2023-279-Ordinance No. 2023-018 Recorded 9/11/2023REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
Recorded in Deschutes County
Steve Dennison, County Clerk CJ2023-279
Commissioners, .journal 09/11 /2023 1:52:25 PM
(\�"i FJ C�✓- �I � I � I'I�I'�I I' I � III' II'I�I �II
O �-t
2023-279
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 Multiple Use
Agricultural.
*
* ORDINANCE NO. 2023-018
*
*
*
*
WHEREAS, Kevin Griffin and Libby Renfro, applied for changes to both the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan Map (247-22-000792-PA) and the Deschutes County Zoning Map (247-
22-000793-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 Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was
held on February 28, 2023, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on March 24, 2023,
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 propertyfrom Agricultural (AG) to Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10); now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as
follows:
PAGE 1 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2023-018
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 MUA-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
Recommendation of the Hearings Officer as set forth in Exhibit "F" and incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on the 90t" day after the date of
adoption or, if appealed, the date the ordinance is no longer subject to appeal.
Dated this Arof , 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
U
ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair
PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair
PHIL CHANG, Commissioner
i
Date of 1 st Reading: f 6 day of , 2023.
Date of 2nd Reading: 3� day of /`f'"� , 2023.
�G "
PAGE 2 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2023-018
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Patti Adair
Anthony DeBone _
Phil Chang
Effective date: day of /� ° , 2023. Or, if appealed, the date the ordinance is no
longer subject to appeal.
ATTEST
M
u
Recording Secretary
PAGE 3 OF 3 - ORDINANCE NO.2023-018
Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 2023-018
Legal Descriptions of Affected Property
For Informational Purposes Only: Parcel no. 181201 D000200
(Legal Description Begins Below)
The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4SE1/4) of Section One (1),
Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian,
Deschutes County, Oregon.
RREA
RREA
RREA
Proposed Plan Amendment From
Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area (RREA)
18-12-01-DO-00200
21900 Rastovich Rd, Bend
Proposed Plan Amendment
From AG to RREA
PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Legend
Proposed Zone Change Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Designation
AG -Agriculture
RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area
Plan Amendment From Agricultural (AG) to
Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA)
Exhibit "B"
to Ordinance 2023-018
N
0 300 600 1,200
MMMM Feet
August 7, 2023
RREA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Dated this ' day of 4 2023
Effective Date: k % - 2, VA 2023
MUA10
MUA10
MUA10
18-12-01-DO-00200
21900 Rastovich Rd, Bend
Proposed Zone Change
From EFUTRB to MUA10
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
Zone Change From Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to
Legend Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
Proposed Zone Change Boundary Exhibit "C"
Zoning to Ordinance 2023-018
EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone
MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural
RR10 - Rural Residential
300 600 1,200
Feet
August 7, 2023
Proposed Zone Change From
Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to
Mutiple Use Agricultural (MUA10)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Toe ne, C air
f.�
Patti Adair, Vice Chair
P it Chang, Commi. siooQer
ATTEST: Recor mg Secretary®
Dated this 3 0 day of 2023
Effective Date: 11 - V. , 2023
Exhibit "D" to Ordinance 2023-018
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. [Repealed by Ordinance 2013-001, § 1]
D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
T. [Repealed by Ordinance 2016-027 § I]
U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/XX/23
V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein.
Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in
Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AC. [repealed by Ord. 2019-010 § 1, 2019]
AD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein.
Al. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein.
AJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein.
AL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
AM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AO. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
AR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
AS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
AT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23)
AU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
AV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
AW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein.
AX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
AY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein.
AZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
BA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-010, are incorporated by reference herein.
BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. (superseded by Ord. 2023-015)
BC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein.
BD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-001, are incorporated by reference herein.
BE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
BF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-010 are incorporated by reference herein.
BG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance
2023-018, are incorporated by reference herein.
(Ord. 2023-0018 §2, 2022; Ord. 2023-007 §2, 2022; 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. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/XX/23
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
Sect%ow 5.i2 l._eg%sl,Gtt%ve I-f�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,
Comprehensive Plan update
Deschutes Junction,
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
Housekeeping amendments to
201 1-027
10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
ensure a smooth transition to
23.40.065, 23.01.010
the updated Plan
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
Updated Transportation
2012-005
8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12
3.7 (revised), Appendix C
System Plan
(added)
2012-012
8-20-12/8-20-12
4.1, 4.2
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
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, 3.1 1
for Southern Deschutes
Count
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
Comprehensive Plan Map
2013-016
10-21-13/ 10-21-13
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
2014-005
2-26-14/2-26-14
23.01.010
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
2014-012
4-2-14/7-1-14
3.10, 3.11
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
2014-021
8-27-14/ 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. 2023-018
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
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
Count
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non-
2016-005
1 1-28-16/2-16-17
23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
Comprehensive plan
2016-022
9-28-16/ 1 1-14-16
23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2016-029
12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from, Agriculture to
Rural Industrial
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
2017-007
10-30-17/ 10-30-17
23.01.010
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan
2018-002
1-3-18/ 1-25-18
23.01, 2.6
Amendment permitting
churches in the Wildlife Area
Combining Zone
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
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 Inventor
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. 2023-018
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
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. 2023-018
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. 2023-018
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add
roundabouts at US 20/Cook-
2020-008
06-24-20/09-22-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
O.B. Riley and US 20/Old
Bend -Redmond Hwy
intersections; amend Tables
5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend
TSP text.
Housekeeping Amendments
2020-007
07-29-20/ 10-27-20
23.01.010, 2.6
correcting references to two
Sage Grouse ordinances.
Comprehensive Plan and Text
amendments to update the
County's Resource List and
2020-006
08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20
23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9
Historic Preservation
Ordinance to comply with the
State Historic Preservation
Rule.
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Amendment to add reference
2020-009
08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20
23.01.010, Appendix C
to J turns on US 97 raised
median between Bend and
Redmond; delete language
about disconnecting
Vandevert Road from US 97.
Comprehensive Plan Text
And Map Designation for
Certain Properties from
Surface Mine (SM) and
Agriculture (AG) To Rural
2020-013
08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20
23.01.01, 5.8
Residential Exception Area
(RREA) and Remove Surface
Mining Site 461 from the
County's Goal 5 Inventory of
Significant Mineral and
Aggregate Resource Sites.
Comprehensive Plan Map
2021-002
01-27-21 /04-27-21
23.01.01
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
AG To Rural Industrial RI
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018
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
12-12-22/03-14-23
23.01.010
Designation for Certain
Property from Agriculture
AG to Rural Industrial RI
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2022-013
12-14-22/03-14-23
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. 2023-018
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2023-018
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-007
TBD
23.01.010
Property from Agriculture
(AG) to Rural Residential
Exception Area RREA
Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for Certain
2023-018
9-01-23/ 1 1-29-23
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. 2023-018
HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FILE NUMBERS: 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
HEARING DATE: February 28, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and Barnes and Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
SUBJECT PROPERTIES/
OWNER: Mailing Name: GRIFFIN, KEVIN J
Map and Taxlot: 181201 D000200
Account: 109857
Situs Address: 21900 RASTOVICH RD, BEND, OR 97702
APPLICANT: Kevin Griffin and Libby Renfro
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT: Tia Lewis
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 Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10).
HEARINGS OFFICER: Alan A. Rappleyea
STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
Phone: (541) 388-6504
Email:.Rachel.Vickers@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-22-000792-pa-793-zc-
%E2%80%93-comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone-change
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.
1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU)
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Appendix C, Transportation System Plan
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660
Division 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
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 Property 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 Property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10).
The basis of the request in the Application is the Applicants' assertion that the Subject Property does
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.
NOTICES: The Application was filed on April 14, 2022. On October 5, 2022, the County issued a
Notice of Application to several public agencies and to property owners in the vicinity of the Subject
Property (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
February 3, 2023 ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the requests
in the Application. Notice of the hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on February 5, 2023.
Notice was given to the DLCD of the hearing on January 17, 2023. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I
presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on February 28, 2023, opening the Hearing at
6:00 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 February 21, 2023, the
2
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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"). The Hearings Officer finds that
all procedural notice requirements were met.
HEARING: 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. Next, Staff provided a summary of the staff
report. The applicant's attorney, Ms. Lewis then made a presentation. The Applicant, Mr. Kevin Griffin
also testified in support of the application. There was no one present either in person or remotely to
offer neutral testimony or opposition testimony. Staff reported on the letters in opposition from
Kristen Sabo and Carol Macbeth of COLW, Devin Kesner of 1000 Friends of Oregon including one that
recently arrived from Ms. Macbeth from Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW), and Mr. Jerry Wilke. I
noted that I had read the letters that were submitted but had not yet seen the COLW most recent
letter. I have now reviewed that letter.
The applicant stated that the letter in opposition from Jerry Wilke was likely addressing a different
application as the current application does not propose a drug rehabilitation facility. I concur in that
statement.
The applicant also rebutted the arguments provided by COWL and 1000 Friends. The applicant and
staff then responded to my questions. I mentioned that the Board would be hearing a similar
application in Marken 247-22-000353-PA and 247-22-000354-ZC. I wanted to take judicial notice of
that decision when it is issued for the record. The applicant did not have an issue with having that
decision reviewed by the Hearings Officer. I noted that I have a contractual obligation to issue timely
decisions.
No participant requested that the record remain open. The Hearing concluded at approximately 6:59
p.m. At that time, I closed the Hearing and the record, and I took this matter under advisement.
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. ORS 215.427(7). 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
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
3
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Amendment and the Zone Change. Comments have challenged some specific evidence or findings
presented in the Staff Report. Where the staff legal finding have been challenged, those will be
addressed below. There is only one area that challenges the factual finding and will be addressed
here. For those factual and legal findings that are not challenged, 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.
The factual finding that is challenged by COWL is the determination of the soils report provided by
the applicant. Although there is also a legal aspect to this challenge as COWL believes that the
County's NRCS maps should prevail over the applicant's soil study (which will be addressed
subsequently), a primary factual challenge is the make up of the soil. COWL's testimony is that the
soil is predominantly Class 3-6. Macbeth COLW Public Comment 2/28/23. The Applicant's soil study
finds that the property is predominantly Class 7-8 (hereinafter, except for quotes, I will use the
Arabic numerals instead or Roman for ease of reading). The Hearings Officer finds that the expert
testimony provided by the applicant concerning soils along with staffs analysis of Applicants
submittal is more persuasive than the testimony provided by Ms. Macbeth. 2022-09-30 App
Materials 22-792-PA, 793-ZC Page 176. Ms. Macbeth relies on the more general NRCS studies and
the applicant's study is more detailed. The applicant has met the burden of proof that the soil is
predominantly class 7-8 and is not predominantly class 3-6.
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC` Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Applicants are the owners of the Subject Property 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:
Il
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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 Property 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 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 Staff report goes into detail describing the criteria which the
hearings officer has to apply relying on past Hearing Officers decision on a similar application.
Powell/Ramsey decision (PA-14-2 / ZC-14-2) and Landholdings Decision (247-16-000317-ZC / 318-
PA). The staff report states that "introductory statement and goals are not approval criteria for the
proposed plan amendment and zone change." The Hearings Officer adopts the Applicant's
statement and the staff report's legal analysis on the standards that apply. The staff report then
proceeds to address the relevant requirements.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
this Code provision is satisfied.
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 fulltime 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 Property is 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
5
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
EFU zoning. Additionally, the staff report finds that the maximum density of the approximately 40.0-
acre property is 7 lots, if developed with a cluster development under Title 18. This low density will
preserve open space, allow owners to engage in hobby farming, if desired, and preserve natural
and scenic resources and maintain or improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. The
MUM 0 zoning provides a proper transition zone from the City, to rural zoning, to EFU zoning.
The Staff Report agrees that the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the MUM 0 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 Property including
power and water.
• Transportation access to the Subject Property is available off a Rastovich Road, and the
impact of increased traffic on the transportation system is negligible.
• The Subject property receive police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire
service from Rural Fire Protection District # 2, which has a fire station two miles from the
Subject Property.
• The close proximity of the Subject property 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.
Staff concludes and the Hearings Officer finds that there are no known deficiencies in public services
or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. 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 specificgoals
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:
[7
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The MUA-10 zoning is consistent with the specific goals and policies in the comprehensive plan
discussed above. The MUA-10 zoning is the some as the zoning of many other properties in the
area west and south of the subject property. In addition, the MUA-10 zoning provides a proper
transition zone from the City, to rural zoning, to EFU zoning.
The zone change will not impose new impacts on the EFU-zoned land adjacent to the subject
property because many of those properties are residential properties, hobby farms, already
developed with dwellings, not engaged in commercial farm use, are idle, or are otherwise not
suited for farm use due to soil conditions, topography, or ability to make a profit farming.
Some of the properties adjacent and near the subject property are in small, hobby farm use and
are receiving farm tax deferral. Tax Lots 1100, 100, 301, and 200 are adjacent to the east and
southwest and are in common ownership and part of Rastovich Farm. Most of the Rastovich
properties are receiving farm tax deferral and are being used for raising livestock. One of the
Rastovich parcels adjacent to the subject property is a nonfarm parcel developed with a nonfarm
dwelling. Submitted herewith as Exhibit 12 is a letter from Robert and Colleen Rastovich stating
they have no objection to the requested zone change and attesting to the fact that the subject
property is not intermingled and is not necessary or useful to them for any farming on the
Rastovich parcels.
The adjacent properties to the north and northeast, Tax Lots 101, 102, 1101, are currently receiving
farm tax deferral and appear to be used as residential properties with hobby farms. Attached
hereto as Exhibit 13 are letters from David Nader, owner of Tax lot 101 adjacent to the north of
the subject property and Steve and Keri Sawyer, owners of Tax lot 1101 adjacent to the northeast
of the subject property stating they have no objection to the requested zone change and attesting
to the fact that the subject property is not intermingled and is not necessary or useful to them for
any farming occurring on their parcels. These properties will not suffer new impacts from the
proposed zone change because they are hobby farms, already developed with dwellings, not
engaged in commercial farm use, and are smaller size than the subject property. The zone change
would allow the subject property to be divided into parcels similar size to the adjacent properties
to the north and be used for similar hobby farming uses.
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, Mr. Gallagher, the nonproductive soils
on the subject property make it not suitable for commercial farming or livestock grazing. The
subject property 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.
7
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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 property 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 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 Property and
that the updated soils report shows the Subject Property 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. The applicant also notes the encroachment of the urban area to the Subject Property.
Although the Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that the urban area is encroaching on this
property, he does not find that this encroachment would be a change in circumstance that should
be considered as any such plan change would further create encroachment for other properties.
Staff finds that "[i]t is unclear to staff why the Subject Property was initially zoned EFU. Staff is
unaware of any evidence such as soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming,
which explains its current zoning." Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing
evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 2, Resource Management
FINDING: 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.
Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands
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 Property do not constitute "agricultural lands", and therefore, it is not
necessary to preserve or maintain the Subject Property as such. In support of that conclusion, the
Applicants rely on a soils report showing the Subject Property consist predominantly (58.5%) of
Class 7 and 8 nonagricultural 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 property has 5 acres of water rights. The fact that the property has some
water rights and that the soils are only 58% class 7 and 8 makes this decision more difficult. It is
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
likely that many properties in Deschutes County are used for farming, particularly hobby farming,
have worse soil conditions. However, the majority of the soils are predominantly class 7 and 8.
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 Property.
Instead, the Applicants requested a change under Policy 2.2.3 and have provided evidence to
support rezoning the Subject Property as MUM 0.
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 2.2.3 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 Property from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and rezone the
Subject Property from EFU to MUM 0. The Applicants do not seek an exception to Goal 3 for that
purpose, but rather seek 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).
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 Wetherell 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 Property is not agricultural land and do not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law.
E
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The opposition letter submitted by Ms. Kesner from 1000 Friends argues that the applicant did not
adequately address the agricultural land factors in the rule. This argument will be addressed
specifically under OAR 660-033-0020.
Based on the foregoing, 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.
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
Property was 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, Water Resources Policies
FINDING: 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
10
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
development of the Subject Property, 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 Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites
FINDING: 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.
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 Property, the Subject Property is 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 Property to be protected as open space or for scenic views.
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, Rural Growth
Section 3.2, Rural Development
FINDING: 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
IN
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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: 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:
The above part of the plan is not a plan policy and is not an applicable approval criterion but
rather an explanation of how the County calculated expected growth. As shown above, the
County's Comprehensive Plan provisions anticipate the need for additional rural residential lots
as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to rezone farm lands with
poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While this rezone application does not include
the creation of new residential lots, the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is
comprised of poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential, MUA-10 zone, uses to the west as
well as near rural residential, RR-10 zone and MUA-10 zone, uses to the south and is near (within
1 mile) of the City limits of Bend to the west and even closer to the Stevens Road Tract, which will
be brought inside the UGB pursuant to HB 3318.
Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 is consistent with this criterion, as it will provide for an
orderly and efficient transition from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural
lands. Additionally, it will link the non -productive lands of the subject property with existing
residential development and street systems to the west, 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.
Staff noted that the MUA-10 zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Basic Findings
section, there are several nearby properties to the north and northeast that are zoned MUA-10 as
well as nearby EFU zoned properties developed with residential uses. Staff noted this policy
references the soil quality, which staff has discussed above. Staff agreed with the Applicant's
response and finds the proposal complies 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.
Section 3.3, Rural Housing
Rural Residential Exception Areas
In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources
and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority
of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated
12
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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: Prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3 is not a plan policy or
directive. PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2; 247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA; 247-18-000485-PA/486-ZC. I hereby adopt
the findings in the staff report for this criterion.
Based on the above, the Hearings Officer agrees with the past Deschutes County Hearings Officer
interpretations and with the staff interpretation and finds that the above language is not a policy
and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3. Staff finds the
proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the Subject
Property. 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, Transportation
FINDING: 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.
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 assert 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),
13
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
FINDING: The Applicants and the Staff Report identify several administrative rules as potentially
applicable to the Application.
Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands
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 Property does not appear to
qualify as forest land and, therefore, the administrative rules relating to forest land are not
applicable. The Subject Property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the Subject Property
within a 3-mile radius of forest lands. The Subject Property does not contain merchantable tree
species and there is no evidence in the record that the Subject Property has been employed for
forestry uses historically.
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.
Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands;
OAR 660-015-0000(3)
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing
and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's
agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700.
14
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
FINDING: Goal 3 continues on to define "Agricultural Land," which is repeated in OAR 660-033-
0020(1). Staff makes findings on this topic below and incorporates those findings herein by
reference.
OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions
For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals,
and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 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];
FINDING: The Applicant's basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise
that the Subject Property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." In support, the Applicant offers the
following response as included in the submitted burden of proof statement:
ORS 215.211 grants a property owner the right to rely on more detailed information that 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."Statewide Goal 3, discussed above, and OAR 660-033-
0030(5) also allow the County to rely on the more detailed and accurate information by a higher
order soil survey rather than information provided by the NRCS. The law requires that this survey
use the NRCS soil classification system in conducting the survey, making it clear that the point of
the survey is to provide better soil classification information than provided by the NRCS for use in
making a proper decision whether land is or is not "Agricultural Land." The Subject Property is not
properly classified as Agricultural Land and does not merit protection under Goal 3. The soils are
predominately Class 7 and 8, as demonstrated by the site -specific soils assessment conducted by
Mr. Gallagher, a certified soils scientist. State law, OAR 660-033-0030, allows the County to rely on
for more accurate soils information, such as Mr. Gallagher's soil assessment. Mr. Gallagher found
that approximately 58.5 percent of the soils on the Subject Property (approximately 23.4 acres)
are Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils that have severe limitations for farm use. He also found
the site to have low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops, rock
fragments on the soil surface, restrictive for livestock accessibility, and low available water holding
capacity, all of which are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use.
Because the Subject Property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils, the property does
not meet the definition of 'Agricultural Land" under OAR 660-033-020(1)(0)(A), listed above as
having predominantly Class 1-VI soils.
Ms. Macbeth from COLW argued that applicant misconstrues this rule in its burden of proof
statement. Ms. Macbeth finds fault with the applicant referring to OAR 660-033-0030 to provide
,'more accurate soils information." She argues that a "more detailed study is not more accurate".
Page 2, February 28, 2023 testimony. Ms. Macbeth argues that the applicant's soil study cannot
"change or replace the NRCS data...."
15
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
The applicants responded to this testimony in its February 28, 2023, submittal.
Goal 3 specifically allows local governments to rely on more detailed soils data than provided by
the NRCS. It says:
"More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be utilized by local governments if such
data permits achievement of this goal."
The purpose of Goal 3 is to preserve agricultural land. It is not intended to preserve land that does
not meet the definition of "agricultural land."
The applicants then argues that ORS 215.211(1) the legislature specifically provided the rights for
applicants to provide more detailed soils information. The applicant argues that the rules support
this finding:
DLCD understands that the more detailed soils surveys allowed by Statewide Goal 3 and ORS
197.211 may be used in lieu of NRCS soils surveys. On its website, DLCD explains:
"Soil mapping done by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the most
common tool used for identifying the types of soils in an area. The NRCS provides a rating
for each soil type that indicates how suited the soil is for agriculture. ***
NRCS does not have the ability to map each parcel of land, so it looks to 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 ' *** through
a process administered by DLCD. This soils professional can conduct an assessment that
may result in a change of the allowable uses for the property."
I find that the applicant's argument is more convincing. That statutes and the rules and the
DLCD's interpretation of their rules allow applicants to submit more detailed soils
information which can be used to determine whether the property meets the definition of
"agricultural lands." See following sections.
Staff reviewed the soil study provided by Andy Gallagher of Red Hill Soils (dated September 26, 2022)
and agree with the Applicant's representation of the data for the Subject Property. Staff found that
based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the Subject Property is
comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils and, therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural
Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) above.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property should not be considered agricultural land
under this part of the administrative rules.
(8) 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,
16
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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 Property 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.' Applying that definition, the Applicants describe various
limitations on the ability of the Subject Property to support farm uses, including, among other
factors, a limited water rights and low soil fertility. Applicant argues that these factors demonstrate
that the property is not agricultural land.
Mr. Kesner from 1000 Friends of Oregon argues in its February 28t" submittal that:
The applicant's analysis as to whether the property is agricultural land as defined by DC 18.04.030
and OAR 660-033-0020(1)(o) is faulty in several ways. First, the applicant fails to demonstrate that
the property is not suitable for any 'farm use" as defined under ORS 215.203(2)(a). See OAR 660-
033-0020(1)(a)(8) (agricultural land includes "[1]and in other soil [soil] classes that is suitable for
farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a)). "Farm use" is defined as "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." ORS 215.203(2)(0). The
applicant has only addressed capacity for raising crops and livestock, and has not considered the
capability of the land to support other activities classified as a 'farm use."
Mr. Kesner makes an interesting argument here that the applicant and the County must consider
other farm uses such poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees etc. in making the determination
of whether the property is agricultural land. Mr. Kesner would require a review of the general
definition of "farm use" found in the statute for the determination of whether the property is
"agricultural land."
I find that Mr. Kesner's interpretation is not persuasive. The legislature would not have adopted ORS
215.211 and allowed a county to consider more detailed soils information "to make a better
determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land..." if they also had to consider whether
the applicants could raise bees etc.. The rules also specifically allow for the consideration of soil
types in determining "agricultural land". This statute and the rules implementing it all lead to my
conclusion that this additional analysis of whether the property must meet the broad definition of
agricultural in ORS 205.203(2)(a) is not required.
Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666,160 P3d 614 (2007).
17
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Mr. Kesner also argues that since the property has a significant amount of class 3-6 soils and that
there are many farms in Deschutes County that operate with much smaller acreage than the Subject
Property. Mr Kesner argues that this demonstrates that these small farms are "an accepted and
predominant farm practice in Deschutes County." This is also an interesting argument. However,
under the statute and administrative rules the County is examining whether this property is
"agricultural land" based on its soils and other factors. I find that based on the above -described law
as applied to soils types and the other factors described in the staff report, that the property is not
property classified as "agricultural land."
Staff agrees with the Applicant that many of the factors surrounding the Subject Property - such as
nearby residential and non-agricultural related land uses, high -cost of dryland grazing, soil fertility,
and lack of availability of water rights result in an extremely low possibility of farming on the Subject
Property.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the Subject Property should not be considered agricultural land
and is not suitable for farming 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: The staff report found that the Applicant provided an analysis of land uses and
agricultural operations surrounding the Subject Property. The Applicant analysis determined that
barriers for the Subject Property to engage with these properties in a farm use include: poor quality
soils, lack of irrigation, proximity and significant topography changes.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Subject Property is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby agricultural land under this part of the administrative rules.
(b) Land in capability classes other than 1-IV/1-VI that is adjacent to or
intermingled with lands in capability classes I-I14/1-VI within a farm
unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land
may not be cropped or grazed,
FINDING: Staff report agrees with the Applicant's findings that this property is not part of a farm
unit with the surrounding agricultural lands.
The staff report include the applicant's response to arguments from 1000 Friends as to the Farm
Unit rule.
Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land." if a
majority of the soils are Class 1-6 in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural
land." 1000 Friends position is that this is a 100% Class 7-8 soils test rather than a 51 % Class 7
and 8 soils test because the presence of any Class 1-6 soil requires the County to identify the entire
property as "agricultural land." Case law indicates that the Class 1-6 soil test applies to a subject
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out
beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to
lands in active farming in the area that was once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is
not a test which requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1-6.
I find that the applicant's argument is more persuasive. The law allows for land that is not
predominantly class 1-6 soils to not be considered agricultural lands. As such, it makes sense that
the test under the farm unit rule would not require property to be 100% class 7-8 soils to meet this
test. The applicants also argue:
The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by
preventing property owners from dividing farmland into smaller properties that, alone, do not
meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area
of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so
that land could be removed from EFU zoning. As demonstrated by the historic use patterns and
soils reports, it does not have poor soils adjacent to or intermingled with good soils within a farm
unit. The subject property is not in farm use and has not been in farm use of any kind. It has no
history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for
farm use as the term is defined by State law. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land.
I agree with the applicant that the property was not formerly part of a larger area of land that was
used for farming operations. As such, I find that the application complies with this part of the
administrative rules.
OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land
(1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried
as agricultural land.
(2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a
lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried.
However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors
beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed
in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This
inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel
being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or
suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other
classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent
or nearby lands". A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land
requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the
factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1).
FINDING: The Applicant addressed the factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1) above. I find that the
properties are not "agricultural land," as referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(1) above and contain
barriers for farm use including poor quality soils and lack of irrigation as described in the soil study
produced by Mr. Gallagher. I also find that the Applicant has provided adequate responses
19
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
indicating the Subject Property is not necessary to permit farm practices undertaken on adjacent
and nearby lands. 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 Property to be inventoried
as agricultural land.
(3) Goal3 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 Property is 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 Property is therefore not being used as a factor to determine whether the
Subject Property is 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.
(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: Mr. Gallagher's soil study concludes that the Subject Property contains 58 percent Class
7 and 8 soils. The submitted soil study prepared by Mr. Gallagher is accompanied in the submitted
application materials by correspondence from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD). The DLCD correspondence confirms that Mr. Gallagher's prepared soil study
is complete and consistent with the reporting requirements for agricultural soils capability as
dictated by DLCD. Based on Mr. Gallagher's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil
Classifier, the staff found the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site -
specific soil information for the Subject Property.
I find that the Applicants have elected to provide a more detailed agricultural soil assessment,
conducted by Mr. Gallagher, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist approved by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. The analysis under section OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a), above,
also applies here to address the comments by COWL. Based on the undisputed facts in that report,
the Subject Property do not qualify as "agricultural land."
20
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
(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 Applicant submitted a soil study by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils dated September
26, 2022. The soils study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date. The Applicant
submitted to the record an acknowledgement from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the
DLCD, dated October 27, 2022, that the soil study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting
requirements. Staff found 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.
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
21
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
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 above language 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 zone from EFU to MUA-10.
The Applicant is not proposing any land use development of the properties at this time.
As referenced in the staff report, 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 Joe Bessman, PE of Transight Consulting, LLC dated January 3,
2023, to address trip distribution, traffic volumes, and Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) criteria.
The updates were reviewed by the Senior Transportation Planner who indicated his concerns were
satisfied with the amended report. Mr. Bessman includes the following conclusions in the traffic
impact analysis dated January 3, 2023:
• Rezoning of the 40-acre property from EFU-TRB to MUA provides nearly identical potential impacts
as the existing zoning, with the potential for a reduction in weekday daily and weekday p.m. peak
hour trips, even with inclusion of the conditionally allowed uses within the MUA zoning.
• With a comparative assessment of outright allowable uses the rezone reduces the trip generation
of the property in comparison to what could be built within the EFU zoning.
• The lack of a change in trip generation potential trip generation potential between reasonable
build -out scenarios does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of
significance at any nearby locations.
• Comparison of the maximum outright development in the MUA zoning to the single existing home
would only show seven additional weekday p.m. peak hour trips and 66 additional weekday daily
trips.
• Operational analysis shows that the Stevens Road and Ward Road corridors remain within
Deschutes County's performance thresholds using either the adopted 2030 TSP or values within
the pending 2040 TSP Update.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic study from
Transight Consulting, LLC, staff found compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule had been
effectively demonstrated. Based on the revised traffic study, staff believed that the proposed plan
amendment and zone change would be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area.
22
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that
the Application satisfies this administrative rule.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: 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 Property. 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.
Goal2, 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 property is not agricultural land
because it 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 Property does not include any
lands or soils that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The subject property
does not contain any inventoried Goal 5 resources.
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 Property 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 Property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The Subject Property is also located in Rural
Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard
23
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
Area designation. Any future development of the Subject Property will 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 Property is 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 Property is not
designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application
will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area.
Goal 10, Housing. The County's comprehensive plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm
properties with poor soils, like the Subject Property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-
10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Approval of this
Application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan.
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 Property. Pacific Power has
confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the Subject Property and the proposal will not result in
the extension of urban services to rural areas.
Goal 12, Transportation. 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 within 1 mile from the city limits of Bend. If the
property is developed with additional residential dwellings in the future, providing homes in this
location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to
travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend.
Goal 14, Urbanization. Staff found that this goal is not applicable because the Applicants'
proposal does not involve property within on 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.
Mr. Kesner, 1000 Friends of Oregon, argues that the application does not adequately consider this
goal or seek an exception. February 28, 2023, submittal. At the hearing, the applicant testified that
the MUA-10 zone has been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 14. The staff concurred
with that decision.
24
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
1 find that this Goal is not applicable for the reasons above.
Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon."
IV. CONCLUSIONS
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 17t" Day of March, 2023
Alan A. Rappleyea
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
25
247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC
VSES COG2�
MEETING DATE:
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
August 30, 2023
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 - Griffin Plan Amendment / Zone
Change
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 by title only.
2. Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-018.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board will consider second reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 to implement a request
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to redesignate 40 acres located the east of Bend and
south of Highway 20 from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning
Map Amendment to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use
Agricultural (file nos. 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC).
The entirety of the record can be found on the project website at:
https://www.deschutes.or /g_ cd/page/247-22-000792-pa-793-zc-%E2%80%93-
comprehensive -plan -amendment -and -zone -change
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board)
FROM: Rachel Vickers, Associate Planner
DATE: August 30, 2023
SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - A Plan Amendment and
Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC).
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider a second reading of Ordinance 2023-018
on August 30, 2023 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-
000792-PA, 793-ZC) for one tax lot totaling approximately 40 acres, to the east of the City of Bend and
south of Highway 20.
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant and property owner, Kevin Griffin, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning
Map Amendment to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural
(MUA-10). The applicant argues that the subject property does not meet the definition of "agricultural
land" due to its poor soil quality. For this reason, it is the applicant's position that a mistake was made
when the property was originally zoned and MUA-10 zoning is more appropriate. The applicant
provided a supplementary soil study that identifies non -high value (Class VII and VIII) soils on a
majority (58.5%) of the subject property.
A public hearing before a Hearings Officer was conducted on February 28, 2023 with the Hearings
Officer's recommendation of approval issued on March 24, 2023. The Board held a public hearing on
May 31, 2023 and closed the hearing with no open record period. On June 28, the Board deliberated
to approve the requests, with a unanimous vote in favor of the subject applications.
II. SECOND READING
The Board is scheduled to conduct the second reading of Ordinance 2023-018 on August 30, 2023,
fourteen (14) days following the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance 2023-018 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: Hearings Officer Recommendation
Page 2 of 2