2022-154-Minutes for Meeting March 30,2022 Recorded 4/22/2022BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2022_154
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 04/22/2022 11:43:49 AM
oi-ES co
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
9:00 AM
WEDNESDAY, March 30, 2022 Barnes Sawyer &
VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Nick
Lelack, County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Legal Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive
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 meting to order at 9:01 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CITIZEN INPUT:
Commissioner Adair acknowledged the emails and phone calls regarding Citizen
Input. Commissioner DeBone noted appreciation for the citizen input and
commented on his support of changing Worrell Park. Commissioner Adair
commented on a vision from Mike Maier prior County Administrator and Budget
Committee member and has always watched the County's money closely.
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 1 OF 10
Commissioner Chang noted the benefit of the parking proposal for a new park
within the city and additional parking.
Tommy Waldron, Foundation of Affordable Housing, commented on the Simpson
Avenue project and the importance of affordable housing. Mr. Waldren
commented on the devastation of losing trees on the subject property and
proposes to work with the community to protect and plant trees on the property.
Melanie Kebler, City of Bend Councilor, commented on the importance of the
development on the Simpson Avenue project and of the City of Bend's support.
Ron "Rondo"Booze/, presented comments on hard decisions and a statement posed
on "who was more wrong - Chris or Will".
Judy Trego, thanked the Board for the selection process of the Deschutes County
Budget Committee and appreciates the appointment.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent
Agenda.
Commissioner Adair requested to p /ll Item 3 and 7 for discussion. Commissioner
Chang noted support of Item 5 for a child care and relief nursery in La Pine.
DEBONE: Move approval of Consent Agenda, minus Items 3 and 7
CHANG: Second
Discussion: Commissioner DeBone also noted support of Item 5 and the work of
MountainStar Relief Nursery and their proposed development.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-022, Increasing 1.0 Limited Duration
FTE within the Deschutes County Health Services Budget
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 10
2. Consideration of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2022-276
3. Consideration of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2022-285, Dedication
Deed, Document No. 2022-286, and Temporary Construction Easement,
Document No. 2022-287, from Jeffrey L. and Elizabeth M. Mishler for Right of
Way for the Hunnell Road: Loco Road to Tumalo Road Improvement Project
4. Consideration of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2022-292, and
Permanent Slope Easement, Document No. 2022-293 from the Norbert and
Joan Volny Trust for Right of Way for the Hunnell Road: Loco Road to Tumalo
Road Improvement Project
5. Consideration of Board Signature for Order No. 2022-018, authorizing the
Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated
with the sale of County owned property located at 16623 and 16631 Box
Way, La Pine, Oregon 97739
6. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Reappointment for Sharon
Leighty and Dan Ellingson to the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks
Commission.
7. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Appointment to Judy Trego
and Jim Fister, and Letters of Thanks to Mike Maier and Bill Anderson, for
service on the Deschutes County Budget Committees.
ACTION ITEMS:
Consent Agenda Item 7 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature
on Letters of Appointment to Judy Trego and Jim Fister, and Letters of Thanks
to Mike Maier and Bill Anderson, for service on the Deschutes County Budget
Committees
Commissioner Adair expressed appreciation to Mike Maier and Bill Anderson for
their service on the Budget Committee and thanking the new members.
Commissioner DeBone reported on the value of the members of the Budget
Committee and their work.
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 10
CHANG: Move approval of Consent Agenda Item 7
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consent Agenda Item 3 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Purchase
Agreement, Document No. 2022-285, Dedication Deed, Document No. 2022-
286, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2022-287, from
Jeffrey L. and Elizabeth M. Mishler for Right of Way for the Hunnell Road: Loco
Road to Tumalo Road Improvement Project
Commissioner Adair requested information on the significance of compensation for
this agreement. County Engineer Cody Smith (via Zoom conference call) reported
the compensation of $45000 noting the offer amount was determined through a
certified land appraiser for fair market value.
DEBONE: Move approval of Consent Agenda Item 3
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. PUBLIC HEARING: and Order Considering Stilson Annexation to Rural
Fire District #2
County Counsel Dave Doyle presented the background of the request for
public hearing. Commissioner Adair opened the public hearing for
testimony. Hearing none, Commissioner Adair closed the public hearing.
CHANG: Move approval of Order No. 2022-017
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 10
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
9. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-020, Appointing
Nick Lelack as Deschutes County Treasurer.
County Administrator Lelack reported the Order is necessary as current CFO
Greg Munn is working his last day on April 1. Upon appointment, Lelack will
then delegate that authority to prior Finance Department Director/Treasurer
Wayne Lowry who will be assisting the County under a personal services
agreement.
DEBONE: Move approval of Order No. 2022-020
CHANG: Second
Discussion: Commissioner DeBone thanked Greg Munn for his service and
thanked Wayne Lowry for coming back in the interim.
VOTE: DEBONE: Voss
i.J I L. DEBONE: I L. Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
County Administrator Lelack recognized the strength of the Finance
department team.
10.Consideration of Board Chair Signature of Notice of Intent to Award
Contract for Audit Services.
David Givans, Internal Auditor, presented the item for consideration. A
request for proposals was sent out for external auditing services for a five
year contract. Deschutes County received two bids and the recommendation
to award is to accept the proposal from Moss Adams.
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 10
CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2022-267
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
11.FIRST READING: Ordinance No. 2022-001 and Ordinance No. 2022-002,
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner, presented the item for consideration.
DEBONE: Move approval of first reading by title only
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Adair read into the record Ordinance No. 2022-001 and
Ordinance No. 2022-002 by title only.
The second reading will be included on the April 13, 2022 BOCC Agenda.
12.READING OF A PROCLAMATION: Declaring April 2022 as Child Abuse
Prevention Month
Kara Tachikawa, Mountain Star Executive Director, thanked the
commissioners to their attention and support measures in preventing child
abuse in our community. Gabrielle Allender, KIDS Center, presented via
Zoom conference call reporting on the services provided by KIDS Center and
the history of the Blue Ribbon Campaign.
The Commissioners read the proclamation into the record.
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 10
DEBONE: Move adoption of the Proclamation
CHANG: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
13.Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-019, Recognizing
Juneteenth as a paid Deschutes County holiday consistent with Section
10.070 of the Deschutes County HR Personnel Rules
HR Director Kathleen Hinman presented the item for consideration and
reported on the history and significance of Juneteenth.
CHANG: Move approval of Order No. 2022-019
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner Adair reported on the last Central Oregon Visitors Association
meeting she attended. Mr. Lelack also spoke on the discussions of a reserve
fund policy.
• Commissioner Chang noted the need for various letters of support for
consideration. Whitney Hale, Deputy County Administrator presented
several draft letters. The Board reviewed the letters and stated their
support.
DEBONE: Move approval of the City Of Bend Land Acquisition Project
letter of support
CHANG: Second
BOCC MEETING MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 10
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
• Property Manager Kristie Bollinger presented the results of the request
for proposals for the Simpson Avenue development and land sale. There
were five proposals submitted; one developer chose to not proceed and
one was disqualified due to incomplete submission. Commissioner
Chang expressed his support for the recommendation of the selection
committee. Commissioner DeBone noted the successful applicant is
Housing Works/KOR Community Land Trust and thanked everyone in the
community for their engagement.
CHANG: Move approval of Notice of Intent
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
• Commissioner DeBone reported on the joint office for houselessness and
the upcoming meeting. He has spoken by phone with staff In Canada for
a program in place for sharing information. He reported on the ARPA
check distribution that is scheduled for tomorrow. Hydroelectric facility
tour tomorrow afternoon.
• Commissioner Chang reported on a letter of support requested from the
Oregon Department of Forestry for the purchase of an air curtain burner
to support defensible space efforts.
• Ms. Hale presented a letter of support requested from the City of Bend
for the affordable housing letter. Commissioner DeBone expressed best
wishes to the City but is not in support of signing the letter.
Commissioner Chang is supportive of signing the letter. Commissioner
Adair spoke on the funding and if it is secure she would sign the letter.
Commissioner Adair inquired if the housing would be available for
someone making $25 per hour and the difficult situation for housing in
our community. Commissioner Adair offered support.
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 8 OF 10
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 10:50 a.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (i) Employee Evaluation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 11:35 a.m.
RECESS: At the time of 11:35 a.m. the Board went into recess and reconvened
the meeting at 1:00 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS Continued:
14.Approval of Grant Agreement No. 2022-262, to construct advance
wastewater collection system improvements in Terrebonne
Road Department Director Chris Doty, presented the item for consideration
via Zoom conference call, and reported on the source of funding and the
scope of work of the project.
CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2022-262
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
15.Request approval to apply for OHA Aid and Assist grant fund
Behavioral Health Director Janice Garceau and Program Manager Kara
Cronin presented the item for consideration via Zoom conference call.
DEBONE: Move approval to submit grant application
CHANG: Second
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 9 OF 10
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
CHANG: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 1:44 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:14 p.m. to direct
staff to proceed as discussed.
At the time of 2:14 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (f) Consider Records that are Exempt from Disclosure. The Board came out of
Executive Session at 2:35 p.m. to direct staff to proceed as discussed.
ADJOURN
Being no business brought before the Commissioners, the meeting was adjourned at 2:36 p.m.
DATED this 0 Day of
Commissioners.
RECORDING SECRETARY
2022 for the Deschutes County Board of
PA TI ADAIR, CHAIR
ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR
e,,,-----
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING
MARCH 30, 2022 PAGE 10 OF 10
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2022
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend
(541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org
AGENDA
MEETING FORMAT: The Oregon legislature passed 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 public an 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 via the Public Meeting Portal at
www.deschutes.org/meetings
Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by
submitting an email to: citizeninput@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-
1734. Citizen input received by noon on Tuesday will be included in the Citizen input meeting
record for topics that are not included on the Wednesday agenda.
Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for
consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom
meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials
or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon
entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once
you are ready to present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your
presentation. If you are providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room
until the time of testimony, staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited
for testimony. Detailed instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be
announced at the outset of the public hearing.
For Public Hearings, the link to the Zoom meeting will be posted in the Public Hearing Notice as
well as posted on the Deschutes County website at https://www.deschutes.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
1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-022 Increasing 1.0 Limited Duration FTE within the
Deschutes County Health Services Budget.
2. Consideration of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2022-276
3. Consideration of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2022-285, Dedication Deed,
Document No. 2022-286, and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2022-
287, from Jeffrey L. and Elizabeth M. Mishler for Right of Way for the Hunnell Road: Loco
Road to Tumalo Road Improvement Project
4. Consideration of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2022-292, and Permanent Slope
Easement, Document No. 2022-293 from the Nobert and Joan Volny Trust for Right of
Way for the Hunnell Road: Loco Road to Tumalo Road Improvement Project
5. Consideration of Board Signature for Order No. 2022-018, authorizing the Deschutes
County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with the sale of County -
owned property located at 16623 and 16631 Box Way, La Pine, Oregon 97739
6. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Reappointment for Sharon Leighty and
Dan Ellingson to the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission.
7. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Appointment to Judy Trago and Jim
Fister, and Letters of Thanks to Mike Maier and Bill Anderson, for service on the
Deschutes County Budget Committees.
ACTION ITEMS
8. 9:05AM Public Hearing and Order Considering Stilson Annexation to Rural Fire District
#2
9. 9:15 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-020, Appointing Nick
Lelack as Deschutes County Treasurer
March 30, 2022
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
10. 9:25 AM Consideration and Board chair signature of Notice of intent to award contract
for audit services
11. 9:50 AM 1st Reading: Ordinance 2022-001 and Ordinance 2022-002 - Central Oregon
Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment/Zone Change
12. 10:00 AM Reading of a Proclamation Declaring April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention
Month
13. 10:20 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2022-019, recognizing
Juneteenth as a paid Deschutes County holiday consistent with Section 10.070 of the
Deschutes County HR Personnel Rules.
LUNCH RECESS
14. 1:00 PM Approval of Grant Agreement #2022-262 to construct advance wastewater
collection system improvements in Terrebonne.
15. 1:30 PM Request approval to apply for OHA Aid and Assist grant fund
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
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.
March 30, 2022
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony: 11k�c taL )e l ors.
4401
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
mr�
Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) RNo
Name / �r4,5,Date:
Address POD i7)- 3 4// / �� /9/
Phone #s (2q9)
E-mail address revue f-f E c
&Jr.
A
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDINGS CRETARYTh ,ept, wv.
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS �-
irvvo
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
eA ps '411
vl-`� )off
tiy\ l Gt 00 (s
W it,u eit,v,< relit-tAmAA.42-50t. vt,cr. ffeRj- NiDA-khkkie-
C6r cjvh.A,
v-a.A
c 1_ 9--
3 A -Is- ;ace 1
9
CoLx.k.4 ;(0
wwict +00 ak6e,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be, given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony:
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above)
Name /'kQ (.
Address
Phone #s Ti t 2-6% 0'1 l 3
E-mail address ;iOt1'
'Yer-rr
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
C.,\tkCAAAA-9- C-VE'
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony:
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) Oko
Phone #s
>o Date:
r?-04"-4.
v,e4---ekeyvk.
E-mail address
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Yes ENo
IA) 'n.
t
TES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
• Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda
• Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only
Topic of Input or Testimony:
Is this topic an item on today's agenda?
Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above
Name
Address
itcee0
Date:
Phone #s
E-mail address
3 PaAA,A6 ex--rez-a,
THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY
BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Cttt&UUflC/k pe4/c
Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony?
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Yes
Sharon Keith
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
June Krol <junebug5230@gmail.com>
Thursday, March 17, 2022 3:31 PM
citizeninput
Potential sale #63509-LS
Some people who received this message don't often get email from junebug5230@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I am adamantly opposed to the. Thornburgh Resort proposal! What are you thinking??? We're all dealing with
water shortage already. Farmers don't have enough water for their crops and animals as it is. This drought isn't
ending. And you want to put in 1,000 more homes with three water -sucking golf courses so the rich can enjoy
their leisure??
Quit ruining Bend! We don't need any more resorts, golf courses, or developments. ` Our infrastructure, water
supply, and natural beauty can't take anymore.
Please save what's left of Bend.
June Krol
Bend resident for 16 years.
Sent from my iPad
i
Sharon Keith
From: Terri Deane <inHisservice4ever@live.com>
Sent Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:50 PM
To: citizeninput
Subject Mentally ill housing
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom inhisservice4ever@live.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I am writing to you about an issue that is relevant across the country. I am a senior, and on Social Security and can't
afford to live in anything other than section 8. This is truely a great program not only for seniors, but for people on their
way up and this is transition housing for them. The problem is that the mentally ill persons are shoved in here with us,
making this a difficult situation for all of us, Most managers of these properties are not equipped to handle these
persons and tend to group us all into the same catagory. In our comunity alone there are almost as many mentally ill as
there are others of us and this takes a toll on all of us. On the 12th of this month I had to call the police again on my
neighbor. I love this girl and we had been close for three and a half years, then suddenly she changed and I had to get a
restraining order because she was getting physically agressive. She was arrested and taken to jail. This isn't the first and
only problem going on here because of these kind of actions.
would like to share some thoughts on this situation if I may.
There are some places that I believe would be worth looking at and considering. Only one of these is in the U.S. and
they are primarily for "dementia" and "Alzheimers" but I feel that these models could be effectivly used for those with
Mental illness.
1- Hogeweyk Dementia Village In the Netherlands
2- Purpose Built Alzheimers Village in Southwestern France
3- Kentlive Dementia Village at Dover in the UK
4- Bringing Home the evidence on Dementia Villages
5- First Dementia village in Colorado US
I realize these are for Alzheimers and Dementia, but a lot of the mentally ill have much of the same symptoms and
realities.
I know this would be expensive, but when you weigh the cost of the problems out on the streets, in apartment life, legal
and medical aspects of the way things are now, to the rewards of this kind of setting for people who would benefit, this
would be a worthwhile project for everyone. Of course some things would have to be slightly adjusted to work more
efficiently with mentally ill but not a lot. Mental Hospitals have never nor will they ever be truely effective or beneficial
for any one and labels them unfairly. For a lot of these persons, they have no choice how they are and should be treated
as fairly and with as much dignity as anyone else. They are, first and foremost, people who have families, feelings,
emotions, and a desire for what anyone else wants or needs:
There are many benefits besides this and that would be;
1- More jobs
2- Less homeless on the streets
3- safer communities for them and for the general population
4- Less police intervention
5- Less pollution on our streets due to their inability to stay clean or keep their surroundings clean because there is no
sufficient place to welcome them.
With the mentally ill out on the streets, there is no way to adequately monitor their actions, medications or
whereabouts.
They need a chance, they need to be cared for, they need dignity in the face of their dilemma that they don't have the
ability to deal with, or control.
We have no right to complain about something if we are not willing to step up and find/ create a viable solution.
Thank you for taking time to consider what l have said, and for a possible solution.
Terri Deane
Sent from Mail for Windows
Sharon Keith
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Colleen Sinsky <csinsky@centraloregonfuse.org>
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 5:25 PM
citizeninput; Phil Chang; Patti Adair; Tony DeBone
Support for Housing Works & Kor Proposal for Simpson Lot Affordable Development
In Support of Simpson Lot Affordability_FUSE_3.21.22.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from csinsky@centraloregonfuse.org. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear Commissioner Adair, Commissioner Chang, and Commissioner DeBone.
Thank you for prioritizing the county -owned Simpson lot in Bend to help meet our community's critical need.
for affordable housing. The attached letter outlines why Central Oregon FUSE would like to respectfully urge
that the Board makes a decision without delay on the development RFP proposals, and that you strongly
consider approving the innovative housing development jointly proposed by Housing Works and Kor
Community Land Trust.
While this project does not directly relate to FUSE's work to end chronic homelessness, we strongly support
efforts like this that will prevent future homelessness, while also providing an opportunity for young working
families to pursue first-time homeownership.
Thank you for your dedication to improving Deschutes County. I look forward to a continued partnership with
you.
Sincerely,
Colleen Sinsky
Colleen Sinsky, Msw
Executive Director
Cell: (541) 843-0868
Central Oregon FUSE ..
Our Mission: Central Oregon FUSE mobilizes resources to provide housing and supportive services for people experiencing long -terra homelessness to improve community
health, safety, and stability.
1
for people exporiencino long-term honi l s.>rnc
CENTRAL OREGON FUSE
March 21, 2022
Re: Support for Housing Works and Or Proposal for Simpson Lot (Tax Lot #1812060000100) Affordable
Housing Development.
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
Central Oregon FUSE is working collaboratively to reduce chronic homelessness in our community by
developing affordable, supportive housing. Our mission also includes supporting smart policies not directly
related to our work, such as strategic investments in affordable housing, in order to prevent future
homelessness.
I am writing to express appreciation for the County's effort to develop affordable housing on the
County -owned parcel on Simpson Avenue and to respectfully request that the Commissioners: 1. Move
quickly in this narrow window of time available, and 2. Strongly consider the proposal put forward by local
nonprofit developers Housing Works and Kor Community Land Trust.
1. Any delay to this decision will likely result in the project being terminated. If your decision is delayed,
even by a few weeks. Deschutes County will likely lose access to crucial state and federal housing financing
available this year. Because of the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) funding timeline, even a
small delay at this point will almost certainly result in abandoning the goal of affordability and public
investment in the process. If developers are ready to build affordable units now, we should support them.
2. The proposal put forth by Housing Works and Kor is a thoughtful, well -designed, and realistic project
that will benefit a wide range of Deschutes County residents and businesses by providing a variety of
housing types. Housing Works and Or are experienced local developers who are deeply committed to
building for the future of our community and being responsive to local needs. The mix of multifamily units
and homeownership opportunities included in their proposal is the best use of public resources and was
developed through collaboration with local neighborhood associations.
Central Oregon is in desperate need of housing units for households at nearly every income level. We
applaud Deschutes County for prioritizing affordable housing on this specific parcel, and hope to see more
development opportunities on County -owned land in the future.
Thank you,
Colleen Sinsky, MSW
Executive Director, FUSE
csinsky@centraloregonfuse.org
�
Our in.�.:io��; Central (.)rE g��ii !FUSE ri ebil:-e_; iFs.._urct; to l.rc,ldiara hcl,irg and r;uppoi1i,v�er,r_�Er�
r,provo o.,rnrpuraty health, safety a st_gbdily.
P.O. BOX 61 BEND,rOREGON 9
Sharon Keith
Subject:
RE: ShoreTel voice message from Walls Rebekah, +14055355069 for mailbox 1734
Andrew Walls 56935 Besson Road, Bend, provided comment on lessening restrictions on
Accessory Dwelling Units rules
Original Message
From: Do Not Reply <DoNotReply@deschutes.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:29 AM
To citizeninput <citizeninput@deschutes.org>
Subject: ShoreTel voice message from Walls Rebekah, +14055355069 for mailbox 1734
You have received a voice mail message from Walls Rebekah, + 14055355069 for mailbox
1734.
Message length is 00:00:44. Message size is 347 KB.
z
Sharon Keith
From: noelle bell copley <bellnoelle@hotmail.com>
Sentc Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:13 AM
To: citizeninput
Subject: Save Worrell Wayside
Some people who received this message don often get email from bellnoelle@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear Commissioners -
There are many reasons 1 urge you to save Worrell Park in downtown Bend.
First, it is a haven of nature in a concrete jungle. My children have various appointments and lessons in that
area and we use the park for a place to play while waiting. I've been so pleasantly surprised at the wildlife
viewing and a sense of well being you can find that close to the parkway and hustle and bustle.
Second, more concrete and pavement in cities creates heat islands, which is where cities are blighted by
temperatures as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher compared to the adjacent rural areas. This blatantly
goes against the city of Bend's Community climate action plan.
Please keep Worrell Wayside.
Thank you,
Noelle Bell Copley
831.818.3180
63243 NW Lavacrest Street
Bend, OR 97703
Sharon Keith
From: Janet White <jlmwhite@bendbroadband.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 8:31 PM
To: citizeninput
Subject: Worrell Park
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom ilnwhite@be ndbroadbandcom. Learn why this is'important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
It's hard to imagine that ANYONE would consider destroying a Bend showpiece and lovely long time park for a stupid
parking lot!! Just more Bend nuttiness that we endure more and more. I wonder how much of this is contributed by
these constant invaders from everywhere on earth moving here and getting their hands into everything for their
convenience and to show that they are "involved" in their new community?
People nowadays don't seem to be able to "make do", always on the lookout for something to change. Not to mention
the expense. We have an overpopulation and rather than coping with it and, again, making do, they have to stir things
up. Destroying that park is completely unnecessary and obscene.
In these tough and trying times why don't we do what is sensible, be conservative and save money, and leave a
beautiful space alone? The plan to construct a parking lot is costly and unnecessary. Same with that new library plan in
north Bend...the current Bend library is sufficient: We families watch our budget and "make do", so can the city.
Many thanks to Donna Owens' guest column about Worrell Park. Alt of you should go back and read it.
Janet White
1
Sharon Keith
From: susan hansen <susanhansen410@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 12:22 PM
To: citizeninput
Subject Please save Worrell Park
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from
susanhansen410@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
http: / /aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear County Commissioners,
Please save and protect Worrell Park!
Bend is being bulldozed and flattened everywhere there is development for more building,
housing, and pavement, which is very disheartening.
Worrell Park is the only piece of nature downtown that hasn't been flattened and destroyed,
and it deserves to be protected.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Sue Hansen and Steve Ebner
Sent from my iPad
i
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sheila & Dave Munson <themunsons@bendcable.com>
Friday, March 18, 2022.3:38 PM
citizeninput
Worrell Park
Some pcople who received this message don't o
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
en get email from themunsons@bendcable.coin. Le(
Please consider preserving Worrell Park in its natural state.
We moved to Bend in 1990. We have lived through the influx of more people and the change
it has created. Obviously we would like to have our old Bend back but realize that you can't
close the door. But, you can strive to preserve some of the little features that made Bend the
town that it was. Please do not "pave paradise and put up a parking lot". This little section of
downtown is unique. I spent time enjoying this "little rock pile" and its natural beauty while I
was serving on jury duty several years ago. Lava rock is what this area is built on and with
each new development the natural rock outcroppings are being demolished. Having a small
piece of natural open space in tribute to what this area once was and the beauty it held has
importance.
You only get one chance to preserve this natural area in its downtown location. Once it is
bulldozed, blasted, removed, there is no putting it back. The all mighty dollar should not
always be the bottom line or deciding factor in development. Accommodating the growth of
our town is a difficult task. There are no easy answers.
This little park is adjacent to growing parking areas and is a breath of fresh air versus another
patch of asphalt. Parking means people are in town and for those looking to spend time
between appointments or just enjoying the pocket park it is a nice throwback to earlier times
in Benda Take a break and watch the squirrels, lizards or whatever natural inhabitants are
sharing that little rock pile.
It may not be the most cost effective use of land, but Worrell Park does have a value that can't
be tallied on a spread sheet.
Please preserve Worrell Park in its natural state.
1
Sheila Munson
21110 Ann Margaret Drive
Bend OR 97701
Carol Martin
From: Monte Dammarell <kmriverhaus@gmail.com>
Sent Saturday; March 19, 2022 12:16 PM
To: Board; citizeninput
Subject: Don't "Redevelop" Worrell Park
Some people who received this message don't often get email; from kmriverhaus@gmail.com, Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
In 1970, folk singer Joni Mitchell released her song Big Yellow Taxi. Most of us remember the refrain:
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone
They paved paradise, put up a parking lot
The guest column in the Bulletin written by Donna Owens and published on March 18 provides us with
many excellent reasons for preserving Worrell Park, and honoring the decision by a prior County
Commision to gift this unique park to the citizens of Deschutes County. Worrell Park is an oasis of calm
amidst a rapiding developing City and growing population. In particular, and reflecting Ms. Owens
comment, "we citizens really need proof" that there are no other options. Incentives for non -car travel is
one option.
It's interesting that Michael Mann, a world-renowned climate scientist will speak in Bend on March 31;
perhaps he has other ideas. There ARE other options. Let's not pave paradise and put up (another)
parking lot
Sincerely,
Kathy and Monte Dammarell
Carol Martin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patricia Dunlap <padunlap@hotmail.com>
Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:05 PM
citizeninput
Would you or your children & grandchildren prefer sitting on blacktop or a park bench?
Some people who received this message don't often get email from padunlap(ahotmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
What Or the. TRUE value' of cv try nature/park./ i w the. wi ids of tow vv?
Accords vi: to-'tipose (vv char ; - vwt mach. Oh, i wtybe' 68 back heat
'neratii ugly, 'pa al y -e" '-pa rkvt 'far-naw -but- not -
tomorrow' par''kt'iv pLa-ee's' . T h(s' while/ p vo-posiAg,that our cA'rvireAnik prat cut
dowvv ()Tv car u4age/ and. ' ew home's, thov ld' b-e- irestrrt eted'to- near wo-pcu-k't v
space's, so -they wi c.> t weak, rrt.de a' bike, or walk to- a/ b-r w stop i vv t3 i mow a/v
ra i4vv. Why cavvtthaw neectlaitcd, the' vtem parks no space's( s near the. Court Hatks,e.
we. a' thu tttle' or inkk from/ e4 tj-pa rk ,v area's'? Are/ they more. Cmpartant than
the/ avero citilw?
3uthow d.ayou/put c'true/ value. an. a'min llioaa fated/with'bot 4ders,created'
over wt lli,oi'* o f years-7
Or trees' that tool/ d.ecad e4 to- wia tore' ci v�.cl' clean/the/ airy peracivtedi by the cows,
that imj t u - thole/ pa.rki vt'space4<
Or the' wall creatr c ire ,thaw call'the/W a y de% ho-v e Er b-rCn ,jay to-th o e' lu cky
&too / to- catch' a/ g i%vnpse/ of one
What true valve/ ccwv be' placed/ o-vv cv few rtiu wie 'lts' of peace' c 'to o, the
trees, b re/ rretu,crrvt,t vt to- the. streikk of Life/7
W ab cattutg, and. rrayt d t'v ' W orrrel l' W aysae. t'vrito- a' pa r /a/i , Lot really add'
beauty to- our lr ttle/ taw w, or wal/ it jwst become/ another ugly spot neceiks,itattng,
po ia to- eve e. the' "w rron ' people" d o rCe u e' it? V eetru ct o-w o f
spat u rre- p rravtaed is/ not a• pretty Jont May11.01 got it rri4ht
So they paved paradise
Put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique and a swingin' night spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
Put 'rem in a tree museum
And they charged all the people an arm and a leg ,east to see "ern
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise put up a parking lot
They put up a parking lot
A parking lot
Paved paradi
2
Carol Martin
From:
Sent:
To:
Nan Moss <nefmoss@gmail.com>
Friday, March 18, 2022 1:11 PM
citizeninput
Some people who received this message don't often get email from nefmoss@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ERNAL EMAIL]
Please don't redevelop Worrell park for convenience & cost efficacy. The beauty & charm of the park adds
considerable value to Bend. Thank you, Nan Moss
Carol Martin
From: Andrew Daggatt <andrewdaggatt@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 1:08 PM
To: citizeninput
Subject: Worrell Park
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from andrewdaggatt@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Seriously? County commissioners voted 2 - 1 to "redevelop" Worrell Park into 68 asphalt parking spaces? You have. GOT
to be out of your freaking minds!
Sent from my iPad
2
Carol Martin
From: Marie Vandaveer <m.vandaveer@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 7:24 AM
To: citizeninput
Subject: Worrel Park
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from m.vandaveer@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Let the park stay as it is, please, for all the reasons cited in Donna Owen's letter to the editor of The Bulletin, March 18.
A long term resident of Bend
Marie Vandaveer
Sent from my iPad
0.1
1.i.
411110
"
FOR 60(.---C C.:IMDIALXVIkATE 3 TIME
M b0.4\A WitSO'n
OF
PHONE
MESSAGE 046-er7ekt, Para.
3° '..L.Y6S.‘' 6*1;3' CELL
•
cavt,,e alW",,c)rip4N
n5kiza-AA &AA-
SIGNED
FOR eel' CLIC.C1X11644T4tDATE
, eveloka... ebik
M
OF itocto auLziLk b e- •
I 1
I I
PHONE CELL
MESSAGE 4042.
3111
TELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WANTS TO SEE YOU
TIME
SIGNED
u
LU
FOR Q.+ k'C)-424\`',CIVI,Ck DATE
M M CD5(10...
OF 9-ct eonno-cs 0442_
PHONE 641 232 -. CELL
MESSAGE
ro-A2- •
TELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
WANTS TO SEE YOU
A.M.
r-
FOR
m SU242- KielAro-ro
OF 6 te 6 eknnwtock
PHONE
MESSAGE Re.- U.) orreal
ck.f_Ma•n .
I .aurst- re-eziNG16-94—.
DATE
TELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
GAME TO SEE YOLI
TIME
CELL
SIGNED
TELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
Li WANTS TO SEE YOU
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 30, 2022
SUBJECT: 1st Reading: Ordinance 2022-001 and Ordinance 2022-002 - Central Oregon
Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment/Zone Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve 1' reading of Ordinance 2022-001 and Ordinance 2022-002
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a first reading of Ordinance 2022-001
and Ordinance 2022-002 on March 30, 2022 for 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, submitted by COID. The address associated with the subject property is 61781 Ward Rd,
Bend, OR 97702.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner
Will Groves, Planning Manager
DATE: March 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance 2022-001 and Ordinance 2022-002 -
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a first reading of Ordinance 2022-001
and Ordinance 2022-002 on March 30, 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.
I. 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.
A public hearing before a Hearings Officer was conducted on August 31, 2021 with the Hearings
Officer's recommendation of approval issued on October 13, 2021. The Board held a public hearing
on January 26, 2022 and initiated a 21-day open record period, which concluded February 16, 2022
at 4:00pm. On March 2, 2022, the Board deliberated to approve the requests.
II. NEXT STEPS / SECOND READING
The Board is scheduled to conduct the second reading of Ordinance 2022-001 and Ordinance 2022-
002 on April 13, 2022, fourteen (14) days following the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area Map
2. Draft Ordinance 2022-001 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Proposed Plan Amendment 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
3. Draft Ordinance 2022-002 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit B: Proposed Zone Change Map
Exhibit C: Hearings Officer Recommendation/Decision
Page 2 of 2
247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC
Sliy[ INE VIEW DR
ANNE LN
z
z
Of)
0
CALEB PL
r31
C119LL,?1,A f',IC WAY
,DARNEL AVE
DAFZBY C.T< w
PAYLILYAVE
EIEL.LFt.OWEIR FL
de
Garcte1161 DRU„ PL
tit Peric woo .....,:.
LILYWAY ,..1
0
STARLIC3HT DR
tx
HURITA PL
atisee P
f:,() C.Ar'ELLA PL
< <
w
w
KA CI
NA
0 320 640
S TEVE NS RD
1,280
1 inch= 752 feet
f t
MOD OC LN
GIBS oN
w
Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Date: 8/5/2021
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code *
Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-001
to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation
for Certain Property from Agriculture to Rural
Residential Exception Area and Prescribing an
Effective Date on the 90th Day After the Date of
Adoption.
WHEREAS, Central Oregon h-rigation 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 notice was given 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 change;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") heard the
application for a comprehensive plan designation change from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception
Area (RREA) through a de novo public hearing held on January 26, 2022 after notice was given in accordance
with applicable law; 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 "A" and depicted on the map set forth as
Exhibit "B", 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.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2022-001
Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History,
is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. 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.
/ / /
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90`h day after the date of adoption.
Dated this of , 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2022.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2022.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Phil Chang
Effective date: day of , 2022.
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2022-001
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Two
(2), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
All of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 lying
north of the centerline of the Central Oregon Canal.
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2022-001
SKYLINE VIEW DR
CHICLIWACK WAY
C ityf of,
Bend
DARBY CT
DARNEL AVE
F-
tu
DAYL LY AVE
VIOLET�N JII I
BI i LFLO I (E EPIC
LILY WAY
=WOODRUFF PL—
STARLIGHT DR 0
HURITA PL
CAPELLA PL— 1-
rn
SE GOLDEN MARKET LN
Legend
ION
Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Designation
AG -Agriculture
RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area
URA - Urban Reserve Area
URA
Plan Amendment from
Agriculture (AG)
to
Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Taxlot 18-12-02-00-01000
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2022-001
250
500
MODOCLN"`
GIBSON DR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
1,00o
Feet Dated this day of , 2022
Effective Date: , 2022
Mal Ilan
11 Bend Urban Growth Boundary
December 17, 2021
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
and found on the Deschutes County Community
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein
T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein
Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
Development Department website, is incorporated
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Exhibit C, Ord. 2022-001 Chapter 23.01 (5/26/21)
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
II. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein
KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein
LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein
MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein
NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein
00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein
PP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein
QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein
RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein
SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
Exhibit C, Ord. 2022-001 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 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 C, Ord. 2022-001 Chapter 23.01 (5/26/21)
Exhibit "D" to Ord. 2022-001
5ecti,ow5.i2 l_es%sisti,ve 1-1-1,storu
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Effective
Chapter/Section
Amendment
2011-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 I
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
Comprehensive Plan update
2011-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 I
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5. I I ,
23.40A, 23.40B,
23.40.065, 23.01.010
Housekeeping amendments to
ensure a smooth transition to
the updated Plan
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
(added)
Updated Transportation
System Plan
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Central Oregon Regional
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.11
Newberry Country: A Plan
for Southern Deschutes
County
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5. I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-13
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2- 14/7- I -14
3. 10, 3. I I
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010,
5.10
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010,
5.10
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010,
5.10
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
2015-021
11-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
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 - 20 I I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2
2015-010
12-2- 15/ 12-2-15
2.6
Comprehensive Plan Text and
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
2016-001
12-2 I -15/04-5- 16
23.01.010;
5.10
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area)
2016-007
2-10- 16/5- I 0-16
23.0 I.010;
5.10
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
Planning Goal I 1 to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
2016-005
1 I-28-16/2- 16-17
23.01.010,
2.2, 3.3
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010,
1.3, 4.2
Comprehensive plan
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
20 16-029
I2-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.0 I.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
2017-007
10-30-17/10-30-17
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
20 18-002
I -3- 18/ I -25- 18
23.01, 2.6
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
3
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
2018-011
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
20 18-005
9-19-18/10-10-18
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Community Plan,
Newberry Country Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
Plain Comprehensive Plan
Designation; Comprehensive
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
2018-008
9-26-18/10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Comprehensive Plan and Text
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20 I I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
4
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
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.
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
2019-016
11-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
5
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12- 1 1- 1 9
23.01.01,
2.5
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01,
2.5
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01,
4.2,
5.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The exchange
property is being offered to
better achieve land needs that
were detailed in the 2012 SB
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.
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-20
23.01.01,
5.10
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 11
(Public Facilities and Services)
to allow sewer on rural lands
to serve the City of Bend
Outback Water Facility.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20 I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
6
2020-008
06-24-20/09-22-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
O.B. Riley and US 20/Old
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.3.T I and 5.3.T2 and amend
TSP text.
2020-007
07-29-20/10-27-20
23.01.010, 2.6
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
2020-006
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20
23.01.01, 2.11, 5.9
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to update the
County's Resource List and
Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with the
State Historic Preservation
Rule.
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1- 17-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add reference
to J turns on US 97 raised
median between Bend and
Redmond; delete language
about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
2020-0 13
08-26-20/ I I /24/20
23.01.0 I , 5.8
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
2021-002
01-27-21/04-27-21
23.01.01
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
7
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5. I LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
202 1 -005
06- 1 6-21 /06- 1 6-2 1
23.01.01, 4.2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property from
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
2021-008
06-30-21/09-28-21
23.01.01
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property Adding
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
2022-001
TBD/TBD
23.01.010
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20 I I 8
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Exhibit "E" to Ord. 2022-001
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT:
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER:
REQUEST:
HEARINGS OFFICER:
STAFF CONTACT:
RECORD CLOSED:
247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC
August 31, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000
61781 WARD RD, BEND, OR 97702
Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson &Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
Joe Bessman
Transight Consulting, LLC
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).
Stephanie Marshall
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner'
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
September 23, 2021
1 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:
8. Permits requiring verification
7. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (8)(2) below,
2 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
18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40);
b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show
on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory;
c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special
assessment;
d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that
reduces in size a lot or parcel'
e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site
sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller
than the minimum area required in the applicable zone;
In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone
Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required
to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the
applicant 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, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp
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 Lando. The purpose of this soil study was to
inventory and assess the soils on the subject propertys 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. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately 33.7 percent 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.
3 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 only make up 29 percent of the parcel. The Gosney soils 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 limitations for any agricultural use either alone or in conjunction with other lands.
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
Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for 36.65 acres at 61781 Ward Rd, aka 18-12-02,
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. I 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?
I was wondering if this response by email will suffice if I want to be notified of public hearings
related to this application or if ! 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 / am unaware of
what COID 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 forJuly 27tn
With regards to your easement agreement, I 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 Kecia Weaver I live at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 with my spouse who is
listed property owner, Patrick McCoy. On 6017/21 I read the notice of application for the above
listed property. I would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. I 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 slower growth 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. 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."
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
6/17/21 I received the notice of application for the above listed property. With little time to
research to this proposal, based on the information / have obtained, I would like to formally
dispute the requested zoning changes. My concerns are numerous and I will highlight the
following:
1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock / 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 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
rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, I would encourage Deschutes
County to adhere to a slower growth 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. 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 27th 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 seem mainly
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 kind 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 COID 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 cis 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 and Janet 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 / 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 1 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 land use. I notified them! I hope that the city planners
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:
"1 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 (27th Street) that will
likely service the Property if/once developed, I ask that the Deschutes County Planning Division
("Planning Division's 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 5:00 pm 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 27th 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 27m 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:
"Sorry for 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 1 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 any time which might cause me to miss all or some.
So, I would like to go on record as 100% against re -zoning said COID property at this time. I 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, 2021, the Planning Division mailed a Notice 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 establish that the public interest is
best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant
are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is
consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals.
FINDING: The applicant 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 land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover,
even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the
plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval
criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any
other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved.
Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may
represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other
relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]'
LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to 'consider first
whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns particular role to some or
all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23. 08. 020 of the county's
comprehensive plan provides as follows:
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a
site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a
particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which
affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to
the various decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and
equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part
of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then
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-time 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 property from 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-1 0 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 34 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 Cass 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 farming7''.
' 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 dearly 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.
Farming 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 difficult for 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,
have greater 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 playa 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 1, 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 County's agricultural industry. The
Gallagher soils report shows the subject property to consist predominantly (63.796) 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 Policy 2.2.3.
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.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity
on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to
provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. 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 city limits 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 property1''.
9 See PA-11-17/ZC-11-2, 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA, and 247-18-000485-PA, 486-ZC
1° The Hearings Officer's decision for PA-11-17/ZC-11-2 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
Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed
and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for
residential mobility and tourism.
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-PA/401-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 660-015-0000(3)
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
64% 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
suitability for 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 l-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(1)(a)(A) 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 "farm 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 P3d 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 property 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
meg/100 gm and organic matter is very low 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
productivity for 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 for
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 _ Total annual range production pounds per acre
Unfavorable year Normal year Favorable year
36A 700 900 _.._ 1100
C 411 558 705 ___
700 900. 1100�
GR' 315 441 567
Estimated 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 (AUMs) 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 25% 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 COLD 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 City limits, 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 (file 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 very shallow 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 property for dryland grazing. Crops are typically grown 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 Class 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 P3d 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/l-VI that is adjacent
to or intermingled with lands in capability classes 1-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 of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for
farm use as the term is defined by State law. 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 Class 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 necessary to 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 Survey tool, 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 about 25
percent Rock Outcrop and 75 percent Gosney. They have lower productivity than NRCS map unit
388 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 by the NRCS as ofJanuary 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
Map
Symbol
Revised
Map
Symbol
Soil Series Name
Capability Class
Previous
Map*
Revised Map
Ac
-o/u-
Ac
-%-
36A
Dk
Deskamp loamy sand0 to
3 percent slopes
3 irrigated
6 non -irrigated
12.2
32.3
10.9
28.90
58C
Gosney-Rock outcrop-
Deskamp complex, 0 to 15
percent slopes
6, 7 and 8
25.5
67.7
0
0
GR
Gosney-Rock outcrop
Complex
7 and 8
0
0
24
63.7
CN
Irrigation Canal
not rated
0
0
2,8
7.4
Total
37.7
100
37.7
100
*Soils tha were previously mapped as components o a comp
revised map.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 47 of 57
Figure 1 NRCS Soil Data
(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) Ilan 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;
(8) 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 COID 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 27th 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 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 COLD property from EFU-TR8 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 27th 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 property given
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 County's 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-10 Zone 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-1 0. 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-1 0 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 Amendment to 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 13th 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 500 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
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below:
FILE NUMBERS:
LOCATION:
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT:
SUBJECT:
STAFF CONTACT:
RECORD:
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC
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.
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID)
Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
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).
Tarik Rawlings, (541) 317-3148, tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov
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.
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
, (541) 388-6575 @cddgdeschutes.org rp 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
own
Central Oregon Irrigation District
Tla M. Lewis
Joe Bessman
Kecla Weaver
Patrick McCoy
Matt Carey
Jeff Su ndberg
Kyle Weaver
Treva Weaver
John Schaeffer
Cathy DeCourcey
Jennifer Nell
Brent N. Wilkins
Crystal Garner
William Kepper
BEND FIRE DEPT.
BEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT.
BEND PLANNING DEPT.
BEND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR
DESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. PLANNER
ODOT REGION 4 PLANNING
HAROLD K MARKEN REV TRUST ETAL
WEST, KEVIN &JENNIFER
QUICK,MICHAEL HAROLD & DELORES MARIE
OCCUPANT
MORRISON, DAVID I & NANCY L
FERNS,TIMOTHV 1 & RONDA L HALVORSEN-
CAREV, MATTHEW A & SHARI A
MCCOY, PATRICK E
WARRENBURG FAMILY LIVING TRUST
NELSON,HARRY R
HARRELL,JILL KINGHAM
LAKE,JAMES E & JANET M
BAILEY-SCHAEFFER TRUST
NASLUND, JLULIE & NEVILL, MICHAEL
PETERS, ROBERT W & LISA M
LUCAS FAMILY REV LIVING TRUST
PASLAV, BRIAN & NANCY
BEND METRO PARKS & RECREATION DIST
LARSEN, MICHAEL ETAL
SOCKEYE E LLC ET AL
RASMUSSEN, MONIQUE & RICHARD
WOLF,DAVIDG
CARR, BRUCE
LOUIS G ROG ERSON & JANICE M ROG E... ETAL
GROVE, HILARY VERONICA
KEPPER, WILLIAM EDSON & KAREN GRACE
TII.TON, PATRICIA 1 & CH RISTOPH ER L
NORMAN, JENNIFER & PAUL
TUTTLE/GALOTTI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
SWAFFORD FAMILY TRUST
FEUERMAN, 1ACOB & MATHENY, ELISSA
ARBAUGH, KYLE
MCQUISTON, ROBIN SUE & KEVIN JAMES
LEONG, KIRBY C W & LYNN Y
VON ZANGE, SCOTTA
BODI, AMY & DAVID
LOPEZ, RONALD L & LAURA MARIE
BETTENCOURT LIVING TRUST
OLSON, TIMOTHY.'
PEPPER, CLIVE & SUSAN
JOHNSON, ALLEN H
KATHERINEJAMPOL CROWE REV LIV TRUST
EAST BEND PLAZA LLC
SUE, MARK & KARI
VREM FAMILY TRUST
PATTERSON, NICOLAS F & MEHTA, SMITA R
KENNELLEY, KEVIN S &TRACY L
PREWITT, KURTUS 5
GARDENSI DE HOME OWNERS ASSOC
BURKE, BRENDA N ETAL
DISPENZA JUDITH ANN
STAVRO, CRISTINA NICOLE
BLAIR, COURTNEY L
PHYLLISH MEDNICK TRUST
JDD PROPERTIES LLC
CHARLES P LARSON SOLE PROP 401 K PLAN
NEIL, JENNIFER
BOATWRIGHT, STEVEN F & PAMELA F
CHERKOSS, ARNE I & LAUREL A
CATHY DECOURCEY TRUST
JOHNSON- GOODMAN REVOCABLE FAM TR
LEAGJELD, DAVID S & RUTH M
ROGERS, LANI
GAYLA L SCHAMRURG TRUST
GIBSON, SALLY.'
DICKINSON, SANDRA
MOTT, BRIAN H ET AL
BEND PARKS & RECREATION DIST
OCCUPANT
BERMUDEZ, GUILLERMOI &ALICIA F
MCCLUNG, DONNA S
CARROLL, DAVID L & SPONGBERG, CAROL A
SLATER, BARBARA E & SLATER, DEBRA M
GARDENSI DE HOME OWNERS ASSOC
JUDITH K WHITEHEAD REVOCABLE TRUST
IIEBREWS 135 LLC
GRAEBER, ALYSSA
HANSEN, KAREN
BOBBY & USA BYRD REVOCABLE TRUST
ORANGE CAT PROPERTIES LLC
SCHRON, JACQUELI NE S & CAM ERON
SHOOP, DANIEL H & KIMBERLY I.
BROUGH, THOMASJ
WELLS, TODD W & EMILY W
agent
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Transight Consulting
LARRY MEDINA
PETER RUSSELI.
MARKEN,HAROLD K CO-TTEE ETAL
WARRENBURG, ROBERT IR & LAURA TTEES
BAILEY,PATTI L &SCHAEFFER,JOHN M TTEES
LUCAS,GERALD & MARGARET TTEES
ROGERSON,JAN ICE MTRUSTEE ETAL
TUTTLE, CRAIG H TTEE ETAL
SWAF FORD, MATTHEW J & JEANETIE E TTEES
BETTENCOURT, JOHN & SANDRA J TTEES
CROWE, KATH ERIN E JAMPOL TTEE
VREM, RICHARD C & SANDRA 1 TTEES
MEDNICK, PHYLLIS Li TTEE
LARSON, CHART. FS P & LAURIE P TTEES
DECOURCEY, CATHERINE L TRUSTEE
JOHNS0N, GEORGE H TRUSTEE ETAL
SCHAMRURG, GAYLA L TTEE
WHITEHEAD, JUDITH K TTEE
BYRD, BOBBY R & USA N TTEES
InCareOf
address
1055 SW Lake Ct
3605W Bond Street, Suite 500
Via Email
21435 Modoc Lane
21435 Modoc Lane
61765 Gibson Drive
61710 Gibson Drive
61375 Kobe St
1020 SE Teakwood Dr
61677 Thunder Road
61718 Rigel Way
61723 Rigel Way
61764 5E Camellia Street
21262 Capella PI
21267 Dayllly Ave
1212 SW SIMPSON, SUITE B
709 NW WALL ST., STE. 102
P.O. BOX 431
575 NE 15TH ST.
ELECTRONIC
ELECTRONIC
63055 N. HWY.97, BUILDING M
21495 BEAR CREEK RD
PO BOX 1923
21374 STEVENS RD
61710 GIBSON DR
21415 MODOC LN
61730 GIBSON DR
61765 GIBSON DR
21435 MODOC LN
61740 GIBSON DR
21485-A MODOC LN
61676 THUNDER RD
61661 THUNDER RD
61677 THUNDER RD
61645 THUNDER RD
21360 STEVENS RD
21390 STEVENS RD
21370 STEVENS RD
799 SW COLUMBIA ST
10927 SW MATZEN DR
61165 RIVER BLUFF TRAIL
61195 BONNY BRIDGE
PO BOX 5907
212655E DOVE LN
21280 DOVE LN
21273 DAVLILY AVE
21267 DAVLILY AVE
21261 DAVLILY AVE
21255 DAYLILY AVE
61757 CAMELLIA ST
61753 CAMELLIA ST
21257 BELLFLOWER PL
21261 BELLFLOWER PL
19882 PORCUPINE DR
1044 KAMEHAME DR
21297 BELLFLOWER PL
21250 WOODRUFF PL
C/O LAURA LOPEZ PO BOX 1492
587 STONE CORRAL CT
21262 WOODRUFF PL
21266 WOODRUFF PL
21270 WOODRUFF PL
21274 WOODRUFF Pl.
3188 N HIGHWAY 97 0101
21298 SE WOODRUFF PL
1310 DIAMOND DR
61710 CAMELLIA ST
61706 CAMELLIA ST
61702 CAMELLIA ST
C/O NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MGMT CO (A) PO BOX23099
4931 DELOS WAY
322 BUCHANON
617085E MARIGOLD LN
61712 MARIGOLD LN
61705 RIGEL WAY
2463 NW MORNINGWOOD WAY
270 VISTA RIM DR
61723 RIGEL WAY
61706 RIGEL WAY
61712 RIGEL WAY
61718 RIGEL WAY
61724 RIGEL WAY
61730 RIGEL WAY
61742 RIGEL WAY
61748 RIGEL WAY
61754 RIGEL WAY
61760 RIGEL WAY
3311 NW MORNINGWOOD CT
799 SW COLUMBIA ST
C/I DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 63333 HWY 20 W
9855 NW SKYLINE HEIGHTS DR
21254 LILY WAY
61707 CAMELLIA ST
61703 CAMELIA ST
C/O NORTHWEST COMM MG MT CO LLC (A) PO BOX23099
61703 TULIP WAY
21810 PALOMA DR
14936 SE GLADSTONE ST
61715 TULIP WAY
21253 VIOLET LN
C/O JAMES P OLMSTED, MEMBER (A) 61535S HIGHWAY 97#STE 5.604
21245 VIOLET LN
21241 VIOLET LN
21237 VIOLET LN
61754 DARLA PL
UtyStZip
Redmond, OR 97756
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97701
Bend, OR 97709
Bend, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97709
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702-3218
WILSONVILLE, OR 97070
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97708
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
HONOLULU, HI 96825
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
GRANTS PASS, OR 97528
ANGELS CAMP, CA 95222
BEND, OR 97702-3601
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702
ARCATA, CA95521
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
TIGARD, OR 97281.3099
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703-7022
REDMOND, OR 97756
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702-3218
BEND, OR 97703
PORTLAND, OR 97229
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
TIGARD, OR 97281-3099
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
PORTLAND, OR 97236.2441
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
type cdd id
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
40 NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-Z-C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.2C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400.PA,401ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
140 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401•ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21.400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21•400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400•PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD '21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7.0
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-7C
HO NOD 21•400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.2C
HO NOD 21-400•PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4011C
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 40I-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-2C
I10 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
H0 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21•400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
ANTONSEN, CHET & SKAAR, THOMAS C
TODD, VICKI & KEVIN
TODD, VICTORIA & KEVIN
SEBRING, MILDRED I
PARKS, JOHN B & MARLENE A
BEVERLY E GORDON REV TRUST
PR055ER FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
COWAN, PAUL VERNON
WEBB, DARRELL D & LIN DA J
ROBERT&JOAN FAIRBANKS TRUST
GRACIA, CHRISTOPHER E & JILL M
MOORE, BRIAN A
MARGARET ANN MOORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST
VAN BUREN, C LANCE & LORENA KAY
ENGLUND ESTATES LLC
MARSH TRUST
WEYBRIGHT FAMILY TRUST
PENDERGAST, TYLER M & AMY M
BOURDAGE, JOSHUA K & MARISA K
TELLER, STEVEN D & CYNTHIA C
HAWKINS, LYRE L
FERNANDEZ, XIMENA C
BOATMAN, SARAH & SCOTT
STOCKLAND, ADAM T & SARAH 1
SCHAAB, PHOEBE A
THOMAS, DAVI D 1 & COLLEEN A
HERZOG, MICHAEL E
DRYHOLLER LLC
GUTIERREZ, TREOE & DYLAN
BILYEU, JEFFERY DEAN & KAREN
SMITH, KYLE SET AL
CATAPANO, ERIC A
TRAN, QUANG P
HANSEN, DALE A& PAMELA R
GARNER, JASON & CRYSTAL
HALE, KRISTAN N & ALEXIS G RACE
SIEVERSON, PENNY JO
WHITE, SARA M
ZINNER, JOSHUA P & HILLARY L
BAERT, CHRISTOPHER & JESSICA I.
BIEL, JESSICA & HOOVER, JEVIN TYLER
CARMACK, CYNTHIA A
RIDER, GREGORY E & SUZANNE M
WELLEN, ROBERT& KATHERINE
CANO, FRANCISCO & MELISSA
BJORK, CLIARLES & PAMELA
CERRUTI, BLAKE C & HEATHER E
S&H ANDERSON 1.03 LLC
TEH, RONNIE W & CAPECE, 5ONIA
LEAHY, BRIAN & KIM K
DOUGHMAN, ROBERT1 & KATHRYN M
DOWNEY, SCOTT& DIXIE
PUPO, LUCAS K ET AL
JKC HOMES LLC
VAN BLARICOM, JEROME BRADLEY ETAL
COLE, PATRICIA RENEE QUINLAN
CAFFEE, ALEXANDER HET AL
ROSENGARTH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
CROSSE,STEVEN E & DIMITRIA
ROSENGARTH FAMILY TRUST
ANTONSEN, CHET & SKAAR, THOMAS C
SLOCUM, WILLIAM TJR & MECHELLE M
SPATES, DEMETRIUS C
WIGGINS, BRITTNEY D
LEAH SULLIVAN LIVING TRUST ETAL
WEAVER, SANDRA
RADKEY, ROBERT& HEDDY
BETTY LOU BIEBER TRUST
CHARLES &JEANNE CLAWSON FAMILY TRUST
BRAN DENHORST, JOHN D III
ST CLAIR, JULIE .
BARDONG, IRIS M
PATTON, SYDN EY JOAN
COCCO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
WILLIAMS, TROY& VANHORN, CAITLYN
GAROUTTE, MICHAEL S & FRAZIER, LINDA
WAYBRIGHT, TREVOR A & JOY A
KOCH, DANIEL & LETA
ROSENGARTH DEVELOPMENT LLC
FLINT, MARIE KAY
ALEXA DELLINGER TRUST
ZHU, XIAOGANG & LI, MINGWEI
FREDRICKSON, KATIE
GREENWALD, JAY A & MARY F
SIGNATURE HOMEBUILDERS LLC
GERALD S ALVES & EILEEN B ALVES REV TR
ZORNADO, BRANDON & SHELLEY
BENNETT, BRIAN ETAL
ROBERT E SAUTER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
GEORGETON, LEE C & KRISTIN J
MILLS, ROBERT B & GRIFFIN, EMDEN R
ROSS FAMILY TRUST
RILEY, ANTON & GINA
SHAHVAR, RACHEL NATALIE
CHOPRA, PANKAJ & ANITA
HAUCK, RANDY & MICHELLE L
LEASE, ARIANNA & BRIAN ETAL
WILKINS, BRENT N
LEE, ROBERT ALLAN
TED & SUE MIGDAL 2003 REVOCABLE TRUST
KRUKEMEYER, MARY
MCCULLOUGH, KATHRINE ANNE
LL GARDNER LLC
PHARAOH, NATHANAEL SR & LEAH
CRIMMINS, JOANNA MARIE
HAWK, DEBRA JO
CROGHAN, RYLEY G & HALLEY T
GORDON, BEVERLY E TTEE
PROSSER, STEVE JAMESTTEE ETAL
FAIRBANKS, JOAN LTTEE
MOORE, BRIAN TTEE
MARSH, WALLACE AJR & ELSIE A TTEES
W EVBRIGHT, DANIEL R & BARBARA TTEES
ROSENGARTH, SHARRON G TTEE
ROSENGARTH, TONY 1 & NANCY A TTEES
SULLIVAN, LEAH TTEE
BIEBER, BETTY LOU TTEE
CLAWSON, CHARLES R &JEANNE A TTEES
COCCO, CHESTER R & VIRGINIA S TTEES
DELLINGER, ALEXA B TTEE
ALVES, GERALD 5 & EILEEN B TTEES
SAUTER, ROBERT E TTEE
ROSS, PAUL E & EMILY KATHLEEN TTEES
MIGDAL, THEODORE N & SUSAN A TTEES
612 NE SAVANNAH DR#3
61694 RIGEL WAY
61694 RIGEL WAY
20709 TANGO CREEK AVE
21285 STARLIGHT DR
21281 STARLIGHT DR
21277 STARLIGHT DR
21273 STARLIGHT DR
471 SW SCHAEFFER RD
21268 HURITA PL
21272 HURITA PL
21276 HURITA PL
21276 HURITA PL
21284 HURITA PI.
8300 SW PETERS RD
21261 STARLIGHT DR
21257 STARLIGHT DR
21253 STARLIGHT DR
21252 HURITA PL
21256 HURITA PL
21260 HURITA PL
1059 NE PARKVIEW CT
5170APELI LA ST
21279 HURITA PL
21275 HURITA PL
21271 HURITA PL
21267 HURITA PL
2021 NE 8TH ST
21259 HURITA PL
21255 HURITA PL
21251 HURITA PL
21250 CAPELLA Pl.
21254 CAPELLA PL
21258 CAPELLA PL
21262 CAPELLA PL
21266 CAPELLA PL
21270 CAPELLA Pl.
11225 SW CYNTHIA CT
21278 CAPELLA PL
21282 CAPELLA PL
61664 RIGEL WAY
61660 KACI LN
21281 CAPELLA PL
202 STERLINGTOWN LN
21273 CAPELLA PL
21269 CAPELLA PL
61655 GEMINI WAY
3214 NE 42ND ST NSTE C
61656 KACI LN
2949 NW BORDEAUX LN
61648 KACI LN
PO BOX 782
61637 KACI LN
PO BOX 25822
21285 DAYLILY AVE
21279 DAYLILY AVE
1358 47TH AVE
21279 DOVE LN
21283 DOVE LN
21259 CHILLIWACK WAY
62765 POWELL BUTTE HWY
21281 BELLFLOWER PL
21273 BELLFLOWER PL
21285 BELLFLOWER PL
8412 SWEETWATER CIR
21278 WOODRUFF PL
PO BOX 1869
61727 SE YARROW LN
61719 YARROW LN
61724 MARIGOLD LN
61716 MARIGOLD LN
61703 YARROW LN
61715 YARROW LN
60350 WINDSONG LN
61776 DARLA PL
61772 DARLA PL
61768 DARLA PL
61764 DARLA PL
21259 CHILLIWACK WAY
61760 SE CAMELLIA 5T
21286 DARNEL AVE
62977 MARSH ORCHID DR
21278 DARNEL AVE
21272 DARNEL AVE
PO BOX 1886
21262 DARNEL AVE
21258 DARNEL AVE
1381 NW TRENTON AVE
PO BOX 8644
61793 SE CAMELLIA ST
61789 5E CAMELLIA ST
61781 SE CAMELLIA ST
108 MOFFETT BLVD #C113
61773 SE CAMELLIA ST
61769 SE CAMELLIA ST
5101 BOULDER WAY
61761 SE CAMELLIA ST
61764 SE CAMELLIA ST
61768 SE CAMELLIA ST
1053 LA GRANDE AVE
61776 SE CAMELLIA ST
61780 SE CAMELLIA ST
61333 KING 1EHU WAY
21261 DARNEL AVE
1005 HE AVE
8402 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD NE
21273 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
WEST LINN, OR 97068
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
FIEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
PORTLAND, OR 97224
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701-6940
KAPAA, HI 96746
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
UNION, ME 04862
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
VANCOUVER, WA 98663
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702
WILSONVILLE, OR 97070
BEND, OR 97702
EUGENE, OR 97402
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97702
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.2C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
410 NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-EC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 40I-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400•PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
410 NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
110 NOD 21.400•PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 4014C
110 NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400•PA,4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA,4014C
BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA,401-Z-C
BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-PC
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BANDON, OR 97411 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.2C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702-7717 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 H0 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-2C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97709 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97708 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
YAKIMA, WA 98901 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-13A, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
NAPA, CA 94558 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
SEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
WOODBURN, OR 97071-9571 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
WINDELL, CALEB &JOHNS, MICHELLE
FRUMENTO, AMAN DA C
VINOVICH, SEURINA A & MICHAEL
HESTERBERG, MARISSA D & MARK A
BLYTHE, JESSE 1 & CASSIE 1
JOHANSEN, DAVID L & PATRICIA 1
CYPCAR NIPPERT LIVING TRUST
FLANNERY, JULIE LINCOLN
BRADSHAW TRUST
SWEET, JUSTIN LEE & KELSEE ANN
UPTAIN, KYLE STEVEN & KIMBERLY ANN
BROOKFIELD, MARGARET
WOOD,JUSTIN &AMBER
SPRINGER FAMILY TRUST
SPRINGER FAMILY TRUST
NIPPERT, JAMES E TTEE ET AL
BRADSHAW, SCOTT HASTINGSTTEE ET AL
SPRINGER, RICHARDL&GEORGIA ATTEES
SPRINGER, RICHARD L & GEORGIA A TTEES C/O GEORGIA A SPRINGERTTE
21277 DARNEL AVE
21281 DARNEL AVE
21285 DARNEL AVE
21289 DARNEL AVE
21314 SE DAYLI LY AVE
4069 CRESSIDA PL
21302 SE DAVLILV AVE
21296 SE DAVLILV AVE
2500 SUNNY GROVE AVE
21284 SE DAYLI LY AVE
21278 SE DAYLI LY AVE
1414 NW BALTIMORE AVE
21266 SE DAVLILV AVE
3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR
3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
MCKINI.EYVILLE, CA 95519 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-ZC
BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
CHICO, CA 95928 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
CHICO, CA 95928 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
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 and Prescribing an Effective Date on the
90th Day After the Date of Adoption.
WHEREAS, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) applied for a Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan Map (247-21-000400-PA) and Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-21-000401-ZC) change, to rezone
certain property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given 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, on this same date, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 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 plan
amendment adopted in Ordinance 2022-001; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board heard de novo the application for zone change
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) 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 "A" 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 as Exhibit "C", and incorporated by reference herein.
/ / /
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2022-002
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90th day after the date of adoption.
Dated this of , 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2022.
Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2022.
Commissioner
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone
Phil Chang
Record of Adoption Vote
Yes No Abstained Excused
Effective date: day of , 2022.
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2022-002
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Two
(2), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
All of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 lying
north of the centerline of the Central Oregon Canal.
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2022-002
SKYLINE VIEW DR
City of,
Bend
DARBY CT
DARNEL AVE
h-
/n
J
W
=WOODRUFF,PL—
ILY WAY
STARLIGHT DR
HURITA PL
CAPELLA PL—
(r)
SE GOLDEN MARKET LN
Legend
Zone Change from
EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFUTRB)
to
Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
PROPOSED
ZONING MAP
Exhibit "B"
Zoning to Ordinance 2022-002
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve
Proposed Zone Change Boundary
250
1@1
500
GIBSON DR
MUA10
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
1.000
i Feet Dated this day of , 2022
Effective Date: , 2022
=11 NM
i 9 Bend Urban Growth Boundary
December 17, 2021
Exhibit "C" to Ord. 2022-002
Mailing Date:
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
HEARING:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT:
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER:
REQUEST:
HEARINGS OFFICER:
STAFF CONTACT:
RECORD CLOSED:
247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC
August 31, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000
61781 WARD RD, BEND, OR 97702
Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson &Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
Joe Bessman
Transight Consulting, LLC
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).
Stephanie Marshall
Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner'
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
September 23, 2021
1 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,
2 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
18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40);
b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show
on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory;
c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special
assessment;
d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that
reduces in size a lot or parcel'
e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site
sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller
than the minimum area required in the applicable zone;
In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone
Change Decision (Be/veron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required
to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the
applicant 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, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp
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 Lando. 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 65
when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately 33.7 percent 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.
3 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 only make up 29 percent of the parcel. The Gosney soils 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 limitations for any agricultural use either alone or in conjunction with other lands.
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 M UA10 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
com ments:
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
Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for 36.65 acres at 61781 Ward Rd, aka 18-12-02,
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. I 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?
I 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 / am unaware of
what COID 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 forJuly 27tn
With regards to your easement agreement, I 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 Kecia Weaver I live at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 with my spouse who is
listed property owner, Patrick McCoy. On 6/17/21 I read the notice of application for the above
listed property. I would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. I have several
concerns, to include the following:
1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock / 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 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 slower growth 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. 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."
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
6/17/21 / received the notice of application for the above listed property. With little time to
research to this proposal, based on the information / have obtained, I would like to formally
dispute the requested zoning changes. My concerns are numerous and I will highlight the
following:
1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock / 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 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 welt.
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, I would encourage Deschutes
County to adhere to a slower growth 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. 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 27th 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 seem mainly
interested in jumping on the bandwagon and making as much profit as possible. The East side of
Bend, where / 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 COID 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 and Janet 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 Iots 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 / 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 / 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 land use. I notified them! I hope that the city planners
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 (27th Street) that will
likely service the Property if/once developed, I ask that the Deschutes County Planning Division
("Planning Division's not approve COID's application. l 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 5:00 pm 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 27th 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 27th 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:
"Sorry for 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 any time which might cause me to miss all or some.
So, I would like to go on record as 100% against re -zoning said COID property at this time. I 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, 2021, the Planning Division mailed a Notice 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 establish that the public interest is
best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant
are:
A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is
consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals.
FINDING: The applicant 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 land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover,
even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the
plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval
criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any
other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved.
Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may
represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other
relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]'
LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to 'consider first
whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns particular role to some or
all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23. 08. 020 of the county's
comprehensive plan provides as follows:
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a
site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a
particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which
affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to
the various decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and
equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part
of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then
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 * * * fin 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-time 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 71ots. 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 property from 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 3A 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 farmine.
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.
Farming economics and viability offarm 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 difficult for 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,
have greater access to transportation and consumer markets, and experience more
favorable growing climates and soils. Ultimately, the global economy undermines
agricultural opportunities in the countybecause commodities derived from outside
the region can be produced at a lower cost. Water limitations also playa 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-1 0 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 1, 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 County's 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 Policy 2.2.3.
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.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity
on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to
provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. 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 thesubject 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 city limits 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-11-17/ZC-11-2, 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA, and 247-18-000485-PA, 486-ZC
10 The Hearings Officer's decision for PA-11-17/ZC-11-2 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
Goal 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed
and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for
residential mobility and tourism.
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-PA/401-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 660-015-0000(3)
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
MAY:
(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
64% 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
suitability for 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(1)(a)(A) 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 "farm 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 P3d 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 property 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 looms with a low cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 7.5
meq/100 gm and organic matter is very low for Gosney 0.75%i 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
productivity for 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 !ow 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 for
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 {Total annual range production pounds_per acre
Unfavorable year Normal year Favorable year
36A 700900 1100
58C 4 558
700 �.._ �.�......__. __.._._ 1100
705
Dk900
GR' _ 315 441 567
'Estimated 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 (AUMs) 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 25% 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 F with 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 COLD 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 City limits, 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 (file 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 very shallow 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 property for 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 Class 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 P3d 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/l-VI that is adjacent
to or intermingled with lands in capability classes 1-IV/l-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 of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for
farm use as the term is defined by State law. 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 Class 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 necessary to 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 Survey tool, 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 about 25
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 28 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 l 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 feast 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 by the NRCS as ofJanuary 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 l Soil Survey
Previous
Map
Symbol
Revised
Map
Symbol
Soil Series Name
Capability Class
Previous
Map*
Revised Map
Ac
-%-
Ac ;
-%-
36A
Dk
Deskamp loamy sand0 to
3 percent slopes
3 irrigated
6 non -irrigated
12.2
32.3
10.9
28.90
58C
--
Gosney-Rock outcrop-
Deskamp complex, 0 to 15
percent slopes
6, 7 and 8
25.5
67.7
0
0
GR
Gosney-Rock Outcrop
Complex
7 and 8
0
0
24
63.7
CN
irrigation Canal
not rated
0
0
2.8
7.4
Total
37.7
100
37.7
100
"Soils that were previously mapped as components of a complex
revised map.
247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 47 of 57
Figure 1- NRCS Soil Data
(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;
(B) 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 COID 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 27th 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 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 property from 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 27th 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 property given
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 County's 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-10 Zone 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-1 0. 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 Amendment to 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 13th 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 500 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
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below:
FILE NUMBERS:
LOCATION:
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT:
SUBJECT:
STAFF CONTACT:
RECORD:
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC
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.
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID)
Tia M. Lewis
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Bend, OR 97702
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).
Tarik Rawlings, (541) 317-3148, tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org
Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov
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.
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
AZ(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org erne 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
Central Oregon Irrigation District
Tla M. Lewis
Joe Bessman
Kecia Weaver
Patrick McCoy
Matt Carey
Jeff Su ndberg
Kyle Weaver
Treva Weaver
John Schaeffer
Cathy DeCourcey
Jennifer Nell
Brent N. Wilkins
Crystal Garner
William Kepper
BEND FIRE DEPT.
BEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT.
BEND PLANNING DEPT.
BEND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR
DESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. PLANNER
ODOT REGION 4 PLANNING
HAROLD K MARKEN REV TRUST ETAL
WEST, KEVIN &JENNIFER
QUICK,MICHAEL HAROLD & DELORES MARIE
OCCUPANT
MORRISON, DAVID 1 & NANCY L
FERNS,TIMOTHVJ & RONDA L HALVORSEN-
CAREY, MATTHEW A & SHARI A
MCCOY, PATRICK E
WARRENBURG FAMILY LIVING TRUST
NELSON,HARRVR
HARRELL,JILL. KINGHAM
LAKE,JAMES E &JANET M
BAILEY-SCHAEFFER TRUST
NASLUND, JULIE & NEVILL, MICHAEL
PETERS, ROBERT W & USA M
LUCAS FAMILY REV LIVING TRUST
PASLAY, BRIAN & NANCY
BEND METRO PARKS & RECREATION DIST
LARSEN, MICHAEL ETAL
SOCKEYE E LLC ETAL
RASMUSSEN, MONIQUE & RICHARD
WOLF,DAVIDG
CARR, BRUCE
LOUIS G ROGERSON &JANICE M ROGE... ETAL
GROVE, HILARY VERONICA
KEPPER, WILLIAM EDSON & KAREN GRACE
TILTON, PATRICIA] & CHRISTOPHER L
NORMAN, JENNIFER & PAUL
TUTTLE/GALOTTI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
SWAF FORD FAMILY TRUST
FEUERMAN, JACOB & MATHENY, ELISSA
ARBAUGH, KYLE
MCQUISTON, ROBIN SUE & KEVIN JAMES
LEONG, KIRBY C W & LYNN V
VON ZANGE, SCOTTA
BOD1, AMY & DAVID
LOPEZ, RONALD L & (AURA MARIE
BETTENCOURT LIVING TRUST
OLSON, TIMOTHY 1
PEPPER, CLIVE & SUSAN
JOHNSON, ALLEN H
KATH ERIN E JAMPOL CROWE REV LIV TRUST
EAST BEND PLAZA LLC
SUE, MARK & KARI
VREM FAMILY TRUST
PATTERSON, NICOLAS F & MEHTA, SMITA R
KENNELLEY, KEVIN 5 & TRACY L
PREWITT, KURTUS S
GARDENSI DE HOME OWNERS ASSOC
BURKE, BRENDA N ET AI.
DISPEN ZA JUDITH ANN
STAVRO, CRISTINA NICOLE
BLAIR, COU RTN EY L
PHYLLIS H MEDNICK TRUST
JDD PROPERTIES LLC
CHARLES P LARSON SOLE PROP 401K PLAN
NEIL, JENNIFER
BOATWRIGHT, STEVEN F & PAMELA F
CHERKOSS, ARNE I & LAUREL A
CATHY DECOURCEY TRUST
JOHNSON • GOODMAN REVOCABLE FAM TR
LEAGIELD, DAVID S & RUTH M
ROGERS, LANI
GAYLA L SCHAMBURG TRUST
GIBSON, SALLYJ
DICKINSON, SANDRA
MOTT, BRIAN H ET AL
BEND PARKS & RECREATION DIST
OCCUPANT
BERMUDEZ, GUILLERMO 1 & ALICIA F
MCCLUNG, DONNAS
CARROL.L, DAVID L & SPONG BERG, CAROL A
SLATER, BARBARA E & SLATER, DEBRA M
GARDENSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
JUDITH K WHITEHEAD REVOCABLE TRUST
HEBREWS 135 LLC
GRAEBER, ALVSSA
IIANSEN, KAREN
BOBBY& LISA BYRD REVOCABLE TRUST
ORANGE CAT PROPERTIES LLC
SCHRON, JACQUELINE 5 & CAMERON
SHOOP, DANIEL H & KIMBERLY L
BROUGH, THOMASI
WELLS, TODD W & EMILY W
agent
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Translght Consulting
LARRV MEDINA
PETER RUSSELL
MARKEN,HAROLD KCO-TTEE ETAL
WARRENBURG, ROBERTJR & LAURA TTEES
BAILEY,PATTI L &SCHAEFFER,JOHN M TTEES
LUCAS,GERALD & MARGARET TTEES
ROGERSON,JAN ICE M TRUSTEE ETAL
TUTTLE, CRAIG H TTEE ET AL
SWAFFORD, MATTHEW 1 & JEANETTE E TTEES
BETTENCOURT, IOH N & SANDRA J TTEES
CROWE, KATHERINE JAMPOL TTEE
VREM, RICHARD C & SANDRA 1 TTEES
MEDNICK, PHYLLIS H TTEE
LARSON, CHARLES P & LAU RI E P TTEES
DECOURCEY, CATHERINE L TRUSTEE
JOHNSON, GEORGE H TRUSTEE ETAL
SCHAMBURG, GAVLA L TTEE
W H ITEHEAD, JUDITH K TTEE
BYRD, BOBBY R & LISA N TTEES
I nCareOf address
1055 SW Lake Ct
360SW Bond Street, Suite 500
Via Email
21435 Modoc Lane
21435 Madan Lane
61765 Gibson Drive
61710 Gibson Drive
61375 Kobe St
1020 SE Teakwood Dr
61677 Thunder Road
61718 Rigel Way
61723 Rigel Way
61764 SE Camellia Street
21262 Capella PI
21267 Dayllly Ave
1212 SW SIMPSON, SUITE 0
709 NW WALL ST., STE. 102
P.O. 80X 431
575 NE 15TH 5T.
ELECTRONIC
ELECTRONIC
63055 N. HWY. 97, BUILDING M
21495 BEAR CREEK RD
PO BOX 1923
21374 STEVENS RD
61710 GIBSON DR
21415 MODOC LN
61730 GIBSON DR
61765 GIBSON DR
21435 MODOC LN
61740 GIBSON DR
21485-A MODOC LN
61676 THUNDER RD
61661 THUNDER RD
61677 THUNDER RD
61645 THUNDER RD
21360 STEVENS RD
21390 STEVENS RD
21370 STEVENS RD
799 SW COLUMBIA ST
10927 SW MATZEN DR
61165 RIVER BLUFF TRAIL
61195 BONNY BRIDGE
PO BOX 5907
21265 SE DOVE LN
21280 DOVE LN
21273 DAYLILY AVE
21267 DAYLILY AVE
21261 DAVLILY AVE
21255 DAVLILY AVE
61757 CAMELLIA ST
61753 CAMELLIA ST
21257 BELLFLOWER PL
21261 BELLFLOWER PL
19882 PORCUPINE DR
1044 KAMEHAME DR
21297 BELLFLOWER PL
21250 WOODRUFF PL
C/O LAURA LOPEZ PO BOX 1492
587 STONE CORRAL CT
21262 WOODRUFF PL
21266 WOODRUFF PL
21270 WOODRUFF PL
21274 WOODRUFF PL
3188 N HIGHWAY 97 N101
21298 SE WOODRUFF PL
1310 DIAMOND DR
61710 CAMELLIA ST
61706 CAMELLIA ST
61702 CAMELLIA 5T
C/O NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MGMT CO(A) PO BOX23099
4931 DELOS WAY
322 BUCHANON
61708 SE MARIGOLD LN
61712 MARIGOLD LN
61705 RIGEL WAY
2463 NW MORNINGWOOD WAY
270 VISTA RIM DR
61723 RIGEL WAY
61706 RIGEL WAY
61712 RIGEL WAY
61718 RIGEL WAY
61724 RIGEL WAY
61730 RIGEL WAY
61742 RIGEL WAY
61748 RIGEL WAY
61754 RIGEL WAY
61760 RIGEL WAY
3311 NW MORNINGWOOD CT
799 SW COLUMBIA ST
C/I DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 63333 HWY 20 W
9855 NW SKYLINE HEIGHTS DR
21254 LILY WAY
61707 CAMELLIA ST
61703 CAMELIA ST
C/O NORTHWEST COMM MGMT CO LLC (A) PO BOX23099
61703 TULIP WAY
21810 PALOMA DR
14936 SE GLADSTONE ST
61715 TULIP WAY
21253 VIOLET LN
C/O JAMES P OLMSTED, MEMBER (A) 61535 S HIGHWAY 97IJSTE 5-604
21245 VIOLET LN
21241 VIOLETL.N
21237 VIOLET LN
61754 DARLA PL
cityStZlp
Redmond, OR 97756
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97701
Bend, OR97709
Bend, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR97701
BEND, OR 97709
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702.3218
WILSONVILLE, OR 97070
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97708
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
HONOLULU, H196825
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
GRANTS PASS, OR 97528
ANGELS CAMP, CA 95222
BEND, OR 97702-3601
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702
ARCATA, CA 95521
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
TIGARD, OR 97281-3099
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703-7022
REDMOND, OR 97756
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702.3218
BEND, OR 97703
PORTLAND, OR 97229
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
TIGARD, OR 97281-3099
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
PORTLAND, OR 97236-2441
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
type cdd id
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
I10 NOD 21-400-PA, 40I-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7.0
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400.PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.7C
HO NOD 21-4150-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
110 NOD 21•400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
1.10 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-7C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
H0 NOD 21•400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4014C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
ANTONSEN, CHET & SKAAR, THOMAS C
TODD, VICKI & KEVIN
TODD, VICTORIA & KEVIN
SEBRING, MILDRED I
PARKS, JOHN B & MARLENE A
BEVERLY E GORDON REV TRUST
PR055ER FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
COWAN, PAUL VERNON
WEBB, DARRELL D & LINDAI
ROBERT&JOAN FAIRBANKS TRUST
GRACIA, CHRISTOPHER E & JILL M
MOORE, BRIAN A
MARGARET ANN MOORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST
VAN BUREN, C LANCE & LORENA KAY
ENGLUND ESTATES LLC
MARSH TRUST
WEVBRIGHT FAMILY TRUST
PENDERGAST, TYLER M & AMY M
SOURDAGE, JOSIIUA K & MARISA K
TELLER, STEVEN D &CYNTHIA C
HAWKINS, LYBE L
FERNANDEZ, XIMENA C
BOATMAN, SARAH & SCOTT
STOCKLAND, ADAM T & SARAH 1
SCHAAB, PHOEBE A
THOMAS, DAV ID 1 & COLLEEN A
HERZOG, MICHAEL E
DRYHOLLER LLC
GUTIERREZ, TREDE & DYLAN
BILVEU, JEFFERY DEAN & KAREN
SMITH, KYLES ETAL
CATAPANO, ERIC A
TRAN, QUANG P
HANSEN, DALE A & PAMELA R
GARNER, JASON & CRYSTAL
HALE, KRISTAN N & ALEXIS GRACE
SIEVERSON, PENNYJO
WHITE, SARA M
ZINN ER, JOSHUA P & H ILLARV L
BAERT, CHRISTOPHER &JESSICA L
BIEL, JESSICA & HOOVER, JEVIN TYLER
CARMACK, CYNTHIAA
RIDER, GREGORY E & SUZANNE M
WELLEN, ROBERT& KATHERINE
CANO, FRANCISCO & MELISSA
BJORK, CHARLES & PAMELA
CERRUTI, BLAKE C & HEATHER E
S&H ANDERSON 1.03 LLC
TEH, RONNIE W & CAPECE, SONIA
LEAHY, BRIAN & KIM K
DOUGHMAN, ROBERTJ & KATHRYN M
DOWNEY, SCOTT& DIXIE
PUPO, LUCAS K ET AL
JKC HOMES LLC
VAN BLARICOM, JEROME BRADLEV ET AL
COLE, PATRICIA RENEE QUINLAN
CAFFEE, ALEXANDER HETAL
ROSENGARTH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
CROSSE,STEVEN E & DIMITRIA
ROSENGARTH FAMILY TRUST
ANTONSEN, CHET & SKAAR, THOMAS C
SLOCUM, WILLIAM TJR & MECHELLE M
SPATES, DEMETRIUS C
WIGGINS, BRITTNEY D
LEAH SULLIVAN LIVING TRUST ETAL
WEAVER, SANDRA
RADKEY, ROBERT & H EDDY
BETTY LOU BIEBER TRUST
CHARLES&JEANNE CLAWSON FAMILY TRUST
BRANDENHORST, JOHN D III
ST CLAIR, JULIE
BARDONG, IRIS M
PATTON,SYDN EVJOAN
COCCO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
WILLIAMS, TROY & VANHORN, CAITLVN
GAROUTTE, MICHAEL 5 & FRAZIER, LINDA
WAYBRIGHT, TREVOR A & JOVA
KOCH, DANIEL & LETA
ROSENGARTH DEVELOPMENT LLC
FLINT, MARIE KAY
ALEXA DELLINGER TRUST
ZHU, XIAOGANG & LI, MING W EI
FREDRICKSON, KATIE
GREEN WALD, JAY A & MARY F
SIGNATURE HOMEBUILDERS LLC
GERALD 5 ALVES & EILEEN 8 ALVES REV TR
ZORNADO, BRANDON & SHELLEY
BENNETT, BRIAN ETAL
ROBERT E SAUTER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
GEORGETON, LEE C & KRISTIN 1
MILLS, ROBERT B &GRIFFIN, EMDEN R
R0S5 FAMILY TRUST
RILEY, ANTON & GINA
SHAHVAR, RACIIEI. NATALIE
CHOPRA, PANKAJ & ANITA
HAUCK, RANDY.' & MICHELLE L
LEASE, ARIAN NA & BRIAN ETAL
WILKINS, BRENT N
LEE, ROBERT ALLAN
TED & SUE MIGDAL 2003 REVOCABLE TRUST
KRUKEMEYER, MARY
MCCULLOUGH, KATHRINE ANNE
LL GARDNER LLC
PHARAOH, NATHANAEL SR & LEAH
CRIMM INS, JOAN NA MARI E
HAWK, DEBRA JO
CROGHAN, RVLEV G & HALLEY T
GORDON, BEVERLY E TTEE
PROSSER, STEVE JAMESTTEE ETAL
FAIRBANKS, JOAN LTTEE
MOORE, BRIAN TTEE
MARSH, WALLACE A 1R & ELSIE A TTEES
WEVBRIGHT, DANIEL R & BARBARA TTEES
ROSENGARTH, SHARRON G TTEE
ROSENGARTH, TONV 1 & NANCY A TTEES
SULLIVAN, LEAH TTEE
BIEBER, BETTY LOU TTEE
CLAWSON, CHARLES R & JEANNE A TTEES
COCCO, CHESTER R & VIRGINIA 5 TTEES
DELLINGER, ALEXA B TTEE
ALVES, GERALD 5 & EILEEN B TTEES
SAUTER, ROBERT E TTEE
ROSS, PAUL E & EMILY KATHLEEN TTEES
MIGDAL, THEODORE N & SUSAN A TTEES
612 NE SAVANNAH DR JJ3
61694 RIGEL WAY
61694 RIGEL WAY
20709 TANGO CREEK AVE
21285 STARLIGHT DR
21281 STARLIGHT DR
21277 STARLIGHT DR
21273 STARLIGHT DR
471 SW SCHAEFFER RD
21268 HURITA PL
21272 HURITA PL
21276 HURITA PL
21276 HURITA PL
21284 HURITA PL
8300 SW PETERS RD
21261 STARLIGHT DR
21257 STARLIGHT DR
21253 STARLIGHT DR
21252 HURITA PL
21256 HURITA PL
21260 HURITA PL
1059 NE PARKVIEW CT
5170 APELILA ST
21279 HURITA PL
21275 HURITA PL
21271 HURITA PL
21267 HURITA PL
2021 NE 8TH ST
21259 HURITA PL
21255 HURITA PL
21251 HURITA PL
21250 CAPELLA PL
21254 CAPELLA PL
21258 CAPELLA PL
21262 CAPELLA PL
21266 CAPELLA PL
21270 CAPELLA PL
11225 SW CYNTHIA CT
21278 CAPELLA PL
21282 CAPELLA PL
61664 RIGEL WAY
61660 KACI LN
21281 CAPELLA PL
202 STERLINGTOWN LN
21273 CAPELLA PL
21269 CAPELLA PL
61655 GEMINI WAY
3214 NE 42N D ST NSTE C
61656 KACI LN
2949 NW BORDEAUX LN
61648 KACI LN
PO BOX 782
61637 KACI LN
PO 80X 25822
21285 DAVLILV AVE
21279 DAVLILV AVE
1358 47TH AVE
21279 DOVE LN
21283 DOVE LN
21259 CHILLIWACK WAY
62765 POWELL BUTTE HWV
21281 BELLFLOWER PI.
21273 BELLFLOWER PL
21285 BELLFLOWER PL
8412 SWEETWATER CIR
21278 WOODRUFF PL
PO BOX 1869
61727 SE YARROW LN
61719 YARROW LN
61724 MARIGOLD LN
61716 MARIGOLD LN
61703 YARROW LN
61715 YARROW LN
60350 WINDSONG LN
61776 DARLA PL
61772 DARLA PL
61768 DARLA PL
61764 DARLA PL
21259 CHILLIWACK WAY
617605E CAMELLIA ST
21286 DARNEL AVE
62977 MARSH ORCHID DR
21278 DARNEL AVE
21272 DARNEL AVE
PO BOX 1886
21262 DARNEL AVE
21258 DARNEL AVE
1381 NW TRENTON AVE
PO BOX 8644
61793 5E CAMELLIA 5T
61789 SE CAMELLIA ST
61781 SE CAMELLIA 5T
108 MOFFETT BLVD NC113
61773 SE CAMELLIA ST
61769 SE CAMELLIA ST
5101 BOULDER WAY
61761 5E CAMELLIA ST
61764 SE CAMELLIA 5T
61768 SE CAMELLIA ST
1053 LA GRANDE AVE
61776 SE CAMELLIA 5T
61780 5E CAMELLIA ST
61333 KINGJEHU WAY
21261 DARNEL AVE
1005 LEE AVE
8402 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD NE
21273 DARNEL AVE
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
WEST LINN, OR 97068 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
PORTLAND, OR 97224 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97701-6940 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
KAPAA, HI 96746 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
SEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEAVERTON, OR 97008 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
UNION, ME 04862 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
VANCOUVER, WA 98663 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
W ILSONVILLE, OR 97070 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
REND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
EUGENE, OR 97402 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7.0
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BANDON, OR 97411 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4011C
SEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702-7717 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97709 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97708 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401.7.0
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
YAKIMA, WA 98901 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400•PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
NAPA, CA 94558 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-PC
WOODBURN, OR 97071.9571 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
WINDELL, CALEB &JOHNS, MICHELLE
FRUMENTO, AMANDAC
V INOV ICH, SEURINA A & M ICIHAEL
HESTERBERG, MARISSA D & MARK A
BLYTH E, JESSE J & CASSIE J
JOHAN SEN, DAVID L & PATRICIA J
CYPCAR NIPPERT LIVING TRUST
FLANNERY, JULIE LINCOLN
BRADSHAW TRUST
SWEET, JUST N LEE & KELSEE ANN
UPTAIN, KYLE STEVEN & KI MBERLY ANN
BROOKFIELD, MARGARET
WOOD, JUSTIN &AMBER
SPRINGER FAMILY TRUST
SPRINGER FAMILY TRUST
NIPPERT, JAMES E TTEE ET AL
BRADSHA W, SCOTT HASTINGS TTEE ET AL
SPRINGER, RICHARD L & GEORGIA A TTEES
SPRINGER, RICHARD I. & GEORGIA A TTEES CIO GEORGIA A SPRINGER TTE
21277 DARNEL AVE
21281 DARNEL AVE
21285 DARNEL AVE
21289 DARNEL AVE
21314 5E DAYLILY AVE
4069 CRESSIDA PL
21302 SE DAYLILY AVE
21296 SE DAYLILY AVE
2500 SUNNY GROVE AVE
21284 SE DAYLI LY AVE
21278 SE DAYLILY AVE
1414 NW BALTIMORE AVE
21266 SE DAYLILY AVE
3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR
3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97702
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192
REND, 0R 97702
BEND, OR 97702
MCKINLEYVILLE, CA 95519
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR97702
BEND, OR 97703
BEND, OR 97702
CHICO, CA 95928
CHICO, CA 95928
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21.400-PA,401-2C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-PC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC
March 30, 2022
RE: Letter of Support - City of Bend's Ferguson Sewer Project
Dear Senators:
Deschutes County wholeheartedly supports the City of Bend's Ferguson Sewer Project before you for a Congressionally
Delegated Spending Request. Deschutes County understands the benefit of reliable sewer systems and the drastic need
for more housing in this area slated for annexation. Fulfilling this request helps meet both City and County goals.
City of Bend looks to maximize the benefit of public investment while minimizing costs, and the Ferguson Sewer Line
Project is the perfect example of this synergy. The Ferguson Sewer Project will achieve three goals:
1. Provide reliable public sewer service to properties currently served by aging onsite septic systems;
2. Enable affordable housing construction south of the proposed sewer system;
3. Support needed infrastructure to allow the Southeast Area, designed as a complete community, to be annexed
as approved in the 2016 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion.
In addition to helping Bend meet clean water and housing goals, this project will provide significant overall benefit to
the region through creation of jobs and additional investment.
We respectfully ask that you support this request.
Sincerely,
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
(541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org 0 www.deschutes.org
March 30, 2022
RE: Letter of Support - City of Bend's Land Acquisition Project
Dear Senators:
Deschutes County is pleased to support City of Bend's Land Acquisition project before you for a Congressionally
Delegated Spending Request. As you know, Deschutes County continues to lead the country in growth, and we believe
it is vital to sustain our existing workforce as growth puts pressure on home prices. This request is an opportunity to
support our community through provision of housing that is affordable.
The City of Bend has a long history of promoting affordable housing and they have the incentives and processes in
place to get it done. Housing Works, our Regional Housing Authority, is the largest developer and owner of affordable
housing in the region, and known as a productive, innovative housing authority across the Northwest. Housing Works
will provide the technical knowledge and access to additional state and federal funding to complete this development.
In one of the most challenging development environments in the country, these entities continue to deliver quality
housing. The partnership between the City of Bend and Housing Works will bring investment to our community and
stable housing for those who need it most.
Thank you for considering this important request.
Sincerely,
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
(541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org
°ARD OF COUNTY C Mj S A(
March 30, 2022
Bureau of Reclamation
Water Resources and Planning Office
Attn: Ms. Avra Morgan
Mail Code: 84-51000
P.O. Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225
Dear Review Committee,
Deschutes County strongly supports the Deschutes River Conservancy's application on behalf of the Deschutes Basin Water
Collaborative (DBWC) to the Bureau of Reclamation's Cooperative Watershed Management Program for Phase I funding to
support the Collaborative's capacity to engage in water management and planning. The Deschutes Basin has a long history of
collaborative engagement, and is poised to implement long-lasting solutions to meet water needs in the basin. Continued
support for this collaboration is critical, as forging and implementing broadly -supported strategies is time -intensive. As a
member of the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative, our organization is excited to participate in this basin planning process
that will build on the body of work completed in the Deschutes Water Planning Initiative and the Upper Deschutes Basin Study
to identify and prioritize implementation activities to meet the water allocation needs of communities, agriculture, and the
Deschutes River. The result of this effort will be a balanced, implementable Plan that will provide for the orderly and well -
supported execution of implementation projects to serve the shared goals of all DBWC members.
As an organization that recognizes the critical importance of water in the region and the need to collaboratively and
proactively plan for the future, Deschutes County both supports and endorses this collaborative water management work in
the Deschutes Basin. You can consider Deschutes County a partner and an advocate on behalf of DBWC, its mission, and the
watershed management projects.
Through this letter, we are acknowledging the partnership between Deschutes County and the other members of the
Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative. Through our collaboration, we will realize the intended goals of the project application to
build a comprehensive Upper Deschutes Sub -basin Water Management Plan, alongside the ongoing implementation of water
projects. By leveraging our shared resources, we will ultimately deliver a more protected and efficient watershed.
Sincerely,
Deschutes County Commissioners
Patti Adair Tony DeBone Phil Chang
Chair Vice- Chair Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
tz (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org
01"Es
A COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 28, 2022
The Honorable Ron Wyden, United States Senator
Senior Senator from Oregon
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C., 20510
The Honorable Jeff Merkley
United States Senator
531 Hart Senator Office Building
Washington, D.C., 20510
RE: FY 2023 Congressional Directed Spending * City of Sisters Roundabout at US HWY 20 & Locust Street
Intersection
Dear Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley,
Deschutes County is writing in support of a roundabout at the intersection of US 20 and Locust Street on the east end of
downtown Sisters, OR.
A roundabout at this intersection will be an asset to residents, businesses, tourists, and through traffic including the freight
industry who pass through the community daily. It will serve as a critical traffic control device to ease congestion, minimize
speeds, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, and ensure essential turning movements. The current trip volume at this
intersection far exceeds capacity and brings additional traffic each year. Installation of a roundabout will reduce the number
and severity of motor vehicle accidents and conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
This intersection is critical highway access for city and county residents alike. This is the eastern terminus of the alternate
route (starting at US 20 and Barclay Drive) that will relieve congestion downtown while improving access to industrial lands
for economic development.
The City of Sisters has demonstrated its commitment to the project and continues to prioritize it as the number one
transportation project. To date, the City has invested $250,000 to initiate project development and is prepared to leverage
additional funds for project construction.
Thank you for considering additional support for this critical transportation infrastructure project in west Deschutes County
on US 20.
Sincerely,
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Patti Adair, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice -Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner
1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703
e (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
March 30, 2022
SUBJECT: Request approval to apply for OHA Aid and Assist grant funds
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval to apply for OHA Aid and Assist grant funds.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The number of Individuals being admitted to the Oregon State Hospital (OSH) after being
found Unfit to Proceed in the criminal justice system is increasing at an unsustainable rate.
Senate Bill 295 (SB 295) calls for Community Mental Health Programs (CMHPs) to utilize
community restoration options for defendants not needing a hospital level of care.
Goals and Objectives
(a) Increase usage of community -based restoration services for
Individuals who have been found Unfit to Proceed in their criminal proceedings.
(b) Decrease number of admissions to OSH under ORS 161.370.
(c) Decrease lengths of stay for Individuals admitted to OSH under ORS 161.370.
(d) Increase number of and availability of community beds that are below a hospital level -
of -care and reserved for Individuals determined to be eligible for community restoration.
(e) Expand forensic evaluation services.
(f) Increase collaboration and engagement of stakeholders involved in the treatment and
care coordination of Individuals found Unfit to Proceed
By creating specific and sustainable programming to address the specific needs of this Aid
and Assist population, we are able to streamline access to culturally appropriate services
for this marginalized group. Strategies and preferred practices for community restoration
services are outlined by Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and those will be followed.
We are requesting to apply for $567,200 for the term of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
This funding will help to cover current costs of services that were expanded to address this
population, including: treatment and administrative staff, housing supports, and barrier
removal for the Aid and Assist Population in Deschutes County. Please see attached
budget.
Quarterly reporting and monthly update meetings with OHA are required.
BUDGET IMPACTS: $567,200 Revenue for the period July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.
ATTENDANCE:
Kara Cronin, Behavioral Health Program Manager (Presenter)
Janice Garceau, Deputy Director, Health Services
A&A proposed grant expenses FY23
Employee Name
KRATZ, JESSE
SCOTT, ERICA
SMITH, TRACIE
HATCHER, SHARON
LAI, RUTHIE
MCEWEN, JESSICA
VACANT -PUBLIC HTH NURSE II
NAMKUNG, EVAN
Position
BEHAVL HLTH SPEC II
PEER SUPPORT SPECLST
ADMIN SUPPORT SPEC
ACCOUNTING TECH
BEHAVL HLTH SPEC I
BEHAVL HLTH SPEC
PUBLIC HTH NURSE II
SUPERVISOR BH
Contracted Services - Bethlehem Inn
M&S - Client Stabilization expenses
Total Direct Expenses
Admin Indirect 10%
Total Expenses
FTE FY23 salary + benefit cost
1.00 $ 124,680
0.25 �.$ 21,503
0.20... 17,148 ..
0.10 $... ............ 10,533...
1.00 $ 109,850
24,282
75,456
34,185
417,636
88,000
10,000
515,636
51,564
567,200