2022-54-Minutes for Meeting January 12,2022 Recorded 2/25/2022BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
i
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2022-54
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' .journal 02/25/2022 10:45:32 AM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS
VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair and Phil Chang, Anthony DeBone joined by video. Also present
were Nick Lelack, County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Legal Counsel; and Carol Martin Board
Administrative Assistant (via Zoom conference call)
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:02 am. Chair Adair
noted that Commissioner DeBone was attending the meeting virtually.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CITIZEN INPUT:
Chair Adair noted she had a meeting with Samir Dean who is meeting with a lot of
local people regarding homelessness and she thanked him and others for all the
positive comments and solutions received. She encouraged others to meet with
Mr. Dean.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of the Consent
Agenda.
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 1 OF 11
CHANG: Move approval of the Consent Agenda
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
1. Consideration of Board approval and signature of Iris Telehealth contract
renewal, Document Number 2021-970.
2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-003 Increasing 0.5 Limited Duration
FTE within the District Attorney's Office and the 2021-2022 Deschutes
County Budget.
3. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-004 Increasing 0.5 Regular FTE
within Health Services and the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget.
4. SunWest Builders Contract for remodel of the Facilities/IT Warehouse
Commissioner DeBone noted that there was frequently a request for
additional staff funding on the agenda.
ACTION ITEMS:
5. American Rescue Plan Funding Update
Greg Munn, Chief Financial Officer, presented the topic for discussion. He
introduced Carolyn Eagan from the City of Bend. She briefed on the
background of her request to confirm the earmarked fund from 2021 for
$1.5M for homelessness. The City has already received $750k allocation for
shelter providers within the City. The ratio of homeless people to shelter
beds is very high for the area and is not a traditional figure, it is currently in
the region of 1000 people in need and 300 beds available. She briefed on
the Navigation Center and progress towards opening in the spring. There
was a general discussion on Managed Camps, move from outside to inside
shelters, safe parking spaces, turnkey project and land identified for safe
camping areas. She anticipates coming back to the Commission to report on
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 11
progress regularly. Commissioner Chang thanked Carolyn for her
presentation and for the list provided which is specific about where the
funding has been applied and current update on the projects. He felt very
confident in the City of Bend efforts to continue to develop this wide range
shelters and housing options for the homeless.
CHANG: Move allocation of $750k of additional County ARPA funds to the
City of Bend Partnership of shelter and transitional housing
projects.
DEBONE: Second
Commissioner DeBone'noted that we are growing our capacity right now and
this is the time of need with Covid-19 and the current economic inflation and
he encouraged everyone to be part of the economy. Commissioner Adair
commented that with this vote, there will be less than $4M left of the ARPA
funds available and have already allocated $33.5M. Commissioner Chang
also noted that through this process we are learning how massive the need is
and how limited the current resources are to deal with it. He hopes that we
can not only deal with shelters, but to also add outside options, although he
realized this will be an ongoing conversation.
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Adair thanked Ms. Eagan and would welcome her back for
updates in the future. Ms. Eagan thanked the Commission for their support.
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator briefed on his memo to the
Commission on the ARPA Fund Request for continued use by the Circuit
Court of the Fair/Expo Center in Redmond. He discussed the funding needs
and projected costs which if not covered by ARPA funding, would be funded
via the County's General Fund. Commissioner Adair noted that even if Covid-
19 subsided, due to the increase in judges, they would still need the use of
the Center during the Courthouse expansion. Commissioner Chang noted
He agreed with the funding being requested and added that when we make
a submission to State for additional funding for the Courthouse re -model
project, we can demonstrate what is currently being achieved by the County.
Commissioner DeBone would be supportive for this year and for the coming
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 11
fiscal year to support the Court operations.
DEBONE: Move approval of allocation of $269,645 of additional County
ARPA funds for Court operations at the Fairgrounds.
CHANG: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Greg Munn introduced the item from La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
requesting funding for $280k. Commissioner DeBone briefed that he had
discussed the current operations of the Fire/EMS system with the La Pine fire
chief and the need that is there. Mr. Munn confirmed the breakdown of the
request was for one Medic Quick Response Unit at $200k and four Stryker
power gurneys at $20k each. Commissioner Chang noted his concern about
this request as through the last year the County has worked closely with the
La Pine Rural Fire to provide them access to additional contract resources
through the ASA administrative structure. He also noted that they have
received $600k for equipment in a Federal earmark congressional spending
..t Ll .. i.+-ed th -.t the
rtit� r�tr- of thn .mil ie-triF �ni-�-4 -i Nnttnr �n�in� of
request. He I otCU tl IQt tl IC col Istituel Its VI tl IC UIJII l%_L VVQI IC a bettel IGVCI UI
service without looking at their tax rates and he felt that this is something
they need to do. He also felt that this is a pre-Covid-19 situation and not
appropriate for ARPA funding. Mr. Munn confirmed this is an allowable
funding through the ARPA rules. Commissioner DeBone noted that he woulc
support this as a one-time request through ARPA as a special request.
Commissioner Chang noted that he would be happy to support La Pine Fire
to make a one-time request but felt that it should be for congressional
earmark funding, not ARPA funds, of which very little is left.
DEBONE: Move approval of allocation of $280k of County ARPA funds for
La Pine Rural Fire Protection District.
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: No
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC: MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 FACE 4 OF 11
Mr. Munn noted the next item, a review of the ARPA funding spreadsheet.
Discussion followed on specific funding lines. Also funding from other
sources available to small business and non-profit businesses.
Commissioner Change asked that at the next ARPA funding allocation
discussion that the $3M currently set aside currently for Public Health
funding be reviewed - lines 71 and 79, as well as line 69 of $191 k to ensure
re -investment in a vibrant Public Health workforce. Commissioner Adair
noted that the childcare training program that the County invested $125k
(line 37) from the ARPA funds has been very successful after a slow start. Mr.
Munn noted that a briefing on the Public Health funding lines would be
included at the next ARPA update. COIC Small Business support was
discussed and a report will be included at the next ARPA update.
Clarification was given on the difference between a specific plan requests for
funds versus needs assessment for funds in regard to the Sisters Cold
Weather Shelter. Commissioner Chang will encourage them to get a
reframed proposal to us.
Dan Emerson briefed on the Final Rule with calculations and background of
the deadlines associated with it. Commissioner Adair thanked Mr. Emerson
and Mr. Munn for their reports and they will return with an update in two
weeKS.
6. Preparation for Public Hearing: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID)
Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner, briefed on the background and prepare
the Commissioners for the Public Hearing that is scheduled for January 26,
2022 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone change for a
36.65-acre property to the East of Bend, submitted by COID. Peter Gutowsky,
Community Development Director, provided further information on the
process of re -zoning and non -primary resource land conversation and the
framework that is followed. The plan today acknowledges and supports
these kinds of re -designations. Anyone who wishes to have input to the
Public Hearing can attend on January 26, 2022 either in person or virtually or
send comments ahead of the hearing to the Community Development
Department.
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 11
7. Transient Room Tax Project Proposals
Greg Munn, Chief Financial Officer, introduced the information only item to
review two proposals to use the Transient Room Tax (TRT) revenue.
Preliminary to the Budget process which starts next month, there are two
proposals for use of the TRT revenues for the Commissioners information.
Jana Johnson, Coordinator for the Deschutes Trails Coalition (DTC) presented
a proposal to invest unallocated TRT funds. Presentation attached to the
record of the meeting. The request is for the County to re -invest $1 M
annually from the unrestricted TRT funds into Trails and Trail Infrastructure
across Deschutes County. There will be a report published shortly by the
Deschutes National Forest which she can ensure the Commissioners see
when it is published. There are many volunteers who have carried out over
42,000 hours in the last year, but they cannot be expected to repair all the
impacts done by visitors to our regional trails. There are costly and specialist
projects that require funding. Although there are many current streams of
funding that the DTC can apply for, many are project specific, whereas the
TRT funds are unrestricted, and can be used to prepare projects which can
then lever additional funds into the region. This could be through a grant
ail
program that u 1 � would administerin order L aSSisL Li iiZ, Nro�ess. i i isThe LI all
and related infrastructure would be part of the projects. Ms. Johnson
answered questions and confirmed that the Forest Service are in support of
the application. Commissioner Chang reiterated the enormous contribution
to the work on all the trails by the volunteer workforce. All agreed that
investing this funding would also create local jobs in the recreation industry.
Commissioner Chang would support this funding and would challenge Visit
Central Oregon and Visit Bend to match our funding on an annual basis. Rika
Ayotte, Chair of the DTC, confirmed that both Visit Central Oregon and Visit
Bend have previously supported the DTC for the amount of $15k annually.
Commissioner DeBone would not support the challenge but would prefer to
fund this directly.
DEBONE: Move approval of $600k from the TRT for the Deschutes Trail
Coalition this year, with a look at the future funding on an
annual basis.
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 11
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Adair would like a report back in 3 months after the
agreement is signed. Specific before and after photos would be appreciated.
Ms. Johnson thanked the Commission for their support. Commissioner
Chang suggested the funding from the State for the Forest Services, could be
addressed at a State level with other Commissioners within the State.
Commissioner DeBone noted that if a one-off capital need were to come up,
please bring them back to the Commission. Staff noted the need to be
cautious in case there is a catastrophic circumstance which would reduce
TRT funding on an annual basis.
Bill Hepburn, Chair of the Sunriver Service District, introduced his colleagues,
John Ralston, Vice Chair, Debbie Baker, Service District Board Administrator,
and James Lewis, the General Manager of the Sunriver Owners Association.
He presented a request for a new Public Safety Building in Sunriver. To
repurpose the current Fire Station to a new service building housing both
Fire and Police departments, the Sunriver Service District is asking for a
commitment of $10M over a three year period from the Board of County
1_ r. _ J _ _I L._ a L. .. -rr n+ 1"I.-. T-. Tl-e need is to
CommISsI-anerS tU U(2 IUIIUCU II UIi1 U e I I ailjI IL rX I I dx. IIIs I IeCU IJ lU
support the 1,200 Residents during the winter which swell to 20,000 Visitors
in the summer. The Commissioners were supportive of the request,
although at a slightly lower number of $8M over a three year period was
agreed.
DEBONE: Move approval of $8M commitment from the Unallocated
Transit Room Tax, for the Sunriver Service District over a period
of 3 years at $4M, $2M and $2M.
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. Skanska USA Building, Inc. Construction Manager/General Contractor
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 11
Contract Amendment for Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project
Lee Randall, Facilities Director, introduced the item which was a request for
the Board to sign Contract Amendment 2021-999 to establish a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) for the construction of the Adult Parole & Probation
Expansion Project by Skanska USA Building Inc. Deevy Holcomb, Director,
Community Justice, and Bob Morrow with Skanska USA joined the meeting
remotely, in person was Chad Young, Project Manager and Jacob Struck,
Superintendent for Skanska USA.
Background and information was provided for the Commissioners. In
answer to a question Mr. Young confirmed that Skanska was working with
mostly local contractors and sub -contractors and expected approximately
92% of the project dollars to be going through qualified local businesses.
The GMP is in the amount of $6,356,969. A construction start date of March
15, 2022, will be established upon approval of the proposed contract
amendment.
CHANG: Move approval of Board signature of Document #2021-999
Contract Amendment to establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price
for the construction of the Adult Parole & Probation Expansion
L. _ r-1__.__I._ 1 1rA 19. .:I _I :..�.� Inc.Project b-y Skanska u�H uunuing, Inc
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Chang noted the County is currently taking a look at a
Community Benefits Bidding Process Policy and one of the things that they
need to understand before they would proceed, is whether it will have
impacts on our bidding pool if we required contractors for larger projects
(over $1 M) to be pre -registered with us certifying that they pay living wages,
have Apprenticeship programs and include full family health benefits. He
asked Skanska if they had a feel for how this would affect the pool of
employers. A general discussion took place.
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 8 OF 11
9. Thornburgh Destination Resort, Board consider whether to hear
appeals 247-21-001115-A and 247-21-001116-A of the Hearings Officer's
decisions 247-21-000508-SP, 849-A and 247-21-000553-MC, 920A.
Will Groves, Planning Manager and Angie Brewer, Senior Planner, briefed the
Board on whether or not to hear appeals on these Hearings Officer
decisions. Mr. Groves confirmed that the decision needs to be made by
February 12, 2022. Adam Smith joined the meeting remotely and confirmed
the short time frame for the decision and gave legal advice in answer to
other questions. Commissioner DeBone did not support the hearing at this
time. Would prefer to wait until the State level to make a decision.
Commissioner Chang raised concerns over destination resorts and guest
lodging levels. Peter Gutowsky, Director Community Development, explained
the context of both appeals.
DEBONE:
Move approval Order 2022-002 an Order denying review of
Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21-001115-A, 247-21-
000849-A, and 247-21-000508-SP
CHANG:
Secona
VOTE:
DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
DEBONE:
Move approval of Order 2022-003 an Order denying review of
Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21-001116-A, 247-21-
920-A, and 247-21-000553-MC.
CHANG:
Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Adair requested confirmation of the actual date for hearing
those appeals. Mr. Groves said he would confirm and get back to the Board,
but suspected that as no appeals were being heard, it was likely that no exact
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 9 OF 11
date would ever be agreed. Commissioner Adair thanked all for their input
and advice.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Nick Lelack noted that he will prepare Press Releases on the Transient
Room Tax decisions made today and the ARPA allocations.
• Mr. Lelack noted that a work session had been suggested prior to the
discussions on the Joint Office on Homelessness prior to the meeting with
the City of Bend on January 28. It was agreed that this discussion be on
January 24 BOCC meeting.
• Commissioner Chang noted that he would not be available for the BOCC
meeting on January 19.
• Commissioner Adair noted the Fair Association Annual Dinner was being
held on Monday January 17.
• Commissioner Chang briefed on the Newbury Neighborhood in La Pine
and nis conversations wiui ��ate agtllLltS r egai uiiig a wnU lit= COr r lUUl w
reduce vehicle vs wildlife collisions on Highway 97. A bill will be brought
during the short session for discussion.
• Commissioner DeBone briefed on his conversation with the retiring
Speaker of the House regarding Homelessness and Camp Grounds.
• Commissioner Adair briefed on gas station attendants and possible
temporary legislation to allow people to pump their own gas. It is a State
code that attendants be present or a fine can be raised against the
station. Commissioner Chang would support this fix if allowable.
• Commissioner Chang would also like to revisit Campgrounds, and in
particular, a 500 acre property which is already designated Park
designated. This could not only help with emergency shelters but may
also become a revenue stream. He will raise this during the work session
next week.
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 10 OF 11
EXECUTIVE SESSION: There were no items for executive session.
Effilrellm
Being no business brought before the Commissioners, the meeting was adjourned at 1:04pm.
DATED this Day of
Commissioners.
C-e-- 2D(�' fi-_(
RECORDING SECRETARY
2022 for the Deschutes County Board of
PHIL CHANd,COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING JANUARY 12, 2022 PAGE 11 OF 11
MEETING FORMAT: The Oregon: legislature,pagsed House Bill (HB) 2560, which requires that
public:meetings be accessible remotely, effective on January_1, 2022, with the exception of
executive sessions. Public bodies must provide the publican opportunity to access and attend
public meetings'.by phone, video', or other virtual means. Additionally,: when in -person testimony,
either oral or written -is allowed at the.:meeting, then testimony must also be allowed electronically
-via, phone, video, email, or other electronic/virtual means.
Attendance/Participation options are described -above. Members.of the. public: may still view the -
BOCC-meetings/hearings in real time vialhe Public Meeting Portal at
.Www.deschutes.or-g/meetings .
Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited ifs 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.o'rg or -by leaving a voice.imessage at541-385-
1734. -Citizen input received by noon on.Tuesday will be included in the Citizen .input meeting
record for topics that are not included on the Wednesday agenda.
Zoorh Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda..items. to the Board fo'r
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. enteringthe'Zoom.meeting, you will automatically be,placed on'hold and.in the:.... .
waiting room., Once you are ready to present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed
in the spotlight for your presentation. ' if you are providing testimony during a hearing, you will :be:
placed in:the waiting room until the'time,of testimony, staff will announce:your- name and unmute
your connection to; be invitedfor testimony. Detailed -instructions:will. be included in the public
hearing:materials and will be announced at the outset'of the,public hearing.
p g• .::.
For Public Hearings, the link to iheZoom meeting -will be.posted:in the Public Hearing aVotice as
-well as.posted on the Deschutes County website at https://www.desehutes.org/bcc%page/public- .-
hearing -notices.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, 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 noon on Tuesday in order to be included in the meeting record.
CONSENT AGENDA
Consideration of Board approval and signature of Iris Telehealth contract renewal,
Document Number 2021-970.
2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-003 Increasing 0.5 Limited Duration FTE within the
District Attorney's Office and the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget.
3. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-004 Increasing 0.5 Regular FTE within Health
Services and the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget.
4. SunWest Builders Contract for remodel of the Facilities/IT Warehouse
ACTION ITEMS
5. 9:05 am American Rescue Plan Funding Update
6. 9:50 am Preparation for Public Hearing: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
7. 10:30 am Transient Room Tax Project Proposals
8. 11:30 am Skanska USA Building, Inc. Construction Manager/General Contractor
Contract Amendment for Adult Parole & Probation Expansion Project
9. 11:45 am Thornburgh Destination Resort, Board consider whether to hear appeals
247-21-001115-A and 1116-A
LUNCH RECESS
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
January 12, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs
and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need
accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747.
January 12, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2022
SUBIECT: American Rescue Plan Funding Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A to -be -determined motion will be required if the Board choses to fund additional projects
from ARPA funds.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This is a recurring agenda item to provide the Board of County Commissioners updates on
the status of ARPA funds and the opportunity to review eligible project requests for funding
consideration.
Discussion items for today's update:
1. Specific items for discussion will be presented prior to or at the time of the meeting.
2. Review other ARPA funding requests.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None. Budget appropriations for the entire $38 million ARPA funding award are included
in the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget.
ATTENDANCE:
Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Dan Emerson, Budget Manager
MO m 080.00 000000
00
000:00:000.00000
13
M'O M o O O O o o O o O o
cc:)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0)
m o m o o O o o o 0 0 0 0 0'
00
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r:: N O' V1' 6 o o 6 o o olo o O
6:6
V 0 0'6 o 6 o Lri &:a o'6 O'.
U
OL
.
M Ol c-I M 0: 0 0 0 O Ln M 0 0 0
O'
O
N O O O O m O n1 0 00 t0 m O'
I,
CIO
M
{f m 00.. off m m �--1 c-I 0000 O O
n , c-i I ti r4
M
M
tO LO Lr O to M m i-1 m Cl O O
P '. ma c-i
o' O 0 Cl O' o 40 0
0 0
O
0
0 0 0 O 0 0 o O
0 0
O
O
v
0:0 0 0 0 O o O
0 0
0
0
c
c C 0 0 0 o O1 m
LLi o
o
m
10 3
0: O O O O O Of' 01
N Ln
o
N a
14 1-1 ro O Lrl N tC: l0
cf CY
C1
M
O
v
N
:...:
U
Q
O
t%1
u
a)
O:3
O a
:
C
O
E
¢
a
NE
�
U
T
cc
a
v
E
o�S
p
L,o
ov �
Q
:
to
o.
m
a)a
u
¢
c
a, V°
u
a
E
v 2
OU Cu
3
_
a3 0[ V > U i
-° v
C
D
C0 (0 LO
~ a
7
0
u o FbD
0 i, N s
:.
LL '6
C
O y
v°
i a N O
C N
6 � M
N
c J �, a, u o m
o
y -o o '� v -Q
3
�C1
y�
Ln
,�
u 5 N m N n u C
u V
a1 CO E N 4J j C
],
O
N
N O .1... E
C
L -0 -O Q N N C
v1
®
E
N
B 'O
V
•�
Q W .p tZ i
7 O E O CX
C
Y O , U,
: O Vl .. C C U L1 U Y
"'
C : O
0 O v a, 2 a -0 v
£ a
aj
v a,
v U 2 > > "671- C O 00 C
•D
a m 3 u
N m d
as
.F+ C: O a, C C O 3: r0
O
N
V1 a,
W W r0 CL C to J
i m
Y O Vl =5 ~ o
O C Q1 U
N N
N
O O O v a r0 U C U LL O
C C C H U
N
1
v- N O
Y a, a, a-i 00 i a,
��: `o I
a1
Q
i
al a1 a1 c0 Vl w U U Z Z O
[_o_ co
O
41
C C -O -p a,y Q
t �
.� C
a �
Q
C
GJ
v v m m a, a, 0 c; o
a,
=== t v c,5 c c c
v
: C -6 J J C0 m to m ; �. _
i Ocr
O .
Z O
]G ]G Y +' — U a aJ a a a
O
_
a)L
C 3 N Y Y_ Y_ Y_ +�. LO a1 r0
'�
E E E E E
O
/O�
O O a1 C C C C CCL
O
Q � m. U
C
Z Y Y 0 C O O CL
O O
O
V
u
m N c.. a, f6 @ ra (6 r0
Z E E E E E
't'
In
N
41
Y x :'� E m N c.
N B O "a 3 7 7 7 O a, i £
c0
L
-o O
r6 p LL
> > > > > a,
a, a, a a, a,
Y
�
.O
W O 2 0 2 2 S 2 2 E O o2S
=
O C. >,
LJ i1 a, p, i! v
d
,C
C= O L Y
`.... � Q •N s .. Q O O O. O. O 2 W
'a.
m Y
7
Y Y 4 F + +
u u
Q):
O
_
i �.� �. i.� E i i H:
.N
N
d
=
N Q U m t6 c0 O N (0 a, Q
v1
O O O O
C
U
,_ _ o
,C ; a U u O co O p
a
.p
o d o
.Eb fl_
m e i Q—
u rL r� : Ia rya : rya rLa
'O
O
'� O' M M r0 r0 M ra o '�' N
10
C
N EL
'a w: w w w w O O O 0 0 'O
C
00
Q O O Q W 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 Q m
m
= O
C C C C: C : LL1.
V
ti
W
Q Q
c-1
1-I
c-I
1-I
.-I
1.r1
1-I
tC
r-I
n
ci
00
-1
I Ol
c-I
O
N
Ii
N
N
N
M
N
I d'
N
I Ln
N
t0
N
n
N
00
N
Ol
N
O
M
,-I
M
I N
M
rn
M
-t
rn
Ln
ro
I lD
rn
I r,
M
o0
M
01
M
O
C
.-i
�t
I N
V
m
�t
O O
O O o 0 0 0 O o 0
0 O Rt
0 0
a 0
v
O o
O o
O O in o 0 0 0 0 Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O oo'
o O
00 O
>
O O
0 0 N: 0 0 0 Ln O r4
1 0 Lr) Ln
'.
LI) C)
00 N'
O
0 0
Ln O
Ln O R.: 0 0 0 Co MM:
O O r,
C)N t0
M 'i ei
d I C)
Lf1
00 :.
m p,
Gt'
N
LO N 1-4 Ol
Ln N c-I
Ln
Q
:
O
O O'. 0 O
O C)O
O N O O V 0
00 C)
0 0 0
00
c
C)a
O 0 O
o o
O O o' O o Ln o
v o
0 0 (D
o vY,
o
o to o O
o Ln
O O tp; 0 C � o
Lr o
o
c 0)
o
O N 0 0
0 rl
0 0 a 00 of 00 0
1-1 0
w 0 r,
co
M 0
O
O N C) Ln
Ln LD
: O 1-7 In LO Ct N Ln
D) O
: O D)
N
M
00 00': iH
r-1 O
M 00
CC
LM
00
N
a
v
a
ar
Q
o
�
U
a`
a
>
L
bb
.6
Ol
O
a
i
W
N
c
�
V
N
Q
=3
N
a
v v
0 'O
Lim
Ln
(U
v N
Q V
N
i+
• y
®
7 U N >
O
c �^
o
O o
a v m m
o L) �-°
v o v
>
O O
O Ln
N
> N
N N
a!
i
m
N
C 'O O
VI
.a)
t
p
L O O
U y 6 i
yam.
O_
a+
aV-+ N' CQl. Q C
y
Q
'p
C
M
to
E N
N
'O m
N FO+O'
p LO C C a)
w0
b0 w 01
}�
G7
O
0 O
=
C O w w
6 L J O
O O
Y L N C C
S
C S +
C lL0 _
O u .0
Cr
6 N
N ° v U �, v
O N
i -p Ln E (0 (6
Q
O .V O ° +O'
N C
Q
N
U E > _C Y C
N lJ
E —O @
N u.l U V 0
T -O Vl U v-
Q 7
V
3
N N N O Y
U N V
'O .�''
Q
f0 a) Y O T T
@ Y Y>
d O of V
Q
�_ X bA m m
a)
u
�
p
Y Y Y
,� u v a) W V a n 'v
p>
� o_ _
N 6
= v a c c O
O
b c>—
O a N
v s s
(A
O: r0
ti .v > C O a+ E rb
CL '^
°� N O O u c0
b4 O S Y
�"' OL0CL C T T
O
a a) o o O v m
T^ O
0 v r u u�
Jbo c 01
E o u c c
C
c c c a p a—
p o o(v
U N C C N
ai c ra D m
U S
O E Y 0 0
N O
O H '� N N L N N
O S
U C
°
w
U
�^ O O Y
.i.,
C
° UJ aJ U U
t
.}' W N �+ N a;
t
t0
.0 C S
N
U>
Q +� ate.+ N
L L
N
b.0
E C N
t6 N
> .V -p -O
= -O �-
> Q
a) N
O O O O O
v
S.Z.Z
O .0 L E N al O O
F- H co m u I �.�
N O. N
z.0 cc
t>6 _G .0 :'6 O
V) Ln in in Q Q:U u.U.LU
O X
S 2
�' z z
0
Lu
o
a
Ln
l0
n
o0
mO
ci
N
M
V
Ln
LD
I-,
00
cn
O
.-1
N
M
V
Ln
LD
1,
00
al
O
a-i
N
M
Ln
LO
I�
ci
N
M
fit'
Li')
lD
ct
zt
CT
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
M
Ln
Ln
Ln
lD
LD
LD
I
LD
LD
LD
I
LD
tD
LO
LD
rh
I
I"
n
n
r
r"
n
N
Summary of City of Bend Projects
that have recently been Completed or are in Development and could
be considered for Partnership with Deschutes County
RV Park/Outdoor Shelters/Village Concept — 30-40 sites IN DEVELOPMENT, POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP
- Responses received from recent 'RFP' process, included two project proposals from Central Oregon Villages
o Senior Women's Shelter (10 sites), location TBD
o Tiny Home Units (6 sites), location TBD
o Launch: Spring 2022 (NOTE: Phase 1 will include neighborhood outreach that's specific to each location
and is anticipated to begin Winter 2022)
- St. Vincent DePaul (10-unit village). under construction, anticipated completion Spring 2022
- Veteran's Village (15-unit village) opened in Dec 2021
- RV Park, potential partnership with Deschutes County on Juniper Ridge property currently being explored, City
to initiate land use process in Spring 2022
Temporary Shelter: Project Turnkey (former Bend Value Inn) — 28 Rooms COMPLETE
- Low -barrier & Coordinated Entry System
- City: Ownership, Renovation, Repair & Maintenance
- Contract with Neighborlmpact for operations: Launch: 2022 (possible early occupation in January 2022, with
renovations occurring in Summer 2022)
Temporary Shelter: 2nd Street (designated permanent warming shelter) — 90 Beds COMPLETE— FULL
- Operated by Shepherd's House
- Future: +Day Use & Navigation Center, responses to RFP currently being evaluated
Launch: 2022" (if Awarded)
Safe Parking —12 Spots FULL (CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT)
- 2 Locations in Bend: Nativity Lutheran and Dawn's House
- Exploration of additional Safe Parking Program opportunities in process
Additional Temporary Shelter — 50-60 Rooms (former Hotel) IN DEVELOPMENT, POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP
- A preferred site has been identified and an offer via City broker has been submitted. Council action anticipated
in January 2022.
- Low -barrier & Coordinated Entry System
- City: Ownership, Renovation, Repair & Maintenance
- Plans for an RFP to operate
- Launch: Winter 2022
Management of City Right -of -Way and Regulation of Camping COMPLETE, POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP
- Compliant with recently adopted state law and court cases
- City Administrative Policy updated at December 15 Council meeting
o Managing garbage and debris, and maintaining accessible passageways
o Move or removal of single tents/campsites/personal property in right-of-way or blocking sidewalks
o Posting notice to remove larger, established campsites in the right-of-way and closing the right-of-way for
clean up
- Development of Comprehensive Camping regulations to occur in 2022 in parallel with additional temporary
housing options
Update Service Request Form and process for better public reporting mechanism
Carol Martin
From: Nick Lelack
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:04 PM
Cc: Greg Munn; Daniel Emerson; Erik Kropp
Subject: City of Bend Request for County ARPA Funds related to Homelessness Services
Attachments: City of Bend Projects_Final.docx
Commissioners, Greg, Dan, Erik:
FYI. Please see below and attached from the City of Bend.
� o Nick Lelack j County Administrator
Preferred pronouns He/Him
Tel: (541) 388-6565
110 IS
From: Eric King <eking@bendoregon.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 2:51 PM
To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>
Cc: CouncilAll <councilall@bendoregon.gov>; Carolyn Eagan <ceagan@bendoregon.gov>; Shelly Smith
<shsmith@bendoregon.gov>; Mickie Derting <mderting@bendoregon.gov>; Lynne McConnell
<niii.Coi ncnLWuciiuuregoii.gvv-
Subject: City of Bend Request for County ARPA Funds related to Homelessness Services
11 X I. .;:[ANAL. [: MA 1I:.]
Hi Nick,
Per our meeting this morning, this email is confirming previous City requests of $1.5M in County
ARPA funds to assist in partnership projects that provide additional temporary housing options for
those individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
As requested previously, $1.5M of County ARPA funds would be matched by at least $1.5M in City
ARPA funds. The initial request was for the $1.5M to be dedicated to outdoor shelter/managed
camps. However, as additional funding, contracting and project opportunities evolve, there is a need
for flexibility in directing these funds to support needed services that are essential for successful
deployment of additional housing options via contracts with expert social service providers.
As noted in the attachment, the City is in the process of developing several temporary housing
options that range from outdoor shelters to temporary/emergency shelters. To ensure temporary
shelters, managed camps, and other facilities can be operating by skilled service providers, bid
through an open, competitive process our preference would be for County ARPA funds dedicated
toward operating expenses. Those projects that are ripe for potential City/County projects are
highlighted in blue.
At this point, we are looking for confirmation of the $1.5M allocation in County ARPA funds for the
above described purpose and will come back to the County with additional details on how those funds
would be applied to the project(s) included in the attachment.
Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns that we need to address in order
for the Board to fully consider this request.
Thank you,
Eric King I City Manager
Pronouns: he/him Why pronouns?
O: 541-388-5505
CITY OF BEND
PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE: Emails are generally public records and therefore subject to public
disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. Emails can be sent inadvertently
to unintended recipients and contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please advise by return email and delete immediately without
reading or forwarding to others. Thank you.
DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
I
Date: January 7, 2022
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
Re: ARPA Fund Request for Circuit Court Use of Fair/Expo Center
At the December 15, 2021 Board meeting, the Commissioners reviewed and discussed a request for
APRA funds to pay for the rental of the Fair and Expo Center's North Sister Building for the
Deschutes Circuit Court. This memo contains more information about the request and responds to
specific questions from the Board.
Jury trials at the Circuit Court are either 6-person or 12-person juries. Currently, due to COVID, the
Circuit Court only holds 12-person juries at the Fair and Expo Center. The Court has requested
continued use of the North Sister Building at least until the pandemic poses a lower risk.
The two new Circuit Court judges will begin working within one month. The Circuit Court has
requested the continued use of the North Sister building until the courthouse expansion is complete,
estimated for January 2025. The Court now has nine judges and only seven courtrooms. The Court
has arranged to use two hearing rooms, but they do not have sufficient space for jury trials or in -
person public access. Use of the North Sister Building allows the Court to make full use of the
additional dockets supported by the two new judges.
Also, during certain period of courthouse expansion construction, some of the existing courtrooms
may be unavailable. Ongoing use of the North Sister building will reduce the impact on operations
during these times.
If the Court is unable to continue use of the North Sister building after the pandemic has resolved,
the Court may still have to limit the number of jury trials it can hold at one time. Half of the space
the Court has historically used for jury orientation and selection at the courthouse will be used as a
hearings room for one of the new judges and the associated dockets.
The Fair and Expo Center has planned accordingly by blocking out the availability of the North
Sister building for calendar years 2022 and 2023 — with a few date exceptions such as the Fair,
Sportsman's Show, etc.
There may have been some expenditures from FY 2021 related to the North Sister building court
set-up and rental that were covered by CARES Act funds. These funds will be subtracted from the
ARPA request. Finally, continued use of the North Sister building (if approved) after the pandemic
may be ineligible for ARPA funds and could be instead charged to the courthouse expansion
construction budget or some other funding source.
51590 Huntington Rd.
Post Office Box 10
La Pine, OR 97739
Phone 541.536.2935
Fax 541.536.2627
www.lapinefire.org
11/30/ 2021
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
Via Email
American Rescue Plan - Spending Request — Emergency Medical Care for Oregon's most vulnerable
rural residents — retires, veterans and low-income families.
Dear Commissioners:
The remote rural area of the Oregon's Newberry Basin, La Pine and Crescent region, is in a health care
desert. It is the largest population (25,000+) in Oregon who are the furthest distance to any hospital
within the state. The area also happens to be home of several highly disadvantaged populations —
retirees, veterans, and low-income families. Their last gasp access to any kind of health care is often
through 911 and Advanced Life Support (ALS) Emergency Medical Service (EMS) provided by the La Pine
Rural Fire Protection District's fire -paramedics. Even the two local small health clinics use the
community's 911 fire -paramedics on a daily basis for cases they cannot handle — further stressing the
Fire/EMS system.
The federal reimbursement rates for paramedic transports unfortunately are based on a fixed national
rate formula — per Social Security Reinvestment Act of 2003 - that does not take into account remote
rural areas. Thus, the district can only recover less than 40% of the actual cost of providing its life saving
services. That and with the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly stressed the fire district financially. The
district has lost $740,547 in net position per our 2020 GAAP audit.
The district has two "shovel ready" capital projects needed to sustain it rural fire -paramedic services
that are desperately needed and can be placed into servicing the community with six months:
(1) The acquisition of one Medic Quick Response Unit at $200,000
(2) The acquisition of 4 Stryker power gurneys at $20,000 each, total $80,000
The total essential ALS EMS equipment is $280,000 which this fire district's request for the
Commissioners consideration. Attached is a list of our capital and operational staffing needs.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Jerry Hubbard, Public Affairs Liaison
La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
—r y�. _ .,s:�:. r �.....�.Ers Pride fo Service Dedication ..
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Preparation for Public Hearing: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of the Hearings Officer's recommendation for approval of file no. 247-21-000400-
PA, 401-ZC pursuant to DCC 22.28.030.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
crr,ff la„n nrnv;rlo hivrl.-arm inrl and nrpr)nrp the Board fnr n Puhlir Hearinp, nn Innuary 26. 2022 to
JINJJ VVIII r.Jl VYINI/✓fin �I�. v..r..w �+• v�.. ... .. �� J -• -• - O
consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file no. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZQ
for a 36.65-acre property to the East of the City of Bend, submitted by COID.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner
DATE: January 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Work
Session
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a work session on January 12, 2022 in
preparation for a public hearing on January 26, 2022, to consider a request for a Plan Amendment
and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC) for a 36.65-acre property to the east of the
City of Bend.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, COID, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to redesignate the subject
property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The
applicant's reasoning for the request is that the property was mistakenly identified as farmland, does
not contain high -value soils or other characteristics of high value farmland, and therefore should be
redesignated and rezoned for residential use. The applicant has provided a soil study that identifies
non -high value soils on a majority (-64%) of the subject property. Additionally, the applicant has
provided findings within the burden of proof that demonstrate compliance with state and local
requirements and policies.
II. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Staff received twelve (12) public comment letters from neighboring property owners and residents
located within the surrounding area of the subject property. These comments expressed concern
and opposition related to growth impacts, wildlife concerns, open space values, recreational access,
ability to farm, traffic impacts along 271h Street, driveway access to the subject property, property
addressing, property value impacts, impacts to irrigation water sources and availability, and the
potential of marijuana production on the property.
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on August 31, 2021. Three (3) individuals
(Patrick McCoy, Matt Carey, and Kecia Weaver) stated their opposition to the subject application and
concerns regarding growth management, the perceived limitation of hobby farm opportunities,
wildlife habitat impacts, and access to the subject property.
On October 13, 2021, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed
Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
III. BOARD CONSIDERATION
As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C)
requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of
the Hearings Officer. The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the
following link: 247-21-000400-PA 401-ZC Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment
and Zone Change I Deschutes County Oregon. Moreover, the complete record will be available at the
public hearing.
IV. NEXT STEPS
The Board will hold a public hearing on January 26, 2022. The legal description of the subject property
will be provided to the Board at the soonest availability.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Draft Ordinance and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit B: Proposed Zoning Map
Exhibit C: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History
Exhibit E: Hearings Officer Recommendation/Decision
FORTHCOMING ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit F: Legal Description
Page 2 of 2
247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC
SKYLINEVIEVi OR
, NNE LN
C;r'f;LL;`sVfi
f
3
i
w
I.
b.ARNEL.AVE
j IOL
DARBY CT< w
DAYLILYAVE
j
SELLFLOAIER FL
#
Gsi-denside
a
LL
rune 1fa'CyuvRUFF PL-
m6Z
LILYWAY
STARLIGHT DR
a
CALEB PL
HURITA FL
�
HM' i
C,APELLA PL
,,�'—
_.
W
rn
L'J
KAClai
i
N
0 320 640 1,280
ft
1 in.h= 752 feet
Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
y E 3 (-0
.e
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 * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-001
Plan, to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain Property From Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception Area.
WHEREAS, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(247-21-000400-PA) to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 23, to change the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception
Area (RREA) designation; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed hearing, on October 12, 2021 the Deschutes County Hearings Officer
recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change; and
WHEREAS, because no appeal was filed, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") did not
initiate review of the application and the decision does not require an exception to the goals or concern lands
designated for forest or agricultural use, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B), the Board must approve the
comprehensive plan designation change from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA);
and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Ordinance 2000-017 ordained the Plan Map to be a component of Title
23 and, therefore, any amendment to the Plan Map is an amendment to Title 23;
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 "F" and depicted on the map set forth as
Exhibit "A", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA).
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined.
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision of
the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "E" and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-001
Dated this of , 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of I` Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Commissioner
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Phil Chang
Effective date:
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
day of , 2022.
day of , 2022.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Yes No Abstained Excused
day of , 2022.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-001
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-002
Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property
From Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use
Agricultural.
WHEREAS, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) applied for a Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan Map and Deschutes County Zoning Map change, to rezone certain property from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was give in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
August 31, 2021 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on October 12, 2021 the Hearings Officer
recommended approval of the comprehensive plan map and zone change; and
WHEREAS,
., i t Board
t _ f %Cou ty n�..........: .. ..: ...... /«D... lu»\ .,.1..,.t— llrrlinonra
WHt;Kb!-1J, On tn1S Same date, me tSuaru u1 �,uuttty �uiiiiiii��iviici� � livaiu � auvt,w., �_..=,=u=•..�
2022-001 amending DCC Title 23, changing the plan designation of the property from Agriculture (AG) to
Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA); and
WHEREAS, a change to the Deschutes County Zoning Map is necessary to implement the amendment
adopted in Ordinance
WHEREAS, because no appeal was filed of Ordinance 2022-002 and the Board did not initiate review
of the application, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B), the Board must approve this zone change, which changes the
zone to conform to the newly adopted plan amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) for certain property described in Exhibit
"F" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "B", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision
of the Hearings Officer, attached to Ordinance 2022-001 as Exhibit "E", and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-002
Dated this of , 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of I" Reading:
Date of 2nd Reading:
Commissioner
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Phil Chnnv
Effective date
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
day of , 2022.
day of 52022.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Yes No Abstained Excused
day of , 2022.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-002
Legend
® Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Designation
AG - Agriculture
RREA- Rural Residential Exception Area
URA - Urban Reserve Area
®, Bend Urban Growth Boundary
PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2022-001
� V
0 250 500 1,000
Mmm"Feet
December 17. 2021
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2022
Effective Date: , 2022
CHILLIWACK WAY
City of
Bend
--'j �—�
INt"71- "0!'m 0 W.
HURITAPL
W,SE GOLDEN MARKET LN
Legend
® Proposed Zone Change Boundary
Zoning
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve
i Bend Urban Growth Boundary
Zone Change from
EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFUTRB)
to
Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
PROPOSED
ZONING MAP
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2022-002
6
0 250 s00 1.000
Feet
December 17, 2021
MUA10
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Dice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this day of , 2022
Effective Date: , 2022
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.
r rrt_ r1 L,..+-- r , .,+., l� of o �;.,o Dl� r r1.v�Pr 4a oAnrvtPrl 1�� llia Rnarrl in nrrlinnnr•a
J. I lie DesclluLGJ Vvu"Ly �.vuiNt�.u�.iaoi v�. i iuii uaiieuuiuvii�.�, uuvN�vu vy ...... .�.,......., �......------
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.
Exhibit A, Ord. 2021-005 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21
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
GV 17-V 1 1, are lnl;oi jJvra`Lcu Uy 1 ctci cucc iici cui.
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
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit A, Ord. 2021-005 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21
TT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-02, are incorporated by reference herein.
UU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
VV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
WW The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001 are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2022-001 §1, 2022; Ord. 2021-008 §1; Ord. 2021-005 §1, 2021; Ord. 2021-002§3, 2020; 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)
Exhibit A, Ord. 2021-005 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21
seot'ov' 5.:.2 L_eo�sLatWe W- storU
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
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System Plan
(added)
La Pine Urban Growth
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
Boundary
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
Amendment, including certain
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
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
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
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
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
'1 /11 6 A^f '1
LV 1-VLL-LV-
0 7Q 1 G/ I I I A 1 L
1 V/ 1 1- 1 �� 1 V
17 01 A 1 0 1 1 A 7
LJ.V 1 .V 1 V, I .✓, I.L
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
refinement of the West Area
Master Plan Area I boundary.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
2019-016
1 1-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan 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 I I
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/Old
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
2021-002
01-27-21 /04-27-21
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property from
2021-005
06-16-21 /06-16-21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
06-30-21 /09-28-21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, chanin�
designation of certain
2022-001
TBD/TBD
23.01.010
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC
HEARING: August 31, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANT/
OWNER: CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
LOCATION: Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000
61781 WARD RD, BEND, OR 97702
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
TRANSPOR—IA71ION joe Bessrnan
ENGINEER: Transight Consulting, LLC
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The
applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zone
Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Stephanie Marshall
STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner'
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD CLOSED: September 23, 2021
' This matter was originally assigned to Brandon Herman, Assistant Planner. It was re -assigned to Mr.
Rawlings prior to the public hearing.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 1 of 57
I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10)
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 6, Forest Lands
Division 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. LOCATION: The subject property has a situs address of 61781 Ward Road, Bend, and
is further identified as Tax Lot 1000 on Assessor's Map 18-12-02.2
B. LOT OF RECORD: Tax Lot 1000 is 36.65 acres in size and has not previously been
verified as a legal 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,
z Several commentators expressed concern regarding the address of the subject property, particularly
related to future access if and when the property is developed in the future. Staff stated at the public
hearing that an address coordinator will be assigned with respect to future development permit
application(s) and the address(es) will be vetted through emergency services.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 2 of 57
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
1&36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40),
b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show
on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory;
C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special
assessment;
d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that
reduces in size a lot or parcel'
e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site
sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller
than the minimum area required in the applicable zone,
in the PowelllRamsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone
Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a propert)(s lot of record status was not required
to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the
applicant will be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on
the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply.
C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm
Use (EFU) and is designated Agricultural (AG) in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
The property does not have any Goal 5 resource designations.
D. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG)
designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation. The applicant also
requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the
subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The
applicant asks that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the
subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The applicant states that no exception to
Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not
agricultural land. The application does not include a development proposal. The applicant
notes that it could subdivide the property under Title 17 or through the County's cluster
subdivision rules in Title 18, or could hold the property for future urbanization consistent with
the development pattern of the surrounding lands.
The applicant's attorney stated at the public hearing that the proposed re -designation and
rezoning would allow the property to be considered in the next UGB expansion by the City of
Bend. She stated there were no immediate plans to develop the property in the near future.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 3 of 57
Submitted with the application is an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled "Soil
Assessment for 37.7-Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon" (hereafter referred to as the "soil
study") prepared by soil scientist Andy Gallagher, CPSSc/SC 03114 of Red Hill Soils. The
applicant also submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC titled "61781
Ward Road Rezone" hereby referred to as "traffic study." Additionally, the applicant submitted
an application form, a burden of proof statement, and other supplemental materials, all of
which are included in the record for the subject applications.
E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 36.65 acres in size and is
adjacent to both Bend's city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the west. The
property is relatively level with mild undulating topography and collapsed lava tube features.
Vegetation consists of juniper, sage brush, and grasses. A portion of the site was historically
mined for dirt and fill for maintenance purposes of Central Oregon Irrigation District's (COID)
delivery systems. The site is undeveloped except for COID's main canal located along the
southern border and offshoot irrigation ditches in the southwestern and southeastern
portions of the subject property. Access to the site is provided by stubbed local street
connections including Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue, located in residential subdivisions
in the City of Bend to the west.
The subject property does not have water rights, and has not been farmed or used in
conjunction with any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) map shown on the County's GIS mapping program identifies two soil complex
units on the property: 36A, Desk -amp loamy sand and 58C, GUJtICy-ROC.K outcrop-Deska Ip
complex. The predominant soil complex on the subject property is 58C, which is not a high -
value soil as defined by DCC 18.04; 36A is not considered a high -value soil when irrigated.
The subject property has no irrigation, no historical use of being farmed, and is overgrown
with western juniper, sagebrush, rabbit brush and bunch grasses. COID has intermittedly
used the property over the years to mine for dirt that was used for maintenance and repairs
of the District's delivery systems.
As discussed in detail below in the Soils section, an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment
(Order 1 soil survey) was conducted on the property by Certified Professional Soil Scientist
Andy Gallagher which determined that the property is not agricultural land; Class 3 irrigated
and Class 6 non -irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes and rocky,
shallow soils, creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in
conjunction with other neighboring lands.
There is a private easement along the COID canal. In addition, as noted in the Bend Park and
Recreation District's public comment, BMPRD has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic
Canal Trail, identified in its comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property.
F. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area,
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 4 of 57
the subject property contains two different soil types as described below. The subject
property contains 58C - Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex and 36A- Deskamp loamy
sand.
The applicant submitted a soil study report (applicant's Exhibit 5, Soil Assessment for 37.7-
Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon, dated December 2, 2020), which was prepared by a
qualified soils professional approved by the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD), which can be used by property owners to determine the extent of
agricultural land as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-033 Agricultural Land,
The certified soils scientist and soil classifier conducted field work which included 41 test pits
and observations of surface rock outcrops and determined the subject property is comprised
of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Land'. The purpose of this soil study was to
inventory and assess the soils on the subject property5 and to provide more detailed data
on soil classifications and ratings than is contained in the NRCS soils maps. The NRCS soil
map units identified on the property are described below.
36A Deskamp loamy sand. 0 to 3 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of 85 percent
Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp
soils are somewhat excessively drained with a rapid over moderate permeability, and about
5 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and
livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 36A soils are 3S when irrigated, and 6S
when not irrigated. T his soil is i ligi ►-value whei � it r igaateU. Appr oxi� i Gately 33.7 percent �t of the
subject parcel is made up of this soil type.
58C Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is
comprised of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20
percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. Gosney
soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. The available water capacity
is about 1 inch. Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability.
Available water capacity is about 3 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing.
The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. The rock
outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e
when unirrigated, and 4e when irrigated. Approximately 66.3 percent of the subject parcel is
made up of this soil type..
58C is not a high value soil as defined by DCC 18.04 ("High Value Farmland"). 36A is
considered a high value soil when irrigated. There is no irrigation on the property.
'As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030
4 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030.
5 The canals were not rated for capability class, but for purposes of the assessment were included
with the acreage that is not suited to agricultural production.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 5 of 57
Through numerous soil test pits and observations on the property Soil Scientist Andy
Gallagher remapped the soils using a high intensity Order 1 soil survey and concluded that
the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils (nearly 64%) and is
not agricultural land. The Class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets
interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any
agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. An excerpt
of Mr. Gallagher's summary and conclusions of his findings follows:
In the revised Order-1 soil mapping, the Deskamp (Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are
mapped as a consociation and onlymake up 29 percent of the parcel. The Gosneysoils along with
very shallow soils and rock outcrops are mapped as the Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex because
all three components of the complex are capability Class 7 or 8. This complex makes up 63.7
percent of the parcel. The irrigation canals make up 7.4 percent of the area. Based upon the
findings of this Order-1 soil survey, the subject parcel is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils and
therefore is not "agricultural land" within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A).
The soil mapping and on -site studies also show the subject property is not agricultural land within
the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) as it is not adjacent to or intermingled with land in
capability classes 1-6 within a farm unit. The class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils on the
subject property have not been farmed or utilized in conjunction with any farming operation in
the past. These soil units exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils
creating severe 1hM itations J(7r aniy a ric ultural use eith er UlUrle UI If cUIIJUIICLIUII VVIUI J L I I er IUIIUJ.
No rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the applicant's evidence regarding soils. The
applicant's soils study has been verified by DLCD.
G. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is surrounded by urban
development to the west within the Bend city limits; to the east and south are County
exception lands zoned MUA10 developed with homes and small -acreage irrigation for
pasture and hobby farm uses; and irrigated farmland zoned EFUTRB to the north and
northeast. The adjacent properties are outlined below in further detail:
North: North and northeast of the subject property is an area of EFU-zoned property. The
adjacent property to the north, Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 12.45-acre EFU-
zoned property that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling (approved
under County file CU-01-75). Northeast is Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 53.30-
acre farm parcel that is irrigated, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a single-
family dwelling and accessory structures.
East. East of the subject property are two parcels zoned MUA10. Tax Lot 1102 (Assessor's
Map 18-12-02) is a 5.55-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 6 of 57
structures, and is partially irrigated. Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 2.5-acre
parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structures, and is partially irrigated.
West: West of the subject property are residential subdivisions located in the City of Bend
and developed to urban standards. These include Rosengarth Estates and Gardenside PUD
in the RS Zone. Northwest is a 2-acre parcel zoned RL and developed with a residence.
South: The abutting parcel southeast of COID's main canal is a 3.34-acre lot zoned EFUTRB
and developed with a single-family dwelling and is partially irrigated. Southwest is Hansen
Park (Tax Lot 1404 of Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 5-acre undeveloped park zoned MUA10
and owned by Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District. East of Hansen Park is a 5-acre
parcel zoned MUA10 and developed with a residence (Tax Lot 1407 of Assessor's Map 18-12-
02).
H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the
applications on June 11, 2021 to several public agencies and received the following
comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell
I have reviewed the Transight April 13, 2021, traffic study to change the comp plan designation
from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and the zoning from Exclusive Farm
r_ r i rA wn� i_.- 'f� �!' a rd-M4 IA/ n.J I,.,. •10 97 n7
Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (NIUA- I V/ J`b 30.O5 acres at o I /o l VVaI AU, artu 10-
TL 1000. Staff finds the study needs to be modified to comply with the Transportation Planning
Rule and Deschutes County's accepted practices to analyze plan amendments and zone changes.
For "reasonable worst -case scenario" the County compares and contrasts the highest trip
generator permitted outright in both the current zone and the requested zone. DCC 18.16.020 lists
those uses permitted outright in EFU. DCC 18.16.025 lists other outright permitted uses that meet
applicable criteria in either DCC 18.16.038, 18.16.042, and review under DCC 18.124. The TIA cites
to marijuana production facility, which the County has analyzed under the Warehouse category
of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. However, the County has opted
out of the state's marijuana processing program and thus this use and its analog of Warehouse
should not be used. Instead, staff would utilize Winery (DCC 18.16.025(F)) as a reasonable worst
case scenario.
DCC 18.32.020 lists outright permitted uses for MUA-10. The highest trip generator is a cluster
development of single-family homes within one -mile of a UGB, per DCC 18.32.040(A), as the traffic
study correctly notes.
The study needs to be redone to show the difference between winery and a cluster development
to determine if there is a significant effect and any difference in the number of p.m. peak hour
trips. This would also require the volumes for the trip distribution figures to be redone as well.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 7 of 57
Upon receipt of the County Senior Transportation Planner's initial comment, above, the
applicant submitted a revised traffic study, dated June 8, 2021. No further comments were
offered by the County's Senior Transportation Planner.
Bend Park and Recreation District, Henry Stroud, AICP, Planner
The Bend Park and Recreation District has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail,
identified in our comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property. While we understand
that this application is just for a zoning change, the District would like to work with the applicant
to acquire a trail easement for the COHCT prior to any future development of the property.
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Assessor, Bend Fire
Department, City of Bend Planning Department, City of Bend Public Works Department,
ODOT Region 4, and City of Bend Growth Management Department.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the conditional use
application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on June 11, 2021.
The applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of
Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the applicant
posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021. Public comments were received from
neighboring property owners. Public comments are summarized as follows:
The first comment was received from Jeff Sundberg, a resident and owner of property
located at 61710 Gibson Drive, Bend, OR 97702 on June 15, 2021:
Hi Brandon,
I received a letter from Deschutes County regarding COID applying for new permits. I live at 61710
Gibson Drive, Bend, Or, 97702. 1 live next to the property in question, 61781 Ward Road. It looks
like COID is requesting to go from agricultural and farm use zoning to rural residential exception
area and multiple use agricultural zoning.
Does this mean they want to put in a housing development?
l was wondering if this response by email will suffice if I want to be notified of public hearings
related to this application or if I still have to write a letter requesting to be notified of any decision
or public hearing.
Does any of this change my easement with COID or should I contact them directly?
Thanks and let me know anything you can about this land change please.
Staff responded to Mr. Sundberg's email on June 16, 2021 as follows:
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 8 of 57
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for reaching out.
As you noted, this is an application for a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning change so i am unaware of
what CO/D intends to do with the property in the future. If they were to take the residential route,
a minimum subdivision lot size of 10 acres still applies to the property. Because you received the
Notice of Application, you are also on the list to receive the Notice of Public Hearing, which is
tentatively set for July 27rh
With regards to your easement agreement, / am not inclined to think this will change anything but
contacting COID directly is a good idea.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Take care,
Brandon
The second comment was received from Kecia Weaver, a resident of 21435 Modoc Lane,
Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021:
"My name is Kecla Weaver l live at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 with my spouse who is
listed property owner, Patrick McCoy. On 6117121 I read the notice of application for the above
listed property. I would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. 1 have several
concerns, to include the following:
1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock I am
concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access
which has been limited and may be further limited due to drought conditions. More
users in the proposed Multiple Use Agriculture may further draw down water
allocations.
2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. I know the proposed area to
be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed
3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few
months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of
our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and
north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road.
4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed
developments. I am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed
area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well.
5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 9 of 57
rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, I would encourage Deschutes
County to adhere to a s/owergrowth model.
6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view
to the west of my property when it is developed.
With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as
a taxpayer and voter, I implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this
application at this time. l wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and
any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702."
The third comment was received from Patrick McCoy, a neighboring property owner and
resident of 21435 Modoc Lane, Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021:
"My name is Patrick McCoy a home and landowner at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702. On
6117121 l received the notice of application for the above listed property. With little time to
research to this proposal, based on the information / have obtained, l would like to formally
dispute the requested zoning changes. My concerns are numerous and / will highlight the
following.,
1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock l am
concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access
which has been limited and maybe further limited due to drought conditions. More
users in the proposed Multiple use Agriculture may thither draw down water
allocations.
2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. i know the proposed area to
be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed.
3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few
months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of
our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and
north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road.
4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed
developments. I am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed
area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well.
5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the
rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, l would encourage Deschutes
County to adhere to a slowergrowth model.
6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view
to the west of my property when it is developed.
With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as
a taxpayer and voter, l implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this
application at this time. I wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and
any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702."
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 10 of 57
The fourth public comment was received from Kyle Weaver on June 18, 2021:
"I am writing to express by objection to the proposed changes east of 271 in the pursuit of yet
another neighborhood development. The East side of Bend is the current hotspot for housing
expansion but some caution must be taken and not simply rubber stamping these applications
through and knocking down yet more trees and eliminating farm lands and mountain views.
Neighborhoods are popping up in all directions all over town and the construction industry frenzy
is full throttle with little interest in these types of nature/aesthetic concerns. I don't begrudge
people making some money and Bend is certainly a desirable place to live, but things need to be
planned out in a more thoughtful and deliberate fashion. There is nothing wrong with taking a
slower and more measured approach as we all consider Bend's growth in the coming years. I have
lived in Bend for just over 20 years and have family and friends in the proposed development area
and it would drastically reduce their enjoyment of their property. I urge you to decline this request
on behalf of many other community members who feel the same way."
The fifth public comment was received from Treva Weaver on June 18, 2021:
"Re. 1812020001000 Central Or. Irrigation District
I am opposed to the proposed land use change by the above referenced owner.....
The loss of open space in Central Oregon continues as the growth proponents seers rr►ain'
interested in jumping on the bandwagon and making as much profit as possible. The East side of
Bend, where I have lived the past 21 years, has hundreds, if not thousands of housing sites already
started or proposed. Until all this land is developed and houses sold, there is no need to venture
east of 27th where this property is located ..... My great grandfather came to Oregon at age 9 in
1846 and our family has very deep roots in this state. I spend a large amount of time at my
daughter's home which is directly east of the proposed development. We enjoy riding our horses
in her arena and also enjoy family gatherings in her backyard. The view would be drastically
changed if this land is developed. What is wrong with leaving some land in its natural state? It will
be many many years before additional housing is needed in this area. Please decline this request
change and leave some land in its more natural state."
The sixth public comment was received from John Schaeffer, a neighboring property owner
at 61677 Thunder Road, Bend, OR 97702 on June 19, 2021:
"I am writing on behalf of myself and several neighbors in the Stevens Road - Thunder Road
neighborhood. We are opposed to COID's proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning for taxlot 1812020001000. We realize this is not a request for development but know that
it will lead to development in the next few years, that it is the first step in making the property
more marketable, should it be brought into the UGB during the next update.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 11 of 57
Development has been increasing in this area, especially with the inclusion of the Stevens Road
tract in the current UGB, and its subsequent sale by the state. We feel it is important to leave some
natural open areas for people and animals near the city limits. This is especially critical now that
the Stevens Road tract is being developed, along with all the other development in this area. A few
years ago, it was possible to take our dogs walking in the Stevens Road tract and meet few people.
The use in this area has increased remarkably over the last several years, consistent with Bend's
growth.
The COLD parcel is isolated and not readily accessible by cars, with varied topography, including a
small canyon. It has significant native vegetation and, when I was there a couple of days ago, there
were many birds, much more than in the nearby areas where there are houses and the vegetation
has been cleared.
Right now, the average size of the parcels between the city limits to the west and Ward Road to the
east, and between Stevens Road to the south and to approximately where Skyline View Drive would
be if extended into the area on the north, is 8 acres. If you consider only the MUA zoned parcels,
the average size is 4.8 acres. If the COID property was developed to that level, this would mean 7-
8 houses in the area. I do not know what would be allowed under the Rural Residential Exception
area but suspect it would probably be even denser housing.
As Bend continues to grow at what may be an unsustainable pace the value of open space
increases. We urge you to consider open space as a relevant and beneficial resource when you
weigh the issues inherent in this kind of a zoning change.
Sincerely,
John Schaeffer and Patti Bailey
James andJanet Lake
Julie Naslund, Michael, and Miles Nevill
Mike Quick
Jill Harrell and Mike King"
The seventh public comment was received from Cathy DeCourcey, a property owner and
resident of 61718 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021:
"I am responding to a letter I received regarding COID's application to rezone the property behind
me. File # 247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC. 36.65 Acres. My understanding is they want to change the
zoning from Agriculture and Exclusive Farm Use Zone to Rural Residential Exception Area and
Multiple Use Agricultural. I've read the Application prepared by Tia M. Lewis. I have 3 concerns.
1. The water supply says wells are to be drilled for household use. There are 2 very old (55yrs)
Well Reports included in her submission. I find this very odd that 7 new homes will be
drilling and using well water for approximately 5 acre mini ranches. Surely the water table
has lowered over time? The depth of one shows 619 feet. One report seems to be missing
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 12 of 57
the gallons per minute amount. Would you explain where the household and irrigation
water will be coming from for these 7 lots?
2. At what point can the MUA-10 Zoning be changed to create a subdivision of smaller sized
lots?
3. Will there be more than 7 lots created? The stubbed access roads listed are already narrow
and congested with parked cars and traffic coming and going to 27th which has no turn
lanes onto or off of Darnel.
Thank you for your time and response."
The eighth public comment was received from Jennifer Neil, a property owner and resident
of 61723 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021:
"My name is Jennifer Neil, and I am Bend homeowner concerned about the above -mentioned
proposed land use. The proposed land use will change what is a small, open space next to the
Central Oregon canal from farm use to more residential use. I'm saddened to not only lose the
space I walk on twice a day, but to see it turned into more overpriced homes that the city and the
community is not able to support. The area of SE Bend where this property is located has already
out -grown all of the infrastructure to support more housing. It has become extremely difficult to
access my home because of the traffic and congestion along 27th street. This congestion will only
increase with the addition of the new High School. Finally, I'm also very concerned that 4 of my
neighbors, who are also homeowners and have properties directly next to this proposed land use
change, did not receive any notice of this !and use. ! notified them" I %lope that the (,ICY- plan rlers
will consider the impact more houses will have in this area, and improve the infrastructure first
that is already necessary before destroying more open space."
The ninth public comment was received from Brent N. Wilkins, an owner and resident of
property at 61764 SE Camellia Street, Bend, OR 97702, on June 21, 2021:
"I am a resident of the Rosengarth Subdivision. I am submitting these written comments relating
to the proposed zoning changes by the Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID'9 for the real
property located at 61781 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702 ("Property'9.
For the reasons noted below, including due to the level of development in East Bend in close
proximity to the Property, the Property's rural nature that serves as a place of recreation, and the
high level of traffic and lack of a left-hand turn lane from the major arterial (27«' Street) that will
likely service the Property if/once developed, I ask that the Deschutes County Planning Division
("Planning Division'9 not approve COID's application. I request to be notified of any decision or
public hearing related to this application, and this notice may be sent to:
Brent N. Wilkins
61764 SE Camellia Street
Bend, OR 97702
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 13 of 57
As noted on page 3 of COID's Burden of Proof Statement, COID will have the ability to attempt to
develop and subdivide the Property into a subdivision if the permit is granted. This would
potentially occur through Title 17 or Title 18 of Deschutes County's rules. This permit should not
be granted as further development in the proximity of the Property will not serve the County or
community.
A. Development & Traffic Impacts
The Property at issue is surrounded by areas that have been recently developed. This includes the
DR Horton subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive, the Hayden Homes Subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive,
as well as the Rosengarth Subdivision. 27th Street has not been able to keep up resulting increased
traffic flow as a result of the development to date. Excluding this Property, there is now significant
further development occurring in this immediate area that 27th Street will service. The
development at this time includes a new commercial lot being developed at 27th Street and Reed
Market that will consist of multiple businesses, a new subdivision between Reed Market and
Starlight Drive on the east side of 27th Street, and significant development off of 27th Street on
Stevens Road. The Property will also heavily utilize 27th Street through the likely extension of Darnel
Avenue and/or DaylilyAvenue.
The collective effect of all of this development is that the rural nature of East Bend is being lost
and 27th Street is becoming unsafe. 27th Street at this time does not adequately handle the levels
of traffic that occur each morning around 8:00 am, each afternoon around 5.-OO prn as well as
when school lets out, and during the weekends. I have routinely sat in my car for more than two
minutes trying to turn left onto 27th Street. I have also waited more than a minute to even to try to
turn right onto 27th Street. A photograph showing the line of traffic on 27th Street is enclosed. (See
Ex. 1). Also, there is no left turn lane when turning left from 27th Street onto Darnel Avenue from
27th. This has resulted in unsafe conditions, including vehicles passing the turning vehicle on the
right where there is no developed shoulder or lane. There are tracks on the ground where this
happens, and it is not safe for those vehicles, the turning vehicle, or oncoming traffic. Eastside
Gardens is also located at 21h Street and Darnel Avenue. Vehicles pull in and out of that parking
lot at that intersection and from the parking lot itself. This cause an irregular, unsafe traffic flow
that will only be exacerbated by further use.
Moreover, due to Darnel Avenue serving as a primary access point for homes throughout the
existing neighborhoods and Gardenside Park, there is already a high level of traffic and vehicles
often driving fast. There is also significant on street parking that restricts views for drivers and
pedestrians. This includes large 'sprinter' vans, large trucks, and sometimes trailers. (See Ex. 2).
There are numerous young families in the neighborhoods, including along Camellia Street, Darnel
Avenue and Gardenside Park. These families have children that run, play, skateboard, ride
scooters, and bike throughout the neighborhood, including on the streets. The existing
neighborhood traffic levels poses a danger to children. The proposed permit will likely result in
increased traffic within the neighborhood and pose additional risk to these young families and
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 14 of 57
children. Any consideration of the Permit, and any possible approval, must address this dynamic.
Finally, with the recent approval of the Southeast Area Plan for the 'Elbow', the level of traffic in
East Bend and 27 Street will only increase. This will also result in the displacement of birds and
other wildlife, which is further covered below, and will need a place to go.
B. Preservation
The Property at issue is an area that is highly utilized for recreation and embodies Central Oregon
high desert landscape. In the winters, the area can serve as a place for cross-country skiing. (See
Ex. 3). People regularly ride bikes, run, and go for walks. The aerial photo that was enclosed with
the Notice of Application also shows the walking path through the middle of the Property. The
wildlife that calls this place home includes ducks, jackrabbits, geese, and numerous other birds.
There is also a rimrock canyon on the Property that is quite unique and should be preserved (See
Ex. 4). The Property also has views of the Cascades, Powell Butte, and Newberry Caldera (See Ex.
5). It is also quite peaceful and has a gentle, rolling landscape full of trees, grasses, and sagebrush.
(See Ex. 6). During the mornings and evenings one can go for walks and hear the songs of birds
and enjoy an escape from the busy work day and pace of life. In other words, changing the
Property's zoning classification and leading to the possibility (if not the eventual or imminent
likelihood) of development that will further change the rural nature of Bend is not in the public's
interest for rezoning standards or otherwise.
C. Conclusion
The existing development and use of 27 Street, the development already approved and under
construction, and the future development of Stevens Road and the 'Elbow' makes changing the
Property's zoning classification to not be in the public interest. There simply is not adequate
infrastructure to support all of these additions in a safe manner. Until the access to the
neighborhoods from 271 Street is improved, no further development or changes of zoning
classifications should occur. Approving the permit will also likely result in the irreparable loss of
rural landscape and habitat once the Property is developed, including possibly without any
restrictions or preservation criteria.
In sum, the proposed permit application should be denied, or at least not approved in its current
form. At a minimum, a hearing should be set for in person comments and for further deliberation
to occur."
The public comment from Mr. Wilkins includes 10 photographs depicting the various
conditions outlined in his written comment. These photographs and the full written
comment are included in public record for the subject application.
The tenth public comment was received from Crystal Garner on June 22, 2021:
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 15 of 57
"I would like to request a hearing for the proposed land development for 61781 Ward Rd, Bend,
OR 97702. We live about 4 houses down from this property, it is a great and safe place for our
family and so many others in the neighborhood to take walks, ride bikes, and walk dogs. The
thought of this land being developed on and losing those opportunities, as well as possibly
compromising the safety of our children in our neighborhood bring a heavy heart to so many of
us. Please consider a hearing to recant this decision."
The eleventh public comment was received from William Kepper on June 29, 2021:
"Sorryfor the late response to the changes associated with Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000. The
notification was not received timely. The notification is vague to exactly what changes will occur.
If the changes have anything to do with the cultivation of marijuana or hemp we and our neighbors
are against it. It would destroy ours and our neighbors quality of life. There are numerous small
children and teenagers in the neighborhoods who should not be subjected to these types of grow
farms. Also there is a child day care facility close by off 27th Street. I hope I'm wrong about the
'Rural Residential Exception Area and Multiple Use Agricultural, respectively" statement. Thanks
for listening to my concerns. I'd appreciate additional information on exactly what Multiple Use
Agricultural Zone (MUA10) means."
The twelfth public comment was received from David Morrison on August 30, 2021:
Tarik,
I may wish to participate in this hearing if I have questions or concerns not addressed by others. I
plan to participate via Zoom. My wife is dealing with serious health issues and may require
attention at anytime which might cause me to miss all or some.
So, I would like to go on record as 10096 against re -zoning said COID property at this time. l feel
that with the already in the works developments south of Stevens Rd and north of Bear Creek Rd,
that the road system is already severely inadequate. Also, with the drought conditions and
worsening water supplies in not just Bend but all of Deschutes and surrounding counties, i would
like to see this request'tabled, to be revisited in no fewer than 5 years. The county needs to greatly
improve roads and water supply issues before allowing more and more building and deteriorating
areas that will make this area more desirable to live in. I enjoy watching all of the natural wildlife
that lives in this space, they will disappear with development, as will our natural view that was the
biggest reason for us purchasing our property which is immediately adjacent to said property.
I am also concerned about the stated address of said property, Ward Rd is no where near the
property. If it should be re -zoned, where exactly will it be accessed?
I fear the continued rapid growth will quickly and severely deteriorate the quality of life for all of
Bend.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 16 of 57
Thank you for considering my our [sic] concerns, David & Nancy Morrison
J. LAND USE HISTORY: There is no history of prior land use permits having been
granted for the subject property.
K. UTILITY SERVICES: The subject property is served by Pacific Power and water will be
provided by a well (see Exhibit 7 for will serve letter and well logs).
L. PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property is in the Deschutes County Rural Fire
Protection District #2 (Exhibit 6). The Bend Rural Fire Protection Station 304 is located a few
miles northeast of the subject property near the corner of Hamby and Neff Roads. The Pilot
Butte Station on NE 15th Street and Highway 20 is also within a few miles of the subject
property. The Deschutes County Sheriff provides police and public safety services. Access to
the subject property is provided from the stubbed local street connections of Darnel Avenue
and Daylily Avenue to the west. The Bend Municipal Airport is located several miles northeast
of the property. The property is within the Bend -La Pine School District and is in the
Buckingham Elementary School boundary, the Pilot Butte Middle School boundary and the
Bend High School boundary. The property is outside of the Bend Parks and Recreation
District boundary; however, Bend Parks and Recreation District has plans to develop Hansen
Park Trailhead located south of the subject property that will serve the Central Oregon
Historic Canal Trail system.
M. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On August 6, 2u21, the Plaiiiiiiig DIVIJIVIIi iiiaiied a 114 ice of
Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and agencies.
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, August 8, 2021.
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on July 26, 2021.
The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of DCC 22.24.030(B). The
applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated June 25, 2021, indicating the
applicant posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021.
Deschutes County sent notice of the proposed change to its comprehensive plan and land
use regulation to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, received
by DLCD on July 26, 2021.
N. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on April 20, 2021, and
deemed complete by the Planning Division on May 20, 2021. 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.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 17 of 57
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18 136.010 Amendments
DCC Title 18 maybe 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, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan
amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The
applicant filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal.
The application is reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the
Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are met.
Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
The applicant for a quasi judicial rezoning must` es=abiish 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 provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof
statement:
Per prior Hearings Officers decisions [Powell/Ramsey (file no. PA-14-2 / ZC-14-2) and
Landholdings (file no. 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA)] for plan amendments and zone changes on
EFU-zoned property, this paragraph establishes two requirements: (1) that the zone change
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and (2) that the change is consistent with the plan's
introductory statements and goals. Both requirements are addressed below:
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: The applicant proposes a plan
amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property
from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The proposed rezoning from EFU-
TRB to MUA-10 will need to be consistent with its proposed new plan designation.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 18 of 57
2. Consistency with the Plan's Introductory Statement and Goals. In previous decisions,
the Hearings Officer found the introductory statements and goals are not approval
criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. However, the Hearings
Officer in the Landholdings decision found that depending on the language, some plan
provisions may apply and found the following amended comprehensive plan goals and
policies require consideration and that other provisions of the plan do not apply as
stated below in the Landholdings decision:
"Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to,
and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial/and 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 !una use permit applications. (-ieuuwn o►—VELCu.j ►10oreover,
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 particular role to some or
all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23. 0& 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 iece 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 decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and
equity possible, while managing the continuinggrowth and change of the area. Part
of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan which is then
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 19 of 57
interpreted to make decision 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 (Emphases added by applicant.)
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 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 provision.' (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."
Hearings Officer Karen Green adhered to these findings in the Powell/Ramsey decision (file
nos. PA-14-2/ZC-14-2), and found the above referenced introductory statements and goals
are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. This
Hearings Officer also adheres to the above findings herein. Nevertheless, 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).
I find that the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require such
consideration, and that other provisions of the plan do not apply"
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 20 of 57
The comprehensive plan goals and polices that the Landholdings Hearings Officer found
to apply include the following...
The applicant utilizes the analysis provided in prior Hearings Officers' decisions to determine
and respond to only the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies that apply, which are listed
below in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision. The Hearings Officer finds the
above provision is met, based on Comprehensive Plan conformance as set forth in
subsequent findings.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof
statement:
The applicant is proposing to change the zone classification from EFU to MUA-10. Approval of the
application is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district, which stated in DCC
18.32.010 as follows:
"The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various
areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the
capacity of the natural resources of the area, to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not
suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-tirr►e agricultural uses; to conserve
forest lands for forest uses, to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to
maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish
standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition
from rural to urban land use."
The subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming as discussed in the findings
above. The MUA-10 zone will allow property owners to engage in hobby farming The low -density
of development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and
scenic resources. In the Landholding's case, the Hearings Officer found:
I find that the proposed change in zoning classification from EFU is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 zone. Specifically, the MUA-10 zone is
intended to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while
permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the
natural resources of the area. Approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would
permit applications for low -density development, which will comprise a transition
zone between EFU rural zoning, primarily to the east and City zoning to the west.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 21 of 57
The maximum density of the approximately 36.65-acre property if developed with a cluster
development under Title 18 is 7 lots. This low density will preserve open space, allow owners to
engage in hobby farming, if desired, and preserve natural and scenic resources and maintain or
improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. The MUA-10 zoning provides a proper
transition zone from City, to rural zoning to EFU zoning.
The applicant's burden of proof statement also includes analysis in the Introduction section
at pages 1-2. There, the applicant stated, in relevant part:
For the past several years, Deschutes County has recognized the value in rezoning non -productive
agricultural lands and has issued decisions in support of plan amendments and zone changes
where the applicant demonstrates the property is not agricultural land and, therefore, Statewide
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, does not apply. These cases are the foundation for the subject request.
Cases pertinent to the proposed request include.
Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC ("Landholdings")/File nos. 247-16-000317-ZC/318-
PA
On November 1, 2017, the Board approved Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC's request to
change the plan designation on certain property from agricultural to Rural Residential Exception
Area and to change the zone designation from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 zone. The property consists of
about 35 acres and abuts the applicant's property to the west (Exhibit 1).
Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted evidence, the Hearings Officer
found that the Landholdings property does not constitute agricultural land and does not merit
protection under Goal 3, and therefore, approved the change in Plan designation and Zoning of
the propertyfrom Agriculture/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10.6
Division of State Lands Decision/File Nos. PA-11-7 and ZC-11-2
The Division of State Lands case was a 2013 approval by the Board for a plan amendment from
Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-TRB to Multiple Use
Agricultural (MUA-10). Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted
evidence, the Board found that the property was not agricultural land and therefore, Goal 3 did
not apply (Exhibit 2).
6 The Board adopted as its findings the Hearings Officer's decision with one exception: that if the
property is divided, it must be developed as a cluster development and the two irrigation ponds must
be included in the common area. In addition, the Board required the applicant to sign a Conditions of
Approval agreement to "assure that future residential development of the property will be harmonious
with existing development in the area and so that a part of the property may be developed at urban densities
if and when the property is annexed to the City of Bend"
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 22 of 57
Paget Decision/File Nos. PA-07-1, ZC-07-1
The Paget decision was a 2007 approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural
Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU to MUA-10. The Board adopted the
Hearings Officer's decision, which found that the property did not constitute "agricultural land"
and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change to MUA-10 was consistent with Goal 3
(Exhibit 3).
The Daniels Group/File Nos. PA-08-1, ZC-08-1
The Daniels Group decision was a 2011 Board decision approving a change to the Comprehensive
Plan map from Surface Mine and Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone
change from EFU-LB and Surface Mining to Rural Residential (RR-10). The Board found that the
property did not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3, was not subject to protection
under Goal 3, and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change did not require an exception
to Goal 3. (Exhibit 4).
The Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the change in classification is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 Zone. A change in classification will
preserve the rural character of the subject property, due to the low density of development
allowed in the MUA-10 zone, while permitting development consistent with that character.
As set forth in the findings below, the subject property is not suited to full-time commercial
farming but could be used for hobby farming. Low density development will also conserve
open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. The Hearings Officer finds that
approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low -density
development, and will comprise a transition zone between the City and EFU zoning to the
east.
The Hearings Officer's findings regarding agricultural land and Goal 3 exception are set forth
in the findings below.
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: There is no proposal to develop the property at this time. The above criterion asks
if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The
applicant provides the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property, including
electrical power from Pacific Power and well logs showing water services are available to serve the
property. Exhibit 7.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 23 of 57
Transportation access to the property is available from the stubbed local street connections of
Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue to the west in the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. MUA-
10 zoning and a standard subdivision would allow the creation of up to 3 residential lots and a
cluster development would allow up to 7 residential lots. If developed with a cluster development,
the property could generate up to 49 additional daily trips, which according to the traffic report
by Transight Consulting is a slight increase in trips, but the impact of these trips is negligible on
the transportation system and the functional classification of all the adjacent roadways will not
be affected with the proposed rezone. The existing road network is available to serve the use of
the property if developed.
The property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and is in Rural Fire
Protection District #2 with the nearest fire station nearby. Neighboring properties contain
residential uses, which have water service from a municipal source or wells, on -site sewage
disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in
public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare.
Neighboring properties contain residential and commercial uses, which have water service
from a quasi -municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service,
telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that
would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare.
Public commentators expressed concern about access to the subject property. One
commentator stated that Ward Road is 3/4 mile away and that the property is not accessible
other than via a canal road, which is gated. Other commentators stated that access from City
of Bend roads (Daylily Avenue and Darnel Avenue) that are currently stubbed at the edge of
the eastern boundary of the Bend UGB, through existing subdivisions will be dangerous. The
applicant's attorney stated that there are no current plans to develop the property. The
applicant may offer the property for sale or develop as MUA-10 zone. Alternatively, the
applicant could hold onto the property until the next Bend UGB expansion process.
The Hearings Officer finds that no access to the subject property is required to be established
for purposes of consideration of the re -designation and rezoning applications. Any future
development will have to establish access in compliance with applicable zoning regulations
and the comprehensive plan.
Prior to development of the property, the applicant will be required to comply with the
applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code, including possible land use permit,
building permit, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review
processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified.
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 24 of 57
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the
specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The applicant's submitted burden of proof statement addresses potential impacts
on surrounding land uses as related to each individual policy and goal item within the
County's Comprehensive Plan in subsequent findings. Analysis of consistency with each
applicable goal and policy is set forth in the findings below.
The Hearings Officer finds that the MUA-10 zoning is the same zoning of many other
properties in the areas east and south of the subject property. As the Hearings Officer found
above, MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from the City to EFU zoning. The
requested zone change will not impose new impacts on EFU-zoned land to the north of the
subject property because that property is a small parcel, approximately 12 acres in size, that
is not engaged in commercial farm use and is developed with a nonfarm dwelling. Further,
MUA-10 zoning will have minimal impacts on EFU-zoned land adjacent to the northeast
corner of the subject property.
As determined by the applicant's soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, it is not practical to farm the
subject property because it is comprised primarily of Class 7 and 8 soils and is characterized
by a cut-up landscape. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not land that could
be used in conjunction with the adjacent property. Any future development of the subject
property will be subject to building setbacks.
The Hearings Officer finds 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 is proposing to rezone the property from EFU to MUA10 and re-
designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant
has provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
1. Mistake. The EFU zoning designation was likely based on the best available soils data that the
County had at the time in the County in the late 1970's when the comprehensive plan and map
were adopted and where agricultural zoning was applied to land with no history of farming78.
7 Gallagher's soils analysis report for the subject property determined that the subject property was
previously mapped by the USDA-SCS Soil Survey of the Deschutes County Area and compiled by NRCS
into the Web Soil Survey. The property was previously mapped at 1:20,000 scale, which is generally
too small a scale for detailed land use planning and decision making, according to Gallagher.
8 Source: Agricultural Lands Program Community Involvement Results. Community Development,
Deschutes County. June 18, 2014.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 25 of 57
2, Change in Circumstances: There clearly has been a change in circumstances since the property
was last zoned in the 1970s.
Soils: New soils data provided in the Gallagher soils report shows the property does not
have agricultural soils.
Forming economics and viability of farm uses in Central Oregon have significantly changed.
Making a profit in farming, particularly on smaller parcels such as the subject property, is
difficult as stated below in the stakeholder interview of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau
in the County's 2014 agricultural Lands Program Community involvement Results:
Today's economics make it extremely difficultfor commercial farmers in Deschutes
County to be profitable. Farmers have a difficult time being competitive because
other regions (Columbia Basin, Willamette Valley) produce crops at higher yields,
havegreater access to transportation and consumer markets, and experience more
favorable growing climates and soils. Ultimately, the global economy undermines
agricultural opportunities in the county because commodities derived from outside
the region can be produced at a lower cost. Water limitations also play a role. Junior
water right holders are constrained as the summer progresses and they lose their
rights to those with higher priority dates.
Decline in farm operations have steadily declined in Deschutes County between 2012 and 2017,
with only a small fraction of farm operators achieving a net profit from farming in 2017. (Exhibit
8).
Encroaching development east of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary has brought both traffic and
higher density residential uses and congestion to the area.
The applicant's attorney argued at the public hearing that it is not economical or fiscally
responsible to retain the subject property as agricultural/farm land given the fact that it is
non -productive land.
Patrick McCoy testified at the public hearing that there are several other parcels/tracts that
are "getting ready to do the same thing' as the applicant. He also stated that a 59-acre parcel
was allowed to "go dead" to meet requirements for a rezone. He is concerned about slowing
down growth in this area and further expressed concerns that the subject property is
landlocked. Mr. McCoy stated that there is a lot of development occurring within a 2-mile
radius of his property.
Matt Carey testified at the public hearing that development is increasingly encroaching on
green space and animals are getting pushed out. He also expressed concerns about access
to the subject property.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 26 of 57
Kecia Weaver testified that high schoolers participate in 4H and FFA, raising animals and that
smaller parcels of land are used for agriculture on a small scale. She values slow growth and
maintaining the rural concept, to preserve open spaces. Ms. Weaver is concerned about the
rapid development of large acreage and the impact on deer, rabbits, hawks, eagles and bats.
She stated that Ward Road is .75 miles away from the subject property, which is not
accessible other than via a gated canal road. Ms. Weaver requested that the applications be
denied to slow the growth. She further stated that the applications could be considered at
the time the UGB expansion is underway.
The Hearings Officer makes the following findings. First, whether or not owners of other
properties may, or may not, request a change of comprehensive plan designation and zoning
is not relevant to the Hearings Officer's consideration of the current applications. Each
application must be considered on its own merits.
Second, concerns regarding development encroachment support a finding of change of
circumstances. Given the evidence that shows the subject property is not comprised of
agricultural soils, and is not land that could be used in conjunction with adjacent property,
the requested rezone will provide an appropriate transition between urban City
development and rural EFU properties.
Third, the Hearings Officer does not have authority to deny the requested applications on
the basis of concerns about growth. While understandable, the applications may be granted
where, as here, all applicable criteria are met.
Fourth, the applicant's attorney commented at the public hearing that delaying the
applications until the City considers its next urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion will
preclude the subject property from consideration.
Fifth, with respect to 4H and FFA activities, the Hearings Officer finds that the requested
rezone to MUA-10 will continue to allow for hobby farming.
Sixth, concerning wildlife concerns, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not
within a Wildlife Area combining zone; there are no specific wildlife preservation regulations
applicable to the property. There is no evidence that the requested rezone, and and of itself,
will impact wildlife.
Finally, with respect to access, the Hearings Officer finds that no development is proposed
at this time and, therefore, access need not be finally determined. If the subject property is
developed in the future, the record shows that access from stubbed streets to the west may
be considered.
For all the foregoing reasons, and based on evidence in the record that shows declining farm
operations and limited numbers of financially successful farm operations (Exhibit 8), the
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 27 of 57
Hearings Officer finds that a change of circumstances since the time the property was last
zoned exists. This criterion is met.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands
Goal 7, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof
statement:
The applicant is pursuing a plan amendment and zone change on the basis that the subject
property does not constitute "agricultural lands," and therefore, the subject lands are not
necessary to preserve or maintain as such. In the Landholdings decision (and Powell/Ramsey
decision) the Hearings Officer found that Goal 1 is an aspirational goal and not an approval
criterion.
As demonstrated in this application, the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land"
and therefore, is not necessary to preserve and maintain the CounVs agricultural industry. The
Gallagher soils report shows the subject property to consist predominantly (63.7%) of Class 7 and
8 non-agricultural soils (Gosney-Rock Outcrop complex). According to Mr. Gallagher, these soils
have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow
soils, abundant rock outcrops and lava tubes, low available water capacity, and major
management limitations for livestock grazing. In addition, the minor amount of Deskamp soils
(Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are in small isolated pockets and severely restricted by lava
tubes, shallow rocky soils, irrigation ditches and property lines that they cannot be used in farming
in conjunction with the non -productive Gosney-Rock outcrop. The property also is physically
remote from productive farmland as it is adjacent to the City of Bend's urban development to the
west and rural residential development to the east and south. Mr. Gallagher concludes that the
"landscape is so cut up it is impractical to farm".
The Hearings Officer finds Mr. Gallagher's report supports a finding that the subject property
does not constitute agricultural land. The subject property is not land that could be used in
conjunction with the adjacent property. The requested plan amendment and rezone will not
contribute to loss of agricultural land in the surrounding vicinity. The agricultural industry
will not be negatively impacted by re -designation and rezoning of the subject property.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Section 2.2, Goal 1,
"preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry."
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
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 28 of 57
findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is
rezoned as allowed by Policy2.2.3.
FINDING: The applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the subject
property; rather, the applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided
evidence to support rezoning the subject property to MUA10. The Hearings Officer finds this
Policy is inapplicable.
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 is seeking approval of a plan amendment and zone change to re-
designate and rezone the property from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area. The
applicant is not seeking an exception to Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands, but rather seeks to
demonstrate that the subject property does not meet the state definition of "Agricultural
Land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020).
The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
Deschutes County has allowed this approach in previous Hearings Officer's decisions including
Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings (247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA), Department of State Lands (PA-11-
7/ZC-11-2), Pagel (PA-08-1/ZC-08-1), and the Daniels Group (PA-08-1, ZC-08-1). Additionally, the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed this approach in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or
LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states, at pp.678-679:
'As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there
are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land
previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an
exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to
adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands
or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues
the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and
zoning designation, neither Goal 3 nor Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v.
Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209, 218 (1993), DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or
LUBA 798, 802 (1990)."
LUBA's decision in Wetherell has appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon
Supreme Court but neither court disturbed LUBA's ruling on this point. in fact, the Oregon Supreme
Court changed the test for determining whether land is agricultural land to make it less stringent.
Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). In that case, the Supreme Court
stated that:
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 29 of 57
"Under Goal 3, land must be preserved as agricultural land if it is suitable for farm
use' as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), which means, in part, 'the current employment
of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money'through specific
farming -related endeavors." Wetherell, 342 Or at 677.
The Wetherell court held that when deciding whether land is agricultural land "a local government
may not be precluded from considering the costs or expenses of engaging in those activities."
Wetherell, 342 Or at 680. The facts presented in the subject application are sufficiently similar to
those in the Wetherell decisions and in the above -mentioned Deschutes County plan amendment
and zone change applications. The subject property is primarily composed of Class 7 or 8
nonagricultural soils making farm -related endeavors not profitable. This application complies
with Policy 2.2.3.
The Hearings Officer finds that the facts presented by the applicant in the burden of proof
for the subject applications are similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the
aforementioned Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant established the property is not
agricultural land and does not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law. The Hearings
Officer finds the applications are consistent with Policy 2.2.3.
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. The policy is not
directed to an individual applicant, as the Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings
decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on the County's
previous determinations in plan amendment and zone change applications, the proposal is
consistent with this Policy.
Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent
with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
FINDING: This plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that
are accurately designated. The policy is not directed to an individual applicant, as the
Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The
Hearings Officer finds that the subject property was not accurately designated as
demonstrated by the soil study, NRCS soil data, and the applicant's burden of proof. Further
discussion on the soil analysis provided by the analysis is set forth in the findings under the
OAR Division 33 criteria below. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this
Policy.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 30 of 57
Section 2 5 Water Resources Policies
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies.
Policy2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed
for significant land uses or developments.
FINDING: The applicant is not proposing a specific development application at this time.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant is not required to demonstrate water
impacts associated with development. Rather, the applicant will be required to address this
criterion during development of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any
necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). The
Hearings Officer finds this Policy does not apply to the subject applications.
Chapter 3, Rural Growth
Section 3.2. Rural Development
Growth Potential
As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was
thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth
patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new
rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new
residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations.
Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses
can be rezoned as rural residential
FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies, but
does provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the applicant's burden of proof
provides the following:
As shown above, the County's Comprehensive Plan provisions anticipate the need for additional
rural residential lots as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to
rezone farm lands with poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While the rezone
application does not include the creation of new residential lots, the applicant has demonstrated
the subject property is comprised of poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential MUA-10 zone
uses to the east and south as well as urban residential zones within the Bend citylimits to the west.
Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 is consistent with this criterion, as it will provide for an
orderly and efficient transition from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural
lands.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 31 of 57
The MUA-10 Zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Findings of Fact above,
there are many adjacent properties to the south and east that are zoned MUA-10.
Additionally, the properties to the west are within urban residential zones within the city
limits of Bend. The Hearings Officer notes this policy references the soil quality, which is
discussed above.
The Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the subject property to MUA-0 is consistent with
Section 3.2, Chapter 3 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as it will provide for an
orderly and efficient transition from the Bend UGB to rural and agricultural lands.
Section 3.3, Rural Housing
Rural Residential Exception Areas
In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other
resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this
Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated
Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow
a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm
or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted
for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted.
In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural
Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new
rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be
justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and
urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR.
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof:
Prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3 is not a plan policy or directive9.
Further, no goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 is required for the rezone application
because the subject property does not qualify as farm or forest zoning or agricultural lands under
the statewide planning goals. The County has interpreted the RREA plan designation as the proper
"catchall" designation for non -resource land and therefore, the Rural Residential Exception Area
(RREA) plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property10.
9 See PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2, 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA, and 247-18-000485-PA, 486-ZC
10 The Hearings Officer's decision for PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2 concerning this language of Section 3.3 states:
To the extent that the quoted language above represents a policy, it appears to be directed at a
fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language
addresses conversions of'farm"or " forest"land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 32 of 57
Based on past Deschutes County Hearings Officer interpretations, the Hearings Officer finds
that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to the applicable
Statewide Planning Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed RREA plan designation
is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property.
Section 3.7. Transportation
Appendix C - Transportation System Plan
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN
Goal4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed
and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for
residential mobility and tourism.
Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification
and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This
shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of
the transportation system.
FINDING: This plan policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway
function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan amendments and zone changes. The
County will comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) aka OAR 660-012, as described below in subsequent findings.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands
OAR 660-006-0005, Definitions
indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order
to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division
004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has
been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of
nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not'farmland"
as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use.
As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the
land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be
taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed
or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type
of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the
Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal 3.
247-21 -000400- PA1401 -ZC Page 33 of 57
(7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest
lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include.
(a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent
or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or
practices, and
(b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and
wildlife resources.
FINDING: The subject property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties
within a two-mile radius. The property does not contain merchantable tree species and there
is no evidence in the record that the property has been employed for forestry uses
historically. None of the soil units comprising the parcel is rated for forest uses according to
NRCS data. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute forest
land.
Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands;
OAR 660-015-000Q U3
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with
existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with
the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.
FINDING: Goal 3 defines "Agricultural Land," which is repeated in OAR 660-033-0020(1). The
Hearings Officer's findings below are incorporated herein by reference.
OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions
For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning
Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall
apply.
(1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes:
(A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI
soils in Eastern Oregon";
11 OAR 660-033-0020(5): "Eastern Oregon" means that portion of the state lying east of a line beginning at the
intersection of the northern boundary of the State of Oregon and the western boundary of Wasco County, then south
along the western boundaries of the Counties of Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath to the southern boundary
of the State of Oregon.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 34 of 57
FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the
premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." In support, the
applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
The subject property is not properly classified as Agricultural Land and does not merit protection
under Goal 3. The soils are predominately Class 7 and 8 soils as shown by the more detailed soils
report prepared by soils scientist Andy Gallagher, which State law, OAR 660-033-0030, allows the
County to rely on for more accurate soils information. Mr. Gallagher found that approximately
6496 of the soils on the subject property (about 24 acres) is Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils that
have severe limitations for farm use. He also found the site to have low soil fertility, shallow and
very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface, lava tubes, and
irrigation ditches, low available water capacity, and limiting areas suitable for grazing and
restricting livestock accessibility, all of which are considerations for the determination for
suitabilityfor farm use. Because the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and
8 soils, the property does not meet the definition of 'Agricultural Lands" under OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A) listed above, that is having predominantly Class I -VI soils.
The Hearings Officer finds that the soil study provided by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils is an
accurate representation of the data for the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer
finds, based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the subject
property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils and, therefore, does not
constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(i )(a)(K) above.
(B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in
ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability
for grazing, climatic conditions; existing and future availability of
water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns;
technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming
practices; and
FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the
premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." The applicant
provides the following analysis of this determination in the burden of proof.
This part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the County to consider whether the Class
7 and 8 soils found on the subject property are suitable for farm use despite their Class 7 and 8
classification. The Oregon Supreme Court has determined that the term 'form use" as used in this
rule and Goal 3 means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a
profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors. The costs of engaging in farm use are
relevant to determining whether farm activities are profitable and this is a factor in determining
whether land is agricultural land. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 Pad 614 (2007).
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 35 of 57
The subject property does not have water rights, has not been farmed, or used in conjunction with
any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map shown
on the County's GIS mapping program identifies two soil complex units on the property. 36A,
Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex. The predominant soil
complex on the subject properly is 58C. 58C is not a high value soil as defined by Deschutes County
Code. 36A is considered a high value soil when irrigated. However, as discussed in detail below,
there is no irrigation on the property and an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (Order 1 soil
survey) conducted on the property by soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, determined that the property
is not agricultural land; that the class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets
interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural
use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. (See Exhibit 5 for Mr.
Gallagher's Soil Assessment Report).
A review of the seven considerations listed in the administrative rule, below, shows why the poor
soils found on the subject property are not suitable for farm use that can be expected to be
profitable:
Soil Fertility:
Mr. Gallagher made the following findings regarding soil fertility on the subject property.,
"Important soil properties affecting the soil fertility and productivity of the soils are very
limiting to crop production [emphasis added by applicant] on this parcel. The soils here
are low fertility, being ashy sandy loams with a low cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 7.5
meq/100 gm and organic matter is verylow for Gosney 0.75% and low for Deskamps 1.5%.
These soils do not have a large capacity to store soil nutrients especially cations, and
nitrogen fertilizers readily leach in sandy soils. The soil depth is further limiting because it
limits the overall volume of soil available for plant roots and limits the size the overall
nutrient pool. Additionally, the soil available water holding capacity is very low for Gosney
less than 1.8 inches for the whole soil profile, and for the very shallow soils it is half this
much. The Deskamps soils have only about 2 to 4 inches AWHC translate into low
productivityfor crops. NRCS does not provide any productivity data for non -irrigated crops
on these soils. The productivity of irrigated alfalfa is 4 tons per acre for Deskamps, and no
rating for Gosney is same as a zero. There are perhaps 7 acres that could produce alfalfa
with irrigation that could produce 28 tons alfalfa under irrigation and high fertility but
after costs this would amount to no profit."
The fact that these soils are low fertility unless made fertile through artificial means supports the
applicant's position that the Class 7 soils and the entire property is not suitable for farm use. The
costs to purchase and apply fertilizer and soil amendments and the costs to sample and test soils
are a part of the reason why it is not profitable to farm the subject property.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 36 of 57
Unsuitability for Grazing.
Mr. Gallagher also reviewed whether the parcel is suitable for grazing and found:
'This 37.7-acre parcel is not suited to grazing on a commercial scale [emphasis added
by applicant]. The soils here have major management limitations including ashy and
sandy surface texture. The majority of the area has soils that are very shallow to shallow
with many rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface. Wind erosion is a potential
hazard is moderately high when applying range improvement practices. Because the soil
is influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the
vegetation is removed or deteriorated. Pond development is limited by the soil depth. The
restricted soil depth limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant
varieties. Further, range seeding with ground equipment is limited by the rock fragments
on the surface. The areas of very shallow soils and rock outcrop limit the areas suitable far
grazing and restrict livestock accessibility.
Total Range Production from NRCS Websoil survey and estimate based soil
percentages in revised soil map units
Soil Map Unit gTotal annual range -ro uction pounds per acre
Unfavorable year w Normal year Favorable year
36A 700 1100
904
55 .. — 705
Dk 700 _ _.m _ 94. _ _ 1100
GR 315 _..
567
Fst� imated based on weighted average of soils.
Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually
in a well -managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It
includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. it includes the
current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the
increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry
vegetation. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to
a common percent of air-dry moisture content. The productivity provided for Dk map unit
is from Websoil survey for the Deskamp soil and that provided for the GR map unit is based
on 40% very shallow soils, 35% Gosney and 25% rock outcrop.
Based on previous NRCS map has a weighted average annual productivity of 669 pounds
per acre in a normal year. Based on the revised Order-1 map the annual productivity is
even lower, 540 pounds per acre. The animal use months (AVMs) for this 37.7 acre parcel
is 5.5 based on the revised soil map and a monthly value of 910 pounds forage per 1 AUM
equivalent to pounds per cow calf pair. This model assumes the cow's take to be 2596 of
annual productivity in order to maintain site productivity and soil health (NRCS 2009). This
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 37 of 57
limits the grazing to one cow calf pair roughly 5 to 6 months annually. This is not an
economical model for livestock production [emphasis added by applicant].
Inappropriate grazing causes a reduction in desirable grasses and where present
cheatgrass will increase and granite pricklygilia increases and grasses decline. Cheatgrass
becomes dominate along with grey rabbitbrush. Ground fire potential increases with
increasing cheatgrass. Cutting of juniper leads to an increase in grey rabbitbrush and an
increase in cheatgrass with or without grazing. Idaho fescue is eliminated from areas
where trees are removed due to harsh microclimate and cheatgrass replaces it. The
addition of inappropriate grazing would lead to a decline in the other deep-rooted
perennial bunchgrasses and an increase in annuals and granite pricklygilia."
Climatic Conditions
According to Mr. Gallagher, climatic conditions of this area make is [sic] difficult for production of
most crops, as stated below:
'The low annual precipitation, high summer temperature and evapotranspiration rates,
and shortened frost free growing season make this a difficult climate for production of
most crops [emphasis added by applicant]. Irrigation is needed on area farms to meet
crop needs given only 8 to 10 inches precipitation that falls mainly between November and
June, with a long summer drought. The soil temperature regime is mesic. The average
annual air temperature is 46 degrees Fwith extreme temperatures ranging from -26 to 104
degrees F. The frost free period is 50 to 90 days. The optimum period for plant growth is
from late March through June. Freeze free period (average) 140 days. (NRCS 2020) These
harsh climatic conditions coupled with very low soil available water holding capacity limits
the potential of irrigated crop production to the Deskamps soils."
Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm Irrigation Purposes:
No new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the Central Oregon Irrigation District
(COID) in the foreseeable future. In order to obtain water rights, the applicant would need to
convince another COID customer to remove water rights from their property and sell them to the
applicant and obtain State and COID approval to apply the water rights to the subject property.
In such a transaction, water rights would be taken off productive farm ground and applied to the
nonagricultural soils found on the subject property. Such a transaction runs counter to the
purpose of Goal 3 to maintain productive Agricultural Land in farm use.
Given the poor quality of these soils, it is highly unlikely that Central Oregon irrigation District
would approve a transfer of water rights to this property. in addition, no person intending to make
a profit in farming would go to the expense of purchasing water rights, mapping the water rights
and establishing an irrigation system to irrigate the lands on the subject property.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 38 of 57
Given the dry climate, it is necessary to irrigate the subject property to grow an alfalfa crop and
to maintain a pasture. A farmer would need to spend significant sums of money to purchase water
rights, irrigation systems, maintain the systems, pay laborers to move and monitor equipment,
obtain electricity, pay irrigation district assessments and pay increased liability insurance
premiums for the risks involved with farming operations.
Irrigating the soils found on the subject property as described by Mr. Gallagher, that have low
fertility, low capacity to store nutrients, and very low available water holding capacity translates
into low productivity for crops that would amount to no profit.
Existing land Use Patterns
Existing land use patterns in the area are primarily non-agricultural related land uses including
urban development to the west within the Bend Citylimits, County exception lands zoned MUA-10
developed with homes and small acres of irrigation for pasture and other hobby farm uses to the
east and south, and irrigated farmland zoned EFU-TRB to the north and northeast.
The EFU-zoned properties to the north and northeast include:
North and northeast of the subject property is a pocket of EFU-zoned property. The
adjacent property to the north, tax lot 18-12-02-1001, is a 12.45-acre EFU-zoned property
that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling ale no. CU-01-75).
Northeast is tax lot 18-12-02-201, a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is irrigated and engaged
in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a dwelling and
outbuildings.
The close proximity to the City of Bend and residential areas limit the types of agricultural activities
that could reasonably be conducted for profit on the subject property. The subject property would
not be suitable for raising animals that are disturbed by noise. Additionally, the property owner
would bear the burden of paying for harm that might be caused by livestock escape, in particular
livestock and vehicle collisions. Any agricultural use that requires the application of pesticides and
herbicides would be very difficult to conduct on the property given the numerous homes located
in close proximity to the property. In addition, the creation of dust which accompanies the
harvesting of crops is a major concern on this property due to the close proximity residential use.
Technological and Energy Inputs Required.
According to Mr. Gallagher.
'The veryshallow and shallow soils and abundant rock outcrops limit practical agricultural
crop production on all but about 7 acres out of the 10 acres of Deskamps soils. The
Deskamps soils are into four separate delineations that are separated by rocky and
shallow soils and rock outcrops and lava tubes as well as irrigation ditches. The landscape
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 39 of 57
is so cut up it is impractical to farm [emphasis added by applicant]. The best case
scenario for crop production is for an area approximately seven acres along the north
edge of the parcel that is spotted with rock outcrops and is of a very irregular shape. This
area could at most produce about 28 tons of alfalfa under high fertilizer inputs and high
irrigation water inputs. Current hay prices are from $200.00 to $250.00 per ton which
would give an annual gross of about $5,600.00 to $7,000.00, before expenses. After
expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting, costs of production like
irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, costs of harvest including swath, rake, and bale, stack,
and costs of handling, storage and marketing there would be no profit associated with
producing hay crops on such a small area [emphasis added by applicant]."
Accepted Farming Practices:
Farming lands comprised of soils that are predominately Class 7 and 8 is not an accepted farm
practice in Central Oregon. Dryland grazing, the farm use that can be conducted on the poorest
soils in the County, typically occurs on Class 6 non -irrigated soils that have a higher soils class if
irrigated. The applicant would have to go above and beyond accepted farming practices to even
attempt to farm the propertyfor dryland grazing. Crops are typicallygrown on soils in soil class 3
and 4 that have irrigation, which this property has neither.
The Hearings Officer finds that many of the factors surrounding the subject property, such
as the proximity to the Bend city limits, current residential and non-agricultural related land
uses in the area, soil fertility, spotty/small areas of Mass 3 (irrigated) and Class 6 (non -
irrigated) soils, and lack of availability of water rights, result in an extremely low possibility
of successful farming on the subject property.
The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property, primarily comprised of Class 7 and 8
soils, is not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration
the soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climactic conditions, existing and future availability of
water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy
outputs required and accepted farming practices. Substantial evidence in the record
supports a determination that the subject property cannot be employed for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money through farming -related endeavors, considering the
costs of engaging in farm use. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666,160 Pad 614 (2007).
Soils on the subject property can only be made fertile through artificial means, which is cost
prohibitive from a profitability standpoint. The subject property is not suitable to grazing on
a commercial scale given management limitations and expected low production of suitable
vegetation. Climactic conditions result in difficulty for production of most crops. Given the
fact that no new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the COID in the
foreseeable future and the poor quality of soils on the subject property, it is unlikely COID
would approve a transfer of water rights to the property. Existing land use patterns also limit
the suitability of grazing animals on the subject property which is in close proximity to the
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 40 of 57
City of Bend. A limited, approximately 7-acre portion of the subject property that could, at
most, produce 28 tons of alfalfa with high fertilizer and water inputs, would not generate any
profit after expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting and costs of
production (irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, cost of harvest and cost of handling storage
and marketing). Accepted farm practices in Central Oregon do not include farming lands
comprised of soils that are predominantly Class 7 and 8. In order to conduct dryland grazing
on the subject property, the applicant would have to take measures beyond accepted
farming practices, including attempting to obtain a water rights transfer.
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on
adjacent or nearby agricultural lands.
FINDING: The applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof
statement:
The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent
or nearby lands. The nearest agriculturally zoned land engaged in farm use to the subject property
is located northeast on tax lot 18-12-02-201. This property is a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is
irrigated and engaged in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a
dwelling and outbuildings. The farm operations on tax Lot 201 operate independently and are not
dependent upon the subject property to conduct its farm practices. This is evidenced by the subject
property being owned by the applicant since 1930 and has never been farmed, much less
combined with tax lot 201 in any way for agricultural purposes. Farming operations on tax lot 201
will be able to continue to occur if the subject property is rezoned to MUA-10. Further, the poor
quality soils and lack of irrigation are not suited to agricultural production and make the subject
property unsuitable for farm practices on the nearby agricultural land.
The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not necessary for the purposes of
permitting farm practices on the nearby Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) based on the
factors discussed in the previous finding.
(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent
to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI
within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands
even though this land may not be cropped or grazed,
FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof
statement:
The subject property is not and has not been a part of a farm unit that includes other lands not
currently owned by the applicant. The property has no history of farm use and contains soils that
make it unsuitable for farm use and therefore, no basis to inventory the subject property as
agricultural land.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 41 of 57
Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land". If a
majority of the soils is Class 1-6 in in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural
land. " 1000 Friends position is that this is a 100% Class 7 -8 soils test rather than a 51 % Class 7
and 8 soils test because the presence of any Class 1-6 soil requires the County to identify the entire
property "agricultural land." Case law indicates that the Class 1 -6 soil test applies to a subject
property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out
beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to
lands in active farming in the area that were once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is
not a test that requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1-6.
The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by
preventing property owners from dividing farmland into smaller properties that, alone, do not
meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area
of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so
that land could be removed from EFU zoning. As demonstrated by the historic use patterns and
soils reports, it does not have poor soils adjacent to or intermingled with good soils within a farm
unit. The subject property is not in farm use and has not been in farm use of any kind It has no
history c f commercial farm use and contains soils that make the propertygenerally unsuitable for
farm use as the term is defined by State low. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land.
The subject property is predominately Class 7 and 8 soils and would not be considered a farm unit
itself nor part of a larger farm unit based on the poor soils and the fact that none of the adjacent
property is farmed.
As shown by the soils capability study by Mr. Gallagher, the predominant soil type found on the
subject property is Class 7 and 8, nonagricultural land (63.7%). The predominance test says that
the subject property is not agricultural soil and the farm unit rule does not require that the Class
7-8 soils that comprise the majority of the subject property be classified as agricultural land due
to the presence of a small amount of Gass 1-6 soils on the subject property that are not employed
in farm use and are not part of a farm unit. As a result, this rule does not require the Class 7 and
8 soils on the subject property to be classified agricultural land because a minority of the property
contains soils rated Class 6.
The Hearings Officer finds that there are no bases on which to find that the subject property
shall be inventoried as agricultural lands under this criterion. The property does not relate
to land in active farming, and there are no parcels in the area that were once part of the
subject property. A majority of the soils (63.7%) are not Class 1-6. Therefore, under the
predominance test, the subject property is not agricultural. The farm unit rule does not
mandate a different result. The subject property is not employed in farm use and is not now,
nor in the past, part of a farm unit.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 42 of 57
(c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged
urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged
exception areas for Goal 3 or 4.
FINDING: The subject property is not within an acknowledged urban growth boundary or
land within acknowledged exception areas for Goals 3 or 4. The Hearings Officer finds this
criterion is inapplicable.
OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land
(1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be
inventoried as agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification
of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being
inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an
inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil
classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set
forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of
conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot
or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3
nonetheless defines as agricultural 'lands in other classes which are
necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
lands': A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires
findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the
factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
FINDING: The applicant addressed the factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1) above. As the
Hearings Officer has found herein, the property is not "agricultural land," as referenced in
OAR 660-033-0030(1), and contains barriers for farm use including poor quality soils and lack
of irrigation.
The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows the subject property
is not "agricultural land" because the property is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils. As the
Hearings Officer found above, the subject property is not necessaryto permit farm practices
to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands.
(3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when
determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land,
regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel
is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be
undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 43 of 57
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that evidence in the record, including examination of
lands outside the boundaries of the subject property, shows the subject property is not
"agricultural land." Substantial evidence shows that the subject property is not suitable for
farm use and is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby lands.
(5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be
used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall
be related to the NRCS land capability classification system.
(b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that
contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as ofJanuary2, 2012,
would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land
qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department
arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil
classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR
660-033-0045.
FINDING: The soil study prepared by Mr. Gallagher (Exhibit 5) provides more detailed soils
information than contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Exhibit 5 includes the Soil
Assessment Completeness Review conducted by DLCD pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a),
dated February 12, 2021, confirming the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher meets the
requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting.
Mr. Gallagher's soils assessment report provides a high intensity Order-1 soil survey and soil
assessment - a detailed and accurate soils assessment on the subject property based on
numerous soil samples - to determine if the subject property is "agricultural land" within the
meaning of OAR 660-033-0020. As explained in Mr. Gallagher's report, the NRCS soil map of
the subject property shows two general soil mapping units, 58C and 36A. The more detailed
Order-1 survey conducted by Mr. Gallagher included 41 soil test pits, in addition to
observations of surface rock on the parcel. The results of the previous and revised soils
mapping units with land capability class are provided in Table 1 below.
The soils report is related to the NCRS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that
classifies soils class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules
provided by the NRCS. The soils report provides more detailed soils information than
contained on the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS, which provides general soils data
at a scale generally too small for detailed land use planning and decision making.
The NRCS mapping for the subject property is shown below in Figure 1. According to the
NRCS Web Soil Surveytool, the property contains approximately 33.7% 36A soil and contains
66.3% 58C soil. The soils study conducted by Mr. Gallagher finds the soil types on the subject
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 44 of 57
property vary from the NRCS identified soil types. The soil types described by Mr. Gallagher
(as quoted from Exhibit 5) and the characteristics and LCC rating are shown in Table 1 below.
GR Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex
Capability Class: 7 and 8 mapped as complex
These soils are mapped together in a complex because both components are Capability Class 7 or
greater, and it was not practical to map them separately. These soils are estimated to be about25
percent Rock Outcrop and 75 percent Gosney. They have lower productivity than NRCS map unit
38B because they do not contain a mappable area of Deskamp soils that were mapped separately.
The productivity reported in Table 2 for Gosney-Rock Outcrop are 20 percent less than the 58C
map unit to account for more shallow and very shallow soils in the GR map unit in the revised
map unit. Based on the observations here, the map unit is about 40 percent very shallow soils, 35
percent Gosney soils, and 25 percent rock outcrops.
Gosney loamy sand and stony loamy sand (0 to 15 percent slopes)
Description: Gosney series consists of shallow (10 to 20 inches) to hard basalt bedrock,
somewhat excessively drained soils on lava plains. These soils have rapid permeability.
They formed in volcanic ash over hard basalt bedrock. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. The
mean annual precipitation is less than 12 inches, and the mean annual temperature is
about 45 degrees F.
Capability Class: 7
Soil Variability. Depth to bedrock is from surface exposures of bedrock to 20 inches depth.
There may be small inclusions of soils like Deskamp that are moderately deep (>20 inches
to 40 inches). Many of the pedons are very stony. This unit includes very shallow soils <10
inches.
Very shallow phase 0-15 percent slopes
Description: This component of the complex is less than 10 inches to basalt.
Capability Class: 7
Soil Variability: Depth to bedrock is from 1 to 10 inches. These soils are very shallow and
of similar parent material to Gosney. These soils have lower available water holding
capacity and an estimated 40 percent lower productivity.
Rock Outcrop (0 to 15 percent slopes)
Description: This part of the map unit is areas where bedrock is at the surface.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 45 of 57
Capability Class: 8
Soil Variability: In places, rocks are right at the surface and often times bedrock is
standing several feet above the surface of the adjacent soils. In some areas (borings 39-41)
there is rimrock large boulders and other surface stone where suspected lava tubes
collapsed.
Dk Deskamp loamy sand
Description: This map unit is mainly moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils with
rapid permeability on lava plains. These soils formed in ash and have hard basalt at 20 to 40
inches. Slopes are 1 to 15 percent The A and AB horizon are loamy sand. The 2B is loamy sand
and gravelly loamy sand. The NRCS soils survey mapped Deskamp and Gosney in a complex
described as 50% Deskamp and 35% Gosney. In this Dk unit I delineated the Deskamp component
of the former complex and mapped it as a consociation based on more detailed soil sampling
than the NRCS soil survey. This soil covers approximately 11 acres of the parcel and is broken up
into several small delineations two of which are less than an acre. These small and isolated areas
are impractical to farm. The largest delineation is 8.5 acres and has at least three areas of rock
outcrop that were delineated within.
Capability Class: 3-irrigated and 6 non -irrigated
Soil Variability: There are small inclusions of rock outcrop and of deep soils with sandy skeletal
family. Any rock outcrop I observed in the field was delineated from the Deskamp unit, but because
not all rock outcrops could be resolved at the one boring per acre average sampling intensity,
given the brushy conditions.
CN irrigation Canals
Description: These canals are non -soil areas that consist of water and steep banks. When canals
are dry they are hard rock bottom.
Capability Class: Not Rated
Based on Mr. Gallagher's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil Classifier, the
Hearings Officer finds the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site -
specific soil information for the subject property. The state's agricultural land rules, OAR
660-033-0030, allow the County to rely on the soil capability analysis prepared by Mr.
Gallagher, which is more detailed than the NRCS soil maps and soil surveys and the Web Soil
Survey operated bythe NRCS as of January 2, 2012. The Hearings Officer finds that the Order-
1 soil survey is related to the NRCS land capability classification system.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 46 of 57
The Hearings Officer finds that the more detailed soils information in the report prepared by
Mr. Gallagher assists the County to make a better determination of whether the subject
property qualifies as agricultural land. As set forth above, DLCD completed a Soil Assessment
Completeness Review pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), confirming the report prepared
by Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not
"agricultural land,"
Table 1- Summary of Order I Soil Survey
Previous
Revised
Capability Class
Previous
Revised Map
Map
Map
Soil Series Name
Ma
Ac
"/a-
u Ac
-��-
Symbol
Symbol
,
36A
6k-
Deskamp Ioamy sandQ to
-3 irrigated
12,2
32.3
10,9
28.90
3 percent slopes
6 non -irrigated
58C
-
Gosney-Rock outcrop-
6, 7 and 8
Deskamp complex, 0 to 15
25.5
67.7
0
0
percent stapes
_
GR
Gosney-Rock Outcrop
7 and 8
Q
0
Gom lex
24
63.7
CN
irrigation Canal
not rated
Q
0
2.6
7.4
Total
37.7
100
37.7
100
"Soils that were previously mapped as components of a complex that are mapped as consociat[ons in
revised map.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 47 of 57
(c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to:
(A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive
farm use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan
designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural
land; and
FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a non -resource plan designation on the basis
that the subject property is not defined as agricultural land.
(d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on
October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the
department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local
governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this
section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that
have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a soils study by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils dated
December 2, 2020. The soils study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date.
Staff received acknowledgement via email on February 16, 2021, from Hilary Foote,
Farm/Forest Specialist with the DLCD that the soils study is complete and consistent with
DLCD's reporting requirements.
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion to be met based on the submitted soils study and
confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 48 of 57
(e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional
information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as
agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county
determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3
and OAR 660-033-0020.
FINDING: The applicant has provided a DLCD certified soils study as well as NRCS soils data.
The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has complied with the soils analysis
requirements of OAR 660-033-0045 in order to obtain DLCD certification. DLCD's certification
establishes compliance with OAR 660-033-0045.
The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met.
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 land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect
an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government
must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land
use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it
would.
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an
adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system, or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating
projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated
within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment
includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including but not limited to,
transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or
completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with
the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility,
(6) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet the
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 49 of 57
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: As referenced in the agency comments section in the Findings of Fact above, the
Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County initially requested a revised traffic study
for the applications. The applicant submitted an updated report from Transight Consulting
LLC dated June 8, 2021, to address identified concerns and no further comments were
received from the County's Senior Transportation Planner. The update includes adjustments
to the review of potential high impact land use scenarios to include comparisons between a
winery and a cluster development, deemed the "worst case scenario" outright uses allowed
in EFU and MUA10 Zones, respectively.
In response to these criteria, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following
statement:
Attached as Exhibit 9 is a transportation impact analysis memorandum prepared by traffic
engineer, Joe Bessman, PE. Mr. Bessman made the following key findings with regard to the
proposed zone change and concluded that a significant affect does not occur with the proposed
rezone:
• Rezoning of the 36.65-acre COLD property from EFU- TRB to MUA could generate up to 49
additional weekday daily trips, including only five additional trips during the weekday p.m.
peak hour.
• The change in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of
significance at any nearby locations.
• The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the Marketplace
Subdivision that connect to the SE 271 Street corridor. This access configuration does not
impact Deschutes County streets.
• The nearest classified intersection of SE 271h Street/SE Reed Market Road has a very low
crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity.
Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with the proposed rezone given the minor
potential impacts in transitioning from EFU to MUA zoning.
Based on the traffic analysis and findings by Mr. Bessman, the application complies with the TPR.
Updated findings below, submitted by Transight Consulting on June 8, 2021, are set forth in
the revised traffic study:
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 50 of 57
• Rezoning of the 36.65-acre COID propertyfrom EFU-TRB to MUA provides similar potential
impacts to the existing zoning, with the potential for a trip reduction within a "worse case"
trip generation scenario.
• The reduction in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds
of significance at any nearby locations.
• The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the adjacent
Marketplace Subdivision that connect to the SE 271 Street corridor. This access
configuration does not impact Deschutes County streets.
• The nearest classified intersection of SE 27th Street(SE Reed Market Road has a very low
crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity.
Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with rezoning from EFU to MUA zoning.
With the range of outright allowable uses identified within ORS 215.213(1) and 215.283(1) as
a "property right" additional trip generation scenarios could be shown resulting in a trip
reduction. Regardless of the scenario, the overall impact of the rezone is negligible on the
transportation system and the rezone reflects the more appropriate use of the propertygiven
its unsuitability for farming.
Public comments received by the County indicate concerns with potential traffic impacts as
a result of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. These comments are non-
specific in nature, do not include any findings contrary to the findings set forth in the
Transight Consulting, LLC analyses, and do not include any information that is inconsistent
with the Transight Consulting, LLC's reports. Public comments express a generalized concern
about traffic impacts associated with additional growth if the subject property is developed.
The Hearings Officer notes that additional transportation/traffic review will be required at
the time of any future development application(s).
The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone will not significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility for the following reasons: (1) it will not change the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (2) it will not change
standards implementing a functional classification system; and (3) it will not result in any of
the following effects - types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, degradation of the
performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet
performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or degradation of the
performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected not
to meet performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
The Hearings Officer finds that, based on OAR 660-012-060(1), the County is not required to
put in place measures as provided in Section (2) of this rule. The applicant has demonstrated
compliance with the TPR. These criteria are met.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 51 of 57
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are addressed below, as set forth in the applicant's
burden of proof:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to
the public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the
applicant to post a "proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the
public hearings held regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A
minimum of two public hearings will be held to consider the application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies, and processes related to zone change
applications are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and
23 of the Deschutes County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings
of fact and conclusions of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required
by Goal 2.
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The applicant has shown that the subject property is not
agricultural land because it is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils that are not
suitable for farm use. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the subject property does not
include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Deschutes
County DIAL property information and Interactive Map show the subject property has
'Wetlands" that correspond with COID's irrigation distribution system within the property
including the developed canals and ditches. According to the Comprehensive Plan
(Chapters 2, Resource Management and 5, Supplemental Sections), in 1992 Deschutes
County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service National Wetland inventory (NWI) Maps as the Deschutes County wetland
inventory. In addition, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, the NWI Map "shows an
inventory of wetlands based on high -altitude aerial photos and limited field work.
While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes,
its small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent
(existing wetlands not shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property
boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -based decision making."
The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands, protections are provided
by ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning
code regulations). In the case of Irrigation Districts performing work within wetlands, DCC
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 52 of 57
18.120.050(C) regarding Fill and Removal Exceptions allows fill and removal activities as a
use permitted outright as stated below:
C. Fill and removal activities conducted by an Irrigation District involving
piping work in existing canals and ditches within wetlands are
permitted outright.
Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change are not development, there is
no impact to any Goal 5 resource. Any potential future development of a wetland - no
matter what zone the wetland is in - will be subject to review by the CounVs fill and
removal regulations.
Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not
impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future
development of the property would be subject to local, state and federal regulations that
protect these resources.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes
County DIAL property information and Interactive Map the entire Deschutes County,
including the subject property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is
also located in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not
change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the property
would need to demonstrate compliance with any fire protection regulations and
requirements of Deschutes County.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is
proposed and the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes
County. The Bend Parks and Recreation District has an undeveloped park site, Hansen
Park, located to the south of the property with plans to develop the park trailhead that
would serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail System. The proposed rezone does not
impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County as no development is proposed.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal does not apply to this application because the
subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the
approval of this application will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or
area.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that
farm properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to
MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing.
Approval of this application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the
acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 53 of 57
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this application will have no
adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Pacific
Power has confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the subject property and the proposal
will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Goal 12, Transportation. The application complies with the Transportation System
Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that
rule also demonstrates compliance with Goal 12.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of this application does not impede energy
conservation. The subject property is located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend.
If the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, providing homes in this
location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for
residents to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of
Bend.
Goal 14, Urbanization. This goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does
not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the
urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10Zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning
district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance
of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its
comprehensive plan. The plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the
zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) has been
established with the public notice requirements required by the County for these
applications (mailed notice, posted notice and two public hearings). Similarly, the Hearings
Officer finds consistency with Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) based on the applications'
consistency with goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications as set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code.
Based on the findings above, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 3 (Agricultural
Lands) has been demonstrated because the subject property is not Agricultural Land. The
property is not comprised of Forest Lands; Goal 4 is inapplicable.
With respect to Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces), the
Hearings Officer finds that the property does not include any scenic and historic areas.
Moreover, while the property is currently open and undeveloped, the County Goal 5
inventory does not include the subject property as an "open space" area protected by Goal
5. Members of the public expressed concern regarding potential impact on wildlife. However,
the Hearings Officer notes that the property does not include a wildlife overlay (WA)
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 54 of 57
designation and, more importantly, no development is proposed at this time. Rezoning the
subject property will not, in and of itself, impact wildlife on the subject property.
The property does include areas mapped as wetlands by the NWI, which constitute Goal 5
natural resources. Fill and removal activities conducted by an irrigation district are allowed
outright under DCC 18.120.050(C). The Hearings Officer again notes that no specific
development activities, including fill and removal, is proposed at this time. Because the
proposed plan amendment and zone change do not constitute development, there is no
impact to any Goal 5 resource. The Hearings Officer finds that future development activities
will be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect delineated wetlands. For
these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 5.
The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality)
because there is no demonstrable impact of approval of the application to rezone the subject
property from EFU to MUA-10. Future development activities will be subject to local, state
and federal regulations that protect these resources.
With respect to Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), the Hearings Officer
finds consistency with this Goal based on the fact that rezoning the property to MUA-10 does
not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation that is applicable to the entirety of
Deschutes County. The subject property is within the Rural Fire Protection District #2. Any
application(s) for future development activities will be required to demonstrate compliance
with fire protection regulations.
The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) given the fact that
no development is currently proposed and that rezoning, in and of itself, will not impact
recreational needs of Deschutes County. Members of the public testified regarding concerns
of loss of the currently vacant property as open space and for recreational uses. The
Hearings Officer notes that the record includes evidence regarding an undeveloped Bend
Park and Recreation District park site, Hansen Park, located to the south of the property.
There are plans to develop a park trailhead that would serve the Central Oregon Historic
Canal Trail System. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone does not impact
these recreational amenity plans.
The Hearings Officer finds Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is inapplicable because the subject
property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land.
The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 10 (Housing) because
the Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 chapter anticipates that farm properties with poor soils will
be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning, making such properties available to meet
the need for rural housing. Although no development of the subject property is proposed at
this time, rezoning the subject property from EFU to MUA-10 will enable consideration of the
property for potential rural housing development in the future.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 55 of 57
The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 11 (Public Facilities and
Services). The record establishes that Pacific Power has capacity to serve the subject property
and the proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Based on the findings above regarding the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-
012-0060, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 12
(Transportation).
The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 13 (Energy Conservation)
because there is no evidence approval of the applications will impede energy conservation.
Rather, if the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, energy
conservation will be increased - not impeded - as residents will not be required to travel as
far to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend.
The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 14 (Urbanization). The
subject property is not within an urban growth boundary and does not involve urbanization
of rural land because the MUA-10 zone does not include urban uses as permitted outright
or conditionally. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that
limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The state acknowledged
compliance of the MUA 10 zone with Goal 14 when the County amended its comprehensive
plan.
The Hearings Officer finds that Goals 15-19 do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been demonstrated.
IV. DECISION & 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 Amendmentto re -designate the subject property from Agriculture
to Rural Residential Exception Area and a corresponding request for a Zone Map
Amendment (Zone Change) to reassign the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive
Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the
applications before the County. DCC 18.126.030. The Hearings Officer recommends approval
of the applications based on this Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 56 of 57
Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Dated this _12th_ day of October, 2021
Mailed this 13'h day of October, 2021
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 57 of 57
owner
Central Oregon Irrigation District
Tia M. Lewis
Joe Bessman
agent
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Transight Consulting
inCareof address citystZip type cdd id
1055 SW Lake Ct Redmond, OR 97756 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
360 SW Bond Street, Suite SOO Bend, OR 97702 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
Via Email HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
ENT
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below:
FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC
LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 61781 Ward Rd, Bend,
OR 97702; and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 18-12-
02, as Tax Lot 1000.
OWNER/
APPLICANT: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID)
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
SUBJECT: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the property from Agricultural (AG) to
Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests
approval of a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the property from
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, (541) 317-3148, tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against
criteria contained in Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.32 and 18.136 in Title 18
of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance, the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC,
Chapters 2, 3 and Appendix C of the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan, Divisions 6, 12, 15, and 33 of the Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) Chapter 660, and Chapter 215.211 of the Oregon Revised
Statutes.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
A,(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd
DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and
recommends approval of the applications.
As a procedural note, the hearing on August 31, 2021, was the first of two required de novo hearings per
DCC 22.28.030(c). The second de novo hearing will be heard in front of the Board of County
Commissioners at a date to be determined.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party
of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus
20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with
sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to
respond to and resolve each issue.
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.
247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC Page 2 of 2
owner
agent
InCaraOf address
cityStZip
type cdd ld
Central Oregon Irrigation District
Schwabe, Wnliamsonn & Wyatt, P.C.
1055 SW Lake Ct
360SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Redmono, OR 97756
Bend, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
Tia M. Lewis
Consulting
Via all
NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401ZC
Joe Bessman
Transignl
21435 Modoc Lane
Bend, OR 97702
HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
Kecia Weaver
21435 Modoc Lane
Bend, OR 97702
HONOD 21-400PA, 4G1-ZC
Patrick McCoy
61761 GI hsnn Dr ive
Penn, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400�PA, 407-7C
Matt Ca rey
61710 Glhsnn Drive
Rend, OR 97102
HO NO 21-4(NJ PA, 4('il-lC
Jeff Sundherg
61375 Kobe St
Bend, OR 97702
NO NO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
Kyle Weaver
1020 SE Teakwood Or
Bend, OR 97702
NO NOD 21400PA, A01-7C
Treva Weaver
61677 Thunder Road
Bend, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400:PA, AG1-ZC
John Schaeffer
61718 Rigel Way
Bend, OR 97702
HONOO 21.4GO PA, 401.ZC
Cathy DeCourcey
61723 Rigel Way
Bend, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
Jennifer Neil
617645E Camellia Street
Bend, OR 97702
NONOD 21-400-PA, 407-ZC
Brent N. Wliklns
21262 Ca Pella Pl
Bend, OR 97702
NO NOD 21 -400 PA, 4G3-7C
C rystal Carrier
21267 Dayllly Ave
Bend,OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-7C
V/Illiam Kepper
IABBY MEDINA
1212 SW SIMPSON, SUITE R
Be. nd, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-7C
BEND F!BE OEnT.
709 NWWALL Sr., STE, 102
11 d,OR97701
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4G1-ZC
BEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT.
>.O. 30X 431
Bend, OR 97709
HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND PLANNING DEPT.
575 NE 15TH ST.
Bend, OR 97701
NO NOD 21-4110PA, 4GIZC
GEND PUBLIC WORKS DE>T.
ELECTRONIC
NON 21.400 PA, 4G1-ZC
DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR
ELECTRONIC
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
D ESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. '>LANNER
PETER RUSSELL
63055 N. HWY. 97, BUILDING M
BEND, OR 97703
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
ODOT REG ION 4 PLANNING
HAROLD K MARKEN REVTRUSTETAL
MARKEN,HAROLD K CO-TTEE ETAL
21495 BEARCREEKRD
BEND, OR 97701
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
WEST, KEVIN &1[NNI=ER
PO BOX 1923
21314 STEV ENS RD
BEND, OR 97709
BEND, Ofl 97702
NONOD 21 :PA, 4G1-ZC
NO NOD 21-400 PA, A01-ZC
QUICK,MICHAE'-HAROLD&D[LOBES MARIE
61710 GIBBON DR
BEND, OR 977G2
NO NOD 21.900�PA, 401ZC
OCCUPANT
21415 MODOC LN
BEND, OR 97702
HONOD 21-ADO PA, 4G1-ZC
MORRISON, DAV D I & NANCV L
61730 GIBSON DR
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4GI-ZC
FENNS,TIMOTHYJ& RONDA L HALVORSEN-
61765 GIBBON DR
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
CAREY, MATTHEW A & SHARI A
21435 MODOC LN
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
MCCOY, PATRICK E
WARRENBURG FAMILY LIVING TRUST
WARRENBJRG, ROBERTIR&LAURA TTEES
61740 GIBBON OR
B"N D, Ofl 977G2
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
NELSON,HARRYR
21485 A MODOC LN
61676 THUNDER RD
BEND, OR 97702
BE NO, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HARREL,HARKI NGHAM
61661TRUNDER ftD
BE NO, OR 97702
HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
LAKE,IAMESE&JANETM
RANEY-SCHAEFFER TRUST
SAILEY,PATTI L&SCHAEFFER,JOHN M TREES
61677 THUNDER RD
OEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401:ZC
61695THUNDER RD
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400PA, 401ZC
NASLUND, JULIE &NEVLL, MICHAEL
213605TEVENSRD
BEND, OR 9]702
HO RED 21.400-PA:401-7C
PETERS, ROBERTW &IISAM
L JCAS FAMILY REV LIVING TRUST
LUCAS,GERALD & MARGARET TTEES
213"STEVENS RD
BEND, OR97702
HONOO 21.400:PA,401-ZC
PASLAY, BRIAN&NANCV
21370 STEVENS RD
799 SW COLJMBA ST
BEND, OR 97702
REND, OR 97702-3218
HO NOD 21-4G0-PA, 401-ZC
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND METRO PARKS& RECREATION DIST
10927SW MATZEN DR
WI;SONVILI.E, OR 97070
HONOD 21-400. PA 4G1-ZC
LARSEN, M ICHAELETAL
61165 RIVER BLJ'F TRAIL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-4GO-PA, 401 ZC
SOCKEYE E LLC ET AL
61195 RONNYBRIDGE
BEND,OR 977B2
HONOD 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
RASMUSSEN, MONIQUE&RICI LARD
'O BOX 5907
BEND, OR 97708
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC
WOLF, DAVIDG
21265 SE DOVE LN
BEND, OR 97702
HONOD 21.400-PA, 4G7-ZC
CARR, BRUC_
LO'J SG ROCERSON &JANICE M ROGE... ETAL
ROGERSON,JANICE MTRJSTEE ETAL
21280 DOVE LN
BEND, OR 97702
NON OD 21:400 PA, 401-ZC
GROVE,HILARYVEROV.CA
21273 DAYLILY AVE
2126] DAYLILY AVE
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
NONOD 21 AOO PA, 4G1-ZC
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC
KEPPER, WILLIAM EDSON&KAREN GRACE
21261 DAYLILY AVE
BEND,OR 97702
HONOO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
TILTON,PATR'GIAJ&CHRISTOPHERL
21255 DAYLILYAVE
BE NO, OR 97702
HONOO 21-400-PA, 461-11
NO RMAN, IENNIFER&PAUL
TUTTLE/GALOTTI REVOCABLE L V.NG TRUST
TUTTLE, CRAIG H TTEE ETAL
61757 CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21:400 PA, AG7-ZC
SWAFFORD FAMILY TRUST
SWAFFORD, MATTHEWJ& JEANETTE E TTEES
61753 CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-7.0
EEUERMAN, JACOB& MATHEVY, ELISSA
21257 B ELLFLOWER PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400:PA, 4G1-ZC
AREA HCH, KYLE
21261 BELLFLOWER PL
19882 PORCUPINE DR
BEND, Oft 97702
BEND, Oft 97702
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 2i-4G0-PA, 411.11
MCQUISTON, ROBIN SLE&KEVIN LAMES
1044 KAMEHAME DR
HONOLULU, HI 96225
HO NDO 21.400 PA, 4GIZC
LEONG, KIRBY C W & LVNN V
21297 BELL FI. OWES PI
REND, OR 9770)
HO NOD 21400-PA, 401.7C
VON 7ANGF, SCOTT A
712SO WOODRUFF PI
RFN D, OR 97702
HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401.7C
RDDI,AMy&DAVID
C/O IAURA I OPF7 PO ROX 1492
GRANTS PASS, OR 9752R
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401 ZC
10:1 7, RONAI01 & [AURA MARIE
RFTTFNCOLIRT_IV INC. TRUST
BEITFNCOLIRT, JOAN& SANDRA I TTEFS
5 87 STONE CORRAI CT
AN6EISCAMP,CA95222
NO NOD 71.400:PA,4CIZC
OLSON,TIMOTHYJ
21262 WOODRUFF PL
2 1266WOODRUFF PI.
BEND, OR 97702-3611
REND, OR 97702
HONOD 21-400-PA, 4GI.7C
NO NOD 21 400 PA, 4G1.7C
PFPPFR, CIIVF& SUSAN
21270 WOODRUFF PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400PA, 4G1-ZC
JOHNSON, ALLEN H
KATH E RINEJAMPOLCROWE REVUVTRUST
CROWE,(ATHERINEJAMPOL TTEE
21274WOODRU IF PL
BEND, OR'17702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
EAST BEND PLAZA LLC
3111 N HI611V/AY 971101
21'198 SE WOODRUFF PL
8END, OR 97703
3-ND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-4GO: PA, 4G1 ZC
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
SUE, MARK &KAKI
VREM FA MI LY TRUST
VREM, RICHARDC&SANORAJ TTEES
1310 DIAMOND OR
ARCATA, CA 95521
HONOD NOD 21-400PA, 4G7-ZC
PATTERSON, NICOIAS F & MEHTA, SMITA R
61710 CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
110 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
KENNELL=Y, KEVIN S&TRACYL
61706 CAMELLIA ST
61702CAMELLIAST
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21400:PA , 4G1-ZC
HONOD 21.400 PA, 4GIZC
PREWITT, KURTUSS
GARD"NSIDE HOMEOWNERSASSOC
C/O NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MGMT CO (A) PO B0X23099
TIGARD, OR 97281-3099
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
ELL ( RR=NDANETAL
49310E'-OS WAY
322 BUCHANON
OCF.ANSIDE, CA 92056
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019
NONCE, 21.400 PA, 401ZC
HO NOD 21400-PA, 4G1-ZC
DISPENZA JUDITH ANN
617085E MARIGOLD LN
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400Z 4G1-ZC
STAVED, CRISTINA NICOLE
61712 MARIGOLD LN
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21 400 PA, 40IZC
GLAIR, COURTNEV L
PHYLLIS H MEDV:. CK TRJST
M EDNICK, PHYLLIS H TTEE
61705 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400:PA, 4G1-ZC
1DD PROPERTIES LLC
CHAR I FS P[ARSON SOIF PROP401K PIAN
I. ARSON, CHARIES P&IAURIE PTTFFS
2463 NW MORNINGWOOD WAY
270VISTARIMDR
BEND, OR 91703-7022
REDMONO, OR 97756
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-7C.
NEIL, J ENNIFER
61713 R16EL WAY
61706 RIG EL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
BEND,OR97702
HONOO 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HONOR 21-400-PA, 401-11
BOATWRIGHT, STEVEN F is PAMELA F
61712 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC
CHERKOSS, ARNE I & LAUREL A
CATHY DECOURCEVTRUST
DECOJRCEY, CARNER'. NE L TRUSTEE
617 AS RIG EL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21:400:PA, 413-7C
JOHNSON-GOODMAN REVOCABLE FAMTR
JOHNSON,GEORGE HTRJSTEE ETAL
61724 RIGELV✓AY
REND, OR 11702
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 4G1-ZC
LEA6JELD, DAV'.D S & RJTN M
61730 RIGEL WAY
61742 RIGEL WAY
8END, OR 97]02
SEND OR 97702
NO NOD 21-4SO:PA, 4GIZC
NO NO 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
ROGERS, LAN[
GAY_ALSCHAMBURG TRUST
SCHAMBJRG, GAVLA L TTEE
61748 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21-400�PA, 407-ZC
GIBBON, SALLY J
61754 RIGELWAY
61760 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
NONO21-400 PA, 401-ZC
NO NOD 21 4002, 401-ZC
DICKINSON, SANDRA
3311 NW MORNINGWOODCT
BENO, OR 977B3
HO NOD 21-400 PA, In 'ZC
MOTT, BRIAN H ET AL
799 5W COLJMB'A ST
BEND, OR 97702-3111
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
BEND PARKS &RECREATION DIST
C/IDF.SCHUTES COUNTY SH'cRIPF'S O: FICF. 63333 HWY 20W
BEND, OR 97703
HO NOD 21-400PA, AGi-ZC
OCCUPANT
9855 NW SKYLINE HEIGHTS DR
PORTLAND, OR 97229
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BERMUDEZ, GUILLERMOf&ALICIAF
21254 LILY WAY
BEND, 00.97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
MCCLJ NG, DONNAS
61707 CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
CARROLL, DAVID L & SPONGBERG, CAROL A
61703 CAMELIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21400PA, 4G3-7C
SLATER, BARBARA E & SLATER, DEBRA M
C/O NORTHWESTCOMM MGMTCO LLC(A) PO BOX 23011
TIGARD, OR 97281.3099
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
GARDENSIDE H OM E OWNERSASSOC
J UDITH K WHITEHEAD REVOCABLE TRUST
WH ITEHEA D, JU D ITH K TTEE
61703 TO LIP WAY
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G3-ZC
HEBREWS 135 LLC
21810 PALOMA OR
149365EGLADSTONEST
3CND,OR 9]701
PORTLAND, OR 972362441
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G7-ZC
HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
GRAEBER, AI.VSSA
61715 TU LIP WAY
BEND, OR 97702
A NOD 21400�PA,4G1-7C
HANSEN, KAREN
BOBBY LISA BYRD REVOCABLE TRUST
BYRD, BOBBY R&LISA N TTEES
21253 V'.OLET LN
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400�PA, 401-7C
0RANGE CAT PROPERTIES LLC
C/O JAMES P OLMSTED, MEMBER (A) 61535 S HIGHWAY97 NSTE S-604
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
SCHRON, JACQl1FI1 NE S& CAMERON
21245 V'. OI. ETI.N
IEND,OR 97702
HONOD 21-400-PA, 4G1-7C
SHOOP, DANIELA&KIMBERLYL
21241 V'.OLET LN
21237 VOI.ET IN
BEND,OR97702
BEND, OR 97702
HONOD 2114=4, 4G1-2C
HONOD 21400 PA, 401-ZC
BROUGH,THOMASJ
NIELLS, TODD W & EMILY W
61754 DARLA PL
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
ANTON$EN, CHET & SKAAR, THOMAS C
TODD, VICKI & KEVIN
TODD, VICTORIA & KEVN
SEBRING, MILDRED I
PARKS, JOHN 3 & MARLENE A
BEVERLY E GORDON REV TRUST
PROSSER FAMIIY RFVOCARL E I. VINO TRUST
COWAN, PAJI. VERNON
W EBB, DAR RELL D & LIN DA 1
ROBERT&JOAN =AIRBANKSTRUST
GRACIA, CHRISTOPHER E & 11LL M
MOORE, BRIAN A
MARGARETANN MOORE RREVOCABLETRLST
VANBJREN, C LANCE & LORENA KAY
ENGLUND ESTATES LLC
MARSH TRUST
WFYBRIGHT FAMI I Y TRUST
PENDERGAST, TYLER M & AMY M
BOURDAGE, JOSHUA K & MARISA K
TELLER, STEVEN D &CYNTHIA C
HAW KINS, LYRE L
FERNANDEZ, XIMENA C
BOATMAN, SARAH & IC IT
STOCKLAN D, ADAM T & SARAH 1
SCHAAF, PHOEBE A
THOMAS, DAVID J & COL_EF.N A
HERZOG, MICHAEL E
DRYHOLLER LLC
GUTIERREZ, TREEE & OYLAN
BILYEU,JEFFERY DEAN & KAREN
SMITH, KYLE 5 ET AL
CATAPANO, ERICA
TRAN, QUANG P
HAN"N, DALE A & PAMELA R
GARNER, JASON & CRYSTAL
HALE, KR:'TAN N & ALEX S GRACE
SIEVERSON, PENNY JO
WHITE, SARA M
ZINNER, JOSH JA P & HILLARY L
BAERT, C-IRISiOPHER & 1 ESSICA L
BIEL, JESSICA & HOOVER, JEVIN TYLER
CARMAC<, CYNTH IA A
RIDER, GREGORY E & SUZANNE M
WCLLIN, BOBE RT& KATIIERINC
CANO, FRANCISCO& MISS
B10RK, CHARLES & PAMELA
CERRUTI, FLAKE C & HEATHER E
S&H ANDERSON 1 03 LLC
TEH, BONNIE W & CAPECE, SONIA
LEAHY, BRIAN & KIM K
DOUGHMAN, ROBERT 1 & KATHRYN M
DOWNEY, SCOTT& DIXE
PUPO, LUCAS K ET AL
1KC HOMES LLC
VANB',ABICOM, JEROME BRADI. FY FT AL
COLE, PATRICIA RENEE QUINLAN
CAFFEE, AI EXANDER H ET AL
ROSFNGARTH FAMIIY RFVOCARI. F TRUST
CROSSE,STEVFN F & DI MITRIA
ROSFNGARTH FAMILY TRUST
ANTONSFN, CHET & SKAAR, T-IOMAS C
SLOCUM, W.LUAM T JR & MECHELLE M
SPATES, DEMETRIUS C
WIGGINS, BRITTNEY D
LEAH SULL'.VAN LIVING TRUST ET AL
WEAVER, SANDRA
RAD<EY, R03ERT & H EDDY
BETTY LOU BIEBER TRJST
CHARLES&JEANNE CLAWSON FAMILYTRUSI
BRAN DEN HORST, lOHN D I II
ST CAIR, JJ'-IE
BARDONG, IRIS M
PATTON, SYDNEYJOAN
COCCO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
WILLIAMS, TROY & VANHORN, CAITLYN
GAROUTTE, MICHAEL 5 & FRAZ'ER, LINDA
WAYBRIGHT, TREVOR A & JOY A
KOCH, DAN11 & LETA
ROSFNGARTH DFVFI OPMFNT I C
FLINT, MARIE KAY
ALEXA DELLINGER TRUST
ZHJ,XI AOGANG&U MINGWEI
FREDRICKSON, <ATIE
GREENWA'-D,JAY A & MARY F
SIGNATURE HOMEBJ'LDERS LLC
GERALD S ALVES & EILEEN SALVES REV TR
ZORNADO, BRANDON & SHE L-EY
SENNETT, BRIAN ETAL
ROBERT E SAUTER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
GEORGETON, LEE C & KR.STIN J
MILLS, ROBERT B & GRIFFIN, EMDEN R
ROSS FAMILYTRUST
RILEY, ANTON & G INA
SHAHVAR, RACHEL NATALIE
CHOPRA, PANKAI & ANITA
HAUC<, RANDYJ & M'.CHELLE L
LEASE, ARIANNA & BRIAN ET AL
WILKI NS, BRENT N
LEE, ROBERT ALLAN
TED & SUE MIGDA- 2003 REVOCABLE TRJST
KRJ<E MEYER, MARY
MCCUL'_OUGH, KATHRINE ANNE
L. GARDNER LLC
PHARAOH, NATHANAFI. SR &'_FAH
CA MMINS, JOANNA MARIE
HAWK, DEBRA JO
CROGHAN, RYLEY G & HALLEY T
GORDON, 3EVERLY E TTEE
PROSSER, STEW JAMFSTTFF ETAI.
FA RBAN <S, JOAN L TEEE
MOORE, BRIAN TTEE
MARSH, WAI I. ACE A JR & Ft SIF A TREES
WFYBR:CHT, DANIFI. R & BARBARA TIFFS
ROS=NCARTH, SHARRON G TIFF
ROSENGARTH, TONY 1 & NANCY A TTFFS
SULLIVAN, LEAH TTEE
BIEBER, BETTY LOU TTEE
CLAWSON, CHARLES R & JEANNE A TTEES
COCCO, CHESTER R & VIRGINIA S TT -ES
DELLINGER, ALEXA B TTEE
ALVES, GERALD S & EILEEN R TREES
SAJTER, R03ERT E TTEE
ROSS, PAUL E & EMILY KATHLEEN TREES
MIGOA'_, THEODORE N & SUSAN A TTEES
612 NE SAVANNAH OR V3
BEND, OR 97701
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
61694 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 40I-ZC
61694 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 17702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
20709 TANGO CREEK AVE
BEND, OR 977D1
HONOD 21-400-PA, 4G3-ZC
21285 STARLIGHT DR
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
212815TARLIGHT Dft
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400PA, 401-ZC
"I"STARIL HTDR
BEND, O117707
HONOO 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
21273 STARLIGHT DR
BE ND, OR 97707
HONOO 21-400-PA, 401-7C
471 SW SCHAEFFER RD
WEST LINN, OR 97068
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 40IZC
21268 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 977G2
HO NOD 21-400�PA, 4GI-7C
21272 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4GIOC
21276 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 11712
LO NGO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
21276 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC
21284 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, AG1ZC
8300 SW PETERS RD
PORTLAND, OR 97224
HO NOD 21.4GO PA, 4G1-ZC
21261 STASH GHT DR
REND, OR97702
HO NOD 21.4".IA, 401-ZC
21257 STARLIGHT DR
REND, OR 97701
HO NO 21-400 PA, 401.7C
21211 STARLIGHT DR
BE ND, 0897702
NO NOD 21-400: PA, 401-2C
21252 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
11211 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-4W PA, 4G1-ZC
21260 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
LIO NOD 21-4CID PA, 401-ZC
1059 NE PARKV'EW CT
BEND, OR 97701.6940
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
5170 APELI LA ST
KAPAA, HI 96746
HONOO 21.400 PA, 4Gl-ZC
21279 HURITA PL
8EN0, 0R 97702
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 4G01 C
21275 HURITA PL
BEND, 0R 97702
HEN OD 21.400:PA, 4G1-ZC
TA
21271 HURITA PL
BEND, 0R 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
21267 HU PL
BEND, OR 9]7B2
HONOR 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
2021 NE BTH ST
BEND, OR 17701
HO NOD 21-4GO PA, 40I-ZC
21259 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
21255 HURITA P,.
BEND, OR 977D2
HO NOD 2-1-4G0-PA, 401-ZC
21251 HURITA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400:PA, 4G1-ZC
21250 CAPELIA PL
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
21254 CAPELIA PL
BEND, OR 11702
HO NOD 21!0-PA, 401 ZC
21258 CA LA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
21262 CA PELLA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4G1-ZC
21266 CAPE LLA PL
BEND, OR 17702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
21270 CAPEL LA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-40O PA, 4G1-ZC
11225 SW CYNTHIA CT
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
HO NOD 21-4GO-PA, 4D1 ZC
21278 CAPEL LA PL
BEND, Oft 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
21282 CAPELIA PL
BEND, OR 91702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G3-ZC
61664 RIGEL WAY
BEND, OR 977D2
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
61660 KACI LN
REND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 403-ZC
21281 CAPELIA PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
2025TEEL' NGTOWN LN
UNION, ME 04862
110 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
21273 CAPELLA PL
BEND, OR 97702
LONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
2 JIGS CAPEL LA PL
BEND, OF 977O2
HO NOD 21-400�IA, 401 ZC
61655 GEMINI WAY
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
1114 NE 42NO ST HSTE C
VANCOUVER, WA 11111
HO NOD 21 *.PA, 401-ZC
616KACI LN
BEND, OR 97702
HNOD 24PA, 4I
1.56
299 NWSORDEAUXLN
R97]3
BENDO0
O 240-ZC
NOD 1400 PA,G1ZC
61648 KACI LN
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
PO BOX 112
WI'_SONVILLE, OR 97070
HO NOD 21.4110.PA, 4G1-ZC
61637 KACI LN
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.40O.PA, 4G1-ZC
PO BOX 25822
EUGENE, Oft 914112
HONOR 21-411�PA, 401-ZC
21285 DAYLILY AVE
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21.400-PA, 4G1-ZC
21279 DAYLILY AVE
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
135847TII AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4GI-ZC
21279 DOVE IN
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-40(1PA, 401-7C
21283 DOVE I V
R-ND, OR 977.12
HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-7C
71259 CHIN I WACK WAY
BEND, OR 97701
H0 N00 21-40O PA, 401-7C.
fi2765 POWEI. _Rl1TTF HWV
BEND, OR 977O7
HO NOD 21-4(NJ-PA, 401-ZC
21281 B ELLFLOWER PL
9END, OR 977O2
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
11273 111111 OWES PI.
BEND, OF 97702
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4O-ZC
21285 BELLFLOWER PL
BEND, OR 977D2
NO NOD 21 40C1 PA, 401-ZC
8412 SWEETWATER CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646
HONOR 21 ISO:PA,4G1-ZC
21278 WOODRUFF PL
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
PO BOX 1869
BANDON, OR 97411
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
617275E YARROW LN
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21.400-PA, 4GIZC
61719 YARROW LN
BEND, OR97702.
HONOR 21.400�PA,4G1-ZC
61724 MARIGOLD LN
BEND, 0R 97702
HO NOD 21.40(1 PA, 401-ZC
61716 MARIGOLD LN
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
fi 1703 YARROW LN
BEND, O111702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4G1-ZC
61715YARROW LN
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
60350 WIN DSONG LN
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
61776 DARLA "L
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400:PA, 401-ZC
61772 DARLA °L
BEND, OR 91702
HO NOD 21AGO PA, 401-ZC
61768 DARLA 11.
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21 40O-PA, 401-ZC
61764 DARLA PL
BEND, OR 97]02
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
21259 C HIH. IWACK WAY
BEND,OR 97702-7717
HONOR 21-400-PA, 401 ZC
61760 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
21286 DARNEL AVE
BEND, Oft 97702
HO N00 21.400PA, 4G1-ZC
62977 MARSH ORCHID DR
BEND, OR 97701
HO NOD 21400 PA,4G1-ZC
21278 DARNEL AVE
BE ND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400�PA, 4G1-ZC
21272 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21.4GOPA, 401ZC
?0 BOX 1886
BEND, OR 97709
HO NOD 21-400:PA, 401-ZC
21262 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 9]]02
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G1-ZC
21258 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 977D2
HO NOR 21-400 PA, 4G1-ZC
1381 NWTRENTON AVE
BEND, 0R 97703
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 4G7-2C
'0 BOX 8644
BEND, OR 97708
HO NOD 21400 PA, 401-ZC
61793 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400:PA, 401-ZC
61789 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400:PA, 4GS:ZC
61781 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G]-ZC
108 MOFFETTSLVDAC113
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043
NO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G3-ZC
61773 5E CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 91712
HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC
617695E CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HONOR 21 400-PA, 401-ZC
SI0I BOU LDER WAY
YAKIMA, WA 98901
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-11
11711 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
H0 NOD 21-400-PA, AGS-ZC
61764 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-4G0-PA, 401-ZC
61168 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
1053 LA GRANDE AVE
NAPA, CA 94558
HO NOD 21:400 PA, 111-IC
51776 SE CAMELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702
HO NDO 21400 PA, 40I.ZC
61780 SE CAM ELLIA ST
BEND, OR 97702..
HONOR 21-400:PA, 401-ZC
61333 KING IEHU WAY
BEND, OB 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4G3-ZC
11261 DABNEI. AVE
REND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-4(ICJ-PA, 401-7C
1005 LEE AVE
SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577
HONOR 21-400:PA, 4GI-ZC
8402 SLE EPY HOLLOW RD NE
WOODBURN, OR 97071.9571
HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC
21273 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
WIN DELL, CALE3&JOHNS, MICH ELLS
21277 DAR NEL AVE
BEND, OR 97702
HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
ERUMENTO,AMANDAC
212810ARNELAVE
B_ND, OR 97702
HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
VINOVICH, SEURINA A&MICHAEL
21285 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 97702
TO NOD 21400Z 4G1-ZC
HESTERB=RG, MARISSAD&MARKA
11211 DARNELAVE
BEND, Oft 97702
TO NOD 21�400 PA, 401-ZC
BLYTHE, JESSE I& CASSIE J
21314 SE DAYLI LY AVE
B=ND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21400:PA, 4D1-ZC
JOHANSEN, DAVID L&PATRICIAI
CYPCAT NIPPFRT I: VING TRUST
NIPPERT, JAMES F TTEE FT Al.
4069 CRESSIDA PL
71302 SF DAYLIIY
AVE%VF
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192
REND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21-40D PA, 401-ZC
HONOR 21-4(H1 PA, 401-7C
FtANNERY,JUHF I. NCOLN
I12965F DAYL
RFND,OR 97702
HONOD 21-40O PA, 401-7C
BBADSHAWT?UST
BRADSHAW, SCOTT HASTINGS TTEE ET AL
2500 SU NNY GROVE AVE
MCKINLEYVI'_LE, CA 95519
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
SWEET, JUSTI NLEE&KELSEEANN
212845E OAVLILV AVE
BEND, OR97702
HO NOD 21-400-PA, AGS-ZC
UPTAIN, KYLE STEVEN&KIMBERLY ANN
21278SEDAYLI LYAVE
BEND,OR97702
TONOD 21-400PA, AGIZC
BROOKFI=LD,MAftGARET
1414 NW BALTI MORE AVE
BEND,OR 97703
HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC
WOOD, JJSTIN&AMBER
212665E DAYLILYAVE
BEND,OR 97702
HO NOD 21:400:PA, 401,1C
SEE IN ER FA M LYTRUST
SPR INGER, RICHARD L&G-11 GIA ATTEES
3450 SHALLOW 11RINGS TIRE
CA COL CA 95928
HONOR 21 A00-PA, 401-ZC
SPRINGER EAM. LY TRUST
SPRINGER, RICIIARDL&GEORGIA A TTEES C/O GEORGIA A SPRINGER TTE
3450 SHALLOW S"RIVGS TERR
CH':CO, CA 95928
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
E S CpG2..a p
B®AR® OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Transient Room Tax Project Proposals
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None. This is an informational item only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In November, staff presented the history and regulations of the county and state TRT
programs, comparisons to other city and county TRT programs and permitted uses of the
funds.
With the recent and unanticipated increase in TRT collections, following the onset of the
pandemic, there has been renewed interest in the history of the program and eligible uses
of the funds.
The following two projects will be presented with a request for TRT funding consideration.
The presentations are for information purposes only. An item will be placed on the January
24t" agenda for the Board to deliberate the project proposals and requests.
1. Trails and Trail Related Infrastructure - Deschutes Trails Coalition
2. New Public Safety Building - Sunriver Service District
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Jana Johnson, Coordinator, Deschutes Trails Coalition
Bill Hepburn, Chair, Sunriver Service District
Debbie Baker, Administrator, Sunriver Service District
Sunriver generates more than $4M in annual TRT revenue, about 40-50% of the yearly
county total and has generated in excess of $50 million since 1999. Transient Room Tax
(TRT) dollars have been successfully used to promote tourism in Deschutes County. The
Sunriver Resort, Owners Association, and the Sunriver Village have invested in their
facilities to promote tourism in Sunriver. This has increased the TRT revenue resulting in a
significant unallocated fund. At the same time, the Service District has had to rely on just a
3% annual increase in property tax income to support the impact of tourism on critical
emergency services in and out of Sunriver. The Service District now has the need to
request portions of the TRT fund for our necessary project
The amount requested from the TRT fund for this critical project is:
FY 2021 /22 $5 million
FY 2022/23 $3 million
FY 2023/24 $2 million
The Service District would like to place a Capitol Improvement Levy on the May ballot. The
Service District's ballot measure must be approved by the Board of Commissioners by
February 9th in order to meet the May election date. A commitment from Deschutes
County on the amount of TRT contribution is one of the variables that must be determined
to establish the levy amount required for the project.
Sunriver Police and Fire Departments are critically important in protecting the residents
and visitors to Deschutes County. We need an updated facility that will meet the future and
current public safety needs for the next 30 to 50 years. The support of Deschutes County
is required to make this necessary project a reality.
J_J 1, .1 L
An updated Public Safety Building is required to meet the current and future needs of
Sunriver and the surrounding communities. The existing facilities do not meet industry
standards and safety requirements for professional police and fire departments.
The Sunriver Service District is requesting from Deschutes County, Transient Room Tax
funds to support our public safety building project. The Sunriver Police and Fire
Departments have significantly increased workloads as a result of tourism on a year-round
basis. The summer population can peak at 20,000 necessitating a level of service greater
than our community of 1200 full-time residents would require.
The current police and fire facilities do not meet code requirements for an "essential
facility" nor the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for best practices.
• The Police facility is located in an office space which result in inefficiencies and unsafe
conditions. DUI and other infractions must be processed in Bend causing police
officers to be out of Sunriver for extended periods.
• The Fire Station no longer meets industry and safety standards regarding equipment
storage, decontamination and living areas.
• The new building may be utilized by Deschutes County law enforcement and
emergency management personnel.
The cost of the project is estimated to be $16-$18 million. The Sunriver Owner's
Association board has agreed to transfer the current fire station building, valued at $2.4
million, to the District at a nominal cost. In addition, the District will be investing $3 million
from their reserves. Finally, we will be asking Sunriver owners to approve a minimum $5
million, 10-year capital improvement levy to service the debt of the project.
The Sunriver Service District
The Sunriver service District was created by a vote of the electors in 2002 to provide fire
prevention & protection, security services by agreement, law enforcement services and
emergency medical services, including ambulance services. The Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, as the Governing Body of the District has delegated the management of the
District to the Managing Board.
Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) had previously provided these services and continue to own
the buildings that house the police and fire departments. The District Managing Board has
provided these services to Sunriver and the larger Ambulance Service Area (ASA) in an efficient
and professional manner. Both departments utilize Lexipol, a professional policy management
tool. The Police Department is accredited through Oregon Accreditation Alliance. All the
firefighters are certified paramedics, capable of Basic and Advanced life support emergency
medical response. They are also trained in wildfire suppression and mitigation, a significant threat
to our community.
Deficiencies
The current fire station was built in 1995 and the police department is housed in an office space.
The more significant deficiencies include:
Fire & Police Departments
• Back-up generator for continued operation in an emergency; inadequate for fire and none for
police
• Lack of decontamination areas
• Lack of gender -neutral restrooms, showers and lockers. Lack of appropriate sleeping areas
for female firefighters
• Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Fire Department
• Compromised roof trusses from a previous excessive snow load
• Lack of area to store protective turnout firefighting uniforms away from UV light, florescent
light and exhaust to be ready for quick response
• Lack of "clean room" to fill tanks of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) away from
vehicle exhaust
Police Department
• Lack of security throughout the department
• No interview rooms for suspects or victims
• No holding cell, booking area, Intoxilyzer (which would be available to DCSO & OSP)
• No secure covered parking
• Inadequate evidence processing area Appendix i
The Sunriver Community
Sunriver Owner's Association (SROA) is a private HOA providing amenities and safety to
homeowners and tourists. The SHARC aquatics facility has been a draw for many visitors. SROA
routinely spends $1 million per year for road and pathway maintenance and ladder fuel
reduction. Tourists benefit with the more than 34 miles of paved pathways as a family safe area
to enjoy. The ladder fuel reduction program addresses the ever-present wildfire threat in
Deschutes County.
The Sunriver Resort has invested millions in amenities to provide visitors with a memorable
experience, including the recently completed Cove aquatics facility. The resort also provides golf,
operates a popular marina, stables and other attractions. The meeting and convention facilities
are one of the best in Oregon for their service, location and tourist amenities.
It is important to note that Sunriver is not a gated community and tourists from all over take
advantage of the amenities, even tourists staying in other parts of Deschutes County.
Central Oregon Public Safety Community
Sunriver Police & Fire Departments are critical partners of the public safety community in
Deschutes County. A standard of practice through collaboration and mutual training improves
the service delivery to county residents.
• The District is part of the county -wide Emergency Operations Plan. Preparation, planning,
coordination and training occur with Deschutes County Emergency Management
Department.
• Fire Departments rely on mutual aid agreements. Critical and/or emergency incidents can
require resources from multiple agencies to ensure life safety. Sunriver Fire assists LaPine
Fire often due to proximity and call load.
• Sunriver Police responds to incidents in south Deschutes County, either handling the incident
or providing cover for deputies on dangerous calls until additional resources can respond
from other parts of the county. In 2021 there were over 750 Sunriver police assists to DCSO.
• The District is an important partner with ODF and USFS in preparation of addressing wildfire
threat with equipment and mutual training. The time of year for the greatest wildfire threat is
the same time of year with the largest tourist impact. These dynamics create particular
logistical challenges if an evacuation is necessary.
• Sunriver Ambulance Service Area (ASA) extends to the Cascade high lakes, which is heavily
utilized in the tourist season.
• As Deschutes County recognizes the need for a regional training facility, it is important to
recognize Sunriver Police & Fire are part of the bigger public safety community striving to
ensure highly trained first responders.
• South Deschutes County sometimes gets overlooked in a variety of ways as compared to the
Bend/Redmond areas. With the population growing in south county and the number of
visitors combined with wildfire danger, the District is a timely and appropriate investment.
Community sleeping areas
house multiple crew
members at the same time.
It offers no privacy for
mixed gender crews and
lacks quiet for restful sleep
between calls at night.
Appendix v
b
4 um� III; i I a
SU61 V E K
OWNERS ASSOCIA-110N
-1-111-1-1-- ..........
kfAINTAINING SUNRIVERAS A PREMIER RESIDENTIAJLMIT RESORT CONWUNITY PROTECTWAND ENHANCING ITS 01JALITY OF LIFE,
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAND PROPERTY VALUES.
December 28, 2021
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Tony DeBone, Chair
Phil Chang, Vice Chair
Patti Adair, Commissioner
1300 N.W- Wall Street
Bend, OR 97703
RE Sunriver Service District — Public Safety Facility Funding Request (Transient Room Tax)
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) to express our support for the funding
request being made by the Sunriver Service District (SSD) for the construction of a new public safety
facility to house both the Fire and Police Departments, and the Service District administrative staff. That
request is for the contribution of funds generated through Transient Roorn Taxes (TRT) collected by
Deschutes County — with a substantial portion of the overall TRT dollars being generated through
Sunriver rentals/tourism,
As you know, the existing fire station is housed in a 25 year -old building owned by SROA and the police
department Is housed in office space that is a contiguous part of the SROA Administration building..
SROA believes that the proposed project would provide beneficial facility upgrades for both departments
and ensure long-lasting protection for Sunriver and other areas in south Deschutes County.
SROA participated in and assisted the SSD with their search for alternative sites and facilities for a new
public safety building.. Based on a variety of factors, the result was that the location of the existing fire
station is best suited for an expansion and remodel to serve the community. Part of the site selection
included an appraisal of the existing 12,577 square foot building and a 90,000 square foot portion of the
overall property deemed necessary for the project. The appraisal concluded that the structure and land
together were valued at $2,700,000,
At a meeting of the SROA Board of Directors in October, the SROA Board directed me to begin
negotiations with the SSD regarding sale of the building for a nominal amount and a perpetual lease of
the land. Both the SROA and SSD are working on a purchase option agreement that would specify and
solidify the terms of the salellease, thereby confirming SROA's support and participation in the project.
Overall, we respectfully request that you contribute unrestricted TRT dollars collected by Deschutes
County to help make up the gap in the overall SSD funding and serve as an investment for the SSD
Public Safety Facility and Sunriver community as discussed herein. Thank you for your consideration of
this matter.
Sincerely,
f, 'James Lewis, General Manager
Sunriver Owners Association
57455 Abbot Drive o P.O. Box 3278 - SurifiveT. Oregon 97707 - (W) 593.2411 o To,] Free (880) 284,6639 - Fax (541) 593-5669
vi%omsunriverownacs.org
Appendix vii
C a s c a r a
ffs
Vacation Rentals 4mr,
Dear County Commissioners,
I was raised in Sunriver Or and have worked in Sunriver for over 25 years. While this
community overall is safe it wasn't quite the Sunriver I grew tip in. Our area has always been a
travel mecca however since COVID came it has almost tripled the amount of people coming to
our area. We see record numbers of travelers each month, With more people there are more
problems. We have experienced some bad ones this year with severe damage to our homes. One
was a party with a VRBO guest, and the other was criminals that booked our home with a stolen
credit card and damaged the home and stole items. The police department has been a great asset
to have in our community. I recently went and toured the facility as I tend to dislike government
spending, but it was a shock of how small of facility they have and all that they must do in that
facility. From the victim standpoint it isn't acceptable to have to interview someone inal
lunchroom. As a victim that isn't going to make them feel like they are being taken seriously.
Our officers in Sunriver work so hard and deserve an area to efficiently do their job. In today's
world not to have basic safety measures of bullet proof glass and secure entry for the staff that
work there is not good. Having our fire and police local is a great addition at keeping our
community safe,. When you here of incidents like Paradise CA, it is crucial to have the staff and
facilities necessary to facilitate mass evacuations in cases of emergency. Having many people in
our area that don't know where they are staying, how to evacuate or where to go in case of an
emergency is critical. As a property manager it would make since that they receive some of the
Transient room tax for this project as they are serving the people that are paying that room tax.
Please feel tree to reach out to me with any questions.
Sincerely
Stacy Wesson
General Manager
Cascara Vacation Rentals PO BGx 4518 Sunriver, OR 97707
Tail- Free (NO) 531-1130 (541) 5,93-3225 Fax: (541) 593-6652
whw-CascaraVacaticnszorn Cascara@CasraraVacations.com
Page 1 of I
Appendix viii
Proposal to Invest Unallocated TRT Funds in Trails and Trail Related
Infrastructure in Deschutes County
January 4, 2022
Prepared by Deschutes Trails Coalition
Summary
The Deschutes Trails Coalition (DTC) is proposing that $1M of unallocated TRT funds be reinvested
annually towards trails and trail -related infrastructure throughout Deschutes County, to be distributed
through a competitive grant process. Deferred trail maintenance and infrastructure needs throughout
Central Oregon exceed $10M. Existing and predicted financial resources are insufficient to address the
basic maintenance needed to sustain our trails in their current state, let alone the growing deferred
maintenance backlog. Trails are the reason and means by which millions of people visit and explore
Central Oregon and this landscape. Without funding to sustain this resource, we risk compromising the
very thing that makes this place so special to so many people. Parables abound about "Killing the Golden
Goose" and the "Tragedy of the Commons", and Deschutes County is so fortunate to have the natural,
financial and community resources to influence where our story goes from here.
Need
Central Oregon is a place well known for its diversity of natural beauty and recreation opportunities. As
one of the fastest growing areas in Oregon and a place beloved to residents and visitors alike,
projections show the population of Deschutes County to increase by 64% over the next 25 years for a
total of 311,000 people. In turn, trail use is also forecasted to increase over the next 20 years from an
estimated 2.5 million trips on Deschutes National Forest trails alone in 2021 to nearly 3 million annual
trips by 2040 (The Economic and Social Importance of Deschutes National Forest Trails, ECONorthwest
Report, 2021). We have already seen sustained and dramatic increases over the last decade and then
the unanticipated surge of use related to COVID during the last 2 years that has given a glimpse of the
impacts that can be expected to continue in the years ahead.
Trails are the means through which the majority of visitors experience the natural beauty of Central
Oregon; on the Deschutes National Forest, in State and local parks, on BLM lands, and across segments
of privately owned land. Through the report referenced above from ECONorthwest - a consulting firm
based in the Pacific Northwest that specializes in economics, finance, and planning - we have a clearer
view of both the value of trails, economically and socially, and declining financial stability of funds that
were once more plentiful to maintain our trails and trail related infrastructure — a financial trend that is
at great odds with use trends and increasing associated impacts to an existing infrastructure.
From this report we also know that trails on the Deschutes National Forest bring $136M to $200M into
the local economy (the range is based on the share of visitor expenses attributed to trail activities) and,
in 2021, created 1400 jobs. As those funds re -circulate through the local economy, every $1 million
spent generates nearly $1.3 million of total economic contribution, supporting $468,000 in labor income
and 12 jobs. We also know that Forest Service gross receipts dropped by more than 75% in the 1990s
due to reduced timber receipts and have hovered around the same level since the early 2000s. Federally
appropriated dollars are not keeping pace in maintaining the current trails infrastructure and addressing
deferred maintenance backlog.
Through both objective data as well as the anecdotal observations that so many of us have had, it is
clear that trails are a huge economic driver in Central Oregon. Also, the funds that were once available
to maintain and grow this trail network — that is inextricably linked with the culture, allure, and growth
of this geographical area and its economy — are being dramatically outpaced by the declining condition
of our trails.
Additionally, there are limited grant opportunities for high value projects and most funding sources
require "shovel ready" projects. Because unallocated TRT funds are unrestricted, these monies could
help fill a critical gap in funding, and further help to significantly leverage other grant opportunities into
the County. There is often substantial work needed to get a project to the implementation (a.k.a. shovel
ready) phase and — in addition to funding project implementation itself — TRT funds could move projects
forward to the point that they would then be eligible to apply for other grants to fund implementation.
Scope of Work
Establish a Grant Program — There are multiple organizations with proven track records that
could successfully take on the administration of a grant program: DTC, VCO, or COIC are all
potential administrators. The Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) has significant
experience and capacity to manage a grant process that is fair and transparent, as could DTC or
VCO. Grants would be evaluated and awarded under the guidance of an Advisory Committee
(see section below), and monitored by the administering organization.
Establish Eligibility Criteria. The steering team/advisory committee will establish eligibility
criteria for the use of the funds. Below is a starter list of potential criteria:
o The project proposal supports a trail system that is sustainably managed and
maintained, and balances the needs of people and nature.
o The project benefits all members of our visiting and local community, and the project
has a useful life of greater than 10 years.
o All known barriers that would inhibit the start or completion of the project have been
cleared.
o The project will be completed within 18 months or 2 field seasons (whichever is longer),
with an opportunity to extend.
o Eligible uses of the funds will be trail and trail -related infrastructure maintenance and
project design, planning, analysis, and implementation within Deschutes County.
* Proposals will also be evaluated based on the degree to which these TRT funds
can be leveraged with other funds to complete all phases of a project. Given the
restrictions of various funding opportunities, not all funding sources are able to
fund every potential phase of a project (planning, design, implementation, etc.).
Therefore, these TRT funds contribute to a larger funding matrix that,
collectively, can help to bring all phases of a project to completion.
Grant Promotion and Outreach —The Deschutes Trails Coalition will promote and publicize the
grant opportunity and solicit proposals broadly amongst the trails community.
Create an Advisory Council to evaluate grant applications and make award selection
recommendations. The proposed composition of this council would be made up of 5-7 people
that could include: 1-2 DTC representatives (Executive Director and 1 other), a county seat as
determined by the BOCC; representation from various geographic areas within the County,
representation from under -served communities, and a local community seat.
Convening Regional Trail Community for project development and review - DTC is well
positioned to convene the trails community to identify projects and create proposals that have
been vetted and discussed among a multi -stakeholder group representing a diversity of trail
user groups, resulting in well-informed projects and a process that all trail users can get behind.
Publicize Successes — DTC will publicize the successes of the grant program, highlighting the
County's role in supporting trail use in the County and how partners, agencies, city and county
have successfully come together in this effort.
Geography —Eligible projects would include trail and trail -related infrastructure projects within
Deschutes County.
Product — An enduring funding source that enables the completion of high -value, multi -phase trail and
trail -related projects across Central Oregon (see below), and is awarded through a fair and transparent
grant program administered by a qualified entity, steered by an Advisory Council, and publicized by the
Deschutes Trails Coalition.
Potential projects that directly contribute to trail sustainability are too many to list. However, below are
general project themes most ripe for this grant opportunity and a range of costs - depending on the
scope, scale, and complexity of a given project.
Project Type
Range of Costs
Examples
Trail Maintenance/Construction
$200 - 350/mile or 6-person
Basic Maintenance
crew for 6 months for $150K
Brushing, cutting blow down, cleaning drainage
Adding new mountain bike trails, relocating trails
Construction
$26K - $125K/mile
to improve sustainability
Road
Main tenance/Reconstruction
Grading of roads that access trailheads; i.e. 41 Rd
Maintenance
$6K/mile
to Deschutes River Trail
Sparks Lake Rd, 16 Road in Sisters accessing Three
Reconstruction
$70K - $100K/mile
Creek area, Swamp Wells Rd to horse camp
Trailhead kiosks, trail signs, volunteer training,
Minor Projects
$2 - 10K
educational efforts, publications, media
Replacing trail bridges, backcountry shelter
restoration and replacement, paved path
Major Projects
Varies depending on project
maintenance, rehabilitation of user -created trails
Limited mileage of new trail construction, analysis
of a project area such as a comprehensive trail
Environmental Analysis (NEPA)
$30 - $100K
plan for Tumalo Falls or China Hat
Reports, Strategic Trail
Studies on e-bikes, strategic planning to assess trail
Planning, etc.
$30K to $500K
priorities across Deschutes County
Grant Administration
$20K-40K
Salary to administer grant process
Partners— In addition to the partners discussed above - the DTC, Deschutes County, local communities,
and travel and tourism partners - Central Oregon is rich not only in natural resources but also with
volunteer trail clubs and passionate trail enthusiasts. Together, in partnership with Deschutes County
Commissioners, these trail user groups have the capability to accomplish a great deal of trail
maintenance and projects annually. DTC is composed of representatives from nearly 40 organizations
that support a wide variety of trail -based recreation —from snowmobiling to mountain biking, hiking,
groomed Nordic and ungroomed backcountry skiing, OHV riding, etc. Due to this diversity of trail
stakeholders, DTC has a unique advantage of having access to a well-rounded perspective from the
greater trails community and the ability to mitigate conflict and explore differing needs/desires prior to
going public with a project or proposal. This degree of collaboration has been proven to result in well
informed project proposals that reflect the voices across the spectrum of trail users.
Budget
$1M annually allocated for this grant program, with up to $40,000/year for grant administration,
program promotion and outreach, facilitation, and coordination.
The intention of this grant opportunity, given the unrestricted nature of these funds, would be to fund
fewer large projects, as opposed to many small projects. Anticipated annual awards will support 3 -6
proposals valued between $150K and $350K each, with the opportunity for 3-4 small projects of $2-
10,000 up to a total of $40K to allow for responsiveness to the community and urgent needs, etc.. DTC
will work with Visit Bend/BSF and other funding sources to create a complementary funding opportunity
to leverage with these other funding sources.
Summary
By reinvesting unallocated TRT funds in trails and trail -related infrastructure, Deschutes County can
ensure that our trail system will continue to provide the world -class recreational experiences that draw
visitors to our area and enhance our residents' quality of life.
USDA United States Forest Deschutes National Forest 63095 Deschutes Market Road
Department of Service Bend, OR 97701
Agriculture (541) 383-5300
File Code: 2350
Date: January 4, 2022
Deschutes County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners:
I am writing in support of the Deschutes Trails Coalition's (DTC) proposal to reinvest Deschutes
County Transient Room Tax funds into trails and trail -related infrastructure throughout
Deschutes County. As you are aware, trails are a highly -valued recreation opportunity locally
and a significant economic driver for Central Oregon, connecting people to the Deschutes
National Forest (DNF), as well as to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon
State Parks, local communities and Deschutes County.
Continued growth in Deschutes County along with a steady increase in the popularity of trails as
a resource for local populations and visitors requires investment in maintenance of trails
infrastructure and thoughtful development of opportunities for existing and emerging uses.
Community engagement and support, from volunteers to new and flexible funding opportunities,
is key to sustainable management of these resources. As highlighted in EcoNorthwest's recent
research, alternative sustainable local funding for trails and trail infrastructure, which
complements traditional federal investments, is a critical component to the development and
maintenance of responsive, environmentally sound, and community -supported trail systems.
DTC has demonstrated the ability to convene a diversity of trail user groups into a collective
voice for the trail's community in Central Oregon. It is made up of nearly 40 partners
representing dozens of local trail organizations. These trail organizations together donate
thousands of hours of volunteer labor and equipment to support of local trails. DTC has taken on
projects of varying complexity ranging from engaging in the planning and implementation of
Forest Service trails projects, to convening user groups, infrastructure, and facilitating the
creation of a complex database to inform Trail Master Planning across Deschutes County and the
National Forest. Not least, DTC administers a `small grants' program that awards $30-60K
annually to fund trail improvement projects on the DNF.
As established DTC can play an important role in investing the Transient Room Funds into trails
planning and maintenance that will keep recreational trail use as a long-term economic driver for
Central Oregon. In addition, DTC has the ability to make sure that the significant natural
resources and scenic beauty of our federal, state, and Deschutes County public lands remains
protected. I hope you will consider their very worthy proposal.
Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
Sincerely,
HOLLY JEWKES
Forest Supervisor
cc: Deschutes Trails Coalition
BOARD MEMBERS January 3, 2022
City of Madras Councilor
Bartt Brick,
Chair Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
City of Bend Councilor 1300 NW Wall St.
Anthony Broadman, Bend, OR 97701
Vice Chair
RE: Deschutes Trails Coalition Request for Unobligated TRT Funds
Crook County Commissioner
Jerry Brummer
Dear County Commissioners,
Deschutes County
Commissioner Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) respectfully submits this letter in
Patti Adair
support of the Deschutes Trails Coalition's (DTC) proposal concerning the
Jefferson County administration and use of Transient Room Tax (TRT) dollars to support sustainable
Commissioner trails throughout Deschutes County. COIC's Comprehensive Economic Development
Wayne Fording
Strategy, which was developed in partnership with community and economic
Confederated Tribes of development stakeholders across the region, identifies the natural environment and
Warm Springs, related recreation amenities as a key component of the region's economic base. Without
BrCoCo
uncil
ouncil Member
o McConville world -class rereation offerings, Deschutes County would certainly not have experienced
the degree of economic growth spurred by business owners and skilled labor seeking the
City of Culver Councilor Central Oregon lifestyle. Ensuring that recreation facilities are well -maintained and that
Gretchen Schlie
recreation activity does not undermine other resource values, is therefore vital for our
City of La Pine Councilor economy.
Vacant
From our discussions with DTC, COIC is aware of DTC's intention for these funds to be
City of Metolius Councilor
Denise Keeton awarded via a competitive grant program and in COIC potentially playing a role in the
administration of this grant process. Understanding that there are additional details to be
City of Prineville decided upon that pertain to this proposal — such as how the grant would be administered
Councilor Gail Merritt
and by whom — I am writing to let you know that COIC is willing to take on such a
City of Redmond Councilor process, and has the capacity to do so.
Jay Patrick
City of sisters Councilor Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jennifer Letz
APPOINTED MEMBERS
Agribusiness &Agriculture —
Sincerely,
Phil Fine
Business & Industry —
Katy Brooks
Timber & Wood Products Scott Aycock
Tim Deboodt
CED Director, Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC)
Tourism & Recreation —
James Lewis
Under & Unemployed -
Ron Osrnundson
334 NE Hawthorne Avenue, Bend, OR 97701
(541) 548-8163 — Fax: (541) 923-3416
Office Locations: Bend, La Pine, Madras, Prineville, Redmond
1902
;APS
LOTA Of TRAILS
2022
January 2, 2022
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
P 0 Box 6005
Attn: BoCC
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Dear County Commissioners,
The Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA) respectfully submits this comment in support of the Deschutes
Trails Coalition (DTC) proposal concerning the administration and use of unallocated Transient Room
Tax(TRT) receipts to support reinvestment in outdoor recreation resources in Deschutes County.
COTNs mission is to develop, protect, and enhance the Central Oregon mountain bike experience
through trail stewardship, advocacy, collaboration, and education. COTA is a nonprofit with more than
2,000 members. Included in our base are Deschutes County chapters in South Deschutes County
(Sunriver and La Pine), Sisters, Redmond and Bend. Through these chapters we maintain more than
400 miles of singletrack trails on federal, county and private lands under volunteer agreements with the
various land managers. COTA is a DTC partner with members serving on the Steering Committee, as well
as the Leadership, Partnership and Programs, and Outreach subcommittees.
COTA strongly supports the DTC proposal for the use of a portion of the unallocated TRT receipts a
reinvestment to address critical needs in maintaining and enhancing the recreational trail infrastructure
within the county. The DTC proposal contains especially well thought out rules of engagement for
administering and managing an effective grant program. It ensures well developed projects are fairly
evaluated and successfully implemented via supportive community involvement.
Implementing the measures described in the DTC proposal will indeed help ensure that our trail system
will continue to provide the world -class recreational experiences that draw visitors to our area and
enhance our residents' quality of life
Respectfully,
Emmy Andrews Travis Holman
Executive Direc r Vice President
Central Oregon Trail Alliance Central Oregon Trail Alliance
!< Y 011] Y
PO Box 555 1 Bend, OR 97709
P
\ �At� /
January 3, 2022
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
P O Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Dear County Commissioners,
Oregon Equestrian Trails is respectfully submitting this letter to support the Deschutes Trails
Coalition's proposal to annually invest a portion of unallocated Transient Room Tax (TRT)
receipts in trails and trail -related infrastructurein Deschutes County.
Oregon Equestrian Trails is an all -volunteer nonprofit organization whose members work hard
tomaintain our trails.Whether working on the trails or riding our horses, we see firsthand how
our scenic trailsattract visitors to Deschutes County and enhance our residents' quality of life.
We also see that our trails need more funding and community support. For example, many
forest roads are now in such poor condition that we can no longer reach some trailheads and
horse camps without risking damage to our vehicles and injury to the horses we are hauling. In
addition, some trails suffer from so much deferred maintenance that they are unsafe to ride.
These conditions not only restrict accessand degrade the recreational experience for
equestrians, but they also affect mountain bikers, hikers, Nordic skiers, and snowmobilers.
The Forest Service's budget has been cut to where they cannot maintain all our trails.
Assistance from volunteers like us helps, but it's not enough. We would love to see visitors
pitch in to help keep the trails in shape. Investing a portion of the County's unallocated TRT is a
great way to accomplish this.
We appreciate your consideration of the Deschutes Trails Coalition's proposal.
Respectfully,
i�7&&Vtd
Kim McCarrel
Central Oregon Chapter
Oregon Equestrian Trails
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
Attn: BoCC
P O Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: Transient Room Tax Funds
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
Central Oregon public lands and trails are one of its most precious commodities. Most people visit our
region to recreate and enjoy the outdoors. Our roads, trails, creeks, rivers, and lakes are full of users
year round. Local residents and visitors all have an impact on our lands. It is time that the visitors' TRT
dollars start supporting the sustainability of our public lands.
Most volunteer trail maintenance, clean-ups, and public land projects are carried out by Central
Oregonians. Visitors typically don't have the opportunity to give back to the lands on which they
recreate. Allocating TRT funds to trail related projects helps our massive tourism industry give back to its
greatest resource.
We support the Deschutes Trails Coalition Proposal for $1 million of unallocated TRT funds to be
annually reinvested towards trails and trail related infrastructure. All types of recreation on public lands
have seen a large increase in users. The Motorized community has seen one of the largest increases in
users in many years. Existing trails are in need of maintenance, signage, and additional parking/camping.
TRT funding for the Motorized/OHV community should be included. The OHV community has a long
history in Central Oregon and is an important part of the Central Oregon economy.
Thank you,
Kevin Hopper
centraloregonohv@gmail.com
Central Oregon OHV Association (COOHVA)
;�
m
v
A3A.
.A�
W
a
a
0)
A
tlG
/(D
0.
Yl
O
h
.O
0
c�
a
c�
i
A A
O O
i 21
cr _.
rt
W
00
PF O
O Co
N
n =m
(p O
rre Ul
O cr
=' i
R in
IN
rt O
Ia
fu
Ulm
m F.
3%A
MT
►i
r+
a
JUluM
un�.1
(D(Aju
ml �f
r�
a�(D
f* Ul.
-� U3
oUl(D
cD
ul*al
7 -1CL
U)
o0.(A
_r
_.
°�iw
mcr
noo
C r rt
�
-� a.
O.
SU
CCD
— — t0
rr _.
w O
CL
2
I
C
m
O
c
MR
Mi
n
U2
O N (n
0
0
Uo(D
7
:7 c M
cn o
--I
z
i—
W
W
N o0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ID
°
a -ID
CD
C
0
N
N
X
CD
(n
0
—
m
0
0
(D D
Q-
0
N
07
_
00.
�.
0
rr
�.
r
cn
N cn
O
000 O
N
cn F
j
O C
u
� �
oa
n
r
c� o
Q3
O
w
0
0o
3 N
O
O f�
M.
a o
�• °
O
W
W
0)
(D
QOO
L"
ham'
A
o
v
((
Q N
v
n� n
m
r. m
� N
v O
A
ow
0
(0
�
Ul
h�
O
N
O
--A
CEO
oC
<
� J
Q
(D
0
� 3
O N
cnCD
c
N
N
N
W
N
VP
CO
(D
oa p
(A�
O
CSl
P
-P
of
N
CO
r F'
0
00
O
N
-J
I—
Cat
N
-P
oo 6?
F
CO
N
00
Cal
O
W
N
W
- c
ID
cn
U)Q cn
(�
Al
0
n
C
r-r
(D
fA
z
f'r
O
D
0)
((DD
m
r-r
• •
W N
04
0 V1
00
00
00
00
rt rt
CL
cr M
p
N �
00
�z
omn
on
A 0
M
r. A
rt
U
m
Z C.
l
rt
0�
®o
m
0m
My 0
M
rt
sir=
'lot
4
ti
o
a y
.}
r
e i
4' f
M 3 bj
ig
77
307
.�
4 Alu
E
AN
F.
s¢ {
AAAA .L,,11 �s-
� d �
x
IN
ix
ko
n
v l
v
5. `= "m- �AIOV'` J e btt`m
as
a. � _�`-gym � ��`' •, '���„ s v. � � �' ��
-V' t r
A
a
µ
I?rilillcA,� TIC,
93ev �.sc3 7$f�F,�,m j r` S £'t '+a _ "f^'•
Y�
r f
nd _-If,4
��?; � F
^-�.... .f rG .�� ,� � Cam, �✓��",5, �.' � t � 3f'"%k•� g
I/N
e rn -�y ;.� I�� �� , '� � p " �
AV
�t�V,
r
a y
x
' A
i
A ,
3
P. D
IN
Y
�Jk
W
e.
Yv'xi
®
b
0
��
Lm
yr:
r
rn
ul
F+
ul
l
_.cr
C
O
CL
X
E�
J A�c�
0 70-
o
_0
•
V)
O
(D
O_
o
O_
U)
�•
O
N
<
O
(D
3
o�rto
O
D
<
���
rr
Lo
N •
N
3
(D�
0'
�
r_r
r-r
O
to
�.
V?
Q
r
<
O
O
_r,
CO
(D
(D
U)
s
CD
O
D
=
n•
0
-0
rr
O
W
C
n
(p
o
C�
�n
C:
5'
fn
N
�.
[D
CDC
�'
-i
(D
(D
cn'
-h
CL
�-
o
o
�
�
a
<
rr
w
cn
(D
(D
(D
�(D,•�
n
(D
o_
Lo
(D
=3
o_
U.
rr
_ �0
(D
�o�'-rt
nC0-1
o"<
o CU
0 cn
O
(D 0 �
O (D
0 rrt =T :5-
rr rrt
-�• C (D O
(Drt = C
DJrt n
5 *< o
to C
:3 (D
1(f)
O V)
. -0 aj
--0
� O Q
°' � (D
Z3 <
o� (D
77 rtoo
Di
rr
-0 0- (D
(D
(nD �. � T
O
rr O
c
(D .
O—�
-err
rr
Qjrl
�.
�. O w CD
--h � N �
� O n
--h Q
� C: � CD
C
rn-rCD�•�
C (n
-Z rr
(D --h
rat �
(D
-S <
-' Q1 CD
CL
' to w �-
rr
3
o 3
C
rn � -a
-0 rn
rD
n Lo C
E,wLn
cn35
rUl-r (p c0
rr
L :r
CD M
07 La 70
O_
n 0 O to
r-r =3 cn m
O rr 1
-' O
io U.) _
rr C 3
(D -0 �D
O 'e
O n _
-O O A
tot
0 E: O
L
0 0
3
rn
rr
rn
E S C0
G2-A
o
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
January 12, 2022
Board consideration of whether to hear appeals 247-21-001115-A and 247-21-
SUBJECT: 001116-A of Hearings Officer's decisions 247-21-000508-SP, 849-A and 247-21-
000553-MC, 920-A
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of Order 2022-002 an Order denying review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File Nos. 247-21- 001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21- 000508-SP.
_I•
Move approval of Order 2022-003 an Order denying review of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File Nos. 247-21- 001116-A, 247-21-920-A, and 247-21- 000553-MC
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Please see attached memos and case websites here:
https://www deschutes orq/cdlpagel247-21-001116-appeal-hearings-officer-decision-
247-21-000920-247-21-000553-mc
https://www deschutes orq/cdlpagel247-21-001115-appeal-hearings-officer-decision-
247-21-000849-247-21-000508-sp
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Angie Brewer, Senior Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Angie Brewer, Senior Planner
DATE: January 5, 2022 for January 12, 2022 Board Session
RE: Board Order 2022-003
Decision whether to hear an appeal of Hearings Officer's approval of an application
to amend Conceptual Master Plan/Final Master Plan (CMP/FMP) for Thornburgh
Destination Resort to conform to State and County Destination Resort rules regarding
Overnight Lodging Units to State and County Destination Resort rules.
File No. 247-21-001116-A
On January 12, 2022, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider whether to hear
Appeal No. 247-21-001116-A of Hearings Officer decision 247-21-000920-A (appeal of Staff Decision
247-21-000553-MC). The Hearings Officer decision addresses a limited scope of issues on appeal
and approves the request.
I. BACKGROUND
The Thornburgh Destination Resort Master Plan/Conceptual Master Plan was previously approved
in File No. M-07/MA-08-6. The applicant has subsequently pursued required land use approvals for
specific Site Plan reviews and Tentative Plan reviews to implement the Master Plan in phases.
The subject appeal is in response to amend the previously approved Conceptual Master Plan/Final
Master Plan (CMP/FMP) for Thornburgh Destination Resort to conform to State and County
Destination Resort rules regarding Overnight Lodging Units to State and County Destination Resort
rules. Changes to law include changes to the ratio of overnight lodging units to single-family
dwellings and the number of weeks each year an OLU must be available for overnight lodging.
Staff received Application 247-21-000553-MC on June 3, 2021; Staff issued an administrative
decision on September 30, 2021, approving the proposed development with conditions. Appeal 920-
A, filed by Annunziata Gould was received October 12, 2021. A hearing before the Deschutes County
Hearings Officer Gregory Frank was held November 4, 2021. The Hearings Officer Decision was
1 1 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
issued December 21, 2021, responding to the grounds for appeal, modifying the staff report, and
approving the proposed amendment. An appeal of the Hearings Officer decision was received
December 30, 2021 by Annunziata Gould. The 150t' day by which a final local decision must be
issued is February 12, 2022. Staff notes Board hearings for land use appeals require 20-day public
notice and have a 12-day appeal period.
II. HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
A public hearing was held November 4, 2021; additional argument and evidence was provided
during the open record period.
The Hearings Officer remand decision concludes the following:
1. Appellant's appeal of the Staff Decision is denied.
2. The Staff Findings and Decision (247-21-000553-MC) is affirmed excepting Conditions D, E, and
F which are modified to read as follows:
A. Staff Decision Condition D - 21 a is revised to read as follows (sections in italics
represent newly revised language):
The resort shall comply with DCC 18.113.060(D)(2). Specifically, DCC 18.113.060(D)(2)
requires:
Individually owned residential units that do not meet the definition of overnight lodging
in DCC 18.04.030 shall not exceed two and one-half such units for each unit of visitor
oriented overnight lodging. Individually owned units shall be considered visitor
oriented overnight lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general
public for 23 at least 38 weeks per calendar year through one or more central
reservation and check in service(s) operated by the destination resort or by a real estate
property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010.
B. Staff Decision Condition D - 21 b is deleted.
C. Staff Decision Condition D - 21 c is retained.
D. Staff Decision Condition D - 21 d is deleted.
E. Staff Decision Condition E is deleted.
F. Condition 33 is retained and revised to read as follows (sections in italics represent
newly revised language):
The Resort shall, in the first phase, provide for the following:
A. At least 150 separate rentable units for visitor -oriented lodging as follows:
(a) The first 50 overnight lodging units must be constructed prior to the closure
of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots.
247-21-001116-A, 247-21-000920-A, and 247-21-000553-MC Page 2 of 5
(b) The resort may elect to phase in the remaining 100 overnight lodging units
as follows:
(i) At least 50 of the remaining 100 required overnight lodging units shall
be constructed or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent
financial assurance within five years of the closure of sale of individual
lots or units, and
(ii) The remaining 50 required overnight lodging units shall be constructed
or guaranteed through surety bonding or equivalent financial
assurances within 10 years of the closure of sale of individual lots or
units.
(iii) If the developer of a resort guarantees a portion of the required
overnight lodging units required under subsection 18.113.060(A) (1)(b)
through surety bonding or other equivalent financial assurance, the
overnight lodging units must be constructed within 4 years of the date
of execution of the surety bond or other equivalent financial assurance.
(iv) The 2.5:1 accommodation ratio required by DCC 18.113.060 (D)(2) must
be maintained at all times.
(c) If a resort does not choose to phase the overnight lodging units as
described in this condition of approval, then the required 150 units of
overnight lodging units must be constructed prior to the closure of sales,
rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots.
B. Visitor -oriented eating establishments for at least 100 persons and meeting
room which provide eating for at least 100 persons.
C. The aggregate cost of developing the overnight lodging facilities and the eating
establishments and meeting rooms required in DCC 18.113.060(A)(1) and (2)
shall be at least $2,000,000 (in 1984 dollars).
D. At least $2,000,000 (in 1984 dollars) shall be spent on developed recreational
facilities.
E. The facilities and accommodations required by DCC 18.113.060, other than
overnight lodging units, must be physically provided or financially assured
pursuant to DCC 18.113.110 prior to the closure of sales, rental or lease of any
residential dwellings or lots.
G. Staff Decision Condition F is deleted and Condition 35 is retained and revised to read
as follows (sections in italics represent newly revised language):
The contract with the owners of units that will be used for overnight lodging by the
general public shall contain language to the following effect. "[Unit Owner] shall make
the unit available to (Thornburgh Resort/booking agent] for overnight rental use by the
general public at least 38 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and
check -in service.
247-21-001116-A, 247-21-000920-A, and 247-21-000553-MC Page 3 of 5
III. APPEAL
The appellant, Annunziata Gould provided a statement of reasons for the appeal, summarized here:
1. Goal Post Rule;
2. Raise or Waive It;
3. Lot of Record Issue;
4. Substantial Change (Final Master Plan Condition 1);
5. Judge Lipscomb's Arguments;
6. Conditions of Approval;
7. Conclusions and Decision.
The appellant requests the Board hear this matter to review and reverse the Hearings Officer
remand decision. The appellant requests a de novo hearing before the Board.
IV. BOARD OPTIONS
There are two versions of Order No. 2022-003 attached to this memo, one to hear the appeal and
one to decline to hear the appeal. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may
consider only:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendation of staff'
In addition, if the Board decides to hear the appeal, it may consider providing time limits for public
testimony.
Reasons not to hear:
• The Hearings Officer's decision is reasoned, well written, and could be supported, as the
record exists today on appeal to LUBA.
• Statutory remand timelines require a final local decision by February 12, 2022; insufficient
time exists for the Board to hear, deliberate, and decide upon the matter.
• The applicant agrees with the Hearings Officer's decision and thus requests that the Board
not hear the appeal.
Reasons to hear:
• The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretations relating to the Hearings
Officer's decision.
' Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.32.035(B) and (D)
247-21-001116-A, 247-21-000920-A, and 247-21-000553-MC Page 4 of 5
The appellant recommends the Board hear this matter.
If the Board chooses to hear this matter, the appellant requests the hearing be heard de novo. The
applicant has not stated whether they would like the hearing before the Board be heard de novo,
limited de novo, or on the record. Under DCC 22.32.027(B)(3) the Board may choose to hear a matter
de novo at their sole discretion.
If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's remand decision shall be the final decision of the
county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal
as provided by law. The decision on the land use applications becomes final upon the mailing of the
Board's decision to decline review.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board not hear this appeal because staff believes that the appellants were
able to present all relevant evidence at the hearing before the Hearings Officer. Staff agrees with
the Hearings Officer's analysis and decision. Staff also notes that there is not adequate time in the
150-day remand review clock.
VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The County must take final action on this application by February 12, 2022.
VII. RECORD
The record for appeal File 247-21-00116-A (247-21-000920-A and 247-21-000553-MC) is as
presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website:
https://www.d esc h utesorg/cd/page/247-21-001116-appea l-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-
000920-247-21-000553-mc
Attachments:
Document
Order No 2022-003_Accept_1116-A
Order No 2022-003_Decline_1116-A
Item No.
2
247-21-001116-A, 247-21-000920-A, and 247-21-000553-MC Page 5 of 5
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21- * ORDER NO. 2022-003
001116-A, 247-21-000920-A, and 247-21-
000553-MC
WHEREAS on June 3, 2021, Central Land and Cattle Co., LLC initiated 247-21-000553-MC
with a new land use application; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, an administrative decision was issued by Deschutes
County Community Development Department approving the proposed development with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, appeal 247-21-000920-A was submitted by Annunziata
Gould, represented by Jeffrey Kleinman; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, a public hearing was held at 6:00pm in the Barnes and
Sawyer Meeting Room and by Zoom for the Deschutes County Hearings Officer review of 247-21-
000553-MC and 247-21-000920-A; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved
Application No. 247-21-000553-MC; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, Annuziata Gould, the Appellant, appealed (File No. 247-
21-001116-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on Files 247-21-000920-A and 247-
21-000553-MC; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now, therefore,
ORDER No. 2022-003
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal application 247-21-001116-A, 247-21-000920-A,
247-21-000553-MC pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County
land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
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
appellants provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
Section 5. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for file nos. 247-21-001116-A, 920-A, 553-MC as
presented at the following website:
https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/247-21-001116-appea l-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-
000920-247-21-000553-mc
Going forward, all documents further placed before, and not rejected by, the Board
shall be added to the aforementioned website, and that website shall be the Board's
official repository for the record in this matter.
DATED this day of , 2022.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL CHANG, Vice Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner
ORDER No. 2022-003
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21- * ORDER NO. 2022-003
001116-A, 247-21-920-A, and 247-21-
000553-MC.
WHEREAS on June 3, 2021, Central Land and Cattle Co., LLC initiated 247-21-000553-MC
with a new land use application; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, an administrative decision was issued by Deschutes
County Community Development Department approving the proposed development with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, appeal 247-21-000920-A was submitted by Annunziata
Gould, represented by Jeffrey Kleinman; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, a public hearing was held at 6:00pm in the Barnes and
Sawyer Meeting Room and by Zoom for the Deschutes County Hearings Officer review of 247-21-
000553-MC and 247-21-000920-A; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved
Application No. 247-21-000553-MC; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, Annuziata Gould, the Appellant, appealed the Deschutes
County Hearings Officer's Decision on Files 247-21-000920-A and 247-21-000553-MC (Appeal File
No. 247-21-001116-A) the; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
ORDER NO. 2022-003
Section 1. That it will not hear on appeal application 247-21-001116-A, 920-A, 553-MC
pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, the County shall refund any portion of the appeal
fee not yet spent processing the subject application. If the matter is further appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and the County is required to prepare a transcript of the hearing before the
Hearings Officer, the refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the cost incurred by
the County to prepare such a transcript.
Section 3. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for file nos. 247-21-001116-A, 920-A, 553-MC as
presented at the following website:
https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/247-21-001116-appeal-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-
000920-247-21-000553-mc
DATED this day of , 2022.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL CHANG, Vice Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner
ORDER NO. 2022-003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Angie Brewer, Senior Planner
DATE: January 5, 2022 for January 12, 2022 Board Session
RE: Board Order 2022-002
Decision whether to hear an appeal of Hearings Officer's approval of an application
for 80 Overnight Lodging Units at the Thornburgh Destination Resort
File No. 247-21-001115-A
On January 12, 2022, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider whether to hear
appeal 247-21-001115-A of Hearings Officer decision 247-21-000849-A (appeal of Staff Decision 247-
21-000508-SP). The Hearings Officer decision addresses a limited scope of issues on appeal and
approves the request for 80 Overnight Lodging Units (OLU's).
I. BACKGROUND
The Thornburgh Destination Resort Master Plan/Conceptual Master Plan was previously approved
in File No. M-07/MA-08-6. The applicant has subsequently pursued required land use approvals for
specific Site Plan reviews and Tentative Plan reviews to implement the Master Plan in phases.
The subject appeal is in response to Site Plan Review for the construction of 80 Overnight Lodging
Units in Phase A-1 of the Thornburgh Destination Resort. OLU's are a required component of
destination resort development. Phase A-1 subdivision was previously approved by Deschutes
County but has subsequently been appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and has not
yet been decided (247-21-000937-A, 21-000731-A; and 247-18-386-TP, 18-454-SP, 18-542-MA). The
Board elected not to hear this matter in Board Order 2021-0059. Court rulings have confirmed the
status of this case does not preclude the applicant from pursuing subsequent phases of the
permitting process.
Staff received Application 247-21-000508-SP on May 21, 2021; Staff issued an administrative
decision on September 9, 2021, approving the proposed development with conditions. Appeal 247-
21-000849-A was filed by Annunziata Gould September 21, 2021. A hearing before the Deschutes
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
AZI (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd
County Hearings Officer Gregory Frank was held November 4, 2021. The Hearings Officer Decision
was issued December 21, 2021, responding to the grounds for appeal, modifying the staff report,
and approving the proposed development. Annunziata Gould provided an appeal of the Hearings
Officer decision December 30, 2021.
9 - Area Subject to Site Plan Review
— �41 r-�N
THORNBURGH RESORT
CABIN SITE PLAN
LC]CAtEt7At Tt�� ",». i5YsuT,., HEG�OY LCASi S£C`.iONS Yad:5
�ESL:�HSTE5 U,.i,NPY. bREGOti
i
i
S:
x
dd;_.
t� x
4'
r✓
, xex
jj
t t.' C2.0
i Sr=
II. HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION
A public hearing was held November 4, 2021; additional argument and evidence was provided
during the open record period.
The Hearings Officer remand decision concludes the following:
IV. DECISION
1. Appellant's appeal of the Staff Decision is denied; and
247-21-001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21-000508-SP Page 2 of 5
2. The Staff Findings and Decision (247-21-000553-MC) is affirmed excepting as modified below.
a. FMP Conditions 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14A, 148, 15, 24, 30 and 37 are "satisfied,*" and
b. Condition 28 correctly states: See conditions # 38 and #39, and
c. Delete: Staff Decision Condition C.
III. APPEAL
The appellant, Annunziata Gould provide a statement of reasons for the appeal, noting the
following:
1. The proposed Site Plan is inextricably linked with the review of Phase A-1, the approval of
which is on appeal before LUBA;
2. Lot of Record;
3. Final Master Plan Conditions 10 and 38;
4. Phase A-1 Condition 17;
5. Final Master Plan Condition 21;
6. Final Master Plan Condition 28 and relatedly, Conditions 38 and 39;
7. Final Master Plan Condition 38;
8. Water Rights;
9. DCC 18.113.060;
10. Applicant's requested "correction" #1;
11. Applicant's requested "correction" #2;
12. Conclusions and decision.
The appellant requests the Board hear this matter to review and reverse the Hearings Officer
remand decision. The appellant requests a de novo hearing before the Board.
IV. BOARD OPTIONS
There are two versions of Order No. 2022-002 attached to this memo, one to hear the appeal and
one to decline to hear the appeal. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may
consider only:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendation of staff2
In addition, if the Board decides to hear the appeal, it may consider providing time limits for public
testimony.
1 Staff notes a scrivener's error that this decision is limited to the 508-SP file, not the 553-MC file,
heard the same evening by the same Hearings Officer.
2 Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.32.035(B) and (D)
247-21-001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21-000508-SP Page 3 of 5
Reasons not to hear:
The Hearings Officer's decision is reasoned, well written, and could be supported, as the
record exists today on appeal to LUBA.
• Statutory remand timelines require a final local decision by February 12, 2022, leaving very
little time for the Board to sufficiently hear, deliberate, and decide upon the matter.
The applicant agrees with the Hearings Officer's decision and thus requests that the Board
not hear the appeal.
Reasons to hear:
• The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretations relating to the Hearings
Officer's decision.
• The appellant recommends the Board hear this matter.
If the Board chooses to hear this matter, the appellant requests the hearing be heard de novo. The
applicant has not stated whether they would like the hearing before the Board be heard de novo,
limited de novo, or on the record. Under DCC 22.32.027(B)(3) the Board may choose to hear a matter
de novo at their sole discretion.
If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's remand decision shall be the final decision of the
county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal
as provided by law. The decision on the land use applications becomes final upon the mailing of the
Board's decision to decline review.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board not hear this appeal because staff believes that the appellants were
able to present all relevant evidence at the hearing before the Hearings Officer. Staff agrees with
the Hearings Officer's analysis and decision. Staff also notes that there is not adequate time in the
150-day remand review clock.
VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The County must take final action on this application by February 12, 2022.
VII. RECORD
The record for appeal File 247-21-00115-A (247-21-000849-A and 247-21-000508-SP) is as presented
at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website:
247-21-001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21-000508-SP Page 4 of 5
https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/247-21-001115-appeal-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-
000849-247-21-000508-sp
Attachments:
Document Item No.
Order No 2022-002_Accept_1115-A 1
Order No 2022-002_Decline_1115-A 2
247-21-001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21-000508-SP Page 5 of 5
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Accepting Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21- * ORDER NO. 2022-002
001115-A, 247-21-849-A, 247-21-508-SP
WHEREAS on May 21, 2021, Central Land and Cattle Co., LLC initiated 247-21-000508-SP
with a new land use application; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, an administrative decision was issued by Deschutes
County Community Development Department approving the proposed development with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, appeal 247-21-000849-A was submitted by Annunziata
Gould, represented by Jeffrey Kleinman; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, a public hearing was held at 6:00pm in the Barnes and
Sawyer Meeting Room and by Zoom for the Deschutes County Hearings Officer review of 247-21-
000508-SP and 247-21-000849-A; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved
Application No. 247-21-000508-SP; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, Annuziata Gould, the Appellant, appealed (File No. 247-
21-001115-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on Files 247-21-000849-A and 247-
21-000508-SP; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
ORDER NO.2022-002
Section 1. That it will hear on appeal application 247-21-001115-A, 849-A, 508-SP
pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo.
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
appellants provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing.
Section 5. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for file nos. 247-21-001115-A, 849-A, 508-SP as
presented at the following website:
https://www.desc h utesorg/cd/page/247-21-001115-appea l-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-
000849-247-21-000508-sp
Going forward, all documents further placed before, and not rejected by, the Board
shall be added to the aforementioned website, and that website shall be the Board's
official repository for the record in this matter.
DATED this day of , 2022.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL CHANG, Vice Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner
ORDER NO.2022-002
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denying Review of Hearings
Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-21- * ORDER NO. 2022-002
001115-A, 247-21-000849-A, and 247-21-
000508-SP.
WHEREAS on May 21, 2021, Central Land and Cattle Co., LLC initiated 247-21-000508-SP
with a new land use application; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2021, an administrative decision was issued by Deschutes
County Community Development Department approving the proposed development with
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, appeal 247-21-000849-A was submitted by Annunziata
Gould, represented by Jeffrey Kleinman; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, a public hearing was held at 6:00pm in the Barnes and
Sawyer Meeting Room and by Zoom for the Deschutes County Hearings Officer review of 247-21-
000508-SP and 247-21-000849-A; and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved
Application No. 247-21-000508-SP; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, Annuziata Gould, the Appellant, appealed the Deschutes
County Hearings Officer's Decision on Files 247-21-000849-A 247-21-000508-SP (Appeal File No.
247-21-001115-A) the; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear
appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application
on appeal; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
ORDER NO. 2022-002
Section 1. That it will not hear on appeal application 247-21-001115-A, 849-A, 508-SP
pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances.
Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, the County shall refund any portion of the appeal
fee not yet spent processing the subject application. If the matter is further appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and the County is required to prepare a transcript of the hearing before the
Hearings Officer, the refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the cost incurred by
the County to prepare such a transcript.
Section 3. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and
considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record
developed before the lower hearing body for file nos. 247-21-001115-A, 849-A, 508-SP as
presented at the following website:
https://www deschutes org/cdlpagel247-21-001115-appeal-hearings-officer-decision-247-21-000849-
247-21-000508-sp
DATED this day of , 2022.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ANTHONY DeBONE, Chair
PHIL CHANG, Vice Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Commissioner
ORDER NO. 2022-002
v
O
4-
v
V
O
r
O
bA
Ul
N
c
O
u N
4-
0
-�
v
cz v
O 42
Z u
N �
v c
® o
L/) a
0-2
VV)
Qo
� C
N v
C Q
ra
O
4.1
.1 V
C
Ln
C: O
v
-O O
V)
m � m
C
P�',
4J
O —
bA �
O Ln
O ro u
4 v c
u O
Ln
+� r v
v v
m ;>+
E FU Ln
4 -+
i
u &-. O
c o0
°J=Ln
m
.� (n
Q) O LA
o •
v '7 O
Ln
o v
® Ln
(3)
O
v
Ln
O 1 O
O Lfi
u CB
�4-
N
4-, O Q
O
E �I—
Ou v O
'Z5 bA
•�
—
ro u CD
Zr 'ru Ln
� Q L
Q Q)
LA
Ln
Ln �
v
E
Ln
O
u ® E
�-- 4— E
0O "O
X
2
JNOY
O
C..
w
O JS� a
N
- —
c6
00 u � E
O
O � V m 0
_ m m 4O
E �Ja) ro
>, —
-0 ru
co
o Q�
O N c- E u c6
� � c6
i 4-
O
> N — �-'
Q) O ob O
Q O O u
O ro ro E oo ;ro 4-J ro aA
a) �o cQ �V)0 L°c
CL � > V
ro O -0 � N
4-ro
u Q Nro ro
v Q
Q c 00 �` Q C) a) 00
Q V ro OL 0-0 v1 J
Ln
�o
�
00
rn
O
O
O
T-
o
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
JNl y
U
w
r
�y
C-
�
N
ro
-0
C-
�
U
0O
CDO
N
CL
>
'u
C-
U
ro
-0
>
�
�
>—
bw
O
'�
4-J
•�
O
—
m
-O
U
u
-0
Ln
•�
_
'�n
a)
Ln
Q
a�
-` )
.V)
>_
0)E
O
L -
4-
E
Cl-
N
O
U
ro
O
U
a1
-0
-5
4-
O
O
—
Q
O
U
In
Q
-
m
O
Ln
LA
0
24-
>
O
�
4O
Ln>'
o
c�
4J
O
._
+�
�_'
N
v`--
O
Q
U
. V
r6
p
Ln
C)Lro
ro
®—
bo
�--'
-C
ro
c6
' E
cn
4O
i
ro
(A•
•—a�Lp
QO
'n
L/)
Q-
Q
=
�
Lh
.�
ob
2
ro
al
a)
-0
!-
U
Ln
:3
ro
oo
P
r6
-o
tA
0 0 0 0
\) y
0
V)
w
00
�y
JS3 Q
m
O
o
in
_0 _ U
U aJ aJ
Ul V) _0
aJ aJ _0
� u-, CT O
O Q) 4* ( 16
V)
4J � —� C:N
vi b-0 +-� O a-' O _O
4-' c6 +-► V)
o6 rop
L � U N u N
C M V � O Q O 0
iL C Q" Q" U
m.; N
_ O
co
N ONO
(V to
C)L c C- c 00
N� CL O o Om
N
C 0 0O
Q V C ;+_' c C: CO
o �, o m o -J U a;
o m o m ) r Q M ro r.
L��ry
o�,��6
a�
� X> Q— o c0-0 ro 10 c-0-0
���Qa� O �c C C
I— .— ro i L c6 CL iL iL c6 ro
N
N
O
N
Q
C
M
Q
m
i
�
W
LL
J
Q
o
_
ro
Q
-0
r
N
c6
ro
.�
E
V
i
4
a�
Ln
O
w
®
�
c6
.�
E
L
y
.0
tQ
U
E
Ln
c6
O
O
�
Ln
CL
4-1
N
�
�
E
N
0
v
p
—
V
"
o
ro
bJ0
ru
r6
c
V)
LL
J�( Y
V)
w
ate-+ p
� N
O p Ln N
+�D u CD
O ru E .0 N N
+� 41 — N
N • u-
u 4-, N O �,
bA ro _0 L-
bALn�
O '� to > L
E �C � ro
O l�
'L
m " �-
'� �
W
_ O o to
> L Q •E to •-
L— �� 4� o
r6 � U N
u O E Q vi —
p C m— vj Q- O
a���`u �`�=� �m
� �
" ca c- � O
� E 4- O b- U 5
� Q
�� Ou � �
E O O ro bA
4- � -O m O
N • cn 4"' i
cn Lh - CZ
I > > N -E -6 N
LA U O c6 d1 P c6 -6 ZA
It
Ul
O
r
ro
O
MW
N
N
N
O
u
O
ry
4-
0
J
c
O
+_j
0
c
O
u
C
ro
L
4
V)
ro
c6
C
LL
b-0
ro
C-
u
ro
C
c6
V)
V)
C
O
N
u
r)
ro
N
O
u
O
u
N
N
O
N
C
C
m
00
LL
J
41
O
�
�
•�
N
Q
r6
4J
ro
E
V
c6
4--,
N
Q)
v)
0
b-0
-0
®
�
ru
41
V)
U
O
C:
_0
c
c6
N
O
E
r
N
V,
v
E
a
0
tQ
Ln
E
®
i
O
V
uo
0
bq
ro
M
0
can
LL
_
N
0
0
i
M
Ln