Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-37-Minutes for Meeting January 13,2021 Recorded 2/9/2021
�C�vT E S CCGZ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 10:00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2021-37 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 02/09/2021 8:40:36 AM ✓}` j Fs cc Il l I 1111 I I'll �" I"II�I II 111 2 2021-37 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY Wednesday, January 13, 2021 BARNES & SAWYER ROOIT175 VIRTUAL MEETING OR Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (via Zoom conference call); and Sharon Keith, Board Executive 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.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: Commissioner DeBone acknowledge an email sent through the Citizen Input line by Gladys Sappington. A copy of the email is attached to the record of this meeting. Commissioner DeBone reported there is a virtual meeting with the Governor's office today providing an update on the COVID19 pandemic. Commissioner Adair commented on the impact to our community. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 1 OF 10 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. ADAIR: Move approval of Consent Agenda CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-002, Correcting a Scrivener's Error Within Resolution No. 2020-068 2. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Jeff Amaral to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 3. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Allen Hammerman to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 4. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Matthew Flautt to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 5. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Julie Craig to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 6. Consideration of Board Signature to thank Cheryl Davidson of the Deschutes County Fair Board 7. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Rebecca Timms of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 8. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Trudy Townsend of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 9. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Suzanne DeTurk of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 10.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Robert Byczkoski of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 11.Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Christina Lee to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 12.Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Nicole Phelps to the Two Rivers Special Road District 13.Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Bill Swanson to the Fall River Estates Special Road District 14. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Mike Skjold of the Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 10 15.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Flora Bates of the Sun Mountain Ranches Special Road District 16.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Linda LeMaster of the River Forest Acres Special Road District 17.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Rebecca Yaeger of the Forest View Special Road District 18.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Luda Bollons of the Pinewood Country Estates Special Road District 19.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Chris Strange of the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 20.Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Lee Lucas of the Panoramic Access Special Road District 21.Approval of Minutes of the December 30, 2020 BOCC Meeting 22.Approval of Minutes of the January 4, 2021 BOCC Meeting CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT • Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Mark Murray of the Sunriver Service District Managing Board • Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Gerhard Beenen to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board ADAIR: Move approval CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 10 ACTION ITEMS: 23.COVID 19 Update: Dr. George Conway, Director of Health Services and Public Health Director Nahad Sadr-Azodi (via Zoom conference call) provided the COVID19 Update. Presentation is attached to the record. 24.CARES ACT Funding Update: Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn (via Zoom conference call) presented the status of the CARES Act Funding. 25.Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-097, Notice of Intent to Award Contract to Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company for Deschutes County Courtroom Remodel Project Facilities Department Director Lee Randall and Project Manager Dan Hopper (via Zoom conference call) presented the item for consideration. Bids for the project were opened on December 10, 2020. Four bids were received and Kirby Nagelhout was the low responsible/qualified bidder. ADAIR: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2021-097 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 26.Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-091, Intent to Award 2021 Qualified Pool of Fuel Reduction Contractors County Forester Ed Keith (via Zoom conference call) presented this item for consideration. The qualified pool is an annual process soliciting contractors for fuel reduction projects to be awarded throughout the year. Thirteen contractors submitted interest for the year 2021. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 10 CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2020-091 ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAI R: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 27.Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-096, Certification of Title III Expenses for 2020 Calendar Year County Forester Ed Keith (via Zoom conference call) presented this item for consideration. Title III funding is allocated for work expended on projects in three categories: fire wise communities program, search and rescue on Forest Service Lands, and development and implementation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans. The Department of Agriculture requires expenses are certified on an annual basis. ADAIR: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2021-096 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 28.Consideration of Consent for Road Department Submittal of All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Application for Installation of Speed Feedback Signs on Various County Roads County Engineer Cody Smith (via Zoom conference call) presented the item and reviewed the projects that would be considered under this application. CHANG: Move approval of the Grant Application ADAIR: Second BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 5 OF 10 VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 29.Discussion and Consideration of Complaint Under the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan Senior County Legal Counsel Chris Bell (via Zoom conference call) presented this item along with Tom Kuhn, Public Health, and lead for the Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee. Mr. Bell reported complaints have been received claiming violations of the County's adopted ASA Plan. Mr. Kuhn provided background of the complaint. The Committee is requesting assignment/direction from the Commissioners. ADAIR: Moved to assign the complaint to the ASA Committee for investigation CHANG: Second A report will be brought to the Commissioners in 30 days. VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECESS: At the time of 12:00 p.m. the Board went into recess and reconvened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 30.2021 Legislative Session Preview Communications Director Whitney Hale presented and introduced PAC West lobbyist staff via Zoom conference call Phil Scheuers and Ryan Tribbett. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 6 OF 10 County Administrator Anderson explained the contract between Deschutes County and PAC West for legislative services. Mr. Scheuers and Mr. Tribbett reviewed the upcoming legislative session process. A legislative bill report will be presented to the Board next week. During the 2021 legislative session, a weekly call with legislators will be scheduled. 31.FIRST READING: Consideration of Board Signature of Ordinance No. 2021-002, Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Community Development Department Planner Matt Martin (via Zoom conference call) presented this item for consideration of first reading. County Administrator Anderson noted a minor correction to be made on the Exhibits B and C. Assistant Legal Counsel Adam Smith (via Zoom conference call) recommended the motion include the correction. ADAIR: Move approval of first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2021-002 with minor corrections to Exhibit B and C as noted by staff DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Abstain DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner DeBone read the Ordinance No. 2021-002 by title only into the record. 32.Discussion: Road Name Assignment Community Development Department Planner Caroline House (via Zoom conference call) presented this item. An order will come before the Board at a future meeting to assign the subject road name. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 7 OF 10 33.Discussion on Hearings Officer Recommended Approval of 1) Comprehensive Plan Designation from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and 2) Expansion of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary; Both Are to Accommodate Redmond Affordable Housing Pilot Project Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell (via Zoom conference call) presented the item. Presentation is attached to the record. A public hearing will be scheduled before the Board. 34.Preparation for Public Hearing: 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 Commissioner Adair is an adjoining property owner and has previously recused herself from hearing this matter; Commissioner Adair excuses herself from the meeting/presentation. Commissioner Chang mentioned a familiarity with some of the parties involved with this subject matter but noted that he is able to remain fair and impartial. Community Development Department Planner Tarik Rawlings and Assistant County Counsel Adam Smith were present via Zoom conference call to prepare the Commissioners for the public hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Note: Commissioner Adair returned to the meeting for the following: OTHER ITEMS / COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Commissioner Chang expressed interest in exploring a ballot measure for designating the County Commissioner positions as non -partisan., He would ask for staff research on the mechanics of this proposed ballot measure. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the concept has been around since he BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 8 OF 10 came into office but has never been a formal ask. Commissioner Adair stated she is not supportive of that measure and finds that the current partisan system works. Commissioner DeBone would support having staff review the issue and provide the Board with information for discussion at a future Board meeting. • Commissioner Adair expressed her concern for the community and commented on the significant and ongoing financial impacts to our Deschutes County businesses during the COVID19 pandemic and asks the Board what can be done to provide additional assistance and ensure the vaccinations are available. Commissioner DeBone would support a letter to the Governor's office to advocate for the opening of businesses with appropriate safety procedures in place. Commissioner Chang is interested in a letter of support of relaxing controls on businesses contingent on the County identifying a package of innovative ideas for how Deschutes County will control risk of COVID in our community. • Commissioner DeBone asked the County Administrator and Communications Director to draft a letter. County Administrator Anderson reported the City of Redmond has asked for local flexibility for businesses. Commissioner DeBone supported a concept of allowing a business to open under certain conditions. Commissioner Adair would like a response from the OHA regarding Deschutes County's letters sent December 18, 2020 and December 21, 2020. Commissioner Chang wanted to emphasize there are high case counts in our community and if we ask for flexibility then we have to demonstrate we are going to control COVID in some other way to make it safe for the community. • Commissioner DeBone reported was interviewed on KBND as well as the Bend Bulletin. • County Administrator Anderson presented for consideration a letter of support to the Bureau of Reclamation asking for a grant application by COIC for resources to support their staff in support of the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative. Commissioner Chang noted the importance of Collaborative groups and their work on capital projects for the community. Commissioner DeBone noted Deschutes County doesn't generally have authority over water resources in land use but is instead under the state's domain. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 9 OF 10 CHANG: Move support of Board signature ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 3:37 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (f) Consideration of Information Exempt from Disclosure by Law. The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:29 p.m. This matter was informational only at this time. ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:29 p.m. DATED this Day 2021 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: War *00 COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 PAGE 10 OF 10 BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2021 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www. deschutes. org/meetings. 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. 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 directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings. Beginning on May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will be conducted 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. 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: citizeninput@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 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 Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 1 of 6 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 (for items not on this Agenda) [Note: Because COVID-19 restrictions may limit or preclude in person attendance, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by 9:00am on the day of the meeting.] CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2021-002 Correcting a Scrivener's Error Within Resolution 2020-068. 2. Consideration of Board signature to reappoint Jeff Amaral to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 3. Consideration of Board signature to reappoint Allen Hammerman to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 4. Consideration of Board signature to reappoint Matthew Flautt to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 5. Consideration of Board signature to reappointJulie Craig to the Noxious Weed Advisory Board 6. Consideration of Board signature to thank Cheryl Davidson of the Deschutes County Fair Board 7. Consideration of Board signature to thank Rebecca Timms of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 8. Consideration of Board signature to thank Trudy Townsend of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 2 of 6 9. Consideration of Board signature to thank Suzanne DeTurk of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 10.Consideration of Board signature to thank Robert Byczkoski of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 11.Consideration of Board signature to appoint Christina Lee to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 12.Consideration of Board signature to reappoint Nicole Phelps to the Two Rivers Special Road District 13.Consideration of Board signature to reappoint Bill Swanson to the Fall River Estates Special Road District 14.Consideration of Board signature to thank Mike Skjold of the Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District 15.Consideration of Board signature to thank Flora Bates of the Sun Mountain Ranches Special Road District 16.Consideration of Board signature to thank Linda LeMaster of the River Forest Acres Special Road District 17.Consideration of Board signature to thank Rebecca Yaeger of the Forest View Special Road District 18.Consideration of Board signature to thank Lucia Bollons of the Pinewood Country Estates Special Road District 19. Consideration of Board signature to thank Chris Strange of the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 20. Consideration of Board signature to thank Lee Lucas of the Panoramic Access Special Road District 21.Approval of Minutes of the December 30, 2020 BOCC Meeting 22.Approval of Minutes of the January 4 2021 BOCC Meeting CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Consideration of Board signature to thank Mark Murray of the Sunriver Service District Managing Board Consideration of Board signature to appoint Gerhard Beenen to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board RECONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY ACTION ITEMS 23.COVID19 Update 24.CARES Act Funding Update 25.Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-097 Notice of Intent to Award Contract to Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company for Deschutes County Courtroom Remodel Project. - Lee Randall, Facilities Director 26. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-091, Intent to Award 2021 Qualified Pool of Fuel Reduction Contractors - Ed Keith, Forester 27. Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2021-096, Certification of Title III Expenses for 2020 Calendar Year - Ed Keith, Forester 28. Consideration of Consent for Road Department Submittal of All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Application for Installation of Speed Feedback Signs on Various County Roads - Cody Smith, County Engineer 29. Discussion and Consideration of Complaint Under the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan - Christopher Bell, LUNCH RECESS 30. 1:00 PM 2021 Legislative Session Preview - Whitney Hale, Communications Director 31. 2:00 PM FIRST READING: Consideration of Board Signature of Ordinance No. 2021-002 - Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial (Aceti) - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 4 of 6 32. 2:10 PM Discussion: Road Name Assignment -Joe Buck Avenue - Caroline House, Assistant Planner 33. 2:20 PM Discussion on Hearings Officer's Recommended Approval of 1) Comprehensive Plan Designation from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and 2) Expansion of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary; Both Are to Accommodate Redmond Affordable Housing Pilot Project (File 247-20-000440-PA) - Peter Russell, Senior Planner 34. 2:35 PM Preparation for Public Hearing: 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. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (f) Considering Records that are Exempt from Disclosure by Law ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings 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. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 5 of 6 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 Wednesday, January 13, 2021 Page 6 of 6 � 0 u � � � Lun Cali C ,Lu > � Cli 4-J o nm ai 'sa � u 2 3 / .• al / lJ J P ; C;�dti FN ems' 6s21, �l oell 9 1, �l't� err s 'C", lj®l �i6' s/ 60 , ijep 1n l 9,l 9, Off, ��9 91osO•S l c'is9 iS, 6 act; S ® CD v c 0 v V) rB c 0 V) v r c 0 4- (3) 0 c v v 3 V) F L 0 ro 4� ro N O r- N O N 00 O N O O O O O O O O O N V- O 00 � T- Iq NO Oc, spa` �9 �C,�rr r cr o �r L Q) EN rr/r 2 o -- 0 0 ��or ter% 2 jr ) +� 0 r/ Or Or ro L v 0 c N o 61 4� N j r S,60 w Ln L ro Q c`' �lp O v U 4- .9r�S ro O O ,u Q S� rz ado o - rya o ®J v Qaj cm: 6' O a� v N cu c' O �9l c rB F ro U .0 9 ate-+ i Q 9, 0 L � o N— 0 9 OS� � N S, 5 G Q w w � C �, > 0 9r� S }' O ro v�E ro ® sp = Q� to r z C El�S /s:9 oro ❑ �/ v o O o ® S l� p u N O r6 L a��r' N2 Lq 6�', C .1+ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e =ro Ln a; 00 w CD CD CDLn v o 0 0 �p z SIM 3o aagwnN v O Go"u « / u \ / / , 0 « � \ / o $ w 2 & n n L- © / a E: m .g 7 am 3 a - � / o/E: 0 _ o 4 § of U E 2 0 ® E u 2 / / G E ._ ._ - 4 ED) oC) > . U u O CL m \ n . . � . . . \ . L\ § m 6 � \ \ \ ƒ / / \ / / � �y (Pgladjaam-/ 2u /o])oiq area Ma§ � _ 2 u 0 4� u G � / _0 § m / ./ 0 � / n / O � 0 E .6 _0 ro \ u / E 0 0 Ln � � 0 k Oc, '9 Oc, C) ® 0 0 ro 0 ® ® O�''l 'Cl fa f� m � Y _ O O O O O O O O o JS o 0 0 0 0 c o o a ON N Ln LA Oo d' M N M M O ' oole1Ln00 00 M 'N o NO M Oo M ® > rB o ® Q0 u o O Lri � o ® b�i0 o O � � O o 0 3 c o c 'e M v a� O d t=))o E ® E E -r-Z � u � � e� C ® ® Q) V u � � L L) (1) S- Z m > N aa)-1 > } 91 Ui L 01 N O '' cn N O y ® ' V 1 rl ' > �D o O � ill N N Y yJ •� o m ,J � AJ = n C6 � o n a V [u 0 a 41 n n, O 41 n lA i ate.. N c� _3 soi3uno� In .i m N z I O Ln CD Ln Ln o6 LL ( I V) c 4-J o m 4-J ra 4-) ro 4-J ro U L) ro U ro ro > I rO 0 4-J IA 4-J 4-J (1) V) (A (A CL (L) CL) 0 OLO 0 0 a) W _)c so # 0 w 4a m M m N N 4) a- *- >. m m 4-0 lqr o0s's - CL CL (A IA o o 0 :r -a f-,% Cl Ch m 4.0 0 0 u U bA m >(D C 4.0 to .- 0 4-0 m E m 4.0 4- 0 E 0 0 tn is. CL r 0 E m c Ln iC = 0 sw >. E 0 E N M W > 0 M W Z U 4a m L. 41 r4 M X a!t 4mA 4-d 0 m 4-0 m 4-0 M tto cL Ln L. 0 0 4- M CL tLo M 0 0) m 4-0 L- M W 4-0 > W 0 .0 H 0 CO ell m 3 -CL Q) Q-j cullo, C: wj (VII, > Ul >, C) V VI > 75 S? Ul, > 4-� 0 UPI 0 V1, 0 ro, no L/I VI U > :3 U U 0 X: 0 5 —U U) C) 1 V) 0 US L- S,- aE) 2:1 V, E o. 1 0 z CA F- c" V1 0 -0 0 x: V1 V1 m 0 G) U bSA D n c: 0 V) (3) 1 CU n3 — > aj na OJ 0 0 Un U, E o, 0 V-1 E cU WO E cuEE ryA. 0- E JE: 03 U c c V1 > U 0 cl) 15 vi b-e (A (U m D, 0 TO Q) (v w a- Un 0 U1 > > 0 a) E 0 Q) gos w. UO U to c) aj 1 rp V) be G m 0 u 10 ro CO 0 > 0 aj CL 1 0 L- all tun a- CL Cal. COL -:31 SU1jeUD:)eAAjjua.jjn:) 0 a 0 73 CIS On u 0 UVII VA TIM 0 Ov, Q Md 0 UVIII), Col. o —01 LV 0 A co UA (UP, ul j OL in 0 0 0 C� 1; C 0 o U AW CA r0l, > i 1:n. +j" u D V11, U (IN, V), -0-- 73 01 U11 ten Un CL 0. u oul E CA I (CID V1 �� 0 c -7 tee, (Z 0 IT C) T C) CC cz OV 03 ._ ul m " cij (Zl 5 _ SO 0 raj 13� CL 0 4-4 Up A2 MIX _ Q M a Oar) 6o 3 u y Ul A l `� ul e.. �s ull top ul cm c M, ��_____ 4 � 0a Q1' o J w 05 E S CpGZ o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: January 7, 2021 FROM: Cody Smith, Road Department, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Consent for Road Department Submittal of All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Application for Installation of Speed Feedback Signs on Various County Roads RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends Board consent of submission of ARTS application by Road Department. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program is a competitive funding program administered by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that funds safety improvements on public roads in Oregon. The program funds both "hot spot" projects, which are larger capital projects that address safety issues at a single location, and systemic projects, which are projects to implement low-cost safety countermeasures across a road network. Projects are ranked and selected for funding based on their benefit -cost ratio. The Road Department has prepared an application for the current ARTS Program cycle for a systemic project to install dynamic speed feedback signs at various locations on County arterial and collector roads that have experienced a high frequency of crashes in recent years. Dynamic speed feedback signs have proven to reduce crashes by as much as 47%, and the Department has recently implemented these signs on several County roads. The County roads included in this proposal are: Alfalfa Market Rd Burgess Rd Day Rd Cline Falls Hwy Day Rd Old Bend Redmond Hwy Powell Butte Hwy S Canal Blvd S Century Dr FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The total proposed project amount is $719,740, which, if awarded, would be funded by ODOT. ATTENDANCE: Cody Smith, County Engineer (REQUEST CONSENT AGENDA) Troregon ALL ROADS TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ` Department of Transportation (ARTS) APPLICATION HOTSPOT OR SYSTEMIC? Systemic AGENCY ODOT REGION COUNTY CITY (IF APPLICABLE) DESCHUTES COUNTY Region 4 Deschutes County Contact Information PROJECT ENGINEER NAME AND TITLE PROJECT ENGINEER PHONE PROJECT ENGINEER EMAIL COLBY GEDEROS, PE, TRANSPORTATION fi 541-322-7130 COLBY.GEDEROS@DESCHUTES.ORG PROJECT SPONSOR NAME AND TITLE PROJECT SPONSOR PHONE PROJECT SPONSOR EMAIL CODY SMITH, PE, COUNTY ENGINEER 541-322-7113 CODY.SMITH@DESCHUTES.ORG rroiect information NAME Its project on a state highway? ❑ Yes ❑X No ROUTE NUMBER STREET NAME INTERSECTING CROSS STREETS OR FROM X TO Y ALFALFA MARKET RD MP 0.0 TO MP 9.44 BURGESS RD MP 0.0 TO MP 5.10 CLINE FALLS HWY MP 0.0 TO MP 10.24 DAY RD MP 0.0 TO MP 3.50 OLD BEND-REDMOND HWY MP 7.32 TO MP 13.86 POWELL BUTTE HWY MP 8.0 TO MP 18.03 S CANAL BLVD MP 3.94 TO MP 7.32 SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE MP 2.15 TO MP 5.19 Project Cost: $719,740.00 Benefit/Cost Ratio: Countermeasures Select countermeasures. Click the "+" button to add another line, maximum of four. Click the "—" button to delete the line 11 HOTSPOT OR SYSTEMIC? �C/MNUMBER COUNTERMEASURE Systemic + Scope Description Be specific and include all intended work, not limited to countermeasures. (See instructions for examples) Install Dynamic Speed Feedback signs on Alfalfa Market Rd, Burgess Rd, Cline Falls Hwy, Day Rd, Old Bend -Redmond Hwy, Powell Butte Hwy, S Canal Blvd and South Century Dr. Overlapping scope or location with another project application? ❑ Yes ❑X No Other Stakeholders/Coordination Examples: Local city, local county, ODOT, school district, transit agency Narrative Questions These narrative questions are intended to provide additional project details for the application reviewers and project files Problem description and need Describe how the agency identified the project as one of its top safety priorities. Describe the primary causes of the collisions that have occurred within the project limits. Are there patterns in the crash types? Provide a description of the specific problems and/or oppotunities that exist. The corridors identified in this analysis are some of the most heavily traveled rural collectors and rural arterials on the Deschutes County road system. Each of these corridors experienced at least one serious or fatal injury crash in the 5 year period between 2014 and 2018. Driving too fast for conditions was the leading or 2nd leading cause of crashes in each of these corridors and caused between 15% (Burgess Rd) and 42% (Alfalfa Market Rd) of all crashes. 2. Potential solution to reduce fatalities and serious injuries Provide your proposed solutions. How will they address the problems/opportunities identified above? This is not a scope statement, but items key to the project meeting its purpose and addressing underlying issues. Clearly demonstrate the connection between the problem and the proposed countermeasures utilized in the Benefit/Cost Ratio calculations (or Cost Effectiveness Index.) Reducing overall speeds along the identified corridors will result in a significant reduction in all types of crashes. Speed feedback units have been found to reduce 85th percentile speeds by 2-7mph and provide a crash reduction factor of 10% (ODOT ARTS). A 734-5159 (9/2020) Page 1 of 3 Imposite Benefit/Cost analysis shows a Benetit tactor of 9.bb it 14 dynamic speea teeaDacK signs are rouahout the identified corridors. 3. Constraints, risks and leveraging opportunities Describe constraints and risks that impact the value of the project such as funding constraints, policy constraints, and schedule expectations. Are there opportunities within or adjacent to the project limits that should be considered if this project is selected. 4. Additional background information Provide any relevant background information on the problem or solutions, as well as any commitments that have been made. Summarize and attach other useful information for context, such as: findings of road safety audits, practical design considerations, previous scoping documents, planning studies, etc. Deschutes County's 2019 Transportation System Action Plan identified excessive speeds as a key trend in road user behavior accounting for 42 percent of fatal and incapacitating crashes throughout the County. Dynamic Speed Feedback signs were identified as a cost effective systemic treatment for rural roadway segments and curves. Deschutes County has now implemented Dynamic Speed Feedback units on several County roads to improve safety and decrease speeding in rural areas. Attachments Check all the attachments included in this application. Attach documents in the field below. Required Attachments ❑X Cost Estimate ❑X 2014-2018 Crash History ❑X Benefit/Cost or Cost -Effectiveness Index Worksheet(s) ❑X Aerial Vicinity Map/Location Map ❑ Traffic Evaluation* * Traffic evaluation is required only for applications including traffic control devices such as PHBs, signals, or roundabouts or any application on a state facility requiring the approval of the State Traffic Roadway Engineer, such as those included in the Traffic Manual. For applications requiring approval, the analysis shall be completed as specified in the Traffic Manual. Recommended Attachments ❑ Field Scope Verification** ❑ Conceptual Layout or Project Concept Drawing Optional Attachments ❑ Collision Diagram(s) ❑X Additional background information*** ** Pictures, field observations, user behavior *** Previous scoping documents such as planning studies, right of way certification, or signal structural sign off To add an attachment to this application, click the Add File button and browse to the file. Add document title or description to the adjacent line in the Document Name/Description field. To delete an attachment, click to highlight file name, then click the Remove File button. FILE NAME DOCUMENT NAME/DESCRIPTION ARTS Cost Estimate Detailed Speed Feedback Cost Estimate BC analysis worksheets Project Vicinity Maps Deschutes County TSAP 2019 ADD FILE OPEN FILE I REMOVE FILE Authorization and Signature To ensure the application's quality and the agency's commitment to the safety project, the application must list the Project Sponsor (the agency's Transportation/Traffic Engineering Manager). The Project Sponsor listed below attests to the following: 1. All data in the application is accurate and represents the total scope of the planned project; 2. The agency understands the Project Delivery Requirements for the ARTS Program and is prepared to meet these requirements, including matching funds if required; and 3. The agency understands if ODOT staff determine that any of the above requirements are not met, or data is inaccurate, or the application fails to meet the program guidelines and application instructions, the application will be rejected and will not be eligible to receive federal safety funding. NAME (LAST, FIRST) TITLE SIGNATURE' DATE Smith, Cody County Engineer 12/22/2020 734-5159 (9/2020) Page 2 of 3 Application and Contact Information Questions about the ARTS program can be directed to the ARTS representative in your region, who can be found using the links below. • ARTS Website: https://www oregon gov/odot/Engineer"n /Pages/ARTS asax • ARTS Application Website: hUp.//odot2020arts.com/ For questions about this form, contact: Christina McDaniel -Wilson, christina a mcdaniel-wilson@odot.state.or.us, (503) 986-3573 734-5159 (9/2020) Page 3 of 3 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `J Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) COST ESTIMATION WORKSHEET See Instructions All costs related to the proposed project must be accounted for on this worksheet including costs covered by other types of funding. List funding amounts from other sources in the "Non -Eligible Costs" section. List estimated costs for the various activities listed below, as applicable to proposed project. Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars. For each activity listed below, write a description of the items included. Please list the items separated by a comma (,) as space is limited. Project Name: DESCHUTES COUNTY ARTS 2020 - SYSTEMIC ROADWAY DEPARTURE Project Description: INSTALL DYNAMIC SPEED FEEDBACK UNITS Route Number: Street or Highway Name: MULTIPLE MP Range or Cross State: County: DESCHUTES City: Item Enter Monetary Values in this Column Description Project Administration $41,200 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING = 10% OF CN Staff Costs (for Service/Educational Projects) $0 Project Development and PE $61,700 PE = 15% OF CN Environmental Work $0 Coordination and Outreach $0 Leased Space $0 Building Purchase and/or Right of Way $0 Capital Equipment $0 Non -Construction Project Costs Total $102,900 Utility Relocation $0 Construction $411,200 Construction Project Costs Total $411,200 Total Eligible Project Cost* $719,740 Non -Eligible Costs (other project non - transportation expenditures, e.g. un- reimbursable utilities) $0 * Includes 40% contingency PROJECT VICINITY MAP December 9, 2020 1:577,791 0 3.5 7 14 mi County Route i " i 0 5 10 20 km ARTS PROJECT SEGMENT Esri, HERE, NPS Road Operations Deschutes County - Surveyors Office I Deschutes County - Road Department i Esd, HERE, NPS I Esri, HERE, NPS I 00 It li ry z w m S� `L z U U W n 0 1. y r) E Y N ch LO uO � N t!) tf) N O O Z K w x y W M O 06 0 06 a LU H I- n m J J W O a PROJECT VICINITY MAP (BEND-REDMOND AREA) December 7, 2020 1:144,448 0 0.75 1.5 3 mi Override 1 0 1.25 2.5 5 km (OLD BEND-REDMOND HWY (MP 7.32 - 13.86) S CANAL BLVD (MP 3.94 - 7.32) Esri, HERE, NPS CLINE FALLS HWY (MP 0.0 - 10.24) Road Operations Deschutes County- Surveyors Office i Deschutes County- Road Department I Esri, HERE, NPS I Esri, HERE, NPS I PROJECT VICINITY MAP (SUNRIVER-LAPINE AREA) December 7, 2020 1:144,448 0 0.75 1.5 3 mi County Route 0 1.25 2.5 5 km JRY DR (MP 2.15 - 5.19) BURGESS RD (MP 0.0 - 5.10) Esri, HERE, NPS Road Operations Deschutes County - Surveyor's Office I Deschutes County - Road Department i Esri, HERE, NPS I Esri, HERE, NPS i V �T V 1 0 CL �0�/ LL W Y Q U- _1 a LL J Q PE I a ti N � t- a � a EEkY •2 m .. u Edo E = C O m w p T E x a c = ww o v8 av; fA Z F W a o N � y, � y O q a T O EE 0 0 N N t m >. O A E w N z O 0 r� =o U 0 .,. U 4 W T O F- } fn ^' E o Y Q co N m ; 4 W w LL w U T � (L V) U � O G Q z 0 N W z v O • N N U . O 7 LO O O r 0 ry V) ,W NV QM W I ice.. tt�.h P y 4 pg� 9 1) �a zW z sam _ w � o WY � w a o r no a E Y M- E d e N e "c e ooN a U u @w n - a TE .w o W m u - Sq C 0S.c w"= o c 8�w 0 v a E 0 n — � Z n o w t w U c O a E N o w t w U .. � T C O A A z � U O N m m E o Y U Q m 0 — t Y w Z ¢ d W W L. W a T c O m L U m E o Q Z O N r d L ILL A U Z C — d • ' d N C; O CO J J LL w z U m ae FW Z dsa _tw 'm«� WY y`d H � � U c a n �Y y N = q u � � w O = W c O - „W av; 0 • IE In an 4 Gr^ 3 F 10 A l? — 2 w w wa N � Y '05 no Y E- a N ffi O C C Q m a y N N u N C c U U W o € a � � b C W S n He O c - u o _. W c W p p u - m ; c E E 0 � � o L LL = a O s 013 N2 1-wL • M O O O 06 2 W D m J J O n `Vx p>� u �n m U r=' c? IP Rd �,.%a.,b^.�F�F�i � "�ii !" ��, �+ -i�'-^�•t 3 "'� F.��. r"7�1t1 mY *i E a M rW drm c Z N = anE E r •� a Ey n Eva C 9 y c u mar o O w u a �M O S n . H O ,ova - C W a 0 W ° 9 O C V N 2 v r a • m I - 3 E a:.` w - z z i E B O � Y O n oct � a E �Y U _ m o Z N Ev9 O N 7 y N c a �U C ;eW m W c U �wi y' TE o w W � ` nd; v N Z 0 E a y, N � 4 L _ o A 0 d W 0 0 a L c U T N N O E G � U O T o Y U m rn Q m E � W a W w N m 2 d O W L w d V) T Q W E C � w 0 � w • = a t e N 4 sAk N LL f k\ '3 �m?l P9e z 'm _ w w _ wY D: g� 2 a E Y N E m e a ° Q may O m O N c �t O _U s — eW d C m @w Y n — C T "E c cl c7 w .w m o € n wY w `m - x o we w p �v Ou v=_mac fA 2 F u u 'N � L r n 0 m N ❑ N L N A O` sy� T 0 Y � A m ❑T L N Z O N N � N tl L r O Pfi Q V T 0 L W F } (n m E ❑ £ Y U o N — w v r o c W w LL 0 r o W °- V) U d W W z u C`f c • E SQO CO o A Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: January 5, 2021 FROM: Christopher Bell, Legal, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Consideration of Complaint Under the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Assign complaint for investigation BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On 11/16120 St. Charles Medical Center submitted a complaint pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan ("ASA'). Specifically the complaint involves plan franchisee La Pine Rural Fire District. Board Chair Patti Adair acknowledged the complaint on 1211120. The Board of County Commissioners oversees the ASA and is required to assign the complaint to the ASA Committee for investigation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Chris Bell, Legal; Tom Kuhn, Public Health 2500 NE Neff Road Bend, Oregon 97701 541.382.4321. www.stcharleshealthcare.org November 16, 2020 Commissioner Patti Adair, Chair of Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (VIA EMAIL - Patti.Adair@deschutes.org) ASA Administrator Tom Kuhn (VIA EMAIL - Thomas. Kuhn@deschutes.org) Deschutes County ASA Health Services Building 2577 NE Courtney Drive Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioner Adair and Administrator Kuhn: We write on behalf of St. Charles Health System Inc. ("St. Charles"), which operates several hospitals and medical facilities in Deschutes County, including clinics in La Pine called the La Pine Immediate Care Clinic and the La Pine Family Care Clinic (collectively, "St. Charles La Pine"). Please accept this letter as a complaint submitted pursuant to section 8.2 of the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan ("ASA Plan"), which states that complaints about violations of the ASA Plan shall be submitted in writing to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (the "Board"), who shall forward it to the ASA Advisory Committee (the "Committee"). This complaint concerns one of your franchisees, the La Pine Rural Fire District ("La Pine Fire"), which we believe is violating both the letter and spirit of the ASA Plan, by encouraging patients with medical emergencies not to call 911 or use emergency transport services. La Pine Fire personnel also are making inaccurate determinations about whether emergency transport is necessary, and appear to be taking direction not from a supervising physician or other qualified medical personnel. In doing so, La Pine Fire is overriding medical decisions made by medical providers, at great risk to patients. We are unaware what standard La Pine Fire is using to determine whether a patient needs emergency transport, but from our perspective, it is not the standard set forth in the ASA Plan. We attempted to resolve our concerns with La Pine Fire informally, but were unable to do so. As things currently stand, the situation is untenable, and ultimately will harm patients within La Pine Fire's exclusive service area. A. Background. Some background of this issue maybe helpful for the Board. In 2010, La Pine Fire enacted Board Policy # 02-03. Its "purpose" is to set a rate schedule for ambulance services and to ensure that "ambulance users shall bear the majority burden of the service cost in order to minimize the general property tax burden as possible while maintaining a Paramedic level service." In 2013, La Pine Fire told the Deschutes County ASA Committee that local residents are utilizing the Fire Department as a catch all for all kinds of services. La Pine Fire explained that it had one of the highest overhead rates in the state, mainly due to lack of patient access to health care facilities. Two health care clinics now exist to serve the La Pine community with non -emergent health care needs — St. Charles' La Pine Family Care Clinic (the "Clinic") and La Pine Community Health Center. As with any clinic, some small percentage of patients present with conditions that, in the judgment of the medical provider, cannot be treated at the clinic and require evaluation by physicians trained in emergency care. At times, the patient or the Clinic calls 911 for transport from the Clinic to St. Charles Bend, the closest hospital with an emergency department. Under the ASA Plan, La Pine Fire is the exclusive EMS service provider and must respond to those calls. It also has a right of first refusal for non -emergent transports. It is our understanding that La Pine Fire believes its limited resources are being exploited by non -emergent calls by non-residents. At least from St. Charles' perspective, that is false. The Clinic serves the La Pine community. If a 911 call is made by or at the request of a St. Charles medical provider, it is because a medical provider made a good faith determination that emergency transport is necessary for that patient. La Pine Fire then passed Ordinance No. 2019-03, which gives the Fire Chief authority to impose two type of "fees" on medical facilities in La Pine: (1) a non -emergency facility fee and (2) an ambulance transport fee. In either case, the Fire Chief has "sole discretion" to impose the fee if he concludes that the response was the result of a "non -emergent situation." La Pine Fire has since sought to impose hundreds of thousands of dollars of fees on the Clinic, based on the Fire Chief's opinion that a 911 call that originated from the Clinic was not an emergency situation. B. La Pine is Encouraging Patients with Emergency Conditions not to Utilize La Pine Fire. St. Charles is not asking the Board to wade into the lawfulness of the charges imposed by La Pine Fire. The subject of this complaint is La Pine Fire's repeated attempts to dissuade patients from using the 911 system, and its use of what appears to be an arbitrary standard for determining whether emergency transport is necessary. This is bad for patients and the community, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the ASA Plan and its implementing laws. La Pine Fire has been lobbying patients not to utilize the transport services that it is required to provide under the ASA. Its website directs patients with urgent and emergency conditions to visit La Pine clinics, which are not equipped to handle emergency conditions. It also discourages patients from using the 911 system, in part because of cost: Due to resources levels, travel distances, and the very high service fees to the citizen, the fire district highly recommends that for non -emergency, general medical issues, and minor emergencies and urgent care type events that are not life threatening, that citizens first utilize their own primary health care provider, the local health clinic, or urgent care facility options. The fire district reserves its ambulance for emergency 911 calls and does not provide non - emergency ambulance transport service. http://Iapinefire.org/emergency-medical-services/ St. Charles is also concerned about the level of patient care being provided by La Pine Fire following 911 calls, based on La Pine Fire's belief that patients and their medical providers are exploiting the 911 system. The Clinic's staff has observed EMS providers attempting to talk patients out of emergency transport. Staff also has observed EMS providers speaking to someone over the phone, apparently regarding whether to transport a patient. If non -medical personnel are actively intervening and directing paramedics with respect to patient transport decision, this would be a serious breach of the ASA and unsafe for patients. C. La Pine Fire is Using an Improper Definition of Emergency. It is unclear what standard La Pine Fire is using to determine whether a patient needs emergency transport, but it appears to be inconsistent with the ASA and the standard of care. This is no small issue. An improper emergency standard impacts the level of care being provided, casts a chilling effect on the appropriate use of 911, increases the risk of harm to patients, and the risk of liability for medical providers and your franchisees. The ASA defines "emergency care" as "the performance of acts or procedures under emergency conditions in the observation, care and counsel of persons who are ill or injured or who have disability ***." This definition is taken from ORS 682.025(3). The ASA also provides criteria for when a patient is considered "stable." (ASA at p. 6.) It is our understanding that La Pine Fire believes that local clinics should treat patients who need "emergency care" and are not "stable," even under these definitions. This suggests that La Pine Fire believes that these local clinics have such capacities. They simply do not. We have numerous examples of La Pine Fire utilizing an "emergency" standard that is different than that utilized by our medical providers, the ASA and Oregon law. The following are a few examples where La Pine Fire concluded that the 911 system was improperly utilized: Patient with history of ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest presented with complaints of a recent GI illness (vomiting and epigastric pain into the back) followed by a new syncopal event one hour before with eyebrow laceration. On evaluation patient had hypotension with EKG revealing a prolonged QTc of 493, at risk for dysrhythmia. A patient with prior ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest presenting with a prolonged QTc as well as a new onset syncopal event is at risk for life -threatening ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death. Patient with substernal chest pain and nausea on and off x 2 weeks, ECG concerning for STEMI, with an elevated troponin level. Last medical visit 6+ years ago. Following transport patient sent directly from ER to Cath Lab. Patient with severe reactive airway disease exacerbation, initial SpO2 52%, breathing 40 times per minute, unable to talk and cyanotic. Although the patient's 02 saturation rate improved with oxygen and medication, concerns remained for pulmonary embolism, acute asthma exacerbation or other critical illness. Following transport patient was admitted to ICU immediately after ER evaluation. Patient with chest pain, felt she was having a heart attack. Her ECG showed a new left buddle branch block (LBBB). She remained at risk for sudden death till ACS work -up complete. Postpartum patient arrived with fever and new onset severe HA, developed hypotension (70/40) in clinic. Differential diagnosis included sepsis, encephalitis or meningitis. Patient's abnormal vital signs and risk of deterioration required ALS. Patient presented with cough, dyspnea in clinic, HR 137, RR 28 and 7/10 chest pain. Found to have atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response with a history of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) and chronic congestive heart failure. High risk patient with unstable vital signs. Patient with history of STEMI presented with worsening shortness of breath and acute pain radiating to his left arm. He had EKG changes with elevated troponin and unstable vital signs including tachypnea. On exam, reduced breath sounds were noted on both sides. Along with the patient's positive cardiac history he had chronic kidney disease (which makes troponin interpretation more challenging). Patient required nitroglycerin in clinic. Cardiac history with unstable vital signs combined with these co -morbidities required ALS transport. Patient presented with unstable vital signs - low blood pressure - on clinic arrival with hives and concern for anaphylactic reaction to air freshener he sprayed. Needed ALS transfer due to risk for biphasic reaction. In each of these situations, St. Charles believes that the patient plainly required emergency transport. La Pine Fire believed these transports were non -emergent. St. Charles is also aware of circumstances where patients called 911 from non -clinic locations, and were not transported despite potential emergency conditions. St. Charles learned of these events because patients then presented to the clinic in need of emergency care, requiring yet another activation of the 911 system. For example, a 62-year-old patient with a history of stroke, epilepsy, COPD, hypertension, prostate cancer with stage 4 metastasis, and coronary artery disease called his doctor from home. His physician advised the patient to call paramedics for hospital evaluation given his symptoms, which included 4 days of shortness of breath with fever and vomiting. La Pine Fire responded but would not recommend transfer to the hospital. The next morning the patient's caregiver called 911 again based on her observation of the patient. La Pine Fire again concluded transport was not needed. The patient went on to develop dry heaving and worsening lower right quadrant pain. This time the patient came to the St. Charles clinic reporting the above history. He again disclosed his right lower quadrant abdominal pain, nausea, fever and vomiting for 4 days along hypertension. EMS was activated given his concerning presentation, including hypertension. The medical provider's differential diagnosis included possible aortic aneurysm, appendicitis, and many other potentially serious conditions. At the hospital the patient was admitted for dehydration and acute kidney injury. It is unknown whether early hospital assessment could have avoided the acute kidney injury, but this shows the real risk to patients if La Pine Fire is utilizing an improper standard for determining whether emergency transport is necessary. D. Conclusion. St. Charles does not make this complaint lightly, and understands the financial pressure that La Pine Fire may be under. Its preference is to try to work with La Pine Fire to meet the needs of the La Pine community, but unfortunately has been unable to do so. If, as La Pine Fire suggests, they are unable 4 to maintain a financially sustainable ambulance/ EMS system in light of the needs of the community, then we would support, and would be willing to participate in, a formal evaluation of alternative models by the County Commissioners. But please note that before making this complaint, St. Charles retained an independent board certified emergency medicine expert with 30+ years of practice in Oregon, to provide an independent, neutral review of the medical records for the St. Charles patients who La Pine Fire believes did not require emergency transport. St. Charles is unable to disclose the name or opinions of this expert due to pending litigation, but please understand that St. Charles has a good faith basis for this complaint. We encourage the Board to conduct its own, independent review and draw its own conclusions. We are happy to work with the Board to provide additional information so it may investigate these issues in the manner it sees fit. Respectfully submitted, Richard Freeman, MD, MPH, FACP President St. Charles Medical Group CC: Chris Bell, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel (VIA EMAIL - Christopher. Bell@deschutes.org) Jeffrey Absalon, MD, FACP Chief Physician Executive St. Charles Health System Richard Freeman, MD, MPH, FACP President and Chief Physician Executive St. Charles Medical Group Jeffrey Absalon, MD, FACP Chief Physician Executive St. Charles Health System c/o Amy Crofcheck Executive Assistant to Jeff Absalon, MD, FACP St. Charles Health System 2100 NE Wyatt Court, Bend, OR 97701 Dear Dr. Freeman and Dr. Absalon: This letter will confirm receipt by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners of the letter of complaint from St. Charles Health System, dated November 16, 2020, concerning the La Pine Rural Fire District. I received a copy of the letter of complaint via email from Ms. Crofcheck on Friday, November 20, 2020. The Board will process the letter of complaint as soon as practicable and as required by the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area Plan and, as applicable, Chapter 8.30 of the Deschutes County Code. As that process includes a review of the allegations made in the letter of complaint by the Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee and ultimately a review of the Committee's findings by the Board, I would appreciate it if you could let us know the best person to contact at St. Charles to facilitate requests for information from the Committee during its review. Most sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Patti Adair, Chair 3C) tiJlh': tI �I���r_1 H��! J, C �v1 E S CO �C, . G� oDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: January 7, 2021 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 2021 Legislative Session Preview BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Representatives from the County's contract lobbyist, Pac/West Lobby Group will preview the upcoming 2021 legislative session. Staff will provide an overview of upcoming timelines and seek Commissioner input on the tempo and format of this year's legislative meetings. Lists of preliminary legislative issues identified by County departments are attached. These issues are intended to serve as a basis for initial discussions regarding the upcoming session and have not been adopted by the Board of Commissioners as part of a specific legislative agenda. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Phil Scheuers, Pac/West Lobby Group and Whitney Hale, Communications Director 20215ession Calendar u ® 19 Post Work Session S Sr:- )TP J ) .j ..( � WM��4°:. v�Y�)Y C`z�Y .ry `kF ✓^.�^S'J ':.� .'. ®®®® 14 Pwork session OEM OEM 28 y ��E 2nd Chambe! Ws Deadl ne ®® WS Dead Chamber mmm® 12/28/2020 Dates subject to the adoption of the 2021 Regular Session concurrent resolution. Organizational Day swearing in; first reading of pre -session filed bills. Training Days �,M:mb:r mbr and staff virtual trainings. Holiday Deadlines for bills to be requested, returned by LC, and introduced (after these deadlines, drafts/intros count against per -legislator limits). SessionImportant Does not apply to Rules, Revenue, or Joint Committees. Joint Transportation will adhere to the second chamber deadline only. Floor as Schedule Requires ISenate and House floor sessions may be called as noted by chamber schedule(s). Regular Floor Sessions ISenate and House floor sessions on all weekdays unless otherwise canceled. Date: January 7, 2021 To: Board of Commissioners From: Whitney Hale, Communications Director Subject: Preliminary Departmental Legislative Issue List In the fall, departments identified issues that may be raised during the upcoming 2021 legislative session. While not all departments were prepared to respond at this time, the following list represents those issues that are currently being monitored in preparation for the session. These issues are intended to serve as a basis for initial discussions regarding the upcoming session and have not been adopted by the Board of Commissioners as part of a specific legislative agenda to date. Commissioners • Exploring Urban Renewal Changes • Non -Prime Resource Lands • Rural ADUs • Meat Processing • TRT Modifications (LC 878) • Marijuana Tax Revenue • LC 1447 - SRS/PILT Funds Behavioral Health (in order of priority) 1. POP 409 Community BH Services - increases capacity for community mental health, continues funding for CCBHCs, increases BH workforce 2. POP 412 Aid & Assist - provides revenue to cover the additional service expectations and housing requirements for a growing Aid & Assist population 3. POP 406 Children's Mobile Crisis - funds mobile crisis and stabilization services specific to children and youth 4. POP 415 415 SRTF at Junction City - increases inpatient psychiatric beds in Oregon 5. POP 410 BH Electronic Records Clerk's Office • Elections: Allowing clerks to process ballots as soon as signatures have been verified (instead of waiting until the week before). LC 1199 • Elections: Clarifying language allowing clerks to ask the SOS for permission to not use a secrecy sleeve/envelope if other measures are taken. LC 1201 • Recording: More flexibility in hours of operation. LC 1200 • Recording: Exempting death certificates from the housing fee imposed on recorded documents. LC 1202 • Recording: Changing the name of the Board of Property Tax Appeals (BOPTA) to something that makes sense, namely the Property Values Appeals Board (PVAB). LC 1203 Community Development • Rural ADUs • Land Use and Wildfire Policy Committee (from 2020 Legislative Session HB 4054A) • Split -Zoned Parcel Partitions • Wildfire Recovery - Streamlined Process to Replace Dwellings/Structures Destroyed by Fires • Wildfire Hazard Areas - New Development (TBD) Community Justice "DV bill" (no bill number or LC number yet) - would create new misdemeanor domestic violence crime classification and for persons convicted of that crime to be counted in the community corrections funding formula. (Anticipates OAC to support the bill, no downside for counties) Bill will aim to remove all fees on juveniles in the juvenile justice system. (No bill or LC number yet) To include court fees and child support that OYA/DHS charges families when a youth is committed. (OJDDA supports this) Facilities (items of interest, no specific priorities) • Funding for Courthouses. (Funding would need to be through direct state budget appropriations. There was a change to state law that allows State bond funds to be used to expand a courthouse, however, these can only be used for seismic upgrades.) • Funding for additional judges • Changes to public procurement law • Energy code mandates from the state Finance (item of interest, no specific items this session) Funding for ongoing COVID response and recovery Human Resources (items of interest) • PERS • Changes to Employment/Labor rules and definitions • Health Plan requirements • Protected leave requirements, specifically updates/changes/extensions to the FFCRA (Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Emergency FMLA) Public Health Public Health Modernization (SB 253 in 2019) - This policy package supports implementation of key public health programs in state, local and tribal Public Health authorities and communities and creates mechanisms for increased accountability for equitable health outcomes. Not funding this policy package risks OHA's ability to ensure basic public health protections guaranteed in statute are available to every person in Oregon and challenges OHA in continuing to meet the deliverables and timelines prescribed in House Bill 3100 (2015). Tobacco Retail Licensure (Legislative Concept 2) - This policy package would establish a strong statewide licensing system for retailers that sell tobacco products and inhalant delivery systems. It would equip OHA-PHD with new tools to educate retailers about tobacco laws, and - critically - to hold tobacco retailers that sell tobacco illegally accountable. Without statewide tobacco retail licensure, Oregon cannot robustly enforce tobacco laws such as the minimum legal sales age. Beer, Wine, and Cider Tax (Legislative Concept 11) - This policy package would increase the tax on beer, wine, and cider by an amount yet to be determined. The additional revenues generated by the tax would be primarily used to address behavioral health, including substance use disorder prevention and treatment. Of interest, if pursued: o Constrain of non -medical exemptions (was HB 3063) -would be high priority o Support or assisting with emerging COVID-19 immunizations -would be high priority Natural Resources • LC 467 - Wildfire Bill Solid Waste 0 LC578 Modernizing Oregon's Recycling System AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: January 7, 2021 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: FIRST READING: Consideration of Board Signature of Ordinance No. 2021-002 - Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial (Aceti) BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applicant, Anthony Aceti, proposed a plan amendment and zone change for the subject 21.54-acre property at 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend (tax maps and lots 16-12-26C, 201 / 16-12- 27D, 104) located at the intersections of Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place/Highway 97, or what is commonly referred to as Deschutes Junction. Specifically, the proposal includes a comprehensive plan amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). On September 1, 2020, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. On October 8, 2020, the Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. On December 2, 2020, the Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. On December 30, 2020, the Board of Commissioners approved the request via oral motion and directed staff to prepare an ordinance consistent with that motion. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, * ORDINANCE NO. 2021-002 to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural Industrial, and Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial. WHEREAS, Anthony Aceti, applied for changes to both the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map (247-20-000438-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-20-000439-ZC), to change comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) to Rural Industrial (RI) and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI); and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on September 1, 2020, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on October 8, 2020, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of both the Comprehensive Plan Map change and Zoning Map change; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on December 2, 2020, before the Board of County Commissioners (Board); and WHEREAS, the Board, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, both approved the plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from AG to RI, and approved the Zoning Map amendment to change from EFU to RI via oral motion and directed staff to prepare this ordinance consistent with that motion; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit `B", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from AG to RI. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from EFU to RI for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "C." Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2021-002 Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the Decision of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: 1�ts— Recording ecretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PHIL CHANG, Vice Chair PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: /~ day Date of 2"d Reading: day of , 2021. Commissioner Anthony DeBone Phil Chang Patti Adair Effective date Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused day of , 2021. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2021-002 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS TA—X 1,01"S 16-12-26-C-00201 & 16-12-27-D-00104 A paiccl Ofland loc-alM in the; Soulllw�( ogle-qualler of Section 26 and 11w, Souflle"YM 41w1-1j1l;11tCr of 16 South, Range 12 East of the Willanictle Mert'djaii, Dc,-,zhtmF County, Oregon, Illorr, fiffly descrtbcd as fulklws: J'AX LOTS Corn.r,ner,(,ingat a brass disk at the 114 comer between said; Sccfions,26 and 27-A thv; Ice along Hie cast.-we-st centerlino ofsaid -Scotim 27, North 89'49'46" West 20.(YO feet; thence leaving-, said coqnwest cen(erline. South 00'03'15" East, parallcl to and 20 feet westerly of the line con-irrion to said Sections 26 wi'd 27, 40, 15 feet to a point on the southerly line of the 15 "00 foot dedication to the muthp-rly 30.00 foot right-of- way of"fumalo Road per Deed No. 98-29504, and, the Polo( of Beginning ibr this description; thence alongsaid 15-foot dedication line, 07.9-0 feet along (lie are of a, 12818.89 foot radins C11111C right (the long chord of whic-1i heav; South 89'35'07" Fast 6T90 feet), tborice with 89'26'0 1 " Past 997,75 fmt to the westerly right —of` -way of the DallesCaliforniaHighway per Med recordcd March 22, 1991, in 13(,Xlk 231, Page 81, Desc;hutcs Courity Records, thenco leaving said 15-foot dedication lute_ and atong said westorly righl-or-way, South 3703'52" East 23.10 fact, said point boirig 85,00 feet froni the centmilizie orsaid Dallcs-Califbrnia Highway; (hence continuing alongs.aid 85-f6ot right-of-way lint, South, 26'22'114" Wc,st.1419.89fccttea a o PiDt on the south lint of the property described in Deed No. 97-4 5 542; tbcnce lc,aviilp' said 85-f(vt rig said soirtli line, Soutli 89'56'45" West 447.62 feet to the .,J)t-of-way line andAMIg, ez ,0Utl1W t comer of baifJ 97-45542 properly, said point J)ing 20,00 f;xt wes(criyof the linecE)mixton to Sections 26 and 27; tbvnec leavings aid soutli line, North OV03'15" West 1301.34 feet it) the p1jintof the, now alignmelit of Turnalo Road per Deed No. 99 -32048, fuithex roodified for ium lane,& per Deed No. 2001-22023, fully described as follows: Conunencing, at a brass disk at the 114 corner between said Sections 76 and 27, thence along the east -west cx,nle,inc of said Section 27, North 89'49'46" West 20.00 feet" Vience le-aving said tast-west centerline, South OV03'I S" Last., parallel to and 20 feet westerly of the line. cormijoll tei said Sectiows j() anii 27, 357.34, feet to the northerly fight -of -way of the new road aligninent, and the Point of lkginning for this descuipt'"torl" the'llce leaving said parallel liras- rand alony, alit; Inewe rijJjt-eat'-'ix,1y lin;t, South 59"39'01 "Past 50.46 tbeiicr, Soloth 62'39*40" East 442.65 feet; thence South 63"56'22" Last 25030 feet, thence South.59".N'01 " East 9 5,51, feet to the, westerly 85 foot right-f-4-vvay line of tale Dalt",-Cafifonfla .I fighway" thc'nCe leaving said new ri:)ad rig_ht of -way and a.mig iaicwostoly M ft)otriglit-of-way lffic,, SOUth 26'2'1_1' 14" '%Vtst 170A] feet to the sou thcn'y right -of -WILY lille oflhc, newU ro�sd; micc !swing ,Aid we'sterly 85� foot rip'lit-Of-way linc. and alongd said; right-of-way line, Noj Eli 59'39'01 " West 10'.'34 fut; flienc.c. Ntirlh 55"21'40" Wesr'.!'50.70 f=j; j 1`AQr1hSO,"38"21'_" West 442,65 feet, ,,arid lino coninion to li'edions rat and therict-, Noilli (10'03'15" E_,ast ,wint Eyiiig 20-00 feet westerly af the 99.71 fi3O to the poem of bqginning. Nol arc.a for tills j);-c)peri:y is 20,46 w'ves. CA., 14, 2() 15 201 1,N 6 - Dc&c, do c Prvparec! by Ditxle,d Und Survejiaig, hic. P,O, Ui)x 702, heed, OR 977CIS (54 1) '�,92962 EXHIBIT A TAX LOTS 16-12-27-9-001104', 't'hat Portion of'Dced No. 97,40139 descuibed as "I'meel 3," furlhet modificd by the exclepung of Ti-ac;t I and Tract 2 of` Deed No. 98-32049, and more fully desci-R)c.d as follows: Sepitming at the Point of Begin.ning fbi- the previous desc.ription ofT.AX L(YI' 16-12,27-C- 0020 1, said point being fin the, 8ouffierly,15 foot rig ht of way of Tumalo Road and. 20,00 feet westerly oftho. line cornmon to Sections 26wid 27; thC11CC al011g,said 20 foo-t westerly line_, Noah 001.1315" West 5.0(,,',' ff-,,,,t to it point on a 40,00 fo-ot nigla-of-way of Turnalo, Road, pea- said 98-37049 Tjeed; thence leaning saki 20 foot line, 31.74 libet along, the arc of a 12823,99,foot radius Curve left (the long chord of which bears North V`4N`29" Wes( 3 1.74 fbet), thence Nortli 89'52"44" West 26.42 feet, thence 219.0? (�cl a�,onp, the ,atc of a 21O.00i foot radius curve left (the tong, chord, of'which bears South 60114'07"Wc,,�.[ 209,27 t6e(); thence South 30'20'59" West 4U13 feet; tfjerx47-12 feet along the arc of a 30A) foot radi its cun,o left (the long chord of which bears Souqh 14'39'01" Fast 42.43 feet), thence South 59039'01" E-ast 145J)o feet, thence South 00'51 "23" Fast 142-53 fed to a point lying 20,00 feet westerly of the line common to, said Sections 20 and 27; then,-z North OOL03'15" West 317.00 feet to the point of beginning fiat this de'scription., Contains 1,30 act -es, Note,- All corners are mai,ked with monumt:tjls per recorded survey No. CS14491 by Michael Berry, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LANCI,"3URVEYOR 1,1 OREEGON JvVe 2U, I Rag JAM,F$ (), PERRY 2407 RENUM 12-31-2016 0Q,w1j,c,r 14, 20t�,' Pjrq-,,-m-ed hy Baxtcr Lmd Sinvcyirir, Inc- 11.0. Box 7022, Tki-id, OR 977 M, (54 1).382-1962 20 15 186-Dc,,,u,d(.w EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT AVAP 7AX ISOTS 16-12-26--C-00201 AND 16-12-27-D-00104 Located ir, the SWI14 See. 26 and the SE114 See. 27, r, I 6S., R. 12E, TV-4f, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TRACY 27125 /,- BRASS 06K AT 114 COP. 6Wp 98 3,-04 9 2AO6-�, 1 . Z .3 Rlw CrN7FRf tW 1I_AWN-0 ROAD fN?,-$fO S MARKET ROAD) L f C2 16 8,1. D EDI I A PON DUO No, 9e 2954)4 23,10' ,TA,X tOT 104 CA{A r-V� ACRES "VE TAULE wqw TA LENOM RADIUS Ofmj C0 018-0- V-90 0)MJ8,89LSff35'07*r &,P.gfj (C,A,l 4 T252 - NM J �1.. 7 4 �Mj 89 '40'79'W 31,74 ci 210560107*W 20,77 M 2.43 00 S14-39'OrY 4 C 4 47,12 45 TRACT 2 NC QED 98--32049 .6 41 ;,gc2j Sly, FAX LDT 20r -3v MOSS AREA: 22-M ACRES W.-W ROAD: 2.42 ACRCS TA)c wr dwr NET AREA: 20 46 ACRES 11, 42 ACRES NOR 710 CAr NEW' ROAD 0 f14 ACR ES SOUT14 Or NEW POAD R -E 6FES EGAS�rLRED -R �4 PROFESSIONAL tj rLANO SURVI"YOR I If Ld OREGO�� -JULY 26, 1 U;9 p JAME7.,s E.), RRY S89'56'4.V447.62 2 O7�W RRY ;4 RENF-WS 12-31-2010 PR,6Y�R.rO 401" B,4.rTA*R 44AO SVjVVPFfsVL', INC- P V, t"J' PAWA OR 9,9708 ,eO1749 F&AFfet' .4 VF, r —?, IfTiVA OR ,9 7,-Ol 3R, -- f,961 Legend P R O P O S E D BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS r®®ey OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ®..E Subject Properties PLAN AMENDM EN T M A P Com prehensive Plan AG -Agriculture RC - Rural Commercial RI - Rural Industrial Exhibit °B" to Ordinance 2021-002 Tony DeBone, Chair Phil Chang, Vice Chair Patti Adair, Commissioner RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area V V 0 312.5 625 Feet November 11, 2020 ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this _ day of , 202 Effective Date: , 202_ Legend �.®..i a®.®� Subject Properties Zoning EFU TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND SUBZONE FLOOD PLAIN MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL RURAL COMMERCIAL RURAL INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING MAP Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2021-002 1V V 0 312.5 625 IRM Peet BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tony DeBone, Chair Phil Chang, Vice Chair Patti Adair, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this _ day of , 202 Effective Date: , 202_ November 11, 2020 EXHIBIT D Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. Chapter 23.01 (6/2020) EXHIBIT D V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein. CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein. EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein. FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein. GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein. HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein. II. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein. JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein. KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein. LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein. MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein. NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein. 00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein. PP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein. QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein. RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein. SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein. Chapter 23.01 (6/2020) EXHIBIT D TT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein. UU The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2021-002 are incorporated by reference herein. (Ord. 2021-0020, 2021; Ord. 2020-013§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-009§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-006§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-007§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-008§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-003 § 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-002 § 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-001 §26, 2020; Ord. 2019-019 §2, 2019; Ord. 2019-016 §3, 2019; Ord. 2019-006 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-011 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-004 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 §1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 §1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 §1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 §1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 § 3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) Chapter 23.01 (6/2020) SectLOvx, 57.12 Lto* sLatWe W-StOT Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Chapter/Section Amendment Effective All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne 201 1-003 8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1 Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Comprehensive Plan update Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, Housekeeping amendments to 201 1-027 10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1, 23.40A, 23.40B, ensure a smooth transition to 23.40.065, 23.01.010 the updated Plan 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), Updated Transportation 2012-005 8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12 3.7 (revised), Appendix C System Plan (added) 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary Housekeeping amendments to 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Destination Resort Chapter Central Oregon Regional 2013-002 1-7-13/ 1-7-13 4.2 Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Newberry Country: A Plan 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.1 1 for Southern Deschutes County EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE No. 2021-002 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-016 10-21-13/ 10-21-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.1 1 Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-021 1 1-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-029 1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Text and 2015-010 12-2-15/ 12-2-15 2.6 Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Planning Goal I I to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non- 2016-005 1 1-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning Comprehensive plan 2016-022 9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-029 12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2017-007 10-30-17/ 10-30-17 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan 2018-002 1-3-18/ 1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2021-002 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral 2018-006 8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9 and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2018-01 1 9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18 23.01.0 10 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, removing Flood 23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo Plain Comprehensive Plan 2018-005 9-19-18/ 10-10-18 Community Plan, Designation; Comprehensive Newberry Country Plan Plan Amendment adding Flood Plain Combining Zone purpose statement. Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing for the 2018-008 9-26-18/ 10-26-18 23.01.010, 3.4 potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Surface Mining 2019-002 1-2-19/4-2- 19 23.01.010, 5.8 to Rural Residential Exception Area; Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; Modifying Non - Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Comprehensive Plan and Text 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain 2019-003 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the Large Lot Industrial Program Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to 2019-004 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 Redmond Urban Growth Area for the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of Oregon Military Department National Guard Armory. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the 2019-01 1 05-01-19/05-16/ 19 23.01.010, 4.2 refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area I boundary. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2019-006 03-13-19/06-1 1-19 23.01.010, designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments incorporating language from DLCD's 2014 2019-016 1 1-25-19/02-24-20 23.01.01, 2.5 Model Flood Ordinance and Establishing a purpose statement for the Flood Plain Zone. EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE No. 2021-002 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to provide procedures related to the division of certain split zoned 2019-019 12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19 23.01.01, 2.5 properties containing Flood Plain zoning and involving a former or piped irrigation canal. Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to provide procedures related to the division of certain split zoned 2020-001 12- I 1-19/ 12-1 1- 19 23.01.01, 2.5 properties containing Flood Plain zoning and involving a former or piped irrigation canal. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary through an equal exchange of land to/from the Redmond UGB. The exchange property is being offered to better achieve land needs that 2020-002 2-26-20/5-26-20 23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2 were detailed in the 2012 SB 1544 by providing more development ready land within the Redmond UGB. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. Comprehensive Plan Amendment with exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 2020-003 02-26-20/05-26-20 23.01.01, 5.10 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow sewer on rural lands to serve the City of Bend Outback Water Facility. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Amendment to add roundabouts at US 20/Cook- 2020-008 06-24-20/09-22-20 23.01.010, Appendix C O.B. Riley and US 20/01d Bend -Redmond Hwy intersections; amend Tables 5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend TSP text. Housekeeping Amendments 2020-007 07-29-20/ 10-27-20 23.01.010, 2.6 correcting references to two Sage Grouse ordinances. Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to update the County's Resource List and 2020-006 08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20 23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9 Historic Preservation Ordinance to comply with the State Historic Preservation Rule. Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Amendment to add reference 2020-009 08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20 23.01.010, Appendix C to J turns on US 97 raised median between Bend and Redmond; delete language about disconnecting Vandevert Road from US 97. Comprehensive Plan Text And Map Designation for Certain Properties from Surface Mine (SM) and Agriculture (AG) To Rural 2020-013 08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20 23.01.01, 5.8 Residential Exception Area (RREA) and Remove Surface Mining Site 461 from the County's Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resource Sites. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property from Agriculture 2021-002 xx-xx-xx/xx-xx-xx 23.01.01 (AG) To Rural Industrial (R1) EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2021-002 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT F Mailing Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARING OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC APPLICANT/ OWNER: Anthony Aceti REPRESENTATIVE: Patricia A. Kliewer, MPA SOIL SCIENTIST: Roger Borine Sage West, LLC TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Joe Bessman, PE Transight Consulting, LLC PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding Zone Change to change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). LOCATION: 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend, OR 97703; Tax Lot 201 on Tax Map 16-12-26C and; Tax Lot 104 on Tax Map 16-12-27D HEARING DATE: September 1, 2020 HEARING START: 6:00 pm STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner Email: matt.martint5deschutes,or-; Telephone: 541-330-4620 RECORD CLOSED: September 22, 2020 DECISION DATE: October 7, 2020 I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18. The Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 18.84. Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) Chapter 18.100. Rural Industrial Zone (RI) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22. Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2. Resource Management Chapter 3. Rural Growth Management Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660 Oregon Revised Statures (ORS) Chapter 215. County Planning 11. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 201 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 16-12-26C, and Tax Lot 104 on Assessor's Map 16-12-27D. The property is located at the intersection of Highway 97 and Tumalo Road in the area commonly known as Deschutes Junction. B. LOT OF RECORD: A September 30, 2015 Hearings Officer Decision concerning the subject property, file numbers 247-14-000456-ZC/457-PA, included a finding that Tax Lots 201 and 104, together, constitute one lot of record. The Hearings Officer incorporates that finding herein. C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: TL 201 and 104 are zoned Exclusive Farm Use- Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) and are designated Agriculture under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP). The property does not have any Goal 5 resource designations. The property is located within a Landscape Management Combining (LM) Zone because of its proximity to Highway 97. D. PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone change from Agriculture and EFU-TRB, to Rural Industrial, respectively, for the subject property constituting 21.54 acres. The Applicant has not requested an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization. The application does not include a development proposal. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 21.54 acres in size.' It is located in the center of the County at Deschutes Junction in the community of Deschutes. According to page 98 of the Burden of Proof, the total developable area is 15.11 acres, after setbacks, minimum distances between buildings, landscaping and the space for parking and roads is determined. This excludes the 1 acre already used for a storage building. The three portions of the developable land are irregularly shaped and consist of 0.7 acres, 8.13 acres and 6.28 acres. TL 104 was created when the overpass was constructed and was declared remnant land. TL 104 is adjacent to TL 201 to the west, and is situated to the north of Tumalo Road. The property is generally level, and has an existing large warehouse building and gravel parking areas on three sides of the building. There is also a loading bay on the west end of the building. The site is accessed from existing driveways off of Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road. Three 40-foot wide by 120- foot long asphaltic concrete entry roads into the subject property were constructed by the County in 1998 when the roads were realigned and the overpass was constructed. One entry road is on each side of the approach to the overpass on Tumalo Road and the third is on the north property line from Tumalo Place. Each entrance has a dedicated turn lane to make entrances from Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road safer for long hay trucks. The majority of the land is cleared of native vegetation with existing vegetation consisting of abandoned agriculture grass remnants. Minor variation in elevation is present at the northeast corner, which rises and is vegetated with a cluster of juniper trees and native shrubs. Near the eastern boundary of the property is an irregular, rocky excavation and crevasses left from a failed effort to create an irrigation water retention pond in the northwest corner of the property. Gravel has been spread for truck back-up and turn- around for the loading docks on the west side of the storage building. The Burden of Proof 1 Aceti purchased the 24.05-acre TL 201 in 1995. Since acquisition, deeded agreements between Aceti, the Barretts, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Deschutes County for construction of the Deschutes Junction overpass, creation of Tumalo Place, on and off ramps from US 97 and truck turn lanes into the property, and realignment of Tumalo Road have reduced its size to 20.26 acres. ODOT deeded Tax Lot 104 to Aceti in 1998. The County is purchasing 0.05 acres of TL 104 for a roundabout at the intersection of Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road, reducing TL 104 to 1.28 acres. TL 201 is divided into two distinct, non-contiguous sections by the overpass (11.43 acres (northern portion) and 9.04 acres (southern portion)). 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 2 of 80 includes photographs of the site and states, that "[d]isturbing highway noise from truck and automobile traffic on the adjoining roads and highway is nearly constant on all parts of the site." The Pilot Butte Irrigation Canal is located about 200 feet east of the property. The canal flows south to north and is on the east side of US 97. The canal starts at the Deschutes River at the North Dam near downtown Bend and flows 22 miles north toward the Crooked River and Smith Rock State Park. Pages 49-50 of the Burden of Proof states, in relevant part (images not included herein with text): The property is located at the southeastern base of Long Butte. Long Butte covers about three - square miles at Deschutes Junction. According to the USGS Tumalo Quadrangle topographic map, the crest of Long Butte is at the 3,569-foot elevation. From that high point, the butte slopes relatively steeply down 300 feet to the south toward Tumalo Place and Aceti's property. The northern edge of the subject property is the lowest point of Long Butte, at 3,261 feet. The route for US 97 was blasted out of rock. On the eastern edge of the highway is a cut wall of rock, part of the 2.5 mile long rock spine. The rock spine runs on both sides of the highway adjacent to the subject property. The distinctive rock spine wraps around the eastern and southern sides of the property. The rock spine runs from the Swalley Canal southwest of the subject site, then angles north right below the subject property, then crosses the highway and runs on the east side of the highway along the Funny Farm. The subject property is relatively flat with raised rock outcroppings in the northeast corner. It slopes slightly to the southwest and is highest at the northeast. The highway ramp to the overpass visually bisects the property. The subject property is rocky, with rock at the surface over 20% of the entire parcel... . Long Butte is covered with 711 residential lots. The northwestern corner of the subject property is adjacent to the First Addition to Whispering Pines Estates, a rural residential subdivision that predated Oregon's Land Use Planning Program. Whispering Pines Estates was originally platted with 384 lots on April 12, 1968 on the south half of Long Butte. The subdivision runs between Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place and the crest of the butte. Since that time, there have been four additions to the original plat. Lot sizes vary from one acre to three -and -a -half acres. The on -off ramps to southbound US 97 form the north boundary of the property. The property is bordered by US 97 on the east and Tumalo Road bisects TL 201. Tumalo Road is owned by the County and constitutes the access from US 97 to Tumalo. US 97 is a four -lane divided highway that runs north -south and is maintained by ODOT. The west half of the Deschutes Junction overpass crosses the property. The approach to the overpass on the property is approximately 800 feet long and tapers from 93 feet wide at the west end to 170 feet wide at the east end of the property. The perimeter of the property is fenced with metal fence posts and barbed wire. Some culverts divert precipitation from the roadway to the subject property. A 16xl6 foot culvert/underpass tunnel was constructed during the overpass project to allow vehicles and livestock to move between the northern and southern portions of the property without crossing the overpass approach. Page 16 of the Burden of Proof states, "Its proximity to roads and highways since the end of the 19tn Century, has been the primary value of this parcel." It describes a 2014 interview with the late nephew of the homesteader, James R. Low, who acquired the then 160-acre Deschutes Ranch on speculation that the location would make it valuable someday. Mr. Low's nephew, Kenneth Lowe, stated his uncle "told him that he chose the land for its accessibility and central location next to the old primary roads, and not for agricultural productivity." As set forth in the Burden of Proof at page 17: He was not a farmer. He thought it might be valuable for urban development one day. He welcomed as progress the Pilot Butte Canal that brought in settlers and the new The Dalles-California Highway (US 97) that crossed his land and the Bend airstrip a half mile to the west, the railroad 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 3 of 80 tracks near his eastern property line, the original Dalles-California Highway (Bend -Redmond Road today), Deschutes Market Road, Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road, Merrill Road, and the town of Centralo/Deschutes platted and developed immediately east of his ranch. James R. Low did not clear the rocky portion that included the subject property and his unfarmable land on the rock spine to the east of it. The homestead law required the homesteader to "improve" and cultivate a minimum of 20 acres. That is what James Low did — the minimum.... Low owned the homestead, minus the land he sold to the State of Oregon for the right-of-way for US 97, until 1943 and he never cleared or cultivated the rocky subject parcel with sparse sagebrush and even sparser stunted juniper trees. As the property ownership section of this application demonstrates, this property has been impacted by transportation improvements an unusual number of times, since 1933, when the State of Oregon purchased the right-of-way for the new The Dalles-California Highway (US 97) from Low, through the late 1990s when the overpass and most impactful road changes occurred with the overpass project, to the present, where Aceti is negotiating with right-of-way acquisition consultants for more right-of-way for a County roundabout that is planned for the intersection of Tumalo Road and Tumalo Place that will help with the traffic flow that is increasing as the population increases. The commuters from Redmond use the overpass and Deschutes Market Road to work and shop in southeast Bend. (See TIA). Pages 89-94 of the Burden of Proof describe the road system that serves the property: The subject property is uniquely surrounded by rural collector and arterial roads and highways. The traffic report demonstrates that any development that occurs on site as a result of the rezone will have a negligible effect on surrounding roads. Airports: Two airports serve the site. They are: Bend Municipal Airport at 63132 Powell Butte Highway, located 7.55 miles and 11 minutes from the subject site, and Roberts Field, the Redmond Municipal Airport, with a 132, 000 square foot terminal which serves over 36, 000 passengers per month and is located 8.5 miles and 12 minutes from the site. Railroads: The Burlington Northern Railroad is located 660 feet east of the site. It has two sets of tracks, a main north -south line and a parallel passing spur, and a loading spur at the 4-R Construction Co. property that used to serve the Cascade Pumice plant at Deschutes Junction. That spur was used to load processed pumice into the rail cars. Roads: According to former Deschutes County Surveyor Mike Berry, there were more historic roads converging on Centralo/Deschutes Junction than in any other location in Deschutes County. In addition to the paved roads that serve the area today, the junction was crossed by many historic roads that predated the formation of Deschutes County: Huntington Wagon Road, 1867; W. T. Davenport Road, 1902; G. W. Horner Road, 1908; M. J. McGrath Road,1912; Laidlaw and Powell Butte Grande, 1913; and L. C. Young Road, 1914. A. Tumalo Road is a paved county, two-lane, Rural Collector with two dedicated turn refuges into the subject property. The road predates 1908 and has had several names. It was first known as part of the G. W. Horner Road that ran from Tumalo to Powell Butte. Then it was known as part of the Tumalo-Powell Butte Road. Next it was Nichols Market Road. In 1991, the BOCC changed the road name from Nichols Market Road to Tumalo Road. It was realigned to cross the Aceti land in about 1998 to become the approach to the Deschutes Junction overpass. Tumalo Road bisects the subject site west to east. 1.75 miles to the west of the subject property, Tumalo Road intersects the north -south Bend -Redmond Road. It crosses the 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 4 of 80 Deschutes River 2.75 miles to the west and intersects US 20 at the community of Tumalo about 3 miles to the west of Aceti's property. Prior to the overpass construction in 1998, commuters and commercial users didn't have to go west on Tumalo Place and then east on Tumalo Road to connect to Deschutes Market Road. They made a left turn off US 97. A Hancock Gas Station, an auto repair business, a caf6, a store and other businesses were at the northwest corner of the intersection of US 97 and Nichols Market Road, beginning as early as 1915. Since 1998, traffic on Tumalo Road has increased dramatically. According to Deschutes County Road Department, the following daily trip counts were made at Tumalo Road. West Bound 2005 - 1564 vehicles 2010 - 1584 vehicles East Bound 2005 - 1580 vehicles 2010 - 3245 vehicles The reason the east bound traffic increased is not due to a significant increase of population on Long Butte, but rather from the fact that Pleasant Ridge Road was closed in 2010 due to safety concerns. 4, 000 vehicles per day were using Pleasant Ridge Road as a cut through to avoid the Deschutes Junction overpass. They can no longer use Pleasant Ridge Road. Drivers were diverted from Pleasant Ridge Road when it was barricaded at US 97. Commuters traveling from Redmond to southeast Bend use Deschutes Junction to go to Deschutes Market Road. Commercial trucks use the overpass to connect to eastbound US 20 on their way to the Burns, Ontario and points east. They do this to avoid stop -and -go traffic congestion and stop lights in northern Bend, near Cooley Road, Lowes, Home Depot, Target, and the Cascade Shopping Center. B. Tumalo Place is a paved county, two-lane, Rural Collector road that serves as the on and off ramp to the US 97. Tumalo Place was constructed in 1998. It is along the northern property line and crosses land that was formerly the Applicant's property. It connects US 97 with Tumalo Road. There is one dedicated 90-foot, truck -length, turn refuge on Tumalo Place into the subject property. C. US Route 97 is a paved, four -lane highway maintained by ODOT, which forms the eastern property boundary and provides primary northerly access to Redmond, Madras, Yakima and Canada and southerly access to Bend, Klamath Falls, Weed, California and 1-5. U.S. Route 97 is a major north —south United States highway. It begins at a junction with Interstate 5 at Weed, California, and runs northeast to Klamath Falls, Oregon and then goes north, ending in Okanogan County, Washington, at the Canadian Border. Across from Osoyoos, British Columbia it becomes British Columbia Highway 97 upon entering Canada. Major cities that lie on US 97 include Klamath Falls, Oregon; Bend, Oregon; Yakima, Washington; Ellensburg, Washington; and Wenatchee, Washington. For a time, the Alaska portion of the Alaska Highway was planned to be signed as US 97, with signs even being produced. Prior to US 97 being constructed in Deschutes County, the north -south traffic was served by the road that is now called the Old Bend -Redmond Highway and the Huntington Wagon Road which became Huntington Road. Portions of Huntington Wagon Road are visible and interpreted on BLM land to the east of the subject site. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 5 of 80 In 1932 the state constructed a new gravel two-lane north south road called the Dalles- California Highway, or US 97. It crossed the subject parcel as it was configured at that time. It was later paved. In 1992 ODOT widened it to 4 lanes with a turn lane into Tumalo Road and an off ramp and turn lanes into Deschutes Market Road. Due to many serious injury and fatal accidents, in 1998 ODOT and Deschutes County in a joint venture built the Deschutes Junction overpass that bisects the subject site. In the ODOT report called 2015 Traffic Volumes on State Highways, at mile post 130.28 (130.28 miles south of the Washington -Oregon State Line) at a point 0.10 south of the "Bend - Deschutes Market Road", there was a total of 25,200 ADT, in both directions. ODOT also reported a 40% increase in truck traffic over three years on US 97 in Deschutes County. While these plans and reports have a statewide and countywide focus, these reports quantify what is happening next door to the subject site and on the property itself. D. US 20 is a paved, two to four -lane highway maintained by ODOT. It runs between Newport, Oregon on the west and the state of Iowa on the east while it crosses and connects to several interstate highways. In Oregon it goes through Corvallis, Bend, Burns, and Ontario. It is about 3 miles west of the subject site via Tumalo Road. E. Deschutes Market Road is a paved county, two-lane, Rural Arterial road which connects to the Tumalo Road Overpass and provides a secondary access to Bend and US 20 east of Bend. The road offers a route to and from the St. Charles Hospital without going through Bend or encountering any stop lights. The County TSP Update reclassified this collector back to its original Rural Arterial status. The road has seen growth in traffic volumes as northeast Bend has developed and since the completion of the Deschutes Junction interchange, which also removed an at -grade railroad crossing. Deschutes Market Road provides a parallel alternate route to US 97. Area cyclists enjoy the road for its comparatively good shoulders, proximity to Bend, and the ability to make a loop using Deschutes Market/Tumalo Road. 2009 traffic volumes 0.10 miles north of Hamehook 5,592 ADT 2008 traffic volumes 0.20 miles west of BNSF tracks 3,883 ADT 0.10 miles north of Hamehook Road 5, 627 ADT 0.06 miles north of Butler Market Road 4,784 ADT F. Huntington Wagon Road was cleared and then smoothed out with horse-drawn road graders in 1867. The Huntington Wagon Road was the first north -south road in Central Oregon. Traces of the road are still visible east of 19rh Street and Merrill Road, where the Des Chutes Historical Society maintains an interpretive trail of the road about 1.5 miles east of the subject site. ... Historically, this was the most important north -south road and at one time all of the dirt roads and trails in Central Oregon connected into it. When the early settlers came to Central Oregon in the first quarter of the 20fh Century, Deschutes Junction was the important intersection of the Huntington Wagon Road, the Santiam Wagon Road, Horner Road and the local roads to Prineville and Burns. The subject site has unique comprehensive transportation access in every direction. According to former County Surveyor Mike Berry, Deschutes Junction has been a primary regional transportation hub since the late ninetieth century. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 6 of 80 Road Noise: The ambient traffic noise generated by the 25,600 average daily trips on Highway 97 at a point exactly adjacent to the subject property, a point a tenth of a mile south of the Deschutes Overcrossing, is loud and incessant on the Aceti property. The ADT and the noise are increasing yearly. No rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the Applicant's evidence regarding the site description. F. CURRENT USE AND CONDITIONS ON PROPERTY: Mr. Aceti testified at the public hearing that the soil on the subject property is so dry that, when he attempted plowing in 1995-96, wind caused dust to drift across US 97 to such a degree that he was horrified he could have caused an accident. He testified that the soils are so poor that soil amendments, herbicides and pesticides required to increase productivity of the land would be cost -prohibitive. Mr. Aceti commented that he enjoys full support of surrounding property owners for the proposal because agriculture is inappropriate for the site. Ms. Kliewer testified at the public hearing and noted the high noise level on the subject property due to the proximity of US 97, particularly between the hours of 6:00-9:00 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m. She addressed a letter in support of the application, submitted by Carl Juhl, a livestock specialist, stated he would not rent the subject property for farming and that it was unsuitable for breeding or grazing livestock thereon. The above -ground rock outcroppings are dangerous and may wreck expensive farm equipment if used on the subject property. Ms. Kliewer also addressed the fact that the subject property never had water rights through Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID). Water rights were purchased by Mr. Aceti through Swalley Irrigation District as part of a co-op. Because the property sits at a higher elevation, a pump and electricity is required to get water to the property, as well as easement rights to cross several properties. The property has not been irrigated for a long time. The Staff Report states that there are 19.71 acres of Swalley Irrigation District water rights on the property. Ms. Kliewer stated that the correct figure is 16 acres of irrigation water rights; Swalley reduced Aceti's allotment due to the land for the US 97 overpass approach having been taken by the County. The Applicant agreed to an in -stream lease of his irrigation water in response to a 2013 letter to the Applicant from Swalley. As noted on page 2 of the September 14, 2020 rebuttal letter from Ms. Kliewer, irrigating landscaping on rural industrial land is an approved beneficial use. As set forth below, public water (Avion Water) also is available. The September 14, 2020 rebuttal letter from Ms. Kliewer states, in relevant part, on pages 1-2: On page 2 (of COWL's testimony dated September 8, 20201, COWL states the subject property has been a "small farm" for over a century. That is also refuted in the application. The subject parcel was always a portion of the Deschutes Ranch and was never sold as a separate parcel by itself until Aceti bought it from the Barrett Brothers on contract. LUBA even made that distinction in its 2016 decision, that it was previously always part of a large ranch and never a farm on its own. See application pages 132-144, previous owners and how they used the property and the detailed section on irrigation history, 100-117. There is no evidence presented that explores the feasibility or appropriateness of "a sparse settlement or an acreage homesite" on the small subject parcel. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence in the record about the undesirability of the noise levels and lack of safety from cars entering the parcels at high speeds from the surrounding road network. The Bessman Traffic Report quantifies the volumes of traffic and the new roundabout. The application and testimony of Carl Juhl talk about the effect on livestock of the 2417 road noise. Applying the applicable County EFU zoning code, minimum acreages for dwellings in EFU, required setbacks, easements and other constraints, it is likely that only one dwelling might be allowed on the parcel with many conditions of approval that may make the house impossible to permit. See Figure 33 on page 97. Mr. Aceti submitted a letter dated September 15, 2020 including rebuttal evidence. Exhibit 2 is a June 28, 2019 Deschutes County Assessor's Office DISQUALIFIED letter for the special assessment of 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 7 of 80 20.26 acres of EFU land. This is notice that the farm tax deferral has been removed and that "potential additional taxes for disqualification are: $13,981.72." Exhibit 3 to the letter is a tax account history from Deschutes County for the property (dated September 14, 2020) that shows the property taxes from 2014 to 2019 increased almost three hundred percent (300%) over that 5-year time period. Mr. Aceti states that approximately $1,000 of the increase was due to the removal of the Farm Deferral program. He comments: I would like to point out that no True Commercial Farm Operation could withstand this type of property tax increase with no change of existing buildings or property improvements in the past 20 years. Page 88 of the Applicant's Burden of Proof describes the current use of the property as follows: The property is currently being used within the limits of a conditional use permit, Deschutes County Decision, CU-97-72/SP-97-49. The decision states, "The applicanVowner shall limit the commercial activities on the subject property to the following: a. sales of hay and field crops grown on the subject property and/or on property in adjoining counties; b. sales and rental of specialized hay equipment, including hay squeezes and specialized hay trailers designed by the applicant, and c. storage and display for sale of hay and specialized hay equipment. " The ApplicanVOwner operates the Hay Depot part time from the northwestern portion of the property. He is not using the remainder of the land. It has sat fallow for 23 years. The Hay Depot business is at a low point. At its peak in 2005, it supported the livestock and haying industries in Central Oregon. The Hay Depot designed, fabricated and sold custom hay production equipment, repaired farming equipment, found buyers for the hay, marketed the hay for farmers, and provided consulting and custom farming for hay production. The Hay Depot sells bailed hay, both retail and wholesale. The Hay Depot transports hay to local horse ranches, cattle ranches and dairies by the thirty -ton truckloads. It was not uncommon to have an order for 250 tons per ranch or dairy in Central Oregon. It also transported the hay to the Portland shipyards for the markets in Asia. Farmers also store seeds and hay in the barn during the winter. However, many customers have sold their livestock because it costs too much to feed them through the winters. Demand for hay has varied. Since 2000 a steady stream of people from out of state who are not farmers or ranchers have been purchasing land that historically has supported livestock ranching. They are purchasing rural land to enjoy the views, open spaces and recreational activities in Central Oregon. The competition for rural land has resulted in higher prices per acre that are not feasible for agriculture. Therefore, non- farm owners are moving in, farm sizes are dropping and the number of customers for hay is dropping. Ranches are not running as many cattle as they once were. Also, the recession forced many hobby farmers out of the livestock business, because they could not afford to purchase hay and other necessary supplies for their horses, alpacas, llamas, goats, sheep and other livestock. Therefore, the local demand for hay, especially in the winter months, is dropping. Each year since 2008, the demand for hay has dropped to the point that the business is no longer profitable. Currently, the storage building is used to store farm products, hay and seed, and for machinery storage. Seven acres are leased to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). BPA temporarily 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 8 of 80 stores supplies necessary to maintain and up -grade high voltage transmission lines in the region. Other land is rented by companies for the temporary storage of port -a -potties, contractors, regional busses and tow trucks. Pages 66-68 of the Burden of Proof state, in relevant part (images not included herein with text): There are no structures on the 1.28-acre Tax Lot 161227D000104. A 100-foot by 200-foot metal and pole storage building was constructed by the Applicant in 1995 in the northwest corner of the 20.26-acre Tax Lot 161226C000201. In 1999, the building was expanded to add a 12 x 80-foot office/shop and a 50 x 50-foot semi -truck loading dock. The building includes 23,460 square feet. The building is currently used to store, process and sell bales of hay, agricultural crops and seed and to manufacture, store, service and repair farm equipment and vehicles. The building can store 70 truckloads of hay (2,100 tons of hay). It has a combination asphalt concrete and concrete floor with a concrete loading dock on the western side of the building. Nine 18 x 16-foot overhead doors allow trucks to enter the building for loading and unloading. An associated shop allows repair and fabrication of farm equipment and vehicles. An office provides space for the operation of the business. The Applicant was given approval by the County to construct an additional 100 x 200 building on the lot in 1995. Unfortunately, the Tumalo Road approach to the US 97 overpass was constructed across the site for the second building shortly after the building permit was approved. An agreement between the Applicant and Deschutes County said the approved second building can be constructed anywhere on the existing property if it meets the required setbacks. However, the second building could not be re -sited on the north portion of the property because of the proximity to the overpass and the required setbacks that include new setbacks on each side of the new overpass itself. The predominant structure on the site is the above -grade approach ramp to the Deschutes Junction Overpass over US 97. The approach ramp, Tumalo Road, and the US 97 Overpass is jointly maintained by Deschutes County and ODOT. The approach to the overpass on the subject property is about 800.69 feet long and tapers from 93 feet wide at the west end to 170 feet wide at the east end on the subject property. A secondary structure is the perimeter fencing. The perimeter of the property is fenced with metal "T" posts and three strands of barbed wire. It is in poor condition and is in need of repair due to constant damage and destruction by vehicles crashing through it, especially at the northern property line that is adjacent to both the on and off ramps to US 97 on Tumalo Place. Many other vehicles on southbound 97 crash into the parcel. At speeds around 60 miles an hour, they often leave the highway, blast through the fence, and come to a stop in the middle of the parcel. One vehicle left US 97 southbound and ended up stuck into a pile of gravel in the center of the southern portion of the property. The County fenced both sides of the right-of-way for the approach to the overpass with metal "T" posts and three -strand barbed wire. Some riprapped areas on the road divert precipitation from the roadway to the subject property. The impact of the Deschutes Junction Overpass project is described at page 31 of the Burden of Proof: After the overpass was constructed and the traffic system was changed, (Acetij could not farm even a meager crop of hay on site. He couldn't get irrigation water to the site and even if he could, the overpass made any hand line sprinkler layout impracticable, Other options such as attempting to dig a new pond in the northeast corner or to dig a well were explored without success. When one 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 9 of 80 looks at the rock and shallow non -resource soils, the small parcel size, the overpass bisecting the property and the heavy noisy traffic, it makes sense to find a different more appropriate use for the land. After it was apparent that the parcel was not suitable for farming, Aceti did not farm it. He held fall fundraisers that he initiated and organized and that raised tens of thousands of dollars for local non- profit organizations, The festivals included creating a 100-ton hay maize and a haunted haystack from the tons of hay in his barn. (The hay was not grown on site.) There is an active code enforcement case (File no. 247-19-000064-CE) in which the County has determined businesses are operating on the property in violation of the current EFU-TRB zoning. Section 20 of the Burden of Proof (pages 100-117) establishes the history of irrigation and homesteads. It states, in relevant part, Aceti has not irrigated his property since the Barrett Brothers did so in 1998, when they were co -owners, using their pond a half mile away and their pipes laid across their land, They no longer own any land in the area." Pages 107-08 of the Burden of Proof state that the US 97 widening project cut through a shared irrigation pond, reducing it by 75% and making it inoperable; the pond is dry this year. Because the widening project caused the irrigation system to become inoperable, ODOT paid the Barretts to have a new ditch from the Swalley Deschutes Lateral and a new pond dug along Half Mile Lane on the NW corner of TL 1100, % mile from the SW corner of the subject parcel and separated from the pond by TL 1200. Any pipe or ditch to the subject parcel would have to cross TL 1200. When Aceti acquired the property in 1995, no water right, easement or written agreement was included in it to enable Aceti to irrigate his property. He has no easement or right to use either TL 1100 or 1200 or the equipment for delivery of irrigation water to the subject property. No rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the Applicant's evidence regarding the current use of and conditions on the subject property. G. SOILS: According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the Inclusion and Exclusion Sites, there are three mapped soil units. 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0-3% Slopes. The NRCS data shows 85 percent of this soil unit consists of Deskamp soils, and 15 percent consists of contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils have a land capability classification of Class III with irrigation and Class VI without irrigation. 38B Deskamp-Gosney Complex, 0-8% Slopes. The NRCS data shows 50 percent of this soil unit consists of Deskamp soils, 35 percent consists of Gosney soils, and 15 percent consists of contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils have a land capability classification of Class III with irrigation and Class VI without irrigation. The Gosney soils have a capability rating of Class VII with or without irrigation. 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 % Slopes. The NRCS data shows 50 percent of the soil unit consists of Gosney and similar soils, 25 percent Rock outcrop, 20% Deskamp and similar soils, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. The Gosney and Deskamp soils have the capability classifications as stated above. The Rock outcrop is Class Vill. Soil Scientist Report. The Applicant submitted a more detailed soil study of the subject property conducted by (the late) Roger Borine, entitled Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (hereafter "Borine study"), Attachment 2 to the Application. Attachment 2 includes: (1) a Soils Assessment Release Form dated January 2, 2013, submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Services Division; and (2) the Borine study, dated May 8, 2012. The late Roger Borine was a Soil Science Society of America Certified 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 10 of 80 Professional Soil Classifier #24918, Certified Professional Soil Scientist #24918, and a Professional Wetland Scientist #1707. The Borine study provides and documents more detailed data on soil classification and soil ratings than is contained in the USDA-NRCS soil maps and soil survey at the published level of detail. This more detailed soils data is directly related to the NRCS Land Capability Classification system (LCC) designation. Page 5 states the following, among other things: As defined by OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) Agricultural Land is land classified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) as predominantly Land Capability Classification (LCC) 1-6. The LCC is a system of grouping soils primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without deteriorating over a long period of time. The soil criteria used to determine the rating is coordinated nationally. Data elements, classes, or groups that are used in national legislation have strict adherence to national procedures. Guides that are developed by states to rate soil survey land classification and groups are reviewed according to a national procedure. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has developed and received national approval for their "Guide for Placing Soils in Capability Classes in Oregon" (Rev 611977). The Land Capability Classification (LCC) system is a soil interpretation for grouping of soil mapping units having similar potentials and continuing limitations or hazards. The Oregon guide includes criteria for soil depth, surface texture, permeability, slope, available water capacity, drainage class, flooding/ponding, alkali/salinity, frost -free days, and evapotranspiration (irrigated and non -irrigated). Each component of a soil map unit is evaluated and assigned a capability class. The soils within a capability class are similar only with respect to degree of limitations in soil use for agricultural purposes or hazard to the soil when it is so used. In this study area the soil depth and available water capacity (A WC) were the primary criteria for designating soil mapping units. AWC is the volume of water that should be available to plants in a soil holding water at full potential. When roots are excluded by bedrock this is considered the effective soil depth for plant growth. The Oregon LLC Guide rates having an A WC less than 2 inches as LLC 7 whether irrigated or non -irrigated and soils less than 10 inches deep as LCC 7. The Borine study concluded the subject area consists of basalt lava flows and that the subject property is predominantly non-agricultural soils, Classes VII and VIII, applying soil mapping at an Order 1 level. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the subject property is comprised of Gosney-Zeta complex soils (Class VII, irrigated or non -irrigated) and twenty-one percent (21 %) of the subject property is comprised of Urban Land, miscellaneous area with essentially no soil and supports little or no vegetation. It is mostly agricultural buildings, land modifications for equipment movement, parking, crop storage, pond development and areas of fill material (Class VIII, irrigated or non -irrigated). Eight percent (8%) of the subject property is comprised of Deskamp loamy sand (Class VI non -irrigated; Class III irrigated). Twelve percent (12%) of the subject property is comprised of Gosney, Deep Deskamp complex (Class VI non -irrigated; Class III irrigated). The Borine study concludes the inventory and analysis of this parcel determined that "approximately 80% (17.2 acres) is Land Capability Class VII and VIII soils; and 20% (4.3 acres) is Land Capability Class III -VI soils. The parcel as defined is not predominantly Agricultural Land." Further, together with the LCC soil ratings as non-agricultural soils, the determination of suitability for farm use is "generally unsuitable" for the production of farm crops, livestock or 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 11 of 80 merchantable tree species based upon low fertility, limited soil depth for cultivation and ability to store and hold water, lack of forage production for livestock grazing, limited length of growing season and high levels of energy input with limited outcome. Aerial photo with NRCS soil map overlay. (Source: Deschutes DIAL) The Hearings Officer notes that no rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the evidence regarding soils. COWL's argument in its September 8, 2020 letter, that the property is suited for agricultural use and could be used as a small farm, is refuted by the Borine Study and has been rejected by LUBA in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016), LUBA No. 2016-012, Final Opinion and Order (Remanded August 10, 2016). LUBA's rulings on this issue are detailed in the findings below. The County relied upon the Borine Study in determining that the Applicant's prior applications for re -designation and rezoning of the subject property (file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC and 247-14-000457-PA) were consistent with Goal 3. LUBA affirmed the County's determinations on all four factors, finding them to be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Hearings Officer rejects COWL's arguments regarding agricultural lands as having been conclusively decided by LUBA. H. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Zoning in the vicinity is mixed with EFU-TRB, EFU-AL, Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), Rural Residential (RR-10), Rural Commercial (RC) and Rural Industrial (RI). The Applicant submitted a detailed table of surrounding uses by tax lots, dated December 2014, attached as Exhibit 11 to the Burden of Proof, pages 245-298, summarized below. Additional description of surrounding land uses is set forth in the Burden of Proof on pages 1-4, 15-19, 27-32, 34-36, 37-42, 49-56, 64, 117-132, 155-181, 189-190 and Figures 6, 7 and 19 therein. Mr. Aceti testified at the public hearing that, in a 2.5 mile radius surrounding the property, approximately 1700 lots have been platted since the 1960s. There is no large farm/commercial farming activity in the surrounding area. Mr. Aceti testified that an additional 25-30 acres of rural commercial and rural industrial uses have been added over the past decade. The area is a key transportation hub. Mr. Aceti stated that there is not a better place for rural industrial than his property. Ms. Kliewer testified that 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 12 of 80 there are no commercial farming operations in the vicinity, only hobby farms on which the proposal will not have any adverse impact. As stated in the September 14, 2020 rebuttal letter from the Applicant, "No agricultural use is adjacent to the subject parcel, although two parcels are zoned EFU." The City of Bend Sewage Treatment plant is about three miles southeast of the site. Two hydroelectric power plants, COID's Juniper Ridge Phase I Hydroelectric Plant and Swalley's Hydroelectric Plant are on either side of US 97 just south of Deschutes Junction. The Swalley hydropower plant is on the west side and COID's hydropower plant is on the east side of the highway. Both are visible from the highway. COID's plant is on the Pilot Butte Canal, which is piped for 2.25 miles south of the plant. Nearly all of the 36 square miles in Township 16 South Range 13 East, WM, southeast of the subject site is owned by the US Government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Unproductive BLM lands, officially named the Redmond -Bend Juniper Wayside, span the area south of the subject site in T16S, R12E, Section 34. Long Butte is immediately north and west of the property. Long Butte is subdivided into 711 urban sized residential lots up to 3 acres in size platted in the various phases of Whispering Pines Estates. Page 175 of the Burden of Proof sets forth the following information: Rural and Urban Density Residential Subdivisions at Deschutes: 1. Starwood, 178 lots and houses, 2. Whispering Pines Estates, 1 It Addition, 396 lots, 3. Whispering Pines Estates 2nd Addition, 285 lots, 4. Whispering Pines Estates 3rd Addition, 14 lots, 5. Whispering Pines Estates 4th Addition, 16 lots, 6. Rancho El Sereno, 39 lots, 7. Centralo, 9 remaining lots, 8. Glacier View, 13 lots 9. Glacier View 1It Addition,30 lots, 10. Buena Ventura, 41 lots, 11. Winston Ranch, 15 lots, 12. An unnamed subdivision in the SE % of the SE '/4 of Section 14, 11 lots. 13. A rural subdivision off Morrill Road, 20 lots, 14. Lots off Half Mile Road, 18 lots, 15. Boones Borough Subdivision, 1 It Addition, 79 lots 16. Boones Borough Subdivision, 2nd Addition, 108 lots 17. Pohaku Ranch, 19 Total Platted Residential Lots in Deschutes Subdivisions: 1,291. Total Residential Lots in Deschutes: 1,756. Total Houses Built: 1,324. 84 Houses Built in Two Years Between 2004 and 2006 The Burden of Proof states, at page 156-59, in relevant part: 1, 756-six residential lots are in the vicinity of the subject property, according to Tim Berg, GIS Analyst Programmer. Most are less than two acres in size and those in Starwood are 115 to % acre in size. No reasonable farmer would want to purchase and farm in this situation. Farming in such a 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 13 of 80 densely developed area is most challenging and is a health and safety risk for everyone, even for people driving through. To ensure that there would be no adverse effects on agriculture from rezoning his property, the Applicant and his team did an exhaustive and detailed study of all tax lots within the vicinity, extending a mile in all directions. They photographed most lots, noted the actual uses of each one, and noted any agricultural use, irrigation pond, or pasture. They used the County Assessor's database to determine lots sizes, owner's names and the zoning. The results of that research are recorded in the table below. The study found that the only agricultural operations in the vicinity are a few small (0.5 -20 acres) non-commercial pastures for cattle or horses and a one -acre hemp operation on Half Mile Lane. None is contiguous to the subject property. They concluded that the rezone will not adversely affect any agricultural operations. Summary of the Adjacent Uses Study 1. Agricultural Uses No active agricultural uses adjoin the subject property. This is not an agricultural area and it has been committed to urbanization since hundreds of urban -sized residential lots were created prior to 1970. No one in the vicinity makes their primary living through farming or agriculture. Most of the largest parcels have poor, rocky land that remain covered with native vegetation. Some small hobby -sized (0.5-20 acres) and large (over 120 acres) parcels to the south and east are zoned EFU, but are not agricultural and remain in juniper and sage scrub land, might be used for one residence, and are unimproved. East. Over a half mile northeast of the subject site is a 16-acre inactive recreational cattle -cutting ranch called the "Used Cow Lot". It is irrigated pasture off Morrill Road, northeast of US 97 and Pleasant Ridge Road. It is owned and run by the owners of the Murray and Holt Automobile Dealership in Bend. It is partially covered in buildings. North: There is no agricultural use on Long Butte or within a mile north of the property. Residential and commercial uses cover the butte. West: Along Half Mile Lane, a quarter of a mile to the west, an approximately 20-acre parcel had a horse racetrack and is in pasture for a few horses. The other parcels along Half Mile Lane are hobby farms/residences of 0.5 to 5 acres with a few head of horses, sheep, cattle, alpacas or llamas. Owners of two 0.5-acre parcels attempted to grow hemp last year. The largest parcel, the MUA-10 zoned 20-acre parcel with pasture for some horses may be partitioned into 20 homesites. Leroy Twiggs, who owns the land at 161227D000200 applied for 1-acre home sites under a Measure 37 claim. He plans to apply for partitions or a subdivision, when it is feasible. South. There is no agricultural use south of the subject property. South of the adjacent 4.15-acres of rock spine and a rental house are several square miles of scrub land owned by the State of Oregon and federal government. There is no farm that is the primary source of income for its owners a mile in any direction from the subject site. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 14 of 80 TIM BERG'S 2006 MAP OF 1,756 TAX LOTS in the VICINITY of DESCHUTES JUNCTION and showing the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP ZONING 2. Nonagricultural Surrounding Land Uses: East: Across US 97 to the east and beyond the EFU zoned strip of land adjacent to US 97, are RI zoned lands developed with Willamette Graystone (4.33 acres), a concrete products 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 15 of 80 manufacturing facility and a second business site, (formerly United Pipe) on the west side of Graystone Lane, is vacant. Farther to the east is the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks. Across US 97 to the southeast is land zoned RI and used for mineral processing. The two -room historic Deschutes School sits on a 1.09-acre parcel at 161226C0400, east of the subject property. It is currently used as a residence in a mobile home park. Some of the businesses to the east include intensive industrial and commercial uses, Willamette Graystone masonry products for retail and wholesale sales, a RV storage business immediately east of the Applicant's land, 4-R Equipment, a historic school adaptively used as a residence, a mobile home park, Cascade Pumice that uses the BNSF railroad spur and a fuel distributer. As set forth at pages 167-68 of Applicant's Burden of Proof: John McCauley is purchasing the land owned by the Frances Ramsey Trust Agreement that own 9.05 acres of RI zoned land directly east of the subject property. McCauley runs the RV Storage business and uses the building for warehousing. It was formerly used as a large volume industrial pipe supplier with pipes stored on site. Willamette Graystone is located on 4.33 acres east of the former United Pipe and Supply on 1226C000106. It manufactures, stores and sells rock and masonry units wholesale and retail. Jack Robinson & Sons, Inc and a subsidiary, 4R Equipment, owns and uses 58.38 acres mostly zoned Rural Industrial and a railroad spur east of the subject property and south of Willamette Graystone. Tax lot 301 was rezoned about twelve years ago to Rural Industrial from EFU. Approximately half of Tax Lot 300 was rezoned to Rural Industrial in the last four years. Their property is used for truck and equipment repair shops, truck and heavy equipment parking, offices, customer and staff parking, materials such as sand and gravel storage, a rock crushing facility, a railroad spur, and parking of trucks that belong to other companies such as fuel tankers. Their web sites states, "Jack Robinson and Sons Inc. is a General Contracting firm that has been serving Central Oregon for the last 62 years. With 32 years of experience, Ron Robinson Jr., a third generation Robinson, has helped Jack Robinson and Sons become one of the most respected construction companies in the Central Oregon area. Jack Robinson and Sons has the resources to complete any size project, but specializes in large-scale excavation, commercial development, subdivision infrastructure, site layout, and public works improvement projects. Jack Robinson and Sons has acquired extensive knowledge of drilling and blasting rock for site development and utilities and has the knowledge, manpower and equipment for any size rock or dirt moving project. Our long history has also enabled us to develop long lasting relationships with subcontractors that perform concrete, engineering, paving, fencing, electrical, and other various services so that we can focus on giving our clients the best projects with attention to value and timeline. Our company prides itself on being self sufficient and capable of completing projects with very little or no involvement from the owner. Over the last 6 years Jack Robinson and Sons has experienced tremendous growth with annual sales of 20-30 million." "4R-Equipment LLC. owns and operates 7 rock quarries, 3 rock crushers and 35 trucks. 4R maintains material sources in Bend, Alfalfa, Horse Ridge, Madras, O'Neil and Redmond." 57.7 acres of RI zoned property are adjacent to the subject parcel on Tax Map 16 12 26C as follows: • TL 102 (Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc.) 1.41 acres zoned RI • TL 106 (Willamette Greystone) 4.33 acres zoned RI • TL 107 (McCauley) 9.05 acres zoned RI • TL 111 (Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc.) 18.69 acres zoned RI • TL 114 (Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc.) 2.5 acres zoned RI • TL 300 (Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc.) 12.9 acres of a 25.85 acre parcel zoned RI • TL 301 (Jack Robinson and Sons, Inc.) 8.93 acres zoned RI 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 16 of 80 West: The square mile to the west contains 20 tax lots. The Three Sisters Adventist Christian School sits on 15.42 acres in tax lot 161227D000100. That parcel is zoned EFU-TRB but has been used exclusively as a school and residences for 35 years. It shares a north -south property line with Aceti's parcel. There are 19 houses on the remaining lots to the west. Southwest of the subject site is a fallow 30.45-acre parcel owned by a corporation, Eastslope Development, on tax lot 161227D001100. The corporation is a subsidiary of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The owners plan to use the property for school -related uses in the future. Ten parcels near Half Mile Lane range from one to three acres and are residential. The six lots along the western section line of Section 27 are bordered by an urban density subdivision called Starwood. The graveled 40-foot wide easement along the entire western property line on the subject property, 161226C000201, will be used during the construction of the roundabout at Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road, courtesy of a gentlemen's agreement between Aceti and the school. Subsidiaries of the Western Oregon Conference Assn, Seventh Day Adventists, East Slope Investment, LLC., own the .7.6 acres 161227D001300 and Rymilaka LLC owns the 30.45 acres in 161227D0011300 for future school and church facility expansion. The community of Tumalo and the Deschutes River are 3.5 miles to the west via Tumalo Road. North: At Deschutes Junction, on both sides of US 97 and both sides of Tumalo Road, Tumalo Place and Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road are commercial, retail, wholesale and industrial businesses. Many were grandfathered in when the first DCCP was approved. The 29.04-acre lot directly north of the subject lots is split zoned Rural Commercial and MUA-10. It is used for logging, landscaping and log house construction businesses, a well drilling business and other uses, but had been used as a gas station, cafe and store since the late 1930s through the widening of US 97 in 1992 when ODOT took land along its eastern property line and the highway access. The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Baker owns 3.93 acres adjacent to Tumalo Place, north of the property at Tax lot 16122613000600. The acreage has a house, a mobile home and buildings used for manufacturing. They have been recently used to make wood posts and furniture. Since the 1940s, the property was the office for Cascade Pumice. Tumalo Road borders the northern property line of the property. Property across the road to the north and northwest is zoned MUA-10 and is vacant or developed with single-family dwellings. Property to the northeast is MUA-10 and Rural Commercial (RC) and is developed with a building/landscaping supply business. The two adjacent parcels to the north are: • 161226B0O0500 (29.04 acres) 27.27 acres are zoned MUA-10 and 1.77 acres are zoned RC and used for commercial businesses and storage of contracting supplies and materials. • 161226B000600 (2.93 acres) This property is zoned MUA-10 and is used for rental housing, office and manufacturing. Some of the businesses north of Aceti's property include: 1. Fagan firewood and landscape materials and services, Aiken water well drilling, logging contracting, and contracting company, 2. The Funny Farm, with several residences, and offering costume rentals, antiques and wedding services, 3. A large bus repair and bus resale business, 4. A pickup truck canopy sales business, 5. A business selling and renting shipping containers that are not modified for agricultural uses, 6. Rock Supremacy, LLC, at 65175 N. Hwy 97, 7. A mini -storage business, 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 17 of 80 8. And other smaller businesses. (See table of information by lot below.) Rock Supremacy, LLC is a large company located in five states that drills rock, stabilizes embankments and drills tunnels for roads and railroads, among other things. South: The parcels immediately to the south (161227DO01300 and 161226C000200) have three rental houses and a barn that is no longer used. Parcel 161226C000200 is a pie -shaped 4.15 acre parcel zoned EFU-TRB and is developed with a rural residence. A non-functional small irrigation pond is next to the highway; the pond is dry this year. The property is not cultivated. To the southwest (16-12-27 1100) is an undeveloped parcel in farm tax deferral and assessed as having 26 acres of irrigation rights. There is no agricultural use south of the subject property. South of the adjacent 4.15 acres of rock spine and a rental house are several square miles of scrub land owned by the State of Oregon and federal government. The City of Bend acquired 1,500 acres to the south from the county, known as Juniper Ridge. Juniper Ridge is a quarter mile southeast of the subject property. A power plant for Swalley Irrigation District is directly south of the subject property. There are no active agricultural uses adjoining the subject property. One agricultural use in the vicinity is east of US 97, one-half mile northeast of the subject site. There are no agricultural uses within one mile north of the property. Within one-half mile west of the property, two 20- acre parcels are in pasture and horses. There are 4 10- acre parcels along Half Mile Lane and some properties south of Tumalo Road (.5 to 5 acres in size) that may be characterized as "hobby farms" with a few head of horses, sheep, cattle, alpacas or llamas. The property is located about 3.25 miles north of Bend and 6.5 miles south of Redmond via US 97. The center of the historical town of Centralo/Deschutes is about 1/8 mile east of the property, at the railroad tracks. The property is about 27 driving miles southwest of Prineville. Tumalo Road and US 20 connect Deschutes Junction with Sisters and Salem. COWL asserts in its September 8, 2020 submission that the subject property is "surrounded on three sides by land zoned for exclusive farm use and is suitable for sparse settlement, a small farm (its use for over a century) or an acreage homesite." The Hearings Officer finds this assertion is not supported by substantial evidence. The argument the property is suitable for a small farm was rejected by LUBA in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016). There is no evidence to support a finding that the subject property is suitable for sparse settlement or an acreage homesite. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 18 of 80 Aerial photo of subject property and surrounding area with zoning map overlay. (Source: Deschutes DIAL) I. PROGRESSION OF DEVELOPMENT: DESCHUTES, 1943 TO PRESENT: The Applicant's Burden of Proof includes a collection of aerial photos of Deschutes Junction presented in chronological order. They illustrate the continual parcelization and non-agricultural development at Deschutes. Thousands of acres were never cultivated. The photos in Figures 12-14 were taken when the homesteader James Low owned the Deschutes Ranch. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 19 of 80 FIGURE 12. US ARMY 1943 AERIAL PHOTO, VIEW 1 Source: US Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery Surveyor Office The purple arrow marks the Bend Airstrip that was west of the subject property on the southwest corner of Long Butte. The Deschutes Golf Course is on the right side of the railroad tracks northeast of the subject property, marked with a green arrow. The Deschutes River is marked with a blue arrow. The subject property is outlined in gold. The light shade of grey means it has not been irrigated or cultivated. The dark parcels are irrigated lands. The Pilot Butte Canal is marked with a red arrow. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 20 of 80 FIGURE 13: US Army 1943 AERIAL PHOTO VIEW 2. Source: US Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery Surveyor Office The double track stop at the Oregon Trunk Railroad is shown in purple. Tumalo Road is marked in green. The Bend Airstrip is marked in red. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 21 of 80 FIGURE 14: US Army 1943 AERIAL PHOTO VIEW 3. SOURCE: US Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery Surveyor Office US 97, the Dalles-California Highway, was a graveled two-lane road at the time. It is indicated with a blue arrow. The town of Deschutes is shown with a green arrow. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 22 of 80 FIGURE 15. May 25, 1965 ODOT AERIAL PHOTO a m- 06 A227-63 S,�2S%6S I�ESGvc T 'S ✓c?7 The subject property is outlined in red. The farm at the upper right is now the Funny Farm. The Deschutes cafe, Hancock service station, various businesses and three houses are on the property due north of the subject property. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 23 of 80 FIGURE 16. BEND MAPPING & BLUEPRINTING AERIAL PHOTO OCTOBER 6, 1976 VIEW 1. This photo was taken three years before the first Deschutes County zoning ordinance. Subdivision roads are constructed on Long Butte for Whispering Pines Estates subdivision and in Rancho El Sereno and other subdivisions. Land is broken up into 1/5 acre to 3 acre lots. The pumice operation is along the railroad tracks. The orange arrows points to the motorcycle racetrack, where commercial and industrial businesses are located today. A blue arrow points to the Hancock Gas Station, Cafe, and store on what is now the Fagan property. The purple arrow points to the horse racetrack. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 24 of 80 FIGURE 17. BEND MAPPING & BLUEPRINTING OCTOBER 6, 1976 VIEW 2 N1,�. f f5tlfasq, A horse racetrack was used on the parcel west of the subject site, outlined in red. The racetrack is highlighted in orchid. The Swalley Canal is indicated by an orange arrow. The golf course is highlighted in yellow. The Pilot Butte Canal is marked in green. The blue arrow points to US 97, two lanes at that time. The double railroad tracks are highlighted with turquoise. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 25 of 80 FIGURE 18. MAY 1994 GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE This photo was taken in 1994, the year before Aceti purchased the subject property on contract from the Barrett Brothers. US 97 was enlarged to a four -lane paved highway in 1992. It shows the school, subdivided and portioned lots and dozens of homes constructed west of the subject property along Tumalo Road, Whispering Pines Estates, Rancho El Sereno, and Half Mile Lane. The subject property is highlighted in yellow. Industrial and commercial development has proceeded on the east side of US 97, indicated in orchid. United Pipe has constructed its building, indicated in turquoise. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 26 of 80 Rural and Urban Density Subdivisions in the immediate area with dates of plat and lots. DATE of NAME NUMBER FIRST PLAT OF LOTS 1911 Centralo (1911) 465 (2020) 9 1967 Rancho El Sereno, 39 1968 Whispering Pines Estates 711 1969 Glacier View 43 1977 Sylvan Knolls 26 1978 Buena Ventura 41 1978 Pohaku Ranch 19 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 27 of 80 1978 Boones Borough 187 1978 Winston Ranch 15 There are other partitions that are included in this total, such as on Half Mile Lane. The Hearings Officer notes that no rebuttal testimony or evidence was presented to refute the evidence regarding the progression of development detailed in the finding above. J. LAND USE HISTORY: The subject property has been part of the following land use applications: • LR-89-148 - Lot of Record determination for tax lot 201 (included two other tax lots). • RN-91-11 - Road name change from Nichols Market Road to Tumalo Road (affected all of Nichols Market Road). • LM-95-63 - Landscape Management Review for a barn. • CU-96-4 - Replace the intersection of Deschutes Market Road and Tumalo Road with a grade separated interchange (Deschutes County was the applicant). • CU-97-72/SP-97-49 - Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for commercial uses in conjunction with farm use.2 • LL-99-19 - Property Line Adjustment for the property • MC-99-1 - Modification to CU-97-72/SP-97-49 to include the word processing in the approval and expand the hours of operation and daily truck -trailer operations. • MC-02-12 - Modify CU-97-72/SP-97-49 to expand the commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. This application was denied. • MC-07-5 - Modified CU-97-72/SP-97-49 to expand commercial uses at the site. • 247-14-000456-ZC/457-PA — Zone Change from EFU to RI and Plan Amendment From Agriculture to Rural Industrial. Approved with conditions by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on January 6, 2016 via Ordinances 2016-001 and 2016-002. • 247-16-000593-A — Initiation of LUBA Remand of 247-14-000456-ZC/457-PA to repeal the portion of Ordinances 2016-001 and 2016-002 approving an exception to Goal 14 and to reaffirm the decision to change the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning map from EFU-TRB to RI for the subject property. Approved by the BOCC in Ordinances 2016-027, 2016-028, 206-029 and 2016-030. The Burden of Proof at pages 28-32 addresses in detail the condemnation actions and negotiations between Aceti and Barrett (Aceti was purchasing the property on contract; Barrett remained owner of record) with ODOT and the County in 1996-97 for the taking of a portion of the property (approximately three acres) for construction of a new overpass and road alignment. Page 30 states, in relevant part: 2 The Applicant submitted evidence that the 1997 approvals included approval to construct an additional 100x200 foot building on the property. However, the overpass was constructed across the site for the second building shortly thereafter in 1998. The second building could not be re -sited on the north portion of the property due to the proximity to the overpass and the new setbacks required on each side of the new overpass. Aceti and the County entered into an agreement pursuant to which the County agreed the second building can be constructed anywhere on the property provided it meets setbacks. In 1998, Aceti sold and traded land to the County and to ODOT for Tumalo Place, the on and off ramps to US 97 and the Deschutes Junction Overpass Project. Aceti granted a 40-foot wide easement along the west side of the property for ingress and egress to the property southwest of his and a 20-foot wide easement to Avion for the north -south length of his property. He donated 15 feet of property along the northern boundary of TL 201 (approximately 1,000 feet long) to the County for the purpose of widening Tumalo Place right-of-way so the left-hand turn lane onto his property could be constructed. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 28 of 80 Rezoning the property from EFU to Rural Service Center or Rural Industrial was discussed at length in county meetings and the BOCC agreed that it was appropriate to rezone the property to a non- agricultural zone at that time. However, as talks progressed, the county's planning director told Senator Ben Westland that the county could not rezone a property by signing a contract with the owners and the zoning could not be changed through a deed or Settlement Agreement and it must go through a land use application process. However, the county told Aceti he must apply for the zone change and he would likely have to contract for legal help to complete the application. The county attorney did write in the settlement agreement (See EXHIBIT 6) (item 9.1) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ACETI AND DESCHUTES COUNTY "Subject to paragraph 12 hereof, Public Works agrees not to oppose a subsequent comprehensive plan change or rezoning of the Aceti property from EFU to rural service center, rural industrial, or other similar plan or zone designation." Page 31 of the Burden of Proof states, in part: Deschutes County questioned whether or not (Aceti's] custom hay growing and hay brokerage business was an agricultural activity allowed in the EFU-TRB. Therefore, in June 1997, (Aceti] applied to Deschutes County to conduct a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. CU-97- 72/SP-97-49, was approved with conditions on Nov 21, 1997. More code enforcement complaints would follow through the years. The subject application to re -designate and rezone the subject property differs from the Applicant's previous application submitted in December 2014 (file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC/457-PA) as follows. First, due to the County's need for land for a roundabout at the intersection of Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place, the acreage of TL 104 is reduced to 1.28 acres. Second, the application for an exception to Goal 14 has been deleted. The Applicant submits that, "The sections of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 3.4 that resulted in LUBA's reversal of the local approval of the application have been amended and paved the way for this application." Mr. Aceti testified at the public hearing that he just signed paperwork in the condemnation proceedings for the new roundabout on the west side of the property. Mr. Aceti believes that additional property may be required to accommodate future transportation projects to prevent traffic backups onto US 97. Mr. Aceti has also granted a temporary easement for the project. K. PRIOR DECISION -MAKING ON REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF PROPERTY: The Applicant attached copies of the following decisions to the application: • LUBA No. 2016-012 Final Opinion and Order • LUBA No. 2017-009 Final Opinion and Order • LUBA No. 2018-126 Final Opinion and Order • Oregon Court of Appeals Decision, 2017009; A165313 (288 Or App 378 (2017) • Oregon Court of Appeals Decision, 2018126; A170693 The Applicant's attorney, Bill Kloos, Law Office of Bill Kloos PC, submitted copies of the following two LUBA decisions with his September 15, 2020 rebuttal submittal: • Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989) • Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014) The application materials include the following summary of the Applicant's efforts to re -designate and rezone the subject property: 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 29 of 80 The Applicant submitted a similar application, 247-14-000456-ZC and 247-14-000457-PA, about the same parcels with the County Planning Division on December 31, 2014. He requested that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners change the Comprehensive Plan designation of his property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and change the Zoning Designation of the property from Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). The BOCC approved those applications with conditions. Those BOCC decisions were appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by Central Oregon LandWatch (COL W). The application demonstrated that it met the applicable criteria, no person opposed the application and it had widespread oral and written support by farmers and ranchers in the county, previous owners and all the surrounding property owners. The 2014 application took nearly three years and was completed on October 18, 2017 when the Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with LUBA that the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time limited new Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial land to three listed exception areas including Deschutes Junction, but the subject parcels were not included in the list of exception areas. However, the courts offered a remedy. The LUBA decision [LUBA No. 2016-012] stated that the court agreed with the County that the Rural Industrial designation would not be limited to the three exception areas listed on DCCP Section 3.4, provided that the County amends DCCP Section 3.4 to remove language that limits application of Rural Industrial designation to the three identified sites, or expressively broadens application of the Rural Industrial designation to other sites deemed to be eligible under DCC [P] Section 3.4 for the Rural Industrial plan designation. The BOCC took the action that was recommended to amend the DCCP in 2018 and grant itself the authority to rezone land to Rl. That amendment allowed this application to go forward. COL appealed that BOCC decision. LUBA rejected every argument. COLW appealed LUBA's snub to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA. The following are the steps in the previous applications and the County's resulting text amendment to remedy the problem with the Comprehensive Plan. 1. The County Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 2016-001, dated January 6, 2016, granted the Applicant's request to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Sections 5.10 and 5.12, to adopt an Exception to Goal 14 and to change the Plan Designation for his two parcels from Agriculture to Rural Industrial. 2. The County Board of Commissioners Ordinance No. 2016-002 dated January 6, 2016 granted the Applicant's request to change the zoning designation on the Applicant's two parcels from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI). 3. COWL appealed the two ordinances (No. 2016-001 and No. 2016-002) to LUBA. The appeal was called LUBA No. 2016-012, Central Oregon LandWatch Petitioner vs. Deschutes County respondent and Anthony Aceti and Steve Mulkey Intervenors -Respondents. The case resulted in the LUBA Final Opinion and Order on August 10, 2016. This order remanded the ordinances back to the County because no exception to Goal 14 was needed and granting an exception to Goal 14 created an unintended consequence. Granting an exception to Goal 14 would have allowed urban uses on the two parcels and that was not the intention of either the Applicant or the County. The Applicant did not apply for urban uses. LUBA found that Aceti did not need to apply for an exception to Goal 14 and the BOCC did not need to grant an exception to Goal 14 in order to rezone the property to Rl. LUBA wrote, "The only reason for approving such an exception that we can think of is to authorize urban uses of rural land" (Page 27 lines 9-11). LUBA found that the Applicant did not request that the County authorize any 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 30 of 80 urban uses on rural land, therefore no exception to Goal 14 was needed. Rural Industrial uses are not urban uses. LUBA found that all of the uses addressed in RI zoning code 18.100.010 and 18.100.020 are rural uses and are not urban uses. The other key finding of the LUBA Decision was that the county correctly determined that "the property does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(b)" (Page 18 lines 11- 13). 4. On October 10, 2016 the Applicant, Aceti, submitted a request for remand procedures with Deschutes County, numbered 247-16-000593-A. He asked for approval of the application without the Exception to Goal 14. A BOCC work session was held on October 24, 2016 in which staff explained the remand and the current request to proceed on remand. That meeting was followed by a public hearing on November 2, 2016. 5. The BOCC approved County Ordinance No. 2016-027 on December 28, 2016. The County Ordinance No. 2016-027 addressed the fact that the Applicant did not need to apply for an exception to Goal 14, because only rural uses are allowed in the RI zoning code, not urban uses, and the Applicant was applying for a zone change for uses that are permitted under the RI code. (He would have to apply for an exception to Goal 14 only if he was applying for an urban use. He was not.) The reference to an exception was deleted from the previous ordinances. 6. COWL appealed the County Ordinance No. 2016-027 to LUBA on January 17, 2017. 7. On June 15, 2017 LUBA's Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 2017-009 reversed the BOCC's decision on a new topic. The court found that the County's Comprehensive Plan allows new Rural Industrial zoning in only three designated exception areas, and that the Comprehensive Plan must be amended by the BOCC to allow designation in additional areas before it can take the action it did on the Aceti parcels. 8. Deschutes County did not agree with LUBA's interpretation of its Comprehensive Plan and appealed LUBA's decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. 9. On October 18, 2017 the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon, (Central Oregon LandWatch, Respondent and Cross Respondent v. Deschutes County, Petitioner and Cross- Petitioner, Land Use Board of Appeals Decision Number 2017009, A 165313) agreed with LUBA and upheld the LUBA decision. On page 15, lines 2-9, LUBA wrote, "Although we need not resolve the issue, we also tend to agree with the county that the Rural Industrial designation is not necessarily limited the three exception areas listed on DCCP Section 3.4, provided the county first amends DCCP Section 3.4 to remove language that limits application of Rural Industrial designation to the three identified sites, or expressively broadens application of the Rural Industrial designation to other sites deemed to be eligible under DCC [P] Section 3.4 for the Rural Industrial plan designation." 10. In March 2018 County legal and planning staff, with input from Aceti's attorney and planner, began scoping out text amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) to fix the problem in the DCCP that was identified by LUBA. In April 2018 the County initiated amendments to the DCCP under Planning Division File No. 247- 18-0004044-PA. The Planning Commission and BOCC considered the new text amendments to give the County the authority to approve site -specific applications to plan designate and zone property to rural Commercial and Rural Industrial uses so long as the application is consistent with all state and local land use regulations. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 31 of 80 In May 2018 the County staff took the draft amendments to the Deschutes County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered and discussed the proposed amendments during two meetings and recommended that the BOCC approve them on July 12, 2018. The BOCC held a public hearing on August 20, 2018. The ordinance that amended three relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan and included findings was approved as Ordinance No. 2018- 008 on September 26, 2018. 11. COWL appealed the County's Ordinance No. 2018-008 to LUBA. COWL presented six assignments of error. 12. On March 20, 2019, LUBA denied all six of the arguments presented by COLW. The LUBA Final Opinion and Order No. 2018-126 affirmed the Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-008 that included text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 13. COWL petitioned the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon to review LUBA's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA's decision without opinion (AWOP), making the LUBA Final Opinion and Order stand. Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2018-008 stands. Because the summary above was excerpted from the Applicant's application, the Hearings Officer's review of the decisions is separately set forth below in the Conclusions of Law. L. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agricultural to Rural Industrial and change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI) on 21.56 acres at 21235 Tumalo Road, aka County Assessor's Map 16- 12-26C, Tax Lot 201 and 16-12-27D, Tax Lot 104. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) dated June 1, 2020. 1 agree with the TIA's assumptions, methodology and conclusions, but do not completely agree with the proposed mitigation for the intersections of Tumalo Road/Graystone Lane (technically, this is Deschutes Market Road/Graystone Lane) and Graystone Lane/Pleasant Ridge Road. The TIA discusses property donations or acquisitions for future roundabouts as a mitigation and pro -rats fee based on trip rates. The County disagrees. As development actually occurs on the site, assuming the comprehensive plan and rezone are approved, the County will assess transportation system development charges (SDCs) on that development. The current SDC rate is $4,488 per peak trip. The County changes its SDC every July 1, per Board Resolution 2013-059. The actual SDC is based on the rate current when building permits are pulled, not the SDC rate when the land use is approved. The SDCs will mitigate the transportation impacts of the subsequent rural industrial development. Additionally, at time of future development, further traffic analysis may be required, depending on whether a future proposed development triggers the traffic analysis thresholds of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(C)(3). The County may also consider non -infrastructure mitigations (as an example, for manufacturing uses, start/stop times for workers would occur outside of the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak hours), which are allowed under the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060(11). The property accesses both Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road, County -maintained roads, which have access permits approved by Deschutes County (SW4040 and SW 4051) and thus complies with DCC 17.48.210(A), 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 32 of 80 Deschutes County Road Department, Cody Smith I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file numbers to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agricultural to Rural Industrial and change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI) on 21.56 acres at 21235 Tumalo Road, aka County Assessor's Map 16-12-26C, Tax Lot 201 and 16-12-27D, Tax Lot 104. 1 concur with the comments submitted by Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, on August 25, 2020, Oregon Department of Transportation Region 4 Done Morehouse, Senior Transportation Planner The comments below on the Aceti Traffic Impact Analysis are from Dave Hirsch in our Traffic Unit • Page 6 — Please state what the appropriate growth factors are and which ATR was utilized • Page 8 — Year 2020 Operations Analysis — Please convey if these generated volumes are based on 2016 collected volumes grown with the appropriate growth factor cited in Page 6 • Pages 10, 13, 15 — It would be helpful to add a statement as to the AD and peak hour traffic along US 97 and how close those traffic volumes are to the capacity of the US 97 road section. This could give insight into the availability of gaps to/from US 97 and Deschutes Market Road and if this could lead to a safety problem or not. In the Mitigation Measures section on page 15 it is stated that ODOT should evaluate the acceleration/deceleration lanes in the future. Analysis to support this based on expected operation and safety performance would be helpful. • In general there was not a safety evaluation completed to look at current crashes at the project intersections and potential crash/safety issues. The following agencies did not respond: Central Electric Cooperative, Swalley Irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Building Division, Deschutes County Environmental Soils, Avion Water Company, Pacific Power and Light, Redmond Airport, Watermaster — District 11. M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of the proposal to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property, at least 20 days prior to the public hearing. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. The application materials include letters of support for the proposal (Attachment 3) as summarized on page 18 of the Burden of Proof. The application is supported by all adjacent property owners. No property owner opposed the previous application, and no person is known to be in opposition to the current application. As discussed below, COWL opposes the application. Mr. Aceti enclosed an additional support letter from Jamie McCright, President of Milann Farms Inc. with his September 15, 2020 rebuttal submission. Mr. McCright states that he is a third generation farmer and a contract farmer and hay and commodities broker. Mr. McCright has rented a portion of the property from Mr. Aceti for the past 2 years to park trucks, trailers, bailers and other equipment. He stated he recently stopped an employee from using a Fail type of equipment on the property because the rotating metal hammers that touch the ground were creating sparks from rocks in the soil. This could have ignited the dry weeks and created a fire hazard to the area. He summarizes: I would like to say that I cannot find a location in the city of bend that I can accommodate my Operation with this kind of safe access and space for my extra -large trucks and equipment. I provide service and products to local farms, in and round, Bend, Tumalo, Terrebonne, Alfalfa, Redmond, Sisters, Powel Butte [sic], Prineville and Madras. There is a great demand for Rural Industrial land because the RI land across Highway 97 is built out with none to spare. There is not a better location for RI uses in the rural county that I can justify. Additional letters in support of the application include the following comments, summarized below: 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 33 of 80 • Deschutes Junction is a hub for Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial uses currently and historically • Existing Rural Industrial businesses in the Deschutes Junction area have expanded and properties have been rezoned to accommodate new growth • Rural Industrial land in the county is in short supply and cannot meet demand • Deschutes Junction has excellent and safe transportation access, including access points from the Highway 97 overpass • Deschutes Junction is no longer characterized by farming uses • The requested rezone to Rural Industrial would be a good fit with other uses in the area • Poor soils and irregular sized parcels are difficult to farm; the proximity of the parcel to Highway 97 and bisection of the parcel by the overpass also negatively impact farming uses, including grazing livestock • Having rural services in the area will benefit the community and efficiently fulfill needed family wage jobs and services • The requested zone change will be more reflective of the current neighborhood and more financially sustainable; it will conserve resources by allowing local residents to travel shorter distances for services and will provide additional revenue and tax base for the county • The requested zone change will improve the appearance of the area COWL appeared through Carol Macbeth and provided testimony and argument in opposition to the application. Ms. Macbeth stated that just because a parcel of land is considered "too small" does not mean it is not suitable for farming. She stated the property has been used for agriculture in the past. Ms. Macbeth cited a Bend Bulletin newspaper article in which Mr. Aceti was described as a hay famer during the condemnation proceedings for construction of the overpass. Mr. Aceti was quoted as stating the underpass was needed to move cattle back and forth from one part of the property to the other. Ms. Macbeth also argued that all uses that may be permitted outright in the Rural Industrial zone are not rural uses, taking exception to the Staff Report. She further stated that the change in the DCCP, adopted via Ordinance No. 2018-008 does not allow rezoning and re -designation of any property to Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial; any such application is still subject to Goal 14. Ms. Macbeth argued that the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that, for urban uses outside a UGB, there must be a Goal 14 exception. She alleged there is a conflict between the DCC and the DCCP and notes that urban uses are not defined. The record was left open to allow COWL an opportunity to submit written comments which it did on September 8, 2020, summarized below: • Statewide planning goals apply to comprehensive plan amendments (ORS 197.835(6)) • Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern (ORS 215.243(3)) • Industrial use is a type of urban use not permitted on rural land without an exception to Goal 14 • The subject property meets the definition of "undeveloped rural land" in OAR 660-014-0040(1) • The Oregon Supreme Court in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation and Development (Curry County), 301 Or. 447, 724 P.2d 268 (1986) limits rural uses to a sparse settlement, a small farm or an acreage homesite; other uses require an exception to Goal 14 • Industrial use is unrelated to rural uses in nature and kind; no number of conditions on size, setbacks, lighting, or similar characteristics can alter the nature of the use • DCC 18.100 is not a list of rural uses • DCC 18.100 was acknowledged at a time when the phrase "rural industrial" was Deschutes County's own appellation for a handful of carefully delineated, bounded rural lands where exceptions had been taken and industrial uses predated the land use planning laws; DCC 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 34 of 80 18.100 was acknowledged when "rural industrial" could only be applied to specific exception areas • Zoning code requirements do not alter the nature of the use • Industrial uses inherently conflict with rural uses • The Applicant is wrong that DCC 18.100.030(J), limitation on industrial uses applies. This is because DCC 18.100.020 conditionally allows pulp and paper manufacturing • Under DCC 18.100.030(J), the County may not approve any use on the property requiring contaminant discharge permits prior to a review of the contaminant discharges by state or federal agencies, but there are no containment discharge permits in the record • The requested amendment does not comply with Goal 6; demonstration of compliance cannot await a specific development application as Goal 6 does not apply to specific development applications • The application is not specific enough to determine if uses are urban; the County cannot determine whether the requested amendments comply with the goals, including Goal 14 • Because no use has been proposed, no conditions of approval designed to guarantee that a given use is not urban in nature can be imposed • It is impermissible to rely on some other agency's hypothetical future actions to demonstrate compliance with Goal 6 in the present • The application is not specific enough to determine if uses are urban; because no use has been proposed, no conditions of approval designed to guarantee that a given use is not urban in nature can be imposed • Demonstration of compliance with Goal 14 cannot await a specific development application, as Goal 14 does not apply to specific development applications • The proposal cannot be reviewed and approved without a Goal 14 exception application • Industrial use is a type of urban use under Goal 14 which states, in relevant part, "Notwithstanding other provisions of this goal restricting urban uses on rural land, a county may authorize industrial development, and accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development, in building of any size and type, on certain lands outside urban growth boundaries specified in ORS 197.713 and 197.714." • Industrial use is permitted without an exception to Goal 14 only in discrete, specifically bounded areas (urban areas, unincorporated communities and on lands zoned for industrial prior to 2004) • OAR 660-014-0040 regulates urban development and provides the rule for locating industrial use on undeveloped rural lands; under this regulation, industrial uses are permitted without an exception only in the areas described in ORS 197.713. • Without knowing the particular use requested, there is no way to know whether the Applicant has water available for industrial use. N. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated August 19, 2020, indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on August 19, 2020. O. REVIEW PERIOD: The applications for 247-20-000438-PA and 247-20-000439-ZC were submitted to the Planning Division on June 30, 2020. According to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.427. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. CONTEXT FOR DECISION -MAKING BASED ON LUBA AND COURT RULINGS The Hearings Officer's findings, conclusions and recommendation are based on my independent review of prior decisions issued by LUBA and the Court of Appeals concerning the subject property and DCCP 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 35 of 80 amendments. My findings, conclusions and recommendation also are based on my independent review of Ordinance 2018-008 and supporting findings. 1. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016), LUBA No. 2016-012, Final Opinion and Order (Remanded August 10, 2016) COWL appealed the BOCC's adoption of Ordinances 2016-001 and 2016-002, which changed the DCCP map designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and changed the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU) to Rural Industrial Zone. The challenged decision approved an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14. LUBA addressed two assignments of error. The First Assignment of Error addressed OAR 660-033- 0020(1), definition of "Agricultural land," as the term is used in Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands). COWL argued that the County erred in determining that the subject property does not qualify as agricultural land. COWL advanced four arguments under the assignment of error: (1) the property's history of irrigated agriculture shows it is agricultural land; (2) there has been no change in the irrigated status of the property; (3) there has been no change in the soils; and (4) the Borine Study, which the county relied on, does not establish that the property is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. LUBA declined to re -weigh the evidence and ruled that substantial evidence in the record supported the County's determinations. In denying the First Assignment of Error, LUBA ruled: The Borine Study is evidence a reasonable person would rely on and the county was entitled to rely on it. This study supports the county's conclusion that the site is not predominantly Class VI soils (page 11). LUBA rejected COWL's argument that the Borine Study does not establish that the property is predominantly Class VII and VIII soils. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the county's determination that irrigating the subject property would have to overcome a number of obstacles and would not likely produce enough in the way of increased production to make such irrigation practical (page 13). LUBA rejected COWL's arguments that (1) the history of irrigation establishes that the subject property qualifies as agricultural land, and (2) the county erroneously found there was been a change in irrigation status following the construction of the overpass. "[T]he differences between NRCS and the Borine Study with regard to their conclusions about the classification of the soils on the property is explained by the high nature of the NRCS data and the more detailed nature of the Borine Study. [COWL] assigns far too much significance to the historical use of the 21-acre property when it was part of a much larger farm unit." (page 14). LUBA rejected COWL's argument that could not have been a "radical change" in soils to support a determination that the soil quality on the property dropped from irrigated Class III soils to Class VII and Class VIII. The county's findings regarding OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) (even if land does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A), land may qualify as agricultural land taking into consideration factors including "accepted farming practices") are supported by the record and are sufficient to explain why the county concluded the subject property need not be inventoried as agricultural land (page 16). Specifically, LUBA cited the county's determination that commercial agricultural uses in the vicinity are limited, and found that it is not an accepted farm practice to irrigate and cultivate Class VII and VIII soils. COWL has not shown the county erred in determining the property does not qualify as agricultural land under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) (lands "adjacent to or intermingled with land in capability classes... I -VI within a farm unit") (page 18). Specifically, LUBA agreed with the county's determination that the property is comparatively small for eastern Oregon, there is a major highway bisecting the property that makes it much more difficult to put to farm use, the property never contributed significantly to any of the larger farming operations it was part of in 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 36 of 80 the past, and the subject property is not adjacent to or intermingled with any property that currently constitutes a farm unit. The Second Assignment of Error addressed the argument that the County erred by approving an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14 for the subject property. LUBA sustained that assignment of error and remanded the County's decision. A summary of LUBA's ruling on the Second Assignment of Error is as follows: COWL did not waive its right to raise Goal 14 issues on appeal to LUBA (page 20). OAR 660-014-0030(3) sets out four factors that must be considered in granting an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14. OAR 660-014-0030(4) makes it clear that an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 14 must be based on all four factors and there must be a statement of reasons explaining why the facts found in addressing the factors support a conclusion that the land is committed to urban rather than rural development (pages 21-22) The county adopted findings addressing all of the OAR 660-014-0030(3) factors, but the explanation for why the facts the county found support a conclusion that the property is committed to urban use, per OAR 660-014-0030(4), is missing (page 22). LUBA continued, "That the required explanation for why the property is irrevocably committed to urban uses is entirely missing is hardly surprising. The subject property is located in the vicinity of farm and rural non -farm uses and is bordered by Highway 97 and divided by Tumalo Road. In the abstract it is difficult to see how being surrounded by rural uses and roadways could ever irrevocably commit rural land to urban uses, since that requires a finding that 'all rural uses, are impracticable."' (page 23). "To approve a committed exception to Goal 14 to allow urban uses of the property (because all rural uses are impracticable) and then apply a zoning district that was adopted to limit industrial uses to rural industrial uses would appear on its face to be inconsistent." (page 23). The only reason for approving a Goal 14 exception is to authorize urban uses of rural land. "The approved exception, had it been affirmed on appeal, would make it irrelevant whether the RI zone allows urban uses." (page 27). "The challenged decision only changes the plan and zoning map designations for the property; it does not approve any specific uses on the property. Once any potentially urban uses of concern that might be allowed in the RI zone have been identified, conditions of approval could be imposed to either preclude such urban uses or require approval of a Goal 14 exception in the future before such uses could be addressed in the future. Or if the applicant plans to seek approval for such uses, a more limited "reasons" exception to authorize just those potentially urban uses would seem to offer a far better chance for success than an irrevocably committed exception." (page 28). The Hearings Officer finds that parties are bound by the law of the case with respect to LUBA's upholding of the County's determination that the subject property does not constitute Agricultural Lands under OAR 660-033-0020(1). The law of the case doctrine "is a general principle of law ... that when a ruling or decision has been once made in a particular case by an appellate court, while it may be overruled in other cases, it is binding and conclusive both upon the inferior court in any further steps or proceedings in the same litigation and upon the appellate court itself in any subsequent appeal or other proceeding for review. Gould v. Deschutes County, 272 Or.App. 666, 362 P.3d 679 (2015) (quoting Boise Cascade Corp. v. Board of Forestry, 216 Or.App. 338, 351, 174 P.3d 587 (2007), rev den, 344 Or. 390, 181 P.3d 769 (2008).The doctrine is "essentially one of judicial economy and judicial discretion." State v. Metz, 162 Or.App. 448, 454, 986 P.2d 714 (1999), rev den, 330 Or. 331, 6 P.3d 1101 (2000). The doctrine applies to issues decided by LUBA, as well those issues decided by reviewing appellate courts, and prohibits a municipality from revisiting such issues and resolving them differently in later phases of a case. Gould, 272 Or.App. at 673. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 37 of 80 The Hearings Officer finds that COWL has not presented any new evidence that warrants a different determination from that previously made by the County in file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC and 247-14- 000457-PA and upheld by LUBA in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016). COWL has presented the same arguments regarding agricultural land/Goal 3, which arguments are based on the same allegations that were considered and rejected by LUBA. COWL did not appeal LUBA's ruling denying its assignment of error regarding agricultural lands. COWL cannot collaterally attack that portion of LUBA's decision regarding agricultural lands on the subject property, which constitutes the law of the case. The Hearings Officer rejects COWL's arguments regarding agricultural lands as having been conclusively decided by LUBA. The Hearings Officer finds that LUBA's ruling concerning Goal 14 is three-part as follows. First, LUBA ruled that the County erred in approving a Goal 14 "irrevocably committed" exception because there was not a sufficient "statement of reasons" explaining why the property is committed to urban uses and urban level of development. Because the County's reasoning was missing to support a "committed" exception, remand was required. Second, LUBA determined that, if the hearings officer reasoned that the RI zone only authorizes rural uses, such reasoning was not stated with adequate clarity. Moreover, LUBA observed that if the Goal 14 exception had been affirmed on appeal, it would make it irrelevant whether the RI zone allows urban uses. Finally, LUBA determined that the application approved only a change in the plan and zoning map designations for the property; it does not approve any specific uses on the property. LUBA did not rule that no exception to Goal 14 is needed for Rural Industrial uses that are permitted outright by DCC 18A 00.010 and/or for conditional uses allowed under DCC 18.100.020. LUBA did not remand the decision to the County to remove the exception to Goal 14, but sustained COWL's assignment of error that the Goal 14 exception was unsupported by law. LUBA did not rule that an exception to Goal 14 was unattainable. 2. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 75 Or LUBA 441, afFd, 288 Or App 378, 405 P3d 197 (2017), LUBA No. 2017-009, Final Opinion and Order (Reversed June 15, 2017) On remand from LUBA, Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016), the BOCC adopted Ordinances 2016-072, 2016-028, 2016-029 and 2016-030, which: (1) repealed the portion of Ordinances 2016-001 and 2016-002 that approved an exception to Goal 14 and (2) changed the DCCP map designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and changed the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU) to Rural Industrial Zone. COWL appealed the ordinances. The County supported its decision with findings that the map amendments do not authorize urban uses and therefore do not require an exception to Goal 14. Although COWL raised several assignments of error, LUBA's resolution of the First Assignment of Error was dispositive. LUBA did not reach the other assignments of error, but noted in a footnote that COWL had argued that, without an exception to Goal 14, all new industrial development is limited to urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities, and the circumstances set out in ORS 197.713 and 197.714 for certain lands that were "planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004." Page 5, n.2. On page 7, note 4, LUBA commented: A significant area of disagreement between petitioner and the county is whether the RI zone actually limits the industrial uses allowed in the RI zone so that they are less intensive than the uses allowed in unincorporated communities under OAR chapter 660, division 22 and will not constitute "urban uses" that are generally prohibited on rural land by Goal 14. We need not and do not attempt to resolve that disagreement in this opinion. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 38 of 80 LUBA ruled in dicta on page 9, note 6 of its decision that, "Assuming the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone do so [limit industrial uses to those that are rural in nature], an exception to Goal 14 would be unnecessary." The Assignment of Error addressed by LUBA is whether the Rural Industrial DCCP map designation and corresponding RI zoning designation is limited to certain existing exception areas that are identified in the DCCP. COWL argued that the subject property cannot be designated RI because it is not included in one of three acknowledged exception areas. The County had adopted findings to reject that argument and interpreted DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the County to apply the RI plan designation to any property, as long as it is located outside urban growth boundaries and outside designated unincorporated communities and either (1) does not qualify as forest land or (2) is the subject of an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) or Goal 4 (Forest Lands). COWL attempted to invoke Goal 14 in its argument, but LUBA rejected the broad argument that "all industrial development is urban in nature and requires a Goal 14 exception unless located within an urban growth boundary or a designated unincorporated community." (Page 12). LUBA reversed the County's decision, upholding the First Assignment of Error, and ruled: [T]he county's interpretation (of DCCP Section 3.41 cannot be affirmed if it is `fi]nconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan ...'For the reasons explained below, the county's interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 `fi]s inconsistent with the express language' of DCCP Section 3.4 which was quoted earlier. Given that DCCP language, the county's broad interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the Rural Industrial designation to be applied to any rural lands outside an urban growth boundary or unincorporated community, as long as that rural land is not agricultural or forest land, is implausible and not affirmable under ORS 197.829(1)(a). It is the county's interpretation, not petitioner's interpretation, which fails to give meaning to the only DCCP language that actually addresses what properties are eligible for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial plan designation. Petitioner emphasized the underscored language in the DCCP language quoted above. See n.10. It may be that language does not expressly foreclose the possibility that the county might be able to identify additional areas that are built or committed to rural industrial development, take an exception to the applicable resource goals, if any, and add those areas to DCCP Section 3.4. However, unless and until that happens it is inconsistent with that DCCP language for the county to apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to sites other than the three identified exception areas. We agree with the county that the Rural Industrial plan designation is not limited to incorporated communities, and in fact we do not understand petitioner to argue that the Rural Industrial plan designation is appropriately applied within unincorporated communities. Although we need not resolve the issue, we also tend to agree with the county that the Rural Industrial designation is not necessarily limited to the three exception areas listed in DCCP Section 3.4, provided the county first amends DCCP Section 3.4 to remove language that limits application of the Rural Industrial designation to the three identifies sites, or expressly broadens application of the Rural Industrial designation to other sites deemed to be eligible under DCC [sic] Section 3.4 for the Rural Industrial plan designation. But as the DCCP Section 3.4 language quoted earlier makes clear, the Rural Industrial designation is a limited purpose map designation, in the sense it is a plan designation that was expressly applied only to three identified areas that had already been built or committed to rural industrial development, and nothing in DCCP Section 3.4 purports to authorize its application to other properties in other circumstances. Pages 12-15 (footnotes omitted). LUBA reversed the decision on the basis that "the geographically limited DCCP Section 3.4 authorization for the Rural Industrial plan designation does not include the subject property." Therefore, the County's decision to apply the Rural Industrial designation to the 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 39 of 80 subject property "violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law." Page 16 (citing OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c)). LUBA did not rule on the propriety of the County's findings that a Goal 14 exception is not required to rezone and re -designate the subject property to RI. The County appealed LUBA's Final Opinion and Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which affirmed LUBA in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 288 Or App 378, 405 P3d 197 (2017). The County then adopted Ordinance No. 2018-008 to amend the text of the DCCP to remove language that limited application of the Rural Industrial (RI) and Rural Commercial (RC) plan designations to specific areas described in the DCCP. 3. Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2018-126, Final Opinion and Order (Affirmed March 20, 2019) COWL appealed the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-008 that amended the text of the DCCP to remove limiting language that LUBA and the Court of Appeals found prohibited application of the Rural Industrial (RI) and/or the Rural Commercial (RC) plan designations to those specific areas described in the DCCP. The Ordinance does not approve re -designation of the subject property, which is the subject of the current application. As stated on page 5 of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, in relevant part: Because the three areas listed in prior DCCP 3.4 were the only areas in the county that were subject to the RI plan designation, the effect of the plan amendments is to allow the county to potentially approve an application to change the comprehensive plan designation for any property in the county to Rl, provided the application is consistent with all applicable statutes, rules, the provisions of the DCCP, and the provisions of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) governing plan amendments. LUBA stated that it understood COWL's arguments with respect to Assignments of Error One and Two to be: (a) that the County's decision fails to comply with Goal 14 because the amendments will allow urban uses on rural land, that the findings the County adopted to demonstrate compliance with Goal 14 are inadequate and that unamended provisions of DCC 18.100.010 allow urban uses on rural lands in contravention of Goal 14; (b) that the County's findings are inadequate to demonstrate compliance with OAR 660-014-0040(3)(a); (c) that the County's findings regarding compliance with Goals 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 are inadequate and improperly defer a finding of compliance with those goals to a future proceeding in which the RI or RC plan designation is applied to property; and (d) that the County failed to demonstrate compliance with OAR 660-004-0018. LUBA made the following findings, summarized as follows: • The County correctly found that the challenged text amendments do not allow any urban uses on rural land because the amendments do not apply the RI plan designation to any property, but merely expand the allowable locations in the county that could be the subject of an application to change the plan designation to RI (Page 12). • COWL's arguments that DCC 18.100.010 allows urban uses are an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledged land use regulation (Page 12). • OAR 660-014-0030(3)(a) applies only when an irrevocably committed exception is sought to establish urban development on rural land, and because the amendments do not approve an exception, the rule does not apply (Page 13). • Goal 3 is not implicated by the County's decision because no land is re -designated or re -zoned by the amendments (Pages 13-14). • Because the decision only amends the text of the DCCP, but does not apply the RI or RC plan designations to any property, Goals 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 are not implicated (Page 14). 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 40 of 80 • OAR 660-004-0018 (requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exception areas) does not apply (Pages 14-15). With respect to Assignment of Error Three, LUBA rejected COWL's argument that the RI plan designation is a limited designation that the County may only apply to exception areas that were in existence and designated RI when the DCCP was first acknowledged (Page 15). With respect to Assignment of Error Four, LUBA rejected COWL's argument that the County's decision fails to satisfy the standards for an exception at ORS 197.732, stating "the county's decision does not take an exception to any statewide planning goals." (Pages 15-16). With respect to Assignment of Error Five, LUBA rejected COWL's argument that the County failed to comply with the requirements for a reasons exception at OAR 660-004-0022 and that the County was required in this decision to adopt a reasons exception to Goal 3. LUBA observed that the amendments do not apply the RI or RC plan designation to any property and thus, the County was not required to adopt a reasons exception to Goal 3 (Page 16). With respect to Assignment of Error Six, LUBA rejected COWL's argument that the amendments to the DCCP are inconsistent with DCCP 5.2 and that the County failed to establish a need for additional rural industrial or rural commercial uses (Pages 16-17). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, effective August 5, 2019, upholding Ordinance 2018-008. The Hearings Officer interprets this decision to rule that Goal 14 and Goal 3 exceptions were not required, and the County did not have to consider Goals 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 in the context of the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 2018-008 because the amended text did not result in the re - designation of any specific property to RI or RC. Therefore, the Hearings Officer must consider whether a Goal 14 exception is required for the subject application and must consider and address consistency with other applicable Goals. As discussed above, the law of the case is that Goal 3 is not applicable to the proposed re -designation of the subject property because it does not constitute Agricultural Land. E.g., Gould, 272 Or.App. at 673. 1 find that no exception to Goal 3 is required. 4. Ordinance No. 2018-008 The BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 2018-008 on September 26, 2018, effective October 26, 2018, amending DCC Title 23.01.010, Introduction, DCCP Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management, and DCCP Chapter 5.12, Supplementary Section — Legislative History. The Deschutes County Community Development Department initiated the amendments via File No. 247-18-000404-PA to allow for the potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Industrial or Rural Commercial. Following a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2018, the BOCC concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the DCCP and DCC. Ordinance No. 2018-008 does not apply to any specific property and does not effectuate a re -designation and rezone of the subject property. As noted above, COWL appealed the County's decision to LUBA which denied the appeal. LUBA's decision was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals. Section 3.4 of the DCCP, Rural Economy, was amended at page 3 with respect to Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial, adding language that, among other things, states, "[i]t may be in the best interest of the County to provide opportunities for the establishment of new Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial properties, when they are appropriate and regulations are met. Requests to re -designate property as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial will be reviewed on a property -specific basis in accordance with state and local regulations." The section on Rural Industrial on pages 4-5 was amended to state, among other things, that: 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 41 of 80 The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific property within existing Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. The section on Future of Deschutes County Economy on page 5 states, among other things: From a rural perspective, working with the agriculture and forest sectors to encourage new uses as discussed in those sections of this Plan is an option to supplement the otherwise minimal growth expected in rural commercial and rural industrial areas. Section 3.4 Rural Economy Policies, specifically Policy 3.4.9 (Rural Commercial designated lands), was amended, and a new Policy 2.4.36 was added, which states: Properties for which a property owner has demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered for Rural Industrial designation, as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is approved for the Rural Industrial plan designation. Ordinance No. 2018-008 was supported by Findings, attached as Exhibit D to the ordinance. Among other things, the Findings state: 1. LUBA No. 2016-012 sustained the County's determination that the Aceti property was not resource land, but remanded a Goal 14 exception approval, "with instructions that the exception was necessary only if the County wished to approve urban uses on rural land." 2. Following the decision in LUBA No. 2017-009, in which LUBA reversed the County's approval of a comprehensive plan designation change and zone change for the Aceti property because it was inconsistent with the express language of the DCCP which did not allow approval of the Rural Industrial plan designation for properties outside the three listed exception areas, the Court of Appeals upheld LUBA's decision. 3. "Consequently, legislative amendments to the DCCP are needed to grant the County the authority it believed it had, authority that every other County in Oregon has, when it interpreted the DCCP. The proposed amendment language will need to address, at the minimum, the language the Court of Appeals concluded limited the application of the Rural Industrial plan designation." 4. "The purpose for the proposed amendments to the DCCP is to plainly and unequivocally establish that Deschutes County has the authority to approve, throughout the county, an application for a comprehensive plan designation change for a specific property to Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial so long as the plan designation change is consistent with the Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS"), Oregon Administrative Rules ("OAR"), the DCCP and the Deschutes County Code. Following approval of the proposed amendments, the County's authority to approve such comprehensive plan designation changes will not be limited to the existing exception areas currently defined in the DCCP." 5. "The proposed amendments do not change the plan designation of any property within Deschutes County, or otherwise authorize any development or land use changes in the county." 6. The proposed DCCP amendments were submitted to LCDC in the manner prescribed by ORS 197.610. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 42 of 80 7. The amendments help provide for the provision of adequate opportunities for economic development in the County as provided by ORS 197.712(1). "LCDC has acknowledged the DCCP as consistent with the requirements of subsection 2(a) through (d) [of ORS 197.712] and the proposed amendments do not change or otherwise affect those provisions. These amendments will provide a reasonable opportunity to satisfy arising needs for commercial or industrial development on rural lands consistent with conservation of the state's agricultural and forest land base as identified in ORS 197.712(2)(g)(A) by requiring that any proposal for the Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation in rural areas of the county demonstrate why the resource goals do not or should not apply to the property." 8. The proposed amendments most directly concern Goal 9. While the DCCP contains policies intended to contribute to a stable and healthy economy in the county and LCDC acknowledged the plan as consistent with Goal 9's planning and implementation guidelines, the recent LUBA and Court of Appeals decision eliminated one of the primary implementation measures that the County previously believed it had. As a result of those decisions the County lost the `land use control' implementation measure of having the authority to approve comprehensive plan designation changes to Rural Industrial for properties outside the existing exception areas when approval of a requested change was otherwise allowed by ORS, OAR, the DCCP." 9. "[T]he DCCP expresses the County's intention to pursue the full range of economic opportunities that are available to the County so long as such activity would continue to maintain the integrity of the County's rural character and natural environment." 10. "The purpose of Goal 14 is to direct urban uses to areas inside urban growth boundaries. The proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 14 because not only must any application for Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial plan designation demonstrate it is consistent with Goal 14, but, as DCCP Policy 3.4.9 and Policy 3.4.23 direct, land use regulations for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660 Division 22, and are consequently not urban uses." 11. "Agricultural Land Goal 1 [in the DCCP] recognizes the importance of preserving agricultural lands and of supporting the agricultural industry in the county. However, Policies 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 recognize, as does the discussion in the introduction, that there are properties in the county where land that is designated for agricultural use is not suitable for or necessary to support agriculture." 12. "Furthermore, existing Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 provide that land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. Implementing regulations for those policies have been incorporated into DCC Title 18." 13. "The introductory statement for DCCP Section 3.2 Rural Development recognizes the potential for limited economic development in rural areas of the county. The statement notes that state law greatly restricts rural commercial and rural industrial uses in rural areas, so consequently the economic growth in those areas is not anticipated to be significant. DCCP Chapter 3, p. 3." 14. "Each of those passages [in DCCP Section 3.2 Rural Development] express the County's intent to pursue the full range of economic opportunities available, while at the same time recognizing that Oregon's statewide land use planning program imposes severe limitations on the types and intensity of economic activity that can occur on rural land. While the expectation is that future rural commercial and industrial growth in the county will be extremely limited, those provisions leave little doubt that the County wishes to pursue whatever opportunities exist to promote rural economic development." 15. "The proposed amendments also do nothing that allows urban uses on rural land, thereby implementing Policies 3.4.9 and 3.4.23. The application of DCC Title 18 to any development proposed on Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial designated land will ensure that the development approved is 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 43 of 80 consistent with the requirements set forth under Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 to not adversely affect surrounding area agricultural or forest land, or the development policies limiting building size (Policies 3.4,14; 3.4.30), sewers (Policies 3.4.18; 3.4.31 and .35), and water (Policies 3.4.19; 3.4.31) intended to limit the scope and intensity of development on rural land." 5. Other LUBA Decisions Concerning Goal 14 The Applicant's attorney, Bill Kloos, included analysis and attached copies of LUBA decisions regarding the question of whether a Goal 14 exception is required. In his September 15, 2020 letter, Mr. Kloos quoted Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922, 931 and n. 5 (1989): [W]e have consistently taken the position that, in the absence of interpretative rules or goal amendments adopted by LCDC, whether a residential, commercial, industrial or other type of use is "urban" or "rural' requires a case by case determination, based on relevant factors identified in various opinions by this Board and the courts.... Thus, we do not agree with the petitioner that an industrial use is per se an urban use. (footnote omitted). In Shaffer, LUBA considered an appeal after remand involving a county decision to approve a map amendment requested for a specific use: an asphalt batch plant. LUBA had originally remanded the decision in Shaffer v. Jackson County, 16 Or LUBA 871 (871) because the county had not determined whether the proposed asphalt batch plant is an urban or rural use. As stated on page 931-32: The additional factor claimed by petitioner to be determinative of urban use status, i.e., not being limited to serving the needs and requirements of the rural area, is derived solely from our opinions concerning the urban/rural nature of commercial uses. This factor might be significant, or even determinative, in deciding whether a commercial use is urban or rural. However, this factor need not have the same relevance with regard to other types of uses. We agree with intervenors that if this factor were determinative for all types of uses, most farm uses would be urban. With regard to industrial uses, we find the fact that the product of an industrial use will be used in urban areas is relevant to a determination of whether that industrial use is urban, but it is not conclusive. (footnote omitted). LUBA revisited the issue in Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014). In that case, LUBA reviewed an appeal of a county's approval of an application for comprehensive plan amendment and zone change, submitted for the purpose of allowing an expansion of a rural industrial park to accommodate "future maritime and large lot industrial users that will benefit from the moorage and deep -water access [of Port Woodward], existing services, energy generation facilities and rail/highway/water transportation facilities." The applicant did not propose any specific industrial uses for approval through the reasons exception process; an exception to Goal 3 was requested. LUBA agreed with the Port that nothing in OAR chapter 660, division 004 or elsewhere requires the county to identify a specific proposed use, or precludes the county from identifying a relatively wide range of industrial uses as the proposed "use" for purposes of applying the reasons exception criteria. LUBA reiterated its holding in Shaffer that industrial uses are not inherently urban in nature. The following factors must be considered in determining whether a proposed rural industrial use is rural or urban, which ask whether the industrial use: 1. Employs a small number of workers; 2. Is significantly dependent on a site -specific resource and there is a practical necessity to site the use near the resource; 3. Is a type of use typically located in rural areas; and 4. Does not require public facilities or services. None of these factors are conclusive in isolation, but must be considered together. If each of these factors is answered in the affirmative, then it may be concluded, without more, that the proposed 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 44 of 80 industrial use is rural in nature. However, if at least one factor is answered in the negative, then further analysis or steps are necessary. The county then must do one of the following three things: 1. Limit the allowed uses to effectively prevent urban use of rural land; 2. Take an exception to Goal 14; or 3. Adequately explain why the proposed use, notwithstanding the presence of one or more factors pointing toward an urban nature, should be viewed as a rural use. As LUBA ruled in Columbia Riverkeeper, the County must expressly consider the factors listed in Shaffer and offer more than a "bare conclusion" that the proposed plan amendment authorizes no urban uses. The Hearings Officer analyzes each of the Shaffer factors in the Ruling on Goal 14 Exception section below. 6. Staff Memorandum to Hearings Officer on Goal 14 Issues Staff prepared and submitted to the record a Memorandum to the Hearings Officer, dated September 2, 2020, detailing the history associated with the Applicant's prior request for plan amendment and zone change and identifying contrasting arguments of the Applicant and COWL with respect to the subject application. This Memorandum states, in relevant part: The county approved a request for plan amendment and zone change (file nos. 247-14-000456- ZC/457-PA) for the subject property to redesignate and rezone it to Rural Industrial. This decision was appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In the decision (LUBA No. 2016-012), LUBA remanded the county's decision sustaining the petitioner's assignment of error that challenged the adequacy of the county's Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) exception concluding that the county failed to provide the required explanation for why the subject property is irrevocably committed to urban uses and remanded the decision. On remand (file no. 247-16-000593-A), the applicant did not include an exception to Goal 14 in the plan amendment request. The county again approved the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments finding that the challenged map amendments do not authorize urban uses and therefore do not require an exception to Goal 14. That decision was appealed to LUBA by Central Oregon LandWatch. In the subsequent decision (LUBA No. 2017-009), LUBA acknowledged the petitioner suggested the county's interpretation of Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.4 is inconsistent with Goal 14 based on the argument that all industrial development is urban in nature and, therefore, requires a Goal 14 exception unless located within an urban growth boundary or a designated unincorporated community. LUBA rejected that broad argument without further analysis. POSITIONS ON CURRENT PROPOSAL Applicant In summary, the applicant argues an exception to Goal 14 is not required because the Rural Industrial comprehensive plan designation is applicable to areas outside of urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities. The applicant further argues the proposal is not likely to result in the urbanization of the subject site by allowing development with Rural Industrial zone uses and the applicable development standards of the zone will result in appropriate and compatible low density development and not an urban level density. Central Oregon LandWatch 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 45 of 80 In summary, Central Oregon LandWatch again argues an exception to Goal 14 is required to permit all new industrial development outside of urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities and as otherwise authorized by Oregon Revised Statute. As such, COWL contends the proposed plan amendment and zone change requires approval of an exception to Goal 14 and cannot be approved as proposed. Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine: (1) will the proposed plan amendment and zone change result in the potential for urban uses; and (2) does the proposed plan amendment require an exception to Goal 14? The Hearings Officer addresses the arguments of the Applicant and COWL below. B. RULING ON APPLICABILITY OF GOAL 14 EXCEPTION In general, Goal 14 compliance issues raised by a post -acknowledgement plan amendment must be addressed and resolved at the time the plan amendment is adopted. Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 47 Or LUBA 160, 169 (2004). In that case, LUBA did not foreclose the possibility, but questioned whether a goal compliance issue raised by the plan and zoning amendment could be "deferred" to a subsequent development approval under the zoning scheme adopted in the amendment decision. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014). The Hearings Officer finds that I need not reach this issue in my ruling on applicability of a Goal 14 exception, nor in my ruling on Goal 14 compliance. The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant is incorrect in his argument that LUBA remanded the matter to the County in LUBA No. 2016-012 with directions to remove the exception to Goal 14 from the approval of the Applicant's application for re -designation and rezoning of the subject property. I find that the BOCC's finding in support of Ordinance 2018-008, that LUBA remanded the original re -designation and rezone approval "with instructions that the exception was necessary only if the County wished to approve urban uses on rural land," is correct. As LUBA stated in LUBA No. 2017-009: Assuming that the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone do so [limit industrial uses to those that are rural in nature], an exception to Goal 14 would be unnecessary. (emphasis added). Under LUBA No. 2016-012 and LUBA No. 2017-009, no Goal 14 exception is required if the only uses that may be permitted under DCC Chapter 18.100 are rural industrial uses. The Applicant submits that he does not desire to permit urban uses on the property in the future and that the policies of the DCCP, implemented by DCC Chapter 18.100, which is an acknowledged land use regulation, do not allow urban uses on RI designated and zoned land. Specific findings with "reasonable clarity" must be made to support a determination that the zoning code and comprehensive plan limit industrial uses to those that are rural in nature. Of significance, however, LUBA has already rejected the assertion that DCC 18.100.010 allows urban uses: Respondents also respond that petitioner's arguments that DCC 18.100.010 allows urban uses are an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledged land use regulation. We agree. No provisions of the DCC were amended by the challenged decision and accordingly, an appeal of amendments to the DCCP is not the appropriate place to challenge those acknowledged DCC provisions. LUBA No. 2018-126 at p. 12 (emphasis added). The Hearings Officer is bound by this ruling and must reject COWL's arguments regarding the timing and alleged reasoning for the acknowledgement of DCC 18.100. Moreover, COWL's speculation as to what the County had in mind when it adopted DCC 18.100 cannot be considered as substantial evidence, even if the issue was properly before me, which it is not. See, e.g., Pekarek v. Wallowa County, 33 Or LUBA 225 (1997) (unsupported statements and assumptions by persons testifying at a hearing concerning the challenged decision do not constitute substantial evidence); see also Reeves v. Washington County, 24 Or LUBA 483 (1993) (defining "substantial evidence"). 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 46 of 80 COWL's argument that all industrial uses are per se urban uses has been consistently rejected by LUBA and reviewing courts. In LUBA No. 2017-009 and LUBA No. 2018-126, LUBA rejected the broad argument that "all industrial development is urban in nature and requires a Goal 14 exception unless located within an urban growth boundary or a designated unincorporated community." These rulings are binding on the parties as the law of the case. E.g., Gould, 272 Or.App. at 673. The Hearings Officer thus rejects COWL's repeated arguments on this issue.3 Specifically, I reject the arguments that: (1) the only rural uses allowed without an exception to Goal 14 are a sparse settlement, a small farm or an acreage homesite; (2) "without an exception to Goal 14, all new industrial development is limited to urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities, and the circumstances set out in ORS 197.713 and 197.714 for certain lands that were "planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004"; (3) industrial uses are fundamentally incompatible and inherently conflict with other rural uses, regardless of conditions; and (4) zoning code requirements do not alter the nature of the use. The Hearings Officer also rejects COWL's argument that there is no "need" for additional rural industrial or rural commercial land, under the law of the case doctrine. The Hearings Officer reads the decision in LUBA No. 2016-012 to be based on LUBA's ruling in Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922, 931 (1989). As discussed above, Shaffer involved a decision that rezoned resource land to rural industrial to allow a specific use, development of an asphalt batch plant. LUBA set forth four factors to be considered together in determining whether a specific proposed use is urban or rural in nature. If each of the four factors is answered in the affirmative, it is relatively straightforward to conclude, without more, that the proposed industrial use is rural in nature. If one of the four factors is answered in the negative, however, the county would either have to limit allowed uses to effectively prevent urban use of rural land, take an exception to Goal 14, or adequately explain why the proposed use, notwithstanding the presence of one or more factors pointing toward an urban use, should be viewed as a rural use. Here, the Applicant is not proposing any specific use associated with the request to re -designate and rezone the subject property, but has provided has provided a "worst case" development scenario. The Hearings Officer finds that such fact is not uncommon, nor does it impermissibly require the County to defer findings of consistency with Statewide Planning Goals to a future date when a specific development application is submitted and reviewed. The Hearings Officer rejects COWL's argument that the application is not detailed enough to determine if potential, future uses on the property will be urban. The Hearings Officer finds I must assume that any of the suite of outright and conditional use in the RI zone could be developed on the property, subject to the requirements of that zone, site plan review (DCC Chapter 18.124), and conditional use criteria (DCC Chapter 18.128) where applicable. The Applicant's attorney, Mr. Kloos argues that the County's RI zoning limits the types of uses to those typically located in rural areas and that typically employ a small number of workers. Moreover, he submits that the DCC prohibits uses that require public facilities and services typical of urban uses in the RI zone .4 Mr. Kloos did not address whether the use is "significantly dependent on a site -specific 3 COWL argues that all industrial uses are "unrelated to rural uses in nature and kind," and are "not the kind of use that is intended for rural lands." September 8, 2020 letter at pp. 3, 5. COWL also argues that "conditions on size, setbacks, lighting or similar characteristics" cannot alter the nature of industrial uses in the RI zone, stating that such conditions do not "alter the nature of the use or the conflicts with rural uses inherent in industrial uses. Id. at pp. 3-4. COWL also advances the same argument rejected by LUBA that the language of Goal 14 can only be construed to mean that industrial development is a type of urban use. Id. at pp. 9-10. The Hearings Officer rejects these arguments as contrary to the law of the case. 4 Mr. Kloos argues that COWL's reliance on ORS 197.713 is misplaced because its provisions are directed to urban levels of industrial uses on rural land, not on rural levels of rural industrial uses on rural land. He posits that ORS 197.713 applies only to approvals of urban levels of industrial uses on rural lands. Hence the phrase "in buildings of any size and type" language suggests large, urban levels of development and restrictions on the location of urban uses within three miles of a UGB prevents unfair competition with urban industrial uses within cities. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 47 of 80 resource and there is a practical necessity to site the use near the resource." In Shaffer, LUBA found that the argument the proposed use would have a "significant comparative advantage" is not a relevant factor to be used to determine whether the proposed use is rural rather than urban. 17 Or LUBA at 944. Reviewing the four factors that must be considered in determining whether a proposed rural industrial use is rural or urban, the Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that two of the four factors are satisfied in that the potential uses: (a) would employ a small number of workers; and (b) do not require public facilities or services. I find there is not substantial evidence to support an affirmative finding of the other two factors that the potential uses are: (a) significantly dependent on a site -specific resource and there is a practical necessity to site the use near the resource; and (b) are a type of use typically located in rural areas. Therefore, the County must do one of the following: Limit the allowed uses to effectively prevent urban use of rural land Take an exception to Goal 14; or Adequately explain why the proposed use, notwithstanding the presence of one or more factors pointing toward an urban nature, should be viewed as a rural use. The Applicant has not requested an exception to Goal 14 and is not proposing any specific use of the subject property. Thus, the Hearings Officer must determine that the allowed uses are limited to effectively prevent urban use of rural land in order to recommend approval of the application without a Goal 14 exception. The Hearings Officer finds this standard is satisfied for the following reasons. First, LUBA has rejected the argument that DCC 18.100.010 allows urban uses as constituting an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledged land use regulation. LUBA 2018-126, p. 12. Second, DCC Chapter 18.100 implements DCCP Policies 3.4.9 and 3.4.23, which together direct land use regulations for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones to "allow uses less intense than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-022 or its successor," to "assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands." The BOCC adopted this finding in support of Ordinance 2018-126, which was appealed and sustained by LUBA and the Court of Appeals. Third, as the BOCC found in adopting Ordinance 2018-126, which was appealed and sustained by LUBA and the Court of Appeals, the application of DCC Title 18 to any development proposed on Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial designated land will ensure that the development approved is consistent with the requirements set forth in DCCP Policies 3.4.12 and 3.4.27 to not adversely affect surrounding area agricultural or forest land, or the development policies limiting building size (DCCP Policies 3.4.14 and 3.4.28), sewers (DCCP Policies 3.4.18 and 3.4.31) and water (DCCP Policies 3.4.19 and 3.4.32) intended to limit the scope and intensity of development on rural land. Fourth, DCCP Policy 3.4.28 includes a direction that, for lands designated and zoned RI, new industrial uses shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural area, for which there is no floor area per use limitation. Fifth, DCCP Policy 3.4.31 includes a direction that, for lands designated and zoned RI, residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on -site sewage disposal systems. Sixth, DCCP Policy 3.4.32 includes a direction that, for lands designated and zoned RI, residential and industrial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water systems. As the Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1, 1 find that the state policy embodied in Goal 14 applies and 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 48 of 80 that the proposed re -designation and rezone (and potential uses allowed outright and conditionally) will ensure more efficient use of the land than under current circumstances, particularly given that the property has not been farmed since construction of the overpass project and is largely in a fallow, undeveloped state. I further find that the proposed rezone will provide for an orderly transition from urban development to rural development, considering the existing transportation "hub" nature of Deschutes Junction, the bisection of the subject property by Tumalo Road and the overpass, which connects the subject property to rural commercial and rural industrial properties to the east of Highway 97, and the other adjacent surrounding commercial and industrial uses. The Applicant's study of surrounding uses covers the vicinity. I find that the study shows the rezone is compatible with surrounding land uses. This work was done so that it could be confidently determined that the proposed RI zone will be compatible with the surrounding natural resources, built environment and existing uses. It determined that the proposed RI zone will be similar to the commercial and industrial uses and zoning that are assigned to the adjacent properties to the north and east. For the reasons set forth above, I find that compliance with Use Limitations set forth in DCC 18.100.030, Dimensional Requirements in DCC 18.100.040, Parking and Loading requirements in DCC 18.100.050, Site Plan Review requirements in DCC 18.100.060 and DCC Ch. 18.124, Conditional Use Review under DCC Ch. 18.128 (where required) and Additional Requirements in DCC 18.100.070 will be applied and enforced to ensure compatibility of any proposed RI use with other surrounding uses, including the school property and rural residential development to the west, the EFU-zoned property developed with a single rural residence to the south, and the MUA-10 zoned rural residential properties to the northwest. The Hearings Officer find that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will not result in the potential for urban uses on the subject property. For the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment does not require an exception to Goal 14. C. TITLE 18. DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 18.84. Landscape Management Combining Zone Section 18.84.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of this chapter shall also apply to all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise identified a landscape management corridors in the comprehensive plan and the County Zoning Map. The distance specified above shall be measured horizontally from the centerline of designated landscape management roadways or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape management river or stream. The limitation in this section shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices. FINDING: US 97 is identified on the County Zoning Map as the landscape management feature. The Hearings Officer finds the location and application of the LM Zone will not be affected by this amendment. Therefore, LM review is not required. Chapter 18.100. Rural Industrial FINDING: The Applicant is proposing a map amendment to change the DCCP designation from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and an associated zone change from EFU-TRB to RI. The Applicant is 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 49 of 80 not at this time requesting approval of any proposed use allowed outright or conditionally in the RI zone. The Hearings Officer finds that future development of the property will be subject to the applicable provisions of DCC Chapter 18.100 if the application is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. As set forth above, the Hearings Officer finds that I need not review specific uses allowed outright or conditionally in the RI zone to determine that DCC 18.100.010 does not allow urban uses. As LUBA ruled in LUBA 2018-126 at page 12, "petitioner's arguments that DCC 18.100.010 allows urban uses are an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledged land use regulation. We agree. No provisions of the DCC were amended by the challenged decision and accordingly, an appeal of amendments to the DCCP is not the appropriate place to challenge those acknowledged DCC provisions." Chapter 18.136. Amendments Section 18.136.010. Amendments. DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Applicant requests a quasi-judicial map amendment to change the DCCP designation and zone from Agriculture to Rural Industrial. The Applicant filed the appropriate applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The proposal is reviewed under the procedures of DCC Title 22. The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to rezone EFU-TRB zoned land to the RI when the applicable criteria are met. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. The Hearings Officer notes that, although a pre -application meeting is not required, the Applicant met with Associate Planner Izze Liu and Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell prior to submission of the application. Applicant's traffic consultant, Joe Bessman, PE, Transight Consulting, LLC met by phone with Mr. Russell several times. Section 18.136.020. Rezoning Standards. The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: The Applicant submits that rezoning the subject property to RI will best serve the public interest, that the request is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the character of the vicinity and the proposed new zoning will match the neighboring parcels to the east. The Applicant also submits that the proposed rezoning from EFU-TRB to RI will be consistent with its proposed plan re - designation. In the matter of 247-19-000648-PA and 247-19-000649-ZC, the BOCC adopted (via Ord. 2019-02) the Hearings Officer's decision that included the following finding to address this criteria: In previous Hearings Officer's decisions, the Hearings Officers have found that comprehensive plan goals and policies do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial zone changes. This Hearings Officer agrees. Instead, County goals and policies are implemented through the 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 50 of 80 zoning ordinance, and thus if the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance it also will be consistent with the plan. Nevertheless, some provisions of Deschutes County's comprehensive plan are the relevant provisions of the plan that should be considered in reviewing applications to change the zoning of EFU to a plan designation of urban industrial and Redmond zoning of Light and Heavy Industrial. Similarly, the relevant provisions should be considered to change the zoning of Redmond Light and Heavy Industrial to a plan designation of agriculture and zoning of EFU. Those relevant to this application ... are addressed below. Other provisions of the plan do not apply. This Hearings Officer finds this finding is applicable to the subject proposal. The Hearings Officer's decision in the Applicant's first application for a rezone and re -designation, file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC, 247-14-000457-PA (hereinafter referred to as "Aceti 1"), quoted LUBA in Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004): Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held `As intervenor correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.] Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]' LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to `consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23.08.020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as follows: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to the various decisions which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then interpreted to make decisions about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer previously found that the above -underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case included those ranging from 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 51 of 80 aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to policies with language providing `guidance for decision -making' with respect to specific rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to `(r]ecognize the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area including the subject property] and discourage future rezonings of these properties.' LUBA held that. `* * * even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations, pursuant to ordinance provisions that require * * * consistency with applicable plan provisions.'(Emphasis added.) The county's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The applicant's burden of proof addresses goals for rural development, economy, transportation, public facilities, recreation, energy, natural hazards, destination resorts, open spaces, fish and wildlife, and forest lands. The Hearings Officer finds these goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision standards for the proposed zone change." As the Hearings Officer held in Aceti 1, "depending upon their language, some plan provisions may require `consideration' even if they are not applicable approval criteria." Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, 209 (2004). Consistency with the plan provisions that require consideration is addressed in detail in the findings below. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: Section 3.4 of the DCCP, includes the following language for the rural industrial designation: Rural Industrial The county may apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to specific property within existing Rural Industrial exception areas, or to any other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code, and that is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022. The subject property is not within existing Rural Industrial exception areas and is located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. Therefore, the property must be found to satisfy the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, the DCCP and the Deschutes County Development Code. As stated in Section 3.4 of the DCCP, quoted above, RI plan designation and zoning brings specific properties, such as the subject property, into compliance with state rules "by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022." (emphasis added). DCC 18.100.010 states the purpose of the RI Zone is: "... to encourage employment opportunities in rural areas and to promote the appropriate economic development of rural service centers which are rapidly becoming urbanized and soon to be full- 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 52 of 80 service incorporated cities, while protecting the existing rural character of the area as well as preserving or enhancing the air, water and land resources of the area. " The record supports a finding that rezoning the subject property to RI is consistent with the purpose and intent of the RI zone. The Applicant's proposed zone change would create employment opportunities in rural areas in general and in the rural Deschutes Junctions area in particular. There are more than 4,000 people living in the Deschutes Junction area who largely commute to Redmond or Bend. Some could seek employment in businesses that may be permitted in the new RI zone, meeting goals for fewer miles traveled to work and enhancing air quality and reducing fuel usage. Because the application does not seek approval of any specific use on the subject property, rezoning it to RI will not directly impact the "existing rural character of the area," nor the air, water and land resources of the area. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the proposed zone change is consistent with the current character of the area which is primarily characterized by the US 97 interchange (a key transportation hub) and rural industrial and rural commercial uses adjacent to the subject property. There are no large farm/commercial farming activities in the surrounding area. As detailed in the Findings of Fact above (Sections E, F, G, H and 1), the "existing rural character of the area," has been significantly impacted by construction of the Deschutes Junction overpass project and the surrounding road network, which includes a proposed new roundabout that will require a portion of TL 104 for its construction. 57.7 acres of property to the east across US 97 are zoned RI and developed with a variety of rural industrial uses. Immediately to the west, is property owned and used by the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School. Between the subject property and the school is a graveled 40-foot wide easement, along the entire western property line of TL 201, which will be used during the construction of the new roundabout. To the north, on both sides of US 97 and both sides of Tumalo Road, Tumalo Place and Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road are commercial, retail, wholesale and industrial businesses. The 29.04-acre lot directly north of the subject lots is split zoned Rural Commercial and MUA-10. Property across the road to the north and northwest is zoned MUA-10 and is vacant or developed with single-family dwellings. The parcels immediately to the south of the subject property are developed with three rental houses and the Barrett barn that is no longer used. The remaining land to the southeast is scrub lands and is publicly owned.' The Hearings Officer finds that the "existing rural character of the area," does not consist of bucolic farmland and small farm -related buildings, but instead is a hodgepodge of various rural industrial and rural commercial uses, a school, several dwellings and scrub land. With respect to the purpose of the RI zone to preserve or enhance the air, water and land resources of the area, the Hearings Officer also relies on the Findings of Fact above (Sections E, F, G, H and 1). Substantial evidence in the record shows the negative impact of the adjacent US 97 and surrounding road network/traffic on air quality and noise. Land resources in the area generally have not been 5 The Applicant changed references to "Deschutes Junction" in its materials, as explained on pages 2-3 of the Burden of Proof. According to Oregon Geographic Place Names, "Deschutes Junction" was the official name of a railroad station near Biggs, and is also the term used by the County Roads Department and ODOT for the junction or intersections of Tumalo Road, Tumalo Place, Deschutes -Pleasant Ridge Road, Deschutes Market Road and US 97. Oregon Geographic Place Names lists "Deschutes" as the official name of the community. Accordingly, the Applicant uses "Deschutes" to refer to the town and community, and "Deschutes Junction" to refer to the intersection of the roads around the overpass. 6 The Hearings Officer notes that, when the property is developed in the future, uses allowed in the RI zone outright or conditionally will be subject to the use limitations of DCC 18.100.030 which provide some impact protections for adjacent and "across a street residential neighbors. DCC 18.100.030 restricts industrial uses on a "lot adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling." If the subject property is divided into smaller industrial use lots, adjacent and "across a street" neighbors will receive DCC 18.100.030 impact protections only from any immediately adjacent industrial use, but no such protections from new "internal" lots in the development. See the Hearings Officer's decision in 4-R Equipment 247-14-000131-CU, 247-14-000132-SP. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 53 of 80 preserved for agricultural use as there are no active agricultural uses adjoining the subject property. One agricultural use in the vicinity is east of US 97, one-half mile northeast of the subject site. There are no agricultural uses within one mile north of the property. Within one-half mile west of the property, two 20- acre parcels are in pasture and horses. There are four 10-acre parcels along Half Mile Lane and some properties south of Tumalo Road (.5 to 5 acres in size) that may be characterized as "hobby farms" with a few head of horses, sheep, cattle, alpacas or llamas. There is no evidence of water resources of the area that would be affected by the proposed rezone, other than the fact that the nearby irrigation pond, originally used to provide water to the subject property, has been significantly reduced in size by the US 97 expansion and has been dry this year. The Pilot Butte Canal is 200 feet east of the subject property. When the property is developed in the future, uses allowed in the RI zone outright or conditionally will be subject to review and conditions of approval (if appropriate) may be imposed to minimize adverse impacts on air and water quality and other land resources in the area pursuant to site plan review under DCC Chapter 18.124 (all uses) and DCC Chapter 18.128 (conditional uses). The Hearings Officer notes that the use limitations of DCC 18.100.030 provide some impact protections for adjacent and "across a street" residential neighbors. DCC 18.100.030 restricts industrial uses on a "lot adjacent to or across the street from a residential dwelling." If the subject property is divided into smaller industrial use lots, adjacent and "across a street" neighbors will receive DCC 18.100.030 impact protections only from any immediately adjacent industrial use, but no such protections from new "internal" lots in the development. See the Hearings Officer's decision in 4-R Equipment 247-14- 000131-CU, 247-14-000132-SP.7 For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the proposed change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification, RI, as set forth in DCC 18.100.010. This criterion is met. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: Substantial evidence in the record shows that necessary public facilities and services are available to serve future rural industrial development on the subject property. No services need to be extended from the UGB; the subject property is located approximately 3.25 miles north of the Bend UGB and approximately 6.25 miles south of the Redmond UGB. The City of Bend's municipal water and sewer systems are not needed to develop the site and do not extend north of the UGB. Any future development at the site will require a septic system for sewage treatment. No urban services will be necessary. There is no evidence that necessary public services and facilities cannot be provided to the subject site in an efficient manner. Rather, the record includes will -serve letters that show available and efficient public services. Because this is not an application for residential uses, the rezone will not result in additional students in the Bend -La Pine School District. The property is included in the Bend -La Pine Public School District. The property receives fire protection from the Deschutes County Rural Fire District No. 2 through the City of Bend Fire Department. The District provides fire protection and ambulance services to the site. Fire Station #302 is located 3.5 miles west of the property in Tumalo, and Fire Station 305 is located 7 Whether the private school to the west of the subject property will be considered a "residence" for which protections under DCC 18.100.030 may be required as a condition of approving a future conditional use permit or site plan application on the subject property will be decided by the County under the facts and law in existence at the time of such application. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 54 of 80 4.0 miles south at Jamison Street, near the county jail. No comments from the Fire Department were submitted on the Applicant's proposal. As required by the conditions of approval for a conditional use permit issued to the Applicant in 1997, the Applicant paid to install two fire hydrants, surrounded by bollards, one on the northern portion near the overpass approach and one at the southern end of the parcel. Applicant also installed an associated 12-inch diameter water line that runs the entire length of the property (1,342 feet) to the fire hydrants in 2000. At that time, the smaller remnant parcel, TL 104, had not been created. The water line is connected to the Avion Water Company, Inc. domestic water pipe at the north property line along the County's right-of-way for Tumalo Place. The property receives police protection from the Deschutes County Sheriff. Deputies drive Tumalo Road daily on their regular patrol route. The Applicant submitted into the record a letter from Pacific Power indicating that they can provide electrical service and a letter from Avion Water Company indicating it is willing and capable to serve the site and to the Deschutes Junction area. Three wood power poles and associated electrical wires were installed by Pacific Power in 1995 to transmit electricity from Tumalo Road to the storage building on the subject property. Above ground power lines deliver power to the entire western boundary of the site. Power is being used on site in the building/office/shop. Three phase power is available now to the western and northern property lines. The application is supported by a will -serve letter from Pacific Power, which states it can provide adequate power to the entire subject site if it is developed as rural industrial.' Century Link telephone and internet service is hardwired into the office on the property. A fiber optic data transmission cable is located beside the eastern edge of the subject property between the fence line and US 97. The site does not have a sewer or septic disposal system. An appropriate on -site sewage disposal system will be designed and built when a specific use is planned, during a building permit and future site plan application. The application also includes a January 14, 2013 flow test for the water lines in the subject property. An easement agreement between Aceti and Avion Water Company was recorded on March 18, 2002 for ten feet of land on each side (20-feet total width) of the underground waterline that commences at the southern edge of the right-of-way for Tumalo Place at a point about 373 feet from the western property line and runs south for the entire length of TL 201. The Burden of Proof states at page 83 that "[t]he requested rezone will likely result in creating some new jobs and additional income tax revenues. Also, because of the increased property values, it will result in more property tax revenue for the County, library district, public schools and other public services." The Hearings Officer's findings regarding availability and efficiency of necessary public facilities in the context of transportation and the surrounding road system are set forth in the findings on the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), which was adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 and is 8 The Applicant's Burden of Proof at page 74 states, "On January 13, 2004, Angela Van Burger, Regional Community Manager for Pacific Power wrote a letter to Mr. Aceti indicating that the utility is interested in locating a new combined service center for the Central Oregon operations on the site, if the EFU zoning is changed to a more appropriate zoning. The service center will need 10 to 15 acres with highway access. Suitable large lots such as this are not available in the urban areas. The operation center will dispatch service trucks, line equipment vehicles with pole trailers and receive inventory of heavy equipment via semi -truck trailer. Locating the service center on Aceti's property will increase efficiency and safety for Pacific Power. The subject site is uniquely centrally located for the utility because Pacific Power serves Bend, Redmond, Prineville, and Madras. It could respond to service outages in more timely manner. Therefore, this zone change could help the community and the utility with response times." 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 55 of 80 contained with Appendix C of the DCCP and in the findings on Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As set forth in the findings above, (Sections E, F, G, H and 1), surrounding lands uses include the US 97 interchange and rural industrial uses across US 97. To the north, there is an approximately 2-acre Rural Commercial zone (RC) developed with a building/landscaping supply business, with which the DCC 18.100 rural industrial uses would likely be compatible. Surrounding properties to northwest are zoned MUA-10 and are developed with rural residences, Properties to the west and southwest are zone EFU and are generally developed with rural residences. Some of these properties have small-scale agriculture and/or hobby farms associated with irrigated pasture. There is a private school immediately to the west. The Hearings Officer takes into consideration the existing impacts on surrounding land resulting from US 97, the Deschutes Junction overpass, surrounding road network, future roundabout to be constructed at Tumalo Place/Tumalo Road, and existing rural industrial and rural commercial uses. Impacts to surrounding land uses resulting from the requested rezone and re -designation must be determined to be consistent with the specific goals and policies in the DCCP. Specific comprehensive goals and policies pertaining to these surrounding land uses are discussed in the section of this decision addressing the DCCP, in the findings below. The Hearings Officer's review includes consideration of the range of uses allowed outright and conditionally in the RI zone which inform a decision on whether expected or anticipated impacts of such potential uses on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies in the DCCP. Although no specific development is proposed at this time, the Hearings Officer notes that potential impacts to surrounding land use from industrial uses generally include traffic, visual impacts, odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights, noise, and similar disturbances. Again, such impacts are considered in light of existing impacts of development and roads in the surrounding area. For the reasons set forth in the findings regarding consistency with the DCCP set forth specifically below, the Hearings Officer finds that the impacts of the proposal on surrounding land use will be consistent with the goals and policies of the comp plan. I find this criterion is met. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The Applicant alleges both that a change of circumstances warrant approval of the requested rezone, and that a mistake was made in the original zoning of the subject property because detailed soils data was not available to the County at the time. Pages 144-154 of the Applicant's Burden of Proof details significant, numerous changes in circumstances that have resulted in an inability to farm the property, including reductions in acreage, the construction of the overpass approach bisecting the property and the realignment of roads, the increase in traffic around and through the property, the sale of all the associated parcels around it since 1980 for non-agricultural uses and others. The Applicant asserts that, if the property was being zoned today, it would not be zoned EFU. 1. Mistake. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 56 of 80 As the Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1, 1 find that the original EFU zoning of the subject property was not a mistake at the time of its original designation. The property's EFU designation and zoning were appropriate in light of the soil data available to the county in the late 1970s when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted. 2. Change in Circumstances. Due to all the changes in circumstances and improved soil data not available to the County at the time the property was last zoned, the Applicant contends it is not appropriate or prudent to keep the EFU zoning. Page 192 of the Burden of Proof states: We presume that the EFU-TRB zone in 1979 resulted from its being on the edge of and part of the 115-acre Barrett's Deschutes Ranch. The zoning of the subject property was not based on a parcel -specific soils analysis or on the agricultural capability of this parcel by itself. From experience, the owner knew then not to plow the parcel to prevent the expensive farm implements from being bent by the rock, and that it was not worth the cost of power for water pumps or of the pipe itself, and seed and effort to grow a crop. The County did not know that. We now have data that shows the land is not primarily resource soils. (See Attachment 2, Soils Capability Assessment.) The zoning did not consider the population, parcelization and rapid growth in population in the area. Subdivisions were done in the 1960s and 1970s and already Long Butte and the area south of Tumalo Road were entirely subdivided into residential lots. It was not in an agricultural area. Circumstances at the time of the first zoning code already pointed to the urban nature of the area and its commitment to urbanization. See the Section 21 on the history of Deschutes, Section 22 about previous owners and how they used the property and Section 23 about changes in circumstances. Unfortunately, the 20.26 acres (the subject property) and the narrow strip on its eastern and southern sides in the rock spine were the worst acres of the original homestead and were not even cleared of native vegetation until after 1950. Since 1979 the parcel has been significantly reduced in size and reconfigured into two portions by road construction. In 1979, the land was not irrigated. In 1979 when it was zoned, US Highway 97 was two lanes. Tumalo Place did not exist. Tumalo Road was at the property's northern edge. Parcels to the west were either unproductive and fallow or had been broken up as small hobby farms and residential subdivisions. Long Butte was already subdivided into Whispering Pines Estates, as was Starwood and other rural subdivisions nearby, totaling over 1, 700 residential lots. Residential development was already significant and the US 97 immediately adjacent to the subject site made farming difficult and hazardous to the highway travelers due to the prevailing winds blowing dust of tilling itself and fragile newly -tilled soils across the highway when the original zone was assigned. See the information on James R. Low and other owners who avoided farming this parcel in 22, pages 132-143. Also see the historic property lines on the 1935, 1944 and 1972 Metsker's Maps, Figures 51, 52, and 53.). The 1972 property ownership map is repeated here and shows the committed subdivisions at the beginning of the Statewide Planning Program and at the time of the original zoning. In the early 1970s few parcels were of adequate size for a productive commercial farm and most of those were either rocky, in public ownership (labeled US) or were already surrounded by urbanization. When we compare the original 160-acre Deschutes Ranch owned by James R. Low until 1947 (outlined in green above), with the situation in 1979 when the parcels were zoned, we find that Low's land was crossed by US 97, Nichols Market Road and the Pilot Butte Canal. The Barrett's cattle ranch was already incompatible with the urbanization of the area and the Barretts were looking to sell out. The above 1972 map shows the parcels at the time of the original land use 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 57 of 80 planning effort. The Deschutes Ranch was broken into 13 parcels that were sold by 1995, in addition to the land for road and the canal. Within seven years, the 7th Day Adventist school was underway. US 97 was widened to 4 lanes in 1992, taking land from the subject property. Long Butte was never farmed, as its soil is nearly non-existent, and the steep slope made irrigation infeasible. But, it had great views. By 1979 it was an urban density subdivision. Whispering Pines, Starwood , El Rancho and Glacier subdivisions are shown on the map. Already by 1972 about 1, 500 residential lots were subdivided at Deschutes, adjacent to the subject property. Also, the unique system of important roads going in all directions and the establishment of the post office and Deschutes Railroad Passenger and Freight Station and the town of Deschutes in 1911 gave early indications that the area would be urbanized. It can be successfully argued that the original EFU-TRB zone was in error, but, due to all of the changes in circumstances, and in light of the soil data available to the county today, it is not appropriate or prudent to keep the EFU zoning that was applied to the larger Barrett ranch in the 1970's when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted. The Applicant submitted evidence showing changes in circumstances that have occurred since the property was originally zoned EFU by the County including: • The reduction of the number of acres in the Applicant's parcel due to continuing road projects, widening US 97 to four lanes, constructing the overpass on the subject property, creating Tumalo Place with on and off ramps to the highway, realizing Deschutes Market and Tumalo Road, closing the Deschutes Pleasant Ridge Road railroad crossing, and closing Gift Road at US 97. • Adding an agreement that ODOT can add a frontage road across the property. • Adding new easements for access along the western property line and in the center for Avion water Company and thereby taking away usable and developable acres. • Decrease in developable acres due to additional setbacks from the new property lines for the overpass approach. • The reconfiguration of the parcel into two distinct, irregularly -shaped portions that are difficult, expensive, and nearly impossible to farm and irrigate. The new soils data in the Borine soils capability study that demonstrates the property does not have agricultural soil. • The construction of the Deschutes Junction Overpass across the subject property. • The re-routing of Bend -Redmond commuter traffic onto roads that go around the subject property. • The construction and realignment of Tumalo Place, Tumalo Road, Deschutes Market Road, and Pleasant Ridge Road around the property and takings of land. • The changes in the source and delivery systems for irrigation water from the Swalley Irrigation District. • The lack of a Swalley easement to allow the delivery of irrigation water a quarter mile to the property across three properties in separate ownership who do not irrigate. • The construction of the Swalley Hydroelectric facility that adversely affected Applicant's in -stream leasing of irrigation water. • The re -zone of some of the adjacent United Pipe property and some of Robinson's property to RI and the 57.7 acres of RI zoned land at Deschutes. • The continuous subdivision, platting and re -platting of new residential lots and building of homes in the immediate vicinity. In ZC-01-1, the Hearings Officer found that, "...any change in circumstance justifying a zone change must be to the subject property or other property in the vicinity and not to the property owner's 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 58 of 80 circumstances or needs." I find that the above -described general circumstances have changed with respect to the subject property and/or to other property in the vicinity since 1990 and are not representative of a change in the property owner's circumstances or needs. The Applicant asserts that "[a]nyone would be hard pressed to find a rural property in the county that has undergone more changes in circumstances than the subject property." Burden of Proof at page 194. The Hearings Officer agrees. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the Applicant has established the public interest is best served by rezoning the property under the criteria set forth in DCC 18.136. The criteria are met. D DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 2. Resource Management Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies Goal 1 Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 this is an aspirational goal and not an approval criterion. LUBA determined that the subject property does not constitute Agricultural Lands under OAR 660-033-0020(1); this finding is binding under the law of the case doctrine as discussed above. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the subject property does not constitute agricultural land that must be preserved as set forth in the Applicant's site -specific soil study and as previously found by the Hearings Officer, the BOCC and LUBA. There is no evidence in the record that the proposal will adversely impact surrounding agricultural lands or the agricultural industry, particularly considering the surrounding road network, impacts of nearby heavy traffic and transportation, impacts due to the expansion of US 97 and surrounding commercial and industrial uses already in existence. Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 that this policy is directed at the County rather than at an individual applicant. In any case, the Applicant is not requesting an amendment to the subzone (EFU-TRB) that applies to the subject property. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 that this policy is directed at the County rather than an individual applicant. In any case, the Applicant has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change to remove the EFU designation and zoning from the subject property. LUBA has determined that the subject property is not "Agricultural Land" subject to Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's proposal is authorized by policies in the DCCP and is permitted under state law. Policy 2.2.4. Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 59 of 80 FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 that this policy is directed at the County rather than at an individual applicant. In said decision, the Hearings Officer cited a previous decision for file nos. PA- 14-2 and ZC-14-2 that stated, "In any event, in my decision in NNP (PA-1 3-1, ZC-13-1) 1 held any failure on the county's part to adopt comprehensive plan policies and code provisions describing the circumstances under which EFU-zoned land may be converted to a non -resource designation and zoning does not preclude the county from considering quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change applications to remove EFU zoning." Hearings Officer Green determined in file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC/457-PA that "any failure on the county's part to adopt comprehensive plan policies and code provisions describing the circumstances under which EFU-zoned land may be converted to a non -resource designation and zoning does not preclude the county from considering quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change applications to remove EFU zoning." Consistent with this ruling, I find that, until such time as the County establishes policy criteria and code on how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations, the current legal framework can be used and must be addressed. Policy 2.2.13. Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 that this policy is directed at the County rather than an individual applicant. Nonetheless, as determined by LUBA and binding on the parties, I find that the subject property does not constitute "Agricultural Land." Section 2.5 Water Resources Goals and Policies Policy 2.5.24. Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1 that this policy is directed at the County. In said decision, the Hearings Officer cited a previous decision of Hearings Officer Green for file nos. PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 that stated, "Nevertheless, in my decision in NNP I held it is not clear from this plan language what "water impacts" require review -- impacts to water supplies from use or consumption on the subject property, or impacts to off -site water resources from development on the subject property." The Applicant has not proposed any particular land use or development, and any subsequent applications for development of the subject property would be reviewed under the County's land use regulations that include consideration of a variety of on- and off -site impacts. The Hearings Officer finds it is premature to review "water impacts" because the Applicant has not proposed any particular land use or development. Thus, there are no "significant land uses or developments" that must be reviewed or addressed in this decision. Any subsequent applications for development of the subject property will be reviewed under the County's land use regulations, which include consideration of a variety of on- and off -site impacts. Notwithstanding this statement, the Hearings Officer includes the following findings. The Applicant's requested zone change to RI would allow a variety of land uses on the subject property. The land east of the subject property (57 acres) is zoned RI and developed with a variety of rural industrial uses. Consequently, it is likely that similar development may occur on the property if it were re -designated and rezoned to RI. In light of existing uses in the surrounding area, and the fact that Avion Water Company provides water service in the Deschutes Junction area, and a 12-inch diameter Avion water line and two fire hydrants are already installed on site, future development of the subject property with uses permitted in the RI Zone will have water service. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 60 of 80 The subject property has 16 acres of irrigation water rights and, therefore, the proposed plan amendment and zone change will result in the loss or transfer of water rights unless it is possible to bring some irrigated water to the land for other allowed beneficial uses, such as irrigated landscaping. As stated in the Applicant's Burden of Proof, the 16 acres of irrigation water rights are undeliverable and are not mentioned in the property deed. The Applicant has not grown a crop on the subject property or effectively used his water right since the overpass was constructed in 1998. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal will not, in and of itself, result in any adverse water impacts. The proposal does not request approval of any significant land uses or development. Chapter 3. Rural Growth Management Section 3.4 Rural Economy Goals and Policies Goal 1 Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. The Hearings Officer incorporates the findings regarding compatibility with "rural character" from DCC 18.136.020(B) herein by reference to address "rural lifestyles." No adverse impacts to the "rural economy" or "healthy environment" have been identified in the record. Policy 3.4.23 To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands, land use regulations in the Rural Industrial zones shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660-22 or any successors. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is directed at the County and not an individual applicant. The RI code is acknowledged, valid, and does not permit urban uses, as LUBA determined in LUBA No. 2018-126. The Applicant noted in his September 15, 2020 submittal that the first outright use listed in the RI and in the RC zone is farm use. He submits that this additionally supports a finding that RI and RC zoning is considered compatible in the rural county and is not an urban type or size of use. Policy 3.4.27 Land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Rural Industrial sites do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is directed at the County and not at an individual applicant. In any case, the Applicant's proposal does not change the land use regulations in the RI Zone. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the zone change and plan amendment will not have an adverse effect on agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding area. The Applicant has completed an exhaustive inventory of uses within half mile of the site and found no conflict with any agricultural or forest use. No evidence to refute the Applicant's study was introduced into the record. Policy 3.4.28 New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation. Policy 3.4.31 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on -site sewage disposal systems. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 61 of 80 Policy 3.4.32 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water systems. FINDING: The Hearings Officer found in the Aceti 1 that these policies apply to quasi-judicial applications and are inapplicable to the Applicant for the proposed rezone and plan amendment. These policies are codified in DCC Chapter 18.100 and are implemented through those provisions. The Applicant is not applying for any specific building permit, site plan or conditional use approval at this time, and the proposal does not change the land use regulations in the RI Zone. Policy 3.4.36 Properties for which a property owner has demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered for Rural Industrial designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is approved for the Rural Industrial plan designation. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant has demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply to the subject property as affirmed in LUBA No. 2016-012. Therefore, I find the subject property can be considered for the proposed Rural Industrial designation and Rural Industrial zoning as proposed. Compliance with applicable ORS, OAR, and DCCP provisions is addressed in the findings herein. Section 3.5. Natural Hazards Goal 1 Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is directed at the County rather than at an individual applicant. Nonetheless, I find there are no mapped flood or volcano hazards on the subject property or in the surrounding area. Additional hazards include wildfire, earthquake, and winter storm risks, which are identified in the County's DCCP. There is no evidence the proposal would result in any increased risk to persons, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from unusual natural hazards. Section 3.7. Transportation The Transportation System was adopted in Ordinance 2012-005 and is hereby incorporated into this Plan as Appendix C. The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Transportation planning program has been summarized and incorporated into the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), which was adopted by Ordinance 2012-005 and is contained with Appendix C of the DCCP. Consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the TSP is addressed below in the findings under Appendix C and in the findings on Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 12, Transportation Planning. Section 3.10. Area Specific Policies Goals and Policies Goal 1 Create area specific land use policies and/or regulations when requested by a community and only after an extensive public process. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 62 of 80 Policy 3.10.1 Maintain a list of communities interested in area specific policies and as resources permit, initiate public processes to address local issues. FINDING: As the Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1, these policies are directed at the County and not intended to be an approval criterion for plan amendment and zone change applications for land in the Deschutes Junction area. Deschutes Junction Policy 3.10.5 Maximize protection of the rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes Junction area while recognizing the intended development of properties designated for commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the "rural character" discussion from DCC 18.136.020(B) herein by reference. No adverse impacts to "rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes Junction area" from the proposal have been identified in the record. The Applicant's Burden of Proof thoroughly reported on the history, previous owners and surrounding uses as well as the transportation system in Section 17, Transportation; Section 21 History of Deschutes Junction; Section 22, Previous Owners and How They Used the Property; Section 23, Changes in Circumstances; and Section 24, Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Deschutes Junction has not been suitable for agriculture and has had an extensive, well -developed transportation system of county and state highways and roads that resulted in non-agricultural development. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that Deschutes Junction is well developed and is not what is typically envisioned by the term agricultural area". It includes over 1,252 urban sized lots, has 57.7 acres of land zoned and used for Rural Industrial, and many commercial uses that predate Oregon's land use program. Deschutes Junction has mixed residential, commercial, industrial and hobby farm uses. A significant geographic and land use feature of Deschutes Junction is the extensive transportation system there. The road and highway network, the State Highway interchange and the railroad tracks and spurs are the dominant features. The County and ODOT are planning more roads that will significantly affect the subject site and immediate area of the subject site. They include providing for better access (possibly a diamond interchange) to the Deschutes Junction Interchange with US Highway 97, a new frontage road on the west side of US Highway 97 from Quarry Avenue (US 97: Redmond Refinement Plan, Quarry Avenue -Deschutes Market Road) or Gift Road to Deschutes Junction Frontage Road, the new roundabout at Tumalo Road and Tumalo Place, and the necessary new road to the Deschutes County Fairgrounds, usually referred to as the 19th Street Extension Project. The Applicant submits that the area specific policies for Deschutes Junction primarily address the intended development of properties designated for commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. The Applicant argues that this policy recognizes the historic urbanization of the area since it was platted as a town in 1911, the commitment to urbanization that preceded the planning program and the fact that 50% of the rural industrial zoning in the county is at Deschutes Junction. As County Surveyor Mike Berry states, Deschutes Junction has the only overpass across US 97 between Bend and Redmond and there have been more roads crossing at that location since 1908 than anywhere in the county. Hundreds of acres of industrial, retail, residential subdivisions, commercial, and hobby farm uses are zoned RI, RC, MUA-10 and RR-10. The record shows that the subject property, in particular, is more impacted by the road/highway development in Deschutes Junction than any other adjacent or adjoining property given its bisection in 1998 for construction of Tumalo Road and the US 97 overpass. Based on this fact, I find that potential industrial development of the subject property will not negatively impact any remaining "rural character" of Deschutes Junction because the remaining rural uses are to the south and northwest of the property and more distant from the impacts of highway, overpass and road system. Arterial roads surrounding 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 63 of 80 the property, including its bisection by the overpass project, connect rural commercial and industrial existing uses that constitute the "core" of Deschutes Junction with the subject property itself. Rural neighborhoods to the northwest of the property are located at enough of a distance from the highway/road interchange to be protected from any impact of commercial/industrial development of the property. I find that approval of the requested applications will protect any remaining rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes Junction area, while allowing the development of properties designated for rural commercial, rural industrial and agricultural uses. Policy 3.10.6 Review cumulative impacts of future development and future traffic improvements in the Deschutes Junction area in a manner consistent with Deschutes County traffic study requirements at 17.16.115, the Oregon Highway Plan, access management standards of OAR Chapter 734, Division 51, and OAR Chapter 660, Division 1 Z the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this policy is directed at the County and not individual applicants. Nonetheless, I find that the Applicant's traffic study includes a "review of cumulative impacts" and is consistent with the cited requirements, as detailed in the findings below. Policy 3.10.7 Support safe and efficient travel around Deschutes Junction, including a frontage road extending north from Tuma/o Road on the west side of Highway 97. FINDING: As the Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1, this policy is directed at the County and is not intended to be an approval criterion for plan amendment and zone change applications for land in the Deschutes Junction area. Policy 3.10.8: Review Policies 3.10.11 through 3.10.13 and initiate a Deschutes Junction Master Plan." FINDING: These references are scrivener errors and should point to Policies 3.10.5 through 3.10.7. The Hearings Officer finds these policies are directed at the County rather than at an individual applicant. Appendix C. Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal 4 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policies 4.1 Deschutes County shall: a. Consider the road network to be the most important and valuable component of the transportation system. 4.3 Deschutes County shall make transportation decisions with consideration of land use impacts, including put not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and their designated uses and densities. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 64 of 80 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. (Emphasis added.) FINDING: As the Hearings Officer found in Aceti 1, the above -underscored language indicates these plan policies provide direction to the County but do not create approval criteria for a plan amendment and zone change. Nonetheless, the Hearings Officer includes findings based on a thorough, comprehensive traffic study prepared by Joe Bessman, PE, Transight Consulting, LLC, dated June 1, 2020 ("Traffic Study"), included as Attachment 1 to the Burden of Proof. Mr. Bessman submitted additional analysis in response to ODOT comments on September 1, 2020 ("Traffic Study Response"). The purpose of the Traffic Study is to document compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) if a rezone is approved. Findings concerning the Traffic Study are set forth in detail below under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 12. Transportation Planning. Review of the Traffic Study by the County Transportation Planner and the Deschutes County Road Department constitutes consideration of: (1) land use impacts, including but not limited to, adjacent land use patterns, both existing and planned, and their designated uses and densities; and (2) roadway function, classification and capacity, to ensure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. The Hearings Officer notes that there are no planned land uses proposed with the subject application. The Traffic Study is based on consideration of a "worst -case" scenario of potential future development of the subject property. Comments from the County Transportation Planner and the Deschutes County Road Department agree with the Traffic Study's assumptions, methodology and conclusions. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence supports a finding that identified transportation impacts of the proposed re - designation and rezone can be adequately mitigated. The County Transportation Planner suggests that, instead of the Traffic Study's proposed mitigation for the intersections of Tumalo Road/Graystone Lane and Graystone Lane/Pleasant Ridge Road via property donations or acquisitions for future roundabouts, the County will assess transportation system development charges (SDCs) and other non -infrastructure mitigations as development occurs on the site on that development: The current SDC rate is $4,488 per peak trip. The County changes its SDC every July 1, per Board Resolution 2013-059. The actual SDC is based on the rate current when building permits are pulled, not the SDC rate when the land use is approved. The SDCs will mitigate the transportation impacts of the subsequent rural industrial development. Additionally, at time of future development, further traffic analysis may be required, depending on whether a future proposed development triggers the traffic analysis thresholds of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(C)(3). The County may also consider non -infrastructure mitigations (as an example, for manufacturing uses, start/stop times for workers would occur outside of the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak hours), which are allowed under the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060(11). The County Road Department agrees with the comments of the County Transportation Planner. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable DCCP policies. OREGON ADMINSTRAIVE RULE (OAR) 660 Division 12. Transportation Planning OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 65 of 80 land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would. (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan; FINDING: The Applicant is not asking the County to change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. This criterion is inapplicable. (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or FINDING: The Applicant is not asking the County to change standards that implement a functional classification system. This criterion is inapplicable. (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: The Traffic Study states on page 2, in relevant part: The Aceti property has a considerable history with County planning staff and has attempted this rezone previously with the application denied due to non -transportation issues. While the land use narrative includes a more complete description of the impacts that have occurred with the reconstruction of the Deschutes Junction, the inclusion of the culvert undercrossing, ODOT negotiations, and other issues, Deschutes County Road Department staff have previously acknowledged the impacts that have occurred with these other projects. Due to the impacts the County projects created on the Aceti property, Deschutes County has previously agreed not to oppose future rezoning of the property, as contained within the attachments. The Traffic Study analyzes allowable uses in the existing EFU zone and compares them to the allowable uses in RI zoning to determine what changes to the transportation system might occur within a reasonable "worst -case" scenario. The Traffic Study states the following on pages 3-4: 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 66 of 80 An identical zone change application was submitted for these properties by Sage Engineering Associates in 2017. Following discussions with County and ODOT staff this analysis was required to assume that the property would be subdivided into 20 separate parcels each of which would contain a 7,500 square foot building (the maximum allowable building size in the zone), with uses ranging from veterinary clinics (one of 20 buildings), nine separate Building Materials stores, and ten General Light Industrial buildings. While this may reflect a "worst case scenario" this is not a reasonable development scenario and does not match the scale or intensity of Rural Industrial uses anywhere in Deschutes County. In addition, the County's land use assumptions would not consider this intense of uses within long-range planning projects as evidenced by the employment assumptions within the ODOT-managed Travel Demand Modeling. Accordingly, these assumptions were revisited to provide a comparative land use scenario more reflective of anticipated development patterns. Table 2 of the Traffic Study (page 5) sets forth Proposed Rural Industrial Zoning Trip Generation Potential, ITE Trip Generation 10t" Edition, under a different worst -case scenario than analyzed for previous rezone applications for the subject property. The Traffic Study states that the scenario retains a building limit of 7,500 square feet and that it was assumed that unique uses (veterinarian or building material office) would be unique occurrences (similar to only assuming a single rural fire department under the existing zoning). "The resultant reasonable `worst -case' scenario... is reflective of an overall Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) on the developable lands of 10% or 63,160 square -feet of enclosed building space." This was based on the following: • The RV Storage Facility east of US 97 is a 9.05 acre lot with an 8,000 square -foot building (0.02 FAR) • Jack Robinson's overall site with three tax lots contains 26,500 square -feet of buildings on 22.6 acres (0.027 FAR) • Willamette Graystone includes 4.33 acres with 19,090 square -feet of buildings (0.10 FAR) Each of these sites shows that rural industrial uses are generally land intensive areas for parking with limited building area. Based on this information, it was conservatively assumed that the entire site would develop with a 0.10 FAR. The allowable uses were also sized based on average building areas within the ITE manual to ensure that the scale of the uses is appropriate." The Traffic Study states on page 5 that, "The prior application that was submitted to the County indicated that there would be up to 411 weekday p.m. peak hour trips [with development of the subject property]. This is six times a more reasonable assessment as shown in Table 2 would indicate from this zoning. Table 2 of the Traffic Study shows a total of 68 potential weekday p.m. peak hour trips; 438 total daily trips. This includes an analysis of two Specialty Trade Contractor sites, Building Materials and Lumber Store, Animal HospitalNeterinary Clinic, multiple Warehousing uses and multiple Manufacturing uses, totaling 63,160 SF for all potential uses. Table 3 (page 6) of the Traffic Study shows an increase of 65 weekday p.m. peak hour trips between existing zoning and potential proposed zoning trips. The Traffic Study analyzed all site access points to the public roadway system via either a driveway or private roadway, nearest intersection collector or arterial roads to the development that would experience an increase of 25 additional peak hour trips and any other collector or arterial intersection requested by staff. Five (5) study intersections were analyzed. The Traffic Study stated on page 6: Due to the current COVID-19 shut -down conditions, new data collection efforts are not possible at this time, The typical travel patterns have shifted during the shutdown as trips are generally for essential goods and services rather than school, tourism, recreation, and employment trips. Accordingly, the analysis will rely on historical counts from the prior land use application submitted in 2016 with appropriate growth factors and adjustments using ODOT ATR data. Forecasts 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 67 of 80 consider the future year 2040 conditions for consistency with the Bend Metropolitan Transportation Plan that extends between Bend and Redmond and includes the subject area. Table 4 on page 8 of the Traffic Study sets forth Study Area Intersection Operations Standards for the five (5) intersections, which are all LOS "D" or better and notes that ODOT manages connections to the US 97 corridor and requires a volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio) of 0.85 or less for ramp terminal intersections. All intersections are currently operating acceptably, but the Traffic Study notes on page 10 that "combined with the traffic volumes shows a much higher volume of traffic on the surrounding roads than is expected based on the land use patterns." It notes: To address the regional traffic demands at the Deschutes Junction, Deschutes County is planning to reconstruct the Tumalo Place/Tumalo Road intersection as a single -lane roundabout at an estimated cost of approximately $2.6M over the 202012021 fiscal years. All future 2040 analysis scenarios assume that this roundabout is in place. Other than area safety projects along the US 97 corridor there were no other public projects identified that would change any of the study intersection traffic control or patterns. Table 6 sets forth Future 2040 Traffic Conditions, Weekday PM Peak Hour, Existing Zoning Scenario. Page 13 states that, with the proposed rezone, the traffic volume forecasts shown in Table 6 were increased by the trip generation differential shown in Figure 3. This reflects the year 2040 "with rezone" conditions that were used to assess whether the proposed plan and land use amendment creates a significant impact on the transportation system. Figure 7 illustrates the resultant traffic volumes (page 14) and Table 7 provides the operations analysis (page 15). The Traffic Report states on page 15: Table 7 shows that the rezone does not cause any intersections to fail, but does create an incremental degradation in the performance of surrounding intersections that are already forecast to exceed County operational standards. Accordingly, the rezone results in a significant impact to transportation facilities. The Traffic Study details mitigation measures on pages 15-21. These are summarized on pages 19-21: Review of the traffic forecasts and conditions shows that the three "corners" of the Deschutes Junction are projected to exceed Deschutes County operational standards in 2040 with or without the proposed rezone due to the high regional travel between Redmond and northeast Bend. Of these three locations, the priority for improvements is: (1) the Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place intersection (already identified in County plans and allocated funding); (2) the Graystone Lane/Pleasant Ridge Road intersection; then (3) the Graystone Lane/Tumalo Road intersection. As the adopted Deschutes County Transportation System plan only considers future conditions through 2030 (before these remaining two intersections will fail) there are no identified improvements at either of these remaining intersections as these occur beyond this timeframe. Improvements at any one of the three "corners" is expected to support the operations of the Deschutes Junction as an interconnected system, and the impact of the proposed rezone does not change any of the findings or needs within this area. However, the rezone does create a localized and incremental degradation to a system that is already forecast to exceed County performance standards. While this analysis shows that the rezone has the potential to increase the trip generation compared to the existing EFU zoning, a rezone application is not a development application and in itself will not generate any additional impacts on the transportation system. Impacts will only occur with future development or land use changes that are implemented over time, and with the scale of impacts demonstrated within this analysis (up to 2%) these are unlikely to change the need and timing of 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 68 of 80 improvements to the Deschutes Junction Interchange. In fact, actual impacts could be lower than those shown. Accordingly, equitable mitigation could take the form of a supplemental transportation System Development Charge that would also equate to the impact subtracting any value from Mr. Aceti's support of the County's planned transportation improvement. As Table 3 shows, the rezone could generate 65 additional p.m. peak hour trips, or an additional $880 per trip assuming the full value of impacts using the "worst -case" scenario. /An] approach of making lands available to the County to support the long-term needs based on fair market value, interim payments from Mr. Aceti based on actual "pro -rats" impacts on a per weekday p.m. peak hour trip basis, and the long-term plan updates would mitigate the finding of a significant impact. On an interim basis (prior to the TSP update and funding mechanism) the County would need to make the written finding that the system benefits outweigh the impact of the rezone: (A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvement would not result in consistency for all performance standards, (B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide written statements of approval, and (C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written statements of approval. This approach would recognize that the three "corners" of the Deschutes Junction will not operate acceptably through 2040 but the contributions and availability of right-of-way in support of the needed improvements would be adequate to mitigate the specific impacts of the Aceti rezone. In a September 1, 2020 submittal, Mr. Bessman submitted additional transportation and traffic analysis concerning the proposal in response to ODOT comments on the Traffic Study ("Traffic Study Response"). Mr. Bessman's cover email states: Enclosed are my responses to the comments Dave and Don sent over to clarify some of the technical information in the report, please include this in the record. Short story is that growth was projected at 2.58% annually (from the 2016 counts to 2040 conditions), this was based on ODOT's Future Volume Tables per ODOT TransGIS. ODOT recently completed a detailed corridor plan for US 97 (which is not part of Tony's study area) that reviews safety needs and historical crash trends along the highway and at the junctions. Let me know if you need anything else from me in advance of tonight's hearing, hopefully this addresses the primary questions that were raised. The 3-page Traffic Study Response addresses the four (4) comments submitted by ODOT set forth in the Public Agency Comment findings above. With respect to the question regarding what the appropriate growth factors are and which ATR was utilized, the Traffic Study Response states, in relevant part: ODOT has permanent traffic count (Automatic Traffic Recorder, or ATR) stations at the south end of Redmond (ATR 09-020) and along the Bend Parkway south of Empire Avenue. The station south of Redmond would be considered the most reflective of through highway growth on US 97, but there were no study intersections on the State Highway system as detailed within the scoping materials. Trends from this ATR location show that through highway growth on US 97 has increased an average of 3.5% annually from the peak -recession conditions in 2010. It is unlikely that this growth will be sustained long-term, and with the COVID conditions traffic on the highway were reduced 25 percent in March, returning to 95% volumes by mid -August. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 69 of 80 While the ATR's provide a means of looking backward at historical trends, ODOT's Future Volume Tables provide forecast date. This information is available on ODOT's TransGIS site, and projects a current volume (2018) at the Deschutes Junction of 27,700 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) and a 2040 forecast of 48,500 trips. This translates to 2.58 percent annual growth on the highway, which was the growth rate the traffic study applied throughout the County intersections that were analyzed. With respect to the question regarding generated volumes and whether they are based on 2016 collected volumes grown with the appropriate growth factor, the Traffic Study Response confirms that 2016 traffic counts were adjusted based on the 2.58% growth rate. With respect to the comment regarding adding a statement as to the ADT and peak hour traffic along US 97 and capacity, the Traffic Study Response states: Movements onto US 97 at the Deschutes Junction are provided via merge and diverge ramps rather than a stop -controlled intersection (less sensitive to gaps), and as indicated in ODOT's comments the ability to easily merge will become more difficult with increased volumes on US 97 and Deschutes Market Road. Deschutes County is currently obtaining portions of the Aceti property to construct a new roundabout at the Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place intersection to address this volume increase on the County system. ODOT recently completed a phased corridor plan for US 97 between Bend and Redmond. The workshops that ODOT held relayed that changes to US 97 between Bend and Redmond will start with roadside safety improvements (clear zone enhancements, rumble strips, etc.) and ultimately lead to a median along US 97 between Bend and Redmond with local trips served with frontage roads. Copies of the final study were not found online to determine whether the merge/diverge distances at the Deschutes Junction were reviewed, but with the recent increase in the posted speed to 65 miles per hour there were no commensurate changes made to these ramps and there is a substantial amount of heavy vehicles accessing the highway. With the sharp curve radii vehicles are essentially accelerating from 10 miles per hour to 65 miles per hour in 520 feet, which is less than the standard Entrance Ramp Details provided in Figure 9-11 within the ODOT Highway Design Manual of 1,220 feet. These issues are not impacts associated with the Aceti rezone but reflect regional travel patterns and known congestion that ODOT is working to resolve through the INFRA plans within Bend's northern area. With respect to the comment regarding safety evaluation, the Traffic Study Response states: The purpose of a Transportation Planning Rule analysis is to identify whether or not a project creates a significant impact by changing the functional classification of an existing or planned facility, change standards implementing a functional classification system, or degradation to the performance of existing or planned facilities. The TPR analysis is based on future year 2040 conditions, and there are no specific development plans proposed at this time that would be entitled through this application. Accordingly, review of historical crashes prior to 2018 provide [sic] limited value to this long-range planning assessment. While the safety evaluation can be informative for existing issues and priorities, ODOT recently completed a corridor evaluation that was focused primarily on safety improvements throughout this corridor. The Deschutes Junction is not included within ODOT's 2014 to 2018 Safety Priority Index System, and the contribution of the Aceti property for the overcrossing and provision of right-of-way for the planned roundabout has supported County and ODOT plans to improve traffic flow at this interchange. With any future site plan application additional review of safety will be necessary per Deschutes County requirements. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 70 of 80 ODOT did not provide further comment or response to the Traffic Study Response during the open record period following the public hearing. No other person commented on the adequacy of the Traffic Study and/or the Traffic Study Response. No evidence was introduced to refute the conclusions in the Traffic Study and Traffic Study Response. The Applicant's Burden of Proof at page 17 states: After careful study, and in coordination with Deschutes County and ODOT staff, it was determined that the intensive, unique statewide and regional transportation system surrounding and bisecting the property is more than adequate to serve the property after it is rezoned. The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has studied all facilities identified by the County as potentially impacted by the proposed change. The Hearings Officer finds that zone change will have no significant adverse effect on the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facilities in the impact area, such that it is in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060. The proposed zone change will have a minimal impact on the area road network. Traffic generated by future development of the subject property with RI -zone uses in the reasonable "worst -case" scenario will not significantly affect a transportation facility (less than 2%) and therefore will comply with the TPR. It will not allow levels of development that will cause existing or planned area transportation facilities to exceed their functional classification. Substantial evidence in the record shows that all of the existing or planned transportation facilities within the study area will operate better than the TSP's standard of Level of Service "D" All of the long term performance and safety problems in the study area will occur with or without the zone change, due to rapidly increasing population and high volumes of regional trips. The capacity analysis shows that the "worst case" scenario will not worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or DCCP. As discussed in the findings above on Appendix C, comments from the County Transportation Planner and County Road Department agree with the Traffic Study's assumptions, methodology and conclusions, but do not completely agree with the proposed mitigation. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence supports a finding that identified transportation impacts of the proposed re -designation and rezone can be adequately mitigated. The County Transportation Planner suggests that, instead of the Traffic Study's proposed mitigation for the intersections of Tumalo Road/Graystone Lane and Graystone Lane/Pleasant Ridge Road via property donations or acquisitions for future roundabouts, the County will assess transportation system development charges (SDCs) and other non -infrastructure mitigations as development occurs on the site on that development: The current SDC rate is $4,488 per peak trip. The County changes its SDC every July 1, per Board Resolution 2013-059. The actual SDC is based on the rate current when building permits are pulled, not the SDC rate when the land use is approved. The SDCs will mitigate the transportation impacts of the subsequent rural industrial development. Additionally, at time of future development, further traffic analysis may be required, depending on whether a future proposed development triggers the traffic analysis thresholds of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(C)(3). The County may also consider non -infrastructure mitigations (as an example, for manufacturing uses, starbstop times for workers would occur outside of the 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. peak hours), which are allowed under the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060(11) The Hearings Officer finds that these criteria will be met with imposition of a condition of approval requiring transportation facility mitigation as set forth above. (2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 71 of 80 at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion. (a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility. (b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section (4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility, improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period. (c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the transportation facility. (d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this subsection will be provided. (e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode, improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other locations, if the provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that the system -wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards. FINDING: As set forth in the finding above, the Hearings Officer finds that, with imposition of a condition of approval requiring assessment of transportation system development charges (SDCs) and other non - infrastructure mitigations as development occurs on the site on future proposed development, there will not be a significant adverse effect on the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facilities in the impact area. (3) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility where: (a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 72 of 80 function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP; (b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures; (c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph (4)(d)(C); and (d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section. FINDING: The Applicant has not requested an approval "Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule." The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are inapplicable. (4) Determinations under sections (1)-(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. FINDING: The Planning Division sent written notice of the Applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies, including the City of Bend Fire Department, the Deschutes County Road Department and ODOT. The customary notice provided adequate opportunity for coordination with affected transportation and service providers and local governments. As previously indicated, comments from the County Transportation Planner and County Road Department agree with the Traffic Study's assumptions, methodology and conclusions and proposed mitigation of potential impacts to transportation facilities as development occurs on the via County assessment of transportation system development charges (SDCs) and potential non -infrastructure mitigation measures on future development proposals. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the application complies with these criteria. Division 15. Statewide Planning Goals Consistency with statewide planning goals is determined at the time a comprehensive plan amendment is considered. ORS 197.835(6). It cannot be deferred to a subsequent permit proceeding after the plan amendment is adopted. Columbia Riverkeeper, supra, citing Willamette Oaks v. City of Eugene, 232 Or App 29, 36, 200 P3d 445 (2009); Root v. Klamath County, 63 Or LUBA 230, 252 (2011). Goal 1: Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 73 of 80 FINDING: The Planning Division provided notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change to the public through individual mailed notices to nearby property owners, publication of notice in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and posting of the subject property with a notice of proposed land use action sign. A public hearing was held before the Hearings Officer on the proposal on September 1, 2020, and a public hearing on the proposal will also be held by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, per DCC 22.28.030(C). The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2: Land Use Planning To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: Goals, policies and processes related to plan amendment and zone change applications are included in the DCCP and land use regulations in Titles 18 and 22 of the Deschutes County Code and have been applied to the review of these applications. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 2. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: The Applicant's submitted soil study demonstrates the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" because it is comprised predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils that are not suitable for farm use. The County relied upon the Borine Study in determining that the prior applications for re - designation and rezoning of the subject property (file nos. 247-14-000456-ZC and 247-14-000457-PA) were consistent with Goal 3. LUBA affirmed the County's determinations on all four factors, finding them to be supported by substantial evidence in the record in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016), LUBA No. 2016-012, Final Opinion and Order (Remanded August 10, 2016). LUBA's rulings on this issue are detailed above and are binding under the law of the case. No adverse impacts to other agricultural lands resulting from the proposal have been identified.Therefore, I find the Applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 3; no exception to Goal 3 is required. Goal 4: Forest Lands To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the subject property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal does not implicate Goal 4. Goal 4 is inapplicable. Goal 5: Natural Resources Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: The record indicates there are no identified Goal 5 resources on the subject property (cultural, historic, wildlife or plant). There are no scenic or historic areas and no open spaces on the 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 74 of 80 property. There is no wetland, river, stream, creek or pond on the property, and no riparian zone. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal does not implicate Goal 5. Goal 5 is inapplicable. Goal 6: Air Water and Land Resources Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's proposal to rezone the property from EFU-TRB to RI will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future RI Zone development of the property will be subject to local, state, and federal regulations protecting these resources. The Hearings Officer finds that this fact does not constitute "deferring" or "postponing" a Goal 6 compliance analysis to review of a specific development application. Similar to my analysis concerning Goal 14, it is appropriate to consider restrictions and protections in the County's acknowledged RI zone regulations in determining whether the proposed plan amendment and rezone are consistent with the statewide planning goals. In particular, DCC 18.100.030(J) prohibits approval of any use of property requiring contaminant discharge permits prior to a review of the contaminant discharge permits by state and/or federal agencies. Thus, any impact to air, water and land resources from a specific proposed use is not allowed under the zoning code, and may not legally be approved by the County, until state and/or federal agencies review the details of any such proposal and issue permits (typically including conditions) restricting and regulating air emissions, discharges to waterways and ground water and other potential environmental impacts of the use. The regulatory scheme set forth in DCC Chapter 18.100, which is an acknowledged regulation, maintains the quality of air, water and land resources of the state. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal to re -designate and rezone the property is consistent with Goal 6. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. FINDING: There are no mapped flood or volcano hazards on the subject property. Additional hazards include wildfire, earthquake, and winter storm risks, which are identified in the County's DCCP. The subject property is not subject to unusual natural hazards nor is there any evidence in the record that the proposal would exacerbate the risk to people, property, infrastructure, the economy, and/or the environment from these hazards on -site or on surrounding lands. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal does not implicate Goal 7. Goal 7 is inapplicable. Goal 8: Recreational Needs To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, here appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: The proposed plan amendment and zone change do not affect recreational needs, and no specific development of the property is proposed. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal does not implicate Goal 8. Goal 8 is inapplicable. Goal 9: Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 75 of 80 FINDING: This goal is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities. The Applicant asserts that the proposed plan amendment and zone change is consistent with this goal because it will provide opportunities for economic development in the county in general, and in the Deschutes Junction area in particular, by allowing the currently undeveloped and unused property to be put to a more productive use. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 9. Goal 10: Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not affect existing or needed housing. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal does not implicate Goal 10. Goal 10 is inapplicable. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. FINDING: This goal requires planning for public services, including public services in rural areas, and generally has been held to prohibit extension of urban services such as sewer and water to rural lands outside urban growth boundaries. The Applicant's proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. As discussed in the findings above, public facilities and services necessary for development of the subject property in accordance with the RI Zone are available and will be adequate. The Hearings Officer notes that the following public agencies, among others, did not provide comment on the application: Central Electric Cooperative, Swalley Irrigation District, Avion Water Company, Pacific Power and Light, Redmond Airport, Watermaster — District 11. COWL argues that, without knowing the particular use for which approval may be requested in the future, there is no way to know whether the Applicant has water available for industrial use. The Hearings Officer finds that COWL's argument would require me to ignore substantial evidence in the record regarding the availability of public services to serve the subject property. Moreover, when the County considers individual applications for specific use(s) in the future, such applications cannot be legally approved without a demonstration by the applicant that public facilities and services are available under DCC 18.100.060, which requires all uses in the rural industrial zone, other than residential, farm or forest, to comply with the requirements of DCC Chapter 18.124, site plan review. Other than those uses permitted outright in the RI zone, conditional use permit review pursuant to DCC Chapter 18.128 also is required. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 11. Goal 12: Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. FINDING: For the reasons set forth in the findings above concerning Appendix C and OAR 660-012- 0060, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 12. Goal 13: Energy Conservation To conserve energy. FINDING: The Applicant's proposal, in and of itself, will have no effect on energy use or conservation since no specific development has been proposed in conjunction with the subject applications. In any case, the record shows that providing additional economic opportunities on the subject property may 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 76 of 80 decrease vehicle trips for persons working in the Deschutes Junction area, therefore conserving energy. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 13. Goal 14: Urbanization To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow for future development of the site with uses permitted in RI Zone. LUBA concluded that the uses listed in DCC 18.100.010 are not urban uses. There is no residential dwelling within 600 feet of the subject site; it is not in a platted subdivision; it is not in a residential zone. The Applicant notes that the subject property has only 15.11 acres that can be used for development due to easements and required setbacks. For the reasons set forth above in the Ruling on Applicability of Goal 14 Exception, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal is not likely to result in the "urbanization" of the subject site by allowing potential future development of Rural Industrial zone uses. Due to the appropriate County rural industrial development standards in DCC Chapter 18.100, compliance with these regulations will result in appropriate and compatible low density and not an "urban level" density. An exception to Goal 14 is not required for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. Goals 15 through 19 FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that these goals, which address river, ocean, and estuarine resources, are not applicable because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. Division 33, Agricultural Land FINDING: The Applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone change for the subject property. The Hearings Officer has determined herein, as bound by the LUBA decision in Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016), that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" requiring protection under Goal 3 and therefore no exception to that goal is required. The subject property is not needed for any farm use to occur on other lands in the area, as set forth in the findings above. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is not subject to the associated regulations set forth in OAR Chapter 660, Division 33. TITLE 22. DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE Chapter 22.20 Review of Land Use Action Applications Section 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations and/or conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not. 1. Approve any application for land use development; 2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments; 3. Issue a building permit. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 77 of 80 FINDING: The terms "land use development" and "land use decision" are not defined in DCC Title 22. However, the term "land use action" is defined in DCC 22.04.020 as follows: "Land use action" includes any consideration for approval of a quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change, any consideration for approval of a land use permit, and any consideration of a request for a declaratory ruling (including resolution of any procedural questions raised in any of these actions). The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal requests a "land use decision" as defined in DCC Title 22. There is an active code enforcement case (File no. 247-19-000064-CE) that has determined there are businesses operating on the subject property in violation of the current EFU-TRB zoning. As per County policy, the code enforcement file is sealed until the case is closed by County code enforcement. Therefore, the record in File no. 247-19-000064-CE is not part of this record. Staff stated at the public hearing that, if the proposed plan amendment and zone change are approved, the County recognizes such approvals as a step toward resolving the code enforcement case. The Hearings Officer finds that this provision does not prevent the County from approving the subject application, particularly when considered in conjunction with DCC 22.20.015(B)(2) and (D) below. B. As part of the application process, the applicant shall certify. 1. That to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the property in question, including any prior development phases of the property, is currently in compliance with both the Deschutes County Code and any prior land use approvals for the development of the property, or 2. That the application is for the purposes of bringing the property into compliance with the Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. FINDING: The Hearings Officer understands that the application is, in part, for the purposes of bringing the property into compliance with the Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shall submit a certification regarding the purpose of the application, consistent with DCC 22.20.015(B)(2) above. C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA"). FINDING: The record in File no. 247-19-000064-CE is sealed. Therefore, this record does not contain details of the nature, type and extent of the code violation on the subject property, nor the County's method of determining a violation exists. The only evidence in the record is the statement in the Staff Report that there is an active code enforcement case and Staff's statement at the public hearing that approval of the proposal here would be a step toward remedy of the code enforcement case. D. A permit or other approval, including building permit applications, may be authorized if. 1. It results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, or local laws, and Deschutes County Code, 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 78 of 80 including sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a voluntary compliance agreement; 2. It is necessary to protect the public health or safety; 3. It is for work related to and within a valid easement over, on, or under the affected property, or 4. It is for emergency repairs to make a structure habitable or a road or bridge to bear traffic. FINDING: The Staff Report states: The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not result in the property coming into full compliance with all application provisions of federal, state, or local laws, and the Deschutes County Code. If the plan amendment and zone change are approved, additional land use applications will be required to review the proposed use for full compliance with applicable provisions. However, the proposal is recognized as a sequential step in achieving full compliance. A voluntary compliance agreement has not been secured. Based on this information, staff believes approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change are permitted under this section if a voluntary compliance agreement is secured. The Hearings Officer finds that approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change are permitted under this section if a voluntary compliance agreement is secured. Such requirement is included as a condition of approval below. IV. DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer finds the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding Zone Map Amendment (Zone Change) to reassign the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (R-1). The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County. DCC 18.136.030. The Hearings Officer recommends approval of the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a metes -and -bounds description of the subject site to be re -designated and rezoned. 2. The Applicant shall submit a certification regarding the purpose of the application, consistent with DCC 22.20.015(B)(2). 3. The Applicant shall enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement ("VCA") with the Deschutes County Code Enforcement division of the Community Development Department to resolve alleged code violations in file no. 247-19-000064-CE. 4. As part of any development of the subject property, the developer shall be subject to assessment of transportation system development charges (SDCs) on that development at the current SDC rate then applicable. Additionally, further traffic analysis may be required, depending on whether a proposed development triggers the traffic analysis thresholds of DCC 18.116.310(C)(3). The County may also consider imposition of non -infrastructure mitigations under OAR 660-012-0060(11). 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 79 of 80 Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer Dated this 7th day of October, 2020 Mailed this 8th day of October, 2020 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 80 of 80 wT E S C0& 2 o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: January 5, 2021 FROM: Caroline House, Community Development, 541-388-6667 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion: Road Name Assignment - Joe Buck Avenue FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Caroline House, Assistant Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Caroline House, Assistant Planner DATE: January 5, 2021 SUBJECT: January 13t" Work Session for the Road Name Assignment of Joe Buck Avenue (CDD File No. 247-20-000740-RN) Background The abutting property owner at 70535 NW Lower Bridge Way initiated this road naming request as part of a tentatively approved 3-parcel partition (file no. 247-20-000023-MP). A new road is currently being constructed within the existing right -of way per this partition approval. The existing 60-foot-wide public road right-of-way was created and publically dedicated as part of Major Partition Approval (MJP) 81-7. No road improvements were completed until recently. Currently, no properties are accessed via this road. However, a total of six (6) properties can use this road for access upon completion of the required improvements and final approval of the 3- parcel partition referenced above. Staff Decision The Community Development Department (CDD) reviewed the requested road name assignment under file no. 247-20-000740-RN. In consultation with the Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator, staff reviewed the four (4) proposed names and selected Joe Buck Avenue. Staff found the name Joe Buck Avenue complied with DCC 16.16.030(E)(1) and (2). Under DCC 16.16.030(B) public comments on the proposed road name are limited to those parties owning property abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Staff mailed notice of the application to these parties on November 4, 2020 and a notice of the staff decision was mailed on January 5, 2021. The staff decision will become final, absent an appeal, at the end of the 10-day appeal period on January 15, 2021. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q'I(541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd As of this writing, staff has not received any questions, written opposition, or appeals on the proposed name. Next Steps DCC 16.16.030(1) requires the Board to sign an order approving the name within 10 days of the staff decision becoming final. Assuming the Board supports approving the proposed road name, the Board must sign the corresponding order, Board Order 2021-001, no later than January 25, 2021. Approving this order at the meeting scheduled on January 20, 2021 will ensure this timeline is met. If staff receives any submittals prior to the January 20, 2021 meeting, staff will bring the materials to the Board's attention and enter them into the record. Staff is available for any questions. Enclosures: 2021-01-05 CDD Staff Findings and Decision (247-20-000740-RN) 2021-01-05 Road Location Map 2020-10-28 Road Naming Request Application Form 1981-11-16 Partition Plat MJP-81-7 Page 2 of 2 Mailing Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247-20-000740-RN APPLICANT: Fred W. Netter & Ted W. Netter PROPOSAL: The applicant request to assign the name "Joe Buck Avenue" to a 60-foot- wide public road right-of-way. A new road is currently being constructed within this right -of way per tentative partition approval no. 247-20-000023- MP. ROAD LOCATION: Tax Map 14-12-00 adjacent to the north property line of Tax Lot 1102 This currently unnamed public road is located off Lower Bridge Way, approximately 1,400 feet south of Lambert Road, and extends west for approximately 2,300 feet. STAFF CONTACT: Caroline House, Assistant Planner Phone: 541-388-6667 Email: Caroline.House@deschutes.org I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 16, Addresses and Road Names Chapter 16.16, Road Naming Title 22, Deschutes County. Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS: ROAD DESCRIPTION: The road to be named is currently being constructed within an existing 60- foot public road right-of-way. The road improvements are being completed by the applicant in conjunction with a 3-parcel partition approval for the property abutting the southern boundary of the subject right-of-way (reference property identified on the Assessor's Map 14-12-00 as tax lot 1102). Prior to final approval of this partition, the applicant is required to construct a new road within this right-of-way to ensure there is adequate access to tentatively approved Parcels 2 and 3 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Qi (541) 388-6575 cdoWdeschutes.org www.des(outes.org/cd of land use file no. 247-20-000053-MP. The road improvement requirements are detailed in the partition approval and include a 20-foot-wide by 5-inch depth aggregate road surface and a 45-foot diameter by 5-inch-depth aggregate cul-de-sac. Vicinity Map File No. 247-20-000740-RN 70915 NW LOWEI BRIDGE WAY t r 70935 NW LOWER ' BRIDGE WAY Joe Buck Avenue 70955 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY ate, r t� dj Vt' Y. YA 70535 NW LOWER BRt©GE WAY Approximate Location of Road to be Named 1, U: rlCAA s N ,. r. asr an n AFFECTED PROPERTIES: The existing right-of-way does not currently provide access to any of the abutting properties. However, multiple properties could be accessed once road improvements are Staff notes there appears to bean existing private driveway to the north of the right-of-way providing access to 70915 NW Lower Bridge Way and 70935 NW Lower Bridge Way. 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 2 of 9 completed. As discussed above, tentatively approved Parcels 2 and 3 of land use file no. 247-20- 000023-MP will be accessed via this new road. Currently, the following properties have frontage along this road right-of-way: 70535 NW Lower Bridge Way 14-12-00, Tax Lot 1102 70915 NW Lower Bridge Way 14-11-00, Tax Lot 3000 70935 NW Lower Bridge Way 14-12-07, Tax Lot 800 70955 NW Lower Bridge Way 14-12-07, Tax Lot 900 REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application was submitted on October 26, 2020. This application will be reviewed in accordance with DCC 16.16 and requires final approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) per DCC 16.16.030(1). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on November 4, 2020 to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Address Coordinator, Tracy Griffin The names are approved by both myself and 9-1-1. Deschutes County Road Department, Cody Smith: The Road Department has no comments regarding the proposed road name assignment. The subject road right of way was dedicated to the public by plat declaration with MJP 81-007 (copy attached). Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for File 247-20-000740-RN to name a 60 foot public right of way off of Lower Bridge Way as Joe Buck Road. The road is on Tax Map 14-12-00 adjacent to Tax Lot 1102 and is approximately 1,400 feet south of Lambert Road, extending westward for roughly Z300 feet. 1 have no adverse comments on the proposal. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: 911, Cloverdale Fire Department, Deschutes County Sheriffs Office, Deschutes County Surveyor, Redmond School District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, and Bend Regional Watermaster. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Notice was sent to the four (4) affected properties per DCC 16.16.030(B). The applicant also posted a proposed road name sign. No public comments were received. 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 3 of 9 III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: CHAPTER 16.16, ROAD NAMING Section 16 16 010 Road Naming Authority. A. Deschutes County, through the Community Development Department, shall have the authority to and shall assign road names to roads requiring names as provided in DCC 16.16. FINDING: The subject road naming application is being reviewed by the Deschutes County Community Development Department. This criterion is met. Section 16 16.020, Unnamed Roads. All unnamed public and private roads and other roadways which provide access to three or more tax lots, or which are more than 1,320 feet in length, shall be assigned a name in accordance with the procedures in DCC 16.16.030. FINDING: The subject unnamed road is 2,300 feet in length and will provide access to four (4) tax lots once improvements are completed. In addition, this road will also provide access to two (2) tentatively approved parcels (reference land use file no. 247-20-000023-MP). Therefore, staff finds the proposed road name assignment must be reviewed in accordance with the procedures in DCC 16.16.030, which are addressed below. This criterion will be met. Section 16.16.030, Procedures for Naming New Roads. A. Application. 1. The naming of a road may be initiated by the Community Development Department, Planning Commission, the Board, or by application of adjacent property owners, developers, or public agencies which may be affected by road names. FINDING: This application was initiated by Ted W. Netter, an authorized representative for the adjacent property owner of property addressed 70535 NW Lower Bridge Way, on October 26, 2020. This criterion is met. 2. An application to name a road shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall include, at a minimum, the following. a. Name of applicant, b. Location of road by description and or map, C. Legal status of road, if known, d. Proposed road name, with two alternate proposed names, e. Reason for name request, f. Petition(s) attached, if any, and 247-20-000740-RN (Joe Buck Avenue) Page 4 of 9 g. Fee, if any, as established by the Board. FINDING: The applicant submitted the required information and fee identified above. These criteria are met. B. Notice of a proposed name assignment shall be sent to all persons owning property abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Such notices shall be sent within 10 days of the receipt of an application, if any, or other action initiating the proposed road name assignment. FINDING: On November 4, 2020, staff mailed notice of this pending application to the property owners of four (4) properties abutting the subject road to be named. This notice was mailed nine (9) days after the application was received. This criterion is met. C. Persons receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) shall promptly notify any tenants or other occupants of the affected property of the proposed road name assignment. D. Any person receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) above may comment in writing on the proposed name within 10 days from the date of notice. FINDING: The mailed notice included a statement requiring the recipient to notify any tenants or other occupants of the affected property of the proposed road name assignment. No public comments were received. These criteria are met. E. Standards 1. General. The proposed road name shall. a. Be limited to a maximum of two words. b. Not duplicate existing road names, except for continuations of existing roads. C. Not sound so similar to other roads as to be confusing. d. Not use compass directions such as North, East, South, etc., as part of the road name. e. Not use designations such as Loop, Way, Place, etc., as part of the road name. f. Improve or clarify the identification of the area. g. Use historical names, when possible. h. Reflect a consensus of sentiment of affected property owners and occupants, when possible, subject to the other standards contained in DCC 16.16.030. FINDING: The applicant submitted the following four (4) road names for consideration: 1. Equine One 2. Whychus 3. Joe Buck 4. Perfect 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 5 of 9 The proposed road name "Equine One" includes a numeric word, which may create confusion. The second proposed name "Whychus" is commonly used in the Sisters area and, therefore, is not suitable. Nevertheless, staff finds the proposed road name "Joe Buck" meets the standards above and is the best choice given the close proximity of the road to the Metolius Deer Winter Range while also taking into consideration the rural character of the surrounding area. For these reasons, staff has assigned the road name "Joe Buck" to the subject right-of-way from the list of submitted names. These criteria are met. 2. Particular Roads. The proposed road name shall also conform to the following standards: a. North/South roads shall be called "roads" or "streets." b. East/West roads shall be called "avenues." C. Roads dead -ending in a turnaround 1,000 feet or less from their beginning points shall be called "courts." d. Roads of reduced right-of-way or curving roads of less than 1,000 feet shall be called "lanes" or "terraces." e. Curving roads longer than 1,000 feet shall be called "drives" or "trails." f. Roads that deviate slightly from the main course of a road with the same name, are less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "places." g. Roads that are four lanes or more shall be called "boulevards." h. Historical roads shall be called "market roads." i. Roads running at oblique angles to the four points of the compass, less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "ways." (See Appendix "D," attached hereto.) j. Roads that begin at and circle back onto the same road, or that are circular or semicircular, shall be called "circles" or "loops." FINDING: The road to be named is approximately 2,300 feet in length and extends west from Lower Bridge Way. The western terminus is a cul-da-sac and does not connect to any other roads. Given this configuration, staff finds "avenue" is the appropriate suffix. These criteria are met. F. Staff Review and Road Name Assignment., The Community Development Department shall review road name applications and shall assign road names under the following procedure: 1. Verify legal status of road with the County Clerk's office and Road Department. FINDING: The road to be named was created and publically dedicated as part of Major Partition Approval (MJP) 81-7. The Deschutes County Clerk's Office and Road Department have records of this approved partition and the creation of this public road. This criterion is met. 2. Check proposed road name(s) to avoid duplication or confusing similarity with other existing road names, with those on approved preliminary land divisions and with those approved for future use. 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 6 of 9 FINDING: The Deschutes County Address Coordinator confirmed the proposed road name is unique and there are no other similarly named roads in Deschutes County. This criterion is met. 3. Perform afield check, when necessary. 4. Assist the applicant or other affected person(s) to find alternate names when required. FINDING: For the purposes of this review, staff relied on existing County records and aerial images to verify the applicable requirements. As detailed in this decision, the proposed name 'Joe Buck Avenue" satisfies the applicable requirements. Therefore, no alternate names, beyond the four (4) submitted as part of the original request, were necessary or submitted. These criteria are met. S. Notify appropriate persons, departments and agencies of the road name application, and request comments. 6. Review and consider all comments submitted. 7. Assign a road name in accordance with the standards set forth in DCC 16.16.030(E) above. FINDING: As detailed in the Basic Findings above, the appropriate persons, departments and agencies received notice of this pending application. All of the submitted comments were reviewed in coordination with the Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator and the assigned name, Joe Buck Avenue, meets the standards of DCC 16.16.030(E). These criteria are met. G. Notice of Staff Decision. Following assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department, notice of the road name assignment shall be sent to all persons entitled to notice under DCC 16.16.030(B). H. Appeal. Affected property owners and occupants shall have the right to appeal the assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department. Such appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, except where the provisions of DCC 16.16.030 conflict with the procedures ordinance, in which case the provisions of DCC 16.16.030 shall apply. Affected property owners and occupants shall have 10 days from the date of the staff decision in which to file an appeal. Issues on appeal shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department correctly applied the criteria set forth herein. FINDING: A Notice of Staff Decision will mailed in accordance with the requirements of DCC 16.16.030(B). This notice will include information on the right to appeal as detailed above. These criteria will be met. I. A road name assignment becomes final when no further right of appeal established herein is possible. Within 10 days of the road name assignment becoming final, the Board shall sign an order establishing the road name as assigned by the Community Development Department. 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 7 of 9 FINDING: Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the proposed road name assignment of Joe Buck Avenue will become final under Board Order 2021-001. This criterion will be met. J. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of the Board order of road name assignment to begin using the road name. FINDING: To ensure compliance a condition of approval has been added. This criterion will be met. K. Notice of Decision. Following the order of the Board naming a road, the Community Development Department shall. 1. Notify the applicant requesting the road name of the action 2. Send copies of the order naming the road to the following. a. Road Department b. Assessor's Office and Tax Office C. Postmaster d. Planning Department e. County Clerk's office f. Affected telephone and other utilities g. Affected fire department(s) h. Local school district(s) i. Emergency services, i.e., police, fire, 911, etc. 3. File the original order naming a new road with County Clerk 4. On a monthly basis, the Community Development Department shall publish a list of changed road names in a newspaper of general circulation designated for the purpose of the Board. FINDING: Following review of the Board Order, staff will provide notice of the Board Order to the required entities identified above and the Board Order will be recorded in the Deschutes County Clerk's records. The proposed road name will be published in a newspaper with the list of changed road names. These criteria will be met. IV. CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed road name can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County Road Naming Ordinance if conditions of approval are met. Other permits may be required. The applicants are responsible for obtaining any necessary permits from the Deschutes Road Department as well as any required state and federal permits. The Deschutes County Road Department will coordinate the posting of a new road sign with the Property Address Coordinator. Please coordinate with the Deschutes County Road Department regarding fees related to the creation and installation of the new road sign. 247-20-000740-RN Qoe Buck Avenue) Page 8 of 9 V. DECISION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of the Board order of road name assignment to begin using the road name. Note: This requirement will only impact property owners and occupants that take access from Joe Buck Avenue. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: Within ten (10) days of this decision becoming final and absent an appeal, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve the subject road name assignment pursuant to Board Order 2021- 001. This decision becomes final ten (10) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. Issues on appeal shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department correctly applied the criteria set forth herein. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 00---R -- Written by: Caroline House, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247-20-000740-RN (Joe Buck Avenue) Page 9 of 9 REVIEWED gam LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Assigning the Name of Joe Buck Avenue to a Public Road Right -of -Way Located * ORDER NO, 2021-001 Off Lower Bridge Way Approximately 1,400 Feet South of Lambert Road. WHEREAS, Ted W. Netter applied to assign a road name pursuant to Deschutes County's Code, Title 16, Addresses and Road Names, to assign the name of Joe Buck Avenue to a 60-foot-wide public road right-of- way located in Township 14 South, Range 12 East, Section 00, W.M.; and WHEREAS, all public notices required to be given under 16.16.030(B) regarding the proposed name have been given; and WHEREAS, the appeal period for appealing the Community Development Department's approval expired; and WHEREAS, DCC 16.16.030(I) requires the road names be assigned by order of the Board of County Commissioners; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That the name of Joe Buck Avenue be assigned to a 60-foot-wide public road right-of- way to provide access to the properties at Township 14 South, Range 12 East, Section 00, as set forth in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein. Dated this of , 20_ ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER No. 2021-001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PHIL CHANG, VICE CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, COMMISSIONER I Joe Buck Avenue f Legend Parcel Joe Buck Avenue Exhibit A Joe Buck Avenue T14S, RUE, W.M. Deschutes County FY Of W 0 >J Z Board Order 2021-001 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet LAMBERT RD DISCLAIMER: The inlo,m alion on Ihi. map was d—ed hom digital databases on Deschutes County'. G.I.S. Ce,e wa. Taken in the creation o! tHs map, bLL it is p,orded"as W. Deschutes C.-,en-accept any responsibillrylor orrors,omissiore,or positbnal accuracy m the digital data or the —dyv, r..Idl. Thera are ro anllos, express or Imp Ned, Including the warranlyol me,charlablliryor gmass ror a particular puryesa, attomp g Ms produd.H-1. mfificadon of any,, will be epp,eaiatad. December 28, 2020 N:\..\Cmofnet257-20-740 RW,.p Fib.UoeBmkN..d File No. 247-20-000740-RN 70915 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY 70935 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY Joe Buck Avenue 70955 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY 70535 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY N 0 320 640 1,280 ft 1 inch=752 feet LA. IBER.T RD Approximate Location of Road to be Named Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA �E APPLICATION TO NAME/RENAME A ROAD Applicant's Name: Gfi Ale Mr f• Road Location/Map: Township /�! Range % 5 Section 116A an lbf General Location Description: 6,7ca? e e -Y) Ae %0 Dom' c/ �0 QA weWa%� -trr�vi t ca'w) Aje,5- Legal Status of Road:, ,f6lew ,/ dW'u,e 6 4-a-4 6(6c fu-hri %) Existing Name (if Proposed Name (list V 2nd 3ra and 41" choices): 1. GL / 1�f P AP i /,, 2. IOVAl �Y CAd _5 Reason for Name / Name Change: lc" X 0GAd C r e" Applicant's Signature: z;(,/ Date: WAD Property Owner's Signature (if different)*: Date: Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: ( ) pi6`�'��tif Mailing Address:%10_ K5 l.1 Qwd- A l a ity/State/Zip: *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. Date Filed: Fee Paid: Notes: Office Use Only Received by: Receipt 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Rend, Oregon 97703 1 P O Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Qi (S41) 388-6575 0 cddk--)deschutes org ® www deschutes org/cd Rev 5/18 Fred W Netter concerning our property at 70535 nw Lower bridge Way Caroline House Deschutes county planning Please accept this letter that I am applying for the Road naming request related to our land division project. The Road naming application is 247-20-000740-RN. Also accept this letter as my authorization for Ted W Netter to sign the application on my behalf. Thank you for your help on this Fred W Netter 1 O nNO M M n ` tiMMmlo o W ? WO f21 Nn > LL a qqcc KOr d z ci z O F z p 0 U W .W H F VIVO A3AOd NIJ 00 WObd 031V1f101V0 LLN Z00 Z _ ce m n m J. m G y 0 I Z mW zz ,26'9S£I • zrmc J w 3„Ob,6Ze69N 66 OIZ O Z "m .f W--,bS'b9 O N {y N p b -% 7 a> °; N ai a O ° O p !r Q •r m m m •- O N p t G \q59?� bK °_ ~ R E Q. p9 0 a I W K \ O r \ H PNyOa. 1 ai N 6e a Q a m •M -m -° Q w 1 / �Nt\6 I -`�' w a -o M • M °ter o¢ m_ o M gym'+ i n N ZU; n o m m W U O J°Ir O Ua 0 Z- N- U A3AOd 83d a E E •• ( • ,b I'L 3 5£I E 99N E. •� 0 / 1 d „64,6S ea M m c v '-' o w W M - m i Z FI N U ; Z 2 R m O r mW N> u _ mf _ U a � W° O O O p W �'Z W W W -0 Finam � ao z 2 Z M 6^ m W~ 3 O W O m F O LL O R m N> m m K a W LL Z 0 > r OD w ° ° K a Y O Z U _ M a O J O -a ow O Z N a a jUi'� n m Mw°i rc m oa O �Z Y W ws` Q Z N O 4• W U Y zoo Z F z w m Z -axJp� W> r N J Q Z 2 I 0- 3 (•� W Z 0 > V U W 3 W�� c n W O U O `^ o o �A. c2iw j�l N O � N 3m J � ` � °mw 3¢a a Sp E;I (L N Z����JJ i4 . W Q Y Im Z O N- O ~ J W d w J a �m J z 6 U , W E JamN o K<0 z�Z WQv�iJsl Q ¢WN 3 mac2iW2 OmFZQmz z M 3 rc Z N to d Q Z d ZOiom Ir 7 p a a. M m 2 Z N W \ cr Z F W O FS-iwmzrc U Y° W 81 £I �i Q H 2-= m QoaomF� L♦ZI a-/ _J Q= Y W cr J Y Q W Z J N 3 Q33 W f o O N avi �34 N O LL _ .- O m O LL F O o Yl W a0a W ZO�a Y azZW- wWnNwYmI rcWwz mW m> ZaN xK 0mO a m K- I- °° m N tt x m 7 O O F n U• zz =� i •n N �i b0-¢iZ �-za z.:, aW i J rc ¢ n �iO\ 1-UZaR °WWWU m OZ ¢ UN"w NN W�an2lW-F~~ZUZC�=S zO QMSW M W S O y D U a ~ W~-n ZL'bbft x n¢> N Z G'SL9 �� 3;,11 3 . w wW o z 3;,11 o66N ;=N O° N LL n 81o68N O ,91 FU a m i N T O 0 IWi. ¢ W rail 10 n W r a¢ ¢ U J Y a .m o ° m° z Nro2 °'aominMpo�u x wJ ~a�W m Y z M W oo �n F 0' l- a ZnmzF' 2 Z m e Q �i1 ; a M~ W N" U n N I LL F a f~/1 > ¢ Z Z px N W O F- N ii V j W n U 0 ¢ 3 0 3 !� N Q Z Z N LL m 6 I KZ ly O Y a W O m M"NW. W. M Z O W Z m Y -4/ V of Ja. Nip ¢ U. 0 >° F' O d f� W F m -l0 Kl "N U• 3 F; F> n m Jazm 10 ax t- z w a N. W Z a O N UI" a n: N m - ry W ¢ ll LL N z M 2 Z o0 ° Z O N N "' O N N o w l- M F w W K_ O° Z Z J OVj J- U N• W ° U J IA U. p"a o Q U M N410. _ Q- Vp 4 M ° 2 U LL a Z S 0 _J WO y W¢ O a{ w z LL; m; Q a W J O ; m W •2 U V ,Mn O W 0O 3 a °~ 0 d Z 3 O = F W N w a 2 N Z O O W V Z W W w o o m Y 2 W a 2 Z W t Z a Q W '/ 2 W m m f W z U LL I y S x N° p U U W n Q O 1- F S f H N U• a K F W p f Z Q Y> S F K 2 LL > p� Z (,6 b'95£I) O p¢ n n 1- '^ a of 3 .^ rc m p Z m Z Z W O O O f z O�.-'-- L£'b9Zl ,ZS'6b£I WLL aON mO ¢w•�m° ¢N zaOD _ 3„GO,SZe6B N u~.Ununa= LL 4po rc • R\rc UfaJwJ y �I w _m wO w �ZQ Go Z'aJ"pWo N NY -3Hw- trn p WJfi m - 3 LL CS00164 mf p sea ww aop w9 ro o� A „ $o?"A "5 N Nan �� R3n asZ. a M1r HC'u�6�ia��FaR'� yY 4 ep iI N 9p. AO ao� "w ° 81 a ar 4�W;..; "w' I 6 euV yN838yso .+4 Vu�E�.f�VS un 73 uUW"W t,« Jyj gull-�w 07 ;wro .�oNo.:gegN.�P�°:�osEMpa ���.�iJga�� BUT ES 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 Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: December 30, 2020 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion on Hearings Officer's Recommended Approval of 1) Comprehensive Plan Designation from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and 2) Expansion of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary; Both Are to Accommodate Redmond Affordable Housing Pilot Project (File 247-20-000440-PA) RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: No formal action needed at this time. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: City of Redmond was selected by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for an affordable housing pilot project under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660- 039. The City intends to build Skyline Village on 40-acres of County land on the NE side of Redmond. The City applied in File 247-20-000440-PA to 1) change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and 2) expand the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include the subject property. The Hearing Officer held a public hearing on Dec. 8, 2020, and issued a Dec. 16, 2020, decision recommending the Board approve the application. Under County code, the Board is the final decision maker on land use applications involving lands designated agricultural. Staff will recap issues raised at the hearing and discuss timeline for a future Board public hearing. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, CDD 5 nk . v) b�A Q 4 ® Q � 4-J m 4J ® Q 0 QQ Q .� .Q _ ® O In 4-J > N O W c ® .O E u -0 O ro O Qu M � u L U 4 0- C ao -C 0 4-► •Q 4-J U ® WU ' U Q :-J Q (� U ro •Q r -� •Q ro ® m t/1 E u L u ® v 00 UE� M O z L N .J E 0 B m W Q- r LA � ® � E .� O � ® crQ) Er Q CU ro CL CL Ln Ln tA tA 1 1 1 1 . . . � 2« �� . . . . � . . � . � . - ..�� � .... .. . .., - �� . � .. .. � �\ a;w 4 S MEMORANDUM DATE: December 29, 2020 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: January 13, 2021, work session on proposed amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan changing the designation of 40 acres from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and a subsequent Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion to include the subject property. The proposed plan amendment and UGB expansion are to accommodate Skyline Village, the City of Redmond's Affordable Housing Pilot Project (File 247-20-000440-PA). The State of Oregon through House Bill 4079 in 2016 and HB 2336 in 2019 established a pilot program to allow selected cities to plan and build affordable housing on lands currently not within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) selected the City of Redmond in 2019 for this pilot program, which is implemented through Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 039 (Affordable Housing Pilot Project). The subject property lies on the northeast side of Redmond, roughly between NE Maple on the north, NE Kingwood on the south, NE 13th Street on the west and NE 17th Street on east. The property is described as 15-13-0000- 00103. I. BACKGROUND At the December 8, 2020, public hearing,' staff presented a PowerPoint, which gave an overview of the process and the applicant's submittal materials. City of Redmond staff commented the City was concurrent process to amend the Redmond Comprehensive Plan 1 The presentation by staff as well as submittals to the hearings officer can be found here and are hereby entered into the record. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q1 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org Ewww.deschutes.org/cd and the City's UGB. The intent is to annex the subject 40 acres and rezone from Redmond Urban Growth Area to General Residential (R-4). The property would then be developed as Skyline Village, a 485-unit mixed housing, mixed -use development of which 50 percent of the housing would be priced as affordable housing based on the requirements of OAR 660- 039-0010(1) and (2). The property is owned by Deschutes County; however, the County through Deschutes County Document 2019-847 has conditionally granted ownership of the propertyto the City of Redmond. This Donation Land Agreement requires the land be used for affordable housing. The plan amendment and UGB expansion are required actions for the affordable housing pilot project per OAR 660-039-0090. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED NOVEMBER 10 THROUGH DECEMBER 8, 2020 Staff mailed notice of the public hearing on November 10, 2020, to all properties within 750 feet of the subject property and to various agencies. Staff received one joint written comment dated December 8, 2020, from Housing Land Advocates (HLA) and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) The letter requested the County address Goal 10, but as staff pointed out OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) specifically exempts pilot projects from rmmnliance with several states goals. including Goal 10 (Housing). The only other comment was provided via Zoom and raised the issue of compatibility of the affordable housing with existing manufacturing to the south of the subject parcel. The Hearings Officer closed both the written and oral record on December 8 and issued her decision on December 16, 2020. III. HO DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The hearings officer found the application complied with all the applicable review criteria and applicable Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies and OAR 660-039. The hearing officer recommended approval; the hearing officer can only recommend as under DCC 22.28.030(C) the Board is the decision -maker on land use applications involving agricultural lands. IV. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold a public hearing at a future date yet to be determined. One wrinkle is that cities typically conduct a land use hearing to expand their UGBs, then the County follows with its land use process regarding UGB expansions. The City of Redmond probably will not get to the UGB expansion until February. The Board has two options: 1) defer the Board's hearing on 247-20-000440-PA until after the City completes its UGB process or 2) Page 2 of 3 hold the Board's hearing, but defer the final decision and consideration of the implementing ordinance until after the City completes its UGB process. As this is a quasi -legislative amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there is not a 150-day clock. At the public hearing the Board will receive public testimony and then select amongst the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date certain • Close the oral record and leave the written record open to a date certain • Close the oral record and the written record and set a date for deliberations • Close the hearing and begin deliberations All the materials received at the Hearings Office public hearing are available by the links in the footnotes in this memo and are listed below as well. Attachments: 1. City of Redmond Application materials 2. Map of subject property 3. 11-10-2020 Notice of 12-08-2020, Public Hearing 4. Staff report for 247-20-000440-PA 5. Staff PowerPoint for 12-08-2020 aublic hearing 6. City of Redmond Submittals, 12-08-2020 7. Housing Land Advocates/Fair Housing Council of Oregon 12-08-2020 letter 8. Hearings Officer's 12-16-20 Decision and Recommendation for 247-20-000440-PA 9. 12-17-2020 Notice of Decision Recommending Approval of 247-20-000440-PA Page 3 of 3 PLAN/ZONE/TEXT AMENDMENT ZONE MAP AMENDMENT: PLAN MAP AMENDMENT: TEXT AMENDMENT: FEE: FEE: FEE: Applicant's Name (print): City of Redmond Phone: (5-4-1) 923-7724 Mailing Address: 411 SW 9th Street City/State/Zip:Redmond, OR 97756 Property Owner's Name (if different): Deschutes County Phone: (541) 388-6570 Mailing Address: 1300 NW Wall Street, 2nd Floor City/State/Zip: Bend; OR 97703 Property Description: Township 15 Range 13 Section Tax Lot 103 Lot of Record? (state reason): Current Zoning:_ EFU - AL (County) Proposed Zoning: EFU-AL (eventually rezoned in city) Current Plan Designation: Agriculture Proposed Designation: Redmond Urban Growth Area Applicable State Goals- 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 and 14 Exception Propose d?,--Yes_No Size of Affected Area: 40 Acres INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION: 1. Complete this application form including the appropriate signatures. If color exhibits are ct ihmiftari hurt, anri White rnniP-, with rantinns or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. 2. Include a detailed statement describing the proposal and how it meets all requirements of the appropriate State rules and statutes, and County codes and Comprehensive Plan policies. Text amendment applications must include the proposed language and the basis for the change. 3. If multiple properties are involved in this application, then identify each property on a separate page and follow with the property owners' signatures. 4. Submit the correct application fee. 5. Submit a copy of the current deed(s) for the property(ies). A PRE-APF Applicant's Signature: ON APPOINTMENT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL AMENDMENTS Property Owner's Signature (if differe Agent's Name (if applicable): Mailing Address: Date: Date: hone: (_) City/State/Zip: *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete; and if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 11 7 hJW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P-O Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-600.5 Q, (541)388-6575 a@ cdd@de-chuCes.org @ tnnr,,w.des<huCes.org/cd Rev 5/18 l COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 117 NW LAFAYETTE AVENUE, BEND, OR 97701 (541) 388-6575 INVOICE -- "I-- Bin 7 o: Name CITY OF REDMOND Address 411 SW 91' Street City REDMOND, OR 97756 Phone 541-923-7756 Fax 541-548-0706 Qty Code Description Skyline Village UGB/Comprehensive Plan Amendment Tax Lot: 1513000000103 1002 NE 171h Street, Redmond, OR Plan Amendment Hearings Officer Deposit Hearings Officer Administrative Deposit Total D1.:e Terms: Total amount of invoice due 30 days after receipt Office Use Only NOTE TO FINANCE: Please direct reimbursement to the following account: 295 204010: $14,945.00 Invoice Number: 2020-100-CP Invoice Date: June 19, 2020 Department Contact: Sherri Pinner 541-385-1712 Unit Price Total $ 9,445.00 5,000.00 500.00 $14,945.00 Sub Total Discount Credit Shipping & Handling TOTAL $14,945.00 Amount Paid Balance Due �cn a 0 o� co W a) �� -� -W 9 °' Q E_ a)O U I..L 0 O �� a) N V - Z o�� x C Z� LU W m fn 0 0 0 a 0 CO 0. M J CO 0 UNI—a- Q O0O N w W Skyline Village Affordable Housing Site Findings Report (`mmnrPhPnsivP Plan and Urhan Growth Bnundary Amendment (Deschutes County) Prepared for Deschutes County June 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 2 of 29 Table of Contents LISTOF EXHIBITS...................................................................................................................................4 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW................................................................................................5 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................................9 2.1 State of Oregon House Bill 4079 (Affordable Housing Pilot Program) .... 9Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1.1 Site Characteristics.....................................................................................................................................11 2.1.2 Planning Considerations.............................................................................................................................13 2.1.3 Land Use Concept.......................................................................................................................................14 2.2 Eastside Framework Plan.................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 3 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF UGB, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND ZONING AMENDMENTS ..... 17 3.1 Statewide Planning Guidelines and Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) for Planning Goals ............ 18 Goal1: Citizen Involvement................................................................................................................................... Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services....................................................................................................................18 Goal 14: Urbanization.................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................................ 22 Chapter 1: Comprehensive Planning........................................................................................................................22 Chapter2: Resource Management..........................................................................................................................22 Chapter 3: Rural Growth Management....................................................................................................................25 Chapter4: Urban Growth Management...................................................................................................................27 3.3 Deschutes County Code................................................................................................................................... 29 Title18, Zoning..........................................................................................................................................................29 June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 3 of 29 June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 4 of 29 List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G City of Redmond Application for Affordable Housing Pilot Program and Approval Land Donation Agreement Between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond, Approval from State to do Pilot Program Eastside Framework Plan Land Use Map Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report City of Redmond Engineer Memo Property Ownership Information Title Report June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 5 of 29 1 Introduction 1.1 Proposal Overview This report supplements the application of Skyline Village to Deschutes County to amend the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of Redmond and the Comprehensive Plan of Deschutes County to incorporate the property into the Redmond UGB for subsequent annexation and urban development. A separate, but related application is being submitted to the City of Redmond for an Amendment to the Redmond UGB and Redmond Comprehensive Plan to add this property into the Redmond UGB and to rezone it to a City zone district. In addition, the applicant is seeking City approval for a Master Development Plan and Partition. The application proposes to partition 40 acres from a 1,610 acre parcel owned by Deschutes County, once the 40 acres has been annexed into the City (for the purposes of this report, it is called the "Skyline Village Tract") and apply the City of Redmond General Residential (R-4) zone to the subject site, in accordance with the Eastside Framework Plan. Ultimately, the parcel will be developed out as a 485-unit, mixed residential, mixed -use neighborhood with at least 50% of the residential units designated as affordable (defined as those making 80% or less than the Area Median Income and not spending more than 30% of their monthly income on rent/mortgage) and the remainder market rate units. A variety of housing unit types will be built, including cottage units, townhomes, four-plexes, and apartments distributed throughout the site and surrounding parks, � „ a __,.,. •mow i �i,o f;«�� greenways, trails, and other open space. r� sniall, mixeu use areas — with C0111Mercial oia LIX HISL floor and housing above is incorporated to provide residents and neighboring businesses shopping and/or eating and drinking opportunities. The City plans to pursue a master developer approach to building out Skyline Village. A formal RFP process will be used to select both development partners and an overall master developer/project manager to carry out the City's vision for constructing the neighborhood. The affordable housing project is facilitated by adoption of State House Bill 4079 (HB 4079), which established a pilot program to help cities build affordable housing by expediting the UGB Amendment process, in exchange for the city dedicating at least a third of the units as affordable. A partnership between the City Redmond and Deschutes County has resulted in a signed donation agreement that stipulates the County will convey to the City 40 acres of land upon recordation of a final partition plat and further agree to reserve at least 50% of the units as affordable for a period of at least 50 years. The Skyline Village Tract is located east of the existing Redmond UGB and immediately north of existing City M-2 zoned (Heavy Industrial) land (Figure 1, vicinity map, on next page). This parcel is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-AL) — Alfalfa Subzone. See Figure 2, (Site Map) for a map of these proposed land uses. June 30, 2020 Of R 'A Y CA AV"- JR 1. *ti`v `s _ a nn i 126 p S n _ _ _ _ " _ i _ _ _ _ : - _ _ _e..'.7• C?cc�i:yc, I=C.dAz Uf ° 33�.1k1ai 3 ' �`L� 3L1b7kA3 3, E[ e� , !Ra .61�i )�1:iAJ1 C�3i t. Ar! Mzs u 01,E &Wpa%t9BlJrlQ� Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 7 of 29 Figure 2. Site Map June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 8 of 29 1.2 Requested Approvals The purpose of this report is to demonstrate conformance with the approval criteria for all applications that are required to bring the Skyline Village Tract within the City of Redmond UGB and set the stage for eventual development. These applications and the relevant approval criteria are summarized in Table 1. The table also presents the section of this report where the findings that address each approval criteria can be found. Table 1. Applications and Approval Criteria APPLICATION APPROVAL CRITERIA SECTION Comprehensive Deschutes County Code, Section 18.136.010 Section 3.3 Plan Amendment DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The (Deschutes County) procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. 1.3 Report Organization The report is organized into three sections. This first section establishes the purpose and reviews the organization of the report. The second section provides background on the project. The third section demonstrates conformity of the proposed amendment with all required and relevant approval standards. The section begins with key Statewide Planning Goals and Oregon Administrative Rules that govern UGB amendments and ends with relevant county and city comprehensive plan policies and development code standards. The findings are organized as follows. 3.1. Statewide Planning Guidelines and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) ■ Goal 1: Citizen Involvement ■ Goal 2: Land Use Planning ■ Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces ■ Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards ■ Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services (only that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary) ■ Goal 14: Urbanization (except the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions) June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 9 of 29 3.2. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 3.3. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 3.4. Deschutes County Code Additional factual documentation in support of the findings are cited throughout the report. Most of these documents are incorporated with this report as Exhibits. 2 Project Background 2.1 State of Oregon House Bill 4079 In 2016, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 4079 (HB 4079) which formed a pilot program aimed to help cities build affordable housing. The program allowed two cities to add new housing units on lands currently outside their urban growth boundaries (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 population up to 25,000, and one for a city with a population greater than 25,000. When selected, cities can use an expedited UGB process if at least 30% 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 that provided the details on the pilot program process and project requirements (see OAR 660-039 below). The rules require 30% of the housing units to be affordable to households making 80% or less of the area median income. The remaining units may be market rate. In November 2018, following a review of multiple city proposals, LCDC selected the City of Bend, instead of the City of Redmond's proposal for the pilot program for City's over 25,000 population. No City under 25,000 people applied. In lieu of that, the Legislature amended the original statute by passing HB 2336 in 2019, which allowed LCDC to select the City of Redmond's application for the affordable housing pilot program. Now that Redmond has been selected, the program requires that the City amend their urban growth boundaries, annex the proposed project site, and adopt needed regulations and issue permits for development to occur. The selected cities are also required to send annual reports to LCDC for the next 10 years with information on development costs, the housing units available, and lessons learned from the project. According to LCDC adopted rules in Oregon Amended Rules 660-039-0090 (Subsequent Events) these are the next steps for implementation of the affordable housing program: (a) In concert with the county in which the urban growth boundary is located, amend the urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site, and identify the provisions of law and rules June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 10 of 29 pursuant to OAR 660-039-0030 relating to urban growth boundary amendments that are not applied to allow the pilot project site to be included within the urban growth boundary; (b) Annex the pilot project site to the qualifying city within two years of the acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment; (c) Adopt plan and zone designations for the pilot project site that authorize development of the concept plan included in the application; (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site; and (e) Issue permits for development on the pilot project site only after annexation of the site to the qualifying city and adoption of measures ensuring that housing developed on the pilot project site will continue to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site. (2) For a post -acknowledgement plan amendment or land use regulation change under OAR chapter 660, division 18 that proposes amendments with any effect upon existing comprehensive plan designations or provisions that impact residential development, or land use regulations that impact residential development, the qualifying city may not, for a period of 50 years after approval of the pilot project by the commission, consider the existence of housing units existing or approved on the pilot project site when making findings regarding the proposed amendment. C «A .;t, L «IVJC..t SittL.4. nnmmieeinn may not "inn nr 7nnP IIC qualllylllg' city 1W UIC; F11V L Fll VJl l 1 �1w 7VlV�wu v y the vvuu,.. � �.v.. ,,.�,� .... F.— — --� the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized by the commission unless the qualifying city, in concert with the county, withdraws the pilot project site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside of urban growth boundaries. The State DLCD office that certain Statewide Goals are exempt in processing this UGB Amendment, including Goal 12 (Transportation). Further clarification of the Subsequent Events section confirms from the State DLCD office that certain Statewide Goals are exempt in processing this UGB Amendment, including Goal 12 (Transportation) 60-039-0030 Compliance with Goals, Statutes, Administrative Rules (1) Regarding the pilot project site, a qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination is exempt from compliance, and the commission is not required to select a pilot project that complies, with: (a) ORS 197A.320; (b) The Land Need or Boundary Location provisions of Goal 14 (Urbanziation); (c) Goals 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 19; June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 11 of 29 (d) Goal 11, except that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary; (e) Goal 15, unless the land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary; (f) Goals 16, 17, and 18, unless the land is within a coastal shorelands boundary; or (g) Any administrative rules implementing, clarifying, or interpreting these goals. (2) A qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination is required to make findings showing compliance, and the commission is required to select a pilot project that complies with: (a) Goal 5, regarding resources located on the project site; and (b) Goal 7. (3) Notwithstanding section (1), a qualifying city may not bring high -value farmland within its urban growth boundary to implement a pilot project. 660-039-0040 Provision of Public Facilities and 2.1.1 Eastside Framework Plan The Eastside Framework Plan (EFP) is a general land use plan, adopted by the City of Redmond in 2007 during the UGB expansion process. The Plan identifies a development pattern for an 1,800- aCre area •.within the City of R edmnnrl T Trhan R ecPrve Area (T TR A) on land owned by Deschutes County and Central Oregon Irrigation District. The EFP envisions a mixed -use community, based on the Great Neighborhood Principles, providing basic services and activities within a short travel distance (See Exhibits for EFP Land Use Map). The mixed -use pattern reflects those of adjacent urban lands, with residential development toward the north and east, and industrial and employment activities to the south and southwest. Land uses are generally most intense on the west boundary, adjacent to the existing City lands and transition to lower density along the east boundary where it borders the URA and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. An open space network forms a major design feature for the site. To address existing limited access and offsite transportation impacts of future development, internal circulation includes dedicated pedestrian and bicycle corridors connecting employment areas with residential neighborhoods, and the creation of neighborhood commercial centers within walking distance. The Skyline Village Tract is located within the western, central part of the EFP on land designated by the EFP as Residential — Medium Density, adjacent to Residential — High Density and industrially zoned land. As the first project to be considered in the EFP, it will build upon the mixed -use and residential intentions set by the EFP to grow Redmond's housing and commercial development. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 12 of 29 2.1.2 Site Characteristics The site is located directly north of existing City of Redmond jurisdiction and M-2 zoned lands (Heavy Industrial), east of a SM (Surface Mining) zoned land that is a portion of the larger Deschutes County owned land, south of County zoned EFU TRB (Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/ Bend Subzone) and RR-10 (Rural Residential - 10 Acre Minimum) zoned land. Current Uses, Access, and Zoning Past and recent uses of the Skyline Village Tract have been wildlife habitat, rangeland, and open space. It has never been farmed and is not part of any irrigation district. Access to the property is available from the west via the following City streets: NE Kingwood Avenue and from the south via NE 17th Street and NE 15th Street, which connects to NE Hemlock Avenue and NE 9th Street. From NE 91h Street, you can go north to NE Negus, which turns into Maple Avenue or south to OR 126 and Evergreen Avenue to access US Highway 97 and downtown. From the north, access will be provided via Deschutes County owned NE Negus Way. The Tract is zoned by Deschutes County for EFU-AL (Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa Subzone). Physical Characteristics and Agricultural Potential The site is located at the western margin of the High Lava Plains Physiographic Province of Central Oregon. This region is characterized by semi -arid high desert vegetation along the eastern foothills of the High Cascade Mountain Range. Annual precipitation in the Redmond area is approximately ten inches, most of which falls in the form of snow during the winter months. The site and surrounding areas are composed of relatively thin volcanic soils overlying Pleistocene age Newberry basalt flows (Sherrod et al., 2004). With exception of talus deposits, lake sediments, and fluvial debris, most of the rocks in the province are volcanic, and thick accumulations of basaltic lava are common. The average site elevation ranges from 3,020 to 3,030 feet above mean sea level. The Tract has no evidence of permanent or seasonal water and there are no water rights associated with this property. The National Wetlands Inventory Map does not identify wetlands on the Tract. There are no known sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, hazardous or solid wastes, nor wilderness values on the Tract. There are no designated flood hazard zones. There is no current or historic record of any mining activity on or near the Tract. Soils on the Tract are designated as Class VII and VIII. The land is not recommended for dry land grazing due to a lack of water and proximity to urban uses. The Tract has never been farmed and is not suitable for agricultural production. To examine any potential site development issues, the City commissioned Wallace Group to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the 40-acre parcel. The findings of this environmental assessment did not find the presence of potential or RECs regarding soil and groundwater, or the transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 13 of 29 hydrocarbons at the subject site. Based on these findings, the study does not recommend additional environmental assessment or remedial activities with respect to the site at this time. The property is zoned EFU, but the land is intended to be developed and currently is part of the Eastside Framework Master Plan. The master plan shows the Skyline Village property as residential. Based on information provided to the City by Deschutes County, the following describes the agricultural potential: • Soils are not classified as High Value Farmland. • Property has never been used for growing crops or perennials. • Is located east of the Coast Range. • Has never been within an irrigation district boundary or decree for water by the Water Resources Department. • Has never had wine grapes grown on the property. • Is higher than 3,000 feet above sea level. • Does not contain water resources, rivers, or riparian habitat. • Does not contain mining or aggregate resources. Archaeological and Cultural Resources The site does not contain historic or cultural areas or resources as this site is not included in the Goal 5 inventory in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; and does not contain approved Oregon Recreation Trails or inventoried scenic areas. 2.1.3 Planning Considerations The City of Redmond considered many factors in determining the best site for the Skyline Village project. The 40-acre Skyline Village Tract currently owned by Deschutes County (and part of a 1,600-acre parcel) was ultimately selected for the following reasons: • The property is in the Redmond Urban Area Reserve and immediately adjacent to City of Redmond municipal boundaries. • Public utilities are currently available to the property, including water, sewer and streets that exist along the property frontage. Gas and electric service is available. • Deschutes County has agreed to provide the City of Redmond with the development parcel free of charge to aid in the delivery of truly affordable housing by removing the underlying land costs. • The parcel is designated as future Residential in the Eastside Framework Plan, which guides the future development of the 1,600-acre, Deschutes County owned parcel. • The site is a good location for residential because it is close to downtown and shopping, close to recreational facilities (High Desert Sports Complex) with hiking and biking trails, great Cascade Mountain views, and possible future transit connections. June 30. 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 14 of 29 These considerations led the City of Redmond to conclude the urban development of the site was feasible and would be consistent with state, regional and local policy goals. 2.1.4 Land Use Concept In preparation for the submittal to the State of Oregon for the Affordable Housing Pilot Program, the City of Redmond developed a master plan concept for the Skyline Village Tract (Figure 2). The concept is for a mixed income, mixed use neighborhood consisting of a wide variety of housing types, including cottages, townhomes, four-plexes, two -three story apartment buildings and three story, mixed use structures. A total of 485 residential units will be constructed (equating to 12+ units per acre) and is designed to appeal to families, singles, professionals, empty nesters and active seniors. At least half of the units will be affordable, and the other half will be market rate units. The affordable and the market rate units will be mixed throughout the site, amongst all types of housing units and within the same the same buildings, to create a more dynamic community and to not create enclaves of any type of housing. Parks, open space corridors and greenway with trails are planned throughout the development to enhance the livability of the community and a transit plaza has been planned in adjacent to the mixed -use area and a park. Rezoning the parcel to R-4 (General Residential) is proposed to accommodate the project. The purpose of the R-4 is "to provide high density residential neighborhoods with a mix of single-family residences, duplexes and some conditionally permitted multi -family residential development. Limited commercial uses such as offices are also conditionally permitted where compatible with surrounding development." All of the proposed residential uses are allowed in the R-4 zone and the small amount of commercial can be considered ancillary space to the primary use. The primary goal of the project is to provide a significant number of units that are affordable to most people. While the State of Oregon Affordable Housing Pilot Program required at least 1/3 of the units to be affordable, the City has increased the commitment to 50%. The other half will be market rate housing, which means that they will rent or sell at whatever rate the market will allow for the type of unit. To ensure that the affordable units stay affordable, the Pilot Program requires that assurances, such as deed restrictions be required so that the affordable units stay that way for a minimum of 50 years. At least half of the units will be affordable to those making 80% or less than the Area Median Income (AMI) and the other half will be market rate units. The Deschutes County AMI is $69,600, based on data from HousingWorks, the local housing authority. This figure is used to determine the maximum rent a family of four can afford (rent burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of net income). Many Redmond households experience rent burden. Using 80% of the AMI and not spending more than 30% of one's income on rent, the maximum allowable rent would be $1,392 for rent per month. Parks and open space are spread throughout the Skyline Village neighborhood to create a very livable and healthy environment that encourages both passive and active recreation and social interaction. A June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 15 of 29 total of 3.9 acres, or almost 10% of the site, is dedicated to these types of uses. Connecting parks and open space are greenway, trail corridors that will create easy access for all and opportunities for walking, biking and running loops. Additional recreational opportunities can be found close by at the High Desert Sports Complex, Smith Rock Golf Course, and BMX and the Radlands trail system. The City plans to pursue a master developer approach to build out Skyline Village. A formal RFP process will be used to select both development partners and an overall master developer/project manager to carry out the vision for the constructing the neighborhood. Access to the site will be provided by extending the City street grid into service the property in accordance with City policy. To that end, existing NE 15th Street and NE 17th Street will be extended north into the site, with NE 15th connecting at the north property line to existing NE Negus Way. A new street, NE 13th Street, will also be constructed on the west edge of the property. A new section of NE Larch Avenue and other streets will provide east to west connectivity. Additional local streets and private access lanes will be added within this street framework to provide complete access to the property. Construction of the entire 40 acres will be carried out in two phases. Phase 1 will include everything from NE Kingwood Avenue to the proposed NE Larch Avenue, as the southern half is located closer to existing water and sewer utilities in NE Kingwood Avenue. As utilities are extended farther north with this development, Phase 2 will commence and consist of the remainder of the development from NE Larch Avenue up to the north property line. A 4-.* _.. ' l« �....,.�-..«,. +- 4L.� 'to ' '1 l to the tlArn r�r�rarftSinn that man be extended ivlajVt ttuLa�uu�LulU w 3elvu lllt s1LLr is uVULlaVle lV Llll JVULIIL 111 F--F-.Y 1111V Lll{AL Vllll into the site. According to a memo prepared by City Engineer Mike Caccavano (and detailed below), the project site can be reasonably served with public facilities and services and the providers of the public facilities and services have the capacity and financial resources to serve development on the site as proposed in the concept plan. The following is a breakdown, by infrastructure, of the available infrastructure: Water: A hydrant test in 2010 showed a static pressure of 77 pounds per square inch (psi) with 2,221 gallons per minute (gpm) flow at 74 psi from a 4%2-inch port. The system will easily provide flow exceeding the 1,500 gpm residential fire flow standard. Sewer: The 12-inch sewer line in NE Kingwood Avenue is deep enough to serve most of the site with gravity sewer. A pump station is needed to serve the northeast corner of the site until the master planned Far East Sewer Interceptor is constructed. In accordance with City of Redmond policy, the pump station would be operated and maintained by a homeowner's association. The 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue connects to an 8-inch sewer in NE 5th Street which runs north to NE Negus Way. The 12-inch sewer has sufficient capacity to serve its sewer basin at buildout, along with Skyline Village. The 8-inch sewer does not have sufficient capacity, so approximately 750 feet of 12-inch sewer line will need to be installed to extend the line to the Eastside Sewer Interceptor. A second option for sewer is in the City's Wastewater Collection June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 16 of 29 System Master Plan. A 12-inch line is proposed for NE Negus Avenue that would have the capacity and depth to serve the entire affordable housing site with gravity sewer. In summary, the existing sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue can provide service to initial phases totaling 150 units of housing. The full development can be served either with: • Construction of 750 feet of 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue between NE 5th Street and the Eastside Sewer Interceptor at a cost of approximately $150,000 and a pump station to serve the northeast portion of the site at a cost of approximately $250,000. • Construction of the master planned sewer in NE Negus Way at a cost of approximately $850,000. Although this is the more expensive option, it provides a better long-term gravity sewer solution and may be possible to funded with an existing loan from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Transportation: The street network in this area will provide good access to the site. On the south side of the site, NE 151h Street, NE 17th Street and NE Kingwood Avenue connect to NE Hemlock Avenue, which provides direct access to Highway 97. They also connect to NE 9th Street, an arterial which provides access to Highway 126 to the south and Highway 97 to the north. On the north side, streets will connect to NE Negus Way, which is a direct connection to shopping, the medical district and the central part of Redmond. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 17 of 29 3 Findings in Support of Urban Growth Boundary, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Map Amendments This section of the report demonstrates conformity of the proposed amendment with all required and relevant approval standards. The section begins with key Statewide Planning Goals and OARS that govern UGB amendments as part of the Affordable Housing Pilot Program of HB 4079, and ends with relevant county plan policies and development code standards. The findings are organized as follows. 3.1. Statewide Planning Guidelines and OARS - Per 60-039-0030 Compliance with Goals, Statutes, Administrative Rules, only the following Goals are required: ■ Goal 1: Citizen Involvement ■ Goal 2: Land Use Planning ■ Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces ■ Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards ■ Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services (only that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary) ■ Goal 14: Urbanization (except the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions) 3.2. Oregon Revised Statutes (rNvRS) 3.3. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 3.4. Deschutes County Code June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 18 of 29 3.1 Statewide Planning Guidelines and Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) for Goals According to 60-039-0030 Compliance with Goals, Statutes, Administrative Rules, the Affordable Housing Pilot Project is only required to comply with the following Statewide Land Use Goals: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal S: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal H: Public Facilities and Services (only that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary) Goal 14: Urbanization (except the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions) GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunityfor citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Tl_ - I TIT'b-7--...-4 ...i1... --A — .1-.. ...4.....« �..�ar �r�4 -----A-- P v� Response: ims proposed UIJD Q111e11U111G11L UU11G1GU W L11G V1L1GG11111VVIVC111111LF1VNeUUIva 1V1 legislative actions required by the City of Redmond and Deschutes County Development Codes, including a public hearing and notice of the hearing published in a newspaper at least ten days in advance. Public agencies affected by this amendment were involved throughout the development of the proposal. In addition, individual property owners affected by the amendment were provided notice of the proposed amendment and hearing. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Response: This application was submitted to both the City of Redmond and Deschutes County in accordance with the land use planning processes established by these jurisdictions. The proposal is supported by a factual base of analyses that are consistent with state, regional and local requirements for decisions related to UGB amendments. GOAL 5: OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 19 of 29 Response: The Skyline Village Tract does not include any significant natural resources, scenic or open spaces, nor contain any significant historic areas. As described in Section 2.1.1 of this report, the property does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. The soils are not considered as High Value Farm Land, have never been used for growing crops or perennials, the property is east of the Coast Range, has never been within an irrigation district boundary or decree for water by the Water Resources Department, the land has never had wine grapes grown, and is higher than 3,000 feet above sea level. Historic and cultural resources surveys conducted on the site indicate that the Tract was not occupied by prehistoric or historic peoples and contains no significant historic or cultural resources. The site also does not contain approved Oregon Recreation Trails or inventoried scenic areas. The subject site is not listed as a Goal 5 resource in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Goal 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS To protect people and property from natural hazards. Response: There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or landslide activity. Wildfire hazards are not substantially different from other areas within or adjacent to the Redmond UGB, and development of the site could improve fire protection by providing access and water infrastructure. Therefore, inclusion of this site within the UGB and subsequent development will be consistent with Goal 7. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: As provided in OAR 660-039-0030, qualifying Cities under the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from complying with this goal, except that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary. The following addresses the impact of development of Skyline Village project upon existing and planned public facilities within the city boundaries. According to a memo prepared by City Engineer Mike Caccavano (and detailed above), the project site can be reasonably served with public facilities and services and the providers of the public facilities and services have the capacity and financial resources to serve development on the site as proposed in the concept plan. The 40-acre site proposed for affordable housing located between NE 13th Street, NE 171h Street, NE Kingwood Avenue and NE Negus Way is served by city sewer and water as well as the existing street network. There are existing 12-inch diameter water and sewer lines in NE Kingwood Avenue along the south boundary that can be extended into the site. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 20 of 29 Water: A hydrant test in 2010 showed a static pressure of 77 psi with 2,221 gallons per minute (gpm) flow at 74 psi from a 4%2-inch port. The system will easily provide flow exceeding the 1,500 gpm residential fire flow standard. Sewer: The 12-inch sewer line in NE Kingwood Avenue is deep enough to serve most of the site with gravity sewer. A pump station is needed to serve the northeast corner of the site until the master planned Far East Sewer Interceptor is constructed. In accordance with City of Redmond policy, the pump station would be operated and maintained by a homeowner's association. The 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue connects to an 8-inch sewer in NE 5th Street which runs north to NE Negus Way. The 12-inch sewer has sufficient capacity to serve its' sewer basin at buildout, along with the proposed 40-acre affordable housing development. The 8-inch sewer does not have sufficient capacity, so approximately 750 feet of 12-inch sewer line will need to be installed to extend the line to the Eastside Sewer Interceptor. A second option for sewer is in the City's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. A 12-inch line is proposed for NE Negus Avenue that would have the capacity and depth to serve the entire affordable housing site with gravity sewer. In summary, the existing sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue can provide service to initial phases totaling 150 units of housing. The full development can be served either with: Construction of 750 feet of 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue between NE 5th Street and the Eastside Sewer Interceptor at a cost of approximately $150,000 and a pump station to serve the northeast portion of the site at a cost of approximately $250,000. • Construction of the master planned sewer in NE Negus Way at a cost of approximately $850,000. Although this is the more expensive option, it provides a better long-term gravity sewer solution and may be possible to funded with an existing loan from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Transportation: The street network in this area will provide good access to the site. On the south side of the site, NE 15th Street, NE 17th Street and NE Kingwood Avenue connect to NE Hemlock Avenue, which provides direct access to Highway 97. They also connect to NE 9th Street, an arterial which provides access to Highway 126 to the south and Highway 97 to the north. On the north side, streets will connect to NE Negus Way, which is a direct connection to shopping, the medical district and the central part of Redmond. GOAL 14: URBANIZATION To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 21 of 29 Response: As provided in OAR 660-039-0030, qualifying Cities under the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from complying with the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions of this goal. The purpose and intent of Goal 14 was considered throughout the development of this proposed UGB amendment. The proposal provides for orderly and efficient transition to urban land uses because the site is part of the planned future uses in the Eastside Framework Plan and is directly adjacent to the City of Redmond's existing UGB, so it can be served by a direct extension of existing public facilities. The proposed use of the site for a higher density affordable housing development is an efficient use of the land and will provide a livable community through a well laid out neighborhood complete with parks, open spaces, and trails and access to a small commercial area, all in close proximity to the other amenities of Redmond accessible by a short drive or bus or bicycle ride; the specific contributions to livability needs are addressed in other findings throughout this report, including conformance with the Great Neighborhood Principles provided under the City of Redmond's Master Planning Requirements. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 22 of 29 3.2 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 1: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Section 1.3. Land Use Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. Response: As described in the findings in response to statewide planning Goal 1, this UGB amendment is the result of an open public land use process. The provisions of the affordable housing pilot program and OAR rules that implement the program ensure that this land use decision is based on an objective evaluation of facts. This proposal is supported by a factual base of analyses that are consistent with state, regional and local requirements for decisions related to UGB amendments. Goal 2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. Response: This UGB amendment is the result of regional cooperation between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. Deschutes County owns the land that the project is proposed to be located on (after it is included in the Redmond UGB and after it is partitioned into a 40 acre parcel) and has consented to donate the land on the condition that it will be developed primarily for affordable housing. CHAPTER 2: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning. Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. Policy 2.2.3. Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFUparcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Response: The parcels is zoned EFU and is supposed to remain that way, unless the individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. The subject parcel is proposed to be annexed into the City of Redmond and rezoned to R-4. Per Policy 2.2.3, the amendment of the zoning for this parcel is permitted as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is part of an Affordable Housing Pilot Program, allowed by State House Bill 4079 and implemented by OAR 660-039, that allows selected cities to amend their UGB to include certain June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 23 of 29 parcels, then to annex and zone the property to accommodate an affordable housing project meeting certain requirement. This report intends to provide adequate legal findings for amending the EFU zone, as required by policy 2.2.2. If the zoning amendment is adopted, this policy will be addressed. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. Response: As noted above, the subject property is proposed to be rezoned from Exclusive Farm Use to R-4 (General Residential) subsequent to being included in the City of Redmond's UGB. Findings of consistency with approval criteria for County zone change provisions are found in the appropriate section of this report. Subsequent to the proposed zone change and annexation, this policy will no longer be applicable. Section 2.3 Forests Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as it is not located in a forest. Section 2.4 Goal 5 Overview Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as this application will not impact the County's Goal S inventories or protection programs. Section 2.5 Water Resources Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as it does not involve any water resources Section 2.6 Wildlife Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as it does not involve any wildlife resources or contain identified wildlife habitat. Section 2.7 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Policies Goal I Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. Response: The site is not considered a significant open space based on any natural amenities present on the site. There are scenic views of the mountains looking westward from the site, but the development will not negatively impact any views from an existing house or public space to the east. Policy 2.7.1 Goal S open spaces, scenic views and sites inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 24 of 29 Response: As noted above, this application will not impact the County's Goal 5 inventories or protection programs. Policy 2.7.2 Cooperate with stakeholders to establish a comprehensive system of connected open spaces. Response: The City of Redmond has identified opportunities for the development to connect and contribute to the city and county's system of open spaces. The Master Development Plan for the site identifies areas for a comprehensive system of connected open spaces by spreading them around the neighborhood then connecting them with trails along landscaped corridors. Open spaces will be a combination of active and passive spaces. Connections will be made to off -site trails, open spaces and recreational facilities. Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces between Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. Response: To the applicant's knowledge, the subject property is not designated a visually important open space or a visually important area and is not located on land between Bend and Redmond. Policy 2.7.4 Encourage a variety of approaches that protect significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites. Response: Protecting scenic views and encouraging new development to be sensitive to scenic views will be considered further when a specific development is proposed for the site. The Master Development Plan identifies areas for open spaces on the site and scenic views should be accessible from those spaces. Additionally, the City of Redmond's Development Code zone requires a Site and Design Review application be submitted when a development is proposed for the site. The Site and Design Review application requires an identification of land for open spaces and urban design approaches for integrating open spaces with other elements throughout the site. Section 2.8. Energy Policies Goal 1. Promote energy conservation. Goal 2. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and business consumers. Response: The development will promote energy conservation and sustainability. The details of which will be developed and provided during the time of master development and subdivision. Section 2.9. Environmental Quality Goal I Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Goal 2 Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural environment. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 25 of 29 Response: The project aims to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land through creation of affordable and market rate housing in Redmond and close to many employment, shopping and recreational opportunities, thus reducing the vehicle miles travelled. Sustainable building practices will be investigated for incorporation during the next phase of development, which will be infrastructure construction and building. More details will be provided at that time. Section 2.10 Surface Mining Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as it is does not involve a current, past or proposed surface mining use. Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Resources Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as there are no known cultural or historic resources on the site. This site is not listed in the Goal 5 inventory in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. CHAPTER 3: RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT Section 3.2 Rural Development Response: This section is not applicable to this proposal as the site is intended to be annexed into the City of Redmond and developed at urban level densities. Section 3.3 Rural Housing Poiicies Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. Response: This amendment will maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. The property is adjacent on three sides to County zoned property. To the west and a portion to the north is County EFU-TRB (there are 5-6 single family homes on parcels ranging from 5 acres to 9.5 acres), while the other northern portion consists of RR-10 zoning (consisting of a golf course and the High Desert Sports Complex), and the parcel directly to the east is zone SM (consisting of the Negus Transfer Station) zones The site is planned for housing uses. Any potential impacts of this residential development on rural housing in adjacent County zoned property can be mitigated through application of the Master Development Plan requirements for annexation into the City. Pursuant to the Master Development Plan Requirements, the master plan for the site must be consistent with Redmond's Great Neighborhood Principles. One of these principles is to establish an appropriate urban -rural interface, including a 100' buffer between urban areas within the UGB and adjacent rural areas and other transitional elements, such as transitions to lower intensities of development. As shown on the MDP Map (Figure 2), this buffer will apply to the site boundaries adjacent to County zoned properties. Additionally, where appropriate, the height of buildings will decrease along these frontages to provide a transition to rural areas. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 26 of 29 Secondly, the Redmond Development Code requires a Site and Design Review Application. The site plan must identity areas for open spaces, among other requirements. The Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission may require sufficient open space adjacent to these residential areas to preserve their rural character. In addition, development in the zone is subject to the Redmond's general design review criteria, which includes provisions for building form, screening, landscaping, and parking lot design that may be used to minimize any impacts to rural character. Due to the design review provisions of the Redmond Development Code and Master Development Plan requirements/Great Neighborhood Principles for annexation into the City, this amendment will not impact the rural character of these areas. Thus, the amendment is consistent with rural housing Goal 1. Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster development, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. Response: This policy is not applicable as development will occur within the City of Redmond after annexation in a dense, urban manner that precludes options for cluster development. Higher density development tends to be more pedestrian friendly as destinations are in closer proximity and transit service becomes more viable — both of which mitigate community and environmental impacts. Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones. Response: This policy is not applicable as the development will occur within the City of Redmond after annexation in a dense, urban manner. Section 3.4 Rural Economy Policies Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Response: As noted in findings addressing Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 3.2 (Rural Housing Policies), a portion of the site is adjacent to the County EFU-TRB (which allows wineries, farm stands, agri-tourism, marijuana production, etc.), RR-10 (allows home occupations, bed and breakfast golf course, commercial horse stables, etc.), and SM (extraction of minerals, etc.) zones, which allows rural economic uses. The findings in that section are pertinent to rural economic uses as well. In summary, the design review requirements of the Redmond Development Code and Site and Design Review application requirements related to building form, screening, landscaping, and parking lot design will minimize or eliminate any potential impacts on the stability or sustainability of rural economic uses. In addition, the City's Great Neighborhood Principles require a 100-foot buffer between City uses and the Urban Area Reserve, which will result in a buffer on the northern portion of the subject property, adjacent to a RR-10 zoned property. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 27 of 29 Section 3.5 Natural Hazards Goal I Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards. Response: The site is not in any natural hazard zones, such as wildfire or flood areas. Section 3.6 Public Facilities and Services Goal 1 Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. Response: The site will be annexed and provided with City facilities and services and be maintained by the City so there will be no rural public facilities and services. Section 3.7 Transportation The Transportation System was adopted in Ordinance 2012-005 and is hereby incorporated into this Plan as Appendix C. The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Comprehensive Plan. Response: The site will be annexed and provided with City transportation facilities and services and be maintained by the City so there will be no on -site County transportation public facilities and services serving the site. Section 3.8 Rural Recreation Goal I Promote a variety of passive and active park and recreation opportunities through a regional system that includes federal and state parks and local park districts. Response: The development will have its own parks and open space to provide recreation for the residents. Given its proximity, residents will also likely utilize recreational facilities located at the High Desert Sports Complex and bike and hiking trails at the Radlands. Section 3.9 Destination Resorts Response: This is not applicable as a destination resort is not being proposed. Section 3.10 Area Specific Policies Response: There are no Area Specific Policies that apply to this property. CHAPTER 4: URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Response: This UGB amendment is an outcome of the Affordable Housing Pilot program as part of State House Bill 4079, which was designed and administered with the cooperation of cities and June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 28 of 29 counties of Oregon and other regional and state partners to help address the acute shortage of affordable housing in the State. The City and County coordinated on the choosing of the subject site and the application to the State and, later on coordination of transfer of the land to the City in a manner that will help accomplish the ultimate goal of the project, which is to deliver as much affordable housing as possible (and at least 30% per the State requirement) The City of Redmond and Deschutes County are conducting a joint land use review and public hearing process to concurrently review proposed amendments to the UGB, the County Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning map. As part of this process, the City and County conducted a joint pre -proposal conference with the applicant and the applicant (DSL) has continued to coordinate regularly with City and County staff in regard to the proposed amendments. • 100-foot land use buffer to aid in transition from urban to rural on all sides where the development borders County zoned land. Policy 4.2.1. Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. Response: Deschutes County has participated in each phase of the Affordable Housing Pilot program from identifying the appropriate site, supporting the application to the state, negotiation of the transfer of the parcel to the city, and helping in reviewing subsequent land use applications to adjust the UGB, comp plan, etc. and is coordinating with the City to organize a joint hearing on the amendment. Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. Response: Goals 2 and 3 concern land designated within UGBs but outside city boundaries, or outside UGBs but within an urban reserve area. The proposed amendment would bring the subject property inside the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary and annex the property into the City of Redmond. Therefore, Goals 2 and 3 are not applicable to this amendment. Goal 4. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. Response: This UGB amendment is supported by coordinated public investments in infrastructure between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County and coordinated policies adopted to implement the Affordable Housing Pilot program. This UGB amendment represents a coordinated regulatory change to support regional affordable housing efforts. Having an adequate supply of affordable housing is fundamental to aiding in economic development efforts. June 30, 2020 Findings Report Skyline Village UGB and Comprehensive Plan Amendment p. 29 of 29 3.3 Deschutes County Code TITLE 18, ZONING 18.136.010. Amendments. DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. Response: The applicant, with the approval of the property owner, Deschutes County, has requested and filed an application for a quasi-judicial plan amendment in accordance with County policies and applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. June 30, 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Finds/Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules 10 Exhibit Appendix 411 SW Ninth Street MO�d Redmond, OR 97756 A;off; zo CITY OF REDMOND (541) 923-7711 �E g� www.ci.redmond.or.us August 17, 2018 Gordon Howard Community Services Division Manager Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol St. NE, #250 Salem, OR 97301 Proposed Affordable Housing Pilot Project: Skyline Village — 485 units Dear Mr. Howard: It is our pleasure to submit the City of Redmond proposal for the HB 4079 OAR 660-039-0000 through 0100 affordable housing pilot program. Initiatives such as these will help Redmond and the Central Oregon region provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries - dedicated to long-term affordable housing. We believe our proposal best advances the state's objectives based on the following: • Redmond is classified by the State of Oregon as a "Distressed Community" where a significant number of the population lives poverty and has great difficulty getting access to affordable housing. • Redmond, on a per capita basis, has a poverty rate of 36% which is among the highest in Central Oregon poverty (according to the American Community Survey — ACS, Poverty Hot Spots). Redmond suffers from poor housing choices and limited access to affordable housing. • Redmond's proposed pilot project site is within the adopted Urban Area Reserve and Eastside Framework Plan. The site location is well within the planned area of Redmond and not on the extreme periphery of the community. • Redmond"s proposal includes a variety of housing products at a range of affordability levels; and the creation of a new 485-unit neighborhood. This provides the opportunity for a multiple development partners to participate in the buildout of the project. Redmond has assembled a broad list of developers with good depth and enough diversity in experience to ensure success. Redmond has collaborated with Deschutes County on the siting of the project which is on former Federal land. Deschutes County received this land at no cost. Since land value contributes to the high cost of housing, Redmond is seeking ways to write down the value of the land in a manner that results in more affordable housing prices. Deschutes County has agreed to support the Redmond proposal and kickstart the Eastside Framework Plan with a mixed -income neighborhood. Together, Redmond and Deschutes County as a land owner and partner create a strong foundation for success of the project. Ongoing Affordable Housing Efforts in Redmond: Across Central Oregon the price of housing continues to escalate at levels that far outpace wages. Over the last few years housing prices have increased more than 52% and over that same timespan wages have only grown by an average of 2 to 3 percent per year. The average sales price of a single-family home in Redmond is approximately $298,000.00. The average annual wage in Redmond is around $40,000.00 (the average median family income for a family of four is $69,900). The City's poverty level is around 36%. Currently, residential land costs in Redmond is $40,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre. This fact, by far, is the biggest barrier to developing affordable housing. In addition to this initiative, the City is actively taking steps to address housing/job trends on multiple fronts by: - Deploying Redmond's Housing and Community Development Committee and the Planning Commission to examine opportunities for expanding our financing tools to decrease costs of affordable housing while also examining ways to reduce the regulatory barriers. - Investing more than $110,000 annually in organizations such as Redmond Economic Development, Inc. to help increase the number of family -wage jobs through traded sector business development and recruitment. - Actively using urban renewal and tax increment financing to partner with developers to increase the supply of housing within the urban renewal area; as well as using the tool to recruit companies. - Conducting monthly meetings with the Central Oregon Builders Association to identify regulatory efficiencies in the development of housing. These efforts all advance existing City Council goals for increasing the availability of affordable housing while investing in the growth of family wage jobs. Tangible results will take time. Meanwhile the expansion of the economy continues to leave people behind and therefore the City must seize other opportunities as they arise. The 4079 initiative provides another important tool for the City toolkit. 0 The 40-Acre Site/Existing Characteristics: Redmond has developed a strategic partnership by identifying a 40-acre County -owned property within Deschutes County's Eastside Framework Plan. Defining characteristics include: • The property is currently zoned EFU (Exclusive Farm Use). The property will be rezoned to the R4, Medium Density Zone. • The property is in the Redmond Urban Area Reserve, has never been farmed and is not within any irrigation district. • Public utilities exist along its frontage and expansion will benefit future development of the Eastside Framework Plan. • The property is adjacent to the High Desert Sports Complex, Missing Link Family Golf Center and more than 10 miles of public trails. • he site abuts developed employment lands and is a short distance from shopping. • Views from this site include the Cascades, Smith Rock, and other terrain. • The site is accessed from both Kingwood and Maple/Negus Streets. The design of the Kingwood Street entry plaza anchors the project and defines its character. • All City requirements for urban design, street trees, active modes of transportation, public utility construction, and land use requirements vViii be met. • Redmond requires all new neighborhoods to develop as complete neighborhoods following the Great Neighborhood Principles which are contained in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Redmond currently utilizes a Design Review process for residential structures and this will be implemented on the subject property. Alignment with DLCD Application Objectives: The Redmond proposal both meets and exceeds the minimum DLCD objectives by providing 50% affordable housing and 50% market rate housing in a mixed -income, mixed -use setting. This means the housing will not be separated by income but rather designed for a range of incomes. This strategy is proven to lead to socially interconnected and healthy neighborhoods consistent with Redmond's Great Neighborhood Principles (a guiding set of development requirements unique to Redmond). In addition to providing 40 acres of new mixed -income housing with half being affordable to 80% AM[ or less, this project's location benefits both the City and the County by serving as a catalyst to kick-off development in the Eastside Framework Plan. This meets Redmond's Comprehensive Plan's objectives by accommodating future growth patterns as planned. The DLCD program requires a minimum of 50 years of affordability. The use of profit caps on the non -market rate housing to retain appreciation for long-term affordable housing and site maintenance requirements will help maintain the quality and integrity of the neighborhood. The City will also use rent controls and tools such as deed restrictions, and HOA/CCR's. 5 Development Partnerships: The City has received expressions of interest from the following list of experienced developers: Creations Northwest, Hayden Homes, Hunter Renaissance, HousingWorks, Lawnae Hunter Investments, Pahlisch Homes, and The Wasserman Group. We are confident from this group a capable team can be assembled to deliver on the City's and County's expectations for Skyline Village. Master Developer If selected for the pilot project the City plans to pursue a master developer approach to build out Skyline Village. A formal RFP process will be used to select both development partners and an overall master developer/project manager to carry out the vision for the constructing the neighborhood. Project Goals and Objectives: In addition to the positive impact of developing more affordable housing, Skyline Village will bring the following benefits: • Provides taxable value on land that is currently tax exempt. • Increases the overall number of affordable homes and rental properties in Redmond. • Provides workforce housing needed to support the region's Large Lot Industrial properties. • Offers a new, unique housing alternative to east Redmond. • Jump-starts the Eastside Framework Plan Neighborhood. • Provides additional housing diversity that complements the eclectic make-up of the existing area. • Creates both construction jobs and long-term employment opportunities. • Encourages use of multi -modal transportation options and a healthier lifestyle. Residential Unit Mix: The 485-unit (12+ units per acre) Skyline Village neighborhood anticipates attracting families, singles, professionals, empty nesters and active seniors. The units will include a variety of features and amenities, access to a primary multi -modal transportation corridor and trails and existing recreational opportunities abutting the site. The unit type and count may vary due to the flexibility needed in this type of development and at this early stage. 0 Units Bedrooms town 4-Plex and Baths Rise 56u►nits Apt. Iw Townhome Cottage Studio Mixed- above Income Commercial Figure 1. Area Median Income (AMI) The area median income of $69,600 is based on data from riousingvvorks, the Iocal 11ousiM1g authority. This figure is used to determine the maximum rent a family of four can afford (rent burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of net income). Many Redmond households experience rent burden. AMI served — median is 69.600K 80% $55,680.00 x 30% = $16,704/12 = $1,392 for rent per month 60% $41,760.00 x 30% = $12,528/12 = $1,044 for rent per month 50% $34,800.00 x 30% = $10,440/12 = $870 for rent per month 30% $20,880.00 x 30% = $6,264/12 = $522 for rent per month Redmond's application contains a series of partnership resolutions which demonstrate support for the project, this includes: • The governing body of the qualifying city (the City of Redmond) stating that if the pilot project is selected, the city shall: Implement the proposed concept plan; and annex the pilot project site within two years of an acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment which includes the site. • Resolution of support for the pilot project adopted by the governing body of the county (Deschutes County) in which the pilot project site is located. Resolutions of support from entities such as the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council/Cascades East Transit, Redmond Fire, and Redmond Parks and Recreation confirming levels of service should the project be selected and developed. Thank you for this opportunity and your consideration. Sincerely, 1 Keith Witcosky City Manager Findings to Show Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules 660-039-0000 Purpose The affordable housing pilot program is intended to: (1) Encourage local governments to provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries that is dedicated to affordable housing; (2) Encourage the development of affordable housing on land dedicated to affordable housing; (3) Protect land dedicated to affordable housing from conversion to other uses before or after the development of affordable housing; (4) Enhance public understanding of the relationship of land supply to the development of affordable and needed housing; and (5) Enhance public understanding of how cities can increase the amount of affordable and needed hn��ciniv Across Central Oregon the price of housing continues to escalate at levels that far outpace wages. Over the last few years housing prices have increased more than 52% and over that same timespan wages have only grown by an average of 2 to 3 percent per year. The average sales price of single family home in Redmond is currently approximately $298,000.00 and the average annual wage in Redmond is around $40,000.00 (the average median family income for a family of four is $69,900). The City's poverty levels hovers around 30 percent. Currently, residential land costs in Redmond range from $40,000 per acre to over $100,000 per acre — this fact, by far, is the biggest barrier to developing affordable housing. To that end, Redmond has collaborated with Deschutes County on the siting of the pilot project which is on former Federal land. Deschutes County received this land at no cost and Redmond is seeking ways to pass on these savings on and reduce land costs for the project since land costs are the biggest barrier to affordable housing. Deschutes County has agreed to support the Redmond proposal and kickstart the Eastside Framework Plan with a mixed -income neighborhood. Together, Redmond and Deschutes County as a land owner and partner create a strong foundation for success of the project. The Redmond proposal both meets and exceeds the minimum DLCD objectives by providing 50% affordable housing and 50% market rate housing in a mixed -income, mixed -use setting. This means the housing will not be separated by income but rather designed for a range of incomes. This strategy is proven to lead to socially interconnected and healthy neighborhoods consistent with Redmond's Great Neighborhood Principles (a guiding set of development requirements unique to Redmond). In addition to providing 40 acres of new mixed - income housing with half being affordable to 80 AMI or less, this project's location benefits both the City and the County by serving as a catalyst to kick-off development in the Eastside Framework Plan. This meets Redmond's Comprehensive Plan's objectives by accommodating future growth patterns as planned. The DLCD program requires a minimum of 50 years of affordability. The use of profit caps on the non - market rate housing to retain appreciation for long-term affordable housing and site maintenance requirements will help maintain the quality and integrity of the neighborhood. The City will also use rent controls and tools such as deed restrictions, and HOA/CCR's. LUO Development Partnerships: The City has assembled a team of experienced developers who have expressed interest in all or portions of the project. We are confident a team of capable developers can be assembled to deliver on the City's and County's expectations for Skyline Village. To date, we have received eight letters of interest from housing developers who wish to pursue various development concepts. Our partners include: Creations Northwest, Hayden Homes, Hunter Renaissance, HousingWorks, Lawnae Hunter Investments, Pahlisch Homes, and The Wasserman Group. Master Developer If selected for the pilot project the City plans to pursue a master developer approach to building out Skyline Village. A formal RFP process will be used to select both development partners and an overall master developer/project manager to carry out the City's vision for the constructing the neighborhood. As a key stakeholder in this effort, the involvement of a Deschutes County representative in the selection process would be welcomed. Project Goals and Objectives: In addition to the positive impact of developing more affordable housing, Skyline Village will bring the following benefits: • Provides taxable value on land that is currently tax exempt. • Increases the overall number of affordable homes and rental properties in Redmond. • Provides workforce housing needed to support the region's Large Lot Industrial properties. • Offers a new, unique housing alternative to east Redmond. • Jump-starts the Eastside Framework Plan Neighborhood. • Provides additional housing diversity that complements the eclectic make-up of the existing area. • Creates both construction jobs and long- term employment opportunities. • Encourages use of multi -modal transportation options and a healthier lifestyle. 11 660-039-0020 Preliminary Application and Final Application Requirements (1) The director shall set deadlines for qualifying cities to submit: (a) A preliminary application for a pilot project site; and (b) A final application for a pilot project site. (2) The director may revise either deadline under section (1) as the director determines is appropriate to accomplish the purpose of the pilot program. (3) To participate in the pilot program, a qualifying city must submit a preliminary application for a pilot project site to the department. A preliminary application must include: (a) A map of the pilot project site; (b) The total acreage of the pilot project site; (c) The existing land use designation and zoning of the pilot project site, and surrounding land with in a minimum one-half mile radius; (d) Demonstration that the pilot project site does not include high -value farmland; (e) The number and type of affordable housing units, and, if the pilot project is a mixed income project, the number and type of market rate housing units, to be developed on the pilot project site; (f) The identity of entities that may partner with the qualifying city in development of the pilot project site; and (g) A brief statement of how the pilot project site will be provided with public facilities and services. (4) The department will review a preliminary application submitted under section (3) to determine whether the nreliminary application is complete. If the preliminary application is not complete, the department shall notify the applicant in writing of what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. The department will contact each pre -applicant to discuss the proposed pilot project. (5) An applicant may revise information included in a preliminary application as part of a final application submitted pursuant to section (6). CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The city submitted the preliminary application and it was deemed complete. See Exhibit _. A follow-up questionnaire for determining affordable housing points was also deemed complete and acceptable. The final application refines the data provided in the preliminary application; this was deemed necessary after additional dialog with interested developers. (6) In order to be selected as a pilot project, a qualifying city that submitted a complete preliminary application must submit a final application to the department that includes: (a) A map of the pilot project site; (b) The total acreage of the pilot project site, (c) The existing land use designation and zoning of the pilot project site, and surrounding land within a minimum one-half mile radius, including demonstration that the pilot project site does not include high -value farmland; 12 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The city has submitted a final application for Skyline Village that includes: • a map of the of the pilot project site — See Exhibit 2; • the total acreage of the pilot project site — 40 acres; • the existing land use designation and zoning of the pilot project site — currently EFU, and surrounding land within a minimum one-half mile radius —See Exhibit 1; and, • data that the pilot project site does not include high -value farmland. See Exhibit 1. (d) A concept plan narrative and map showing generalized land uses and public facilities that includes: (A) The number and type of affordable housing units; (B) If the project is a mixed income project, the number and type of market rate housing units; CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The City has submitted a concept plan map for Skyline Village (Exhibit B) showing: • Land use zones; • General housing types; • Streets and street layout consistent with Redmond's connectivity requirements; • Vicinity map showing current UGB and current LIAR • Parks and alley greenway links; • Extension of public facilities; and, • Transit hub and plazas. Skyline Village contains a minimum of 485 units with at least 50% being affordable at 80% AMI or less. The range and style of unit types is shown below in Figure 1. Emits Bedrooms and Baths Low Rise Apt. 4-Plex SGunits Townhome Cottage Studio above Commercial Mixed- Income ■ Figure 1. 13 As shown on the previous page, Skyline Village includes diverse types of housing units, such as apartments, town homes, 4-plexes, and single-family cottages for people with a range of income levels. Skyline Village will also include housing designed with mixed -incomes to eliminate neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, combat residential segregation, and avoid the building of public housing that only offers its housing units to those living in poverty. Thus, Skyline Village will closely meet Redmond's Comprehensive Plan objectives as well as the objectives of HB4079 and its related statutes. Mixed -income Proposed for Skyline Village Mixed -income development to encourage a full range of housing options is advocated by the Redmond Comprehensive Plan through its Great Neighborhood Principles. See Exhibit 1. Redmond believes mixed - income strategies help to avoid separation based on income and reduce barriers to Fair Housing. Mixed - income developments provide more security, better maintenance, and investment appreciation. To achieve the mixed -income approach, the proposal will include 94 market rate units placed throughout the cottage, 4-plex and apartment buildings. This equates to 28% of the units in those areas. The final location and footprint of mixing and unit type locations will be refined at final design of the actual units. The market -rate townhome area will accommodate 149 units with potential for subsidized housing and units priced for 80% AMI to be mixed in. Density 485 units on 40 Acres yields 12.12 units per acre. It should be noted that it is possible to increase density through final design refinements and other efficiencies. Any increases will likely be determined at the time of final design prior to construction and after land use approval for each phase. As noted above, 243 of the 485 units will be affordable at 80% AMI or less. The design of the project is novel in that it does not rely upon traditional single-family detached home development. In fact, Skyline Village is designed to provide a mix of efficiently designed housing choices with a variety of amenity options encouraging healthy active lifestyles. Access to biking and walking trails, golfing, sports facilities, and on -site amenities such as parks and respite areas developed with each phase will complete the neighborhood. (C) The development phasing of affordable housing and any market rate housing included on the pilot project site, including a phasing timeline for the entire project; CITY OF''REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The proposed phasing will occur first in the areas closest to Kingwood Avenue where utilities currently exist and support up to 150 residential units with the current infrastructure capacity. Phase 1 will include up to 150 units consisting of affordable housing for those earning 80 % or less AMI and 23 — 50% market rate housing above 80% AMI. Phase 2 will include 186 affordable housing for those earning 80 % or less AMI and 23 — 50% market rate housing above 80% AMI. Phase 3 will include 149 market rate townhomes for those earning over 80% AMI. Phase 2 and 3 may occur simultaneously but rely upon off -site sewer improvements as described in the exhibit appendix. (D) The applicable maximum income limits of households eligible to rent or purchase affordable housing within the pilot project site, expressed as a percentage of the area median income, adjusted for family size; 14 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING As described above, the Redmond Area Median Income (AMI) is $69,600.00 This is based on supplied data from US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. This figure is used to determine the maximum rent a family of four can afford (rent burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of net income). Many Redmond households experience rent burden and Redmond is classified as an Economically Distressed Community' as prescribed by Oregon Law by Business Oregon based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Oregon Employment Department. When calculating housing costs at 80% AMI or less the following rents are derived: AMI served - median is__$69,600K for a family of four 80% $55,680.00 x 30% = $16,704/ 12 = $1,392 for rent per month 60% $41,760.00 x 30% = $12,528/12 = $1,044 for rent per month 50% $34,800.00 x 30% = $10,440/12 = $870 for rent per month 30% $20,880.00 x 30% = $6,264/12 = $522 for rent per month The above rates may be adjusted dependent on family size using the HUD calculator. Thus, the applicable maximum income limits of households eligible to rent or purchase affordable housing within housing rents or purchases in Skyline Village should be close to these guidelines to avoid excessive rent burden. The 2018 Fair Market Rent table shows that the Bend -Redmond MSA has determined specific rents for various unit sizes. Note that a 3-bedroom unit is determined to be $1,385.00 and the 80% AMI for a family of 4 is roughly the same. final PY2018 Rents for All Bedroom Sizes for Berid-Reelniontlr OR MSA fi,.117.+,rr, t•atle rn,c t;-e Final f4 ,'018' FP Ps b'd w, es. Final EY 7018 MRS By Unit Bed'roonas Efficiency One-Redroorn Two -Bedroom three-Beeroom Four -Bedroom Pfaff F' `01' >''M r10 581"'6 s9i'7 , ;.,165 sl '7100 E.;e F''4i y t. t J111:^,, tilu,'t'S i a .'.'t; Y tli i f. faU' bel'i:"'Utlilt s.$tr -„islf_UIi9tCj tJ'p' +"".t:,1 d'I fj 15 p e rr to t:. i�:.�r!( i.r?l'�I aGit'Yl fP+S � for eachr�?t cxarr;�It, th,e I'MIZ ru o fr, L _av, , Unit i4 I.1_ tirrics tlr_ fog F%I , ind the F JR foi to �ri)c bedro rf irl, s 1:.0 Csmrs. °he tnu. Lr_i,s ,c,=t DIP— FP -MU, her sif=gle room c,c upar,r,, ,irits ar., t.., ti.rnes the .rrc I eejrcvvr-n `,effrt �=rc,.,7 DIR.. pernrlan, ',t Ii nk; to tltis t n.p: 44_)I (E) The prices at which affordable housing units within the pilot project site will be rented or sold to eligible tenants or homebuyers; 1 For purposes of comparison, it is important to note that Bend, Oregon is not an Economically Distressed Community. 15 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING As noted above, the desired rents should not create a situation where families are paying more than 30% of income on rent. The guidelines are adjusted fiscally, and the final numbers will likely be modified per HUD data. Nonetheless, the desired rent structure will need to follow the HUD data sets for the appropriate year and adjusted with HUD data for CPI and other factors. Skyline Village is primarily a renter development with market rate sales for townhomes. The primary goal is to provide quality housing with affordable rents in a neighborhood containing a variety of housing choices. Sales will be targeted for the townhomes, and a portion of the 4 plexes and cottages to not exceed 50% of the development. Sales prices will be "market -rate" and these properties will be required to be part of the Skyline Village HOA. The mixed buildins will contain a small area for a meeting room and learning (computer access) area, and a small cafe with sundries available. The maximum size of these areas is 3000 square feet total. A local bank (First Interstate) has expressed interest in sponsporingthe learning area. (F) Draft language of the amendments to the qualifying city's comprehensive plan and land use regulations that would be required to implement the final application; CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Redmond has been successful removing barriers to affordable housing. The development code has been up- graded and greater flexibility to develop affordable housing has been achieved. Thus, the land use regulations, particularly zoning, are in place and will accommodate the expansion of the UGB, utilizing a portion of the UAR (first priority lands for UGB expansion) and Eastside Framework Plan. The anticipated zoning will be RM, Medi- um Density Residential. The rezoning will require a zone change/comp plan amendment from the LIAR zoning of EFU (combining zone) to the existing urban zone of RM. This requires not only a change to the Redmond Comprehensive Plan but also a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City will apply RM zoning to the parcel once the UGB expansion has been approved. Sample ordinances can be found on the city website at http://www.ci.redmond.or.us/government/city-news-library. No other changes to land use regulations are required since the current RM zoning and master planning re- quirements for new neighborhoods are already in place within the current Redmond Development Code to accommodate the proposed uses. (G) Information about how the pilot project site will be provided with public facilities and services, including: (i) the proposed network of streets and other transportation facilities designed to connect with existing street facilities and serve all modes of personal transportation, including mass transit; and (ii) the location of parks and recreational facilities; 16 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Skyline Village will extend a grid of streets, sidewalks, trails, and transit consistent with Redmond requirements. The Kingwood Avenue entrance contains mixed -use buildings (small coffee shop and computer room) that frame two small plazas that support public gathering areas, bicycle parking, and a transit hub. A supportive transportation network with short distance loops will make for easy transit ingress and egress. The network of transportation choices is shown in Exhibit 2. A resolution of support for transit services is found at Exhibit Appendix. Active mode development is required for each phase of development consistent with Redmond code requirements. Thus, sidewalks, trails, bicycle parking, and active mode crossings will be developed prior to final occupancy. The subject property is directly across employment lands which have a full range of utilities from the Kingwood Avenue. Each phase of Skyline Village will be required to extend utilities to and through the site pursuant to city code. A letter going over the details of the utilities has been supplied by City Engineer Mike Caccavano and can be found at Exhibit appendix. Parks and Recreation Facilities Exhibit 2 shows the master plan layout with a variety of park areas, plazas, pedestrian connections and landscaped alleys. Each apartment, townhome, 4 plex or cottage area will have additional amenities designed into the grounds or structures. Two large park complexes abutting Skyline Village from Maple/Negus Avenue. Smith Rock Golf Course and the High Desert Sports Complex/Radlands are approximately 100 acres in size and nrnvide a wide ranee of activities. 10 miles of trails can be accessed, and sports fields are available to the public. Views of Smith Rocks, foothills, and the Cascades are impressive as are the views from Skyline Village. See Exhibits appendix. (H) Proposed buffering from adjacent and nearby farm and forest uses on farm and forest lands; CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Property to the west of Skyline Village is zoned EFUTRB, Exclusive Farm Use and contains an executive home. The property is separated by the ROW of NE 13th Street and front yard setbacks of future residential development. The property owners do not practice farm uses or receive farm deferral taxation credits. The soils on this site are not irrigated, have no water rights, and are not classified as high value farmland. Exhibit 1 from the preliminary submittal explains this further. Property to the north of Skyline Village is zoned RR-10, Rural Residential, does not receive farm deferral and separated from the subject property by the Maple Avenue, a 60-foot ROW. The eastern property line abuts land zoned EFUTRB, Exclusive Farm Use. This property is owned by Deschutes County and is not farmed. This property is also part of the adopted Urban Area Reserve and adopted Eastside, Framework Plan which anticipates urban uses, not farm uses. Moreover, the County has endorsed this HB4079 application as shown on Exhibit appendix. (1) Location of any natural resources on the pilot project site requiring analysis and protection under Statewide Planning Goal 5, or mitigation of hazards under Statewide Planning Goal 7; and IVA As shown in the pre -submittal application there are no natural resources on the subject property and no hazards exist. See Exhibit 1. (J) If the pilot project is a mixed income project, a description of how the mixed income portion supports the development of affordable housing; According to HUD, Housing and Urban Development Department - "The meaning of the term mixed -income and about the question of whether the mix is a planned effort to integrate a development or a neighborhood economically is of fundamental importance to a discussion of mixed -income housing. In a very basic sense, mixed -income housing is not a new phenomenon.... mixed -income housing means a deliberate effort to construct and/or own a multifamily development that has the mixing of income groups as a fundamental part of its financial and operating plans. The ratio of income levels and the developer's reasons for seeking to create a mixed -income development will vary. In general, however, a mix of incomes is planned because of the juncture of community desire and need, housing market conditions in the surrounding area, and the availability of financing and/or subsidies." Redmond has master planned Skyline Village to avoid concentrations of poverty and/or subsidized housing. The mixed -income percentage is approximately 28% market rate within the apartments, fourplexes, cottages and mixed -use structures. This approaches a split into thirds of low-income, moderate -income, and market - rate rentals. Amenities are scattered throughout the development and an HOA will serve to manage these for all users. The HOA will also manage the design, aesthetics, and maintenance of the development to assure that there is cohesiveness. Skyline Village is close to employment areas, recreation, and shopping. This venue will give developers an opportunity to create an interesting and viable mixed -income development. Emphasis will be placed on making the units attractive, the community safe, and the amenity package sufficient to attract market -rate tenants. With a choice of trails, biking, walking, golf, and a variety of park experiences the new neighborhood will be a very livable community for all income groups and better retain property values. The community spaces in and around the mixed -use buildings will provide areas where residents can access transit, meet with a variety of social networks/support groups, use computers, and attend meetings. This will help lower income individuals receive services and/or access technology they might not otherwise have access to. Fes? The conditions for success of a mixed -income neighborhood is described below: 1. To ensure day-to-day needs are taken care of and the development is well -maintained, good management is critical. 2. To support the upward mobility of the low-income residents, income -mixing and good management needs to be coupled with other support services to assist low-income residents in their professional life. 3. To meet the goals of mixed income housing - specifically to deconcentrate poverty - a sufficient number of units must be aimed at the higher income population to create a critical mass. 4. Mixed -income housing works best when the income mix is not emphasized in marketing. Additionally, all units should have the same amenities and be of the some quality. 6. Attention to not only income mix but also tenure mix is important. The mix of owners and renters, and the range of incomes in different type of rental units matters to effective management and integration. Skyline Village with its HOA, housing mix, thoughtful design, amenities, and attention to long-term maintenance addresses all the above conditions for success. (e) A resolution adopted by the governing body of the qualifying city stating if the pilot project is selected, the qualifying city will: (A) Implement the concept plan; and (8) Annex the pilot project site within two years of an acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment to include the site, CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The City of Redmond City Council supports and endorses the pilot project as shown in Exhibit appendix. (f) A resolution of support for the pilot project adopted by the governing body of the county in which the pilot project site is located; (g) A resolution of support for the pilot project adopted by the governing body of any special district providing urban services to the pilot project site for sanitary sewer, domestic water, fire protection, parks, recreation, streets and roads, or mass transit; (h) A signed and notarized statement from all owners of the pilot project site consenting to all aspects of the final application and agreeing to designation of the site as a pilot project; 19 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Deschutes County is the governing body of the county in which the pilot project is located. Deschutes County also owns the Skyline Village property (at this time) and has supplied the city of Redmond with a signed and notarized resolution supporting the project and consenting to all aspects of the application. See Exhibit appendix. Special Districts include the Redmond Fire District, Redmond Parks and Recreation District, and Cascades East Transit. All have provided resolutions of support as shown in Exhibit appendix. Other urban services listed above are provided by the City of Redmond, which grants its support to the project. (i) Citations for any code or ordinance provisions the qualifying city has adopted that implement housing measures described in OAR 660-039-0060, or any additional housing measures the qualifying city has adopted that accommodate and encourage the development of affordable or needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary, CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Adopted Measures to Encourage Affordable and Needed Housing, contains a listing submitted to DLCD earlier this year. It contains data showing that Redmond has removed barriers to developing ADU's, duplexes, cottages, and high density. Fee waivers and fee reductions are also Implemented currently. In addition, annexation of lands includes inclusionary zoning elements and unique strategies to refine neighborhood development. (j) Data on how the pilot project will serve identified populations in need of affordable housing, including: (A) Household cost burden in the region, as determined using information from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; (8) Conversion of manufactured home parks in the region; (C) Availability of government assisted housing in the region; and (D) Other data the qualifying city determines to be relevant. 20 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Redmond has significant challenges providing housing for those with incomes at 80% AN or less. The table below shows that nearly 50% of all renters are rent burdened (paying more than 30% of income on housing costs) and the percent share of renters that are severely burdened is 25.9%. Vacancy rates hover near 2%. Only 1,200 HUD Section 8 housing vouchers are available for applicants in the Tri-County area. Currently, demand exceeds 3,000 applicants per HousingWorks (our Regional Housing Authority https://housing- works.or ). Redmond has not experienced conversion of manufactured home parks; demand for such is high but land is too expensive. The city is a recipient of CDBG funds and has an adopted consolidated plan which is found at http://www.ci.redmond.or.us/home/showdocument?id=4726. This plan contains relevant information about the quantity and quality of local housing and various strategies to enable additional housing throughout the community. The overall theme is that we need to find creative ways to develop quality mixed - income neighborhoods to supply a broader range, density, and quantity of affordable housing. The pilot project will serve those with incomes at 80% AMI or less and is mixed with a range of market rate housing. 21 Percent "+ ners'aI rl utgage 6.4 Ownerswithout ithout mortgage 15.6 Renters 54.5 (k)An explanation of why the development of a project similar to the proposed pilot project is unlikely to be developed within the existing urban growth boundary. The explanation may include, but is not limited to: land costs, redevelopment or remediation costs, site availability, or physical constraints; CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING The local housing authority, Housing'works, has described to the City now it is impossible to develop aiidrdable housing given the cost of land on Redmond. Redmond's median home price is $300,000.00 with recent data showing ready to build lots at $290,000.00 - $500,000.00 an acre or more depending upon zoning. Redmond has vacant land upon which to develop homes, but it is simply not available at prices that enable the development of affordable housing and is being used to develop homes in the $300,000.00-$500,000.00 range. These are selling well given factors related to better employment opportunities in nearby Bend, and these houses do not stay on the market very long. However, this segment of the Redmond market does not cover the housing need for people in the lower income levels. As a verified "Distressed" community Redmond contains many people living in poverty with heavy rent burdens as described earlier in this document. People who wish to work in Redmond in jobs that do not pay higher wages must go further afield to search for affordable housing in cities like Prineville, Madras, and La Pine - over an hour away. This is not a sustainable situation. (1) (L) The identity and prior experience with the development of affordable or market -rate housing, of any other entity, public or private, that will be developing the pilot project site. 22 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Redmond has collected the names and bios of seven different entities who wish to develop within Skyline Village. Each of these groups has experience with developing housing and affordable housing. All but one has experience developing residential properties in Redmond. The complete set of data on these developers can be found at Exhibit appendix. (m)An explanation of how the qualifying city will ensure affordable housing developed on the pilot project site will continue to be used as provided in the concept plan for a minimum of 50 years after selection of the pilot project site through one or more of the following: (A) Zoning restrictions; (e) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices; (C) Incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or other voluntary regulations, provisions or conditions designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units; (D) Restrictive agreements entered into with sources of affordable housing funding; or (E) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on the pilot project site. The Skyline Village site will require annexation to receive urban zoning and authorization to develop. The Redmond Development Code requires master planning as a condition of annexation. The annexation process is routinely used to customize the terms of annexation. Redmond intends to restrict annexation upon the terms of guaranteed performance for at least 50 years using a recorded deed restriction; other restrictions to ensure affordability for the units serving 80% AMI and less; and, deed restrictions recorded against the property to ensure compliance for Homeowner's Association responsibilities. Annexation also requires that the property be master planned according to Redmond's land use regulations. No rezoning can occur unless the annexation requirements are met, including master planning of the entire site. Master planning is an intensive review and design process that ensures the City's Great Neighborhood Principles are met through a recorded Improvement Agreement. Thus, all aspects of the development ar carefully crafted before development can occur ensuring the development and housing objectives will be met. The City of Redmond web homepage provides examples of various Redmond annexation agreements and master plan reviews. Each master plan is unique, and annexations customized for each project. (7) The department will review a final application submitted under section (6) to determine whether the final application is complete. If the final application is not complete, the department shall notify the applicant in writing of what information is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. 23 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Redmond has deemed this application to be complete, but should something be missing or require further explanation we will be happy to provide the data. (8) A final complete application must demonstrate the following to be considered for selection as a pilot project by the commission: (a) The pilot project site is adjacent to the existing urban growth boundary of the applicant qualifying city; (b) No tract within the pilot project site is high -value farmland; (c) The total acreage of the pilot project site does not exceed 50 acres; (d) The proposed gross residential density on the pilot project site is: (A) At least seven housing units per acre for areas of the pilot project site proposed for affordable housing; and (8) At least seven housing units per acre for areas of the pilot project site proposed for market rate housing, (e) The pilot project site can be provided with public facilities and services as provided in OAR 660- 039-0040(1) to (3); (f) The pilot project avoids or minimizes adverse effects on natural resources and nearby farm and forest uses as provided in OAR 660-039-0050(1), (2), and (4); (g) The qualifying city has adopted the required number of housing measures into its development code as provided in OAR 660-039-0060; (h) The pilot project satisfies the housing requirements as provided in OAR 660-039-0070(1) to (6); (i) The project will serve identified populations in need of affordable housing; (j) The qualifying city has explained why the development of a project similar to the proposed pilot project is unlikely to be developed within the existing urban growth boundary; and (k) The qualifying city has demonstrated that the entity developing the pilot project will be able to complete the development. 24 CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING • The pilot project site is adjacent to the existing Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and within the Urban Area Reserve as shown on Exhibit 1. • No tract within the pilot project site is high -value farmland as determined by the data presented in Exhibit 1. • The total acreage of the site is 40 acres. • The proposed gross residential density on the pilot project site is 12.2 units per acre. • The areas of the pilot project site proposed for affordable housing are at least 8 units per acre and at least seven housing units per acre for areas of the pilot project site proposed for market rate housing. • Skyline Village can be provided with public facilities and services as provided in OAR 660- 039-0040(1) to (3); Skyline Village has access to sanitary sewers, domestic water, fire protection, parks or recreation, and streets and roads. Exhibits ppendix contains various resolutions from various districts verify service. Thus, the pilot project site can be reasonably provided with public facilities and services and the provider(s) of the public facilities and services have the capacity and financial resources to serve development on the site as proposed in the concept plan. Trails, and open space linkages will be part of the site design. Fire Hydrants are in Kingwood Avenue — buildings may go up to 75 feet in height. Fire Protection is provided by the Redmond Fire District. Recreation Services are provided by Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District. Power is provided by Pacific Power or Central Electric Cooperative. Natural Gas is provided by Cascade Natural Gas. Cable is provided by Bend Broadband. Phone/Internet is provided by CenturyLink. Waste Collection/Recycling is provided by High Country Disposal. Redmond School District offers public education. Redmond's population on June 30th, 2018 is 28,267 as verified by Portland State University. See https://www. pdx.edu/prc/siteS/"`WWW.Ddx.edU.Drc/files/SuDDiement 3 June 30 2018 2.pdf Redmond's transit service is supplied by Cascades East Transit. This is verified by the resolution found at Exhibit appendix. If Redmond is selected, the affordable housing units within the pilot project site can be made accessible to a transit stop served by a fixed transit corridor with at least eight weekday trips in each direction, or eight weekday trips at the terminus of a fixed transit corridor, within a threequarters mile distance via sidewalk or pedestrian walkway and will be provided concurrently with development of the affordable housing units. Cascades East Transit accommodates bicyclists and the disabled. 25 • Skyline Village does not contain any natural resources or farm and forest uses as provided in OAR 660- 039-0050(1), (2), and (4) nor does it impact any farm or forest lands as described earlier in this document. See Exhibit 1. • Redmond has adopted the required number of housing measures into its development code as provided in OAR 660-039-0060 and these include, but are not limited to: 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) allowed as outright permitted uses in all residential zones. 2. Code changes have been implemented to provide greater flexibility to setbacks for ADU's. 3. SDC waivers for ADU's that hookup to the main house sewer and water system. 4. Reduced review processes for duplex, tri-plex, and four-plexes —this new program reduces the time, process, and fees for these units. Design review no longer requires site plan approval. 5. System Development Charge (SDC) Waivers for non -profits 6. Deferred SDC payment options 7. High Density Overlay programs have been implemented for various residential districts throughout the city. 8. Annexation requirements are used to help provide needed housing— Each new annexation request is evaluated to determine key housing needs and verify a mix of housing. 9. Cottage Development and other techniques are allowed to reduce lot size. Clustering of hmirina nnitc is allowed in the Development Code. 10. Planned Unit Development flexibility can be used to provide a full range of housing options and increased densities. 11. Continual Improvements to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Programs and better cohesion between CDBG planning efforts are underway. 12. Great Neighborhood Principles requiring a mix of housing types and amenity planning are used for new master plans and new development. 13. Public Amenities Planning to recognize needed housing and growth patterns is closely aligned. 14. Redmond requires minimum densities per the Redmond Development Code and Redmond Comprehensive Plan. 15. Redmond allows reduced parking on a case by case basis to ensure proper design and logistics. We use the latest ITE data to support reductions — we have not permitted < 1 space given our early stage transit development and small population. We are generally allowing 1.5 spaces per unit currently. 16. Duplexes and attached units are allowed in low density zones. 17. Residential uses are allowed in commercial zones. W. • The pilot project satisfies the housing requirements as provided in OAR 660-039-0070(1) to (6) by: Allowing the following types of affordable housing on the pilot project site: (a) Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; (c) Manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; and (d) Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. At least 50 percent of the total housing units proposed and developed on a pilot project site must be affordable housing units —this exceeds the required minimum of 30%. In addition, 242 affordable housing will be developed, exceeding the minimum required. The phasing for Skyline Village will ensure all affordable housing units have been issued permanent certificates of occupancy prior to issuance of permanent certificates of occupancy to the last 50 percent of any market rate housing units included as part of the pilot project — this will be made part of the master plan approval and deed restrictions for the project. The master plan approval and deed restrictions will also ensure that phased development of affordable housing units and market -rate housing units are issued permanent certificates of occupancy over time in a ratio similar to the ratio of affordable and market -rate housing units within the pilot project as a whole. The master plan will ensure that all common areas and amenities accessible to residents of market -rate housing units within the pilot project site are equally accessible to residents of affordable housing units. Redmond will ensure all affordable housing units within the pilot project site are rented or sold exclusively to households described in OAR 660-039-0010(1) and this will be via deed restrictions and other agreements to ensure compliance for at least 50 years. Redmond will ensure by deed restriction and specific agreements that housing units within Skyline Village will not be used as vacation or short-term rentals for any significant period during any calendar year. Residential Unit Mix and AMI served: The 485-unit (12 units per acre) Skyline Village development anticipates attracting families, singles, professionals, empty nesters and active seniors. The units will include a variety of features and amenities, access to a primary multi -modal transportation corridor and trails and existing recreational opportunities abutting the site. The unit type and count may vary due to the flexibility needed in this type of development, and at this early stage. At least 50 % of the units will be affordable and generally fall into the housing categories below. 27 Units Bedrooms. Low and Baths Rise 4-Plex Townhome Cottage 56 units Studio above Commemial Mixed - Income r 1 s Area Median Income (AMI) The area median income of $69,600 is based on data from HousingWorks (see Exhibit 7). This figure is used to determine the maximum rent a family of four can afford (rent burden occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of net income). Many Redmond households experience rent burden. AMI served — median is 69.600K 80% 55,680 x 30% = $16,704/12 = $1,392 for rent per mo. 60% 41,760 x 30% = $12,528/12 = $1,044 for rent per mo. 50% 34,800 x 30% = $10,440/12 = $870 for rent per mo. 30% 20,880 x 30% = $6,264/12 = $522 for rent per mo. Skyline Village will serve the AMI groups listed above and will advance affordable housing in the city. Knowledge about affordable housing will be enhanced and documented for every step of the development. Populations in need of affordable housing have been identified as those in the 80% AMI or lower categories. Skyline Village is geared to primarily a mix of rentals and 4-plex, townhome and cottage opportunities for purchase. This unique and affordable housing mixed -use neighborhood would be very difficult to develop within the City (city limits and UGB are the same line) due to current land prices and development costs as described above. The goal is to obtain the County property for no or little cost and allow Skyline Village to develop with as few barriers as possible. The city plans to hire a master developer and solicit a developer(s) for the project. Each of the entities has the background and experience to complete the project and through the solicitation process verification of financials and references will be finalized. is 660-039-0030 Compliance with Goals, Statutes, Administrative Rules (1) Regarding the pilot project site, a qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination is exempt from compliance, and the commission is not required to select a pilot project that complies, with: (a) ORS 197A.320; (b) The Land Need or Boundary Location provisions of Goal 14; (c) Goals 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 19; (d) Goal 11, except that portion applicable to the impact of development of the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's urban growth boundary; (e) Goal 15, unless the land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary; (f) Goals 16,17, and 18, unless the land is within a coastal shorelands boundary; or (g) Any administrative rules implementing, clarifying, or interpreting these goals. (2) A qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination is required to make findings showing compliance, and the commission is required to select a pilot project that complies with: (a) Goal 5, regarding resources located on the project site; and (b) Goal CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE ANO FINDING Goal 5 - To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. The purpose of identifying Goal 5 related lands is to effectively manage Deschutes County's natural and cultural resources to meet the needs of today while retaining their value for future generations. However, A. _ 1___i_� [ c'1,..1..,. \/'ll.. '+L.'.. +t.1 let- A Rncnrvn of RnrimnnWc rr%mprehenchia Plan UIC IUI.d UUII lJl JRj/1111C village i5 vviu lilt ulc auvNacu vi �✓ar�rca .cacvc vcun ww While owned by the County and zoned EFU, the land is intended to be developed and currently is part of the Eastside Framework Master Plan as shown on Exhibit 1. The master plan shows the Skyline Village property as residential. Deschutes County has supplied documentation supporting Skyline Village. In any event it is important to point out the following features regarding the subject property: Attachment 3 of the preliminary HB4079 submittal (found at Exhibit 1) provides data showing the project site: • soils are not classified as High Value Farm Land; • has never been used for growing crops or perennials; • is east of the Coast Range; • has never been within an irrigation district boundary or decree for water by the Water Resources Department; • has never had wine grapes grown on the property; • is greater than 3,000 feet above sea level; • does not contain water resources, rivers, or riparian habitat; • does not contain mining or aggregate resources; • does not contain historic or cultural areas or resources; and, • does not contain approved Oregon Recreation Trails or inventoried scenic areas. For these reasons, the City of Redmond believes all relevant portions of Goal 5 have been addressed and that no conflict exists between the proposed Skyline Village and the protected Goal 5 resources of Deschutes County. 29 Goal 7 - To protect people and property from natural hazards. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. None of these hazards are relevant to the Skyline Village property except for wildfires. However, once developed and watermains are extended to and through the property the likelihood of wildfire is reduced. The Redmond Fire District has supplied a resolution stating they will protect this area as it is within their fire district. See Exhibit appendix. As noted above, Skyline Village lies within the adopted Urban Area Reserve and is planned for urban development as noted on the adopted Eastside Framework Plan. 660-039-0040 Provision of Public Facilities and Services (1) A qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination shall demonstrate that, for sanitary sewers, domestic water, fire protection, parks or recreation, and streets and roads the pilot project site can be reasonably provided with public facilities and services and the provider(s) of the public facilities and services have the capacity and financial resources to serve development on the site as proposed in the concept plan. (2) The commission may consider the following aspects of the nomination when determining the strength of the public facilities and services committed to serving the pilot project site pursuant to OAR 660-039-0080(2)(b)(8): (a) The proximity of the pilot project site to adequate existing public facilities and services; (b) The projected expense of providing necessary public facilities and services to the pilot project site; and (c) The availability and quality of the proposed transportation facilities and services provided for bicyclists, pedestrians, and mass transit users within the pilot project site and connecting to the pilot project site from other areas within the qualifying city. CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING As noted above and summarized here, Redmond has access to urban infrastructure needed to serve Skyline Village. As in most developments there are on -site and off -site costs to extend facilities to any urban development site. The letter from City Engineer Mike Caccavano indicates that with the water/sewer mains in Kingwood Avenue up to 150 units can be accommodated. Offsite extensions of sewer mains will be needed for this project a short distance away. Grants and low -interest loans may be available to reduce extension costs further. If Deschutes County provides the property at no cost, then the feasibility greatly improves. Streets, trails, and sidewalks will provide connectivity to and through the site which is bordered on the north and south boundaries with Kingwood Avenue and Maple Avenue, respectively. Mass transit will serve the site as described above and supported by the resolution in the appendix. 30 660-039-0050 Impacts on Natural Resources and Nearby Farm and Forest Uses (1) The pilot project site shall be buffered from adjacent lands in an exclusive farm use zone, forest zone, or mixed farm and forest zone, by a minimum 100 foot -wide buffer on the pilot project site. The buffer shall include features, such as terrain differential, natural or introduced vegetation, and constructed berms, designed to provide additional buffering quality within the buffer area. (2) In lieu of the buffer required under section (1), a qualifying city may propose an alternative method to avoid or minimize adverse effects on adjacent lands in an exclusive farm use zone, forest zone, or mixed farm and forest zone that would provide greater protection to land zoned farm, forest or mixed farm and forest than would otherwise be provided through the buffer. (3) The commission shall consider the following when determining the strength of buffers pursuant to OAR 660-039-0080(2)(b)(C): (a) The amount and percentage of the pilot project site perimeter that is not adjacent to lands in an exclusive farm use zone, forest zone, or mixed farm and forest zone; (b) A proposed buffer that is wider than 100 feet, or that uses more thorough techniques within the buffer area to reduce impacts to farm and forest lands; (c) The type and characteristics of farm and forest practices on the pilot project site over the past 20 years, (d) The type and characteristics of farm and forest practices on lands adjacent to the pilot project site; (e) The impact of the pilot project development on adjacent farm and forest practices including movement of farm and forest vehicles and equipment; and (f) The impact of the pilot project development on fire protection, if adjacent to forest practices. (4) If a qualifying city submits factual information demonstrating a Goal 5 resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the pilot project site to be added to the urban growth boundary, the qualifying city shall apply the requirements of OAR chapter 660, division 23. For purposes of this section, "impact area" is a geographic area within which conflicting uses could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource, as described in OAR 660-023-0040(3). CITY OF REDMOND RESPONSE AND FINDING Property to the west of Skyline Village is zoned EFUTRB, Exclusive Farm Use and contains an executive home — no farm products are produced on this parcel. The property is separated from Skyline Village by the ROW of NE 13th Street and front yard setbacks of future residential development for an additional 10-20 feet. The property owners have never utilized farming practices or received farm deferral taxation credits. The soils on this site are not irrigated, have no water rights, and are not classified as high value farmland. Exhibit 1 from the preliminary submittal explains this further. 31 Property to the north of Skyline Village is zoned RR-10, Rural Residential, does not receive farm deferral and separated from the subject property by the Maple Avenue, a 60-foot ROW. The eastern property line of Skyline Village abuts land zoned EFUTRB, Exclusive Farm Use. This property is owned by Deschutes County and is not farmed, irrigated, or classified as high -value farmland. This property is also part of the adopted Urban Area Reserve and adopted Eastside Framework Plan which anticipates urban uses, not farm uses. Moreover, the County has endorsed this HB4079 application as shown in the Exhibit appendix. 660-039-0060 Measures to Accommodate and Encourage Needed and Affordable Housing within Existing Urban Growth Boundary (1) A qualifying city submitting a pilot project nomination must demonstrate that its acknowledged comprehensive plan, acknowledged development code, or other relevant adopted city codes or other governing documents include: (a) Affordable housing measures from the list in subsection (3)(a) equaling at least three points, and (b) Affordable housing measures from the list in subsection (3)(a) or needed housing measures from the list in subsection (3)(b) equaling at least twelve points combined. (2) For up to six of the twelve points required under subsection (1)(b), the qualifying city may demonstrate that its acknowledged comprehensive plan, acknowledged development code, or other relevant adopted city codes or other governing documents include an alternative housing measure not on the list of measures in section (3) that the qualifying city demonstrates, with appropriate findings, have a positive effect upon needed or affordable housing equal to or greater than an equivalent measure in section (3). (3) A qualifying city may satisfy section (1) through adoption of the following measures, or alternative measures pursuant to section (2), to accommodate and encourage the development of needed housing and affordable housing within its existing urban growth boundary: (a) Affordable housing measures (A) Density bonus for affordable housing (three points maximum): (i) Three points if code has a density bonus provision for affordable housing of at least 20 percent with no additional development review standards than required for development applications that do not include a density bonus, with reservation of affordable housing units for at least 50 years; or (ii) One point if code has a density bonus provision for affordable housing of at least 20 percent, with additional development review standards required for development applications that do not include a density bonus. (8) Systems development charges (three points maximum): (i) Three points for code provisions that eliminate systems development charges for affordable housing units described in subparagraph (3)(a)(A)(i), or reduce systems development charges for such units by at least 75 percent when compared to similar units that are not reserved for affordable housing; or (ii) One point for code provisions deferring systems development charges for affordable housing units described in subparagraph (3)(a)(A)(i), to the date of occupancy of the housing unit. WJ (C) Property tax exemptions (Nine points maximum): (i) Three points for code provision authorizing property tax exemptions under ORS 30Z515 to 30Z535 for low income housing development, under criteria in both ORS 30Z517 and 30Z518, with no additional development review standards; (ii) Three points for code provisions authorizing property tax exemptions under ORS 30Z540 to 30Z548 for non-profit corporation low-income housing development, with no additional development review standards; and (iii) Three points for code provision authorizing property tax exemptions under ORS 307.600 to 307.637 for multiple unit housing, with no additional restrictions on location of such housing in addition to those contained within ORS 30Z600 to 307.637, and with required benefits pursuant to ORS 30Z618 that are clear and objective and do not have the effect of discouraging the use of the property tax exemption through imposition of unreasonable cost or delay. (D) Other property tax exemptions or assessment freezes (two points maximum): (i) One point for code provision authorizing property tax exemptions for ORS 307.651 to 307.687 — single -unit housing in distressed areas —with clear and objective design standards that do not have the effect of discouraging use of the property tax exemption through unreasonable cost or delay; and (ii) One point for code provision authorizing property tax freezes under ORS 308.450 to 308.481— rehabilitated residential property — if the boundaries of the distressed area consist of at least 10 percent of the qualifying city's total land area, and clear and objective standards that do not have the effect of discouraging use of the program through unreasonable cost and delay. (E)Inclusionary Zoning: Three points for code provision imposing inclusionary zoning requirements consistent with the provisions of ORS 197.309. (F)Construction Excise Tax: Three points for code provision imposing construction taxes consistent with the provisions of Oregon Laws 2016, chapter 59, sections 8 and 9. (b) Needed Housing Measures (A) Accessory dwelling units (three points maximum): (i) Three points for allowing accessory dwelling units in any zoning district that allows detached single family housing units, with no off-street parking requirement, any structure type allowed, allowing owner to live in either the primary or accessory dwelling unit, with no systems development charges for water, sewer, or transportation, and with clear and objective review standards; or (ii)One point for allowing accessory dwelling units, but one or more of the attributes in subparagraph (3)(b)(A)(i) missing. 33 (e) Minimum density standard (three points maximum): (i) Three points if all residential zoning districts have a minimum density standard of at least 70 percent of the maximum density allowed, with optional exemptions for lands that do not qualify as buildable lands under OAR 660-008-0005(2) and lands that are being partitioned as defined by ORS 92.010(7); or (ii) One point if all residential zoning districts have a minimum density standard of at least 50 percent of maximum density allowed, with optional exemptions for lands that do not qualify as buildable lands under OAR 660-008-0005(2) and lands that are being partitioned as defined by ORS 92.010(7). (C) Limitations on low density housing types (five points maximum): (i) Three points for code provision that allows no more than 25 percent of residences in medium density residential zoning districts to be detached single family housing units, unless the detached single family housing unit is on a lot less than or equal to 3,000 square feet, with exemptions for lands that are being partitioned as defined by ORS 92.010(7), (ii) One point for code provision that prohibits detached single family housing units in high density residential zoning districts, and (iii) One point for code provision establishing maximum lot size for detached single family housing units in medium and high density residential zoning districts as less than or equal to 5,000 square feet. (D) Off-street parking requirements for multiple family housing with four or more units (three points maximum): (i) Three points if off-street parking requirement is no more than one space per housing unit in multiple family housing developments of four or more units, and no more than 0.75 spaces per housing unit in multiple family housing developments of four or more units within one -quarter mile of transit service with weekday peak hour service headway of 20 minutes or less; or (ii) One point if off-street parking requirement is no more than one space per housing unit in multiple family housing developments of four or more units, without additional reductions in subparagraph (3)(b)(D)(i). (E) Off-street parking requirements for single family housing, duplexes, and triplexes (one point maximum): One point if off-street parking requirement for detached single family housing units, attached single family housing units, duplexes, and triplexes is no more than one space per housing unit. (F) Amount of land in high density residential zoning districts (three points maximum): (i) Three points if at least 15 percent of all residentially -zoned land in the qualifying city is zoned for high density residential development; or (ii) One point if at least eight percent of all residentially -zoned land in the qualifying city is zoned for high density residential development. 34 (G) Duplexes in low density residential zoning districts (three points maximum): (i) Three points if duplexes are allowed in low density residential zoning districts on any lot with no additional development review standards than required for detached single family dwellings, or (ii) One point if duplexes are allowed on corner lots in low density residential zoning districts with no additional development review standards than required for detached single family housing units. (H) Attached single-family residential housing units in low density residential zoning districts (one point maximum): One point if attached single-family residential housing units are allowed in low density residential zoning districts, with attached single-family residential lots having a minimum lot size no greater than 5,000 square feet. (I) Residential street standards (three points maximum): Three points for allowance of local residential street pavement minimum widths of 28 feet or less with parking on both sides, 24 feet or less with parking on one side, or 20 feet or less with no parking. (J) Mixed -use housing (three points maximum): Three points if at least 50 percent of land within commercial zoning districts in the qualifying city permits residential development with off-street parking requirement no greater than one space per housing unit and provisions for additional parking reductions for shared commercial and residential uses and in areas with approved parking management districts. (K) Low density residential flexible lot sizes (one point maximum): One point if minimum lot size in low density residential zoning districts is at least 25 percent less than the minimum lot size that would correspond to the maximum density allowed in that zoning district. (L) Cottage housing provisions (one point maximum): One point if development code has cottage housing code provision authorizing development at a maximum of at least 12 housing units per acre. (M) Vertical housing provisions (one point maximum): One point if the Housing and Community Services Department has approved a vertical housing development zone under ORS 30Z841 to 307.867 for the qualifying city, CITY OF REDWO ID RESPONSE AND: FINDING Redmond supplied the needed housing measures form and received a response that the minimum number of points needed was exceeded. See Exhibit appendix 1. 35 CONCLUSION SUMMARY Redmond meets all of the required criteria and should be selected as the location for the Pilot Project. Thank you for your consideration. 36 37 Deschutes County P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 City of Redmond 411 SW 9th Street Redmond, Oregon 97756 LAND DONATION AGREEMENT RECITALS: ("Grantor") ("Grantee") A. Grantor and Grantee hereby enter into this Agreement dated December 2019 wherein Grantor agrees to convey as a donation a parcel of land to be created as Parcel 2 of a future partition of the parent property (parent property to be identified as Parcel 1 of a future Partition Plat 2019-xx) in Redmond, Oregon, owned by the Grantor and described as a portion of Tax Lot 1513000000103. The parcel identified herein as the "Property", will be 40 acres in area, and is further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The Property must first be partitioned, with a recorded partition plat, to create a legal parcel that can be conveyed from Grantor to Grantee as prescribed herein. The final Partition Plat as recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk will confirm the final property size and configuration for conveyance. AGREEMENT: Grantor Documents: Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the Execution Date of this Agreement, Grantor shall deliver to Grantee or Grantee's Agent, all relevant documentation in Grantor's possession relating to the ownership, operation, and maintenance of the Property. Partition: It is understood by Grantee the donation is contingent upon the Partition being completed. Donation cannot be completed until the final partition plat is recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk. Deschutes County is under no obligation to complete the partition on behalf of Grantee, in order to complete this donation. Contingencies Prior to Closing: Grantee, at Grantee's sole cost and expense, shall complete the following: All requirements of the subsequent partition to create a legal parcel. All such work shall be completed pursuant to the schedule of tasks and associated timeline as included in Exhibit B attached hereto. Title, Escrow & Closing Costs: Grantee, at Grantee's sole cost and expense, shall be responsible with all costs associated with title, escrow, contingencies and the closing of this Agreement. Closing of Agreement: The Agreement shall be closed within thirty (30) days of recording the final partition plat, unless the parties agree to a later date. The Agreement shall be "closed" when the document conveying title is recorded. At closing, Grantor shall convey fee simple title to the Property to Grantee by bargain and sale deed, subject only to the permitted exceptions. Post Closing: Grantee agrees to subsequently pursue any and all land use and building permits approvals to design, plat and develop housing units of which a minimum of (50%) will available as affordable housing units to be exclusively rented or sold to, and occupied by low income applicants, pursuant to applicable provisions of HB 4079/2336 and the schedule of tasks and associated timeline in Exhibit B. The terms of this provision shall survive the Closing of Agreement, run with the land, and apply to subsequent owners/developers. Affordable Housing: As listed and described in Exhibit C attached hereto, and consistent with applicable provisions of HB 4079/2336, Grantee shall provide methods to ensure that a minimum of 50% of developed housing units remain at or below the threshold deemed affordable housing for a period of 50 years from conveyance of the Property from Grantor to Grantee, including imposing such obligations on any and all subsequent owners. The terms of this provision shall survive the Closing of Agreement and run with the land. Elective Right of Reversion: Notwithstanding the timeline outlined in Exhibit B, if Grantee (including subsequent owners and developers) fails to demonstrate substantial initiation of the Affordable Housing Pilot Project within 7 years, Grantor may at its election, exercise this Right of Reversions wherein ownership of the property will revert to Grantor. "Substantial initiation" means infrastructure expenditures of at least $1,000,000. Right of Reversion: Consistent with the Elective Right of Reversion above, if Grantee fails to fulfill the obligations listed herein, the Property ownership (in any part, developed or undeveloped) not otherwise transferred to a third party shall revert to Grantor, including the requirements of HB 4079/2336, which includes but is not limited to research, design, land use findings, fees, pro formas, surveying, civil engineering, transportation analysis, annexation, project management, and permitting to expand the UGB to include the 40-acre parcel. 2 Agreed and Accepted: GRANTOR ATTEST: C Recording S cretary 4 STATE OF OREGON J J ss. County of Deschutes ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, 0 EGON "'JP n {: PHILIP G. HE ERSON, Chair i, f PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared PHILIP G. HENDERSON, PATTI ADAIR, and ANTHONY DEBONE, the above -named Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon. DATED this } day of �')�_i=c I�.�? ( , 2019 omrIAL STAMP ^wW SHARON REN£E K iH s t `s ,._. ! t' .d / ` „... _ ) NOTARY PUtiI.i-OREGON No"tart' Pubiic far Oregon— LoivinBiRSio:� EXPIRES 9ft M 2022 My Commission Expires: , MY Agreed and Accepted: GRANTEE STATE OF OREGON ) } ss. County of Deschutes j City of Redmond George Endicott, Mayor Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared George Endicott, the above -named Mayor of Redmond and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of the City of Redmond. DATED this day of 2019 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Exhibits A, B and C Attached Hereto Exhibit A — Property Description The legal description of the subject property is: The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 15 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian in Deschutes County, Oregon. As generally depicted and located: Land Donation Agreement — Property Description Exhibit B — Schedule of Tasks and Associated Timelines Oregon Administrative Rules 660-39-0090 Affordable Housing Pilot Project Requirements 660-039-0090 (Subsequent Events) (1) Upon selection by the commission as provided in OAR 660-039-0080(4), the qualifying city shall (a) In concert with the county in which the urban growth boundary is located, amend the urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site, and identify the provisions of law and rules pursuant to OAR 660-039-0030 relating to urban growth boundary amendments that are not applied to allow the pilot project site to be included within the urban growth boundary; (b) Annex the pilot project site to the qualifying city within two years of the acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment; (c) Adopt plan and zone designations for the pilot project site that authorize development of the concept plan included in the application; (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site; and (e) Issue permits for development on the pilot project site only after annexation of the site to the qualifying city and adoption of measures ensuring that housing developed on the pilot proiect site will continue to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site. (2) For a post -acknowledgement plan amendment or land use regulation change under OAR chapter 660, division 18 that proposes amendments with any effect upon existing comprehensive plan designations or provisions that impact residential development, or land use regulations that impact residential development, the qualifying city may not, for a period of 50 years after approval of the pilot project by the commission, consider the existence of housing units existing or approved on the pilot project site when making findings regarding the proposed amendment. (3) The qualifying city for the pilot project site selected by the commission may not plan or zone the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized by the commission unless the qualifying city, in concert with the county, withdraws the pilot project site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries. Schedule of Tasks and Associated Timelines Exhibit B — Schedule of Tasks and Associated Timelines City of Redmond — Proposed Schedule of Tasks & Timelines Task Timeline 1 Redmond is awarded Pilot Project under HB 2336 April 2019 2 Establish Project Advisory Committee November 2019 3 -- — ..__..__ Complete donation agreement with County for 40-acres December 2019 4. Land Use Entitlements l January 2020 — December 2021 4.a. Survey subject property/finalize legal description i Partition subject property, amend the Urban Growth I 4.b. Boundary, and complete Annexation (approval from both County and City) 4.c f Rezone subject property and adopt concept/master plan 5 Master Developer January 2020—July 2021 4 5.a Develop RFP with Project Advisory Committee 5.b Issue RFP for Master Developer I 5.c Select Master Developer 5.d Advisory Committee work with Master Developer to refine site plan and pro forma expectations 6 Formalize Contracts and Legal Docu merits August 2021—June 2022 (Master Developer) 6.a Finalize phasing 6.b Develop legal documents and deed -restrictions 6.c -- — ! Sales and rental options 6.d Establish HOA and CCR's documents 7. infrastructure (city of Redmond and Master DeveloWl Januwy 2020 — June 2022 17.a I Eastside Sewer Intercept grant initiated 7.b Local Improvement District Establish (if necessary) Infrastructure contracts developed and processed d Coordinate funding, phasing, prioritization and sequencing of infrastructure improvements a Competitive RFP process to development July mu community/affordable housing developers; htitiel phases - 19. Begin construction of Initial phases Spring 2= Schedule of Tasks and Associated Timelines Exhibit C— Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Statutory Requirements and Regulations to Ensure Affordability House Bill 4079 SECTION 7. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act shall protect the pilot project site within its urban growth boundary from conversion to other uses before, during and after the development of affordable housing at the pilot project site, except as provided otherwise in rules adopted by the commission under section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. (2) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission shall ensure that housing developed on the site continues to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site through: (a) Zoning restrictions; (b) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices; (c) Incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or other voluntary regulations, provisions or conditions designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units; (d) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on land selected for a pilot project under section 4 of this 2016 Act; or (e) Restrictive axreements entered into with sources of affordable housing funding. Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660 Division 39 —Affordable Housing Pilot Prolect 660-039-0010 Definitions The definitions in ORS 197.015, the statewide planning goals, and the following definitions apply to this division: (1) "Affordable housing" means: (a) Housing units available for rent, with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size, as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or Its successor agency, and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on rent and utilities; (b) Housing units available for purchase, with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size, as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency, and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on home loan or mortgage payments, amortized interest, property taxes, insurance, and condominium or association fees, if any; or Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability 1 Exhibit C — Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Statutory Requirements and Regulations to Ensure Affordability House Bill 4079 SECTION 7. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the land Conservation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act shall protect the pilot project site within its urban growth boundary from conversion to other uses before, during and after the development of affordable housing at the pilot project site, except as provided otherwise in rules adopted by the commission under section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. (2) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission shall ensure that housing developed on the site continues to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site through: (a) Zoning restrictions; (b) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices; (c) Incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or other voluntary regulations, provisions or conditions designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units; (d) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on land selected for a pilot project under section 4 of this 2016 Act; or lei n rtAr+1 a maroamantc antararl into with cmirrat of affordable housing funding. Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660 Division 39—Affordale Housing Pilot Project 660-039-0010 Definitions The definitions in ORS 197.015, the statewide planning goals, and the following definitions apply to this division: (1) "Affordable housing" means: (a) Housing units available for rent, with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size, as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency, and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on rent and utilities; (b) Housing units available for purchase, with or without government assistance, by households who meet applicable maximum income limits, not to exceed 80 percent of the area median income, adjusted for family size, as determined based on data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or its successor agency, and in a manner so that no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income will be spent on home loan or mortgage payments, amortized interest, property taxes, insurance, and condominium or association fees, if any; or Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability 1 Exhibit C — Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability 660-039-0070 Housing Requirements (3) Pilot project development phasing shall (a) Ensure all affordable housing units have been issued permanent certificates of occupancy prior to issuance of permanent certificates of occupancy to the last 50 percent of any market rate housing units included as part of the pilot project; or (b) Phase development so that affordable housing units and market -rate housing units are issued permanent certificates of occupancy over time in a ratio similar to the ratio of affordable and market - rate housing units within the pilot project as a whole. 660-039-0090 subsequent Events (1) Upon selection by the commission as provided in OAR 660-039-0080(4), the qualifying city shall: (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site; and 660-039-0100 Reporting Requirements (1) The qualifying city for a pilot project selected by the commission pursuant to OAR 660-039-OV-80 shall provide the following information in reports to the commission: (d) On an annual basis once construction of the pilot project has begun, for a period of ten years: (A) The number of affordable housing units on the pilot project site; (B) The number of market rate housing units on the pilot project site; (C) The vacancy rate of the affordable housing units; (D) The vacancy rate of the market rate housing units; (E) The current monthly rent for the affordable housing units, or sales price of the affordable housing units; (F) The current monthly rent for the market rate housing units, or sales price of the market rate housing units; Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Exhibit C — Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Example of Deed Restriction Instrument to be Modified WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: DECHUTES COUNTY, OREGON 1300 NW Wall St # 202, Bend, OR 97703 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Attention: DEED RESTRICTION THIS DEED RESTRICTION (the "Restriction") is made and effective as of day of 20_, by whose address is ("MASTER DEVELOPER"), for the benefit of the CITY OF REDMOND ("CITY") WHEREAS, the CITY owns certain real property located in Deschutes County, Oregon as more fully described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property"); WHEREAS, the OWNER and the CITY have entered into that certain DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPEMNT AGREEMENT dated _ _ _______ , 20_, a copy of which may be obtained from the CITY at the address set forth above (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the CITY agreed sell the Property to MASTER DEVELOPER, on the condition that MASTER DEVELOPER agreed to record against the Property a deed restriction in the form hereof, NOW, THEREFORE, OWNER hereby agrees as follows for the benefit of the CITY 1. Restriction. OWNER agrees that the Property shall be developed pursuant to the Agreement and in particular at least 243 dwelling units but not more than 50% of the total dwelling units constructed, sold or leased, shall be sold or leased to households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income ("AMI") as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or its successor, at the time of lease or sale of the applicable dwelling unit. In addition, the sales price or lease rate shall not exceed 30% of the 80% of AMI at the time of sale or lease at all times during the term of this restriction as set forth in Section 3 below. 2. Nature of Restriction. The Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the successors, assigns and beneficiaries of the parties. Further, Subsequent restrictions shall be recorded against parcels as the Property may be subdivided such that 243 of the dwelling units constructed or 50% of the total units constructed, whichever is less, shall be subject to the sales price or lease rate restrictions set forth above in section 1. Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Exhibit C — Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability 3. Term. The tenn of this Restriction is for a period of ( ) years commencing on the date (the "Commencement Date") upon which the CITY provides the OWNER with a Notice of Project Closeout (as such term is defined in the Agreement). The OWNER and the CITY shall either record the Notice of Project Closeout or shall enter into an amendment of this Restriction to memorialize such date. Upon the date that is _ __ years from the Commencement Date, this Restriction shall automatically terminate without need for any other documentation, notice or recorded material. Nevertheless, the OWNER and the CITY shall promptly cooperate together and take the actions and sign the documents that either of them deems necessary to terminate the Restriction and remove all record thereof from the title of the Property. 4. Enforcement. The CITY and/or COUNTY, pursuant to the Donation Agreement enacted on may enforce this Restriction through any proceeding at law or in equity, against the OWNER or its successors or assigns, in the event of a violation or threatened violation of the Restriction. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of this Restriction. STATE OF OREGON ss. COUNTY OF DESCHUTES OWNER M On the day of -- 20—, personally appeared Yore me who being by me, duly sworn, did say that s/he is the of I a Oregon , and that the foregoing instrument was signed by him on behalf of said body by authority of a Resolution, and the said _ acknowledged to me that said body executed the same. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Residing in Deschutes County Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability Exhibit C — Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability EXHIBIT A Parcel Number: Legal Description: Example Deed Restriction to Ensure Affordability (agency name) __ (agency address) Agreed and Accepted: GRANTOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary STATE OF OREGON } } ss. County of Deschutes } PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared PHILIP G. HENDERSON, PATTI ADAIR, and ANTHONY DEBONE, the above -named Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon. DATED this day of Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Agreed and Accepted: GRANTEE STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Deschutes ) 2019 City of Redmond / 1 Georg dicott, Mayor Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared George Endicott, the above -named Mayor of Redmond and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of the City of Redmond. DVE Notary Pub is fo regon My Commission Expires: OFFICL'L 81-AMp PATRICIA LEA PINKERTtN ` NOTARY PUBLIC- OF3Ei�d?i COMMISSION NO. 949�1,16 ?4yo'�IMI$810-N EXPIRES �!PML25, 2Q20 L .., —R i �a JACPINE AVE- z 2 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17TH STREET AND NE KINGWOOD AVENUE REDMOND, OREGON Wallace Group Project No. 11314 (1) April 30, 2020 wallaceGROUP central oregon's geosysten7 experts Copyright 2020, The Wallace Group, Inc., All Rights Reserved ONLY THE CITY OF REDMOND OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT, AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED. A Report Prepared for: Mr. Mike Caccavano, P.E., City Engineer City of Redmond 243 E. Antler Ave, Suite 101 Redmond, Oregon 97756 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17T" STREET AND NE KINGWOOD AVENUE REDMOND, OREGON Wallace Group Project No. 11314 (1) Prepared by: Stephen M. Woodward, R.G. Staff Geologist Shane M. Cochran, R.G. Project Geologist THE WALLACE GROUP, INC. 62915 NE 18t" Street, Suite 1 Bend, Oregon 97701 TWG20RO25 Page ii of vi April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97709. p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com wallaceGROUP central ofegon's geosystem experts EXECUTIVESUMMARY TABLE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17T" STREET AND NE KINGWOOD AVENUE REDMOND, OREGON WALLACE GROUP PROJECT NO. 11314 (1) APRIL 30, 2020 Have Report Report Heading Recommended Action(s) REC*/Potential REC* Been Section Addressed? 8.1.2 Conditional REC* None 8.1.3 Historical REC* None 8.1.4 Federal and State None Agency Records 8.1.5 On -Site Chemical None Storage 8.1.6 ASTs and USTs None 8.1.7 Wells, Septic None Systems, Stormwater and Wastewater Discharge 8.1.8 Solid Waste None 8.1.9 Asbestos -Containing None Materials 8.1.10 PCBs None 8.1.11 Vapor Intrusion None 8.1.12 Lead -Based Paint None 8.1.13 Residual None Pesticides/Herbicides *Recognized Environmental Condition This Executive Summary Table may not be solely relied upon. It is intended for introductory and reference purposes only. A thorough review of the body of the report is necessary to fully understand the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. TWG20RO25 Page iii of vi April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com TABLE Off. CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................5 2.1 PURPOSE.................................................................................................................5 2.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................6 2.3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES............................................................................................7 2.4 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................................7 2.5 LIMITATIONS & EXCEPTIONS...................................................................................7 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS ....................9 2.7 SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS ..............................................................................9 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................10 3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................10 3.2 CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE PROPERTY............................................10 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS.................................................10 3.4 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES.........................................................10 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW.......................................................................................................11 4.1 FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS...................................................................12 4.1.1 Superfund National Priority List NPL .....12 4.1.2 Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) List...............................................12 4.1.3 Federal RCRA List........................................................................................12 4.1.4 RCRA-Non-Generator List...........................................................................13 4.1.5 Federal Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registries ....................13 4.1.6 Federal CORRACTS.....................................................................................13 4.1.7 Federal Emergency Response Notification (ERNS) System ........................13 4.1.8 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database...........................................13 4.2 OREGON STATE RECORDS.....................................................................................13 4.2.1 Environmental Cleanup Site Information System (ECSI) ............................14 4.2.2 Summary of Confirmed Release List (CRL).................................................14 4.2.3 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports ....................14 4.2.4 Registered Underground Storage Tank (UST) List......................................15 4.2.5 Registered Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) List......................................15 4.2.6 State Institutional Control and/or Engineering Control Registries.............15 4.2.7 State Landfill and/or Solid Waste Disposal Site Lists..................................15 4.2.8 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program..........................................15 4.2.9 Brownfield Site List.....................................................................................16 4.2.10 Orphan Sites.............................................................................................16 4.2.11 Oregon Water Resources Department.....................................................16 4.2.12 Oregon State Fire Marshal.......................................................................17 4.3 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE..................................................................................17 TWG20RO25 Page iv of vi April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.811.8 wallacegroup-inc.com 4.4 AVAILABLE RADON DATA......................................................................................17 4.5 VAPOR INTRUSION................................................................................................18 4.6 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION...........................................................................18 5.0 HISTORICAL USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES..............................20 5.1 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS........................................................................20 5.2 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.....................................................................20 5.3 CHAIN -OF -TITLE REPORT.......................................................................................21 5.4 PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS......................................................................................21 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE..............................................................................................22 6.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS......................................................22 6.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING.........................................................................................22 6.3 SITE OBSERVATIONS.............................................................................................22 6.3.1 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and On -Site Improvements ..................22 6.3.2 On -Site Chemical Storage...........................................................................22 6.3.3 Storage Tanks (ASTs and USTs)..................................................................23 6.3.4 Land Conditions..........................................................................................23 6.3.5 Wells, Septic Systems, Stormwater and Wastewater Discharge................23 6.3.6 Indications of Solid Waste Disposal............................................................23 6.3.7 Potential Presence of Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACMs)...................23 6.3.8 PCBs............................................................................................................23 6.3.9 Lead Paint...................................................................................................23 6.3.10 Residual Pesticide and/or Herbicide Potential...........................................24 7.0 INTERVIEWS...............................................................................................................25 7.1 INTERVIEWS WITH KEY SITE MANAGER/OWNER/OCCUPANT..............................25 8.0 EVALUATION..............................................................................................................26 8.1 FINDINGS...............................................................................................................26 8.1.1 Site History................................................................................................26 8.1.2 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions(CREC)........................26 8.1.3 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) .........................26 8.1.4 Federal and State Agency Records............................................................27 8.1.5 On -site Chemical Storage..........................................................................27 8.1.6 Storage Tanks (ASTs and USTs).................................................................27 8.1.7 Wells, Septic Systems, Stormwater and Wastewater Discharge ..............27 8.1.8 Solid Waste Disposal.................................................................................28 8.1.9 ACMs.........................................................................................................28 8.1.10 PCBs..........................................................................................................28 8.1.11 Vapor Intrusion.........................................................................................28 8.1.12 Lead -Based Paint.......................................................................................28 8.1.13 Residual Pesticide and/or Herbicide.........................................................28 8.2 DEVIATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES.............................................................29 TWG20RO25 Page v of vi April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 8.3 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................29 8.4 DATA GAPS............................................................................................................30 9.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................31 10.0 PROFESSIONAL AUTHENTICITY...................................................................................32 FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Map 3a-3d. Site Photographs APPENDICES A. EDR First Report (April 9, 2020) B. EDR Certified Sanborn Map Report (April 9, 2020) and EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package (April 10, 2020) C. ASTM E1527-13 User and Owner/Occupant Questionnaires TWG20R025 Page vi of vi April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 1.0 EXECUTVE SUMMARY This Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) was conducted for a 40-acre parcel, which is a part of a larger 1,610-acre parcel, located at the northwest corner of NE 17t" Street and NE Kingwood Avenue in Redmond, Oregon. (See Figure 1, Vicinity Map). According to Deschutes County records, the subject site is owned by Deschutes County, is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa Subzone (EFUAL) and is located outside Redmond city limits. The parcel is located within the Eastside Framework Plan area and is slated to be re -zoned as residential and incorporated into Redmond City Limits. The City of Redmond (Client), commissioned Wallace Group to perform the work as part of the Client's due diligence process in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials International (ASTM) E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. SITE HISTORY There are no listed sales of the property which has been owned by Deschutes County for its recorded history. A review of property records and a site visit showed no current or historical development of the property. Based on our historical review, there does not appear to have been any regulatory cleanup or environmental enforcement actions associated with the site. CONTROLLED RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A CREC is a controlled REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that remains in -place subject to the implementation of required controls and is addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency. Based on Wallace Group's evaluation for this Phase I ESA, no CRECs were identified with respect to the subject site. HISTORICAL RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A HREC is a historical REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that remains in -place and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency without implementing controls. Based on Wallace Group's evaluation for this Phase I ESA, no HRECs were identified with respect to the subject site. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY RECORDS Wallace Group conducted a regulatory -database search for the subject property and surrounding areas within the various search radii specified by ASTM standards. There were 19 TWG20RO25 Page 1 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541,382,4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com surrounding properties identified within the ASTM search parameters; the properties are listed on multiple state agency databases as having documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products, undertaken or completed environmental remediation, storing or using hazardous materials and/or petroleum products during day-to-day operations, and maintaining environmental permits and/or registration for business purposes. Based on the proximity of the listed properties to the site, the available regulatory information reviewed, the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions underlying the area, investigative actions taken, and the cleanup activities and regulatory oversight (where applicable) conducted to -date, the listed nearby sites do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the subject property at this time. ON -SITE CHEMICAL STORAGE Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site chemical storage. Based on these observations, on -site chemical storage does not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. STORAGE TANKS There was no surface evidence to suggest the presence of ASTs or USTs at the site. Based on these observations, ASTs and USTs do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. WELLS, SEPTIC SYSTEMS, STORMWATER, AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site wells, septic systems, stormwater or industrial wastewater discharge features during our site visit. Based on these observations, wells, septic systems, stormwater and wastewater discharge do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Wallace Group personnel observed on -site solid waste disposal that appeared de minimis. Based on these findings, on -site solid waste disposal does not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS There were no on -site structural improvements at the time of our site visit. Based on these observations, ACMs do not appear to be present at the site, and do not represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. TWG20RO25 Page 2 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18th St, Ste 1, fiend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com PCBS Wallace Group did not observe pole or pad -mounted transformers on the subject site. Based on these observations, it does not appear that PCBs represent the potential for a REC with respect to the subject property. VAPOR INTRUSION The Deschutes County project site falls within the U.S. EPA Zone 3 designation for Radon levels. This designation correlates to a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 pCi/L, which is below the U.S. EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Based on the historical information regarding site and adjacent land use, and the geologic conditions underlying the site (shallow basalt bedrock with regional groundwater depths exceeding 250 feet bgs), there does not appear to be a risk to human health or the environment because of hazardous radon and vapor intrusion onto the site at this time. LEAD PAINT Based on the structurally undeveloped nature of the site, lead paint does not appear to represent a REC at the site. RESIDUAL PESTICIDE AND/OR HERBICIDE Based on historical information reviewed for this assessment, the site has never been structurally or agriculturally developed. There is no information to indicate that pesticides or herbicides have been used at the site. As such, residual pesticides and/or herbicides do not appear to represent a potential REC at the site. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13, for the 40-acre parcel, located at the northwest corner of NE 17t" Street and NE Kingwood Avenue in Redmond, Oregon. The site is currently owned by Deschutes County. The findings of this environmental assessment did not disclose the presence of potential or RECs regarding soil and groundwater, or the transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons at the subject site. Based on these findings, Wallace Group does not recommend additional environmental assessment or remedial activities with respect to the site at this time. TWG20RO25 Page 3 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811, St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com .0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology and findings of a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) for a 40-acre commercial parcel located at the northwest corner of NE 171n Street and NE Kingwood Avenue in Redmond, Oregon (Figure 1). The City of Redmond (Client), commissioned Wallace Group to perform the work in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials International (ASTM) E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. Environmental Professional Statement: We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the "all appropriate inquiries" in general conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Under the ASTM E 1527-13 Phase I ESA standard, the viability of a Phase I ESA has been established as 180 days (approximately six months), following the earliest date listed below and prior to transfer of the subject property. Table of Critical Dates Report Issuance Date April 30, 2020 Date of Interview(s) of Past and Present Owners and Occupants Identified in Section 10 of ASTM 1527-13 April 29, 2020 Date of Government Record Review April 9, 2020 Date of Visual Inspection of Subject and Adjoining Properties April 10, 2020 Earliest Date of Interviews, Record Reviews, and Inspections April 9, 2020 Report Viability Date October 6, 2020 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the work described in this report was to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions and other environmental issues existing at the subject property in general accordance with ASTM E 1527-13. A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined as, "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of TWG20RO25 Page 4 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18th St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com a future release to the environment." De minimis conditions, conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies, are not RECs or controlled RECs. 2.2 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES This Phase I ESA generally follows the methodology set forth in ASTM E 1527-13. The scope of work implemented for the Phase I ESA and report format include the following: Section 2, Introduction, includes a discussion of the purpose/reason for performing the Phase I ESA; additional services requested by the Client (e.g., an evaluation of business environmental risk factors associated with the property); significant assumptions (e.g., property boundaries if not marked in the field); limitations, exceptions, and special terms and conditions (e.g., contractual); and user reliance parameters. This section also includes Wallace Group's "environmental professional" statement. Section 3, Site Description, is a compilation of information concerning the site location, legal description (if available), current and proposed use of the subject site, ownership, and adjoining property use. Section 4, Records Review, is a compilation of Wallace Group's review of several databases available from federal, state, and local regulatory agencies regarding hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal at the subject site; and for off -site facilities within the search distance specified in the ASTM standard. Records provided by the Client are summarized and copies of relevant documents are included in the appendices of this report. Interviews and telephone conversations conducted by Wallace Group with regulatory agency representatives may be included in Section 4 if applicable to a specific investigation file. Physical setting sources (including topography, soil and groundwater conditions) are also summarized in this section, as is Client -provided information (i.e., title records, environmental liens, specialized knowledge, valuation reduction for environmental issues, and owner, property manager, and occupant information). Other interviews with people knowledgeable about the subject site (including the Client) are included in Section 7. Section 5, Historical Use of the Property and Adjoining Properties, summarizes the history of the subject site and adjoining properties. This site history is based on various sources, which may include a review of aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, city or suburban directories, historical topographic maps, building department records, and results of previous site assessments. TWG20RO25 Page 5 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com Section 6, Site Reconnaissance, describes Wallace Group's observations recorded during the site reconnaissance. Section 7, Interviews, is a summary of telephone and personal interviews conducted with "Key Site Managers" that may include the owner/manager of the property, occupants/tenants, local government officials, and the Client. Additional interview sources may be contacted if "Key Site Managers" are not available prior to production of this report and may include adjacent landowners and people with historical knowledge of the area. Section 8, Evaluation, is a presentation of findings and opinions regarding the information in Sections 3 through 7 and presents our conclusions regarding the presence of recognized environmental conditions connected with the subject site. Section 9, References, includes pertinent references related to documentation provided in this Phase I ESA report. Supporting documentation is included in the appendices of this report. 2.3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES This Phase I ESA does not incorporate non -scope considerations, such as physical testing for asbestos -containing materials (ACMs), radon, lead -based paint, lead in drinking water, mold, and indoor air quality. Excluded Phase I ESA non -scope considerations also include wetland assessments (e.g., identification, determinations, or delineations), cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, and high voltage power lines. This Phase I ESA includes the following non -scope considerations: records review of stormwater system regulatory compliance, mapped wetlands, radon gas, and the potential for lead -based paint and ACMs at the site. 2.4 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS No significant assumptions were made regarding the scope of work for this Phase I ESA. 2.5 LIMITATIONS & EXCEPTIONS This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Wallace Group's profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions, and at the date the services are provided. Wallace Group's conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based on limited observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Wallace Group TWG20RO25 Page 6 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18`' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com makes no other representation, guarantee, or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the Client and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement. Environmental issues and regulations can change with time, and this report is based on the conditions observed at the time of site visit, the data that were reviewed, and ASTM standards at the time the report was prepared. Our findings remain valid until October 6, 2020, or such time that site conditions change, and/or new environmental sites are identified that could impact the project area. Should conditions change, and/or new environmental sites be identified that could impact the project area, the findings of this report should be updated. Wallace Group offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involve greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service that provide adequate information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. Acceptance of this report will indicate that the Client has reviewed the document and has determined that they do not need or want a greater level of service than the scope of work provided. Wallace Group assumes no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury that results from pre-existing hazardous materials being encountered or present on the subject site, or from the discovery of such hazardous materials. Nothing contained in this report should be construed or interpreted as requiring Wallace Group to assume the status of an owner, operator, or generator, or person who arranges for disposal, transport, storage or treatment of hazardous materials within the meaning of any governmental statute, regulation or order. The Client is solely responsible for directing notification of all governmental agencies, and the public at large, of the existence, release, treatment or disposal of any hazardous materials observed at the site, either before or during performance of Wallace Group's services. The Client is also responsible for directing all arrangements to lawfully store, treat, recycle, dispose, or otherwise handle hazardous materials. TWG20RO25 Page 7 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Shane M. Cochran, R.G., project professional for this Phase I ESA report, has been the lead investigator and/or author or reviewer responsible for over 300 Phase I and Phase II ESAs performed in Oregon over his 11-year professional career. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in environmental geology and is a registered geologist in Oregon. Mr. Cochran meets the criteria for an environmental professional as defined by §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. Mr. Stephen M. Woodward. R.G., is the staff professional for this Phase I ESA report. He earned a Master of Science degree in geology, is a registered geologist in Oregon, has nine years of professional geologic experience, and is a certified asbestos inspector. Mr. Woodward meets the criteria for an Environmental Professional as defined by §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. 2.7 SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS No special terms or conditions in addition to those discussed previously, were agreed to by the Client and Wallace Group. TWG20RO25 Page 8 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 10 SITE DESCRIPTION This section describes the site and its condition at the time of the Phase I ESA. The site location is shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. 3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Site Address: No site address - Northwest corner of NE 17th Street and NE Kingwood Avenue City: Redmond County: Deschutes Size: 40 acres Tax Lot (TL): 1513 000000 103 (subject site is 40 of 1,xxx acres) TRS: T15S, R13E, W.M., NE % of NE % of Section 10, Willamette Meridian USGS Quad Map: Redmond, Oregon 1962 (photo revised 1975) 3.2 CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE PROPERTY According to information provided by the online Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL), the current property owner is Deschutes County. The property is located within Deschutes County, is zoned Exclusive Farm Use —Alfalfa Subzone (EFUAL) and is located outside Redmond city limits. The parcel is within the Eastside Framework Plan area and is slated to be re -zoned as residential and incorporated into the Redmond City Limits. 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS The site is structurally undeveloped with no on -site improvements. NE Maple Avenue borders the north site boundary from east to west. NE Kingwood Avenue borders the south site boundary from east to west. Adjacent off -site improvements along NE Kingwood Avenue include paved public roads with curbs and paved sidewalks. Site improvements are shown on Figure 2. 3.4 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES To the north are NE Maple Avenue and private residences zoned Rural Residential 10-Acre Minimum (RR10) and Exclusive Farm Use -Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFUTRB). To the east is undeveloped Deschutes County land zoned Surface Mining (SM) and a county a solid - waste transfer station. To the south are businesses zoned Heavy Industrial (M2) along NE Kingwood Avenue. To the west are private residences zoned EFUTRB. TWG20RO25 Page 9 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1 541.383,8118 wallacegroup-inc.com A key component of the Phase I ESA is a regulatory agency record review for references to industrial activity, environmental permits, spills, fines, complaints, and other indications that a recognized environmental condition relative to the subject site may exist. Federal and state governments have developed legislation within the past 25 years relating to environmental issues. Because of this legislation, regulations that govern the storage, handling, control and disposal of hazardous materials have been promulgated. Numerous agencies collect and disseminate information for use in evaluating potential environmental conditions. Wallace Group reviewed information from several environmental databases obtained through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to evaluate whether activities on or near the subject site have the potential to create a recognized environmental condition on the site. EDR reviews databases compiled by federal, state, and local governmental agencies. The complete list of databases reviewed by EDR is provided in their regulatory report, which is included as Appendix A of this report. It should be noted that this information is reported as Wallace Group received it from EDR, which, in turn, reports information as it is provided in various governmental databases. It is not possible or within the authorized scope of work for either Wallace Group or EDR to verify the accuracy or completeness of all the information contained in these databases. However, the use of and reliance on this information is a generally accepted practice in the conduct of environmental due diligence. The following agencies, companies, and individuals were contacted for records concerning the subject property: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA): National Priority List (NPL), Delisted NPL, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), Corrective Action Cleanup Enforcement (CORRACTS), Land Use Control Information System (LUCIS), Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) databases, National Wetland Inventory (NWI); Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities, Leaking USTs, Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) facilities, Institutional Control and/or Engineering Control Registries (INST/ENG), Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, Confirmed Releases List (CRL), Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) database, Brownfields database, and Solid Waste Active Disposal Permits database; TWG20RO25 Page 10 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com • State Fire Agencies; and • Oregon Water Resources Department, Well Logs. Information obtained from these sources is presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.2. 4.1 FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS 4.1.1 Superfund National Priority List (NPL) Under Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the EPA established an NPL of Superfund sites. Inclusion on the NPL reflects a significant risk to public health and the environment and indicates a Federal Priority to remediate the site. This database is provided by the EPA and searched to identify records of NPL sites located on or within an approximate 1.0-mile search radius of the subject site. There were no NPL facilities listed within 1.0 mile of the subject site. 4.1.2 Superfund Delisted NPL Under Section 300.425(e) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), an NPL site can be deleted from the NPL list if no further response actions are required. This database is provided by the EPA and searched to identify records of delisted NPL sites located on or within an approximate 1.0-mile search radius of the subject site. There were no delisted NPL facilities listed within 1.0 mile of the subject site. 4.1.3 Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) List The CERCLIS list contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the NPL of Superfund sites and sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. This database is provided by EPA and was searched for records of facilities located on or within an approximate 0.5-mile search radius of the subject site. There were no Federal CERCLIS facilities located within 0.5 mile of the subject site. 4.1.4 Federal Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory The SEMS Archived Site Inventory contains sites that the EPA has determined to be complete in their assessment and a no further action (NFA) determination is planned. A federal NFA determination documents EPA -approval for the remedial work performed and that the property is suitable for redevelopment in accordance with applicable land -use criteria. This database is provided by EPA and was searched for records of facilities located on or within an TWG20RO25 Page 11 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com approximate 0.5-mile search radius of the subject site. There were no SEMS facilities located within 0.5 mile of the subject site. 4.1.5 Federal CORRACTS The Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) developed by U.S. EPA identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. There were no CORRACTS facilities listed within 1.0 mile of the site. 4.1.6 Federal RCRA List The RCRA list identifies facilities that have obtained identification numbers from the U.S. EPA, which designates these businesses as generators, transporters, or storers/disposers of hazardous waste. Obtaining an identification number does not mean that hazardous materials have been improperly handled at these facilities. RCRA large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month; generate or have onsite more than 2.2 pounds of acute hazardous waste per month; or generate more than 220 pounds of spill cleanup debris containing acute hazardous waste. Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 220 and 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste per month. Very small quantity generators (VSQG) generate 2.2 pounds or less of acute hazardous waste and less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month. The generator's list was reviewed for the site and a 0.25-mile radius, and the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) list was reviewed for facilities within 0.5 mile of the site. There were no LQG, SQG, VSQG, or TSD facilities identified within their respective search radii. 4.1.7 Federal Institutional Control and/or Engineering Control Registries The U.S. Land Use Control Information System (LUCIS) database is a listing for facilities recorded as having federal institutional and/or engineering (Inst/Eng) controls associated with contamination of hazardous wastes, petroleum products, and other hazardous substances. This database was reviewed for facilities on or within 0.5 mile of the site. There were no federal facilities recorded as having Inst/Eng controls within the search radius. 4.1.8 Federal CORRACTS The Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) developed by U.S. EPA identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. There were no CORRACTS facilities listed within 1.0 mile of the site. TWG20RO25 Page 12 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 4.1.9 Federal Emergency Response Notification (ERNS) System The ERNS database records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances for the target property. The database was checked for records of emergency responses for the subject site. No listings were found for the site. 4.1.10 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Geodatabase The NWI maps and digitizes wetlands to illustrate the distribution of wetlands across the nation, with the goal to protect wildlife species and their habitats. The geodatabase was reviewed for the target property. There were no on -site mapped wetlands. 4.2 OREGON STATE RECORDS The following summarizes the information obtained from the State of Oregon. Specified search distances are those identified in the ASTM E 1527-13 standard. 4.2.1 Environmental Cleanup Site Information System (ECSI) The ECSI system includes facilities entered into the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) database pursuant to the site discovery requirements of ORS 466.560. The list includes facilities where there has been a confirmed release of hazardous substances, facilities where investigation or cleanup has been initiated, and facilities suspected of a release of hazardous substances. The search radius for facilities listed in this database is 1.0 mile. There were 16 ECSI facilities identified within the search radius and are included in Appendix A. Based on information generated as part of this record review, the ECSI-listed facilities have either been issued an NFA determination by the DEQ or remain listed for further assessment. A DEQ NFA determination documents DEQ-approval for the remedial work performed and that the property is suitable for redevelopment in accordance with applicable land -use criteria. 4.2.2 Summary of Confirmed Release List (CRL) The CRL database is a listing by DEQ of facilities that are contaminated with hazardous wastes, petroleum products, and other hazardous substances. This database was reviewed for facilities within 1.0 mile of the site. There were no CRL facilities listed within the search radius. 4.2.3 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports This DEQ database is a listing of below -ground releases from underground petroleum storage tank systems or reportable surface spills. The list also includes aboveground releases to water which result in a sheen. The search radius for facilities listed in this database is 0.5 mile. There TWG20RO25 Page 13 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 181" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com was one LUST facility identified within the search radius, which has reportedly completed clean up related to its site: • Redmond Veterinary Clinic, 1785 N 6th St., 0.49-mile WNW. 4.2.4 Registered Underground Storage Tank (UST) List This DEQ database lists facilities with registered USTs in operation and decommissioned USTs. The search radius for facilities listed in this database is 0.25 mile. There was one UST facility identified within the search radius: • Jim and Linda Wilson, 1686 NE Negus Way., 0.09-mile N. DEQ's database did not include violation or incident records with respect to the listed UST facility. 4.2.5 Registered Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) List This database is maintained by the Oregon State Fire Marshal and lists facilities with registered ASTs in operation. The search radius for facilities listed in this database is 0.25 mile. There were no AST facilities identified within the search radius. 4.2.6 State Institutional Control and/or Engineering Control Registries The state Inst/Eng control database is a listing by DEQ for ESCI facilities recorded as having such controls associated with contamination of hazardous wastes, petroleum products, and other hazardous substances. This database was reviewed for facilities on or within 0.5 mile of the site. There were no state facilities recorded as having Inst/Eng controls within the search radius. 4.2.7 State Landfill and/or Solid Waste Disposal Site Lists DEQ maintains a list of permitted landfills and transfer stations. No permitted solid waste disposal facilities were located within 0.5 mile of the subject site. The Negus Transfer Station, while not listed as a state landfill, is present east of the site on Deschutes County property and is listed in the ECSI database. 4.2.8 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program This DEQ database lists facilities with registered stormwater UICs in operation. The database was reviewed for the target property. The subject site was not listed in the UIC database. TWG20RO25 Page 14 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 4.2.9 Brownfield Site List This DEQ database lists state and tribal facilities that have undergone Brownfield redevelopment within a 0.5-mile radius of the site. There was one Brownfield facility identified within the search radius: • Redmond Opportunity Site, NE Antler Ave. and NE 11t" St. (NE Intersection), 0.35-mile S. The Redmond Opportunity site was added to the Brownfield Site list for receiving assistance from public agencies for historic contamination resulting from use as a log chipping operation, possible off -site impacts from an asphalt plant, and possible off -site impacts from an automotive salvage yard. Site contamination documented by the DEQ included diesel, heavy oil, metals and VOCs. The analytes tested were below their respective Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs), and the site received a DEQ NFA determination in March 2005. 4.2.10 Orphan Sites EDR maintains a listing of Orphan (unmappable) sites, which cannot be mapped due to inaccurate or incomplete information. Orphan sites reside in the respective search radius of the applicable program, list or database. There were two Orphan sites listed in the EDR report: • Chet's Electric, 1049 S 15th Street, Databases: LUST, UST; and • Redmond Texaco Corner Store CC#83, 712 S 5t" Street, Database: LUST. Based on the limited information provided, the unmapped facilities appear to have a registered UST(s) and completed cleanup related to a LUST(s). 4.2.11 Oregon Water Resources Department The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) maintains records of well logs installed in the state of Oregon. The Department's well log records are extensive; however, they do not necessarily reflect the actual number of water wells within the state. The OWRD database was queried for water wells located within an approximate 1.0-mile radius of the subject site. This search revealed 18 water wells with completed depths ranging from 285 to 860 feet below ground surface (bgs). Static water levels reportedly range from 250 to 698 feet bgs. Based on this well data and our knowledge of regional hydrogeologic conditions in the upper Deschutes Basin, groundwater near the site typically occurs in relatively deep basalt flows and interbedded weathered zones and pyroclastic deposits. Regional groundwater flow is to the northeast (Gannett, et al., 2001). The depth to groundwater in the vicinity combined with the type of materials underlying the site (multi -layered basaltic bedrock), suggests that TWG20RO25 Page 15 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com groundwater is an unlikely media for potential contaminant migration in the event of a surface or near -surface release. 4.2.12 Oregon State Fire Marshal According to the State Fire Marshal's searchable online database of emergency responses to hazardous materials incidents, there was no response records associated with the site address. 4.3 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE The site is located at the western margin of the High Lava Plains Physiographic Province of Central Oregon. This region is characterized by semi -arid high desert vegetation along the eastern foothills of the High Cascade Mountain Range. Annual precipitation in the Redmond area is approximately ten inches, most of which falls in the form of snow during the winter months. The site and surrounding areas are composed of relatively thin volcanic soils overlying Pleistocene age Newberry basalt flows (Sherrod et al., 2004). With exception of talus deposits, lake sediments, and fluvial debris, most of the rocks in the province are volcanic, and thick accumulations of basaltic lava are common. The average site elevation ranges from 3,020 to 3,030 feet above mean sea level (msl). 4.4 AVAILABLE RADON DATA Radon is a radioactive gas, which occurs naturally in the environment and cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. The human health effect associated with prolonged exposure to elevated levels of radon is an increased risk of lung cancer. The U.S. EPA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control are concerned about the increased risk of lung cancer developing in individuals exposed to above -average levels of radon in their homes or offices. To address these concerns, the U.S. EPA conducted a radon survey and presented the results for all counties of the United States in 1990. U.S. EPA's map of Radon Zones assigns each of the counties in the United States to one of three zones. The zone designations were determined by assessing five factors that are known to be important indicators of radon potential: indoor radon measurements, geology, aerial radioactivity surveys, soil parameters, and foundation types. The U.S. EPA's map of Radon Zones was search for Deschutes County, which falls within the U.S. EPA Zone 3 designation for Radon levels. This designation correlates to a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), which is below the U.S. EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. TWG20RO25 Page 16 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18111 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 4.5 VAPOR INTRUSION Based on the historical information regarding site and adjacent land use and the geologic conditions underlying the site (shallow basalt bedrock with local groundwater depths exceeding 250 feet bgs), there does not appear to be a risk to human health or the environment because of hazardous vapor intrusion at or onto the site. 4.6 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION Wallace Group's "User" contact was Mr. Mike Caccavano. Mr. Caccavano represents the User of this Phase I ESA report. Mr. Caccavano's responses to the User Questionnaire are shown in bold (Appendix C). 1. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the property that are filed or recorded under federal, tribal, state or local law? No, none exist. 2. Are you aware of any activity and land use limitations (AULs), such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the site and/or have been filed or recorded in a registry under federal, tribal, state or local law? No, none exist. 3. As a "user" of this Phase I ESA, do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the site or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? No. 4. Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? Property is (sic) a donation. 5. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the site that would help Wallace Group identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example, as the User: • Do you know the past uses of the property? Vacant, non -farmed. • Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the property? Unknown, likely none. Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? None Do you know of environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? None. TWG20RO25 Page 17 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 6. As the user of this Phase I ESA, based on your knowledge and experience related to the property, are there obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property? Unknown, likely none. TWG20R025 Page 18 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 5.O IS` O I AL USE OF THE PROPERTY AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES The following information regarding past and current uses of the site and adjoining properties was obtained from various public and private sources. Information available through these sources is usually incomplete but may provide a general overview of the site's historical uses. 5.1 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS Sanborn Maps were drawn by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company to assist in underwriting properties from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. For certain time intervals, the maps show much detail of buildings, improvements, and land uses. The coverage of this resource is typically limited to older districts in established towns and cities. There were no Sanborn Maps available for review (Appendix B). 5.2 HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS A review of historical aerial photography may indicate past activities at a property not documented by other means or observed during a property visit. The effectiveness of this technique depends on the scale and quality of the photographs and the available coverage. Available aerial photographs providing coverage of the site were obtained from EDR (Appendix B). The following is a tabulation of the aerial photographs reviewed: HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Aerial Photo Source Scale Color Stereo 6/3/1938 USDA 1" =500' B&W No 7/28/1951 USDA 1" =500' B&W No 9/17/1953 USGS 1" =500' B&W No 6/28/1973 USGS 1" =500' Infrared No 8/2/1980 USGS 1" =500' B&W No 7/29/1982 USDA 1" =500' Infrared No 1994 USDA/DOQQ 1" =500' B&W No 2006 USDA/NAIP 1" =500' Color No 2009 USDA/NAIP 1" =500' Color No 2012 USDA/NAIP 1" =500' Color No 2016 USDA/NAIP 1" =500' Color No The results of our aerial photography review are presented below: 1938 The subject site and surrounding areas appear to be undeveloped high desert rangeland. NE Maple Avenue and Negus Way are present to the northwest. Dirt paths transect the site. TWG20RO25 Page 19 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18th St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 1951 There are no appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1938 photograph. 1953 There are no appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1951 photograph. 1973 NE Maple Avenue has been widened along the north site boundary. Residential development has begun west and south of the site. There are no other appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1953 photograph. 1980 There is residential development north of the site. There are no other appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1973 photograph. 1982 The High Desert Sports Complex is present northeast of the site. NE Maple Avenue appears to have been paved and improved. There are no other appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1980 photograph. 1994 There are no appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1982 photograph. 2006 Industrial development has begun to the south, along NE Hemlock Avenue, NE 11th Street and NE 151h Street. There are no other appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 1994 photography. 2009 NE Kingwood Avenue and NE 17th Street are present to the south with associated industrial development. There are no other appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 2006 photography. 2012 There are no appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 2009 photography. 2016 There are no appreciable changes to the site or surrounding areas compared to the 2012 photography. NOTE: Aerial photographs only provide information on indications of land use and no conclusions can be drawn from the photographs alone. 5.3 CHAIN -OF -TITLE REPORT A chain -of -title was not provided for review within the time frame of this project. 5.4 PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS No previous assessments were provided for review as part of this Phase I ESA. TWG20RO25 Page 20 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 180 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE Wallace Group's assessment activities included a site reconnaissance. This section summarizes the observations and findings from our site visit. 6.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS A site visit was conducted on April 10, 2020, by Wallace Group environmental staff. The purpose of the site visit was to look for obvious visual indications of historical or current operations that may have resulted in possible soil and/or groundwater contamination. The site visit included a visual evaluation of the grounds for indications of hazardous -waste storage, use, and disposal areas, storm drainage, and underground and aboveground storage tank locations. Refer to Figure 2, Site Map, for locations of features referenced in this section. 6.2 GENERAL SITE SETTING The subject site is located approximately 1.5-miles northeast of downtown Redmond, Oregon. The site and adjacent properties are located at the eastern boundary of the Redmond city limits, with industrial properties to the south, residential properties to the west and north, and undeveloped rural land to the east. Near -surface soils consist of volcanic silty -sand with varying amounts of basaltic gravel, cobble and boulders, less than ten feet thick. The near -surface soils are underlain by multiple flows of hard, basaltic bedrock that extend laterally across the site to depths of several hundred feet below surface grade. 6.3 SITE OBSERVATIONS Site observations made during our reconnaissance activities are described in Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.10. Photographs of site features and surrounding areas observed during our site visit are included for reference on Figure 2 and Figures 3a-3d. 6.3.1 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and On -Site Improvements The site is structurally undeveloped with no on -site improvements (Figure 3a). NE Maple Avenue borders the northern site boundary from east to west. NE Kingwood Avenue borders the southern site boundary (Figure 3a) from east to west. NE Maple Avenue borders the northern site boundary (Figure 3b) from east to west. Adjacent off -site improvements include paved public roads with curbs and paved sidewalks (Figure 2). Numerous dirt -drive and -foot paths transect the site and are blocked with boulders at the property boundaries to impede access (Figure 3b). TWG20RO25 Page 21 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 6.3.2 On -Site Chemical Storage Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site chemical storage at the time of our site visit. 6.3.3 Storage Tanks (ASTs and USTs) There was no surface evidence to suggest the presence of ASTs or USTs at the site. 6.3.4 Land Conditions As referenced in section 6.3.1, the site is undeveloped. The site slopes down to the southeast. Dirt drive and foot pathways transect the site, mainly connecting NE Maple Avenue to NE Kingwood Avenue. The site was vegetated with Western Juniper, wax currant, native bunch grass, sage and rabbit brush at the time of our site visit. There are numerous small basalt ridges and outcrops around the property (Figure 3c). 6.3.5 Wells, Septic Systems, Stormwater and Wastewater Discharge Wallace Group personnel did not observe surface evidence of water wells, septic systems, stormwater or wastewater discharge structures. 6.3.6 Indications of Solid Waste Disposal Wallace Group personnel observed solid waste disposal along the drive paths consisting of discarded tires (Figure 3c), wood (Figure 3d), plastic and concrete (Figure 3d). The observed waste was considered de minimis and appeared inert with no signs of staining or contamination. 6.3.7 Potential Presence of Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACMs) There were no on -site structural improvements at the time of our site visit. Based on these observations, ACMs do not appear to be present at the site. 6.3.8 PCBs Wallace Group did not observe pole or pad -mounted transformers on the subject site. 6.3.9 Lead Paint Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site structural improvements during our site visit. Therefore, there does not appear to be a potential for lead -based paint surfaces at the site. TWG20RO25 Page 22 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 6.3.10 Residual Pesticide and/or Herbicide Potential Based on historical information reviewed for this assessment, the site has never been structurally or agriculturally developed. There is no information to indicate that pesticides or herbicides have been used at the site. TWG20R025 Page 23 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18Ih St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 7oO INTERVIEWS 7.1 INTERVIEWS WITH KEY SITE MANAGER/OWNER/OCCUPANT On April 29, 2020, Ms. Kristie Bollinger, property manager and Deschutes County employee, was interviewed by the Wallace Group. Ms. Bollinger was not aware of any historical development, and no on -site improvements have been performed since Deschutes County's ownership. Deschutes County has owned the property since approximately 1960, when it was purchased or deeded from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The property is being donated to the City of Redmond by Deschutes County, and is currently being separated from the larger 1,600-acre parcel. Ms. Bollinger was not aware of any environmental issues or unresolved regulatory enforcement actions related to the project site. On April 20, 2020, Wallace Group received an ASTM E1527-13 Owner/Occupant Questionnaire, completed by Ms. Bollinger (Appendix C). TWG20RO25 Page 24 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18th St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com &0 EVALUATION The following sections describe Wallace Group's findings and provide general background information about the subject site. This evaluation includes our professional opinion about recognized environmental conditions, historical and potential RECs, and de minimis quantities, as applicable to the subject site. The following conclusions are based on Wallace Group's knowledge of the subject property from our site observations and information gathered during our review. These conclusions are subject to the limitations presented in Section 2.5 and may change if additional information becomes available. Wallace Group performed this Phase I ESA of the subject site in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13. 8.1 FINDINGS 8.1.1 Site History There are no listed sales of the property which has been owned by Deschutes County for its recorded history. A review of property records and a site visit showed no current or historical development of the property. Based on our historical review, there does not appear to have been any regulatory cleanup or environmental enforcement actions associated with the site. 8.1.2 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC) A CREC is a controlled REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that remains in -place subject to the implementation of required controls and is addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency. Based on Wallace Group's evaluation for this Phase I ESA, no CRECs were identified with respect to the subject site. 8.1.3 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) A HREC is a historical REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that remains in -place and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency without implementing controls. Based on Wallace Group's evaluation for this Phase I ESA, no HRECs were identified with respect to the subject site. 8.1.4 Federal and State Agency Records Wallace Group conducted a regulatory -database search for the subject property and surrounding areas within the various search radii specified by ASTM standards. There were 19 surrounding properties identified within the ASTM search parameters; the properties are listed on multiple state agency databases as having documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products, undertaken or completed environmental remediation, storing or TWG20R025 Page 25 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 181h St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com using hazardous materials and/or petroleum products during day-to-day operations, and maintaining environmental permits and/or registration for business purposes. Based on the proximity of the listed properties to the site, the available regulatory information reviewed, the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions underlying the area, investigative actions taken, and the cleanup activities and regulatory oversight (where applicable) conducted to -date, the listed nearby sites do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the subject property at this time. 8.1.5 On -site Chemical Storage Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site chemical storage. Based on these observations, on -site chemical storage does not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. 8.1.6 Storage Tanks (ASTs and USTs) There was no surface evidence to suggest the presence of ASTs or USTs at the site. Based on these observations, ASTs and USTs do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. 8.1.7 Wells, Septic Systems, Storm water and Wastewater Discharge Wallace Group personnel did not observe on -site wells, septic systems, stormwater or industrial wastewater discharge features during our site visit. Based on these observations, wells, septic systems, stormwater and wastewater discharge do not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. 8.1.8 Solid Waste Disposal Wallace Group personnel observed on -site solid waste disposal that appeared de minimis. Based on these findings, on -site solid waste disposal does not appear to represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. 8.1.9 ACMs There were no on -site structural improvements at the time of our site visit. Based on these observations, ACMs do not appear to be present at the site, and do not represent a REC with respect to the site at this time. TWG20RO25 Page 26 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 1811 St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 8.1.10 PCBs Wallace Group did not observe pole or pad -mounted transformers on the subject site. Based on these observations, it does not appear that PCBs represent the potential for a REC with respect to the subject property. 8.1.11 Vapor Intrusion The Deschutes County project site falls within the U.S. EPA Zone 3 designation for Radon levels. This designation correlates to a predicted average indoor radon screening level of less than 2 pCi/L, which is below the U.S. EPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Based on the historical information regarding site and adjacent land use, and the geologic conditions underlying the site (shallow basalt bedrock with regional groundwater depths exceeding 250 feet bgs), there does not appear to be a risk to human health or the environment because of hazardous radon and vapor intrusion onto the site at this time. 8.1.12 Lead -Based Paint Based on the structurally undeveloped nature of the site, lead paint does not appear to represent a REC at the site. 8.1.13 Residual Pesticide and/or Herbicide Based on historical information reviewed for this assessment, the site has never been structurally or agriculturally developed. There is no information to indicate that pesticides or herbicides have been used at the site. As such, residual pesticides and/or herbicides do not appear to represent a potential REC at the site. 8.2 DEVIATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES There were no deviations, deletions, or additional services to the originally authorized Phase I ESA scope of services between the Client and Wallace Group. 8.3 CONCLUSIONS We have performed this Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13, for the 40-acre parcel, located at the northwest corner of NE 17th Street and NE Kingwood Avenue in Redmond, Oregon. The site is currently owned by Deschutes County. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described above in Section 8.2 above. The findings of this environmental assessment did not disclose the presence of potential or RECs regarding soil and groundwater, or the transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons at the subject site. Based on these findings, Wallace TWG20RO25 Page 27 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com Group does not recommend additional environmental assessment or remedial activities with respect to the site at this time. 8.4 DATA GAPS Wallace Group was not able to contact previous site owners at the time this report was prepared to obtain information regarding site use and/or history prior to the current owner. This data gap is not considered to be significant and is unlikely to affect or change the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.3 of this report. TWG20R025 Page 28 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NC 18t' St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 9,0 REFERENCES Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL), n.d. Summary forAccount #150551. Retrieved April 9, 2020, from https://dial.deschutes.org/Real/"`Index/`150551. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), April 10, 2020. Aerial Photo Decade Package, Deschutes County 40-Acre Parcel, NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kingwood Ave., Redmond, OR 97756. Inquiry No. 6037269.3. EDR, April 9, 2020. Certified Sanborn Map Report, Deschutes County 40-Acre Parcel, NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kingwood Ave., Redmond, OR 97756. Inquiry No. 6037269.1. EDR, April 9, 2020. First Report, Deschutes County 40-Acre Parcel, NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kingwood Ave., Redmond, OR 97756. Inquiry No. 6037269.4s. Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001, Ground -water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4162, 77p. Sherrod, David R., Taylor, Edward M., Ferns, Mark L., Scott, William E., Conrey, Richard M., and Smith, Gary A., 2004, Geologic Map of the Bend 30- x 60-Minute Quadrangle, Central Oregon. United States Geological Survey. United States Geological Survey, 1962 (photo revised 1975), Redmond Quadrangle, Deschutes County, Oregon (7.5-minute series -topographic). TWG20RO25 Page 29 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 181" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com This report has been authored and reviewed by the undersigned. This report is void if the original seal(s) and signature(s) are not included. Stephen M. Woodward, R.G. Staff Geologist _,ate GOON CoeAIR 4XI CEOL Shane M. Cochran, R.G. Project Geologist TWG20R025 Page 30 of 30 April 30, 2020 62915 NE 18t" St, Ste 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com wallaceGROUP central oregon's � geosystem experts FIGURES L oe M qr— 0 (D F- Z �u CD 0:2 UC14 V) < LU w 6 0 z U_ LU U2 co z 12 LU:E NZ U < z 0 < < w 0, u E: w w W _j > 0 w w 0 a. < 0 IL 0 4 w IL Z CD w Z 0 2Z Z —:3 > U) Lu 7 'A ui LU Z U. NO LLJ Ili 11- JN 'A 0 a) !x V) it—b" VNI V", 41 IWI M-N < V14 0 oc io, "M4 Y" to Z 0.<--o 02 < Alt" o r O-CH I < < !�2 5 z LD 0 0 IAN _Z z < L,:E �� z ,<v o uo� zoo Vt4 4 0�_ c(D;E QCZo¢wzuo u Zwu < < 7 117: liil� IAN _�=_ . u u 2u W< u View looking south along dirt -drive path, showing typical site terrain. View looking west along NE Kingwood Avenue from the south edge of the subject site. wallaceGROUP central oregon's geosystern experts SITE PHOTOGRAPHS DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17TH ST. & NE KINGWOOD AVE. REDMOND, OREGON PROJECT No.: 11314 (1) 1 FIGURE DRAWN: April 17, 2020 DRAWN BY: DTJ CHECKED BY: SMW FILE NAME: 11314 (1)_FIGURE_3a.DWG Looking west along NE Maple Avenue and the north site boundary. Typical drive path with boulders placed to block vehicular access to the property. centrat oregon's geosystem experts SITE PHOTOGRAPHS DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17TH ST. & NE KINGWOOD AVE. REDMOND, OREGON PROJECT No.: 11314 (1) I FIGURE DRAWN: April 17, 2020 DRAWN BY: DTJ � CHECKED BY: SMW . ) FILE NAME: 11314 (1)_FIGURE_3b.DWG Basalt outcrop and rolling terrain typical of the site. Discarded tires present in the center of the site. wal[aceGROUP central oregon's geosystern experts SITE PHOTOGRAPHS DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17TH ST. & NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OREGON PROJECT No.: 11314 (1) FIGURE DRAWN: April 17, 2020 DRAWN BY: DTJ ^ CHECKED BY: SMW 3SJ FILE NAME: 11314 (1)_FIGURE_3c.DWG Wood debris located in the southeast corner of the site. Plastic and concrete debris located in the southeast corner of the site. wa% a c GROUP central oregon`s geosystem experts SITE PHOTOGRAPHS DESCHUTES COUNTY 40-ACRE PARCEL NW OF NE 17TH ST. & NE KINGWOOD AVE. REDMOND, OREGON PROJECT No.: 11314 (1) FIGURE DRAWN: April 17, 2020 DRAWN BY: DTJ CHECKED BY: sMW 3d FILE NAME: 11314 (1)_FIGURE_3d.DWG wallaceGROUP central Oregon's g€Osystem experts Uj 0 0 SwAmomm mwil 1E)csc hutcis Coun- y 0-.c re Pam NV\1 of t F-'- 1 LI-i St and N K� ri gv\tood Ave E�c��� rnol d, 01 9.77 5 �rqu ry Nt.jrnber 6037269. s AprH 09, 2020 ,y A Sl i �` i Elil ._ 1 t 2 Tl `1, § C a t s b a e, s Table of Contents This report includes a search of reasonably available environmental records to assist the professional in compliance with Section 8.2.1 Standard Federal, State, and Tribal Environmental Record Source of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (El 527-13). Additional environmental records sources may be available for your property. Target Site: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Site Location Degrees (Decimal) Degrees (Min/Sec) UTMs Longitude: 121.151411 121.1514110 - 121 ` 9' 5.07" Easting: 647491.7 Latitude: 44.289373 44.2893730 - 44` 17' 21.74" Northing: 4905459.0 Elevation: 3026 ft. above sea level Zone: Zone 10 SECTION PAGE SearchSummary--------------------------------------------------------- ES-1 Sites Sorted by Distance--------------------------------------------------- ES-3 Sites Sorted by Database--------------------------------------------------- ES-4 1 Mile Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0.25 Mile Map------------------------------------------------------------ 3 Mapped Sites Summary---------------------------------------------------- 4 Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------- OR-1 Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking------------------------------------- GR-1 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map------------------------------------------- TM-1 Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc., as described herein. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. EDR First Report I G6032159AS rage i Search Summary TARGET SITE: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Category Database Update Radius Site 1/8 1/4 1/2 > 1/2 Orphan TOTALS Federal NPL site list NPL Proposed NPL NPL LIENS Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL 01/30/2020 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01/30/2020 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/15/1991 TP 0 - 0 0 01/30/2020 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal CERCLIS list FEDERAL FACILITY 04/03/2019 0.500 0 0 SEMS 01/30/2020 0.500 0 0 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list SEMS-ARCHIVE 01/30/2020 0.500 0 0 Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS 12/16/2019 1.000 0 0 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF 12/16/2019 0.500 0 0 Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG 12/16/2019 0.250 0 0 RCRA-SQG 12/16/2019 0.250 0 0 RCRA-VSQG 12/16/2019 0.250 0 0 Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries LUCIS 11/04/2019 0.500 0 0 US ENG CONTROLS 11/22/2019 0.500 0 0 US INST CONTROLS 11/22/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal ERNS list ERNS 12/16/2019 TP 0 - 0 0 State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS C RL 11 /01 /2019 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ECSI 12/01/2019 1.000 0 0 0 1 15 0 16 State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF 10/18/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Search Summary TARGET SITE: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Category Database Update Radius Site 1/8 114 1/2 > 1/2 Orphan TOTALS I State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST 10/01/2019 0.500 0 0 0 1 2 3 INDIAN LUST 10/01/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 State and tribal registered storage tank lists FEMA UST 08/27/2019 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 UST 10/01/2019 0.250 0 1 0 1 2 AST 11 /05/2019 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 INDIAN UST 10/01/2019 0.250 0 0 0 0 0 State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries ENG CONTROLS 12/01/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 INST CONTROL 12/01/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP 07/27/2015 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 VCP 12/24/2019 0.500 0 0 0 0 0 0 State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS 11/01/2019 0.500 0 0 0 1 0 1 - Totals -- 0 1 0 3 15 3 22 EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Sites Sorted by Distance TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Click on Map ID to see full detail. MAP RELATIVE DIST A mi.) ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION 1 JIM & LINDA WILSON 1686 NE NEGUS WAY UST Lower 482, 0.091, Nord 2 REDMOND OPPORTUNITY NE ANTLER AVE. & 11T ECSI, BROWNFIELDS Higher 1826, 0.346, SOL 3 REDMOND VETERINARY C 1785 NE 6TH ST LUST Lower 2575, 0.488, WN 4 NEGUS LANDFILL 15S/13E/S11 ECSI Higher 2870, 0.544, EaE 5 9TH ST. & HEMLOCK AV 580 NE HEMLOCK AVE. ECSI Lower 2928, 0.555, WS 6 DAW/CROWN PACIFIC MI E ANTLER AVE. ECSI Lower 3528, 0.668, SW 7 DESERT RISE OPPORTUN ANTLER AVE (EAST END ECSI Higher 3547, 0.672, SOL 8 ODOT - HIGH COUNTRY 124 NE HEMLOCK AVE. ECSI Lower 4036, 0.764, WS 9 BNRR - REDMOND RIGHT ANTLER AVE. & RR TRA ECSI Lower 4876, 0.923, SW 10 SCHNEIDER'S AUTO WRE 906 NW 6TH ST. ECSI Lower 4904, 0.929, We 11 ODOT - EA MOORE SITE 402 NW CANAL BLVD. ECSI Lower 5023, 0.951, SW 12 PONDEROSA MOULDINGS 423 E ANTLER AVE ECSI Lower 5047, 0,956, SW 13 HUMBLE OIL BULK PLAN 515 NW KINGWOOD AVE ECSI Lower 5084, 0.963, We A14 ANTLER AVE. AREA GRO ANTLER AVE. & RAILRO ECSI Lower 5132, 0.972, SW A15 OVERALL PETROLEUM BU E ANTLER AVE. & NE R ECSI Lower 5169, 0.979, SW 16 UNOCAL BULK PLANT (F 260 NE CANAL BLVD. ECSI Lower 5214, 0,988, SW 17 PAPE BROS. (FORMER) 838 NW 5TH ST ECSI Lower 5240, 0.992, WS A18 JUNIPER FUEL, INC. 213 E ANTLER AVE ECSI Lower 5260, 0.996, SW EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Sites Sorted by Database TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ECSI: Environmental Cleanup Site Information System Site Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page REDMOND OPPORTUNITY NE ANTLER AVE. & 11T S (0.346 mi. / 1826 ft.) 2 4 State ID Number: 4304 Size: 113 acres Investigation: No Further Action NEGUS LANDFILL 15S/13E/S11 E (0.544 mi. / 2870 ft.) 4 5 State ID Number: 5573 Investigation: Suspect 9TH ST. & HEMLOCK AV 580 NE HEMLOCK AVE. WSW (0.555 mi. / 2928 ft.) 5 5 State ID Number: 4394 Size: 2.99 acres Investigation: No Further Action DAW/CROWN PACIFIC MI E ANTLER AVE. SW (0.668 mi. / 3528 ft) 6 6 State ID Number: 1999 Size: 70 acres H Investigation: No Further Action DESERT RISE OPPORTUN ANTLER AVE (EAST END S (0.672 mi. / 3547 ft.) 7 6 State ID Number: 5622 Size: 10 acres Investigation: No Further Action ODOT - HIGH COUNTRY 124 NE HEMLOCK AVE. WSW (0.764 mi. / 4036 ft.) 8 7 State ID Number: 5060 Size: 2.48 acres Investigation: No Further Action BNRR - REDMOND RIGHT ANTLER AVE. & RR TRA SW (0.923 mi. / 4876 ft.) 9 7 State ID Number: 3142 Investigation: Suspect SCHNEIDER'S AUTO WIRE 906 NW 6TH ST. W (0.929 mi. / 4904 ft.) 10 8 State ID Number: 5007 Size: 2.26 acres Investigation: Suspect ODOT - EA MOORE SITE 402 NW CANAL BLVD. SW (0.951 mi. / 5023 ft.) 11 8 State ID Number: 4169 Size: 2.2 acres Investigation: Suspect PONDEROSA MOULDINGS 423 E ANTLER AVE SW (0.956 mi. / 5047 ft.) 12 9 State ID Number: 2876 Investigation: Suspect EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 Sites Sorted by Database Site HUMBLE OIL BULK PLAN State ID Number: 4640 Decode For Further Action: Medium Size: 1.13 acres Investigation: Suspect ANTLER AVE. AREA GRO State ID Number: 3156 Decode For Further Action: Medium Investigation: Suspect OVERALL PETROLEUM BU State ID Number: 3026 Investigation: Suspect UNOCAL BULK PLANT (F State ID Number: 3817 Investigation: No Further Action PAPE BROS. (FORMER) State ID Number: 4611 Size: 3.78 acres Investigation: Suspect JUNIPER FUEL, INC. State ID Number: 3025 Investigation: Suspect Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page 515 NW KINGWOOD AVE W (0.963 mi. / 5084 ft.) 13 9 ANTLER AVE. & RAILRO SW (0.972 mi. / 5132 ft.) A14 10 E ANTLER AVE. & NE R 260 NE CANAL BLVD. 838 NW 5TH ST 213 E ANTLER AVE State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Site Address REDMOND VETERINARY C 1785 NE 6TH ST Facility ID: 09-93-0056 Cleanup Complete: 10/30/2000 State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST: Underground Storage Tank Database Site JIM & LINDA WILSON Facility ID: 6673 Address 1686 NE NEGUS WAY SW (0.979 mi. / 5169 ft.) A15 11 SW (0.988 mi. / 5214 ft.) 16 11 WSW (0.992 mi. / 5240 ft.) 17 11 SW (0.996 mi. / 5260 ft.) A18 12 Direction / Distance Map ID Page WNW (0.488 mi. / 2575 ft.) 3 5 Direction / Distance Map ID Page N (0.091 mi. / 482 ft.) 1 4 EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Sites Sorted by Database State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Site Address REDMOND OPPORTUNITY NE ANTLER AVE. & 11 T Status: NO FURTHER STATE ACTION REQUIRED envid: 4304 Direction / Distance S (0.346 mi. / 1826 ft.) Map ID Page 2 4 EDR First Report TC6037269.4s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 1.00 Mile Map NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Black Rings Represent Qtr. Mile Radius * Target Property (Latitude: 44.289373 Longitude: 121.151411) ® High or Equal Elevation Sites • Low Elevation Sites National Priority List Sites EDR First Report EDR Reference Code IEDR Internal use onivl: 6037269.49 0.250 Mile Map NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Black Rings Represent Qtr. Mile Radius * Target Property (Latitude: 44.289373 Longitude: 121.151411) ® High or Equal Elevation Sites • Low Elevation Sites National Priority List Sites EDR First Report EDR Reference Code (EDR internal use only): 6037269.4s Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 UST EDR ID: 0000438110 DIST/DIR: 0.091 North ELEVATION: 3012 MAP ID: 1 NAME: JIM & LINDA WILSON ADDRESS: 1686 NE NEGUS WAY REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details UST Facility ID: 6673 ECSI, BROWNFIELDS EDR ID: S106780213 DIST/DIR: 0.346 South ELEVATION: 3045 MAP ID: 2 NAME: REDMOND OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS: NE ANTLER AVE. & 11T REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI Size: 113 acres State ID Number: 4304 Investigation: No Further Action BROWNFIELDS envid: 4304 Status: NO FURTHER STATE ACTION REQUIRED EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 4 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 LUST EDR ID: 0000438126 DIST/DIR: 0.488 WNW ELEVATION: 2994 MAP ID: 3 NAME: REDMOND VETERINARY C ADDRESS: 1785 NE 6TH ST REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details LUST Facility ID: 09-93-0056 Cleanup Complete: 10/30/2000 ECSI EDR ID: S111005943 DIST/DIR: 0.544 East ELEVATION: 3035 MAP ID: 4 NAME: NEGUS LANDFILL ADDRESS: 15S/13E/S11 REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI State ID Number: 5573 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S106980945 DIST/DIR: 0.555 WSW ELEVATION: 2994 MAP ID: 5 NAME: 9TH ST. & HEMLOCK AV ADDRESS: 580 NE HEMLOCK AVE. REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 5 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S106980945 DIST/DIR: 0.555 WSW ELEVATION: 2994 MAP ID: 5 NAME: 9TH ST. & HEMLOCK AV ADDRESS: 580 NE HEMLOCK AVE. REDMOND, OR 97756 Size: 2.99 acres State ID Number: 4394 Investigation: No Further Action ECSI EDR ID: S103842887 DIST/DIR: 0.668 SW ELEVATION: 3004 MAP ID: 6 NAME: DAW/CROWN PACIFIC MI ADDRESS: E ANTLER AVE. REDMOND, OR 97756 DESCHUTES Click here for full text details ECSI Size: 70 acres (-) State ID Number: 1999 Investigation: No Further Action ECSI EDR ID: S111286588 DIST/DIR: 0.672 South ELEVATION: 3054 MAP ID: 7 NAME: DESERT RISE OPPORTUN ADDRESS: ANTLER AVE (EAST END REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 6 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S111286588 DIST/DIR: 0.672 South ELEVATION: 3054 MAP ID: 7 NAME: DESERT RISE OPPORTUN ADDRESS: ANTLER AVE (EAST END REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI Size: 10 acres State ID Number: 5622 Investigation: No Further Action ECSI EDR ID: S109346116 DIST/DIR: 0.764 WSW ELEVATION: 2989 MAP ID: 8 NAME: ODOT - HIGH COUNTRY ADDRESS: 124 NE HEMLOCK AVE. REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI Size: 2.48 acres State ID Number: 5060 Investigation: No Further Action ECSI EDR ID: S106115130 DIST/DIR: 0.923 SW ELEVATION: 2998 MAP ID: 9 NAME: BNRR - REDMOND RIGHT ADDRESS: ANTLER AVE. & RR TRA REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 7 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S106115130 DIST/DIR: 0.923 SW ELEVATION: 2998 MAP ID: 9 NAME: BNRR - REDMOND RIGHT ADDRESS: ANTLER AVE. & RR TRA REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI State ID Number: 3142 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S109051844 DIST/DIR: 0.929 West ELEVATION: 2986 MAP ID: 10 NAME: SCHNEIDER'S AUTO WIRE ADDRESS: 906 NW 6TH ST. REDMOND, OR 97756 DESCHUTES Click here for full text details ECSI Size: 2.26 acres State ID Number: 5007 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S106497258 DIST/DIR: 0.951 SW ELEVATION: 2991 MAP ID: 11 NAME: ODOT - EA MOORE SITE ADDRESS: 402 NW CANAL BLVD. REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 8 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S106497258 DIST/DIR: 0.951 SW ELEVATION: 2991 MAP ID: 11 NAME: ODOT - EA MOORE SITE ADDRESS: 402 NW CANAL BLVD. REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI Size: 2.2 acres State ID Number: 4169 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S119161975 DIST/DIR: 0.956 SW ELEVATION: 2999 MAP ID: 12 NAME: PONDEROSA MOULDINGS ADDRESS: 423 E ANTLER AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI State ID Number: 2876 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S108010616 DIST/DIR: 0.963 West ELEVATION: 2984 MAP ID: 13 NAME: HUMBLE OIL BULK PLAN ADDRESS: 515 NW KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 9 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S108010616 DIST/DIR: 0.963 West ELEVATION: 2984 MAP ID: 13 NAME: HUMBLE OIL BULK PLAN ADDRESS: 515 NW KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI Decode For Further Action: Medium Size: 1.13 acres State ID Number: 4640 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S105614559 DIST/DIR: 0.972 SW ELEVATION: 2996 MAP ID: Al NAME: ANTLER AVE. AREA GRO ADDRESS: ANTLER AVE. & RAILRO REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI Decode For Further Action: Medium State ID Number: 3156 Investigation: Suspect EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 10 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S106236622 DIST/DIR: 0.979 SW ELEVATION: 2997 MAP ID: A15 NAME: OVERALL PETROLEUM BU ADDRESS: E ANTLER AVE. & NE R REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI State ID Number: 3026 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S106778135 DIST/DIR: 0.988 SW ELEVATION: 2992 MAP ID: 16 NAME: UNOCAL BULK PLANT (F ADDRESS: 260 NE CANAL BLVD. REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI State ID Number: 3817 Investigation: No Further Action ECSI EDR ID: S107692415 DIST/DIR: 0.992 WSW ELEVATION: 2986 MAP ID: 17 NAME: PAPE BROS. (FORMER) ADDRESS: 838 NW 5TH ST REDMOND, OR 97756 Click here for full text details ECSI - Continued on next page - EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Pagel 1 Mapped Sites Summary Target Property: NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ECSI EDR ID: S107692415 DIST/DIR: 0.992 WSW ELEVATION: 2986 MAP ID: 17 NAME: PAPE BROS. (FORMER) ADDRESS: 838 NW 5TH ST REDMOND, OR 97756 Size: 3.78 acres State ID Number: 4611 Investigation: Suspect ECSI EDR ID: S104330500 DIST/DIR: 0.996 SW ELEVATION: 2996 MAP ID: A18 NAME: JUNIPER FUEL, INC. ADDRESS: 213 E ANTLER AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 DESCHUTES Click here for full text details ECSI State ID Number: 3025 Investigation: Suspect EDR First Report TC6037269.4s Page 12 71 f0 p 0_ N m N E N z _N V7 1" F- V) D F-:F- V7 V) Z3 _1 J cD ID N N n n n n rn rn m 00 u U U W O u)V) w z 0 U 0 U U K Q X U W w J p W z VI 0 I- 0 W p x W U ()� if O Q � O O Q' � ❑ O z Z N p ❑ a = w w � U U 0_ Of W 0 Z 1 V Q H z V F- Q W V Lf W N V 66 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r- N N N N N N M Le) Lo N V' M cD V a' R C -• O V• V�� 'a a' a' C' C' 00 O O OD D LO N N LO LO LO L N N `- �- M M= O O N N N O N O O �- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a- N `- N N z O O N N N N O N N M M M N V d• N M M M V M �' M r N M C• N N M 00 V a' M M M M a' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O E; E; O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O OOOOOOOOOOn CA000)Cn Cfr O OO O O O O O o 000000 OCD a00 D)O d rj- 100 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N O C\J N N -N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a- N N N N N N N cD to co V a• C �- O N a• w C)cD V O c- 0 0 0 0 0 0 a• r• O O o o O O v r 8 m 00 �4 4 O d• v O O O O C Z Z 0 0 0- N E O N � N �- O c- O � � � a- �- � ` N ZZ Z Z Z c- !- N` z N N z M z '- N N N N M M M M O M O N N M -- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NLo o N M N N N N N N N 00000000� OOO �-000� � OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO�-0000� ��-�O rn rn _rn O O o rn O rn rn O �_ _rn O _rn _rn oo rn _rn rn _rn _rn rn rn _rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn _rn o rn rn O v O O _rn _rn _rn rn O N N N N N N O N D) N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOON O�O�OON OO OOOO 00000`O ONNNN N NNNN MN N NNNNN NNOZ `NON N N NNN 'V•adO� Or` �M �M N N N . rM NN to i- W �' V' VrV' aMN O N O N N N N "4' "• 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N mI O N N N N N N N N N O 0 0 '- O 0 0 O r- �- �- �- �- ''- �- 0 0 �- c-- O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O an 2 22 O O 01 O 00 O--00 O W O O O O) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ZZ N N N N N N N LO cD 00 V c0 O c0 M N r• o N Cn M Vt �- O CV M V' r O V cD O Cn O O CO c0 c0 (D O O O OO OO OO O O O M z M z OO N O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N N O O M M` z z z M N N O N O O N N N N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O N N N co 0 C 0 a a a a a a a a U C C C C C C C C T m m m m m m m m - J C C C C C C C C .2 0 N N m Cu m m m m m m a) m m o o p p o o=o=oaaaaaaaa o T= C C c c c c c S C C C c c C c c E cn (n N m E ---- m m m m m m m m a) d C C C C C C C C J J J J J J J J 0 o V1 p U V m n O O O O O O O O C C C C C C C C O O T `,Y N m T n n n v w m m m m m m m m E p (n p m(yJ w Y M N YYYYYYYY-0 'C7 "o a'O'O •O 'O a) N C E _ C -0 C V) 07 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N �_ O m c io m N C m m m m m m m m m m O o C a) > a m~ C u :te C • F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- C C C C C C C C .r- S N E (n N Co m c a) E C C m a m •- m V1 m 0 m m m a) a) () 0 0 O O O O O O O O �n (n ,(D m N m i� a) V) a rn J C '� J Q) O) O) O) O) 0) 01 Q7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J J O T m J a) m Y a y (O O Y (` 2 2 (` (` m (O ca m minoo0CNmME mo ��o2S---`oommmmmmm(CoA-- (na.yUC9mCm F- � aL M min F- o n o a) z C in in in in in in in in F- F- �- F- F- o .o E - C m $ Y o � 21 m O a m V( a) T O- 0 m CO m a a a a a a a a m a) 0 () 0 0 0 a) ' �O m N-0 'C - a� n J C^ a c c a) 0) d cn m In J o) c C C C C C C C C> o) 0) m 0) o) o) on a d C 0 � (n n� � (n C7 (n (� V 0 m O- p E m 11 m J p m C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (t9 l` (L (O m m (` (6 d Q- v J a C m co m C m Q M C m• O C C C C-N O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O (n U O p E c co N m .0 � Y a N o) o) 0 T o) `o) 0 o)in in in in N in in in m m = � .y C a .� � � E (n 2 C d .o m m m m o mm?O do o0)Um0LLC°d ''00 '00 70'p Cm '0 U Q C C C G G C 0 0 W -o m c 000 m y 000 T mp _J fn F- >0 E'=�_� _Z!,E o N mm'mmoo`)o)o)o)oo= Nm om mucmmmcme ¢¢¢ ¢ 0 ¢ om Ym-0-0a-0oa mco a-o -oc ¢ M U W W J (L V) => 0] U Z W LL LL = J J -1 _1 J J J J=_______>> J Z LL d d m d' d' C' fn r F-_ 0 (n JJ J ������ Ov(n c0 i-00M r OJ 0 ===0' w = M N J a ¢ F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- d LL (j (nJ LF- CLL (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- d d 0 LL Z Z U Z J O N J J J J J J J .J =_______>> Z a Or CY 0 O' ¢ 0) � z= Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w um J N 1- > z O x 9 cn W Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ N w J o ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ (n F-OJinc9N�¢�v~iU�O ��=w=wwo00000000000000000�zaa� �UUUUw (n�iyUZ =LL ¢ M U W W Z J d (n => CO U 0 W LL LL LL Z Z Z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z J 2 z z a d O O O O O O O O O O O = = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = = _ _ _ _ _ = = = _ _ = = = _ _ C a F- t c c CL LL c LL O n n 0 0 N N N O O O O O N N N N N N t0 (O O O O N N N N T 01) 01) N N 00000 O i— n O O N N N 0 0 0 0 0 ` = N N N V Cl)M 00 00 zz O `O N \ N N N — 0 0 0 0 0 O to to m to N O O O O O _ Z! Z! Z!N Z!U to to to N N O N N ` Z!=3 O .Q N O O O — d N YO y c0 O O O Q L N _� _O N O O O O O L N N O E N N N N N N N N N T E N O O O O U O O O N N Lo 4 � O O O U N S N � � a co—c m d N V > (n d� N U O CL f O Q Z h E ti _ Z a) (a N c0 Co C >, s (�! (n i O ccQ T G � N c0 ~ m J J N 2' N N N cN (n 'Cl o 10 C) m E O p N NE N O C L T� c � 5, U U cm m— 'O O } .c" C Q C N Y O" 2 c0 0 N LL N N Z N to Q o- m 0 W a(n zcua) O y 3 J J 75 O O O °� t= to w 0� X cj� z Z Q w N — w Z 0 U Q OU u oN 2 QV)L/)UN N OO Z g¢¢wz W (n (n (n (n N D =) M Z) (n (n (n (n (n > > =) :D :D V C cc a v a C\ cl c cc N t c c LL c LL USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map NW OF NE 17TH ST. AND NE KINGWOOD AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 NE KIP NE REDWOOD AVE 03 NE'MAPLE NE KIN'rWOOD AVE LU 00 NE HEMLOCK AVE LU AVE E ANTLER-AVE-1-1 Map Image Position: TP Map Reference Code & Name: 6067500 Redmond Map State(s): OR Version Date: 2014 30()o im Is EDR First Report EDR Reference Code (EDR Internal use only): 6037269.4s wattaceGROUP central oi egon's geosystern experts Deschutes County 40-Acre Parcel NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kingwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 Inquiry Number: 6037269.1 April 09, 2020 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor ( Shelton, CT 06484 rEDR Toll Free-, 800,352.0050 www.edrnet.com Certified Sanborn® Map Report Site Name: Deschutes County 40-Acre Par NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kin( Redmond, OR 97756 EDR Inquiry # 6037269.1 Client Name: The Wallace Group 62915 NE 18th Street Bend, OR 97701 Contact: Shane Cochran 04/09/20 , C--,EDW' The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by The Wallace Group were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn. The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. Certified Sanborn Results: Certification # DC10-48D9-8D37 PO # 113141 Project COR ESA` UNMAPPED PROPERTY This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. Limited Permission To Make Copies Sanborn® Library search results Certification #: DC10-48D9-8D37 The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track historical property usage in approximately 12,000 American cities and towns. Collections searched: if"' Library of Congress University Publications of America EDR Private Collection The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866— The Wallace Group (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 6037269 - 1 pace 2 Deschutes County 40-Acre Parcel NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kingwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 Inquiry Number: 6037269.3 April 10, 2020 6 Armstrong Load, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 « Tall Free: 800.352_.0050 (rEDRvvvvvv.edrnet.corn EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 04/10/20 Site Name: Client Name: Deschutes County 40-Acre Par NW of NE 17th St. and NE Kin( Redmond, OR 97756 EDR Inquiry # 6037269.3 The Wallace Group 62915 NE 18th Street Bend, OR 97701 Contact: Shane Cochran Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details 2016 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2016 2012 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2012 2009 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2009 2006 1 "=500' Flight Year: 2006 1994 1 "=500' Acquisition Date: May 08, 1994 1982 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 29, 1982 1980 1 "=500' Flight Date: August 02, 1980 1973 1 "=500' Flight Date: June 28, 1973 1953 1 "=500' Flight Date: September 17, 1953 1951 1 "=500' Flight Date: July 28, 1951 1938 1 "=500' Flight Date: June 03, 1938 Source USDA/NAI P USDA/NAI P USDA/NAIP USDA/NAI P USGS/DOQQ USDA USGS USGS USGS USDA USDA When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE, ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 6037269 - 3 page 2 3 INQUIRY #: 6037269.3 YEAR: 2012m„ ., = 500, E®R 21 „•'Oe 4 f' �h 4 y 11 CA+ F J a. 3 � S } A' wallaceGROUP central oregon's geosystern experts F-MAZOIN I Im wat[aceGROUP central oregon s posystem experts USER QUESTIONNAIRE PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Compatible with ASTM Standard E-1527-13 The Wallace Group, Inc. 62915 NE 18th Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 541.382.4707, fax 541.383.8118 Only the client ("user") needs to respond to the following questions: User Name: City of Redmond Date: 4/1/20 Site Address: East end of Kingwood - 40 acres Redmond, Oregon 97756 1. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the property that are filed or recorded underfederal, tribal, state, or local law? No, none exist. 2. Are you aware of any Activity and Use Limitations (AULs), such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the site and/or have been filed or recordedina registry underfederal, tribal, state, or local law? No, none exist. 3. As the user of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? No. 4. Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair marketvalue of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, haveyou considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? Property os a donation. Page 1 of 2 62915 NE 18t" Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 5. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example, as user: • Do you know the past uses of the property? Vacant, non -farmed. • Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the property? Unknown • Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? None • Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? None 6. As the user of this Phase 1 ESA, based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property? Unknown, likely none. Page 2 of 2 62915 NE 18th Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com wallaceGROUP central ofepti's pe0� ystem experts OWNER/OCCUPANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Compatible with ASTM Standard E-1527-13 The Wallace Group, Inc. 62915 NE 1811 Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 382-4707, fax (541) 383-8118 Site Name: No situs address; located north of SW Hwy 126, east of NE Negus Way and NE 17th Site Address: Street; west of property owned by the US known as Map/TaxLot 1513000000100 Site Tax Lot #(s): Portion of 1513000000103 Note: This questionnaire can cover multiple parcels if the answers below are specific to the parcel in question. Date: Interviewer(s): Interviewee: Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager and Agent for Deschutes County Interviewee Phone #: 503-385-1414 Site Association: N/A Years Associated: Current Owner: Deschutes County Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. I. Was the property or adjoining property ever used for industrial purposes (e.g. manufacturing) or as a gas station, dry cleaners, waste treatment, processing facility, motor repair facility, photo lab, commercial printing facility, junkyard/disposal/recycling/ landfill? If yes, please list the activity, hazardous substances used, and approximate dates when the activity occurred. No Page 1 of 8 62915 NE 181" Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com Prior Land Use, Hazardous Substances Used, and Dates: —None known. Prior Owners and Dates regardless of previous land use: Existing or prior structures used for what purposes and duration: None known. 2. Do any of the following documents exist for the site or any portion of the site? If so, can you provide Wallace Group with a copy? None known. ❑ Environmental site assessment reports ❑ Environmental compliance audit reports ❑ Environmental permits ❑ Underground Storage Tank registration ❑ Underground Injection System registration ❑ Material Safety Data Sheets ❑ Community Right -To -Know Plan ❑ Safety plans: preparedness and prevention plans; spill prevention; countermeasure; and control plans, etc. ❑ Reports regarding hydrogeologic conditions on the property or surrounding area; ❑ Correspondence from any government agency relating to past or current violations of environmental laws regarding the property or relating to environmental liens encumbering the property ❑ Hazardous waste generator notices or reports ❑ Geotechnical studies ❑ Risk assessments ❑ Recorded Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) Page 2 of 8 62915 NE 18th Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1 541,383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 3. Have you ever observed evidence of or do you have prior knowledge of any of the following items being used, stored, discarded, dumped above grade, buried, or burned onsite? Circle all that apply and indicate amount and approximate dates. MATERIAL QUANTITY DATE(S) OBSERVED COMMENTS Above ground storage Size: tank (AST)* Contents: Condition: Automotive batteries None known Industrial batteries None known Pesticides (>5 gallon) Paints (> 5 gallon) None known Chemicals/Hazardous Substances (> 5-gallon None known liquid) Chemicals/Hazardous Substances (dry sacks, None known containers, etc.) Industrial drums Contents: (typically 55 gallons) Condition: Transformer or other Installation date: equipment that may None known contain PCBs (e.g. hydraulic equipment) Underground storage Size: tank* None known Contents: Condition: Unknown materials you Describe: suspect may be None known hazardous substances *Please provide records if available. 4. What method(s) is used to contain spills of hazardous waste? 5. What method(s) is used to dispose of hazardous waste? _None known. 6. Are there any permits for handling, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste? N/A Page 3 of 8 62915 NE 18th Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 7. Have you observed evidence of, or have prior knowledge of, the following onsite? MATERIAL QUANTITY DATE(S) OBSERVED COMMENTS Equipment Maintenance Areas Accidental spills or releases of chemicals or None known petroleum products Possible asbestos Describe material: containing materials None known (e.g. pipe, building, etc.) Fill dirt originating from Source: an unknown or contaminated site? Pits, ponds, or lagoons Location: associated with waste None known treatment or waste disposal? Stained soil or odiferous Location: soil? (e.g. oily black) Sumps or dry wells* Purpose: Size: Underground Injection None known Contents: Control (UIC) Condition: DEQ UIC registration #: Vent pipes, fill pipes, Location: access ways to a fill pipe protruding from the ground or adjacent to a structure onsite? Heating and cooling Source: systems (include fuel None known source) Flooring, drains, walls Location: that are stained or None known emitting a foul odor (do NOT include water damage)? *Please provide records if available. Page 4 of 8 62915 NE 18tt Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 8. Is the property served by a private well or non-public water system? If so, please answer the following: No. a. Was the well used for domestic (D), agricultural irrigation (1), or monitoring (M) purposes? Are the wells currently operational and if not, when were they last used? When was the well drilled? How deep is the well? What is the approximate discharge rate? Well No. T e Yp Operating. Last Used Date Drilled Depth Discharge Rate Location 1- 2- b. Have the wells been sampled for contaminants that exceed applicable requirements for the designated use (e.g. Drinking Water Standards)? If so, please provide the dates and copies of well records. c. Has the well or water system been designated by any governmental environmental/health agency as contaminated? 9. Is there an oil/gas well or oil/gas vent located onsite? If so, please indicate the location. Please supply any documents available. None known. 10. Is the property or has the property to your knowledge been previously served by a septic system? If so, please indicate the location of the tank and leach lines (if applicable) and list any hazardous materials disposed. 11. Does the property discharge waste water onto or adjacent to the property and into a storm water sewer system or a sanitary sewer system? If so, please describe location, piping flow, quantity discharged, and water quality. —None known. Page 5 of 8 62915 NE 18t" Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 P 1 541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 12. Do you have knowledge of the following with respect to the property? Circle and explain all that apply. a. Environmental clean-up, ongoing or pending. b. Environmental liens c. Governmental notifications regarding any possible past or present violations of environmental laws. d. Past, threatened, pending lawsuits or administrative proceedings relevant to a release of a hazardous substance or petroleum product, in, on, or from the property. e. Prior environmental assessment that indicated the presence of hazardous substances, petroleum hydrocarbons, contaminants, or recommended further assessment. f. Deed Restrictions g. Citizen complaints regarding activities onsite AGRICULTURAL SITES: 13. What crops and/or livestock have been grown onsite, currently and in the past? None known. CROP DATE LOCATION If crops are present or have been grown, please answer questions 14 through 16 below: Page 6 of 8 62915 NE 181h Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541,382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 14. Have pesticides been applied to fields or other portions of the site? If so, please answer the following questions: None known. a. List the names of pesticides (includes herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticide) used and dates applied. None known. PESTICIDE AND BRAND NAME I DATE I CROP OR ANIMAL USE b. Have you been notified of any violation of environmental law with respect to application or storage of pesticides? c. Location of pesticide mixing areas, if any (past or present)? ►•1' .16", d. Method of pesticide application? None known. 15. Have fertilizers been applied to the site? What type and method of application? 16. Are there any buried pipelines for irrigation or other purposes onsite? If so, what materials is the piping constructed of? Asbestos -containing material, PVC, other? Describe the location of buried piping. None known. Page 7 of 8 62915 NE 18th Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1541.382.4707 f 1541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com 17. Are there other environmental issues you would like to describe? No. Page 8 of 8 62915 NE 18t�' Street, Suite 1, Bend, OR 97701 p 1 541.382.4707 f 1 541.383.8118 wallacegroup-inc.com CITY OF REDMOND Engineering Department Affordable Housing Site - Availability of Utilities TO: Deborah McMahon, Planning Manager FROM: Mike Caccavano, City Engineer DATE: May 18, 2018 243 E. Antler Ave Redmond, OR 97756-0100 (541)504-2002 Fax: (541) 923-4035 info&i.redmond. or.us www.ci.redmond.onus The 40-acre site proposed for affordable housing located between NE 13th St., NE 17thSt., NE Kingwood Ave. and NE Negus Way is served by city sewer and water as well as the transportation network. There are existing 12-inch diameter water and sewer lines in NE Kingwood along the south boundary that can be extended into the site. Water: A hydrant test in 2010 showed a static pressure of 77 psi with 2,221 gallons per minute (gpm) flow at 74 psi from a 4Y2-inch port. The system will easily provide flow exceeding the 1,500 gpm residential fire flow standard. Sewer: The 12-inch sewer line in NE Kingwood is deep enough to serve most of the site with gravity sewer. A pump station is needed to serve the northeast corner of the site until the master planned Far East Sewer Interceptor is constructed. In accordance with City of Redmond policy, the pump station would be operated and maintained by a homeowner's association. The 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood connects to an 8-inch sewer in NE 5th Street which runs north to NE Negus. The 12-inch sewer has sufficient capacity to serve its' sewer basin at buildout along with the proposed 40-acre affordable housing development. The 8-inch sewer does not have sufficient capacity. Approximately 750 feet of 12-inch sewer line will need to be installed to extend the line to the Eastside Sewer Interceptor. A second option for sewer is in the City's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. A 12-inch line is proposed for NE Negus Avenue that would have the capacity and depth to serve the entire affordable housing site with gravity sewer. In summary, the existing sewer in NE Kingwood can provide service to initial phases totaling 150 units of housing. The full development can be served either with: • Construction of 750 feet of 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood between NE 5th and the Eastside Sewer Interceptor at a cost of approximately $150,000 and a pump station to serve the northeast portion of the site at a cost of approximately $250,000. • Construction of the master planned sewer in NE Negus Way at a cost of approximately $850,000. Although this is the more expensive option, it provides a better long term gravity sewer solution and may be possible to fund with an existing loan from the DEQ. Transportation: The street network in this area will provide good access to the site. On the south side of the site, NE 15tt' 17th and Kingwood connect to NE Hemlock which provides direct access to Highway 97 and connects to NE 9t" Street, an arterial which provides access to Highway 126 to the south and Highway 97 to the north. On the north side, streets will connect to NE Negus which is a direct connection to shopping, the medical district and the central part of Redmond. CD �X z _ ow sr co H LLJ C114co if— CL rn �I a us a 04 - � Qcv LLILLI to a I m oind F,�—Pr-v RMINui W. Lu D o ll - eomm� 5H "�¢ ¢tp { w N nCN � Lu Id l � SIT r w �b �ha r O 3 �h ,- n z V N CAI Q O Lu r -.— :1-IT-:— W a urws cr. 0 1qN e W 2t 5l dtlW 33� Wy33S i rLl,2F51 W%33S I j[t Zl tiltl{Y335 /Z Zt$I dVW 338 �'SZEI St JVW 33$ V9[Zt 5{ 1Y 333 09CZl St dtlW33S `t vNNN'S ib NN FQ ********************** Real Property Tax Lot Record *********************** 15 13 00 0 0 001.03 Code 2-004 Current Acres 1828.70 This description is for tax purposes ONLY and can not beattached to any legal document. RC20011202 08/09/01 1 1 Posted on 03/09/01 by GREGBA I ** Text: LESS ROAD (1.39 AC) I I BEFORE ACRES 1908.68 AFTER ACRES 1907.29 I ! LESS TLs 128 (5.00 AC) 129 (73.59 AC) i Source: PP2002-29; JV11348-49 RC20011.203 08/09/01 I 1 Posted on 09/09/01 by GREGBA I I Source: RC2001-1202; JV11349 Forward Tax Lot Card is 151.30000001281513000000129 13 ! 1 103 R.E. E. SEC If4 ,I/ TAX LOT MAP NUMBER NUNI9<R ACCOUNT NUMBER INDENT EACH NE'N I COURSE TO THIS POSNT II 2-4 SPEC INT CODE PROPN AREA NUMBER \\\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�� ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND RECORD OF CHANCE Sec 2 - lots 1, 2, 3, 4, S�Nt:; S Sec 10 - E,6Er , W SE4 Sec 11 - All Sec 14 - lots 1, N2-, N2Sj, SE4SW4, S2SE4 Sec 23 - E?NE4 Less T.L. 107 Less T.L. 112 Less Road Less T.L. 115 Less T.L. 116 Less T.L. 119 Less T.L. 120 Less T.L. 121 Less T.L. 122 12.0 4.83 ac 3,64 ac 110.0 ac 35.52 ac 9.55 ac 39.23 ac 38.33 ac 39.24 ac OFFICIAL RECORD OF I. EScrl, IP11ONS LJ REAL PRC 'ERTY DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE FORMERLY PART CITY OF T.L. NO. 100 641.21 ac 240.00 ac 640.00 ac 639.61 ac 80.00 ac Patent #36a66-0010 deed deed court order 5/20/70 W.D. R.C. R.C. R.C. R.C. Less T.L. 123 39.80 ac B&S DATE OF ENTRY _DEER RECORD 1 ACRE5 ON THIS CARD YOL. J Ptl 1 F.E N\AIMING 1 i i i i4 � � I k t I 8/20/65 144 554� 2240.82 I i i I 3/17/66 14T 511 2228.82 I 5/26/66 148� 531 2223.99 6/16/70 2220.35 8-25-75�221 532 2110.35 8-25-75 2074.83 8-11-86 86 121 2065.28 8-11-86 86 122 2026.05 8-11-86 86 123 1987.72 12-11-86 86 236 1948.48 Recording I date 3-20-87 143 139711908.68 5/21/2019 https://glorecc blm.gov/details/patent/default_pf.aspx?accession= )RE 0013601 FD01 &docClass=SER Land Patent Details Accession Nr: ORORE 0013601FD01 Document Type: Sena( Patent State: Oregon Issue Date: 7/27/1965 Cancelled: No Names On Document Misectlaneous Information JUN DESCHUTES COUNTY COURT Land Office: Washington Administration Military Rank: I --- I Document Plumbers Document Nr: 36660010 Misc. Doc. Nr: -- BLM Serial Nr: ORORE 0013601FD01 Indian Allot. Nr: State I Meridian OR OR Willamette WillametteOR Willamette OR Willamette OR Willamette OR Willamette OR lWillamette OR Wiltamette ----------------- -------------------- -------- - REMARKS: LOT 1 OR 11_'11E QUARTER OR-------Wilta-mette---------------------- ---------T ----- REMARKS: LOT 2 OR NWOL QUARTER OR- Wltlamette ------ ------- ------------------------------- - R04ARKS: LOT 3 OR fIE11W QUARTER OR ----- - ------ REMARKS: LOT 4 -)R Willamette ------ NWNW ClUARTER OR NiGamerre REMARKS: LOT 1 OR SWSW QUARTER US Reservations: Yes Mineral Reservations: No Tribe: Militia: State In Favor Of: Authority: June 28, 1934: Exchange-Piivate-Tayloi Act (48 Stat. 1269) Survey Information Total Acres: 800.82 Survey Date: --- Geographic Name: - Metes/Bounds: No Land Descriptions Twp - Rng Aliquots Section Survey # County 015S - 013E 015S - 013E S'iSE'v SEv SVA it 11 Deschutes Deschutes 015S - 013E NW14 14 Deschutes 015S - 013E SETA 14 Deschutes 015S-013E S1/2NEY 14 Deschutes 015S - 013E NE _.NEY< 14 IDeschutes 015S 013E NWIASWIG+ 14 Deschutes 0155-013E Lot/Trct 1 2 Deschutes 015S-013E Lot/Trct2 2 Deschutes 015S - 013E Lot/Trct 3 2 Dexhutes 015S - 013E Lot/Trct 4 2 Deschutes 0155 013E LotlTrct 1 14 Deschutes 5/21/2019 Search Results - BLM GLO Recc Accession Names Date Doc # State Meridian Twp - Rng Aliquots Sec. County 470884 BROWN, GERTRUDE T, 5/1/1915 012179 OR Willamette 015S - 013E SE'/aNW'/a 7 Deschutes BROWN, ALEXANDER 137530 CHAPPELL, HERMAN A 6/16/1910 04333 OR Willamette 015S - 013E -------------- SWYaNW'/a ----------- 4 Deschutes 015S - 013E Lot/Trot 4 - 4 ------------ Deschutes 1128955 CITY OF REDMOND 4/10/1950 0582 OR Willamette 015S - 013E Lot/Trot 2 --------------- 14 ----- Deschutes 01SS - 013E ----------------- Lot/Trot 1 -------------------- 15 ------ ----------- Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ---------- Lot/Trot 4 ------------ 15 ----- Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ----------------- Lot/Trct 5 -------------------- 15 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S -013E ----------------- Lot/Trd 6 - ------------ ------- 15 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ----------------- E'/2SW'/a -------------------- 15 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ---------------- NEYaNEYa -------------- --- 21 ----- Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ----------------- -------------------- 22 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E W1/2E1/2 23 Deschutes 0155 - 013E W1/2 ------------------- 23 -- --- Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E NW'/a 26 Deschutes 015S - 013E ---------------- W'/2NE'/4NW'/4NE'/4 --------------- 26 ----- Deschutes 015S - 013E - ---------------- NW'/aNW'/aNE'/a --------------- ----- 26 ------ ------------ Deschutes ------------ 015S 013E ----------------- N'hSWIANW'/aNE'/a -------------------- 26 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E N'/2 27 Deschutes 1143686 CITY OF REDMOND 4/1/1954 02132 OR Willamette 015S - 013E SW'/aSW'/a 15 Deschutes 1162973 COUNTY OF DESCHUTES 8/8/1956 04007 OR Willamette 015S - 013E ----------- Lot/Trct 2 -------------------------------------------- 15 Deschutes 015S - 013E - Lot/Trot 3 --- ----------- 15 ----- Deschutes ----------- 015S - 013E ----------------- Lot/Trd 7 ------------------ 15 ------ Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E --------------- NE'/a ------------------- 15 Deschutes ------------- 015S - 013E ---------------------------------------- N'/2SE'/4NW'/4 ----- 15 Deschutes 015S - 013E NEIASE'/a 15 Deschutes ORORE 0004007 01 DESCHUTES CNTY, 111711973 1171973 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E NE% 15 Deschutes USA---------------- ------------------- ----- ----------- 0155 - 013E ----------------- NE%SE% ------------------- 15 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E ----------------- Lot/Trct 3 15 ------ Deschutes 0155 - 013E -------------------- Lot/Trct 7 15 ------------ Deschutes ORORE0013601F{! DESCHUTES COUNTY COURT 712711965 36660010 OR Willamette 0155-011E --------------- NW%5WA ----J--------------- 34 ----- Deschutes ----------- 0155 - 011E ---------------- SWY45W% -------------------- 35 Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 012E !U%5E% ------ 12 Deschutes --------------- 0155 - 012E ----------------- --------y---------- 5E/aNE/a ------ 12 ------------ Deschutes 0155 - 013E ----------------- -------------------- 5/2 ------ 2 ------------ Deschutes 0155 - 013E ---- - ---------- ----------------- 5'/2NY2 -------------------- ------ 2 ------ ------------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E SE%SE% 3 Deschutes 0155 013E --- -13 - - -- Deschutes - - 0155 - 013E - E/2NE/a 10 Deschutes ------------- ---- 0155 - 013E - - ----------- N%2 ------ 11 ------------ Deschutes ----------------- 015S - 013E ----------------- -------------------- N%SY -------------------- ------ 11 ------------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E --------------- 5W%5W% ------------------- ------ 11 ----- Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E ----------------- EY25W/a 14 Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E ----------------- -------------------- NW%NE'/a -------------------- ------ 14 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E ---------------- NY2SE% - ------------------ 21 Deschutes ------------ 015S - 013E ----------------- SE'/aNE'/a -------------------- ------ 21 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E SE%SE% 21 Deschutes ------------ ----------------- 0155 - 013E -------------------- E%2NE% ------ 23 Deschutes 5/21 /2019 Search Results - BLM GLO Rec, 0155 - 013E --------------- 5Y2 ----------- 27 ------ Deschutes ----------- 0155 - 013E SY2 ---------- ---- ------ 28 --------- Deschutes ---------- ----------------- 015S - 013E --------------- NE% -------------- - ---- 28 ---- Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E ----------------- EY2NWY4 -------------------- 28 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E -------------- SE%SEY4 ------------- 29 - Deschutes 0165 - 011E NE%SW% 24 Deschutes 0165-011E ----------------- NW'/a NE% -------------------- 25 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0165 - 011E SE'/4NWV44 25 Deschutes --------------- 0165 - 011E ------------------ SE/4SWY44 ----- 25 - Deschutes O15S - 013E ---------- WY25E%SW% -------------------- 21 ------ Deschutes ----------- 0155 - 013E EY2SW%9E% -------------------- 21 ------ Deschutes ------------ ----------------- 0155 - 013E ----------------- Lot/Trot 2 -------------------- 7 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E Lot/Trot 2 28 Deschutes ORORE DESCHUTES COUNTY COURT 712711965 3666001D OR Willamette 0155 - 013E S25E% 11 Deschutes OO136O1FDO1 — — 0155 - 013E 5E%5W% 11 — Deschutes 0155 - 013E NW% 14 Deschutes --------------- 0155 - 013E -------------------------------------------- SE% - - --------------- 14 ---- — Deschutes --- -- -------------- 0155 - 013E SY2NE/ 14 ______ Deschutes ____________ _________________ 0155 - 013E -------------- ____________________ NE/4NE/ ------------------- 14 ------- Deschutes 0155 - 013E NW/SW/4 14 ------ Deschutes ------------ ----------------- 0155 - 013E — ------------------- LoIlTrct 1 -------------------- 2 ------ Deschutes ------ ------ ----- --------- O15S - 013E Lot/Trot 2 2 Deschutes ----------------- 015S - 013E -------------------- Lot/Trct 3 -- 2 — Deschutes ----------- 0155 - 013E --------- Lot/Trct 4 -------------------- 2 Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E Lot/Trot 1 14 Deschutes 58853 EHRET, CHRIS W 5/4/1909 0905 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E ---------------- S1/2NW1/4 -------------------- 5 ---------------------- Deschutes 015S - 013E SEY4NEY4 6 ---- Deschutes ------------ ---------------• - 0155 - 013E ------------------- NEIASEY4 6 Deschutes 1127149 GREGG, LEONARD A, 9/2/1949 031947 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E SW1/4NE1/4 6 Deschutes GREGG, MARGARET E ORTD 0031947PT GREGG, LEONARD A, 511311948 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E NE%NEA44 36 Deschutes GREGG, MARGARET E, USA ORTD O031938PT GRIFFIN, MON77E, 91611950 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E SE% NE'/a 36 Deschutes USA---------------- 015S - 013E ------------ ---------------- NEV44SE% 36 Deschutes ---------------- --------------------T --- ------------ 0175 - 013E SEY44 136 ------ Deschutes ------------ - ---------------- 0175 - 013E -------------------- SE%NE% 36 Deschutes 255924 HENNINGER, BENJAMIN J 3/28/1912 03994 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E ----------------- NEIANW1/4 ------------------------------------------- 7 Deschutes 015S - 013E Lot/Trct 1 7 Deschutes 192085 HENSLEY, FRANK 4/20/1911 03645 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E ----------------- E1/25W'/4 -------------------- 29 ------ Deschutes ------------ 0155 - 013E N1/2NW1/4 32 Deschutes 536869 JARRETT, CHARLES D 7/6/1916 09935 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E W1/2NW1/4 29 Deschutes 1030343 JARRETT, SARAH L 8/17/1929 026649 OR Willamette 015S - 013E N1/2NE1/4 30 Deschutes 1124771 JOHNS, ROBERT E 2/24/1949 0346 OR Willamette 0155 - 012E ---------------- SE1/4SE1/4 ------------------- 12 ----- Deschutes ----------- 0155 - 012E NE1/4NE1/4 13 ------ Deschutes ------------ ----------------- 01SS - 013E -------------------- Lot/Trot 4 7 Deschutes ------- ----------------- 0155 - 013E -------------------- Lot/Trot 1 ------ 18 Deschutes 1122334 KING, ELISE MERRITT, 6/10/1947 031364 OR Willamette 015S - 013E SE1/4SE1/4 7 Deschutes MERRITT, ELISE 1556SS LOCKYEAR, EDWARD H 10/3/1910 03746 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E Lot/Trot 4 31 Deschutes 269811 LOCY, CHARLES 5/27/1912 05575 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E SW1/4SW1/4 5 Deschutes 1130345 MALLERY, CLAUDE ALBERT 11/10/1950 032201 OR Willamette 0155 - 013E Lot/Trot 5 16 Deschutes yU 4 O X - O p - = a a a a a O z i co 000 �N U _- _— -- -- lLJ � gX O L1J O � m � �1 II Q m !' tm Wsn -IM 11 , Lo 1 f jC11.4 ti MR � M �� ui w nose " 9 r 4'qr, W p WIf " ' r 1-14 �^ co a " ° °° a ¢ Q M Qo do Q S .� W.— ux a w W W N �_ to W `�*. W in N ' � r � ��y� r o� S�1RH�S�O 3w _ ato., •',� \, d' LI St dHW 33s dVWy33S , r2LYl�1tVW%33S El2t 5ldtl%335 YZASIMINS 'SZ it St JVW 335 tlSC Zt SI W335 �U9tif 5t dtllti 335 t� n NN Fa C) x o X C> UJ C:) CD - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L2 C\j Lu LU -7 �2 CL > c CD uj c) cn w ,, I JUJU M 00 IF rl CL < cA CNI LAA cl) ui LO 4f) Lu LLI 12 Aw A, AmenTitle 15 Oregon Ave., Bend, OR 97703 PHONE (541)389-7711 FAX (541)389-0506 May 31, 2019 File Number: 58387AM Report No.: 2 Title Officer: Roger Shulsen PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT Property Address: 1513000000103, Redmond, OR 97756 Policy or Policies to be issued: Liability Premium OWNER'S STANDARD COVERAGE To Follow $0.00 Proposed Insured: State of Oregon, Department of State Lands Local Government Lien Search $25.00 We are prepared to issue ALTA (06/17/06) title insurance policy(ies) of Chicago Title Insurance Company, in the usual form insuring the title to the land described as follows: Legal description attached hereto and trade a part hereof marked Exhibit "A" and dated as of 21 st day of May, 2019 at 7:30 a.m., title is vested in: Deschutes County The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Preliminary Title Report and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE File No. 5RIVAM Page 2 Except for the items properly cleared through closing, Schedule B of the proposed policy or policies will not insure against loss or damage which may arise by reason of the following: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records: proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements. or claims of easement, not shown by the Public Records; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof: water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Any encroachment (of existing improvements located on the subject Land onto adjoining Land or of existing improvements located on adjoining Land onto the subject Land) encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the subject Land. 5, Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, material, equipment rental, or workers compensation heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. EXCEPTIONS I THROUGH 5 ABOVE APPLY TO STANDARD COVERAGE POLICIES AND MAY BE MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED ON AN EXTENDED COVERAGE POLICY. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: Tax Information: Taxes assessed under Code No. 2004 Account No. 150551 Map No. 15130000 00I03 NOTE: The 2018-2019 1'axes: Non -assessed Taxes assessed under Code No. 2001 Account No. 247406 Map No. 15130000 00103 NOTE: The 2018-2019 Taxes: Non -assessed 6. The Land does not include any improvement(s) located on the Land which is described or defined as a mobile home (manufactured housing unit) under the provisions of State Law and is subject to registration. (X81709). 7. Regulations, including levies, assessments, water and irrigation rights and easements for ditches and canals of Central Oregon Irrigation District. 8. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the herein described property tying within the limits of public roads, streets or highways. 9. Easements as disclosed in document, Recorded: August 4, 1965 Instrument No.: 144-554 10. An easement including the terms and provisions thereof, affecting the portion of said premises and for the purposes stated therein as set forth in instrument: Granted To: Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Recorded: November 25, 2003 Instrument No.: 2003-81344 11. Department of Solid Waste Memo, including the terms and provisions thereof, Recorded: July 29, 2004 Instrument No.: 2004-45148 File No. 58387AM Page 3 12. The county clerk will require the instrument that conveys fee title to a tax-exempt government transferee be accompanied by a certificate issued by the county assessor attesting that all charges against real property as of the date of recording have been paid pursuant to Chapter 96, Oregon Laws 2015 (House Bill 2127). 13. Rights of tenants under existing Ieases or tenancies. INFORMATIONAL NOTES: NOTE: Mobile Home Taxes assessed under Account. No. 164806 The 2018-2019 Taxes: $200.48, Paid in Full. (Includes $10.00 Ombudsperson) (X-81709) NOTE: This report does not include a search for financing statements filed in the office of the Secretary of State in this or any other State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a financing statement is filed in the office of the County Cleric (Recorder) covering fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular survey system by recorded lot and block. NOTE: We find no activity in the past 24 months regarding transfer of title to subject property. NOTE: This Report No. 2 was updated to reflect the following changes: I . Bring date current 2. Revise 'Faxes 3. Remove prior Exception 6 4. Add Manufactured Home Tax Note 5. Add UCC Note NOTE: Any map or sketch enclosed as an attachment herewith is furnished for information purposes only to assist in property location with reference to streets and other parcels. No representation is made as to accuracy and the company assumes no liability for any loss occurring by reason of reliance thereon. NOTE: Your application for title insurance was placed by reference to only a street address or tax identification number. Based on our records, we believe that the legal description in this report covers the parcel(s) of Land that you requested. If the legal description is incorrect, the parties to the transaction must notify the Company and/or the settlement company in order to prevent errors and to be certain that the correct parceI(s) of Land will appear on any documents to be recorded in connection with this transaction and on the policy of title insurance. NOTE: Due to current conflicts or potential conflicts between state and federal law, which conflicts may extend to local law, regarding marijuana, if the transaction to be insured involves property which is currently used or is to be used in connection with a marijuana enterprise, including but not limited to the cultivation, storage, distribution, transport, manufacture, or sale of marijuana and/or products containing marijuana, the Company declines to close or insure the transaction, and this Preliminary Title Report shall automatically be considered null and void and of no force and effect. THIS PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. This report is preliminary to the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a policy is issued and the full premium paid. End of Report "Superior Service with Commitment and Respect for Customers and Employees" File No.: 58387AM Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL ONE (1): The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4NE1/4) of Section Ten (10), Township Fifteen (15) South, Range. Thirteen (13), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. PARCEL TWO (2): All of Section Two (2), Township Fifteen (15) South, Range Thirteen (13), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter (SW I/4SW 1/4). ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the West Half (W I/2) lying West of Negus Road. ALSO EXCEPTING THREEFROM that portion dedicated by Deed recorded October 1, 2003 Instrument No. 2003-68335, Deschutes County Records. PARCEL THREE (3): All of Section Eleven (11), Township Fifteen (15) South, Range Thirteen (13), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (E1/2SW 1/4SWI/4SW 1/4), PARCEL FOUR (4): All of Section Fourteen (14), Township Fifteen (15) South, Range Thirteen (13), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, lying North of Ochoco Highway. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the City of Redmond recorded August 6, 1975, in Book 221, Page 532, Deed Records and correction recorded October 24, 1979, in Book 310, Page 85, Deed Records 247-20-000440-PA 40 acr site for Sk one Village , /^ � � \\^d4Z%/^ 2« « \ G0LFfu :� �t�� =ate P- � 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 Hearings Officer 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: LOITA► APPLICANT: 247-20-000440-PA Deschutes County City of Redmond PROPOSAL: Amend County Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to accommodate the future Skyline Village. (The Skyline Village and urban growth boundary (UGB) will be a future land use in the City of Redmond.) LOCATION: 1002 NE 17`h St., Redmond, aka 1513000000103 HEARING DATE: December 8, 2020 HEARING START: 6:00 pm STAFF PLANNER: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, peter.russelI@deschutes.org, (541) 383-6718 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 `�� (541) 388-6575 ct cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal14: Urbanization PUBLIC HEARING PARTICIPATION • If you wish to provide testimony during the public hearing, please contact the staff planner by 5 pm on December 7, 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/j/89348700234 • 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 1-312-626-6799. When prompted, enter the following: Webinar ID: 893 4870 0234. • 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 6 pm 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. 247-20-000440-PA Page 2 of 4 All documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at CDD. Copies of all documents, evidence and the staff report can be purchased at CDD for (25) cents a page. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. Failure to raise an issue in person at a hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and that failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. 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. DOCUMENT SUBMISSION Any person may submit written comments on a proposed land use action. Documents may be submitted to our office in person, U.S. mail, or email. In Person We accept all printed documents. U.S. Mail Deschutes County Community Development Planning Division, Anthony Raguine P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 Email Email submittals should be directed to peter.russell@deschutes.org and must comply with the following guidelines: • Submission is 20 pages or less • Documents can be printed in black and white only • Documents can be printed on 8.5" x 11" paper 247-20-000440-PA Page 3 of 4 Any email submittal which exceeds the guidelines provided above must be submitted as a paper copy. Limitations • Deschutes County does not take responsibility for retrieving information from a website link or a personal cloud storage service. It is the submitter's responsibility to provide the specific information they wish to enter into the record. We will print the email which includes the link(s), however, we will not retrieve any information on behalf of the submitter. • Deschutes County makes an effort to scan all submittals as soon as possible. Recognizing staff availability and workload, there is often a delay between the submittal of a document to the record, and when it is scanned and uploaded to Accela Citizen Access (ACA) and Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL). For this reason, the official record is the file that resides in the Community Development office. The electronic record in ACA and DIAL is not a substitute for the official record. • To ensure your submission is entered into the correct land use record, please specify the land use file number(s). • For the open record period after a public hearing, electronic submittals are valid if received by the County's server by the deadline established for the land use action. • IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DECISION RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION, YOU MUST PROVIDE A MAILING ADDRESS. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. 247-20-000440-PA Page 4 of 4 247-20-000440-PA 40-acre site for Skyline Village I ji; i;hj rj Jill- F;,LJ]Lf GfJLF f;E'ATE'Pt N A 1,280 � ft 1 i no h = 752 feet STAFF REPORT FILE NUMBER: 247-20-000440-PA HEARING: December 8, 2020, 6:00 p.m., Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 OWNER: Deschutes County P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT: City of Redmond Deborah McMahon, Planning Manager 411 SW 9th St. Redmond, OR 97756 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to change the designation of 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to accommodate the future Skyline Village. (The Skyline Village will be a separate future land use in the City of Redmond.) STAFF REVIEWER: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner peter.russelI@deschutes.org; (541) 383--6718 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code, Title 18, County Zoning Chapter 18.136, Amendments Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Code, Title 23, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 2, Resource Management 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections Statewide Plannine- Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal14: Urbanization Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included Within Urban Growth Boundary Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) OAR 660-039-0090, Affordable Housing Pilot Project, Subsequent Events II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned addresses of 1002 NE 17th St. and 2525 W. Hwy 126, Redmond, and is identified on the Deschutes County Assessor's Map as 15-13-00, Tax Lot 103. The property, which in total consists of 40 acres, is referred to throughout the application and supporting materials as the Skyline Village Tract. The site is illustrated on the map below. B. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits: B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40), b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory, C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment, d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone, 247-20-000440-PA Page 2 of 22 247-20-000440-PA Page 3 of22 In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) hearings officer decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. The City of Redmond in a subsequent land use action will address the property's legal status when it is partitioned. C. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the County Comprehensive Plan to change the designation from Agriculture to a Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and expand the City of Redmond UGB to accommodate the future Skyline Village. The subject property, Skyline Village tract, is 40 acres and was selected by the State of Oregon's pilot project for affordable housing (OAR 660-039). Once the final partition plat is recorded, the County will donate the 40 acres to the City of Redmond, per a signed agreement between the two governments. The City will then partition the land and begin the process for residential development. D. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The subject property is currently within the land use management jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map designates the subject property as Agriculture. The subject property is within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone - Alfalfa subzone (EFU-AL). The land is also identified as Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA), a combining zone, which are lands beyond the current Redmond UGB, but which are identified for future urban expansion. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 40-acre subject property is approximately at the center of the western edge of the roughly 1,611-acre County property. The 40-acre property is currently vacant, is located on the eastern boundary of the Redmond UGB, Specifically, the 40 acres are directly south of Maple Avenue., southwest of the High Desert Sports Complex, east of NE 11th Street, and north of NE Kingwood Avenue and NE 17th Street. The subject property has relatively flat terrain with juniper and sagebrush. There are scattered outcrops of basalt. The land is now and has always been vacant. The land has not been irrigated and contains no water rights. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The land uses range from urban residential to recreational to undeveloped. To the east is vacant land with County zoning of Surface Mining (SM). To the north is vacant land with a County zoning of Rural Residential (RR-10) and to the west is land zoned EFU. The Redmond UGB is approximately 1,320 feet west of the subject property. On the south side of the property is land within the City of Redmond and zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2). The Deschutes County Negus Transfer station lies about 1,515 feet east of the subject property. The High Desert Sports Complex abuts the northeast edge of the subject property. Several residences abut the north and west edge of subject property while there is a mix of vacant land and developed industrial properties along the south edge. 247-20-000440-PA Page 4 of 22 F. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject property contains three different soil types, as described below. 35B, Deschutes-Stukel complex, dry, 0 to 8 percent slope: This soil complex is composed of 50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with a moderately rapid permeability, and about 7 inches of available water capacity. The Stukel soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability and about 2.2 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 35B soils are 4E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. The entire property is made up of this soil type. G. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the public hearing to various public and private agencies. No comments were received. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID); the following City of Redmond departments: Fire and Rescue, Planning, and Public Works;, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); the following Deschutes County departments: Assessor, Property Address Coordinator, Property Management, Road, and County Surveyor; and the District 11 Watermaster. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On November 10, 2020, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. No written comments were received. I. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated July 14, 2020, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on July 15, 2020. On November 10, 2020, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, November 22, 2020. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on November 3, 2020. J. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on June 30, 2020. The application was deemed complete on November 10, 2020. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. K. LAND USE HISTORY: The entire 1,611-acre parcel, including the 40-acre subject property is owned by Deschutes County. Previously, the entire parcel was owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The land was conveyed to Deschutes County from BLM via a patent (#36-66-0010) that was entered on the Deschutes County Tax Card on August 20, 1965. 247-20-000440-PA Page 5 of 22 Previous land use decisions are listed below; as near as staff can determine none of these was for the subject 40-acres, but are presented for completeness: CU-81-89: Approved a softball park with four fields off of Negus Road CU-91-137: Approved a manufactured home to be used as a caretaker's residence for the Redmond Rod and Gun Club, which was located off of OR 126. CU-92-165/SP-92-130: Alter non -conforming use (Negus landfill) to allow construction of solid waste center. CU-92-214/SP-92-170/TU-92-64: Approved a disposal site and Negus Transfer Station CU-93-31: Approved a manufactured home to be used as a caretaker's residence for Redmond Rod and Gun Club, which was located off of OR 126. 247-19-000648-PA/649-ZC: Reconfigure the Redmond UGB to add 156 acres to the Redmond UGB in exchange for removing a similar amount of land from the Redmond UGB. The land being added would change from EFU to Urban Holding zone (UH-10) and the land being removed from the UGB would change from a combination of Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2) to EFU. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010 Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The applicant has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the application for a Plan Amendment. The County on December 18, 2019, provided a conditional granting of the property to the City of Redmond. The applicant has filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. 247-20-000440-PA Page 6 of 22 TITLE 23 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) Chapter 1. Comprehensive Planning Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. FINDING: This proposal was developed specifically in response to the State of Oregon's request for affordable housing pilot projects to address this critical Central Oregon issue. In 2016 House Bill 4079 (HB 4079) and the 2019 HB 2336 allowed two selected cities to add new housing units outside of their current UGBs. The resulting statute and implementing administrative rule (OAR 660-039) were themselves created via a public process. The review of Redmond's proposal and subsequent approval by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) was based on an objective review of the facts pertaining to state goals and administrative rules. The subsequent land use application to the County for the plan amendment includes public notice as required by County code to property owners, private and public agencies, and culminates in public hearings. The burden of proof addresses the factual base of state and local requirements for decisions related to plan amendments. The burden of proof also addresses City of Redmond requirements for the next steps regarding partitioning of the 40 acres from the 1,611 acres, applying of Redmond's code, and development of the site to accommodate 485 residential units. Half of the units will be affordable housing (households making 80% or less of the County's Area Median Income (AMI) of $69,900). In summary, at every step at the state and the local level the Skyline Village Tract was the result of an open and public process. Goal 2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. FINDING: As noted above, this proposal for a UGB amendment was developed as a specific response to the state's request for pilot projects for affordable housing. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County have extensively coordinated on the resulting land use application for the Skyline Village Tract. The County has conditionally granted the land to the City of Redmond, provided the land will be developed primarily for affordable housing. The specifics are included in the applicant's burden of proof, which includes as Exhibit B the land donation agreement (Deschutes County Document 2019-847) between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond. As part of the City of Redmond's application to the Affordable Housing Pilot Project Program, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners also passed a resolution of support, which is referenced in the applicant's burden of proof (please see "Affordable Housing Pilot Project Skyline Village" submittal). Chapter 2. Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. 247-20-000440-PA Page 7 of 22 Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning Policy2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The applicant's findings concerning agricultural land can be found in the findings to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land. Policy 2.2.3 below provides legal evidence concerning Policy 2.2.2, supporting re -designating the subject property to RUGA. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant has applied for a Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to RUGA. The subject parcel has already been selected by the state as part of the Affordable Housing Pilot Program as allowed by HB 4079 (2016) and HB 2336 (2019) and implemented by OAR 660-039. The subject plan amendment per OAR 660-039-0030(1) specifies which the Statewide Planning Goals from which the project is exempt and that the project does not need to comply with ORS 197A.320. The process to amend a County's comprehensive plan is detailed in OAR 660-039-0090. The parcel has also been mapped as Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) by the County. Finally, Redmond has adopted a master plan for this area, Eastside Framework Plan (2007), which identified a mixed -used community of 1,800 acres within the RURA on lands owned by Deschutes County and COID. The Skyline Village tract is within the Eastside Framework Plan's west -central portion on lands slated for residential and mixed use development. Policy2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. As noted above, the subject property has been identified as future land for urban expansion by the City of Redmond's Eastside Framework Plan and the RURA. OAR 660-039-0090 (Subsequent Event) details how the Skyline Village tract will be converted from Agriculture to RUGA. The City of Redmond through its own land use process will then annex the subject parcel and rezone to Redmond's General Residential (R-4) zone. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. FINDING: The applicant is requesting approval of a plan amendment to remove the Agriculture designation from the subject property and amend the Redmond UGB as allowed under OAR 660- 039-0090. The subject application replaces Agriculture with a City of Redmond residential zone. Once this plan amendment is approved the applicant will pursue a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex and master plan the property for residential, including 50 247-20-000440-PA Page 8 of 22 percent affordable housing, and mixed -use development. Staff finds this policy is not applicable to the application at hand. Section 2.3 Forests FINDING: This section does not apply as the subject property is not located in a forest or on land designated as Forest on the Comprehensive Plan map. Section 2.4, Goal 5 Overview Policies Goal 1. Protect Goal 5 resources FINDING: The only nearby Goal 5 resource is Mineral and Aggregate Site #482, which is identified as 151300-00-00103, Negus Landfill. This site has a Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation of Surface Mining (SM). The SM land abuts the eastern boundary of the subject property and will not be adversely affected. Access to the Negus Landfill via NE Maple Avenue will remain unchanged. The City of Redmond during annexation could record a deed restriction requiring any subsequent development to record a waiver of remonstrance as described in DCC 18.562.120 in the SM zone. The remaining Goal 5 Policies 2.4.1 through 2.4.5 focus on amending the County's Goal 5 inventory and thus are not applicable. Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies FINDING: The subject property has no water rights and has never been irrigated. The plan amendment does not involve any water resources. This policy is not applicable. Section 2.6, Wildlife FINDING: There are no Goal 5-listed wildlife species present on the subject property, based on the Goal 5 inventory nor threatened or endangered species. There is no identified wildlife habitat on the subject property. Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Goal 1. Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. FINDING: The site is not zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C). While the Eastside Framework Plan designates public spaces, none of those appears on the subject property. The applicant notes there are scenic views of the Cascade Range to the west, but the development will not negatively impact any views from existing homes or the BLM land to the east. Ultimately, staff finds that this policy does not apply as at the time of development the property will be under the City of Redmond's land use authority. 247-20-000440-PA Page 9 of 22 Policy 2.7.1 Goal 5 open spaces, scenic views and sites inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. FINDING: The proposal will not impact any Goal 5 inventories or protection programs. Policy 2.7.2 Cooperate with stakeholders to establish a comprehensive system of connected open spaces. FINDING: Throughout the process of establishing the Eastside Framework Plan the City of Redmond has identified open space, trails, and connections for a comprehensive network. The proposal meets this policy. Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. FINDING: The project site lies adjacent to the City of Redmond, rather than between Redmond and Bend. Nonetheless, neither the applicant nor staff is aware of any significant open spaces or visually prominent areas on the subject parcel. (Staff believes this policy is directed toward the zoned OS&C on US 97 between Bend and Redmond.) Policy 2.7.4 Encourage a variety of approaches that protect significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. FINDING: As noted above, the subject property does not contain significant open or scenic views and sites. Nevertheless, the City of Redmond through the Eastside Framework Plan and subsequent specific development of the site can protect open spaces as well as scenic views and sites. The City's site plan development code requires identification of land for open space. Staff finds that the proposal meets these policies. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites. FINDING: The plan amendment does not approve any development at this time. Staff finds the policy does not apply to the subject proposal. However, when the City annexes the land into the UGB and applies residential zoning to the subject parcel, the city's code will address scenic views and sites for consistency with the Eastside Framework Plan and local code requirements. Staff concurs with the applicant's statement and agrees that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Staff finds Policy 2.7.6 does not apply as it pertains to a review of County code, which is the not the topic of this application. Section 2.8 Energy Policies Goal 1. Promote energy conservation. Goal 2. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and business consumers. 247-20-000440-PA Page 10 of 22 Goal 3. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound commercial energy facilities. FINDING: The application does not result in any immediate development, so staff finds these policies do not apply. The Eastside Framework Plan includes a variety of residential densities and mixed uses, which will result in energy conservation. Additionally, Redmond's "Affordable Housing Pilot Project" submittal to the state included emphasis on walkable links and transit, measures which will result in energy conservation by reduced use of single -occupant vehicles. The City of Redmond's development code addresses these issues, which will be the applicable code when the site develops. Section 2.9 Environmental Quality Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Goal 2. Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural environment. Goal 3. Encourage and increase recycling FINDING: The application will not result in immediate development. Staff finds these goals and their policies do not apply. The City of Redmond development code will provide the review criteria when the Skyline Village tract develops. Section 2.10 Surface Mining FINDING: Staff finds this goal does not apply as the land is not designated SM for either the Comprehensive Plan map or the zoning code. The Skyline Village tract contains no Goal 5 aggregate or mineral resources based on a staff review of Section 5.8 of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan amendment does not seek to modify or amend the County's Goal 5 Aggregate and Mineral inventory list or the Goal 5 program. Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Resources Finding: Staff finds this goal does not apply as the Skyline Village tract does not contain any sites listed in the Goal 5 inventory of cultural and historic resources based on a review of Section 5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan amendment does not seek to modify or amend the County's Goal 5 Cultural and Historic Resources Inventory nor does it seek to amend the County's Goal 5 program. Chapter 3. Rural Growth Management Section 3.3, Rural Housing Policies 247-20-000440-PA Page 11 of 22 Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. FINDING: This application will not adversely impact the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County, as the proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agriculture to a RUGA. The site is identified as Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone. Thus, the subject property was never intended to contain rural housing. There are County -zoned lands on three sides of the subject parcel. To the west and north is EFU- TRB containing a half -dozen single-family homes on parcels ranging from 5 to 9.5 acres. Another portion of land to the north is RR-10, but contains the Missing Link golf course and to the northeast is land zoned RR-10 which contains the High Desert Sports Complex. To the east is SM land, which includes the Negus Transfer Station. The applicant notes the development of the affordable housing must conform to the city's Master Plan Development requirements which includes Great Neighborhood Principles. One of those principles is to establish appropriate urban -rural interfaces including buffer distances of 1 00'and transitions to lower densities of development. Staff finds this goal is not applicable, but if it were the requirements of Redmond's development code will protect the rural character and safety of existing adjacent rural housing. Policy 3.3.1 Except for parcels in the Westside Transect Zone, the minimum parcel size for new rural residential shall be 10 acres. FINDING: The application will not create any new rural residential parcels. Any subsequent land division will occur under City of Redmond development code. Staff finds this policy does not apply. Policy 3.3.2 Incorporate farm and forest housing reports into a wider system for tracking the cumulative effects of rural housing development. FINDING: The application will not result in any new rural housing developments. Any housing development will occur based on City of Redmond development code. Staff finds this policy does not apply. Policy3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster developments, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. FINDING: The plan amendment will not result in any new subdivisions under County code. Instead, development will occur under City of Redmond development code once annexation occurs. However, the Eastside Framework Plan will result in a denser urban development pattern, which complements greater pedestrian travel and use of transit, both of which mitigate community and environmental impacts. Staff finds this policy does not apply. Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rule to permit accessory dwelling units in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones. 247-20-000440-PA Page 12 of 22 FINDING: The plan amendment is a required step under OAR 660-039 to allow qualifying cities to develop affordable housing on lands without having to go through the UGB expansion process of OAR 660-024. The resulting development, once annexed, will be reviewed under the Redmond development code. However, the Eastside Framework Plan contains a diversity of housing opportunities. Staff finds this policy does not apply, but the pilot project for affordable housing is consistent with the policy. Goal Z Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing. FINDING: The Board of County Commissioners provided Resolution of Support 2018-029 on July 11, 2018, to the City of Redmond's application to the State's request for pilot projects for affordable housing. Further, the County conditionally granted the 40 acres of the subject property, provided the subsequent development is consistent with OAR 660-039. Staff finds this goal is met. Policy 3.3.6 Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other stakeholders to meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County residents. a. Assist as needed in coordinating and implementing housing assistance programs. b. Support efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing in urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities. FINDING: The City of Redmond is a stakeholder to meet the needs of all Deschutes County residents as those living in cities are still County residents. The Board's passing of Resolution 2018- 029 ("A Resolution of Support for the City of Redmond's Application for DLCD Affordable Housing Pilot Project Initiative") and donation of the subject 40-acre parcel buttresses efforts to provide affordable housing for County residents. Staff finds this policy is met. Policy 3.3.7 Utilize block grants and other funding to assist in providing and maintaining low and moderate income housing. FINDING: The County has provided the subject parcel to support the subsequent development of the affordable housing pilot project. The pilot project requires that 30% of the housing units be affordable, but the City of Redmond has exceeded that by ensuring 50% of the housing units will be affordable. Staff finds the intent of this policy has been met. The remaining policies (3.3.8 through 3.3.9.7) concern the Westside Transect on the west side of Bend and are not applicable. Section 3.4, Rural Economy Policies Goal 7. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. FINDING: The plan amendment will change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agriculture to a Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA). By definition the subject parcel will no longer be intended for rural uses. The subject parcel adjoins rural parcels zoned EFU-TRB, RR-10, and SM. 247-20-000440-PA Page 13 of 22 The County zones allow rural economic activities and these will still be allowed after the plan amendment. The Redmond development code's requirements for screening, buffering, and landscaping will ensure development of the subject property will be compatible with the surrounding rural parcels. In fact, development of 485 residential units could provide a market of potential customers within close proximity to the rural economic uses allowed in the County -zoned lands. EFU allows for wineries and agri-tourism, RR-10 allows for home occupations, and SM has extractive uses which can be used in home landscaping. Staff finds this goal is met. The remaining polices (3.4.1 through 3.4.35) concern either uses not occurring on the subject parcel currently or are inapplicable as the parcel is zoned EFU and not Rural Commercial (RC) or Rural Industrial (RI). Section 3.5, Natural Hazards Goal 1. Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy, and the environment from natural hazards. FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan lists the three -highest priorities for natural hazards as wildfire, severe winter storms, and flooding. The subject parcel is vacant and has no infrastructure. Post - annexation the subject parcel will be in the City of Redmond, which will provide fire protection through its Fire and Rescue Department and snow removal through its Road Department. The subject parcel does not contain any lands designated floodplain or floodway. Drainage and storm water will be addressed as part of the master plan development. Staff finds this goal is met. The remaining policies (3.5.1 through 3.5.11) are specific to rural properties, which the subject property will no longer be should the plan amendment be approved. Staff finds the policies are inapplicable. Section 3.6, Public Facilities and Services Goal 1. Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. FINDING: The applicant notes the site will be annexed into the City of Redmond and provided with municipal facilities and services which are operated and maintained by the City. Thus there will be no rural public facilities and services. Staff agrees and finds this Goal is inapplicable. Section 3.7, Transportation FINDING: The applicant notes the site will be annexed into the City of Redmond and provided with City transportation facilities and services. Under the joint Area Management Agreement between City of Redmond and Deschutes County, jurisdictional transfer of roads are accomplished as part of annexation. The site is currently served by NE Maple Avenue and a Local Access Road (LAR) leading into the Negus Transfer Station. Adequacy of current and future transportation facilities will be reviewed per the Redmond development code as the land is proposed to develop. Finally, OAR 660- 247-20-000440-PA Page 14 of 22 039-0030(1)(c) exempts affordable housing pilot projects from the OAR 660-012, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Staff finds this goal is met. Section 3.8, Rural Recreation Goal 1. Promote a variety of passive and active park and recreation opportunities through a regional system that includes federal and state parks and local park districts. FINDING: The City of Redmond has a Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District (RAPRD) and the Eastside Framework Plan identified various parks and/or public spaces. Additionally, the subject parcel will remain in close proximity to Missing Link Golf Course and the High Desert Sports Complex. Policy 3.8.1 Cooperate with public agencies and local park districts to provide park and recreation lands, facilities, and opportunities. a. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and State Park Master Plans shall serve as a basis for coordination on County -wide park and recreation issues.. b. Support exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals for urban fringe areas owned or acquired by and operated by park and recreation districts. FINDING: The County's conditional granting of the 40-acre subject parcel satisfies this policy. Additionally, OAR 660-039-030 exempts the approved affordable housing pilot project is not required to obtain a goal exception for several Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 3 (Agriculture). Staff finds this policy is met. The remaining policies (3.8.2 through 3.8.10) pertain to rural County lands, which the subject property will no longer be should the plan amendment be approved. Staff finds the policies are inapplicable. Section 3.9, Destination Resorts FINDING: These goals and policies do not apply as the subject property does not have a Destination Resort Overlay zone on it nor is the plan amendment at hand for a destination resort. Section 3.10, Area Specific Plans and Policies FINDING: There are not specific area plans that apply to the subject property. Chapter 4. Urban Growth Management Section 4.2, Urbanization Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. 247-20-000440-PA Page 15 of 22 FINDING: The applicant's proposal is uniquely applicable to Urban Growth Management Goal 1 in that it is the direct outcome of the State's pilot program for affordable housing and the City of Redmond's Eastside Framework Plan. As the applicant states HB 4079, which established the pilot program, was a result of cooperation between cities, counties, stakeholders and affordable housing advocates, and the Legislature. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County coordinated on choosing the subject parcel for the future Skyline Village as well as the application to the State to be considered for the selection to the pilot program. The applicant summarizes the coordination process as follows: The City of Redmond and Deschutes County are conducting a joint land use review and public hearing process to concurrently review proposed amendments to the UGB, the County Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning map. Eastside Framework Plan and master plan development will include a 100' land use buffer to aid in the transition from urban to rural on all sides where the development borders County -zoned land. Staff finds the application is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.2.1. Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. FINDING: Deschutes County has participated in each phase of the Affordable Housing Pilot program at both the Board and the staff levels. Participation has included, but not limited to, identifying the appropriate site, passing Board Resolution 2018-029 supporting the City's application to the pilot program, negotiating the transfer of the subject 40-acre parcel, reviewing subsequent materials related to adjust the City's UGB and amending the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the application is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.2.2. Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. FINDING: The subject parcel lies in an area identified as a Redmond Urban Reserve Area. The Comprehensive Plan amendment to Redmond Growth Area and subsequent development would be the result of promotion of the site as a candidate for HB 2079 and coordination between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. Staff finds the application is consistent with this policy. Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. FINDING: The above goals will not be applicable to the subject property if the application is approved. The proposal seeks to bring the subject property into the Redmond UGB as well as annex 247-20-000440-PA Page 16 of 22 the property into the City of Redmond. Therefore staff finds that Goals 2 and 3 are not applicable to properties within city boundaries. Goal 4. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. FINDING: The applicant states this Comprehensive Plan amendment and UGB annexation will enable a thriving regional economy. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County have coordinated on policies to implement the Affordable Housing Pilot project, aka Skyline Village, on the subject parcel. The building of the 485 units, of which the state mandates at least 30 percent must be affordable and Redmond has agreed that instead 50 percent will be affordable, will contribute to economic development in the region. The presence of affordable housing is a foundation of economic growth in the region. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with this Goal. Staff finds the remaining policies (4.2.12 through 4.2.19) pertain to large -lot industrial development and are not applicable to this proposal. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the Redmond UGB complies with the actions required by the Deschutes County Development Code, including two public hearings —first with a Hearings Officer, then with the Board of County Commissioners —and notice of the hearing published in a newspaper (the Bend Bulletin) at least ten days in advance. Public agencies affected by this amendment were involved throughout the development of the proposal. In accordance with the Deschutes County Code, property owners potentially affected by the amendment (in this case, within 750 feet of the applicant property) were provided notice of the proposed amendment and hearing. The published and mailed notices all complied with DCC 22.12.020 requirements. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: This proposal satisfies this goal because the applications were handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to plan amendments in the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. In addition, the proposal is supported by a factual base consisting of the region's economy and the need for affordable housing. 247-20-000440-PA Page 17 of 22 Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. FINDING: The proposal does not contain any forest lands and therefore this goal is not applicable. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof states that the subject property does not include any significant historic or natural resources. It does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. Historic and cultural resources surveys indicate that the subject property was not occupied be prehistoric or historic peoples and contains no significant historic or cultural resources. The soils are not considered High Value Farm Land and have never been used for growing crops or perennials, and has never been within an irrigation district boundary or a decree by the state's Water Resources Department. The subject parcel has no listed Goal 5 resources on it. Staff finds the application complies with this goal. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 6. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof provides the following: There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or landslide activity. Wildfire hazards are not substantially different from other areas within or adjacent to the Redmond UGB, and development of the site could improve fire protection by providing access and water infrastructure. Therefore, inclusion of this site within the UGB and subsequent development will be consistent with Goal 7. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment that the inclusion of this site within the UGB is consistent with Goal 7. 247-20-000440-PA Page 18 of 22 Goal 8, Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 8. Goal 9, Economy of the State. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 9. Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 10. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. FINDING: The applicant's burden of proof notes under OAR 660-039-0030(1)(d), qualifying cities in the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from this goal, except that portion detailing the impact of the project to existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's UGB. The applicant has submitted a memo from City Engineer Mike Caccavano that Skyline Village, aka the subject parcel, can reasonably be served. There is adequate current and future capacity for water and sewer as well as the road network. The initial 150 units can be served with existing sewer and the remaining development can be served by either of two options for construction of new sewer lines. Staff finds the application is consistent with this goal. Goal 12, Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation program. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 13. 247-20-000440-PA Page 19 of 22 Goal 14, Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The applicant notes that OAR 660-039-0030(1)(b) qualifying cities under the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from complying with the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions of this goal. Still, the proposal has taken into account the concepts of Goal 14 in two ways. First, the subject property is within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) and is intended to convert from rural to urban zoning. The Eastside Framework Plan provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban uses and the varying residential densities and mixed uses provide for efficient use of the land within the Eastside Framework Plan. Second, the subject parcel is close to the existing Redmond UGB, can be served by a direct extension of public facilities, and the proposed use of the land is compatible with adjacent uses. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. Goals 15 through 19. Staff finds these goals, which address the Willamette Greenway, estuarine, coastal, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources, are not applicable to the proposal because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included within Urban Growth Boundary (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary of Metro except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145 (Urban reserves), rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high -value farmland as described in ORS 215.710 (High - value farmland description for ORS 215.705). (c) if land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. FINDING: The subject parcel is designate Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) and would thus be a first priority land. Staff notes OAR 660-039-0030(1)(a) does not require compliance with this statute. Staff finds the application is consistent with this statute. 247-20-000440-PA Page 20 of 22 660-039-0090 Subsequent Events (1) Upon selection by the commission as provided in OAR 660-039-0080(4), the qualifying city shall. (a) In concert with the county in which the urban growth boundary is located, amend the urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site, and identify the provisions of law and rules pursuant to OAR 660-039-0030 relating to urban growth boundary amendments that are not applied to allow the pilot project site to be included within the urban growth boundary, (b) Annex the pilot project site to the qualifying city within two years of the acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment; (c) Adopt plan and zone designations for the pilot project site that authorize development of the concept plan included in the application, (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site, and (e) Issue permits for development on the pilot project site only after annexation of the site to the qualifying city and adoption of measures ensuring that housing developed on the pilot project site will continue to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site. FINDING: The City has submitted the appropriate land use application to the County to change the Comprehensive Plan designation and the Redmond UGB boundary on the subject parcel, aka Skyline Village. The City will then initiate a land use application to apply the City of Redmond development codes to develop land uses on the subject parcel consistent with the City's Affordable Housing Pilot Program application and the Eastside Framework Plan. The County's signed agreement granting the 40-acre subject parcel to the city contains conditions to ensure the development of affordable housing consistent with OAR 660-039. Staff finds the application meets the requirements of this administrative rule. (2) For a post -acknowledgement plan amendment or land use regulation change under OAR chapter 660, division 18 that proposes amendments with any effect upon existing comprehensive plan designations or provisions that impact residential development, or land use regulations that impact residential development, the qualifying city may not, for a period of 50 years after approval of the pilot project by the commission, consider the existence of housing units existing or approved on the pilot project site when making findings regarding the proposed amendment. FINDING: The plan amendment is not being processed under OAR 660-018 so staff finds this goal is not applicable. Staff notes the City is aware of this implication for subsequent post - acknowledgement plan amendments. (3) The qualifying city for the pilot project site selected by the commission may not plan or zone the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized by the commission unless the qualifying city, in concert with the county, withdraws the pilot project site from the urban 247-20-000440-PA Page 21 of 22 growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries. FINDING: The land use application at hand 1) changes the Comprehensive Plan designation from the County's designation of Agriculture to the Redmond Urban Growth Area and 2) amends the Redmond UGB boundary to include the subject parcel. The City will then annex and apply its development code to the subject parcel to implement the Eastside Framework Plan and the Affordable Housing Pilot Project. Staff finds this administrative rule is met. IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify changing the Plan Designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and expand the Urban Growth Boundary through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION pzt�t, rWk+) Written by: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner 247-20-000440-PA Page 22 of 22 R M, � � \ }\ \ - � (3) . 0 E E-o \ E o ) ~} U Of l / i< i. ip R 1` 1' ............. w t- JS� CJ 1. 1 i= 1 , 1" M •. f. i" 1 n 0 L M 0 a A C �yJ s3 Q • 1 1 ARAP 1 13 s El 11 • �r w L' 7T i i i i i .............. us v w .V) 4-+ C: 4-1 C: .L .� E c: Ln O O .� C •L — a--J • L U OE u U O 4-, — +j •— u c O U O LD Ln E u >,Oaj vuz Ln 00 •� �X Iwo Ltem Q 4-J w� 9� § \\\ � * E -0-0 0 0 U 4-J Q) c NONE Ln '0 tA a Boom c 0 0-0 tw L. o CL W U U m m U fa..0 w JS3 0 N a Exhibit Schedule File No. OMIA413- ?A Subject: Hearings W-2 Hearing Date: Exhibit No. Description Submitted By C' i\ i-o vQ 1&) 1 ei 80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2019 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2336 Sponsored by Representatives STARK, ZIKA, Senator KNOPP, Representatives HELM, HELT, Sen- ator DEMBROW; Representatives BOLES, BONHAM, BOSHART DAVIS, FINDLEY, KENY-GUYER, LEWIS, MCLANE, NEARMAN, NOBLE, POST, RESCHKE, Senator GELSER (Presession filed.) CN:/_\71YW AN ACT Relating to affordable housing pilot program; amending section 4, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. Section 4, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016, is amended to read: Sec. 4. (1) Under the rules adopted under section 3, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016 [of this 2016 Act], the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall establish a site selection process by which the commission shall select two pilot projects, one from a city with a population of 25,000 or less and one from a city with a population greater than 25,000, from among nominations made by local governments. However, if the commission has not received any qualifying nominations from a city with a population of 25,000 or less on or before the effective date of this 2019 Act, the commission may select any two pilot projects eligible for selection on or before August 17, 2016. (2) A local government may nominate a pilot project that provides a site dedicated to affordable housing within the jurisdiction of the local government. (3) When nominating a pilot project for the site selection process, a local government shall: (a) Submit a concept plan for the pilot project, including any proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations required to implement the pilot project; and (b) Demonstrate that the landowner of the site has agreed to designation of the landowner's property as a pilot project for the purposes of sections 2 to 9, chapter 52, Oregon Laws 2016 [of this 2016 Act]. (4) The commission shall select pilot projects that are: (a) Reasonably likely to provide a site for affordable housing that would not otherwise be pro- vided without the special provisions of the pilot program; (b) Reasonably likely to serve identified populations in the area that require affordable housing; (c) Adjacent to the city's existing urban growth boundary; (d) Near public facilities and services, including roadways and an identified transit corridor to serve the area, or for which public facilities and services are planned and reasonably likely to be provided at a reasonable cost in the near future; (e) Located, planned and zoned to avoid or minimize adverse effects on natural resources and nearby farm and forest uses if the pilot project would require amending an urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site; and Enrolled House Bill 2336 (HB 2336-A) Page 1 W Nominated by a local government that demonstrates efforts by the local government to ac- commodate and encourage the development of needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary. (5) The following local governments are not eligible for nomination or selection under the pilot program: (a) Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties and cities within Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties; (b) Metro and cities and counties included in the Metro urban growth boundary; and (c) Local governments within Jefferson County that are served by the North Unit Irrigation District. Passed by House February 27, 2019 .......................................................................... Timothy G. Sekerak, Chief Clerk of House ............ .................. ................ ....... .......I. ........ ........... Tina Kotek, Speaker of House Passed by Senate April 8, 2019 .......................... ......... ........... ..... ........ I ................... .. Peter Courtney, President of Senate Received by Governor: ....................... M......................................... ................... 2019 Approved: .. ...................... M............................................................ 2019 .................................................................................. Kate Brown, Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: ....... ................. M.,....... ................................................... 2019 ......................................................................... I....... Bev Clarno, Secretary of State Enrolled House Bill 2336 (HB 2336-A) Page 2 78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2016 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill A Sponsored by Representatives STARK, BUEHLER, ROMP; Representatives DOHERTY, ESQUIVEL, HUFFMAN, KRIEGER, LIVELY, MCI SOWN, WHISNANT, WILSON (Presession filed.) CHAPTER................................................. AN ACT Relating to housing; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act are added to and made a part of ORS 197.295 to 197.314. SECTION 2. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that a supply of land dedicated to affordable housing, planned and zoned to encourage development of affordable housing and protected for affordable housing siting over a long period, is necessary for the economic prosperity of communities in this state. SECTION 3. The Land Conservation and Development Commission, working with the Housing and Community Services Department, other state agencies and local governments, shall establish and implement an affordable housing pilot program. Notwithstanding any statewide land use planning goal provisions specifying requirements for amending urban growth boundaries, the commission shall adopt rules to implement the pilot program on or before July 1, 2017. The pilot program is intended to: (1) Encourage local governments to provide an adequate supply of land within urban growth boundaries that is dedicated to affordable housing; (2) Encourage the development of affordable housing on land dedicated to affordable housing; and (3) Protect land dedicated to affordable housing from conversion to other uses before or after the development of affordable housing. SECTION 4. (1) Under the rules adopted under section 3 of this 2016 Act, the Land Con- servation and Development Commission shall establish a site selection process by which the commission shall select two pilot projects, one from a city with a population of 25,000 or less and one from a city with a population greater than 25,000, from among nominations made by local governments. (2) A local government may nominate a pilot project that provides a site dedicated to affordable housing within the jurisdiction of the local government. (3) When nominating a pilot project for the site selection process, a local government shall: (a) Submit a concept plan for the pilot project, including any proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations required to implement the pilot project; and (b) Demonstrate that the landowner of the site has agreed to designation of the landowner's property as a pilot project for the purposes of sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act. Enrolled House Bill 4079 (HB 4079-C) Page 1 (4) The commission shall select pilot projects that are: (a) Reasonably likely to provide a site for affordable housing that would not otherwise be provided without the special provisions of the pilot program; (b) Reasonably likely to serve identified populations in the area that require affordable housing, (c) Adjacent to the city's existing urban growth boundary; (d) Near public facilities and services, including roadways and an identified transit cor- ridor to serve the area, or for which public facilities and services are planned and reasonably likely to be provided at a reasonable cost in the near future; (e) Located, planned and zoned to avoid or minimize adverse effects on natural resources and nearby farm and forest uses if the pilot project would require amending an urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site; and (f) Nominated by a local government that demonstrates efforts by the local government to accommodate and encourage the development of needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary. (5) The following local governments are not eligible for nomination or selection under the pilot program: (a) Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties and cities within Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, Polk and Washington Counties; (b) Metro and cities and counties included in the Metro urban growth boundary; and (c) Local governments within Jefferson County that are served by the North Unit Irri- gation District. SECTION 5. (1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall, by rule: (a) Define "affordable housing"; (b) Specify types of affordable housing allowed on pilot project sites, including sites that are used as manufactured dwelling parks; (c) Limit the total acreage of all lots and parcels included in each pilot project site to not greater than 50 acres; and (d) Specify local government efforts that serve to demonstrate that the local government is accommodating and encouraging development of needed housing within its existing urban growth boundary. (2) The commission shall specify by rule related requirements for affordable housing that may include a sales price or rental rate range, taking into consideration: (a) Housing prices within the region compared to the income of residents of that region; (b) The availability of government assisted housing in the region; (c) The need for sites to accommodate manufactured dwellings, as defined in ORS 446.003, due to the conversion of manufactured dwelling parks or mobile home parks in the region to other uses; and (d) Other relevant factors as identified by the commission. (3) The commission may adopt rules that authorize mixed income housing developments that include affordable housing on pilot project sites. SECTION 6. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 197A.320 and without regard to whether an urban growth boundary already contains a 20-year supply of buildable lands, the Land Conservation and Development Commission by rule may establish an expedited process for amending urban growth boundaries to include pilot project sites selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act. (2) An amendment to an urban growth boundary pursuant to this section must identify the specific goal and rule requirements related to urban growth boundaries from which a local government is exempt for the purpose of implementing the pilot program. (3) Pilot project sites included within an urban growth boundary amended pursuant to this section must: (a) Be dedicated to affordable housing; and Enrolled House Bill 4079 (HB 4079-C) Page 2 (b) Remain planned and zoned for affordable housing, except as otherwise provided in rules adopted pursuant to section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. SECTION 7. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the Land Con- servation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act shall protect the pilot project site within its urban growth boundary from conversion to other uses before, during and after the development of affordable housing at the pilot project site, except as provided otherwise in rules adopted by the commission under section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. (2) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission shall ensure that housing developed on the site continues to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site through: (a) Zoning restrictions; (b) Guaranteed rental rates or sales prices; (c) Incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or other voluntary regulations, provisions or conditions designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units; (d) Other regulations, provisions or conditions determined by the local government to be effective in maintaining the affordability of housing on land selected for a pilot project under section 4 of this 2016 Act; or (e) Restrictive agreements entered into with sources of affordable housing funding. (3) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the commission may authorize a mix of affordable housing and other housing types on the site, provided that the percentage of affordable housing units developed on the site meets or exceeds requirements specified in rules adopted by the commission pursuant to section 5 (3) of this 2016 Act. SECTION S. (1) The local government of a pilot project site selected by the Land Con- servation and Development Commission under section 4 of this 2016 Act may not plan or zone the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized under sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act unless the local government withdraws the pilot project site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries. (2) A local government may not use sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act to bring high -value farmland, as determined by the commission, within its urban growth boundary. (3) The inclusion of pilot project sites dedicated to affordable housing within an urban growth boundary pursuant to sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act does not authorize a local government to convert buildable lands within the urban growth boundary that are planned for needed housing, as defined in ORS 197.303, to other uses. (4) Notwithstanding ORS 197.309 (1), for a pilot project site selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act, and affordable housing developed on a selected pilot project site, a local gov- ernment may take any action described in ORS 197,309 that has the effect of establishing the sales price for a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or that requires a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel to be designated for sale to a particular class or group of purchasers. (5) Sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act do not constitute a statutory contract. A pilot project site selected under section 4 of this 2016 Act and affordable housing developed on a selected pilot project site remain subject to new or additional regulatory requirements authorized by law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals. (6) As used in this section, "lot" and "parcel" have the meanings given those terms in ORS 92.010. SECTION 9. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall report on the progress of the pilot program, in the manner provided in ORS 192.245, to the committees of the Legislative Assembly related to housing and human services: Enrolled House Bill 4079 (HB 4079-C) Page 3 (1) At least once during each of three consecutive regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly, beginning with the 2017 regular session of the Legislative Assembly; and (2) At least once following adjournment sine die of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly described in subsection (1) of this section, but no later than the convening of the next regular session of the Legislative Assembly. SECTION 10. There is appropriated to the Department of Land Conservation and Devel- opment, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2015, out of the General Fund, the amount of $100,000 for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of sections 2 to 9 of this 2016 Act. SECTION 11. This 2016 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2016 Act takes effect on its passage. Passed by House March 1, 2016 .............................................................................. Timothy G, Sekerak, Chief Clerk of House .................................................................................. Tina Kotok, Spoaker of House Passed by Senate March 2, 2016 ............................................................................... Peter Courtney, President of Senate Received by Governor: . ..... .............. ....M.,......................................................... 1 2016 Approved: ........... ............. M.,..................... ..................................... 2016 ................................................... ........ I ....... ___ .... Kate Brown, Governor Filed in Office of Secretary of State: ... ......... .... ........ M................................... ......................... 2016 ................................................................ . .. Jeanne P. Atkins, Secretary of State Enrolled House Bill 4079 (HB 4079-C) Page 4 L�, I IEW D LE AL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, * ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property From Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and Declaring an Emergency. WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of State Lands initiated an amendment (Planning Division File No. 247-18-000752-PA) to the Comprehensive Plan Map, to change a portion of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) designation, and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a companion application (Planning Division File No. 247-18-00075 1 -PA) was submitted to redesignate the remaining portion of the property from Agricultural (AG) designation to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) designation, in accordance with the Regional Large Lot Industrial Program, under Ordinance No. 2019-003;and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on November 27, 2018, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on December 10, 2018, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a de novo public hearing was held on February 12, 2019, before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); and WHEREAS, the Board, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, approved as detailed above the Comprehensive Plan text and map changes; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with language approved by the Board within Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit `B" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 i ; NWIN!. C-,- " Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with language approved by the Board within Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined. Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with language approved by the Board within Ordinance 2019-003 and new language underlined. Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance, the Decision of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "F", and incorporated by reference herein. Section G. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, and to support the City of Redmond's timely efforts related to the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds facility and relocation of the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days from adoption. Dated this of Fi 2019 Re r mg Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, O 'GON PHILIP G. INDERSON, Chair r r PA I ADAIR, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Date of I` Reading: `a day of V74 �2019. Date of2"d Reading: day of 2019. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Philip G. Henderson Patti Adair Anthony DeBone K Effective date: day of ,/v1, w L k_ , 2019. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 — EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein. CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein. EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein. FF. The Deschutes CouM Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-003, are incorporated bv reference herein. GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, ado tep d by the Board in Ordinance 2019-004. are incorporated by reference herein (Ord. 2019-004 § 1, 2019: Ord. 2019-003 41. 2019. Ord. 2019-001 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 §1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 §1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 §1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 §1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 EXHIBIT B Proposed County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department Expansion Area Legal Description, Subject Property Willamette Meridian, Oregon T. 15 S., R. 13 E., sec. 33, N1/2NW1/4, and N1/2NE1/4. VE , > City of .GREI3d.4' t. � n i Redmond •g C DR t; Plan Amendment from ;p RREA Agriculture (AG) to t Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) r. 3x dr s L" 't x i f i r §f r OS&C `�� # e �3�,t4 �"�c�,.ryh �ti t .s �,z A\ t7zx r � tin 4 � z �+t•*; t �, �..' �'✓ '�: �.,yt 'st s'c ��'� •s,, a� �, �. ��'�s ,-Ys. CrS} ¢ 1 ` x,k a' c ijc:. kj': � 3 f' f ��... .�1 `uTafy L�'T+J t�h s.� �2'i '� J$�V-;i\i� ��� ; J•;y F•:. �i, � � � i�6 fi. ' 'F 3'�''�SiaYJ'��� �•r� � ,a, 5t� K1 ��`,��. +� ni t i�r;y. 'tj. fir' •A - t F' 'e �C#'�-t',� •�" ' "S� . ,v^ '3���+ ly�t . "C t .• J„,A`t 'J l.� .3:3ti �J'P 1�� r''.i�i.r Yr•��f � k rti7a p "*v Yr:? r 2'''�` � .tf '1�r Nr , f '/r� t ,"r^�isa�'�'Y'. 'rl" taa,. J},- .J';%b}.I A 4 sY ems%• � �' . a ah.�EF, 3.� ��4c. �, s,. ; �° I, •r , , d a,,,, �"{„ Rjr ., '!^ i\�tt t x r r,'.st'�+t 1 v � ttsc r rf ' r nC rt� , �$';-�� ;"� ,?`E 4t r. _ t i' � .� r - •� ' ` }.Y `s71e r{ �,?`+t'�19 i s I >r l,y� �f {� yr � i f� '�`h. �>lef} r :.. Yr i„ t of rf,�3.✓.v ,i ?:�,v St tr ;yf � J ! .§ � t. :;s :.'��, `T �+' :`rr1 t �.. ! k(S,ti t CL •. t- .� 'rT' '.`.ti , nd h`T �f,-i} r Zd fti aJp"(ti Y�r `.�, f f ;.•,.,i, �k z " r yrt. f r ,Mrt r"` :is �yip` t,:. ur;t 4 t fir, C3i t{ z".. •irdar, Jj\: t.rrr < 4..ii.\`� y :ti 4,+",.t J:. } 1 i f t J 1 i c 1 .!,i"+ ,(r, L k:r s ! ` gi}r L+t�4S f } %,• , 13 a r ['k+(�. eau i ' k rr. ,;•`i+, c.;;' `,�trt ::.,1 I ti �. ,3+ i Y (..,,�y riS d } >• t� r t. t Q * 1r�� X r .ti ^, s a i �'' '' �` �' t+> •i `S Y7t', 3 7i r i t,�s§?. x � ♦ �#, s. 5 a y4 7 � t P i ? '� fr �' ,r�yp�#t n s ad s 4 0 il`t" "'}. y �!� ,.ji ;�;.}5 3' Ix t '1 rh ? i [ �.i {!• *, >e r;tj. i4 5 i lSrr�t �r v5?,i.F kyp,Aii ]Stz {-. 7z Y} \ +.r... rtixra, tI. i"t ` r i.; i.i r y t ,,a.rj t et dr rLit+7t j �y '�r `d ��r;�:., 4 a41 i^c y1 •`lsrj..?�' s�.1`+,p;�. ,r ��f "Xj�XiY2,'},.„`yi s},' t ♦ -ti t t' � bi - s�' f qy rrr: '�Yei:�•i.i`.reu �"�.,'t°} {{t.:t i .�'., t1•ir cy.,-�^«!r trF 4. i # ti'r� rr � d � t : i e { js . f �+f Ii•{�SL ' � t�i �iv'r S� >!§ A k id � r.Y ,�c�y N� `i3 C j �fX r+.< Xtc r�« s � r rr y{ t rsS k(. t r ^,`• rsf , . * Sr4 ,• ,h a, „,, � ! r3,.�,1�V�: � .. ' rX�}x "3 s'r' � �} Lr� "4'+i'.:� ' 14 Legend QProposed Plan Amendment Boundary j Redmond Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation AG -Agriculture OS&C - Open Space & Conservation RREA- Rural Residential Exception Area PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Philip G. Henderson, Chair Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2019-004 PettlAdair, Vice Chair Tony DeBone, Commissioner ATTEST Recording Secretary 0 0.126 0." 05 MNa. Dated tide _day of 2019 J.—Y ta. 2019 Effective Date: , 2019 chapter 4 i trbaw Growth EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Seoewl& 4.1 [PUtrodu.ct%ow Background A major emphasis of Oregon's land use planning program is directing new development into urban areas. Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, requires cities, in cooperation with counties, to create Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). The UGBs are legal lines that contain lands that are anticipated to urbanize over a 20-year period. UGBs allow cities to adequately plan for future urban facilities and services. State laws require that UGBs be adopted by both the city and the county. Besides the UGBs which define the land needed for city expansion over 20 years, some cities adopt Urban Reserve Areas (URAs), which define land needed beyond a 20 year horizon, typically representing an additional 10 to 30 year land supply. By adopting an URA a city can better plan for expansion and growth. Like UGBs, URAs are done in a partnership between a county and the city. Deschutes County has four incorporated cities. Bend, Redmond and Sisters were incorporated before 1979. The City of La Pine incorporated on November 7, 2006. Bend, Redmond and Sisters' Comprehensive Plans are coordinated with the County. Certain elements are adopted into the County's. In addition, the cities and the County maintain urban growth area zoning ordinances and cooperative agreements for mutually administering the unincorporated urbanizing areas. These areas are located outside city limits but within UGBs. La Pine adopted a Comprehensive Plan and UGB in 2012. Until La Pine adopts its own land use regulations, County land use regulations will continue to be applied inside the city limits though a joint management agreement. In addition to cities and the associated UGBs and URAs, there are rural locations around the County that contain urban level development. These areas generally existed before the Oregon land use system was enacted in the early 1970s. In 1994 the Land Conservation and Development Commission wrote a new Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR), 660-22, to classify and regulate these unincorporated communities. The OAR created four categories of unincorporated communities and required the County to evaluate existing rural developments under the new Rule. Purpose The Urban Growth Management chapter, in concert with the other chapters of this Plan, specifies how Deschutes County will work with cities and unincorporated communities to accommodate growth while preserving rural character and resource lands. The following issues are covered in this chapter: • Urbanization (Section 4.2) • Unincorporated Communities Overview (Section 4.3) • La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (Section 4.4) • Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community (Section 4.5) • Terrebonne Rural Community Plan (Section 4.6) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-W4 • Tumalo Rural Community Plan (Section 4.7) • Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7`' MountainfWidgi Creek Rural Resorts (Section 4.8) Rural Service Centers (Section 4.9) Goal 14 recognizes the following: Statewide Planning Goal 14 Urbanization 'To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities." Excerpt from Goal 14 Planning Guidelines "`Plans should designate sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accommodate the need for further urban expansion, taking into account (1) the growth policy of the area, (2) the needs of the forecast population, (3) the carrying capacity of the planning area, and (4) open space and recreational needs." DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 3 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.1 INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 rSeC,eW W 4.2 RrbR K1*ZR WK, Background This section describes the coordination between the County and the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters on Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) and Urban Reserve Areas (URAs). Statewide Planning Goal 2 recognizes the importance of coordinating land use plans. "City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268." Oregon Revised Statute 197.015(5) goes further to define comprehensive plan coordination. "A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible." Population An important basis for coordinating with cities is adopted population projections. Having an estimate of anticipated population is the first step to planning for future growth and conservation. ORS 195.025(I) requires counties to coordinate local plans and population forecasts. The County oversees the preparation of a population forecast in close collaboration with cities. This is important because the population of the County has increased significantly in recent decades and a coordinated approach allows cities to ensure managed growth over time. Table 4.2.1 — Population Growth in Deschutes County 1980 to 2010 Sources 19801 1990 2000 2010 Population Research Center July I estimates 62,500 1 75,600 116,600 172.050 US Census Bureau April 1 counts 62,142 1 74,958 115,367 157,733 Source: As now above In 1996 Bend, Redmond, Sisters and the County reviewed recent population forecasts from the Portland State University Center Population and Research Center (PRC) and U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Transportation, Woods and Poole, Bonneville Power Administration and Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis. After reviewing these projections, all local governments adopted a coordinated population forecast. It was adopted by Deschutes County in 1998 by Ordinance 98-084. The results of the 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared by the PRC revealed that the respective populations of the County and its incorporated cities were growing faster than anticipated under the 1998 coordinated forecast. The cites and the County re-engaged in a coordination process between 2002 and 2004 that culminated with the County adopting a revised population forecast that projected population to the year 2025. It was adopted by Ordinance 2004-012 and upheld by the Land Use Board of Appeals on March 28. 2005. The following table displays the 2004 coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County and the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-M Table 4.2.2 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025 Year Bend UGB Redmond UG8 Sisters UGB Unincorporated Total County 2000 52,800 15,505 975 47,320 116,600 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2010 81,242 23,897 Z306 59,127 166,572 2015 91,158 2907 2;694 65,924 189,443 2020 100,646 36.831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 source: 2mm l-ooramaoeo ropueanon rar+ecan for Demmutes county The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop the 2000-2025 coordinated forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Findings in Support of Forecast." The fourth city in Deschutes County is the City of La Pine. Incorporated on November 7, 2006, the City of La Pine's 2006 population estimate of 1,590 was certified by PRC on December I S, 2007. As a result of La Pine's incorporation, Deschutes County updated its Coordinated Population Forecast with Ordinance 2009-006. The purpose of this modification was to adopt a conservative 20 year population forecast for the City of La Pine that could be used by city officials and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to estimate its future land need and a UGB. The following table displays the coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, the UGBs of the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and La Pine from 2000 to 2025. By extending the growth rate to the year 2025, La Pine's population will be 2,352. The non -urban unincorporated population decreases by 2,352 from its original projection of 81,951, to 79,599. Table 4.2.3 - Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 to 2025, Including La Pine Year Bend UGB Redmond UG8 Sisters UGB La Pine UGB Unincorporated County Total County 2000 52,800 15,505 975 - 47,320 116,600 2005 69.004 19.249 1,768 - 53,032 143.053 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 1,697 57,430 166,572 2015 91.158 29,667 Z694 I'M 64,032 189,443 2020 100,646 36,831 311" 2,110 71,392 214,145 2025 109,389 45,724 3.747 2,352 79,599 240,811 Source: 2004 Coordina Pom htkm Forecast for Deschutes Countv - uodated 2009 2030 Population Estimate This Comprehensive Plan is intended to manage growth and conservation in the unincorporated areas of the County until 2030. Because the official population forecast extends only to 2025, County staff used conservative average annual growth rates from the adopted population forecast to estimate population out to 2030. The following table estimates Deschutes County population by extending the adopted numbers out an additional five years. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 Uitemr ATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Table 4.2A — Deschutes County 2030 Population Forecast Year Bend I Redmond I Sisters I Lo Pine Unincorporated Total County UG8 UG8 UG8 UG8 County 2030 119,009 151,733 14,426 12,632 188.748 266,538 Source: County estimates based on the 2004 'rated Fooulation Forecast as shown below Bend's auarge annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 1.70% Redmard's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 2.50% Sisters' based their population on forecasted rates of building growth, residential housing units, and persons per dwelling unit La P1ne's average annual growth rate from 2025 to 2030 is 210% Deschutes Courht:Ya unincorporated area average annual growth rue from 202S to 2030 is 2.20% As the pie chart below indicates, if population occurs as forecasted, 67% of the County's population will reside in urban areas by 2030. In 2030 Sisters 2% 1 unincorporated Figure 4.1 Deschutes County 2030 — Area BMW Estimated Population 33% 45% I La Rue Rednnrd 1% v 19% Such growth will undoubtedly require strategically managing the provision of public services and maintaining adequate amounts of residential, commercial and industrial lands. Growth pressures will also require programmatic approaches to maintain open spaces, natural resources, and functional ecosystems that help define the qualities of Deschutes County. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Bend The City of Bend legislatively amended its UGB as part of a periodic review acknowledgment in December 2004. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted concurrent ordinances that expanded the Bend UGB by 500 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for industrial land. In July 2007, the Bend -La Pine School District received approvals to expand the City of Bend UGB to include two properties for the location of two elementary schools, one at the Pine Nursery, the other on Skyliner Road. In 2014, the Bend -La Pine School district received approval to include a 33-acre site within the UGB near Skyliners Road to facilitate the construction of a public middle school. The Bend City Council and the Board of County Commissioners approved a legislative amendment to the Bend UGB in September 2016. The adopted amendment added 2,380 acres of land intended to satisfy a 20-year land need for needed housing, employment, and public uses from 2008 to 2028. The adopted UGB amendment also satisfied the terms of a 2010 Remand 6 � DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —2011 CHA/rER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URSANi AnON EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Order from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (10-REMAND- PARTIAL ACKNOW-001795). The City of Bend UGB amendment identified 5 existing neighborhood typologies within the City, with the "Transect" being the defined neighborhood typology which "provides a transitional residential development pattern from urban to rural using a variety of housing types integrated with the surrounding natural landscape to minimize the impact on sensitive ecosystems, wildlife and to reduce the risk of wildfire." The City applied this Transect concept to specific areas added to the UGB identified as the "Sheviin Area' and the "West Area" and created area -specific policies for those areas to recognize the unique characteristics of the area and create a transition from higher densities within the city to lower densities extending westward to the City of Bend UGB . In coordination with the city, Deschutes County has continued this concept for the areas in the county on the west side of Bend adjacent to the "Shevlin" and "West Area" in its Rural Housing elements and policies found in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. Sisters The City of Sisters legislatively amended its UGB in September 2005 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Sisters UGB expansion covered 53 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential, commercial, light industrial, and public facility land. In March 2009, Sisters amended their UGB to facilitate the establishment of a 4-acre fire training facility for the Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District. Redmond The City of Redmond legislatively amended its UGB in August 2006 when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinances. The Redmond UGB expansion covered 2,299 acres and satisfied a 20 year demand for residential and neighborhood commercial land. In February 2019, Redmond amended its UGB through a joint process when its City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted respective ordinance, ._Thisis expansion covered 949 acres in total: 789 acres was _designated for large lot industrial development in accordance with the Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Lands Program. and 160 acres allowed for the expansion of the existing_ Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. Lo mine In 2012 La Pine adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. La Pine established a UGB that matches the city limits, because the City contains sufficient undeveloped land for future housing, commercial and industrial needs over a 20-year period. The Plan map includes land use designations intended to provide an arrangement of uses to ensure adequate and efficient provision of public infrastructure for all portions of the City and UGB. Urban Reserve Area Redmond In December 2005, Redmond City Council and the Board of County Commissioners adopted a 5,661 acre URA for the City. It is the first URA in Central Oregon because most cities find planning farther into the future than the 20-year UGB timeframe, challenging. DESCHUM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 1 CHAPTER 4 UR6AN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 UmANIzAT1oN EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Coordination As noted above, Statewide Goal 2 and ORS promote land use planning coordination. The purposes of the urbanization goals and policies in this section are to provide the link between urban and rural areas, and to provide some basic parameters within which the urban areas of Deschutes County can develop, although the specific comprehensive plan for each community remains the prevailing document for guiding growth in its respective area. These policies permit the County to review each city's comprehensive plan to ensure effective coordination. The Redmond and Deschutes County Community Development Departments received the Oregon Chapter of American Panning Association's (OAPA) Professional Achievement in Planning Award in 2006 for the "Redmond Urban Reserve Area / Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Project". The following quote taken from the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association's 2006 Awards Program shows why the Redmond Community Development Department was chosen for this award. An outstanding effort to address Redmond's rapid population growth, including the successful designation of an Urban Reserve and the imminent designation of an Urban Growth Boundary, a "Framework Ron" with a requirement for master planning, and the establishment of "Great Neighborhood Principles." Central Oregon Large Lot industrial Land Need Analysis During the 1990s, the Central Oregon region experienced a dramatic transformation from an economy concentrated largely in wood products into a service based economy serving a growing and diverse tourism and household base. Accelerated in -migration and tourism growth gave way to rapid economic expansion, escalation in home prices, and a systematic shift in the local economy from goods producing activities to service oriented industries. While initially representing a diversification of the local economy, this shift led to an over -reliance upon these types of industries. During the recent recession, the regional economy's vulnerabilities became apparent. Suitable land for today's industrial development forms emerged as one of Oregon's most severe development challenges. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties and their respective cities, undertook an unprecedented regional evaluation of the economic opportunities and constraints associated with users of large industrial parcels in the Central Oregon region. The purpose of this evaluation was to aid in providing a more diversified economic base for the region that would accommodate industrial uses with a need for larger lots than possibly may be currently available in any of the Central Oregon cities. As part of that evaluation, Deschutes County hired a consultant to draft an analysis of Central Oregon's opportunities, competitiveness, ability, and willingness to attract more basic industries. The analysis focused specifically on industries that require large lots. The result was a document called the Central Oregon Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, and was the basis for Ordinance 201 1-017, dated May 31, 2011. Ordinance 2011-017 was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals by 1,000 Friends of Oregon (" I,000 Friends"). The appeal was stayed in early 2012 to allow Deschutes County, the Governor's Office, and 1,000 Friends to explore a settlement, which was ultimately reached in DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAmK 4 URsAN GKowTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 UPSANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-M April, 2012. The settlement consisted of policy concepts focusing entirely on Central Oregon's short-term need for large -lot industrial sites as well as a commitment from the Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD") to initiate rule -making that summer. The three counties, their respective cities, 1,000 Friends, and DLCD staff then engaged in drafting a proposed rule. In August, the final draft of that rule was then sent to the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission ("LCDC"). As a result, in November, the LCDC adopted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-004S. That rule provides that that the large lot industrial land need analysis agreed upon by all of the parties, once adopted by each of the participating governmental entities, would be sufficient to demonstrate a need for up to nine large industrial sites in Central Oregon. Six of the sites will be made available initially. Three more sites may be added under the rule as the original sites are occupied. After the adoption of the new OARS, Deschutes County voluntarily repealed Ordinance 201 1-017 and adopted a new ordinance, Ordinance 2013-002, in accordance with the OARS. Utilizing the new OARS, Ordinance 2013-002 emphasized Central Oregon' short term need for a critical mass of competitive and diverse vacant, developable industrial sites. An additional necessary component is an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") between the region's jurisdictions and the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC"). Through the IGA, COIL will provide oversight of the short-term land supply of large -lot industrial sites to enable the region to become competitive in industrial recruitment. Once each of the three counties and their respective cities adopt similar ordinances and enter into an IGA with COIC, the large lot sites will enable industrial recruitment opportunities to attract potential industrial users to consider the region that may not have otherwise without the availability of these large lots. The IGA between COIC end the re ion's cities and, counties was,.executed on April 9 2013. Participating local governments will review the program after all nine sites have been occupied or after ten years, whichever comes first. In February_2019. Deschutes County adopted Ordinance No. 2019-003, which implemented Elie Iarze lot industrial policies defined b) Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-024-0040 and 660-024-0045. The ordinance amended the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map to allow for 789 acres of a_9.49-acre parcel owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands to be incorporated into the City of Redmond's UGB (the remaining 160 acres were transferred into the QGBpursuant to different criteria). This site, referred to as the South Redmond Tract, was submitted to the_Large Lot Industrial Lands DrOD-ram by the City of Redmond in 2015 after an extensive analysis of several potential sites utilizing the criteria of the adopted Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Lands Needs Analysis ("the Analysis"). COIC accepted the prmaperty intoYrhe Lame Lot_Industr ial LL1 r-o r•am on May_7. 2015. Subsequent, the Citof Redmond amended its zonine code to add a Large Lot Industrial Zone, which. addresses the requirements of the LLI program and ensures that properties with this zoning designation are to be utilized solely for large lot industrial or directly related ur oses. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-W4 SeOd'ow 4.2 L-trbawtzaeWK, PoL%Ota Goals and Policies Goal 1 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Policy 4.2.1 Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. Policy 4.2.2 Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. Policy 4.2.3 Review the idea of using rural reserves. Goal 2 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands Inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Policy 4.2.4 Use urban growth area zoning to coordinate land use decisions inside urban growth boundaries but outside the incorporated cities. Policy 4.2.5 Negotiate intergovernmental agreements to coordinate with cities on land use inside urban growth boundaries and outside the incorporated cities. Policy 4.2.6 Develop urban growth area zoning with consideration of the type, timing and location of public facilities and services provision consistent with city plans. Policy 4.2.7 Adopt by reference the comprehensive plans of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as the policy basis for implementing land use plans and ordinances in each city's urban growth boundary. Goal 3 Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. Policy 4.2.8 Designate the Redmond Urban Reserve Area on the County Comprehensive Plan Map and regulate it through a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone in Deschutes County Code, Title 18. Policy 4.2.9 In cooperation with the City of Redmond adopt a RURA Agreement consistent with their respective comprehensive plans and the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0050 or its successor. Policy4.2.10 The following land use policies guide zoning in the RURA. a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, in a manner that ensures the orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services as these lands are brought into the urban growth boundary. b. New parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres. c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that 10 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHARTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-M generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the KURA. d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law and the County Zoning Ordinance. e. New arterial and collector rights -of -way in the RURA shall meet the right-of- way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards. f. Protect from development existing and future arterial and collector rights -of - way, as designated on the County's Transportation System Plan. g. A single family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted before the RURA designation. Policy 4.2.11 Collaborate with the City of Redmond to assure that the County -owned 1,800 acres in the RURA is master planned before it is incorporated into Redmond's urban growth boundary. Goal 4 To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. Policy 4.2.12 Deschutes County supports a multi -jurisdictional cooperative effort to pursue a regional approach to establish a short-term supply of sites particularly designed to address out -of -region industries that may locate in Central Oregon. Policy 4.2.13 Deschutes County recognizes the importance of maintaining a large -lot industrial land supply that is readily developable in Central Oregon. Policy 4.2.14 The Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis ("Analysis"), adopted by Ordinance 2013-002 is incorporated by reference herein. Policy 4.2.15 Within 6 months of the adoption of Ordinance 2013-002, in coordination with the participating local governments in Central Oregon, Deschutes County shall, execute an intergovernmental agreement ("IGA") with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council ("COIC") that specifies the process of allocation of large lot industrial sites among the participating local governments. Policy 4.2.16 In accordance with OAR 660-024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant sites. Policy 4.2.17 Deschutes County supports Economic Development of Central Oregon ("EDCO"), a non-profit organization facilitating new job creation and capital investment to monitor and advocate for the region's efforts of maintaining an inventory of appropriate sized and located industrial lots available to the market Policy 4.2.18 Deschutes County will collaborate with regional public and private representatives to engage the Oregon Legislature and state agencies and their commissions to address public facility, transportation and urbanization issues that hinder economic development opportunities in Central Oregon. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE RAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 UP&AN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Policy 4.2.19 Deschutes County will strengthen long-term confidence in the economy by building innovative public to private sector partnerships. 12 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 4 URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT SECTION 4.2 URBANIZATION EXHIBIT "D" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-M .seoewo, 5-i2 l.to'bSLaewe Kstortd Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Chapter/Section Amendment Effective All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne 2011-003 8-10-11 / 11-9-11 Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Comprehensive Plan update Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, Housekeeping amendments to 2011-027 10-31-11 / 11-9-11 4.6. 5.3, 5.8, 5.11, 23.40A, 23.40B, ensure a smooth transition to 23.40,065, 23.01.010 the updated Plan 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), Updated Transportation 2012-005 8-20-12/ 11-19-12 3.7 (revised), Appendix C System Plan (added) 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary Housekeeping amendments to 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Destination Resort Chapter Central Oregon Regional 2013-002 1-7-13/ 1-7-13 4.2 Large -lot Employment land Need Analysis Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-012 5-8-1318-6-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Newberry Country: A Plan 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.11 for Southern Deschutes County DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAF ER S SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-016 10-21-13/ 10-21-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.11 Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 11-2S-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-021 11-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 20 15-029 1 1-23- 15/ f l -30-15 23.0 1.010 designation of certainproperty from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23,01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment recognizing 2015-010 12-2-15/12-2-15 2.6 Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Planning Goal 1 I to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non- 2016-005 11-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning Comprehensive plan 2016-022 9-28-16/11-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-029 12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2017-007 10-30-17/ 10-30-17 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan 2018-002 1-3-18/ 1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 I EGISLATNE HISTORY EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral 2018-006 8-22-18/ 11-20-18 23.01.010. 5.8, 5.9 and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2018-011 9-12-18/ 12-11-18 23.01.010 designation of certain property from agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, removing Flood 23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo Plain Comprehensive Plan 2018-005 9-19-18/ 10-10-18 Community Plan, Designation; Comprehensive Newberry Country Plan Plan Amendment adding Flood Plain Combining Zone purpose statement. Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing for the 2018-008 9-26-18/10-26-18 23.01.010, 3.4 potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Surface Mining 2019-002 1-2-19/4-2-19 23.01.010, 5.8 to Rural Residential Exception Area; Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; Modifying Non - Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Comprehensive Plan and Text 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Comprehensive Plan Mai Amendment changing designation of certain 2019-003 TBD/TBD 23,01.010, 4.2 properV from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the Large Lot Industrial Program Comprehensive Plan Man Amendment changing designation of certain gropperty from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth 2019-004 TBD/TBD 23.01.010, 4.2 Area for the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of Oregon Military Department National Guard Arma . DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT "E" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION FILE NUMBERS: 247-18-000752-PA HEARING: November 27, 2018, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Service Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/OWNER: John Swanson, Real Property Planner Department of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE, Ste. 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 APPLICANT'S AGENT: Matt Hastie Angelo Planning Group 921 SW Washington Street, Ste. 468 Portland, OR 97205 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City of Redmond to allow for the expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to redesignate a 160-acre portion of the property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The applicant has submitted a related application (247-18-000751) associated with the remaining 789 acres of the property. STAFF REVIEWER: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Nicole Mardell@deschu es.org, 541-317-3157 HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen The following decision adopts the Staff Report, including staffs conclusions regarding the applicable standards and criteria, with minor substantive revisions and edits. Substantive revisions are noted as Hearings Officer. Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance EXHIBIT F TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 12, Transportation Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 18, Post -Acknowledgement Amendments Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197A - Comprehensive Land Use Planning 11 Amendment of Urban Growth Boundaries Outside Metro A. LOCATION: The property is located at 4800 SW 19th Street, Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-13 as Tax Lot 130. The entire property, referred to as the South Redmond Tract in the application materials, is 949 acres in size. The focus of this application is the northeastern 160 acres of the property ("Subject Property'), as shown in the map below. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-OW752-PA EXHIBI-T "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 2 of 55 B. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits: B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the Issuance of the following permits. a. Any land use permit for a unit of land In the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40), b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory, C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment; d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In al► zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required In the applicable zone, In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) hearings officer decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. C. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to redesignate 160 acres of the South Redmond Tract from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The purpose of the request is to amend the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary to allow for the expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. The applicant has submitted a separate request for a Large Lot Industrial application (247-18-000751-PA) for the remainder of the property. The public hearings for each proposal will take place on the same evening, but are to be reviewed individually. D. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa subzone and is designated on the Comprehensive Plan map as Agriculture. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property encompasses approximately 160 acres and is located immediately south and east of the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary and City Limits. The property is bordered by the Burlington Santa Fe Railroad to the west and receives access from SW Elkhorn Avenue to the north. The property is vacant, is not in farm tax deferral and does not contain any irrigation water rights or irrigated area. The property is generally level in topography with scatter rock outcroppings and contains juniper and sagebrush throughout. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 3 of 55 F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the subject property vary. To the south and east of the subject property are large tracts of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which are currently vacant. To the west of the subject property is Juniper Golf Course, vacant land owner by the State of Oregon, Mountain View Mobile Home Park, a few residential parcels, and larger EFU-zoned parcels farther west of the subject property. To the northeast of the property is the Redmond Municipal Airport and vacant land owned by the City of Redmond. To the north of the property is the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and a variety of smaller parcels zoned for commercial, industrial, or residential use. G. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject property contains three different soil types, as described below. 333B. Deschutes-Houstake complex 0 to 8 percent slopes, This soil complex is composed of 50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Houstake soil and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with a moderately rapid permeability, and about 3.7 inches of available water capacity. Houstake soils are well drained with a moderate permeability, and about 7 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 33B soils are 3E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately thirty-three (33) percent of the entire property is made up of this soil type. 356 Deschutes-Stukel complex dry 0 to 8 percentslope• This soil complex is composed of 50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with a moderately rapid permeability, and about 7 inches of available water capacity. The Stukel soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability and about 2.2 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 35B soils are 4E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately eight (8) percent of the entire property is made up of this soil type. 142E Stukel-rock outcrop - Deschutes complex 0 to 8 percent slopes- This soil type is comprised of 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, 30 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. Stukel soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability. The available water capacity is about 2 inches. Deschutes soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability. Available water capacity is about 3.7 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing. The Stukel soils have ratings of 6E when unirrigated, and no rating when irrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deschutes soils have ratings of 6E when unirrigated, and no rating when irrigated. Approximately fifty-nine (59) percent of the entire property is made up of this soil type. H. PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 4 of 55 and notice of the public hearing to neighboring property owners and the following agencies: Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Transportation, City of Redmond, State of Oregon, and Department of Land Conservation and Development. No comments were received prior to the close of the record. Staff consulted Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner in reviewing the Transportation Memorandum provided in the Burden of Proof. Mr. Russell's comments are found under the OAR 660- Division 12 Transportation Planning analysis. 1. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated October 10, 2018 indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on that same date. On October 30, 2018, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, November 4, 2018. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 16, 2018. J. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on September 12, 2018. The application was deemed complete October 15, 2018. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period. K. LAND USE HISTORY: The South Redmond Tract is owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) for the exclusive benefit of the Common School Fund (CSF). Revenues generated by the land are dedicated to the support of K-12 public schools throughout the state. According to the applicant, in October 2008 the State Land Board, which oversees DSL, adopted the South Redmond Tract Land Use and Management Plan (Plan). The Plan set out a concept for urban development of the Tract that is consistent with state land use law, advances DSL's mission to maximize revenue for the CSF, and benefits the local community and regional economy of Central Oregon. Prior to 2007 the subject property was owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Previous land use actions associated with the subject property are: 247-SP0750-PL (2007): Site plan review for the removal and replacement of utility poles. • 247-PS1240-PL (2012): Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for an Outdoor Mass Gathering - Tough Mudder Race. 247-14-000158-LL, 159-1-1, and 160-LL (2014): Application for a property line adjustment between four legal lots of record. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 5 of 55 247-18-000631-PS: Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for the Redmond Turkey Trot road race. L. HEARING: Hearings Officer: At the outset of the hearing I provided the statutorily required notices. I noted that I had no conflicts of interest, had received no ex parte contacts and had not conducted a site visit. I explained the right to a continuance or extension of the open record period, but no such request was made. Matt Hastie, Angelo Planning Group, testified for the applicant, including explaining how the potential future transportation impacts will be addressed. James Lewis, Deschutes County Property Manager testified in favor, noting that the current fairgrounds is turning away events and that the County will be acquiring the property in an exchange for county owned industrial land. There was no other testimony. Staff introduced into the record the 2007 Agreement between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County governing land use matters within the Redmond Unincorporated Urban Growth Area and the Redmond Urban Reserve Area. The Agreement was adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 190. Among other things it designates Deschutes County as the entity with authority to process and decide amendments to the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and amendments to the County comprehensive plan, plan map, zoning map and regulations until such time as property is brought within the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary, subject to approval by the Redmond City Council. (Hearing Ex. 1) As with the companion application (247-18-000751), the City of Redmond concurrently is processing the related city land use applications, culminating in a joint public hearing at which the Redmond City Council and Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will make their respective final decisions on the applications. 111. FINDINGS AND CONCLIU$IONS - APPROVAL CRITERIA TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE A. Chapter 18.136, Amendments 1. Section 18.136.010. Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 6 of 55 FINDING: The applicant, also the property owner, has requested and filed an application for a quasi- judicial plan amendment in accordance with County policies and applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. TITLE 23 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. FINDING: The proposed plan amendment is being processed as a quasi-judicial application with opportunities for public input before a County Hearings Officer and the Board of County Commissioners. Staff adhered to the notice requirements within Title 22 - Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance. Additionally, the City of Redmond is processing a concurrent application to annex, rezone, and master plan the property which will include additional opportunities for public input. This goal is met. Goal2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. FINDING: The applicant has a long history of coordination with the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and other agencies leading to the submittal of this application. Within the burden of proof, the applicant details this history: All affected regional agencies and stakeholders were involved in the South Redmond Tract Land Use and Management Plan, which designated the northern portion of the tractfor the public facility uses proposed in this amendment. At the inception of the project, DSL engaged partner agencies including OPRD, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). The plan was developed through a regional task force, the South Redmond Collaborative Planning Group, supported by a regional partnership known as the Central Oregon Economic Revitalization Team, and input was sought from the DLCD and Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD). Visit Bend, the regional tourism agency, funded feasibility study for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center facility that informs the proposed development program for that site. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County are conducting a joint land use review and public hearing process to concurrently review proposed amendments to the UG8, the County Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning map. As part of this process, the City and County conducted a joint pre -proposal conference with the applicant and the applicant (DSL) has continued to coordinate regularly with City and County staff in regards to the proposed amendments. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 7 of 55 As part of a separate but related set of land use amendments associated with the adjacent proposed Large Lot Industrial site, the City and DSL have coordinated closely the COIC and Deschutes County staff regarding proposed plans for that site and its relationship to the proposed public facility uses. Cityand Countystaff and the DSL representatives have coordinated closelywith ODOTstaff in regards to analysis of transportation impacts associated with the proposed land use applications, including approaches for modeling impacts, potential mitigation associated with those impacts and consistency with the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and other state transportation requirements. DSL representatives have consulted with representatives of DLCD regarding consistency with state requirements associated with UGB amendments, including those intended to support the Central Oregon LLI program and associated administrative rules. DSL representatives have coordinated with other state agencies partners including the Oregon Military Department and Oregon Parks and Recreation Department in regards to future land exchanges or agency facilities within or adjacent to the subject property. Staff finds that the applicable has demonstrated the cooperation and partnership among regional stakeholders. This goal is met. Goal 3. Manage County owned lands efficiently, effectively, flexibly and In a manner that balances the needs of County residents. FINDING: The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to allow for an exchange of land resulting in the conveyance of a 160-acre portion of the subject property from the Department of State Lands to Deschutes County. The property will be used to expand the County's Fairgrounds, including a new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, as well as providing a relocation site for the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. Within the burden of proof, the applicant stated County residents will be served by these facilities as they will provide needed recreation facilities. Additionally, the Armory will provide additional public service benefits to the community. This goal is met. Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2 Agriu�4ltural Lands Policies Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 8 of 55 Policy2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described In the 1992 Farm Study and shown In the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an Individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The majority of the discussion surrounding agricultural land and the applicant's legal argument (per policy 2.2.2) is found in the findings for Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land. Staff notes that this application is unique, in that the request follows a needs based assessment conducted on a regional scale for the expansion of the Fairgrounds and military site. Policy 2.2.3 Allow Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: Staff notes that this application is unique in that the applicant is pursuing a needs -based UGB adjustment to accommodate a public facility use. Compliance with State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, and further sections of the Deschutes Country Comprehensive Plan are addressed in this decision. This provision is met. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed In Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. FINDING: The applicant is requesting approval of a plan amendment to redesignate the subject property as Redmond Urban Growth Area, and in doing so will amend the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary. This application does not rezone the subject property. The applicant is pursuing a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex, rezone, and master plan the property to Fairgrounds (FG) and Public Facility (PF), Staff finds this policy is not applicable to the application at hand. Section 2.4 Gogl 5 Overview. Ppiicies Goal 1. Protect Goal 3 resources FINDING: In the burden of proof, the applicant states that the subject property does not contain any identified open spaces or natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff confirms that the property does not contain any inventoried Goal 5 resources, therefore this goal does not apply. Section 2.7 Open Spaces Scenic Views and 5ite s Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO, 2019-004 Page 9 of 55 FINDING: As stated above, the subject property does not contain any identified open spaces or natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore this goal does not apply. Goal 1. Promote energy conservation. Goal2. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and business consumers. Goal 3. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound commercial energy facilities. FINDING: The applicant addresses compliance with energy policy and conservation goals in their response to Statewide Planning Goal 13 - Energy Conservation, detailed below. Section 2.9 Environmental Quality Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Goal 2. Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural environment. FINDING: The applicant addresses compliance with environmental quality goals in their response to Statewide Planning Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, detailed below. Chapter4, Urban Growth Management Section 4.2 Urbanization Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. Policy 4.2.1 Participate In the processes initiated by cities In Deschutes County to create and or amend their urban growth boundaries. FINDING: As referenced above, the applicant provided a detailed history of the significant collaboration among Deschutes County, City of Redmond, Department of State Lands, Oregon Parks and Recreation, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), as well as others. The City and County are conducting simultaneous land use reviews for the subject, property to ensure all requirements are accurately addressed prior to approval. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO, 2019-004 Page 10 of 55 Goal2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. FINDING: These goals relate to properties designated within Urban Growth Boundaries and outside of city boundaries or vice versa. The applicant proposes to amend the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundaryto include the subject property, while also annexing the property into the City of Redmond, per the concurrent City of Redmond review process. Therefore, these criteria do not apply, Goal 4. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. FINDING: The applicant provides the following response to this criteria within the burden of proof. - Economic development is not the primary purpose for this proposed amendment; however, several of the Fairgrounds facilities planned under this amendment will generate economic activity and employment opportunities by attracting visitors and supporting tourism within the city and region. The proposed facilities will support regional and state economic development objectives to increase tourism. Additionally, the facilities will share infrastructure with a large lot industrial site directly to the south that is associated with the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial lands program, a regional economic development initiate. More information about the economic impacts of this amendment is provided under Statewide Planning Goal 9 below. Staff agrees that expansion of the fairgrounds and coordination with the large lot industrial site are aligned with the goal above and support the regional and state development objectives for the region. This goal is met. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries OAR 660-024-0020Adoption or Amendment of a UG8 (1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follow. - (a) The exceptions process in Goal and OAR chapter 660, division 4, is not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a particular goal requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660-004-0010(1); FINDING: The proposal does not seek any goal exceptions, therefore this provision does not apply. (b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable, Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 11 of 55 FINDING: Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable. (c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR chapter 660, division 23, apply only in areas added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660-023-70 and 660-023-025; FINDING: The subject property does not contain any Goal 5 resources listed in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, therefore this goal does not apply. (d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660-012-0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to the UGB Is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning Interim zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to Inclusion in the boundary; FINDING: The applicant has applied for a concurrent review with the City of Redmond. Pending the outcome of this UGB amendment application, the applicant plans to rezone the property to Fairgrounds (FG) and Public Facilities (PF) within the City of Redmond Zoning Code. Therefore these requirements do not apply. Additional analysis for compliance with Transportation Planning Rule and Goal 12 are found below. (e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary; (fl Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the land Is within a coastal shorelands boundary, (g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment FINDING: The subject property is not located within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary nor a coastal shorelands boundary. Goal 19 does not apply to UGB amendments. Therefore Goals 15- 19 do not apply to this application. (2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the city and county plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels are Included In the UGB. Where a UGB does not follow lot or parcel lines, the maps must provide sufficient information to determine the precise UGB location. FINDING: The applicant has provided maps within the burden of proof denoting the specific boundary lines and parcels in which the UGB is proposed to be adjusted. This provision is met. OAR 660-024-0040, Land Need (3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need) without a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other categories of land (for example, employment need). Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT"F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 12 of 55 FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend the UGB in consideration of one land category need - public facilities. No other land needs are addressed as part of this application. This provision is met. (S) Except for a metropolitan service district described In ORS 197.015(13), the determination of 20-year employment land need for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goal 9 and DAR chapter 660, division 9, and must include a determination of the need for a short-term supply of land for employment uses consistent with 660-009-002S. Employment land need may be based on an estimate of job growth over the planning period, local government must provide a reasonable Justification for the Job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that Job growth estimates necessarily be proportional to population growth. Local governments In Crook, Deschutes or Jefferson Counties may determine the need for Regional Large -Lot Industrial Land by following the provisions of 660-0244045 for areas subject to that rule. (6) Cities and counties may jointly conduct a coordinated regional EOA for more than one city in the county or for a defined region within one or more counties, in conformance with Goal 9, OAR chapter 660, division 9, and applicable provisions of ORS 19S.02S. A defined region may Include incorporated and unincorporated areas of one or more counties. FINDING: The purpose of the application is to accommodate the need for specific public facilities, expansion of the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory site. Although additional employment may be generated by the application, it is not the primary purpose of the amendment. Therefore these requirements do not apply. (7) The determination of 20 year land needs for transportation and public facilities for an urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR chapter 660, divisions 11 and 12, and public facilities requirements In ORS 197.712 and 19Z 768. The determination of school faclilty needs must also comply with 19S.110 and 197.296 for local governments specified in those statutes. FINDING: The application is for public facilities, but not those defined by OAR 660-011-0005(5) subject to Goal 11 (water, sewer, transportation). Rather the application is for facilities to be used for a public purpose. The applicant is not proposing a school facility as part of the application. Therefore these requirements do not apply. (8) The following safe harbors may be applied by a local government to determine housing need under this division... (9) The following safe harbors may be applied by a local government to determine its employment needs for purposes of a UG8 amendment under this rule, Goal 9, OAR chapter 660, division 9, Goal 14 and, If applicable, ORS 197.296.. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 13 of 55 FINDING: The provisions above relate to proposals addressing employment or housing needs. As the applicant is proposing an amendment related to a need for public facilities, these requirements do not apply. (10) As a safe harbor during periodic review or other legislative review of the UGB, a local government may estimate that the 20 year land needs for streets and roads, parks and school facilities will together require an additional amount of land equal to 25 percent of the net buildable acres determined for residential land needs under section (4) of this rule, and in conformance with the definition of "Net Buildable Acre" as defined In OAR 660-024-0010(6). FINDING: The proposal targets facilities needed for the existing Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of the Oregon Military Department's National Guard Armory. As the proposal does not incorporate the addition of facilities specifically for streets, roads, parks, or schools, this provision does not apply. OAR 660-024-0050, Land Inventory and Response to Deficiency (1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there Is adequate development capacity to accommodate 20 year needs determined in OAR 660-024-0040. For residential land, the buildable land inventory must include vacant and redeve/opable land, and be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-007-MS or 660-008-0010, whichever Is applicable, and ORS 197.296 for local governments subject to that statute. For employment land, the Inventory must Include suitable vacant and developed land designated for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in accordance with OAR 660-009-0015. FINDING: The proposal will not impact the buildable land inventory related to residential or employment development as it is addressing a site specific, public facility need. The analysis regarding the existing UGB's land inventoryto meet the available need isfound in section (4) below. (4) If the Inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the UGB is Inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20 year needs determined under OAR 660- 024-0040, the local government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by Increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. If the local government determines there is a need to expand the UGB, changes to the UGB must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with Goal 14 and applicable rules at OAR 660-024-0060 or 660-024-0065 and 660-024-0067. FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval to amend the City of Redmond's UGB to meet the need for specific public facilities that cannot be accommodated within the existing UGB. As the proposal includes three different uses, the applicant provided analysis for three distinct sites, each with an Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 14 of 55 individual set of site characteristics, to best analyze compliance with this requirement. The applicant provided the following information in the burden of proof: Site Characteristics - Fairgrounds Expansion • Fairgrounds Expansion Site. There is a need to expand three existing facilities on the Fairgrounds. the RV Park, the 4-H facilities, and the OHV track facilities. In total, 50 acres of vacant and developable land is needed to accommodate these facilities. Each of these facilities are required to be directly adjacent to each respective, existing facility to accommodate the need for expansion. Site Characteristics - Multi- Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site e Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is a new County facility. The complex is not strictly required to be adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds, but this location would provide many efficiencies that would enable the facility to operate more effectively. This application evaluates alternative locations that could provide the required site characteristics for the complex, pursuant to Goal 14 requirements. The site must include 100 acres of vacant and developable land, as determined through the County's feasibility study... 1. Needed zoning designation. If within the existing UGB, the site must be in one of the following zones: Fairgrounds, Open Space Park Reserve (OSPR), Park, Public Facility, or specific Commercial zones (C-1, C-2, C-4, and C-5). These are the only zones that allow for the full range of uses that are proposed for the site. The use categories of the Redmond Development Code that match the proposed uses for the site are "Recreational Facilities" and 'Arena for Indoor Sport Events': These uses are not permitted in Residential, Mixed - Use, industrial, or Airport zones. These uses are also not permitted in the UH-10 zone, which is intended primarily for future urban residential development, as identified in the Redmond Framework Plan. 2. Outside URAs. If outside the UGB, the site must not be in a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA). City of Redmond URAs are designated to meet future residential and employment needs, as identified in the Redmond Framework Plan. The 2005 Redmond Urbanization Report, the analysis that informed the Framework Plan and the associated UGB amendment, found there was a need for 1,985 acres of land to meet the needs for residential and employment land and associated public facilities between 2003 and 2025.9 The adopted UGB expansion added Z299 acres of land that is designated under the city of Redmond's URAs. The large size of the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, at 100 acres, could potentially consume land that needed to meet future residential and employment demand. 3. Conflicts with residential uses. The site must not be adjacent to existing residential use zones or to areas planned for future residential uses in URAs, as identified in the Redmond Framework Plan or other subarea plan. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 15 of 55 not suitable for a location adjacent to residential areas due to the livability impacts of a large complex that hosts ongoing events, including tragic generation, noise, and outdoor lighting. 4. No more than three separate, contiguous parcels. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center may be developed on a site made up of multiple parcels. However, it would be impractical to attempt to assemble more than three lots under separate owners given varying interests, demands, and willingness to sell on the part of the property owners. Therefore, the analysis will be limited to sites that are over 100 acres in size but include no more than three contiguous parcels. Site Characteristics - Oregon Military Department Armory Relocation Site OMD Armory Relocation Site. The primary purpose for the relocation of the OMD armory is to provide direct access to the Biak Training Area. The site must include 20 acres of vacant and developable land. Three additional site characteristics are required for the facility, as described below. Direct access. As described in the Section 2.2.2 of this report, OMD needs direct access to the traininggrounds to avoid potential conflicts with general traffic on local streets. Therefore, the relocation site needs to be adjacent to the boundaries or the Biak Training area or accessible to the training area via a private easement through land not planned for future urban development. 2. Zoning. If within the UGB, the site should be in a Public Facilities, OSPR, or Park zone to prevent potential land use conflicts with other uses. 3. Outside URAs. If outside the UGB, the site must not be in a Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA). As described above in relation to the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, URAs are designated to meet future residential and employment needs, as identified in the Redmond Framework Plan. The applicant then went on to detail land options within the existing UGB that could suit the needs identified in the characteristics above. As described below, no areas within the existing UGB could accommodate the specific needs for each of the three sites. Land Inventory- Fairgrounds Expansion The only sites within the existing UGB and directly adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds are the Airport to the north and industrial areas to the north and west. No vacant sites in this area meet the size requirement of 50 acres. Land Inventory - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center No sites located in the specific zones are large enough to accommodate the 100-acre site. No Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"" TO ORDINANCE NO, 2019-004 Page 16 of 55 sites in the Park, Public Facility, or specified Commercial zones contain fewer than three contiguous parcels that total at least 100 acres. One site in the OSPR zone is approximately 99 acres in total size; however, a significant portion of the site is not suitable for development Approximately 12 acres of the area is located within a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of the Deschutes County Airport Safety Overlay; development is significantly constricted within an RPZ. Additional, the site includes Goal 5 resource areas, further limiting development Land Inventory- OMD Relocation Site The Biak Training Area is located east and south of the existing UGB, on lands owned and managed by BLM (see Exhibit G for a map of the training area boundary). No sites on the eastern or southern boundary of the existing UGB, which could potentially provide direct access to the training area, are designated for the specified zones. These areas are zoned for residential, industrial, commercial, and airport uses. Additionally, most areas north of Highway 126 will be separated from the Biak Training Area by future urban development in the Eastside Framework Plan area. If the facility were located west of this plan area —within the existing UGB future urban development to the east would interfere with direct access to the training area. As no sites within the existing UGB meet the zoning and access requirements for the facility, the site must be located outside the UGB. The applicant found that no lands within the existing UGB could accommodate the use, and therefore evaluated alternative boundary locations outside the UGB, discussed in findings for OAR 660-024-0065 and 0067 below. This provision is met. A map of the existing UGB boundary is shown in Figure 2. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 17 of 55 Figure 2 - Existing UGB Lands Analyzed 41 34 Raemor�e UGB � �... Hgeray 27 21 39 30 21 .� Artena( _ COS 6 20 36 26 Zoning 106 Ain— 23 6o C40MMOMISI (CSC51 20 34 all Maed. MUvt.Wo*(MULW) 36 tnduatno11M1-M21 PubheFocAmea(PF) 22 40 56 20- 55 FelrgroundslFGI NY - Open Soaoe Cowmetwn tOSCI 36 33 26 24'k' .3. 30 27 22 Open Soma Park Reamw tOSPRt park 21 1 - 38 �. 20 40 Residential l IAW ' �t i Urban Holding (UH10) 30 30 ' 29 29 Flood Plain {FPI S7 h 37 21 SM TRAINWQ AM — 1 — KAPl.H (SEE t7 WWT 61 Labeled numbersa►e the are of taalot 3140 }', 1601 t (acres) Tawota 29 n smaller than 20 moos:, not lebeied i 1 :v q 1A hW 22 20 30 orth y; 24 42 34 Hwy 126 Jb 30 2a 39 29/ t 42 23 53 20 f 30 20 25 39 24 36 26 37 27 (��n �k to$ aws*r 2449 5w J0 49 20 20 w 36 M 2D 36 38 236 �{L .fr t3DOM 24 41 34 24 PMRORO N N 31 37 38 68 33 « t- 205 171 2647 1' 43 21 2t BWt TRAINING AREA 40 173 (SM"HIBRG) 40 57 40 62 21 30 45 075 22 40 Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-OD0752-PA EXHIBIT "r TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 18 of 55 (5) In evaluating an amendment of a UGH submitted under ORS 197.626, the director or the commission may determine that a difference between the estimated 20 year needs determined under OAR 660-024-0040 and the amount of land and development capacity added to the UGB by the submitted amendment Is unlikely to significantly affect land supply or resource land protection, and as a result, may determine that the proposed amendment complies with section (4) of this rule. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to amend the UGB to include the 160-acre portion of the property for public facilities. As the amount of land proposed for the adjustment is equal to the identified land need for the specific facilities, this provision does not apply. (6) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent with the need determination and the requirements of section (7) of this rule, if applicable. The local government must also apply appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation or may maintain the land as urbanizable land until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses, either by retaining the zoning that was assigned prior to Inclusion in the boundary or by applying other interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned urban development. The requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB. FINDING: The applicant has applied for a concurrent application with the City of Redmond. Pending approval of the UGB amendment, the applicant seeks to rezone and redesignate the Fairgrounds expansion portion of the site (shown in Figure 1) to Fairgrounds (FG) under the City of Redmond Code. The proposed uses are consistent with the requirements of that zone. Additionally, the applicant seeks to rezone and redesignate the OMD facility (shown in Figure 1) as Public Facilities (PF). A military site is an allowed use in this zone. This provision is met. (7) Lands Included within a UGB pursuant to OAR 660-024-0065(3) to provide for a particular industrial use, or a particular public facility, must be planned and zoned for the Intended use and must remain planned and zoned far that use unless the city removes the land from the UGB. FINDING: As stated previously, the proposal is to amend the property pursuant to OAR 660-024- 0065(3). Through the burden of proof, intergovernmental agreement provided as Exhibit B in the burden of proof, and concurrent application with the City of Redmond, the applicant has demonstrated the property is being planned and zoned forthe intended use of public facilities. This provision is met. OAR 660-024-0065, Establishment of StudyAre to Evaluate Land for Inclusion In the UGH (1) When considering a UGH amendment to accommodate a need deficit identified in OAR 660-024-0050(4), a city outside of Metro must determine which land to add to the UGB by evaluating alternative locations within a "study area" established pursuant to this rule. To establish the study area, the city must first identify a "preliminary study area" Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 19 of 55 which shall not include land within a different UGB or the corporate limits of a city within a different UG8. The preliminary study area shall include: (a) All lands in the dtj(s acknowledged urban reserve, if any, (b) All lands that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UG8: (A) For cities with a UG8 population less than 10,000: one-half mile; (8) For cities with a UGB population equal to or greater than 10,000: one mile, (c) All exception areas contiguous to an exception area that includes land within the distance specified In subsection (b) and that are within the following distance from the acknowledged UGB: (A) For cities with a UGB population less than 10,000. one mile, (B) For cities with a UGB population equal to or greater than 10,000., one and one- half miles; (d) At the discretion of the city, the preliminary study area may Include land that is beyond the distance specified in subsections (b) and (c). FINDING. The applicant identified a study area consistent with the requirements in this chapter, including the incorporation of all lands in the City of Redmond Urban Reserve Area (URA). As the City of Redmond UGB includes a population of approximately 27,000; all lands within one mile of the existing UGB and all exception areas contiguous to those lands and within one and one-half miles of the existing UGB were included in the study area, pursuant to subsections (b) and (c). No additional discretionary land was included in the study area. The applicant provided a map denoting the study area shown in Figure 3. This provision is met. (2) A city that initiated the evaluation or amendment of Its UGB prior to January 1, 2016, may choose to Identify a preliminary study area applying the standard In this section rather than section (1). For such cities, the preliminary study area shall consist of.-... FINDING: The city initiated the application after January 1, 2016. Therefore this provision does not apply. (3) When the primary purpose for expansion of the UGB is to accommodate a particular industrial use that requires specific site characteristics, or to accommodate a public facility that requires specific site characteristics, and the site characteristics may be found In only a small number of locations, the preliminary study area may be limited to those locations within the distance described in section (1) or (2), whichever is appropriate, that have or could be improved to provide the required site characteristics. For purposes of this section: (a) The definition of site characteristics in OAR 660-009-0005(11) applies for purposes of Identifying a particular industrial use. (b) A "public facility" may include a facility necessary for public sewer, water, stormwater, transportation, parks, schools, or fire protection. Site characteristics may include but are not limited to size, topography and proximity. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-D04 Page 20 of 55 FINDING: The applicant states in the burden of proof that the list of facilities in 3(b) above is not exclusive to only those types of public facilities listed. Therefore the applicant finds the proposal for public facilities related to the Oregon Military Department and Fairgrounds fall under this category and are subject to the requirements in section (3) and can limit the preliminary study area to those that provide the required site characteristics. As the proposed amendment includes three public facilities, the applicant provided three sets of defining site characteristics to define the respective study areas. Figure 3 - General Study Area Boundary Highway ®�ra Redmond UGS Arterial C�ra) UrbanResorveAreas Collector raj 1 Milo Bufferfrom UGS ,PYr o..� 1.B Mi. Suffer from UGS Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Zoning Exmtion Areas Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Rural Residerdlal (RR10) SurfaceMining(SM) Mixed -Use Agriculultural(MUA) Rural Industrial (RI) Q y Open Space (08C)/-7Miles Page 21 of 55 (4) The city may exclude land from the preliminary study area If it determines that. (a) Based on the standards in section (7) of this rule, it Is impracticable to provide necessary public facilities or services to the land; (b) The land is subject to a risk of. (A) landslides. The land consists of a landslide deposit or scarp flank that is described and mapped on the Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon (SLIDO) Release 3.2 Geodatabase published by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) December2014, provided that the deposit or scarp flank in the data source Is mapped at a scale of 1.40,000 or finer. If the owner of slot or parcel provides the city with a site -specific analysis by a certified engineering geologist demonstrating that development of the property would not be subject to significant landslide risk, the city may not exclude the lot or parcel under this paragraph; (B) Flooding, including inundation during storm surges: the land Is within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); (C) Tsunamis. the land is within a tsunami Inundation zone established pursuant to ORS 43S.446; (c) The land consists of a significant scenic, natural, cultural or recreational resource described In this subsection: (A) Land that Is designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan prior to initiation of the UGB amendment, or that Is mapped on a published state or federal Inventory at a scale sufficient to determine Its location for purposes of this rule, as: (1) Critical or essential habitat for a species listed by a state or federal agency as threatened or endangered (11) Core habitat for Greater Sage Grouse, or (III) Biggame migration corridors or winterrange, except where located on lands designated as urban reserves or exception areas; (8) RelatedAdjacent Lands described by ORS 390.80S, as mapped by the applicable state or federal agency responsible for the scenic program, (C) Designated Natural Areas on the Oregon State Register of Natural Heritage Resources; (D) Wellhead protection areas described under OAR 660-023-0140 and delineated on a local comprehensive plan; (E) Aquatic areas subject to Statewide Planning Goal 16 that are In a Natural or Conservation management unit designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan, (F) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations that implement Statewide Planning Goal 17, Coastal Shoreland, Use Requirement 1; (G) Lands subject to acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulations that would Implement Statewide Planning Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 2; Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 22 of 55 (d) The land Is owned by the federal government and management primarily for rural uses. FINDING: The initial study area found above in Figure 3 was modified to exclude areas that did not meet the identified site characteristics as described in section (3) or were designated for exclusion in the list for section (4) above. The applicant provides a detailed analysis of the specific areas that were excluded on pages 40-41 of the burden of proof. Figures of the new study boundary for each site are found below. Full size renderings of the study boundary maps are found on pages 42.44 of the burden of proof. Figure 4 - Fairgrounds Amended Study Area 3m,N Highway Q Redmond UGB Exclusion A Not Adjacent to Fairgrounds — Arterial =rr� Urban Reserve Areas Exclusion 8: BLM Land Collector C3 1 Mile Buffer from UGB 7'�'L 1.5 Mile Buffer from UGB Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-=752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 23 of 55 Figure 5 - Multi -Purpose Athletic And Events Center Site — Highway © Redmond UGS — Arterial r.'J Urban Reserve Areas (Exciuslon Al — Collector i Mile Buffer from UGS 1.5 Mile Buffer from UGS ]Mda Exclusion B: Adjacent to Residential -e' " Exclusion C: Less than 100 acres Exclusion D: BLM Land CZ Athletic/Events Center Study Area Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 24 of 55 Figure b - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site Hkhvey © Redmond UGB Arterial Cam,. urban Reserve Areas (Exclusion A) — Collector ��'� i Mile Buffer from U136 �•- Y� 1.5 Mile Buffer from UG 8 r...r Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 /A i i�f ,--Irnck-1 ♦♦. 11111111 Exclusion B: Not Adjacent do Biak Tra fining Area Exclusion C: BLM Lend OMO Study Area Page 25 of 55 (S) After excluding land from the preliminary study area under section (4), the city must adjust the area, if necessary, so that It includes an amount of land that is at least twice the amount of land needed for the deficiency determined under OAR 660-024.001)(4) or, if applicable, twice the particular land need described In section (3). Such adjustment shall be made by expanding the distance specified under the applicable section (1) or (2) and applying section (4) to the expanded area. FINDING: The applicant provided the acreages for each site analysis area, shown in the table below. The acreages are at least twice the amount need for public facility needs described in section (3). This provision is met. Site Required Size Size of Study Area Fairgrounds Expansion 50 acres 1,559 acres Multi -Purpose Athletic/Events Center 100 acres 3,661 aces OMD Relocation Site 20 acres 3,160 acres (6) For purposes of evaluating the priority of land under OAR 660-024-0067, the "study area" shall consist of all land that remains in the preliminary study area described In section (1), (2) or (3) of this rule after adjustments to the area based on sections (4) and (S), provided that when a purpose of the UGB expansion is to accommodate a public park need, the city must also consider whether land excluded under subsection (4)(a) through (c) of this rule can reasonably accommodate the park use. FINDING: No land was excluded under subsection (4)(a) through (4)(c), therefore this section does not apply. (7) For purposes of subsection (4)(0), the city may consider It Impracticable to provide necessary public facilities or services to the following lands... (8) Land may not be excluded from the preliminary study area based on a finding of Impracticabll/ty that Is primarily a result of existing development patterns. However, a city may forecast development capacity for such land as provided in OAR 660-024- 0067(1)(d). FINDING: No land was excluded from the preliminary study area under subsection (4)(a), nor based on a finding of impracticability that is primarily the result of existing development patterns. The exclusions applied to each study area were to eliminate areas that did not have or could not be improved to have the required site characteristics for each public facility use. Therefore, this provision does not apply. (9) Notwithstanding OAR 660.024-00S0(4) and section (1) of this rule, except during periodic review or other legislative review of the UGB, the city may approve an application under Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT " r TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 26 of 55 ORS 197.610 to 197.625 for a UGB amendment to add an amount of land less than necessary to satisfy the land need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050(4), provided the amendment complies with all other applicable requirements. FINDING: This application does not propose to add an amount of land less than required for the need; this provision does not apply. OAR 660-024-0067, Evaluation of Land in the Study Area for Inclusion in the UGB; Priorities (1) A city considering a UGB amendment must decide which land to add to the UGB by evaluating all land In the study area determined under OAR 660-024-0065, as follows: (a) Beginning with the highest priority category of land described in section (2), the city must apply section (5) to determine which h land In that priority category is suitable to satisfy the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050 and select for Inclusion In the UGB as much of the land as necessary to satisfy the need. (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not sufficient to satisfy all the Identified need deficiency, the city must apply section (S) to determine which land In the next priority Is suitable and select for Inclusion in the UGB as much of the suitable land In that priority as necessary to satisfy the need. The city must proceed in this manner until all the land need Is satisfied, except as provided In OAR 660.024-0065(9). (c) If the amount of suitable land in a particular priority category in section (2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, the city must choose which land In that priority to Include In the UGB by applying the criteria in section (7) of this rule. (d) In evaluating the sufficiency of land to satisfy a need under this section, the city may use the factors identified in sections (5) and (6) of this rule to reduce the forecast development capacity of the land to meet the need. (e) Land that Is determined to not be suitable under section (5) of this rule to satisfy the need deficiency determined under OAR 660-024-0050 is not required to be selected for Inclusion in the UG8 unless its Inclusion Is necessary to serve other higher priority lands. FINDING: The applicant identified the study areas in compliance with OAR 660-024-0065. Conformance with the priority criteria is further analyzed below. (2) Priority of Land for inclusion In a UG8: (a) First priority Is urban reserve, exception land, and non -resource land. Lands in the study area that meet the description in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection are of equal (first) priority: (A) Land designated as an urban reserve under OAR chapter 660, division 1, in an acknowledged comprehensive plan; FINDING: No urban reserve lands are included within the study areas of each public facility site, as demonstrated in Figures 4-6. All Redmond URA lands were excluded from study areas to preserve those lands to meet future employment and residential land needs established in the Redmond Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 27 of 55 Urban Framework Plan. Furthermore, the Redmond URA lands do not possess adequate site specific characteristics to accommodate the OMD relocation site, Fairgrounds Expansion site, or the Multi - Purpose Athletic and Event Center. This provision does not apply. (B) Land that is subject to an acknowledged exception under ORS 197.732 FINDING: No exception lands are present in the study areas for the OMD relocation site, nor for the Fairgrounds Expansion site. Within the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area are 45 acres of land zoned Rural Residential-10 acre minimum (RR-10), which is an acknowledged exception area in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The area is part of a larger 89-acre parcel that is split zoned, with the remaining 44 acres of land zoned EFU. The applicant stated the following in the burden of proof: The parcel is included in the study area for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center because it is adjacent to a 67-acre parcel with which it could be combined to achieve the required size of at least 100 acres far the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center site. The adjacent parcel is also zoned EFU. In order to accommodate the 100-acre Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, this site would need to include at least 55 acres of EFU land. The entire site Is located within the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COLD); and therefore, in accordance with 195.300(10)(c)(B), the EFU lands on this site are considered high -value farmland and therefore would be in a lower priority category of land that could be considered for a UGB expansion. Staff agrees the split zoning and potential for high value farming on the 45-acre RR-10 parcel make it unsuitable to meet the identified need. This provision does not apply. (C) Land that is non -resource land. FINDING: No non -resource lands are present in the study areas for the Fairgrounds Expansion site, nor for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Event Center. Within the OMD study area is one property zoned Rural Industrial, which is developed with the Central Oregon Unit Training and Equipment Site (COUTES). The facility is adjacent to the aforementioned Biak Training Area owned by OMD. The OMD facility requires 20 acres of vacant land on the site to accommodate the armory. The applicant found that the COUTES parcel has 15 acres of developed land with 20 acres of undeveloped land, but the 20-acre piece is bisected by an access road and therefore not entirely developable and vacant. Staff agrees there is no non -resource land suitable to satisfy the need in the study area. This provision does not apply. (b) Second Priority is marginal land. land within the study area that is designated as marginal land under ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition) In the acknowledged comprehensive plan. FINDING: Deschutes County does not have any acknowledged or designated marginal farm lands. Therefore, the three study area do not contain any second priority lands. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE N0, 2019-004 Page 28 of 55 (c) Third Priority Is forest or farmland that is not predominantly high -value farmland. land within the study area that is designated for forest or agriculture uses in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and that is not predominantly high -value farmland as defined In ORS 19S.300, or that does not consist predominantly of prime or unique soils, as determined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). In selecting which lands to Include to satisfy the need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification system or the cubic foot site class system, as appropriate for the acknowledged comprehensive plan designation, to select lower capability or cubic foot site class lands first. FINDING: The applicant stated the following in the burden of proof: No farm land in Deschutes County meets the definition of "high -value farm land" as defined by this subsection and the applicable ORS sections. Therefore, all lands zoned EFU in Deschutes County are considered Third Priority lands. However, Deschutes County has historically applied an additional classification of EFU lands based on soil capability ratings and availability of irrigation. In establishing urban reserve areas in 2005, the County divided Third Priority EFU lands into non -irrigated parcels ("Dry EFU'9, partially irrigated EFU parcels, and commercial agricultural properties.12 Dry EFU parcels were designated the highest priority for inclusion in urban reserve areas, followed by partially irrigated EFU parcels, and commercial agriculture properties were designated the lowest priority for inclusion. This additional prioritization will be used to select lands from each study area to meet the need for each use, as follows. Full analysis can be found on pages 50-52 of the burden of proof. Staff finds for this section, the relevant information is the number of sites within each study boundary that are being evaluated as Third Priority lands. The Fairgrounds identified only one eligible site (the South Redmond Tract) to include in the study area. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site identified three potential sites that meet the characteristics and need. The OMD Relocation Site identified four potential sites that meet the characteristics and need. Staff notes the sites will be compared based on the Goal 14 boundary location, pursuant to section (7) of this rule. The findings of the boundary location determination are reviewed in that section. (c) Fourth Priority Is agricultural land that is predominantly high -value farmland: land within the study area that is designated as agricultural land In an acknowledged comprehensive plan and Is predominantly high -value farmland as defined In ORS 19S.300. A city may not select land that Is predominantly made up of prime or unique farm soils, as defined by the USDA NRCS, unless there is an Insufficient amount of other land to satisfy its land need. In selecting which lands to include to satisfy the need, the city must use the agricultural land capability classification system to select lower capability lands first. FINDING: There are sufficient Third Priority lands to meet the identified need for all three proposed sites. Therefore, no Fourth Priority lands will be included. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 29 of 55 (3) Notwithstanding section (2)(c) or (d) of this rule, land that would otherwise be excluded from a UGB may be included If. (a) The land contains a small amount of third or fourth priority land that is not important to the commercial agricultural enterprise in the area and the land must be included in the UGB to connect a nearby and significantly larger area of land of higher priority for inclusion within the UGB: or (b) The land contains a small amount of third or fourth priority land that is not predominately high -value farmland or predominantly made up of prime or unique farm soils and the land is completely surrounded by land of higher priority for Inclusion into the UGB. FINDING: The study areas did not include sufficient First and Second Priority lands, therefore this provision does not apply. (4) For purposes of categorizing and evaluating land pursuant to subsections (2)(c) and (d) and section (3) of this rule, (a) Areas of land not larger than 100 acres may be grouped together and studied as a single unit of land, (b) Areas of land larger than 100 acres that are similarly situated and have similar soils may be grouped together provided soils of lower agricultural or forest capability may not be grouped with soils of higher capability In a manner inconsistent with the intent of section (2) of this rule, which requires that higher capability resource lands shall be the last priority for inclusion In a UGB; (c) Notwithstanding subsection (4)(0), if a city initiated the evaluation or amendment of Its UGB prior to January 1, 2016, and if the analysis involves more than one lot or parcel or area within a particular priority category for which circumstances are reasonably similar, these lots, parcels and areas maybe considered and evaluated as a single group; (d) When determining whether the land is predominantly high -value farmland, or predominantly prime or unique, "predominantly" means more than 50 percent FINDING: There are three individual study areas curated to include the individual needs of each type of use. The study areas were grouped based on the amount of land needed for each use. Higher priority inclusion lands in the UGB were not grouped with lower priority lands, consistent with this provision. This provision is met. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 30 of 55 Figure 7 - Fairgrounds Land Prioritization — Hghwray Redmond UGS Adenat Urban Reserve Areas (First Priority Lands) Collector 1 Mie Butler from UGS 1 5 Mile Buffer from UGS Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 m ® Fairgrounds Expansion Study Area Fast Priority Lands - Exception Areas First Priority Lands - Nonresource Ttwrd Prw *y lands - Irripand EFU Tturd Pnordy Lands - Dry EFU Page 31 of 55 Figure 8 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Land Prioritization — Highway Redmond UG8 — Arterial Urban Reserve Areas (First Priority Lands) — Collector 1 Mile Buffer from UGB ;•.•.0 1.5 Mile Buffer from UGB Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 :1w*s Atht*bc&vents Center Study Area First Priority Lands - Exception Areas First Priority Lands - Nonresource ` Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU Third Priority Lands - Dry EFU Page 32 of 55 Figure 9 - Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Land Prioritization -� Highway T Redmond U08 Arterial Urban Resew Areas (First Pnonty Lands) — Collector 1 Mile Buffer from UGB 1.5 Mile Buffer from UG8 Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 W" ® OMD study Area First Priority Lands - Exception Areas First Priority Lands - Nonresoume Third Priority Lands - Irrigated EFU Thud Priority Lands - Dry EFU Page 33 of 55 (5) With respect to section (1), a city must assume that vacant or partially vacant land In a particular priority category is "suitable" to satisfy a need deficiency identified in OAR 660- 024-0050(4) unless it demonstrates that the land cannot satisfy the specified need based on one or more of the conditions described in subsections (a) through (g) of this section: (a) Existing parcelization, lot sizes or development patterns of rural residential land make that land unsuitable for an Identified employment need, as follows: (A) Parcelization: the land consists primarily of parcels 2-acres or less In size, or (B) Existing development patterns: the land cannot be reasonably redeveloped or infi►led within the planning period due to the location of existing structures and Infrastructure. (b) The land would qualify for exclusion from the prellminarystudy area under the factors in OAR 660.024-0065(4) but the city declined to exclude it pending more detailed analysis. (c) The land is, or will be upon inclusion In the UGB, subject to natural resources protections under Statewide Planning Goal 5 such that that no development capacity should be forecast on that land to meet the land need deficiency. (d) With respect to needed Industrial uses only, the land is over 10 percent slope, or is an existing lot or parcel that Is smaller than 5 acres in size, or both. Slope shall be measured as the increase in elevation divided by the horizontal distance at maximum ten foot contour intervals. (e) With respect to a particular Industrial use or particular public facility use described in OAR 660-024-0065(3), the land does not have, and cannot be improved to provide, one or more of the required specific site characteristics. (f) The land is subject to a conservation easement described in ORS 271.715 that prohibits urban development. (g) The land is committed to a use described In this subsection and the use is unlikely to be discontinued during the planning period. (A) Public parr church, school, or cemetery, or (B) Land within the boundary of an airport designated for airport uses, but not including land designated or zoned for residential, commercial or Industrial uses in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. FINDING: Within the analysis for section (2) in the burden of proof, the applicant identified the following properties as not suitable to satisfy the need deficiency, in accordance with the provisions in this section: Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area, Site 6 includes 44 acres of exception land. As the land was not large enough to meet the size requirements for the site, it was considered not suitable, as allowed by subsection (5)(e) of this rule. Fairgrounds Expansion and Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study area, Site 2, was partially included in the boundary of the Deschutes County Airport Safety Combining Zone. These lands were not considered suitable for development pursuant to subsection (5)(g)(B) of this rule. The remaining lands in Fairgrounds Expansion, Site Z following this exclusion, were not large enough to accommodate the required size of the site, and therefore were excluded pursuant to subsection (5)(e) of this rule. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2014-004 Page 34 of 55 The southern parcel of the OMD Relocation Site study area, Site 3, was removed from the study area as the site was developed and used for the Central Oregon Unit Training and Equipment Site (COUTES). As provided by this section, developed land can be considered not suitable. This provision is met. (6) For vacant or partially vacant lands added to the UGB to provide for residential uses:... FINDING: This proposal is not for residential uses, therefore this provision does not apply. (7) Pursuant to subsection (1)(c), if the amount of suitable land in a particular priority category under section (2) exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, the city must choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB by first applying the boundary location factors of Goal 14 and then applying applicable criteria in the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged prior. to initiation of the UGB evaluation or amendment. The city may not apply local comprehensive plan criteria that contradict the requirements of the boundary location factors of Goal 14. The boundary location factors are not Independent criteria; when the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the UGB location the city must show that it considered and balanced all the factors. The criteria In this section may not be used to select lands designated for agriculture or forest use that have higher land capability or cubic foarsite class, as applicable, ahead of lands that have lower capability or cubic foot site class. FINDING: No First or Second Priority lands were suitable for any of the three sites. The amount of Third Priority lands within each study area is greater than the identified need, therefore the boundary factors of Goal 14 were applied to determine the appropriate site for UGB inclusion, in each study area. The applicant provided the following analysis for the boundary factors below: Boundary Location Analysis: All Third Priority Lands Fairgrounds Expansion. As demonstrated in the evaluation of suitable lands, Site 1, the South Redmond Tract is the only suitable location for the expansion of the County Fairground. Therefore, the consideration for boundary location factors for this site is limited to areas within the South Redmond Tract, as described below. Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center Site and OMD Relocation Site. There are significantly more Third Priority lands suitable for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center and OMD sites than the Identified land need. These lands are divided among three sites for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center and four sites for the OMD facility Sites 1, 2, and 3 are identical for both facilities; Site 4 is only suitable for the OMD facility (Figure 12). Site 1, the South Redmond Tract, is the most appropriate location for inclusion in the UGB for both facilities, based on consideration for the Goal 14 boundary location factors, as follows. 1. Efficient accommodation of identified land needs, Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 35 of 55 The location of the South Redmond Tract, Site 1, provides several efficiencies relative to the alternative sites. Transportation efficiency. If located on the SRT, transportation to the both the OMD and Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center would be more efficient because the SRT is closer to local population centers in Redmond than Sites 2 and 4, and closer to regional population centers in Bend than Site 3. The SRT can be accessed via an existing arterial, 19th Street 19th Street is a complete street that includes sidewalks and bike lanes, which may facilitate non - motorized transportation to the site. Site 3 would be accessed via Highway 126, which is less safe for walking and biking, does not include pedestrian facilities and limits bike facilities to the road shoulder. Sites 2 and 4 are not accessible on existing roadways. The SRT site also will significantly minimize the need to travel between separate, non -adjacent facilities, reducing the need for additional transportation facilities and associated land operational efficlency. Locating the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center on the South Redmond Tract would allow the facility to utilize centralized resources and supportfacilities in use for the existing Fairgrounds, including parking, concessions, administration, and maintenance. If the expansion were located on any of the other sites, redundant facilities would need to be developed and/or significant transportation needs and associated impacts would be incurred in transporting goods and services between the two sites, as described in more detail below. 2. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services, The location of the South Redmond Tract would allow a more orderly and efficient provision of public facilities than alternative sites. Water and wastewater lines are available along the alignment of 19th Street and terminate at the northwest corner of the site. Alternatively, sites 2, 3, and 4 would each require an extension of sewer and water lines of at least one mile. Additionally, Sites 2-4 are not capable of accommodating ail of the proposed uses for the Fairgrounds expansion and OMD relocation, therefore, the uses would need to be located on separate sites and be served with separate facilities. Alternatively, all uses can utilize the same infrastructure if located on the South Redmond Tract. The South Redmond Tract currently has sufficient water, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications capacity to serve the proposed uses, as demonstrated in the jindings In response to Statewide Planning Goal 11. There is not currently sufficient capacityfor wastewater service to the Tract, but DSL has agreed to finance the replacement of a pump station and construction of associated infrastructure to establish sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the site. Sites 2 and 4 would connect to the some water and wastewater lines, and thus require similar capacity improvements to the South Redmond Tract. Site 3 was included in the Infrastructure Analysis completed for the application to the large lot industrial sites program. That analysis found that the sufficient infrastructure capacity could be developed to serve the site but would be costlier to provide than the capacity improvements needed to serve the South Redmond Tract. As the South Redmond Tract is in closer proximity to existing public facilities and requires capacity improvements that are similar or less costly than Sites 2-4, the Site allows for a relatively more efficient and orderly provision of public facilities. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 36 of 55 More detailed information related to public facilities and services can be found in Section 3.2 of this report, under the findings in response to Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12. 3. Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social (ESEE) consequences, and Environmental consequences. As discussed in the findings under Goals 5-7 in Section 3.2 of this report; Site 1 contains no Goal 5 resources, permanent or seasonal water, wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential. Sites 2, 3, and 4 do not contain any water and are not within any County inventories of wetlands or habitat areas. A more detailed environmental assessment of Sites 2, 3, and 4 has not been completed, however, given that the environmental conditions of Site 1 has been assessed and no significant environmental impacts were identified, the relative environmental consequences of development on Site 1 are similar or less significant than the environmental consequences of development on Sites 2, 3, and 4. A portion of Site 3 is located within a Deschutes County Landscape Management Zone, an overlay zone intended to protect Goal 5 scenic resources in the city. Development of this site, therefore, may have more significant consequences on local scenic resources. Additionally, the adjacency of Site 1 with the existing Fairgrounds and Redmond UGB provides transportation efficiencies that encourage non -motorized transportation which will reduce impacts on air quality. Sites 2, 3, and 4, by comparison, are further from the existing Fairgrounds and are not connected to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Redmond UG8. Energy consequences. As noted above, the adjacency of Site 1 to the existing Fairgrounds and regionally central location provides transportation efficiencies that can encourage nonmotorized transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7), therefore conserving energy in comparison to Sites 2, 3, and 4. The relocation of the OMD facility will significantly shorten trips between the facility and the OMD training grounds. The expansion of 4-11facilities adjacent to existing facilities eliminates the need for trips between the site and existing off -site locations for specific activities. The siting of the new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region will reduce overall VMT compared to less central locations. Sites 2, 3, and 4 lack these advantages and development of them would result In more signif cont energy consequences. Economic consequences. As noted in findings under Goal 9 in Section 3.2 of this report, the expanded RV park, OHV tracks, and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will generate economic activity by attracting visitors and supporting tourism in the city and region. By centralizing these facilities on one site with the existing facilities, expansion of the Fairgrounds onto Site 1 can offer greater efficiency, convenience, and flexibility to potential users in comparison to Sites 2, 3, and 4. Social consequences. None of the potential sites are adjacent to any existing city neighborhoods or residential areas, in order to avoid potential land use conflicts related to traffic, parking, noise, or lighting. Additionally, all land designated for other uses in the City of Redmond Urban Reserves were excluded from the OMD and Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center study areas in order to avoid displacing land previously identified for other needs that contribute to the residential and social fabric of the community, including housing, parks, and commercial services. Finally, the educational Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 37 of 55 and recreational uses proposed for the site will contribute to the social capacity of the community and region. There is no meaningful difference between the sites under consideration in relation to this criterion. This provision is met. (8) The city must apply the boundary location factors of Goal 14 in coordination with service providers and state agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) with respect to. Factor 2 regarding impacts on the state transportation system, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFM and the Department of State Lands (DSL) with respect to Factor 3 regarding environmental consequences. "Coordination" includes timely notice to agencies and service providers and consideration of any recommended evaluation methodologies. FINDING: The study area contains no identified wildlife resources, wetlands, or floodplains. Therefore coordination with ODOT, ODFW, and DSL is not required. However, the applicant (DSL) has collaborated extensively with organizations in the development of the application, including ODOT. This provision is met. (9) In applying Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2 to evaluate alternative locations under section (7), the city must compare relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. For purposes of this section, the term "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation facilities. The evaluation and comparison under Boundary Location Factor 2 must consider. (a) The Impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB; (b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and (c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways, interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major Improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit service. FINDING: As noted previously, in comparison to the other sites, Site 1 will have lower costs associated with provision of water, sanitary sewer and storm water facilities due to its proximity to existing facilities located along 19th Street. This provision is met. (10) The adopted findings for UGB amendment must describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated In the boundary location alternatives analysis. FINDING: The text and figures within the applicant's burden of proof and Figure 10 within this decision describe and map all alternate areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 38 of 55 In conclusion, the applicant has demonstrated the issues and challenges with Sites 2 and 3 in association with the Third Priority lands boundary criteria. Site 1, the subject property is the best option for location, comparative to the other sites. This provision is met. Figure 10 - Boundary Location Analysis - All Study Areas I 0011111ITy R SITE Z Fi11RfiK1)UM105 I 0111110 RELOORM SITE i SITE 41 1 OMD REUW-MON ATTflET1Q/EMTs CENTER 1 • • FNROROUNDS it EX�►►raaoN r s oMD REIW"N .......... 0.......� Highway Redmond UGB Suitable Third Priority Lends, All Study Areas --- Arterial a Urban Reserve Areas IFirst Priority Lends) First Priority lends - Exception Areas — — Collector 1 Mile Buffer from UGB First Priority Lands • Nonresource -- Water Lines `; 15 Mile Buffer from UGS Thud Priority lands - Irrigated EFU Sewer Lines Third Priority Lends • Dry EFU 045 ®wkro Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 39 of 55 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be in involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: Staff adhered to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code - Procedures Ordinance in providing adequate notice to parties involved. Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and to relevant agencies. Additionally, Notice of Public Hearingwas posted in the Bend Bulletin more than 20 days in advance of the initial public hearing. Following the Hearings Officers proceedings, a second hearing will take place before the Board of County Commissioners. This goal is met. Goal 2 - Land Use Plannin To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: The applicant has submitted concurrent applications with the City of Redmond and Deschutes County in accordance with established land use planning processes. The applicant has provided a burden of proof discussing the factual basis for approval of the proposal. This goal is met. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: The subject property is designated as Agriculture and zoned Exclusive Farm Use. The applicant provided the following response to this goal in the burden of proof: ...the land has never been farmed and is not suitable for agricultural production. Solls on the property are designated as Class Vll and Vlll and the property lacks irrigation water rights. The lands zoned EFU adjacent to the property are not actively used for agricultural production due to similar constraints. The proposed UGB amendment meets thegoal of preserving agricultural land as the property does not include viable agricultural land and can be made compatible with any future farming uses on adjacent land. Staff recognizes this application is unique as the property was identified through a regional needs assessment. The applicant analyzed alternatives previously in this application to preserve and maintain agricultural lands to the greatest extent possible. Staff finds the applicant provided sufficient analysis that this property is not viable agricultural land and cannot be made compatible with future farm uses. Therefore, this goal is met. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 40 of 55 Goal 4 - Forest To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: The subject property does not include forest land, therefore this goal does not apply. Goal 5 - Olen Space, Scenic and Historic Area,, and Natural Resources To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces, FINDING: The applicant provided the following response to this goal in the burden of proof: No part of the subject property is identified in Deschutes CounVs Goal 5 inventory of open spaces and natural, scenic, cultural, or historic resources. As described in Section 2.1.1 of this report, the property does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. Historic and cultural resources surveys conducted on the site indicate that the Tract was not occupied by prehistoric or historic peoples and contains no significant historic or cultural resources. As no part of the property is identified in a Goal 5 inventory and additional surveys have found no significant resources, this proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 5. Staff agrees this goal does not apply as the site does not contain any Goal 5 resources listed within the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resource Quality To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The {South Redmond) Tract has no evidence of permanent or seasonal water and the National Wetlands inventory Map does not identify wetlands on the Tract. Any potential negative impacts of future development on the quality of air, water or land resources will be identified and mitigated during the development review process, as the specific impacts cannot be known until a specific development is proposed. The City of Redmond has adequate provisions in place to protect the quality of air, water, and land resources from negative impacts of new development. In addition, state and federal regulations administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulate impacts of new development: In addition, state and federal regulations administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulate impacts on air resources to ensure clean air and will apply to any future development located on the subject site. Therefore, this UGB amendment is consistent with Goal 6. Staff agrees with the applicant that the impact on air, water, and land resource quality will be reviewed during the actual time of development. Staff finds this goal is met. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 41 of 55 Goal 7 - Areas 5&ject to Natural Disasters and Hazards To protect people and property from natural hazards. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or landslide activity. Wildfire hazards are not substantially different from other areas within or adjacent to the Redmond UGB, and development of the site could improve fire protection by providing access and water infrastructure. Therefore, inclusion of this site within the UGB and subsequent development will be consistent with Goal 7. Staff agrees with the applicant that there are no areas on site within a floodplain or designated as high landslide risk. Additionally, the property is currently within and will continue to be within the jurisdiction of Redmond Fire and Rescue District. This goal is met. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The primary purpose of the Fairgrounds expansion and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center is to provide for the recreational needs of local and regional residents and visitors. The Fairgrounds expansion site will incorporate a number of recreational facilities in an accessible and convenient location, including an RV park for camping equestrian trails, off -road vehicle trails, and potentially a shooting range facility. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will include a variety of facilities able to host events and informal use for a wide range of sports and activities, including basketball, volleyball, wrestling, martial arts, soccer, football, lacrosse, baseball, softball, cheerleading and dance competitions. The facilities to provide for these recreational opportunities are specialized and often not inefficient to provide at a local scale. As a regional facilities that generates revenue from both local use and visitors, the Fairground employs an economic and operational model that is not available to most general parks and recreation departments. This amendment proposes to increase the capacity of the Fairgrounds facility and organization to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities to citizens of the state and visitors, therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal & Staff agrees with the applicants analysis and finds that this project is specifically targeting the fulfillment of recreational needs and thereby meets this goal. Goal 9 --Economic Development To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 42 of 55 FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The primary purpose of the facilities is to meet the needs for defense, recreation, and non-profit educational opportunities for residents of the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and the Central Oregon region. However, several of the Fairgrounds facilities planned under this amendment will generate economic activity and employment opportunities by attracting visitors and supporting tourism within the city and region. The RV park will accommodate more visitors to the Fairgrounds during the Countyfair and for year-round events at the Fairgrounds or general tourism in the area. The Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center... will attract visitors from a wide area that includes Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. The OHV tracks will enable the Fairgrounds to accommodate a wider variety of off -road racing competitions and other events. The facility's support of tourism is consistent with the economic development strategies of the City of Redmond and Central Oregon. Tourism leverages the strengths and opportunities presented by Central Oregon's favorable climate, natural beauty, and outdoor recreational opportunities. Further, the facility is strategically located to support tourism as it is regionally rentral, adjacent to the Redmond Municipal Airport, and adjacent to juniper Golf Course. As this amendment will generate economic opportunities by supporting a regional strategy to increase tourism, it is consistent with Goal 9. Staff agrees that the expansion of the Fairgrounds and relocation of the Oregon Military Department Armory increase the variety of economic activities in the area while promoting health, welfare, and prosperity of nearby and statewide citizens. This goal is met. Goal 10 - Housing To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state, FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The South Redmond Tract is not identified as a suitable location for residential development in the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The city has identified sufficient acreage of land for future residential development outside the UGB in Urban Reserve Areas within the Eastside Framework Plan and lands to the west of the existing UGB. This UG8 amendment is not proposed to meet residential land needs and will not displace land identified as needed for residential uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 10. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. Additionally, this location was identified through a regional needs analysis for suiting the needs of this specific type of development. The City of Redmond has identified other key areas for residential development. This goal is met. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I'' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 43 of 55 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Service To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development FINDING: The applicant provided a detailed response on pages 76 and 77 of the burden of proof, which discuss the specific conditions and planning efforts to ensure the subject property has adequate access to public facilities and services. The following excerpt provides valuable context on the coordination between this application and the large lot industrial proposal on the remainder of the subject property (file no. 247-18-000751-PA). Public facility planning for the Fairgrounds expansion occurred in coordination with the adjacent large lot industrial uses. The City of Redmond evaluated infrastructure needs for serving the entire South Redmond Tract through the City's application to COIC to include the Tract in the regional large lot industrial program (Exhibit A). A preliminary Infrastructure Analysis was included in that application. The analysis assessed the infrastructure capacity and relative efficiency of infrastructure provision compared to an alternative site east of the UGB. Based on this analysis and subsequent assessments performed through updates to the CiVs Wastewater Master Plan and Water Master Plan, DSL agreed to finance construction of all facilities necessary to serve the site through an MOA with the City of Redmond (Exhibit B). The agreement requires that DSL construct the facilities within 180 days of approval of this amendment... Staff finds that the applicant and other agencies have adequately planned and arranged for the arrangement of public facilities and services. As the applicant is requesting a redesignated to be included in the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary, the applicant has prepared for urban development on the subject property. This goal is met. ,Goal 12: Transportation To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. FINDING: Conformance with Goal 12 is addressed in detail below, under the OAR Division 12 - Transportation Planning criteria of this report. Goal 13: Energy Conservation To conserve energy. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: Energy conservation will be achieved by this amendment through transportation efficiencies and land use%onstruction efficiencies. The site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and regionally central location provides transportation efciencles that can encourage non -motorized transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7). The relocation of the OMD facilities will significant shorten trips between the facility and the OMD training grounds. The expansion of 4-H facilities adjacent to existing Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 44 of 55 facilities eliminates the need for trips between the site and existing off -site locations for specific activities. The siting of the new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region will reduce overall VMT compared to less central locations. The location of the proposed uses directly adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds eliminates the need to site and construct redundant supportfacilities, which conserves energy that would be used for construction and ongoing operations of those facilities. Both the expansion of existing uses and the new uses can utilize existing centralized support facilities, including parking, concessions, administration, and maintenance. If the expansion were located elsewhere, redundant facilities would need to be developed for these support needs. As the location of the proposed amendment provides transportation and land use efficiencies compared to existing locations and alternative relocation sites, the amendment is consistent with the intent of Goal 13 to conserve energy. Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated the amendment will achieve energy conservation. This goal is met. Goal 14 - Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries (UGB), to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The purpose and intent of Goal 14 was considered throughout the development of this proposed UGB amendment. The proposal provides for orderly and efficient transition to urban land uses because the site is directly adjacent to the City of Redmond's existing UGB, can be served by a direct expansion of existing public facilities, and because the proposed use of the site for specific public facilities is suitable and compatible with existing uses in the area. The proposal accommodates the need for specific public facilities in an accessible location. Several of the proposed uses represent expansion of uses located at the existing Fairgrounds site, making for efficient use of both land and the transportation system by providing direct access and connections between the existing and expanded facilities. The proposal generally contributes to livable communities by increasing recreation and employment opportunities; the specific contributions to livability needs are addressed in other findings through this report, including conformance with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and the Great Neighborhood Principles provided under the City of Redmond's Master Planning Requirements. The master planning requirements mentioned by the applicant are found within the application materials, but are not reviewed through the Deschutes County process. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this goal based on the location of the subject property, the joint use of existing facilities, and concurrent master planning process taking place with the City of Redmond. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I'' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 45 of 55 urban Growth Boundaries: Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban development needs and to Identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process among cities, counties and, where applicable, regional governments. An urban growth boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be adopted by all cities within the boundary and by the county or counties within which the boundary is located, consistent with intergovernmental agreements, except for the Metro regional urban growth boundary established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted or amended by the Metropolitan Service District. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: This proposal conforms to established processes for designating and amending the UGB of the City of Redmond. The proposal is a result of a cooperative process between DSL, the City of Redmond, Deschutes County, and other agencies and jurisdictions. The UGB amendment is proposed for adoption to both the City of Redmond and Deschutes County, in accordance with the provisions of the UGB joint Management Agreement between the City and County. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis. The applicant is pursuing concurrent approval between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County, in which the property is located. This goal is met. Land Need: Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based on the following. (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20- year population forecast coordinated with affected local governments, or for cities applying the simplified process under ORS chapter 197A, a 14 year forecast; and FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof. The City of Redmond has adopted a population forecast through the year 2025 in coordination with Deschutes County and the cities of Bend and Sisters. However, the proposed amendment is intended to address a need for specific public facilities that is not directly proportional to local or regional population growth. The applicant is pursuing the amendment to the UGB to accommodate the growth of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and the Oregon Military Department site. The applicant has provided analysis related to land need and site analysis below. (2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). In determining need, local government may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessaryfor land to be suitable Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 46 of 55 for an identified need. Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot be reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth boundary. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The proposed amendment includes facilities that are publicly owned and intended to address multiple public needs. The primary needs include national defense (OMD facility), recreation (RV park, Multi - Purpose Athletic and Events Center, 4-H facilities, and OHV tracks), and non-profit educational opportunities (4-14facilities, operated by Oregon State University Extension program). These public facilities are distinct from public facilities defined under Goal 11, which concerns water, sewer, and transportation facilities fas defined in OAR 660-011-005(5)1, The primarypurpose of the facilities and the associated UGB amendment is to meet a public facility need. The RV park, Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center, and OHV tracks address a secondary need for direct and indirect employment opportunities that may be provided by attracting visitors and supporting tourism to the city and region. However, as addressed in the Goal 9 findings under Section 3.2 of this report, the employment benefits of this development are secondary to the public facility need and the land is not considered employment land. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County specified necessary site characteristics for land to be suitable for the public facilities and demonstrates that the need cannot be accommodated on land within the existing UGB. See the findings associated with OAR 660-024-0050, 660-024-0065, and 660-024-0067, in section 3.1 of this report. The applicant stated previously that the location of the subject property is ideal for expansion and it will reduce the expansion of existing public facilities defined by OAR 660-011-005(5) such as water, sewer, and electricity. Additionally it allows for close proximity of the existing operations on the property to allow for efficient transportation of goods, services, and employees. The subject property is 160 acres and is not located in close proximity to existing residential development, allowing for best use of the property for the recreation, education, and national defense uses. This goal is met. Boundary Lacatlon: The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the boundary shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with ORS 197,298 and with consideration of the following factors: (1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs: FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The location of the proposed uses directly adjacent to the existing Fairgrounds provides several efficiencies. Both the expansion of existing uses and the new uses can utilize existing centralized facilities, including parking, concessions, administration, and maintenance. If the expansion were located Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 47 of 55 elsewhere, redundant facilities would need to be developed. The adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds also allows the developments to utilize existing infrastructure and future infrastructure improvements required for the proposed large lot industrial site to the south. The proposed location also will significantly minimize the need to travel between separate, nonadjacent facilities, reducing the need for additional transportation facilities and associated land. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated efficient accommodation of identified land needs on the subject property. This goal is met. (2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: The site can be served by a direct and orderly extension of existing public facilities. Transportation, water, and wastewater facilities will be provided along the alignment of 19th Street, an arterial street planned for future expansion south of the site to serve other rural uses. The direct extension of 19th street will provide a framework for orderly development of the site and potential future development to the south. There is sufficient water, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications capacity to serve the site. There is not currently sufficient capacity for wastewater service to the Tract, but DSL has agreed to finance replace a pump station and construct associated infrastructure to establish sufficient wastewater capacity to serve the site. The MOA between DSL and the City of Redmond requires that DSL construct all necessary public facilities to serve the site upon approval of this amendment. More detailed information related to public facilities and services can be found in Section 3.2 of this report, under the findings in response to Statewide Planning Goals 11 and 12. Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. This goal is met. (3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences, and FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County has considered the relative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences of development of the site, as detailed below. Environmental consequences. As discussed in the findings under Goals 5-7 in Section 3.2 of this report, the site contains no permanent or seasonal water, wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential. The site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and Redmond UGB provides transportation efficiencies that encourage non -motorized transportation. Specific impacts to air, land, or water quality can be addressed at the time of development. Energy consequences. As noted above, the site's adjacency with the existing Fairgrounds and regionally central location provides transportation efficiencies that can encourage nonmotorized transportation and reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7), therefore conserving energy. The relocation of the OMD facility will significantly shorten trips between the facility and the OMD training grounds. The expansion of 4-H facilities adjacent to existing facilities eliminates the need Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 48 of 55 for trips between the site and existing off -site locations for specific activities. The siting of the new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in a location that is central in the region will reduce overall VMT compared to less central locations. Economic consequences. As noted in findings under Goal 9 in Section 3.2 of this report, the expanded RV Parr OHV tracks, and new Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center will generate economic activity by attracting visitors and supporting tourism in the city and region. By centralizing these facilities on one site with the existing facilities, the Fairgrounds can offer efficiency, convenience, and flexibility to potential users and is projected to attract more year- round events and visitors to the region. Social consequences. The proposed location for the facilities is not adjacent to any existing city neighborhoods or residential areas, in order to avoid potential land use conflicts related to traffic, parking, noise, or lighting. Additionally, all land designated for other uses in the City of Redmond Urban Reserves were excluded from the alternative sites analysis for the Multi -Purpose Athletic and Events Center in order to avoid displacing land previously identified for other needs that contribute to the residential and social fabric of the community, including housing, parks, and commercial services. Finally, the educational and recreational uses proposed for the site will contribute to the social capacity of the community and region. Staff agrees with the applicant's analysis and finds that the environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences have been addressed within this application. This goal is met. (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: There are no active farm or forest activities near the South Redmond Tract. The land to the south and east of the Tract is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use, but is not suitable or used for agriculture due to poor soil quality and lack of irrigation rights for the land. As a result, development of the site would be compatible with farm and forest use outside the UGB and would have no impacts on such uses. Additional findings associated with Statewide Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) are found in Section 3.2 of this document. Staff agrees that there is no evidence of commercial agriculture taking place in the area due to the soil quality, parcel size, and proximity to the Redmond city limits. This goal is met. Urbanizable Land: Land within urban growth boundaries shall be considered available for urban development consistent with plans for the provision of urban facilities and services. Comprehensive plans and implementing measures shall manage the use and division of urbanizable land to maintain its potential for planned urban development until appropriate public facilities and services are available or planned. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: Upon approval of this proposed amendment, DSL is obligated by the land exchange and sale agreements with Deschutes County and DSL to construct all necessary infrastructure to serve the sites. The Servicing Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "I"' TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 49 of 55 Agreement requires the construction to be complete within 180 days of any contracted interest to convey the SRT or part thereof.6 /n addition, applications for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments are being submitted and reviewed concurrently with the proposed UGB amendment application. Approval of the package of amendments will result in application of urban Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations which will allow for urbanization as soon as public facilities are in place to serve the development. Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this provision. Single Family Dwellings In Exception Areas., Notwithstanding the other provisions of this goal, the commission may by rule provide that this goal does not prohibit the development and use of one single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel that:... FINDING: The application is not for a single family dwelling. This goal does not apply. Rural industrial Devel-epment; Notwithstanding other provisions of this goal restricting urban uses on rural land, a county may authorize industrial development, and accessory uses subordinate to the industrial development, in building of any size and type, on certain lands outside urban growth boundaries specified In ORS 197.713 and 197.714 consistent with the requirements of those statutes and any applicable administrative rules adopted by the Commission. FINDING: The application is not for a rural industrial development. This goal does not apply. Willamette rivergreenway, estuarine resources, coastal shorelands, beaches and dunes, ocean resources. FINDING: As stated previously, the subject property is not located within the Willamette River Greenway nor within a Coastal boundary. Goal 19 does not apply to UGB amendments. These goals do not apply. Division 12. Transportation Planning FINDING: The applicant provided a Transportation Analysis Memorandum as Exhibit H of the burden of proof. The memorandum was created by Kittleson & Associates and analyzes the entire South Redmond Tract, not only the subject property within this application. Generally, the traffic study report major impacts to the transportation system could be mitigated by transportation system improvements planned by the City of Redmond. OAR 660-012-0060 Pion and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to o functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 50 of 55 provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment Is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility If It would. (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards Implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result In any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified In the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment Includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, (8) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. (2) In meeting the purposes described in section (1), coordinated land use and transportation plans should ensure that the planned transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other large urban areas of the country through measures designed to increase transportation choices and make more efficient use of the existing transportation system. (3) The extent of planning required by this division and the outcome of individual transportation plans will vary depending on community size, needs and circumstances. Generally, larger and faster growing communities and regions will need to prepare more comprehensive and details plans, while smaller communities and rural areas will have more general plans. For all communities, the mix of planned transportation facilities and services should be sufficient to ensure economic, sustainable and environmentally sound mobility and accessibility for all Oregonians. Coordinating land use and transportation planning will also complement efforts to meet other state and local objectives, including containing urban development, reducing the cost of public services, protecting farm and forest land, reducing air, water and noise pollution, conserving energy and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. (a) In all urban areas, coordinated land use and transportation plans are Intended to provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation and to enhance, promote and facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel by planning a wel!- connected network of streets and supporting Improvements for all travel modes. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 51 of 55 (b) In urban areas that contain a population greater than 25,000 persons, coordinated land use and transportation plans are intended to improve livability and accessibility by promoting the provision of transit service where feasible and more efficient performance of existing transportation facilities through transportation system management and demand management measures. (c) LWthin metropolitan areas, coordinate land use and transportation plans are Intended to improve livability and accessibility by promoting changes In the transportation system and land use patters. A key outcome of this effort is the reduction In reliance on single occupant automobile use, particularly during peak periods. To accomplish this outcome, this division promotes Increased planning for alternative modes and street connectivity and encourages land use patterns throughout urban areas that make It more convenient for people to walk, bicycle, use transit, use automobile travel more efficient, and drive less to meet their daily needs. The result of applying these portions of the division will vary within metropolitan areas. Some parts of urban areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian districts, transit -oriented developments and other mixed -use, pedestrian friendly centers, will be highly convenient for a variety of modes, Including walking bicycling and transit, while others will be auto -oriented and Include more modest measures to accommodate access and circulation by other modes. (4) This division sets requirements for coordination among affected levels of government and transportation service providers for preparation, adoption, refinement, Implementation and amendment of transportation system plans. Transportation system plans adopted pursuant to this division fulfill the requirements for public facilities required under ORS 197.712(2)(e), Goal 11 and chapter 660, division 11, as they relate to transportation facilities. The rules in this division are not Intended to make local government determinations "land use decision" under ORS 19%01S(10). The rules recognize, however, that under existing statutory and case law, many determinations relating to the adoption and implementation of transportation plans will be land use decisions. FINDING: The traffic study provided by Kittleson and Associates denotes two areas of significant impact to the transportation system within the areas. One being the intersection of 21 ' Street and Airport Way and the other being the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Yew Avenue. The study notes the significant impact at 215t Street and Airport Way could be mitigated with the installation of a median to restrict right -in -right -out movements at the intersection. The study notes the impact at Canal Boulevard and Yew Street would require additional analysis as any improvements would likely have a major impact to right-of-way and neighboring properties. The applicant states this would be addressed as part of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. Staff consulted Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, to determine compliance with these provisions. Mr. Russell provided the following comments: I have reviewed the traffic study dated March 12, 2018, for the Redmond UGB expansion and comprehensive plan amendment of 949 acres for the Redmond large lot industrial area, the Deschutes County Fairgrounds expansion, and the Oregon Military Department (OMD). The traffic study found all Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 52 of 55 intersections either performed acceptably at the end of the planning horizon (2040) or could rely on mitigations which have funding or a reasonable expectation of funding. The land use application thus complies with Goal 12 and the transportation planning rule (TPR). The one exception was the Intersection of 21st StlAirport Way. The tragic report identified a raised median as a possible mitigation, but deferred to the City of Redmond's Transportation System Plan (TSP) which is being updated. While currently there is no specific development being proposed, County staff notes the impacts of large lot industrial sites can be mitigated through non -construction measures as well such as shift changes beginning/ending out of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and transportation demand management (TOM) measures (vanpools, transit passes for employees, enhanced facilities for bicycling, etc.) None of the studied intersections are under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The affected intersections are either ODOT facilities or City of Redmond streets. The traffic study was scoped and reviewed in coordination with ODOT, City of Redmond, and Deschutes County. The agencies have reviewed the completed traffic study's recommendations. Those road authorities whose facilities were significantly affected (ODOT and City of Redmond) have not submitted adverse comments on the UGB expansion and the proposed land use changes in response to being notified. They could provide comment at the public hearing. Construction of a raised median at 21st/Airport Way to change the current accesses into right - In, right -out only (BIRO) is a relatively low cost improvement It is not unreasonable to assume this future mitigation would be funded by either subsequent development or a combination of development and ODOT and/or City of Redmond. As the impacts are planned to be mitigated in conjunction with the City of Redmond's TSP update and will be reviewed in the concurrent applications through the City of Redmond, staff finds these provisions are met. (5) The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or Industrial development on rural lands under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028. FINDING: The applicant is not seeking a goal exception for the proposal, therefore this section does not apply. (6) In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with planned transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give full credit for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located In mixed -use, pedestrian friendly centers, and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a)-(d) below, FINDING: The application is not located in a mixed -use, pedestrian -friendly center or neighborhood as defined in Section (8) of this rule, therefore, this section does not apply. (7) Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations which meet all of the criteria listed In subsections (a)-(c) below shall include an amendment to the comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 53 of 55 plan to provide for on -site alignment of streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site as necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-004S(3). (a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for commercial use, (b) The localgovernment has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which compiles with OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section .3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and (c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided In section (1). FINDING: The applicant will redesignate property as Urban Growth Area with future plans to rezone within the City of Redmond to Public Facilities and Fairgrounds. The City of Redmond has already adopted a TSP and subsequent plans. Staff finds this section does not apply. (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. FINDING: The subject application is for a comprehensive plan map designation change and does not include a zoning map designation change. Therefore this section does not apply. (10) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend a functional plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to capacity ratio or VIC), delay or travel time if the amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. This section does not exempt a proposed amendment from other transportation performance standards or policies that may applyincludin& but not limited to, safety for all modes, network connectivity for all modes (e.g. sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight vehicles of a size and frequency required by the development (a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section If it: (A) Is a map or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed -use area (MMA); and (8) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of the MMA as described in the findings designating the MMA. FINDING: The subject property is not located within a multimodal mixed -use area (MMA). Therefore this section does not apply. (11) A local government may approve an amendment with partial mitigation as provided in section (2) of this rule if the amendment compiles with subsection (a) of this section, the amendment meets the balancing test In subsection (b) of this section, and the local government coordinates as provided In subsection (c) of this section. Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2019-004 Page 54 of 55 FINDING: As a mitigation measure for the significant impact to Canal Boulevard and Yew Avenue intersection has not yet been identified but will be identified as part of the Redmond TSP update, staff asks the Hearings Officer to determine if this section is applicable. OREGON REVISED STATUTES 197A - Comprehensive Land Use Planning 197A 300 Amendment of Urban Growth Bou ,ndariAs-0-utside Metre FINDING: The statute is implemented through Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 24. Analysis for the requirements under Division 24 and Division 12, Goal 14 -Urbanization have been addressed previously in this report. IV. CONCLUSION: Hearings Officer: Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions and the record herein and noting the absence of any contrary evidence or argument, the application is APPROVED, subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to DCC 22.28.030. DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER Dan R. Olsen December 10, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision 247-18-000752-PA EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE NO.2019-004 Page 55 of 55 FAIR HOUSING ® COUNCIL ® OF OREGON December 8, 2020 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Re: The applicant proposes to amend the County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to change the designation of 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to accommodate the future Skyline Village. (247-20-000440-PA) Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is submitted jointly by Housing Land Advocates (HLA) and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO). Both HLA and FHCO are non-profit organizations that advocate for land use policies and practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing for all Oregonians. FHCO's interests relate to a jurisdiction's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Please include these comments in the record for the above -referenced proposed amendment. As you know, all amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map must comply with the Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a). When a decision is made affecting the residential land supply, the County must refer to its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) in order to show that an adequate number of needed housing units (both housing type and affordability level) will be supported by the residential land supply after enactment of the proposed change, and as explained below, the County should consider member cities HNAs and BLIs in this instance to measure the effect of the pilot project.. Goal 10 findings are also required for code changes affecting residential development feasibility, such as parking standards and setbacks. The staff report for 247-20-000440-PA recommends its approval and both HLA and FHCO agree. We also commend Deschutes County for its participation in the Affordable Housing Program Pilot Project. However, the report does not include findings for Statewide Planning ANWFAIR HOUSING ® COUNCIL ® OF OREGON Goal 10, describing the effects of the amendments on the County. While we recognize that because this is a pilot program, the Oregon Administrative Rule 660-039 stipulates that Goal 10 does not apply. Nonetheless, the amendments still have an impact on both the BLI and HNA. These impacts will arise and need to be explained when the County has to report on the pilot project to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). It would behoove the County to be able to discuss those impacts in advance, to assist in the determination of the effectiveness of the pilot program. HLA and FHCO urge the Commission to encourage Goal 10 findings to be made for 247-20- 000440-PA, and to have the proposal evaluated under the HNA and BLI. Thank you for your consideration. Please provide written notice of your decision to, FHCO, c/o Allan Lazo, at 1221 SW Yamhill Street, #305, Portland, OR 97205 and HLA, c/o Jennifer Bragar, at 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850, Portland, OR 97204. Please feel free to email Allan Lazo at information@fhco.ora or reach him by phone at (503) 223-8197 ext. 104. Thank you for your consideration. Allan Lazo Executive Director Fair Housing Council of Oregon cc: Kevin Young (kevin.young@state.or.us) 2 /s/ Jennifer Bragar Jennifer Bragar President Housing Land Advocates DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARING OFFICER FILE NUMBER: 247-20-000440-PA HEARING: December 8, 2020, 6:00 p.m., Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 OWNER: Deschutes County P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT: City of Redmond Deborah McMahon, Planning Manager 411 SW 9t" St. Redmond, OR 97756 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to accommodate the future Skyline Village Affordable Housing Site pursuant to the City of Redmond's Application for Affordable Housing Pilot Project submitted to the State of Oregon under HB 4079 and OAR 660-039-0000 through 100, and approval of such' STAFF REVIEWER: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner peter.russell@deschutes.org; (541) 383-6718 HEARINGS BODY: Deschutes County Hearings Officer RECORD CLOSED: December 8, 2020 DECISION DATE: December 16, 2020 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code, Title 18, County Zoninq Chapter 18.136, Amendments Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance 1 The City of Redmond Associate Planner testified that the City of Redmond (the "City") is pursuing a concurrent process of amending the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan and its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). A separate, related application has been submitted to the City of Redmond for amendments to the UGB and Redmond Comprehensive Plan to add the subject property into the Redmond UGB. The Hearings Officer notes that, in general, a UGB is expanded through a joint effort involving the city and county. Once land is included in a UGB, it is eligible for annexation to a city. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 1 of 35 Deschutes Countv Code, Title 23, Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Chapter 5, Supplemental Sections Statewide Plannina Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Goal14: Urbanization Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included within Urban Growth Boundary Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) OAR 660-039-0090, Affordable Housing Pilot Project, Subsequent Events II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The subject property has no situs address, but is described as located at 1002 NE 171h St. and 2525 W. Hwy 126, Redmond, and is identified on the Deschutes County Assessor's Map as 15-13-00, Tax Lot 103. The legal description of the subject property is: The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 15, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian in Deschutes County, Oregon. The property, which in total consists of 40 acres, is referred to as the Skyline Village Tract. It is part of a larger 1,611-acre parcel owned by Deschutes County. The site is illustrated on the map below. Deschutes County has owned the subject property since approximately 1960, when it was deeded from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The County will deed the property to the City of Redmond pursuant to the terms of a Land Donation Agreement, dated December 18, 2019. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 2 of 35 B. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits: B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone — F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone — F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40); b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 3 of 35 assessment, d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone ... In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer adhered to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable. The City, in a subsequent land use action, will address the property's legal status when it is partitioned. C. PROPOSAL: The Applicant requests a County Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) for subsequent annexation, rezoning2 and urban development of the future Skyline Village. The subject property is 40 acres in size; the City was selected by the State of Oregon for its affordable housing pilot project to be developed on the subject site. The City's application for the affordable housing pilot project was approved by LCDC pursuant to State House Bill 4079 (HB 4079), as implemented by OAR Chapter 660-039. The Applicant has submitted a separate, but related application to the City of Redmond for an amendment to the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the Redmond Comprehensive Plan to add the property into the Redmond UGB and to rezone it to a City zone district. The Applicant intends to annex the subject property into the City and apply the City of Redmond General Residential (R-4) zone to the site in accordance with the Eastside Framework Plan.3 The Applicant will also seek City approval for a Master Development Plan and Partition. Ultimately, the Applicant intends the parcel to be developed as a 485-unit, mixed residential, mixed -use neighborhood with at least 50% of the residential units designated as affordable (defined as those making 80% or less than the Area Median Income and spending not more than 30% of their monthly income on rent/mortgage), and the remainder market rate units.4 A variety of housing unit types will be built and small mixed - use areas will be incorporated. The Applicant plans to pursue a master developer 2 The Applicant does not request a change in the existing zoning of EFU-AL as part of this application, but the City intends to eventually rezone the property after annexation to City of Redmond General Residential (R-4). 3 The Eastside Framework Plan was adopted by the City of Redmond in 2008. It is a general land use plan identifying a development pattern for an 1,800 acre area within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA). The purposes of the plan are to be a vision for the area, framework for more detailed master plans that will be prepared with each development phase and resource for future planning efforts. The subject property is within the planning area of the Eastside Framework Plan. 4 The City's application for the Affordable Housing Pilot Project dated August 17, 2018, states that Redmond is classified by the State of Oregon as a "Distressed Community" where a significant number of the population lives in poverty and has great difficulty getting access to affordable housing. It also states that Redmond, on a per capita basis, has a poverty rate of 36% which is among the highest in Central Oregon poverty, according to the American Community Survey — ACS, Poverty Hot Spots. Redmond suffers from poor housing choices and limited access to affordable housing. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 4 of 35 approach in building out Skyline Village. OAR 660-039-0090(1) provides: (1) Upon selection by the commission as provided in OAR 660-039-0080(4), the qualifying city shall (a) In concert with the county in which the urban growth boundary is located, amend the urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site, and identify the provisions of law and rules pursuant to OAR 660-039-0030 relating to urban growth boundary amendments that are not applied to allow the pilot project site to be included within the urban growth boundary; (b) Annex the pilot project site to the qualifying city within two years of the acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment; (c) Adopt plan and zone designations for the pilot project site that authorize development of the concept plan included in the application; (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site; and (e) Issue permits for development on the pilot project site only after annexation of the site to the qualifying city and adoption of measures ensuring that housing developed on the pilot project site will continue to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site. The Applicant's proposal herein is pursuant to OAR 660-039-0090(1)(a). After approval of the County and City's plan amendments and UGB amendment, the City will have the responsibility of complying with the subsequent events set forth in OAR 660-039-0090(1). The City shall, among other things, annex the subject property, adopt plan and zone designations for the property and submit a partition application, pursuant to which the subject property will be identified as Parcel 2 of future Partition Plat 2020-xx in Redmond, Oregon. Once Parcel 2 (the subject property) is established as a legal parcel via a recorded petition plat, the County will convey the subject property to the City of Redmond, per the terms of a Land Donation Agreement between the two governments, dated December 18, 2019. The City will then begin the process for residential development. Per OAR 660-039- 0090(1)(d) and (e) and the Land Donation Agreement, the City will pursue any and all land use and building permit approvals to design, plat and develop housing units of which a minimum of 50% will be available as affordable housing units to be exclusively rented or sold to, and occupied by low income applicants, pursuant to applicable provisions of HB 4079/2336. The City shall provide methods to ensure that a minimum of 50% of developed housing units remain at or below the threshold deemed affordable housing for a period of 50 years from the conveyance of the subject property from the County to the City. D. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATIONS: The subject property is currently within the land use management jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map designates the subject property as Agriculture. The subject property is within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone — Alfalfa subzone (EFU-AL). The land is also identified as Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA), a combining zone, which is comprised of lands beyond the current Redmond UGB, but which are identified for future urban expansion. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 5 of 35 E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 40 acres in size and located at the approximate center of the western edge of a roughly 1,611-acre parcel owned by the County. Past and recent uses of the tract have been wildlife habitat, rangeland and open space. It has never been farmed and is not part of any irrigation district. The 40-acre property is currently vacant/undeveloped and is located on the eastern boundary of the Redmond UGB. It is located directly south of Maple Avenue, southwest of the High Desert Sports Complex, east of NE 11th Street, and north of NE Kingwood Avenue and NE 17th Street. The subject property has relatively flat terrain with juniper and sagebrush. There are scattered outcrops of basalt. The land is now and has always been vacant. There are no on -site improvements. The land has not been irrigated and contains no water rights. The property has no evidence of permanent or seasonal water. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Deschutes County and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), respectively, the subject property is not located in the 100-year flood plain and does not contain mapped wetlands. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA) was prepared by the Wallace Group for the subject property, dated April 30, 2020. The purpose of the work described in the ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions and other environmental issues existing at the subject property. Among other things, the ESA determined there are no on -site wells, septic systems, stormwater or industrial wastewater discharge features on the subject property. No additional environmental assessment or remedial activities with respect to the site were identified. The ESA states that the site is located at the western margin of the High Lava Plains Physiographic Province of Central Oregon. This region is characterized by semi -arid high desert vegetation along the eastern foothills of the High Cascade Mountain Range. The site and surrounding areas are composed of relatively thin volcanic soils overlaying Pleistocene age Newberry basalt flows. Access to the property is available from the west via NE Kingwood Avenue and from the south via NE 17th Street and NE 151h Street, which connects to NE Hemlock Avenue and NE 9th Street. From NE 91h Street, one may travel north to NE Negus Way, which turns into Maple Avenue, or south to OR 126 and Evergreen Avenue to access US Highway 97 and downtown. From the north, access will be provided via NE Negus Way. F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The site is located directly north of existing City of Redmond jurisdiction. It is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of downtown Redmond, Oregon. The site is located within the planned area of the City of Redmond and is not on the extreme periphery of the community. The land uses on surrounding properties range from urban residential to recreational to undeveloped. To the east is vacant land with County zoning of Surface Mining (SM). To the north is vacant land with a County zoning of Rural Residential (RR-10) and to the west is land zoned EFU-TRB with some private residential development. The Redmond UGB is approximately 1,320 feet west of the subject property. On the south side of the property is land within the City of Redmond and zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2). The Deschutes County Negus Transfer station lies about 1,515 feet east of the subject property. The High Desert Sports Complex abuts the northeast edge of the subject property. Adjacent off -site improvements along NE Kingwood Avenue include paved public roads with curbs and File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 6 of 35 paved sidewalks. Several residences abut the north and west edge of subject property, while there is a mix of vacant land and developed industrial properties along the south edge. G. SOILS: Soils on the subject property are designated as Class VII and VIII. The land is not recommended for dry land grazing due to a lack of water and proximity to urban uses. According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the subject property contains the following soils type, as described below. 35B, Deschutes-Stukel complex, dry. 0 to 8 percent slope: This soil complex is composed of 50 percent Deschutes soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Stukel soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deschutes soils are well drained with a moderately rapid permeability, and about 7 inches of available water capacity. The Stukel soils are well drained with moderately rapid permeability and about 2.2 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 35B soils are 4E when irrigated, and 6E when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. The entire property is made up of this soil type. The ESA describes the soils, based on review of documentation for the subject property and a site visit on April 10, 2020, as follows: "Near -surface soils consist of volcanic silty - sand with varying amounts of basaltic gravel, cobble and boulders, less than ten feet thick. The near -surface soils are underlain by multiple flows of hard, basaltic bedrock that extend laterally across the site to depths of several hundred feet below surface grade." H. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the public hearing to various public and private agencies. No comments were received. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID); the following City of Redmond departments: Fire and Rescue, Planning, and Public Works; Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); the following Deschutes County departments: Assessor, Property Address Coordinator, Property Management, Road, and County Surveyor; and the District 11 Watermaster. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On November 10, 2020, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. No written comments were received. One member of the public appeared at the public hearing and presented testimony regarding the industrial zoning of adjacent lands, with concern about the compatibility of residential development of the subject property. The Housing Land Authority and Fair Housing Council of Oregon also submitted a comment letter, dated December 8, 2020 regarding findings for Statewide Planning Goal 10. The Hearings Officer addresses these comments in the findings below. 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 July 14, 2020, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on the property on July 15, 2020. On November 10, 2020, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, November 22, 2020. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 7 of 35 the Department of Land Conservation and Development on November 3, 2020. J. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on June 30, 2020. The application was deemed complete on November 10, 2020. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. K. LAND USE HISTORY: The entire 1,611-acre parcel, including the 40-acre subject property is owned by Deschutes County. Previously, the entire parcel was owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The land was conveyed to Deschutes County from BLM via a patent (#36-66-0010) that was entered on the Deschutes County Tax Card on August 20, 1965. Previous land use decisions are listed below. As near as staff could determine, none of these land use decisions was for the subject 40 acres. No evidence has been submitted to confirm whether the listed land use decisions apply to the subject property. Nonetheless these decisions are listed below: CU-81-89: Approved a softball park with four fields off of Negus Road CU-91-137: Approved a manufactured home to be used as a caretaker's residence for the Redmond Rod and Gun Club, which was located off of OR 126. CU-92-165/SP-92-130: Alter non -conforming use (Negus landfill) to allow construction of solid waste center. CU-92-214/SP-92-170/TU-92-64: Approved a disposal site and Negus Transfer Station CU-93-31: Approved a manufactured home to be used as a caretaker's residence for Redmond Rod and Gun Club, which was located off of OR 126. 247-19-000648-PA/649-ZC: Reconfigure the Redmond UGB to add 156 acres to the Redmond UGB in exchange for removing a similar amount of land from the Redmond UGB. The land being added would change from EFU to Urban Holding zone (UH-10) and the land being removed from the UGB would change from a combination of Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2) to EFU. L. PROJECT BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 4079 (HB 4079) which formed a pilot program aimed to help cities build affordable housing. The program allowed two cities to add new housing units on lands currently outside their urban growth boundaries (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 population up to 25,000 and one for a city with a population greater than 25,000. When selected, cities can use an expedited UGB expansion process if the proposal meets the LCDC rules set forth in OAR 660-039. In November 2018, LCDC selected the City of Bend, instead of the City of Redmond's proposal, for the pilot program for cities over 25,000 in population. No city with a population of less than 25,000 applied. Thereafter, the Legislature amended the original statute by File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 8 of 35 passing HB 2336 in 2019, which allowed LCDC to select the City of Redmond's application for the affordable housing pilot program. The program requires Redmond to amend its urban growth boundary, annex the proposed project site, and adopt needed regulations and issue permits for development to occur. OAR 660-039-0090 (Subsequent Events), summarized in the findings above, set forth the next steps for the City of Redmond's implementation of the affordable housing program. The LCDC exempts the application from certain Statewide Goals, including Goal 12, Goals 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 19. The application is exempt from Goal 11, except that portion applicable to the impact of development on the pilot project site upon existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's UGB. The application is also exempt from the requirements of ORS 197A.320. OAR 660-039-0030. In 2007, the City of Redmond adopted the Eastside Framework Plan (EFP) during the UGB expansion process. The EFP identifies a development pattern for an 1,800 acre area within the City's Urban Reserve Area (URA) on land owned by Deschutes County and Central Oregon Irrigation District. The Skyline Village tract is located within the western, central part of the EFP on land designated by the EFP as Residential — Medium Density, adjacent to Residential- High Density and industrial zoned land. Skyline Village is the first project to be considered in the EFP. It will build upon the mixed -use and residential intentions set by the EFP to grow Redmond's housing and commercial development. The City of Redmond developed a master plan concept for the Skyline Village Tract for its submittal to the State of Oregon for the Affordable Housing Pilot Program. The master plan concept is for a mixed income, mixed use neighborhood with a total of 485 residential units at least half of which will be affordable and the other half will be market rate units. The affordable and market rate units will be mixed throughout the site. Parks, open space corridors and a greenway with trails are planned throughout the development (comprising almost 10% of the site) and a transit plaza has been planned adjacent to the mixed -use area and a park. The City plans to pursue a master developer approach to build out Skyline Village; a formal RFP process will be used. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In order to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment request, the proposal must comply with the criteria found in statutes, statewide planning goals and guidelines and their implementing administrative rules, County Comprehensive Plan, and land use procedures ordinance. Each of the applicable criteria is addressed in the findings below. TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Section 18.16.010. Purpose A. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zone is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses. B. The purposes of this zone are served by the land use restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and in DCC 18.16 and by the restrictions in private civil actions and enforcement actions set forth in ORS 30.90. through 30.947. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 9 of 35 FINDING: The Applicant requests a quasi-judicial plan amendment to change the County Comprehensive Plan map designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to expand the City of Redmond UGB. The subject property is within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone — Alfalfa subzone (EFU-AL). The Applicant does not request a rezone of the subject property. Per the terms of the Land Donation Agreement, the subsequent steps to be taken by the City of Redmond for the Skyline Village affordable housing pilot project include annexation of the subject property, adoption of plan and zone designations for the property and submission of a partition application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Hearings Officer finds that DCC 18.16.010 is a purpose statement, which sets forth a general expression of a goal or objective to preserve farm land. See Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or LUBA 178, 185-86 (1990). The Hearings Officer finds that DCC 18.16.010 is not an approval criterion for the subject application. Chapter 18.24, Redmond Urban Reserve Area Combining Zone Section 18.24.010. Purpose The Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone implements the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for those areas designated as urban reserve. The RURA Combining Zone maintains lands for rural uses in accordance with state law, but in a manner that ensures a range of opportunities for the orderly, economic, and efficient provision of urban services when these lands are included in the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary. FINDING: As set forth above, the Applicant requests a quasi-judicial plan amendment to change the County Comprehensive Plan map designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area to expand the City of Redmond UGB. The subject property is within the Exclusive Farm Use Zone — Alfalfa subzone (EFU-AL) and the RURA combining zone. The Applicant does not request a rezone of the subject property. Per the terms of the Land Donation Agreement, the subsequent steps to be taken by the City of Redmond for the Skyline Village affordable housing pilot project include annexation of the subject property, adoption of plan and zone designations for the property and submission of a partition application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Hearings Officer finds that DCC 18.24.010 is a purpose statement, which sets forth a general expression of a goal or objective to maintain lands for rural uses in a manner that ensures a range of opportunities for the provision of urban services when those lands are included in the Redmond UGB. See Beck v. City of Tillamook, 20 Or LUBA 178, 185-86 (1990). The Hearings Officer finds that DCC 18.24.010 is not an approval criterion for the subject application. Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 10 of 35 FINDING: The Applicant requests a quasi-judicial map amendment, which is subject to the procedures set forth in DCC Title 22. The Applicant filed an application on a form provided by the Planning Department. The Hearings Officer reviews the application utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code in this Decision. TITLE 22 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE) Chapter 22.08 (General Provisions) Section 22.08.010 Application Requirements A. Property Owner. For the purposes of DCC 22.08.010, the term "property owner" shall mean the owner of record or the contract purchaser and does not include a person or organization that holds a security interest. B. Applications for development or land use actions shall: 1. Be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written authorization from the property owner as defined herein to make the application; 2. Be completed on a form prescribed by the Planning Director; 3. Include supporting information required by the zoning ordinance and that information necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria; and 4. Be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, unless such fees are waived by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. Include an affidavit attesting to the fact that the notice has been posted on the property in accordance with DCC 22.24.030(B). C. The following applications are not subject to the ownership requirement set forth in DCC 22.08.010(B)(1): 1. Applications submitted by or on behalf of a public entity or public utility having the power of eminent domain with respect to the property subject to the application; or 2. Applications for development proposals sited on lands owned by the state or the federal government. D. A deposit for hearings officers' fees may be requested at any time prior to the application being deemed complete and, if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 11 of 35 FINDING: The Applicant submitted its application pursuant to authority granted by the property owner, Deschutes County, to accomplish the purposes set forth in the Land Donation Agreement, which supports the City of Redmond's approved application for the affordable housing pilot project. The Applicant paid a hearings officer deposit and will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. The Hearings Officer finds these requirements are met. Section 22.08.020 Acceptance of Application. A. Development action and land use action applications shall not be accepted until the planning director has determined that (1) the requirements of DCC 22.08.010 have been met and (2) the application is complete or the application is deemed to be complete under state law. B. An application is complete when in the judgment of the Planning Director all applicable issues have been adequately addressed in the application. C. Acceptance of an application as complete shall not preclude a determination at a later date that additional criteria need to be addressed or a later determination that additional information is needed to adequately address applicable criteria. FINDING: The Applicant's application was accepted by the Department of Community Development and has been determined to be complete. The Hearings Officer finds these requirements are met. Chapter 22.20 (Review of Land Use Applications) Section 22.20.010 Action on Land Use Action Applications. A. Except for comprehensive plan amendments and zone changes and other instances where a hearing is required by state law or by other ordinance provision, the Planning Director may decide upon a land use action application administratively either with prior notice, as prescribed under DCC 22.20.020 or without prior notice, as prescribed under DCC 22.20.030 or he may refer the application to the Hearings Body for hearing. The Planning Director shall take such action within 30 days of the date the application is accepted or deemed accepted as complete. This time limit may be waived at the option of the applicant. FINDING: The application requests a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Accordingly, a hearing is required. The Hearings Officer presided over a public hearing on December 8, 2020, and prepared this Decision and Recommendation for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. Chapter 22.24 (Land Use Action Hearings) Section 22.24.010 Filing of Staff Report for Hearing. A. At the time an application that in the judgment of the Planning director requires a hearing is deemed complete, a hearing date shall be set. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 12 of 35 B. A staff report shall be completed seven days prior to hearing. If the report is not completed by such time, the hearing shall be held as scheduled, but any party may at the hearing or in writing prior to the hearing request a continuance of the hearing to a date that is at least seven days after the date the initial staff report is complete. Pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(A)(3), grant of a continuance under these circumstances shall be discretionary. C. A copy of the staff report shall be mailed to the applicant, shall be made available to such other persons who request a copy and shall be filed with the Hearings Body. D. Oral or written modifications and additions to the staff report shall be allowed prior to or at the hearing. FINDING: A hearing date was set for hearing before the Hearings Officer and a staff report was completed seven days prior to the December 8, 2020, hearing date. A copy of the staff report was mailed to the Applicant, sent to the Hearings Officer and was made available to the public as part of the record herein. No persons requested a copy of the staff report. No oral or written modifications and/or additions to the staff report were made prior to or at the hearing. The Hearings Officer finds these requirements are met. Section 22.24.020 Hearings Body. A. The following shall serve as the hearings body: 1. Hearings Officer. 2. Planning Commission, as specified by DCC 22.24.020(C). 3. Board of County Commissioners, except where an applicable joint management agreement within an acknowledged urban growth boundary specifies a city governing body as the final appeals body. B. The Hearings Body order shall be as set forth in DCC 22.24.020(A), except that the Board may call up an administrative decision for review without the necessity of an application going before the Hearings Officer. C. Where the Hearings Officer declines to hear a matter on the grounds of a conflict of interest, the Planning Commission shall substitute for the hearings officer. In the Redmond Urban Area, the initial Hearings Body for a quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change may at the discretion of the Planning Director be either the Planning Commission or the Hearings Officer. Additionally, in the Redmond Urban Area, the initial Hearings Body for Declaratory Rulings and revocations of land use approvals may, at the discretion of the Planning Director, be the Hearings Officer, the Redmond Urban Area Planning Commission or the Redmond City Council. FINDING: The Hearings Officer served as the initial hearings body for the application for quasi- judicial plan amendment. These requirements are met. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 13 of 35 Section 22.24.030 Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action. A. Individual Mailed Notice. 1. Except as otherwise provided for herein, notice of a land use application shall be mailed at least 20 days prior to the hearing for those matters set for hearing, or within 10 days after receipt of an application for those matters to be processed administratively with notice. Written notice shall be sent by mail to the following persons: a. The applicant. b. Owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located: 1. Within 100 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where any part of the subject property is within an urban growth boundary; 2. Within 250 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is outside an urban growth boundary and not within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height, or 3. Within 750 feet of the property that is the subject of the notice where the subject property is within a farm or forest zone, except where greater notice is required under DCC 22.24.030(A)(4) for structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height. c. For a solar access or solar shade exception application, only those owners of record identified in the application as being burdened by the approval of such an application. d. The owner of a public use airport if the airport is located within 10,000 feet of the subject property. e. The tenants of a mobile home park when the application is for the rezoning of any part or all of a mobile home park. f. The Planning Commission. g. Any neighborhood or community organization formally recognized by the board under criteria established by the Board whose boundaries include the site. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 14 of 35 h. At the discretion of the applicant, the County also shall provide notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2. Notwithstanding DCC 22.24.030(A)(1) (b)(1), all owners of property within 250 feet of property that is the subject of a plan amendment application or zone change application shall receive notice. 3. The failure of a property owner to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate any land use approval if the Planning Division can show by affidavit that such notice was given. 4. For structures proposed to exceed 30 feet in height that are located outside of an urban growth boundary, the area for describing persons entitled to notice under DCC 22.24.030(A)(1)(b) shall expand outward by a distance equal to the distance of the initial notice area boundary for every 30 foot height increment or portion thereof. B. Posted Notice. 1. Notice of a land use action application for which prior notice procedures are chosen shall be posted on the subject property for at least 10 continuous days prior to any date set for receipt of comments. Such notice shall, where practicable, be visible from any adjacent public way. 2. Posted notice of an application for a utility facility line approval shall be by posting the proposed route at intervals of not less than one-half mile. The notice shall be posted as close as practicable to, and be visible from, any public way in the vicinity of the proposed route. 3. Notice of a solar access application shall be posted as near as practicable to each lot identified in the application. C. Published Notice. In addition to notice by mail and posting, notice of an initial hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least 20 days prior to the hearing. D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: The record shows that individual mailed notice, posted notice, published notice and media notice of the application and the initial public hearing before the Hearings Officer were provided consistent with these requirements. Specifically, notice was provided to owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 750 feet of the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds these requirements are met. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 15 of 35 Section 22.24.040 Contents of Notice. A. All mailed notices of a land use action hearing shall: 1. Describe the nature of the applicant's request and the nature of the proposed uses that could be authorized. 2. List the criteria from the zoning ordinance and the plan applicable to the application at issue. 3. Set forth the street address or easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. 4. State the date, time and location of any hearing or date by which written comments must be received. 5. State that any person may comment in writing and include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedures for conduct of testimony, including, but not limited to, a party's right to request a continuance or to have the record held open. 6. If a hearing is to be held, state that any interested person may appear. 7. State that failure to raise an issue in person at a hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), and that failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. 8. State the name of a county representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. 9. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. 10. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost. 11. All mailed notices shall contain the following statement: NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. B. All mailed and published notices for hearings shall contain a statement that recipients may request a copy of the staff report. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 16 of 35 C. All mailed and published notices concerning applications necessitating an exception to one of the statewide land use planning goals shall state that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner. FINDING: The record shows that mailed notices of the initial hearing before the Hearings Officer on the application contain all required information set forth above. The application does not necessitate an exception to any of the statewide land use planning goals. The Hearings Officer finds these requirements are met. Chapter 22.28 (Land Use Action Decisions) Section 22.28.030 Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further testimony will be taken by the Board. C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22. D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC 22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C), any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications. FINDING: The Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision on the quasi-judicial plan amendment application. Prior to becoming effective, the quasi-judicial plan amendment shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Because the requested plan amendment concerns lands designated for agricultural use, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application for plan amendment de novo without the necessity of an appeal having been filed. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 17 of 35 TITLE 23 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) Chapter 1. Comprehensive Planning Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Goal 1. Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the objective evaluation of facts. FINDING: The proposal was developed specifically in response to the State of Oregon's request for affordable housing pilot projects to address this critical Central Oregon issue. In 2016, House Bill 4079 (HB 4079) and the 2019 HB 2336 allowed two selected cities to add new housing units outside of their current UGBs. The resulting statute and implementing administrative rule (OAR 660-039) were themselves created via a public process. The review of Redmond's proposal and subsequent approval by the State of Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC ) was based on the commission's objective review of the facts pertaining to state goals and administrative rules. The City's land use application to the County for the plan amendment (this application) included public notice as required by County Code to property owners, private and public agencies, and culminated in a public hearing before the Hearings Officer, which will be followed by a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. The Applicant's burden of proof addresses the factual base of state and local requirements for decisions related to plan amendments. It also addresses City of Redmond requirements for the next steps regarding partitioning of the 40 acres from the 1,611 acres, application of Redmond's code, and development of the site to accommodate 485 residential units. Half of the units planned to be constructed on the subject parcel will be for affordable housing (households making 80% or less of the County's Area Median Income (AM[) of $69,900). In summary, at every step at the state and the local level, the Skyline Village Tract has been the result of an open and public process. The County is following procedures outlined in Title 22, the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance in order to ensure a land use process that is open and based upon objective evaluation of facts. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal and the associated review process are consistent with this Goal. Goal 2. Promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues. FINDING: This proposal was developed as a specific response to the state's request for pilot projects for affordable housing, as discussed in the findings above. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County have extensively coordinated on the resulting land use applications for the Skyline Village Tract. The County has conditionally granted ownership of the land to the City of Redmond, provided the land will be developed primarily for affordable housing per the Land Donation Agreement (Deschutes County Document 2019-847) between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners also passed a resolution in support of the City of Redmond's application to the Affordable Housing Pilot Project Program. As set forth in the City's application for Affordable Housing Pilot Project on page 4: File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 18 of 35 Redmond has collaborated with Deschutes County on the siting of the project which is on former Federal land. Deschutes County received this land at no cost. Since land value contributes to the high cost of housing, Redmond is seeking ways to write down the value of the land in a manner that results in more affordable housing prices. Deschutes County has agreed to support the Redmond proposal and kickstart the Eastside Framework Plan with a mixed -income neighborhood. Together, Redmond and Deschutes County as a land owner and partner create a strong foundation for success of the project. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is based upon a cooperative partnership process for regional planning and is consistent with this Goal. Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1. Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The parcel is zoned EFU and will remain so zoned by the County following this Decision. Subsequent to this application, the parcel is proposed to be annexed into the City of Redmond and rezoned to R-4. Following the anticipated zone change and annexation, this policy will no longer be applicable. The Hearings Officer's findings concerning agricultural land are set forth below in the findings on Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land. Policy 2.2.3 below provides support concerning Policy 2.2.2, supporting re -designating the subject property to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The proposal is part of the Affordable Housing Pilot Program, implemented by OAR 660-039, which allows selected cities to amend their UGB to include certain parcels, then to annex and zone the property to accommodate an affordable housing project meeting certain requirements. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this Goal and these Policies. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Applicant has requested a Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. As discussed herein, the subject parcel has been selected by the state as part of the Affordable Housing Pilot Program as allowed by HB 4079 (2016) and HB 2336 (2019) and implemented by OAR 660-039. The subject plan amendment per OAR 660-039-0030(1) specifies those Statewide Planning Goals from which the project is exempt, and provides that the project need not comply with ORS 197A.320. The process to amend a County's comprehensive plan is detailed in OAR 660-039- File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 19 of 35 0090. The parcel has also been mapped as Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) by the County. The Eastside Framework Plan (2008), adopted by the City of Redmond, identified a mixed -used community of 1,800 acres within the RURA on lands owned by Deschutes County and COID. The Skyline Village tract is within the Eastside Framework Plan's west -central portion on lands slated for residential and mixed use development. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed amendment is allowed by all applicable Oregon State Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this Policy. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. As noted above, the subject property has been identified as future land for urban expansion by the Redmond Urban Reserve Area and City of Redmond's Eastside Framework Plan. OAR 660-039-0090 (Subsequent Events) details how the Skyline Village tract will be eventually converted from EFU to Redmond General Residential (R-4), following comprehensive plan amendments, expansion of the Redmond UGB, and annexation. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal and associated review processes are consistent with this Policy. Policy 2.2.5 Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon Administrative Rule. FINDING: The Applicant is requesting approval of a plan amendment to amend the Agriculture designation on the subject property to Redmond Urban Growth Area as allowed under OAR 660- 039-0090. The Applicant has submitted a separate, related application to the City of Redmond to amend the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant will pursue a subsequent application process through the City of Redmond to annex, rezone and master plan the property for residential, including 50 percent affordable housing, and mixed -use development. The Hearings Officer finds this policy is not applicable to the application. Section 2.3 Forests FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this section does not apply because the subject property is not located in a forest, or on land designated as Forest on the Comprehensive Plan map. The proposal does not impact any forest lands. Section 2.4, Goal 5 Overview Policies Goal 1. Protect Goal 5 resources FINDING: The only nearby Goal 5 resource is Mineral and Aggregate Site #482, which is identified as 151300-00-00103, Negus Landfill, with a Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation of Surface Mining (SM). The SM land abuts the eastern boundary of the subject property and will not be adversely affected. Access to the Negus Landfill via NE Maple Avenue will remain File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 20 of 35 unchanged. The Hearings Officer notes that the City of Redmond during annexation could record a deed restriction requiring any subsequent development to record a waiver of remonstrance as described in DCC 18.562.120 in the SM zone. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this Goal. Goal 5 Policies 2.4.1 through 2.4.5 focus on amending the County's Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings Officer thus finds those policies are not applicable. Section 2.5, Water Resources Policies FINDING: The subject property has no water rights and has never been irrigated. The plan amendment does not involve any water resources. The Hearings Officer finds the policies in this section are not applicable. The proposal does not impact any water resources. Section 2.6, Wildlife FINDING: There are no Goal 5-listed wildlife species present on the subject property, based on the Goal 5 inventory nor threatened or endangered species. There is no identified wildlife habitat on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds the policies in this section are not applicable. Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Goal 1. Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. FINDING: The site is not zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C) and is not considered a significant open space based on any natural amenities present on the site. The Applicant notes there are scenic views of the Cascade Range to the west, but that future development will not negatively impact any views from existing homes or the BLM land to the east. The Eastside Framework Plan designates public spaces, but the subject property does not contain any of such designations. The Hearings Officer finds that this policy does not apply because, at the time of development, the property will be under the City of Redmond's land use authority. The proposal does not impact any lands that have been designated open space or scenic views. Policy 2.7.1 Goal 5 open spaces, scenic views and sites inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the proposal will not impact any Goal 5 inventories or protection programs. Policy 2.7.2 Cooperate with stakeholders to establish a comprehensive system of connected open spaces. FINDING: Throughout the process of establishing the Eastside Framework Plan, the City of Redmond identified open space, trails, and connections for a comprehensive network. The Master Development Plan for the site identifies areas for a comprehensive system of connected open spaces by spreading them around the neighborhood, then connecting them with trails along landscaped corridors. Open spaces will be a combination of active and passive spaces. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 21 of 35 Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. FINDING: The project site lies adjacent to the City of Redmond, rather than between Redmond and Bend. There is no evidence of any significant open spaces or visually important and/or visually prominent areas on the subject parcel.5 Policy 2.7.4 Encourage a variety of approaches that protect significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. FINDING: The subject property does not contain significant open or scenic views and sites. Nevertheless, the City of Redmond through the Eastside Framework Plan and subsequent development of the site can protect open spaces as well as scenic views and sites in subsequent land use permitting on the property. The City's site plan development code requires identification of land for open space. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites. FINDING: The plan amendment does not approve any development at this time. The Hearings Officer finds this policy does not apply to the subject proposal. However, when the City annexes the land into the UGB and applies residential zoning to the subject parcel, the city code will address scenic views and sites for consistency with the Eastside Framework Plan and local code requirements. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with this policy. Section 2.8 Energy Policies Goal 1. Promote energy conservation. Goal 2. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and business consumers. Goal 3. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound commercial energy facilities. FINDING: The Application does not result in any immediate development; the Hearings Officer finds these goals do not apply. Nonetheless, the Eastside Framework Plan includes a variety of residential densities and mixed uses, which will result in energy conservation, the details of which will be developed and provided during the time of master development and subdivision. Redmond's "Affordable Housing Pilot Project" submittal to the state included emphasis on walkable links and transit, measures which will result in energy conservation by reduced use of single -occupant vehicles. The City of Redmond's development code will address these issues when applications for development of the site are submitted. s As set forth in the Staff Report, Staff believes this policy is directed toward the property zoned OSM on US 97 between Bend and Redmond. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 22 of 35 Section 2.9 Environmental Quality Goal 1. Maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land. Goal 2. Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts on the natural environment. Goal 3. Encourage and increase recycling FINDING: The Application will not result in immediate development. The Hearings Officer finds these goals and their policies do not apply. The City of Redmond development code will provide the review criteria when the Skyline Village tract develops. Section 2.10 Surface Mining FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this goal does not apply as the land is not designated SM in either the Comprehensive Plan map or the zoning code. The Skyline Village tract contains no Goal 5 aggregate or mineral resources based on review of Section 5.8 of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan amendment does not seek to modify or amend the County's Goal 5 Aggregate and Mineral inventory list or the Goal 5 program. Section 2.11 Cultural and Historic Resources Finding: The Hearings Officer finds this goal does not apply as the Skyline Village tract does not contain any sites listed in the Goal 5 inventory of cultural and historic resources based on a review of Section 5.9 of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan amendment does not seek to modify or amend the County's Goal 5 Cultural and Historic Resources Inventory nor does it seek to amend the County's Goal 5 program. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Section 3.3, Rural Housing Policies Goal 1. Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed amendment will not adversely impact the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County, as the proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The site is within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) Combining Zone. Thus, the subject property was never intended to contain rural housing. There are County -zoned lands on three sides of the subject parcel. To the west and north is EFU-TRB containing a half -dozen single-family homes on parcels ranging from 5 to 9.5 acres. Another portion of land to the north is RR-10, but contains the Missing Link golf course and to the northeast is land zoned RR-10, which contains the High Desert Sports Complex. To the east is SM land, which includes the Negus Transfer Station. As noted above, one member of the public testified at the public hearing, raising concerns of compatibility of future development of the site with existing adjacent industrial -zoned properties. The Hearings Officer finds that the City intends to annex the property and review development applications pursuant to its zoning code. At that time, any mitigation measures determined to be necessary to provide adequate separation of adjacent uses will be addressed. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 23 of 35 The development of the affordable housing must conform to the city's Master Plan Development requirements which includes Great Neighborhood Principles. One of those principles is to establish appropriate urban -rural interfaces including buffer distances of 100' and transitions to lower densities of development. The Hearings Officer notes that the requirements of Redmond's development code will protect the rural character and safety of existing adjacent rural housing. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal complies with this Goal. Policy 3.3.1 Except for parcels in the Westside Transect Zone, the minimum parcel size for new rural residential shall be 10 acres. FINDING: The plan amendment will not create any new rural residential parcels. Any subsequent land division will occur under the City of Redmond development code. The Hearings Officer finds this policy does not apply. Policy 3.3.2 Incorporate farm and forest housing reports into a wider system for tracking the cumulative effects of rural housing development. FINDING: The plan amendment will not result in any new rural housing developments. Any housing development will occur based on the City of Redmond development code. The Hearings Officer finds this policy does not apply. Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster developments, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. FINDING: The plan amendment will not result in any new subdivisions under County code. Development will occur under City of Redmond development code once annexation occurs. The Eastside Framework Plan will result in a denser urban development pattern, which complements greater pedestrian travel and use of transit, both of which mitigate community and environmental impacts. The Hearings Officer finds this policy does not apply. Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon Administrative Rule to permit accessory dwelling units in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones. FINDING: The plan amendment is a required step under OAR 660-039 to allow qualifying cities to develop affordable housing on lands without having to go through the UGB expansion process of OAR 660-024. Development of the resulting parcel, once annexed, will be reviewed under the Redmond development code. The Eastside Framework Plan contains a diversity of housing opportunities. The Hearings Officer finds this policy does not apply, but the pilot project for affordable housing is consistent with the policy. Goal 2. Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing. FINDING: The Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution of Support 2018-029 on July 11, 2018, supporting the City of Redmond's application to the State's request for pilot projects for affordable housing. Further, the County conditionally granted the 40 acres of the subject property, provided the subsequent development is consistent with OAR 660-039. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 24 of 35 Policy 3.3.6 Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other stakeholders to meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County residents. a. Assist as needed in coordinating and implementing housing assistance programs. b. Support efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing in urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities. FINDING: The City of Redmond is a stakeholder to meet the needs of all Deschutes County residents as those living in cities are also County residents. The Board of County Commissioners' passing of Resolution 2018-029 ("A Resolution of Support for the City of Redmond's Application for DLCD Affordable Housing Pilot Project Initiative") and donation of the subject 40-acre parcel buttresses efforts to provide affordable housing for County residents. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 3.3.7 Utilize block grants and other funding to assist in providing and maintaining low and moderate income housing. FINDING: The County will provide the subject parcel to support the subsequent development of the affordable housing pilot project. The pilot project requires that 30% of the housing units be affordable, but the City of Redmond has exceeded that baseline requirement by promising 50% of the housing units will be affordable. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. The Hearings Officer finds the remaining policies (3.3.8 through 3.3.9.7) concern the Westside Transect on the west side of Bend and are not applicable. Section 3.4, Rural Economy Policies Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. FINDING: The plan amendment will change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Agriculture to a Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA). By definition, the subject parcel will no longer be intended for rural uses. The subject parcel adjoins rural parcels zoned EFU-TRB, RR- 10, and SM. The County zones allow rural economic activities and these will still be allowed after the plan amendment. The Redmond development code's requirements for screening, buffering, and landscaping will ensure development of the subject property will be compatible with the surrounding rural parcels. In fact, development of 485 residential units could provide a market of potential customers within close proximity to the rural economic uses allowed in the County -zoned lands. Among the potential uses in the EFU zone are wineries and agri-tourism. The RR-10 zone allows for home occupations, and the SM zone has extractive uses which can be used in home landscaping. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. The Hearings Officer finds the remaining polices (3.4.1 through 3.4.35) concern either uses not occurring on the subject parcel currently or are inapplicable as the parcel is zoned EFU and not Rural Commercial (RC) or Rural Industrial (RI). File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 25 of 35 Section 3.5, Natural Hazards Goal 1. Protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy, and the environment from natural hazards. FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan lists the three highest priorities for natural hazard protection as against wildfire, severe winter storms, and flooding. The subject parcel is vacant and has no infrastructure. Post -annexation, the subject parcel will be in the City of Redmond, which will provide fire protection through its Fire and Rescue Department and snow removal through its Road Department. The subject parcel does not contain any lands designated floodplain or floodway. Drainage and storm water will be addressed as part of the master plan development. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. The remaining policies (3.5.1 through 3.5.11) are specific to rural properties, which the subject property will no longer be should the plan amendment be approved. The Hearings Officer finds the policies are inapplicable. Section 3.6, Public Facilities and Services Goal 1. Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. FINDING: The site will be annexed into the City of Redmond and provided with municipal facilities and services which are operated and maintained by the City. Thus, there will be no rural public facilities and services on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds this goal is inapplicable. Section 3.7, Transportation FINDING: The site will be annexed into the City of Redmond and served by City transportation facilities and services. Under the Joint Area Management Agreement between City of Redmond and Deschutes County, jurisdictional transfer of roads is accomplished as part of annexation. The site is currently served by NE Maple Avenue and a Local Access Road (LAR) leading into the Negus Transfer Station. Adequacy of current and future transportation facilities will be reviewed per the Redmond development code as proposals to develop the land are considered in the future. OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) exempts affordable housing pilot projects from the OAR 660-012, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this section. Section 3.8, Rural Recreation Goal 1. Promote a variety of passive and active park and recreation opportunities through a regional system that includes federal and state parks and local park districts. FINDING: The City of Redmond has a Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District (RAPRD) and the Eastside Framework Plan identified various parks and/or public spaces. Additionally, the subject parcel will remain in close proximity to Missing Link Golf Course and the High Desert Sports Complex. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. Policy 3.8.1 Cooperate with public agencies and local park districts to provide park and recreation lands, facilities, and opportunities. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 26 of 35 a. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and State Park Master Plans shall serve as a basis for coordination on County -wide park and recreation issues. b. Support exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals for urban fringe areas owned or acquired by and operated by park and recreation districts. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the County's conditional agreement to grant ownership of the 40-acre subject parcel to the City of Redmond is consistent with this policy. Additionally, OAR 660-039-030 exempts the approved affordable housing pilot project from the requirement to obtain a goal exception for several Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 3 (Agriculture). The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. The remaining policies (3.8.2 through 3.8.10) pertain to rural County lands, which the subject property will no longer be should the plan amendment be approved. The Hearings Officer finds the policies are inapplicable. Section 3.9, Destination Resorts FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds these goals and policies do not apply as the subject property does not have a Destination Resort Overlay zone, nor is the proposed plan amendment for a destination resort. Section 3.10, Area Specific Plans and Policies FINDING: There are no specific area plans that apply to the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds this section and its policies are inapplicable. Chapter 4, Urban Growth Management Section 4.2, Urbanization Policies Goal 1. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders to support urban growth boundaries and urban reserve areas that provide an orderly and efficient transition between urban and rural lands. FINDING: The proposal is uniquely applicable to Urban Growth Management Goal 1 in that it is the direct outcome of the State's pilot program for affordable housing and the City of Redmond's Eastside Framework Plan. HB 4079, which established the affordable housing pilot program, was a result of cooperation between cities, counties, stakeholders, affordable housing advocates, and the Legislature. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County coordinated with respect to selection of the subject parcel for the future Skyline Village, as well as in preparing and submitting the application to the State for consideration for the pilot program. The Applicant summarized the coordination process as follows: The City of Redmond and Deschutes County are conducting a joint land use review and public hearing process to concurrently review proposed amendments to the UGB, the County Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning map. As part of this process, the City and the County conducted a joint pre -proposal conference with the applicant and the applicant (DSL) has continued to coordinate regularly with City and County staff in regard to the proposed amendments. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 27 of 35 The Eastside Framework Plan and master plan development will include a 100' land use buffer to aid in the transition from urban to rural on all sides where the development borders County -zoned land. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. Policy 4.2.1. Participate in the processes initiated by cities in Deschutes County to create and/or amend their urban growth boundaries. FINDING: Deschutes County has participated in each phase of the City of Redmond's involvement with the Affordable Housing Pilot Program from identifying an appropriate site, passing Board Resolution 2018-029 supporting the City's application to the pilot program, negotiating the transfer of the subject 40-acre parcel, reviewing subsequent materials related to adjusting the City's UGB, and considering an amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to state regulations and HB 2079, the County need only consider and approve the subject application to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Urban Growth Area. The City of Redmond is concurrently pursuing applications to amend the City Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.2.2. Promote and coordinate the use of urban reserve areas. FINDING: The subject parcel lies in an area identified as a Redmond Urban Reserve Area. The Comprehensive Plan amendment from Agriculture to Urban Growth Area and subsequent development would be the result of promotion of the site as a candidate for HB 2079 and coordination between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. Goal 2. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on urban growth area zoning for lands inside urban growth boundaries but outside city boundaries. Goal 3. Coordinate with cities, special districts and stakeholders on policies and zoning for lands outside urban growth boundaries but inside urban reserve areas. FINDING: The proposal seeks to redesignate the Comprehensive Plan map from Agriculture to Urban Growth Area. Subsequently, the City of Redmond will bring the subject property into the Redmond UGB and annex the subject propertys The Hearings Officer finds that Goals 2 and 3 are not applicable to properties within city boundaries. Goal 4. To build a strong and thriving regional economy by coordinating public investments, policies and regulations to support regional and state economic development objectives in Central Oregon. FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan amendment will enable a thriving regional economy. The City of Redmond and Deschutes County have coordinated on policies to implement the Affordable Housing Pilot project, aka Skyline Village, on the subject parcel. The building of 485 units, of 6 The City is not required to go through the UGB expansion process set forth in OAR 660-024, per OAR 660-039. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 28 of 35 which the state mandates at least 30 percent must be affordable and Redmond has agreed that 50 percent will be affordable, will contribute to economic development in the region. Having an adequate supply of affordable housing is fundamental to aiding in economic development efforts in the region. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal. The Hearings Officer finds the remaining policies (4.2.12 through 4.2.19) pertain to large -lot industrial development and are not applicable to this proposal. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds the application for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment complies with the procedure required by the Deschutes County Development Code, including two public hearings —first with a Hearings Officer, then with the Board of County Commissioners —and notice of the hearing published in a newspaper (the Bend Bulletin) at least ten days in advance. Public agencies affected by this amendment were involved throughout the development of the proposal. In accordance with the Deschutes County Code, property owners potentially affected by the amendment (in this case, within 750 feet of the applicant property) were provided notice of the proposed amendment and hearing. The Hearings Officer finds the published and mailed notices complied with DCC 22.12.020 requirements. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 1. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. FINDING: Applications were submitted to both Deschutes County and the City of Redmond in accordance with the land use planning processes established in each jurisdiction. The proposal is supported by a factual base of analyses of the region's economy and the need for affordable housing, consistent with state, regional and local requirements for decisions related to UGB amendments. This application is processed in accordance with the procedures applicable to plan amendments in the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 3 is inapplicable. Goal 4, Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 29 of 35 and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 4. The Hearings Officer finds Goa 4 is not applicable. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. FINDING: The subject property does not include any significant historic or natural resources. It does not include any wetlands, habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered plant or animal species, wilderness values, and no mineral potential or mineral rights. Historic and cultural resources surveys indicate that the subject property was not occupied be prehistoric or historic peoples and contains no significant historic or cultural resources. The site also does not contain approved Oregon Recreational Trails or inventoried scenic areas. It is not listed as a Goal 5 resource in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The soils on the subject property are not considered High Value Farm Land and have never been used for growing crops or perennials. The property is east of the Cascade Range, has never been within an irrigation district boundary or a decree by the state's Water Resources Department. The land has never had wine grapes grown and is higher than 3,000 feet above sea level. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 5. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 6. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 6 is inapplicable. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. FINDING: There are no areas on the site that are subject to flooding or landslide activity. Wildfire hazards are not substantially different from other areas within or adjacent to the Redmond UGB, and development of the site could improve fire protection by providing access and water infrastructure. The Redmond Fire District has supplied a resolution stating that it will protect this area as it is within their fire district. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposal is consistent with Goal 7. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 8. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 8 is inapplicable. Goal 9, Economy of the State. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 30 of 35 FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 9. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 9 is inapplicable. Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 10. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 10 is inapplicable. The Fair Housing Council of Oregon and the Housing Land Advocates submitted a joint letter, dated December 8, 2020, in which the entities urged consideration of Goal 10, notwithstanding the exemption provided under OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c). The letter states, in relevant part: Both HLA and FHCO are non-profit organizations that advocate for land policies and practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing for all Oregonians. FHCO's interests relate to a jurisdictions obligation to affirmatively further fair housing... . ... When a decision is made affecting the residential land supply, the County must refer to its Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) in order to show that an adequate number of needed housing units (both housing type and affordability level) will be supported by the residential land supply after enactment of the proposed change, and as explained below, the County should consider member cities HNAs and BLIs in this instance to measure the effect of the pilot project. Goal 10 findings are also required for code changes affecting residential development feasibility, such as parking and standards. The staff report for 247-20-000440-PA recommends its approval and both HLA and FHCO agree. We also commend Deschutes County for its participation in the Affordable Housing Program Pilot Project. However, the report does not include findings for Statewide Planning Goal 10, describing the effects of the amendments on the County. While we recognize that because this is a pilot program, the Oregon Administrative Rule 660-039 stipulates that Goal 10 does not apply. Nonetheless, the amendments will have an impact on both the BLI and HNA. These impacts will arise and need to be explained when the County has to report on the pilot project to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). It would behoove the County to be able to discuss those impacts in advance, to assist in the determination of the effectiveness of the pilot program.... The Hearings Officer finds that, while it is possible that analysis of Goal 10 consistency could be helpful in determining the effectiveness of the pilot program in the City of Redmond, OAR 660- 039-0030(1)(c) explicitly exempts the application from consideration under Goal 10. The Hearings Officer further notes that the County itself is not a participant in the pilot program, but is supporting the City of Redmond in that city's participation in the program. HB 4079 and HB 2336 allow cities, not counties, to apply to participate in the pilot program. In this regard, the City of Redmond, and not Deschutes County, will report on the effectiveness of the pilot program once the subject property is annexed and rezoned by the City, and developed pursuant to the City's development code. Finally, the Hearings Officer notes the processes under the pilot program, of which the current application is but an initial step, will result in vacant land, currently zoned EFU and which has never been irrigated, farmed or developed, to be available for housing development. The City of Redmond will require 50% (which is more than the minimum 30% required by state law) of developed units to meet the requirements of affordable housing. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 31 of 35 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. FINDING: Under OAR 660-039-0030(1)(d), qualifying cities in the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from this goal, except that portion detailing the impact of the project to existing and planned public facilities within the qualifying city's UGB. A memo from City Engineer Mike Caccavano states that the subject parcel can reasonably be served by public facilities and services. The providers of public facilities and services have the capacity and financial resources to serve development on the site as proposed in the concept plan. The parcel can be served by city sewer and water as well as the existing street network. Specifically, the water system will easily provide flow exceeding the 1,500 gpm residential fire flow standard. A 12-inch sewer line in NE Kingwood Avenue is deep enough to serve most of the site with gravity sewer. A pump station will be needed to serve the northeast corner of the site until the master planned Far East Sewer Interceptor is constructed. In accordance with City of Redmond policy, the pump station would be operated and maintained by a homeowner's association. The 12-inch sewer in NE Kingwood Avenue has sufficient capacity to serve its sewer basin at buildout, along with the proposed 40-acre affordable housing development. An 8-inch sewer does not have sufficient capacity, so approximately 750 feet of 12-inch sewer line will need to be installed to extend the line to the Eastside Sewer Interceptor. There is a second option for sewer in the City's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Initial phases of the project totaling 150 units can be served with existing sewer, and the remaining development can be served by either of two options for construction of new sewer lines. The Hearings Officer finds the application is consistent with Goal 11. Goal 12, Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation program. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 12. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 12 is inapplicable. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. FINDING: OAR 660-039-0030(1)(c) does not require an approved affordable housing pilot project to comply with Goal 13. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 13 is inapplicable. Goal 14, Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. FINDING: Under OAR 660-039-0030(1)(b), qualifying cities under the Affordable Housing Pilot Project are exempt from complying with the Land Need and Boundary Location provisions of this goal. Nonetheless, the proposal has taken into account the concepts of Goal 14 in two ways. First, the subject property is within the Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) and is intended to convert from rural to urban zoning. The Eastside Framework Plan provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban uses and the varying residential densities and mixed uses provide for efficient use of the land within the Eastside Framework Plan. Second, the subject File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 32 of 35 parcel is close to the existing Redmond UGB, can be served by a direct extension of public facilities, and the proposed use of the land is compatible with adjacent uses. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with Goal 14. Goals 15 through 19. The Hearings Officer finds these goals, which address the Willamette Greenway, estuarine, coastal, beaches and dunes, and ocean resources, are not applicable to the proposal because the subject property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources. OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) ORS 197.298, Priority of Land to be Included within Urban Growth Boundary (1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary of Metro except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145 (Urban reserves), rule or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high -value farmland as described in ORS 215.710 (High -value farmland description for ORS 215.705). (c) if land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. FINDING: The subject parcel is designated Redmond Urban Reserve Area (RURA) and would thus be a first priority land. The Hearings Officer notes OAR 660-039-0030(1)(a) does not require compliance with this statute. Moreover, the regulations set forth in OAR Chapter 660-024 regarding urban growth boundaries, are not applicable per OAR 660-039-0030(1)(a). DIVISION 39, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PILOT PROJECT Section 660-039-0090. Subsequent Events (1) Upon selection by the commission as provided in OAR 660-039-0080(4), the qualifying city shall. (a) In concert with the county in which the urban growth boundary is located, amend the urban growth boundary to include the pilot project site, and identify the provisions of law and rules pursuant to OAR 660-039-0030 relating to urban growth boundary amendments that are not applied to allow the pilot project site to be included within the urban growth boundary; (b) Annex the pilot project site to the qualifying city within two years of the acknowledged urban growth boundary amendment; File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 33 of 35 (c) Adopt plan and zone designations for the pilot project site that authorize development of the concept plan included in the application; (d) Adopt measures ensuring that affordable housing developed on the pilot project site remains affordable for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site; and (e) Issue permits for development on the pilot project site only after annexation of the site to the qualifying city and adoption of measures ensuring that housing developed on the pilot project site will continue to be used to provide affordable housing for a period of at least 50 years after the selection of the pilot project site. FINDING: The City has submitted the appropriate land use application to the County to change the County Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject parcel, aka Skyline Village. The City has filed a separate, related application to the City of Redmond to amend the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The City will then annex the parcel and initiate a land use application to apply the City of Redmond development codes to develop land uses on the subject parcel consistent with the City's Affordable Housing Pilot Program application and the Eastside Framework Plan. The Land Donation Agreement granting the 40-acre subject parcel from the County to the City contains conditions to ensure the development of affordable housing consistent with OAR 660-039. The Hearings Officer finds the application meets the requirements of this administrative rule. (2) For a post -acknowledgement plan amendment or land use regulation change under OAR chapter 660, division 18 that proposes amendments with any effect upon existing comprehensive plan designations or provisions that impact residential development, or land use regulations that impact residential development, the qualifying city may not, for a period of 50 years after approval of the pilot project by the commission, consider the existence of housing units existing or approved on the pilot project site when making findings regarding the proposed amendment. FINDING: The plan amendment is not being processed under OAR 660-018; the Hearings Officer finds this administrative rule is not applicable. The Hearings Officer notes the City is aware of the implication of this rule on subsequent post -acknowledgement plan amendments. (3) The qualifying city for the pilot project site selected by the commission may not plan or zone the site to allow a use or mix of uses not authorized by the commission unless the qualifying city, in concert with the county, withdraws the pilot project site from the urban growth boundary and rezones the site pursuant to law, statewide land use planning goals and land use regulations implementing the goals that regulate allowable uses of land outside urban growth boundaries. FINDING: The land use application requests amendment of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map to change the designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area. The City is pursing separate, related applications to the City of Redmond to amend the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and the Redmond Comprehensive Plan. The City will then annex and apply its development code to the subject parcel to implement the Affordable Housing Pilot Project. The Hearings Officer finds this administrative rule is met. File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 34 of 35 IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify changing the Plan Designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 22, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the application before the County. DCC 18.136.030. The Hearings Officer recommends approval of the requested plan amendment. Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer Dated this 16th day of December, 2020 Mailed this 16th day of December, 2020 File No. 247-20-000440-PA Hearings Officer Decision and Recommendation Page 35 of 35 C � i���r M €.. � N 11 � Y D � v� F i � ,� �F �%t I E N(;.. NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247-20-000440-PA LOCATION: The subject property has no situs address, but is described as located 1002 NE 17th St. and 2525 W. Hwy 126, Redmond, and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 15-13-00, as Tax Lot 103. OWNER: Deschutes County APPLICANT: City of Redmond SUBJECT: Amend Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map to change the designation of 40 acres of property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area and expand the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary to include the subject property to accommodate the City of Redmond's future Skyline Village Affordable Housing Pilot Project. STAFF CONTACT: Peter Russell, (541) 383-6718, or peter.russell@deschutes.org DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapter 18.36 (Amendments) in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapters 660, Division 015 (Statewide Planning Goals) and Division 039 (Affordable Housing Pilot Project), as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: 1 1 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 I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. This approval is based upon the application and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. As this decision involves land designated Agriculture, per Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C), the plan amendment automatically goes before the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing on a date yet to be determined. In other words, there is no appeal of the Hearings Officer's recommendation to the Board as the Board must hold a public hearing on this decision. The Board at the hearing can determine to uphold, modify, or overturn the Hearings Officer's decision. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-20-000440-PA Page 2 of 2 247-20-000440-PA 40-acre site for Skyline Village 0 320 N 640 1 inch = 752 feel 1,280 mft 0-r Es coG� o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of January 13, 2021 DATE: December 30, 2020 FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Community Development, 541-317-3148 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparation for Public Hearing: 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 Preparation for public hearing concerning a Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID) Hydroelectric Facility Proposal (files 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA) ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner DATE: December 31, 2020 RE: Work Session - Preparation for public hearing concerning a Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID) Hydroelectric Facility Proposal (files 247-20-000187-LR, 191 -CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA) On January 13, 2020, the Board of Commissioners ('Board") will conduct a work session to discuss appeals of a Hearings Officer denial of a hydroelectric facility proposal, in preparation for an upcoming public hearing scheduled for January 20, 2021. I. BACKGROUND The property subject to this application is located approximately 5.1 miles northeast of the City of Sisters. The specific location is noted in the following table: Map Number & Tax Lot Address 14-11-33, 500 18150 Simmons Road, Sisters, OR 97759 The Applicant, TSID, has requested conditional use and site plan approval to establish a hydroelectric facility in conjunction with the existing irrigation system owned and operated by TSID. The Applicant also requested a lot of record verification for the subject property. Lastly, the request includes a Modification of Application to add review of underground utility lines partially located within mapped floodplain areas on the subject property. The subject 97.60-acre property is developed with two (2) high -density polyethylene (HDPE) irrigation pipelines, 42" and 18" in respective diameters, which serve approximately 2,000 irrigated acres of farmland within the boundaries of Three Sisters Irrigation District. The property contains dirt and gravel driveways, and parking areas associated with access to the site and maintenance of the subject property. The property contains an approximately 12-acre manmade water body referred to as the McKenzie Regulating Reservoir (McKenzie Reservoir). The McKenzie Reservoir is mapped as wetlands and Special Floodplain Hazard Area (SFHA). The proposed hydroelectric facility 1 / 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 6005 Q (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org @ www.deschutes.org/cd is a single 300 kW turbine, approximately 140 square -feet in size to be located within a hydroelectric station building approximately 1,170 square -feet in size. The proposed hydroelectric facility will receive existing pressurized piped irrigation water through the southern end of the facility, and release the water back to the McKenzie Regulating Reservoir through a tailrace structure to the north of the proposed hydroelectric station building. Initial public hearings took place on June 2"d, 2020 and July 14t", 2020.On July 7th, 2020, the applicant submitted a Modification of Application to include review of underground electrical distribution lines associated with the proposed hydroelectric facility. The Hearings Officer issued his decision on September 4th, 2020, denying the Applicant's request for site plan, conditional use, and modification of application approval, but approving the request for lot of record verification. On September 16, 2020, both TSID and COLW filed timely appeals. The Board considered whether to hear the appeals of the Hearings Officer decision on November 9, 20201. The Board decided the appeals shall be heard de novo. II. ISSUES ON APPEAL Three Sisters Irrigation District (TSID - Applicant) The Applicant has requested the Board conduct a hearing to review the following issues: Whether the Hearing's Officer erred in finding Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.16.040 does not incorporate the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule ("OAR") 660-033-0130 and whether there is evidence in the record satisfying all requirements of OAR 660-033-0130. Whether the Hearing's Officer erred in finding the Applicant did not meet the dimensional standards of DCC 18.32.040(A). Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW - Appellant) Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW), an Appellant, requested the Board conduct a hearing to review the following issues: • Whether the Hearings Officer's decision erroneously relied on the Applicant's water rights to demonstrate compliance with several criteria in DCC 18.128.260(A). • Whether the Hearings Officer's decision erroneously found that there is no "affected streth of river" in reference to several criteria in DCC 18.128.260(A). • Whether the Hearings Officer's decision erroneously found that criteria in DCC 18.128.260(B) are not applicable. • Whether the Hearings Officer's decision fails to make findings responding to the dimensional standards of the Flood Plain zone. http://deschutescou ntyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeti ng.aspx?I D=2606 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA, 635-A, 637-A Page 2 of 3 IV. PUBLIC RECORD Since the Board's consideration date of November 9, 2020, the items listed as Attachments below have been submitted into the record. V. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK The Modification of Application file (247-20-000461-MA) restarted the land use review clock for the overall proposal. The applicant also submitted two requests to extend the 150-day clock at total of 87 days. The effect of the modification and extention requests is to extend the date the County currently must take final action on these applications by March 1, 2021. VI. NEXT STEPS A public hearing is scheduled for January 20, 2020. Attachments: 2020-12-31 BOCC Work Session Memo 2020-12-15 L Fancher Public Comment 2020-11-12 Order No 2020-060 (Signed) 2020-11-10 REVISED Order 2020-060 Calling -Up Review (Accept) 2020-11-05 K. Ordon-Bakalian Email Re Toll Request (Response) 2020-11-04 BOCC Consideration Staff Memo 2020-10-30 BOCC Consideration Staff Memo 2020-10-29 K. Ordon-Bakalian - Email (Request to Toll) 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA, 635-A, 637-A Page 3 of 3 Chenelle Hale From: Liz Fancher <liz@lizfancher.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:57 AM To: Tarik Rawlings Subject: 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP and 247-20-000461-MA; Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Tarik: I would ask that you include the following comment in the record of 247-20-000187-1-11, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP and 247-20-000461-MA and 247-20-000635-A and-000637-A. This is now appeal of a hearings officer's decision mailed September 4, 2020 by Central Oregon LanclWatch and Three Sisters Irrigation District that is set to be considered by the Board of Commissioners. I have reviewed the Hearings Officer's Decision. It appears that the hearings officer was unaware that COLW's claim that a lot smaller than the minimum lot size may not be developed is contradicted by DCC 18.120.020. The code says: DCC 18.120.020, Nonconforming Lot Sizes C. Any lot or parcel that is smaller than the minimum area required in any zone may be occupied by an allowed use in that zone provided that: 1. The lot or parcel is a lot of record, as defined in DCC18.04.030, Lot of record. 2. The use conforms to all other requirements of that zone. 3. If there is an area deficiency, residential use shall be limited to a single dwelling unit. 4. All necessary permits are obtained. Additionally, the hearings officer found that Tax Lot 500, Map 14-11-33 is a single "lot or parcel" that is a "lot of record." The subject parcel was determined to be 97.60 acres in size. The fact that multiple zoning districts were applied to the parcel by Deschutes County did not, as a legal matter, divide the lot or parcel into lots or parcels that correspond with the boundaries of the zoning districts. As such, it is illogical to find that an existing 97.60-acre parcel does not satisfy the 10-acre minimum lot size of the MUA-10 zone because 9 acres of its 97.60-acres are zoned MUA-10. There is only one parcel and its size is 97.60 acres. The difficulty of applying COLW's multiple parcel view of Tax Lot 500 is evident when attempting to make sense of their argument in the context of the FP zone. The FP zone requires a 10-acre minimum lot size for land with a RREA plan designation and an 80-acre minimum lot size for land designated Agriculture. The FP zone on Tax Lot 500 includes both comprehensive plan designations. Does this mean that the area zoned FP must be viewed as separate parcels for purposes of meeting the minimum lot size (10 acres for FP-RREA and 80 for FP -AG) or may the entire area zoned FP be included in calculating the size of the imaginary flood plain "parcel" (part of parcel with FP zoning) used by COLW to calculate compliance with the minimum lot size of the FP zone? I raise these issues because the effect of the COLW and hearings officer's view of the minimum lot size rules will render properties burdened with a FP designation unbuildable in almost all cases — contrary to the primary purpose of the FP zone which is to regulate development in the flood plain to minimize damage due to flooding. Many properties in Deschutes County have small areas of FP zoning and all would be precluded from developing any part of their properties if this misconstruction of the minimum parcel size requirements of the County's zoning districts is upheld. Given the fact that the interpretation prevents any lawful use of land allowed in any of the applicable zoning districts, property owners would be able to seek monetary damages from Deschutes County on the basis of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution for an "taking" by inverse condemnation of private property. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003 (1992)(ban on building on oceanfront lots to prevent erosion a taking meriting just compensation of owner by government). Thank you, Liz Fancher Liz Fancher, Attorney 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97703 541-385-3067 (telephone) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution (other than to the addressee(s)), copying or taking of any action because of this information is strictly prohibited. REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order to Hear an Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision in File No. 247-20- * ORDER NO. 2020-060 000187-1-R, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461- MA. WHEREAS, on September 4, 2020, the Hearings Officer denied Application Nos. 247-20- 000191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA and approved Application no. 247-20-000187-LR; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020, Three Sisters Irrigation District, the Applicant, appealed (File No. 247-20-000637-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-20- 000191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020, Central Oregon Land Watch, the Appellant, appealed (File No. 247-20-000635-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-20- 000187-1-R, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review these applications on appeal; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That it will hear on appeal application 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo in order to afford the Board the utmost discretion with which to interpret the Deschutes County Code and any other land use criteria at issue. ORDER No. 2020-060 Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32,030. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 22.32.024, the Board waives the requirement that the appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing. Section 5. Both parties have filed appeals and the at -cost -of -service deposit amount will be equitably refunded, or additional incurred costs equitably deducted from both parties. (P, DATED this day of 61&!2020. ATTEST: i Recording Secreraj ORDER No. 2020-060 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PATTI ADAIR, Chair Vic,✓t, ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Pair �7" PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order to Hear an Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision in File No. 247-20- * ORDER NO. 2020-060 000187-1-R, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461- MA. WHEREAS, on September 4, 2020, the Hearings Officer denied Application Nos. 247-20- 000191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA and approved Application no. 247-20-000187-LR; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020, Three Sisters Irrigation District, the Applicant, appealed (File No. 247-20-000637-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-20- 000191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2020, Central Oregon Land Watch, the Appellant, appealed (File No. 247-20-000635-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File No. 247-20- 000187-1-R, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review these applications on appeal; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That it will hear on appeal application 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo in order to afford the Board the utmost discretion with which to interpret the Deschutes County Code and any other land use criteria at issue. ORDER No. 2020-060 Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to all persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.24.030 and DCC 22.32.030. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 22.32.024, the Board waives the requirement that the appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing. Section 5. Both parties have filed appeals and the at -cost -of -service deposit amount will be equitably refunded, or additional incurred costs equitably deducted from both parties. DATED this day of 2020. ATTEST: Recording Secretary ORDER NO.2020-060 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner Chenelle Hale From: Keenan Ordon-Bakalian <Keenan.Ordon-Bakalian@jordanramis.com> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:43 PM To: Tarik Rawlings Cc: Adam Smith Subject: RE: Tentative January hearing dates [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Tarik, Apologies for not getting back to you on this sooner. Pursuant to ORS 215.427(1) and our October 29, 2020 tolling request, the 150-day clock will run on December 31, 2020. TSID hereby agrees to toll the 150-day clock until March 1, 2021. In light of the recent election, this tolling period will provide Deschutes County staff and the Board of County Commissioners adequate time to make an informed decision on the appeal of 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP; 247461-MA. Thank you for your consideration of this request and continued support of TSID. Have a good night, KEENAN ORDON-BAKALIAN I Attorney Jordan Ramis PC I Attorneys at Law Direct: 360-567-4843 Main: 360-567-3900 Mobile: 425-577-8998 Portland OR I Vancouver WA I Bend OR www.iordanramis.com PLEASE NOTE: All offices of Jordan Ramis are working remotely. Our professionals continue to remain fully available by telephone and email. Disclaimer: This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited From: Tarik Rawlings Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:40 PM To: Keenan Ordon-Bakalian Cc: Adam Smith Subject: Tentative January hearing dates Hi Keenan, I've spoken with Peter Gutowsky and Sharon Keith (with the Board) and it looks like the hearing would likely be on one of the following Wednesday dates in January 2021: Wednesday January 13`h Wednesday January 20`h With that information, please feel free to respond with a written request for the additional tolling period we had spoken about (in addition to the current 27-day toll period between 12/4 and 12/31). 1 have also confirmed that, short of the Board's time requirements for deliberations and the 21-day open record period, planning staff will be sure to make this a review priority in the new year in order to get a timely decision out to your client. Thanks again and please let me know if you need anything else in the meantime. Best, Tarik Rawlings ( Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3148 1 www.deschutes.org/cd 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner DATE: November 4, 2020 RE: 150-day Land Use Clock Timeline Update - 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. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a meeting on November 4, 2020 and consider hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision (File Nos. 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192- CU, 193-SP, 461-MA) denying a proposal for a new hydroelectric facility, but approving the Lot of Record verification for the subject property. I. BACKGROUND On October 21, 2020, the Board considered hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision under files 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA. During this meeting, Chair Adair recused herself from the proceedings, and Commissioner Henderson was not present to vote on the consideration. As a result, the consideration was rescheduled to October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the Board again considered hearing the subject appeal. During consideration discussions, the Board (composed of Commissioners DeBone and Henderson) highlighted the fact that the timeline of the subject land use files will expire on December 4, 2020 (the end of the 150-day land use clock) and that there would be limited time for the Board to render a decision on the matter, if accepted by the Board. In response to the timeline concerns, the Board requested that the consideration be rescheduled, again, to November 9, 2020. The Board made it clear that they expect an update related to timeline associated with the 150-day land use clock and whether the applicant is willing to toll the 150-day land use clock. On October 29, 2020, staff received a written request from the applicant to toll the 150-day land use clock associated with the subject land use files. The applicant specifically requested a toll period of 11 7 NW I.._afayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org @ \n/ww.deschutes.org/cd 27 days between the dates of December 4, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Scheduling discussions regarding potential additional tolling periods are still underway between staff and the applicant and staff will keep the Board updated on any scheduling changes related to the 150-day land use clock. 11. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK Based on the submission of the Modification of Application file (247-20-000461-MA) the land use review clock for the overall proposal was restarted, beginning on July 7, 2020 and the original date the County must take final action on these applications was December 4, 2020. With the inclusion of the 27-day toll period, the new date the County must take final action on these applications is December 31, 2020. 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner DATE: October 30, 2020 RE: 150-day Land Use Clock Timeline Update - 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. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a meeting on November 4, 2020 and consider hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision (File Nos. 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192- CU, 193-SP, 461-MA) denying a proposal for a new hydroelectric facility, but approving the Lot of Record verification for the subject property. I. BACKGROUND On October 21, 2020, the Board considered hearing an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision under files 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA. During this meeting, Chair Adair recused herself from the proceedings, and Commissioner Henderson was not present to vote on the consideration. As a result, the consideration was rescheduled to October 26, 2020. On October 26, 2020, the Board again considered hearing the subject appeal. During consideration discussions, the Board (composed of Commissioners DeBone and Henderson) highlighted the fact that the timeline of the subject land use files will expire on December 4, 2020 (the end of the 150-day land use clock) and that there would be limited time for the Board to render a decision on the matter, if accepted by the Board. In response to the timeline concerns, the Board requested that the consideration be rescheduled, again, to November 4, 2020. The Board made it clear that they expect an update related to timeline associated with the 150-day land use clock and whether the applicant is willing to toll the 150-day land use clock. 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541)388-6575 c@cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd On October 29, 2020, staff received a written request from the applicant to toll the 150-day land use clock associated with the subject land use files. The applicant specifically requested a toll period of 27 days between the dates of December 4, 2020 and December 31, 2020. 11. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK Based on the submission of the Modification of Application file (247-20-000461-MA) the land use review clock for the overall proposal was restarted, beginning on July 7, 2020 and the original date the County must take final action on these applications was December 4, 2020. With the inclusion of the 27-day toll period, the new date the County must take final action on these applications is December 31, 2020. 247-20-000187-LR, 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP, 461-MA Page 2 of 2 Nathaniel Miller From: Keenan Ordon-Bakalian <Keenan.Ordon-Bakalian@jordanramis.com> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 2:44 PM To: Tarik Rawlings Cc: Adam Smith; Tim Ramis; Steve Shropshire Subject: RE: TSID Toll Request [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Tarik, Pursuant to ORS 215.427(1) the 150-day clock will run on December 4, 2020. The Applicant (Three Sisters Irrigation District), requests that staff toll the 150-day clock until December 31, 2020. This tolling period is necessary to provide Deschutes County staff and the Board of County Commissioners adequate time to make an informed decision on the appeal of 191-CU, 192-CU, 193-SP; 247461-MA. Thank you for your consideration of this request and continued support of TSID. Best, KEENAN ORDOWBAKALIAN I Attorney Jordan Ramis PC I Attorneys at Law Direct: 360-567-4843 Main: 360-567-3900 Mobile: 425-577-8998 Portland OR I Vancouver WA I Bend OR www.iordanramis.com PLEASE NOTE: All offices of Jordan Ramis are working remotely. Our professionals continue to remain fully available by telephone and email. Disclaimer: This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited From: Tarik Rawlings Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 2:23 PM To: Keenan Ordon-Bakalian Cc: Adam Smith Subject: TSID Toll Request Hi Keenan, Just a reminder that I'll need that toll request (until 12/31/2020) sometime today in order to get a timely memo to the Board by tomorrow. If you wouldn't mind sending that request along (reply to this email is fine), I would greatly appreciate it. Best, Tarik Rawlings I Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3148 1 www.deschutes.org/cd (100 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