2022-461-Ordinance No. 2022-013 Recorded 12/20/2022REVIEWED_
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2022-461
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' ,journal 12/20/2022 10:55:04 AM
oC\'vES Cb��� II � I I Il II IIII lI l I II II I I lull III
2022-461
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County
Code Title 23, the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, to Change the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for
Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural
Residential Exception Area, and Amending
Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes
County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone
Designation for Certain Property From
Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Residential.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2022-013
*
*
*
*
WHEREAS, 710 Properties, LLC, applied for changes to both the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Map (247-21-001043-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-21-
001044-ZC), to change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA), and a corresponding zone change
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Residential (RR-10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on April 19, 2022, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on June 2, 2022, the
Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone
Change;
WHEREAS, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board heard de novo the applications to
change the comprehensive plan designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) to Rural Residential (RR-10); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-013
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" from AG to RREA, with both exhibits attached and incorporated
by reference herein.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation
from EFU to RR-10 for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as
Exhibit "C", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative
History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated by reference
herein, with new language underlined.
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this Ordinance the
Decision of the Board of County Commissioners as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by
reference herein. The Board also incorporates in its findings in support of this decision, the
Decision of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "G" and incorporated by reference herein.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 901" day after the date of
adoption.
Dated this J�of , 2022
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A�'- �&
PATTI ADAIR, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
S+-
Date of 1It Reading: J / day of '2022.
Date of 211 Reading: &"day of 2022.
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-013
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone—
Phil Chang
Effective date: � I day of
ATTEST
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-013
Exhibit "A"
Legal Descriptions of Affected Properties
TRACT 1 (Current tax lot 14-12-2100-00700
That portion of the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 21, T14S, R12E, W.M. lying Easterly
and Southeasterly of the following described line:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Section 21:
thence 10.00 feet west along the North line of said Section 21;
thence South 1000.00 feet along a line parallel to the East line of said Section 21;
thence on a straight line to the Southwest corner of said Section 21.
TRACT 2 (Current tax lot 14-12-2100-00600)
The Northerly 165.00 feet of the NE1/4 of Section 28, T14S, R12E, W.M.;
The S1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 21, T14S,R12E, W.M.;
The NE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section21, T14S, RUE, W.M., and
That portion of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 21, T14S, RUE, W.M. Lying
Southeasterly of the following described line:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 21;
thence 10.00 feet West along the North line of said Section 21;
thence South 1000.00 feet along aline parallel to the East line of said Section 2 1;
thence on a straight line to the Southwest corner of said Section 21.
TRACT 3 (Current tax lot 14-12-2100-00500)
That portion of the SW1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 21. T14S, R12E, W.M. Lying
Southeasterly of the following described line:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 21;
thence 10.00 feet West along the North line of said Section 21;
thence South 1000.00 feet along a line parallel to the East line of said Section 21;
thence on a straight line to the Southwest corner of said Section 21.
TRACT 4 (Current tax lot 14-12-2100-00400)
That portion of the NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 21, T14S, R12E, W.M. Lying
Southeasterly of the following described line:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 21;
thence 10.00 feet West along the North line of said Section 21;
thence South 1000.00 feet along a line parallel to the East line of said Section 21;
thence on a straight line to the Southwest corner of said Section 21.
TRACT 5 (Current tax lot 14-12-2100-00300)
The Northerly 165.00 feet of the NW1/4 of Section 28, T14S, R12E, W. M., those
portions of the NW1/4 of the SE1/4, the SE1/4 of the SW1/4 and the SW1/4 of the
SW1/4 of Section 21 T14S, RUE, W.M. Lying Southeasterly of the following described
line:
BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Section 21;
thence 10.00 feet West along the North line of said Section 21;
thence South 1000.00 feet along a line parallel to the East line of said Section 21;
thence on a straight line to the Southwest corner of said Section 21.
TRACT 6 (Current tax lot 14-12-2800-00100)
The NE1/4 of Section 28, T14S, RUE, W.M.
EXCEPTING the Northerly 165.00 feet THEREOF.
TRACT 7 (Current tax lot 14-12-2800-00200)
The NW1/4 of Section 28, T14S, RUE, W.M.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northerly 165.00 feet THEREOF.
TRACT 8 (Current tax lot 14-12-2800-00300)
The NE1/4 of the SW1/4 and the N1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 28, T14S, R12E, W.M.
TRACT 9 (Current tax lot 14-12-28D0-00101)
PARCEL 2 of Partition Plat No. 2015-15 according to the official Plat THEREOF as
recorded in the office of County Clerk for Deschutes County, Oregon.
Proposed Plan Amendment
• Boundary
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
RREA - Rural Residential
Exception Area
AG - Agriculture
(� Subject Property
141
1412210000600
1412210000300
Plan Amendment from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
1412280000300
Proposed Comprehensive
Plan Map
Applicant: 710 Properties, LLC
Taxlots: 14-12-28-DO-00101
14-12-28-00-00100, 200, 300
14-12-21-00-00300, 400, 500, 600, 700
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2022-013
10/11/2022
BOAkP OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti 'Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
0pe(0SG®
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this I / day of /?fie * 2022
Effective Date: cis 2922 ;
Proposed Zone Boundary
Zoning
® RR10 - RURAL RESIDENTIAL
3 EFUSC - SISTERS/CLOVERDALE SUBZONE
EFUTE - TERREBONNE SUBZONE
EFULB - LOWER BRIDGE SUBZONE
GISData.GISADMIN. Street
Proposed Zoning Map
Applicant: 710 Properties, LLC
Taxlots: 14-12-28-DO-00101
14-12-28-00-00100, 200, 300
14-12-21-00-00300, 400, 500, 600, 700
Exhibit "C"
to Ordinance 2022-013
10/11/2022
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
F DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Patti Adair, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Arr'c�S �D
Phil Chang, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated this ' / day of —�cr 2022
Effective Dater l r r 7 ,
Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2022-013
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003
and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated
by reference herein.
B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. the Deschutes County Cornpreilensrve Plan arnenUrllcrlts, adopted Uy the Doard rri Ordrrtancc
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2022-013 Chapter 23.01 X/XX/22
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
II. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
PP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2022-013 Chapter 23.01 X/XX/22
SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
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.
XX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
YY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
ZZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-0010, are incorporated by reference herein.
AAA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
BBB The Deschutes CountyComprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-013 are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2022-013 2� , 2022; Ord. 2022-011 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-0010 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-006 §2,
2022; Ord. 2022-003 §2, 2022; Ord. 2022-001 §1, 2022; Ord. 2021-008 §1; Ord. 2021-005 §1, 2021;
Ord. 2021-002§3, 2020; Ord. 2020-013§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-009§1, 2020; Ord. 2020-006§1, 2020;
Ord. 2020-007§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-008§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-003 § 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-002 § 1, 2020;
Ord. 2020-001 §26, 2020; Ord. 2019-019 §2, 2019; Ord. 2019-016 §3, 2019; Ord. 2019-006 § 1,
2019; Ord. 2019-011 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-004 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 § 1,
2019; Ord. 2019-002 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 § 1,
2018; Ord. 2018-006 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 § 1,
2016; Ord. 2016-027 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 § 1,
2016; Ord. 2015-010 §1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1,
2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2,
2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 § 1,
2013; Ord. 2013-002 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 § 1,
2012; Ord. 2012-005 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 § 1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed;
Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011)
Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan)
Exhibit D, Ord. 2022-013 Chapter 23.01 X/XX/22
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2022-013
sect%ow s.sz Legisl,atWe H-%storu
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Ordinance
Date Adopted/
Chapter/Section
Amendment
Effective
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
201 1-003
8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Comprehensive Plan update
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System Plan
(added)
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4. I, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
2012-016
12-3-12/3-4-13
3.9
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
2013-002
1-7-13/ 1-7-13
4.2
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2013-009
2-6-13/5-8-13
1.3
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-012
5-8-13/8-6-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
2013-007
5-29-13/8-27-13
3.10, 3.11
for Southern Deschutes
County
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01,010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.1 1
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14
23.01.010, 5.10
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2014-027
12-15-14/3-31-15
23.01.010, 5.10
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-021
1 1-9-15/2-22-16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Surface Mining.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2015-029
1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Tumalo
Residential 5-Acre Minimum
to Tumalo Industrial
2015-018
12-9-15/3-27-16
23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3
Housekeeping Amendments
to Title 23.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan Text and
2015-010
12-2-15/ 12-2-15
2.6
Map Amendment recognizing
Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat
Inventories
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-001
12-21-15/04-5-16
23.01.010; 5.10
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial (exception
area)
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to add an
exception to Statewide
2016-007
2-10-16/5-10-16
23.01.010; 5.10
Planning Goal I I to allow
sewers in unincorporated
lands in Southern Deschutes
County
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
^,^ , , A
Amendment, including certain
201 6-UL2
9-L8- I D/ I I - I `t- 10
G3.V I .V IV, 1.3, `t./-
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Housekeeping Amendments
correcting tax lot numbers in
Non -Significant Mining Mineral
2018-006
8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18
23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9
and Aggregate Inventory;
modifying Goal 5 Inventory of
Cultural and Historic
Resources
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2018-01 1
9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, removing Flood
23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo
Plain Comprehensive Plan
2018-005
9-19-18/ 10-10-18
Community Plan,
Designation; Comprehensive
Newberry Country Plan
Plan Amendment adding Flood
Plain Combining Zone
purpose statement.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment allowing for the
2018-008
9-26-18/ 10-26-18
23.01.010, 3.4
potential of new properties to
be designated as Rural
Commercial or Rural
Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Surface Mining
2019-002
1-2-19/4-2-19
23.01.010, 5.8
to Rural Residential Exception
Area; Modifying Goal 5
Mineral and Aggregate
Inventory; Modifying Non -
Significant Mining Mineral and
Aggregate Inventory
Comprehensive Plan and Text
2019-001
1-16-19/4-16-19
1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01
Amendment to add a new
zone to Title 19: Westside
Transect Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
2019-003
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
property from Agriculture to
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the Large Lot
Industrial Program
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
2019-004
02-12-19/03-12-19
23.01.010, 4.2
Redmond Urban Growth
Area for the expansion of the
Deschutes County
Fairgrounds and relocation of
Oregon Military Department
National Guard Armory.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Bend Urban Growth
Boundary to accommodate
the refinement of the Skyline
Ranch Road alignment and the
2019-01 1
05-01-19/05-16/ 19
23.01.010, 4.2
refinement of the West Area
Master Plan Area I boundary.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2019-006
03-13-19/06-1 1-19
23.01.010,
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments incorporating
language from DLCD's 2014
2019-016
1 1-25-19/02-24-20
23.01.01, 2.5
Model Flood Ordinance and
Establishing a purpose
statement for the Flood Plain
Zone.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2019-019
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to provide
procedures related to the
2020-001
12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19
23.01.01, 2.5
division of certain split zoned
properties containing Flood
Plain zoning and involving a
former or piped irrigation
canal.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to adjust the
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary through an equal
exchange of land to/from the
Redmond UGB. The exchange
property is being offered to
better achieve land needs that
2020-002
2-26-20/5-26-20
23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2
were detailed in the 2012 SB
1544 by providing more
development ready land
within the Redmond UGB.
The ordinance also amends
the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Urban Area
Reserve for those lands
leaving the UGB.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 11
2020-003
02-26-20/05-26-20
23.01.01, 5.10
(Public Facilities and Services)
to allow sewer on rural lands
to serve the City of Bend
Outback Water Facility.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
06-24-20/09-22-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/Old
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.33 1 and 5.3.T2 and amend
TSP text.
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
07-29-20/ 10-27-20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to update the
County's Resource List and
2020-006
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20
23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9
Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with the
State Historic Preservation
Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Ar i ends i ent to add reference
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
to J turns on US 97 raised
median between Bend and
Redmond; delete language
about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
0 1 -27-21/04-27-21
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property from
2021-005
06-16-21 /06-16-21
23.01.01, 4.2
Agriculture (AG) To
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and text
amendment
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment Designation for
Certain Property Adding
2021-008
06-30-21/09-28-21
23.01.01
Redmond Urban Growth
Area (RUGA) and Fixing
Scrivener's Error in Ord.
2020-022
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-001
04-13-22/07-12-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2022-003
04-20-22/07-19-22
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2022-006
06-22-22/08-19-22
23.01.010
property from Rural
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) to Bend Urban
Growth Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-010
07-27-22/ 10-25-22
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) To Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
2022-01 1
TBD
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Industrial (RI)
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2022-013
TBD
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2022-013
EXHIBIT F - Ordinance 2022-013
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-001043-PA, 247-21-001044-ZC
APPLICANT: 710 Properties, LLC
PO Box 1345
Sisters, OR 97759
OWNER: Eden Central Properties, LLC
ATTORNEY(S) FOR
APPLICANT: Liz Fancher
2464 NW Sacagawea Lane
Bend, Oregon 97703
J. Kenneth Katzaroff
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
STAFF PLANNER: Haleigh King, AICP, Associate Planner
Haleigh.King@deschutes.org, 541-383-6710
APPLICATION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject
property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception
Area (RREA) and a corresponding Zone Change to change the
zoning from Exclusive Farm Use - Terrebonne (EFU-TE) to Rural
Residential (RR-10).
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map 14-12-28, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300
Assessor's Map 14-12-28D, Tax Lot 101
Assessor's Map 14-12-21, Tax Lots 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700
1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Hearings Officer's Decision: The Hearings Officer's decision dated June 2, 2022,
adopted as Exhibit G of this ordinance, is hereby incorporated as part of this decision,
including any and all interpretations of the County's code and Comprehensive Plan,
and modified as follows:
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
1. Replace the discussion of the tax history of the subject property in Section II. B.,
page 5 with the following:
"According to the Deschutes County Assessor's office, no part of the subject property
is currently receiving farm tax deferral. Tax Lot 300, Map 14-12-28 erroneously
received farm tax deferral but was disqualified in 2014 because the property was not
engaged in farm use. The record does not include any evidence the subject property
is engaged, or has ever been engaged, in farm use."
2. Add the following sentence to the findings related to Section 3.2, Rural
Development on page 54:
"In the event Section 3.2 is determined to establish relevant approval criteria, it has
been met. The subject property is comprised of poor soils and it is adjacent to the
rural residential zone and rural residential uses on its northern boundary."
In the event of conflict, the findings in this decision control.
B. Procedural History: The County's land use hearings officer conducted the initial
hearing regarding the 710 Properties, LLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Zone Change applications on April 19, 2022, and recommended approval of the
applications by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board-) in a decision
dated June 2, 2022. The Board conducted a de novo land use hearing on August 17,
2022. The Board deliberated and voted to approve the applications on September 28,
2022.
C. Deschutes County Land Use Regulations: The Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan and Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code have been acknowledged by LCDC as
being in compliance with every statewide planning goal, including Goal 14. The County
specifically amended its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 to provide that the Rural
Residential Exception Area Plan and its related MUA-10 and RR-10 zones should be
applied to non -resource lands. Ordinance 2016-005. This amendment is
acknowledged, which means that the RREA plan designation and its related zoning
districts, when applied to non -resource lands such as the subject property, do not
result in a violation of Goal 14.
II. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The Board of County Commissioners approves the requested plan designation and zone
change applications and provides the following supplemental findings and conclusions of
law and the analysis provided by its Decision Matrix:
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 2
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
A. Statewide Goal 3 Definition of Agricultural Land
The following is the definition of Agricultural Land provided by Statewide Goal 3:
"Agricultural Land -- ***in Eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class 1, ll, III,
IV, V and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the
United States Soil Conservation Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm
use taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability forgrazing, climatic conditions,
existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land -
use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, or accepted farming
practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to
be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land
in any event.
More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be utilized by local
governments if such data permits achievement of this goal.
Agricultural land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth
boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4."
B. Class I -VI Soils identified in Soil Classification System of the US Soil Conservation
Service, Decision Matrix page 1
The Board finds, based on the Site -Specific Soils Survey prepared by Soils Classifier Brian
Rabe, that 71 percent of the subject property is comprised of Class VII and VIII soils and that
the remaining 29 percent is comprised of Class VI soils.
OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) implements Goal 3's allowance of the use of "more detailed soil data"
to define agricultural land. It requires that the soils data provided to the County must be
related to the NRCS land capability classification system. This makes it clear that soils
information must be reported by soil classification, LCC I through VIII, and that this
information may be used in lieu of the NRCS soil surveys. Mr. Rabe classified the soils on the
subject property using the NRCS system.
Per OAR 660-033-0030(5)(b), if an applicant concludes that a more detailed soils analysis
would assist the county "to make a better determination of whether the land qualifies as
agricultural land," the applicant is required to hire a soils scientist approved by DLDC to
conduct agricultural land soil surveys that provide more detailed soils information than
contained in the Web Soil Survey of NRCS. Mr. Rabe has been approved by DLCD to conduct
such studies and his soils study was reviewed and approved for use by Deschutes County by
DLCD. The study, according to OAR 660-033-0030(5)(c)(A), may support "a change to the
designation of a lot or parcel planned and zoned for exclusive farm use to a non -resource
plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land." This is
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 3
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
consistent with LUBA's decision in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA
156 (2016)("Aceti'l.
C. Suitability for Farm Use as Defined by ORS 215.203(2)(a), Decision Matrix page 2
Definition of Farm Use
The relevant definition of "farm use" is provided by ORS 215.203(2)(a). To constitute "farm
use" various agricultural activities must be undertaken for "the primary purpose of obtaining
a profit in money." The evidence in the record establishes that no person would undertake
agricultural activities on the subject property for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in
money. The costs of conducting such activities are too high and the income derived
therefrom are too low. According to the 2017 US Census of Agriculture, farms in Deschutes
County averaged losses of $12,866 and approximately 84% of farms do not obtain a profit in
money. The average cash farm income of Deschutes County farms that lost money in 2017
was only $21,386. Farms that had net operating income averaged income of only $31,739.
This data suggests that only farms with ideal farm conditions (good soils, irrigation water
rights, favorable climate) obtain a profit in money. It supports the collective opinions of
experienced ranchers and farmers that the subject property is not suitable for any type of
farm use. We agree.
Given the high cost of irrigating and maintaining the subject property as pasture or cropland
(hiLlh labor costs, labor-intensive, high cost of irrigation equipment and electricity, high cost
of fertilizer, etc.), dry land grazing is the only generally accepted farm use of poor soils
(predominantly Class VII and VIII) in Deschutes County. However, the collective opinion
submitted by several professional ranchers in this case (and discussed below) makes it clear
that grazing would not be profitable on the subject property nor would any professional
rancher attempt to integrate the subject property with other ranchland holdings or
operations.
Income from Livestock Grazing
When assessing the potential income from dry land grazing, Deschutes County uses a
formula and assumptions developed by the OSU Extension Service. This formula is used by
the County to decide whether EFU-zoned land is generally unsuitable for farm use. While it
does not assess income from all types of livestock, it looks at income from a type of livestock
operation that typically occurs in Deschutes County on dry land. The formula assumes that
one acre will produce 900 pounds of forage per year and support one Animal Unit Month
per acre. The Oregon Department of Agriculture ("ODA"), DLCD and ODFW offered their
professional opinion in a letter dated April 19, 2022 that the subject property produces
enough forage in dry years to allow grazing by one AUM per 10 acres. In wet years, the
agencies estimate that the property might be able to support grazing by one AUM per five
acres. This means that the income results of using the OSU formula must be divided by five
and ten to obtain the range of potential gross income that might be achieved from grazing.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 4
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
• One AUM is the equivalent to the forage required for a 1000 lb. cow and calf to
graze for 30 days (900 pounds of forage).
• On good quality forage, an animal unit will gain 2 pounds per day.
• Two animal units will eat as much in one month as one animal unit will eat in
two months.
• Forage production on dry land is not continuous. Once the forage is consumed, it
typically will not grow back until the following spring.
• An average market price for beef is $1.15 per pound.
Based upon these assumptions, the value of beef production on the entire subject property
can be calculated using the following formula:
30 days x 2#/day/acre = 60.0 lbs. Beef/acre
(1 acre per AUM)
60.0 lbs. Beef/acre x 710 acres x $1.15/lb. = $ 48,990 per year of gross income
$48,990/10 = $4,899 per year of gross income in dry years
$48,990/5 = $9,798 per year of gross income in wet years
Thus, using the OSU/County formula based on ODA forage calculations, the total gross beef
production potential for the subject property would be approximately $4,899 to $9,798
annually.
The State agencies argued that the applicant's analysis of grazing capacity overlooks the fact
that it is an accepted farm practice to graze cattle for five to six months of the year allowing
the property owner to double the number of cattle raised by a farm operation. While this is
correct, it would not alter the amount of income attributable to grazing on the subject
property. The income formula produces the same result whether cattle graze year-round or
for a part of the year. Any additional income from a larger herd would be grazing attributable
to the other lands where the livestock graze at other times of the year and not be attributable
to use of the subject property. Transporting cattle to distant pastures and paying to lease
land elsewhere for a larger herd would also impose additional operating costs making it less
likely that a livestock grazing operation would generate a profit in money from grazing
operations.
Suitability of Property for Dryland Grazing
The record contains a considerable amount of evidence regarding the suitability of the
property for dryland grazing. The evidence is generally consistent on two points; the property
may be used for grazing livestock but there is inadequate forage on the property to generate
net income for a rancher from grazing.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 5
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
We have considered the vast amount of combined experience of these farmers and ranchers
in conducting similar operations and find their testimony more probative and persuasive
than that offered by the opposition on the issue of whether the subject property is suitable
for farm use as defined by ORS 215.203. Based on evidence and comments submitted into
the record from ranchers and farmers, including James M. Stirewalt, Rand Campbell, Matt
and Awbrey Cyrus, Russ Mattis, Zach Russell, Craig May, the Board finds the subject property
is not suitable for dryland grazing. No reasonable farmer would conduct a cattle or other
livestock operation on the subject property intending to make a profit in money from the
endeavor.
Other Potential Farm Uses
Arguments were presented that a host of activities, in addition to dryland livestock grazing,
that might constitute farm use could occur on the subject property. No claim was made,
however, that these activities could be undertaken on the subject property with an intention
of making a profit in money use. Instead, the argument was the same argument rejected by
the Oregon Supreme Court in Wetherell v. Douglas County - that "profit" is "gross income"
without the consideration of farm expenses.
All other farm uses that might be conducted on the subject property, other than dryland
grazing, would require the property owner to expend extraordinary amounts of money to
speculatively attempt to make the subject property suitable for farm use. Furthermore, it is
not an accepted farm practice in Deschutes County to irrigate and cultivate Class vii and viii
soils.
The following conditions further support a determination that the property is not suitable
for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203:
• Property lacks irrigation water rights and is outside of an irrigation district
• The cost to finance the purchase of groundwater rights and to establish an irrigation
system would overwhelm gross farm income
• Property lacks natural source of water for livestock
• Property contains an excessive amount of rocks that would need to be removed to
allow the property to be cultivated
• Shallow depth of soil will not hold sufficient water to support the growth of crops
• High plateau location results in exposure to the elements unfavorable for most crops
(extreme high temperatures, extreme low temperature, and wind/erosion)
• Low rainfall
First and foremost, irrigation water rights would need to be purchased and would need to
be sourced from groundwater. With the cost of purchasing water rights being approximately
$21,000 per acre, the cost of obtaining irrigation water for just 405 acres of the subject
property (three 135-acre) pivots would be $7,800,000.00. The cost of installing agricultural
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 6
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
wells and pumps is approximately $595,000. This totals approximately $8,635,000 to
establish an irrigation system and supply water for only 405 acres of the 710-acre subject
property (three pivots). While these expenditures are capital expenses rather than operating
expenses, the cost of debt service is an operating expense that would offset farm income.
In the unlikely event that a farmer could obtain a USDA loan at the favorable rate of interest
of four percent per year, the annual cost of funding these improvements on an interest only
loan would be approximately $345,400 per year. Funding from a commercial lender would
be even more expensive as interest rates currently range from 5.75 to 8.5 percent.
Additionally, the approximate cost of electricity to operate an irrigation system would, based
on costs incurred by Dry Creek Ranch, add between $10,000 and $12,000 per year to the
expense of irrigating the subject property due to the cost of electricity needed to pump
groundwater.
The expenses to establish an irrigation system and the shallow, poor quality soils present on
the subject property would prevent a reasonable farmer from believing that he or she would
ever make a profit in money by conducting irrigation water -dependent farm uses on the
subject property. According to the US Census of Agriculture, in 2017, the average Deschutes
County farm lost $12,866 per farm; up from $11,538 per farm in 2012. A reasonable farmer
would also consider the fact that only 22 percent of farm land in the County is cropland and
only 27 percent of farm land is irrigated; in other words, only the best soils in the County
support irrigated crop production. Only 16 percent of farms in the County in 2017 had net
farm income from farm operations. The average income of the successful farms in the
County in 2017 was only $31,739 - not enough to justify the huge expense of bringing water
to the subject property or of clearing the land of surface and subsurface rock that would
impede tilling - assuming that that is even feasible.
COLW argued that the applicant must show that the subject property is not suitable for any
farm use mentioned by a table in the 2012 Census of Agriculture that reports on farm use in
Deschutes County. COLW, however, misunderstands the table. It does not represent, as
alleged, that all uses listed on the table are occurring in Deschutes County. Instead, it
provides income information for groups of uses that are occurring in Deschutes County
without disclosing which activities are occurring in our county. COLW mentioned lavender as
a potential farm crop, but evidence provided by the applicant shows that lavender farms
require irrigation and that the cost paying the interest on the expense of purchasing
irrigation water and installing a system would impose interest costs that would be too
significant to allow such an operation to be profitable in addition to the other costs of
operations - especially considering the track record of other Central Oregon farms.
Additionally, lavender farms are typically conducted on much smaller properties with fields
less than five acres in size. Further, most lavender farms rely upon public visitation. No
reasonable lavender grower would attempt to establish a lavender farm on the Property
given the poor quality of the soil, lack of water, and other operational constraints - including
lack of close proximity to area roadways and population centers.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 7
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
Additionally, COLW made no substantiated claim that a reasonable farmer would undertake
any of the listed uses with the intention of making a profit in money. Instead, COLW argued
that gross income from farming the land is synonymous with a profit in money - a claim
rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court in Wetherell v. Deschutes County. The commenting
State agencies and opponents made similar claims arguing that certain farm uses could be
established on the subject property without claiming that the uses would be able to be
conducted with an intention to make a profit in money.
DLCD/ODA/ODFW argued that the subject property "may also be sufficiently capable of
supporting *** the boarding and training of horses, raising poultry, honeybees or even
ungulate specifies like elk or raising game birds such as pheasants, chukar or quail." They did
so without suggesting that a farmer might expect to make a profit in money from conducting
any of these activities on the subject property. The suitability test, as indicated by
DLCD/ODA/ODFW comments, relates to whether the subject property itself can support a
farm use. This means that the land must be able to produce crops or forage adequate to
feed livestock raised on the property; something that severely limits the size of any
operation.
Almost all farm uses require irrigation water and, for those that do, it is simply cost -
prohibitive to purchase water rights and install wells, pump and irrigation infrastructure on
the subject property. The extensive amount of rock would also make almost any agricultural
activity infeasible unless the rocks are removed at a cost that would be too expensive to
merit either the initial expenditure (capital cost) or finance costs (operating expense that
reduces gross income). The DLCD/ODA/ODFW comments recognize this fact and argue that
uses that do not rely on irrigation water might be conducted on the subject property.
The applicant provided extensive evidence that a wide array of farm activities, including
those identified by the State agencies, would not be feasible on the subject property and
would not be able to be conducted with an intention to make a profit in money. This evidence
includes, but is not limited to, unrebutted evidence from Fran Robertson, owner of
Robertson Ranch, that she would never consider attempting to establish a horse operation
on the subject property due to a lack of irrigation, rocky land, location and numerous juniper
trees. Horses eat hay, and, according to opponent Pam Mayo -Phillips "[t]he property is not
suitable for hay ground ***." The State agencies did not contest the fact that the subject
'To the extent arguments in the record are read to present a claim that a farmer or rancher
would use the subject property for farm activities with an intention of making a profit in
money, we find the evidence to the contrary offered by farmers and ranchers who toured
the subject property and the overwhelming evidence in the record that supports their
opinions more persuasive and find that no reasonable farmer would attempt to farm the
subject property with an intention to obtain a profit in money.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 8
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
property is not suitable for the production of crops, presumably due to the expense and
difficulty of obtaining irrigation water rights for such a large, infertile property. Without hay
and other feed crops, the subject property will not support the farm uses of breeding,
boarding or training horses.
The suggestion that elk might be raised on the subject property overlooks the reality that elk
ranching requires permits from ODFW. OAR 635-049-0015(1). Additionally, the subject
property lacks irrigation which is essential to establish the pastures that should be provided
for elk. Elk ranches incur significant expenses to comply with ODFW regulations that make it
difficult for them to make a profit in money on any property. This includes disease testing
and double fencing with fences at least 8 feet high. OAR 635-049-0245. The costs of installing
this fencing would be substantial due to the rocks present on the subject property.
The State agencies' letter of April 19, 2022 states that establishing a confined animal feeding
operation (feed lot) would have similar costs wherever located and might be established on
the subject property. This is not correct, however, because it would be necessary to remove
a substantial quantity of rock from the subject property to make it suitable for this use. It
would also be necessary to grade and install a new road (in rock) that will accommodate the
trucks used to transport cattle or other livestock to and from the property. Furthermore, the
Rabe soils analysis show that the soils on the property are shallow which means that the site
is not suitable for a large concentration of animals due to the septic disposal needs of such
an operation. Additionally, the number of animals that can be sustained by vegetation
produced on the subject property is very low. While hay and feed may be imported to
increase production of livestock, that is not a correct measure of whether the land proposed
for rezoning can support a particular farm use - the question asked by the definition of
Agricultural Land in Goal 3.
As to the other uses mentioned in the State agency letter, Brittany Dye of Brittany's Bees LLC
estimated gross income of only $4,000 per year from the property. Taxes, insurance,
transportation, interest on farm loans and labor would make this use one that would not be
profitable. The applicant has also provided evidence that shows that conducting a
commercial chicken operation is not feasible. The land itself will not produce crops to feed
the chickens. The costs of bringing power to the site, obtaining water for the chickens,
installing predator control fencing and constructing farm buildings, would make it
unreasonable to assume that a farmer would expect to make a profit in money by conducting
such an operation on the subject property. Additionally, evidence in the record shows that
farm pastures are a key element for a successful chicken (eggs and meat) farm operation
such as Great American Egg in Powell Butte, Oregon. Evidence in the record shows that game
birds, like poultry, require water and feed not present on the subject property and that these
uses are not likely to be profitable.
Redside Restoration, LLC argued that the Class VII soils on the subject property may be used
to produce grapes. Its reasoning is that it grows grapes on its property north of the subject
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 9
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
property but their property is substantially different than the subject property. The Redside
property has conditions uniquely suited to growing Marquette grape vines that are absent
on the subject property. According to the Oregon Wine Press, these conditions are "a south -
facing vineyard slope and wind protection" that allow the vines to survive temperatures that
drop to the negative teens and twenties in the winter. Additionally, the Redside property is
located "within grape seed spitting distance of the Deschutes River" and is fully irrigated. The
Redside soils are alluvial because they are next to the river whereas the subject property is
a considerable distance from the river. The Redside property is also at a significantly lower
elevation than the subject property, which may contribute to the success of operations due
to climatic pressures being diminished (warmer, less exposure to the elements). Redside
claims its vineyard is growing on land in NRCS map unit 81 F. While this is the mapped soil
type, soil classifier Brian Rabe, based on a review of the information provided by Redside,
offered his expert opinion that the Redside vineyard does not have the characteristics of 81 F
soil because it has slopes of between 10 and 20 percent rather than the 45 to 80 percent
slopes found in areas of 81 F soils. Information in the record also establishes that the soils
on the subject property are too shallow, with a typical depth of approximately 14 inches, to
support a productive and profitable vineyard.
Hemp was mentioned as a potential crop, but former hemp farmer Matt Cyrus is of the
opinion that the subject property would not support any working farm use. Mr. Cyrus did
not grow hemp in 2021 and 2022 due to poor market conditions. Hemp growers have an
oversupply and back inventory of product not yet sold. Mr. Cyrus advised that the subject
property is poorly suited for hemp production because it is too rocky and the soils are too
shallow for proper tillage and that greenhouse production is not financially feasible. The
viability of hemp was also questioned by other commenters including Paul Schutt.
It was also argued that rocks on the subject property might be sold as field stone but this
activity is not a farm use or accepted farm practice. Instead, if conducted at a commercial
scale it would be surface mining. It was also argued that veterinary clinics are a farm use
because they are animal husbandry. The Board disagrees and finds that in the context of the
definition of Agricultural Land and farm use, the use described is the day-to-day care,
breeding and raising of livestock not a veterinary clinic. This interpretation is consistent with
the intention of the EFU zone to preserve land for farm uses that require productive farm
land to produce farm products.
In a determination of farm suitability, capital costs may also be considered as a technological
and energy input in order to establish the use. The record shows that the cost of establishing
an irrigation system (as well as other required capitals costs) on the subject property, would
far exceed the sales price that could be obtained if the subject property were improved.
Therefore, no reasonable farmer with the intention of making a profit would attempt to
establish such a system. This is particularly true given that the record shows at least one
example of an existing farm operation that has farm soils and over 500 acres of irrigation
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 10
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
water rights, and that that operation has failed to sell for over 18-months at a sales price
below the cost of just purchasing the irrigation water appurtenant to that property.
In conclusion, based on a consideration of evidence in the record that might suggest that the
subject property might be suitable for "farm use" and the evidence to the contrary, we find
the evidence to the contrary more persuasive and find that the subject property is not "other
lands which are suitable for farm use 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, or accepted
farming practices." Statewide Goal 3.
D. Land Necessary to Permit Farm Practice on Nearby Agricultural Land, Decision
Matrix page 3
The State agencies raised the issue of traffic impacts related to the Goal 3 issue of whether
land is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on nearby lands. Traffic issues
are not, however, a relevant consideration in addressing this issue because Goal 3 asks
whether the "land" to be rezoned, the subject property, is needed by area farms to conduct
farm practices on their properties. Additionally, the record supports the finding that the
small amount of traffic associated with the proposed change will not prevent farm practices
associated with area farm uses of growing hay and grazing livestock from occurring in the
area.
Arguments were also made that grazing might occur on the subject property and on other
area land, but that is not the question posed by Goal 3. The question is whether the subject
property is necessary to allow farm practices to occur on other properties, and it is clear that
it is not necessary.
E. Traffic Impacts and the TPR, Decision Matrix page 4
The applicant filed expert evidence from transportation system engineer Chris Clemow that
demonstrates compliance with the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060.
The hearings officer and County Transportation Planner both reviewed the analysis and
found it demonstrated compliance with the rule and this has not been an issue of dispute.
Instead, it has been argued that road conditions are not currently adequate to support the
traffic associated with a rural residential subdivision of the property. We find, however, that
road condition issues will be addressed during subdivision review because the County's code
allows the County to impose roadway improvement requirements to address identified
inadequacies and have considered the availability and efficiency of providing all necessary
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 11
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
public services and facilities, including roadways, in approving the 710 applications.2 DCC
18.136.020(1).
Additionally, without subdivision review a maximum of only six additional homes in addition
may be built on the subject property as a matter of right under the proposed zoning. It is
highly likely, however, that the same six additional homes could be approved as nonfarm
dwellings on the subject property given the fact that three other nonfarm dwellings have
been approved on the property and the fact that 71 percent of the property is comprised of
Class VII and VIII soils.
F. Definition of Forest Lands, Decision Matrix page 5
The State agencies argued that the County must address the definition of forest land. We
address that definition below.
(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.
The subject property is not forested land. it is not suitable for commercial forest uses an -a'
none are occurring on adjacent or nearby lands. Western juniper is not a forest tree species.
The Department of Forestry has determined that there is no forestland on the subject
property or on adjacent or nearby lands. The Board agrees with the Hearings Officer on this
issue.
OAR 660-006-0010(2) states:
(2) Where a plan amendment is proposed.
(a) Lands suitable for commercial forest uses shall be identified using a mapping of average
annual wood production capability by cubic foot per acre (cf(ac) as reported by the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. ***
The NRCS Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area includes maps of the subject
property and reports the average annual wood production capability (cf/ac) for all forest soils
in Table 8 of the survey. Soils not suitable for wood crops are indicated by their omission
from the table (zero production). All of the soils identified by the NRCS Soil Survey as being
'See, DCC 17.16.100(B)(adequate facilities), DCC 17.16.115 (Traffic Impact Study), DCC
17.36.040 (Existing Streets), DCC 17.48.160 (Road Development Requirements; Standards).
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 12
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
present on the subject property are not suitable for producing wood crops. The same is true
for all soils identified as present on the property by soils classifier Brian Rabe. The subject
property, therefore, is not land suitable for commercial forest uses.
(c) Counties shall identify forest lands that maintain soil air, water and fish and wildlife
resources.
The subject property is not "forest lands."
G. Goal 14, Urbanization, Goal Exception, Decision Matrix page 6
Opponents argued that the County must approve an exception to Statewide Goal 14,
Urbanization, in order to apply the RR-10 zone and RREA plan designation to the subject
property. An exception to Goal 14 is, however, only required if the proposed zone and
designation allow urban development of the subject property. The Board agrees with the
Hearings Officer on this issue.
Furthermore, opponents reference the legal case of 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry
County), 301 Or 447, 498-511, 724 P2d 268 (1986) for the proposition that a county may need
to approve a goal exception to apply the RREA plan designation and RR-10 zoning districts to
the subject property. The Curry County case, however, does not support COLW's argument.
In Curry County, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that rural residential zoning for
exception areas must be proven to be rural in nature when first adopted, even for zones and
plans adopted prior to the allowance of exceptions to Goal 14. Curry County at 476. This
means that when Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code were
acknowledged by LCDC around 1980, it was necessarily determined that RREA plan
designation and zoning comply with Goal 14 and do not allow urban development.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP") Policy 2.2.3 specifically allows nonresource
lands zoned EFU to be redesignated and rezoned and identifies the property zoning and plan
designations to be applied to non-agricultural lands. The plan also states, in Section 3.3, Rural
Residential Exception Areas:
"As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through
initiating a non -resource plan amendment and zone change by demonstrating the
property does not meet the definition of agricultural or forest land 'E''E *"
The Plan states that "[e]ach Comprehensive Plan map designation provides the land use
framework for establishing zoning districts. Zoning defines in detail what uses are allowed
for each area." DCCP Section 1.3, p. 15. Rural Residential Exception Areas, according to the
DCCP, "provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth boundaries
and unincorporated communities ***." DCCP Section 1.3, p. 15. DCCP Table 1.3.3 provides
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 13
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
that Title 18's RR-10 and MUA-10 are the "associated Deschutes County Zoning Code[s]" for
the RREA plan designation.
The determination that the RREA plan designations and RR-10 and MUA-10 zoning districts
should apply to non-agricultural lands was made when the County amended the DCCP in
2016. Ordinance 2016-005. That ordinance was acknowledged by DLCD as complying with
the Statewide Goals. This means that the lot sizes and uses allowed by the RREA plan
designation and RR-10 zone are Goal 14 compliant. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment simply acts in accordance with the DCCP provisions. It provides no occasion for
the County to revisit the issue of whether the RR-10 zone and RREA designation violate Goal
14 by allowing urban development.'
This issue is addressed in detail by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Central Oregon LandWatch
v. Deschutes County, 301 Or App 701, 457 P3d 369 (2020)("TID"). In TID, the Court held that a
decision made by Deschutes County decades earlier not to apply a resource plan designation
to the subject property made it unnecessary for the property owner to establish that the
property is nonresource land when remapping it from Surface Mining to RREA and MUA-10.
This is consistent with earlier Court of Appeals decisions that hold that Goal 5 is not a relevant
issue in a plan amendment and zone change application if the subject property has not been
identified as a Goal 5 resource by the applicable comprehensive plan. Urquhart v. Lane
Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 181-82, 721 P2d 870 (1986); Friends of Neabeack Hill
v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350, rev den 323 Or 136 (1996).
The case ofJackson County Citizens' League v. Jackson County, 171 Or App 149,15 P3d 42 (2000)
holds that it is unnecessary to establish compliance with Goal 14 for uses conditionally
allowed by the EFU zone; just as it is unnecessary for 710 Properties, LLC to establish that
Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan, a plan that provides that the RREA plan
designation and RREA zones (RR-10 and MUA-10) should be applied to non-agricultural lands,
complies with Statewide Goal 14.
COLW Goal 14 argument is also based on erroneous facts. COLW's argument assumes that
the RREA plan designation and RR-10 and MUA-10 zones were granted exceptions to
Statewide Goal 14. In fact, the only required exceptions granted to Deschutes County by
LCDC were to Statewide Goals 3 and 4 - not to Goal 14. The DCCP explains:
"1979 Exceptions Comprehensive Plan entire County- PL 20 - 1979
During the preparation of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan it was apparent that many
rural lands had already received substantial development and were committed to
3 In Deschutes Development Co. v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218 (1982) LUBA held that "We
lack authority after acknowledgment of a comprehensive plan to review goal issues related
to the plan. Fujimoto v. MSD, 1 Or LUBA 93, 1980, affd, 52 Or Alp 875, 630 P2d 364 (1981)."
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 14
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
non -resource uses. Areas were examined and identified where Goal 3 and 4
exceptions were taken. At this time exceptions to Goals 11 and 14 were not required."
DCCP, Chapter 5, p. 40. An exception to Goal 14 was not required because the plan and rural
residential zoning districts complied with Goal 14 and because Goal 14 exceptions were not
yet allowed by LCDC's rules.
Curry County Goal 14 Analysis
While not agreeing that an analysis of Goal 14, Urbanization is required, we provide the
following alternative findings below to address the issue.4
The RR-10 zoning district does not authorize urban development that violates Statewide Goal
14. DCCP Chapter 1, Section 1.3 p. 15 (Definitions) says that RREAs provide opportunities for
rural residential living; not urban living that violates Goal 14. A review of the factors identified
by the Supreme Court in CurryCountyall confirm that the zoning district does not allow urban
development.
L Density
The RR-10 imposes a maximum density of one dwelling per ten acres. The only exception is
that a higher density may be allowed in planned or cluster developments if they are not
subject to the WA overlay zone.' This higher density is not, however, allowed by approval of
this zone change. This increased density is allowed only if it is shown that the development
complies with the County's conditional use criteria, Comprehensive Plan and zoning
ordinance that require the dedication of 65 percent natural, undisturbed open space. The
large natural open space areas created by this type of development act to maintain the rural
character of the parent parcel. The maximum density for properties like the subject property
is one house per 7.5 acres. This is not an urban density. Such a density would never be
allowed in any urban residential zoning district other than a reserve or holding zone. For
instance, in the City of Bend, a density of 1.1 dwellings per acre is the lowest density allowed
for an urban residential district. This density is allowed only for areas not served by sewer.
For properties served by sewer, a minimum density of four dwellings per one acre is
required.
in Curry County, the Supreme Court accepted the concession of 1000 Friends that a density
of one house per ten acres is generally "not an urban intensity." COLW argues that the
comprehensive plan requires a ten acre minimum parcel size. If correct, this minimum parcel
size will apply during our review of any subdivision on the subject property and assure that
'Alternative findings are common and permitted. Oregon Coast Alliance, et al. v. Tillamook
County, _Or LUBA _ (LUBA Nos. 2021-101 /104, Sep 30, 2022)(slip op 24).
' DCC 18.60.060.0 also permits a density bonus if a property is within one mile of an urban
growth boundary. That provision does not apply here.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 15
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
development is not developed at an urban intensity. Furthermore, in Curry County, 1000
Friends argued that densities greater than one dwelling per three acres (e.g. one dwelling
per one or two acres) are urban. The density allowed by the RR-10 zone in a planned
development is 2.5 times less dense. For a standard subdivision, the density allowed (one
house per ten acres) is over three times less dense. The record in this case, also includes
DLCD guidance that suggests that a low level of residential urban density is two to six units
per buildable acre (Applicant's Exhibit BOCC-4). Clearly, a density equivalency of one unit per
ten acres is not urban; and the same is true for a density of one unit per 7.5 acres.
The density of the RR-10 zone is not, as claimed by COLW, eight times greater than the
density allowed in the EFU-zone. Deschutes County's EFU zone allows for non -irrigated land
divisions for parcels as small as 40 acres that create two nonfarm parcels (1:20 acres density).
It also allows for two lot irrigated land divisions that, in Deschutes County can occur on
parcels less than 30 acres in size (23 acres irrigated, no minimum lot size for the nonfarm
parcel) that result in a density of one house per less than 15 acres.
ii. Lot Size
The RR-10 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of one house per ten acres. An
exception to the minimum lot size is allowed only if 65 percent of the land being divided is
dedicated as open space and a maximum density of one dwelling per 7.5 acres is achieved
on the subject property.
The EFU zone that applies to the subject property imposes no minimum lot size for new
nonfarm parcels. DCC 18.16.055. The only exception is that 5-acre minimum is required for
non -irrigated land divisions of properties over 80 acres in size. DCC 18.16.055(C)(2)(a)(4). The
EFU zone requires that other nonfarm uses be on parcels that are "no greater than the
minimum size necessary for the use." Furthermore, although not applicable to non -resource
lands, OAR 660-004-0040 allows lot sizes as small as two acres in rural residential areas
without need for approval of a goal exception - indicating LCDC's view that parcels of this
size are not urban lots.
iii. Proximity to Urban Growth Boundaries
The County's zoning map shows that the subject property is over four miles from the nearest
UGB, the UGB for the City of Redmond. This separation assures that uses established on the
subject property will remain rural and not have a "magnet effect" of drawing urban residents
to rural lands for commercial services. The magnet effect was an issue of concern to the
Oregon Supreme Court in the Curry County case. LCDC currently strictly limits the size of
magnet uses in the EFU zoning district if they are within three miles of an urban growth
boundary by OAR 660-033-0130(2) and Table OAR 660-033-0120 but does not limit the same
uses on properties that are more than three miles from a UGB.
iv. Services
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 16
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
Sewer service is prohibited by Goal 11. An increase in the density of development is not
allowed if a public water system is developed to serve the subject property. The property
may be served by exempt domestic wells, as intended by the applicant.
v. Conclusion of Factors
In totality, none of the above -factors indicates that the Applicant's rezone request implicates
Goal 14. The applicant asserts that the property as it is currently zoned could qualify for
approval of approximately 21 non -farm dwellings given the existing requirements in the
Code and state law. This approval increases the potential density of development, but not to
urban levels.
H. Change in Circumstances or Mistake in Zoning, Decision Matrix page 7
The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer's findings regarding a mistake in zoning and
change in circumstances. Additionally, the County adopted comprehensive plan language in
2016 that clearly allows changes of the type proposed bythe applicant. In this case, the Board
agrees there has been a change in circumstance since the property was originally zoned EFU
around 1979 that merits approval of the 710 Properties applications.
I. Impacts on Surrounding Land Use, Decision Matrix page 8
DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) requires a consideration of whether the impacts on surrounding land
use will be consistent wi in the specific goals and policies contained within the
Comprehensive Plan. All specific goals and policies were identified by the County's hearings
officer and were considered by the Board in deciding to approve the zone change and plan
amendment applications. Additionally, approval does not violate any specific plan goal or
policy. Furthermore, Policy 2.2.3 specifically allows for the proposed changes on EFU land
that does not meet Goal 3's definition of Agricultural Land. The Board concurs with the
Hearing's Officer findings.
J. Wildlife Impacts, Decision Matrix page 9
The County's Goal 5 program considered and applied mapping to protect all Goal 5 resources
in the County. It did not identify any Goal 5 resource on the subject property and did not
impose any Goal 5 protections. The Board understands that wildlife agencies are asking the
County to apply new Goal 5 protections to a wide swath of lands in the County, including the
subject property but the County has not yet conducted an ESEE analysis to determine
whether Goal 5 protections should be applied. At this time, however, Goal 5 is not a relevant
issue in the review of this application because no Goal 5 resources have been inventoried as
being present on the property. Applying ad hoc protections at this time would not be
appropriate. Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176, 181-18Z 721 P2d 870
(1986); Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 Or App 39, 911 P2d 350, rev den 323
Or 136 (1996). See also, Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 301 Or App 701, 457
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 17
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
P3d 369 (2020). Furthermore, approval of the zone change and plan amendment application
will not prevent the application of Goal 5 resource protections to the property, if merited, in
the future.
K. Fire Hazard, Decision Matrix page 10
The entire County is identified as a Wildfire Hazard Area designation. The plan amendment
and zone change does not change this designation.
The subject property, if subdivided, will be required to comply with emergency access
requirements or development of the property will be limited by the applicable fire code
unless appropriate fire risk and hazard reduction measures are taken by property owners.
The measures identified by the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged as complying
with Statewide Goal 7. As approval of the application does not violate the plan, it does not
violate Statewide Goal 7.
L. Availability of Water and Water Impacts, Decision Matrix page 11
Evidence in the record is generally consistent regarding the availability of water. Water is
available in the regional aquifer and is adequate to serve residents of new homes that might
be built on the subject property.' According to Kyle Gorman of Oregon Water Resources
Department, the aquifer has declined by a modest amount of 9 feet over 25 years in the area
closest to the subject property. The level of water in the upper levels of the aquifer above
the regional aquifer is declining for multiple reasons; none are attributable to the proposed
plan amendment and zone change application. The result of groundwater decline is that
older wells that are shallow need to be redrilled.
A professional water study conducted by GSI Water Solutions, Inc. found, that the use of
exempt wells to meet the water needs of new residents would be unlikely to have a
measurable interference on agricultural wells and domestic wells in the area around the
subject property. Given this fact, it is not necessary for the subject property to remain
undeveloped in order to permit farm practices from being undertaking on adjacent or
nearby agricultural lands. Additionally, domestic water use is only a very small percentage
of water use occurring in the Deschutes River Basin. The largest use of water is irrigation,
particularly irrigation of farm properties. Water use issues, also, will be addressed during
subdivision review as required by DCCP Policy 2.5.24.
Under DCC 18.136.020(C)(1), the water availability issue is limited to a consideration of
whether water will be available to the subject property and does not address water
availability for other properties. That standard has been met by the applicant.
' The cost of water for farm use purposes makes that use unrealistic.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 18
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
M. HB 2229 and Related Comprehensive Plan Policies, Decision Matrix page 12
Opponents argued that the County cannot approve the Applicant's request without first
obtaining a "work plan" that has been supported by DLCD. The Board finds the requirements
and allowances of HB 2229 (2009) are not applicable to the quasi-judicial process proposed
with this application.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP') Policies 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 allow the
rezoning of an "individual parcel" of land. In fact, in 2016, the County adopted changes to the
DCCP to specifically authorize the approval of quasi-judicial plan amendments to
nonagricultural land and these plan provisions are acknowledged.
HB 2229 authorizes a County -led "Big Look" of resource lands and has no bearing on a quasi-
judicial rezone initiated by an applicant which is permitted Deschutes County's
Comprehensive Plan. According to former DLCD Director Richard Whitman, the bill
authorizes counties to "take a county wide look at all of their farm and forest lands and
whether they [are] appropriately zoned or not."' Nothing in HB 2229 precludes the County
from approving property -specific plan amendment and zone change applications for
properties incorrectly inventoried as resource lands.
III. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board of County
Commissioners hereby APPROVES Applicant's applications for a DCCP amendment to re-
designate the subject properties from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and a corresponding zone map amendment to change the zoning of the properties
from Exclusive Farm Use - Terrebonne (EFU-TE) to Rural Residential (RR-10).
Dated this JMdtay of °, 2022
Applicant's Exhibit BOCC-24.
Exhibit F to Ordinance 2022-013 19
File Nos. 247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC
Exhibit "G" to Ord. 2022-013
Mailing Date:
Thursday, June 2, 2022
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBER: 247-21-001043-PA, 247-21-001044-ZC
HEARING: April 19, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
SUBJECT PROPERTY/
OWNER: Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000100
Account: 163920
Situs Address: 10315 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR
97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000200
Account: 250543
Situs Address: 10325 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR
97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000300
Account: 124845
Situs Address: 10311 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR
97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 141228D000101
Account: 273062
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000300
Account: 276793
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000400
Account: 276794
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 1 of 74
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000500
Account: 276791
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000600
Account: 124846
Situs Address: 70000 BUCKHORN RD, TERREBONNE, OR
97760
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000700
Account: 276792
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
APPLICANT: 710 Properties, LLC
PO Box 1345
Sisters, OR 97759
ATTORNEYS FOR
APPLICANT: Liz Fancher
2464 NW Sacagawea Lane
Bend, Oregon 97703
J. Kenneth Katzaroff
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
1420 5ch Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA).
The Applicant also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone
the subject property from Exclusive Fann Use — Terrebonne
subzone (EFU-TE) to Rural Residential (RR-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Stephanie Marshall
STAFF CONTACT: Haleigh King, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-383-6710
Email: Haleigh.King@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
httl2s://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-21-001043-pa-and-247-
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 2 of 74
21-001044-zc-eden-central-properties-comprehensive-plan-
amendment
RECORD CLOSED: May 3, 2022
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 18.60, Rural Residential Zone (RR-10)
Chapter 18.113, Destination Resorts Combining Zone (DR)
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 12, Transportation Planning
Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 33, Agricultural Land
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 215.010, Definitions
Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. LOT OF RECORD: Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record
verification is required for certain permits:
B. Permits Requiring Verification.
1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot or
parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required prior 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 — FI (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 shown on the
Statewide Wetlands Inventory;
c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment;
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 3 of 74
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 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04; page 3) that a property's lot
of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change
application. Rather, the Applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to
any development on the subject property. The Hearings Officer adheres to this ruling and finds
this criterion does not apply.
B. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property encompasses approximately 710.5 acres and
includes nine tax lots described below (together hereafter referred to as the "subject property"):
Map and Tax Lot
Situs Address
Area acres
1412280000100
10315 NW COYNER AVE,
REDMOND, OR 97756
±149.78
1412280000200
10325 NW COYNER AVE,
REDMOND, OR 97756
±150.09
1412280000300
10311 NW COYNER AVE,
REDMOND, OR 97756
±120.6
141228D000101
NO SITUS ADDRESS
±8.66
1412210000300
N) CTTTTQ ATITIRFCg
+101 68
1412210000400
NO SITUS ADDRESS
t9.47
1412210000500
NO SITUS ADDRESS
±4.54
1412210000600
70000 BUCKHORN RD,
TERREBONNE, OR 97760
±163.87
1412210000700
NO SITUS ADDRESS
7L1.79
The subject property is undeveloped except for one tax lot (10325 NW Coyner Avenue), which is
developed with a nonfarm dwelling (County Land Use File #CU-05-103). Two other lots of record
have valid nonfarm dwelling approvals. Access to the property is provided at the western terminus
of NW Coyner Avenue, a County -maintained rural local roadway, and the northern terminus of
NW 103`d Street, a County -maintained rural local roadway.
A majority of the property sits on a plateau running from the southwest to the northeast of the
subject property boundary. Topography is varied with portions of lava rimrock present along the
west and northwest edges with steep to very steep slopes below. Vegetation is typical of the high
desert and includes juniper trees, sage brush, rabbit brush, and bunch grasses. The Applicant
emphasizes the steep topographical decline on the property, the fact that there is "lava rock all over
the property," and "sparse ground cover and juniper."
The subject property does not have water rights and is not currently being farmed or irrigated in
conjunction with farm use. There is no known history of the property having had irrigation rights.
There is no known history of agriculture or farm use, as defined in ORS 215.203 on the subject
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 4 of 74
property.' According to the Deschutes County Assessor's office, only one tax lot within the project
area, Assessor's Map 14-12-28, Tax Lot 300, is currently receiving farm tax deferral, but does not
appear to be engaged in farm use. The record does not include any evidence the subject property
is engaged, or has ever been engaged, in farm use.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) map shown on the County's GIS mapping
program identifies six soil complex units on the property: 63C, Holmzie-Searles complex, 106E,
Redslide-Lickskillet complex, 101D, Redcliff-Lickskillet-Rock outcrop complex, 106D, Redslide-
Lickskillet complex, 71A, Lafollette sandy loam, and 31B, Deschutes sandy loam. Per DCC 18.04,
Soil complex 3 1 A and 7 1 A are considered high -value soils when irrigated.
As discussed in detail below in the Soils section, there is no irrigation on the subject property,
except for water applied to landscaping associated with the nonfarm dwelling on Tax Lot 301. A
soil study conducted on the property determined the subject property contains approximately 71
percent Land Capability Class 7 and 8 nonirrigated soils, including stony shallow soils over
bedrock, more characteristic of the Lickskillet series, along with significant rock outcrops. Where
surface stoniness was not apparent, the soils were typically moderately deep with sandy loam
textures throughout or with some loam textures in the subsurface, more consistent with the Statz
series.
C. 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 Rural Residential —10 Acre Minimum (RR1 O). The subject property is not within
a Wildlife Area (WA) combining zone.
The Applicant requests Deschutes County to change the zoning and the plan designation and does
not request a Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land" exception because the Applicant
submits the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The Applicant submitted evidence that
7 1 % of the property is comprised of Class VII and Class VIII soils and that the property could not
be employed for "farm use," for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money.
The Applicant submitted with the application an Order 1 and 2 Soil Survey of the subject property,
titled "Site -Specific Soil Survey of Property Located at or Near 10325 Coyner Avenue, West of
Redmond in Deschutes County, Oregon" dated June 22, 2021, and a supplemental addendum titled
"Response — Eden Soils Report" dated January 13, 2022 (together hereafter referred to as the "Soil
Study") prepared by soil scientist Brian T. Rabe, CPSS, WWSS of Valley Science and Engineering.
The Applicant also submitted a traffic impact analysis prepared by Christopher M. Clemow, PE,
PTOE titled "710 Properties Plan Amendment and Zone Change — Deschutes County, Oregon" dated
November 12, 2021 and revised on January 17, 2022, hereinafter referred to as "Traffic Study."
(Applicant's Exhibit S) Additionally, the Applicant submitted an application form, a burden of proof
I The Hearings Officer finds that growing a lawn and/or watering a lawn with a domestic exempt well on a portion of
the subject property is not "agriculture" and does not constitute "farm use" under the statutory definition in ORS
215.203.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 5 of 74
statement,2 and other supplemental materials, all of which are included in the record for the subject
applications.
D. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, the
subject property contain six different soil types including 63C, Holmzie-Searles complex, 106E,
Redslide-Lickskillet complex, 101 D, Redcliff-Lickskillet-Rock outcrop complex, 106D, Redslide-
Lickskillet complex, 71A, Lafollette sandy loam, and 31B, Deschutes sandy loam.
The Applicant submitted a soil study report (Applicant's Exhibit F), which was prepared by a
certified soils scientist and soil classifier that 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 property 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 properties
are described below.
31B Deschutes Sandy Loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes: This soil map unit predominantly consists of
Deschutes soils on lava plains. Deschutes soils are typically moderately deep, well drained, and
formed in volcanic ash. This soil map unit is expected to be composed of 85 percent Deschutes
soils and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. This soil type is considered
high -value soil when irrigated. Deschutes Sandy Loam has a rating of 6s when unirrigated.
Approximately 0.01 percent of the subject property is made up of this soil type.
63C Holmzie-Searles complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil map unit predominantly consists
of Holmzie and Searles soils on lava plains and hills. Holmzie soils are typically moderately deep,
well drained, and formed in ash over residuum on hills. Searles soils are typically moderately deep,
well drained, and formed in ash on lava plains and hills. The primary difference between the
Holmzie and Searles soils is depth and texture. This soil map unit represents areas where the soil
characteristics vary in a pattern that was not practical to delineate separately at the scale of the
published survey. This soil map unit is expected to be composed of 50 percent Holmzie soils and
similar inclusions, and 35 percent Searles soils and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting
inclusions. This soil type is not considered high -value soil. The Holmzie and Searles soils have a
rating of 6e when unirrigated. Approximately 74.4 percent of the subject property is made up of
this soil type.
71A Lafollette sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes: This soil snap unit predominantly consists of
Lafollette soils on stream terraces. Lafollette soils are typically moderately deep to very gravelly
old alluvium, well drained and formed in volcanic ash over old alluvium. This soil map unit is
expected to be composed of 85 percent Lafollette soils and similar inclusions, and 15 percent
contrasting inclusions. This soil type is considered high -value soil when irrigated. The Lafollette
sandy loam soil has a rating of 6s when unirrigated. Approximately 1.6 percent of the subject
property is made up of this soil type.
2 The Applicant filed a revised burden of proof statement with its final legal argument on May 11, 2022.
3 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030.
4 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 6 of 74
101D Redcliff-Lickskillet-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30 percent south slopes: This soil map
unit predominantly consists of Redcliff and Lickskillet soils on hills and canyon sides. Redcliff
soils are typically moderately deep, well drained, and formed in ash and colluvium. Lickskillet
soils are typically shallow, well drained, and formed in colluvium. The primary difference between
the Redcliff and Lickskillet soils is depth and coarse fragment content. This soil map unit
represents areas where the soil depth varies in a pattern that was not practical to delineate
separately at the scale of the published survey. This soil map unit is expected to be composed of
60 percent Redcliff soils and similar inclusions, 20 percent Lickskillet soils and similar inclusions,
and 15 percent Rock outcrop, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. This soil type is not considered
high -value soil. The Redcliff soils have rating of 6e when unirrigated. The Lickskillet soils have
rating of 7e when unirrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8. Approximately 5 percent of the
subject property is made up of this soil type.
106D Redslide-Lickskillet complex 15 to 30 percent north slopes: This soil map unit
predominantly consists of Redslide and Lickskillet soils on hills and canyon sides. Redslide soils
are typically moderately deep, well drained, and formed in ash and colluvium. Lickskillet soils are
typically shallow, well drained, and formed in colluvium. The primary difference between the
Redslide and Lickskillet soils is depth and coarse fragment content. This soil map unit represents
areas where the soil depth varies in a pattern that was not practical to delineate separately at the
scale of the published survey. This soil map unit is expected to be composed of 50 percent Redcliff
soils and similar inclusions, 35 percent Lickskillet soils and similar inclusions, and 15 percent
contrasting inclusions. This soil type is not considered high -value soil. The Redslide soils have
rating of 6e when unirrigated. The Lickskillet soils have rating of 7e when unirrigated.
Approximately 2.18 percent of the subject property is made up of this soil type.
106E Redslide-Lickskillet complex 30 to 50 percent north slopes: This soil map unit is similar to
map unit 106D with steeper slopes. Redslide soils have a soil rating of 6e when unirrigated.
Lickskillet soils have a rating of 7e when unirrigated. Approximately 16.7 percent of the subject
property is made up of this soil type.
E. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is predominately surrounded by EFU-
zoned lands with large-scale farm/agricultural uses apparent near the northwest boundary of the
subject property. Per Deschutes County Assessor records, many abutting properties, also zoned
EFU, are federally owned and appear to be undeveloped and unirrigated. These surrounding
properties contain vegetation typical of the high desert, including juniper and sagebrush, similar
to the subject property.
There are existing properties developed with residential uses near the southeastern boundary of the
subject property and larger scale farm uses to the east along NW Coyner Avenue. There is property
zoned Rural Residential-10 Acre Minimum (RR-10) to the northeast of the subject property
containing large -lot rural residential uses within the Lower Bridge Estates Subdivision. All
properties on the south side of NW Coyner Avenue have been developed or approved for
development with nonfarm dwellings. Two farm and five nonfarm parcels adjoin the north side of
this part of NW Coyner Avenue.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 7 of 74
The adjacent properties are outlined below in further detail:
North: The northernmost boundary of the subject property abuts land zoned RR-10 and EFU. The
property zoned RR-10 is part of the Lower Bridge Estates residential subdivision platted in 1981.
Abutting property to the northeast is ±80-acre property zoned EFU and appears to be unirrigated
and undeveloped. An EFU-zoned property to the south of the NW Lower Bridge Way and NW
Teater Avenue intersection contains a non -farm dwelling (Assessor's Map 14-12-00, Tax Lot
1506). Nearby property to the north also includes a former surface mine zoned RR-10 on the north
side of NW Lower Bridge Way, west of the Deschutes River. The adjacent property to the
north/northwest is a 193.52-acre EFU-zoned property owned by Volwood Farms, LLC. The
property contains irrigated pivot fields and appears to be part of a larger ±368-acre farm property
also owned by Volwood Farms, LLC. According to the Applicant, the primary farm uses include
alfalfa, orchard grass and hay.
West: Lands to the immediate west of the subject property are zoned EFU. Property to the west
abutting the southern boundary of the project site includes a ±1,588-acre parcel (Assessor's Map
14-12-00, Tax Lot 3200) federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This
property appears to be unirrigated, is undeveloped, and contains vegetation similar to the subject
property. Moving north along the subject property's western boundary, there are apparent large-
scale farm uses occurring in the EFU Zone, within the Lower Bridge subzone. As discussed above,
the Volwood Fanns property is located to the west and contains larger -scale farm uses. The Lower
Bridge area also includes an alpaca ranch (70397 Buckhorn Road) approximately 1.3 miles to the
west. An existing vineyard and winery at 70450 NW Lower Valley Drive is approximately 1.5
miles west of the subject property's western boundary.
East: Tax Lot 700 (Assessors Map 14-12-22B), Tax Lot 500 (Assessor's Map 14-12-22C), and
Tax Lot 200 (Assessors Map 14-12-27), totaling 320 acres are federally owned and abut the eastern
boundary of the subject property. These lots are vacant and are zoned EFU. Property zoned RR-
10 and platted as part of the Lower Bridge Estates is located further east beyond the abutting
federal land along NW 93rd Street. One privately -owned tax lot zoned EFU, Tax Lot 301
(Assessor's Map 14-12-27), abuts the eastern boundary of the subject property and is developed
with a nonfarm dwelling (247-18-000796-CU). There are some larger scale farm uses occurring
further east, on the north side of NW Coyner Avenue at 9805 NW Coyner Avenue (Tax Lot 300,
Assessor's Map 14-12-27) and 9293 NW Coyner Avenue (Tax Lot 400, Assessor's Map 14-12-
27). These farms adjoin other irrigated and non -irrigated lands on their eastern boundary developed
with single-family residences.
South: The land south of the subject property is zoned EFU and incudes undeveloped open space
federally owned and managed by BLM. There are three nonfarm dwellings and parcels zoned EFU
on the north side of NW Coyner Avenue that do not appear to be engaged in farm use, 10305 NW
Coyner Avenue, 10255 NW Coyner Avenue, and 10135 NW Coyner Avenue. These nonfarm
parcels range in size from 19 to 28 acres. A 37.5-acre parcel at the southeast corner of NW Coyner
and NW 103`d Street (10142 NW Coyner Avenue) is developed with a non -farm dwelling (CU-
90-97) and appears to have portions of the property in agricultural use.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 8 of 74
E. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applications
on December 9, 2021, to several public agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-21-0001043-PA/1044-ZC to amend the
Comprehensive Plan designation of nine abutting properties totaling approximately 710 acres
from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and change the zoning for
those same properties from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Residential (RR-10). The
properties are located at 10315, 10325, and 10311 NW Coyner Ave., 7000 Buckhorn Rd., and five
properties with no assigned address. The NW Coyner properties are County Assessors Map 14-
12-28, Tax Lots 100, 200, and 300; the Buckhorn Road property is 14-12-21, Tax Lot 600; and
the properties with no assigned addresses are 14-12-28D, Tax Lot 101, 14-12-21, Tax Lot 300,
14-12-21, Tax Lot 400, 14-12-21, Tax Lot 500, and 14-12-21, Tax Lot 700.
The applicant's traffic study dated November 12, 2021, is problematic in two areas. First, staff
does not agree with the trip distribution. While Redmond is the logical origin/destination, the
applicant's traffic engineer offers no rationale why all trip would only use paved roads. The traffic
study simply sends all traffic down the same route to OR 126. Staff finds this a flawed approach
for several reasons. Rural residents are accustomed to using unpaved roads to reach their
destinations. The traffic study does not offer any time savings of'paved vs. unpaved to justify all
traffic using the same route to access OR 126. Finally, the access to OR 126 requires a left turn
onto the highway to continue to Redmond, a move which can have significant delays [due] to
volumes on the highway. Second, the traffic analysis continually states due to the combination of
low existing volumes on the affected roadway and the low traffic generation of the proposal, the
cited intersections will meet relevant Deschutes County and Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) mobility standards. This statement does not indicate if that is for the current year or the
planning horizon. While this is likely true, the traffic study provides no actual calculations to
prove this statement. Thus the traffic study does not meet the requirements of DCC
18.116.310(G)(10). The lack of supporting calculations also means the traffic study does not
comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c) to demonstrate
the use will have no significant effect. The applicant's traffic engineer may have this information,
but I did not see it in the application materials.
The property is proposed to directly access NW Coyner Road, a public road maintained by
Deschutes County and functionally classified as a local road. The County [sic] the applicant will
need to either provide a copy of a driveway permit approved by Deschutes County prior to
development or be required obtain one as a condition of approval prior to development occurring
to comply with the access permit requirements of DCC 17.48.210(A).
The County will assess transportation system development charges (SDCs) when development
occurs based on the type of proposed use. However, as a plan amendment or a zone change by
itself does not generate any traffic, no SDCs are triggered at this time.
In response to Mr. Russell's comment above regarding the traffic impact analysis (TIA) dated
November 12, 2021, the Applicant provided an updated traffic study dated January 17, 2022.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 9 of 74
In response to the updated traffic study, Mr. Russell provided the following comment, via email
dated January 18, 2022:
I received an earlier draft of the revised TIA last week and reviewed it. They wanted my two cents
before they submitted. The revised version provided the info I had requested. I've attached my e-
mail from last week back to Chris Clemow, the applicant's traffic engineer.
Deschutes County Building Official, Randy Scheid
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks,
Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the
appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
Department of State Lands, Lynne McAllister
It is unlikely that there are jurisdictional wetlands or waterways on the property based upon a
review of wetland maps, the county soil survey and other available information.
A state permit will not be required for the proposed project because, based on the submitted site
plan, the project avoids impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, waterways or other waters.
A state permit is required for 50 cubic yards or more of fill removal or other ground alteration in
wetlands, below ordinary high water of waterways, within other waters of the state, or below
highest measured tide.
There may be some minor headwater stream drainages on the property. Although jurisdictional
features are unlikely and minor, the reason a permit will not be required for this project is because
it is only an administrative action that does not involve placement off ll material or other physical
ground disturbance. Therefore, a land use notice is not necessary.
Department of Land Conservation and Development, Agriculture and Fish and Wildlife,
Jon Jining_s (Community Services Specialist DLCD) James W. Johnson (Land Use and Water
Planning Coordinator ODA) Corey Heath (Deschutes Watershed District Manager ODFW)
The Departments of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Agriculture (ODA) and Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) would like to thank Deschutes County for the opportunity to review and
comment on the land use proposal referenced above. Please accept this letter as the joint comments
of our three Agencies. We understand the applicant is requesting the change the designation of
710 acres from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and change the zoning of the same
property from Exclusive Farm Use Terrebonne Subzone to Rural Residential with a ten -acre
minimum parcel size.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 10 of 74
Most rural residential areas in Oregon have been designated through what is often referred to as
an "exception " or the "exceptions process. " The exceptions process is designed to provide an
opportunity to demonstrate that an existing settlement pattern has irrevocably committed an area
to something other than commercial agriculture or forestry and, therefore, does not qualify for
protection under Statewide Planning Goals 3 (Agricultural Lands) or 4 (Forest Lands). Please see
OAR 660-004-0028. The most common type of exception areas are rural residential
neighborhoods that include both existing residences, as well as the presence of supportive
infrastructure and public services. Lands subject to an acknowledged exception must also show,
among other things, that the subsequent zoning designation will not negatively impact nearby
farming and forestry activities. Please see OAR 660-004-0018.
The applicant is not pursuing an exception. There is no existing settlement pattern on the subject
property. Instead, they are seeking a determination that the property fails to satisfy the definitions
of "Agricultural Land" and "Forest Land" found in relevant state law. This approach is often
referred to as a "nonresource process" or "nonresource lands determination. "
We have separated our primary comments into three parts. Part I includes our responses to
applicable Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes. Part 2 includes
commentary on other issues. These issues may not constitute review criteria in relation to state
law although they may have a bearing on whether local county provisions have been satisfied.
Either way, we believe they are important and have chosen to include them here. Part 3 includes
our recommended outcome.
Please enter these comments into the record for all hearings on the proposal.
Part 1: Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes
Definition ofAgricultural Land
The applicant is requesting this change on the basis that the property does not qualify as
"Agricultural Land" as defined in State law and is therefore not resource land. OAR 660-033-
0020 defines Agricultural Land. The specific administrative rule language and our comments are
included below:
(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;
State Agency Comments
The applicant has provided a report indicating that the subject property is predominantly
comprised of Class VII soils. The State Agencies are not challenging this position. However, please
note that "approval" of a soils report by DLCD does not equate to any agreement with the
conclusions of the report.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 11 of 74
We would also like to emphasize that soil type is only one indicator of whether a property qualifies
for protection under Statewide Planning Goal 3. Tracts in Eastern Oregon that are predominantly
Class VII soils may be a candidate for reconsideration, but Goal 3 protection may only be removed
if they fail to satisfy the other important tests in this definition. Put another way, all tracts planned
for Exclusive Farm Use that are determined undeserving of Goal 3 protection must be
predominantly comprised of Class VII-VIII soils. However, not all tracts planned for Exclusive
Farm Use that are predominantly comprised of Class VII-VIII soils are undeserving of Goal 3
protection.
(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
State Agency Comments
This test requires a detailed analysis of many different.factors. Failure to satisfy individual factors
does not mean that the subject property.fails to qualify as Agricultural Land pursuant to Goal 3
and OAR 660- 0330-0020(1).
We have separated the various factors included in this administrative rule provision and included
our comments below:
Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a)
The definition of `farm use" at ORS 215.203(2)(a) is very broad and includes many
different types of pursuits.5 Essentially any type of "agricultural or horticultural use or
animal husbandry or any combination thereof' is included in this definition. Also included
are "stabling and training equines" as well as "...the propagation, cultivation,
maintenance and harvesting of aquatic, bird and animal species that are under the
jurisdiction of the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. " Furthermore, "farm use" as
defined in this statute includes "the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or
otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use"
5 (2)(a) As used in this section, "farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of
obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale
of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy
products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm use"
includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on
such land for human or animal use. "Farm use" also includes the current employment of land for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines including but not limited to providing riding
lessons, training clinics and schooling shows.
"Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic, bird and animal
species that are under the jurisdiction of the State Fish and Wildlife Commission, to the extent allowed by the rules
adopted by the commission. "Farm use" includes the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and
facilities used for the activities described in this subsection.
"Farm use" does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used
exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees or land described in ORS 321.267 (3) or 321.824 (3).
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 12 of 74
and "the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the
activities described in this subsection. "
A determination that lands deserve protection under Goal 3 need not show that all of the
activities described in ORS 215.203(2)(a) are available on a subject tract. A tract that is
not suited for one type of farm use may be suited for another type of farm use. For example,
a tract that is not suited for cultivated crop production may be well suited for livestock
production and other aspects of animal husbandry. In addition to seasonal grazing
requirements, commercial livestock operators also need areas for winter activities such as
feeding and hay storage, calving or lambing grounds and locations for males (e.g., bulls
and rams) that need to be separated from the main herd until breeding season occurs. Such
lands may also be sufficiently capable of supporting, among other things, the boarding and
training of horses, raising poultry, honeybees or even ungulate species like elk or raising
game birds such as pheasants, chuckar, or quail.
Having observed the subject property, we believe that it is capable of any number of
activities included in the definition of "farm use" at ORS 215.203(2)(a).
Soil fertilitZ
Soil fertility can be an important factor in commercial agricultural operations. However,
the presence of productive soils is not always necessary. Many types of farm uses are not
dependent on specific soil types and others tend to benefit from less productive soils.
Feedlots, whether commercial or personal, are frequently located on lands with low soil
fertility. Having dryland areas to store and maintain equipment when not in use (also a
farm use under ORS 215.203(2)(a)) can be very important for farming and ranching
operations. Simply stated, having access to areas with low soil fertility can be an advantage
for commercial agriculture operations because it allows for necessary activities that could
otherwise interfere with the management of areas with more productive soils.
Having observed the subject property, we believe that it has soil fertility sufficient to
support any number of activities included in the definition of `.farm use" at ORS
215.203(2)(a).
Suitability for gLazi
The application presents information regarding the capacity for grazing on the subject
tract.
The identified number of Animal Unit Months (A UM) are, more or less, in line with our
own assessment and represent average rangeland pastures found in central Oregon.
However, we believe the value of this grazing capacity has been understated. Lands such
as this have been successfully managed for livestock grazing since cattle and sheep were
introduced to the area.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 13 of 74
According to the USDA NRCS Rangeland Analysis Platform and the NRCS Heatmap, 6 the
subject property appears to be a perfectly average piece of native rangeland for the area.
The NRCS Heatmap provides a spatial map of the biomass production over the entire area
and demonstrates the consistency of the land use for the surrounding landscape. If the
subject land isn't productive agricultural land, then one would have to believe that no piece
of Deschutes County rangeland in the larger area is. Overall, the subject area is in good
shape, it has a little bit of annual grass but - sub 10% for shrub and annual grass cover. It
looks like over time it averages about a 500lbs/acre in the perennial biomass production,
with it having wet year production of 700lbs/acre and drought years and this year with
several years of drought, it may get as low as 300lbs/acre. Grazing efficiency is generally
around 30%-100-210 ofgrass tonnage is what livestock will actually eat. That means that
its' A UM/acre ranges from I A UM to 10 acres in bad years and I to 5 in good years and
in most years it's I to 6 or 7. This equates to this area being the productive norm for native
rangeland in the region.
According to the application, the property is capable of supporting between eight (8) and
15 cow/calf pairs for a year (40-75 sheep or goats). While this may not be technically
mistaken, it does not account for customary grazing practices that utilize a five to six month
grazing season. In other words, a better metric would be to recognize that the property
would be capable of supporting 16-30 cow/calf pairs or an equivalent number of sheep or
goats for a typical grazing season, which would be much more worthwhile to a commercial
operation, particularly when managed in conjunction with other lands. Another scenario
would be to graze a much higher number of livestock for a more limited duration of time.
For instance, having a location available between the time cattle are taken off winter
pasture and the time they are hauled to summer range can be an important factor in
commercial livestock operations.
Ranchers commonly transport livestock significant distances to pasture. Assuming that the
property would need to be independently relied on or used by adjacent or nearby
operations is not in keeping with the nature of livestock management largely practiced in
this region.
Having observed the subject property, we believe that it is sufficiently suitable for grazing.
Climatic Conditions
The subject property is in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountain Range on the edge of
the Oregon High Desert. In other words, the area is dry with cold winters and the potential
for frost nearly every month. These climatic conditions are not ideal for commercial
agriculture. However, commercial agriculture is active in similar settings in the local area
and throughout the mountain and intermountain regions of the United States. For example,
the hay and cattle producing regions of Ft. Rock and Christmas Valley share similar
precipitation constraints and are located at an elevation of 4,699 and 4, 318 feet above sea
level, respectively, compared to an elevation of 2,871 at Terrebonne, Oregon. The hay and
6 https://rangelands.app/
247-21-001043 -PA/ 1044-ZC
Page 14 of 74
cattle producing region of the Big Hole basin near Wisdom, Montana sits at an elevation
of over 6, 000 feet above sea level.
Having observed the subject property, we believe the relevant climatic conditions are
suitable to sustain commercial agriculture.
Existing and future availability of water for irrigation purposes
Irrigation water is critical for irrigated agriculture. However, many types offarm uses are
not dependent on irrigation.
Having observed the subject property, we do not believe that water for irrigation purposes
is necessary to conduct many of the activities included in the definition of `farm use" at
ORS 215.203(2)(a).
Existing land use patterns
The existing land use pattern of the area is unmistakably rural and characterized by
farming and ranching activities.
Having observed the subject property, we do not believe that the introduction of rural
residential development would be consistent with the existing land use pattern.
Technology and eneW inputs required
Every endeavor, agriculture or otherwise, requires technological and energy inputs. As
with anything else, high levels of financial investments for agricultural purposes may not
make economic sense in every instance. Fortunately, investments in farm use activities may
be tailored to fit the circumstances. Lands where installing a series of irrigation pivots
would not lead to a suitable return may be well positioned for the development of an indoor
riding area. Developing a confined animal feeding operation is likely to incur similar
capital costs wherever it is sited.
This proposed application raises several examples of potential costs and asserts that they
would have a prohibitive result. We agree that some investments may not be worthwhile
on the subject property. However, as previously mentioned, many types of farm uses have
similar capital costs wherever they may be established. Furthermore, we believe that many
other aspects of technology and energy inputs may be suitably mitigated. For instance, this
particular tract is not included in a livestock district, so a livestock operator is not legally
required to fence their animals in. Instead, it is incumbent upon other properties to fence
them out. If limiting animal movement to the subject property is desired, completing fencing
around the perimeter of the tract and cross fencing the interior for better forage utilization
can be accomplished using electric fence, or "hot-wire ", which is much more affordable
than traditional fencing products. While the application confirms that power is available
to the subject property, a solar electric charger may also be used for powering miles of
electric fence. Trucking water to livestock in dryland pastures is not uncommon in this part
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 15 of 74
of country if a well is not available or convenient and portable panels can be used for
working pens rather than having to construct such facilities if they are not present.
We do not believe the cost of labor to be an impediment. Folding the subject property into
an existing operation is unlikely to require hiring additional help, neither would managing
a grazing operation comprised only of the subject project, unless of course the owner or
lease holder is unable to do the work. Costs of additional labor needed to establish other
types of stand-alone operations, including but not limited to, boarding, or training horses,
raising game birds, or a confined animal feeding operation would be supported by that
use.
Having observed the subject property, we do not believe that technological or energy
inputs present an overwhelming barrier to conducting farm uses described at ORS
215.203(2)(a).
Accepted Larming practices
Commercial farming and ranching operations are often not confined to one particular
parcel or tract. Instead, they are regularly comprised of a combination of owned and
leased land. These lands may be in close proximity, or they may be dozens (or more) miles
apart. The fact that a single property may struggle to be managed profitably by itself does
not mean that it does not have important value when managed in conjunction with other
lands.
We believe that all the farm uses described above constitute accepted farming practices,
many which are currently practiced in the surrounding area.
Having observed the subject property, we believe that it is entirely available for accepted
farming practices.
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
agricultural lands.
State Agency Comments
There is little discussion that we found in the information provided in support of the plan
amendment that adequately discusses impacts to area farm operations. The discussion provided
by the applicant focuses primarily on an assertion that any subsequent development of the subject
property (because of the proposed plan amendment and rezone) would not adversely impact
surrounding farming and ranching operations primarily because the property is separated by
topography that would provide adequate buffers. This conclusion is not supported by any
comprehensive evaluation of the farming and ranching practices that are associated with existing
and potential future farm uses in the surrounding area. Without an adequate analysis of the impact
on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands, there are many questions that have not been evaluated.
For example, what would the cumulative impacts of additional residential water use be to water
supply for area irrigated agriculture in the region? Unlike applications for irrigation use,
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 16 of 74
residential wells are exempt uses and thus there would be no evaluation for injury to other water
users in the area. What would be the traffic implications? What would the siting of more dwellings
do to the ability to utilize certain agricultural practices? Would the expansion of residential
development in the area provide greater opportunities for trespass from adjacent properties onto
area farming operations?
(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IVII-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands
in capability classes I-IVII-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even
though this land may not be cropped or grazed;
State Agency Comments
It does not appear that the subject property is currently within a farm unit that includes lands in a
capability class I- VT This observation is not meant to dismiss the fact that the property's status in
this regard could change in the future.
(c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries
or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4.
State Agency Comments
We agree that the subject property is not within an acknowledged urban growth boundary or and
acknowledged exception area for Goal 3 or 4.
State Agency Agricultural Land Def nition Conclusion
Agricultural Land includes all three categories of land described above as part of OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A)-(C). We find that categories (B) and (C) are insufficiently addressed by the burden
of proof included with the application. Based on the current application materials, we disagree
with findings that asserts the property is not Agricultural Land. We find the subject property is
characteristic in soils, terrain, hydrology, and size to many central Oregon properties that have
been historically or are currently used for livestock and grazing operations. Utilizing several non-
contiguous properties to meet the needs of livestock over the course of a typical year is an accepted
farming practice across much of Oregon. To assume that a property of this nature could not be
used as standalone or as part of a nearby livestock operation by the current or future landowner
or lessee would have significant consequences to existing agriculture operations either by
reducing the amount of land available for legitimate agricultural practices or through the
introduction of conflicting uses.
We also point to Agricultural Land Policy (ORS 215.243) direction provided to the State from the
Legislative Assembly upon passage of Oregon Land Use Bill, Senate Bill 100 and its' companion
Senate Bill 101; as important considerations that must be addressed prior to the redesignation or
rezoning of any Agriculture Land. ORS 215.243 states:
The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 17 of 74
(1) Open land used for agricultural use is an efficient means of conserving natural resources that
constitute an important physical, social, aesthetic and economic asset to all of the people of this
state, whether living in rural, urban or metropolitan areas of the state.
(2) The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary
to the conservation of the state's economic resources and the preservation of such land in large
blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state and for the assurance of
adequate, healthful and nutritious food for the people of this state and nation.
(3) Expansion of urban development into rural areas is a matter of public concern because of the
unnecessary increases in costs of community services, conflicts between farm and urban activities
and the loss of open space and natural beauty around urban centers occurring as the result of
such expansion.
(4) Exclusive farm use zoning as provided by law, substantially limits alternatives to the use of
rural land and, with the importance of rural lands to the public, justifies incentives and privileges
of to encourage owners of rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive farm use zones. [1973
c.503 §1]
Finally, we would like to offer a response to this statement included in the application materials:
"Since the property was zoned, it has become evident that farm uses are not viable on the
subject property. The economics of farming have worsened over the decades making it
difficult for most Deschutes County property owners to make money farming good ground
and impossible to earn a profit from attempting to farm Class 7 and 8 farm soils. In 2017,
according to Table 4 of the 2017 US Census of Agriculture, Exhibit T, only 16.03% offarm
operators achieved a net profit from farming (238 of l 484 farm operations). In 2012, the
percentage was l 6.45% (211 of 1283 farm operations). In 2007, according to the 2012 US
Census of Agriculture, that figure was 17% (239 of 1405 farm operations). Exhibit U. The
vast majority of farms in Deschutes County have soils that are superior to those found on
the subject property. As farming on those soils is typically not profitable, it is reasonable
to conclude that no reasonable farmer would purchase the subject property for the purpose
of attempting to earn a profit in money from agricultural use of the land. "
First, this statement assumes that the subject land would be put into farm use as a single, separate
unit. As previously discussed, it is very common for farming and ranching operations to be
comprised of multiple, constituent parcels that are operated as a single farm/ranch operation.
Second, the Census of Agriculture numbers provided do not provide the entire context and nature
of Deschutes County agriculture. It is important to note that the Census of Agriculture defines a
farm as "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold,
or normally would have been sold during the census year. "' Thus, the total number of farms in
any given Census statistic can be skewed by a large number of small farms that might better be
2017 Census of Agriculture, Oregon State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series 37, USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service, page VIII Introduction.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 18 of 74
characterized as hobby or lifestyle farms. In the case of Deschutes County, the numbers quoted by
the applicant may be better considered upon recognizing that of the 1484 farms in the county,
92.7% (1376) are less than 100-acres in size. These same farms constitute only 19.59% (26,367
acres) of the total land area of land in farms. Taken further, 92.1 % (1268) of these farms are less
than 50-acres in size and comprise but 13.8% (18,531 acres).8 The character of Deschutes County
"commercial " agriculture is perhaps better considered by looking at the larger footprint of land
in farms which is better described as large operations many of which operate using constituent
parcels, many times not contiguous to each other.
Definition of Forest Land
The Applicant also asserts that the subject property is not Forest Land. OAR 660-06-0005 defines
Forest Lands, it states:
(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.
OAR 660-006-0010(2) states:
(2) Where a plan amendment is proposed:
(a) Lands suitable for commercial forest uses shall be identified using a mapping of average
annual wood production capability by cubic foot per acre (cf/ac) as reported by the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Where ARCS data are not available or are shown to
be inaccurate, other site productivity data may be used to identify forest land, in the following
order of priority:
(A) Oregon Department of Revenue western Oregon site class maps,
(B) USDA Forest Service plant association guides; or
(C) Other information determined by the State Forester to be of comparable quality.
(b) Where data of comparable quality under paragraphs (2)(a)(A) through (C) are not available
or are shown to be inaccurate, an alternative method for determining productivity may be used
as described in the Oregon Department of Forestry's Technical Bulletin entitled "Land Use
Planning Notes, Number 3 April 1998, Updated for Clarity April 2010. "
12017 Census of Agriculture, Oregon State and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series 37, USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service, Table 8.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 19 of 74
(c) Counties shall identify forest lands that maintain soil air, water and fish and wildlife
resources.
State Agency Comments
We find the burden of proof does not satisfactorily address OAR 660-06-0005(7)(a) because it
does not contain the analysis required by OAR 660-06-0010(2) addressing the wood production
capabilities of the property. As a result, it does not verify whether or not it is suitable for
commercial forest uses.
Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization)
Goal 14 does not allow urban uses to be placed on rural lands.
State Azencv Comments
The application proposes to include the subject property in an RR-10, Rural Residential Zoning
district. It is unclear to us whether such an arrangement is set forth in the County Comprehensive
Plan. If so, the issue is settled in this case and our Goal 14 comments would be addressed.
If not, the applicant must demonstrate that the 10-acre minimum parcel size allowed by the RR-10
Zone is compliant with Goal 14. We have regularly expressed concerns that introducing a 10-acre
settlement pattern into a rural area that is devoid of development is not consistent with the policies
of Goal 14.
Part 2: Other Concerns and Observations
Wildlife Habitat Concerns
It is the policy of the state to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats.for
use and enjoyment by present and future generations (ORS 496.012).
This proposal is within ODFW designated biological mule deer and elk winter range, 9 which are
considered Habitat Category 2 per the ODFW Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy.10
Habitat Category 2 is essential habitatfor a wildlife species, population, or unique assemblage of
species and is limited either on a physiographic province or site -specific basis depending on the
individual species, population or unique assemblage. Winter habitat includes areas identified and
mapped as providing essential and limited.function and values (e.g., thermal cover, security.from
predation and harassment, forage quantity, adequate nutritional quality, escape f •om disturbance)
for deer and elk from December through April. Winter survival and subsequent reproduction of
big game is the primary limiting factor influencing species abundance and distribution in Oregon.
Winter habitats vary in area, elevation, aspect, precipitation, and vegetation association all
9 https•//primp dfw state or us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&XMLname=885.xml
10 https://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/mitigation policy.asp
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 20 of 74
influencing the relative quantity and quality of available habitat on both an annual and seasonal
basis.
While this property is not currently designated as an acknowledged Goal S resource for wildlife
habitat in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, it is within the biological big game habitat
areas ODFW recommended be included as part of the proposed Goal S Wildlife Inventory Update
process in 2021.11 ODFW relies on local and state compliance with the land use planning goals
to consider natural resources and protect large parcel sizes necessary for habitat connectivity and
resource land. The relatively open, undeveloped parcel that is often associated with a resource
designated zoning such as Agricultural and EFU, provides valuable habitat for mule deer, elk,
and other wildlife species. The open space inherently provided by the land use protections under
those designations is not only important in maintaining the farming and ranching practices and
rural characteristics of the land, but also preserving the wildlife habitat function and values that
the land is providing.
The proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow for the property to be divided into
10 acre lots. Development, including residential development, within big game habitat can result
in individual and cumulative impacts. Residential development conflicts with wildlife habitat
because it results in the direct loss of habitat at the home site and the fragmentation of the
remaining habitat by the structures and associated roads results in increased disturbance and loss
of habitat function and values necessary for wildlife, such as fawning or calving areas.
Allowing the change in designation of the subject properties and rezoning to Rural Residential
will open the possibility for future parceling and development of the land, resulting in habitat
fragmentation, increased disturbance and a loss of important functions and values for wildlife life
history needs. If that occurs, ODFW will not respond to any wildlife damage complaints within
the development, due to the change in land use.
Water Availability Concerns
The state agencies are concerned with ongoing impacts to surface water and groundwater in the
Deschutes basin. We have several primary concerns regarding potential impairment to fish and
wildlife habitat from a new water use, the first being potential impact to surface flows necessary
for fish and wildlife resources in the Deschutes River system (including a reduction in surface
water quantity from groundwater pumping), and the second being the potential for an increase in
water temperature as a result of flow reductions or impairment to cold water derived from seeps
and springs. Seeps and springs provide unique habitat for a number of plant and animal species,
including fish. Seep and spring flows, especially in the summer and fall, are typically cooler than
the water flowing in the main stream, providing a natural relative constancy of water temperature.
This cooler water provides thermal refuge for salmonids which thrive in cooler water.
We currently do not know if there are existing water rights for the subject property and if so, if
they could be utilized for the proposed 10-acre lots intended for residential use. We recognize that
" https://www.deschutes.org/ed/Tage/wildlife-inventory-update
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 21 of 74
any new water use, unless exempt, must be appropriately permitted through the Oregon Water
Resources Department (OWRD). However, the state relies on both OWRD and Deschutes County
processes to ensure that new water use is mitigated in a manner that results in no net loss or net
degradation offish and wildlife habitat quantity and quality and potentially provides a net benefit
to the resource. It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain mitigation to offset impairment to
water quality and quantity in the Deschutes basin, when required, due to ongoing declines in
groundwater and streamflow in the area. Recent studies by the USGS have reported groundwater
levels in the Redmond Area showing a modest and spatially variable decline in recent decades,
about 25 ft since 1990, and 15 ft between 2000- 2016 Simulation of pumping 20 cfs from a
hypothetical well east-northeast of Sisters and east of the Sisters fault zone shows declines in
groundwater discharge not only in the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and the gage near
Culver, but also in the lower Crooked River and Opal Springs.12
Therefore, in the face of a changing climate and current and potential human impacts both
regionally and in the vicinity of the proposed change in designation, we recommend any required
mitigation through OWRD and County processes be carefully analyzed to ensure the intended
ecological functions of mitigation are achievable and able to be maintained in perpetuity. We urge
the County to consult with ODFW regarding any mitigation proposals and the likelihood of
achieving mitigation goals, particularly under the framework of ODFW's Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Mitigation Policy and ODFW's Climate and Ocean Change Policy.13
Wildfire
The existence of structures, particularly dwellings, can significantly alter fire control strategies
and can increase the cost of wildfire protection by 50-95%.14 More than half of wildfires in the
Northwest and more than 80% of wildfires in Northern California are human-caused.15
Additionally, the cost of the State of Oregon's catastrophic fare insurance policy has dramatically
increased in the previous years and future availability is in jeopardy due to the recent escalation
in wildfire fighting costs. Additional landscape fragmentation has the potential to exacerbate the
costs and risks associated with wildfire.16
We appreciate Deschutes County's leadership on this issue and your participation in the
conversations related to SR 762, the omnibus wildfire bill from the 2021 Legislative Session.
Planning and Zoning
The County Comprehensive Plan calls for the application of a Rural Residential Exception Area
plan designation for lands successfully converted from an Agricultural plan designation. This is
what the application proposes and we do not object. However, we would like to observe that
12 Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Risley, J.C., Pischel, E.M., and La Marche, J.L., 2017, Simulation of groundwater
and surface -water flow in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2017-5097, 68 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir2Ol75097
is httys://www.dfw.state.or.us/climate ocean change/dots/plain english version.pdf
la http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/fire-costs-background-report.pdf
15 http://www.fs.fed.us/rni/pubs/rmrs trg 299.pdf
https://tools.oregonexplorer.info/OE—HtmlViewer/index.html?viewer--wildfireplanning
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 22 of 74
applying this plan designation to lands using the conversion pathway proposed by the application
is confusing. Specifically, these lands are not "exception areas " as that term is commonly
understood.
The same is true of applying an RR-10, Rural Residential Zoning District. We have already
addressed the possibility of Goal 14 implications so we will not repeat them here. Instead, we
would like to reiterate that these types of areas are not subject to an acknowledged exception and
are viewed differently. For example, should the county choose to offer Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU) in the RR-10 zone pursuant to SB 391, this opportunity may not be extended to lands
converted through a nonresource process.
Part 3: State Agency Recommendation
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. We have concerns regarding the
conversion of open rural lands to housing development. Much of the nonirrigated rural land in
Deschutes County is similar to the subject property. Many of these areas provide essential
functions and values to Deschutes County's citizens which also benefit natural resources, such as
open space, recreation, habitat and other environmental services. In addition, these lands are
critical buffers to protect working farms and forests from conflicting uses. Many of these same
areas are not appropriate for the encouragement of residential development. Remoteness, an
absence of basic services and a susceptibility to natural hazards like wildland fire are all reasons
why rural areas are not well suited to residential settlement even if they have little value for
forestry or agricultural production.
Based on our review of the application materials and for the reasons expressed above, we believe
that the subject property qualifies as resource land. It is our recommendation that the subject
property retain an Exclusive Farm Use designation and not be converted to allow rural residential
development. Please feel fi-ee to contact us if you have any questions.
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Forester, Deschutes
County Property Management, Deschutes County Road Department, Redmond City Planning,
Redmond Fire and Rescue, Redmond School District 2, Redmond Public Works, Redmond Area
Parks and Recreation District, District 11 Watermaster, Bureau of Land Management.
F. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all
property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on December 9, 2021. The Hearings
Officer finds that the Applicant 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 December 9, 2021. At the public hearing,
staff testified that Deschutes County received approximately one hundred (100) public comments
on the application. At the public hearing on April 19, 2022, ten (10) members of the public testified
in opposition to the applications.
Comments received in support of the applications reference the Applicant's soil analysis, potential
expansion of rural housing inventory, and protection from wildfire through better access and
vegetation management as a basis for support. Commentators noted the steep cliffs and distance
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 23 of 74
from other farms, as well as the lack of irrigation rights and poor soils on the subject property.
Comments received in opposition cite concerns with traffic and emergency access impacts,
availability of groundwater, compatibility with and preservation of agricultural land, and impacts
to wildlife.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Hearings Officer left the record open for two (2) seven-
day periods, closing on April 26, 2022 (new evidence) and May 3, 2022 (rebuttal evidence), and
permitted the Applicant until May 10, 2022 to submit closing argument. Staff directed that
submissions during the open record period be transmitted by 4:00 p.m. on the deadlines. Several
submissions, from Nunzie Gould, Andrew Mulkey of 1000 Friends of Oregon and S. Gomes were
submitted after the 4:00 p.m. April 26, 2022 deadline and thus were not timely. The Hearings
Officer does not consider the untimely evidence and arguments in this Decision and
Recommendation.
All public comments timely received are included in the record in their entirety and incorporated
herein by reference.
Applicant Responses:
On April 8, 2022, the Applicant provided the following response to public comments received as
of that date:
Inaccuracies in Opposition Comments
Ed Stabb, 1211312021 Letter
Mr. Stabb claims that his property at 9805 NW Coyner Avenue is contiguous to the subject
property. In one part, it is close but not contiguous. The Stabb property is separated.from
the subject property by the `flagpole" part of a nonfarm parcel and nonfarm dwelling at
9307 NW Coyner Avenue that Mr. Stabb created (Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2004-85). The
`flagpole" part of nonfarm Parcel 2 runs along the west side of the main irrigated farm
field on the Stabb property on land formerly irrigated by the property owner (per page 18,
Decision MP-04-11/CU-04-42). Furthermore, the Stabb property is surrounded by
nonfarm parcels on all sides.
Mr. Stabb's description of properties in the Odin Valley along the west end of NW Coyner
Avenue asserts that area is primarily agricultural. The following facts, however, show that
the predominant parcel type along Coyner Avenue west of 91s' Street (a length of
approximately .75 miles) are not receiving farm tax deferral and are nonfarm parcels or
parcels that are developed with nonfarm dwellings. Only two parcels are farm parcels
that are farm tax deferred farm properties. In particular beginning at the west end of
Coyner Avenue:
10305 NW Coyner Avenue (Witherill), PP 2015-15 nonfarm parcel created; 247-15-
000107-CUI-000108-CU nonfarm dwelling (28.6 acres)
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 24 of 74
10255 NW Coyner Avenue (Bendix), PP 2004-101, nonfarm parcel created; CU-03-55
and CU-03-56 nonfarm dwelling (19.11 acres)
10142 NW Coyner Avenue (Buchanan), CU-95-11 nonfarm dwelling (37.51 acres)
10135 NW Coyner Avenue (Hayes), PP 2004-101, nonfarm parcel created; CU-03-55
and CU-03-56 nonfarm dwelling (19.65 acres)
9307 NW Coyner Avenue (Birklid), PP 2004-85, nonfarm parcel created; 247-18-
000796-CU nonfarm dwelling (17.50 acres)
9600 NW Coyner Avenue (MT Crossing), PP 2006-40 non -irrigated parcel created (80
acres); 247-19-000375-CU nonfarm dwelling (80 acres)
9805 NW Coyner Avenue (Stabb), PP 2004-85, irrigated parcel created (in addition to
nonfarm parcel); receives farm tax deferral (62.58 acres)
9299 NW Coyner Avenue (Nelson), PP 2005-25 nonfarm parcel created (10.21 acres);
nonfarm dwelling approved but not built
9295 NW Coyner Avenue (Grossman), PP 2005-25 nonfarm parcel created (11.08
acres); nonfarm dwelling approved but not built
4691 91s' Street (intersection Coyner and 91s)(0mlid), PP 2006-40 non -irrigated land
division/nonfarm parcel (39.20 acres); 247-17-000220-CU nonfarm dwelling approved
9293 NW Coyner Avenue (Grossman), irrigated parcel created by PP-2005-25 (irrigated
land division created two nonfarm parcels and one farm parcel)(185.06 acres)
Jason and Tammy Birklid, 1211312021 Letter
The Birklids refer to their home as a `family farmhouse. " The dwelling was, however,
approved by Deschutes County as a nonfarm dwelling on a non -irrigated parcel of land
that was determined by Deschutes County to be unsuited for the production of farm crops
and livestock.
The Birklids and others repeat the same claim as Mr. Stabb (discussed above) re the
character of the west end of NW Coyner Avenue. The evidence shows, however, that the
primary parcel type and development in this area is a nonfarm dwelling parcel and
nonfarm dwellings.
RR-10 Subdivisions
The Johnson properties, TL 200 and 300, Map 14-12-34D (parcels created in 2022 by PP
2022-10 as a farm and a nonfarm parcel) touch, at one point across a road a large area
of land zoned RR-10 that includes the Kachina Acres and Odin Crest subdivisions where
lots of about 5 acres in size are common. The property owned by opponent Kelsey
Pereboom/Colter Bay Investments, LLC adjoins Kachin acres along the entire southern
boundary of her property. Opponents Steele and the Elliotts live in the RR-10 zoned Odin
Crest subdivision.
Destination Resort Overlay Zoning of Subject Property
Under the current zoning, almost 250 acres of the subject property is zoned as eligible for
development with a destination resort. The development of this area of the property as a
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 25 of 74
resort would have far greater impacts on the surrounding area than would development of
the property allowed by the RR-10 zone. 17
On May 3, 2022, the Applicant provided the following rebuttal to evidence and arguments
presented during the open record period:
This letter constitutes the Applicant's second post -hearing record submittal (rebuttal
period) and provides evidence to respond to evidence and arguments presented during the
open record period. Unless otherwise denoted herein, previously defined terms have the
same meaning.
L Subject Property Information
Ms. Lozito submitted past photographs of the Property that she claims to have paid for
(presumably when she previously listed the house for sale). Ms. Lozito claims these photos
show the Property can support grass growing. There is no date on these photographs, but
they do show patchy areas of grass with significant yellowing, rocks, and patches.
Importantly, Ms. Lozito's claim that the land can support this growth is easily disproven.
By August of 2020, several months before the Applicant purchased the Property, the grass
was gone and the area had reverted back to dusty and non productive land. Exhibit 84.18
Mr. Jim McMullen asserted that the property is not within the Redmond Fire Service
boundaries. That is incorrect; the Property is within the Redmond Fire & Rescue District.
Exhibit 98.
IL Soil Classification and Mapping System; Soil Scientists; and DLCD Administrative
Rules on "Agricultural Land":
Ms. Macbeth claims that DLCD's administrative rules prevent landowners from hiring a
State -approved soil classifier to conduct a more detailed soils analysis ofproperty mapped
by the NRCS and to use the superior property -specific information obtained by such a study
instead of information provided by soils mapping conducted at a landscape scale by the
NRCS. The Agency Letter does not advance this argument in comments on the Application.
In fact, DLCD disagrees with this argument, stating the following on their website;
"NRCS does not have the ability to map each parcel of land, so it looks at larger
areas. This means that the map may miss a pocket of different soils. DLCD has a
process landowners can use to challenge NRCS soils information on a specific
property. Owners who believe soil on their property has been incorrectly mapped
may retain a "professional soil classifier... certified by and in good standing with
the Soil Science Society of America" (ORS 215.211) through a process
1' At the public hearing, the Applicant's attorney clarified that, although a portion of the property could be developed
as a destination resort because it meets the criteria, the Applicant is not requesting such approval. The Applicant's
attorney also noted that a rezone to RR-10 precludes future destination resort development in the future.
18 Exhibits continue numbering from Applicant's open record submittal.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 26 of 74
administered by DLCD. This soils professional can conduct an assessment that may
result in a change of the allowable uses for a property. "
Source: https:Ilwww.oregon.govllcdlFFIPagesISoils-Assessment.aspx Exhibit 93. This
process, as DLCD states, requires a site -specific soil assessment by a soil professional
accepted by DLCD. Id. There are only a handful of these professionals, with Applicant's
expert, Mr. Brian Rabe, being one of them. Id.
III. Response to Central Oregon LandWatch and Farm Income Analysis
Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLV ), through its attorney Ms. Carol MacBeth,
advances a number of erroneous arguments. Ms. Macbeth filed information provided by
the 2012 US Census of Agriculture. This information is not the most current. The most
current information is provided by the County Profile 2017 Census ofAgriculture (Exhibit
91).
COL Ws letter includes a list of "agricultural commodities" that it claims, according to
the 2012 US Census of Agriculture, are produced in Deschutes County. The 2012 US
Census of Agriculture does not support this assertion. First, contrary to COLW's letter,
the 2012 Census shows that tobacco, cotton and cottonseed are not produced in Deschutes
County. Second, many of the listed commodities are listed by "commodity groups. " The
Census reports income from any one or more of the commodities in the entire group. It
does not indicate whether or not each commodity in a group is produced in Deschutes
County. So, for instance, `fruits, tree nuts, and berries" are one commodity group. The
group is so small, presumably one, that the Census withholds income information to "avoid
disclosing data for individual operations. " Whether this lone producer harvests fruits, tree
nuts or berries is unknown and it cannot be said which crop is harvested.
COLW's claim that "soil capability ** is irrelevant" because some farm uses are
"unrelated to soil type" is erroneous because the definition of `Agricultural Land"
provided by Goal 3 makes soil fertility and the suitability of the soil for grazing the exact
issues that must be considered by the County to determine whether the subject property is
"land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use. " DLCD, ODFW and ODA make
the same mistake in ignoring the ability of the land itself, rather than imported feed, to
support a farm use. The fact that the suitability test is tied to the specific soil found on a
subject Property by the Goal 3 definition makes it clear that the proper inquiry is whether
the land itself can support a farm use. Otherwise, any land, no matter how barren, would
be classified as farmland — which it is not and should not be. ORS 215.203(2) defines 'farm
use" and it requires that the land be used for "the primary purpose of obtaining a profit
in money[.) "
COLW claims that the $48,990 gross income estimate contained in the burden of proof
shows that the subject property is suitable for farm use because it would, allegedly,
produce three times as much income as grossed by the average farm in Deschutes County
in 2012. The $48, 990 figure is, however, overstated. It is based on an OSU formula that
assumes that rangeland will support one AUMper acre. The Property will, however, only
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 27 of 74
support one AUMper 10 acres in dry years, and one AUM in wet years, a fact established
by DLCD, ODFW, and ODA. This means the $48,990 gross income figure is overstated by
ten times during the dry years and by five times during wet years.
When the OSUformula is adjusted to reflect the State's AUMacres ratios, the range of
gross income per year is a mere $4,899 to $9,798 for a 710-acre property. This is lower
than the $16, 033 average gross farm income of the average County farm in 2012 — the
average farm being a 102-acre farm. If the subject Property were as productive as the
average 2012 Deschutes County farm per acre, it would gross $111,602 not $4,899 to
$9,798 per year. Expenses that would be incurred to raise a gross income of $4,899 to
$9,798 per year, based on information obtained from ranchers and extension service
publications, include the following:
• Vaccinations, medicine, veterinary services, monitoring pregnancies,
deworming, breeding, calving, soundness exams
• Branding, castrating bull calves
• Purchase and care and feeding of a horse to round up cattle and associated
shoeing and veterinary expenses; horse tack
• Water supply for cattle (trucked or well); water troughs
• Fencing materials, maintenance and repair
• Freight/trucking of cattle between ranch and auction
• Ranch vehicles e.g. 5th Wheel 4WD Pickup, 5th Wheel Stock Trailer and ATV
and maintenance and operating expenses 1
D.,,,.{..1-7---111.s i.r�n� iin rr � ni/i1'inn ��ifi'INr1//1!r /)N t2l /1 t11//YI ('!11/00']O�
1 uttuute U"tttc vw1nt1t� fw�ttttte1 /oy�/�tvoeaa �. ..r 1 ..
•Labor; hired and farm owner/operator, including taxes, payroll, health care,
etc.
• Livestock insurance
• Liability insurance
• Fire insurance
• Office expense
• Cost to service farm loans for the purchase of the subject property, farm
equipment and improvements
• Property taxes
Given the more refined and projected potential income (supported by the Agency Letter),
the property taxes alone for the subject Property would exceed the projected, potential
income. Even if the Property was able to qualify for farm tax deferred status, other
expenses would clearly exceed income. For instance, annual farm loan payments for
purchasing the property (excluding loans for farm equipment and improvements) far
exceed projected gross income. If a person were able to purchase the Property at a cost of
$2.8 million dollars2 , a price well below the fair market value set by the Deschutes County
Tax Assessor, annual payments for a 15 year loan at a USDA loan rate of just 3.25% would
be $238, 808.02 per year for a 15-year fixed loan and $147, 508.81 for a 30 year fixed loan
(excluding loan -related costs) from the USDA.3 Interest only on the 15 year faxed rate loan
would be $782,120.35 or an average of $52,141.36 per year. Interest on a 30 year faxed
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 28 of 74
rate loan would be $1,625,264.22 or an average of $54,175.47 per year. No party has
argued that potential farm revenues on the Property could reach anywhere near the levels
necessary to service this debt; notwithstanding the fact that other farm infrastructure and
startup costs (like the cost of irrigation water) would further add to debt service costs.
If the Property were grazed seasonally (as suggested by the Agency Letter), the operator
would incur costs to lease grazing lands elsewhere or to feed cattle hay grown on other
properties. These costs would not be deducted from the estimated income for the subject
Property because the projected income is based on the productivity of the subject Property
to support grazing — not the ability of other lands to support grazing either by lease or by
the purchase offorage grown on other lands. Conversely, only one-half of the cattle income
derived from an operation that utilizes two properties to raise cattle would be attributable
to the subject property if it were able to support grazing six months of the year. The fact
that twice as many cattle can be grazed on a property for six months compared to year-
round is of no consequence to the property assessment of gross income attributable to the
subject Property.
IT! Additional Responses to Specific Parties
This section provides specific responses to various parties' arguments during the open
record period.
Redside Restoration and Jordan Rainis
Redside Restoration implies that its small vineyard located close to the Deschutes River in
the Deschutes River canyon at an elevation about 400 to 500 feet below the plateau on the
subject Property has similar conditions to those found on the subject Property.
Presumably, Redside wishes the County to conclude that the Property might be suitable for
development as a vineyard. It is not. This is rebutted by:
• E-Mail dated May 2, 2022 from soils scientist Brian Rabe, Exhibit 107
• Certificate 66868 Dunn, Exhibit 87.
• Certificate 66868 map — Dunn (shows that vineyard area of property is
irrigated), Exhibit 88.
• OSU impact of smoke on grapes and wine, Exhibit 97.
The Property also would not meet most of the site selection and climate concerns related
to vineyard selection. Exhibit 90.
Equally important, is the fact that the soil depth is simply not enough to establish
productive grapes. For example, in Mr. Rabe's comprehensive soil analysis, he made 135
test holes. Of those 135 test holes, only 5 (less than 411o) had soil more than 30 inches in
depth. The average (mean) depth was 16.8 inches, the median depth was 16 inches, and
the modal depth (most common) was 14 inches. Grapes typically require 2 to 3 feet of soil
depth. Exhibit 106.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 29 of 74
Richard and Lori Johnson
The Johnson claim that farms adjacent to the subject property have deepened their wells.
As the Johnson note based on information provided by Central Oregon LandWatch
regarding a 2008 USGS study, climate change, groundwater pumping and irrigation canal
pumping have been identified as causing declines. The referenced study shows that the
primary cause of groundwater decline is climate change. The study attributes apart of the
decline to increased groundwater pumping in the region. Maps provided by the USGS
report suggests that groundwater use in the Odin Valley area (farm irrigation) and water
use by the Eagle Crest (golf course and other irrigation and domestic use) increased
significantly between 1997 and 2008. Irrigation water use consumes far more ground
water than used for domestic use — a fact that supports the conclusions of the GSI water
study that the applicant filed with Deschutes County prior to the land use hearing. This
report is re -filed for convenience as Exhibit 105. We provide the following supporting
documentation:
• Understanding Water Rights, Deschutes River Conservancy, Exhibit 101.
• Analysis of 1997-2008 Groundwater Level Changes in the Upper Deschutes
Basin, Central Oregon (relevant part). Exhibit 104.
The Johnsons express a concern that creating 10-acre parcels will result in a loss of open
space and wildlife habitat. They claim that using the land for low -density housing will
increase the cost of farming for adjacent farms. The Johnsons did not have this concern
earlier this year when they divided their farm property to create a 4.049-acre nonfarm
parcel right next to their irrigated farm fields. See Partition Plat 2022-10. The location of
this new parcel is shown in the aerial photo below (from DIAL): [image omitted]
The following documents are also filed to respond to this argument:
• Land use application filed by the Johnsons to create a nonfarm parcel and dwelling
adjacent to irrigated farm fields (Johnson nonfarm 2021), Exhibit 94.
*Amended Annual Reportfor Horse Guard, Inc., a highly successful horse vitamin/mineral
supplement product with a primary place of business of 3848 NW 91 st Street, Redmond,
OR (the Johnson property), Exhibit 99.
• Tax Assessor's Improvement Report, for Johnson property. Exhibit 83.
• Recent Google Earth Photograph of Johnson house and outbuildings below:
It appears that the Johnsons keep horses on their property but there is no indication they
are engaged in a commercial horse boarding or training operation. The primary farm use
of the property is growing alfalfa hay which is stored in the farm building shown on the
right in the photo above. [image omitted]
League of Women Voters
The League of Women Voters submitted a comment that the Deschutes River has been
designated by DEQ as having impaired water quality. That is true, but only for a portion
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 30 of 74
of South Deschutes County and not this area. Exhibit 92. See also, Testimony of Brian
Rabe, Exhibit 107.
Pam Mayo Phillips
Ms. Mayo Phillips argues that the subject property is in the heart of farm country and that
the Odin Valley consists of parcels that vary in size from 20 to 200 acres in size. While
some agricultural uses are occurring in the Odin Falls area, the area contains a mix of
farm, nonfarm, and rural residential development as documented by the Johnsons' land
division application. Many of the farm properties in the Odin Valley have been divided to
create nonfarm parcels that are smaller than the size stated by Ms. Phillips (size listed
after current owner) that have received approvals to locate dwellings adjacent to irrigated
farm fields: Stabb/Birklid (17.50 acres), Johnson/Nonella (4.05 acres) Grossmann/Nelson
(11.08 and 10.21 acres), Stephan/Bessette (4.36 acres), Thoradarson (3.18 acres) and a
number of non -irrigated properties have been divided and/or developed with nonfarm
dwellings — in particular on the properties closest to the subject property along NW
Coyner. Thus.far, the farm practices identified by Ms. Mayo Phillips have not been of
sufficient significance to merit denial of the many. nonfarm dwellings in Odin Valley.
Ms. Mayo Phillips expresses concerns about the condition of area roads. The roads,
however, are adequate to handle additional traffic as documented by the applicant's traffic
engineer and Deschutes County will address road improvements, provided the pending
applications are approved, when a subdivision application is filed with and reviewed by
the County.
Ms. Phillips argues that power is not available to serve the subject Property. This is
incorrect. CEC has provided a "will serve" letter and has advised the applicant that it is
able to provide power to the property from Buckhorn Road with upgrades that would be
paid for by the property owner. Exhibit 16.
Ms. Phillips expresses concern that the nearest fire station is too.far away and that fires
are a significant concern. The subject property is located in the Redmond Fire & Rescue
service area and the closest fire station in that district is located at 100 NW 71st Street, a
short distance north of Highway 126 on the west side of Redmond. Highway 126 provides
excellent access to the Odin Valley and the subject property which is approximately six
miles away on paved roads (travel time 9 minutes per Google Maps for vehicles traveling
at or below the speed limit). Additionally, according to opponent Ted Netter- a fire
protection association has been formed to provide fire protection to lands that are located
outside of fare districts to the west of the subject property which should serve to lessen, fire
risks in the area. The subject Property is not in the fare association area, contrary to Mr.
Netter's assertion, because it is located inside the Redmond Fire district. Exhibit 95.
Nunzie Gould
Ms. Gould's untimely filed post -hearing submittal contains errors of fact. The subject
Property is not located in or close to the Three Sisters Irrigation District ("TSID ). The
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 31 of 74
TSID webpage indicates that the District is currently providing spring irrigation water at
30%. Marc Thalacker, TSID's manager, also had a telephone conversation with one of the
principals of the Applicant, Robert Turner. Mr. Thalacker told Mr. Turner that it would
not be feasible for TSID to provide water to the Property, nor would it be feasible for other
irrigations districts to do so. Mr. Thalacker also indicated that, based upon his
conversation with Mr. Turner, placing irrigation water on the Property would be a reckless
and poor use of water.
Ms. Gould's claim that agriculture is occurring on the subject property is simply incorrect.
Ms. Gould's claim that 320 acres of BLM land adjoins the east side of the subject Property
is correct. This area is not, as Ms. Gould's comments reflect however, engaged in farm use
of any kind. It is open space for wildlife use. The Cline Buttes Recreation Area ATV
recreational area adjoins the south and southwest sides of the subject property. One of the
ATV trails is located in close proximity to the south boundary of the subject property. This
large area of public lands, also, is not engaged infirm use.
Andrew Mulkey, 1000 Friends of Orezon
Mr. Mulkey's untimely filed post -hearing submittal claims that the suitability analysis in
the applicant's soils report is "simply speculation " because the soils scientist does not
purport to have experience farming and ranching in Deschutes County. This is an absurd
statement and is contrary to the State's requirements for certified soil scientists (addressed
above). The purpose of soils analysis is to determine its suitability to support farm crops,
livestock and merchantable tree species. Additionally, the Soil Science Society of America
reports that Mr. Rabe has been a member of the American Society of Agronomy for 30
years. The Society describes its membership as follows:
"The American Society of Agronomy is the professional home for scientists
dedicated to advancing the discipline of the agronomic sciences. Agronomy is
highly integrative and employs the disciplines of soil and plant sciences to crop
production, with the wise use of'natural resources and conservation practices to
produce food, feed, fuel, fiber, and pharmaceutical crops for our world's growing
population. A common thread across the programs and services of ASA is the
dissemination and transfer of scientific knowledge to advance the profession. "
Membership I American Society of Agronomy
• Soil Science Society ofAmerica report re soil scientist and classifier Brian
Rabe, Exhibit 85.
Mr. Mulkey provides maps and information about wildlife. None of the maps have been
made applicable to the subject Property by land use regulations. The Mule Deer Overlay
map also shows that the subject Property is just inside the area proposed by ODFW as an
addition to the WA zone and that the number of deer using the area is, far lower than areas
located closer to the City of Sisters and less populated than areas east of Bend that are not
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 32 of 74
proposed for inclusion in the WA zone. But again, these maps simply do not apply nor have
they been adopted by the County.
DLCD Letter
DLCD provided additional comment that Goal 4 had not been adequately addressed.
Forestry expert John Jackson provides additional response (Exhibit 89) to evidence and
analysis previous placed in the record by Ms. Fancher.
V. Additional Evidence for the Record
In further response to COL Ws arguments that certain farm uses my profitably occur on
the Property, the Applicant provides the following additional rebuttal evidence.
• Hemp market information, email from hemp farm owner Paul Schutt, Exhibit
100.
• Impacts of grazing and increased desertification, Exhibit 82.
•Alfalfa production, Exhibit 96.
VI. Conclusion
The evidence we provide in this submittal will be used.further in final legal argument
G_ NOTICE, REQUIREMENT: On March 18, 2022, the Planning Division mailed a Notice
of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property, agencies, and
parties of record. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, March
20, 2022. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on March 2, 2022.
H. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on December 2, 2021. The
applications were deemed incomplete by the Planning Division on December 30, 2021 and a letter
detailing the information necessary was mailed on December 30, 2021. The Applicant provided a
response to the incomplete letter and the applications were subsequently deemed complete on
January 17, 2022. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), review of the proposed
quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change application is not subject to the 150-day review
period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
A. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING USE
OF ORDER 1 SOILS SURVEY
In 1979, Deschutes County adopted its first comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance that
implemented the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. The County's comprehensive plan map was
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 33 of 74
developed without the benefit of detailed soils mapping information. The map was prepared and
EFU zoning was applied to the subject property prior to the USDA/NRCS's publication of the
"Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon." That soil survey provides general soils
information, but not an assessment of soils on each parcel in the study area.
The NRCS soil survey maps are Order 2 soil surveys, which extrapolate data from the Upper
Deschutes River Survey to determine LCC soil classifications at a landscape level. The Applicant's
soil scientist, Mr. Rabe, conducted a more detailed Order 1 survey, which analyzed actual on -the -
ground soil compositions on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that it is not "suspect"
that an Order 1 soils survey contradicts NRCS soil classifications performed at a higher, landscape
level.
The argument advanced by COLW, 1000 Friends of Oregon and Redside Restoration that an Order
1 survey cannot contradict NRCS soil survey classifications for a particular property has been
rejected by the Oregon Legislature in ORS 215.21l(1) and DLCD in OAR 660-033-0030. It has
also been rejected by Deschutes County Hearings Officers and the Board of County
Commissioners.
In recent years, Deschutes County has recognized the value in rezoning non -productive
agricultural lands and has issued decisions approving plan amendments and zone changes where
the applicant has demonstrated the property is not agricultural land. Deschutes County has
approved the reclassification and rezoning of EFU parcels based on data and conclusions set forth
in Order 1 soils surveys and other evidence that demonstrated a particular property was not
"agricultural land," due to the lack of viability of farm use to make a profit in money and
considering accepted farming practices for soils other than Class I -VI. See, e.g., Kelly Porter
Burns Landholdings LLC Decision/File Nos. 247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA; Division of State
Lands Decision/File Nos. PA-11-7 and ZC-11-2; Paget Decision/File Nos. PA-07-1, ZC-07-1; The
Daniels Group/File Nos. PA-08-1, ZC-08-1; Swisher Decision/File Nos. 247-21-000616-PA/617-
ZC. The Board of County Commissioners recently affirmed the Hearings Officer's decision in the
Swisher files and adopted Ordinance No. 2022-003.
On the DLCD website, it explains:
NRCS does not have the ability to map each parcel of land, so it looks at larger areas. This
means that the map may miss a pocket of different soils. DLCD has a process landowners
can use to challenge NRCS soils information on a specific property. Owners who believe
soil on their property has been incorrectly mapped may retain a "professional soil classifier
... certified and in good standing with the Soil Science Society of America (ORS 215.211)
through a process administered by DLCD. This soils professional can conduct an
assessment that may result in a change of the allowable uses for a property.
Exhibit 93 (https•//www.oregon.gov/lcd/FF/Pages/Soils-Assessment.aspx).
The Hearings Officer agrees with the Applicant's final legal argument, submitted on May 11, 2022
which states on page 3, in relevant part:
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 34 of 74
This statutory and regulatory scheme makes sense, as it would have been impracticable for
a county to have conducted an individualized soils analysis on a farm -by -farm basis when
it adopted its original zoning ordinances. Precluding the availability of a property owner to
achieve a new zoning designation based upon a superior, more detailed and site -specific
soils analysis would, to put it mildly, be absurd and cannot be what the legislature
intended.19
The Soil Survey of the Deschutes Area, Oregon20 describes Class VII soils as "not suitable for
cultivation and of severely limited use for pasture or as woodland." It describes Class VIII soils as
"not suitable for growing vegetation for commercial uses." The Soil Survey of Upper Deschutes
River Area, Oregon describes the broad, general level of soil surveying completed by NRCS on
page 16, "At the less detailed level, map units are mainly associations and complexes. The average
size of the delineations for most management purposes was 160 acres. Most of the land mapped at
this level is used as woodland and rangeland. At the more detailed level, map units are mainly
consociations and complexes.... Most of the land mapped at the more detailed level is used as
irrigated and nonirrigated cropland."
As quoted in the Hearings Officer's Decision and Recommendation to the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners in the Swisher decision, File Nos. 247-21-000616-PA/617-ZC:
The real issue is "map accuracy" which is based upon set standards for maps. National
Map Accuracy Standard (NMAS) provides insurance that maps conform to established
accuracy specifications, thereby providing consistency and confidence in their use in
geospatial applications. An example of such a standard: "maps on publication scales
larger than 1: 20, 000, not more than 10 percent of the points tested shall be in error by
more than 1130 inch, measured on the publication scale; for maps on publication scales of
1: 20, 000 or smaller, 1150 inch. " The error stated is specific for a percentage of points, and
to suggest that accuracy in maps is the unattainable freedom from error as the COL letter
does, is not a relevant or a serious argument.
When one map shows point data like an Order-1 soil survey the accuracy can be measured,
and when another map does not (like the NRCS soil map) there is a shortage of information,
so the accuracy of the NRCS map cannot be determined for point data. The accuracy of
the NRCS estimate of the percentage of components in the 38B soil complex can be shown
to be very inaccurate in this case, and it clearly underestimates the Class 7 and Class 8.
The Hearings Officer finds that NRCS soil survey maps are not definitive or "binding" with respect
to a determination of whether the subject property is, or is not, agricultural land. This is consistent
with the ruling of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in Central Oregon Landwatch v.
Deschutes County (Aceti), Or LUBA (LUBA NO. 2016-012, August 10, 2016 (Aceti I).
There, LUBA confirmed that OAR 660-033-0030(5)(a) and (5)(b) allow the County to rely on
more detailed data on soil capability than provided by NRCS soil maps to define agricultural land,
19 The stated public purpose of the EFU zone is to preserve "Agricultural Lands" (ORS 215.243) but "Agricultural
Lands" are not present on a subject property.
21 https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/oregon/OR620/0/or620_text.pdf
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 35 of 74
provided the soils survey has been certified by DLCD, which has occurred here. The Aceti ruling
is summarized as follows:
First, LUBA affirmed the County's determination that the subject property, which had been
irrigated and used to grow hay in 1996 and earlier years, was not agricultural land based on the
Order 1 soils survey which showed that the poor soils on the property are Class VII and V111 soils
when irrigated, as well as when not irrigated.
Second, LUBA determined the applicant had established that the subject property was not
"agricultural lands," as "other than Class I -VI Lands taking into consideration farming practices."
LUBA ruled:
"It is not an accepted farm practice in Central Oregon to irrigate and cultivate poor quality
Class VII and VIII soils — particularly where, as here those soils are adjacent to rural
industrial uses, urban density residential neighborhoods that complain about dust and
chemicals and to high traffic counts on the surrounding roads and highways. Irrigating
rock is not productive. "
The Hearings Officer rejects the argument that NRCS land classifications based on its soil maps
cannot be varied, unless a landowner requests an Order 1 soils study to qualify additional land as
agricultural land. This is directly contrary to LUBA's holding in Central Oregon Landwatch v.
Deschutes County and Aceti, LUBA No. 2016-012:
"The Borine Study is evidence a reasonable person would rely on and the county was
entitled to rely on it. As intervenor notes, the NRCS maps are intended for use at a higher
landscape level and include the express statement `Warning: Soil Ratings may not be valid
at this scale.' Conversely, the Borine Study extensively studied the site with multiple on -
site observations and the study's conclusions are uncontradicted, other than by petitioner's
conclusions based on historical farm use of the property. This study supports the county's
conclusion that the site is not predominantly Class VI soils. "
ORS 215.211(1) specifically allows for the submittal by a certified soil scientist of an assessment
of the capability of the land based on more detailed soils information than that contained in the
Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS to "assist a county to make a better determination of
whether land qualifies as agricultural land." The Applicant followed this procedure by selecting a
professional soil classifier who is certified by and in good standing with the Soil Science Society
of America to prepare the Order 1 soils report. DLCD reviewed the soils report pursuant to ORS
215.211(2) and determined it could be utilized in this land use proceeding.
The Hearings Officer agrees that soils classifications are not the only determining factor with
respect to whether a parcel is "agricultural land." The Hearings Officer's findings on all relevant
factors to be considered in determining whether the subject property is "agricultural land," are set
forth in detail below.
The Hearings Officer does not accord less weight to the Applicant's soil scientist because he was
"privately commissioned." Brian T. Rabe, CPSS, WWSS of Valley Science and Engineering is a
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 36 of 74
listed, accepted soils scientist by DLCD and is certified by and in good standing with the Soil
Science Society of America. He has been a certified soils scientist for 30 years.
Public comments submitted by the Jordan Ramis law firm on behalf of Redside Restoration Project
One, LLC are correct to the extent that DLCD's certification of an Order 1 soils survey is not a
determination of whether a particular property constitutes "agricultural land." The certification
constitutes a determination that the soil study is complete and consistent with reporting
requirements of OAR 660-033-0045. Pursuant to ORS 215.211, the Applicant's soils survey has
been approved for use by Deschutes County by DLCD. If the Applicant's soils survey was
deficient in any manner, DLCD would not have allowed the County to rely on the survey in this
proceeding. Ultimately, the County — not DLCD - must decide whether the Order 1 soils survey,
together with other evidence in the record, supports a determination of whether the subject property
is "agricultural land." See ORS 215.211(5).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the County is not bound by the
landscape level NRCS Order 2 study on which classification of soils on the subject property is
based. The Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate for the County to consider the Applicant's Order
1 soils survey, certified for the County's consideration by DLCD.
2. HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
WHETHER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS "AGRICULTURAL LAND"
For purposes of this Decision and Recommendation, the Hearings Officer considers the definition
of "Agricultural Land," in OAR 660-033-020(1)(a), as defined in Goal 3, which includes:
(A) lands classified by the NRCS as predominantly Class I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon;
(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
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
agricultural lands.
a. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) Findings and Conclusions
As the Hearings Officer found above, the County may rely on the DLCD-certified Order 1 soil
survey submitted by the Applicant. That study shows that the soils on the subject property are not
predominantly Class I -VI soils, as they are comprised of 71% Class VII-Class VIII soils. The
County is entitled under applicable law to rely on the Order 1 soils survey in these applications in
making a determination that the soils on the Subject Property are not predominantly Class I -VI
soils. The Hearings Officer finds that the more detailed, onsite soil study submitted by the
Applicant provides property -specific information not available from the NRCS mapping.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 37 of 74
There is no evidence in the record to rebut the Applicant's soils study. Therefore, the Hearings
Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A). Specific findings on each applicable criterion are set forth in Section III(B) of this
Decision and Recommendation.
b. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C) Findings and Conclusions
The Hearings Officer finds there is no evidence in the record that the subject property is "land that
is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands.
While DLCD, ODA and ODFW question the "impact on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands," at
page 6 of the agencies' comment letter, those questions do not answer the inquiry of whether the
subject property is "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
agricultural lands." OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C). Moreover, the reclassification and rezoning of
the subject property in and of itself will not change the current use (or lack thereof) of the subject
property. Impacts of future development must be reviewed when land use applications are
submitted. Simply put, there is no showing that the subject property is necessary for farming
practices on any surrounding agricultural lands. There is no evidence that the subject property
contributes to any such practices, nor that other lands depend on use of the subject property to
undertake any farm practices.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural
land" under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C). Specific findings on each applicable criterion are set
forth in Section III(B) of this Decision and Recommendation.
C. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) Findings and Conclusions
The Hearings Officer finds there is no evidence in the record that the subject property is adjacent
to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I -VI within a farm unit. Therefore, the Hearings
Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(b). Specific findings on each applicable criterion are set forth in Section III(B) of this
Decision and Recommendation.
d. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) Findings and Conclusions
The Hearings Officer reviews evidence in the record to determine whether the subject property
constitutes "agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) as "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." Competing evidence was presented by the Applicant, the Department
of Land Conservation and Development, Agriculture and Fish and Wildlife, and numerous
commentators.
OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) refers to the statutory definition of "farm use" in ORS 215.203(2)(a)
which informs the determination of whether a property is "suitable for farm use." The Hearings
Officer finds that the analysis must begin with a determination of whether the subject property can
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 38 of 74
be employed for the "primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and
selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of livestock, poultry,
fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairying products or any other
agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof" ORS
215.203(2)(a) (emphasis added).
The state agencies and other commentators left out the highlighted portion of the statutory
language. "Farm use" is not whether a person can engage in any type of agricultural or horticultural
use or animal husbandry on a particular parcel of property. It is informed by whether such use can
be made for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. Therefore, the Hearings Officer
rejects the argument that the subject property is "capable of any number of activities included in
the definition of farm use," because "farm use" as defined by the Oregon Legislature "means the
current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money." ORS
215.203(2)(a); see also Goal 3. This is a critical omission by the state agencies and other
commentators in their submissions.
The state agencies repeatedly assert that the barriers to farming the subject property set forth by
the Applicant could be alleviated by combining farm operations with other owned and/or leased
land, whether adjacent to the subject property or not. The Hearings Officer finds that the definition
of "farm use" in ORS 215.203(2)(a) refers to "land," - not "lands," - and does not include any
reference to "combination" or requirement to "combine" with other agricultural operations.
Therefore, if the subject property, in and of itself cannot be engaged in farm use for the primary
purpose of obtaining a profit in money, it does not constitute agricultural land. There is no
requirement in ORS 215.203(2)(a) or OAR Chapter 660-033 that a certain property must
"combine" its operations with other properties in order to be employed for the primary purpose of
obtaining a profit in money and thus, engaged in farm use.
What the statutory definition of "farm use" means is that, merely because a parcel of property is
zoned EFU and some type of agricultural activity could take place on it, or whether the property
owner could join forces with another agricultural operations, does not mean that a property owner
is forced to engage in agricultural activity if the property owner cannot use its own property for
farming to obtain a profit in money. This is so, whether the barrier to obtaining a profit in money
is due to soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climactic conditions, existing and future irrigation
rights, existing land use patterns, technology and energy inputs required and accepted farming
practices, any or all of these factors.
The Applicant correctly cited controlling law on page 5 of its final legal argument:
Oregon courts have consistently addressed profitability as an element of the definition of
"agricultural land. " In Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666 (2007), the Oregon
Supreme Court held that profitability is a "profit in money" rather than gross income. In
Wetherell, the Court invalidated a rule that precluded a local government from analyzing
profitability in money as part of this consideration. Id. at 683. As may be helpful here, the
Court stated:
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 39 of 74
"We further conclude that the meaning of profitability, " as used in OAR 660-033-
0030(5), essentially mirrors that of `profit. " For the reasons described above, that
rule's prohibition of any consideration of `profitability" in agricultural land use
determination conflicts with the definition of `farm use" in ORS215.203(2)(a) and
Goal 3, which permit such consideration. OAR 660-033-0030(5) is therefore
invalid, because it prohibits consideration of "profitability. " The factfinder may
consider "profitability " which includes consideration of the monetary benefits or
advantages that are or may be associated from the farm use of the property and the
costs or expenses associated with those benefits, to the extent such consideration is
consistent with the remainder of the definition of "agricultural land" in Goal 3.
Finally, the prohibition in OAR 660-033-0030(5) of the consideration of "gross
farm income" in determining whether a particular parcel of land is suitable for
farm use also is invalid. As discussed above, `profit" is the excess or the net of the
returns or receipts over the costs or expenses associated with the activity that
produced the returns. To determine whether there is or can be a "profit in money"
from the "current employment of [the] land * * * by raising, hat -vesting and selling
crops[] " a factfinder can consider the gross income that is, or could be generated
from the land in question, in addition to other considerations that relate to "profit"
or are relevant under ORS 215.203(a) and Goal 3.
We therefore hold that, because Goal 3 provides that 'farm use " is defined by ORS
215.203, which includes a definition of `farm use" as "the current employment of
land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money[] " LCDC may not
preclude a local government making a land use decision from considering
"profitability" or "gross faun income" in determining whether land is
"agricultural land " because it is "suitable for farm use " under Goal 3. Because
OAR 660-033-0030(5) precludes such consideration, it is invalid. Emphasis added.
Id. at 681-683.
Substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that each of the listed factors in OAR
660-033-020(1)(a)(B) preclude "farm use" on the subject property because no reasonable farmer
would expect to make a profit in money by engaging in agricultural activities on the land. as
detailed in the findings on individual criteria below.
Soil Fertility
The lack of soil fertility is not in debate. The Applicant's soils study deterinined that the soils "are
predominately shallow with sandy textures (low clay content) and low organic matter content.
These conditions result in a low Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) that limits the ability of these
soils to retain nutrients. Fertilizer must be applied to achieve optimum yields. Proper management
requires fertilizers be applied in small doses on a frequent basis. The revenue from most locally
adapted crops will not cover the costs of inputs and management." Applicant's final legal
argument, Attachment C, p. 7. Moreover, the evidence shows that the shallow nature of the soils
differs from those present at the Redside Restoration property, given that typical wine grapes
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 40 of 74
require a "minimum of 2 feet to 3 feet of soil depth" to be successful (Exhibit 106). On the subject
property, the common depth of soils in the 135 test holes made by Mr. Rabe was merely 14 inches.
While several commentators argued that soil fertility is not always necessary for commercial
agricultural operations because farm equipment could be stored on the property, the Hearings
Officer agrees with the Applicant that the subject property's resource capability is the proper
determination. The Applicant is not required to engage in joint management or use with other lands
that do constitute productive farm land. Moreover, storage and maintenance of equipment is not,
in and of itself, a farm use unless such equipment is for the production of crops or a farm use on
the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer rejects the arguments of the state agencies
and COLW that certain uses of the subject property could be made that are not dependent on soil
type because none of the suggested uses constitute "farm use," without any associated cultivation
of crops or livestock. The Applicant has also produced substantial, persuasive evidence that the
property cannot be used for a profit in money for a feedlot considering the limited gross farm
income from cattle grazing, the lack of irrigation water, limited forage and other factors including
the generation of biological waste.
Suitabilitv for Grazin
The lack of suitability for grazing is also established by substantial evidence in the record.
Although the state agencies letter agreed with the Applicant's analysis that a maximum of 15
cow/calf pairs could be supported in a grazing operation, it suggested that an additional up to 15
pairs could be sustained in rotation or if the land was left bare for months at a time. There is no
evidence in the record to rebut the Applicant's conclusion that it could not make a profit in money
from grazing operations on the property, such that grazing would not constitute "farm use" under
the statutory definition. As shown in Exhibit 107 p. 2, "the gross revenue potential for weight gain
associated with the estimated forage available on the 710 acres would range from $7,209 per year
in an unfavorable (dry) year to 414,058 in a favorable (wet) year, or about $10,000 in an average
year. As documented in detail by others, the cost of production and management would exceed the
potential revenue."
Evidence presented by Billy and Elizabeth Buchanan regarding suitability for grazing is
distinguishable and therefore not relevant. The Buchanan property is mapped with productive,
high -value soils, unlike the Applicant's property. It also has a groundwater irrigation right and
may irrigate up to 14.6 acres of their property. Nonetheless, as the Applicant noted, there is no
evidence in the record that the Buchanans make a profit in money by allegedly grazing cattle on
their property. In fact, the evidence does not support a finding that the Buchanans' cattle even
graze on dry -land. As shown on their company website, Keystone Cattle claims its cattle are "grass
fed & grass finished."
Climactic Conditions
There is little debate that climactic conditions contribute to the inability to engage in "farm use"
for the purpose of making a profit in money. Even the state agencies admit that local climactic
conditions "are not ideal for commercial agriculture." Pointing to other properties to show that
climactic conditions should not preclude "farm use," again does not take into consideration
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 41 of 74
whether or not agricultural activities can be engaged in for the purpose of making a profit in money.
The limited precipitation, the plateau on which the property sits, plus the fact that the property
lacks irrigation water rights are all unfavorable to a determination the property could be used for
farming to make a profit in money.
Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm Irrigation Purposes
Regarding existing and future availability for water for farm irrigation purposes, the state agencies
merely state that "we do not believe that water for irrigation purposes is necessary to conduct many
of the activities included in the definition of `farm use."' Again, this does not take into
consideration whether any of such activities could be utilized for the primary purpose of making a
profit in money on the property. There is no evidence that the subject property could be used for
any of the listed activities in ORS 215.203(2)(a) in a profitable manner, particularly given the lack
of irrigation water. The Applicant has presented substantial evidence of the prohibitive costs and
other hurdles that preclude bringing irrigation to the subject property (E.g. Exs. 49, 87, 88, 2, 3
and 76). When such costs are factored in, no reasonable farmer would expect to be able to obtain
farm irrigation water and still obtain a profit in money from agricultural uses on the property.
Existing Land Use Patterns
The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant has established that existing land use patterns are also a
factor in determining the subject property is not "agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-
020(1)(a)(B). The area is characterized by rural uses; approval of the requested plan map
amendment and rezone will not change the use of the property to urban. There are various non-
farm uses in the area, including a number of non -farm dwellings constructed or approved. The
surrounding area has substantial areas of land zoned RR-10 and MUA-10. The Hearings Officer
finds that this determination does not ask whether the proposal is "consistent with existing land
use pattern," but instead asks whether, considering the existing land use pattern, the property is
agricultural land. Given the property's location on the top of a plateau, any uses in conjunction
with surrounding lands are impracticable due to the substantial physical barrier to cross -property
use.
Technological and Energy Inputs Required
Technological and energy inputs required for agricultural use of the subject property also factor
into the fact the property is not suitable for "farm use," because it cannot be so employed for
"primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money." Suggested uses by the state agencies and other
commentators do not address the profitability component of the definition of "farm use," and do
not rebut substantial evidence in the record that shows the subject property cannot be used for
agricultural purposes for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. This is due to the
costs associated with trucking in water, fencing requirements, livestock transportation, winter hay,
fertilizer, attempting to obtain irrigation water rights, labor costs, and energy/power requirements
to pump enough groundwater to support agricultural use.
The Hearings Officer also notes that, as discussed above, certain uses, such as storing equipment
or an indoor riding arena are not, in and of themselves "farm use," as confirmed by LUBA in
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 42 of 74
Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Harney County, 42 Or LUBA 149 (2002). The state agencies
and other commentators agree that the cost of technology and energy inputs required for
agricultural use on the subject property can be daunting. No one presented any evidence to rebut
the Applicant's evidence that such costs prohibit the ability to make a profit in money from farming
the subject property (See, e.g. Exhibits 35 and 91).
Accepted Farm Practices
The Applicant submitted evidence regarding accepted farming practices in Deschutes County,
published by the Oregon State University Extension Service (Exhibit 8). The definition of
"accepted farm practice," like that of "farm use," turns on whether or not it is occurring for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit. The Wetherell court relied on ORS 308A.056 to define
"accepted farm practice" as "a mode of operation that is common to farms of a similar nature,
necessary for the operation of these similar farms to obtain a profit in money and customarily
utilized in conjunction with farm use." Wetherell, supra, 52 Or LUBA at 681. Numerous fanners
and ranchers, including Rand Campbell, Brian Rabe, James Stirewalt, Russell Mattis, Matt Cyrus,
Fran Robertson and Marc Thalacker, testified and presented evidence that the subject property is
not suitable for farm use and that operations required to turn a profit are unrealistic. This evidence
is based on their own analysis of the subject property and understandings and experience as to
what would be required to commence a farm use for profit on the property. Moreover, LUBA
determined in the Aceti I case that it is not an accepted farnling practice in Central Oregon to
irrigate and cultivate Class VII and VIII soils.
In summary, the Applicant is not required to show that no agricultural use could ever be made on
the property; only that no reasonable farmer would attempt to engage in "farm use," which is for
the primary purpose of obtaining a profit. As set forth in additional detail in the findings on specific
criteria below, the Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a
determination that the subject property is not suited to commercial farming because no reasonable
farmer would believe he or she could make a profit in money therefrom, considering all of the
factors listed in OAR 660-033-020(1)(a)(B).
The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met its burden of showing the subject property
cannot be used for agricultural purposes for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money
and such is not "agricultural land" under OAR 660-033-020(1)(a)(B). There are various barriers
to the Applicant, or any other person, that preclude using the subject property to engage in farming
activities for a profit. For this reason, and as set forth in more detail below, no exception to
Statewide Planning Goal 3 is required.
B. HEARINGS OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 43 of 74
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property
owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an
application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to
applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicant, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan
amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The Applicant has
filed the required land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed
utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. 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
statement2i :
The Plan's introductory statement explains that land use must comply with the statewide
planning system and sets out the legal framework set by State law. It summarizes the
Statewide Planning Goals. It also explains the process the County used to adopt the current
comprehensive plan. This application is consistent with this introductory statement
because the requested change has been shown to be consistent with State law and County
plan provisions and zoning code that implement the Statewide Planning Goals.
The following provisions of Deschutes County's amended comprehensive plan set out goals
or text that may be relevant to the County's review of this application. Other provisions of
the plan do not apply.
The Applicant utilizes this analysis, as well as analyses provided in prior Hearings Officers'
decisions to determine and respond to only the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies that apply,
which are listed in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision and Recommendation. The
Hearings Officer's findings addressing compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals and
policies are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision and Recommendation
below.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the
21 As noted above, the Applicant filed a revised burden of proof statement with its final legal argument on May 11,
2022. Both the original and revised burden of proof statements are part of the record.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 44 of 74
purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in its burden of proof statement:
The approval of this application is consistent with the purpose of the RR-10 zoning district
which stated in DCC 18.60.010 as follows:
"The purposes of the Rural Residential Zone are to provide rural residential living
environments; to provide standards for rural land use and development consistent with
desired rural character and the capability of the land and natural resources; to manage
the extension of public services; to provide for public review of nonresidential uses; and
to balance the public's interest in the management of community growth with the protection
of individual property rights through review procedures and standards. "
The approval of the application will allow the property to provide rural residential living
environments in a rural location that is not suitable for farm use and where impacts of the
new use will be minimized by topography and adjoining public lands. The zoning district
and subdivision ordinance provide standards that will control land use to be consistent
with the desired rural character and capability of the land and natural resources. The
zoning district provides for public reviews of nonresidential uses. The approval of this
application will allow the property owner to proceed with a low level of development on
land that will not support farm use. "
The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed change in classification will allow for potential future
development of rural residential living. 'No application for development is UeiVle Ule %-VU11LY aL
this time; future application(s) inust be consistent with the standards for rural land use and
development considering desired rural character, the capability of the land and natural resources
and managed extension of public services. Future development will be subject to public review
which will require, among other things, a balancing of the public's interest in the management of
community growth with the protection of individual property rights.
The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant has demonstrated the proposed change in classification
is consistent with the purpose and intent of the RR-10 Zone.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and
welfare considering the following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and
facilities.
FINDING: There are no plans to develop the properties in their current state; the above criterion
asks if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The
Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property. A will -
serve letter from Central Oregon Electric Cooperative, Exhibit G shows that electric power
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 45 of 74
is available to serve the property. Well logs, Exhibits H through K, show that wells are a
viable source of water for rural residential development.
The existing road network is adequate to serve the use. This has been confirmed by the
transportation system impact review conducted by Christopher M. Clemow, PE, PTOE of
Clemow Associates LLC Exhibit S of this application. The property receives police
services from the Deschutes County Sheriff. The property is in the Redmond Fire and
Rescue rural fire protection district.
The closest neighboring properties which contain residential uses are located on the north side of
NW Coyner Avenue, on the south end of the subject property boundary, and nearby RR-10
residential lots along NW 93'd Street. These properties have water service primarily from wells,
on -site sewage disposal systems and electrical service, cellular telephone services, etc.
The Applicant provided a will -serve letter from Central Electric Cooperative indicating that it is
willing and able to serve the specified project location. The Applicant also included well logs from
nearby properties with the application submittal demonstrating water availability in the general
area.
Several commentators raised concerns regarding the general availability of groundwater- in the
area. The Applicant stated that rural residential development would use less water than water
required for farming the subject property. There is no evidence that use of groundwater for farm
use would be greater than use of groundwater for rural residential development. The Hearings
Officer notes that there are no irrigation rights on the subject property, which would be required
for most farm operations. The Hearings Officer finds that subjective opinions acid anecdotal
testimony regarding availability of groundwater for domestic use is not substantial evidence to
rebut the Applicant's well log evidence in the record.
Any new water use, unless exempt, must be appropriately permitted through the Oregon Water
Resources Department (OWRD). At this time, no development is proposed and no approval for
new water use has been requested. The Hearings Officer finds that water availability concerns of
the state agencies and other commentators will be reviewed at the time of development
applications. Without adequate water availability, future residential development may be limited
or denied
The Hearings Officer finds there are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that
would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare as the result of reclassifying the zoning
of the subject property to RR10. Prior to development of the properties, the Applicant will be
required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code, including land
use permitting, building permits, and sewage disposal permit processes, as well as to obtain a
permit from the OWRD, if necessary, for a new water use unless exempt. The Hearings Officer
finds that, through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and
facilities will be verified. This criterion is met.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific
goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 46 of 74
FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof
statement:
The RR-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the comprehensive
plan as shown by the discussion of plan policies above. The existing EFU zoning and
comprehensive plan already support development of the subject properly with a number of
nonfarm dwellings because the property is generally unsuitable for farm or forest uses.
The property is comprised of nine lots of record that could qualify for development with up
to approximately 24 dwellings including an existing nonfarm dwelling and two approved
nonfarm dwellings. The RR-10 zoning will allow more dwellings to be built on the subject
property but the impacts imposed will be the same as the minimal impacts imposed by a
nonfarm dwelling.
The only adjoining land in farm use is Volwood Farms. It is located to the west of the
subject property. Most of this farm property is located far below the subject property. This
geographical separation will make it unlikely that the rezone will impose new or different
impacts on Volwood Farms than imposed on it by existing farm and nonfarm dwellings.
There are other farms in the surrounding area but all, like the Volwood Farms property,
are functionally separated, from the subject property by the steep hillside and rocky ridges
of the subject property. Farm uses in the greater area, also, are occurring on properties
that have been developed with residences. These properties are, however, separated from
the subject property by a sufficient distance that RR-10 development will not adversely
impact area farm uses or lands.
In addition to these comments, the Applicant provided specific findings for each relevant
Comprehensive Plan goal and policy, which are addressed below. The Hearings Officer finds the
impacts of reclassification of the subject property to RR10 on surrounding land use will be
consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan for the
reasons set forth in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision and Recommendation. 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 proposes to rezone the properties from EFU to RR-10 and re -designate
the properties from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The Applicant provided the
following response in the submitted burden of proof statement:
There has been a change in circumstances since the subject property was last zoned and a
mistake in designating the subject property EFU/Agriculture when soils did not merit a
designation and protection as "Agricultural Land. " This zone was applied to the property
in 1979 and 1980 when Deschutes County adopted zones, a zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan that complied with the Statewide Goals.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 47 of 74
In 1979 and 1980, undeveloped rural lands that contained poor soils but undeveloped were
zoned EFU without regard to the specific soil characteristics of the property. Land owners
were required to apply for a zone change to move their unproductive EFU properties out
of the EFU zone. The County's zoning code allowed these owners a one-year window to
complete the task. This approach recognized that some rural properties were mistakenly
classified EFU because their soils and other conditions did not merit inclusion of the
property in the EFUzone.
Some Deschutes County property owners of lands received approval to rezone properties
but many eligible parcels were not rezoned during this short window of time. The soils on
the subject property are similarly poor and also merit RR-10 Zoning to correct the "broad
brush " mapping done in 1979 and 1980. Also, since 1979 and 1980, there is a change of
circumstances related to this issue. The County's Comprehensive Plan has been amended
to reinstate the right of individual property owners to seek this type of zone change and
plan amendment.
Additionally, the population of Deschutes County has, according to the US Census,
increased by 336% between 1980 when the County's last zoned this property and 2021
from 62,142 persons to 209,266 persons. The supply of rural residential dwelling lots has
been diminishing in the same time period.
Since the property was zoned, it has become evident that farm uses are not viable on the
property or on other area properties. The economics of farming have worsened over the
decades making it difficult for most Deschutes County property owners to make money
farming good ground andimpossible to earn a projttirorn utterrtpttrtg to jarrrt 1.tuss i "it"
8 farm soils. In 2017, according to Table 4 of the 2017 US Census of Agriculture, Exhibit
T, only 16.03% of farm operators achieved a net profit from farming (238 of 1484 farm
operations). In 2012, the percentage was 16.45% (211 of 1283 farm operations). In 2007,
according to the 2012 US Census of Agriculture, that figure was 17% (239 of 1405 farm
operations). Exhibit U. The vast majority offarms in Deschutes County have soils that are
superior to those found on the subject property. As_farming on those soils is typically not
profitable, it is reasonable to conclude that no reasonable farmer would purchase the
subject property for the purpose of attempting to earn a profit in money from agricultural
use of the land.
For the reasons set forth above in the Hearings Officer's Preliminary Findings and Conclusions,
incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds a mistake was made by Deschutes
County in zoning the subject property for Exclusive Farm Use given the predominately poor (Class
VII and VIII) soils on the property and the evidence that the property owner cannot engage in
"farm use," with the primary purpose of making a profit in money on the subject property. The
Hearings Officer further finds that there has been a change in circumstances from the time the
property was originally zoned EFU due to a rapid increase in population and a dwindling supply
of rural residential lots to accommodate the added residents in the area. The Hearings Officer finds
this criterion is met.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 48 of 74
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's soils study, Exhibit F, and the findings in this burden ofproof demonstrate
that the subject property is not agricultural land. This goal, therefore, does not apply. The
vast majority of the subject property is comprised of Class 7 and 8 nonagricultural soils
and the property has no known history of agricultural use. As noted in the Eastside Bend
decision, Exhibit L, "these [Class 7 and 8] soils [according to soils scientist and soils
classifier Roger Borinej have severe limitations for farm use as well as poor soil fertility,
shallow and very shallow soils, surface stoniness, low available water capacity, and limited
availability of livestock forage. " According to Agricultural Handbook No. 210 published
by the Soil Conservation Service of the USDA, soils in Class 7 "have very severe
limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to
grazing, woodland, or wildlife. " Class VIII soils "have limitations that preclude their use
for commercial plant production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water
supply or to esthetic purposes. "
As set forth in the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions aoovC, incorpuraLcu iicrcui uy LIM
reference, the Hearings Officer finds substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the
subject property is not "agricultural land," and is not land that could be used in conjunction with
adjacent property for agricultural uses. There is no evidence that the requested plan amendment
and rezone will contribute to loss of agricultural land in the surrounding vicinity. I find that 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 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 RR10. The Hearings Officer finds this policy is inapplicable to
the subject applications.
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including
for those that qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 49 of 74
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 properties 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:
This plan policy has been updated specifically to allow non -resource land plan and zone
change map amendments on land zoned EFU. The applicant is seeking a comprehensive
plan amendment from Agriculture to RREA and a zone change from EFU-TE to RR-10 for
non -resource land. This is essentially the same change approved by Deschutes County in
PA-11-1/ZC-11-2 on land owned by the State of Oregon (DSL). In findings attached as
Exhibit N,, Deschutes County determined that State law as interpreted in Wetherell v.
Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006) allows this type of amendment. LUBA said, in
Wetherell 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 adoptfmdings which aemonsirate the rand aces not yuut yy eitheraslutest turtus
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 or 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 was 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 used this case as an opportunity to change 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:
"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, 343 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. In this case, the applicant has shown that the
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 50 of 74
subject property is primarily composed of Class VII and VIII nonagricultural soils making
farm -related endeavors, including livestock grazing, unprofitable. The property is not
currently employed in any type offarm use and exhibits no evidence ofsuch use. It is known
that the property has not been employed in farm use for the past 20 years. Accordingly,
this application complies with Policy 2.2.3.
The facts presented by the Applicant in the burden of proof for the subject application are similar
to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the aforementioned Deschutes County plan amendment
and zone change applications. For the reasons set forth above in the Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions, incorporated herein by this reference, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property
is not agricultural land and does not require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 under state
law. The applications are consistent with this Policy.
Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity
on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to
provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. The Hearings Officer
adheres to the County's previous determinations in plan amendment and zone change applications
and finds 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.
.. ,� t. . <_i_. a__.____. -1 r._..._I I-._J
Policy 2.2.13 laent[Jy and retain accuraieiy designated agrieutturut iuuu�.
FINDING: This plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that are
accurately designated. Substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that the subject
property was not accurately designated as agricultural land as detailed above in the Preliminary
Findings and Conclusions, incorporated herein by this reference. Further discussion on the soil
analysis provided by the Applicant is detailed under the OAR Division 33 criteria below. The
Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with this policy.
Section 2.5 Water Resources Policies
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies.
Policy 2.5.24 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 Applicant is not required to demonstrate the water impacts associated with future
development. Rather, the Applicant will be required to address this criterion during development
of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any required 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.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 51 of 74
Section 2.7 Open Spaces Scenic Views and Sites
Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces
and scenic view and sites.
Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and
visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between
communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually
prominent.
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
FINDING: These policies are fulfilled by the County's Goal 5 program. The County protects
scenic views and sites along major rivers and roadways by imposing Landscape Management (LM)
Combining Zones to adjacent properties. The Hearings Officer finds that no LM combining zone
applies to the subject property, nor is the subject property identified as a Goal 5 resource.
Furthermore, no new development is proposed under the present application.
The state agencies and several commentators suggested that the subject property should be left "as
is" because it is allegedly being used by wildlife as a "wildlife sanctuary." There is no applicable
statute or regulation that requires the property to be subject to wildlife protections given that there
is no LM combining zone applicable to the subject property and it is not designated as a Goal 5
resource. Nor is there any state law that prohibits redesignation and rezoning of a property in and
of itself on this basis. There is nothing in OAR 660-033-0030, "Identifying Agricultural Land,"
that makes any reference to wildlife or wildlife use.
For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that these provisions of the plan are inapplicable to
consideration of the proposed zone change and plan amendment.
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.
• 2009 legislation permits a new analysis of agricultural designated lands
Exceptions can be granted from the Statewide Planning Goals
• Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be
rezoned as rural residential
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 52 of 74
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 provided the following
response in the burden of proof:
This part of the comprehensive plan is not a relevant approval criterion for a plan
amendment and zone change application. Instead, it is the County's assessment of the
amount of population growth might occur on rural residential lands in the future based on
its understanding of the types of changes allowed by law. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3
specifically authorizes rezoning and comprehensive plan map amendments for any
property zoned EFUand is the code section that defines the scope of allowed zone changes.
This section makes it clear, however, that EFU-zoned land with poor soils adjacent to rural
residential development is expected to be rezoned for rural residential development during
the planning period. The subject property has extremely poor soils that do not qualify as
agricultural land that must be protected by Goal 3. The subject property also adjoins EFU
lands developed with rural residential uses (nonfarm dwellings) — Tax Lots 100, 200, 300,
Map 14-12-28D and Tax Lot 301, Map 14-12-27. It is also located in close proximity to a
large area of'RR-10 land to the north and northeast that includes the large Lower Bridge
Estates subdivision.
The RR10 Zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Findings of Fact above, and there
are several nearby properties to the north and northeast that are zoned RR10 as well as nearby EFU
zoned property developed with residential uses and others that have been approved for
development of nonfarm dwellings. This policy references the soil quality, which is discussed
above.
The Hearings Officer finds that 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. The
Hearings Officer notes this policy references the soil quality, which is discussed in detail above.
The Hearings Officer finds that, the rezone application does not include the creation of new
residential lots. However, read in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3, which
specifically authorizes rezoning and comprehensive plan map amendments for any property
zoned EFU that is comprised of poor soils and are in the vicinity of other rural residential uses,
the Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the subject property to RR-10 is consistent with this
policy. The Applicant has demonstrated the Subject Property is comprised of poor soils, cannot
be used for "farm use," as defined in ORS 215.203 and that is in the vicinity of other rural
residential uses.
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
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 53 of 74
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
initiating a nonresource plan amendment and zone change by demonstrating the
property does not meet the definition of agricultural or forest land, or 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 to this provision in the burden of
proof:
The quoted language is a part of the background text of the County's comprehensive plan.
It is not a plan policy or directive and it is not an approval standard for this application.
It does, however, recognize the fact that a Rural Residential Exception Area designation is
an appropriate plan designation to apply to nonresource lands.
As LUBA and the Oregon Supreme Court recognized in the Wetherell decision, there
are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow non -resource use of land
previously designated and zoned for farm or forest uses. The first is to take an exception
to Goal 3 and Goal 4 and the other is to adopt findings that demonstrate the land does
not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning
goals. Here, the applicant is pursuing the latter approach. The quoted plan text
addressed the former. If the quoted plan text were read to require an exception to Goal
3 or 4 where the underlying property does not qualify as either Goal 3 or Goal 4
resource land, such a reading would be in conflict with the rule set forth in Wetherell
and Policy 2.2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners has interpreted its RREA plan
designation to be the proper "catchall" designation for non -resource land in its
approval of the Daniels Group plan amendment and zone change by adopting the
following finding by Hearings Officer Ken Helm:
"I find that Deschutes County has interpreted the RREA plan designation as
the property "catchall" designation for non -resource land. "
As a result, the RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation for the
subject property.
The Hearings Officer adheres to the past Deschutes County Hearings Officer interpretations and
finds that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to Statewide
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 54 of 74
Planning Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed RREA plan designation is the
appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property as a "catch-all" rural designation for
the subject property, which is not agricultural land.
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 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
complies with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), also known as OAR 660-012, as set forth 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
(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 Applicant provided the following in response to Goal 4:
The existing site and surrounding areas do not include any lands that are suited for forestry
operations. Goal 4 says that forest lands "are those lands acknowledged as forest lands as
of the date of adoption of this goal amendment. " The subject property does not include
lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption of Goal 4. Goal 4 also says
that "where* *a plan amendment involving forest lands is proposed, forest land shall
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 55 of 74
include lands which are suitable for commercial forest uses including adjacent or nearby
lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices and other forested lands
that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. " This plan amendment does
not involved any forest land. The subject property does not contain any merchantable
timber and is not located in a forested part of Deschutes County.
The subject property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties within a seven -
mile radius. The properties do not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in
the record that the properties have been employed for forestry uses historically. The NRCS has
determined that the soil mapping units on the subject property are not suitable for wood crops and,
therefore, has excluded them from Table 8 of the NRCS Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River
Area. The Hearings Officer finds this satisfies OAR 660-06-0005(7)(a) and OAR 660-06-0010(2).
There are no wood production capabilities of the subject property.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property does not qualify as 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 Juture needs for agricultural products, forest and open space ail" wuri the
state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.
FINDING: Goal 3 includes a definition of "Agricultural Land," which is repeated in OAR 660-
033-0020(1). The Hearings Officer has made Preliminary Findings and Conclusions set forth
above, and incorporated herein by this reference, that the subject property does not constitute
"agricultural land."
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 22;
22 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.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 56 of 74
FINDING: The Applicant's basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is founded on the
premise that the subject property does not meet the definitions of "Agricultural Land." In support,
the Applicant offered the following response as included in the burden of proof statement:
Statewide Goal 3, above, ORS 215.211 and OAR 660-033-0030(5) allow the County to rely
on the more detailed and accurate information provided by the Exhibit F soil study to
determine whether land is agricultural land. ORS 215.211 give a property owner the right
to rely on more detailed information than is provided by the NRCS Web Soil Survey of the
NRCS to "assist the county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as
agricultural land. " The more detailed soils survey obtained by the applicant shows that
approximately 71 % of the subject property is composed of Class VII and VIII soils. As a
result, it is clear that the tract is not predominantly composed of Class I- VI soils.
The soil study provided by Mr. Rabe of Valley Science and Engineering (dated June 22, 2021) and
the soil report addendum (dated January 13, 2022) support the Applicant's representation of the
data for the subject property. This data was not rebutted by any party.
As set forth in detail in the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions above, incorporated herein by
this reference, the Hearings Officer finds, based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR
definition, that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class VII and VIII soils and,
therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A).
(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; Suhubiiity 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 basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is founded on the
proposal that the subject property are not defined as "Agricultural Land." The Applicant provides
the following analysis in the burden of proof.
This part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the County to consider whether
the Class VII and VIII soils found on the subject property are suitable for farm use despite
their Class VII and VIII 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).
The primary agricultural use conducted on properties that lack irrigation water rights and
have poor soils is grazing cattle. The extremely poor soils found on the property, however,
make it a poor candidate for dryland grazing. The dry climate makes it difficult to produce
adequate forage on the property to support a viable or potentially profitable grazing
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 57 of 74
operation or other agricultural use of the property. This issue is addressed in greater detail
in the Exhibit F soils study. Photographs of various parts of the subject property provide
a visual depiction of the land in question and its characteristics:
[Please see the burden ofproof for photos submitted by the applicantl
Given the high cost of irrigating and maintaining the property as pasture or cropland (high
labor costs, labor-intensive, high cost of irrigation equipment and electricity, high cost of
fertilizer, etc.), dry land grazing is the accepted farm use ofpoor soils in Deschutes County.
This use can be conducted until the native vegetation is removed by grazing (see the
discussion of the suitability of the property.for grazing, below). The soils study includes an
analysis of the level of cattle grazing that would be able to be conducted on the property,
without overgrazing it. It finds that the entire 710 acres would support from 8 to 15 cow -
calf pairs for a year based on proper management of the land for year-round grazing.
When assessing the potential income from dry land grazing, Deschutes County uses a
formula and assumptions developed by the OSU Extension Service. This formula is used
by the County to decide whether EFU-zoned land is generally unsuitable for farm use. It
assumes that one acre will produce 900 pounds of forage per year.
Y One AUM is the equivalent to the forage required for a 1000 lb. cow and calf to
graze for 30 days (900 pounds of forage).
• On good quality forage, an animal unit will gain 2 pounds per day.
• Two animal units will eat as much in one month as one animal unit will eat in
two months.
• Forage production on dry land is not continuous. Once the forage is consumed, it
typically will not grow back until the following spring.
• An average market price for beef is $1.15 per pound.
Based upon these assumptions, the value of beef production on the entire subject property
can be
calculated using the following.formula:
30 days x 2#/day/acre = 60.0 lbs. Beef/acre
(1 acre per AUM)
60.0 lbs. Beef/acre x 710 acres x $1.15/1b. _ $48,990 per year of gross income
Thus, using the OSU/County formula, the total gross beef production potential for the
subject property if it was comprised of more productive soils than found on the subject
property would be approximately $48,990 annually. This figure represents gross income
and does not take into account real property taxes, fencing costs, land preparation,
purchase costs of livestock, veterinafy costs, or any other costs ofproduction which would
exceed income. Property taxes, alone, were $15, 706.62 for the eight tax lots that comprise
the subject property in 2020. The payment of a modest wage of $15.00 per hour to the
rancher and/or employee for only one FTE would cost the ranch operation $31,200 in
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 58 of 74
wages and approximately an additional $7,800 to $12,480 (1.25 to 1.4 of salary) for
employment taxes paid by the employer and standard employee benefits. An expired
internet job listing (at least two years old) for a farmer to farm the Volwood Farms
property located to the west of the subject property offered wages of $15 to $25 an hour
and medical insurance. Exhibit V. A wage of $25 per hour provides an annual salary
of $52, 000 and costs the farm approximately $15, 000 to $20, 800 in taxes and benefits.
A review of the seven considerations listed in the administrative rule, below, provided in
the soils survey report, Exhibit F, and in the findings provided below explain why the poor -
quality soils found on the subject property are not suitable for farm use:
Soil Fertility: Class 7 and 8 soils are not fertile soils. They are not suited for the production
offarm crops. This fact has been recognized in numerous County land use cases, including
the zone change and plan amendment applications being filed with this land use
application. Farm use on these soils is limited to rangeland grazing at a level that does not
qualify as `farm use. " No person would expect to make a profit by grazing livestock on the
subject property.
Suitability for Grazing: The climate is cold and dry. The growing season is very short. The
subject property is located between Redmond and Sisters. According to the OSUExtension
Service the growing season for Redmond is only 80 to 90 days long. Exhibit W. The
growing season for Sisters is shorter. The average annual precipitation for Redmond is
only 8.8 inches. This means that the amount of forage available for dry land grazing is low
and will be slow to regrow. This also means that a farmer has a short period of amount of
•i` 1 7 n7 T7 7 7rfC _..7i
time to irrigate pastures, aJ irrigation water rights can e secured. This makes it aajiacuaa
for a farmer to raise sufficient income to offset the high costs of establishing, maintaining
and operating an irrigation system and groundwater well. That cost also would include the
cost of purchasing and retiring water rights from another area farm property to mitigate
for the impacts of puniping groundwater — something that is cost prohibitive for almost
any farm operation. This is clearly the case for irrigating non-agricultural Class VII and
VIII soils.
Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farfn Irrigation Purposes: The subject
property is not located in an irrigation district. It is too remote from any irrigation district
in terms of distance and elevation (above) to be able to obtain irrigation water from a
district for farming as shown by Exhibit X. In order to obtain water rights, the applicant
would need to acquire a water right from Oregon Water Resources Department
(OWRD). If such a right were able to be secured, the property owner would need to
purchase and retire water rights from irrigated farm land in Central Oregon that is
surely more productive than the subject property (71 % Class VII and VIII soils). Such
a transaction would run counter to the purpose of Goal 3 to maintain productive
Agricultural Land in farm use. The cost of purchasing water rights, obtaining a
groundwater permit and establishing an irrigation system are significant and would
not be reasonably expected to result in farm income that would offset the cost
incurred for the subject property.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 59 of 74
Existing Land Use Patterns: The applicant's analysis of existing land use patterns
provided earlier in this burden ofproof shows that the subject property is located primarily
on a plateau above farm lands. The lands on the plateau are either undeveloped open space
owned by the USA or RR-10 zoned subdivision lots developed with single-family homes.
The addition of RR-10 zoned lots and homes rather than nonfarm dwellings is consistent
with land use of other privately -owned property on the plateau. Below the plateau are
public lands and a small number of farms and farm and nonfarm dwellings on or adjacent
to existing farm operations. The addition of homes here would not impose significant new
impacts on farm operations in the area.
Technological and Energy Inputs Required. Given its poor soils, this parcel would
require technology and energy inputs over and above accepted farming practices.
Excessive fertilization and soil amendments; very frequent irrigation, and marginal
climatic conditions would restrict cropping alternatives. Pumping irrigation water
requires energy inputs. The application of lime and fertilizer typically requires the use of
farm machinery that consumes energy. The irrigation of the property requires the
installation and operation of irrigation systems. All of these.factors are why Class 7 and 8
soils are not considered suitable for use as cropland.
Accepted Farming Practices: As determined by the County in the Aceti case, farming lands
comprised of soils that are predominately Class VII and VIII 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 occur on Class VI non -irrigated soils. Crops are
typically grown on soils in soil class III and IV when irrigated that Class VI without
irrigation.
The Hearings Officer incorporates herein by this reference the Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions above and finds that the subject property does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as
defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B).
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on
adjacent or nearby agricultural lands.
FINDING: The Applicant offered the following response in the burden of proof statement:
The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on
adjacent or nearby lands. The following facts are shown by the applicant's discussion of
surrounding development in Section E of this application, above and by the additional
information provided below.
West: Properties to the west of the subject property are separated from the subject
property by topography. The dramatic change in topography makes it infeasible to
use the subject property for farm use in conjunction with these properties.
Additionally, the subject property is not necessary to perm it farm practices to be
undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands to the west. Farm practices have been
occurring on these properties for decades without any need to use the subject property
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 60 of 74
to conduct farm practices on these properties.
EFU Properties to the West (South to North)
Tax Map, Lot
Farm Use
Potential Farm
Need Subject
and Size
Practices
?
Prop"?
14-12-00, 300
Open space; public
Dry land grazing
No, property
1588.55 acres
land
accessible from
Buckhorn Road
14-12-21, 200 & 100
Irrigated fields
Irrigation
No, Tax Lot 200 and
372.71 acres
currently growing
Growing/harvesting
100 are below the
Volwood Farms
orchard grass, hay
crops
level of a majority of
and alfalfa
Fertilizing field
subject property.
Baling hay
They are comprised
Herbicide use
of good farm soils
while the subject
property is not.
Separation due to
elevation has
prevented conflicts
between existing
nonfarm dwelling on
subject property and
this_farming
uptefratio➢t.
14-12-20, 200
Irrigated field
Irrigation
No, TL 200 is
146.37 acres
suitable for growing
Growing/harvesting
located west of
orchard grass, hay,
crops
Buckhorn Road and
and alfalfa
Fertilizing field
separated from
Baling hay
subject property by
Herbicide use
Volwood Farms
property. Property
also separated from
subject property by
topography.
North: All of the land north of the subject property that might rely on the subject property
for farm practices, other than the Volwood Farms property inventoried above and an
open space tract of land owned by the USA, is zoned RR- 10 and is not in farm use.
Cattle grazing would be able to occur on the USA property at a very limited .scale due
to sparse vegetation without need for the subject property to conduct the activity.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 61 of 74
East:
EFU Properties to East (North to South)
Tax Map, Lot
Farm Use
Potential Farm
Need Subject
and Size
Practices
Property?
14-12-22B, 700
Open space public
Livestock grazing
No, grazing can
80 acres
land
occur without
reliance on subject
property.
14-12-22C, 500
Open space public
Livestock grazing
No, grazing can
120 acres
land
occur without
reliance on subject
property.
14-12-27, 200
Open space public
Livestock grazing
No, grazing can
120 acres
land
occur without
reliance on subject
property.
14-12-27, 301
None. Nonfarm
None
No, no farm use
17.50 ac
parcel and dwelling
and property not
suitable for farm
use.
14-12-00, 300
Irrigated cropland
Irrigation
No, separated from
62.58 acres
suitable for growing
Growing/harvesting
hiert property by
sub
orchard grass, hay,
crops
Tax Lot 301 and
and alfalfa
Fertilizing field Baling
elevation. Property
hay Herbicide use
created by partition
that found that
nonfarm dwelling
would not interfere
with farm use on
Tax Lot 300 and
other area farms.
14-12-14B, 200
Approved for
None
No
80 acres
nonfarm dwelling
South: Most of the land to the south of the subject property is open space land
owned by the USA and nonfarm dwelling parcels comprised of land determined by
Deschutes County to be generally unsuitable , for the production of farm crops,
livestock and merchantable tree species.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 62 of 74
EFU Properties to South
Tax Map, Lot
Farm Use
Potential Farm;
Need Subject
and Size
Practices
Property?'
14-12-280, 100
None, nonfarm dwelling
None
No
28.60 acres
14-12-280, 200
None, nonfarm dwelling
None
No
19.11 acres
14-12-280, 300
None, nonfarm dwelling
None
No
19.65 acres
14-12-20, 3200
Open space public land
Livestock grazing
No, grazing can
1588.55 acres
occur without
reliance on
subject property.
Accessible from
Buckhorn Road
and Coyner
Avenue.
14-12-00, 1923
Nonfarm dwelling.
Irrigation
No, separated
37.51 acres
Small irrigated pasture
Growing/harvesting
from subject
for horses and small
crops
property by other
pivot suitabie for
Fertilizing field
nuryarm
growing hay, grass or
Baling hay
properties.
alfalfa.
Herbicide use
The Applicant provided a detailed analysis of land uses and agricultural operations surrounding
the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that barriers for the subject property to engage
with in farm use with these properties include: poor quality soils, lack of irrigation, proximity and
significant topography changes.
The Hearings Officer incorporates herein by this reference the Preliminary Findings and
Conclusions above and finds that the subject property does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as
defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C).
(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IVII-VI that is adjacent to
or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IVII-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 burden of proof statement:
The subject property is not a part of a farm unit. The property is a tract of land that
is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock and
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 63 of 74
merchantable trees species that is eligible to be developed with nonfarm dwellings.
As a result, this rule does not apply to the County's review of this application.
The apparent purpose of this rule is to prevent the rezoning of portions of a farm
property that function together as a farm. That is not the case here. In this case, the
property in its entirety is not agricultural land and is not a farm unit because it is
not engaged in farm use and has not been engaged in that use for 20 years or more.
The applicant is not seeking to remove unproductive lands from an otherwise
productive farm property.
Even if the subject property is considered to be a 'farm unit" despite the fact it has
never been_farmed, Goal 3 applies a predominant soil test to determine ifa property
is 'agricultural land. " The predominant soils classification of the subject property
is Class VII and VII which provides no basis to inventory the property as agricultural
land u n l e s s the land is shown to be, in , fact, productive farmland.
All parts of the subject property were studied by the applicant's soils analysis, Exhibit
F. The analysis shows that the predominant soil type found on the property is Class
VII and VIII, nonagricultural land. Some Class VI soils are intermingled with the
nonagricultural soil not vice versa. As a result, this rule does not require the Class
VII and VIII soils to be classified agricultural land.
The Hearings Officer incorporates by this reference the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
mot r rth .,1-- —A -r.Aa that tha enhia!`t nrnnarty dnac not nnnstitnte "A aricniltnrnl T nnrlc " nc
sL lvUl R"v V � R..- ...— loin I.— � -i— F. vry cJ .... �.., ....� ., .,..., ._.»... _
defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b).
(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 ying 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
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 64 of 74
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. For the reasons
set forth in the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions above, incorporated herein by this reference.
the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not "Agricultural Lands," as defined in OAR
660-033-0030(l). The subject property is not necessary to permit farm practices undertaken on
adjacent and 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.
FINDING: As the Hearings Officer found above, 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,
regardless of ownership of the subject property and ownership of nearby or adjacent land. For the
reasons set forth in the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions above, incorporated herein by this
.. ., r� Officer
finds
.� �_ _ _' __ _� cc a ,1..--- ._1 1— A- » -.-A ♦L -- aL -4-
reterence. the bearings Officer finds the suojecr property is hug tigricuLLUIdI 1UHUJ, aLLu UIUS LllaL
no exception to Goal 3 is required.
(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 of January 2, 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. Rabe provides more detailed soils information than
contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. NRCS sources provide general soils data for large units
of land. The Hearings Officer finds the soil study provides detailed and accurate information about
individual parcels based on numerous soil samples taken from the subject property. The soil study
is related to the NCRS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that classifies soils class I
through VIII. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 65 of 74
The NRCS mapping for the subject property is shown below in Figure 1. According to the NRCS
Web Soil Survey tool, the subject property predominantly contains 63C soil (75 percent) and 106E
soil (17 percent) with the remaining property containing smaller amounts of 31B, 71A, 101D, and
106D soils.
Figure 1 - NRCS Soil Map (Subject Property, appx.)
The soil study conducted by Mr. Rabe of Valley Science and Engineering finds the soil types on
the subject property vary from the NRCS identified soil types. The soil types described in the soil
study are described below and the characteristics and LCC rating are shown in Table I below
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 66 of 74
Table I - Summary of Order I and 2 Soil Survey (Subject Property)
NOTES:
Abbreviations: "- ' = no data, e = erosion, NRCS _ Natural Resources Conservation Service, s = shallow.
1 Land Capability Class as published in the Soil Survey of tapper Deschutes River Area, Oregon
(Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002).
n i _ -ii ._a. Class
,. ,. A7TT A I7TTT
Mr. Rabe's soil study concludes that the subject property contains 71 percent Class v 11 anu v III
soils. The submitted soil study prepared by Mr. Rabe is accompanied in the submitted application
materials by correspondence from the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) (Applicant's Exhibit F).
The DLCD correspondence confirms that Mr. Rabe's prepared soil study is complete and
consistent with the reporting requirements for agricultural soils capability as dictated by DLCD.
Based on Mr. Rabe's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil Classifier, and as set forth
in detail in the Preliminary Findings and Conclusions above, incorporated herein by this reference,
the Hearings Officer finds the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site -
specific soil information for the subject property.
(c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to:
(A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive faun
use, forest use or mixed faun 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. Therefore, this section and OAR 660-033-
0045 applies to these applications.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 67 of 74
(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 maybe 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 soil study by Mr. Rabe of Valley Science and Engineering
dated June 22, 2021, and an addendum dated January 13, 2022. The soils study was submitted
following the ORS 215.211 effective date. The Applicant's Exhibit F includes acknowledgement
from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the DLCD, dated September 13, 2021, that the soil
study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting requirements. The Hearings Officer finds
this criterion is met.
(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 provided a DLCD certified soil study as well as NRCS soil data. 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.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 68 of 74
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this provision is applicable to the proposal because it
involves an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The proposed plan amendment
would change the designation of the subject property from AG to RREA and change the zoning
from EFU to RR10. The Applicant is not proposing any land use development of the property at
this time.
As referenced in the agency comments section in the Findings of Fact, above, the Senior
Transportation Planner for Deschutes County requested additional information to clarify the
conclusions provided in the traffic study. The Applicant submitted an updated report from
Christopher M. Clemow, PE, PTOE of Clemow Associates, LLC dated January 17, 2022, to
address trip distribution, traffic volumes, and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) criteria. The
updates were reviewed by the Senior Transportation Planner who indicated his comments had been
addressed and he was satisfied with the amended report. Mr. Clemow included the following
conclusions in the traffic impact analysis dated January 17, 2022:
The following conclusions are made based on the materials presented in this analysis:
1. The proposed Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
from Exclusive Farm Use — Terrebonne Subzone (EFUTE) to Rural Residential —10 Acre
Minimum (RR-10) will not significantly affect the transportation system.
2. All roadways along the primary travel route tofrom the development are constructed to
an adequate County standard, including paved 12 foot travel lanes.
3. All study intersections will operate well with agency mobility standards/targets in the
plan year and no intersection mitigation is necessary.
4. The proposed site access is in the same location as the existing access and forms the
west intersection leg. There is no horizontal or vertical roadway curvature limiting sight
distance, nor is there any obstructing vegetation. As such, there is adequate sight distance
at the proposed access location.
S. There are no recorded crashes at any of the study intersections or the roadway segments
during the study period. As such, the roadway and intersections are considered relatively
safe, and no further evaluation of safety deficiencies is necessary.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 69 of 74
6. Additional transportation analysis is not necessary to address Deschutes County Code
Transportation Planning Rule criteria outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule 660 012-
0060.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic study from
Clemow Associates, LLC, the Hearings Officer finds compliance with the Transportation Planning
Rule has been effectively demonstrated. Based on the TIA, the Hearings Officer finds that the
proposed plan amendment and zone change will be consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area.
The Hearings Officer notes that, despite the transportation information provided by the Applicant
and via agency comment, public comments received by the County indicate concerns with
potential traffic impacts as a result of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. The
Hearings Officer finds that no development application is before me at this time. At the time of
any land use application(s) for the subject property, analysis and review of transportation and
traffic impacts of any proposed development will be required.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are addressed as follows in the Applicant's burden of proof-
, P .1 1•
Goal 1, Citizen involvement. Deschutes County wue proviae notice of cne 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 act 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 so Goal 3 does not apply.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. The existing site and surrounding areas do not include any lands
that are suited for forestry operations. Goal 4 says that forest lands "are those lands
acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of adoption of this goal amendment. " The
subject property does not include lands acknowledged as forest lands as of the date of
adoption of Goal 4. Goal 4 also says that " [w/here **a plan amendment involving forest
lands is proposed, forest land shall include lands which are suitable for commercial forest
uses including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 70 of 74
on practices and other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife
resources. " This plan amendment does not involve any forest land. The subject property
does not contain any merchantable timber and is not located in a forested part of Deschutes
County.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The subject
property does not contain any inventoried Goal S resources.
Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not
cause a measurable impact on Goal 6 resources. Approval will make it more likely that the
irrigation and pond water rights associated with the property will ultimately be returned
to the Deschutes River or used to irrigate productive farm ground found elsewhere in
Deschutes County.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. This goal is not applicable
because the subject property is not located in an area that is recognized by the
comprehensive plan as a known natural disaster or hazard area.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because the property is not
planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County residents and does not directly
impact areas that meet Goal 8 needs.
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 aaversety impact economic activities oJ ane state or
local 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.
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. Utility
service providers have confirmed that they have the capacity to serve the maximum level
of residential development allowed by the RR-10 zoning district.
Goal 12, Transportation. This 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 in a part of the community that contains a
large amount of rural residential development. Providing homes in this location as
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 71 of 74
opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to travel
to work, shopping and other essential services.
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 RR-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, Willamette Greenway. This goal does not apply because the subject property is
not located in the Willamette Greenway.
Goals 16 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 Lana. The property
is not comprised of Forest Lands. Therefore, Goal 4 is inapplicable.
With respect to Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces), the
Hearings Officer finds that the Subject Property does not include any inventoried Goal 5 resources.
While the Subject 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) 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. Protections for wildlife must be sanctioned
by the County's Goal 5 ESEEs and WA or similar wildlife overlay zoning. The Hearings Officer
finds there are no wildlife protections applicable to these applications.
The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality)
because there is no measurable impact of approval of the application to rezone the subject property
from EFU to RR-10. Future development activities will be subject to local, state and federal
regulations that protect these resources.
With respect to Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), the Hearings Officer
finds consistency with this Goal based on the fact that rezoning the subject property to RR-10 does
not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation that is applicable to the entirety of Deschutes
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 72 of 74
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 subject property is located in Redmond Fire and Rescue jurisdiction. The
Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the properties to RR 10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard
Area designation. Any future development of the properties will be required to demonstrate
compliance with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County.
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.
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 and approval of the application
will not adversely impact economic activities of the state or area.
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 it from EFU to RR-10 will enable consideration of the property for potential rural housing
development in the future.
The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 11 (Public Facilities and
Services). The record establishes that utility service providers have capacity to serve the subject
property if developed at the maximum level of residential development allowed by the AR-1 o
zoning district. 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.
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 RR-10 zone does not include urban uses as permitted outright or conditionally.
The RR-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 RR-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.
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 73 of 74
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 Rural Residential
(RR-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 and Recommendation of the Deschutes County Hearings
Officer.
Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2022
Mailed this 2nd day of June, 2022
247-21-001043-PA/1044-ZC Page 74 of 74
u u u u u u
N N N N N N
V d' Vim' 0 CD
O O O O 0 O
D- mD_
ddmmm O.. O_ D_ 0.
m m
m m m m
0 0 0
0 0
0
.H -1
-1 1-1 �H IH
0 0
0 0 0 0
N N
N N N N
u N N
N N N N
c c
C
C
c C
O O
O
O
O O
U U
V
U
U U
N
T O O
O
O
O O
Y m m
2
2
2=
ci
O O
m r, m N
w
00 O r, � O m
Q 3 0 00 c 0
N O v v O T
U Ln co in to m Q
O
O
m c
� J
Y
N
7 m
(3)
O
N Ql
O_ to
N
T
o
3 bA
4J >
c (O
i m
Ln Ln
>
m M
N ay
t-i 14
LPI z
xxZ
"6 OL'V ID
-6 V'
m m M
O O N Ln
m N
n. 0- N m
v-
O
v
L
u
u
c
u
J
J
v
N
.y
V-
0 J Q
J O
O v
c c 2 u U
v c co o_ c w c
C N U. - ry
Y O 0
N
0 t, LU V m
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer recommends approval of the land use application(s)
described below:
FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC
LOCATION: Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000100
Account: 163920
Situs Address: 10315 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR 97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000200
Account: 250543
Situs Address: 10325 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR 97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412280000300
Account: 124845
Situs Address: 10311 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR 97756
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 141228D000101
Account: 273062
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000300
Account: 276793
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000400
Account: 276794
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
1;1)(541) 388-6575 @ cddgdeschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000500
Account: 276791
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000600
Account: 124846
Situs Address: 70000 BUCKHORN RD, TERREBONNE, OR 97760
Mailing Name: EDEN CENTRAL PROPERTIES LLC
Map and Taxlot: 1412210000700
Account: 276792
Situs Address: **NO SITUS ADDRESS**
APPLICANT: 710 Properties, LLC
PO Box 1345
Sisters, OR 97759
ATTORNEY(S) FOR
APPLICANT: Liz Fancher
2464 NW Sacagawea Lane
Bend, Oregon 97703
J. Kenneth Katzaroff
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the subject property from Agricultural
(AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also
requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the subject property
from Exclusive Farm Use - Terrebonne subzone (EFU-TE) to Rural
Residential (RR-10).
STAFF CONTACT: Haleigh King, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-383-6710
Email: Haleigh.King@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC Page 2 of 3
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-21-001043-pa-and-247-21-
001044-zc-eden-central-properties-comprehensive-pl-plan-amend ment
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against
criteria contained in Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.60, 18.113, 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.
DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the applications meet applicable criteria, and
recommends approval of the applications.
As a procedural note, the hearing on April 19, 202Z 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.
Copies of the recommendation, 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.
Attachment: Location Map
247-21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC Page 3 of 3
Uk
x
�yw
x
r�,
o�oeooesaooao�o<00000as"s$000�o aassoo
daadadddadaadddaaaaaaddaaaddada9.9.9. aadaddaddaaaadaaaadaadaaddaaaaaddadd
oSBo oBooSo .So ogSoo
�00000800000momo.So$$$$SBo08oSSo SSo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
z o O z z o o O z O z z o 0 0 o O z zoo z z o 0 0 o z z o z o z o 0 o z z z z o z z z o o z z z z o 0 o z z z z z o o O z z z 0z z 0z 0z o o z o 0
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
o
0
m o
o ^ m m m m m m m m m °n' °n' m m^^ m m on'2 m m m o, o o g m m m - n n o n m o O o a o 0 0
Om �m 000000000000oo00moomOm�mmOmOmEmooOmm momommm�momP �mm mm
v o m 0 c 9 p 0<< O O O O O O O o 0 0 v'�i 0 9 O O O, O � 0 0 0 O� a O� C 0 0 a 0 o
O v ti a
E w 9 E 'a E E E E E E E E E a a E E E E -o E E a v E a E d E a? d E E' -o E ,�`� E v -
N m m d m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ,° a m m m m dam 1 m m m r m m
o z a m o
3 G o 3 3 0 o i y v Y _ o ° n =
V zzzz u w>'' c>>> _«° v o m s '�` m o V o c ry E o w o j vA3i v v .+ m Q_ a M c° v A
0000.00 z o 0 `° 3 0 0- z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z N z 3 z 3 K z 3 z� 3 z o" z z z a o z n g z m m z 3 3
dGGGGGGG�gC SG m mm mm
�wwwwwwwM�ww mwma�ma �� mmm mm��a$� ��m�a° m �� m 2900
> 6 �
S oo 0
o _
m o 0 w
z a z w > >
5 w N rz 0 a6 o wo 0 � o oao n o. w
zz w3�ee .a aEl
Efi a
S 0 w w o o z_ w z= _ w a c g LL¢ o 0 E
z o z
i E x
a m w 0 d 0 wi o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ a �- Q a a F> :E -_ E '- o c _ a o
0 0 o a z E a a a o a a o m a. Q 3 E _ ° v c ` o d 3 `v E N q O Y
> j O a p p o o c a O N - E d z z a¢ xp - - - i a u t� m = a i� o �- �' -
` u N u u o F E_ _ o - x n - - - d =
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 3 J m o 2 3 a x m d r Y �, , m w Y m o
\\\\\\\\k\
\\\\(\\\\)\\\)\§§\§§\\§4
§§E§§§§§§§§§§;;ama;7;§§4
}4;;5}§[
((§®§!!-0
\ ( \,
§ ( \)
Iz
_ (
\§&§((
[)\(\\:}\§[m0,
®2~[}*\)§§
;$\:/,yml:!!§`�E
\\\\\\\\))§)[(§(/\)([\)}
E S C0
G2�
o �
4
MEETING DATE: December 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance 2022-013, amending the Comprehensive Plan and
approving a zone change for property totaling approximately 710 acres to the
west of Terrebonne and north of Highway 126
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of second reading of Ordinance 2022-013.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
710 Properties, LLC has requested a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-
n n n n -��� L_.- . 4.-.4..I �...' ..1-.. I.. -71 r% .- +— *lam— r-1- n�f
VV 1 V43-f A, I V44-Ll.) 1 V( proper ty ota11;Ing appl oxl1 I lately i i V air e21 w LI is vve.x V i
Terrebonne and north of Highway 126.
The entirety of the record can be found on the project website at:
https://www deschutes orrg/cd/page/247-21-001043-pa-and-247-21-001044-zc-eden-
centra properties -comprehensive -plan -amendment
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Haleigh King, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Haleigh King, Associate Planner
DATE: December 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance 2022-013- Eden Properties Plan
Amendment and Zone Change
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a second reading of Ordinance 2022-013
on December 14, 2022 to approve a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-
21-001043-PA, 1044-ZC) for nine tax lots totaling approximately 710 acres to the west of Terrebonne
and north of Highway 126.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant, 710 Properties, LLC/Eden Central Properties, LLC, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re -designate the subject properties from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception
Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural
Residential - 10 Acre Minimum (RR-10). The applicant argues the properties were mistakenly
identified as farmland, do not contain high -value soils or other characteristics of high value farmland,
and therefore should be re -designated and rezoned for rural residential use. The applicant provided
a supplementary soil study that identifies non -high value (Class Vll and VIII) soils on a majority (-71 %)
of the subject properties. Additionally, the applicant's burden of proof includes findings that
demonstrate compliance with state and local requirements and policies.
A public hearing before a Hearings Officer was conducted on April 19, 2022 with the Hearings Officer's
recommendation of approval issued on June 2, 2022. The Board held a public hearing on August 17,
2022 and initiated a 21-day open record period, which concluded September 7, 2022 at 4:OOpm. On
September 28, 2022, the Board deliberated to approve the requests, with two of the three
Commissioners in favor. The Board conducted the first reading of Ordinance 2022-013 on November
21, 2022 by title only.
II. SECOND READING
The Board is scheduled to conduct the second reading of Ordinance 2022-013 on December 14, 2022,
twenty-three (23) days following the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2022-013 and Exhibits
Exhibit A: Legal Descriptions
Exhibit B: Proposed Plan Amendment Map
Exhibit C: Proposed Zone Change Map
Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction
Exhibit E: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History
Exhibit F: Board of County Commissioners Decision
Exhibit G: Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 2 of 2