2023-142-Minutes for Meeting May 03,2023 Recorded 5/11/2023vlES
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County
Steve Dennison, County Clerk CJ2023-142
Commissioners' Journal 05/11/2023 1:11:07 PM
\>JZ E S
I oar
IIIIIIIII1IIImimmuuiu
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
1:00 PM
Allen Room
MONDAY April 3, 2023 Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang (via Zoom). Also present were
Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Whitney Hale, Deputy County Administrator; Kim Riley,
Assistant County Counsel; and Brenda Fritsvold, BOCC Executive Assistant.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Toby Bayard objected that the public cannot speak to items listed on the Board's
current meeting agenda and asked how to share her input with the Commissioners.
Commissioner DeBone said the Commissioners serve full-time and are available to
speak to members of the public outside of the Board's work meetings on any topic.
Commissioner Adair added that the public hearing on the item referenced by Ms.
Bayard is this Wednesday.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Work Session: Preparation for Public Hearing for a Plan Amendment and
Zone Change to approximately 93 acres located east of Bend between Neff
Road and Highway 20
BOCC MEETING
APRIL 3, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 5
Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner, described the request for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and associated rezone for approximately 93 acres between
Neff Road and Highway 20 east of Bend. The applicant seeks a Comprehensive
Plan designation change from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area,
and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use
Agricultural. Miller reviewed comments received at the public hearing held
before the Hearings Officer on November 15, 2022, after which the Hearings
Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed Plan amendment
and Zone change.
The Board was in consensus to allow the applicant ten minutes to speak and
other persons three minutes.
Commissioner Chang inquired about water rights and whether these properties
have any history of farming or other agricultural use. Miller confirmed that no
water rights exist and no information in the record indicates past farming.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Miller said all of the previous comments
submitted are available on the application's webpage. Deputy County
Administrator Erik Kropp asked that the written comments from Toby Bayard
also be included in the record.
2. Work Session on 4 Peaks Music Festival 2024 Outdoor Mass Gathering
Permit
Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner, summarized that the applicant seeks a permit
for an outdoor mass gathering in June of 2024 for a music festival with up to
2,000 attendees on property approximately 150 acres in size. As part of its
application, the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to have
an ambulance on site —that waiver request is supported by the Bend Fire
Department. Vickers noted that no public comments have yet been received on
this request; the required public hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday.
Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp added that in previous years during
COVID, this event had fewer than 500 attendees and was permitted
administratively.
The Board indicated public hearing time limits as follows: 20 minutes for a
presentation from the applicant; three minutes for each person wanting to
comment; and five minutes for applicant rebuttal if needed.
Commissioner Chang asked about the history of the size of this event. Vickers
said she will include that information in her staff report on Wednesday.
BOCC MEETING APRIL 3, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 5
3. Use of Opioid Settlement Funds
Janice Garceau, Health Services Director, introduced the recommended use of
an estimated $6.7 million in opioid settlement funds which Deschutes County is
expected to receive over the next 17 years as part of the national settlement
agreements. Health Services proposes these funds be used in the following
ways: 1) to add capacity and expand existing efforts by implementing targeted
expert Opioid Use Disorder prevention services; 2) to increase coordination of
surveillance and overdose prevention and harm reduction efforts; and 3) to
sustain existing interventions.
Garceau reported the number of overdose deaths in Central Oregon, which
increased by 85% from 2018 to 2021, and on the number of emergency
department visits for opioid overdoses according to age group. She shared
current strategies to address these problems, including the distribution and use
of Naloxone, efforts to lower problem opioid prescriptions, and the County's
Stabilization Center which offers services to persons with substance use
disorders or who are experiencing mental health crises.
Garceau described focused strategies to discourage or prevent the misuse of
opioids, particularly by adolescents and youth up to age 24. Other strategies are
proposed to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms
such as suicide, and to connect persons needing treatment to services that help
them stabilize and improve their quality of life. Garceau relayed the work being
done in the region by other partners including Central Oregon Prevention and
Response and how these efforts coordinate with the County's relevant public
health and behavioral health programs.
Heather Kaisner, Public Health Director, said the close coordination with other
agencies and local partners to determine where overdoses are happening allows
the quick distribution of information via health alerts and media releases to
targeted areas when appropriate. Garceau added that as part of its harm
reduction efforts, Health Services is managing to reach people who do not
report overdoses to either the emergency department or law enforcement.
Cheryl Smallman, Health Services Business Officer, reviewed a proposed distribution
by fiscal year of the opioid settlement amounts estimated to be received by
Deschutes County from 2024 to 2039. The recommended expenditures will fund
indirect expenses along with certain direct expenses to include program supplies
and equipment, staff, and operations at the Stabilization Center.
BOCC MEETING
APRIL 3, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 5
Commissioner DeBone wanted to see input and involvement invited from those in
the public safety realm such as the DCSO, the District Attorney's Office and the
Public Safety Coordinating Council. He asked how the County can empower action in
addition to offering services.
Commissioner Adair inquired about the success rate of referrals to detoxification
treatment. Garceau confirmed that DCHS tracks the success of referrals to providers
who treat substance use disorders in terms of which persons make appointments
and keep them. Garceau added that no one can be forced into treatment, and
because many attempts at detox or withdrawal fail, repeated relapses are not
uncommon.
Commissioner Chang supported investing the settlement funds in approaches that
are proven to work. While he was open to other ideas and supportive of bringing
this subject to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, he said all options should be
viewed through an evidence -based Tens. He offered NaCO as a resource for analysis,
strategies and policy papers on the opioid crisis and related issues.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone said at the City of Bend's request, he and Sisters
Mayor Michael Preedin together signed a letter to the Joint Committee on
Ways and Means objecting to the proposal to not offer a public hearing in
Central Oregon as it considers the state budget.
• Commissioner Adair announced she will testify later today on HB 3052, which
would establish a state task force on elk and deer damage compensation.
• Commissioner Chang reported he was currently in Salem having discussions
about the drought package as well as on HB 3126 which would create child
psychiatric emergency service centers across the state.
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS:
At 2:42 p.m., the Board recessed into Executive Session regarding ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor
Negotiations. At 3:20 p.m., the Board came out of Executive Session to direct staff to
proceed as discussed.
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
DATED this / Day of ° "' 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
BOCC MEETING APRIL 3, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 5
as;
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
ATTEST:
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
imi\ot(,); tllot
RECORDING SECRETARY PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING
APRIL 3, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 5
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
1:00 PM, MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2023
Allen Room - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend
(541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Comments
and testimony regarding public hearings are allowed at the time of the public hearing. Alternatively,
comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or
leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting from a computer, copy and paste this link: bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and
*9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
AGENDA ITEMS
1. 1:05 PM Work Session: Preparation for Public Hearing for a Plan Amendment and
Zone Change to approximately 93 acres located east of Bend between Neff
Road and Highway 20
2. 1:20 PM Work Session on 4 Peaks Music Festival 2024 Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit
3. 1:45 PM Use of Opioid Settlement Funds
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
4. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations
ADJOURN
April 03, 2023
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2
April 3, 2023
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
Converting EFU-zoned land to IVIUA-10 zoned land is bad for our economy
Communities with affordable housing are better for everyone. The downstream effects of low -density
residential zoning are well documented. Increasingly, government policy makers favor zoning that
encourages high -density housing and discourages expensive sprawl. There's only so much land in
Deschutes County and we must use it wisely.
If Deschutes County continues rezoning EFU land into 10-acre RRR-10 or MUA-10 residential lots our
community will attract high -income home buyers who will soon discover they can't enjoy commensurate
services. Affordable housing in Ketchum —the Idaho resort community adjacent to the playground for the
wealthy —Sun Valley —has been a problem for decades. And those who can't afford housing prices and
rents aren't just service industry workers, but teachers, nurses, and other professionals. Further, these
lots will be forced to get their water from wells, further depleting the County's groundwater.
In the resort community of Ketchum, a retired doctor parked a trailer in
the heart of downtown. He covered it with a massive sign that
declared, "What The One Percenters Ignore: Affordable housing
has always been the lifeblood of a vibrant community. A town
dies when its most productive people cannot afford to live in it.
Worker housing now!" After he did that, resentment bubbled to the
surface. The doctor got lots of feedback, including that in the text box:
L.ow density housing development greatly impacts the provision of key
services that everyone wants/needs including the wealthy who buy 10
acre lots. The lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to attract / retain lower -paid "service workers",
(food service personnel, sales associates, home health workers, custodians, delivery drivers. etc. High -
cost housing is forcing health-care workers, teachers, legal assistants, and other professionals to leave
the area. We're seeing businesses cut their hours of operation. They're also forced to pay higher wages
and provide better benefits to keep their good employees
'What are you doing to get
things changed around here?
What are you doing besides
bemoaning the fact we don't
have affordable housing? Are
you going to council meetings
and writing letters to the editor
and haranguing the area's
elected politicians?'
We need to build complete communities not hobby farms
Who benefits when a single landowner of 90+ acres sub -divides his land into MUA-10 zoned parcels?
Obviously, the property owner. But shouldn't we also closely examine the downside of such rezoning?
Rezoning farmland on the edge of Bend's eastern UGB — converting it into high -end 10-acre lots —
benefits a tiny segment of this County's population. Shouldn't our elected leaders, both County and
City work together? Shouldn't the County help the city of Bend build complete communities
rather encouraging the development of high -end hobby farms on the edges of its UGB?
VVhen Bend expanded its UGB in 2016, it took multiple steps to coordinate with Deschutes County in
planning for this area's subsequent growth. Much of that growth will take place on the land that abuts
Bend's LJGB on its east and southeast sides. Refer to this link for more information about the history of
cooperation between the City of Bend and Deschutes County:
https://www. bend oregon.ov/home/showpubtisheddocument/31538/636355328482530000
Thanks in advance for considering our input. It's critical that Deschutes County and the City of Bend
cooperate so that this area is able to thrive commercially and in terms of appropriate housing choices.
Toby and Michel Bayard
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2023
SUBJECT: Work Session: Preparation for Public Hearing for a Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (file nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA).
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
None at this time; work session in preparation for a public hearing.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff will provide background for the Board of Commissioners to consider a request for a
Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA) for approximately
93 acres located east of Bend between Neff Road and Highway 20. The public hearing is
scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 2023.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None.
ATTENDANCE:
Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner
Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner
0
I" ES
COMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nathaniel Miller, AICP, Associate Planner
DATE: April 3, 2023
SUBJECT: Work Session for a Public Hearing - Plan Amendment and Zone Change (File nos.
247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA).
The Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will conduct a work session on April 3, 2023, in
preparation for the Public Hearing on April 5, 2023, to consider a request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (File nos. 247-22-000313-ZC, 314-PA). The subject properties are
located east of, and adjacent to, the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Tax Lot 1200 and Tax Lot
1201 contain a combined area of approximately 93 acres. The properties are addressed as 62385
Hamby Road and 21480 Highway 20. A location map is included as Attachment A. Staff requests
Board feedback regarding issue areas to be addressed in the hearing from the applicant or planning
staff. Furthermore, staff would like direction on whether the Board would like to set oral testimony
time limits for the applicant and/or members of the public providing testimony.
1. BACKGROUND
The applicant and property owners, Te Amo Despacio LLC and CTH Investments LLC, requests
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the subject
property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicant also
requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject
property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). The applicant asks
that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the subject property
does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. Further, the Applicant argues that no exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not agricultural land.
The applicant submitted a soil study, which was prepared by a certified soils scientist and soil
classifier. 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 soil study determined the subject property contains approximately 71 percent Land
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
'(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org s?g www.deschutes.org/cd
Capability Class 7 and 8 nonirrigated soils, which was primarily observed as shallow Gosney soils,
shallow Bakeoven soils, and rock outcroppings. According to the soil study, the subject property is
comprised of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Land'.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Three written comments were submitted in advance of the Hearing Officer hearing on November
15, 2022. One comment questioned the approvability of the application, one was in opposition, and
the other was in support of the proposal. No members of the public testified in opposition to, or in
support of, the applications during the hearing.
The comment questioning the approvability of the application stated concerns of the Burden of
Proof successfully meeting the applicable criteria. The comment did not include specific code
references and no further comment was received.
III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on November 15, 2022. The applicant's
legal representation provided testimony in the hearing.
On December 15, 2022, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed
Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION
As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C)
requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of
the Hearings Officer. The record is available for inspection at the following Zink:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000313-zc-247-22-000314-pa-te-amo-despacio-Ilc-cth-
investments-Ilc-properties
V. NEXT STEPS
Based on the feedback received from the Board at the work session, Staff will prepare for the
upcoming public hearing.
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Location Map
Surrounding Area Zoning Map
City of Bend Limits Map
Hearings Officer Recommendation
' The phrase 'agricultural soils' is defined in OAR 660-033-0020.
Page 2 of 2
File: 247-22-000313-ZC, 247-22-000314-PA
62385 Hamby Road, 21480 HWY 20
NE YELLO W RIBBON D
NERED 0AK R .
NE 6
NE CONNEi CAVE
BEND_.
'VICHITA WAY
o
0 idly t:Pl
DR
1.4
T"
NE ANGELS AVE
NE WAVERLY CT
NELANSINGCT
47
/VIE b TA TON AVE ,,{_BtiC ' rjIttl Cl
�.01 > "�
/.3R NE RALEIGH CT
NE ROYAL CT V:
NE 4 ANC4�,fi5/1t_R P
P rov id en ceFark
pl.
AVAMERE 1'
PL NE A CI D,wwDR
NE LOCKSI_EYDR
N DRUM Did
• NE P
s,SEDALIA 190P '°
•
E GRAND
WAY
KC
1tc_ BBELLEVU E DID w
NE HWY 2
Litchfiei i
Park Site
NE CORD
OCONNOR WAY
MEGAN CT
LIVINGSTON'fR q
z
0
Tax Lot
1200
Tax Lot
1201
Tax Lot
1200
HWY 2
BEAR CREEK, RD
A
0 625 1,250 2,500
ft
1 Inch = 1,505 feet
NEFF RD
❑
ce
eschutes County GIS, Sources:
Des Esri,IUSGS,NOAA
Date: 4/25/2022
Mailing Date:
Thursday, December 15, 2022
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: 247-22-000313-ZC, 247-22-000314-PA
HEARING DATE: November 15, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Te Amo Despacio, LLC and CTH Investments, LLC
SUBJECT PROPERTIES:
REQUEST:
HEARINGS OFFICER:
Map and Taxlot: 1712350001200
Account: 119020
Situs Address: 62385 HAMBY RD, BEND, OR 97701
Map and Taxlot: 1712350001201
Account: 119038
Situs Address: 21480 HWY 20, BEND, OR 97701
Applicants request approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the designation of the Subject Properties from
Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA).
Applicants also requests a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the
Subject Properties from Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/ Redmond/
Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicants have met
their burden of proof with respect to the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
and, therefore, recommends APPROVAL of the Application based on the Findings set forth in this
Recommendation.
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Page I 1
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. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. Nature of Proceeding
This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment ("Plan Amendment") to change the designation of the Subject Properties from Agricultural
(AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The Applicants also request approval of a
corresponding Zoning Map Amendment ("Zone Change") to change the zoning of the Subject Properties
from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA 10). The basis of the request in the
Application is the Applicants' assertion that the Subject Properties do not qualify as "agricultural land"
under the applicable provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes or Oregon Administrative Rules governing
agricultural land. Based on that assertion, the Applicants are not seeking an exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 3 for the Plan Amendment or Zone Change.
B. Notices and Hearing
The Application was filed on April 14, 2022. On April 27, 2022, the County issued a Notice of Application
to several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject Properties (together,
"Application Notice"). The Application Notice invited comments on the Application.
Following additional submittals by the Applicants, the County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing on
October 7, 2022 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests in the
Application. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, 1 presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on
November 15, 2022, opening the Hearing at 6:03 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with
Staff and a representative of the Applicants in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely.
On October 7, 2022, the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Staff') issued a report setting forth the
applicable criteria and presenting the evidence in the record at that time ("Staff Report").1
' The Staff Report is styled "Findings and Decision". During the Hearing, it was acknowledged that the Staff Report was not
a decision and, rather, was Staff's summary of the record as applied to the criteria.
Page 12
At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and instructed
participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant
wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare.
I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation
as the Hearings Officer.
No participant requested that the record remain open. The Hearing concluded at approximately 6:36 p.m.
At that time, I closed the Hearing and the record, and I took this matter under advisement.
C. 150-day Clock
Because the Application includes a request for the Plan Amendment, the 150-day review period set forth
in ORS 215.427(1) is not applicable. The Staff Report also notes that the 150-day review period is not
applicable by virtue of Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") 22.20.040(D). No participant to the
proceeding disputed that conclusion.
III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Adoption of Factual Findings in Staff Report
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive summary of evidence in the record as it relates to each of the
applicable criteria. The Staff Report, although it expresses agreement with the Applicants in many places,
does not make a final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report asks the Hearings Officer to determine
if the Applicants have met the burden of proof necessary to justify the Plan Amendment and the Zone
Change. That being said, no participant challenged the specific evidence or findings presented in the Staff
Report. As a result, I hereby adopt as fact the evidentiary findings in the Staff Report as my evidentiary
findings. To the extent any of the findings in this Recommendation conflict with the findings in the Staff
Report, my intent is to have these findings control. The remainder of this Recommendation sets forth the
legal criteria and adopts legal findings based on those factual findings.
B. Legal Findings
The legal criteria applicable to the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change were set forth in the
Application Notice and also appear in the Staff Report. No participant to this proceeding asserted that
those criteria do not apply, or that other criteria are applicable. This Recommendation therefore addresses
each of those criteria, as set forth below.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
2 ORS 215.427(7).
Page 1 3
1. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative
map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-
judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the
Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicants are the owners of the Subject Properties and have requested a quasi-judicial
Plan Amendment and filed applications for that purpose, together with the request for a Zone Change. No
participant to this proceeding objects to this process. It is therefore appropriate to review the Application
using the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
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: According to the Applicants, the County applies this Code provision by considering whether:
(1) the Zone Change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the change is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's introduction statement and goals.
With respect to the first factor, the Applicants note that they are also seeking a Plan Amendment, which
will change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Subject Properties from Agriculture to Rural
Residential Exception Area. If that Plan Amendment is approved, which is addressed in more detail below,
the proposed change from the EFU-TRB zone to the MUA-10 zone will be consistent with the new
Comprehensive Plan designation. No participant to this proceeding disputes that conclusion.
With respect to the second factor, the Applicants note that introductory statements and goals in the
Comprehensive Plan are not approval criteria, and no participant to this proceeding asserts otherwise.
Instead, the Applicants identify several Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and analyzes whether the
Application is consistent with those policies and goals. Those policies and goals are set forth in more
detail below, and the findings in that section are adopted here in full by this reference.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
/ / /
/ / /
Page ( 4
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: Only the Applicants and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to the purpose of
the MUA-10 zone. The purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district is stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows:
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the
rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development
consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources
of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-
time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to
conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect
natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the
air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly
and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
According to the Applicants, the Subject Properties are not suited to full-time commercial farming. The
MUA-10 zone will instead allow the owners to engage in hobby farming, and the low -density of
development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic
resources. As a result, the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from city, to rural, to EFU
zoning. The Staff Report agrees that the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the MUA10 Zone, and no participant to this proceeding disputes that conclusion.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
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: As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently
serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicants and the Staff Report provided the following as
support for why this criterion is met:
• Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject Properties.
• Transportation access to the Subject Properties is available, and the impact of increased traffic on
the transportation system is negligible.
• The Subject Properties receive police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire service
from Rural Fire Protection District # 2, which has a fire station adjacent to the northeast comer of
the Subject Properties.
• There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public
health, safety, or welfare.
Page 15
• The close proximity of the Subject Properties to urban development will allow for efficient service
provision.
• Prior to development of the properties, the Applicants would be required to comply with the
applicable requirements of the Code, including possible land use permit, building permit, and
sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes, assurance of
adequate public services and facilities will be verified.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and
policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: Only the Applicants and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to this criterion.
Specifically, the Applicants noted the following:
The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the
comprehensive plan discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning is the same as
the zoning of many other properties in the area north and south of the subject
property. In addition, the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone
from City, to rural zoning, to EFU zoning. The zone change will not impose
new impacts on the EFU- zoned land to the east of the subject property
because those properties are not engaged in commercial farm use, are idle,
are small parcels, and most are developed with dwellings. The three EFU-
zoned parcels to the east which are currently receiving farm tax deferral will
not suffer new impacts from the proposed zone change because they are
hobby farms, are already developed with dwellings, and are not engaged in
commercial farm use. As discussed below, the subject property is not
agricultural land, is comprised of predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils, and as
described by the soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, the subject property is
impractical to farm due to the cut up landscape. It is not land that could be
used in conjunction with the adjacent property and any future development
of the subject property would be subject to building setbacks.
The Staff Report agrees that the Applicants have demonstrated the impacts on surrounding land use will
be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
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: Only the Applicants offer any evidence or argument with respect to this criterion. According
to the Applicants, a mistake in zoning was made and the EFU zoning designation on the Subject Properties
Page 16
was likely based on the best soils data that was available to the County at the time it was originally zoned,
during the late 1970's, when the Comprehensive Plan and Map were first adopted. The EFU designation
was applied even though there was no history of farming on the Subject Properties. The Applicants also
assert that there has been a change in circumstances since that time. Specifically, the Applicants note that
there are new data regarding soils on the Subject Properties and that the updated soils report shows the
Subject Properties do not have agricultural soils. The Applicants also assert that the economics of farming
and the viability of commercial farm uses in Deschutes County have significantly changed, and farming
for a profit has become increasingly difficult, particularly on parcels that are relatively small for livestock
grazing and that have inadequate soils or irrigation for raising crops such as the Subject Properties.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this
Code provision is satisfied.
2. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan relates to Resource Management. Section 2.2 of that Chapter relates
specifically to Agricultural Lands. The Applicants and Staff have identified the following goals and
policies as relevant to the Application.
Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
FINDING: According to the Applicants, they are pursuing the Plan Amendment and Zone Change
because the Subject Properties do not constitute "agricultural lands", and therefore, it is not necessary to
preserve or maintain the Subject Properties as such. In support of that conclusion, the Applicants rely on
a soils report showing the Subject Properties consist predominantly (73%) of Class 7 and 8 non-
agricultural soils. Such soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility,
shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops, low available water capacity, and major
management limitations for livestock grazing.
The Staff Report notes the Subject Properties have no history of agricultural use and lack water rights.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
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 Applicants have not asked to amend the subzone that applies to the Subject Properties.
Instead, the Applicants requested a change under Policy 2.2.3 and have provided evidence to support
rezoning the subject properties as MUA-10.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 17
Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that
qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon
Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The Applicants request approval of the Plan Amendment and Zone Change to re -designate
the Subject Properties from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and rezone the Subject
Properties from EFU to MUA-10. The Applicants do not seek an exception to Goal 3 for that purpose, but
rather seek to demonstrate that the Subject Properties do not meet the state definition of "Agricultural
Land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020).
In support of this approach, the Applicants rely in part on the Land Use Board of Appeals' decision in
Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states as follows:
As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820
(1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow
nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or
forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and
Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate
the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under
the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it
must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning
designation, neither Goal 3 or Goal 4 applies to the property.
The Applicants assert that the facts presented in the Application are sufficiently similar to those in the
Wetherall decision and in other Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications.
The Staff Report agrees and concludes the Applicants have the potential to prove the Subject Properties
are not agricultural land and do not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
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: The Applicants assert this plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop
new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations and that the
Application is consistent with this policy. The Staff Report also concludes the proposal is consistent with
this policy.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 18
Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local
and emerging agricultural conditions and markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
FINDING: The Applicants assert that this Comprehensive Plan policy requires the County to identify and
retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The Applicants propose that the Subject Properties
were not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study in the record.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
* * *
Section 2.5 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Water Resource Policies. The
Applicants and Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the
Application.
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 Applicants and Staff assert that the Applicants are not required to address water impacts
associated with development because they have not proposed a specific development application at this
time. Instead, the Applicants will be required to address this criterion during development of the Subject
Properties, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
***
Section 2.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 relates specifically to Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites.
The Applicants and Staff have identified the following goal and policies in that section as relevant to the
Application.
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.
Page 19
Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
FINDING: The Applicants assert 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. Because there is no LM combining zone applicable to the
Subject Properties, the Subject Properties are not identified as a Goal 5 resource, and no new development
is proposed, the Applicants argue there is no applicable regulation that requires the Subject Properties to
be protected as open space or for scenic views.
The Staff Report notes that the Subject Properties are within the Landscape Management Combining Zone
for Highway 20, which is designated as landscape management feature by the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Staff Report finds that any future development within the LM Zone will be reviewed for
compliance at that time.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
* * *
Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan relates to Rural Growth. Within that chapter, Section 3.2 relates
specifically to Rural Development. The Applicants and Staff have identified the following language in
that section as relevant to the Application.
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
FINDING: According to the Applicants, this portion of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates the need for
additional rural residential lots as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to
rezone farm lands with poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While the Applicants do not
seek the creation of new residential lots in the Application, they assert the Subject Properties can
ultimately support that goal, as they will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from the Bend
Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural lands. The Applicants also assert the Subject Properties,
as rezoned, will link the pocket of MUA-10 zoned land to the north with the MUA-10 zoned land to the
south, furthering the creation a buffer of MUA-10 zoned land along the City's eastern boundary where
the quality of soils are poor and the land is not conducive for commercial agriculture.
Page 110
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
* * *
Section 3.3 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 relates specifically to Rural Housing. The Applicants and
Staff have identified the following language in that section as relevant to the Application.
Rural Residential Exception Areas
In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated .for farms, forests or other resources and
protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land
not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential
Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these
lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands
were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted.
In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception
Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural
Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through 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: According to the Applicants, prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3
is not a plan policy or directive. Further, the Applicants state that no Exception to Statewide Planning
Goal 3 is required for the rezone application because the Subject Properties do not qualify as farm or forest
zoning or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. The Applicants believe the County has
interpreted the Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) plan designation as the proper "catchall"
designation for non -resource land and, therefore, the RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan
designation to apply to the Subject Properties.
The Staff Report agrees that this Comprehensive Plan language is not a policy and does not require an
Exception to Goal 3. The Staff Report also agrees the proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate
plan designation to apply to the Subject Properties.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
* * *
Section 3.7 of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 relates specifically to Transportation. The Applicants and
Staff have identified the following goal and policy in that section as relevant to the Application.
Page 111
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: The Applicants and the Staff Report asserts this policy advises the County to consider the
roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone
changes. Compliance with OAR 660-012, also known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), is
described below in subsequent findings, and the Applicants and Staff assert that such compliance is
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with these transportation goals and policies.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Oregon Administrative Rules
The Applicants and the Staff Report identify several administrative rules as potentially applicable to the
Application. No other participant in this proceeding identified other applicable rules.'
OAR 660-006-0005
(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 Applicants and the Staff Report assert that the Subject Properties do not appear to qualify
as forest land and, therefore, the administrative rules relating to forest land are not applicable. The Subject
Properties are not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the Subject Properties within a 4-mile radius of
forest lands. The Subject Properties do not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in
the record that the Subject Properties have been employed for forestry uses historically.
3 Some administrative rules the Applicants address, or which appear in the Staff Report, have been omitted from this
Recommendation where the rule does not expressly impose an approval criterion.
Page 112
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with these administrative rules.
OAR 660-033-0020
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 1-VI soils in Eastern
Oregon;
FINDING: The Applicants' proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change is premised on its assertion
that Subject Properties are not defined as "Agricultural Land." The Applicants specifically argue that the
Subject Properties are not properly classified as Agricultural Land and therefore do not merit protection
under Goal 3. As noted in earlier findings, the soils are predominately Class 7 and 8 soils that have severe
limitations for farm use.
The Staff Report agrees with the Applicants' representation of the soil data for the Subject Properties and
that the Subject Properties do not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-
0020(1)(a)(A).
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Subject Properties should not be considered agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
(B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS
215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing;
climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation
purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required;
and accepted farming practices; and
FINDING: According to the Applicants, this part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the
County to consider whether the Class 7 and 8 soils found on the Subject Properties are suitable for farm
use despite their Class 7 and 8 soil classification. The Applicants rely on a decision by the Oregon Supreme
Court that determined 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.4
Applying that definition, the Applicants describe various limitations on the ability of the Subject
Properties to support farm uses, including, among other factors, a lack of water rights and low soil fertility.
4 Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007).
Page ( 13
The Staff Report agrees with the Applicants that many factors — such as the current residential land uses
in the area, soil fertility, and amount of irrigation required — result in a relatively low possibility of farming
on the Subject Properties.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Subject Properties should not be considered agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
(C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby agricultural lands.
FINDING: According to the Applicants, the Subject Properties are not land necessary to permit farm
practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The nearest properties to the Subject Properties
that are agriculturally zoned and engaged in farm use are located across Hamby Road to the east on tax
lots 17-12-35-1300, 17-12-35-1301, and 17-12-35-1403, and an MUA-10 zoned parcel planned for
urbanization and upon which ODOT is currently constructing a highway roundabout is located in between
the Subject Properties and these EFU parcels. The Applicants analyzed those properties and concluded
the Subject Properties are not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on those properties.
The Staff Report concurs with the Applicants' analysis and finds no feasible way that the Subject
Properties are necessary for the purposes of permitting farm practices on any nearby parcels.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Subject Properties should not be considered agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
(1)(b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with
lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as
agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed;
FINDING: According to the Applicants, the Subject Properties are not part of a farm unit that includes
other lands not currently owned by the Applicants. The Subject Properties have no history of farm use and
contain soils that make them unsuitable for farm use. Therefore, there is no basis to inventory the Subject
Properties as agricultural land.
The record indicates the Subject Properties contain land in capability classes other than I -VI that is
adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I -VI.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Subject Properties should not be considered agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Page 114
OAR 660-033-0030
(1)
All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as
agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or
parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However,
whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere
identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of
agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the
consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a
lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3
nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit
farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands ". A determination that a lot
or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that
addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
FINDING: As noted above, this Recommendation finds that the Subject Properties do not qualify as
agricultural land as defined by administrative rule, and they are not suitable for farming. Based on the
foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the administrative
rules do not require the Subject Properties to be inventoried as agricultural land.
(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 concluded in other findings above, the Subject Properties are not suitable for farm use and
are not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The ownership
of the Subject Properties is therefore not being used as a factor to determine whether the Subject Properties
are agricultural land.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this part of the administrative rules.
(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.
(5)(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
Page 115
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 Applicants have elected to provide a more detailed agricultural soil assessment,
conducted by Andy Gallagher, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist approved by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development. No participant to this proceeding disputes the information provided in
that report or otherwise objects to the use of the date in that report. Based on the undisputed facts in that
report, the Subject Properties do not qualify as "agricultural land."
(c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to:
(A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest
use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the
basis that such land is not agricultural land; and
FINDING: I find that this administrative rule does not establish a particular standard and simply confirms
when this section of the administrative rules applies.
(d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1,
2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section
(9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described
in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils
assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011.
FINDING: The Applicants submitted a soil study dated March 15, 2022. The soils study was submitted
following the ORS 215.211 effective date. The Staff Report notes that Staff received acknowledgement
from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the DLCD, on May 5, 2022, that the soil study is complete
and consistent with DLCD's reporting requirements. The Staff Report therefore finds this criterion to be
met based on the submitted soil study, and confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application is consistent with this part of the administrative rules.
OAR 660-012-0060
(1)
Page 116
If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided
in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of
this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection
based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified
in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic
projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the
amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation
demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
such that it would not meet the 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: This administrative rule is applicable to the Plan Amendment and the Zone Change because
they involve an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The Applicants assert that the zone
change will not result in a significant effect to the transportation system. In support of that assertion, the
Applicants submitted a transportation impact analysis memorandum dated March 22, 2022, prepared by
traffic engineer, Joe Bessman, PE, which is later supplemented. No participant to this proceeding disputed
the information in the impact analysis or otherwise objected to the use of that information.
The County Transportation Planner agreed with the report's conclusions, as supplemented. As a result,
the Staff Report finds that the 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
Staff Report also concluded the proposed zone change will not change the functional classification of any
existing or planned transportation facilities or change the standards implementing a functional
classification system.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that the
Application satisfies this administrative rule.
Page 117
Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Division 15 of OAR chapter 660 sets forth the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, with which all
comprehensive plan amendments must demonstrate compliance. The Applicants assert the Application is
consistent with all applicable Goals and Guidelines, which no participant to this proceeding disputes. In
light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any counter evidence or argument, I adopt the Applicants'
position and find that the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the applicable Goals and
Guidelines as follows:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the
public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the Applicants to post
a "proposed land use action sign" on the Subject Properties. Notice of the Hearings held regarding
this application was placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held
to consider the Application.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are
included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes
County Code. The outcome of the Application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions
of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2.
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The Applicants have shown that the Subject Properties are not
agricultural land because they consists predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils that are not suitable
for farm use.
Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the Subject Properties do not include any
lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Deschutes County
DIAL property information and Interactive Map show the Subject Properties have "wetlands" that
correspond with Central Oregon Irrigation District's irrigation distribution system within the
Subject Properties. According to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 2, Resource Management and
5, Supplemental Sections), in 1992 Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands
identified on the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps as the
Deschutes County wetland inventory. In addition, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, the
NWI Map "shows an inventory of wetlands based on high -altitude aerial photos and limited field
work. While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes, its
small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent (existing wetlands
not shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -
based decision making."
The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands; protections are provided by
ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning code
regulations). In the case of irrigation district performing work within wetlands, DCC
18.120.050(C) regarding fill and removal exceptions allows fill and removal activities as a use
permitted outright.
Page 118
Because the Plan Amendment and Zone Change are not development, there is no impact to any
Goal 5 resource. Any potential future development of a wetland — no matter what zone the wetland
is in — will be subject to review by the County's fill and removal regulations.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this Application will not
impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of
the Subject Properties will be subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulations that protect
these resources.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County
DIAL property information and Interactive Map, the entirety of Deschutes County, including the
Subject Properties, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The Subject Properties are also located
in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the
Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the Subject Properties would need
to demonstrate compliance with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes
County.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and
the Subject Properties are not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County.
Therefore, the proposed rezone will not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County.
Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal is not applicable because the Subject Properties are not
designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application
will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm
properties with poor soils, like the Subject Properties, 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 Properties. Pacific Power
has confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the Subject Properties and the proposal will not
result in the extension of urban services to rural areas.
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 Properties are located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend.
If the Subject Properties are developed with residential dwellings in the future, providing homes
Page ( 19
in this location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents
to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend.
Goal 14, Urbanization. This goal is not applicable because the Applicants' proposal does not
involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural
land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the
intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14
was recently acknowledged when the County amended its Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be
applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon.
III. OTHER COMMENTS IN THE RECORD
Although only the Applicants and Staff participated in the Hearing, Staff did receive some comments on
the Application in response to the Application Notice. The Record contains public comments concerning
potential loss of farmland, impacts to wildlife, and potential for increased housing density. I find that each
of these comments is generic in nature, and none address specific criteria applicable to the request for the
Plan Amendment or Zone Change. The existence of those comments in the record, therefore, does not
affect the factual findings in the Staff Report or the findings in this Recommendation.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicants have met their burden of proof with respect to the
standards for approving the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change. I therefore recommend to the
County Board of Commissioners that the Application be APPROVED.
Dated this 12th day of December 2022
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Page 120
a a
a
M M
N
22-313-ZC, 22-314-PA
a) CC CC CC
Q- O O O
..a, 2 2 2
1)
a)
-23
CO
agent inCareOf
2464 SW Glacier PL. #110
Te Amo Despacio LLC
Beaverton, OR 97003
14787 SW Millikan Way
CTH Investments LLC
Tia M. Lewi
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2023
SUBJECT: Work Session on 4 Peaks Music Festival 2024 Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of an Outdoor Mass Gathering permit to allow a multi -day
music festival in June of 2024. The event includes overnight camping, parking, and food and
drink for an estimated 2,000 people. The property is approximately 150 acres in size and
developed with a single-family dwelling and multiple accessory structures. The surrounding
area consists of small scale farm and residential uses.
Proposed location of the festival is at 21085 Knott Road. Staff notes that the festival received
approval from 2016 through 2019 at the same location with similar proposals, and before
2016 at a property near Tumalo. Set up is scheduled to begin June 15, 2024 and tear down
will be fully completed by June 24, 2024. The event will take place June 20, 2024 through June
23, 2024. At this time the proposal has been approved by the Environmental Health Division,
Bend Fire Department, County Health Department, and the Deschutes County Sheriff's
Office.
The subject property has been divided into specific areas for the music festival. The main
activity area is on the central portion of the subject property, which contains the stages,
vendors, restrooms, water, first aid, trash and recycling collection, and basic operational
aspects of the festival. The entrance to the festival is located on the northeast corner which
includes the general admission vehicle lanes, ticket will call, day -use parking, and an area for
authorized personnel. Other areas surrounding the main event to the south and southeast
are designated as car and RV camping. The design layout includes separate vehicle and
pedestrian access aisles and an emergency access road.
The applicant has addressed in their proposal the requirements involving insurance, sanitary
facilities, water supply, fire protection, medical services, public safety and enforcement,
parking facilities, alcohol and dangerous drugs, and hours of operation.
A public hearing for this application is scheduled for this Wednesday April 5`h. While DCC
8.16.180 only requires a 10 day notice to other County Departments, Notice of Public Hearing
was sent to County Departments and surrounding property owners on March 17, 2024 and
published in the Bulletin on March 19, 2024. At this time, staff has not received any
comments regarding the proposed application.
OUTDOOR MASS GATHERING REQUIREMENTS/CRITERIA:
Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 8.16 provides approval criteria for an Outdoor Mass
Gathering permit. The applicant has satisfied the requirements addressed in Section
8.16.160, including obtaining signatures on the application form from the following agencies:
• Bend Fire Department
• Deschutes County Health Department
• Deschutes County Environmental Health Division
• Deschutes County Sheriff
Staff believes the proposed outdoor mass gathering permit request can comply with the
applicable standards and criteria outlined in Chapter 8.16 below if conditions of approval are
met. Conditions will be noted in the Staff Report for the public hearing.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement to maintain an ambulance on -
site during the festival. However, no waiver is sought for the first aid station and the
applicant indicates it will comply with County Code. The applicant has provided a Medical
Service Plan, which includes the use of Steven Foster Wexler LAC, an event medical service.
The Board may waive permit requirements, in this case ambulance service, upon showing
good cause by the event organizer (see DCC 8.16.150(B)). Furthermore, if the Board
determines no County law enforcement or other services are necessary and no significant
public health, safety, or welfare issues are involved, the Board may waive that requirement
as well. The Board waived the permit requirement for on -site ambulance service for the
last six outdoor mass gathering permits for this festival when it was at the Tumalo and
Bend location. For reference, the closest fire station, Bend Fire Station #303, located at
61080 Country Club Drive, is approximately two (2) miles from the event site.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
Land Use File 247-22-000675-OMG
21085 KNOTT RD, BEND, OR 97702
N Aberry
hf
M oM 041 Li
lGr, ; grilitierrilGjerig.744?a.3,aaµJ tk,saittinri.%µ.
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 3, 2023
SUBJECT: Use of Opioid Settlement Funds
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of the recommended use of Opioid settlement funds over the next 17
years.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The state of Oregon is participating in a national opioid lawsuit against manufacturers. In
2021, nationwide settlements resolved all opioid suits brought by states and local political
subdivisions, awarding $26 billion for distribution over 18 years. The settlement amount
Deschutes County would receive is estimated at $6.7 million over that time.
Since 2000 there have been over 500,000 USA opioid related deaths in the US, ranking
highest in those aged 24-35. The opioid crisis resulted in lost wages and other health
impacts and costs for individuals, families and communities. Litigants claimed the industry
"grossly misrepresented the risks of Tong -term use for persons with chronic pain, "and
"failed to properly monitor suspicious orders of those prescription drugs- all of which
contributed to the current opioid epidemic." The number of overdose deaths continues to
rise. In fact, between 2018 and 2021 the rate of overdose deaths in Central Oregon
increased by 85%. Preliminary 2022 data puts Central Oregon on track for a 100% increase.
Health Services proposes the settlement funds to address local opioid use using a three -
tiered approach: 1) add capacity and expand existing efforts by adding targeted expert
Opioid Use Disorder prevention services, 2) increase coordination of surveillance and
overdose prevention and harm reduction efforts and 3) sustain existing interventions.
These three strategic uses would allow Health Services to:
• Improve awareness and utilization of opioid and other drug prevention
knowledge;
• Reduce adolescent drug use;
• Ensure real-time surveillance systems to quickly respond to overdose
emergencies;
• Improve coordination with internal and external entities working to reduce
overdose and opioid use harms; and
• Use existing interventions like the Stabilization Center, which serves as an
alternative to hospital emergency departments for persons with opioid use
disorder and any co- occurring substance used disorder or mental health
conditions and connects individuals with treatment to help them stabilize in
their community to improve quality of life.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$6.7 million over 18 years; see attached fiscal analysis.
ATTEN DANCE:
Janice Garceau, Health Services Director
Holly Harris, Behavioral Health Director
Heather Kaisner, Public Health Director
Cheryl Smallman, Health Services Business Officer
Jessica Jacks, Health Services Program Manager, Prevention and Health Promotion
73
C L.
m 0
L.L `~
C .
() --)
03) L-mi
},V) CU O
CD co
N
73 N -o
• O •N
0 0-
ci L. O
0 a. V
Background
Proposed Strategies
Budget Big Picture
QS
CY
M
OD = Overdose
OUD = Opioid Use Disorder
•
MH = Mental Health
SUD = Substance Use Disorder
O
0
CU
u
a)
4-
0
c
co
bA
L.
a)
O c
N
N
Z
O
i NJ
N
a)
L.
c6 O bA
a) O O
= U CL
CZ O -
4-a t6
O
as2 _
cow -0 cu V
II 4 II
a.o II
i U
f6
BH = Behavioral Health Program
•
0
bA
a)
4-+
a)
co
u
A
ro
L.
CL
v
U
-
cb
O
i
0
5
ro
i
a,
E
E
0
cu
i
a)
U
U
LJ
Ca
MAT = Medically Assisted Treatment (Buprenorphine) for OUD
COOPR = Central Oregon Opioid Prevention & Response
d'
N� Y
in
V) -0
v N b.()v
i L.)i
N v v.0 a42'®E O Oa o a
aJNv NaJv � i4--0 OQO
O • ® o -- 4-- O O V u a)
U v bAN -CU > C N •— i e
oes N L.>'v +-+ N E › 0 Q>S v.V
to i N E" O a) .v aJ 0 dJ N
J �pn O to a- Qv� �-0
4-1 = • =i*Z5 D.0 .E '15 LI Ecl 7'.; 4, 1
111
(5
w
0
e e
a3
u
c
0
bO
a)
1
0
co
w
tJ
03
zfa ea
\44.
u fa
lam} ^
cv
tia
iv
\
BEM
0
,MU t A VINOIMAM Mr
3
'Cr
§
N
0
0
0
q
ty
03
(1
%
0
0 q q q S 0 0
sLe■a a op ■no Baia J q wnN
•
V)
• MINN
• •
CU
V
••.•
mmsi
Lao
2022 Central
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln u,
N o Ln t m cN-
�n i.n
S3SOdI13AO 0IOld0 30 #
AGE GROUPS
oul
d. 0
4—JQ) 40+ DM •v1 4�-0NO®lf
.VI D N c) • NN C O•_> s_00
4-00 a)>, H O 03a) 2
v i- c M U
.7020 NN U0
0
(NiCi ®O® ®v ON C-0
W N N 4 p. 0 u- N ®a) v O 31 t0
NN � 7,\ 7 5 E ®Zc
71-iii. 5t1i3wm
C ®-
Ov) a) W0 �i
s �aro ��u�
L .60 iwO �-to '73•-
�Q�oc
4—,O� V� bA�c'
Lb- Oc>fx�c N�O
��
W.�D0 +�003 _c �-0O+-►ra
c0• 000� ��0MU O My -COG
HO r-t.vro Z.u5 ®®c>
* Preliminary COOPR data may change
H0)
Prescribing by County
Pain Standards Task Force:
0 0
Ln
Problem prescribing trending down
0001 Jed alad JO junCIJ
Reduction:
E
ca
0-
(1)
L 00
V)
4' O
a) N
> N
O U
• C
D
U
a) O
_CD
C O
O -a
O N
-®
z00
VI
Z0 ZZOZ
V0 4ZOZ
Z0 4ZOZ
V0 0101
10 0Z0Z
V0 610Z
Z0 640Z
V0 040Z
Z0 940Z
V0 L401
Z0 L40Z
V0 9401
Z0 940Z
V0 540Z
Z0 5401
V0 V40Z
Z0 V40Z
V0 £40Z
Z0 £40Z
V0 Z40Z
Z0 Z40Z
V0 4401
OREGON STATEWIDE
DESCHUTES
O
U
-0 CU
-
s_
CU -
N
O ®
UD G (13
U °Q CI
U=
® v 0
oars o®
al 0
® CA • .0
�� Y
00
u
co
0
L.
IND
gia
CCS
N..
.47J
v
st3Li O4
O i.
O
vn " C2. to
_ c .o - G1 c
E rtS tn 0 CIJ In
> 4- 6. cu bAfll — bJ0•-
4-+
CU >1•— c Q c� s>.. ••—
I/1 :la 1-na '5 0 cu
Li. 0
4-I (L)
o u .- u ti) imi
0 W <0 am.. o IAi._
a(13
. u o
1
0
03)
dam+
L.
0
cu
8;3
4.1
a)
ca.
W
mia
a)
b�A
H
•.
0
64:5
V
a
i•47.;
c
b.0
O a-' .1.
.E PO C\I
u IA u
®bo-� a,E E bb
u n c
O u 0 r6 E .ED
r0®v, a=au Epcn
u vn
�,L.0 > v O.QO
E�W Qr )
QroE b-0a, °- nu
� _c v)
QO LA v��
��°n �a ®:ago
o ro
r6
a_� ®� D a) to
L raD v
CU�aj co �b,A�
c
w ® 0_r6 v) c
>0_ — ®orb
a)u� �r6v) a,s_N
' 5 a) rb 0 -p r0 > CO a)v
e as y, U (13 > rb
Support data collection and provide regular summaries of data
Outcomes
cu
vi
Prevention
00)
,.... O �,
to E o®
- . E® o•L c
d- b4E —D
w En
® -8N o %.- co D > cn
06-„S: (I) o----1
O >' O
�m ® �u•-
--
bAa) E
•�•� �'
Q� C.D
`O—
DO®®��A
Lfi
Ocn c•� Oro
5 O��
-0 NE
Nam- COD
E 2 _ :0 c_c vo a) ra ',_E- E
•c ® ®•v1 ? •O c•—
E
,Q 73to ® fro
�� (�� OVA
®� VCcn ONc)
00 73 4-1
-0 02
EV0 0-c
fro 0 .— ro0v)
OLiz
U -4-' O-C • aJ
®0- U N a c0tnN
Surveillance: Coordination Strategy
owable Use
Q
CD O
V a--�
Qv
lJ
E.L) N
E
To Cra,
v E
N
O� L
W to O
6
.�
'4=
ets
._
®o�c ow
a=0-o C 4 0-0
D D L -
° >;o >>-
rv,
acoaco °bA "_0°a)coo ° E c�
fS a) �6aJ
aJCU
up.,_,, - V.- +-►� c6 0
EO O •� � 0
W
_c03 C v)a) - •E•+-'3s- bA .
• +-+ 0 0 s- .-,
v,• va) (0 0 0v�� cO
vi N' o u aJ O
NrrvNr-
Off- > Q4JN CSC v)
U s-+ 1 0 D N .ova- L M
(CS- 0 0 °. �- ®
L
.nr�° U ®i- n2O
co+J }' aJ D U ® i- >�
ONva) 0 ®-}c,°,o �o� OC
°�en ° otow °via c60
Co'® • ��'O c6 ° ®® °�
�o U =C0 Ua) o
roC0 c .au�� 0®� Vv
n>v;Q c�+, ��CU —0D rCIv
�vo0 �� N�� ��0 D
��, ?� —�° 000- 4a +mac
x v.- E b 0 • c—
E_� ®- E.- ° aJ L o
°o stun � 0 �'-00 O�
LIEQu 0� �� _0C
CZoc
0vro � 0 w.�Ure3 V)
`e--
+J bA N 0 �'
CEU bo V)U Li.]
fi,>LE �, E ��
ci":c5 0 0 U.Q
Int - rventi • n Strategy
a
J
W
0
W
W
in z
M
GU _
. 12
Cri
� a
W
Q
V
W
z
O
V
W
W
z
W
1
J
W
W
1-
O
H
a)
N
ww o '43O �
vN - V N� CT
N O SLJ
EE N v
�u O §O N D
o•N o V'_0_>, LL V) o
73- _CD -CC N
-0.0 • .%>� Ew � CU L
VL -0
•—C
Cu u Oo 00�
4- Q)
uCU
_��CU.o ov,
to cuo c ,_._>
�_ o ozov�
>� .C�(3 in ��
.o. vt
•-C �D of D
. .
to ° d
+.+
O in
l7 V
IA
CD
6+7;
64=
a)
>,
.4,
E
D .o
CV)
Etc 4-0
o 16 a) .uovu:5-:o))). „
E c
3E
03
cr)
Q) a) E
V) (1) v) (1) C
-4.-J
V) • r0 (1) 0 C
°(/)- a U : .: ro -4-_--, cu
v) • u
T._-
u C 0 -0 0 4-)
0—u a3 4-) (.)
v D i-
_c
v) a)
__ ..< , o_
co c4-,
f, if, C t •17 co
4_, 4-, v.)
a) c v)
S.- CU b.40
cu v)
v) c co
1::._) r3 47-) 4-)
co c eL
.— 0_ 0 s_ v)
in„ , 0 cr) a) a) a)
w o_ v) 4:-"q
. 4-' E
7 a_ ,_ s... >,
5 rt3 a) a) o c -0
cn v) co
2 c cu
.— CI. D :-7, 4.-4 (13
L.)
0_ I a) c
- a) a)
L... V) L.)
CU CO C C V) 4-
4E1 ("L-6 M 4-4 e-ND -C3C (AL_
L...,
7(13 0
U 771 0" -0 D t+-
a)
r- V1
0 0 fa_
0 C 6
x L.-
-z-3. bb c 4_I, 0 aj
rasp u
N . • - ra co --
-rzT) r... --..-
TD D Cli 0 E
CU
.>
4(7)) •c ,_, o_
tr)
z
ca
z
0
11)
a)
To
713
L._
0
("0>
_C
CU
CO
-0
CU
CU
- 0 (T)
C
(C3 •5-
v) s_
(1)
(1)
(13 -0
Measured Outcomes:
w
11)
L._
4J
CU
o
OWOL
0 LI)
4- Oa
CU
4E)
CI)
*a..E
L1.1
(13
4-4
0
0 (AC1)
a)
CU<
= u
U
V)..0
U
11)
a Li)
-o
1.11
N
CU
c
11,
(3
cu N
CU C
)j
• —
s_
u
co Ea)
>
v)
00
L-
- r0
0
U
>
U a)
v)
olimo
Pain Standards Taskforce
v
a)
bA
ro
c�
D:O
L
QU V
av
"00_
>O�
L 0>
0
0
4-a
N
E
v
c�
a) E
4-0 cv
ra 0-o
hM
cc
oE
I I
in
"00
CU
>(I)
CTS
i=
O.P
+-+ DC
RSC
= >O
ai i O
eillance and
Tt
N O
(LIc Val
c—
o c.c
x,� of
z(0cu
i I
(f)
N
Oric5
on3
cup
caLLJ
L1J
CZ
O
��w
ce
•
• e t. xistin • PH Efforts
I
4D
0
E
0
4.1
ra
a)
"a
ra
0
CIJ
a.
bO
L--0
C, 0_
C car 0
• L.).5
>_Clflco
c E ca_m cu
a.) c• ic_a
bO
cu
(13
c 7:5 CU 47'
cla E-22.r--
E °
all 5,0
4-J• cji
" "
cu 0 a) L-
C _C
CU 0 4-)C t+-
E o'cT) ED_
a_ C V) S-
4-j
CUc
03) Li>1
>
a)P._
4-14T6
0
Future Coa
-0
_C C 1..
4-) m 0
03 v) 4-0
CU (1) rY (5
2 a) o_ C
L.) 0
P u
cu la
< 0 1_
O u 0
(13 c =
co.0 co c 0
O 0
— -,
0
0 c ii WO vl v) a) D C VI -)
L_
0.) ci)
tru
O "0
via) sc.5 E
ria
CU -C
4--)
....
-57 .., ,
as rt3
0 U C .— 4--,
b.0(1) Ct. CU
-05 a..0 o u cu I
u— 4 vi , L. tlo
if) i (13 o
>v) ce c • — co
EF._
- CU Ua La) a) u co
"Tea 1 La - CD
0 ?_ cc
iU UU Lu v)
co
a) Oo a.D
29 2
LLI
Da
N
L
O
W
CO1
bts
C
.4.7i
vi
•X
W
4.4-;
C
w
E
a
to
...
R
CCBHC Services
— Ending Working Capital
Intervention
Surveillance & Coordination Activities
Prevention
Mil 6EAd
IIII 88AJ
,
,
i, LEM
,
,
,
9EAd
•
•
1
SBA
NI
i7EAd
1111 EBAd
ZEAd
L EAd
0EArl
6ZAd
8ZAd
LZAd
9ZAd
SZAd
111 I7ZAd
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LO d' N O 00 LO N
spuesnogi ($)
0
N
• -
N
0
a4-
cu
N u
V1 °
t/)
cu
C
O
�• NI
O �
u
o
O °
o_ N
(5
O - �
u
C E
O O
u 4-
a) V)
OC
O O
ra
'ate
O
0
u
W
E
c a)
E
+°�
N O
v °fir..
to O
O O
O
c
O
z .c
O
O ro
.L7J
u
F c
o fa
z u
>, °c
i
ca
W
cu
t
O
E
E
o• o
0- v) u
a ai
O u V)
CO
'53
0_ >
Q u_
0.0 Inn •_ •EGA
�� o
vw 0
CU '2
O ° N
+_+ EW
U CO k.
°; 0 z >, 0
fl- OOv)
CU a) U
O Oo
Revenue in BLACK is received/confirmed; Revenue in GREY is estimated/anticipated
>f m
R
LL
T �
Nf,a
00..'' N
<.Y
to
iN- '+
a
Y
ag 0
M 40
4Y.:. 011
Y
O
M 0
0p O
O N.
0
Lp
M
� a
O
O
O O
O �
O
0
0
0
O O
0 0
0
N
N N 0 0 0
o 0 00 0 0
In W a
ro o 0 0 0
N o O 0
VD N o q 0
0 M.
N 00 a m t0
N O O
Q p N O O
o to
N' O 0
O
N O 0
O t0
w a N
0 a 0 0
LLn'ry O O
O t0
a O
0 0 N O O
O O
O 0
0 0
0 a
G O
O O
O O
L
v1
O 0
O O
O O
O O
O 0
0 a
N a
O O O o O 0 0 0 0
O o O
a
c in m a
00 00
0 0 0 0
n N <r
m m a
O
O .0 M 00 O .0
a u1
40 N
01 L.
M 01
00 of
ut ut
N N
M a
M N
M 'i
a 01
ei
O O O
O O O
0 0 0
t0 10
0
tD
N
0
N
ry
0
0
0
m
O
0
v1
00
a
01
a
0
0
n
00
n
00
a
Ol
Nco o .o
N 01 O N N
40 a ON 00 0
ti N
VN1 00 CO 0 01 CO Cr
00 0 0 O N
CO' 01 O M 00
N a N a M
N
O1a 0 0 (.4 01i
.i N O M O
n a N M 00
M N
01 O .i 01
0 M 0 O CO
N 00 N C. 0
.y N
Cr .0 0 M Cr
0( 01 .0 0 00 0
110 a N m
.+ N
O N0 0 n Cr
O tO M
.0N N tD 0
.-i N
1� O Q a
CO a0 o 1s
N a N N N 0N0
.-I
CO M 0 n N
t0 0 0 l0 N
L.a N M 0
.0 N
N 00 0 C.00
o N ti 01 N 0 00
VC O O a' O
N m NM tO
N
co 00 0 0 Vm1 tO1D
1 o 0 01 0
01 m N N 000 000
N
000 N 00 00 ..i N
O(� u 0 O N 0
O O N
Dm ti M01 i
M
I� 00 0 O C N
to 01 O O 40 01
0 to 01 0... OS.
T
H - M
00 CO 0 0 0 u�i O�
MP V 0 0 N V1
CO' 00 O O 00 h
a m H N Cr 01
CO
0 0 0 0 0. CO
corn o o .moo
a m.1 N v m
, M 00 N
Cf 01 0 C. 0 0 m 0
r+ O O N Di
0000 0 cc a.
01 CO to N M 01
0 00 N
N
1.1.1
o a
00
00 in
m
01
T
10
0
10
co
O
m
co
a
m
N
N
01
01
000
O
01
01.
N
01
01
.1
CO
O
m
M
N
a
M
N
a
10
3
b
N
n
O
0
O
n
O
.-1
0
1l1
N
O
00
rri
t0
m
001
0
M
m
00
tti
a
m
d
N
Cr0
L.
L.
O
0
t^/1
00
O
0
O
CO
0011
a
a
1.10
O
00
0
a
Y
N M
CO Vl
O N 'E.ryh
4 0)
N 1l O ., cc q w m o Y D 'Q > 01 0�d O = p_ w Z = N u t" i 0 o t'n o N c
Q d T O t W R V S" E Yi 'Aly O
W rc o o E 01 z a
�- 'a m °" °1`n E CO
O O o O N o - 0- 00 il
a
t.n 0G
Redmond City distribution is included in the above.