No preview available
2023-300-Minutes for Meeting August 16,2023 Recorded 9/25/2023O`�vZ ES COG�< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 9:00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-300 Steve Dennison; County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 09/25/2023 1:40:41 PM 2023-300 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY August 16, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner DeBone disclosed that on August 12th, both he and Commissioner Chang attended a wildfire briefing hosted by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and local fire officials at Deschutes National Forest Headquarters in Bend. As their joint attendance was not noticed in advance, he wished to disclose at this time in the interest of transparency. CITIZEN INPUT: None Commissioner Adair commented on the death toll in Maui from the recent wildfire in Lahaina and urged Deschutes County residents to sign up for emergency alerts at https•//www.deschutes.org/911, noting these are issued according to location. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 11 Commissioner DeBone added that the State Interoperability Executive Council is working to ensure that each county has the capability to issue emergency alerts as Deschutes County does. Commissioner Chang said it is important to address fuel loads on both public and private lands. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Consideration of Board Signature on letters appointing Denney Kelley and reappointing Tony De Alicante to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board 2. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robert Foster and Gerhard Beenen for their service on the Sunriver Service District Managing Board 3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Tami Pike for service on the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board 4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sabrina Haggerty for service on the Deschutes County Bicycle -Pedestrian Advisory Board 5. Approval of minutes of the June 17 and 19, 2023 BOCC meetings ADAIR: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 6. Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the County contracting code Dave Doyle, County Counsel, explained that SB 1047, enacted recently, made substantive changes to public contracting requirements. These changes, along with others as identified by County staff, have prompted revisions to the County's contracting code effective January 1, 2024. The public hearing was opened at 9:07 am. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed at 9:07 am. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 11 7. ADAIR: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-012 amending Title 2.36 and Title 2.37, Contracting, of the Deschutes County Code by title only CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record. Public Hearing on a request to vacate a portion of Schibel Road (continued from 8/09/20,23) County Engineer/Assistant Road Director Cody Smith reminded that because some parties interested in this matter asked that the public hearing —which was noticed to occur on August 9t"—be postponed from last week, the Board had opened the public hearing, heard some testimony, and subsequently continued the hearing to this day. Smith shared maps showing the location and vicinity of the proposed vacation of a portion of Schibel Road. Smith listed the parties who signed the vacation petition, noted that two other abutting property owners are not petitioners, and provided background information. Based on all of the information submitted, the Road Department has concluded that the proposed vacation is in the public interest. The public hearing was opened at 9:28 am. Liz Dixon, attorney for chief vacation petitioners Jeff and Kathy Gates, presented an annotated county tax map showing all of the affected parcels and an aerial photograph of the location and surrounding area. Dixon said the party opposed to the vacation, John O'Leary, has at least one and possibly two alternate accesses to his property: one via Old Bend Redmond Highway and the other via Highway 20. Dixon said this portion of Schibel Road was dedicated in 1994, has never been improved, and does not have historical public benefit. Dixon noted that last year when O'Leary applied for and received approval for access to Old Bend -Redmond Highway, he had claimed that no other access existed for his property. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 11 Jeff Eager, attorney representing John O'Leary, said the proposed vacation is not in the public interest and the Board could determine that access to O'Leary's property via Schibel Road is necessary. He raised the issue of adverse possession, saying that sometime after the road was dedicated in 1994, a gate was installed and used to block access. Eager said O'Leary's access to Old Bend -Redmond Highway was obtained by accident, based on a false belief that it was needed to secure an address for the property. Eager noted safety concerns related to requiring access off of either highway and said because Schibel Road terminates at O'Leary's property, it was clearly intended to provide access to his property. Eager concluded that O'Leary is willing to agree that the current public right-of-way be shifted to the east to lessen the impact on the petitioner's properties. John O'Leary said the petitioners have blocked access to his property from Schibel Road. He explained that he did not seek access off of Old Bend Redmond Highway as he already had access off of Schibel Road; rather, what he sought was the assignment of an address for his property. He denied that he is interested in developing his property. Peggy Lee Combs, speaking for John O'Leary, said the published public notice was in error as it did not show that the proposed vacation extends to O'Leary's property. She noted that the easement granted by O'Leary was 60 feet in accordance with the required width of the public road that was dedicated and said approving the vacation would amount to favoring one property owner over another for no good reason. Alfred Heston said the only feasible access to O'Leary's property is via Schibel Road. He said it is in the best interest of the public to maintain this road as public and not vacate it, in part because this road dramatically reduces public safety response time to the adjacent properties. In rebuttal, Liz Dixon submitted additional exhibits including the Road Maintenance Agreement, saying this does not reference Tax Lot 100 because that lot was not considered a benefitting property. She denied that the petitioners are claiming adverse possession and said that Schibel did not object to the gate being installed in 1994. There being no one else who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed at 10:13 am. Commissioner Adair asked that the large exhibit be entered into the record. In response to Commissioner Chang, Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley said the Board must decide whether the proposed vacation is in the public interest and it is his decision on what to consider in making his determination. Another factor is whether the vacation would eliminate the only access to a property, or if alternate access is available. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 11 8. WI Commissioner Chang noted the various important concerns and interests at stake and said it is difficult to say if this matter involving a local access road is a question of public interest even though it is of great importance to individual property owners. Commissioner DeBone thanked everyone for their participation in this matter. He acknowledged the recommendation of the Road Department and questioned if any justification exists to not accept staffs recommendation. In response to Commissioner Chang, Smith said according to Oregon statute, the Board must determine if the proposed vacation is in the public interest and decide whether or not to grant the request. Chair DeBone stated that the record was now closed and the Board will conduct its deliberations on this matter next week. First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - Griffin Plan Amendment/Zone Change Rachel Vickers. Associate Planner, said the ordinance presented for action by the Board would approve a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for property totaling approximately 40 acres to the east of Bend and south of Highway 20; the Plan Amendment would re -designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and the Zoning Map Amendment would rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. ADAIR: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 by title only CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record. Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, distributed a decision matrix to guide the Board in its deliberations of a remand decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by LBNW LLC and originally approved by the Board under files 247-21- BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 11 000881-PA, 882-ZC. Rawlings reminded that the 120-day deadline for the Board to render a decision on this matter is September 14, 2023. Does LUBA's remand require the County to conduct an analysis beyond considering the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing uses under the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the subject properties? Rawlings explained the purpose of this question is to determine if the remand issue is broad or narrow in scope. Stephanie Marshall, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel, added that the intent of addressing highly specific questions is to make the record as clear as possible and also to demonstrate that each of the issues raised by LUBA and the opponent have been fully considered by the Board, given that LUBA faulted the Board for not making sufficient findings to support its initial decision. A majority of the Board was in consensus that LUBA's remand does not require more than an analysis considering the ESEE consequences of allowing uses under the RI Zone on the subject properties. 2. Is the County required to amend or modify its Goal 5 scenic view inventory under OAR 660-023-0030, or may the County rely on the existing inventory set forth in the Comprehensive Plan? Responding to Commissioner Chang, Rawlings said the County last updated its Goal 5 scenic view inventory in 1992. A majority of the Board was in consensus that the County can continue to rely on the existing Goal 5 scenic view inventory set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Are the conflicting uses identified pursuant to OAR 660-023- 0040(2) those uses allowed under the RI Zone that are not allowed under the EFU Zone? Rawlings explained that the opponent to this application has argued that the conflicting uses were not adequately identified. Marshall said the question is whether any conflicting uses must be addressed other than those that have been identified. A majority of the Board was in consensus that that the County complied with OAR 660-023-0040, ESEE Decision Process, by considering as "conflicting uses" those uses allowed under the RI Zone that are not otherwise allowed under the current EFU zoning. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 11 Rawlings reviewed that the next question before the Board is identified as 4(a) on the decision matrix. 4(a) What does the County identify as the "impact area" pursuant to OAR 660-023- 0040(3)? A majority of the Board was in consensus that the Applicant's proposed "impact area" is consistent with OAR 660-023-0040(3). 4(b) Is there a distinction between "ESEE consequences" and the "impact area" such that consequences may be documented outside of the identified "impact area"? A majority of the Board was in consensus that there is a distinction in the definitions set forth in OAR 660-023-0010 such that ESEE consequences were appropriately documented by the applicant even if outside of the identified "impact area." 4(c) Can the identified "impact area" be amended at a later proceeding to match the ESEE analysis? A majority of the Board was in consensus that the "impact area" may be amended in an iterative manner along with updating the ESEE analysis pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(1). In response to discussion, Marshall described the standard for an acceptable ESEE analysis as set forth in OAR 660-023-0040(1), which states that an "ESEE analysis need not be lengthy or complex but should enable reviewers to gain a clear understanding of the conflicts and the consequences to be expected." Discussion ensued on the question of whether the Board wishes to allow fully, allow in a limited way, or prohibit conflicting uses under OAR 660- 023-0040(5). Commissioner Chang asked if conflicting uses are allowed in a limited way, if the Board could specify which ones are to be allowed or place restrictions on the ones that would be more visually impactful. In response to Commissioner DeBone, Planning Manager Will Groves said the applicant has asked that the Board find there are no protection measures required for conflicting uses, but rather that these be allowed outright. The Board was in consensus to take up the remainder of the meeting agenda items and, following a lunch break, resume working through the rest of the decision matrix on this matter (see page 9). BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 11 10. 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations Stephanie Robinson, Administrative Analyst, explained that the County's dog licensing process invites residents to voluntarily donate to local non-profit organizations which offer spay and neuter services. Under this program, funds may be used for various purposes associated with providing, encouraging or expanding spay and neuter procedures. Robinson said in June, the Board approved allocating a total of $10,000 for this program in the current fiscal year. Following a solicitation, four applications were received and evaluated by the Dog Control Board of Supervisors, which scored the applications and developed award recommendations for the Board's consideration. Commissioner Chang commented on the recommended award to the Street Dog Hero organization. Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale said the grant agreement could make clear that the awarded funds are to be used for spay and neuter efforts in Deschutes County. ADAIR: Move approval of 2023 spay & neuter grant awards to program applicants as recommended by the Dog Control Board of Supervisors CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried OTHER ITEMS: Commissioner DeBone shared that he has been asked to speak at the Redmond Rotary next week and asked if the Board opposes or supports his idea of speaking about possibly establishing a long-term visitor area. Commissioner Chang supported Commissioner DeBone speaking to this subject if it is presented as his idea and not the Board's or the County's. Discussion ensued regarding available County -owned land in Redmond, the planned land exchange with DSL, various efforts to address homelessness, and coordination with other entities including the Fair & Expo Center. At 11:55 am, the meeting was recessed to reconvene at 1:30 pm to continue deliberations on the remand of the LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 11 The meeting was reconvened at 1:30 pm. 9. Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change (continued from page 7) Rawlings reviewed that the next question before the Board is identified as 5(a) on the decision matrix. 5(a) Does the County accept and adopt as its own the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis as appropriately documenting the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing or prohibiting the conflicting uses on the subject properties? Following discussion, a majority of the Board was in consensus to accept and adopt as its own the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis. 5(b) Does the Applicant's updated ESEE analysis address the Opponent's objection that conflicting uses were inappropriately grouped together? A majority of the Board was in consensus that the updated ESEE analysis addresses concerns regarding grouping conflicting uses together in the initial ESEE prepared by the Applicant. 6(a) Does the Board wish to allow fully, allow in a limited way or prohibit conflicting uses under OAR 660- 023-0040(5)? A majority of the Board was in consensus that the conflicting uses should be allowed fully pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c). 7(a) Does the ESEE analysis demonstrate that the conflicting use is of sufficient importance relative to the resource site? Marshall explained that this question asks if the Board finds that its decision to allow the conflicting uses fully is supported by the ESEE analysis. Following discussion, a majority of the Board was in consensus that the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the conflicting uses is of sufficient importance relative to the resource site. 7(b) Does the ESEE analysis demonstrate why measures to protect the Goal 5 scenic view on the subject properties should not be provided? BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 11 A majority of the Board was in consensus that the ESEE analysis demonstrates why measures to protect the Goal 5 scenic view on the subject properties should not be provided. 8. Is compliance with OAR 660-023- 0050(1) demonstrated by the Applicant's consent to the subject properties continuing to be subject to the LM Combining Zone land use regulations because there are no proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the LM Combining Zone land use regulations before the Board in the application? A majority of the Board was in consensus that compliance with OAR 660-023-0050(1) is already achieved because the Applicant's consent to the subject properties remaining in the LM Combining Zone means that all required Comprehensive Plan provisions and land use regulations are already in place. ADAIR: Move approval of the decisions made pertinent to the remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change application 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC (247-23-000398-A) DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: No DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 Rawlings said staff will return on August 30th with a draft ordinance for the Board's consideration. OTHER ITEMS: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director, said on August 301h, staff will present information on potential options for the Historic Landmarks Commission which has experienced a slowdown in citizen interest and involvement. County Administrator Nick Lelack said in many communities, the Planning Commission serves as the body which advises on issues concerning historic and cultural resources and reviews development applications for alterations to designated historic sites and structures. With regard to the idea discussed earlier of possibly establishing a long-term visitor area on County -owned property in Redmond, Lelack sought direction whether staff should work to further develop this concept in coordination with the Board. BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 10 OF 11 Commissioner DeBone commented on efforts to address homelessness such as the Oasis Village and Veterans Village programs and a planned RV campground next to Oasis Village. He supported developing a less structured option at minimal cost, noting if the County offers this kind of sanctioned shelter, it could then enforce unsanctioned camping where that is not desirable. Commissioner Chang was open to a rigorous and objective analysis of this concept and noted that the County has not yet decided how to use the 45 acres. Commissioner Adair said she is meeting with the Redmond Mayor Ed Fitch later today and will take that opportunity to raise this subject at that time. Commissioner Adair announced that St. Charles is considering dropping the Medicare Advantage program, which would negatively affect thousands of people. Commissioner DeBone requested an email from staff with more information. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:16 pm. DATED this 1/'" Commissioners. ATTEST: day of 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of RECORDING SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, CO MISSIONER BOCC MEETING AUGUST 16, 2023 PAGE 11 OF 11 MEETING DATE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 16, 2023 SUBJECT: Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the County contracting code RECOMMENDED ACTION: First, hold a public hearing; thereafter, move first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-012 amending Deschutes County Code sections 2.36 and 2.37. Alternatively, the Board may want to move first and second reading of the ordinance and immediate adoption by emergency. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: SB 1047 provided substantive changes to public contracting requirements. County staff have also identified needed revisions. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Admin Legal MEETING DATE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 16, 2023 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the request to vacate a Portion of Schibel Road (continued from 8/9/2023) BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County Road Department has received a petition to vacate a portion of Schibel Road in Section 05 of Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M. As the petition for vacation does not include acknowledged signatures of owners of 100 percent of property abutting the proposed vacation area, the vacation proceedings are subject to a public hearing. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director 0 ce ��� C- ro V) V) V) �4-J . C: w (1) o._ E Ew Ln >,�-0 -0 :3 ro ® ® O uucr- O -N c6 E O 4-- • • E• b�A L1. Ln 0 O m 0 E E O U rC ro l!1 0 0 Oi! 71tl4Y.J5 **Si c 0 E L 0 c O O i X F� m J C X O O O i y— I.f) O O O O —j i a) +-+ O dJ 1 N N �,_ . O� X C C I� p O ?� J C — 00 aj y-- L O Q N X hm L Ln 6- O O ajLn O � C O C O 3: iN 4-J N 0N ' - 0 a o 4-Q� COS Q O V) N C Op >, i ro ON N Q ° j Y cn m m oo � a� aj LA � aj (A Q a� � 00 ci J �+- C6 � th C -r LQ OM 4;JU Vt ��Q Iv O N �Q �C—, o_ O Q c 0 r� E 0 w ry v U � r d N a)4>1 4� 00 ® U_ o dam+ v) C�31 �� �.> �olnm o bLn i�a) O aJ C FZ v U � Z bQ ..o a••a Z3 a)�� v > a) O 4-d a) a) a).c c-c a) O a) o -o"--C L 0 � E a) O 0- O > Ui M c 4-' cn mi4-OO ra O c 0 N >, a) 4� Q N 2+_+ O L -o v a)0 0 +-' O a) O �a a-O Q) +�-+ aJ Q Ln a�pt -0 C: c Onr-U ,_4- :3>"O >O, , o U�vo -+a) mv a) c O �°,0 coO_m -0 0 C: rn°-c a o0 >-Ln W '- >. ° tea � vc�a)+�-+� ro 4 u ru v� v,>1 .° �. ,� +� v-0-E >ca)EE c a) - C: ro —U ' a) a) a) c b v o -0v E v- Qo v�i c)>° v,Q-Q)o 00 ao o >1 �'�_ �. V)� O °rn�- aoo 'L of J-0 U'q +•1 M O Of a- O V I w .* L (1) Q > o r)Q 0 C- M .V .4-J 4-J �V) a-J E Ln (a) u q :E On D Ln 0- V) 4-J �r10 u ro r6 > 4- J 0 a- J u N � 0 0 > Q �--i V� (1) u oc t 0 L � � L N CL > 0 0 C: ro .L .4-J 4-J (AV) �4-J E Ln a) u cn � V) Ul � to a) 0 u �6 > r--+ 0 O -� .Ln •� a) u N un V) 0 0 > 0- a--+ LnM a) u cy, :6 �-- C: vn o ro 4- 4--) 0 .Vl 4-J 4-J V) ro 4-j E 4-J . U- ro V) to Q 4-J V) 4-J V) At 4-J ro u 0 ro m > 4-J 0 0 4-J C: >, .4-J V) U m 4-J L/) 0 0 > 0L *.;a- v) ro a) u 0 ro — 4-J " Ln 0 i� �r V) O .Ln Ln .E E O U O U 4- 0 O 00 i i— Ln C ,O O a-' C M Ln C � •E Vl _0 Ln 4-J 0��'cti m o 0 0 ro O V) • CU to V4—<� QJ r N•—,�0 O r�M0 rV6 4--, 00 J 4-J� V) 4- r � ® ®1 � - � � Q N E N L O u Q0 Ln ��0 � Ln m � L E i ry aj 00� Q 4� V) V) Q 0 C: N N lJ 0� cC 4J L- M vi CO a) 0 v) l� i � yid .ftft O U. VI O V) 42 V) to � � Q V 4j O O o .� o O O L >� 9 � O ® b�0 ® N cc u CA >-0 DC -0 0 kn •E Ln O �� 0 ® o a V1 E ♦" � � c O O4- se p i ,� DL V ryu a a � o m N V) r V) L 0 N U N Lo a C E N N N O 4- j 4- j V N N O U N O N � � L O_ �-+ N 0 O ro > U v Q O Os- 4-j N bO.A N r O i O V N U u� '- u v O >1 ro w ro O 4-' r- C ro Q U bA 4 4--J ro 0 O 4-j E U 00 4--1 C (1)O E o :-� \ Z 00 0 W .C: OC p 4--J L > 4-- O L C: O ro QL L Ul m N -0 0 �® () r� 4-J L o 4--) ro �-- O S 0 ® W 4-J >1O r- +-j 4-J r- CL4-J �-' O 4-� OU P 0O N ro C-� r- X Ou V m � (1) (3) .v a) a) ry - M -0pO Wes, (3) r--'00 4`°- Otm 4 >1 M Cl. u 00 -� O�>m -u-0 r-0CY) 00-00 oorn �°'°L'O 4--J u Q) C O � � -0 vn C� ro z O u o Q .o -0 � a) " r u ro O O Oi_0 Q' p to _0C) 4-J O � cu •� cn u •— O E 0� I--b O 0-0 CJL 0 0 4-+ - 4'' C: ro 4-J : O 4-' Cr �-0® CO ro to O b�0 00 0 ���M®� 0 M 4-J V� O .O u 4-J O u 4-J�% .00 _0 O 4-J m 4� 4-J �m� ro ® �� 00 Ln u O ��m L �® 0 E m 00 > O O � � cl000 7.3 Ln -- m ro O > 0- 00 4-' O c� i CO m kJo V) - O 0 0 L LA O L 0- (10 4-J O V) O > U c6 D O 0— b-O D O u 09 J-J 4-J O •� -0 O O 4--J O r 0 O .O O � U �. 4O O V) 4-J Q � � 0-O E • ra0-a)m >, E > o T O O N � u L ro +� �> u O �-J L- � 4-JLn Ln > Ln c6 0 0 E E O X O O ro ,--, N ro U Q) C- ro > Ln O �� r+ � Q- O O L' fu V 4— O '� N u O toro B O rC .O O — a-J - CL _0— ro N 4) ro ro N _ -C -0 t01 .� 0^r1o4— U 0 C) U" W. ' 0 V ro z a� a� ��roL- o v -� CL 0 000 � L. CL -0 0 (L) r 4 J > � o o rz N- CO O --J 4-J 0 JA Y �O L w ti JS� Q Al c6 O m Q) c6 4- J LA E :—; �o V —F .- c6 4- J Q� c6 O E Ln w u V) O 4-J m N E E O u N L V) 4- J a� E bA � cu u ca O -0 ry, Q � 4) 4-J C- C: -4--' O O � u s- L •c6 — u c� c� O O m m a� a� ® 0 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director DATE: July 14, 2023 SUBJECT: Road Official's Report Vacation of a Portion of Schibel Road in Section 05, Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M. Background• Deschutes County Road Department has received a petition to vacate a portion of Schibel Road in Section 05 of Township 17S, Range 12E, W.M.. The Petitioners, who are owners of abutting or underlying property to the proposed vacation area, are: Jeffrey and Kathryn Gates, owners of Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B (Chief Petitioner); Marlene Wheeler Rennie, owner of Tax Lot 1901 and joint owner of Tax Lot 1400 on Assessor's Map 17- 12-05B; and • Terry A. Rennie, joint owner of Tax Lot 1400 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B. The following individuals are owners of abutting or underlying property to the proposed vacation area who are not Petitioners to the proposed vacation: Carl Elwyn Owens III, owner of Tax Lot 1900 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B; and John Kevin O'Leary, owner of Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C. Schibel Road is a local access road that is not maintained by Deschutes County. From Old Bend Redmond Highway, Schibel Road proceeds west; approximately 1,240 ft. west of Old Bend Redmond Highway (within the boundaries of Tax Lot 1800), Schibel Road branches into two alignments, one alignement bearing north and one alignement bearing southwest. The northerly alignment across Tax Lot 1800 presently does not coincide with the established right of way. The subject right of way proposed for vacation includes the entirety of the right of way lying within the boundaries of Tax Lots 1800 and 1901, which includes the intersection of the two aforemention alignments and the southwest alignment. The owners of Tax Lot 1800 have agreed to dedicate a new public right of way across their property to coincide with the existing as -travelled alignment of Schibel Road for the north alignment. The subject right of way proposed for vacation is 60 feet wide and was Page 1 of 5 created by dedication deed recorded at the Deschutes County Clerk's Office as Deed No. 1994-46818. Most of the length of Sch.ibel Road within the proposed vacation is paved at varrying widths; Road Department staff understand that the road improvements were funded and constructed by current or previous owners of the underlying properties and that the improvements were not funded by the County. There are presently public utilities within the proposed vacation area consisting of facilities owned and operated by Central Electric Cooperative. Page 2 of 5 Figure — Aerial Photo of Proposed Vacation Area The Petitioners provided the following reasons (in bold italics) for the proposed vacation; Road Department staff responses to the reasons provided by the Petitioners are also given below: 1. Invalid Dedication due to Restrictions and Reservations —Septic was installed & permitted by Deschutes County in 1980, repaired and permitted by Deschutes County in 1991. The Deed of Dedication was accepted in 1994 by Deschutes County. The 60 foot width encroaches upon the septic system that was approved by Deschutes County. Road Department staff assert that the dedication of the subject portion of Schibel Road was valid, as Deed No. 1994-46818 includes valid offer of the dedication by the owners of the underlying property at the time of dedication and acceptance by the County governing body at the time of dedication. Based on a review of Community Development Department property records for Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B, it does appear that a portion of the disposal field and reserve area for the subject property's onsite wastewater system may exist within the proposed vacation area. Additionally, an outbuilding and a portion of a livestock corral also appear to exist within the proposed vacation area. Road Department staff note that, while this situation encumbers both the public right of way and the underlying property, it does not invalidate the public road dedication. 2. Reduces property values of the 3 tax lots requesting this Vacation, which is 75% of the owners. Road Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property. 3. Decades old trees and landscaping would be lost. Road Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property. 4. Since 1994, the county has never used, improved, nor plowed this road to our knowledge. Not once that we know of has the county plowed the snow during the major snowstorms of 2017 & 2019. Road Department records indicate that no County -funded maintenace or improvement of the subject portion of Schibel Road has ever occurred; however, Road Department staff note that County -funded maintenance of a local access road is forbidden under state law and that absence of County -funded maintenance is not indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property. S. The southern portion of the road that is requested to be vacated has not been used by the general public and has only been used as access and a driveway for tax lots 1800 and 1901. John Kevin O'Leary, owner of Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C, has indicated to Road Department staff that he has interest in using it for future access. Nonetheless, Road Department staff believe that, generally, the subject right of way has only been used to access Tax Lots 1800 and 1901 as indicated by the Petitioners. The primary access to Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C is from Old Bend Redmond Highway. 6. Traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done that we know of. Road Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property. Page 3 of 5 T. Safety of the young children living on Schibel �Road ;s a concern of the parents and neighbors. Road Department staff will not address this statement as it is not verifiable or indicative of a necessity to vacate the public's interest in a property. 8. It is not in the General Public's best interest. The Board of County Commissioners will make this determination. 9. Induced to sign dedication under false pretenses. We were told we could remove the southern portion of the dedication with a "single item deletion. Current Road Department staff have no knowledge of the requirements or circumstances under which the subject right of way was dedicated in 1994. Road Department staff note that Jeffrey and Kathryn Gates, Chief Petitioners and owners of Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B, were partial grantors for the 1994 dedication deed. 10. Tax lot 100 to the south will not suffer loss of access as the site address of 64145 Old Bend Redmond Hwy is permitted, approved and installed. As indicated above, the primary access to Tax Lot 100 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05C is from Old Bend Redmond Highway. A review of Assessor's Tax Map 17-12-05B indicates that the proposed vacation would effectively landlock Tax Lot 1901, potentially depriving the owners of that property of access necessary for the exercise of their property right. In regards to this matter, Road Department staff note that the submitted petition included a loss of access consent form signed by the property owners. The Petitioners submitted completed service provider consent forms from those providers serving within or adjacent to the proposed vacation area; those service providers and their responses are listed below: • Avion Water Company, Inc. o Representative: Mike Heffernan, Engineering Department o Service provider does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation o Service provider consents to the proposed vacation • Central Electric Cooperative o Representative: Parneli Perkins, Land and ROW Specialist o Service provider does have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation o Service provider consents to the proposed vacation but requests that an easement for utilities be granted within the proposed vacation area. Service provider emailed Road Department staff on June 12, 2023 indicating that easement documents had been secured and that their organization was supportive of the proposed vacation. Findings: Based upon the submitted petition materials, responses to service provider notices, and the Road Department's research of the subject right of way, the Road Department makes the following findings: • The proposed vacation area was dedicated to the public by dedication deed recorded at the Deschutes County Clerk's Office as Deed No. 1994-46818 (ORS 368.326). • Owners of a recorded property right that would potentially be deprived of access necessary for the exercise of that property right with the proposed vacation have consented to the proposed vacation (ORS 368.331). Page 4 of 5 • The Petitioners, who represent the owners of more than sixty (60) percent of property abutting the subject right of way, have submitted complete petitions and submitted the required fee (ORS 368.341(i)(c); ORS 368.341(3); ORS 368.341(4); ORS368.351). • As the petition for vacation does not include acknowledged signatures of owners of 100 percent of property abutting the proposed vacation area, the vacation proceedings are subject to a public hearing (ORS 368.346). • The subject right of way does not appear to be necessary for current or future public use. • The subject right of way appears to coincide with onsite wastewater system components, an outbuilding, and other private property improvements for Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B. Recommendation: Based on the above findings, the Road Department has determined that the proposed vacation is in the public interest. The Road Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed vacation with adoption of Order No. 2023-017 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to vacation of the subject right of way, the owners of Tax Lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 17-12-05B shall execute a dedication deed to coincide with the existing as -travelled north alignment of Schibel Road. 2. The vacated property shall vest with the rightful owner or owners holding title according to law in accordance with ORS 368.366(1)(c). This report is made pursuant to ORS 368.326 through 368.366, concerning the vacation of county property. Page 5 of 5 PETITION FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC ROAD TO: THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS We, the undersigned (holding recorded interest or abutting the proposed property or owning improvements constructed on the proposed property for vacation), respectfully request the following described road be vacated. �-!�I r� Description of road to be vacated: &c. I-^'�� 4 GAed Located in �o( Deschutes County. Reason for road vacation request: DATED this, a day of J 20 2.Z PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP I;GRI2y NNIg S_1I l 3f'flC( ae 977��3 cckG .t r STATE OF OREGON ) County of S j ss. L7L2OL9 -/ 703 On this olL day of ' i U (-_,, in the year 202z-, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared T'C\ r I cane" L`e-e t�e.r Re e-� `'� personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it. WITNES my hand and off . I seal OFFICAL STAMP Rota iic for 'Oregon. TINA MARIE MORRIS re g NOTARYPIJBLIC-OREGON My Commission expires: COMMISSION NO.996354 MY (iOMMtSSION EXPIRES JANUARY 28, 2024 STATE OF OREGON ) County of On this _c 1' day of k In the year 20-, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared 19 R .Y Pr- R e"m i e personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instru they) executed it. TINA MARIE MORRIS WITNES�myand nd offic' eal NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.99�354 Np� p blic for Oregon. MYC4MMISS" EXPIRES JMNUARY 28, 2M4 My Commission expires: STATE OF OREGON } County of ) On this 'day of in the year 20a before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared r9l\ a r I e-YN.c. R c-I1. y% . C - personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this I (she, they) executed it. T� TINA MARIE MCRRIS 1MTNES my handand officl NOTARY PUBLIC-OREaON f COMMISSION NO. 9%354 Not bliC for O MY CCAiIMRSSIit EXPIRES JANUARY 2$, 2b24 I1i'g®n` My Commission expires: STATE OF OREGON } j ss. Cou of On this , In the year 20_ . before me, a Notary Public, rsonallY appeared me on the basis of sati ory evidence) to be the personally kn n to me (or proved to instrument, and acknowledg at he (she, they) executed kwhose name(s) is( subscribed to this WITNESS my hand and offic, seal for I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS THE TRUE AND ORIGIN�VPETIT1'6"IRCULATED BY ME. TELEPHONE: PETITION FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC ROAD TO: THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS We, the undersigned (holding recorded interest or abutting the proposed property or owning improvements constructed on the proposed property for vacation), respectfully request the following described road be vacated. Description of road to be vacated: _See attached Located in , Deschutes County. Reason for road vacation request: See attached DATED this day of 20 Qa PRINT NAME SIGNATURE Kathryn Gates, Trustee Jeffrey Gates, Trustee STATE OF OREGON } ss. County of ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TiVJ1--4- 64227 Schibel Rd, Bend, OR 97703 To,.x%64227 Schibel Rd, Bend, OR 97703 On this ao/i day of in the year 20 6 �efore me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Kathryn Gates, Trustee of the Jeffrey & Kathryn Gates Rev LIV Trust, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, �X it. OFFICIAL STAMP Notary Public for Oregon. KAl1 MARIE CLA rya ODD 1ARY PUBt.K.-OREGON My Commission expires: MMISSION NO 10216W t$:Cx EXPIRES FEBFitfARY 2 STATE OF OREGON ) se. County of-E'll�s ) On this day of c �Ck1 �, in the year 2a22before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Jeffrey Gates, Trustee of the _Jeffrey & Kathryn Gates Rev LIV Trust,_ personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to b erson(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instrum=acknitow the (she, executed . STAMP icial seal AftIE CLAYL,'OREOMNo �o2teeo Notary u IYt�o +BRUMY2 2 My Commission expires c� STATE OF OREGON ss. County of On this day of , in the year 20_, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal STATE OF OREGON ss. County of Notary Public for Oregon. My Commission expires: On this day of in the year 20_, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is(are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged that he (she, they) executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public for Oregon. My Commission expires: I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS THE TRUE AND ORIGINAL PETITION CIRCULATED BY ME. ��WGNAVURE TELEPHONE:I Reason for Vacating the southern portion of Schibel Rd 1-Invalid Dedication due to Restrictions and Reservations - Septic was installed & permitted by Deschutes County in 1980, repaired and permitted by Deschutes County in 1991. The Deed of Dedication was accepted in 1994 by Deschutes County. The 60foot width encroaches upon the septic system, that was approved by Deschutes County. 2-Reduces property values of the 3 tax lots requesting this Vacation, which is 75% of the owners. 3-Decades old trees and landscaping would be lost. 4-Since 1994, the county has never used, improved, nor plowed this road to our knowledge. Not once that we know of has the county plowed the snow during the major snowstorms of 2017 & 2019. 5-The southern portion of the road that is requested to be vacated has not been used by the general public and has only been used as access and a driveway for tax lots 1,80 and 1901. 6-Traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done that we know of. 7-Safety of the young children living on Schibel Road is a concern of the parents and neighbors 8-It is not in the General Public's best interest. 9-Induced to sign the dedication under false pretenses. We were told we could remove the southern portion of the dedication with a "single item deletion" 10-Tax lot 100 to the south will not suffer loss of access as the site address of 64145 Old Bend Redmond Hwy is permitted, approved and installed. EXHIBIT A SCHIBEL ROAD - VACATION A STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4, SW 1/4), ALL IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5 BEARS NORTH 34�4251" EAST, 51.73 FEET, THENCE NORTH 00-43'51" WEST, 161.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88032'18" WEST, 76.94 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16.54'37 AN ARC LENGTH OF 88.54 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 80-05'00" WEST, 88.22 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 71037'41" WEST, 39.52 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 110.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65-21'54", AN ARC LENGTH OF 125.49 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 75-41'22" WEST, 118.80 FEET); THENCE NORTH 43o00'25" WEST, 81.60 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 140.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 80°07'12", AN ARC LENGTH OF 195.77 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 02`56'49" WEST, 180.21 FEET); THENCE NORTH 37'06'47" EAST, 125.37 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 300.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°17'49", AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.93 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 50-45'42" EAST, 141.58 FEET); THENCE NORTH 64�24'36" EAST, 40.87 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48-27'11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 126.85 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 40011'00" EAST, 123.10 FEET) TO A POINT ON THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION, THE SIDELINES ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE AND AT THE SOUTH LINE OF TAX LOT 17120513001800. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER BEARS SOUTH 00`43'51" EAST, 536.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 83°16'31" WEST, 147.04 FEET TO THE SIDELINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRIP OF LAND AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION, THE SIDELINES ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID SIDELINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRIP OF LAND AND AT SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBIT MAP ARE BASED ON COUNTY SURVEY NO. 11789. I��vI�T1=FEE® P'ROFE;SSIONAL. rm am 'EXHIBIT SCHIBEL ROAD VACATION LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4, NW SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M. S—N 1 /64 LINE N89'58'42"W HOLLYHOCK 1994 LIVING TRUST 64245 SCHIBEL ROAD TAX LOT 171205B001901 / o^ 30• It ll I ti Ate. 8j OQ pp. SCALE 1 " = 100' E-W CENTER 1/4 LINE /G�� /43 / / 'o,\ o/ K 6 N83'16'31 "W 147.04' PORTION OF SCHIBEL ROAD / TO BE VACATED JEFF AND KATHY GATES 64227 SCHIBEL ROAD TAX LOT 171205B001800 Z \ / C1 54' S88'32'18"W C2 13�� IIA w R 30 00' 76.94' ,Q\ 25.49 S� �10.00' 3g5/ z 0 � o 'v rn � CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA I BEARING CHORD Cl 88.54' 300.00' 16'54'37" S80'05'00"W 88.22' C2 125.49' 110.00' 65'21'54" N75'41'22"W 118.80' C3 195.77' 140.00' 80*07112" NO2'56'49"W 180.21' C4 142.93' 300.00' 27*17'49" N50'45'42"E 141.58' C5 126.85' 1 150.00' 1 48*27'11" N40'11'00"E 123.10' P.O.B. OF 60' WIDE — EASEMENT BEARS S34'42'51 "W, 51.73' FROM CW 1 /16 CORN A- SCRIBEL_ ROAD D rnrn aj z c� 1 cn N o 00 z (Az � -1 ;' c� m c rn a o z zz m � D n C O 0 (" AX rn -< b z91 0 co 0 CW 11,16 CORNER SECTION 5 T17S, R12E, W.M. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL. IN n Zd EXHIBIT A SCHIBEL ROAD - DEDICATION A STRIP OF LAND BEING 60.00 FEET WIDE, 30.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF CENTERLINE (WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4) IN SECTION S, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 FROM WHICH THE CENTER WEST ONE -SIXTEENTH CORNER BEARS SOUTH 00-43'51" EAST, 536.04 FEET, THENCE NORTH 83-16'31" WEST, 3.92 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A 105.88 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 82*05'22", AN ARC LENGTH OF 151.70 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 42-13'50" WEST, 139.05 FEET); THENCE NORTH 01'11'09" WEST, 20.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION, THE SIDELINES ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT SAID NORTH -SOUTH CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND AT THE ONE-SIXTYFORTH LINE. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBIT MAP ARE BASED ON COUNTY SURVEY NO. 11789. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL JULY' 't-lW* -1994 BRIAN' WREEM D AT t � i,-2o21 'EXHIBIT B' SCHIBEL ROAD DEDICAII0I LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M. S-N 1/64 LINE N89'58'42"W 795.52' HOLLYHOCK 1994 LIVING TRUST 64245 SCHIBEL ROAD TAX LOT 171205BOO1901 30' 1 OS\ • )O, \ DEDICATION 3.92'- N83-16'31 " W c o ''� SCHIBE AD � N83'16'31,; _ I - i D mr m co a z (r JEFF AND KATHY GATES o v m 64227 SCHIBEL ROAD m w z n TAX LOT 171205BOO1800 Z � � m n m� � N Z I m D om �v r*� f z °° . o OD SCALE 1" = 100' E-W CENTER 1/4 LINE CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA I BEARING CHORD C6 151.70' 105.88' 82'05'22" 1 N42'13'50"W 139.05' CW 1/16 CORNER SECTION 5 T17S, R12E, W.M. 'REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL 1l-W, —i994 BRIAN, W. -EEVES RENEWAL lJATC 1731--U--i We, the undersigned, are the owners of Tax Lot 1712DWW1901 in Deschutes County, Oregon, The proposed road vaaaft of a portion of Sdtkel Road will deprive us of access to a Public road necessary for the exerdse of our recorded property rift. According to Oregon Revised SWA tes 368.331: 30&331 tlmbmkwt on we of vacadon pmmedinps to efthute access. A county govemfng body shad not vacate publk lands under ORS 38B.3W to We 366 if the vecahm would depdv+e an ownerof a rocwrdedpmrperty fight of access necessary for the exendse of that p►operty dght unfess the county goveaft body has the consent of the owner. Mle hereby give the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon consent to prooeed with the proposed road vacation of a portion of Schibel Road. DATED this t day of '� 7--bV UAC' 2OeA Marlene S WheeW. Owner as Tnm tee T A ennie, Owner Hollyhock 1994 Living Trust, JIV STATE OF ��+I�.c�'� County aft j The foregoing Instrument wag admowledged Marlene S. Wheeler me by heeler this. - day of V .bC li'AC + , 20Q. PIMCO " NOTARY PUBLIC FOR E-A ���CPO C00"1151� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _d'$ Aw Is, ues/1 Cr1R rw�r tamm. E WA STATE OP151ftiii{� ) County mw The foreoft instrument was adamMedged before me by Terry A. Rennie this day of ��v A , 20�j �AVDWHWMM NOTARY PUBLIC FOR GREGGNAA AZ. %am►°1b`-#Amft MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: sPW Ll L Comnst�ian 1�i3317t My Comte. 6 1 152m SERVICE PROVIDER CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY VACATION a i r V (:,I- a4e S, , as Chief Petitioner, intends to submit a petition for Deschutes (Chief Petitioner's Name) County, Oregon to vacate the public right of way described or depicted in the attached documents. As a utility or other service provider, Avion Water Company, Inc. Does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation. ❑ Have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation. Further, as a utility or other service provider, Avion Water Company, Inc. Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way. ❑ Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way but requests that an easement for utilities be granted within the area to be vacated by the underlying property owner. ❑ Does not consent to the proposed right of way vacation for the following reason: Print Name of Service Provider Representative Signature Ref: Schibel Road Vacation e E G, j Representative's Title 2 / 2- Date cn CD 0 9 0 92 M W< Co CA (n CD 4 .5. 00 CL cz> C-1-4 ER -n po CD =r 0 0 I PA N X N CD CO ROO" X4. I m C) 14— CD In -4 Rig "CD -W 8 OLD BEND-RED.Mol Cil HVVY SERVICE PROVIDER CONSENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY VACATION Kathv Gates . as Chief Petitioner, intends to submit a petition for Deschutes (Chief Petitioner's Name) County, Oregon to vacate the public right of way described or depicted in the attached documents. As a utility or other service provider, Central Electric Cooperative, Inc (Service Provider Name) ❑ Does not have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation. Have existing facilities within the area proposed for vacation. Further, as a utility or other service provider, _ Central Electric Cooperative Inc (Service Provider Name) ❑ Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way. 11 Consents to the vacation of this section of public right of way but requests that an easement for utilities be granted within the area to be vacated by the underlying property owner. ❑ Does not consent to the proposed right of way vacation for the following reason: If the proposed new Road is dedicated to the public an easement for CEC's existing facilities located within the proposed new ROW will need to be created Pameli Perkins Print Name of Service Provider Representative Land & ROW Specialist Representative's Title Signatur Date tO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject::'. �`��4 � Date: Name fe Address 1. to_ C/ ` /o Phone #s a E-mail address, ;h, 0 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1Yes 0 No If so, please give a copy o the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR N.W.1/4 SEC.5 T.17S. R.12E. W.M. 17 12 05BO ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ONLY DESCHUTES COUNTY 612/2022 1" = 200' 1 SEE MAP 16 12 32 Cancelled No: 3f I 32 I 1600 nao 14COR 65 2000 2001 J016.ec t00 c 1— 949.0 PARCEL f Y 1\ l o\ ) y Mslss yy../T' PARCEL 2 1 ®3 200 kV 8 111 �� L — ---- l1RRC\C\RRCZ LOT 3 90 39B8 AC uasx 1 400 9ynC 2002C 600 azJm 700 PARCEL 2 PT PARCEL 1 pT 1 ® 1 5 P, V�Mk>n'4a. L.$miaa.ilaiurt--F.... i-'i 1+.' i'.hihe'm'kZu'ai f ( A s9 800 `PT arz 500 C I�t 6 f//$ S P1 i O '¢off/ ra a� �1.1 anc e 2 333 AC ,n 1900 —1 1700 900 ')ta nC m a 20 SOFT H = 1-715ti.+S. o W co .. r, - ab. ,O90 a 1W s- 8- 2-7 &� f E)IJ osonc 'f O no kP 1800 saRi L,a iOAc 14400- " N _ \ RpgQ / nac ) D /J 1 v 1200 a(uR, _�•� ao.�," 4"'r. can �. �y. -x� sYeua *t .vw • as _ a,Z.� � sv _ v\__. .� ,...,,..',mod . COR \' iAc ®p® j I 1 o2S "cc-- — zss :12nnw �— Is 8 0201` 200 r i ,too rr f 1 0 r4 � y Exhibit 5 \6 0 C r rr \ 9 gage ®f io f 17 12 05CO Page of Deschutes County Property Information Documents for account # 169052 Account Information Mailing Name: OLEARYJOHN KEVIN Map and Taxlot: 171205C000100 Account:169052 Situs Address: 64145 OLD BEND REDMOND HWY, BEND, OR 97703 Tax Status: Assessable Development Documents Search: Date Uploaded Document Type Description File Number 247-22-003380-DA 5/10/2022 Other Approved access 247=22-003380-DA View Document 247-22-000572-LR 7/15/2022 Application Materials 2022-07-14 ADD Materials 22-572-LR 247-22-000572-LR View Document 11/15/2022� Decisions, Memos, Orders & Staff Reports 12022-11-15 22-572-LR FD, NOD 247-22-000572-LR View Document THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT, SEQUENCE, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE DATA PROVIDED HEREIN. DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED, DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED HEREUNDER. © 2023 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Exhibit Wage Of 4 , (Connections to public roads or rights -of -way only) INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Date: A r i 1 10 2022 Access Permit Number: Land Use File Number (if applicable): Road Name: n i ci rid Red,nnrid H i gf ,- v Road Number: Applicant's Name: John K� O'Lea ry Phone: 5( 4l j 383•-2430 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7232 'BendORCity/State/Zip: 97708 Permit Address (if different): Applicant's Email Address: _ Property Description: Township__ Range.. 12 Section 05 Tax Lot - OO.,jjU_? 1 ?02 Nearest intersection: Hzghw N and td Bend Red fond Hiohw y Type of Access (check one): ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial tX Farm Type of Surface to be constructed (check one): ❑ Concrete t Aggregate or Cinder Base ❑ Asphalt Other: Applicant hereby applies to Deschutes County for permission to construct a driveway access at the permit address above. All work shall be in conformance with Deschutes County Code 17.48.210, 17.48.220 and 12.28. The driveway access shall be maintained as approved and shall not present a traffic hazard for road or driveway users. Applicant agrees and understands that this permit does not constitute a land use permit. Any development of property connected with this permit must comply with all applicable land use regulations. Please include a drawing or site plan sketch (space provided on the back of this form), showing the location and type of access. It should indicate the driveways position relative to landmarks :such as roads, other driveways, fence lines, power poles, etc, Please include a north arrow, and mark the proposed access in the field at the road with stakes, flags or paint on the road so the inspector can readily locate it, For properties within unincorporated communities, please indicate whether a curb cut and/or sidewalks will be required. If required, public sidewalks shall be constructed at the time the driveway access is constructed, Note: If a curb cut is required for the installation of the driveway, a permit to work in the public right-of-way is required from the County Road Department, Disclaimer: Deschutes County will not take responsibility for ensuring that all other conditions of any other regulating agency have been complied with. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to meet any existing subdivision covenants, conditions and restrictions, and all other neighborhood and regulatory agency requirements. Applicant/Owner agrees to remove any ronstrurtion-lOenmonts, not mootine. standards, ,s daterminr4d by Count,. 11 7 NVJ L.afaye: e Avenuee, Bend, Oregon 97703, j P.O Box 600S, Ber)d, OR 97708-6005 al 541 388-E 75 @ cr ®® � i Crider ) �.. d�.sC,';u�c-s.or�, v✓•vs,��,descr �'� �� -7' Pae Rev 5/18 9®f Applicant's Signature;_ _ ___ Date: CT Amount Received: _ Receipt No: Check No./Cash: Area Drawing Showing Subject Property (A map may also be attached) See Attached Map z � Special Conditions:Access provides sight distance to the left of 860 feet and to the right of 535 feet. Distance to Nearest Intersection: 815' N to Schibel Rd Mile Point: Approved by: DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT �'�"� --- Printed Name: W_Brett,Hamrick Date: 5/10/22 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Printed Name: Date: 117 NW i...affiyet te Avenue, Bend, Ore;on 97/0:3 j P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 9770 .tAibit (54i).388-657'3 @ cdd@)dc.schu"es.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd page of UtWjHUIL� UUUNIY 1 " = 200' SEE MAP 17 12 053 34AAC I Entire Acre ge 11 r-I m a--> Ske MAP 17 12 08 w E s flag Gate flag` 43, 500 . . ... . .... Exhibit 7 xhihnt II Page T of Driveway Inspection for access Permit Address: 64145 Old Bend Redmond Hwy Permit number: 247-22-003380-®A Road name: Old Bend Redmond Hwy Road number: 02156 RESIDENTIAL -14' SINGLE, 20' DOUBLE Agricultural - 20' wide COMMERCIAL - 35' wide New Access or 0 Existing access Posted Speed of MPH Road Classification LOCAL 0 COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 0 UNKNOWN Type of Road Surface PAVED,0 GRAVEL,0 DIRT Distance to Schibel Rd & old Bend Redmond Hwy Intersection is 815 ft. to the North Actual sight distance looking left: 860 feet & to the right: 535 feet Latitude: 44.129613 Longitude: -121.314807 Milepost: Culvert Needed 0 YES (�) NO - Minimum pipe size shall be 12" BASIC SIGHT DISTANCE CHART Down Grade LEFT RIGHT MPH TURN TURN 3% 9% add add 25 280 240 3' 18' add add 35 390 335 7' 37' add add 45 500 430 18' 49' add add 55 610 530 25' 98' Drivers eye Height of 3.5' & object Height of 2' above surface R"ioilnRD lif aCdS (JKE RH2JlR'xu SIGHT NISTAINCE MSED G::,UAR NOORSTRUMNSBE'FGENI' NO Gi3STitlliiIiJNSEitiwEEPat �.tU4i'1Ee &8'OFFINISH GRADE ELEVATION &S'OF FINISH GRADE ELEVAMN xe! Does the Access meet sight distance criteria? a YES or 0 NO Conditions of approval: Maintain a clear view Inspected by: BH Approved by: Exhibit 4-1 Page of County code quick refrence: 17.48.210. Access. A. Permit Required. Access onto public right of way or change in type of access shall require a permit. Permits are applied for at offices of the Community Development Department. B. Access Restrictions and Limitations. The creation of access onto arterials and collectors is prohibited unless there is no other possible means of accessing the parcel. In any event, residential access onto arterials and collectors shall not be permitted within 100 feet of an intersection or the maximum distance obtainable on the parcel, whichever is less. C. Commercial and Industrial Access. 1. Requirements for commercial and industrial access will be determined by the Road Department Director in accordance with DCC 17.48.090. 2. Safety improvements, including left turn lanes and traffic signals, may be required. D. Sight Distance. Access shall be denied at locations that do not meet AASHTO sight distance standards. (Ord. 2001-016 §1, 2001; Ord. 93-012 §53(A), 1993; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §8.400(1)-(4), 1981) 17.48.220, Driveways. A. Access Width. The following are the maximum width of driveways: Type Width (in feet) Residential 14(single), 20(double) Agricultural 20 Commercial/Industrial 35 B. Culverts. Where culverts are required for driveways, the minimum pipe size shall be 12 inches. C. Drainage. Driveways shall be constructed in such a manner that water, aggregate or any other substance that is hazardous to the traveling public will not enter onto the public right-of-way. D. Construction. Construction of the driveway shall be in accordance with the design standards of the County Road Department. (Ord. 2011-018 §1, 2011; Ord. 2001-016 §1, 2001; Ord. 81-043 §1, Exhibit A, §8.400(5)-(8), 1981) 12.28.090. Prohibited Locations. A. No driveway approach shall be permitted to interfere with any public utility facilities. Under the permit required by DCC 12.28, the applicant may be authorized to relocate any such utility, upon application to the subject utility provider and upon making suitable arrangements for financial reimbursement to the utility provider. B. At street intersections no portion of any driveway approach, including end slopes, shall be permitted within the intersection curb return. C. At street intersections in noncommercial or residential and rural areas, no portion of any driveway approach, including end slopes, shall be permitted within 50 feet of the intersection curb return. (Ord. 2011-026 §4, 2011; Ord. 95-035 §1, 1995; Ord. 203-6 §5, 19751 12.28.100. Width of Driveway Approach Apron. The width of driveway approach aprons shall not exceed the following dimensions: A. For residential driveways, 14 feet for single driveways and 20 feet for double driveways and not more than one driveway approach shall be permitted per lot when such lot is 50 feet or less in width fronting on any street or avenue. 1. An additional driveway approach will be allowed when any particular lot has 50 feet or more of frontage on any street or avenue and the driveways can meet the spacing requirements listed in DCC 17.48.090 (B). 2. Sidelines of lots may also have driveway approaches in conformity with the provisions of DCC 12.28.100(A); notwithstanding that such lots have driveway approaches on their frontage area. B. For commercial driveways, when one or more driveway approaches serve a given property frontage, no single apron shall exceed 35 feet in width, but when such establishment controls 50 feet or more of street frontage the number of driveway aprons shall be limited to two for the first 100 feet or part thereof and not more than 35 percent of the frontage exceeding the initial 100 feet thereafter. A safety island of not less than 16 feet of full height curb shall in all cases be provided between driveway approaches serving any one -property frontage. C. Property frontage referred to in DCC 12.28 includes approach areas directly in front of property owned or under the control of the applicant, and such area as may be directly in front of adjoining property which is used for approach purposes by right of easement or agreement with the adjoining property owner. (Ord. 2011-026 §4, 2011; Ord. 95-035 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-6 §6, 1975) Exhibit 1Page of Fyr1. /1-A TES TY FICIAL tD1ANCYUBLANKENSNIp�F000NTY CLERK RECORDS Am-1915 Nis V' ut I i CI { iti�z�� (; n ' O AFIIR R211AG RETURN T%,, u- a) HENDRlX BRINICH & �" C6t1*1 c., ti BERTALAN, 1.1.11 U Mrn716NWHarrimanSt FIRST 1s'1-"i,:'ANTITLE Q_ iL n Bend OR 97701 I1d�U1�A°'i,.': �i�l\' OF OREGON ltl tb 541.382.4980 X 323 c O L? BEND, OR 97709 wp m v [111ILI(JU)JIllitl[LI IIII IIIIIIIIIII $76.00 03/30/2004 12:06:54 PM D-AG Cnta1 Stna4 TRACY $50.00 $11.00 $10.00 $5.00 ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT i� t� PARTIES: ALL PROPERTIES IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON I3 z Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of the Ogburn Family Trust dated April 30,1999, owners of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02000 said real property described as: Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1994-45, being located in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/e NW'/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM. Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, owners of two parcels of property taxlot 17-12-05BO-02002 said real property described as: Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1996-8, Being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, Rl2E, WM And taxlot 17-12-05BO-01400 described in Exhibit l Attached. Jeffrey M. Gates and Kathryn U. Gates, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12- 05B0-01� 800 said real property described in Exhibit 2 attached. Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17- 12-OSBO-Ol 90�,_said real property described in Exhibit 3 attached. Randal S. Thornton and Janette A. Thornton, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12- 05BO-02001 said real property described as: Parcel 2, of Minor Land Partition MP-92-53, filed November 2, 1994 as Plat Partition 1994-45, a parcel in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM. Mark Jensen, owner of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02003 said real property described as: Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1996-8, filed March 7, 1996, being a portion of Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW ''/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM. Bradley G. Smith and Mary Meloy, husband & wife, owner of taxlot 17-12-05110- 01900 said real property described in Exhibit 4 attached. Page 1. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ht.0bMijtt1 & i-1146t AM&115AN t1t t INS fr1ANCE COMPANY OF OREGON AS AN AC;(-'%A()0A11()N ()NLY. NO LIABILITY IS fiJ i tiff T4dE CONDITION OF TITLE r.,'t;'; VALVTY, SUFFICIENCY, OR tia 60C,OMENT. PARTIES, and their successors, heirs and assignees, hereby agree as follows: 1. This Agreement covers a road dedicated to the public by Declaration of Dedication, recorded November 28, 1994 at 94-46818, by Partition Plats 1994-45 and 1996-8. 2. This Agreement replaces all prior agreements, including that recorded at Book 265, Page 1725, Official Records of Deschutes County, recorded May 18, 1992, and bearing recording number 92-15794 and Book 127, Page 482, May 8, 1962, Deschutes County Deed Records; and Book 352, Page 731, Official Records of Deschutes County, and bearing recording number 94-36729. 3. This Agreement is appurtenant to and burdens each and every parcel of real property named herein. 4. The true consideration for this conveyance is the mutual promises contained herein. 5. The parties shall appoint a manager from time to time by a simple majority of the properties. Each property has one vote. The manager shall prepare an annual budget for maintenance, repair and snow removal. The annual budget shall then be apportioned to each equally and such amount shall be paid monthly to the manager to be placed in a separate account for such purposes. 6. The road maintenance records shall be available for inspection at reasonable times upon reasonable notice. 7. Any party can call a meeting upon written notice actually received by every member upon reasonable notice to be held at a reasonable time. Nothing herein prevents "meetings" or information to be circulated by email or other reasonable means calculated in good faith to give reasonable notice as long as all parties agree. 8. The parties shall hold harmless and indemnify the manager for any activity the manager performs within the, scope of acting as manager of this road maintenance agreement. 9. Any legally created partition or subdivision or other legally created access to the road that creates new lot or lots shall by said action create an additional property or properties entitled to a vote and requiring proportionate payment of the road maintenance assessment. Said access shall be allowed upon execution and recording of an Addendum to this Agreement signed by the new Owner agreeing to the terms of this Agreement. 10. Any change in the level of maintenance shall require 2/3 majority vote. 11. Amendments to this Agreement pertaining to the management, maintenance and repair of the road may be made by 2/3 of the properties if made in writing, notarized and recorded in similar fashion to this Agreement. No other Amendments are allowed. 12. Subject to the normal maintenance contemplated herein, costs of repair of the road damaged by natural disasters or other events for which all holders of an interest in the road are blameless maybe shared equally. 13. Those holders of an interest in the road that are responsible for damage to the road because of negligence or abnormal use (including that caused by their invitees) shall repair the damage at their sole expense. Page 2. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 14. If any holder of an interest in an road fails to pay the cost of maintenance or paving of the road as provided herein, or if after written demand to pay said holder's proportion of such maintenance costs, a civil action for money damages or specific performance or contribution (or combination of such claims) may be brought against that person in a court of competent jurisdiction by one or more of the other holders of an interest in the road, either jointly or severally. The court may order such equitable relief as may be just in the circumstances. The prevailing party shall recover all court costs, arbitration fees (if any) and attorney fees at trial and on appeal. The manager may bring action on behalf of the parties. Phillip N. ^ burn, T st OGBURN FAMILY T ST Gary .Johansen of rey tes AV, Steven D. Apfe baum Randal S. ho on I r en / I Bra ley G. Sm'A X` Pagel ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Pegg urn, Tr ee OGBURN FAMILY TRUST Jil . Johall,9n L.a,4"= 'Fm��i �/ Rabbine Apfelba�—_ J nette A. Thornton Marta y y STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) T} f 1e oregorng mstrument was acknowledged before me by Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of and on behalf of the Ogburn Family Trust dated 4.30,99, this 1 7 -day of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE_ OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, this /? day of November 2003. OFFICIAL SEAL % ~� SH ARON KUNKE! NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON Notary Public for Oregon, COMMISSION NO 353494 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 28, 2006 My Commission Expires: 14 STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Deschutes )� The foresloina in.0mmant ivac arlrnnuilPrinn 7 1—C r� ,,,o r,., 1�fF �.. AA tl-+-- --A -- -----p--•-p-•--••-»........ .. ..v wvu •v er avuvu vv1V.v ulV Vy JV11—y 1VA, \JQtGJ *ttte-rCtrtTn711 ems, husband & wife, this day of November 2003. .64 ' STATE OF OREGON) r i :2 _� t ._ Notary ublic for Oregon My Commission Expires: ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, this day of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon o -- My Commission Expires: c!.Z�d.:-4jL }'age 4. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT k G STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Randal S. Thornton and Janette A. Thornton, husband & wife, this _ / q"day of November 2003. i Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON) County o Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Mark Jensen this November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL SHARON KUNKEL NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON 494 my coMM SX)N EXPOSOMMISSIONpFEB. 2832 OB STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me Meloy, huWpcY�ffe; this day of November 2003 ;AL SfAL BOVI �: BIIG OREC.OF•: ". 'ON NO, 33483E ti tXPIRES MAY Ik OFFICIAL SEAL 0L{3pV1 N01AnY I'UBi.IC- OP EOON COI�IMISSIUII N0.334838 IfYC�klu SSICI ExaIRESWAY14,2004 Page 5. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT _day of by.,$r.ectte- i and Mary 1 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: �n`'� STATE OF OREGON, County of _____� I ss. ----- ---- --------------------------- f JOn ___ / `/-, c� oov ---- ------------ before the personallyappeared ____ � PF �-----t-�`__�__{-a�--- i- - ---------and -------------------------------------------------------------------------------> whose identity was established to my satisfaction, and who executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledging tome that the same was executed freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here=o set my hand and affixed my official seal on the da e first written above. OFFICIALSEAL ,.- KIM E PECK.. NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON -----1-z a` -`-- COMMISSION NO. 3770S2 Notac for Oregon O MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 5,MW My commission expires --------------------- NO PART OF ANY STEVENS-NESS FORM MAYBE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL MEANS. :ORM No. 23 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT, INDIVIDUAL. EA EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access easement North 52 ° 00' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North 83 °00' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northerly 60 feet. Parcel 2: THE NORTHERLY 60 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North 83000' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. EXHIBIT 2 A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SETA SWI/- "A 4) and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NEIA NW1A SWl/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a one -inch pipe set at the CW %,s corner of Section 5; thence South 00°43'51" East, 42.71 feet to a point along the East-West fence; thence along or near the fence as it meanders, North 89°20'13" West, 9.85 feet, South 89047'08" West, 183.65 feet, South 88 047'34" West, 166.53 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel with the West %s line of Section 5, North 00 043'51" West, 706.77 feet to a point along South -North 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 89°58'42" East, 360.04 feet to the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00 '43'51" East, 659.87 feet to the point of beginning, being those lands conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 258, Page 1437, Official Records, and the East part of those lands conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 312, Page 599, Deed Records. EXHIBIT 3 A parcel of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SWl/4 NW1/4) and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NWl/4 SWI/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a #5 aluminum capped steel rod within a 1 inch pipe set at the West Quarter corner of Section 5, thence along the West line of Section 5, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 857.02 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence South 68 ° 56'51" East, 548.35 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod set along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 89058'42" East, 435.48 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence South along a line parallel with the West'%sth line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East 706.77 feet to a point in an E-W fence line; thence along or near said fence as it meanders, South 88 ° 47'34" West, 223.64 feet, North 88 ° 27'04"West, 303.10 feet, North 84 ° 23,33" West, 373.85 feet, North 80 ° 13'08" West, 40.40 feet to the Point of Beginning, and being parts of those lands conveyed in Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, and Deed Volume 312, Page 599. EXHIBIT 4 A parcel of land situated in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N1/2 SWIA NWl/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a 3/4 inch pipe set at the Northwest Ys corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East, 659.87 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set at the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5, North 89058'42" West, 795.52 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod; thence North 68 ° 56'51" West, 548.35 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set along the West line of Section 5; thence along said West line, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 463.36 feet to a 3/4 inch pipe set at the North Y16 corner common to Sections 5 and 6; thence along the North Y16 line of Section 5, South 89 ° 58'06" East, 1308.47 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part lying within public roads !' , ut Cr 1 �� ✓ /Ylr✓1�i �� . ,Uj 0 AF1JR211NG RGTt RN T0. u jv L M m HENDRIX BRINICH & '4 J h• BERTALAN, M t.I,P �N TITLE Z rn 71b NW Harriman Si �jRR l 1�!'{ ; ;i; r CI= Q Bend OR 97701 ,, iY OF OAEG0N 111 ct? n 541.382.4980 i i, c;,:.,'X 323 d U C? z BEND, OR 97709 tom v COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYDESCHOTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKAS z Bas 400111tj o[1@$ 03/30/200412:06:54 PM D-AG Cntai Sbns4 TRACY $50.00 $11.00 $10.00 $5.00 < ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT PARTIES: ALL PROPERTIES IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON E Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of the Ogburn Family Trust dated April 30,1999, owners of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02000 said real property described as: Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1994-45, being located in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/4 NW'/a) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM. Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, owners of two parcels of property taxlot 17-12-05BO-02002 said real property described as: Parcel I of Partition Plat 1996-8, Being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW i/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) TI7S, RI2E, WM And taxlot 17-12-05BO-01400 described in Exhibit I Attached, Jeffrey M. Gates and Kathryn U. Gates, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12- 05110;01800 said real property described in Exhibit 2 attached. Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17- 12-05130-019OLsaid real property described in Exhibit 3 attached. Randal S. Thornton and Janette A. Thornton, husband & wife, owners of taxlot 17-12- 05BO-02001 said real property described as: Parcel 2, of Minor Land Partition MP-92-53, filed November 2, 1994 as Plat Partition 1994-45, a parcel in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) T17S, R12E, WM. Mark Jensen, owner of taxlot 17-12-05BO-02003 said real property described as: Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 1996-8, filed March 7, 1996, being a portion of Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW '/4) of Section Five (5) TI 7S, R12E, WM. Bradley G. Smith and Mary Meloy, husband & wife, owner of taxlot 17-12-05130- 01900 said real property described in Exhibit 4 attached. Page 1. ROAM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ht ti,6hijEb by HMLSt AMehlbAN't'ttL INS U'>IANCE COMPANY OF OREGON AS AN p,(-,C,.' AC�0ATiON ()NLY, NO LIABILITY IS Ar,,.,.I,'i r o r. (' 1 THE CONDITION OF TITLE VAUr 1'TY, SUFFICIENCY, OR ENT PARTIES, and their successors, heirs and assignees, hereby agree as follows: 1. This Agreement covers a road dedicated to the public by Declaration of Dedication, recorded November 28, 1994 at 94-46818, by Partition Plats9-4nd 1996-8. 2. This Agreement replaces all prior agreements, including that recorded at Book 265, Page 1725, Official Records of Deschutes County, recorded May 18, 1992, and bearing recording number 92-15794 and Book 127, Page 482, May 8, 1962, Deschutes County Deed Records; and Book 352, Page 731, Official Records of Deschutes County, and bearing recording number 94-36729. 3. This Agreement is appurtenant to and burdens each and every parcel of real property named herein. 4. The true consideration for this conveyance is the mutual promises contained herein. 5. The parties shall appoint a manager from time to time by a simple majority of the properties. Each property has one vote. The manager shall prepare an annual budget for maintenance, repair and snow removal. The annual budget shall then be apportioned to each equally and such amount shall be paid monthly to the manager to be placed in a separate account for such purposes. 6. The road maintenance records shall be available for inspection at reasonable times upon reasonable notice. 7. Any party can call a meeting upon written notice actually received by every member upon reasonable notice to be held at a reasonable time. Nothing herein prevents "meetings" or information to be circulated by email or other reasonable means calculated in good faith to give reasonable notice as long as all parties agree. 8. The parties shall hold harmless and indemnify the manager for any activity the manager performs within the scope of acting as manager of this road maintenance agreement. 9. Any legally created partition or subdivision or other legally created access to the road that creates new lot or lots shall by said action create an additional property or properties entitled to a vote and requiring proportionate payment of the road maintenance assessment. Said access shall be allowed upon execution and recording of an Addendum to this Agreement signed by the new Owner agreeing to the terms of this Agreement. 10. Any change in the level of maintenance shall require 2/3 majority vote. 11. Amendments to this Agreement pertaining to the management, maintenance and repair of the road may be made by 2/3 of the properties if made in writing, notarized and recorded in similar fashion to this Agreement. No other Amendments are allowed. 12. Subject to the normal maintenance contemplated herein, costs of repair of the road damaged by natural disasters or other events for which all holders of an interest in the road are blameless may be shared equally. 13. Those holders of an interest in the road that are responsible for damage to the road because of negligence or abnormal use (including that caused by their invitees) shall repair the damage at their sole expense. Page 2. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 14. if any holder of an interest in an road faits to pay the cost of maintenance or paving of the road as provided herein, or if after written demand to pay said holder's proportion of such maintenance costs, a civil action for money damages or specific performance or contribution (or combination of such claims) may be brought against that person in a court of competent jurisdiction by one or more of the other holders of an interest in the road, either jointly or severally. The court may order such equitable relief as may be just in the circumstances. The prevailing party shall recover all court costs, arbitration fees (if any) and attorney fees at trial and on appeal. The manager may bring action on behalf of the parties. Phillip N. burn, T st OGBURN FAMILY T ST Gary . Johansen Steven D.A f Bra leiJ y G id i 4Pegg;�aurn, Tr ee OGBURN FAMILY TRUST Jil . Johan n h/r y "n--1 3' WGe s �r aura Rabbine ApfelbauA J�nette A. Thornton May y Page 3. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Phillip N. Ogburn and Peggy S. Ogburn, Trustees of and on behalf of the Ogburn Family Trust dated 4.30.99, this 17 -day of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: r t �, C STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Gary K. Johansen and Jill E. Johansen, husband & wife, this _/ 1_tday of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: o (' ) ss. County of Deschutes )� . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Jeffrey M. Gates aP4-44A4ryi 'ems, husband & wife, this _day of November 2003. Notary ublic for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Steven D. Apfelbaum and Rabbine Apfelbaum, husband &wife, this _day of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 2 d Page 4. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Randal S A. Thornton, husband & wife, this may of November 2003. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL SEAL SHARON KUNKEL NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON 3544 Myy MMMISSNIN (PMESOMMiSSION�FEB. 831006 STATE OF OREGON) ) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Mark Jensen November 2003. 4 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Thornton and Janette STATE OF OREGON) ss. County of Deschutes ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me Meloy, h s60<r .-�vff�; this day of November 2003 ova-��. )BLIC-ORECO,, '"ON NO 334836 OFFICIAL SEAL D L BOVI NOTARY PU6i.IC- OREGON CO►AM(sSIUN N0. 334838 lfrCrltlt SSIC ' �aIREGWAY14 2QQ4 z this 1 day of bye and Mary s7 c Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 5. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STATE OF OREGON, County of ____2_�^� ck� -- ------------------------------ -- I SS. On -------------------- �E _ c 0 U---------------- before me personally appeared ----- LLL --_—^------""--__"----..----"_—'--'----'-------------------------------------------------------------- whose identity was established to my satisfaction, and who executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledging to me that the same was executed freely and voluntarily. IN Nom M, I have r o set my hand and affixed my official seal on the d e first written above, OFFICIALISM CK------ -------------------- �-�- --------------------------------- - OAEQON Notar blic for Oregon po . 377082 CommiRESM ,5,2008 y � My commission expires --- ------------------- NO PART OF ANY STEVENS•NESS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL MEANS. IRM No. 23— INDIVIDUAL, EA © 1992-2001 STEVENS-NESS LAW PUBLISHING CO., PORTLAND, OR w s(mrmnass cam EXHIBIT 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELI: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/a) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEl/4 NW1/a), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North 83 ° 00' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE'/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 547 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northerly 60 feet. Parcel 2: THE NORTHERLY 60 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4) of said Section 5 with the Westerly right of way line of the Old The Dalles California Highway; thence Westerly along said South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 500.00 feet to the true point of beginning for this description; thence North 455.00 feet, more or less to the Southerly right of way of a 25 foot access easement; thence following along the Southerly right of way line of said access easement North 52000' West 85.00 feet; thence leaving said access easement North 83000' West 483.6 feet; more or less, to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4), 566.3 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/4); thence Easterly along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE1/4 NW1/a), 547 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning for this description. TA_ EXH I BIT 2 A parcel of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE-1/4 SW1/a NWIA) and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE1/4NW1/4 SW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a one -inch pipe set at the CW %s corner of Section 5; thence South 00°43'51" East, 42.71 feet to a point along the East-West fence; thence along or near the fence as it meanders, North 89 ° 20'13" West, 9.85 feet, South 89 ° 47'08" West, 183.65 feet, South 88 047'34" West, 166.53 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel with the West Ys line of Section 5, North 00 043'51" West, 706.77 feet to a point along South -North 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 8905842" East, 360.04 feet to the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00 043'51" East, 659.87 feet to the point of beginning, being those lands conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 258, Page 1437, Official Records, and the East part of those lands conveyed in deed recorded in Volume 312, Page 5_, 9..,._Deed Records. 1 �X t 07" i f 6) j c A parcel of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW1/4 NW2/4) and the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NWl/4 SW:V4) of Section live (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a #5 aluminum capped steel rod within a 1 inch pipe set at the West Quarter corner of Section 5, thence along the West line of Section 5, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 857.02 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod; thence South 68 ° 56'51" East, 548.35 feet to a #5 plastic capped steel rod set along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5; thence along said 1/64 line, South 89 ® 5842" East, 435.48 feet to a 05 plastic capped steel rod; thence South along a line parallel with the West'%sth line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East 706.77 feet to a point in an E-W fence line; thence along or near said fence as it meanders, South 88 ° 47'34" West, 223.64 feet, North 88 ° 27'04"West, 303.10 feet, North 84 ° 23'33" West, 373.85 feet, North 80 ° 13'08" West, 40.40 feet to the Point of Beginning, and being parts of those lands conveyed in Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, and Deed Volume 312, Page 599. EXHIBIT 4 5PIA I -- Mt=l-o f A parcel of land situated in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N1/z SWIA NW1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point, a 3/4 inch pipe set at the Northwest Ys corner of Section 5; thence along the West Y16 line of Section 5, South 00043'51" East, 659.87 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set at the CSNW 1/64 corner of Section 5; thence along the SN 1/64 line of Section 5, North 89 ° 58'42" West, 795.52 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod; thence North 68 ° 56'51" West, 548.35 feet to a No. 5 plastic capped steel rod set along the West line of Section 5; thence along said West line, North 01 ° 11'23" West, 463.36 feet to a 3/4 inch pipe set at the North Y6 corner common to Sections 5 and 6; thence along the North Ys line of Section 5, South 89 ° 58'06" East, 1308.47 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part lying within public roads. r� RVIE 94-46818 (,j� DECLARATION OF DEDICATION LLE. COUNSEL �j 359 -91005 We, Dallas and Lois Schulz, Johnnie C. Norris, John M. Schibel, Jeffrey M. Gates and Kathryn A. Underwood -Gates, and Steven 0. Apfelbaum and Donna Van Pelt, do hereby dedicate to the public for road and utility purposes, the following described real property: BEGINNING AT A POINT along the West Line of the Bend -Redmond Highway, also known as the Old Dalles-California Highway, from which the Center % Corner of Section 5, T. 17 S., R. 12 E., W. M., bears S 360 371 081" E 375.77 feet; THENCE a strip of land, 60 feet in width along the North Line of Tax Lot 17-12-58-1200, the centerline of which bears N 760 57" 311" W 543.53 feet; THENCE a strip of land, 60 feet in width along the North Lines of Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1400, the centerline of which bears N 760 571 311" W 9.85 feet, N 520 18' 311, W 88.22 Feet, and N 830 16' 311" W 475.18 feet; THENCE a strip of land, 60 feet in width, over and across Tax Lot 17-12-58-1800, being the E% SE% SW% NW% of Section 5, connecting with an existing road on or about the center of a 150-foot radius curve, the descrip- tion of said road follows and is included within this formal grant of dedicetion: BEGINNING AT A POINT along the South Line of Tax Lot 17-12-58-1901, From which the CW 1/16 Corner of Section 5 bears N 340 42' 51" E 61.73 feet; THENCE N 000 43' 51" W 161.7S feet; THENCE S 880 32" 181" W 76.94 feet; THENCE 88.54 feet along the arc of a 300-fact radius curve, the chord of which bears S 800 05" 001, W 88.22 feet; THENCE S 710 371 411" W 39.52 feet; THENCE 125.49 feet along the arc of a 110-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears N 750 411 22" W 118.80 feet; THENCE N 430 001 251" W 81.60 feet; THENCE 195.77 feet along the arc of a 140-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears N 020 56+ 491" W 180.21 feet; THENCE N 370 06' 47" E 125.37 feet; THENCE 142.93 feet along the arc of a 300-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears N 640 24' 36" E 40.87 feet; THENCE 171.73 Feet along the arc of a 150-foot radius curve, the chord of which bears N 310 3S" 4411'E 162.50 feet and intersecting with the above described alinement; THENCE N 010 11" 09" W 615.61 feet to the Point of Ending along the N 1/16 Line of Section 5, from which the NW 1/16 Corner thereof bears S 890 58, 06"" E 101.44 feet. all shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this document is executed by the following signators, each as to their own rights: Je re . Gates *t,9& . Underwcod-Gates--%" -- G� " STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF OESCHUTES))SS. As to Tax Lot 17-12-58-1800 per Deed Volume 345, Page 132.5, the fore- going instrument was acknowledged by Jeffrey M. Gates, an Kathryn A. Underwood-Gates A�bdfore me this ,%� day of 1994. NOTANY PUBLIC OREQd}I1 f COM&11SSIONN0.009T81 Notary FwVno for uregb MY GOMIAISSIOC! ExPi t o SEPT. K 10 My Commission Expires page 1 of 3 359 -9lOQ6 DECLARATION OF DEDICATION continued t an D. Ap aum Oonna Van Pelt STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTESM SS. As to Tax Lot per Deed Volume 352, Page 0748, the fore- going instrument was acknowledged by Stev n 0. ApFelbau n Oonna Van Pelt, husband and wife, before me this day of 1994. Or`FiGSAL SEr L /�/a%�tit/�1 Nota ry u icfor regon V NOTNnY Pt, l G r }:.,OtJ C{1ir;@.7f8 I�(i f�0 C.SC57 ,, 3• �C, " PifCOiv',�?15SiG;1i;:(PiREoGi.T.3,1935 My Commission Expires�� page 2 of 3 i 9 A 359 -1 1007 DECLARATION OF Q9QjQ_A_UnM continued 7— QsI'las Schulz Lois Schulz STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS. As to Tex Lot 17-12-58-1200 per Deed Volume 184, Page 198, the foregoing instrument we- apjcnowledged by Dallas and Lois Schulz before me this day of 1993. OFFICIAL OC7. PA N11? L NOTAr Notary Public for Oregon MM6 :1 NN . p 13 My Commission Expires Ks MAY k Johnie C. Norris STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS. As to Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1400 per Deed Volume 111, Page 589, the fore- going instrument was acknowledged by Johnie C. Norris before me this /6 day, of 1993. 6ER" UBLI GER S K E E N NOTARY UBLIC - OREGON Notary Publ/ilc -for Oregon I — My Commies' n Expires J hn M b .1 n M' STATE OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES)) SS. F T /EF I T an Tax Page 125S, Tax Lot As at 17-12-SB-1901 per Deed Volume 199, T ex L 17-12-58-1800 per Deed Volume 258, Page 1437, and Tax Lot 17-12-5B-1900 per Deed Volume 182, Page 1501, the foregoing instrument was acknow- ledged by John M. Schibel before me this j clay of ot&,,�Ie_ 1993. WIGIAL $CAL. KANEO SAW0, Notery Public for Oregon NOTARY fWLIC-GREG My Commission Expires COMIM16810P!NO. 67 LXNRI-8 W. 3, 1,015 q�qL"=QTANCE Deschutes County, acting by and through its Board OF County Commission- ers, does hereby accept the above dedication as a public road pursuant to OHS 92.014. Dated this day of 1993. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON va Ck Page 3 Of 3 I i 4 359 1008 STATE OF OREGON ss. County of Deschutes Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared NANCY POPE SCHLANGEN, the above -named Chair of the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon. DATED this V( day of 1994. MWIM 3 A ' MARY PUBM LIC-ENotary Public forOregon CQUMISM 40. 023846 60N My Commission Expires: DAY Cd}Eai& 110M EMW AML 18.1997 STATE OF OREGON ss. County of Deschutes Before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared BARRY H. SLAUGHTER, the above -named Board of County Commissioner of Deschutes County, Oregon and acknowledged the foregoing instrument on behalf of Deschutes County, Oregon. DATED this 02 day of 1994. Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: M i 359 r 1009 dS ZI 'Ll doW aag C\j IN8oji I 1 t s ryYr t P t 1 i i ) p t i i v ' Y1 359 b 1010 STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF DESCHUTES ) SS. I, MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER Of CONVEYANCES, IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS RECORDED THIS DAY: 94 o 2z P1 i 30 4ARCa )dTY CLERK Q1't BY, 72-Z2�' DEPUTY NO.94-4 9131 N._- FEE-�a0._. DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS U _ 1 . .4-:Zl `..-- .. John O'Leary P.O. Box 7232 Bend, OR 97708 Schible Road Access My name is John O'Leary. I was born and raised in Bend. My parents purchased the acreage between Highway 20 and the Old Bend Redmond Highway in 1959 _ 1950 from Ole Grub who as a Deschutes County Commissioner at the time. I am against the vacation of the public road to the middle of my property known as Schible Road. The Gates have blocked the legal entry to my property with wood, logs, tires, irrigation equipment, a trailer and other items. Mr. Gates approached me when I was working near the entry about vacating the public right of way. I told Mr. Gates my attorney said not to sign anything since it is my legal` access..to the property. Mr. Gates was not happy and became visibl'upset and said he.would not let anybody down this roadway and would block it off further up the road The real estate agents felt it was necessary to get a temporary address on the Old Bend Redmond Highway because of Mr. Gate'__s threats and to avoid any confrontation until the legal access was opened up. Shelley Wray of Engles and Volker went to the road department and told them of the problem we were having and wanted just an address to the property on the Old Bend Redmond Highway because of the threats Mr. Gates made if anybody used the legal access. The road department gave her the forms to fill out and she reiterated that all we wanted was an address not an access. John O'Leary Page 2 P.O. Box 7232 Bend, OR 97708 Schible Road Access Shelley and I filled out the forms and she took them back to the road department. Again she reiterated to the road department that all we needed was an address and not an access because we already have a legal access to the property on Schibel Rd. I in turn called Community Development and asd if I have a piece of property that boaders the Old Bend Redmond Highway and I just want an address to list the property. Half the property is in sage brush and less than half is in pasture. She in turn asked if the property is being developed and I said no we park out front in an alcove and walk onto the property. She said I can give you the address over the phone. (According to Connunity Development) The road department never told Shelly Ray that by getting the address on the Old Bend Redmond Highway that it could eliminate your chances of getting the actual legal access down Schible Road. I went to the Road Department to ..alkabout my legal access down Schible road and how to get in cleared out. The Road Department addmitted that the Schibel road access is the best access_to my property because you can go south, east and west onto the property. However they said you have an access out front. I said we never had or wanted and access out front. We just wanted an address to avoid Gates threatening or harrasing clients looking at the property. John O'Leary P.O. Box 7232 Bend, OR 97708 Page 3 Schible Road Access We have never had an access out front for over 64 years. We park in the alcove where the gate is, however their wouldn't be a gate their but Central Electric and Bend Broad Band need to get'�a transformerpole in the Northeastern corner of -property on a rock bluff. Both companies have locks on the gate and can not drive over the field. To servirp Gates and other petitioners they come through the gate off of Highway 26 which they have locks on. Everyone that is petitioning to vacate this road should be thankful to my father since he granted a -:'service easement to the Gates and other petitioneers. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK • Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: S c h i b l e Road A c c e s s Is this topic an item on today's agenda? X X'Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) ❑No Name John O'Leary Address P.O. Box 7232 Bend, OR 97708 Phone#s 541-383-2430 E-mail address Date: 8-16-23 THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ® Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Thank you Commissioners for allowing me to testify against the proposal to Vacate a portion of Schibel Road. I am asking the Board to Not Accept the proposal for the good of Deschutes County Citizens. KEEP THE PUBLIC ROAD. SUMMARY It is the best interest of the County to not to vacate the road because of 1)public safety and 2) protection of citizens' access rights. The Road Department Report findings and conclusions are incorrect. They asserted: the main access to lot 1.00 is the Old Bend -Redmond Highway. This is incorrect; the only feasible access is Schibel Road. This point Mr. O'Leary made to Mr. Cody multiple times. To vacate the road would deprive the right of access necessary for the exercise of his property right. There is no access from any other side of the property that would provide the necessary access. The Road Department asserts it is the Public's interest to vacate the Road. Nowhere in the Road Department Report are there any statements to support this conclusion. They do not supply any argument(s) why keeping the road is a negative to the County. As a local access road there is no cost to the County. They did not provide any argument or finding why giving up the road benefits the County. The Schibel public road benefits the County because it improves public safety by dramatically reducing Fire Department response time to properties on Schibel Road including lots 1901 and 1.800. INTRODUCTION My name is Alfred Heston. I am John O'Leary's nephew. I am: l . Fourth generation of my family to live at least part of their lives in Central Oregon (Deschutes/Crook County). 2. Family 100 years living in this area. My family has lived in this area for approximately 100 years. They were cattle ranchers, sheep ranchers, farmer introducing potato farming to Central Oregon, mill worker, etc.; Working class citizens who helped build this area. 3. Sixty years walking (lot 100) the "Land." 4. 20+ years Working the "Land" on that property for over 20 years during the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. Hauling rocks, changing irrigation pipes, bucking bales, caring for cattle, building fences, etc. 5. Sacred Land because of all of the sweat my family has put into the property. It is special. 6. Cattle, Grass, and a Home on this Land has been a desire for 3 generations. I plan to live on this parcel. 7. Family Legacy. If I inherit the Land, my wish is to pass it to the next generation. MOTIVATION/INTERESTS 1. Parties proposing the road to be vacated a. Land Grab. Based on historical actions and comments: i. Owners of lots 1800 and 1901 adversely posed land from Lot 100 (O'Leary) ii. Owners of lots 1800 and 1901 have blocked the road by building structures on the road (30 ft into 60ft road) iii. Owners of 1 of 1800 fell trees and dumped brush to block the road iv. Wheeler - Rennie testified the road was their driveway. They want to legitimize the County Local Access Road as their driveway. 2. Parties not to vacate the road: a. Preserve the value of Lot 100. Vacating the road would deny access; thus reduce the value of the property and prevent a future owner to divide the property into a minimum of 10+ acre lots. The current minimum lot size 10 acres is larger than adjoining lots of 1)less the 2 acres (2 lots); and less that 5 acres (1 lot). At this time, John O'Leary nor his family have intentions to sub -divide the property. 3. Road Department a. Avoid having to deal with the abatement of road hazards as described under ORS 368.256 — 368.28. The hazards were caused by owners of Lots 1901 and 1800. This is based on the Road Department Report and their lack of action related request actions of the Road Department. It is a road hazard abatement not maintenance or improvement so ORS 368.031(1) is not applicable. ORS 368,281 allows the County to recover costs. TESTIMONEY There are three 3) gates on the property but only one (1) viable access point to the property. 1. Gate 1, McKenzie -Bend (Sisters) Highway. a. "Fire Department Gate" . It gives the Fire Department quicker access to the O'Leary Property and adjunct properties b. Public Access is unlikely to be granted because it is off a State highway. 2. Gate 2, Old Bend -Redmond Highway. a. "Utility Company Gate". The electric and cable companies use this gate to maintain equipment which services the adjoining properties north of his property. Utility trucks are not allowed to cross the field. They only drive on rock along the Highway fence line. The Utility Companies have locks on this gate. b. Parking pad for public safety - not access. c. Planted Grass Field with irrigation pipes prevent a viable access from the Old Bend - Redmond Highway. The irrigation pipes would be destroyed. d. Everybody walks. In 2003, My children (3 years old and 5 years old) and I visited O'Leary Acres. We had to crawl under the fence to visit the stables and barn. 3. Gate 3 Schibel Road a. Middle of Property. Necessary for O'Leary to exercise his right to access to both East and West sides of his property. b. The Road Department stated it was the best place to access the property. c. Public safety (Fire Department) The Schibel Access would allow quicker response time by Fire Department. It would cut response time in half because they would not have to go all the way to the Old Bend -Redmond Hwy. They would enter Gate land drive across the O'Leary property to Gate 3. d. Future Public Use. The Road is necessary for public use especially if the propety is to be developed smilar to how Tax Lots 1901.,1400, and 1800 were developed. e. Deemed necessary in the past by County; nothing has changed. The Vacation of the Schible Road denies O'Leary access of a recorded property right: it would eliminate his access to an easement on Tax Lot 1800. This is in violation of ORS 368.331 REBUTTAL TO PETITIONERS' and ROAD DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. O'Leary wants to drive through our property. No, O'Leary and his family want to drive on Schibel Road, a County public road, to access his property. 2. O'Leary wants to develop his property. No, O'Leary wants to keep the parcel intact. He turned down sale offers from buyers who wanted to subdivide the property. O'Leary only put the property up for sale because his primary focus was being a caretaker for his dying wife. It appears that the petitions have sought to take advantage of dying a wife. 3. Keeping the local access road will enable the property to be developed in the future changing the neighborhood characteristics. It is conceivable that the property may be developed in the future similar to how the petitioners' properties were developed. The land next to O'Leary used to be a sheep ranch. That parcel was allowed to be subdivided and developed into parcels which are less than half the size of the currentl0 acre minimum parcel size. Lot 1901 is about 15.75; it is this large due to adverse possession of some of O'Leary's land. Removal of the public road takes the ability, the right, to develop the property. It would create a de -facto green space along Wheel/Rennie southern border, like they have with their Western border with Tumalo State Park. It is a benefit to the petitioners at an extreme cost to the owner of Parcel 100. 4. O'Leary does not have the right to use the County public road because he does not maintain it. This is a separate issue. This issue is not under the County Commissioners' purview. The County is not responsible for maintenance nor improvement. However, the Gates and Wheeler/Rennie have not maintained the road. Worse they created a road hazards which is under the County's jurisdiction. Both have built on the road. They have blocked parts of the road with fence, trees and brush. I personally have tried to maintain/rid it of the road hazards. I have a truck, tools and a strong back. But based on a petitioner's vitriolic behavior, I chose not to. I felt I could end up in the hospital. 5. The local access road causes harm to the Gates and Wheeler/Rennie. If it does cause harm, it is self-inflicted. If the Wheeler/Rennie has to move a fence because it is blocking the road. It is not a taking. According to Deschutes County records, the Dedication Deed was granted before property was developed. This was decades before Wheeler/Rennie bought the property. They knew or least should have known, their property was obstructing County property. Gates were partial grantors. They voluntarily signed the Dedication Deed, so they must have seen it as beneficial. Now that they have reaped the benefits from 1994 Dedication Deed, they want to "revolve" it. Owners (past/current) of lots 1901 and 1800, have shown a disregard of the Dedication; by building in the road. They should not be rewarded for their actions. 6. The Road Department believes that generally the road is only used by lots 1800 and 1901. They do not have any basis for that statement. It is an ambiguous statement based on a guess. Findings should be facts. Recommendations should be based on facts. 7. Road Department Report: Owners of recorded property right that would potentially be deprived of access necessary for exercise of that property right with the proposed vacation have consented to the proposed vacation. This is incorrect. Mr. O'Leary has not consented. The access from Schibel Road is necessary for the exercise of that right. The Road Report Finding does not meet the standard of ORS 368.331. The Road Department Report also misreports who the owners of record. BFF LLC is the owner of record for Tax Lot 1400. Terru Rennie is not a joint owner per Statutory Warranty Deed filed 2/6/2023. 8. Road Department Report: the Electric Company supports the proposal to vacate. NO. They do not object to the vacation which is different than support. No evidence of support. It is a misleading statement by the Road Department, Cody Smith. Please stop this taking which will cause harm to Mr. O'Leary and other Deschutes County Citizens Thank you, Commissioners, for your time. 4 _E S, CO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERYMEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK ® Citizen input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda ® Public TtjgffiM can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony Is this topic an item on today's agenda? 171Yes (please see description of Citizen input above) Name v -/e /z) Address P 7,23-,- (5vz_ Phone #s E-mail address Date: �z THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS IV 1 Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1/1 1 Yes —1 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretaryfor the record. 8/16/2023 Deschutes County Hearing Information for the hearing on the Application to Vacate a Public Road ( Schibel Road). This application should be denied. History Reuel and Frances OLeary purchased their property in 1959. It's been lovingly cared for, improved, and beautifully maintained all these years. It is now owned by their son, John OLeary. At some point the people that owned the property adjacent to the North on Tax Lot 1800 (now owned by the Gates') built their home on the wrong side of the property line. The OLeary's had to give up a large strip of land on their North edge so that the encroaching home could be made "legal". (At that time, Mr. OLeary reserved a 30" easement along that North line which is mentioned in all the recorded documents and still exists today.) Because of Mr. OLeary giving up the strip of land for their home, Mr. Schibel made sure the public roadway being dedicated called Schibel Road did extend all the way to the OLeary property. It was also clear that Mr. Schibel intended this to be a public roadway because he dedicated 60 feet to the road which is the requirement for a public roadway. He did not give 30', 40', or 50', but a full 60 foot roadway. (Now......... to add insult to injury, the current owners of that property (the Gates') want to take the public roadway away from Mr. OLeary and the public. If the county allows this to happen it would be a sad day. If this could happen to Mr. OLeary, this could happen to any one of you.) In 1994 Jeff and Kathy Gates purchased that property adjacent to the North for $105,000. It should be noted that in 1994 you could purchase a home in Bend (in town) on the very small lot for $120,000 or more. Since the Gates' property is on about 4 acres in such a desirable location, they made a wonderful buy indeed! They very likely would have paid a much larger amount if the roadway did not go through their property, and the buildings were not so close to the property line. However, they purchased the property knowing that the road existed, and it was evidently part of their purchase agreement that they would sign the dedication document of giving the roadway to the public. They did indeed sign the Road Dedication document that very year. In fact, their signatures were the very first signatures notarized on the document. We can understand why the Gates' would love to pickup a couple extra acres for free by getting rid of the roadway. However, Mr. OLeary has done nothing to deserve this. It would simply be favoring the desire of one property owner over another. It seems to be motivated by personal gain. To be clear, Mr. OLeary does object to this application to vacate the roadway. He has visited the planning and road department several times to object. It took this Realtor several in -person visits to the road department to even obtain a copy of the application, which is a public record. In the application to "Vacate a Public Roadway", the applicants were required to give valid reasons to show why it is best for the general public to vacate the road, and address certain conditions, which are the following. 1) Gates' states that the road dedication was invalid due to restrictions and reservations? They state that their drainfield is situated on part of the road right of way. The facts ........ The Gates' have made many improvements to their property over the years, providing maps to the county with each of those permit applications. Not once in those permit applications or maps did they admit to the planning dept. that their drainfield was encroaching on the road right of way. The applications state that they (the Gates') "have met all the required setbacks for this application." They seemed to intentionally omit that information to get all their applications approved that they wanted for their property. We have copies of those permits and applications for you to view. 2) Gates' states that the roadway reduces the value of the 3 tax lots that are requesting the vacation of the roadway. ........... That assertion is false. The roadway's existence does not reduce the value of their property because they knew the road was there when they purchased their properties, and they signed the dedication of the roadway. Somehow they believe it would be fair and just to reduce the value of Mr. OLeary's property by taking away his right to use the road, in order to add NEW value to their own properties. 3) The Gates' state that some of their established landscaping would be lost. ................ The Gates' have always known that the roadway exists, so no one can be sure why they would put landscaping over that area. There was certainly no excuse for that. Upon inspection, no landscaping was identified that would be lost. 4) The Gates' state that since 1994 the county has never used, improved, or plowed the road. .............I.... The Gates' know very well that there is a private road maintenance agreement for the roadway. We have attached that agreement for your review. 5) The Gates" state that the Southern portion of that road has not been used by the general public and has only been used as a driveway for their tax lot and the neighboring Tax Lot 1900. ................ This is an incredible statement! Evidently Mr. Gates has stated that "he will never allow anyone through on that road ever." The Gates' have purposely kept the roadway blocked in two places. One blockage is a gated entry near their home. The other blockage is at the end of the roadway where they have a pile of wood blocking where the roadway enters the OLeary property. When asked to move the wood pile blockade Mr. Gates refused. There are photographs to show where the roadway is blocked and maps attached for illustration. 6 and 7) The Gates' state that the traffic will increase, and no traffic study has been done. They are concerned about children's safety there. ..................... The Gates' surely know that a traffic study would not be done unless there was to be a very major development. Mr. OLeary has no intention of developing his property which is about 36+ acres. However, if he or anyone else did develop the property in the future it could only be developed into 3 parcels matching the current zoning of MUA-10 acre minimum. It would hardly be a high -traffic event. This is a quiet country winding lane and would continue to be a quiet country lane. They have shown no evidence. The Gates' and other folks along Schibel Road have their wonderful small acreages on 2, 4, and 5 acre parcels (also a couple larger parcels). However, they don't think that other folks should be allowed to have the same thing, and are worried that someone would divide the parcel into 10 acres parcels as allowed by county zoning? If that ever did happen those parcels would still be much larger than the Gates' property and others along the roadway. 8) The Gates' application states that it is not in the general public's best interest. ......................... However, they have not given any reason here why it would not be in the general public's best interest to keep the roadway which they knew about when they purchased their property. 9) The Gates' state that they were induced to sign the dedication under "false pretenses". They say that they were told that they could DELETE the Southern portion of the road dedication with `single line- item deletion". ............... We do not see how this could be true. Adults always know that when they sign a legal document, it means that it is legal and binding, especially when they are having their signatures notarized as in this case. In reality, most all real estate agreements state that "the full agreement is in the written contract, and that you are not relying upon anything not written down in the agreement." The Gates' knew what they were signing when they purchased their property and they signed it. It was part of their agreement to purchase. They knew what they were signing when they signed the Dedication for the Public Roadway. Also, Kathy Gates was an excellent Realtor for many, many years in Bend, and since then has worked for a local title company. She is very knowledgeable in her field. Consequently, she has extremely good knowledge of property documents and would never actually believe what she stated on the Application to Vacate the Roadway. Last, with all this knowledge, if there were actually any good reasons to vacate the roadway that they could illustrate they would have stated them. We are to conclude that even with all that knowledge they could not come up with a valid reason to vacate the roadway. 10) The Gates' state that Tax Lot 100 (OLeary) to the South will not suffer loss of access as the site address has been permitted and approved in a different place on the Old Bend Redmond Hwy. ...................This statement was not true. HOWEVER... the real facts are that Mr. OLeary put in a fenced -gated area on the old highway JUST BECAUSE the Gates' had refused to let him access his property on the public roadway like he had the right to do. The traffic's excessive speed on the Old Bend Redmond Highway is a danger for anyone parked there, and for anyone wanting to pull out of a driveway there. Car and truck traffic whips by at 60 MPH, and it is not safe. It is much safer to have the main entrance in the middle of the parcel where the traffic is not a factor, rather than the narrow East end of the property. This is a very large parcel with multiple barns, sheds, and buildings. So, entering in the middle makes good sense. (Please refer to the map provided). Also, the narrow East end of the parcel along the highway has irrigation pipe that cannot be driven over. The irrigation water is legally adjudicated to that area of the property by Swalley Irrigation Water Company. It is nice to have multiple gates on this large parcel in case of fire. However, the main entrance should remain on Schibel Road. Mr. OLeary had wanted to put his property on the market for sale. He needed a place for any Realtors to park and show the property without the traffic danger, and without letting the cows out. He also did not want Realtors and buyers to have to climb over the fence. He was originally told by the first Realtor that he must have a street address to put his property into the local MLS, which was actually not true. Last, Mr. Gates' had stated to Mr. OLeary that he would NEVER ALLOW ANYONE TO USE THAT ROAD, period. He has continued to harass and bully Mr. OLeary over the years insisting that Mr. OLeary should give him the roadway. Mr. OLeary did not want Realtors and potential buyers having to have encounter a rude, angry neighbor, or to be frightened just to show the property. Mr. OLeary did not see that as a selling point. He was advised by the Realtor against this. However, he also does not want to leave this issue to anew owner to have to contend with. PLEASE DENY THE APPLICATION AND ORDER THE GATES' TO HONOR THE LEGAL ROADWAY. Since the Gates' have not illustrated any valid answers on the application to vacate the roadway, this application should be denied. If they had any actual true evidence to show, they did not provide it. Please see all the supporting evidence provided to you by Mr. Oleary. ADDITIONALLY Mr. OLeary offers two valid options to relocate the roadway if that would be more convenient for the Gates' property. It offers an attractive compromise for the Gates' and Tax Lot 1900. You can view that possible option on the maps and photographs attached. However, regarding this application, "just because they want it" is not a justification to take from the public and Mr. Ol-eary. If the Gates' wanted to talk about relocation of the roadway to the other side of their property, Mr. OLeary would be willing to talk about either of the two locations, which would not seem expensive for the Gates'. Thank you for your time. We sincerely hope that you stand behind Mr. OLeary's private property rights to protect him from this action by the neighbors. It is understandable that they would like to have the property for themselves for free, if they could get the county to agree. However, this is not behavior that should be rewarded. Every person should be offended and know that if this could happen to Mr. OLeary it could also happen to them. Thank you. Deschutes County Property Information Permits for account * 160526 Account Information Mailing Name: JEFFREY & KATHRYN GATES REV LIV TRUST Map and TaxIot: 171205B001800 Account: 160526 Situs Address: 64227 SCHIBEL RD, BEND, OR 97703 Tax Status: Assessable County Permits The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permits for properties in the County's jurisdiction. Contact this department if you need additional information or if you have questions. Permit ID Permit Type Permit Name Application Date Status 247-B39450 Building GATES,JEFFREY M 10/23/1996 Finaled 247.1346021 Building GATES,JEFFREY M 06109/2000 Finaled 247-B502 Building DRAKE,R E 09/21/1976 Finaled 247-E16353 Electrical SCHIBEL JOHN 12/27/1991 Finaled 247-E28276 Electrical BEND CABLE 05/10/1994 Finaled 247-E43811 Electrical GATES,JEFFREY M 10/01/1997 Finaled 247-E55364 Electrical GATES,JEFFREY M 06/0912000 Finaled 247-CU89146-PL Land Use JOHN M. SCHIBEL 11/30/1989 Finaled 247-LM96216-PL Land Use KATHY GATES 10/23/1996 Finaled 247-MP78205-PL Land Use 08/04/1978 Finaled 247-MP78266-PL Land Use 11/13/1978 Finaled 247-M20434 Mechanical GATES,JEFFREY M 06/09/2000 Finaled 247-P17968 Plumbing GATES,JEFFREY M 06/09/2000 Finaled 247-S19795 Septic PEKKOLA,CAROL 07/29/1980 Finaled 247-S30573 Septic PEKKOL4 DENNIS R 05/23/1991 Finaled 247-S39647 Septic GATES,JEFFREY M 1012311996 Finaled 247-S45734 Septic GATES,JEFFREY M 0610912000 Finaled THE INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH T"HIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REASONABLE EFFOR"F HAS BEEN MADE TO ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE CONTENT, SEQUENCE. ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY OF THE D.ATAPROVIDED HEREIN, DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED. DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO I.IABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHED HEREUNDER. O 2023 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Z80TISD �04 oa `k, `n vln�v't�� K•� �y pV `� .'a'h � 5 YW tj �NK��� b���N�4,p h� ��u J��h�•�.Q�� W •�NAa4 W3��W°�� 3� «� °� v u� 0N� �k 4 Q a 4 y �J7Z-8l-dH' os 6/r/ �-/S'• •OOS` 'r9d•6'� S/Si✓9� — X WWS ------------ ----- -- --= ® M _______________ QI O o ^vv Itifld VV� 2c��2 It. J1 z.�d lt�an/v 3na1 all ' I 0 �C g\ 1 a ci O 99 ` O P \h V I V a 4 Oq Z L86S9k _gip° nq °O N N pvl $� a �N2N ��Dr�C or zz� �j u � io3o� Qjj , 11. o C n o,a �,1; N 00 0 N V 7 8r 4ZE/ /V , Z/O /V i3 w� h� r w b 0 ` a 8•7 7370h/ N 0 � N � Q m � IO rf Z-� _ Uzzoss n Ct Nasty ■o MI M N � z Maoso m. m N N >- w Q ir, / LL- Yl to - Cb q =C) L •C _ ___ O O V) W O . W N _ �O F� MO z O M U2 'J FF r� Uz_ 0. ,r= ui fn0 LL 04 (� W - op LL u � N `., 0 ow xcj n K I- . A FW.-i K F O _ (T 00 F T 09 Q t7 P FCY)w- T _h - C CV (YU 7Z r wu w ~_ QO1 QN 0:CDQ dq 4 lug i Qi CV Of=1 OW '+ O U W C-i UW- W C. O Z_ m () N ZW _ C.Q O.' : z. N O I �P LU Hi L FG W: On. N S O 0 W = � C ....�ti 0: S 7 C ON to =� a a F 3 O a'-1 W _ °° ww o_z M — QQzQ a •o � ::LL FA0: j OI O W20 j O OZ - N= N' W S M. ILO N U, 0: r-i z F- >- N " F w =� O::) a OFF Y J O O MUZ J q K = r� O W F-tn Z W O O W Fd/) W O U W to F >-(n O O U W to 2 w aq& LLt� J U w Y- t� F _- N -N d [Y 3r-i 3; w o to d a z~ O qj IA KTa w 0¢lY tw- ' ap IQ j°: `- aw zz i�ilwau ¢w Nz w =M w N Opq W$ U WQN N (9 fA 11)> U WO x0 O' 1:nW 4- WO TO X =N N - N =t-I 00 =: - W= w z0 0 N H>. U1FF W •2 H 70.7E O K Z 0z�3w HN()I6 0 H W U W F F 6z0.7 ao a N O C) " d o 3 a N F- \ w H W y Q z ROD omoo02. `� Ru pe N z n C. r oa auWi uP1 w3u$ a C E `� F w , Q n N to Y M t cat 0 U ANMY(/ V/ d / 8 s-:7» ox� lu J M 1 h .ozsr n� h `N' , O h �S MT -C Zt _ 9 7" oa. TT. To M M. on TT./DN - ;!Ltlli' - smoso A v N M N N � N N J0 V) H N ,nHF W 4 H 0HaE+ oaz �nz�w H QI H H W pop W HE- �azoa 0 gHwH N W q H Ha a _ .. ... --- ........ _. _ CDo m m ®`®, o o Lij � U r tlSf 2l LL� W335 Y J P. ~tbY1HOW pNp Wp3a pN38 p10 r s - 0 CO lS �o VL _ ( LLI N Z �•1 .. `n �-� p U _ s - w s _ Gvo?l a 1391HpS E '� LO---,zx - - -- Q co W �m p0 M 90 it lL dtlW 33S Ui O 0 OCL } cc (9 w a cc p m SEE MAP iB1232 32 100 4..CQR 9.877A PA9AC ( i EA, 272:40 Taint 20M u rm Fredta 2=7r.* Ta rca3001 {DimsS>mbg'W ;iy. N � �6JdLa1S1 6Qdi95tMbelLd {` i 1 , .f a� a1eg : ) PARCEL t 1� PARCEL 1 071, 38174 tit3q? t72t& \t��ti.Vti���i�aa���t�i�������N"U\tip1\ "I r .w .. `.:._. QT3 a�As: 4 s 3M?Q 94 39.0AC d! e' > �y Ba.GCt 2UU3 } s s, + a� c :ct1.3 0.83AC 2002 xa7ot]WSFCa7EmdrlrS rebtaua) fi 44 tXAC s� 1 ; 600 700 Tarntra�tMchlrmsm Ttmg t� f PARCEL 2 &`I PT PARCEL 1 A7 '� V Pi 15 Onnco� {tom 1mo ;1 y in PT Soo Tau:saotA,m�w�,s , l�S Q Pi 415�42AC emaose>aeaan itroy +274.333AC2- ' jz 7t�1 �..:,,. < 47aga— - r. ' 1L t '--a— 1900 Taut 1900 (Csdove ) R. 33 900 1?74AG its 700 m T. rot 1900tQ d-,E W 7«T V—t -o 13#5-72AC �ms�ane F .. co c� m 8 1004 t� Ta Lt1500(Itra3ATLovss8�7ie➢fANuMe � h 6N@.SchlhdRA 1100 w s X 130'! 1=3 0.8�AG, CD 2414 qAC - sxas sue .ti f 7aret 1901 (II911y)nek1991TSArT:asq �' - 66105cMbdRd Sc IBEL 18{i0 g � a' 13230AC .s. 2-74,S6 AC 940a p,.tLi, a.64{ Turx1a9e1at1+isq 1,5�.qw,,�. ?b.p�, 1300 Q 199AGif 't S 1TMRiX*iLim 1200racmarax 91A0 8 ? 21," b21134rMh1Ad Q TST<t me BT r.S.GI fl Sk{G$w iQmdvaTlOa}eA Lmr D7 � 9' iA. y+", � 100 7 ? 712 05CO 24AIAG I I l j _31.77t 0.73AC: 7�ri.:tx ;'32t- .-gi.3"o 101112AC ji ut s7.ast 47.5. 2Y;.o1 1201 6.77AC 200 t oK a � � J� A J Wjt 4a� t . 11aa �+Oct 9300 `✓ F 547ACgb' l ; t� `:` 1000 !� � 600 7 tiK J rtt! Eq-3 C:) co LO C) 04 Io v9c U 11 33 QN3 010 CY) co LO -Y, LLJ 2 L9 CIVOH 1391HOS Z) m /cn LU 0 m O 28 N A tlS2R It Id 633. bMNOIN ONOW03a ON3 8 070 s r f !�n t Lo M ui m o to U - e `n = — LY OVON a 1881HOSLLJ t. w v M l \ A .� CN Vl K .5 a�a yY � Mrta pO 99241E �tlW 33S 0 m Lo 0 N I41 5 •Z: o o m m Lo LO F e o o t r U � I YSf LILLI W335 } r _iAVA4HJIH ONOVy03 b ONHB 070 CV H. o M LO M Vro a 3 •^- t6�s 91. ....,erg .e t1a S 'D LiJ tOVO?J� 1391HOS o -- �, r — — w v $ g w J 3 CN v � f _ IT .x ILL „i f 0 0 sortttavwaas a a 00c r o Cy O N O O w x O t d. w 0 O o 0LLJ 0 O O U 0 �•1 � ) ° \g 3 / \ n / u o ® \ o ) 0 o m e ' •. I_| �. / I \ $ ƒ \ / � ; S: , ,;� , Er / ) A \ § F- o { \ k / # ) m \ c / \ ) \ j 7 / k \ & ] # - ¥ \ � q k / � a E f \ # « / » / b Alp O A �X 0 cc tr r .--, CL 0 tr 3 0, a.' t CL �r tr G)°1; � N lit • O T Q `�f �• � fs 13 ro tr A CL -, ra` «« N 3• �a @ CL ro Q3 t_ CL `. 3 o 0 t .+ ro s m - X c tr 0 d CL of 0 3 o, k 0 (D .MA 00 C) O O //�� V ^ �. L e- G) CL V .�../ el Es coG2� o MEETING DATE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 16, 2023 SUBJECT: First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 - Griffin Plan Amendment / Zone Change RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 by title only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will consider a first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-018 to approve a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-22-000792-PA, 793-ZC) for property totaling approximately 40 acres to the east of Bend and south of Highway 20. The Plan Amendment would re -designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and the Zoning Map Amendment would rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). 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 16, 2023 SUBJECT: Consideration of First 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 first reading of Ordinance 2023-018 on August 16, 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 Vill) 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. NEXT STEPS / SECOND READING The Board is tentatively 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 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL 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 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); 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. DCCTitle 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 90th day after the date of adoption or, if appealed, the date the ordinance is no longer subject to appeal. Dated this of 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner Date of 1s' Reading: day of 2023. Date of 2nd Reading: day of 2023. 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 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. 181201D000200 (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 0 300 600 1,200 Feet A M I, 2023 RREA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFDESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tony DeBone, Chair Patti Adair, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of , 2023 Effective Date: , 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 Zoning EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural RR10 - Rural Residential Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2023-018 � V 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Aug-17, 2023 Proposed Zone Change From Exclusive Farm Use (EFUTRB) to Mutiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFDESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tony DeBone, Chair Patti Adair, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of , 2023 Effective Date: 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. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. J. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23) U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein. CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein. EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein. FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein. GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein. HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-011, are incorporated by reference herein. TT The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein. JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein. KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein. LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein. MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein. NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein. 00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein. PP. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein. QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein. RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit D, Ord. 2023-018 Chapter 23.01 X/( XX/23) SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein. TT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-02, are incorporated by reference herein. UU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein. VV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein. WW. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-001, are incorporated by reference herein. XX. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-003, are incorporated by reference herein. YY. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-006, are incorporated by reference herein. ZZ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-0010, are incorporated by reference herein. AAA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BBB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-013, are incorporated by reference herein. CCC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2023-007, are incorporated by reference herein. DDD. 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 secu'ow5.sz Legisl,at�ve H-%storu Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Chapter/Section Amendment Effective All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne 201 1-003 8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1 Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Comprehensive Plan update Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, Housel<eeping 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 County 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, 3.1 1 Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-021 1 1-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-029 1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018 Exhibit to Ordinance 2023-018 Comp; ehensive Plan Text and 2015-010 12-2-15/ 12-2-15 2.6 I Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Planning Goal I I to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non- 2016-005 1 1-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning Comprehensive plan 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 Inventory Comprehensive Plan and Text 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018 Exhit)if `E," to Ordina>rr;ici.. 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 05-0 1 - 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, ORS. 2023-018 Exhibit "E " to Ortliraoce 2023-0 s 8 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 5.331 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 0 1 -27-21/04-27-21 23.01.01 Designation for Certain Property from Agriculture (AG) To Rural Industrial (RI) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT E, ORD. 2023-018 COITiprehensive 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 F,v.hihilt "E" to Ordinance 2+023-618 Comprehensive Plan Map 2023-007 TBD 23.01.010 Designation for Certain Property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain 2023-018 TBD 23.01.010 Property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXHIBIT E, ORD. 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. I. 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 I1. 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 lega! 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: 0 247-22-000792-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 ►ntent 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 MUA10 Zone, and no participant to this proceeding disputes that conclusion. Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence or argument, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: As noted in the Staff Report, this criterion specifically asks if the Zone Change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicants and the Staff Report provided the following as support for why this criterion is met: • Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the Subject 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 specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: Only the Applicants and Staff offer any evidence or argument with respect to this criterion. Specifically, the Applicants noted the following: M 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. FA 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 q 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. Policy2.2.2 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 delinlllon of "Agricultural icuitural Land" as defined in tatewide Tani ping Goal (OAR ). S P 3 660-033-00 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. 9 247-22-000792-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 2.2.131dentify 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 isproposed,the A Applicants argue there is i o applicable regulation ulation that p pp g Np g 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 flattergrowth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural 11 247-22-000792-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- i 0 zoned land along the City's eastern, ul oundary 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 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon]; 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)(a)(A), listed above as having predominantly Class I -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...." 1s 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 281" 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)(a) 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)(a). The applicant has only addressed capacity for raising crops and livestock, and has not considered the capability of the /and 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. 1 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 manyfarms in Deschutes Countythat 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 I-IV/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/1-1/I 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 51916 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)(8). 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) Goal 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 per son 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. Goa/2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. The outcome of the Application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The Applicants have shown that the 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 ,his 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 an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. 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 E S C0 G2a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: August 16, 2023 SUBJECT: 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations RECOMMENDED MOTION: Based on recommendations from Dog Board, award 2023 spay & neuter grants to program applicants. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County's Dog License and Pet Identification Application forms provide an opportunity for residents to make a voluntary donation to support spay and neuter services. These donations, typically supplemented by general fund, are offered to local non-profit organizations, which provide spay and neuter services in Deschutes County for both feral animals and pets whose owners are unable or unlikely to access or afford the procedure. Grant funds may also be used for educational or promotional programs focused on encouraging or expanding spay and neuter procedures in Deschutes County. To be eligible for the program, applicants must be designated by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, located in Deschutes County and able to certify that grant proceeds will be used to support services benefiting Deschutes County residents. On June 21, 2023, the Board of Commissioners approved a total of $10,000 for multiple awards. Staff then issued a news release, posted a solicitation, and notified past applicants of the available funding. Four applications were received in response to the solicitation. Those applications were then reviewed and evaluated by the Dog Control Board of Supervisors, whose scores were averaged to provide the grant award recommendations included in today's meeting packet. BUDGET IMPACTS: The Spay & Neuter Grant program is funded by donations made during dog license registration as well as the general fund. ATTENDANCE: Stephanie Robinson, Administrative Analyst rml c 0 c° -a o o 0 m 0 O Ln ko o E � 0 u CC Q) Ln Ln 4-1 X_ O 4-' i O p �N u — O. � LC -o O u j-E L u 0u Ln Lnu X-O 0- p pvcp C C Ln O puV1 ° C O L C U '� O v V to V u r- C Ln O to 4-U L_ Q E O 4- > N N C— O Ln C rZ to Ln M O W LnY LA L L a N � C L ° L O ° d Ln ,U ° L a C a; bo o °° w op° Q c Q U Q .- U L-U M In Ln LL _.I to O Vl C 4- a) Ln N N uE o u v _ a� Q `m- I ro o " O c- C � C O E= M `n •u b Ln V C v p �� -o 'n p C C C C 4= � M U o O u N+ v Ln C Ln .N C C L -0 rB +- 4- O av C Q QJ w m 0 V) a) ro0 C V) Q m U, ul Q- � L vdJi 4-- QJ C % Q N O C QJ QJ 4- w E Q Q C c C O O Ln C C 4- 0 v- X O T, C C)-0O v C Q1 ru ,cn U O NC- in m ,_, M 0 Ln v- Qf O u Ln -0 U*) Q1 L/) L In C C In Q1 U � C � : 7 C 0-C N Q) O C O - O i �. a C - Q1 rB ° E� E V Ln i m a m A QJ -0 O QJ v 0 i O C O N. C C v ra N C C bp m J _ r0 C OC C = Q •� mo _ .- C 4--+ _0 -0 mr Qom' Ln — C _0 u ° Q c QJ O L � E In �' (n C Q C QJ C® u tU C O O 1, N mu In •- Q! i u bA Q) O o O m Ln U C J L-4� v p Ln u cz J -0 4� L ojj ° 4mJ o m o c = ° = n 0 = o m 0 a �� v W O 0 0 F- O CL w f ,0 E i L a, QJ Q L L V Lu Q m IL LL VL 1 VTES Co o MEETING DATE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 16, 2023 SUBJECT: Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change application 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC (247-23-000398-A) RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Board will deliberate on the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will deliberate in consideration of a remand decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by LBNW LLC and originally approved by the Board under files 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC. The full record is located on the project webpage: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23- 000398-tuba-remand-Ibnw-Ilc-comprehensive-plan-amendment-and-zone-change The 120-day deadline for the Board to render a decision of � this � � utter is September 14, 2023. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: August 9, 2023 SUBJECT: Deliberations - LBNW LLC Plan Amendment/Zone Change Remand On August 16, 2023, the Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a limited de novo public hearing held to consider a remanded decision of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) regarding a Plan Amendment and Zone Change application proposed by LBNW LLC (Applicant). The record associated with this remanded review is located on the project webpage'. I. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2021, an application was filed for a Plan Amendment and Zone change application for a 19.12-acre property located at 65301 N Hwy 97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000305), 65315 Hwy 97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000500), and 65305 Hwy 97, Bend (Taxlot ID 1612230000301) approximately 4.5 miles south of Redmond and approximately 4.25 miles north of Bend. The applicant is requesting to rezone and re -designate the property from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI). The Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the application on July 12, 2022. The second hearing, as required by the County procedures ordinance, was held before the Board on September 7, 2022. The Board then adopted Ordinance 2022-011 on December 14, 2022 approving the application with conditions. Central Oregon Landwatch appealed the county decision to LUBA. On April 24, 2023 LUBA issued its Final Opinion and Order remanding the decision to the County for further findings and conclusions of law. On May 17, 2023, the Applicant initiated remand proceedings under local file no. 247-23- 000398-A. A work session was held before the Board on June 26, 2023. The final day on which the County must issue a final decision on this application is September 14, 2023. I1. BOARD DELIBERATIONS 1 https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/­247-23-000398-luba-rema nd-Ibnw-1 Ic-com prehensive-pla n-a mend ment-and-zone- chane On August 16, 2023, the Board will deliberate on the proposed request, If the Board finds that additional deliberations are necessary, the Board may schedule a future date for continued deliberations. This would, however, potentially conflict with the state -mandated 120-day clock, the deadline of which is September 14, 2023. If the Board finds no additional deliberations are necessary, the Board may then vote on the proposal. The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link: https://www deschutes o g/cd/page/247-23-000398-tuba-remand-lbnw-llc-comprehensive-plan- amendment-and-zone-change Board Decision Matrix A more thorough review and discussion of the subject proposal's compliance with the applicable approval criteria and issues is provided in Attachment 1 - Board Decision Matrix, prepared in conjunction with this deliberation memorandum. III. NEXT STEPS If the Board determines that additional deliberations are necessary, staff will work with the Board to schedule a future meeting for continued deliberations. As mentioned previously this would potentially conflict with the state -mandated 120-day clock, the deadline of which is September 14, 2023. If the Board concludes their deliberations during the August 16, 2023 meeting, the Board may then vote on whether to approve the proposal. If the Board renders a vote during the August 16, 2023 meeting, staff will intends to come back to the Board for a 1It reading of the Ordinance on Wednesday August 30t", 2023 and a 2nd reading of the Ordinance on Wednesday September 13tn 2023. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Board Decision Matrix Page 2 of 2 B�F�JT� Ma �y Sff sM �� c tr( 3� • i z�zi 5p S 0 0 Z O Q V J a a Q W W Z u W O N H SW G CW G Q Q J a V J J ZM W J L. O 0 Z a W I X L� r 5Q G Z O u W v u O m v -`O ; u� C O O VI by C evil bA v O V O _C L >+ v C N u v a � N a 7 N O °c Y O E U O V N O L o O a) L L L a+ ✓� C O= a= N n ab0o v v a V > ix y Q V > u Q 0 a! 6 E bca Y N Ln E 0 ac a +O+ �6 p C O C > L O m C N O C l7 O a) 0_ O C C N N v O `u° c v v ai a E a =0 v N .> O N > O al aJ -O v X `a,p v Y Y � 0 ° .0 C O Y O E E 'O > v cam. � E O O N U 0 v E c N T C aX T C C T v m W C U ro n- c y E _O aJ aJ -O o 00 � "O 0 C 'N o c e C m C) p o N _ O O m a, v$ m c> o_ E o ° o 0_ > z .X w ° aa) N in U Q m _ a, ro .� w- '> w w a O U n o ) u c o c o 9 @ v O rp o co: N O '6a) (v bb iri .°U v- v a) O V Q o a O N n Y o E o a C Ot ,,,E ° E O u n C N _ c o O_ w o (v - a v v v o 0 a> o o v a a vi v� 0 0 0 Y o Q 3 v ti Cc: o O N L -0 O al 0 0 Y o, '3 � bnl7 a) C V N al bl _v J N C t0 Y .� bq O c: C N a o v Q� c v w o y o a c N c u^ o v 'N c 0 o a n3 N o Z ,n Q c X o c u d O.^-0 c 'X C 0 Q 0 m IV y v o a 0 v M o^ c p a> b4 0 L c o p n a c c C u v J y E° a 'u v a = a a as ° m a N v a'- C O b�.0 �' C N O o Q. 'Q '"6 'O O a1 3 o> p_ bCA o 2 -p C u0 i A o bD N U Q °' O_ C O Q° Q� v '5 v -0 c v Q v o a E Q>° � c c a v E L O v v E C Y °' o O vOi L ° v N Y o 0 7 e -3 7 N 7 Q F- °- O V V1 v U v� N 0 N N N mpcu CD N V� 7 !J �-• �' E o o ^ w .= o ,4 F u �+ 0 N t6 N L _ LT J u (�• N In -6 U1 '0 C ut °i O N N W .o J O O C X ul N N '. -O .tn O E 2C n N 1 lO .� C Y L C v C a N Q Q v c o V N c o? L� O O v 3 N ° a>' v a v Y C Li L N d Q°C ^ N C o p L a� 7 E N T 6 N o >, r6 .v o ra -N6 cp a Q> u o E v v (uN E mq 6 N o Y m4 N N N C° E N L _° .V > 3 o N C 0 C C t Z ° N o c n o ° c u C c o p m v° o o_ c E E c c a N N N ro c .°J = v c N C -o 9" Y a° v o 4 v6 w N O �. ° O '� 3 Q Y bA C N p- u c N o N 3 Q D Y ^� Y Q N 6 a d c L c '6 N N NW -O qp C C u -C ut bZ C w E N O C E - L O C Yl '6 C w C O W L V1 6 'co:Y N .D X= W O -o O 7 N V -Y i C .3 O ro C C .L..• O N rJ E p �l ut C C vNi o rp O� E O Y. E ?+ 7 3 N o ° `_` ra u m (u oE° m 0 W X CL o o= N N N 3 bD r6 N N C pp '- E Y w E o � v c cL cL Q E w Y -O o D Ed -O -6 O vNi v N o N a O N N N N W N c N� C m N M rp N 0 N O tO N U m° -O -o o 7 K mp +L.+ m o o c m " O YI v Q m C L o X m N N 7 N T C L� Q a.� a� a.+ +' O s Q N .o +-� �' V � 5 N v u N N v 0 v v o ^ 3 3 v v> o N L a } Z T O O OC C -6 >O r6 -O N v } N E o v a a Z j p N 7 o X N 0 O E ry @ +L--, u, Q mUN1 w C O r>i1 0 o 7 O yo V "O C O o C d' a)U .3 bC-0 N U .N C> O N _V 'a) Fz u p a)'O O .� CY Iv n a Q' N O i' C C CLn lNi v L C E a C y 0 C O E c c o c O� C M o M O .� N Y E L b0 .o O u 3 o c c o M u Y N O a rp N N v O O U N M C— L ' C '7n - N v N v c- m E p C Op c °6 v a N .L-� V Y c v o 0 N o °' ut N 6 c° v E c c �� ut o_ N C °- �O t0 N E- C K W in N C C N Y b�0 o, o o .E c:,m -O N_ W V W N C -° 7 ut Q Q ° 7 N� N N .v W E ut o 0 o O> O a .N O O z °0 v@ o N b-0—' N v o w o L w v O_ p L c 0' Y Q C 'N Z o C O N d' i s p c N @ Ui v r0 N N '� u N O- N i0 ut bA v Q Y c)Q O_ N M Q Q- � N o Y Q 6 dN0 -6 C Q 7 v6i 4 o- 6 N @ 7 i 7 mp O E v Qa O_ 7 Oy w O E O_ 7 v w o w N C N Q o � L�. 0 a s O O_ o_ v- 4 N C —o ° N O i cm(u a -o C f; V L u y N C o Mv1 N o ut 7 p O O N C N— V 0 K 'N C N O.. N ut N E N N o_ C N W7:1 V L L N Y N v O in E E y 0 O 9 C O YO .v " E C ° E o 'O u 3 fpX C N O v N ° c 0 V N d C J N v N N E N i p°_ N N 3 L 0 N N N +L.+ , Q J N N— "C 30 (6 V• N C Q o~ E= 'u)Y v N c - O ° m0 o E t6 i L mu U C C v v iNil N N N °J N ut O N o Q .N C E '6 C c E Q N o N ut "6 ~ L L C Q O C E r6 6 y by c E C N v 3 0 ° '� E o o Y V N N N c E v N — yN,, 3 mp Y v o .c a 3 '� C O v E o V° Y `�- N o 'Y O O N O i-0 v= N �O N 0 N w Y_ N p .L.+ C N O_ m4 .0 T r� N it N N Q O C bA ° V o -O u ¢ L C N E O C 7 N C E 1E 7 c O 7 7 Q N r6 N o O N V V vNi EC N v N E Y "O V N rp N m c y N E ° oo o'v o o° N 'O v m e N o c N oo E T a o v 7 N N N J O ut bA .O O 'D N m vi Y T �^ Y O 4i c O N m N >,,C > C L.+ u to -6 N in O o O N W Q i 7 ° O O Y c _ Y V V m 9 Q � '6 w" w co: C O N ut Q N C a O C G aj 0 C v .N co, O m b9 a) W f] 3 w O N ut N E N Q � N O Y L N >' c 6 6 7 d 7 4 c N N c bQ V c bA ¢ N v N d N ; Q N v p O rp V O N v v N > C N v V C O N ;Z' N G Z v C o O c vNi '6 C o bA V N L' N E N c N N O p rp N W '6 C u _° a Q N -6 N 7 N 3 .0 @ V N N ° V p v- "O In m o Q T "° d o o L L 0 O o o O_ O E X V1 Q V V O w V H N bA N O_ N` Q O- 9 o a-V v C Q .� ia)n .� N .° V N N L C F- N E N O M vNi -o d' -6 LL N W Y +L-+ N v O M NO (.. Sc V C O O O Y ip 0 N VI N N — C N -6 O O N 5 N C O o a o u m O i 0 l0 V o Q °u N N i 7 Q 0 Q ut vNi o C N o O _O o N c L U c N E 6 I Q 0 O o 6 6 N ° 2 6 O M � w a Y m 6 r m a v v o X w >; N V N CV aL+ m m✓> I x m o w c:N ru v C m y .V ? E w R, 00.0 t m N ra C C C O- O O' C '•J O X w `, w oo N E O w o -C w C O a) a) in Q � C Y by m '6 m w >+ c m O v l0 > w O E> m O m C N w N a m ._ E 6 E E m E w _^ c w m w Q: v L p u w C C w u Q w m m w w N �J N w w w Y w y, w O m w O N O' O E _o �I O C -- C "Ci w C m N >, m Q - `!6 3 O m O N C m O Q w w E C 2i -6 T v O N Y w E y y m It O O O O C O -O 3 ��, a) . Q ( V c? m O "= E ,N Q w bA w� v C m w N aN+ 6 bA — b0 m E G - >, w 'a '-^ E Y u in N w c aTi `J Q w d. c: m ) >, �- uul w v t c:: N m >+ CO w p =- p o V p m C O w C w C O 7 w w N� _z N N Y N C N a) w N m v 6 -p m m N -6_ O N Y a O O c� w C N 'O -o T tlA v� C i w i C 6 O m E Q w Zo it C al C C fp 6' Q u O —O i N ai -6 � aJ U '� Q "p aLi N L rn N C O bA C N 6 Q r6 W L � to C C pp �6 C Q j O w w 6' X w Q'O w O N w Q w -o m C W C � m W to V- Iw/1 i V m m V aL.+ y b4 V- W w W -C U Y O E w 6 w m v C L C O ywi W w W Y 3 n E x 6 o E E v 3 m E Y E Y N .0 m >> Y vwi '� aj N C v w >' L L y v m m O C w E s Y p ° U V m C w E m° , C R? m V E m v E m O o > -° N p W v — -6 w- `° o E E 6 E m N a w m_ w m o m o w .� m w Y c o a) O >+ U m y o.>_ m o O w m o o w m N w C C �,, w m> _6 6 m -6 w m 7 -o w m w m 7 O C N m 7 w C VN "6 O w E N y O w N V w m E b E u U V- C .Q w '= N 5� w w. L� w ' w. p(v VO >- Z T E "6 w C ip w p m >- Z i T O `p i C O i6 0 6 a Q ro- m a m w v° 0 E Q E N v p -6 w N a)c 75 c 2 o w e w> c c O o v> c c c o o> Q r o> vNi Q� 'N c N O p- O" O Q o o E o w M N p o E o w o 0 Q a) a° o Q v w w v N m 0 w 4d N C O o N In O ^ v Y ,'C,, > OV W w OC o w 'O m N v 0 '� 3 C O N iO C awoQ�o N N m a N OO w to N v w tCp > 0 E .� 6 v v Q to E O w v 6 '6 m Q '- N �YM co Q N -C ao m c -6 Q vw c v o v w a Q °° m u w s 0 m o O a o v v° 6 `.'= u u c Q N° Q c m o a m° o w C C Q Q N c ro s C O O '6 v .-. OJ w in is M j C v E w ,6 lfl u w C_ c0 y ..-. Q o LO N- O Q c wo v 6-a w w .0 c W 1 v o 6 m W N_ "6 a Q aa) w o p N Q � c �> O N C vwi o N Q o m Q w Y a m w O Q .� 3 c o 0 N O Q w w- Q u o Q v w C v O E o M bp.0 N> O c a w w .0 (A w- � o m V v Q 7 -6 O N ¢"i -O v6 t N -w6 w N C¢ 7 4 cCO N L N V1 O u O w C N m O m m N O Q Y v v N W m C v) u 6 N 6 6 w E m - c: a)m v C.- aE m w w w N v w> m C m s w > V w Vm m v v m E w Y cE O E V � w � m E C a 4 w v E O v v U w C v 6 N 7 cl — v v N y v c O c Ol c � m V a u O IT z 0 H u J a a Q W 0 TQ i V W z N Z We C W Q Q J a V J J m J U. 0 Q cQ G W I Q Z 0 v W Q u u m yvpi N O lli W u O ra > 4 0 L N > D a oo T v E 7 O N N C C fl. u N Q o O pl c p C Q w V O" ` N lw n I O C G d o o v N O N 1. N ;7 C C 'u bfl N v p N N T Q v L O v -° d v v m bCD v f1 m° `� ra N v C C W V7i 0) a v V C `1 m N C N a W v V L C w ro m ; C N O a) :E v N c O w C Q o Y c o N o ri° c E> > N o o �. v W x w w w -o = p v E c u w vwi a) N o v c N O N -o o- N O_ o m v E w u 'wT f1 a C O v N C a N Y L C T N a) v-- - V N N N N Q2 N C a °- fi 0 0 N � a v � N N v — N — C rca bC0 aL.� C b�0 o 5 w -o ° E u Y 'c N v v o o Nb-0 w o C rNa �' ru O_ O c -aw _ Y Y n 9 v ao o o ao c c v - Q Q Q> o Q> C v v c ww v Y E v c o o c is ° fl_ a)ap c in Ln w a Y v Y N a ra as v - ad Y c ra > 'C v ra pa Ln C V p,p 72 N L Y C 1. N o 3 ° c v L C a) C =o E° a C a C 6 a C ra E -o p N 'ra C � Q '—'' w `+= T a v YO o N � ra a3 °�° N um EE N E -p E a) Q u a m 3 .Q > .� o X C O T o a V C T N v rua v = c o- 76 E O ra E m a" w o O E a`o m N E 4-. -a o_ ° E N ko v m ra Q N N N v C N N O m O O Q Q O c m C m, v m v C m ba f0 .� v Q �° N C vv v w c v° 'O v v L e o Lv v Y y° v .2 Y o m N t6 ._ V N vw c s n v v p N O o_ Y Z N v? n O o >' r6 C C V N v w v ° C Y z Q_ aN Q C1 V o C o °- N T C O T ra > o o v w T C � S v � L > a >, o m w-c d C v 3 O vi C m E o E C v lwn V °- 9 7 N a E_� aJ O _c E C N V7 p E L O_ C p r6 a C O C ¢ O L w o N N o N N OV r^ L -7 O N o w L C O W N r6 N O ra N m 6 N Y p o O Lu O vOi vNi O° C O u ¢ N O ',�-, N O '� V toil n C N O Q W U O N E N U v d' N o= N 'N a W Q. N S N � U -p ? -o v a v o N 0 0 bD W t E D -o -a = o3n a in v E l a o rn w aco C Ln o v F w 2 `N i° v E �°� rn W °C° c o a '� - C° ai ra 3 C N N un C W o Oi rraa o a O w i) p vo ra ra N d' >, . o ra 3 YO N o O ruo -6 O Vl C w, V O W o m d' v Q a C= V- _ C O N w N N N t? N @ C Z CC N 4 v C _ a O N N d N N A C z Q> v C N C Cz N v Q ° u acoL c a ° Q Y c Q c c n v v Q o v c¢ v N w c o n ra o v o- v a o Y .N v¢ �os v .N u N v o o v ro o O v _c> v 0 > ra o o L.+ a N L v fl Q E 0 L' a v '- Q Q_ N O v o > O v L T ra o N fZ o E E v Q '- C 7 Q +aj o L V-- LJ C C o O N L f1 C= F- o ra m a 3 ra �«-. Q .-, �- H ¢ aL.+ L V- C ``� H o ra ra -0 3 C o OV ra a �Q v a i0 fl ... f- -o ra ¢ m a s c o Y N N O N ra b0 v v N = bb C Q C v o w N O a Q a " o o a d N v N Q N v@¢ Q, u N w >, 3 ro p v L C v w r6 o D 3 H= °u D W M ra vOi s A yj yE d,9 L O N N a z O H Q u J a a Q W tm z Q u W z O N H z cW G z cW G Q z Q J a u J J z m J N. O C z cQ G W w x E 0 u a 0 v v 0 m Q rn m 0 0 N r V N U N N W d 00 0 0 0 N r N h L L T O L Q � N ° O 7 'T O ° L ° N N N Q v N Oo bA � C � v Q C O O u C N cu y i Y � w N _ 3 o o v v � v 0 N v C ° O `6 (In v o ° v L O 9 lu v 7 (p L N N L 7 E O N N a+ � v v X C bCA N ._ bA V � O � � C _Q o Ou E Z O N V � Y v � � � J O1 N co:N i v N o O a o c ra m o 0 m Y ro N N s o a o a a a O > z Q m C Vi N C N C j N Ul bA G C 0O o_ E V 7 O y = N C C N O N N N C O T E C m Y 3 ci o c o_ v N L E > O E V C c O = N 0 Q N-0 0-a)N T N N in E j D 7 L v O N L a v U C O C w o u O T v 0 w c c y O a o 0 u — C O r O V p` O 1 O OO M Y >O IN w Y L C_ v N C O L a.+ by O N 7 N '' N L 0 -o O p L 3 (v c 3 a.v 0 a v 3 o 0 v w > C 0 : -6 � 'O u C C N N 0 f6 N O U .o "O >> N N U O N C N � � C D 7 O X N C C Ou . p C N N y p 3 n D y C O o O N N L O L v ) N a 3 o c c v o o ° o � � 3 N _ ° _ Ul E° v7 d S d v E N 7 o aco °° o 7= v o N O c bA b7`o 3 v °c " o cobo 6@ o v a a � vcm v c a D o c 3 n rn Y E Q a _ o 0 Q v c F o T w�. �Ymvc c v° uO ° Lc °) E -oLo N L00 bo vO o -°E�xa)co aQo,ooco $OvLsO N C7 N a. "O w E OUovi _ O w� v o u v v O > L C u a to ._ T N pq t_ C �' C .._. a C A _ Q, O C , Q v m a 0 9 Y -p t a r .� dj C C O N Y LI7 tp aJ G QJ o ,@ 'O 2 Q .OJ O > a o 0 3 E o s J Q Q c C7 N ° o o T -p m a o u o c w v a c > o' 3 a o T o o v a v' v ca v m v m c 0s o'er cQ Q ° ° o m C c 0 V m Q > Q :ii N a) "Od O m N> pJ L aJ V1 Q tp '� Q Q 0 o = Q O 4t2� pq p° u a E Y v o c a D o c N m by 9 Y v v m N m N O '/� o 'V o 0 V C yv. p_ 7 p s:. 9 Q +L.+ aJ o O' �J O aJ .� N aJ a au, O a E V ip O Q �i T N Q bC0 Y c E C -Q C C a �n� a '� in a m T m p E m > v c y v c fl Q v O -o aJ a aJ Z 7 N m CO m C L a C N Ou p N O N 0 7 m --� 0 aJ T °- O C aJ a n "6 N aJ X N L -c X H aJ N O >i in l7 E >> a al 4 N o C 7 Lu L i. 7 �O b-0 i T ip m'i `op QQ aJ m by v v m_ a,m° c 3 w a @ .E ,� = 3 E m Y a u o c O �. -c O° a o ^ 0� Q p �] _^ ^ °_ a v m .v N o QJ @° Y E 'o E v E o N > C aJ p > O O L 0 a E 7 c v O7 o-a a v v O ° u a a: v u T Q (D >- Z a, bo v a co: 6 Q m L m C p E m Q ¢ T p L E O m w Q m °u m m C _ r O O > 0 N aJ N O m 'V '0 o 3 0 a .0 4 O Q N La m E CL Y C m y w aJ C 2 c 7= c @ m N T L a b0 N O bhp C a Q O aJ O m N Cc:o a) N O a O .off 7 m i u L V a N o> Y o_ T.v o Q o o c a aJ n v Q Q aJ 3 v a, y oO)nLm a mvi v EQ)oa O �3 _yal v `ca) a)Q C°ccC ap -L> j OO N N O Q -.O a Ln 3 aJ o — a, 0� aJ U ELn. p m 3 m aJ Q n c a ctu N '2o m v ° v o v c aj 7 m o ° a a C ,o O o c Y v > m u aJ al p] '� O m aJ v o a O � V V> aJ aJ m V >) v m 0 0 co b�0 z O a u_ J a a Q W Q z Q u W z O N H z CW G z CW G a z Q J a u J J z m J L. O Q z Ca G W w x 5Q G z O u W u u O m 0 0 m x E 0 v v 0 U U 0 m o� m 0 0 M N r V oo U N N w of Q d y w 7s 4:� y i y Y — � m_ y .� J C C � c' 'N W p d �n ra N r T h t6 ai 'L 4p N °c° :c '6 Y v �°� o^ y y N a, N y T v V Q N C O C C vi C o ( c c v a M c v o 11 to a Q n t0 "o vN° I w UC �� X cA 7 'J E O v1 O y� l7 aJ N O N y C i1 N C .w O by t b0 t6 O u" C c_ �' =� v a) L -p mo y 7 L y V o '6 y L _o c N C m V E 6 v -o J aJ — C c Y y 3 a V u o N L U C p c a1 L -p Z y a o C w °1 l0 y a � -6 V to C 0) n. Q E 6 y _^ y �, y > y y c .°Jc -o E = c u = p o y w L o C >' V N — al VL-' C O C p E �6 aJ N L E E C O O O -o "6 L �J O 6 Q E Gp -6 X T' '2 bi0 -o b0 > -p O C bQ N C c ra `6 a vi 3 a y c o m .� o y c E c E c E `0 p o m° .E E y> m c c c o aj E o m w y v 'i c E c y v nL n o c v u Q Y y O L N Ou E N -6 y E O N O '6 a)iLir N h0 3 Q Q O N C Q a)E X N J a1 >, E L C r6 N C E O a1 O, E y L O N >+ a1> N N C y o is E E" w- a h N O E a v1 Y 7 a1 O aJ "o " p E E O ro m N 0 O o V E �O y O t6 O L L N C. O L y O ,�- N m, C O m y p a C y o �O c 9 u a a m O i y 3 -o y N E Y .Y ai v o a) c E E o T aJ y L } o o '6 Z > N to Y O a) y O CO Li N } Z w � U C m Q > O '6 ra o C O Q ton Q m w O — 6' U >i i E Q m E y C-a o '- N N N Y '—�' m m a) c -o O y y Y c o y o O> o > O O vNi E M V o v f E O @ [ y O E O p C Q u 6° y v o. C E V 0 y ° v y y 16 S it �- N L L v C v op u N_ y > _> V y c '6 YO in C y E p N a Cvi al ^ OC N y 2 C O C vci u -o >' v �= N N y E O" o �n E_ '� y by y s y y o a) v °�° a E o o- L o v v a) O 75 v E m m E y D p N o c — ao v y o 3 a '6 v O T o y co E y y C C a/ N C_ Ou E y o c p o N C N y vi O w N a H aJ C N vs p oD N vi o Vi U V o A L G o m 3 a N y C C y E O �+ Q c o a) U C a)y -6 o c D y L o 6- u a c o E v OV 16 a) c w V O ,C Q N 'C aJ i Q N@ p u v O E m —� N O 1�+ N `p E> -O N C O c N L U y y w y Y c y ° m c E y y y ,., c a 6 0° Y L Y v T N u o y a ao E u^ y a c c v ao aL, to O 3 _o N N aJ w C E G Y c" C in N !� 0 N .p O V C aJ C O C L 7 N O v y C v Y �_ > L b0 6 V O .o E L N N y a+ C a 9 — C 'D aJ C +' C t^ y 0 6 C aJ In E 0 N = _a N E@— 7� . C O ra C Q Q v C w O Q C V o in � C in 6 C E N y o N O E C N� p O ✓ c O I V U 6 aLy+ y y y > v Y aJ 2 .Q N U E C �' N O O V C o O by E 2o c E aJ @ C V M c: = 7 N D. y O N y v1 a Q J -6 /p U +-' E c - E C w C o Q _ Q O �n Q N 'A O i� .N a1 o in a, L O '6 N E C aJ y al N C qa al r EC O V '> L N L E V L E v N Y o ¢` ° c m ) a v voi in v v 3 u m I w n. Vl v n p N o O c`'1 v y y 7 ai oc y J ID a: Lu V1 — L p V> = to O O' N f0 @ E O O O> L 4 p v ✓ aJ a) ,C Q w L al a1 y o > w to c— p aJ 6 d! O O � N .D a) v '6 -p E o p w L O Q U 'n N N O< Q y Y O Y C 0J N N m n w N p v N y y y o O y c y c v a'o o 0 i6 O c N E C c a1 Y C ° F= 7 c o o -o y a, v N L c y 7 v° C —° Q O y V E O u y Vy1 7 L v L Q 3 0 n .0 C p V y N N o — n O in y -o o y o _o C � E a C c 0 E c o c V -o E y .D E .> �n c y L O V N N> N v V � v1 n) y o a., y E O C i O U N C 'O y L c L @ 7 0 O, C v w 'a.+ o m cc 0 C O C m E O C T ',.+ '� N O y i O C O C Q y In aJ y V V7 'o N .�^ E i 0 0= y a) 6 O E U N cp 0 E O y_ y 0 O O 7 vVi O O N y o co O O a) d z.. �., w�, .-, rV,. r.,. , ,. , r. N , Z�- .s, , �...,. r ,...v. <... _ s,.,.. < .. �s1 , ., ,,. . I , v' . _. � 1 e S , <.. 1 „ N 4. ?, r`1 SI \-,. �S E"s -,.. "� ";< � ,L. < U, ,f , �rvv\ .-> <LF` `.i L,. � L. '.k C ..owl .<,. ... :. � J.v .. s. .'?„,.. v� ,...... �" : . _ 5., Ya ', .(C ,> . s.s ,r2. ., S <., <. ., ., . ,�, r,..-. Sw a .`\ .., s , ,> -Y i �.."nt<n? , .r, v. ,. r. 'TE .. , ... N,,. ,. ,< c T., ..£,..: v- .X .. >v. ? rw✓,. Lx ?Ue -,.. r F+.. ..r. `\ ., .: ..,. ... _ . ,,. � `2 .,. ., ., i a..,m �. ,tx a �-<.. .& .. ''h`>3 <n.. <,`: � ,.=✓i "`�>.A ?Yx �'r<^... ',<. r: -t k � �N .-�� � 2 G , . .. N;,:�,�<: �;� .z u. .,-....,, .. � "•-: 33. t, �a� � � ,2� rY,,.�-. . � F s..,, ,„.z.,�.>,. .. v:..r. - S<,re . ,N,,r,. �., f <'>.. ,,,., , _•,e., x . S .x-.,.,. .> f�' ..<v,.....c, :,'c„ , .ur, . � �?. <, ,_. ."f .. , t; a, _, � ,.. ,,.�. .., ,. , �. •�'. G. 'e^, . <� > .t.. �, .S � ��` .,20�srr . `k, t "Y .,r T,,. g.. ,. ..r en ...1�..: 'Y,<r,d i' .,y'a };.: , _;,. � .� :C, a' c-`'� < x <;c,; � Ea .,"7,n, ,.<, ' �:�,',:. .c.,. st,-r , ...,. s. <.,,., �..t � s S: � �� �: >u ,t;�w,- 1 i Z . `-: .r.J ". _ .. ,. , �'r5'. 7. r, : K,. tS "; t \ s t,. 3i V.. �... .< Y 6, �. .,2 . , _nh.0 <: > : e r ,� � .� ., ....:. .Z;, ,. kA.. .� -.:..^<,.a:--�'S c .,, <. �?t r ,sue . , r . a: < . , .:: � b< . , c .:. ",.�k n. .,}'i�"w _�i,.., .. <. ,. .>. !a ..'y , [. ..., � k'°x .. �.. $ < . a � a,. .. ?, t<a f � C . i. .. f> z�a ",e., ' C �. kaF<. v,.. .. 4 . .. ., .. ,.✓c..,.....,....,...,\�,.,.<1v ,. .. e ,� �.k«' .:3 m,... lv`.< t ". ":. '<F.:. .,J. . {. v.. .. , < ,. ,. rr- v � T e "C<,.. � � � � �,a � t� �."� �, �, .....,.(. .. .. ,"v . c r < .,. . .: �, .. .. U ,.. .` , ..," `:,,. 2 !S: :'.: a . . ✓. ,>.. � 4,t m. vrs '<, .ss.? , .,, ..:. �. : a- a `� a .. "i,...... or, �. .,. ...`.-'r,. > , v-^D �.,.. . � , ..,.k? .m ,. (.>, w . ..,, 3, x � .. � M2,. <..`� ...ts,:. reru',r«.7„ ��U. - .'.s<'. ....v,t'.J'_.. _,. : C b. . �?''-1.. 4. ,` ...:.. . .i �, .,.. . :. r, . S,s��^. . 9 2.. .. z ,' , _'.,. ,._ .., C<'t -.,. , 't,, e L x.'t� 3 .a '!" .L .. ,. C.`>....: \ , + �.. ,.. .. < .... <. ,. , . , . E F -r n. .. :,. ,. r. . , n..., r r, . .,a. s ., .3. .., �:l ,., 5,. .r2. ,. .'. �., .ervr i Y' S f... ,,,U _l„ . .5 , :.ems v, }. �.'rt'.' . ,.< d .� s „<a . 2.✓.. i,. a \ _ -.2. ,. , ,. , . , : , ,-r .. .,e ... . ... -.. ,v o. �. �.. t . .£"' 3 ' . �?<., >l� �\P a , .. _ d ., >1n.,. , ., uN. ,. .. s. "Y'. ..',.. <>.�. ., .. ,.. v s,.. „>1: f,,. .d uS 3 v `ae,_:: .4..,.c ., ..s ... ,.. .. ,.<. a ., w., ni s. � ,. ,,:"" <.. „x- ..<, .,Y . 2' : ?„ .. _,', _', .�.,\ .?' . r ....... ..?,. ..:,a' �,"'"` .._.. .: r, ..:..w. .... . at: , c„,.<t �., .rc r ,.. c ,. ,... ,. .,, , . (Crr_ . .C', , ........,: c. S \.v.,...✓v.,,, nod.,;, _... .s r. .k.,, .,� �x :.":-.. ".2' �. �,. ., ..^n _.. .. ay. r. i xi , .. ,. !- .,� .,z< ,. .5. ,... < zG... ., , 2' .; 2 .,..:.», a ., '�: ,... r ., �; � .,<..e 3. 7... n1-:- .. c:.:. ,�.�m�>... }.;,.. ., A... ,.... ra„�eo- • The Applicant argues that The Opponent argues that Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony suggesting that LUBA's remand the ESEE analysis should applying Goal 5 pursuant to does not require more than an analysis considering the ESEE consequences of not consider issues beyond OAR 660-023-0250(3) allowing uses under the RI Zone? the enumerated economic, requires a "broad inquiry" social, environmental, and into impacts on inventoried A. Yes energy consequences Goal 5 resources of a (Applicant Final Legal decision to allow, limit, or B. No Does LUBA's remand require the County to conduct Argument pg. 3) prohibit various conflicting an analysis beyond considering the economic, social, uses (Opponent New If yes, the Board may find that the proposal does not require analysis beyond the environmental, and energy consequences of allowing Evidence and Testimony, pg. economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing uses under uses under the RI Zone (that differ from the uses 2) the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the 1 currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the subject subject properties and move onto the next matrix issue. Staff notes that this properties? identified issue really If no, the Board may find that the proposal does require analysis beyond the considers considers the scope of economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing uses under remand, asking "broad the RI Zone (that differ from the uses currently allowed under EFU Zoning) on the whether a inquiry" subject properties and move onto the next matrix issue. requires an ESEE to consider issues beyond economic, social, environmental and energy consequences 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 1 of 10 • Is the County required to amend or modify its Goal 5 scenic view inventory under OAR 660-023-0030 or may the County rely on the existing inventory set forth in the Comprehensive Plan? The Applicant argues that nothing in LUBA's remand decision suggests or requires the County to amend or modify its long- standing Goal 5 scenic view inventory. The Applicant's understanding is that LUBA's decision relied on the County's existing Goal 5 program to conclude that uses allowed under the RI Zone could be conflicting uses (Applicant Final Legal Argument pg. 3-4) The Applicant further provided draft findings responding to OAR 660- 023-0030 consistent with the understanding that the County was continuing to relying on its existing Goal 5 scenic view inventory currently set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (Applicantjuly 19, 2023 submittal) ® The Opponent. argues that the County needs to address OAR 660-023-0030 (Inventory Process) to locate and evaluate resources and develop programs to protect such resources (Opponent New Evidence and Testimony, pg, 2) • Staff nntes there are fniir steps as part of a Goal 5 inventory process: (a) Collect information about Goal 5 resources; (b) Determine the adequacy of the information; (c) Determine the significance of resource sites; and (d) Adopt a list of significant resource sites. Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony suggesting that the County should continue relying on the existing Goal 5 scenic view inventory set forth in the Comprehensive Plan? A. Yes If yes, the Board may make findings responding to OAR 660-023-0030 relying on the existing Goal 5 inventory of scenic view resources set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and move onto the next matrix issue. If no, the Board may direct staff to amend or modify the established Goal 5 scenic view inventory in the Comprehensive Plan and then proceed with conducting a new ESEE analysis if the amended or modified inventory determines that there are still significant Goal 5 scenic view resources on the subject properties. U 247-21_nnnRR1-PA RR2-7C ?47-23-QQQ3gR ;A ROCC f)Pricinn matrix Page 2 of 10 BOCC DECISION MATRIX - REMAND OF LBNW LLC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ✓^' a{' . 1 . '�. < <b`.,. °°y,.. ? C 'avwa%M-.,. ~Kn :•;,' N � G.� .� '' C •. rM�' :in '"'>�"' ,`z'R .'"i•; .'uSv Sl � c.° � T � e " ���. ,,yy ` i' `.�•' ^z �: � nT.1xl"•a- i 'L"+4, �~ ,. M rJ , .� w � xu�... P „ 4K „S -. .A '"ex: •="`e ..mot",..• '� ' .� . �' .-.ate f. l2w . �-. ., . S� ". . "S �v . � :�°r a >F• s, ,..fir , •' r rk �?r �«t;• ?ss :. ,S �s � r,$ � yr `�",`'` ,.'ix"%k.:C,� a^z'2 Aram ,a'. S `° w „'�`. ``ssi .."vim, '` . � '-,v Kb F?s3 "' <£ ; �'. a, ay.,„ ;T '£° :?:e,?'s� .2.3,^ '; %r. % .✓.. .. ,-,' '" L,�,'. �lv`., '•e yr v 42 ��i'>o. e��"��n_. gh .'�` aF.%> �` "' �. €� . Y `; �. r .,,. '"z�� S ' "W . +L'3� F�-��.'< a y''`°,lam': `� L za. `""�'R`ay�..'mc ..sY/ • ;y .A�'��'`` P � 2-.'.. �a .sk .;,T,... .a.:`•^ c3 n'w.'^,l?,ra,. o. _a,'t •.. C ?.,. FmG e .aa i -:Y "3, .,,,;.n;o /?k .cy�'zi' �:�L� ' ,� fo' �'a("', '&:. >F.'a..`" "� �£,.. fr. b ` �� � ..-'St;.s'3i� �r . K+��.a•:, . ... . v?•s, . s . •.�; . y.. , a' „ - • Applicant argues that LUBA has already identified the - Opponent argues the County cannot Does the Board agree with the Applicant's testimony that the County complied conflicting uses as those uses allowed under the RI Zone on make a decision pursuant to OAR 660- with OAR 660-023-0040, ESEE Decision Process, by considering as "conflicting Are the the subject properties that are not otherwise allowed under 023-0040(5) and adopt comprehensive uses," those uses allowed under the RI Zone that are not otherwise allowed conflicting the current EFU zoning such that no further identification of plan provisions and land use under the current EFU zoning? uses identified conflicting uses need be made pursuant to OAR 660-023- regulations to implement the decision 0040(2). (Applicant Final Legal Argument pg. 5) pursuant to OAR 660-023-0050 without A. Yes pursuant to OAR 660-023- Staff notes that OAR 660-023-0040(2) states, "Local first properly analyzing conflicting uses governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(2)-(4) B. No 0040(2) those could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. (Opponent New Evidence and Testimony uses allowed 3 To identify these uses, local governments shall examine pg. 3) If yes, the Board may make findings identifying the conflicting uses as those uses under the RI land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones allowed under the RI Zone on the subject properties that are not otherwise Zone that are not allowed applied to the resource site and its impact area. Local allowed under the current EFU zoning and move onto the next matrix issue. under the EFU governments are not required to consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because If no, the Board may either findings additional y er make alternative g identifying y g Zone? existing permanent uses occupy the site." conflicting uses on the subject properties, which are beyond the uses allowed under the RI Zone and not otherwise allowed under the current EFU zoning and move onto the next matrix issue, or the Board may find that the applicant's EESE analysis regarding "conflicting uses" is insufficient under OAR 660-023-0040(2) and deny the application. • Applicant argues that the impact area includes all Opponent argues that the impact area Is the Applicant's proposed "impact area" consistent with OAR 660-023-0040(3)? properties west of Hwy 97 in the LM Combining Zone must be larger than the three subject between the 615Y Street intersection and the Tumalo Road properties. It argues that minimizing A. Yes off -ramp (Applicant Final Legal Argument pg. 5) the impacts of conflicting uses on the • Applicant revised and broadened the "impact area" to subject property's Goal 5 scenic view B. No What does the include properties beyond the three subject properties in resources based on conditions outside onents arguments. response to Opp of the identified impact area is contrary If yes, the Board may make findings identifying the impact area as including all County to OAR 660-023-0040(3), which properties west of Hwy 97 in the LM Combining Zone between the 615t Street identify as the • Staff notes that OAR 660-023-0040(3) states, "Determine the requires that the "impact area defines intersection and the Tumalo Road off -ramp and move onto the next matrix 4(a) "impact area" impact area. Local governments shall determine an impact the geographic limits within which to issue, which includes two subparts of Issue 4. pursuant to area for each significant resource site. The impact area shall conduct an ESEE analysis for the OAR 660-023- be drawn to include only the area in which allowed uses identified significant resource site" If no, the Board may make alternative findings as they see fit and move onto the 0040(3)? could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact (Opponent New Evidence and Testimony next matrix issue, which includes two subparts of Issue 4. area defines the geographic limits within which to conduct pg 4) an ESEE analysis for the identified significant resource site." • The Applicant's final legal argument noted that the ESEE analysis includes consideration of "consequences," which may be documented outside of the "impact area" 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 3 of 10 _ �, ;,: ,. T .�;., n +. :,.:,,.. „�:. rim . . .... .. .... . ...� .. ....Yu .,/ r, .,, , ..,. t. .,t. . , ,,.� � .z ,..v s 3 , u✓' , x . t . G< .�:,,. � .. .emu ,. 3.. F. .-,":✓ K ..... '4 .J ..... . 'J ,.. '�;'. -.f < { f { `y.. '>' , T "`� , A rY ." .... 5 .. ., �:n F,. ✓. �, 'K, .. ,r" s> � -,. � �...< ., { r ... .. ,T S s' l sly. ,. ✓ .,.,,�. .<� <.,,. ,... r,r..M„ ..., ,,..::. .._�..c. ._., �.:,,....,, a , r r < .,;. d :;.Crn, , r.... ✓ .G .,o < v .,.a ... \ r n .. �.,. rv:;�'-:- .> . „x,.ti .�...✓r ..,t :- ., ,. •.,:. .x s � s ... >, r; 1. .ys, ..� r .-r:. .. ,E ✓.k ,f .. ,Yr .. .-�i ._.r ......., r t .<..,. :,,.r, ,., ";, ,. 1 ";:,�� h . . ... . . .... .. .,%w �=<>2 i' r; n s a ., k, ..-.,,�. ,,: , 5 '� ..3 .0 <> < ... '✓\ r/. J .. .Y ... �"I t.. ).. .,...\.. d' .a. ....r. � .. � ., r, r„ ar .s..>.., urr?,r.,. .� ,,,_ �..>.-.w r.., ;f f-a.:. .. r:. max.., mac., „�>, w,...r., ..,5„n... T, .;�; :`��z.,.. ✓ /, The Opponent argues that the Board Consistent with the Applicant's testimony, does the Board find the conflicting uses should be allowed • The Applicant recommends the Board decide to allow the conflicting should decide to prghibit the conflicting_ fully pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c)? uses fully pursuant to OAR 660-023- uses pursuant to OAR 660-023- A. Yes 001A0.11�1!r1 fAnnl;r-nnt C;nr,l ! c rr.! ! `h'N^.....,, ,.. , „,.n, i�. u, vv—r ✓1F�-+i !✓ia1 ,1 ­,ri ,vuvv U,rU I Argument pg. 10-11) Testimony pg. 6) B. No Does the Board While the Applicant originally The Opponent argues against the wish to allow 6 (a) supported a limiting option as allowed by OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) in addition to the allow fully option, the Opponent has urged that the Board not consider the limiting option in response to Opponent's arguments. Therefore, the Applicant in its final legal argument submits louid proceed under tlj^� e the Board should "allow fully" option. • The Applicant's final argument and recommendation is to allow the conflicting uses fully. limiting option allowed by OAR 660-023- 0040(5)(b) because, as asserted by the Opponent, the LM Zone was not developed to address visual impacts caused by rural industrial uses. • The Opponent further argues that Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.7.3 and relevant open space and scenic view goals can only ensure protection of the scenic resources through a prohibition on the conflicting industrial uses. (Opponent New Evidence and Testimony pg. 7). If yes, the Board may make findings that the proposal's conflicting uses should be allowed fully under the existing zoning provisions and move onto Matrix issue 7 below. If no, the Board has two options: A. Prohibiting the conflicting uses and deny the subject application. B. Allow the conflicting uses in a limited way, against both the Applicants and Opponent s n4 r --4 *„ nn-,rr;,, I—— Ctk\ -„-,A G/�-\ h„l1,,,,, i C�'vI 1II I I=I Iuauul I'), Of IU F1 Vk-'C=lA LU IVIOU IA IJJUCJ V,U, 01 IU U`f-) UC:IUVV. fully, allow in a limited way or prohibit conflicting uses under OAR 660- 023-0040(5)? 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 6 of 1n BOCC DECISION MATRIX - REMAND OF LBNW LLC PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ,s'aS J� 2„". Y .,,s. `.'-r ,. , >.✓ tia$' $ t" $ w 9 y nx, r, .. C � =max_ . 3 -eifi `2Y .Y `t'. tiav'1. v,., .•,zroi... :�^2 :s „ti.,'> 'S�), v.?%o-, rl .m'�., f" \: bS ,.,� ..:c't... „S a✓` '`°- ,"s,4 ... �. -<>. . -�,. '.. '3 �F ,. .-! ° >t'. ?„ 4. '�` n "'z` .t7 r�rx _t',<-, y(� .R � dk� . -"a^.. . FI'. „ t,3„ � i .. W .�.'... T'='.: ..\U" 2- � 1`. ti:. � s=�<:,•`<. Y .v �,c i-u.. vJA `. �In.. � 3 �y °i r c�4` ��,r .Y`'E , S-. �k:'. ,'" ✓r� .<" '�.' ' , r." .E`+'lv. ,n yr ':,%, .<.a:?< < F -r? h v, M� .. '1 '3 . .,'x k ;. A-.2w.S' ... � .. �'ts 1 aJ.,r _ f n,.:, �", S ,^ h' .. 'fit-. ,. d'-i">'S o>, �h....,.sv','` ,.,>N., Y cSa. ,. .. 4>,�vle... r?r1 4- �.te`vA�<. Ee i r a .n,J,.. ^`.?tip' . , n, r \ �? „d✓. rs . > < _ ra,< .. Y, e, G'.'N: ,.� ,S +>�. ..>y `v<,� .,. �,'n .e'✓` 'w s ram,. . a.. „es .u+," i-, . i- r��� , r.,.`y• » ,`�.0 ..,,. ,Yr<.`��k>'�'` , E.;..-t_: •.. ,;'t. � ..`hln:+ y ..'tv,r'sr:Ma¢a,':. ° .c� " .�;.- n y n.:. ., x �. %S;'. '�, `s`fi .,,,: "-• ..�., a ,,,. S . t. S'Y`?•+ < ♦ � k", <F a' 6 �r� ctr.n ,.5. -f-, <n k' '`-� . , .. n ,,. 'k ' ..x " z. ' , ,:..a. ,,, ., 2, < '�. %,£.: -,,,J,a, .vz`,. _ �,f. �.: �.,ca, n. e " ,=,'+ti4%;. e� }} � _-�, a� "�r<.:��,�" �„ - u?' - ks' e' �' ,_� ., -� ma's � , =<n2v,.. n.?nJ .x,: , .^,tir" '4 l ,.a4`.<�", fi ' ; . � , , H�. Y. ���.��AA1 � $'�: ;"4 a z✓ �`v �.t=-?. �`�,� 2 'r*5. � �C �. .,. a A i. 2> �.Sir<.. �x E.. :,�s<.;....�... �s" � 'S � '. ���,,.>a.>.-,,.6�:-cs � * .":. 5 3 v,.. <, .� .<�.,. .'_,,' „'.� e •�. " s`�.-. ,. ..c . -,� n ,n., ,.., e�k.. ✓: €k' .ems•. c;�� . Y° � ^. .'�, C . }` � "E ,� ' }' �. , .. <. <,a,'Yc. +^,c' �s<. ...".`N✓t.. e",r, ., se=:'•, ,3,`S`�` .�, s,.� �<,s- ..,, .�,.�>a ,v.:"n' .,� x "z 2'E'a vim, -. � ✓ � . � �> ..3 `:at.. >�`,�' _4. .� � . h N. e., '� .. ' � `fi'^s- . .. � j m, ,n .n � r +, 3�- . ' .'4S .y '�>... n� . ,,,,t �•, "' 1 "">�•"v: n¢� ,.,�% ,�:�e, r� <m' � � ..•a�a, :>> a' ...,r ,.� �• �� .C. „>{>rW . »<,' ,'P. =F>✓ n,.Ja �' ,a f, � s . st, mF Y� ,.. .,%✓:.. .✓'�.. .�,." ,1 ✓ „tea s. ..�< .,�. .K "�,.... .�a etc .. £... r�.,. ,� .L�u�`o4`,�'r c., . ...,,i` < ,."3 „<�� h< -^.�� •�,�:` %ca, -,..", "Kzr" :�.,� ak r �° a:�. t �<: S , <a.'.�^' Z s'�.-:. � � .`',S' �',<.,.,� . 9 � � t>-:.> , ? `"a....... x t c-'z... s=x < ' x - ,., x ^ ✓'�.. ", . , :. ram'. ,. < �. � Y >,�.. b�, :. ' �` .t ia:r.' `r":.,���`'�" $ ,x'�:.' ' a �iW 2F e"'^ ,'fr ..�:. tv�,a, �` F. Y l- .f:.loE":.:a b �, x."„ S .. `� M >G. h tri`'�, > <;,+A , �S , f . .•.;,rvs, , $ , a �:, ,. r3rvrn. �l 2 .? . L-c,:'•>,:. r'S<.. � k.fF",s 4 x�n* S, - 5 3s � .ya. <Wl,,..; ... �.. .. E ~dx', `3 .k`'�3.. ,/ .".�4. q� < 2 �, {` � " , U �• sf .`j'c�..-",3'-Y'.: ,.:.�"' SS`��'' . �i^� s rf• rin' . ..:. 2. ."'R,4e^ v{i::. �y�^,� ., � . ',�v.a '4 F.<Jvsn/., „'> �Z` 1 Fr.. :v .,: .. ,", .h ..: ,., .,>,....,:,., ,» N<,. »„ .ter,, ... .: v, r ....a ?', . i" °c`r• ,.ac= J 4. ' ,.�� . ?',„....,: .,..r> ,. ,., .. .arL ,_,. ->'; ,.,5 ..,.. 1 „i ^:.. .,..; r,. > ,,. v>e « w����� ,c ,< `N .kT` . x-Fr t2J d . �,> .-.,tom, -�, v=.,.� � ?_ •,,. �� . ,r, v.. -, .,�... r< >✓T � � ."..+:.. s w �. n,p;y .. ""w .� .Sa.w .�," .`"1. ' . S r_ , V'C'r �X' �. a2:L'• r .,,:.s ns Ti.� ''.< ,. ...,.. �,;,: � �f-." ,^.. ..:"„•i l -C,. �r o ,v iz'> •?s ",'`x''>: �.��.' 'a .iM .,,.2„^ � e . arS.,r „ 3.�,,._ ..%Y. ?, d: ..� ✓r:'�, >- �." �,. .kFt, �" ,vs°<�h . � . "'�: . G„ Y "� . `.<:>.. - .�c r"•: '..,:r< , � > r. ic.. "..ar' ;;. � �i `t �'', ... �, ? i ,, r. by ?.v r. , .. a .. ,. 3. , .,y >. ., r_.c .v" : .> _.., m _y S� . ., m � v, ., .W .`ia .'S , v r;"s .'Ae. , ^uu n.t ., .. a .. HS.. .. � n-y.- > . �,t z"`3 ,,. n'-. .tan ,, � c-,,. ,... .r . ,.a. „ 'r > < /..< :� _ .,m..., r .. .>. "s.. � L r .. „ vtl.` R. r ° ,. �<,. t` S. v, ra:. ., � , >. S" =.. �, 1.. a:9`E x .. N+ r. a2" w "v'L L ,... , 7 r ....w. , . . u, z, y.., S, a r.�.. tir . ,. ✓ . ,..... 2 �.. '✓ `tcr^ e . � .. `,.. � a s ..�i � -.- 1. r, ".,,. ,,, F: r.-4r � n x. .,"v '3d x." . ,.. � � ..,,.rc . .. °.< ,,. .,, ., >,S Y'2 e. 3. , r... ,_ , `>„- n . „ y„ " ,.>'. "ar:: "� Ln.�. , e,+ nSX< }ns > SC>xU. v � �.. cc..,.' �G, .,,,2, >;,. S. S�>.:"-F..".'-, :�•. �, .�-. .. a.� .. > .*x. �... ,,. e: ,> a, a C .: , Y,. .£ . "a'r r err�t� .."' ✓is� . S , ,. '"? .fi Ya '1 .. .'� :4 d>. 1 /�'� �-•t .,>i "- +. ,. .. .. ; Co-."r"w � . r .'.°'b . rs. N �,. z ., T .� � rr, ' /✓ ,.a... J ..:.... :V: S-'ra !zu F1 "=i"`. , , `✓ v,a. 't, San. h ' _ta„'' `v3, ., .^"�` S. \. "u` .nD S" . x , ',.. `. ". � ,t. .,'a«�`k ✓ ;emu w, sus' *ram. k .�-. , `r �k'4.s J,n,<I>%' �,.. �£°.m k � � s�Ln,:`. "a'i. . �:.:t-v'i,> .- ,y, N. tm t eJ 'rF 4 _,.fin,. /`n � . , . � -, � N} "� `i'. 'rc,,@ �3 .3,..v , .. .n i ., 2 il_ , ,.. .. .,^ u; „" e n ., rxti,✓' ., ,n � .'n. , 2 E. ?. x , ,- . E.,. ,< .. -. ..,C ,. _. r au:> ,. . :.,,. ., , ,. .E � . ,... ., ,-,,... .< . � .. v .,, w.t , r <Tr. ._� , .. , ."'r'k >✓ , , . .J". -v .: ra.. Ea "v s..w-v .J,. <v.., ,'"�.,r, .: v._ 'v ,v< , , .. ^a, -f` ,.. � 'fi< .,,_ < o.-• ,:-,,.. . ...;,,, , ., <a, ✓ ", C. < v.>E <. f .. M .a s, ,- tea," ., ,, v c ) a -,.✓r q /"". v <. :-, rs 1, rn a> .,. J. < u. 's, , �`L. �. �. :i v'C ✓ i �.a.l ,w.. ..,av, .. .� . . r ..^,E. _.).., .,.� 4 ,. G .'z <Y.. , 3 f C,..' e '. ;~ n'£' , n $.. <. < e r✓;' u' , ,; . rt � ." ,_".,,>S , <..,$ va„ ,,.. u., �+. f a`=. '>. :� �, eP ry;.. ..,5` J.� S .ev' 4,- '".'?"z J„... ., r ..a .. �'ar}, rtb.. k .."..z v:.ar vn.<2 .x.:S,� 9,f%r\. a,,,w�.v.s.+rt,�.,=..t ?� ..±-, ,"J.v ,..bn°�.,> ,"a.. ,k�� < "c 'i - • The Applicant recommends • The Opponent argues If the Board answered "No" to Matrix Issue 6(a) above and does not find that the conflicting uses should be prohibited, the Board decide to allow that the LM Zone was does the Board find the conflicting uses may be allowed in a limited way pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by the conflicting uses fully not originally crafted to application of the LM Combining Zone to the subject properties? pursuant to OAR 660-023- address industrial 0040(5)(c) (Applicant Final development such as A. Yes Legal Argument pg. 10-11) those uses allowed by the RI Zone. (Opponent B. No ® The Applicant disagrees with New Evidence and the Opponent's arguments Testimony pg. 5) If yes, the Board may make alternative findings as they see fit and move onto Matrix Issue 7. that the LM Zone was not If the Board decides to developed to address the allow the conflicting If no, the Board has two options: visual impacts of industrial uses in a limited way, uses, and the Applicant does the Board wish A. Revisit Matrix Issue 6(a) and decide whether to allow the conflicting usefully or prohibit the conflicting uses, or 6(b) provided evidence to the to continue applying record demonstrating the the LM Combining B. Proceed to Matrix Issue 6(c) and decide whether to allow the conflicting uses in a limited way in accordance LM Zone has always overlaid Zone to the subject with an entirely new Goal 5 scenic view program applicable only to the three subject properties. other RI Zoned properties properties? along Highway 97. Staff notes, however, that no alternative proposed zoning overlay and comprehensive plan amendment are presently Accordingly, if the Board before the Board for consideration, and such an alternative zoning overlay and comprehensive plan amendment finds the conflicting uses would need to be subsequently developed and brought back to the Board for its further consideration. may be allowed in a limited way, the Board may continue to apply the LM Combining Zone to the subject properties. 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 7 of 10 i� � � j � r j � •_ i r j j _ � � r ti- j 2 r z 5 .vr .? � ' S c a ' jnr, ... .35` .. ,,., ,' :, z,r ., ... .... .-. , w, r. ....", ?' ..n z,<, ...,., f. .% «>:.. v. ✓ ti :,C ., ..f ,f 9 , /' < ..✓ .,,.. .,r.. 4z.""',.. ,. ">. _-.,:.,; ? .�..' t% ..^X ,,... ..., .L r4 m .. s l^ ; lu '. -, f 6 .=-./. ,:' t > ( / • The Applicant noted that it does not The Opponent did not provide If the Board answered "No" to Matrix Issue 6(a) and 6(b) above and does not find that support the development of a new information responsive to this option. the conflicting uses should be prohibited, does the Board find the conflicting uses overlav zone that is only applicable to may be allowed in a limited way pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b) by developing I I I t!^.e c:1biort !^.-eC-n::ca thn R! I I -n -r-.:.,, Go 'I C c-:-�-.:-.ice ::i;::;.: r.•rozr-.rri-:::rtli�-�h!(-. .-:-.1:: f.� �l,n �hr prQperticc a1.. -,v r...�...... a. N: vr.+�: �: :�, i cntir;til,; ui : c: fui Cry i:�:vv, wui J JLLi n�, viGvv `✓i vf.i ui:: uNNii`u v:� vi uY iv a :c. u:: �.G v Zone has always sufficiently overlaid RI properties? Zoned properties along Highway 97, such a limited overlay zone covering A. Yes only three properties could be Col isidere "spot zoning," of id a new B. No overlay zone only covering three If the Board decides to allow properties would be an administrative If yes, the Board may make findings that it will develop a new Goal 5 scenic view the conflicting uses in a limited burden on County staff. (Applicant Final program applicable to only the three subject properties and make findings reflecting way, does the Board want to Legal Argument pg. 10-11) that choice. However, staff again notes that no alternative proposed zoning overlay develop an entirely new Goal 5 and comprehensive plan amendment are presently before the Board for scenic view orogram 6(c) cnnsirlPratinn. And such an altPrnatdvP Inning nvPrlav and mmnrPhPngivP nlan applicable to only the three amendment would need to be subsequently developed and brought back to the subject properties? Board for its further consideration. If no, the Board has two options: A. Revisit Matrix issue 6(a) and decide whether to allow fully or prohibit the conflicting uses, or B. Revisit Matrix Issue 6(b) and decide whether to allow the conflicting uses in a limited way through application of the I-M Overlay Zone to the subject properties. The Board may make findings that a new Goal 5 scenic view program for the three subject properties is not necessary for approval of the subject application. 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 8 of 10 • ! •` •II-IM ,» v. , r�� m ,„, tr, �' r ..<-, l -h, %:.. c. ,..: .. ...s <-Y„;. w ,.., v .r .a, rrv, '.,� ,,. ..., < .'...,.o . � ary ,,�+� <r � ✓...,,^vT . T .x. ,u``S a+, ,...v.. ..•,r r .. �r .. . ;.,°v„ F km-r SZ,. .., . ^a � \ y `a.,. 3':^.xG:b".' Tv v�f,<,`-x.` 'vn:Jw.�, " �`(`s"� Z'r�' .`s,-vr .x `..e ..'.<.. r<,u w _.'r �.�,� ay.r r.. �.. � ..r, ruu,,.,.». .a, Z, u.➢ ... ' �` n., 'A� � l�`2 ,. ,,,. .`•5iv 3.r ,. >� �., `�' :�s: ... Y. ,.rt. r. ?-,... VL ,. mc'E,%�".-a k,.'.d > , ..,.:,, ..:�ic .<v.'a ,m n u..ti -,� _ ..,G., ,. 4v :1 «Gv^ S-c=•uti•v., ,.,,. axv '�-<. •a} 2. ;, y' �, � <,., ,<r.,..,e,, . ,,. .✓ u, .. ., xY.,.= :9 z.il^ X>, rt. ., ,. ,. „ , -, .., a +. _r , u ' :. ;. �a .. ,. ,y. fi: a2 ,. ., rrt c r., 1 nv ... . ry <::.. of `•. A r. vc,F,Y . -5.: xe.' k .. ,, t.. _ '?'i., ur�`T d\, c�>.: 1 t Ys � Y f �4v � 2. w,... .,M1u .. a ,. c .<, "r,..H _�:^e. r>..=,;S PgP:., . r<f N, -re .�` fi < 'v ,,,r >. a � ,z.. : z .'C A?N.. a.3dfu.... `y '.:2' ^:x. t= tz �c�' `". ^. nnC" v.,4'"'r, R u. r� '„: °.'Y-'a rv< ^n`a.v e .�, . ^. �' <aF x2', ., 4 S ,,. 5 r� � e .F+. ca. eTryafi"c.- fr' ?4n N,' �-.v �L'•.9) r .,5, .7...<. ,7 � "r ✓x` � �.,: --r �. .5. t> 'Rfi^`Yf ".g•',, .. 4' \ •ea :.,L .n. '�«<se�< T4� x�..: b >`}c.. .6 �S. r„v >, �,»< � ...623' 'c. >i. A. ~� '.,.} ✓. n`. �`n._ a,.✓�� < �' `.c. -Y,v 5r ko�L.ci'. ':'^\.. '',�.. �>F.' .: ., . �' . r .>\, ., a L» ,y u a..s, : a:.. r^ or _ «V, .< ^,. v, ✓ F, 'P°ir .. �� ,. .. . r4* , , ., <. ,'"r. . .., .. .. w . a .r N .. ,,Y <. : .<. v.. > v a•"- ^r . i \ 2 r, s , r r , ,,, . � . � .. w., .. .,,, ,'f "o. -,c a o.< ,.. .. /. '.. ""zvt w � v, � .� t. ,,,<,. -, -c <,°., ..s .. '.. a< ^: < » <. ,.. ^*r . ° ;.s 1,. ✓4. > � i., .vk r., ... a. -. ,.. ..:, .. .Y _ rt Yt > ,. .a r� a .,. : � ..<,.c`l .. ., ... .e .wr . u ..,., - . , .f .. { _ :Y< y tr o C , v _ .' , a .,. »., r r m _ n „ Z .,✓' <,( : . , ,.. ... y . , xc .. ✓ .. s e%< x v <,. vs _ c 1 ,.. , Ls`rXe' i„ ,Y•r .,. , z ,. _,.,� JS-, v.,•v r.3 v msF, ?;».. .ur „ . r. <�, 4 . , ✓ ,,. ,. <.,,,..:3 E' .. .,,. ��^<. -,� 'S r4 , .. .,, .r.,,. ., ., ,.. ,w< �, ., , ,. < :..,.. .nc ; ', ... a '\.>.:., ^Y »,' ., 3,.,s , .. , .. .. : v v . ..{'S, .,F r,. .. r ✓ ,,. ., ,. �x v< . 2 .. . <. :: i., 'S , <, /. ;'.c <,. ♦ r. . , ,. r . a .. .,_ ... .,.<� ...b :..\,. , ..�,., cr >., . {rb �< 4 s. , v ,-,. .y..Y C r <? i" .`'z;` 'U ... ,>rin:r•r ,,.. , :r..,., n.. ,.�"".`.,'�',�Em.., v . " Y , Yrz. ,, a\i , < , ..< ;.. vvh . ,. . a < o•. ..,., >a. .»a<r., ,"`fir `S c.a 7. ? 4 ' . �' � ' {'£r .. . `., -. -- ,? " � � N � .`G<+3. 2F ... .. . LY „ <r,' . .. .�FxY"Y'".., a + Sf , .. , ., °. , �b .`Sr �« r. .0 .. <.x t .� ,2: 2 x .. S �, r , - .n .^., °V ', nb. v . ?. nYYrr �Y`.a' '+v ot3�, ` 1`.3 ..•.w r<nrf .. . , ..d rr .4:` /< ..0 Iry n'i .., ,vs. .f .: u. 'Lv '.'.s.' 4„'a,:,+,5. :i.,ft ,G` 2 .. . < GS`E, a 4'^` a ., »r „ , � Y, vFz :. L ..� ,vs `:>,: ; •.� r .. �,,. � {"' vf'.;a - \w'' S � .�^,' . '6 { .,,.,� .c,�`Y`a: � .1`- ',='-�c:§w,n....aa ice,. >c%. »l.m> U.H r.aki. .`a"z:a `."va' i r .�," �:: ,'.. ,. ,r^ ' ''3 ,: <<:., .r., s. 4"^""vi•. ar. ,;: �:�<, .4 + a .<.»... H TH, rc r� t. "1` ., r•ss Y.., � " �7.0 \ , "y.. G F 'h. ,a r"a, . ..:"C Cvs- _„� =e', ^.'^ ,:�' 3 ','a,'.. 'ram �t..a ,. �., w•d`<, �. >�,..:�'�'., >,. iv e, � � .:vws si �,�... �;E�.., `"he. i�, . `T�[. rv"' < l�, `„ , r. , er , :. v-! ,y �v »r. 5- < r . , s'd_ :C 9 �%° .,,, ., b !c"�Yao F:" >S ;,^{ v .w.> x >?' F,.w�. �s'. �f . �„ •y.4>o YY'-,.'�,w. s ,x' . .'+.>�a„ .. �, $[. ✓� a � K .*E' f, ,.. �v<. ti�"i,. tcF, ,h.: » a.. ,.._. }fi.'-J':� ... v x .'r« . ''', � o- -ro a-. .v �, �5"f�; �. ,. .. .i. ,a .. ». aajr �.. F�o:F.. ,, L. „ 1'%3✓ ., . F.,e 1- .:^5, lu, •.``:Ac_v. ate.. N�� r .n . ,�.. , ., .. r. .. �, t . <: vMe•. k � � 5�"r I c ^k y� `� � ,,. _ ,.,.) < .S ,r .. s✓v'. t3. ru<� �, Y E:f<:r's'- ?, of �J< /1>>.. � c, 3 ..+' y3N'.=<. b ,f'.... l`". , c% '.i . `;4 .•A» (,.: a � ���. ,.,4' c ✓,, ✓,,.� , -r< .,c _ ..� ,., cq1 ,« •``tz ;,v J. 3„2.", �.T his'4 iz•„'n�` „ o C,Cr. .. a.. ,:.^ .. < .<E�.'S , � ,.° .0 .. .. 'utir y r' .{i .. »7 ... 4`m "�.., .0 .'�•s;.. :-. is H 2u ..,�. G bK2..,. •p `�. ,.<'s'E. �ia,< «� . a a � � `,. :.. "(` ' r•, 6 .S �..< .r, rso _... -,4 .., z< , ,,< ^, f v, ,. r~ Y, zz.:, _. > 4.�'a£ x <, _ ., ., ,°� 4 .� .,o`^^, " . `. � 1� 4 2 . .. -c.�n ,-, ..,. `ri5 .fir 2 u�'%„ti, .,<'n v.. ._, r4y,, .3. '� `.v., „a » ., /. '. '.. N�. .,<;� ° 4 L' . _. .. -c ... t ,�.r . . 9.`•'. ., s.N . "S C . �Vr .. ..,✓hr � � s'2 Y. � , , � `. <£N `span S L .' �. t m h� xM1•. "i. .'% 9'. 1 � r s , ,.wr a:., m ,. -ay.c �.on ,... ., s. ,:ui•' ,,,, a\. < "L x �'..?-v v ✓ < 3 ..., <.:.. k,.. ' :.i.. .. ♦ T,y .r ..c.,"v < z xFar``l .i <. , » < r;Y ,? ,•, -w, ., »,Y >M s. ..`�' ..... �✓r^,> ,. -�2 � <v� .. �< U' >, .. .a:. G .4,. `� 6v. ., 1a..3„ .... n, ..av .vy .,a > ..,, j k. „„„, ,..., .,:r✓: ::ve' .. .. . .,v,.. ..... s. ,M1< �, \.. `✓ E, -.tA6. ..k .,.. .. •« C,r ,s„C, 7 d„ L". it S,t',,..u_x S , 4a � t. ✓rfi \': �' .2 r.,. . •:t%r'' l V" �... ✓n.. ,✓^ ..., usu . w v ., a'v �.��."�.< .� »„ tom:,.. � <v a✓,,,. a 'L ,='t. . . is ,. 9 � „+ ✓ r ..".,. .» ., s C <.,`, <. s ..n.l... ,.. °2.< .,4+. � , .,v ,;,c"�. a . .9� `s"f*xr, `~<* s?Y. �� 1 .v .?c. c. <'S' ti ,. :`'te.. w W -'rz"', .. �.... '3 .. . '.t. .A.. ,U ., :, .. r .,» ... .... ..,,, ,2<. ,s, ...<. .4' 3;. .,.. ., .,r u, ?':, , , v.C, ., t = 4 ,-a 7, > ., .�,.. �: , „ '3vw ,t .. .. -t ^. .,. .Y a ... s. ,.,° d,. Sr ri.� me ,ss,, �/t r.2t ,, r✓ , ... , .,^' , „uo..., Y C' .z, ., 5-..:.,, n,6'� -, n. :.a Sa',_. �.,..i�>w„'...c, ,, xS° .✓.,.. �ss.,r. �&.r;,.s..-rK..,o _.�... .> .� F. ''� °, a7k s�" ��,... S>r�" ✓. 5'. _X ., .�.,+,,..r .. r .t E•, '-. � i.. a.....Ck, `? h. .� .,.. '") e.o `"c P , as v� ...,, r,.nr ., <,,. .. ,,. .r....l. ". -.: ,v ,3... ., ., ', a .> .. .,%� {': ,. "� .�.. ? .'�?:�.. � .a� '-�,:,,, e>'Ya.',,. a✓, r ,"?r, �.ti..}.,....,,v.. • The Applicant argues that The Opponent did not If the Board answers Matrix Issue 6(a) in the affirmative and elects to allow the conflicting uses fully, does the Board the ESEE analysis provide information find, consistent with the Applicant's testimony, that the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the conflicting uses is of documents that the impacts responsive to this sufficient importance relative to the resource site? caused by the unique specific issue area. topography and existing A. Yes If the Board elects to development on the hillside allow the conflicting to the west of the subject B. No uses fully, additional properties already findings are required diminishes the Goal 5 scenic If yes, the Board may make findings consistent with the Applicant's arguments or additional findings as the Board may pursuant to OAR 660- view resources at this see fit. 023-0040(5)(c). Does particular location 7(a) the ESEE analysis compared to other locations If no, the Board should revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b). demonstrate that the within the impact area, thus conflicting use is of indicating that allowing RI sufficient importance uses is now of "sufficient relative to the importance" to justify resource site? allowing the conflicting use outright pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)(c) (Applicant r-inal Legal A;gUment pg. ; 9) 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 9 of 10 t �> _ ., .z .;.. „_„ ...,,.,., ✓ / r G "'J 'C% ✓ .f., .l. .n _ ., G .. :>. .�. C .b .S a .. , £'" /i ' a,. .., rn,, .f P.,.::.,:-" v<: ..:o. c e .,,'; ,....,> :✓,.. ,_c. � Y (crS' ll r5„+ _.l .i" . ,r-`y.� .,.., r i. J . , r ,-. 7 .,, � .�,.. „r. .G :.l .,, ,.. oi. :.. . %b d ., � .,..> ., 2 C .,.a, , L r ,i ., z, '\,.",. . ✓.- 1. «:. /'.:..,.;, 1..,,,. v'.'.:„ .<... . _... d''':.,..,, _, ..,.„. .,: ,.. _.. v. ,.. .. .,_ .<r. .. „ n. "" r I .YY. ,.,. f r~,< � _ G. V 4,.., Z ..L. f.. ' S } i ..£,. ,•.,),. / Y 1. nC; v E x /.n. ., s 'i r' ��. ,� ✓ w � a >� a : s _ .s, .., v ✓ t r� w v., .t \ L -=G:. ,/'✓f .. h K2 G' ry ^, ., >i �. ✓, t 4'=„ sT .: t, .J .<i.. .,3 rFM1 ,t.`.. ...sin' ':F,:':', .�,.. 1 N Z 'l,- ,,t':. _ -1"h" Ad, r.l� r.+ a4, -,f +1-, .-. CCCC nl. .J .'. ,..+_ +I.,-.+ "'� ^NN"�q'i I� argue) �i Iq� �I IC L..)LL al Ig1yJiJ UVl.l.11 Ilea IlJ ll Idl TL.R rl... v.a I ® I I IC V'.JpVI lei Il r[�rr t'�,-. +4. ,. n.. w.J 5:.,. ,.I ,-a.. .,.+. ,:+L. a4. ,. n.,. .,.1: .,.+�,- +...-+:.,.,_� +L., the VVes ll IC Board 111 rind, l.Vi lsIJL Il with I U IC /'1i.J',JlIl.al Il J L LI testimony, ly, 1Idt U IC C.�CC the County's existing Goal 5 scenic view program has not din not prnvlde Analvsls demnnstrates why measures to prntect the Goal 5 scenic view on the bee11 successful in protecting the sought after scenic views information subject properties should not be provided? in this particular location to containing to allow the responsive to this Continuing to stem from OAR 660- conflicting use in a limited way. (Applicant Final Legal specific issue A. Yes Argument pg. 11) area. 023-0040(5)(c)> does the ESEE Analysis demonstrate �Ajhy B. No measures to protect the Goal 5 Protect 7(b) scenic view the subject If yes, the Board may make findings consistent with the Applicant's arguments properties should not be provided? or additional findings as the Board may see fit. If no, the Board should revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b). O The Applicant noted that it did not request any amendment • The Opponent Consistent with the Applicant's argument, does the Board find that compliance if the Board decides to fully allow to the LM Combining Zone and no such amendment was did not provide with OAR 660-023-0050(1) is already achieved because the Applicant consented the conflicting uses, OAR 660-023- noticed as part of the subject application. There are no such information to the subject properties remaining in the LM Combining Zone means that all 00500) requires the County to applications that are before the Board in these proceedings. responsive to this required comprehensive plan provision and land use regulations are already in adopt comprehensive plan Significantly, the Applicant further consented to the subject specific issue place? 8(a) provisions and land use regulations properties remaining within the LM Combining Zone until such time as the County undertakes more comprehensive revisions to that zone in a manner directly affecting the subject properties (Applicant Final Legal Argument, pg. 11-12) ® Staff suggests that by the Applicant's consenting to the subject properties' continuing to be subject to the LM area. I A. Yes B. No If yes, the Board may make findings that the conflicting uses may be fully allowed without any corresponding amendments to the LM Combining Zone to implement the decision made pursuant to OAR 660-023-0040(5)4 is compliance with OAR 660-023- 0050(1) demonstrated by the Applicant's consent to the subject properties' continuing to be subject to the LM Combining Zone land use Combining Zone until such time that the County otherwise elects to amend or alter the LM Combining Zone, compliance and Comprehensive Plan. The Board may make findings explaining that any amendment to the LM Combining Zone will be undertaken at a later date when regulations because there are no proposed amendments to the with OAR 660-023-0050(1) is achieved because all required the Board otherwise elects to amend or alter the LM Combining Zone Comprehensive Plan and the LM comprehensive plan provisions and land use regulations are Combining Zone land use already in place until such time that the County elects to amend the LM Combining Zone. if no, the Board may find that it cannot fully allow the conflicting uses without adoption of new Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations, requiring the regulations before the Board in the application? Board to revisit Matrix Issues 6(a) and/or 6(b). 247-21-000881-PA, 882-ZC, 247-23-000398-A BOCC Decision matrix Page 10 of 1(1 \�l E S COG�� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. Whon in-norcnn rnmmont from thin ni ihlir is alln%niarr at thin maatina ni ihlir rnmmant Will alcn ha allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and *9 to unmute yourself when you are called on. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates onlvonly. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Board Signature on letters appointing Denney Kelley and reappointing Tony De Alicante to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board. 2. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking Robert Foster and Gerhard Beenen for their service on the Sunriver Service District Managing Board. 3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Tami Pike for service on the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board. 4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sabrina Haggerty for service on the Deschutes County Bicycle -Pedestrian Advisory Board. S. Approval of minutes of the June 17 and 19, 2023 BOCC meetings ACTION ITEMS 6. 9:10 AM Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the County contracting code 7. 9:25 AM Public Hearing on a request to vacate a portion of Schibel Road (continued from 8/9/2023) 8. 10:25 AM First reading of Ordinance 2023-018 -Griffin Plan Amendment/Zone Change 9. 10:30 AM Deliberations: Remand of LBNW LLC Plan Amendment and Zone Change 10. 11:00 AM 2023 Spay & Neuter Grant Program Award Recommendations August 16, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN August 16, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3