conditions for each plant, monitor key plant process parameters and identify plant
improvement projects.
managed the Process Controls group, responsible for the reliability and optimization of all critical control
systems, including central distributed control systems, data acquisition systems and emission monitoring
systems. led the revamping of all combustion control systems company -wide, resulting in a factor of three
reduction in steam flow control deviation.
Manager of Central Engineering, American Ref -Fuel Company (1998-2000)
Managed a multi -disciplined Engineering group responsible for the engineering of all capital projects. The
group consisted of engineers in all major disciplines, including mechanical, process, I&C, electrical and
civil/structural.
Manager of Environmental Technology and Special Projects, American Ref -Fuel Company (1997-1998)
Responsible for process engineering and technology activities related to all emissions control processes,
including plant support, engineering review on capital projects and the evaluation of new technologies.
Led the optimization of flue gas mercury control systems to achieve the lowest carbon consumption in the
industry, while maintaining environmental performance. Also responsible for technical activities related to
ash management, including ash characterization and treatment for disposal, and the development of
beneficial ash reuse applications.
SOLID WAGTE 19
ry (�
/ANAGENIENT Page 17 of
G�� CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
Technology Manager, Air Products and Chemicals (1990-1997)
Managed a group of engineers providing technology support to the waste -to -energy, landfill gas recovery,
and biosolids treatment business areas. Responsibilities included process engineering support to the
operating plants, and the identification, evaluation, and development of new technologies to maintain and
improve the competitive position of these businesses.
Process Engineer, Air Products and Chemicals (1982-1990)
Worked on the process design and development of high temperature catalytic processes to produce
hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and the dehydrogenation and hydrodealkylation of petrochemicals. Also
worked on the design of gas separation and purification processes based on adsorption, absorption, and
membranes.
Patents
Holds nine U.S. Patents in the fields of waste combustion, ash treatment and gas separations:
• US 4,589,896 - "Process for Separating CO2 and H2S from Hydrocarbons," 1986.
• US 4,836,833 - "Production and Recovery of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide," 1989.
• US 5,052,310 - "Solid Waste -to -Steam Incinerator Capacity Enhancement by Combined Oxygen Enrichment
and Liquid Quench," 1991.
• US 5,284,636 - "Method of Stabilizing Heavy Metals in Ash Residues from Combustion Devices by Addition
of Elemental Phosphorus," 1994
• US 5,347,073 - "Fixation of Heavy Metals, Mercury Recovery and Dioxins Destruction in Municipal Solid
Waste Incinerator Ash," 1994.
• US 5,347,074 - "Fixation of Heavy Metals, Mercury Recovery and Dioxins Destruction in Scrubbed Municipal
Solid Waste Incinerator Ash," 1994.
• US 5,405,537 - "Process for Combusting Dewatered Sludge Waste in a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator," 1995.
• US 8,443,739 B2 - "Tertiary Air Addition to Solid Waste -Fired Furnaces for NOx Control," 2013.
• US 8,997,664 B2 - "Gasification Combustion System," 2015.
Complete List: Publications & Speeches
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2017, April). "Designing the WtE Facility of the Future," presented at the North
American Waste -to -Energy Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2016, April). "Research & Development at Covanta Energy," presented at the
Symposium on Megacity Waste Management, City College of New York, NY.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2013, March). "Covanta CLEERGAS® — Developments in MSW Gasification
Technology," presented at the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Energy from Waste Conference, London.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2012, October). "Covanta Research Developments in MSW Gasification
Technology," Waste -to -Energy Research and Technology Conference, New York, NY.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2012, April). "Covanta MSW Gasification Process," presented at the North
American Waste -to -Energy Conference, Portland, ME.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2009, May). "New Process for Achieving Very Low NOx," presented at the North
American Waste -to -Energy Conference, Chantilly, VA.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2008, October). "Covanta Low-NOx Technology," presented atthe Waste -to -Energy
Research and Technology Conference, New York, NY.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (2008, May). "MSW Gasification — Understanding the Challenges," presented at the
North American Waste -to -Energy Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1997, April). "Mercury Emissions — Trends and Control Effectiveness," presented
at the North American Waste -to -Energy Conference, Research Triangle Park, NC.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1994). "Development & Scale -up of a Novel Ash Treatment Process for Municipal
Solid Waste Combustors," presented at the Air Products Technology Symposium, Trexlertown, PA.
WeSOLID WASTE
NAGE&IENT Page 78 of 1.9
CONSULTANTS
Deschutes County, Oregon - Department of Solid Waste / Mr. Timm Schimke, Director
Proposal for Proposal Review & Report Update
October 7, 2020
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1994, November). "Thermal Ash Stabilization — Development of a New Ash
Treatment Process," 7th International Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Combustor Ash Utilization,
Washington, DC.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1993). "Oxygen -Enrichment for Municipal Waste Combustion," SWANA
International Solid Waste Exposition.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1993, March). "Pilot Demonstration of Oxygen -Enriched Co -incineration of
Dewatered Sewage Sludge," EPA/AWMA International Conference on Municipal Waste Combustion,
Williamsburg, VA.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1993, March). "The Effects of Gas Impurities and Salts on Metal Corrosion
Laboratory Studies," NACE CORROSION/93 Conference, New Orleans, LA.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1992, December). "Oxygen -Enriched Co -incineration of Sewage Sludge in an
Existing Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator," presented at the Air Products Technology Symposium,
Trexlertown, PA.
• Goff, Stephen (Author) (1992, July/August). "Retrofitting for Co -Combustion of MSW and Sewage Sludge,"
published in Solid Waste and Power, Vol. VII, No. 2.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1992, June). "Oxygen -Enriched Co -incineration of Sewage Sludge in an Existing
MSW Incinerator," Annual Air & Waste Management Association Meeting, Kansas City, MO.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1990). "Technical Challenges in the Design and Operation of a Waste -to -Energy
Plant: Hempstead Success — Essex Challenge," presented at the Air Products Technology Symposium,
Trexlertown, PA.
• Goff, Stephen (Speaker) (1988). "CATOFIN—The Reliable Process Workhorse for C3 to C5 Dehydrogenation,"
presented at the DeWitt Conference, Houston, TX.
• Goff, Stephen (Author) (1987, August). "Syngas Production by Reforming," published in Chemical
Engineering Progress.
= t'
CEMENT Page 19 n( l 19
11
CONSULTANTS
SOLID WASTE
n,
fl,
rD
0
n,
Ln
rD
Cl
O
r+
zT
rD
D Fs
N
w �
�
I
/���
ry �a o> 00
o
iv .lam
a)
® O 0 0 0
0
0 O
0
O`,O
0 Ln
Q�
w
1��
MwUl
o
tD d1
lfl
p
Pp
rD
r+
JU
M
CL
PO
—%
MN
3
0
6
M(D
®e
1��
p
DQ
PO
N
O
SU
Q 3
r+
(rD
O
�G O
®o
0
Ln
(D (D
M. —_
®fin
O
1
D�
�Q
C:aj
ul1+
0
�j
°
OPO
v
19
®may
r
O
�
O
Q
v
`G
1®i
1��)
Oc'O
Ln
w
Cases
u,
sr
'�
0000
o
S%S
j ul
S �9
sd
00
S/
00
S
N
w
Ln
Sl6i
0
0
�O
� N
�
6
N
Ol
,�
/�cS'
00
I;jir
00
uM
`�9
v
ci'e
�, lS
r
SEEM
LU
uu
N
0
00
199
w
19 1�
o
�019
rn
lo/ 6
Q
v
o
p
far �O
loom
rn
S N
p 00 o
w
1O/�Q
Ln
V `
w
n
p�
11i1
v
+
to
/
w
lZ
wo
� N N W W
Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln
O O O O O O O O
o Ln
� V
N
O
N
w N
(�u W
4�1 _N
CD
4.
o 00
W
o 00
D6 S�,
m
� �
(A
<
O
0- a
w
O
W
Number of N NJ
c'l ® cn ® cn
Nj
E-1 c,
E-1 00
Ul
19 00
V
/1
W
Sl/
.9 d'
Q
N
0 rn
V �
Ul
V
w
S
S
0
NJ
j 66
6//
, N�
6'
O)
A
O
N
00
i•
'Ir?> 1
�V�
*
i
/9 �S
w
Ln-
o
a
cn
000
A
i
/l6 1 s
Lrl
C)
V
9/ IQ
1'O l0/
D 11 70
®
N
w
SC y 110 110
N tO
�0/ j0/
m
®
N N
®mow
1
O F-+ N W A Cn 61
V 00
O O O O O O O
O O
m
New case rate (Rolling 2-week period)
0
0
V W
m
N
N
w
is
u, o
0 0
0
o
a
0
n
(DO
rt
(D
r)
g
.
N
3
N
CND
v
CD
O
O
N
:
O
N
Q
=5
N.
O
N
v
0
n
!D
n
O
rD
(DO
can
CD
CD
CD
n
=S
;V
Oq
O
N
3
m
(D
_
Q
UU
(D
—
�
�
h
(D
(D
v
N
�
�
(7
N
n
S
G
(D
e-t
(D
M
N
Percent Positivity (Rolling 2-week period)
F� F" �
o ry w a� Ln a) oo �o o t" iv
® o 0 0 0 0® o®®® o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0
NJ
60
0
w
0
cn
W
0
p
v
p
ca n
m
0
aj
O
O
O
cn
Q
N
O
n
7
N
Cu
CD
�
Z,
O
m
n
m
n
O
�p
=
v
O
cn
r+
<
�p
"6
Q
OT.
rt
v
N
ro
rD
\)T E S CO
o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of November 9, 2020
DATE: November 4, 2020
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Housing Strategies Project Discussion
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) has stated its interest in exploring housing
opportunities in the rural county and on County -owned land. This agenda item continues this topic
from the Board's October 5 meeting and provides a revised draft of the Rural Housing Profile.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director
DATE: November 4, 2020
SUBJECT: Housing Strategies Project
I. OBJECTIVE
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) has stated its interest in exploring housing
opportunities in the rural county and on County -owned land. This memorandum continues this topic
from the Board's October 5 meeting and provides a revised draft of the Rural Housing Profile. During
4t,� r% i r *:... th.. o., r.J Aire +r 4 cuff+n i itiIi7o tho rintn nrnwirlorl in nrowini is minmnranrla
U e UctoUe 5 meeting, eeti Ig, the Board un ccLcu .�l.ar r w UL111— a — ua 1— v.1.,�...... — N' --
to build upon the Draft Housing Profile; the result —while still in draft form —is a document that seeks
to be a stand-alone housing report, complete with options for the Board to pursue further, rather
than simply a summary of existing conditions.
Staff seeks Board direction at this or a future meeting on whether to:
Initiate one or more options listed below or another option(s). Based on the option(s)
selected, staff will provide an update to the Board on next steps.
2. Return for a continued discussion on the options presented or other options, or additional
information requested by the Board.
3. Allow the Board to review the revised Draft Housing Profile and return at a later date to
determine next steps.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2020 staff provided the Board with a draft housing profile and potential options for further
defining a housing strategies project, per the Board's ongoing interest.' The housing profile identified
1 http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizen,s/Detail Meeting.aspx?0=2580
up to 5,888 vacant lots in the rural county where residential uses are permitted outright.Z The
breakdown of those vacancies are as follows (data is taken from the Draft Housing Profile).
Number of
Table 1, Resort Areas I
Vacant Lots
Destination Resorts
Caldera Springs
Eagle Crest
Pronghorn
Tetherow
Resort Communities
101
139
285
200
Black Butte 27
Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek 12
Urban Unincorporated Community
Sunriver 118
Total Vacancies, Resort Areas 882
Table 2, Rural Residential
Areas
Rural Residential Zones
Rural Residential
Multiple Use Agriculture
Suburban Low Density Rural Residential
Urban Area Reserve
Number of
Vacant
Lots
2439
518
32
292
Rural Communities
Tumalo (TUR/TUR5) 32
Terrebonne (TER/TER5) 134
Total Vacancies, Rural Residential Areas 3,447
Table 3, Future Opportunities for
Rural Residential Lots (Not Yet Platted)
Count
Thornburgh Destination Resort
950
Caldera Springs Destination Resort Phase 2
340
West Side Transect
187
Tumalo Irrigation District Rezoned Parcel
72
GVpher GDUICh (North of Rend)
in
Future Opportunities, Rural Residential Lots
1,559
Staff returned on August 24 to discuss the Board's preferred direction for scope, timeline, and
defining the desired outcome of the project.3 During that discussion the Board prioritized rural
housing opportunities and county -owned properties. Staff returned on September 21 to present the
following additional information for the Board's consideration in defining a scope of work:'
• Twelve -Month Market Analysis • Emerging Opportunities
• Housing Strategies in Other Counties • Institutional Challenges
• Existing Residential Opportunities • Next Steps
Based on questions raised during that discussion, staff provided additional information to the Board
on October 55 about existing residential opportunities in the County, including the status of the
Transportation Growth Management grant to update the Tumalo Community Plan and implement a
portion of the Sisters County Vision Action Plan for rural trails; nonfarm dwelling approval numbers;
and the Terrebonne Wastewater Feasibility Study. All of the above information has been incorporated
into the revised Draft Housing Profile.
2 Ibid. See Tables 8 (Resort Areas), 9 (Rural Residential Areas) and 10 (Future Opportunities for Rural Residential Lots).
3 http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2587
° https://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2593
s https:Hdeschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/DetaiI_Meeting.aspx?ID=2597
Page 2 of 5
III. NEXT STEPS
To inform the Board's decision on a path forward, staff has identified four options for proceeding
with a Rural Housing Strategy.
A. Option 1 - Increase housing supply based on opportunities afforded by state law and County
Code. CDD and Property Management staff would work directly with the Board to implement the
actions identified in Table 3 below.
Table 4. Opportunities Afforded by State Law and County Code
1. Rural Residential Dwellings
Rely on the vacant lands analysis which identifies 4,329 of existing platted residential lots and the potential for 1,559
additional lots in the rural county.
2. Resource Zone Dwellings
The vacant lands analysis did not consider resource zones due to a variety of factors, from determining whether a
property is a legal lot of record to potential compliance with state land use standards. However, Deschutes County
permits new dwellings in resource zones as allowed by state law.
Deschutes County has the smallest EFU-zoned lot sizes in the state, meaning that land partitions may result in
additional residential development through non -farm dwellings.
Under state law, there are seven (7) ways to approve new dwellings in the EFU Zone and (4) ways to approve new
dwellings in the Forest Use Zone
3. County -Owned Lands
Audit Countv-owned lands to determine housing development potential in cities and rural areas, and then decide
which properties to pursue for residential development. Notable properties include:
• Newberry Neighborhood (Neighborhood 2, 2 quadrants; Neighborhoods 3 and 4). The County applied for, but
did not receive, a TGM grant to fund this project.
• Lands north of juniper Ridge
4. Historic Rural Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Historic dwellings in MUA, RR-10, SR 21/2, and UAR-10 zones on parcels larger than two acres are permitted to be
converted to accessory dwelling units and one additional housing unit may be developed on a property. There are
approximately 113 properties eligible for such units in the County; 2 applications have been submitted to date. The
County is currently promoting this program to the remaining properties.
5. Plan or Text Amendments
Non -Prime Resource Lands Amendment(s) are in process.
Consider repealing the Conventional Housing Combining Zone that prohibits manufactured dwellings and mobile
homes in certain parts of the County. Rural ADUs may be allowed in unincorporated communities under state law, but
not under County Code.
The County could amend Code to allow ADUs in some or all unincorporated community with siting and infrastructure
standards.
6. Tumalo, Terrebonne, Unincorporated Communities
Consider public -private partnerships, pilot project funding, or invest in infrastructure (i.e., sewer system) to support the
development of small lots.
Page 3 of 5
Timeline: Three to six months to complete any code amendments. An initial audit of County -owned
lands would likely take 2-3 months.
B. Option 2 - Lobby the Legislature. The Board, Administration, CDD, the County's lobbyist and
partner organizations would coordinate to develop the legislative concepts, engage local legislators,
and lobby the Legislature to adopt these measures.
Table 4. Opportunities Requiring Legislative Action
1.
Allow rural ADUs in Rural Residential Exception Areas
2.
Remove "pilot" from HB 4079 (large cities) and HB 2336 (small cities) to allow UGB expansions for mixed market
rate and affordable housing neighborhoods.
3.
Destination Resorts
• Allow ADUs by not counting them as separate dwellings in the 2:1 or 2.5:1 residential to overnight lodging
ratio requirements.
• Allow affordable housing onsite for employees.
4.
Manufactured Home Parks
• Allow new and expanded manufactured home parks.
• Allow manufactured home park lots to be subdivided and allow tiny homes rather than just manufactured
homes.
5.
Other
Timeline: Begin immediately by engaging AOC and the County's lobbyist to prepare legislative
rnnrantc fnr the ?n91 I PuislativP session. and then lobbving throu-ah the Session's sine die.
C. Option 3 - Convene a Rural Housing Advisory Committee to review, discuss, revise and prioritize
items identified above. A committee could be structured as follows:
i. Establish a Rural Housing Advisory Committee (with or without a consultant)
This committee could evaluate the causes and drivers of the region's housing shortage and
recommend rural housing strategies that the County can pursue to help alleviate it in partnership
with other organizations. Committee members could include representatives from the following:
• Central Oregon Builders Association
• Central Oregon Association of
Realtors
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental
Council
• City of Bend
• City of La Pine
• City of Redmond
• City of Sisters
• Economic Development for Central
Oregon
• Housing Works
• Neighborlmpact
• Central Oregon Homeless Leadership
Coalition
• Planning Commission (1-2 members)
• Others
Timeline: 4 to 8 months, concluding with an action plan.
Page 4 of 5
ii. Board/Planning Commission Panel Discussion
The Board and Planning Commission could establish a series of panel discussions with invited
guests from public, private, and non-profit sector organizations to similar to the marijuana panel
discussions conducted in 2018:
1. Evaluate the housing profile developed to date.
2. Provide insights into the causes and drivers of the housing need and housing shortage.
3. Propose conceptual land use strategies and recommendations to address the County's
housing need.
4. Other.
This Committee could then determine next steps, including whether to create a Rural Housing
Advisory Committee such as that proposed above or other courses of action.
Timeline: 4 to 8 months, concluding with a summary report.
D. Option 4 - Combine two or more options above for a new approach, such as:
Initiate Option 2; and
• Select Option 3(i). or 3(ii) above with the charge to review and decide which opportunities
in Table 3.Opportunities Afforded by State Law and County Code to initiate as well as to:
1) Provide insights into the causes and drivers of the housing need and housing shortage;
and
2) Propose conceptual land use strategies and recommendations to address the County's
housing need.
Attachment
Revised Draft Rural Housing Profile
Page 5 of 5
Draft Deschutes County
Rural Housing Profile
Photo: Hawks View Estates / La Pine Affordable Housing
Prepared by:
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
www.deschutes.org/cd
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner
Community Development Department
Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner
-1- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Table of Contents
PURPOSE................................................................................................................................3
SECTION 1: DESCHUTES COUNTY TODAY
CURRENT POPULATION / HOUSING PROFILE..................................................................... 3
Population......................................................................................................................... 3
Median Household Income................................................................................................ 4
Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing Units............................................................ 4
Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units..................................................................... 5
POPULATIONPROJECTIONS.............................................................................................. 6
HOUSINGNEED................................................................................................................. 7
Average Number of Persons Per Household.................................................................... 7
EstimatedHousing Need.................................................................................................... 7
BuildingPermits Issued..................................................................................................... 7
VACANT RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY..................................................................... 8
Methodology..................................................................................................................... 9
MapOverview................................................................................................................. 10
DataSummary................................................................................................................. 11
Anticipated Residential Lots........................................................................................... 12
Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 13
TWELVE-MONTH MARKET ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 14
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES......................................................................... 15
CURRENT HOUSING INITIATIVES..................................................................................... 16
Cities of Bend / Redmond Affordable Housing Projects ................................................. 16
Housing Consortium Partnerships.................................................................................. 17
Transportation Growth Management Grant.................................................................. 18
DLCD Technical Assistance Grant.................................................................................... 18
Non -Prime Resource Lands............................................................................................. 18
Terrebonne Wastewater Feasibility Study...................................................................... 19
SECTION 2: LOOKING FORWARD
EMERGINGOPPORTUNITIES............................................................................................ 20
2020 Census.................................................................................................................... 20
County -Owned Property Audit....................................................................................... 21
Plan/Text Amendments.................................................................................................. 21
La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area.............................................................................. 21
OREGON LAND USE LIMITATIONS / COORDINATION....................................................... 22
Institutional Challenges.................................................................................................... 22
Initiatives Requiring Legislative Action............................................................................. 23
-2- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
APPENDICES (under separate cover)
Appendix A - Maps
Vacant Rural Residential Land Maps
Measure 37 Claims Map
Measure 49 Claims Map
Conventional Housing Zone (CHC) Map
-3- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
PURPOSE
Housing is consistently identified by Deschutes County residents as an issue of concern. What
does this actually mean, however? Is it the cost, availability, quality, location, or some
combination of these factors? This report provides and presents background and existing
conditions in unincorporated Deschutes County as they relate to population, demographics, and
vacant residential lands. It is intended to provide context for further discussion of the scope of a
housing strategies project. Section 1 explores existing conditions in Deschutes County, including
demographics, vacant lands, market analyses, and residential development opportunities
currently available. Section 2 examines options to move forward with respect to housing, from
opportunities currently afforded by state or local code to those that require further action or
lobbying.
This section provides a snapshot of the County, summarizing numerous elements that have the
potential to affect housing —whether directly or indirectly. While the information provided is just
a starting point, it strives to illustrate some of the contrasts that exist between availability and
affordability, between geographic regions, and some of the tools that currently exist to help
manage these issues.
w 1 C11,r v
The following subsections provide an overview of the population of Deschutes County with
respect to the number of residents, household income, and housing units. In some cases,
information is provided for the incorporated cities separately as well as the unincorporated rural
county; unless otherwise noted, however, data is for the entirety of Deschutes County, including
its cities. Full methodology and explanations of source data are found in the footnoted links
provided. Much of the data comes from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is a yearly
survey produced by the U.S. Census that is sent to a subset of approximately 3.5 million people
in the United States. It is important to reiterate that the statistics included in this profile are
intended to provide context for initial discussion, while recognizing that new 2020 census data
offers the best opportunity to determine how the County's growth might be shaped in the future.
i;,ao antE,lat, lowz
Table 1 below illustrates Deschutes County's total population estimates for 2019 for its cities and
the unincorporated area. The population of the unincorporated area represents approximately
30 percent of Deschutes County.
-4- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Table 1, Deschutes County Population Estimate (2019)
Deschutes County (including cities)'
197,692
City of Bend
100,421
City of Redmond'
32,421
City of La Pine
1,929
City of Sisters5
2,781
Unincorporated County
60,140
MedianHousehold Income
Table 2 illustrates the median household income for the same geographies, with the exception
of the unincorporated county, for which data is not provided by the American Community Survey.
Table 2, Deschutes County Median Household Income (2018)
Deschutes County (including cities)6
$63,680
City of Bend'
$63,468
City of Redmond'
$55,679
City of La Pine9
$37,760
City of Sisters10
$56,429
The median household income for Deschutes County (including cities), is only marginally higher
than that of the State of Oregon ($63,426). Income is a critical factor when examining the
rr_ -_'_Milt- f housing.
n my ed metric by financial and housing nalyste ie
potential affordability of r1UUbin�. H commonly -used IIICUII. by Inlallual allu I/vusii�g 'aiia�ya�a �a
that the cost burden of housing (whether rent or mortgage) should be no more than
approximately one-third of household income.
Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing Unit
As shown in Table 3, the median value of owner -occupied housing units in Deschutes County
(including cities), is significantly higher than that of the State of Oregon ($287,300). Given that
median income is on par with the state yet housing value is not could be an indicator of a
' https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon
2 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon
3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219
4 https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES-
41.xlsx
5 Ibid.
6 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon
' https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon
B https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219
9 https:Hdata.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=La%20Pine%20city,%200regon%20[ncome%20and%2OPoverty&tid=
ACSST 5Y2018.S1901&vintage=2018
io https:Hdata.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Sisters%20city,%200regon&g=1600000US4167950&tid=ACSST5Y2018.
S1901&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1&vintage=2018
-5- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
potential imbalance. It is also important to note that second and vacation homes are not included
in this figure, which is intended to capture the value of housing units used as primary residences.
Table 3, Median value of owner -occupied housing units (2014-2018)
Deschutes County (including cities)11
$336,400
City of Bend12
$363,200
City of Redmond13
$242,200
City of La Pine14
$180,600
City of Sisters15
$300,400
Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units
The data in Table 4 below illustrates the breakdown of owner -occupied versus renter -occupied
homes in Deschutes County as a whole as well as its incorporated cities and the unincorporated
county. The U.S. Census defines "owner occupied" as: "... the owner or co-owner lives in the unit,
even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. The owner or co-owner must live in the unit and
usually is Person 1 on the [Census] questionnaire."
Table 4, Housing
Tenure
Deschutes
County16
City of
Bend"
City of
Redmond"
City of
La Pine19
City of
Sisters20
Unincorporated
County
Total Housing Units
86,875
40,686
11,639
990
1,214
32,346
Owner Occupied
47,606
21,953
6,454
392
519
18,288
Owner Occupied
(Percent of Total
Housing Units)
54.8%
54.0%
55.5%
39.6%
42.8%
56.5%
Renter Occupied
24,864
15,386
4,838
462
461
3,717
11 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon
12 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon
11 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219
14 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=La%20Pine%20city,%200regon%2OHousing&g=1600000US4141050&tid
=ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&t=Housing&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1
11 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Sisters%20city,%200regon%2OHousing&g=1600000US4167950&tid=
ACSDPSY2018.DP04&t=Housing&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1
16 https://data census
gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%2OEstimates%2OData%2OProfiles&table=DP04&tid=
ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&g=0400000US41
050000OUS41017
17 https•//data census
gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&table=DP04&tid=
ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&g=0400000US41
160000OUS4105800
18 https•//data census
govIcedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&table=DP04&tid=
ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&g=0400000US41
160000OUS4161200
19 https•//data census
gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%2OEstimates%2OData%2OProfiles&table=DP04&tid=
ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&g=0400000US41
160000OUS4141050
20 https://data census
gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%2OEstimates%2OData%2OProfiles&table=DP04&tid=
ACSDP5Y2018 DP04&g=0400000US41
160000OUS4167950
-6- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Renter Occupied
(Percent of Total
28.6%
37.8%
41.6%
46.7%
38.0%
11.5%
Housing Units)
While the owner- and renter -occupancy rate varies significantly among the cities, it is worth
noting that in all jurisdictions, the sum of owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing units
does not add up to the total number of housing units. This is likely primarily attributable to
second homes, vacation homes, or homes used for short-term rentals —all of which are common
in tourism -oriented areas. in the unincorporated county, which is home to a significant number
of destination resorts and resort communities, a full 32 percent of homes are neither owner- or
renter -occupied.
PROJECTIONSPOPULATION
Understanding the future population of Deschutes County can inform rural housing strategy
goals. Since the enactment of state legislation in 2013 to centralize population forecasts with
consistent methodology across Oregon, population forecasts have been conducted by the
Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University. Population forecasts are
performed on a four-year cycle by region; the most recent forecast for Deschutes County was
published in 2018.21 It is important to note that these population figures for 2018 and beyond
may differ slightly from estimates provided by the United States Census due to different base
year estimates and forecast methodology; for cities' geography, PRC uses Urban Growth
Boundaries (UGBs) rather than city limits, which can differ slightly.
The PRC 2018 Final Forecast Report notes that the total population of Deschutes County will likely
grow at a faster pace in the near -term (2018-2043) compared to the long-term (2043-2068). This
is largely due to an eventual decrease in birth rates versus death rates —owing to an aging
population as well as a smaller population of women in their childbearing years —despite
increases from in -migration. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, Deschutes County's total population
(including cities) is forecast to increase by more than 114,000 over the next 25 years (2018-2043)
and by more than 245,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2018-2068).
Average
Average
Annual
Annual
Table 5, Deschutes County and
2018
2043
2068
Growth
Growth
Sub -Area Population Forecasts22
Rate 2018 -
Rate 2043 -
2043
2068
Deschutes County
187,621
301,999
432,930
1.9%
1.5%
Bend UGB
91,373
162,362
255,291
1 2.3%
1 1.80
Redmond UGB
29,364
51,625
82,575
2.3%
1.9%
Sisters UGB
2,691
5,169
8,431
2.6%
2.0%
21 https://www.pdx.edu/prc/current-documents-and-presentations
zs https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/Deschutes_Report_Final.pdf
-7- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
La Pine UGB
1,833
3,594
5,894
2.7%
2.0%
Outside UGB
62,360
79,248
80,739
1.0%
0.1%
(Unincorporated County)
The growth rate for unincorporated Deschutes County, however, does not directly mirror that of
the county as a whole or its cities. While the growth rates for the county as well as its cities are
all projected to slow down between 2043 and 2068, the growth rate slows more dramatically for
the unincorporated county as shown in Table 6. As a result, the population of the unincorporated
county becomes a smaller proportion of the county as a whole by 2043 and 2068.
Table 6, Deschutes County and
Sub -Areas Share of County Forecasts23
Share of County
2018
Share of County
2043
Share of County
2068
Deschutes County
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bend UGB
48.7%
53.8%
59.0%
Redmond UGB
15.7%
17.1%
19.1%
Sisters UGB
1.4%
1.7%
1.9%
La Pine UGB
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Outside UGB (Unincorporated County)
33.2%
26.2%
18.6%
%Alhilo n^t intonrlarl to raninra an in-rlanth hmirina needs analvsis that takes into account
elements such as geography, income, and price point, some basic calculations can give a general
feel for housing needs in the County with respect to population growth.
Average Number of Persons Per Household
The average number of persons per household in Deschutes County, including its cities, is 2.47.24
Estimated Housing Need
Utilizing the population projections provided in Table 5 above, Deschutes County outside of its
UGBs is expected to grow from 62,360 people in 2018 to 79,248 in 2043—an addition of 16,888
residents. Dividing this number by average household size indicates that approximately 6,837
housing units may be required to accommodate this growth. Of note, this number does not take
into account mortality rates, out -migration and related factors that could make existing housing
available.
23 Ibid. '
24 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon
-8- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Buflding Permits Issue
Table 7 below illustrates the number of new and replacement single-family building permits
issued each year by the Deschutes County Community Development Department. The most
recent five years of data show an average yearly total of 326 new dwelling building permits
issued. This annual addition to the housing stock is the first step towards meeting the County's
housing needs, but does not take into account factors such as price, type of home, or whether
the homes are primary residences or second homes.
Table 7, Single Family Dwelling Permits Issued
Single family Dwelling Permits Issued -New Dwellings J Replacement dwellings
Includes Rural Deschutes County Only
2
t
n
1011
f
'.
j r..
.:
?4
d
5.3
tiS
1
S r
p
a
VACANT RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY
What does the housing landscape in Deschutes County look like right now? Often, housing
affordability is affected by housing availability; that is, if availability of a resource (in this case,
homes for sale or buildable land) is low, and desire for that resource is high, that pressure
generally causes the price of that resource to rise. Low housing inventory is not the only factor
that affects affordability, particularly in a location like Deschutes County, with its high draws from
tourism, its second homes, Goal 8 resorts and resort communities.
-9- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
The following maps illustrate the location and number of vacant residential lands throughout the
county. First, it is important to distinguish between vacant residential lands and a buildable lands
analysis. Vacant residential land is a general summary of parcels or lots in areas zoned for rural
residential use that are designated in the county database as vacant; that is, no existing structure
currently exists on the lot or parcel, and therefore a single-family home could theoretically be
built there as an outright permitted use. A buildable lands analysis takes this several steps
further, utilizing a more complex and labor-intensive analysis, taking into account site -specific
data such as setbacks, flood plains, steep slopes, environmental soils, existing structures, and
other constraints that could render a lot or parcel undevelopable. In addition, a buildable lands
analysis could incorporate non -farm dwellings on land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and
template dwellings on land zoned Forest Use (F1 / F2), which require a conditional use permit.
For the purposes of this report, which examines general patterns and trends, just a vacant
residential land analysis was conducted.
g R'
The following methodology was utilized to create the vacant residential lands maps using
Geographic Information System (GIS). As outlined below, the analysis began with all properties
in zoning districts that allow single-family dwellings outright. Tax lots were subsequently reduced
by several factors to thereby be categorized as "vacant," outlined below.
All tau Intc UiPre ,Plprtpd that fell within the following zoning districts:
a. RR10 — Rural Residential
b. MUA10 —Multiple Use Agricultural
c. TER—Terrebonne Residential
d. TERS— Terrebonne Residential 5-Acre
e. TUR— Tumalo Residential
f. TUR5—Tumalo Residential 5-Acre
g. SR 2 %2 - Suburban Low Density Residential
h. UAR 10 — Urban Area Reserve
i. Resort Communities and Destination Resorts— Black Butte Ranch, Caldera Springs,
Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Inn of the Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek, Tetherow
j. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community
2. From those selected tax lots, any tax lot that had the following structures already present
using the Assessor Data - Stat Class Codes were removed:
a. 1 & 2 family home
b. Tri-/du-/fourplex
c. Condominiums
d. MAHO/mobile Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
e. Nursing homes
f. RV park
g. Mobile home park
-10- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Note: Specific Stat Class Codes used to exclude tax lots in analysis: 110 — 254, 13A,
14A, 441— 472, and 511— 873
3. From the previous list, any tax lot that fell within designated High Ground Water was
removed from the list.
4. From the previous results, any tax lot that had the following constraints rendering them
unfit for single-family residential homes using the Assessor Data - Property Class Codes
were removed:
PROPERTY CLASS
DESCRIPTION
000
UNBUILDABLE
003
CENTRALLY ASSESSED
030
INDUSTRIAL UNBUILDABLE
831
RESORT COMMERCIAL IMPROVED
416
TRACT LAND IMPROVED - WATERFRONT
300
INDUSTRIAL VACANT LAND
921
SCHOOL - IMPROVED
821
IMPROVED GOLF COURSE
820
VACANT GOLF COURSE
26
WATER COMPANY
712
CONDOMINIUMS - LEASED LAND
549
IMPROVED WITH MANF. HOME RECEIVING FUV, NON EFU
191
IMPROVED POTENTIAL DIVIDABLE
991
OTHER MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES - IMPROVED
818
RESORT IMPROVED - GOLF COURSE FRONTAGE
80
RECREATIONAL UNBUILDABLE
5. Finally, staff planners and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analysts reviewed the
maps to remove any known anomalies in the data, such as known undevelopable lots that
weren't captured by the assessor data.
The final results are captured in the maps in Appendix A, organized by sub -area (Bend/Alfalfa,
Redmond, Sisters, Sunriver, La Pine, and destination resorts/resort communities).
The Index Map provides a general location guide. Sub -area maps are separated into three sets:
• Vacant lots in Destination Resorts, Resort Communities, and Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
-11- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
• Vacant lots in sub -areas and underlying zoning ("A" maps) — these maps illustrate the
boundaries of zoning districts, which is useful when examining neighboring development
constraints, such as land zoned for EFU
• Vacant lots in sub -areas and public land ownership ("B" maps) —these maps illustrate
lands that are publicly owned, which is useful when examining neighboring development
constraints and opportunities, particularly considering that the land in Deschutes County
is 80 percent publicly owned.
Taken together, these maps are intended to provide a general snapshot of where vacancies
exist today and how they are distributed across the county.
Data Summary
A summary of the number of vacant parcels is provided in Tables 8 and 9 below.
Number of
Table 8, Resort Areas
Vacant Lots
Destination Resorts
Caldera Springs 101
Eagle Crest 139
Pronghorn 285
I etneruw 2vv
Resort Communities
Black Butte 27
Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek 12
Urban Unincorporated Area
Sunriver 118
Total Vacancies, Resort Areas
882
Table 9, Rural Residential Areas
I Number of
Vacant Lots
Rural Residential Zones
Rural Residential
2439
Multiple Use Agriculture
518
Suburban Low Density Rural Residential
32
Urban Area Reserve
292
Rural Communities
Tumalo (TUR/TUR5)
32
Terrebonne (TER/TER5)
134
Total Vacancies, Rural Residential Areas
3447
-12- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Looking at the maps, it appears that the amount of vacant residential land varies greatly among
destination resorts and resort communities. For instance, Pronghorn has approximately 285
vacant lots out of 464 total, whereas Black Butte Ranch has 27 vacant lots of its 1,346 total.
Vacant residential lots in destination resorts can potentially be attributed to a number of factors,
including price point, target demographic, amenities, and location. Despite the complexity of
these factors, each vacant lot nevertheless represents a potential unit of housing.
Looking at residential subdivisions in the Bend and Alfalfa area, it appears that vacant residential
lots are fairly evenly distributed around the periphery of the City of Bend's UGB, with
opportunities slightly concentrated to the north and east. Map 3b, which shows public land
ownership in the area, illustrates the development constraints to the south and southwest
(Forest Service ownership) and further east (BLM ownership).
La Pine's vacant residential lands are fairly evenly distributed in one general area to the north
and west of the city, even when accounting for high ground water lots that are undevelopable;
development constraints due to Forest Service and BLM land lie to the south and east.
In Redmond, residential development is constrained in the southeast by BLM land and to the
east, adjacent to their UGB by Deschutes County -owned land; vacant parcels of varying sizes are
scattered around the remaining periphery, with a cluster of vacancies in Terrebonne to the north.
There are few vacant parcels adjacent or nearly adjacent to the Redmond UGB.
Vacant residential lands in the Sisters area are largely found to the northeast in areas zoned Rural
Residential (111110). While Forest Service land restricts development to the west, south, and
northwest, there is also a loose cluster of vacant parcels along U.S. 20 between Tumalo and the
City of Sisters.
In the residential subdivision areas south of Sunriver, development areas, which are zoned RR-
10, are largely surrounded by public lands owned by the Forest Service and BLM, but areas of
vacant residential land extend in clusters down to La Pine.
Anticipated, Reside nti All Lots
Table 10 lists potential opportunities for future residential development; that is, areas not yet
platted but slated for applications or approval in the future.
Table 10, Future Opportunities for
Rural Residential Lots
Count
Thornburgh Destination Resort
950
Caldera Springs Destination Resort Phase 2
340
West Side Transect
187
Tumalo Irrigation District Rezoned Parcel
72
Gopher Gulch (North of Bend)
10
Future Opportunities, Rural Residential Lots
1,559
-13- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Conclusion
The number of vacant residential tax lots provides one aspect of the housing picture in rural
Deschutes County, indicating simply that currently it is possible to locate a property on which a
single family home might be built. A more in-depth buildable lands analysis would likely remove
some of the mapped vacancies from the list due to individual site constraints, but the potential
for nonfarm and template dwellings could provide a counterbalance to this reduction.
TWELVE-MONTH
Thus far, this report has summarized several factors that affect housing supply and demand in
the county: population trends and vacant land. However, the existence of vacant land does not
necessarily mean it will be affordable. This section summarizes recent county sales data provided
by the Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR) in an effort to better understand housing
cost in various areas of Deschutes County over the last year. Tables 11 and 12 summarize single-
family and manufactured home sale prices over the last 12 months (September 2019 - August
2020). Sale prices are separated by geographic sub -region, including resort communities; they
largely correspond to the areas utilized in the Vacant Residential Lands Analysis.
Table 11, 12-Month Average Sale Prices in Rural
Residential Areas
Bend Unincorporated
Average price
382 Homes
$762,134.55
56 Manufactured Homes
$342,381.70
Redmond Unincorporated
Average price
190 Homes
$502,766.16
37 Manufactured Homes
$291,755.84
Sisters Unincorporated
Average price
104 Homes
$659,359.20
11 Manufactured Homes
$361,086.09
La Pine Unincorporated
Average price
160 Homes
$337,876.72
100 Manufactured Homes
$234,156.50
Between Tumalo & Sisters
Average price
21 Homes
$779,514.29
5 Manufactured Homes
$365,000.00
Three Rivers South
Average price
150 Homes
$499,118.51
43 Manufactured Homes
$269,341.86
Key Points
Table 12, 12-Month Average Sale Prices in
Resort Areas
Sunriver
Average price
184 Homes
$579,958.67
Black Butte
Average price
68 Homes
$700,765.31
Inn of 7th Mt.
Average price
14 Condo
$199,200.00
5 Timeshare
$13,700.00
Widgi Creek
Average price
3 Homes
$756,666.67
Caldera Springs
Average price
25 Homes
$1,139,859.00
Tetherow
Average price
66 Homes
$1,384,302.89
Eagle Crest
Average price
93 Homes
$535,929.03
Pronghorn
Average price
8 Homes
$1,199,125.00
The most real estate activity in non -resort communities occurred in South County and near Bend.
Newer destination resorts are experiencing higher real estate values compared to the other older
-14- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
resorts. South County has the lowest relative real estate values, especially for manufactured
homes. Manufactured homes remain a more affordable option than traditional single-family
homes, with a County -wide average sale price of $280,804.
It is important to note that since the COVID-19 outbreak began in the spring of 2020 in the United
States and the region, the real estate market has become more unpredictable. In the second and
third quarters of 2020, it has been apparent that market pressure is increasing as people from
more populated areas seek homes in Central Oregon. With the uncertainty surrounding the
virus —and the larger economy —it is difficult to predict if this trend will continue, but there is no
doubt that COVID will continue to impact the real estate market in some fashion going forward
as reported by several news sources and a recent Central Oregon Realtors Association Quarter 3
Report.25, Similarly, the historic wildfires of September 2020 have resulted in significant
displacement of residents of portions of the state. It is possible that this will have an effect on
market demand in Central Oregon, including the need for manufactured homes as a housing
solution that is quicker and cheaper to establish than traditional single-family dwellings.
Rural Deschutes County possesses numerous types of residential development options currently
available to residents, assuming criteria outlined in Deschutes County Code are met. Many listed
below (*) are exclusive to Deschutes County.
• Cluster Development: Miller Tree Farm, Westgate i.e. Westside Transect Zone (WTZ)
• Destination Resorts: Caldera Springs, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, Thornburgh —
proposed *
• Destination Resort Map Amendment: Caldera Springs Expansion; other areas remain
eligible until the Bend UGB reaches a population of 100,000 *
• Dwellings in Exclusive Farm Use zone: farm dwelling, accessory farm dwelling, relative -
help dwelling, non -farm dwelling, lot -of -record dwelling, replacement dwelling, and
temporary hardship dwelling
• Dwellings in Forest Use zone: lot -of -record dwelling, large tract dwelling, template
dwelling, temporary hardship dwelling, and caretaker dwelling for fish hatchery or park
• Exclusive Farm Use Subzones *
• Measure 37 and 49: Property rights claims — the right to land divide and/or build homes
as compensation for land use regulations imposed after owners acquired their properties.
A map of Measures 37 and 49 claims appears in Appendix A.
• Resort Communities: Black Butte, Inn of 7th Mountain, Widgi Creek
• Rural Residential Exception Areas: RR-10, MUA-10, UAR-10, SR 2.5, WTZ
• UGB Amendments — Affordable Housing Pilot Projects: Housing Bill (HB) 4079 and HB
2336 *
• Unincorporated Communities: Terrebonne, Tumalo, Sunriver
2s https://www.coar.com/files/2020_Market_Stats/ECONW_COAR_2O20_Q3_Report.pdf
-15- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Historic Accessory Dwelling Units: Dwellings built before 1945 in MUA, RR-10, SR 2 %:, and
UAR-10 zones on parcels larger than two acres are permitted to be converted to accessory
dwelling units and one additional housing unit may be developed on a property subject
to certain criteria.
Nonfarm Dwelling Approvals
As noted above, nonfarm dwellings are one type of residential development currently available
to Deschutes County residents in EFU zones. According to the 2016-2017 Farm and Forest Report
issued by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to the Legislature in
January 2019, Deschutes County issued the most nonfarm dwelling approvals in Oregon between
1994 and 2017. In 2016 and 2017, Deschutes County issued 19 and 17 nonfarm dwelling
approvals respectively.26 Subsequently, there were 12 nonfarm dwelling approvals in 2018, 17 in
2019, and 9 to date in 2020 according to County records.
Key Points
Deschutes County offers the most rural residential housing opportunities in Oregon along with
Clackamas, Lane and Jackson counties based on population outside of UGBs. It has the most
resort communities and destination resorts as well as one of the largest urban unincorporated
communities, Sunriver. It is also the only county with EFU subzones that allow for the smallest
EFU parcel sizes in Oregon. The County rates in the top third annually for the number of approved
nonfarm dwellings. it appears to have the largest number of lots located in rural residential
exception areas, leading to notable cluster developments. Lastly, the Cities of Bend and Redmond
are the only two municipalities taking advantage of HB 4079 and HB 2336, which allow for
expedited UGBs amendments to address affordable housing.
CURRENT HOUSING INITIATIVE'S
Below is a sampling of recent initiatives/programs of Deschutes County's commitment to address
housing. Some of these projects are underway and some have recently begun, but all have the
potential to affect housing in varying capacities.
Cities of Bend / Redmond Affordable Housing Projects
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) currently supports the Cities of Bend and Redmond
with their affordable housing pilot projects. In 2016, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 4079
which formed a pilot program aimed to help cities build affordable housing. The program allows
two cities to add new housing units on lands currently outside their UGBs without going through
the normal UGB expansion process. The law directed the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) to set up a process to select two pilot projects: one for a city with a
26 https://www oreaonlegislature.gov/committees/senr/Reports/2016%20-
%202017%200regon%20Fa rm%20and%20Forest%20( report). pd
-16- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
population up to 25,000, and one for a city with a population greater than 25,000. The selected
cities can use an expedited UGB process if at least 30 percent of the newly built housing is
affordable and the newly added land is protected for this use for at least 50 years. LCDC adopted
rules, OAR 660-039 that provided the details on the pilot program process and project
requirements. In November 2018, DLCD selected the City of Bend over the City of Redmond for
the state's pilot program. On April 16, 2019, the Governor signed House Bill 2336, amending HB
4079 to allow the City of Redmond to take advantage of the second pilot program since no other
jurisdictions up to 25,000 submitted proposals.
The City of Bend continues to explore annexing 35 acres on the east side of Bend. The City of
Redmond recently submitting a UGB amendment application for 40 acres east of Redmond. This
land was donated by Deschutes County last November. The project, Skyline Village, anticipates
having 485 housing units, along with parks, trails, and a day care facility. Half of those units are
anticipated for affordable housing, intended for families who earn 80% of Redmond's average
median income or less.
�si(Cilt�bng ConaG?rflurr-1, PartnG:IshiiEps
Deschutes County partners with Neighborlmpact, Housing Works, Veterans Village, and other
organizations to address affordable housing. Notable initiatives in recent years include:
• In 2008, the County collaborated on a project in La Pine that provided for the
development of 26 units of affordable housing to residents 55-years or older, known as
the Little Deschutes Lodge. The project was primarily funded through Oregon Housing
and Community Services; the County contributed approximately 4.5 acres.
• In 2018, the County donated 1.85 acres to La Pine/Sunriver Habitat for Humanity for the
purpose of developing 19 units of affordable multi -family town homes/housing called
Putney Place in La Pine. To date, approximately 6 units have been completed.
• In 2018, the County donated 2 parcels to Redmond Habitat for Humanity for the purpose
of developing affordable housing. The two properties had some challenges in terms of
cost to bring in infrastructure, so Habitat inquired whether the County would support
them selling the properties and reinvesting proceeds in other viable property. The Board
supported the request and Habitat has listed them for sale.
• In 2017, the County donated 2.5 acres to Housing Works for the purpose of developing
45 units of affordable multi -family housing. The Hawks View Estates opened in 2019 and
provides a mix of one-, two- and three bedroom units in La Pine. The affordable property
is income -restricted to households making at or below 60% of the area median income
with rents starting at $596.
• In 2019 the City of Redmond was selected by the State for a pilot affordable housing
program as provided by House Bills 2336 and 4079. In December 2019, the City and
-17- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
County entered into a land donation agreement outlining the County's commitment to
donate 40 acres in east Redmond to the City for the development of 485 housing units;
half will be affordable housing. Once the City has completed the partition process for the
40 acres (approximately January 2021) and the partition plat has been recorded, the
County will proceed with the process of conveying the property to the City. The City then
will proceed with master planning the property with a goal to begin construction of initial
phases in Spring 2023.
• In 2019, Bend Heroes Foundation approached the County concerning a project to provide
housing to homeless veterans. When House Bill 4212 passed, County -owned property
located on the Public Safety Campus in the City of Bend was considered for the project
and subsequently, the County committed to providing the 1.25 acres and limited funding
to capitalize and operate the program. Bend Heroes is in the final design stages that will
ultimately provide 15 units of "tiny" housing along with 'a supportive modular unit,
parking and infrastructure. It is anticipated the first units will come online end of
2020/early 2021.
G(owfll't P%A,,anaraern nt Uzi"., ft
Deschutes County applied for and was awarded a Transportation Growth Management (TGM)
grant from DLCD for $75,000 for two projects, one being an update to the Tumalo Community
Plan. The Tumalo Community Plan will address housing in an unincorporated community, one of
the potential elements of a housing strategy in the County.
DLCD Tedhnica�.` AsMistance Grant
Deschutes County was awarded a Technical Assistance (TA) Grant by DLCD to perform work on
1) Wildfire mitigation strategies and 2) Goal 5 wildlife inventory updates. These tasks both
contribute to the overall framework of development constraints and opportunities in terms of
developable land on a large scale as well as parcel -specific guidelines. The outcomes of both of
these grant tasks, which are anticipated to be complete by late Spring 2021, will directly inform
potential housing strategies, and specifically the location and mitigation measures of potential
new housing.
Non-PrImfe Resource Lands
According to a DLCD Rural Resource Lands Report, from 2008 to 2018, 24 zone changes to non -
resource designations occurred in Oregon. More than 25% took place in Deschutes County. The
Board is currently focusing on legislative policy amendments that address six rural residential
areas platted or conveyed prior to State enabling planning legislation taking effect in Deschutes
County. These areas are subject to strict EFU or Forest Use zoning requirements established in
State law that affect the siting of new dwellings, remodels, additions and accessory structures.
-18- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
Upon acknowledgment of the Non -Prime Resource lands policies, Deschutes County will propose
a new zone that allows rural residential uses to be permitted outright rather than conditionally.
Terrebonne f ter Feasibility Study
Terrebonne is served by a water district but does not have a community sanitary sewer system
or utility. With the exception of two small, private systems serving two relatively new residential
subdivisions, properties rely upon on -site sanitary sewer systems. Sanitary sewer system
feasibility has previously been explored in Terrebonne, most recently in 1999 and prior to that in
1982. Although a community sanitary sewer system was deemed feasible in the 1999 study, the
system was not pursued for a variety of reasons. According to data provided by the
Environmental Soils Division, the number of malfunctioning septic systems appears to be
increasing. Providing Terrebonne with sanitary sewer would preserve existing housing by
providing a wastewater treatment option in the event a septic cannot be replaced —a health and
safety improvement for existing properties —and provide potential for additional development
in the area. The feasibility study is currently underway; the website for the project is below, and
includes an overview of the project, a link to a survey as part of community conversations, and
frequently asked questions.
https://online-voice.netZterrebonne/
-19- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
S Y ON 2 G, LOOKING FORWARD
In addition to the existing options for residential development listed in Section 1, staff has
identified additional paths forward to further pursue housing strategies. Some efforts have the
tools in place and are poised to be initiated if desired; others require additional action or
exploratory work prior to initiating.
The 2020 Census concluded its count in October 2020. The data emerging from the census in
2021 will provide the best available snapshot of the County and surrounding areas, and will allow
deeper and more precise analysis of existing conditions. The data utilized in the Draft Housing
Profile largely came from the American Community Survey, which is an interim product that
provides estimates of certain geographies, usually limited to cities of a certain size. The 2020
Census data will allow a more fine-grained approach, drilling down into census tracts and block
groups for analysis of sub -areas within the County.
The Census Bureau is expected to announce new population counts by December 31, 2020. Other
census data is expected beginning in Spring 2021 for Deschutes County, Cities of Bend, La Pine,
Redmond and Sisters, and census tracts and block groups. The Community Development
Department will analyze and summarize the data for the Planning Commission and the Board.
Noteworthy statistics worth revisiting include but are not limited to:
• Sex and age
o Total population
o Male / Female
• Race
• Total housing units
o Occupied housing units
o Vacant housing units
o Homeowner vacancy rate
o Rental vacancy rate
• Selected monthly owner costs as a percentage of household income
• Gross rent
o Gross rent as a percentage of household income
• Household income
-20- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
o Monthly household costs as a percentage household income over the last 12 months
• Total households
o Average household size
Housing tenure
o Owner occupied housing units
o Rental occupied housing units
Property Audit
Some of the land owned by the County could present opportunities for residential development
depending on a number of factors. Staff —Property Management and Facilities, with assistance
from the Planning Division and Information Technology —could audit County -owned land by size
(removing parcels less than 0.75 acre, for example), zoning designation, groundwater constraints
and related factors to determine development potential.
Conventional Housing Combining Zone: The CHC zone (DCC Chapter 18.92) was created
by petition prior to the adoption of PL-15, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance in 1979. It
requires homes to be "conventional or modular housing permanently attached to real
rnrnrnorty," The "permanent attachment" requirement precludes people from living out of
mobile homes on CHC properties. This zoning district applies to three large areas near
Bend to the north, northwest, and east. Repealing the CHC would give those properties
the potential to provide affordable housing in the form of mobile or manufactured homes,
which are less expensive alternatives to stick -built or modular housing. A map of the
Conventional Housing Zone appears in Appendix A.
Rural Accessory Dwelling Units in Unincorporated Communities: Rural ADUs may be
allowed in unincorporated communities under state law, but not under County Code.
The County could amend Code to allow ADUs in some or all unincorporated community
with siting and infrastructure standards.
1 G,I`uC Nc;ighbor'hoodll Pkinnmg Area
If initiated, this project would create area plans for the 368 acres of County -owned property in
the Newberry Neighborhood in La Pine —a unique and timely opportunity to add to the housing
supply in the region and increase the available mix of housing types. The current comprehensive
plan and development code are a mix of legacy zoning from when the County was the land use
authority prior to La Pine's 2006 incorporation and the City's first comprehensive plan and
development code. By delineating the allowable densities, this project could provide a range of
housing types from single-family to multi -family; lay out a network of convenient pedestrian and
-21- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
bicycle facilities; identify neighborhood commercial nodes to reduce travel outside the
neighborhood; identify open spaces to increase livability; and provide general directions on
residential designs to encourage visual cohesion. If initiated, the project would review and
amend as necessary the City's comprehensive plan and development code to implement the area
plans. The County applied for a TGM grant to update this neighborhood plan, but was not
awarded the grant.
"11�11 1D�11PYJI /lib T �1C
Although Deschutes County has numerous prospects to expand residential development as
noted in the sections above, it is important to emphasize before committing to any specific
initiative that some of these opportunities face challenges with respect to state law. The Oregon
land use system is designed to concentrate the majority of growth within UGBs; the following
laws could potentially affect certain initiatives.
• Goal 3, Agricultural Lands and OAR 660, Division 33 contains rigorous standards for
siting a dwelling on EFU lands. Recent case law may limit nonresource lands
oppor tui pities (DLCD et al vs. Douglas Caunty).
• ORS 215.264 and OAR 660-033-0145 restrict land dividing EFU and Forest Use lands.
• Goal 4, Forest Lands and OAR 660, Division 6 contains rigorous standards for siting a
dwelling on Forest Use lands. Recent case law may limit nonresource lands
opportunities (DLCD et al vs. Douglas County).
• OAR 660, Division 4: Prohibits new rural residential areas from having a minimum lot size
lower than 10 acres without taking an exception to Goal 14 (Urbanization).
• ORS 197.455: New destination resorts are prohibited in Deschutes County once the City
of Bend's UGB reaches 100,000 (24 air miles).27
• Goal 11 exception to allow sewer systems in South County regionally was remanded by
the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in 2015.
27 Portland State University's Population Research Center certified estimate for the City of Bend forJuly 1, 2019
was 91,385.
-22- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile
fir hftiati{Rfes is �.equiiflitnrg 1.egiMadve Action
Given the challenges noted above, the following housing opportunities would require action by
the Legislature in order to pursue.
• Rural Accessory Dwelling Unit Legislation: State law does not currently allow ADUs on
rural properties. The Board continues to support legislation that would allow them.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.3.5 (Rural Housing) supports initiating
discussions with the State to permit ADUs in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural
Residential Zones. While a bill allowing rural ADUs failed to pass in the 2019 and 2020
legislative sessions, the concept appears to have bi-partisan leading into the 2021 session.
The allowance of rural ADUs could dramatically affect the housing landscape in Deschutes
County, providing smaller -scale housing opportunities throughout rural residential
exception areas.
• Remove "pilot" from HB 4079 (large cities) and HB 2336 (small cities) to allow UGB
expansions for mixed market rate and affordable housing neighborhoods.
• Other
Destination Resorts:
Allot- nrni Ic h" nest rniintina them ac canarnta rlwallinc�.t in the 2:1 or 2.5:1 residential
• ruwvv ---- --- -- - to overnight lodging ratio requirements.
• Allow affordable housing onsite for employees.
Manufactured Home Parks:
• Allow new and expanded manufactured home parks.
• Allow manufactured home park lots to be subdivided and allow tiny homes rather
than just manufactured homes.
Other
-23- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile