Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2024-122-Minutes for Meeting April 10,2024 Recorded 5/3/2024
ES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 • Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024--122 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 05/03/2024 9:45:04 AM 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY April 10, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack, County Counsel David Doyle and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal webpage www,deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2024-037, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Slurry Seal 2024 - Bend Maintenance Zone Project 2. Approval of Order No. 2024-012, setting a temporary speed limit of 35 MPH on portions of Dickey Road and Nelson Road 3. Approval of an amendment to the contract with Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company for the Negus Transfer Station project* BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 14 4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC March 27, 2024 meeting DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as amended to remove item 3. for separate consideration CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes Motion Carried *See page 6 for the separate consideration of Item 3. ACTION ITEMS: S. Recognition of Eric Ballinger, Application Systems Analyst --10 years of service IT Director Tania Mahood and Applications Manager Shad Campbell shared their appreciation for Eric Ballinger and his invaluable service to the County. Ballinger was described as a cornerstone of the IT team and praised for his easygoing demeanor and vast knowledge. 6. Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Nicole Mardell, Senior Planner, introduced the public hearing on the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, explaining that the Plan defines the community's vision for housing, recreation, transportation, and land use, among other elements. She recounted the extensive community outreach undertaken in developing the update as well as the Planning Commission's in-depth review, which included three public hearings. Major themes of the public input received thus far include the rezoning of farmland, protection of wildlife, dark skies, private property rights and water management. The Planning Commission recommended several revisions relating to: balancing regulations with incentives; exploring a new zoning category to balance high desert resources with housing; revising Policy 8.1.2 (collaboration among recreation agencies and property owners for trail projects); and deleting Policy 5.1 regarding the consideration of impacts to water quality and quantity for destination resorts and other large-scale developments. Mardell summarized comments submitted by agencies and members of the public in advance of today's hearing. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 2OF14 Commissioner DeBone noted this process started in April of 2022 recognized the large amount of work accomplished since then. County Administrator Nick Lelack announced that staff won a statewide award for the community engagement done on this project. The public hearing was opened at 9:31 am. Daniel Baca said according to the State, his property, which is zoned Exclusive Farm Use, must be in tax deferment in order to qualify as a farm. Saying this requirement poses a barrier to his ability to farm or improve his property, he urged the removal of language which is aimed at preventing the wrongful use of agricultural buildings but in reality prevents farming on land that has structures. Ken Katzaroff, representing 710 Properties, LLC et al., asked that when the Comp Plan update is adopted, any new or changed provisions apply only to land use applications filed after the date of Plan adoption and not to existing applications. Katzaroff further urged that the Plan retain language regarding the designation of non -resource lands as RREA, specifically as this involves exemptions from Goal 14. He additionally sought changes to the stated aquifer recharge rate in terms of acre feet per year, emphasizing that water use involves the whole system and is not limited to the amount of groundwater withdrawn. He asked that CDD produce a memo of Commissioner Chang's requested edits to the draft Plan as those are shared. Commissioner Chang concurred that almost all streamflow comes from groundwater, and some recharged water becomes surface water. He said the Plan should clearly state this and also state how this water is used and by whom. Rory Isbell, Central Oregon LanclWatch (COLW), expressed concern about the loss of agricultural land and spoke against spot zoning such lands for non-agricultural uses. He encouraged updating wildlife habitat inventories on a regular basis and providing for the protection of these areas, and stated his support for limiting new development in areas affected by declining groundwater levels. Discussion ensued regarding wildlife inventories and their purpose. In response to Commissioner Adair, Isbell agreed that 30 years ago, Deschutes County did not have a wolf population. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 14 Commissioner Chang said the decline in the mule deer population is attributable to poor/inadequate nutrition, which is affected by habitat loss and the lack of sufficient habitat connectivity. Commissioner Chang suggested numerous changes to the draft Plan: • On page 2-10 in policy 2.2.6, add community wildfire protection to the list of efforts requiring collaboration with federal agencies. He added that the section which discusses public lands refers to the "output" of forests, but efforts to make forests more resilient to wildfires is not an "output." • On page 3-2, reference the function of public lands on agriculture (i.e., successful livestock operations which require grazing on public lands would not be viable if this was not available). Commissioner Adair added that Central Oregon has the second shortest growing season in the state, which also impacts agriculture. Commissioner Chang continued to suggest changes to the draft Plan: • On page 3-2, acknowledge that one reason for the declining forest products industry aside from species protections, new technologies and international competition is that Central Oregon's timber was previously harvested at unsustainable rates with the result that mature, high -value timber was liquidated in a short amount of time for short-term profits. • On page 3.3, state that water conservation efforts could make more water available and potentially shift some marginal agricultural operations to the status of being viable. • On page 3-5, recognize the need for community wildfire protection of forest lands. • On page 3-7, add language stating that compost from the County landfill could help improve marginal soils, thereby increasing productivity and water use efficiency. Commissioner Adair agreed this would be a win -win and result in less water usage. • On page 3-8, section 3.3.4: elaborate on the language regarding accessory farm dwelling requirements to address the labor challenges experienced by farmers. Remove the size threshold in these requirements so this criteria is not a barrier, or replace it with a profitability threshold or a total amount of production in terms of economic value threshold. • On page 3-9, section 3.4.6: add language regarding coordinating with the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on community wildfire protection and the provision of wildlife habitat as well as the need to connect federal habitat areas with others. Commissioner DeBone spoke to the need for prescribed burns and the importance of offering grazing opportunities for all species. Commissioner Adair BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 14 commented that junipers crowd out the native bitterbrush, which mule deer rely on for sustenance. Commissioner Chang continued to suggest changes to the draft Plan: • On page 3-10, section 3.4.10.c: change this wording to say "Enhance and retain" fish and wildlife habitat. • On page 5-3 regarding water resources —correct this to reflect that groundwater level declines require conservation on the part of all users (e.g., residential, municipal, destination resorts), since water savings cannot be achieved through addressing surface water supply limitations. • On page 5-5, recognize the safety zones created by natural hazards such as fire as well as flooding and include carbon sequestration as a co -benefit of open space. • On page 5-6, clarify the difference between surface water and groundwater; emphasize the decline in precipitation; and state that the second highest reason for groundwater level declines is groundwater usage. Further emphasize that the cost of deepening a well can be up to $100,000, and thousands of individual domestic wells could go dry in upcoming decades. State the need to focus on conservation to avoid this from happening. Commissioner DeBone said he does not necessarily agree that climate change effects will result in less water. Commissioner Chang said the only way to free up water outside of existing permits is by conservation. Commissioner Chang continued to suggest changes to the draft Plan: • On page 5-7, correct the erroneous statement that no long-term water level declines are attributable to groundwater usage in the Deschutes Basin. • On page 5-8, correct the reference to reservoirs to indicate that most water flow does not come from stored water, and most irrigation districts are not dependent on reservoirs. • On page 5-9, add the following entities which the County should work with on water distribution: USDA, Bureau of Reclamation, other key non- governmental organizations. • Under goals and principles regarding in -stream flows and water rights holders, include language on the need to ensure adequate flows for habitat and to help those with junior water rights fulfill those rights. • Under goal 5.2, add language to encourage improving efficiencies and conserving groundwater for users including homeowners and businesses. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 14 Policy 5.4.4: Mention the Oregon spotted frog in the list regarding habitat conservation efforts. On page 5-14, add a reference to hunting as a valued activity that should receive protection efforts. Commissioner Chang and staff agreed to communicate the remainder of his suggested revisions outside of the Board meeting —those will be listed in a memo and thereby made available for others to review. The public hearing was closed at 10:32 am. Future public hearings are planned for Sunriver and Sisters. 3. Approval of an amendment to the contract with Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company for the Negus Transfer Station project (from page 2) In response to Commissioner Adair, Tim Brownell, Director of Solid Waste, confirmed that the change orders for this project together totaled more than $1 million. Brownell explained that in the course of the excavation conducted for the project, trash was discovered in unexpected areas which required the removal of that material and the subsequent backfilling of those areas. Other change orders involved additional grading and the need to add bollards to protect doorjambs (these supports were not identified in the project plans), and other necessary work items. County Administrator Nick Lelack added that the project as a whole is still coming in substantially under budget. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2024-291 amending the contract with Kirby Nagelhout Construction Co. relating to change orders and extension of the completion date for the Negus Transfer Station project CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried A break was announced at 10:36 am. The meeting resumed at 10:39 am. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 14 7. Public Hearing: Commercial activity in conjunction with farm use (winery) in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner, introduced the matter concerning the appeal of a conditional use permit which was approved by the Hearings Officer for commercial activity in conjunction with farm use (winery) at 20520 Bowery Lane. Commissioner Chang shared that he was notified of concerns regarding his receipt of campaign contributions from Toby Bayard, the appellant in this matter. Although County legal counsel has confirmed that campaign contributions do not necessarily result in bias or prejudice, and he was, in fact, able to participate so long as he can state that he will remain fair and impartial, he was open to recusing himself to avoid the appearance of bias. Commissioner Chang asked that if he recuses himself, his fellow Commissioners commit to doing the same in other proceedings where campaign contributions were received by them. Commissioner DeBone declined to comment on Commissioner Chang's statements. Commissioner Adair said she had no conflict of interest in this matter. Elaine Albrich, an attorney representing the applicant, confirmed that the applicant questions Commissioner Chang's ability to be unbiased in this matter considering that the appellant has contributed considerable funds to his re- election campaign. She clarified that the applicant is not asking that Commissioner Chang recuse himself, but if he does not, the applicant wishes to preserve its legal right to challenge the Board's decision on the basis of bias. Commissioner Chang believed it reasonable for every Commissioner to recuse themself from matters involving campaign contributors. County Counsel David Doyle said there is no absolute requirement that Commissioner Chang recuse himself. Adding that Commissioner Chang has stated he can be impartial in this matter, Doyle said it is up to the commissioner whether to recuse himself. Commissioner Chang said given the concern about perception of bias and the threat of a possible legal challenge, he was willing to recuse himself from participating in the discussion of and any action on this matter. Encouraging his fellow Commissioners to do the same in similar cases, he exited the dais and room at 10:55 am. The public hearing was opened at 10:55 am. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 14 Continuing, Miller presented a staff report summarizing the application for a conditional use permit for a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use to establish a winery with associated uses in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10). The applicant proposes to convert a portion of an existing accessory building into a tasting room and office space and convert an existing barn for small-scale wine production and wine storage. The application further sought approval to host wine -related events such as tastings, dinners, and other events directly related to the sale and promotion of wine produced from the vineyard. The Hearings Officer approved the application upon 33 conditions. That decision was subsequently appealed. Elaine Albrich from Davis Wright Tremaine, representing the applicants, said this proposal was specifically timed to coincide with the Hunnell Road improvements so traffic to the property could be diverted away from Bowery Lane. She requested that at the conclusion of the public hearing, the record be left open for additional written materials. Albrich shared a map showing the location of the property and listed other uses allowed as commercial uses in the MUA10 zone. Duane Barber said he and Deena Barber have owned this 5.43 acre property since 1998, raising cattle and hogs and planting grape vines in 2012. Saying that rocky slopes are suitable for growing grapes, he said the property now has 4,000 vines and the resulting wines have won numerous awards. The Barbers seek to be able to sell their wine directly to consumers, which requires having a conditional use permit to allow this commercial activity. Noting that its vineyard is organic, regenerative and sustainable, he hoped to set an example for others to follow. Albrich gave an overview of the planned operations, saying these are envisioned to occur in existing buildings. Noting that the proposed activities are described in detail in the application for the permit —including the amount of off-street parking and anticipated seasonal hours of operation —she referred to a list of planned events, noting all will be offered by invitation only and all of them limited to 25 or fewer people. Albrich then addressed water rights and explained how wastewater will be managed. Joe Bessman, transportation consultant, spoke to the existing access routes and said the intention is to encourage visitors to use Highway 20 to Rogers and Hunnell, not Highway 97. He described plans to move the property's driveway BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 14 and said the location of the new access gate will ensure adequate sight distance as required. He concluded that the site is expected to generate 37 trips per day. Albrich then addressed staff -identified conditions which warrant further discussion and confirmed that the applicant is working on an updated site plan. She said there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the conditions required by the Hearings Officer have either been met or can be met prior to the winery commencing the added operations. In response to Commissioner Adair, Albrich said work is underway to remove all right-of-way encroachments. Deena Barber addressed statements previously raised by the appellant, saying no real evidence exists that wine tastings have been conducted on the property. She said Lava Terrace Cellars has not produced wine on -site but has bought and stored winemaking equipment. Disputing that a winery cannot be located other than on EFU-zoned land, she spoke to her outstanding reputation in the business community. Appellant Toby Bayard said both Oregon law and Deschutes County Code clearly state that wineries are restricted to EFU-zoned properties of at least 15 acres in size. Saying she does not oppose the vineyard part of this operation, she argued that the property owners cannot legally produce wine using their grapes or grapes from elsewhere. Citing generally to State and County regulations, she said the property owners also cannot offer wine tastings or sell wine. Emphasizing that the applicants are only allowed to grow grapes and have someone else manufacture the wine, she objected that they have been advertising wine tastings for some time and said they have hosted at least one wedding. Jeffrey Kleinman, representing the appellant, said the proposed use is not allowed in the MUM 0 zone. Referring to an exception statement pertaining to resource areas which was issued at the time the Comprehensive Plan was last adopted, he read the statement which allowed for non-commercial uses only. Noting that the Hearings Officer had acknowledged the proposal involves industrial use (i.e., the processing of grapes into wine), Kleinman said this falls outside of the allowed exception as does any commercial use, and no new exception can be approved. Kleinman also spoke to access issues, saying the bridge is a designated historically significant resource which would risk being negatively affected by traffic to and from the winery. Saying that people will be directed by GPS to use the bridge, he suggested that all traffic to Lava Terrace Cellars be prohibited from using this route. He doubted that the required clear sight distance can be BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 14 established once all of the required setbacks are met, said that the existing barn extends into the right-of-way of Bowery Lane, and concluded that the proposed uses are not compatible with a residential neighborhood. Michele Bayard described potential impacts to the neighborhood from the wastewater that would issue from winery operations, saying that between three and ten gallons of water would be needed per gallon of wine produced just to clean the materials and equipment. Saying this would result in 35,000 gallons of water needed for cleaning alone, he said untreated wastewater can contaminate the aquifer and also release bad odors into the surrounding neighborhood. He was additionally concerned about the potential for dramatic traffic increases on Bowery Lane, which has no sidewalk for pedestrians, and said the covered bridge could be damaged by increased traffic. A break was announced at 12:04 pm. The meeting resumed at 12:10 pm. • Michele Forbes stated she is a neighbor who supports the proposed use as a small-scale, agricultural community operation which will connect people to the land and to each other. She viewed the proposal as a local project for locals and said it would be an attractive use of the property. • Calli Riley shared that she owns and operates a small lavender farm across the street from the proposed use. She stated her support for the application and the applicants. • Cole Whitfield -Ferguson supported the proposal as an appropriate use of the property. • Aaron Dixon said he lives directly north of the property, described the property owners as driven and dedicated, and said he has never had issues or been inconvenienced as a result of living in proximity to them. Noting that the MUA zone is "Mixed Use Agricultural," he said the property owners support the community in many ways. He believed the traffic impacts from the commercial activity will be negligible. • Shana Pitman relayed how she came to meet the applicants and expressed her appreciation that the farm is based on permaculture, which is designed to be sustainable. She viewed the proposal as a positive use of the property. • Kerry Damon shared his experience in developing and managing vineyards in California and Oregon and said the proposed use would be environmentally conscious, using no herbicides or pesticides and employing water conservation techniques for good land stewardship. He praised the proposed use as economically sustainable and community -minded agri-tourism. • Sterling Respass represented various veteran and non-profit organizations which support this proposal of Lava Terrace Cellars and appreciate the company's involvement in the community. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 14 • Crystal Dollhausen, who lives next door to the proposed use, stated her support for the conditional use permit. She explained that she is refusing to pay her HOA dues out of principle. • Grace Cooper, an employee of Redside Vineyards, read a letter from Megan Hernandez of Bayard Fox Selections supporting the proposed use. • Jesus Hernandez, a winemaker from the Napa Valley, supported the proposal which will utilize regenerative farming practices for environmental sustainability. He said chemicals associated with winemaking are negligible and do not harm the environment. • Kyle Forbes said he owns a small hobby farm in the area of Lava Terrace Cellars and expressed support for the conditional use permit, saying these kinds of uses enrich the community. • Elektra Smith, who is employed by the Barkers, spoke highly of their characters and said they are excellent employers. • Blakley Weber, previously employed by the Barkers, hoped that the conditional use permit will be approved. • Rick Lloyd said the CCRs for the neighborhood state that it is a residential community with some agricultural zoning. Although the Barbers are nice people and what they propose is good for small businesses and the agricultural community, this proposal is sited in a residential area and the proposed wine production and associated commercial activity has divided the neighborhood. Noting that the HOA voted against allowing this, he asked if an exception will be made for additional commercial activity in the MUA10 zone. • Loel Jensen said the opposition to this proposal is not a vendetta or personal, but simply based on the unlawfulness of the proposed use. She was concerned that other non-residential uses might also be attempted, said some HOA members have been talked into not paying their dues, and concluded that commercial operations which could impact the neighborhood in a negative way should not be allowed. A break was announced at 12:52 pm. The meeting resumed at 12:56 pm. Elaine Albrich introduced the rebuttal for the applicant, saying that the proposed use is legal in the MUA10 zone, which expressly allows commercial activities in association with farm use. Phil Henderson confirmed that he had filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Barkers regarding updated CC&Rs which were approved by the neighborhood HOA via a non -unanimous vote and then recorded. He questioned the validity of the HOA as well of that of the updated CC&Rs and explained the controversy over the dues is because these have not been used for road maintenance as anticipated; instead, they have been used for legal fees which some residents view as inappropriate. BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 11 OF 14 Responding to Commissioner DeBone, Duane Barker said Lava Terrace Cellars applied for a Type 1 home occupation permit in 2018 to allow it to sell wine off - premise as permitted by OLCC. A type 2 home occupation permit is needed to allow for on -premise activities. The public hearing was closed at 1:06 pm. Miller noted the receipt of comments from Larry and Nancy Green, Jesus Hernandez and Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner Tarik Rawlings. Will Groves, Planning Manager, encouraged all parties to submit comments regarding the conditions of approval for the permit for consideration by the Board during its deliberations. Groves clarified that agricultural uses are allowed outright on this property, and a conditional use (in this case, the requested commercial activity) may or may not be approved. The Board was in consensus to close the oral record at this time and leave the written record open to new evidence until 4 pm on Wednesday, April 17'. The applicant can submit rebuttal information until 4 pm on Wednesday, April 24tn and is also allowed to submit final arguments until 4 pm on Wednesday, May 15t A lunch break was announced at 1:12 pm. The meeting reconvened at 1:45 pm. 8. Oregon Department of Energy Community Renewable Energy Grant At staffs suggestion, the Board delayed discussion of this item to its April 17tn meeting. 9. Request to Accept Grant Funds for Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, said Deschutes County has been awarded grant funds in the total amount of $32,620.75 from the State for wolf depredation and financial compensation. CHANG DEBONE VOTE: Move to accept the grant funds for Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Second CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 12 OF 14 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner DeBone reported that the annual Sunriver-La Pine Economic Development luncheon was attended by 160 people. • Commissioner DeBone congratulated Sunriver Brewing Company on receiving numerous industry awards recently. • Commissioner Chang testified at the State's Central Oregon public hearing last week on the draft update of groundwater allocation rules. • Commissioner Chang attended a meeting with Travel Oregon's destination stewardship team in Redmond. • Commissioner Chang visited a modular multi -family housing construction project in Bend and described the manufacturing process which results in housing that is both faster and less expensive to build. • Commissioner Adair attended the Fair Board meeting. • Commissioner DeBone announced that the Deschutes Cultural Coalition presented the annual Ben Westlund Memorial Award to Cate O'Hagan, executive director of Arts Central. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 1:58 pm, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations and ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. Just before leaving Regular Session and convening in Executive Session, County Legal read aloud the Executive Session Announcement. At 2:39 pm, the Executive Session concluded and the public was invited to return to the room. The meeting's livestream feed was reactivated and the final part of the meeting recorded for the record. The Board directed staff to proceed as discussed during the executive session. ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 pm. DATED this 1 day of A 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 13 OF 14 ATTEST: kin, l mmo RECORDING SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR BOCC MEETING APRIL 10, 2024 PAGE 14 OF 14 v'( E S Co 2{ I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org AGENDA 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 attend the meeting virtually 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. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting 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 *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. • When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. 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 only. 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 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 1. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2024-037, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Slurry Seal 2024 - Bend Maintenance Zone Project 2. Approval of Order No. 2024-012, Setting a temporary speed limit of 35 MPH on portions of Dickey Road and Nelson Road 3. Approval of an amendment to the contract with Kirby Nagelhout Construction Company for the Negus Transfer Station project 4. Approval of minutes of the BOCC March 27, 2024 meeting ACTION ITEMS 5. 9:10 AM Recognition of Eric Ballinger, Application Systems Analyst - 10 years of service 6. 9:20 AM Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 7. 10:35 AM Public Hearing: Commercial activity in conjunction with Farm use (winery) in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone 8. 11:50 AM Oregon Department of Energy Community Renewable Energy Grant Program 9. 12:00 PM Request to Accept Grant Funds for Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation LUNCH RECESS April 10, 2024 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. 10. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations 11. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN April 10, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 �vIES CO �L GZ { # BOAR® OF j COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (247-23- NK�. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Open the public hearing to gather testimony on the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold public hearing to gather testimony on the Draft Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The full record is located on the project hearing page: https•//www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-000644-pa-deschutes-county- 2040-comprehensive-plan-update-hearing-page. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Long Range Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager Matt Hastie, MIG MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: April 3, 2024 RE: Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on April 10, 2024, to consider legislative amendments to repeal and replace the 2030 Comprehensive Plan with the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (file no. 247-23-000644-TA). I. BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Plan is Deschutes County's policy document for guiding growth, development, and resource protection within the county over a 20-year planning period. The plan's purpose is to provide a policy framework for zoning and land use regulations, demonstrate consistency with all applicable statewide goals, rules, and laws, and serve as a cohesive vision for future planning activities. Comprehensive Plan Adffkk HOUSING RECREATION GETTING • UNITY� INPUT 0 AROUND ECONOMY/ 71 JOBS NATURAL HAZARDS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DATA Wd ANALYSIS FARM LAND HISTORIC/ CULTURAL RESOURCES FOREST LAND The project was initiated in April 2022 and progressed through four phases: 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q'1(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd • Phase 1 - Project Initiation: Hiring of consultant (MIG, Inc), review of background documents, creation of Community Engagement Plan, project website, and branding materials. • Phase 2 -Initial round of community engagement -visioning, review of existing policies with Planning Commission, review of policy best practices in drafting new text. • Phase 3 -Second round of community engagement -policy approaches, finalizations of goal and policies with Planning Commission, update of maps. • Phase 4 - Compilation of final Comprehensive Plan document and findings package The project has now entered Phase 5, which focuses on the adoption of the updated document. Extensive information from the previous phases, including open house summaries, outreach materials, and iterative versions of policies can be found on the project website process page: www.deschutes.org/2040. The full record including public and agency comments is included on the project hearings page: https://www deschutes org/cd/page/247-23-000644-pa-deschutes-county-2040-comprehensive- plan-update-hearing-page. II. PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE AND REVIEW The Deschutes County Planning Commission played an integral role overseeing the Deschutes County 2040 process. Commissioners met eleven times (prior to any public hearings) to review the community engagement plan, participate in engagement activities, craft new and revised goal and policy language, and review initial iterations of the Comprehensive Plan document. Staff initiated the Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment process on August 30, 2023. From that date forward, the role of the Planning Commission shifted to that of a formal review body for the initial hearings process. The Planning Commission held public hearings on October 26, 20231, November 9, 20232, and December 14, 20233. At the conclusion of the December 14, 2023, meeting, commissioners closed the oral record and left the written record open until December 28, 2023. The Commission deliberated on January 11, 20244, January 25, 20245, February 8, 20246, and February 22, 2024'. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the plan as revised in accordance with the edits in Attachment A. These edits have been incorporated into the updated draft in Attachment B. Additionally, the Planning Commission wanted to emphasize the following points: https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-42 2 https://www..deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-40 3 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-43 4 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-44 S https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-45 6 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-46 7 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-47 Page 2 of 5 • The Planning Commission promoted a balance of regulations and incentives in addressing growth and development, although wanted to emphasize their preference to explore incentives where possible as the first approach. • Policy 3.3.6 explores the creation of a new nonresource zoning classification that balances preservation of the high desert environment while allowing for rural housing opportunities. The Planning Commission emphasized the importance of holding an extensive engagement process while exploring creation of a potential new zone. • Policy 8.1.2 promotes collaboration on trail projects between agencies and property owners, especially for projects adjacent to farm or forestry operations. The Planning Commission wanted to emphasize the group voted 3-2 on the final language, with two Commissioners preferring an additional policy to explore limitations to trails adjacent to farm and forestry operations to protect statutory "Right to Farm" allowances. • Policy 5.1.3, now removed, sought to add consideration of potential impacts of water quality and quantity in surrounding areas as part of the siting, planning, and approval processes for destination resorts. Commissioners voted 3-2 to remove this policy, citing lack of regulatory authority and recognition of the extensive existing code requirements regulating this use. To aid in the Commission's review, staff also provided draft findings (Attachment C) and a policy tracker spreadsheet (Attachment D) to this memo which describes the iterative changes to the policies from the 2010 version to the current March 15, 2024, draft. III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Approximately 182 public comments were received as of the date of this memo. Major topics of community interest included: • Potential development of a footbridge across the Deschutes River near the Brookswood neighborhood of Deschutes River Woods. • Water availability monitoring, planning, and management. • Voluntary or required measures to conserve water. • Protection of private property rights and use of incentives to address issues related to growth and development. • Rezoning of farmland and allowed uses on farmland. • Dark skies protections. • Wildlife protection. • County role in housing production, including affordable housing opportunities. • Destination resort siting and development. During the Planning Commission review stage, staff placed certain items that may be precluded by current state law, or those that may be more fitting for an action or work plan into a "parking lot". Page 3 of 5 Staff will utilize this information in drafting an action plan or exploring further if state regulations change. Parking Lot Potentially Precluded by State Law • Tie rezoning to groundwater availability and quality. • Require consideration of water availability during Urban Growth Boundary Expansion processes. • Require appellants to cover costs for appeal process. • Limit standing in appeals to adjacent landowners. • Require water budgets and monitoring for public lands. • Re-evaluate use of water rights and prioritize active agricultural operations. • Regulate development through water availability and quality. • Require approval of water permits prior to processing applications. • Limit development that could impact natural springs. • Limit housing where water quality and quantity will be negatively impacted. • Moratoria on development. • Explore Unincorporated community status for Three Rivers. Action Items • Include stronger language on noxious weed removal on county lands and in new developments. • Create a County strategic plan. • Advocate for legislation/policy at state level to enable transitional housing outside UGBs. • Construct infrastructure to manage/limit water waste. • Revise County code to state only minimum provisions required by state law for farm uses. • Encourage clear and objective criteria where possible to reduce appeals. • Adopt clear and objective criteria for Goal 5 polices that limit or prohibit allowed uses. • Host community conversations to discuss benefits and challenges of destination resorts. IV. AGENCY EDITS The Deschutes Historical Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided suggested edits to reflect best practices and updated terminology related to historic resources and wildlife resources, respectively. Staff integrated these edits directly into the document. Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) provided an extensive list of terminology and technical edits. Commissioners were generally comfortable adopting the majority of these edits, although three suggestions from COIDs recommendations were discussed by the Planning Commission, as they expressed a particular perspective on issues related to groundwater recharge and hydroelectric facilities. The Planning Commission provided general direction to staff to draft revised Page 4 of 5 language incorporating COIDs edits while also recognizing divergent community perspectives. These edits are noted in Attachment A and the revised document. Following the Planning Commission's review, Bend Parks and Recreation District has also submitted a comment regarding policy 8.1.2 in the recreation chapter. V. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold continued public hearings at the following dates and locations: • Tuesday, April 23, 3 pm, Sunriver Homeowners Association Recreation Center (SHARC) Dillon Hall, 57250 Overlook Road, Sunriver, Oregon • Tuesday, April 30, 3 pm, City of Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Avenue, Sisters, Oregon Attachments: A. Planning Commission Recommended Edits B. Deschutes 2040 Draft Comprehensive Plan - 3.15.2024 updated version C. Deschutes 2040 Draft Findings D. Policy Tracker 2030 vs. 2040 language Page 5 of 5 Attachment A ctri�Qtsignifies deletions. Underline signifies additions. Chapter 2 - Land Use Regional Coordination • Amend policy 2.1.1 as follows: Balance the consideration of private property rights and the economic impacts of land use decisions on property owners with incentives to preserve agricultural and forest land wildlife habitat ground and surface water resources, wetlands, riparian areas, open areas and other community goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. • Amend policy 2.2.6 as follows: Collaborate with federal agencies on land management issues, including homelessness, wildlife habitat restoration water quality, road networks, energy projects the impacts of recreation and the expansion of sustainable recreation opportunities expansion nAd onorrni Rf:W tc Chapter 3 - Farm and Forest Lands • Amend policy 3.2.4 as follows: o Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and representatives and landowners to promote and support agricultural uses and operations, including through use of rural reserves, conservations easements, transfer of development rights programs, land acquisitions, and other preservation strategies consistent with existing Federal and State Law • Amend policy 3.2.6 as follows: o Continue to review and revise county code as needed to be and consistent with state code, rules, and regulations to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or Cnmmorri-+I rono1n1-;;hIe eRerg„ nroje4c- or other small scale sustainable activities. • Amend narrative on page 3-3 Water Supply and Irrigation as follows: o Much of Deschutes County is served by six irrigation districts (Map 3-1) - these are special entities created for the purpose of delivering water to their patrons. These districts are effectively nonprofit water user associations quasi - municipal corporations chartered under Oregon law that operate as political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. In addition to irrigation, these districts also supply other services including municipal, industrial, and pond maintenance. Tho tnt-+I lA/-+tQ-r AV-+il-+hle fnr irrig-+tinn and nthor hi'.man i icoc in flocrh11toc C0 int�4 i; fivori u ender the E�lrrent water regime "I^ -ddit' a�-rcrrcr'ccTcvu r i chi � � f cv a Fj Therefbre, the -re is limited opportunity to expand irrigated farming in tlqe QDWRty. EXiStiRg farMS With SSP—PiQ-11: Viater rights OR general have relatively genern� is gation rights which have rarely been fully utilized, and are expected te h-ave sufficient water te cope with incr@aSiRg temperatures drought co;,d-it+ens-in the future. In most cases these districts are holders of senior water rights with shares then distributed to their patrons. As is the case with all water rights, the irrigation districts' water rights are managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department and subject to "beneficial use" - requirements to prevent the waste of the water resource. The total water available for irrigation and other human uses in Deschutes County is fixed under the current water regime, and there is little opportunity to expand irrigated farming in the County. Irrigation districts with more junior water rights ii inier water right holders associated with such as Arnold Irrigation District and North Unit Irrigation District (operating north of Deschutes Count have recently seen challenges with water delivery due to limited availability and drought. • Amend narrative on page 3-3 Changes in Climate Conditions as follows: o Because the total volume of water available for agricultural and human use is fixed, strategies to decrease water usage (capping or piping irrigation channels, irrigation timing strategies, water conservation) will become more crucial. Deschutes Countv is committed to working with irrigation districts and holders of water rights to increase water conservation efforts throughout the Countv in -a manner consistent with existing legal frameworks established by State and Federal law. Remove sentences on page 3-3 Conflicts with Other Uses o Agricultural it l uses contini le to he affected by conflicts with adjacent or Chapter 5 - Natural Resources • Amend water resources narrative on page 5-3 as follows: o The high desert climate of Central Oregon poses many challenges with water supply and allocation, I-PI.AAS are seen as antiquated RTMOPPOMM • • • • private• e • • • to. farm and • • • • • • • depeAdent species frequently. A 2021 report by the Oregon Department of Water Resources found that groundwater levels through Deschutes County are declining, by as much as 50 feet of total decline in the central part of the basin. This decline is considered "excessively declined" per state statute and is attributed toward a shift in overall drier conditions since the late 1990s, a warming trend in the basin, and decreased snowpack. Ongoing development and pining of canals whil- -alcn eX-acerh,te this icci �o To address these issues, irrigation districts and other entities are engaged in ongoing efforts to pipe canals and modernize irrigation systems to increase their efficiency. Due to water transmission losses in irrigation canals from seepage into groundwater and evaporation, piped canals typically require only half the amount of water to be diverted from the river or stream to deliver the same volume of water to the end user compared to open canals. Community members have expressed concern that ping canals contribute to aquifer declines. Deschutes County has lmitedjurisdicti(an nrrvffyiater use, instead nlayii 1p ays a coordination role along with the Oregon Department of Water Resources, irrigation districts, water users, and owners of private wells to address these water resource issues. Addition of narrative to Chapter 5, Natural Resources, Wildlife section providing a brief description of the 2021-2023 Mule Deer Inventory Process. o Page 5-4 revise second paragraph to the following: O4 ci imm�r�i f hocrhi itoc (n� mtvc �niilrllifo nrnto�tinn nrnrrrnm fnlln�nic rc�a ovcraccv cvai ic�o vviiaii c-Pvcccuvi i�v�i aiivuvvvo. A snapshot of Deschutes County's wildlife protection program is included below. Extensive information is included in Appendix A - the County's Goal 5 inventory. o Page 5-4, between first and second paragraphs, add new paragraph as follows; o From 2021-2023, Deschutes County explored an update to the countv's mule deer inventory, which included extensive community participation including through the public record. Ultimately, the decision was made not to update. Amend Sensitive Birds - Page 5-4 as follows: o remove "northern" from "northern bald eagle". o End of paragraph - add sentence: USFW works closely with ODFW on eagle - related issues and enforces federal guidelines to ensure protection of bald and golden eagles. • Statewide Planning Goals -Page 5-5, add additional sentence at end of last paragraph: o Accordingly, it is imperative that local land use policies align with Federal and State laws governing the community's water resources. 0 Regulatory Agencies - Page 5-5 add to end of paragraph o Numerous sections of the Deschutes River in Deschutes County hold a special status as a federal wild and scenic river, as well as a state scenic waterway. These areas carry additional regulations through the 1996 Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Plan requiring additional agency coordination with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and the US Forest Service on development impacting these sections. • Reservoirs - Page 5-8, revise to the following: o The majority of the irrigation in Deschutes County comes from reservoirs 1nihii-h ore mostly spring fort from the Cascades These reservoirs are primarily spring fed from the Cascades. Reservoirs serve the dual purpose of supplying water for irrigation and ensuring sufficient streamflow in the lower Deschutes River. The water levels in these lakes have been 1AW in recent years d. ie to PeFM in the County, while the North Unit irrigation M; rift 15 the most junior. the cc ai is vv� Luc the North Regional droughts in recent years have resulted in lower water levels in these reservoirs. • Key Community Considerations - Page 5-9, amend last paragraph as follows: o The topic of habitat conservation and water availability came up frequently, with most respondent& participants saying that further protections are needed. However, there was also some Push hark rel-+ted to the hi irrlen these �c*� � � c� a o � i vc� c i c i c G c ca cv crr�—c�arcccr� crn, �c nrntectinnc May n„t np nrnperty o,e,perc, recognition of the burden these protections may put on property owners. Deschutes County does not have the authority or expertise to reevaluate water rights as part of its land use planning efforts, leading the County to instead work with the Oregon Department of Water Resources, irrigation districts, and holders of water rights to increase the efficiency of water distribution throughout the community. • Amend Goal 5.1 as follows: o Deuelap—Support regional, comprehensive water management solutions policiesthat balance the diverse needs of water users and recognize Oregon water law. • Amend policy 5.1.1.a as follows: o Work cooperatively with appropriate federal, state, tribal and local agency resource managers, such as The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), irrigation districtsand other stakeholders and nonprofit water organizations, such as the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative, the County Soil and Water Conservation District; Remove policy 5.1.3. Consider potential impaCts OR Water 961ality and aVailabilitj!' surrounding areas as part of the sking, plaRning, and approval processes • Amend policy 5.11.5. as follows: o Develop and implement a Climate Action Plan to address the potential future impacts of climate change on Deschutes County through incentives and or regulations. • Add new policy to Chapter 5, Natural Resources, Water section o Encourage state agencies to identify local areas of concern for water availability and explore additional regulations or requirements to ensure water capacity is not negatively impacted by development. • Add new policy and narrative to Chapter 5, Natural Resources, Water section o Revisit recommendations of 1996 Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Plan, or its successor, and consider implementation of voluntary recommendations into the county code Chapter 6 - Historic and Cultural Resources Add paragraph to Opportunities, Challenges, Considerations - Page 6-12 o Deschutes County owns the National Register listed Reid School and invests in supporting the Deschutes County Historical Society as a research and educational facility through a zero -cost lease and maintenance support for the purposes of running the museum and research center. Add to end second paragraph - Page 6-12 o Deschutes County has several partners involved in drafting and implementing this strategic plan - those partners include the Deschutes County Historical Society, High Desert Museum Archaeological Society of Central Oregon, Three Sisters Historical Society, and Redmond Historical Society, Amend context paragraph - Page 6-12 as follows: o These sites receive special protections to avoid land use or development activity that may disturb the historical e eslatieaa and cultural resources existing on site. • Amend Locally significant sites - Page 6-12 as follows: o Deschutes County has 35 locally significant sites including cemeteries, ranches, dams, bridges, schools, and granges among numerous historic homesteads and homesites. The State of Oregon has initiated a process to identify culturally significant archaeological sites and sites of indigenous importance. This process will likely be incorporated into the County's local inventory in the next five years. Amend Policy 6.1.3. as follows: o Coordinate with The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Burns -Paiute Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Archaeological Society of Central Oregon, and SHPO to adopt a program to identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources, as appropriate, and prevent conflicting uses from disrupting the value of known sites. Chapter 7 - Natural Hazards • Revise wildfire summary in on page 7-3 to the following: o Wildfire. Historically, wildland fires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. These landscapes, however, are now significantly altered due to increased rural development, warmer and dried conditions, and a general lack of large-scale treatments due to outdated forest management practices, resulting in increased event of wildfires that burn more intensely than in the past. Chapter 8 - Recreation • Amend policy 8.1.2 as follows: o Collaborate with partners to develop a regional system of trails and open spaces, prieritiziRg balancing recommendations from local park districts, County, state, and federal recreation plans and studies and property owner considerations, particularly for projects adjacent to farm and forest lands. Chapter 9 - Economic Development • Page 9-5 Resource Land - replace paragraph with the following: o Rpnot,rce I and Construction and Development While much of the County's economic activity occurs in urban areas, and enhanriRg the ernnnrvmir rleve! onment pot@nti I of the area agricultural, forestry, and construction industries also provide economic growth in Deschutes County. Construction of rural housing can support additional workforce in areas outside of city limits while also utilizing local trade industries. Construction of rural industrial or commercial projects provide economic opportunities that serve rural communities without a trip into an adjacent city. Chapter 11 - Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts • Amend policy 11.7.2. to following: o Create and implement add-itienal limitations en the siting Rd deVelnnmont of d�kinationc recerts that go beyond o wrent state Peen il-+tionc to Ensure protection of water quality, recreational resources, and other County resources and values. • Add paragraph to page 11-3 under destination resort section o Destination resorts are a key economic development strategy for Deschutes County. Many community members and visitors enjoy the recreational amenities and accommodations that Destination Resorts provide • Amend third paragraph, key community considerations, page 11-3 to the following: o Destination Resort development continues to be a contentious issue. Community members have expressed concern regarding the water use of large-scale development - specifically the effects to groundwater for neighboring property owners. Many rommi inity memherc hA"e evnrecced desire to fi irther limit rlectinatien reserts�elf GOUrses, and VisFtG_r r cii a ici rii � iic cicvcii r aFEemMI. eclatiArtier to preserve water access and availably f ye r reund res+depts Other community members express support for the economic and amenity benefits of destination resorts noting that the current requirements sufficiently address natural resource concerns Additional community conversations will be valuable to understand the diversity of perspectives on this topic. Chapter 12 - Irrigation Districts Amend narrative under Irrigation Districts section - Pages 12-4-5 • "Irrigation districts in Oregon are organized as Special Districts under ORS Chapter 545. Six irrigation districts operate in Deschutes County: Arnold, Central Oregon, North Unit, Swalley, Tumalo, and Three Sisters Irrigation Districts. They are -quasi - municipal public corporations under Oregon Law, with prescribed rules for purpose, boards, elections, staffing, charges, etc. The districts a -re operate as political subdivisions of the State of Oregon created for the purpose of delivering water to their patrons. As such they are effertiVely nnn nrnfit r"iater nicer +ccnr ti�n�nrc� In addition to irrigation uses, these districts also supply a number of other services, including municipal, industrial, and pond maintenance, warranting coordination with municipalities." Chapter 14 - Energy Add new policy: • Include evaluation of adverse impacts to natural resources as part of renewable energy siting processes. • Kemove text below - Hydroelectric energy generation page 14-4 * SeVe-,-ql kk-ate.r rdiar*atrnia chutes County have im I@Fn@Rted hydropower projects to harnocc the energy Of meyinswater These-pr( jects may wave nni''vrsc-impacts. o Revise remaining text in section to following: Currently, Deschutes County has three approved "in conduit" hydroelectric facilities that are owned and operated by irrigation districts within existing irrigation district canals. Approval of these facilities have previously been contentious, with community members expressing concern about wildlife and impacts to other basin users. Irrigation districts have expressed interest 0 R r@dWGiRg barriers to PeFrAittiRg these types of developments to Premete . ----- ----hIP energy �i®��el�; ment �+sin�manmade waterwaysnoted challenges in utilizing the existing county code for these protects which were drafted to address "in channel" hydroelectric facilities To promote renewable energy development using man-made waterways, irrigation districts have expressed interest in helping the County update the Deschutes County Code to more appropriately address "in conduit" hydroelectric facilities separate and apart from "in -channel" hydroelectric facilities" Attachment B lff=- • 2040 Acknowledgements BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Patti Adair, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Jessica Kieras, Chair Nathan Hovekamp, Vice Chair Matt Cyrus Susan Altman Kelsey Kelley Patrick Trowbridge Toni Williams Dale Crawford (through June, 2023) Maggie Kirby (through June 2023) STAFF Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Community Development Director William Groves, Planning Manager Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner CONSULTANT TEAM MIG Parametrix Letz Consulting Kittelson and Associates Adopted 1-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................... i-2 Introduction.....................................i-4 1. Community Engagement.....................................1-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 1-2 Context...............................................................................1-2 Illy -.I..-..,.y ,.,.,..1...................................................... .. Goals and Policies.............................................................1-6 2. land Use and Regional Coordination ............................2-1 Context...............................................................................2-3 Key Community Considerations.....................................2-7 Goalsand Policies.............................................................2-9 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 Farm and Forest Resources ....................3-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 3-2 Context...............................................................................3-3 Key Community Considerations....................................3-6 Goalsand Policies.............................................................3-7 Mineral and Aggregate Resources ..............4-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 4-2 Context...............................................................................4-2 Key Community Considerations....................................4-4 Goalsand Policies.............................................................4-4 Natural Resources ............................5-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 5-2 Context...............................................................................5-3 Key Community Considerations....................................5-9 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 5-10 Historic and Cultural Resources ...............6-11 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations........ 6-12 Context............................................................................ 6-13 Key Community Considerations ................................. 6-13 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 6-14 Natural Hazards..............................7-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 7-2 Context...............................................................................7-3 Key Community Considerations.....................................7-6 Goals and Policies.............................................................7-7 8. Recreation...................................8-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 8-2 Context...............................................................................8-4 Key Community Considerations....................................8-5 Goals and Policies.............................................................8-6 9. Economic Development .......................9-1 Context...............................................................................9-2 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations ........... 9-2 Key Community Considerations....................................9-5 Economic Development Goals and Policies .................9-6 10. Housing....................................10-1 Context............................................................................10-2 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations........ 10-2 Key Community Considerations ................................. 10-4 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 10-6 11. Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts.........................................11-1 Context............................................................................11-2 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations........ 11-2 Key Community Considerations ................................. 11-4 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 11-4 12. Public Facilities..............................12-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations........ 12-2 Context............................................................................ 12-3 Key Community Considerations .................................. 12-6 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 12-7 13. Transportation..............................13-1 14. Energy......................................14-1 Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations........ 14-2 Context............................................................................ 14-3 Key Community Considerations .................................. 14-5 Goals and Policies.......................................................... 14-5 Appendix A - Terrebonne Community Plan ......... A-1 Appendix B - Tumalo Community Plan ..............B-1 Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ...........C-1 Appendix D - Newberry Country Plan .............. D-1 Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections .......... E-1 i-3 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The purpose of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is to provide a blueprint for land use conservation and development. This is accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur and what places should remain undeveloped. The Plan provides a legal framework for establishing more specific land use actions and regulations such as zoning. The goals and policies are based on existing conditions and trends, community values and the statewide planning system. The Plan must provide clear policy direction yet remain flexible. The County's most recent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2011. Since then, the County has grown substantially and experienced many demographic and economic shifts. Between April 2010 and July 2020, the County's population grew from 157,730 residents to 198,253 residents. This growth - 25.7% over ten years - is over twice the 10.6% increase that the State of Oregon experienced as a whole. The latest projections from Portland State University's Population Research Center suggest strong continued growth throughout Deschutes County. 'An updated Comprehensive Plan is necessary to address current needs of the communities in the County, as well as to guide the anticipated growth and development of Deschutes County over the next twenty years. Although many of the goals and policies of the 2011 Plan still hold value, fundamental data, trends, and land use issues have become outdated. The updated Comprehensive Plan needs to incorporate community input to craft new and updated goals and policies regarding agriculture, forestry, housing, recreation, natural resources, natural hazards, economic development, and transportation. i-4 i Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan In Oregon, comprehensive plans must comply development, transportation, parks and with the statewide planning system, which was recreation, and natural resources, with a strong adopted in 1973 to ensure consistent land use emphasis on how land is used, developed, and/ policies across the State. While compliance or conserved. Other topics in the plan include with the statewide system is required, it is also citizen involvement, natural hazards, and public important for a comprehensive plan to reflect infrastructure and facilities, and more. The Plan local needs and interests. This Plan balances describes conditions related to each element statewide requirements and local land use of the community and provides overarching values. guidance for future County decisions in the form The Comprehensive Plan is the County's long- of a set of goals, objectives, and policies. These range plan for how it will grow and serve its policies will drive future decisions and actions community members in the future. Oregon state undertaken by County staff, advisory groups, and elected decision -makers. law requires all counties and cities to adopt and regularly update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state and regional goals, laws, administrative rules and other requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such as land use, housing, economic Establishes a consistent, statewide approach to planning and development. Development encouraged to be concentrated into cities while farm, forest, and natural resource areas are encouraged to be protected from development. Provides very specific criteria for development outside of city limits, including permitted uses and development types on farm and forest lands. Counties are required to abide by these regulations when reviewing development proposals. Integrates statewide planning program goals, statute, and rule at the county level. Where the statewide planning program goals allow local discretion, implements locally developed plans and regulations. i-5 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County Timeline 1941 • c 1973 1979 City of Bend photo courtesy of Downtown Bend.org i-6 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Engagement opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Public engagement is the touchstone of planning in Oregon. As Deschutes County grows and its population changes over the course of the next 20 years, the County must be prepared to find innovative ways to keep community members involved in the planning process and provide ample and accessible ways to find and digest information. Challenges including funding, resources, and ongoing state appeals might pose barriers to this work. The County has an opportunity to plan for adequate resources and staffing to support this work. Involving the public in planning is a critical part of Oregon's land use system. Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement, is intended to ensure that the public has the opportunity to be meaningfully involved in all phases of the land use planning process. Creating these opportunities requires time and energy on the part of County staff, as well as systems to incorporate that input in a meaningful way. To participate in planning actions, the public needs to be notified of the proposal or project, understand the legal framework for the decision and understand the implications of the decision. Local governments need to be aware of changing technologies and best practices to involve the community and share project information. Community engagement can take many forms, such as focus groups for a larger planning project, email notification lists for department activities, or mailed notices of public hearings. 1-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Summary of Engagement for the 2023 Update Unique Website Months Visitors Email -Contact List Online Open House Planning Survey Responses Commission Meetings Small Group Staff Community Attendees Engagement Trainings News Stories Small -Group Meetings and Stakeholder Discussions Board Work Sessions 1-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement lays the groundwork for the County's public involvement program. Jurisdictions are required to establish a Citizen Involvement Program that provides widespread community involvement, two-way communication with appropriate Community Engagement members appointed to four-year terms by the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Membership of the commission is representative of the various geographic areas of the County. Members are selected through an open process that aims to balance the diverse views of Deschutes County residents. feedback mechanisms, opportunities for engagement in all phases of the planning The purpose of the CCI is to create a direct process, technical information available in an and transparent connection between County - intelligible form, and is adequately funded. T 7i_FLWW-ff Involvement Program�. Statewide Planning Goal 1 is implemented by Deschutes County's Community Involvement Program, as described in the following section DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Deschutes County Planning Commission serves as the County's Committee for Community Involvement (CCI). The Planning Commission is composed of seven volunteer decision -making and the public by providing regular updates, speakers, panel discussions, and handouts on land use law and policy. The CCI aims to make materials intelligible and convenient for the public and to provide a venue for civil discourse on important issues for the County. HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION The Historic Landmarks Commission serves as a hearings body for matters concerning historical districts, structures and sites within unincorporated Deschutes County as well as the city of Sisters. The Landmarks Commission is composed of nine voting and several non -voting ex-officio members who have demonstrated expertise in historic preservation related disciplines. Commissioners serve four-year terms. 1-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan OTHER LAND USE RELATED ADVISORY GROUPS Project Wildfire is a committee formed to coordinate, develop and implement strategies to mitigate the effects of losses due to natural disasters that strike Deschutes County. Project Wildfire is composed of 15 to 27 members who Community Engagement has seven voting members appointed to three- year terms by the Board (see also Section 2.5). In addition to convening these groups, Deschutes County engages with the public through numerous methods, including: Conducting regular work sessions and reside or represent agencies within Deschutes hearings County. All members are appointed by the Board Providing timely public notice of important and serve four years (see also Chapter X, Natural items Hazards). The Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program helps achieve Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) habitat and management goals and objectives within the Upper Deschutes River sub -basin, consistent with an agreement between the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) and ODFW. As part of that agreement COID provides ODFW with funds to develop and implement a fish and wildlife habitat mitigation and enhancement program for the Upper Deschutes River Basin. The Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee • Maintaining the County Website, including the department's "Community Engagement Center" page. • Advertising events and engaging with constituents through social media channels • Coordinating with media organizations, such as local newspapers. • Meeting with individuals and small groups to get feedback on important issues. These activities were part of the most recent update of this Comprehensive Plan. 1-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Coman, unity Engagement Key Community Issues Goals and Policies Deschutes County is changing and community members are seeking new ways to share their ideas on key issues. To provide ample opportunities to engage, new tools and technologies will be needed to involve new groups. Issues that the policies in this section address include: Continuing to simplify materials to use plain language and be accessible to a variety of audiences Continuing to maintain a presence throughout the County, including holding meetings and events throughout the County Supporting engagement activities that allow community members to participate virtually and at the time of their choosing. With these issues in mind, Deschutes County has adopted the following goals and policies: Goal 1.1: Provide for a robust community involvement program that includes all members of the community, including those who are commonly under -represented, by ensuring access to information, encouraging community collaboration, identifying and addressing barriers to involvement, and promoting efficient and transparent planning processes. Policy 1.1.1. Convene the Deschutes County Planning Commission as the County's Committee for Community Involvement in order to provide a direct and transparent connection between County decision -making and the public. Policy 1.1.2.Write all County planning documents to be understandable, intuitive, and easily available to the general public, using simplified language where possible, with acronyms spelled out and technical language explained. 1-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.3. Hold area -specific comprehensive plan and zoning text amendment public hearings in locations and at times convenient and accessible to area residents, as appropriate. Policy 1.1.4. Provide property information to the public in an intuitive and easy -to -use Community Engagement Goal 1.2: Support the activities of the Committee for Community Involvement Policy 1.2.1. Maintain adequate funding and staffing support for the Committee. Policy 1.2.2. Provide regular updates, speakers, panel discussions, and handouts on land use law and policy. manner. Policy 1.2.3. Appoint members through an Policy 11.5. Consult and coordinate with open andpublicprocess to reflect the diverse developers before submitting applications geographic regions, demographics, and as required or recommended by the County values of Deschutes County residents. Development Code to identify and discuss project requirements and impacts. Policy 1.1.6. Invest in and support land use educational resources for community members including information related to rural living, agricultural practices, natural resources, and natural hazards. Policy 1.1.7. Promote opportunities for community members to have civil dialogue around key community issues. Policy 1.1.8. Explore new and innovative ways to reach community members and promote participation in the planning process. Policy 1.2.4. Meet with the Board of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities. Policy 1.2.5. Complete periodic reports on community involvement implementation for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, the Board of County Commissioners, and the public. Policy 1.2.6. Maintain open and civil discourse among Committee members and with the public. 1-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 0 ■ Am ■ o Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Deschutes County has been one of the most rapidly growing parts of Oregon for many years. This growth can cause tension and highlight trade-offs between community priorities, such as the need for housing, preservation of natural resources, adequate infrastructure, and intergovernmental collaboration. To manage this growth, the County partners with its cities, special districts, and state and federal agencies to ensure a collaborative approach to development activities. As the County continues to navigate emerging issues, intergovernmental agreements and new partnerships will be key. One purpose of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is to provide a blueprint for land use throughout the County. This is accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur and what places are expected to remain undeveloped. The Plan provides a legal framework for establishing more specific land use actions and regulations. Deschutes County regulates and manages the use of land in the unincorporated parts of the County. This is accomplished by: Implementing state policy and laws and furthering local planning goals by maintaining, updating and applying County land use policies, standards and regulations in its zoning codes and this Comprehensive Plan. • Reviewing development and land use proposals and help applicants to navigate the application process. • Coordinating with other local jurisdictions on issues of regional growth management, infrastructure, and public services. • Coordinating land use and transportation planning efforts in rural areas including planning for farm and forest lands and natural resource management and protection. • Administering land use regulations for unincorporated communities in the County. 2-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The policies contained in this chapter, as well as all chapters in this Plan, establish the legislative policy basis for the County's land use planning program. The program is implemented primarily through application of the County's Zoning Code, regulatory maps, and development permitting application and approval procedures. In addition, these policies establish important criteria to Land Use and Regional Coordination Context �: • Comprehensive Plan designations provide a high-level policy basis for more detailed zoning regulations - each Comprehensive Plan designation may be implemented by one or more specific zones. be used when initiating regulatory changes or Comprehensive plan designations in Deschutes reviewing and developing code, map, and _policy _ County are shown in Map 2-1 and described -- - amendments. in the preceding table. Comprehensive Plan Note: Official comprehensive plan and zoning maps, including overlay zone maps, included in are available on Deschutes Count Dial Property Information System. designations within the Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine Urban Growth Boundaries are excluded - local jurisdictions have responsibility for comprehensive planning within their Urban Growth Boundaries. Comprehensive PurposeDesignation County -wide Designations Agriculture To preserve and maintain agricultural lands for farm use. Airport Development To allow development compatible with airport use while mitigating impacts on sur- rounding lands. Forest To conserve forest lands for multiple forest uses. Open Space & To protect natural and scenic open spaces, including areas with fragile, unusual or Conservation unique qualities. Rural Residential To provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth bound- aries and unincorporated communities, consistent with efficient planning of public Exception Area services. Surface Mining To protect surface mining resources from development impacts while protecting development from mining impacts. Resort Community To define rural areas with existing resort development that are not classified as a destination resort. Rural Community To define rural areas with limited existing urban -style development. Rural Service Center To define rural areas with minimal commercial development as well as some resi- dential uses, based on Oregon Administrative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Urban Unincorporated To define rural areas with existing urban development, based on Oregon Adminis- trative Rule 660-22 or its successor. Community Urban Designations Deschutes County coordinates with cities to adopt comprehensive plan designations for areas within Urban Growth Boundaries or as part of Urban Reserves Areas in the City of Redmond area. These designations are reflected in the Deschutes County GIS database. Area Specific Designations Parts of Deschutes County (Sunriver for example) have area -specific Comprehensive Plan designations. These are detailed in Chapter 11, Unincorporated Communities. 2-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan � ✓ ems, .. t Y Tbt^ L l 3 This map is for information purposes only The Coan ys official zoning and comprehensive plan neaps can be accessed through the Deschates Calmly Dial Property Information System, Please note that these maps do not represent all of the Canty, combining and overlay zones Land Use and Regional Coordination Zoning designations in Deschutes County are shown in Map 2-2. Zones within the Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine Urban Growth Boundaries are excluded - local jurisdictions have responsibility for zoning within Urban Growth Boundaries. OVERLAY ZONES zones, which apply in addition to the base zone of a given property. • Airport Safety: The purpose of the AS Zone is to restrict incompatible land uses and airspace obstructions around airports in an effort to maintain an airport's maximum benefit. • Destination Resort: The purpose of the Destination Resort Combining Zone is to identify lands eligible for siting a Destination Resort and establish procedures and standards for establishing this type of development. • Landscape Management: The purposes of the Landscape Management Combining Zone are to maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated areas and to maintain and enhance scenic vistas and natural landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers, or streams. • Greater Sage -Grouse Combining Zone. The purpose of the Greater Sage -Grouse Combining Zone is to fulfill obligations of OAR 660-23-0115. This state rule requires seven Oregon counties to mitigate impacts of large-scale development on sage -grouse habitat. • Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat: The purpose of the Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zone is to insure that sensitive habitat areas identified in the County's Goal 5 sensitive bird and mammal inventory as critical for the survival of the northern bald eagle, great blue heron, golden eagle, prairie falcon, osprey, great grey owl, and 2-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan the Townsend's big -eared bat are protected from the effects of conflicting uses or activities which are not subject to the Forest Practices Act. • Surface Mining Impact Area: The purpose of the SMIA zone is to protect the surface mining resources of Deschutes County from new development which conflicts with the removal and processing of a mineral and aggregate resource while allowing owners of property near a surface mining site reasonable use of their property. • Wildlife Area: The purpose of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is to conserve important wildlife areas in Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, social and economic element of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource. CITY COORDINATION Deschutes County includes the following jurisdictions, each with their own authority and needs. The role of the County is largely one of coordination across these multiple communities. Land Use and RegionalI Coordinaflon Deschutes County contains four incorporated cities. The County, per statute, is responsible for coordinating with cities on growth related issues including urban growth boundary and urban reserve planning. The County maintains intergovernmental agreements with each city to define land use authority for lands outside of city limits and within urban growth boundaries. City of Bend Bend is the largest incorporated area in Deschutes County. It is centrally located in the county, with Highways 20 and 97 crossing paths through the center of the city. Bend has experienced rapid growth in the last few years, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and "Zoom Town" remote working trends. The 2022 estimated population of the Bend UGB is 103,976. The Bend UGB accounts for most of the population share among all UGBs in Deschutes County with a population of 225,619 (57.4% of the population) by 2072. City of La Pine The City of La Pine is located close to the southern edge of the county along Hwy. 97. The current (2022) estimated population of the La Pine UGB is 2,736. The population of the La Pine UGB is projected to increase by 87% to 5,129 in 2047. By 2072, the population is projected to be 8,336. City of Redmond Redmond is located northeast of Bend with Hwy. 97 running through the center of town. The current (2022) estimated population of the Redmond UGB is 37,342. The population of the Redmond UGB is projected to increase by 121 % to 82,601 in the next 50 years. By 2047 it is estimated that the population of the Redmond UGB will increase to 60,060. City of Sisters Sisters is located on the eastern edge of the Willamette National Forest and Cascade Mountains. The current (2022) estimated population of the Sisters UGB is 3,437. The Sisters UGB is projected to increase by 130%, to 7,911 in 2047, and to 14,881 by 2072. TRIBAL COORDINATION In the Treaty of 1855, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs ceded approximately 10.2 million acres to the United States Government in exchange for creation of the Warm Springs Reservation. As part of this agreement, the Tribes maintained rights to hunt, fish, gather, and graze on these ceded lands. The map below identifies the location of these ceded areas in Deschutes County, which primarily intersect with publicly owned lands. Coordination with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs on growth and development related issues is important to ensure consistency with these treaty rights. Land Use and Regional Coordination Key Community Considerations The rapid pace of growth in Deschutes County and its impacts on urban, rural, natural, and recreational areas has been one of the most significant - and at times the most controversial -topics of discussion among the community. Some topics and comments include: • Strong desire by some for greater densities in urban areas, in order to accommodate growth while preserving open space and resource land in rural areas. • A similarly strong feeling by some that the cities in Deschutes County are becoming too urban already. • Concern about the amount and distribution of benefits and burdens created by destination resorts and tourism -related activities in rural areas. • Strong desire for interagency collaboration to manage growth in a coordinated manner. With these ongoing conversations in mind, Deschutes County drafted and refined the following goals and policies to guide the growth of our community for the next 20 years. 2-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan yp ------------- � � K I HtkI AT I I I COUNTY I I LAKE COUNTY -Miles .O 0 5 10 Piepored by 2 8 1 Descnuees county comp i envve Plan Revised 713112023 This nrap is/or inJarnration purposes only, The Coumys official zoning and comprehensive plan maps can be accessed Ih—gh the Deschutes Count' Dlal Property Iq—fion Sy"—, Please note that these maps do no! represent all of the CounryY <ornbirring and overlay zones. Goal 2.1: Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on substantial evidence and a balancing of community needs. Land Use and Regional Coordinaflon Policy 2.1.3. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map will be retained in official replica form as an electronic map layer within the County Geographic Information System and is adopted as part of this Plan. Policy 2.1.1.Balance the consideration of Policy 2.1.4. Implement Comprehensive private property rights and the economic impacts of land use decisions on property Plan policies through the Community owners with incentives to preserve Development Department's annual work plan agricultural and forest land, wildlife habitat, and other actions by the Department and -the ground and surface water resources, Board of County Commissioners. wetlands, riparian areas, open areas and Policy 2.1.5. Explore methods to integrate other community goals identified in the carrying capacity into County land use Comprehensive Plan. decision making. Policy 2.1.2. Review the Comprehensive Plan periodically in order to address current conditions, issues, and opportunities. `t`hr: C:onfederat~ d 'l'rihes of Warm Springs f',�rinei l 'Imic anel Pr,-arer-rtU ttga04 2-9 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.2: Coordinate and support regional planning efforts relating to growth, natural resources, recreation, and major infrastructure investments. Policy 2.2.1. Periodically review and update intergovernmental and urban management agreements to coordinate land use review on land inside urban growth boundaries and outside city limits. Land Use and Regional Coordinat�on Policy 2.2.9. In accordance with OAR 660- 024-004 and 0045, Deschutes County, fulfilling coordination duties specified in ORS 195.025, shall approve and update its comprehensive plan when participating cities within their jurisdiction legislatively or through a quasi-judicial process designate regionally significant sites. Policy 2.2.10. The County and City shall Policy 2.2.2. Help coordinate regional periodically review the agreement associated planning efforts with other agencies on land with the Redmond Urban Reserve Area use policies and actions that impact their (RURA). The following land use policies guide jurisdictions. zoning in the RURA. Policy 2.2.3. Support the use of high value a. Plan and zone RURA lands for rural uses, natural resource and recreational lands in a manner that ensures the orderly, for public purposes, whether through economic and efficient provision of urban acquisition, easements, or other means. services as these lands are brought into the urban growth boundary. Policy 2.2.4. Support the implementation of long-range plans of Deschutes County jurisdictions, incorporating elements of those plans into the County's Comprehensive Plan as appropriate. Policy 2.2.5. Encourage cities to conduct, in collaboration with Deschutes County, urban reserve planning to facilitate orderly and thoughtful management of growth and infrastructure needs. Policy 2.2.6. Collaborate with federal agencies on land management issues, including homelessness, wildlife habitat restoration, water quality, road networks, energy projects, the impacts of recreation and the expansion of sustainable recreation opportunities. Policy 2.2.7. Support efforts to reduce barriers to regional infrastructure projects with community benefit while mitigating negative impacts. Policy 2.2.8. Support updates to unincorporated community area plans. b. Parcels shall be a minimum of ten acres. c. Until lands in the RURA are brought into the urban growth boundary, zone changes or plan amendments shall not allow more intensive uses or uses that generate more traffic, than were allowed prior to the establishment of the RURA. d. For Exclusive Farm Use zones, partitions shall be allowed based on state law and the County Zoning Ordinance. e. New arterial and collector rights -of -way in the RURA shall meet the right-of-way standards of Deschutes County or the City of Redmond, whichever is greater, but be physically constructed to Deschutes County standards. Existing and future arterial and collector rights -of -way, as designated on the County's Transportation System Plan, shall be protected from development. 2-10 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Land Use and RegionM Coordination g. A single-family dwelling on a legal parcel is permitted if that use was permitted before the RURA designation. Additionally, the County will coordinate planning efforts and development goals with the City of Redmond prior to bringing County -owned property into Redmond's urban growth boundary. Goal 2.3: Manage county -owned lands to ance the needs of the community as articulated in the goals and policies of this Plan and other supporting planning documents. Policy 2.3.1. Manage lands with a park designation consistent with the goals and policies in Chapter 5 Natural Resources. Policy 2.3.2. Support the efforts of park districts, state and/or federal agencies to identify additional properties along rivers, streams, or creeks, or containing significant wildlife, scenic resources, or open space resources to designate as park land. Goal 2.4: Minimize onerous barriers to land use application and development review processes. Policy 2.4.1. Explore opportunities to build or obtain specialty planning knowledge and experience among staff within CDD in related fields such as wildlife, natural resources, and/ or agricultural practices. Policy 2.4.2. Explore measures to reduce development costs for projects related to agriculture and addressing houselessness, including fee reductions and expedited land use applications. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Farm and forestry resources and operations continue to play an important role in the character and economy of Deschutes County. However, a variety of ongoing and forecasted trends will impact the viability and vitality of these industries and the people who contribute to them. A number of these trends and challenges are described below and more information about some issues is found in the Water Resources section of this Plan (see Chapter 5: Natural Resources). PREVALENCE OF SMALL FARMING OPERATIONS AND HOBBY FARMS The 2022 Census of Agriculture profiles Deschutes County as primarily consisting of small acreage, hobby farms and other relatively small agricultural operations. As of 2022 there were approximately 1,572 farms, an increase of 5% from 2017. Although the average size of a farm in Deschutes County is 97 acres, the majority of acreage (about 85%) is in farms of 50 acres or less in size. MARGINAL OR LOW PRODUCTIVITY SOILS While a large proportion of the County is zoned for exclusive farm use, much of the land in these areas has marginal soils which provide limited productivity, particularly for higher value crops. Limited access to water rights and irrigation can further hamper productivity in some areas. Deschutes County attempted to reclassify certain agricultural lands through a nonresource lands program. This approach was rejected at the state level. Since that time, some landowners have successfully redesignated property, primarily to residential zones, through an applicant -initiated process. FINANCIAL CHALLENGES According to the 2022 Agricultural Census, agricultural producers in Deschutes County are often operating in the red. The per -farm average of market value of products sold was $25,437, a 23% increase from 2017, and average production expenses of $39,918. This results in a deficit of approximately $14,481 per farm per year. Government payments help cover a portion of this deficit, with the average farm receiving $17,959 in assistance. The costs of operating continue to be a major challenge for small family operations, resulting in approximately 48% of farms in Deschutes County reporting under $2,500 in sales. DECLINING FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY Approximately 1,032,436 acres of Deschutes County area are zoned for Forest Use. Historically, forestry on public and private land was a primary industry in Central Oregon with key mill sites along the Deschutes River in Bend. Overtime, species protections, international competition, and new technologies have reduced the overall footprint of the timber industry in Central Oregon. Recently, land uses are shifting toward recreation and residential development in these natural resource areas. 3-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION water conservation) will become more crucial. Much_ of Deschutes County is_served by six Deschutes County is committed to working with irrigation districts (Map 3-1) - these are special irrigation districts and holders of water rights to entities created for the purpose of delivering increase water conservation efforts throughout water to their patrons. These districts are quasi- the County in a manner consistent with existing municipal corporations chartered under Oregon legal frameworks established by State and law that operate as political subdivisions of the Federal law. State of Oregon. In addition to irrigation, these Context districts also supply other services including municipal, industrial, and pond maintenance. In Agriculture most cases, these districts are holders of senior Agriculture and ranching operations in water rights with shares then distributed to their Deschutes County vary widely based on water patrons. As is the case with all water rights, the availability, soil, and microclimate. The following irrigation districts' water rights are managed subzones were created through a commercial by the Oregon Water Resources Department farm study conducted in 1992. This study and subject to "beneficial use" requirements to concluded that irrigation is a key factor to prevent the waste of the water resource. The viability of operations, which enabled the County total water available for irrigation and other to establish smaller acreages than allowed by human uses in Deschutes County is fixed under state law to provide additional flexibility. the current water regime, and there is little opportunity to expand irrigated farming in the Additional information about farm and forest County. Irrigation districts with more junior resources is provided in the tables and charts water rights such as Arnold Irrigation District below. and North Unit Irrigation District (operating north of Deschutes County), have recently seen Forest Lands challenges with water delivery due to limited Deschutes County classifies Forest land in one of availability and drought. two zones. Forest 1 zoning is intended for land CHANGES IN CLIMATE CONDITIONS Because the total volume of water available for agricultural and human use is fixed, strategies to decrease water usage (capping or piping irrigation channels, irrigation timing strategies, that is primarily used for forest management or commercial forestry, with a lot size over 160 acres, and not developed with residential or non - forest uses. Forest 2 zoning is intended for land that does have residential or non -forest uses, is less than 160 acres, and may contain roads or other public facilities that serve the property. Days Above 90 Degrees in Brothers State regulations limit residential and non- 2023 - 2070 forestry related development on forest lands and the County sees only a few applications for 24 1.- 3-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan development in these areas each year. Even with this limitation on development, forest managers and service providers continue to express concern with wildfire risk associated with residential development in heavily wooded areas. Most lands in either of these classifications within Deschutes County are federally owned and managed by the US Forest Service. Historically, forest lands were used for timber production. As timber harvesting decreases, other uses for forest lands are emerging. State regulations permit five general types of uses, including forest operations; environmental, agricultural or recreational uses; two types of • ® Cropland 10 Pastureland IM Woodland Other Farm and Forest Resources 50 to 179 I= 151 farms 10 to 49 JjL7 j1ffjjjjj1jjVj1j1MFjJkj= 671 farms 1 to 9 151KAT&WATANTANEIREM 597 farms Less than $2,500 in $2,500 to $4,999 IM $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 IM $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Minimum Parcel tiie • Subzone Name formdivisions • • • . , ., dwellings) Lower Bridge 130 Irrigated field crops, hay pastures Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pastures, wooded grazing Sisters/Cloverdale 63 and some field crops Terrebonne 35 Irrigated hay and pasture Tumalo/Redmond/Bend 23 Irrigated pasture and some hay Alfalfa 36 Irrigated hay and pasture Riparian meadows, grazing and La Pine 37 meadow hay Horse Ridge East 320 Rangeland grazing 3-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan dwellings and locally dependent uses. Permitted uses are defined and clarified in OAR 660-006. The following uses are major forest uses in Deschutes County: Secondary forest products (forest operations): There is an increasing use of secondary forest products, such as hog fuel Farm and Forest Resources Key Community Considerations Given the range of issues and conditions discussed above and, this plan includes a variety of policies to support farm and forest operations in Deschutes County. Additional related policies also are found in Chapter 2: Land Use and Regional Coordination, Chapter 5: Natural Resources, and Chapter 9: Economic (chipped wood) or wood slash. This type of Development. These strategies are underpinned product is generally seen as providing dual by the following results of Comprehensive Plan - benefit, by providing economic opportunity outreach efforts. while also reducing wildfire risk through thinning projects. Alternative Energy: Biomass is an emerging technology for renewable energy and can also be integrated with these products. The first biomass facility in the County is currently under development through a partnership with Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort and the US Forest Service. Recreation (environmental, agricultural and recreation uses): The proximity of federal forests for hiking, mountain biking, skiing, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing and other outdoor recreation draws tourists and residents alike. Skyline Forest, a 33,000-acre privately owned property in the Forest 1 zone has been identified as a potential community asset, with several groups and nonprofits seeking to acquire and utilize the property as a community forest. In 2022, Deschutes Land Trust facilitated a community visioning process to identify preferred community uses if land were to be purchased as a privately held recreational asset. • Community members opposed rezoning low productivity farmland with poor soil to allow greater opportunities for housing, while supporting rezoning of this land to preserve open space. • There is strong support for conducting educational outreach to encourage water conservation and on -farm efficiency measures. • Community members also strongly support allowing greater flexibility for income - producing supplemental activities on farms such as farm -to -table dinner, farm stands, weddings, or similar events. • Outreach participants expressed support for investment in the agricultural economy through grants or exploring a farmland conservation program. 3-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 3.1: Preserve and maintain agricultural lands, operations, and uses to support Deschutes County's agricultural economy Policy 3.1.1. Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning. Policy 3.1.2. Continue to apply Exclusive Farm Use sub- consistent with the County's most up-to-date adopted studies of agricultural land and as implemented through the County Development Code. Policy 3.1.3. Develop comprehensive plan policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. Policy 3.1.4. Regularly review farm regulations to ensure compliance with changes to State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law. Goal 3.2: Promote a diverse, sustainable, and thriving agricultural sector. Policy 3.2.1. Encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, livestock and/or poultry. rni and Forest Resources Policy 3.2.2. Support agriculture through the use of grant funds, research, and other resources dedicated to agricultural community members and stakeholders, including but not limited to farmers, agricultural researchers, farm bureaus, and other organizations in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural opportunities and practices. Policy 3.2.3. Support and encourage small farming enterprises through a variety of related strategies and programs, including, but not limited to, niche markets, organic farming, food council, buy local, farmers markets, farm -to -table activities, farm stands or value-added products, or other programs or strategies. Policy 3.2.4. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and representatives, and landowners to promote and support agricultural uses and operations, including through use of rural reserves, conservation easements, transfer of development rights programs, land acquisition, and other preservation strategies consistent with existing Federal and State Law. Policy 3.2.5. Support efforts to control noxious weeds and invasive species. Policy 3.2.6. Continue to review and revise county code as needed to be and consistent with state code, rules, and regulations to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agritourism or other small-scale sustainable activities. Policy 3.2.7. Work with the State to review and revise their regulations when a desired alternative or supplemental use identified by the County is not permitted by State regulations. 3-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.2.8. Use land use policy and development code requirements, including right -to -farm provisions, as well as coordination with other jurisdictions to minimize conflicts between residential uses and agricultural uses and continue to promote the viable operation of agricultural Farm and Forest Resources c. Concerns over the impact on private property from off -road vehicles, facilities, and trails located on adjacent public lands. Policy 3.3.4. Continue to work with the State to review and revise accessory farm dwelling requirements to address the needs of local farmers. uses. Policy 3.3.5. Encourage coordination Policy 32.9. Provide resources such as between agricultural interestsandfish -- ---- technical assistance and access to grants to and wildlife management organizations, support on -site efficiency upgrades relating to agriculture. Goal 3.3: Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 3.3.1. Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. Policy 3.3.2. Continue to explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. c. Lobby for changes to State Statute regarding agricultural definitions specific to Deschutes County that would allow some reclassification of agricultural lands. Policy 3.3.3. Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically: a. The large number of platted lots not meeting the minimum acreage; b. The need for non -farm dwellings and location requirements for farm dwellings; including public agencies, non -governmental organizations and others. Policy 3.3.6. Explore the evaluation and potential redesignation of lands with a farm designation and poor soils and low productivity for protected open space, development of needed housing, or other uses that support community goals as follows. a. 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. b. Explore creation of a new zoning classification intended to balance value of high desert environment while allowing for limited housing opportunities and applying this designation through coordination with interested and willing property owners. Goal 3.4: Protect and maintain forest lands for multiple uses and objectives, including forest products, watershed protection, conservation, recreation, wildlife habitat protection, carbon sequestration, forest health, and wildfire resilience. Policy 3.4.1.Retain forest lands through Forest 1 and Forest 2 zoning. 3-8 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2. To conserve and maintain unimpacted forest lands, retain Forest 1 zoning for those lands with the following characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships not developed by residences or non- forest uses; FarrTi and Forest Resources a. Do not qualify under State Statute for forestland tax deferral, b. Are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjoining lands and do not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources, b. Consist predominantly of contiguous c. Have soils on the property that fall within ownerships of 160acres _or larger; the definition of agricultural lands as set_ forth in Goal 3, c. Consist predominantly of ownerships contiguous to other lands utilized for commercial forest or commercial farm uses; d. Are accessed by roads intended primarily for forest management; and e. Are primarily under forest management. Policy 3.4.3. To conserve and maintain impacted forest lands, retain Forest 2 zoning for those lands with the following characteristics: a. Consist predominantly of ownerships developed for residential or non -forest uses; b. Consist predominantly of ownerships less than 160 acres; c. Consist of ownerships generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 160 acres and residences, or adjacent to acknowledged exception areas; and d. Provide a level of public facilities and services, including roads, intended primarily for direct services to rural residences." Policy 3.4.4. Notwithstanding any other quasi-judicial plan or zone change criteria, lands designated as Forest under this Plan and zoned Forest 2 may upon application be redesignated and rezoned from Forest 2 to Exclusive Farm Use if such lands: d. Are a tract of land 40 acres or less in size, e. Do not qualify under State Statute and the terms of the Forest 2 zone for a dwelling, and; f. Were purchased by the property owner after January 1, 1985 but before November 4, 1993. Such changes may be made regardless of the size of the resulting EFU zoning district. Such changes shall be processed in the same manner as other quasi-judicial plan or zoning map changes. Policy 3.4.5. Ensure that criteria for and designation of Forest Lands are consistent with state administrative rules and statutes. Policy 3.4.6. Coordinate and cooperate with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other public agencies to promote sustainable forest uses, including recreation and biomass facilities, on public forest land, including currently adopted Forest and Land Management Plans prepared by the US Forest Service (USFS) and US Bureau of Land Management (BLM). a. Using the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, or its successor, as the basis for mutual coordination and cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service; 3-9 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan b. Using the Prineville Bureau of Land Management Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan, or its successor, as the basis for mutual coordination and cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. Policy 3.4.7. Notify affected agencies and tribal governments when reviewing land use Farm and d Forest Resources a. Promote forest health and resilience to wildfire. b. Contribute to public safety by treating wildland hazardous fuels particularly in the designated Wildland Urban Interface as identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans described in Chapter 13, Natural Hazards, of this Plan. applications and proposals for development c. Retain fish and wildlife habitat. that could impact Federal or State forest lands. Policy 3.4.8. Support economic development opportunities that promote forest health, create opportunities for local production of related forest products, and reduce the prevalence of invasive plant species that adversely affect forest health and soil quality. Policy 3.4.9. Provide input on public forest plans that impact Deschutes County. Policy 3.4.10. Coordinate with community stakeholders to support forest management plans and projects that are consistent with the policies of this chapter and with local community forest management and wildfire protection plans. Policy 3.4.11. Continue to review and revise the County Code as needed to ensure development in forest zones minimizes and/ or mitigates impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, forest health, and wildfire resiliency. 3-10 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Surface mining provides non-renewable resources, such as pumice, cinders, building stone, sand, gravel and crushed rock. The extraction of these materials provides employment as well as products important to local economic development. However, mining of mineral and aggregate resources creates noise, dust and traffic and potential pollution that can conflict with neighboring land uses, particularly residential uses. The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) regulates surface mining sites in Deschutes County. The last available published analysis of mineral resources in Deschutes County was completed by DOGAMI in 1976. No updates have been completed during that time due to limited staff. A continued challenge is monitoring the availability of these resources. However, it is likely that Deschutes County has enough mineral resources to meet demand for the next 20 years. When a mineral resource is exhausted, the site is required to submit a reclamation plan to Deschutes County and DOGAMI. This plan identifies how the site will be closed for mineral operations, environmental impacts will be mitigated, and steps to be taking to return the site to a new use. As mineral and aggregate resources are exhausted, property owners often rezone the site from the "Surface Mine" designation to a new zone (often a residential zone), to allow for new development to occur. Coordination with DOGAMI and property owners is imperative to ensure this reclamation process occurs in an efficient and environmentally focused manner. C Surface mining is protected through Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces and the associated Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023 (this rule replaced 660-016 in 1996). Mineral and aggregate resources are included on the list of Statewide Goal 5 resources that the County must inventory and protect. The County maintains an inventory of surface mining sites as part of its Goal 5 program, shown in Map 4-1. There are currently 59 mining sites identified in the Deschutes County GIS data, and 8 sites that have been reclaimed. Mining sites are subject to a Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone that applies within 1/2 mile of the mining site boundary. This combining zone limits new uses and expansion of existing uses that may be impacted by mining activities and are not in compliance with the site - specific Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis for nearby mining sites. In certain cases, a waiver of nonremonstrance may also be required in this zone. 4-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan An E, COU O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I i I I I \l-AMAT`{ i I COUNTY LAKE COUNTY I I . - Miles 4-3 i oescm,ees Canty Co prO,e w: Plan 0 5 10 I Prepared by I I Revised 8/1/2023 This ,,p,, Jor information puy rposesonlThe Co V, oryeialz mg andcomprehensiveplanmaps -be accessed throughthe Deschutes CounryDial FraperrylnJormotTon System.Fleas,notethatthese mops da norrepresent all ofth, Coumy's c ,biningand overlay zones. Zoning Surface Mining Impact Area Q Surface Mining Impact Area `- Redaimetl -Surface Mining Impact Area Transportation State Routes —�— Railroad County Lines M GF Key Community Considerations Transportation agencies expressed concern regarding the impact of depleting mineral resources on road operations, including the use of cinder for winter maintenance and other resources for use in new road projects. The Goals and Policies Goal 4.1: Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while minimizing adverse impacts of extraction, processing and transporting the resource. topic of mineral and aggregate resources was Policy 4.1.1. Implement adopted Goal 5 not a focus of community discussion as part of Surface Mining inventories. this Comprehensive Plan update, though the Policy 4.1.2. Coordinate with the Oregon priorities of a diverse economy and protected Department of GeologyandMineral - - natural areas for habitat and open space are Industries (DOGAMI) on mining regulations interrelated with this subject. The following and studies. goals and policies represent a balance of these community interests. Policy 4.1.3. Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with conflicting resources and uses. Policy 4.1.4. Support the required reclamation of mining sites following mineral extraction. Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Natural resources in Deschutes County are abundant. Wildlife, scenic views of forests and peaks, and open spaces to preserve habitat and native vegetation are among the County's top assets. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 5 governs Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Through this goal, the County maintains inventories and regulatory protections to preserve these many resources. These regulations are created by weighing Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) consequences associated with protection of a resources. Topics covered in this chapter include: • Protected Wildlife Resources • Open Space and Scenic Views • Water Resources PROTECTED WILDLIFE RESOURCES Deschutes County has some of the broadest and most robust wildlife protections in the state, covering a variety of species. The County has development protections within and surrounding numerous wildlife habitats. Some of these habitats have mapped geographic boundaries such as Deer Winter Range, Deer Migration Range, Antelope Habitat, Golden Eagle - Sensitive Bird Habitat, and Elk Habitat. Other species are commonly found in protected riparian areas, such as wetlands and floodplains. Deschutes County contains general habitats for fish, fur -bearing animals, waterfowl, and upland game birds. A continued challenge to wildlife resources is rural development and impacts on habitat. Mule deer are seeing steady declines, approximately 10% each year per Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists. These declines in population are due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to loss of habitat, predation, and disease. SCENIC VIEWS AND OPEN SPACE The 2010 Greenprint for Deschutes County listed protection of scenic viewsheds as one of the top five community priorities for conservation in the rural County, and the protection of open space has been one of the key topics of discussion during the most recent update of this Comprehensive Plan. The County has several designated scenic corridors, including several scenic bikeways, highways, and wild and scenic river sections. With close to 80% of the County under public ownership, many community members enjoy access to natural resources on public lands. A perennial issue among community members is 5-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources preserving scenic views and open spaces closer to home on undeveloped private properties. WATER RESOURCES The high desert climate of Central Oregon poses many challenges with water supply and allocation. A 2021 report by the Oregon Department of Water Resources found that groundwater levels through Deschutes County are declining, by as much as 50 feet of total decline in the central part of the basin. This decline is considered "excessively declined" per state statute and is attributed toward a shift in overall drier conditions since the late 1990s, a warming trend in the basin, and decreased snowpack. To address these issues, irrigation districts and other entities are engaged in ongoing efforts to pipe canals and modernize irrigation systems to increase their efficiency. Due to water transmission losses in irrigation canals from seepage into groundwater and evaporation, piped canals typically require only half the amount of water to be diverted from the river or stream to deliver the same volume of water to the end user compared to open canals. Community members have expressed concern that piping canals contribute to aquifer declines. Deschutes County plays a coordination role along with the Oregon Department of Water Resources, irrigation districts, water users, and owners of private wells to address these water resource issues. Wildlife diversity is a major attraction of Deschutes County. The key to protecting wildlife is protecting the habitats each species needs for food, water, shelter, and reproduction. Also important is retaining or enhancing connectivity between habitats to protect migration routes and avoid isolated populations. 5-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan In considering wildlife habitat, counties rely on the expertise of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Those agencies provide information for the required wildlife inventory and recommendations on how to protect wildlife habitat on private lands. A summary of Deschutes County's wildlife rotection Dro-arams follows: MULE DEER Migration corridors and winter range are essential habitats needed to support mule deer in Deschutes County. The Bend/La Pine migration corridor is approximately 56 miles long and 3 to 4 miles wide and parallels the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. The corridor is used by deer migrating from summer range in the forest along the east slope of the Cascades to the North Paulina deer winter range. Deschutes County adopted a "Deer Migration Priority Area" based on a 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group. This specific sub -area is precluded from destination resorts. From 2021-2023, Deschutes County explored an update to the county's mule deer inventory, which included extensive community participation including through the public record. Ultimately, the decision was made not to update. A snapshot of Deschutes County's wildlife protection program is included below. Extensive information is included in Appendix E, the County's Goal 5 inventory. SENSITIVE BIRDS Nest sites for the bald eagle, osprey, golden eagle, prairie falcon, great grey owl, greater sage -grouse, and great blue heron rookeries are inventoried by the County. The area required for each nest site varies between species. The minimum area required for protection of nest sites has been identified by the ODFW in their management guidelines for protecting colony Natural Resources nesting birds, osprey, eagles, and raptor nests. The USFW works closely with ODFW on eagle - related issues and enforces federal guidelines to ensure protection of bald and golden eagles. ELK The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Deschutes National Forest identifies 6 key elk habitat areas in Deschutes County. The ODFW also recognizes these areas as critical elk habitat for calving, winter or summer range. The following areas are mapped on the Big Game Habitat Area map and in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: • Tumalo Mountain • Kiwa • Ryan • Crane Prairie • Fall River • Clover Meadow ANTELOPE The Bend and Ochoco District offices of the ODFW provided maps of the antelope range and winter range. The available information is adequate to indicate that the resource is significant. The antelope habitat is mapped on Deschutes County's Big Game Habitat -Wildlife Area Combining Zone Map. 5-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Ni Resources Scenic Views and Open Space Deschutes River in Deschutes County hold a special status as a federal wild and scenic river, Deschutes County has a rich abundance of open as well as a state scenic waterway. These areas space. Open spaces are generally undeveloped carry additional regulations through the 1996 areas that are being maintained for some other Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State purpose, such as farms, parks, forests, or wildlife Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Plan, requiring habitat. Besides the value that stems from the additional agency coordination with the Oregon primary use of the land, open spaces provide Parks and Recreation Department and the US aesthetically pleasing undeveloped landscapes. Forest Service on development impacting these Because these areas are undeveloped, they sections. also provide additional benefits such as water recharge, buffers from habitat, and safety zones from natural hazards such as flooding. Open spaces and scenic views are an important draw for visitors and are often mentioned as important to the area's quality of life. The backdrop of the Cascade Mountains, with its vast forest and sagebrush landscapes and riparian and wetland habitats, all provide an inspirational setting for visitors and residents alike. Statewide Planning Goal 5 recommends, but does not require, creating an inventory and protections for open spaces, scenic views and sites. Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023 defines open space designations as parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature sanctuaries, and golf courses. Open spaces are protected through an Open Space and Conservation map designation and zoning district. Scenic view protection is implemented through the Landscape Management Combining Zone regulations. Deschutes County's Role in Water Management is described below. REGULATORY AGENCIES The primary state regulator of water availability is the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) leads the monitoring and enforcement of water quality standards. The Oregon DEQ is required to comply with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Numerous sections of the STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS There are two Statewide Planning Goals relating to the protection of water resources. Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces) requires an inventory and protection of the following water resources. In Deschutes County, these inventories have been completed and acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (See Appendix A for Goal 5 Inventories). Goal 6 (Air, Land, and Water Resources Quality) requires comprehensive plans to be consistent with state and federal pollution regulations. Accordingly, it is imperative that local land use policies align with Federal and State laws governing the community's water resources. 5-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The policies in this section relating to water provide the framework for evaluating land use actions and define the responsibility of the County to work in partnership with cities, agencies, non -profits and others to achieve efficient use of water resources and effective management of water quality in the Upper Deschutes Basin. It is important to underscore that the primary water resource management process occurs outside of the state land use planning system. Oregon land use and water management are not integrated; there are no overarching administrative rules that consider statewide water management in conjunction with land use planning. WATER USE The Deschutes aquifer has a recharge rate of roughly 3 million acre feet per year. The current water usage comes to roughly 720 thousand acre feet per year. Roughly 40 to 50 thousand acre feet of that water goes toward municipal and non-agricultural use, while the remaining goes toward crop and pasture irrigation. The majority of that municipal water use goes towards outdoor watering (gardens, sports fields, etc.). As an example: the City of Bend uses 5 times as much water in the summer as in the winter. SNOWPACK Although there is expected to be a slight increase in winter precipitation by the middle of the century, snowpack is expected to decline throughout the Cascades. The decline in snowpack (which has already been observed, see figure below)' is due largely to increasing temperatures causing some precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. This has the double effect of decreasing snowfall and melting the previously fallen snow. At the Mt Bachelor Ski Resort, April snowpack is expected to decline between 11 % and 18% by the middle of the 1 Adapted from Mote, P.W., Li, S., Lettenmaier, D.P. et al. Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 2 (2018). https://doi.org/l0.1038/s41612-018-0012-1 NaturM Resources century and between 18% and 43% by the end of the century. LAVA SPONGE Deschutes county is fortunate to be underlain on the Western side by relatively young volcanic lava sponge. This sponge is highly porous and is able to absorb large quantities of water during the wet season and gradually release it via abundant springs along the eastern slope. The great advantage this provides is that the resulting summer flows into the Deschutes basin are not as dependent on overground flow of snowmelt, and therefore are expected to maintain a relatively stable water supply even as snowpack decreases into the next century. GROUNDWATER The groundwater aquifer is roughly 1000 feet thick and is replenished yearly by the Cascades' precipitation. Recent years of "exceptional drought" have lowered the aquifer level by roughly 30 feet, resulting in a small percentage of wells running dry, and raising concerns about available groundwater for new developments. Although it is likely that some wells will need to be deepened to cope with increasing temperatures and drought frequency, there is likely to remain ample sustainable groundwater supply. Average Snowpack near Mt. Bachelor Base Village on April 1 5-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Because the groundwater in the Deschutes Basin is directly connected to the flow of the Deschutes River, all additional groundwater use must be mitigated by decreased use of groundwater elsewhere through the Oregon Water Resources Department's Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation program. This can include retiring of other water rights, or the release of water into the waterway. A mitigation permit must be obtained before a Generally, groundwater quality in Deschutes County is generally classified as being'good,' providing high quality drinking water to most of its residents. However, several productive aquifers lie in shallow alluvial sediments that are vulnerable to contamination from human activities and development. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Laboratory and Water Quality Divisions' Groundwater Quality Report for the Deschutes Basin (March 2006) identifies areas of concern for groundwater contamination based on various sources of data and groundwater quality studies. Based on collected data, development patterns and the geology of the underlying aquifer, the report makes recommendations for a couple of areas in the County. The report notes the groundwater aquifer in the Redmond area is vulnerable to contamination from human activities and recommends further study by the DEQ. The La Pine aquifer in the southern portion of the county from the Sunriver area to the Klamath County line between Newberry Caldera and the Cascades is an area of particular concern because of data collected through several studies and the high level of development in the area. The report also identifies underground injection systems that could contaminate the aquifer with pollutants from stormwater drywells or sewage drillholes. In South Deschutes County, the concern for groundwater quality arises from nitrate 2 Information from the Oregon Water Resources Board Mitigation Program, 5-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources contamination associated with on -site Little Deschutes Sub -basins have abundant, wastewater treatment (septic) systems natural sources of phosphorus from volcanic discharging to the shallow unconfined aquifer. soils and rocks so the rivers are naturally The issue is small lots with highly permeable nitrogen limited. Nitrogen -limited rivers are rapidly draining soils and a high groundwater sensitive to low concentrations of available table with relatively cold water temperatures. nitrogen until some other component becomes Combined with the fact that the majority of lots limiting, and that may lead to ecological impacts. are served by on -site wastewater treatment systems and individual wells, concern arose In 2008 the County used the research on nitrates that nitrates _from the septic systems could to adopt a'local rule that required South County contaminate local wells and the river system. residents to convert their septic systems over a period of 14 years to alternative sewage Considerable work has gone into studying the groundwater in South County. In 1999 Deschutes County and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) identified the need for a better understanding of the processes that affect the movement and chemistry of nitrogen in the aquifer underlying the La Pine area. In response, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), in cooperation with Deschutes County and DEQ, began a study to examine the hydrologic and chemical processes that affect the movement and chemical transformation of nitrogen within the aquifer. A primary objective was to provide tools for evaluating the effects of existing and future residential development on water quality and to develop strategies for managing groundwater quality. Field research from the USGS study shows that in a 2S0-square-mile study area near La Pine the groundwater underlying the La Pine sub -basin is highly vulnerable and being polluted by continued reliance on traditional onsite systems. Environmental impacts from residential development include higher nitrate concentrations in groundwater that is tapped for domestic water supply and discharges to rivers. Nitrates are regulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and DEQ as a human health concern. Vulnerability of the shallow aquifer to contamination led to concern that wastewater from septic systems poses a threat to the primary drinking water supply and local river systems. The Upper Deschutes and system technology designed to reduce nitrates. New septic systems were also required to use alternative technologies. The County created a process to assist residents in funding the conversions. Many South County residents expressed concern over the costs involved with converting their septic systems and disputed the science behind the rule. Placed on the ballet by petition, the local rule was rescinded by voters in March 2009. As of 2010 the DEQ is leading the effort to address nitrates in South County, with the full cooperation of the County. One solution being considered is creating a sewer system or extending Sunriver's to serve some of the nearby areas. Sewer systems are tightly restricted on rural lands by Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660-11, so the Department of Land Conservation and Development is also involved in these efforts. RESERVOIRS The majority of the irrigation in Deschutes County comes from reservoirs. These reservoirs are primarily spring fed from the Cascades. Reservoirs serve the dual purpose of supplying water for irrigation and ensuring sufficient streamflow in the lower Deschutes River. Regional droughts in recent years have resulted in lower water levels in these reservoirs. 5-8 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ALGAL BLOOMS Algal blooms have been a problem for recreational lakes in the cascade mountains in recent years. Since 2007, the Wickiup Reservoir, Crane Prairie Reservoir, and Paulina Lake have experienced algal or bacteria blooms that required a health advisory.3 Natural Resources Key Community Considerations Natural resources for recreation, passive enjoyment, habitat protection, and economic production are a fundamental part of life in Deschutes County, and as such were a key part of the community conversation in this Comprehensive Plan update. Highlights of this Although not all algal blooms are toxic, conversation include: they interfere with recreation and aesthetic • Concern about the ability of the County's enjoyment. In general, algal blooms are caused water supply to accommodate more by elevated nutrients, elevated temperature, residents, visitors, and water -intensive jobs and still water. Algal blooms in other parts of in the future the state have led to drinking water concerns, • Interest in a re-evaluation of water rights but Deschutes County cities are supplied by for urban, agricultural, and "hobby farm" groundwater and so the risk in algal blooms is uses. mainly to recreation. • A robust discussion around wildlife inventories, habitat conservation, open space regulations, and impacts on private property owners. The topic of habitat conservation and water availability came up frequently, with most participants saying that further protections are needed. However, there was also recognition of the burden these protections may put on property owners. Deschutes County does not have the authority or expertise to reevaluate water rights as part of its land use planning efforts, leading the County to instead work with the Oregon Department of Water Resources, irrigation districts, and holders of water rights to increase the efficiency of water distribution throughout the community. 3 https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/ RECREATION/HARM FULALGAEBLOOMS/Pages/archive.aspx 5-9 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 5.1: Support regional, comprehensive water management solutions that balance the diverse Natural Resources Goal 5.2: Increase water conservation efforts. Policy 5.2.1. Support efficient water use through targeted conservation, educational and, as needed, regulatory or incentive programs. needs of water users and recognize Oregon water law. a. Encourage new development incorporates efficient water use practices for all water Policy 5.1.1. Participate in Statewide and uses. regional water planning including, but not limited to: b. Encourage thereuseof grey water for landscaping. Work cooperatively with appropriate federal, state, tribal and local agency resource managers, such as The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), irrigation districts, and other stakeholders and nonprofit water organizations, such as the Deschutes Basin Water Collaborative, the County Soil and Water Conservation District; Support the development and implementation of Upper Deschutes Basin Study, Habitat Conservation Plan, and Biological Opinion from National Marine Fisheries Service for the middle and lower Deschutes Rivers. Policy 5.1.2. Support grants for water system infrastructure improvements, upgrades, or expansions. Policy 5.1.3. Develop better understanding of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon's treaty - protected rights to co -manage the water resources of the Deschutes Basin. Policy 5.1.4. Encourage state agencies to identify local areas of concern for water availability and explore additional regulations or requirements to ensure water capacity is not negatively impacted by development. Encourage and educate the community about the relative impacts of thinning or reduction of plant species that adversely impact forest health, water availability, and soil quality. d. Encourage and educate the community about on -farm efficiency measures, including upgrades to equipment. e. Encourage and educate the community about use of voluntary metering of water use to monitor seasonal impacts on water use. f. Provide access to educational materials and tools related to water conservation including publications, information about grant opportunities, and/or partner with organizations on educational events. g. Encourage and educate community members on stewardship of wetlands and waterways. h. Provide access to educational materials about water -wise gardening and xeriscaping. Policy 5.2.2. Promote coordinated regional water conservation efforts and implementation by regional, tribal, and local organizations and agencies, including increasing public awareness of and implementing water conservation tools, incentives, and best practices. 5-10 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.2.3. Support conservation efforts by irrigation districts, property owners and other water users, including programs to provide incentives for water conservation, such as piping of canals and laterals, water banking, exchanges of water rights, voluntary transfers of in -stream flows, onsite efficiency measure nd th Natural Resources f. In collaboration with appropriate federal, state, tribal and local agency resource managers stakeholders, map channel migration zones and identify effective protections; g. Develop comprehensive riparian management or mitigation practices that s, a o er means. enhance ecosystems, such as criteria for removal of vegetation that adversely Goal __5.3:_Maintain and enhance a_healthy_.._ - impacts water availability and soil health. ecosystem in the Deschutes River Basin. Policy 5.3.1. Notify the Oregon Department of State Lands, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and other state and federal agencies as appropriate -of any development applications for land within a wetland identified on the statewide wetland inventory maps. Policy 5.3.2. Work with The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and other federal, state, and local agency resource managers to restore, maintain and/or enhance healthy river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands, including the following: Cooperate to improve surface waters, especially those designated water quality impaired under the federal Clean Water Act; b. Support research on methods to restore, maintain and enhance river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands; c. Support restoration efforts for river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands; d. Inventory and consider protections for cold water springs; e. Evaluate waterways in coordination with OPRD for possible designation under the Scenic Waterways program; Policy 5.3.3. Support studies of the Deschutes River ecosystem and incorporate strategies from current watershed studies that provide new scientific information and indigenous knowledge about the Deschutes River ecosystem. Policy 5.3.4. Support educational efforts and identify areas where the County could provide information on the Deschutes River ecosystem, including rivers, riparian areas, floodplains and wetlands. a. Support efforts to educate property owners to understand regulations pertaining to rivers, riparian areas, floodplains and wetlands. Policy 5.3.5. Revisit recommendations of 1996 Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Waterway Comprehensive Plan, or its successor, and consider implementation of voluntary recommendations into the county code Goal 5.4: Maintain and enhance fish and riparian -dependent wildlife habitat. Policy 5.4.1. Coordinate with The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and other federal, state, and local agency resource managers and stakeholders to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in river and riparian habitats and wetlands. 5-11 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Policy 5.4.2. Promote healthy fish Policy 5.4.6. Support plans, cooperative populations through incentives and agreements, education, water quality education. monitoring and other tools that protect watersheds reduce ero i d s on an runoff Policy 5.4.3. Support healthy native salmonid , enhance riparian vegetation, and protect fish populations through coordination with other natural or engineered water systems/ stakeholders, including, but not limited to, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs processes that filter and/or clean water and Reservation of Oregon and other federal, improve and/or and preserve water quality. state, and local agency resource managers Policy 5.4.7. Coordinate with the Oregon who provide fish habitat management and Department of Environmental Quality and restoration. other stakeholders on regional water quality a. Review, and apply where appropriate, maintenance and improvement efforts such strategies for protecting fish and fish as identifying and abating point (single - habitat for native salmonid species. source) and non -point (unidentified or multiple -source) pollution or developing and b. Promote native salmonid species implementing Total Maximum Daily Load and recovery through voluntary incentives Water Quality Management Plans. and encouraging appropriate species management and associated habitat conservation and restoration. Policy 5.4.4. Update and implement policies to support federally approved Habitat Conservation Plans for species listed under the Endangered Species Act a. Spawning and rearing areas for salmonid species should be considered significant habitat and should be protected in rivers and streams. b. Cooperate with covered parties in restoring or enhancing spawning and rearing areas for salmonid species, where feasible. c. Support efforts to address riparian restoration associated with streamflow management under approved plans. Policy 5.4.5. Use a combination of incentives and/or regulations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate development impacts on river and riparian ecosystems and wetlands. Policy 5.4.8. Coordinate with The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and other federal, state, and local agency resource managers to address water -related public health issues. a. Support amendments to State regulations to permit centralized sewer systems in areas with high levels of existing or potential development or identified water quality concerns. b. If a public health hazard is declared in rural Deschutes County, expedite actions such as legislative amendments allowing sewers or similar infrastructure. Policy 5.4.9. Continue to evaluate and/or implement regulations, such as a wellhead protection ordinance for public water systems, in accordance with applicable Federal and/or State requirements. Policy 5.4.10. Coordinate and work with the Oregon Department of Agriculture, agricultural uses, and available voluntary programs to support and implement proven new technologies and best practices to maintain and enhance water quality, 5-12 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan such as minimizing nitrate contamination, maintaining streamside vegetation, reducing streambank soil erosion and runoff, reducing fish passage barriers, managing return flows, limiting livestock access to riparian areas, and minimizing weeds and bare patches in grazing areas. Natural Resources Policy 5.5.5. Coordinate with the irrigation districts to ensure -Irrigated land partitions and lot line adjustments are not approved without notice to the affected district. Policy 5.5.6. Utilize Central Oregon Stormwater Manual to apply appropriate stormwater management practices land use. Policy 5.4.11. Support regulations, education decisions. programs, and cleaning procedures at public and private boat landings. - Policy 5.5.7. Allow fordevelopmentof -- - -_-- wastewater facilities and improvements Goal 5.5: Coordinate land use and water policies where needed or required to address water to address management and allocation of water quality issues and maintain water quality, in Deschutes County. consistent with state and local wastewater system requirements. Policy 5.5.1. Coordinate with other affected agencies when a land use or development application may impact rivers or riparian ecosystems or wetlands. Policy 5.5.2. Regulate land use patterns and promote best practices to preserve the integrity of the natural hydrologic system, recognize the relationship between ground and surface water, recognize basin -wide impacts, and address water impacts of new land uses and developments, including water -intensive uses. Policy 5.5.3. Support OWRD's efforts to update and modernize Oregon's groundwater allocation rules and policies to protect existing surface water and groundwater users and to maintain sustainable groundwater resources. Policy 5.5.4. Support efforts by the OWRD in collaboration with Central Oregon Cities Organization, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and non -governmental organizations to revisit the Deschutes Basin Groundwater Mitigation Program. +. SEEME = Policies Goal 5.6: Coordinate with property owners to protect open spaces, scenic views, and scenic areas and corridors through a combination of incentives and/or educational programs. Policy 5.6.1. Work with stakeholders to create and maintain a system of connected open spaces while balancing private property rights with community benefits. Policy 5.6.2. Work to maintain the visual character and rural appearance of open spaces such as the area along Highway 97 that separates the communities of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. - Policy 5.6.3. Work to maintain and protect the visual character and rural appearance of visually prominent open spaces within the County, particularly those that are identified in the Goal 5 inventory. Policy 5.6.4. Seek to protect the cultural identity of rural communities, such as the Highway 97 area/corridor between Bend and Redmond, and others. 5-13 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.6.5. Protect significant open spaces, scenic views, and scenic sites by encouraging new development to be sensitive to these resources. Policy 5.6.6. Incentivize the placement of structures in a way that is sensitive of view corridors to maintain the visual character of the area. Goal 5.7:Maintain and enhance a diversity of wildlife and habitats. Policy 5.7.1. Promote stewardship of wildlife habitats through incentives, public education, and development regulations. Policy 5.7.2. Ensure Goal 5 wildlife inventories and habitat protection programs are up-to-date through public processes, expert sources, and current or recently adopted plans and studies. Policy 5.7.3. Provide incentives for new development to be compatible with and to enhance wildlife habitat. Policy 5.7.4. Require, incentivize, or encourage clustering of development in inventoried wildlife areas to reduce impacts to wildlife populations. Policy 5.7.5.Develop better understanding of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon's treaty - protected rights to co -manage the wildlife resources of the Deschutes Basin. Goal 5.8: Balance protection of wildlife and habitat with the economic and recreational benefits of wildlife and habitat. Policy 5.8.1. Encourage responsible and sustainable wildlife related tourism and recreation. Natural Resources Policy 5.8.2. Coordinate with stakeholders to ensure access to appropriate recreational opportunities within significant wildlife and riparian habitat through public or non-profit ownership. Policy 5.8.3.Coordinate with Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and State agencies to develop strategies to support sound wildlife management science and principals for the benefit of the wildlife resource. Goal 5.9: Comply with federal and state regulations related to sensitive, threatened, and endangered species, including the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and others as applicable. Policy 5.9.1. Coordinate with Federal and State agencies to develop strategies to protect Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species, or Species of Concern. Policy 5.9.2. Mitigate conflicts between large- scale development and sage grouse habitat. Policy 5.9.3. Consider adopting recommendations from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program in dock construction. Goal 5.10: Maintain and improve upon the quality of air and land in Deschutes County. Policy 5.10.1. Use building techniques, materials, and technologies in existing and future County operations and capital facilities that help maintain and improve environmental quality. 5-14 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.10.2. Implement a dark skies educational and or incentive program and periodically update the Dark Skies ordinance to reduce the impacts of light pollution and reduce lighting impacts on adjacent properties. Policy 5.10.3. Coordinate with agency partners to educate residents about controlled burning projects and air quality Policy 5.10.4. Use public education, education for County departments, and regulations to control noxious weeds and invasive species. Goal 5.11: Promote sustainable building practices that minimize the impacts of development on the natural environment. Policy 5.11.1. Use the County Code and educational materials to promote the use of resource -efficient building and landscaping techniques, materials, and technologies that minimize impacts to environmental quality. Policy 5.11.2. Encourage and support reuse and recycling of consumer goods, green waste, construction waste, hazardous waste, and e-waste through education and enhanced recycling opportunities through the Recycling Program. Policy 5.11.3. Support the process for siting new County solid waste management facilities in rural Deschutes County, consistent with facility needs and County standards for the location and approval of such facilities. Policy 5.11.4. Implement best practices in solid waste management throughout the County. Natural Resources Policy 5.11.5. Develop and implement a Climate Action Plan to address the potential future impacts of climate change on Deschutes County through incentives and/or regulations. Policy 5.11.6. Promote and incentivize green infrastructure in new development to improve stormwater management. 5-15 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Ad� Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Deschutes County is a certified local government (CLG), as designated by the State of Oregon Historic Preservation Office. This certification recognizes the Cou commitment to implementing and maintaining a formal historic resources program. Deschutes County has 13 nationally registered historic and cultural sites and 35 locally significant historic sites. The County currently administers grant programs and zoning requirements to preserve and restore these sites. Deschutes County owns the National Register listed Reid School and invests in supporting the Deschutes County Historical Society as a research and educational facility through a zero -cost lease and maintenance support for the purposes of running the museum and research center. Historic resources are recognized by Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic Views and Historic Areas and Open Spaces, and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023. The Statewide Goal and OAR recommend cities and counties inventory and protect historic and cultural sites. Recognizing the value and importance of having a connection to our past, Deschutes County chose to implement and maintain a historic preservation program and Historic Preservation Strategic Plan (Adopted 2022). The 2022 Historic Preservation Strategic Plan identified three overarching goals to guide historic and cultural resource preservation in Deschutes County: collaborate, coordinate, and educate. The plan identifies opportunities to strengthen relationships between historic preservation and community partners, and to involve community members in historical and cultural preservation efforts. Improving access to historic resource information and providing content in an easily accessible format will be paramount to preservation efforts and increase community appreciation for resources. Along with improved educational resources, more outreach and education opportunities could be explored. Deschutes County has several partners involved in drafting and implementing this strategic plan - those partners include the Deschutes County Historical Society, High Desert Museum, Archaeological Society of Central Oregon, Three Sisters Historical Society, and Redmond Historical Society. 6-12 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Context Deschutes County has several notable historical and cultural sites. These sites receive special protections to avoid land use or development activity that may disturb the historical and cultural resources existing on site. LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITES Deschutes County has 35 locally significant sites including cemeteries, ranches, dams, bridges, schools, and granges among numerous historic homesteads and homesites. The State of Oregon has initiated a process to identify culturally significant archaeological sites and sites of indigenous importance. This process will likely be incorporated into the County's local inventory by 2029. NATIONALLY REGISTERED SITES Deschutes County has 13 sites that have completed the national register process, including highways, bridges, lodges, and rock gardens. Historic and Cultural Resources Key Community Considerations As part of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan update, community members shared their vision for the protection of historic and cultural resources. Comments included: • The importance of county -wide coordination on cultural and historic, as well as increased representation of the indigenous history of Central Oregon. • Acknowledging previous landowners and preserving the County's historical and cultural resources are both important. • A county -wide historic and cultural resource signage program was also suggested. • The community shared an interest in capitalizing on the High Desert Museum to continue to support indigenous culture and Central Oregon's history. 6-13 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 6.1: Promote the preservation of designated historic and cultural resources through education, incentives, and voluntary programs. Policy 6.1.1. The Historic Landmarks Commission shall take the lead in promoting historic and cultural resource preservation as defined in DCC 2.28. Support incentives from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), or other agencies for private landowners to protect and restore historic resources. b. Support the Historic Landmarks Commission to promote educational programs to inform the public of the values of historic preservation. c. Support improved training for the Historic Landmarks Commission. d. Support the goals, objectives, and actions of the Historic Preservation Strategic Plan. Historic and Cultural Resources Policy 6.1.2. Coordinate cultural and historic preservation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Office and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Tribal Historic Preservation Office. a. Maintain Deschutes County as a Certified Local Government, which includes the City of Sisters. Policy 6.1.3.Encourage private property owners to coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Coordinate with The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Burns -Paiute Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Archaeological Society of Central Oregon, and SHPO to adopt a program to identify and protect archaeological and cultural resources, as appropriate, and prevent conflicting uses from disrupting the value of known sites. 6-14 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan atural Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Central Oregon is a dynamic region formed and shaped by the powerful forces of nature. Deschutes County residents and visitors rely on the County and its partners to plan for hazardous events and limit harm to people and property. Continued rapid population growth, development in wildfire -prone areas, and an increased frequency of natural hazard events make planning for and mitigating risks ever more important. As temperatures rise globally, Central Oregon will face challenges due to drought, wildfire, heat events, and storms. The impacts a major Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake would have on Deschutes County would be substantial as well. In order to plan for and address natural hazards, Deschutes County has partnered with local jurisdictions to create its Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP). Additional opportunities exist to create greater defensible spaces, encourage fire hardening, utilize grant programs, and pursue education measures to reduce these impacts overtime. According to the NHMP, the hazards with greatest risk in Deschutes County are: • Winter Storm. Destructive storms producing heavy snow, ice and cold temperatures occurred throughout the County's history. Increases in population and tourism make potential impacts to shelter, access to medical services, transportation, utilities, fuel sources, and telecommunication systems more acute. The relative frequency of these events combined with their widespread impacts make winter storms the highest -ranked hazard in the NHMP. • Wildfire. Historically, wildland fires have shaped the forests and wildlands valued by residents and visitors. These landscapes, however, are now significantly altered due to increased rural development, warmer and dried conditions, and a general lack of large-scale treatments due to outdated forest management practices, resulting in increased event of wildfires that burn more intensely than in the past. 7-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan • Windstorm. A windstorm is generally a short duration event involving straight- line winds and/or gusts in excess of 50 mph. Although windstorms can affect the entirety of Deschutes County, they are especially dangerous in developed areas with significant tree stands and major infrastructure, especially above ground utility lines. • Drought. Periodsofdroughtcanhave significant impacts on public health, agriculture, and industry. Many counties in eastern Oregon are experiencing more frequent and severe droughts than is historically the norm, and many climate predictions see this trend continuing into the future. • Earthquake. The Pacific Northwest is located at a convergent plate boundary, called the Cascadia Subduction Zone, where the Juan de Fuca and North American tectonic plates meet. This fault line is subject to rare but potentially very large Natural Hazards earthquakes. Such an event would impact Deschutes County communities both directly through damage to infrastructure and prpperty, as well as economically and socially as the broader region recovers from the disaster. Context Informed by an understanding of natural hazards, Deschutes County can reduce the risks to property, environmental quality, and human safety through land use planning and review of specific development proposals. The County's policies provide the framework for the County's natural hazards review program. This includes: identification of areas subject to natural hazards, regulations for evaluating land use actions for how they may result in exposure to potential harm from natural hazards, and programmatic elements including partnerships and funding opportunities to support natural hazard risk reduction. Deschutes County has taken on a number of proactive projects, includinz: • 2021 Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) • 2019 Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee • Project Wildfire, a County -led wildfire education and mitigation program has been in operation since 2012 and has been very successful in changing attitudes towards wildfire and prevention. • Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) for many communities, including: Greater Bend CWPP (2016, expected revision 2021) Greater La Pine CWPP (2020, expected revision 2025) Greater Redmond CWPP (2018, expected revision 2023) Greater Sisters Country CWPP (2019, expected revision 2024) 7-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Sunriver CWPP (2020, expected revision 2025) East and West Deschutes County CWPP (2018, expected revision 2023) Upper Deschutes River Coalition CWPP (2018, expected revision 2023) In addition, dozens of neighborhoods are pursuing or have received FireWise certification through the National Fire Protection Association. The County also supports the Heart of Oregon and Youth Conservation Corps crews in fuels reduction work and other mitigation efforts, with financial assistance from other entities. vim 111�i According to the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, wildfire is the second most significant hazard to the county (after winter storms) and was the most discussed natural hazard discussed during outreach events. Throughout the 20th century, the years with warm and dry conditions corresponded with larger fires that have burned greater areas. Overall increases in heat will also lengthen growing seasons - building greater fuel loads and decreasing soil and fuel moisture, thereby increasing the likelihood of larger fires. By mid-century, the annual potential for very Natural Hazards large fires is projected to increase by at least 350% over the 20th century average.' The annual frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is expected to increase by 10-15 additional days per year by mid-century4 (up from 36 currently). These trends are due to exacerbated conditions with a combination of high air temperatures and very low fuel moisture, which increases the likelihood of fire starts that can spread. As Deschutes County communities have experienced, increased fire activity - even at quite a distance - will impact air quality, increasing public health risks and impacting aspects of everyday life. Research indicates that in regions where fire has moved through the landscape with increased severity, regrowth is changing the species composition of the forests, which are likely to be more resilient to future fires. z Other compounding factors, like drought and pest outbreaks, will continue to build fuel loads in the forests and change the forest's composition. Post -fire landscapes in Deschutes County will likely see increases in the prevalence of invasive and pioneer tree species, and a reduction in fire - susceptible species such as western hemlock, subalpine fir, and some spruce. Fire resistant species like mature Douglas fir and western larch will have greater survival capacity to fire,3 but perhaps not to other stressors. Larger fires that occur over shorter intervals will negatively impact seed dispersion capacity, and reduced moisture available in ponderosa forest regions will be vulnerable to reforestation failures, leading to conversion to other ecosystem types. In the mountain forests, the average yearly area burned is expected to nearly double by mid- century, while the area burned in the grass/ shrub plateau areas is likely to decrease slightly by mid-century. This is partly due to extended 1 Halofsky, J. Peterson, D, Harvey, B. "Changing Wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecology. 2020. 2 Sebastian U. Busby, Kevan B. Moffett, Andres Holz. High severity and short interval wildfires limit forest recovery in the Central Cascade Range. Ecosphere, 2020; 11 (9) DOI: 10. 1 002/ecs2.3247 3 6 Halofsky et al. 2020. 7-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan drought decreasing plant growth and therefore available fuel. The risk of unusually severe fires is expected to increase across large swaths of Oregon, including Deschutes County.' WILDFIRE AND HEAT By the middle of this century, increasing temperatures are expected to drive increasing wildfire risk, especially in the Cascades. The Natural Hazards Under all change projections, there will be an increase in the number of days with a heat index above both 90' and 100OF by mid-century.8 By 2100, Deschutes County can expect summer maximum temperatures to be 120F hotter than current highs. Overall, extreme heat is not considered a human health risk in Deschutes County because of low night temperatures and the low humidity in the region. However, yearly percentage of area burned is_likely _to the Redmond airport, which sees the hottest increase in the mountains and the interval temperatures in the county, will likely start to see of return (years between fires) is expected to occasional temperatures above 105' every few decrease across the county. Both the highest and lowest summer temperatures will increase, leading to more extreme heat days and reducing the historical nighttime cooling effect of the high desert. years by mid-century, and at least once a year by 2100. In addition, summer night lows are likely to increase by up to 5° degrees by mid-century, reducing the cooling effect of the high desert climate. Fire ®anger near Mt. Bachelor Village K(W MW hAAAlrhhAhA hAAAAAAAAA _= AAAAhAAAhAr hAAAAhMhhA q AAhhAAAAAh hAAhAhhhMA hAAAlY AAAhArAhhhh AAAAAAAAAA sd LU ArAAhAAAArAM AAhAAYhhAhh hAAhMhhhAA 4 Oregon Forest Resources Institute Fact Sheet 7-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Natural Hazards Key Community Considerations Community conversations related to natural hazards have centered around the following topics: • Impacts of Climate Change. Throughout the community engagement process, community members spoke to the importance of recognizing and addressing the impacts of climate change in Deschutes County and its relationship with natural hazard events. • Education and Communication. Providing information about potential risks to residents and visitors can help the community as a whole be more prepared for natural hazards. • Development Code Regulations and Incentives. Some community members expressed a desire for stricter regulations and additional incentives about "fire - wise" construction and defensible space practices. • Limiting Development in hazard -prone areas. Increased development in remote areas of the County, where life-saving services may be scarce and human impacts may exacerbate risks, was a concern for some. 7-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 7.1: Develop policies, partnerships, and programs to increase resilience and response capacity in order to protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy, natural resources, and the environment from natural hazards. Policy 7.1.1. Partner with county, state, and regional partners to regularly update and urAHazards Policy 7.1.10. Support local fire protection districts and departments in providing and improving fire protection services. Policy 7.1.11. Continue to review and revise County Code as needed to: a. Ensure that land use activities do not aggravate, accelerate or increase the level of risk from natural hazards. implement the Deschutes_ County_ Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. b. Require development proposals to include an impact evaluation that reviews Policy 7.1.2. Collaborate with federal, the ability of the affected fire agency to state, and local partners to maintain maintain an appropriate level of service to updated mapping of high wildfire risk areas, floodplains, and other natural hazard areas within the county. Policy 7.1.3. Communicate and cooperate with federal, state, and local entities to clarify responsibilities regarding wildfire mitigation and suppression to improve fire protection services. Policy 7.1.4. Use the development code to provide incentives and regulations to manage development in areas prone to natural hazards. Policy 7.1.5. Work with agency partners to address and respond to increased episodes of poor air quality resulting from wildfires in the region. Policy 7.1.6. Protect wildlife with wildland fire mitigation measures on private lands. Policy 7.1.7. Address wildfire risk, particularly in the wildland urban interface. Policy 7.1.8. Identify all areas not protected by structural fire protection agencies and promote discussions to address fire protection in unprotected lands in the County. Policy 7.1.9. Support forest management practices that reduce wildfire risk. existing development and the proposed development. c. Minimize erosion from development and ensure disturbed or exposed areas are promptly restored to a stable, natural and/or vegetated condition using natural materials or native plants. d. Ensure drainage from development or alterations to historic drainage patterns do not increase erosion on -site or on adjacent properties. e. Reduce problems associated with administration of the Floodplain Zone. f. Require new subdivisions and destination resorts to achieve FireWise Standards or other currently accepted fire mitigation standards from the beginning of the projects and maintain those standards in perpetuity. Goal 7.2: Ensure the County's built environment and infrastructure are adequately prepared for natural disasters. Policy 7.2.1. Increase the quality, resiliency, diversity, and redundancy of utility and transportation infrastructure to increase chances of continued service following a natural disaster. 7-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.2. Prohibit the development of new essential public facilities and uses that serve vulnerable populations from being located within areas at high risk of flooding and wildfire, and aim to relocate existing uses in these areas. Policy 7.2.3. Support siting of Central Oregon Ready, Responsive, Resilient (CORE3) regional coordinated emergency services training Natural al Hazards c. Continue to coordinate with stakeholders and agency staff to correct mapping errors. Goal 7.3: Develop programs that inform the public about the increased risks from natural hazards. Policy 7.3.1. Identify high risk, high need populations and ensure equitable access facility. to emergency preparedness and recovery - services. Policy 7.2.4. Coordinate with emergency service providers when new development is proposed to ensure that response capacity can meet the needs of the new development. Policy 7.2.5. Require new development to follow home hardening, defensible space, and other resilient design strategies in areas prone to wildfires and other natural hazards. Policy 7.2.6. Encourage and incentivize development that exceeds minimum building code standards and promote retrofitting of existing development for better natural disaster resiliency. Policy 7.2.7. Require development to be designed to minimize alteration of the natural landform in areas subject to slope instability, drainage issues or erosion. Policy 7.2.8. Regulate development in designated floodplains identified on the Deschutes County Zoning Map based on Federal Emergency Management Act regulations. a. Continue evaluation of participation in and implementation of the Community Rating System as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. b. Cooperate with other stakeholders to identify alternatives for acquiring and/ or relocating existing structures prone to flooding. Policy 7.3.2. Increase outreach and education for hazard awareness and natural disaster preparedness, especially for low- income, elderly, non-English speaking, and other vulnerable populations. Policy 7.3.3. Expand partnerships with government agencies, utilities, and other groups that can help Deschutes County residents prepare for natural disasters. Policy 7.3.4. Work with regional partners to establish and maintain adequate support for a Deschutes County Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) to aid in responding to natural hazard events. Policy 7.3.5. Promote and support business resilience planning. 7-8 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Recreation is an important quality of life issue for Deschutes County and recreational tourism is a key part of the local economy. Both residents and visitors are drawn by the County's extensive public lands, seasonal climate, and wide variety of activities and settings. Recreational opportunities include places set aside for specific activities such as campgrounds or sports fields as well as passive spaces such as natural areas. The primary focus of recreation in rural Deschutes County is outdoor recreation. Outdoor activities promote healthy communities by encouraging people to enjoy an active lifestyle and by providing opportunities to reconnect with the natural world. Deschutes County does not have a parks department; instead, it coordinates with the federal and state agencies, local park districts, and private entities that provide park and recreational opportunities. Coordination assures that resources are used efficiently, and duplication is avoided. With a holistic view of recreation in Deschutes County, the County can also provide other agencies and jurisdictions with guidance for service gaps to fill. The health of the County's recreational assets and industry is inexorably tied to the health of the land, forests, and waterways of Central Oregon. The effects of human activity - from development pressures and overuse of recreational facilities to resource extraction and climate change - will have a significant impact on recreation in Deschutes County. Some of these impacts include: • Changes in precipitation affecting the timing and conditions for winter sports • Loss of habitat • Wildfire and risk of wildfire limiting recreational access • Increased number of dangerously warm days The health of the County's recreational assets and industry is inexorably tied to the health of the land, forests, and waterways of Central Oregon. The effects of human activity - from development pressures and overuse of recreational facilities to resource extraction and 8-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan climate change - will have a significant impact on recreation in Deschutes County. There are several environmental concerns that may affect parks and recreation in Deschutes County in the future. Activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, swimming, and foraging are an important part of recreation in Deschutes County - these activities are likely to be impacted by future changes to the climate. Fishing may be impacted by drought as water bodies warm and seasonally drop. Foraging animals, like deer and elk, may express changing behavior like earlier -season high elevation foraging and increased interactions with agricultural communities due to drought. Drought also severely reduces the prominence of fruiting fungi for annual mushroom hunters, and may increase pressure on the remaining harvest areas. Fungi are crucial to the health of the forest ecosystem, adapting and responding to changing conditions and disease. These conditions may also lead to greater frequency and severity of algal and bacterial blooms in fresh water. Algal blooms in other parts of the state have led to drinking water concerns, but Deschutes County cities are supplied by groundwater and so the risk in algal blooms is mainly to recreation - boaters, swimmers, anglers, and campers may be less motivated to visit. Recreation Snow sports are a significant component of recreation in Deschutes County. Overall decline in snow pack is expected in the coming decades, which will heavily impact winter sports that rely on snowpack in the Cascades. At the Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort, April Snowpack is expected to decline between 11 % and 18% by the middle of the century and between 18% and 43% by the end of the century. Additionally, inconsistent snowpack buildup will increase due to more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow throughout the season, making winter sports seasons less predictable. The summer outdoor season has additional risks from degraded to severely degraded air quality due to wildfire throughout the west coast. With degraded air quality, outdoor recreators may avoid the region, impacting regional income and generally degrading the perception of the county as a retreat to the natural world. Additionally, an increase in the frequency of very high temperature days may impact the safety and desirability of outdoor recreation. 8-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Context Deschutes County does not directly provide parks and recreation services. The only public parks the County maintains are a section of the County Fairgrounds and the Worrell Wayside in downtown Bend. Although there is no County parks department, there are County -owned properties which are designated as park lands. Parks and recreation services are provided by Recreation THE LA PINE PARKS AND RECREATION SPECIAL DISTRICT This district operates in 85 square miles and 11 parks and recreation facilities in southern Deschutes County including the City of La Pine. THE REDMOND AREA PARKS AND RECREATION SPECIAL DISTRICT The District operates five recreational facilities the following entities. including the Cascade Swim Center and extends beyond city limits to Tetherow Crossing. In 2022, OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT the district received voter approval for a general OPRD owns and manages several key parks and scenic areas in the County. These include state parks such as line Falls State Scenic Viewpoint, La Pine State Park, Pilot Butte State Scenic Viewpoint, Smith Rock State Park, and Tumalo State Park. In addition, they also manage the Upper and Middle Deschutes River Scenic Waterway segments, and Cascade Lakes and McKenzie Pass-Santiam Pass Scenic Byways. THE BEND PARKS AND RECREATION SPECIAL DISTRICT (BPRD) BPRD owns and maintains approximately 3,035 acres of parkland including 81 parks and 70 miles of trails. The largest park district in the County, the taxing district follows the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary closely, although extends past the UGB to the west and east to include several properties outside of city limits. obligation bond to build a new community center with a variety of recreational, fitness, and therapeutic activates.. THE SISTERS PARK AND RECREATION SPECIAL DISTRICT Operates approximately 15 acres of land within City of Sisters city limits, including Bike Park 242, Hyzer Pines Disc Golf Course, a playground, a skatepark, and Coffield Community Center. The district boundary extends far past city limits, serving approximately 14,000 residents through programming and activities. THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Approximately 76% of the County's total land area is owned by the federal government, primarily these two agencies. Community members seek out extensive recreation activities in these areas, including skiing, mountain biking, hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, kayaking, and off -road vehicle riding. COUNTY -OWNED OPEN SPACE Starting in 1994 the County received donation of several properties along rivers, creeks, or streams or with wildlife, wetlands, or other value as park lands. The intent of this donation was not to develop these lands for park use but rather to preserve lands with valuable resources, which were protected through deed restrictions. The park designation means that the lands would be retained in public ownership unless 8-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan there was a public hearing and the Board of County Commissioners determined that selling was in the best interest of the public. ORS 275.330 governs the disposal of these lands, stating that if they are sold the proceeds must be dedicated to park or recreation purposes. As of 2009, there were approximately 70 properties designated as park lands. COUNTY FAIRGROUND AND EXPO CENTER The 132-acre County Fairground and Expo Center site is located southwest of the Redmond airport, and it is placed strategically at the hub of the tri-county area (Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook Counties). The facility is used for a variety of public and private events. Each of its lawn areas can be rented exclusively by groups for different events, which range from weddings, picnics, reunions, car shows, RV / motorcycle rallies, animal shows, and outdoor trade shows, among others. Recreaflon Key Community Considerations Recreation and access to nature is a key component of life in Deschutes County and a primary attraction for both residents and visitors. As part of this Comprehensive Plan update, community members noted concerns about increasing recreational use or overuse, conflicts among different users, and the need for permitting or other strategies to manage use, particularly inpopularlocations. - -- Because the county does not have a parks and recreation department, community members have identified service gaps and lack of continuity of trail networks, habitat and species preservation, and land access policies. Residents are concerned with private recreation development and use of natural resources such as land and water. The tension between resource use of forest land and water, recreational use of these areas, and natural resource protection is evident among members of the community Community members also noted that it is imperative for all special districts and agencies providing park services to coordinate on integrated services. These partnerships will be key to ensure sustainable recreation and land stewardship as the County continues to grow. 8-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 8.1: Increase affordable, sustainable, and diverse recreation opportunities through partnerships with government and private entities. Policy 8.1.1. Reduce barriers to regional Recreation Policy 8.1.8. Establish trail design standards and identify specific funding sources for trails as part of future transportation system planning efforts to ensure development of identified priority rural trail segments and bicycle routes. Polic 81 9 Ex I r tif C t e parks and recreation projects in Deschutes Y • • • p o crea on o a oun y County, including acknowledgement or Parks and Recreation Department to increase adoption_ of federal, _state and local parks the County's role in recreation and natural district trail and facilit lans resource management and implement if Yp Policy 8.1.2. Collaborate with partners to develop a regional system of trails and open spaces, balancing recommendations from local park districts, County, state, and federal recreation plans and studies and property owner considerations, particularly for projects adjacent to farm and forest lands. Policy 8.1.3. Encourage coordination between the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and recreational use interest groups to minimize environmental degradation, agricultural fragmentation and user conflicts on public and private land. Policy 8.1.4. Support the creation and improvement of accessible park and recreation opportunities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Policy 8.1.5. Support efforts to coordinate recreation planning between the County, park and recreation districts, school districts, irrigation districts, unincorporated communities, and cities. Policy 8.1.6. Support the development of parks and trails identified in locally -adopted plans. Policy 8.1.7. Coordinate with unincorporated communities to identify opportunities for parks, trails, open spaces, and community centers. deemed appropriate. Policy 8.1.10. Support community efforts for acquisition and management of Skyline Forest as a community amenity. Policy 8.1.11. Work with stakeholders to promote new recreational and tourist initiatives that maintain the integrity of the natural environment. 8-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Statewide Planning Goal 9 provides guidance on economic development for Oregon jurisdictions. This goal is intended to "provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." For Deschutes County, implementing Goal 9 is focused on ensuring opportunities for economic development, while protecting rural land uses. In Deschutes County, several areas are designated for rural industrial and rural commercial activities to allow for activities such as manufacturing or resource processing. Additionally, unincorporated communities and rural service centers allow for limited commercial opportunities, including restaurants, services, and retail stores. Economic development agencies in Central Oregon cite the tremendous natural resource access and amenities to be essential for drawing in new businesses and workers. As the County grows, childcare will continue to be challenge for rural residents along with access to high speed and reliable internet services. A continued challenge for Deschutes County will be to balance adequate economic opportunity for rural residents, with protection of natural resource lands. Community members have expressed interest in providing for new and emerging economic opportunities through renewable energy development, including potential for biomass, solar, geothermal, and wind projects that may be compatible with rural uses. Context Deschutes County's economy was initially built around farming and logging. As those sectors declined in the 20th century, recreation and tourism increased as people were drawn to the beauty and opportunities to recreate on public lands. Deschutes County's high quality of life became a draw for employers and employees alike. In the 2000's, the building sector boomed as new housing was built to meet both increased housing demand and the real estate speculation that followed. Housing prices rose so high that workforce housing became a limiting factor in economic growth. The period of strong growth ended with the national recession that began in late 2007, leading to falling housing prices and rising unemployment. The 2010's and early 2020's have proven to be another period of booming economic growth for Deschutes County, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the dramatic increase in remote work. 9-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County's economy remains strong compared to Oregon as a whole, as shown in the statictics below. Deschutes County is known for its abundant natural resources, though the County continues to balance its economy through a variety of industries. The top 10 industries overall in Deschutes County (including those within urban areas) are: 1. Trade, transportation, utilities (15,742 jobs) 2. Education/Health Services (13,479 jobs) 3. Goods -producing (13,169 jobs) 4. Leisure and hospitality (12,990 jobs) 5. Health care and social assistance (12,541 jobs) 6. Retail trade (11,714jobs) 7. Accommodation and food services (10,718 jobs) 8. Professional/business services (10,067 jobs) 9. Food services/drinking places (8,304jobs) 10. Local government (7,396 jobs) Economic Devellopment 2022 Central Oregon Largest Private Employers by Industry Tourism 2,549 eDaQ.1loyees 0 s IT w 350 Healthcare 6,427 2022 Central Oregon Largest Private Employers Scientific and manufacturing 780 9-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Economic vOm Tourism continues to be a major facet of Central Oregon's economy, with approximately 4.5 million visitors entering Central Oregon each year. The majority of those visitors travel to Bend and Deschutes County in particular but other communities in the County also are popular destinations, including Sisters, Redmond and Terrebonne, as well as destination resort such as Sunriver, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn and others. In addition, recreational opportunities throughout the County also attract a multitude of visitors, from skiing on Mt. Bachelor, hiking in the Three Sisters Wilderness, and rafting the Deschutes River, to fishing, hunting and camping at dispersed sites on National Forest and BLM land throughout the County. 9-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Economic Developrnent Construction and Development Connections to Other Comprehensive While much of the County's economic activity plan Chapters occurs in urban areas, staff notes that Much of the County's economic development agricultural, forestry, and construction industries activity is directly related to farmland (Chapter also provide economic growth in Deschutes 3), forest land (Chapter 3), mineral and aggregate County. Construction of rural housing can resources (Chapter 4), and natural resources support additional workforce in areas outside (Chapter 5). Additional information can be found of city limits while also utilizing local trade in these sections. industries. Construction of rural industrial or commercial projectsprovideeconomic - Key Community Considerations opportunities that serve rural communities, As part of this comprehensive plan update, without a trip into an adjacent city. community members expressed the following: A key partner for the County in promoting a healthy economy is Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). This private non-profit organization is dedicated to diversifying the tri-county regional economy by attracting new investment and jobs. This organization also tracks the local economy. Between 2010 and 2013, Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties, and their respective cities established a regional large lot industrial land need analysis, ultimately leading to changes to state law, OAR 660-024-0040 and 45. This rule provides that that the large lot industrial land need analysis agreed upon by all of the parties, once adopted by each of the participating governmental entities, would be sufficient to demonstrate a need for up to nine large industrial sites in Central Oregon. Six of the sites will be made available initially. Three more sites may be added under the rule as the original sites are occupied. Intergovernmental agreements were formed with the regions jurisdictions and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council in 2013 to provide oversight of this new regional large lot industrial lands program. Participating local governments will review the program after all nine sites have been occupied, or after ten years, whichever comes first. • A recognition that tourism is an important industry in the County, but some concern that the interests of tourism -related activity play an outsized role in the County. • Desire for a strong and diverse economy that benefits local residents. • Strong interest in expanding access to childcare for rural residents, especially those who travel into incorporated cities for employment. • Interest in exploring new economic opportunities including renewable energy development. • Desire for additional educational and job training opportunities, including expansion of colleges and universities. 9-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Goals and Policies Goal 9.1: Maintain a stable, and sustainable, and thriving rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Policy 9.1.1. Promote rural economic initiatives, including home -based businesses, Policy 9.1.8. Support funding and development of childcare locations across the County to support families in the workforce. Policy 9.1.9. Explore need for master planning for rural economic development lands, including Deschutes junction. that maintain the integrity of the rural Policy 9.1.10. Recognize the importance of character andnaturalenvironment. -- maintaining a large -lot --industrial land supply -- - Policy 9.1.2. Support a regional approach that is readily developable in Central Oregon, and support amulti-jurisdictional cooperative to economic development in concert with effort to designate these sites. Economic Development for Central Oregon or and similar organizations. Policy 9.1.3. Support growth and expansion of colleges and universities, regional educational facilities, and workforce training programs. Policy 9.1.4. Support renewable energy generation as an important economic development initiative, while taking other community goals and concerns into consideration. Policy 9.1.5. Support and participate in master planning for airports in Deschutes County, including expansion of noise impact boundaries and upgrades to facilities as airports continue to grow. Policy 9.1.6. Within the parameters of State land use regulations, permit limited local -serving commercial uses in higher - density rural communities. Support limited and locally -serving commercial uses in appropriate locations. Policy 9.1.7. Support expansion of high- speed internet in rural areas and integrate infrastructure such as fiber-optic cables into new development and road projects. Goal 9.2: Support creation and continuation of rural commercial areas that support rural communities while not adversely affecting nearby agricultural and forest uses. Policy 9.2.1.Allow for new Rural Commercial zoning designations if otherwise allowed by Oregon Revised Statute, Administrative Rule, and this Comprehensive Plan. Policy 9.2.2.In Spring River there shall be a Limited Use Combining Zone. Policy 9.2.3.Ensure new uses permitted on Rural Commercial lands do not adversely affect nearby agricultural and forest uses. Policy 9.2.4.Ensure new commercial uses on Rural Commercial lands are limited to those intended to serve the surrounding rural area and/or the needs of the traveling public. Policy 9.2.5.New commercial uses shall be limited in size to 2,500 square feet or if for an agricultural or forest -related use, 3,500 square feet. Policy 9.2.6.A lawful use existing on or before November 5, 2002 that is not otherwise allowed in a Rural Commercial zone, may continue to exist subject to the county's nonconforming use regulations. 9-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.2.7.An existing lawful use may expand up to 25 percent of the total floor area existing on November 5, 2002. Policy 9.2.8.The Rural Commercial zoning regulations shall allow a mixed use of residential or rural commercial uses. Policy 9.2.9. Residential and commercial uses shall be served b DEQ a roved on -site Economic Development Tax lot 161226C000111 and Tax lot 161226A000203) to ensure permitted uses are compatible with surrounding farm and forest lands. Policy 9.3.4. To ensure that the uses in Rural Industrial zone on tax lot 16-12-26C-301, as described in Exhibit "C" and depicted on Exhibit "D" attached to Ordinance 2009- y pp 007 and incorporated by reference herein, sewage_ disposal systems. are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Policy 9.2.10. Residential and commercial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water systems. Policy 9.2.11. Community sewer systems, motels, hotels and industrial uses shall not be allowed. Policy 9.2.12. Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to travelers shall be permitted. Goal 9.3: Support the creation and continuation of rural industrial areas that support rural communities while not adversely affecting nearby agricultural and forest uses. Policy 9.3.1. Update the policies for lands designated Rural Industrial as needed to limit and control industrial uses through the use of the Rural Industrial designation and development standards. Policy 9.3.2.To assure that urban uses are not permitted on rural industrial lands, land use regulations in the Rural Industrial zones shall ensure that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed for unincorporated communities in OAR 660-22 or any successor. Policy 9.3.3.Limited Use Combining zones shall be applied to the Redmond Military (Tax lot 1513000000116), Deschutes junction (Tax lot 161226C000301, Tax lot 161226C000300, Industrial zoning on that site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone which will limit the uses to storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. Policy 9.3.5. To ensure that the uses in Rural Industrial zone on tax lot 16-12-26C-301, as described in Exhibit "C" and depicted on Exhibit "D" attached to Ordinance 2009- 007 and incorporated by reference herein, are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Industrial zoning on that site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone which will limit the uses to storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals Policy 9.3.6. To ensure that the uses in the Rural Industrial Zone on Tax Lot 300 on Assessor's Map 16-12-26C-300 and Tax Lot 203 on Assessor's Map 16-12-26A-300 and portions of Tax Lot 111 on Assessor's Map 16-12-26C-111 as described in Exhibit'D' and depicted in Exhibit'E' attached to Ordinance 2010-030 and incorporated by reference herein, are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Industrial zoning on the subject parcel shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which will limit the uses to storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals, subject to conditional use and site plan approval Policy 9.3.7. Ensure new uses on Rural Industrial lands do not adversely affect nearby agricultural and forest uses. 9-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.3.8. A lawfully established use that existed on or before February 2, 2003 not otherwise allowed in a Rural Industrial zone may continue to exist subject to the county's non -conforming use regulations. Policy 9.3.9. A lawfully established use that existed on or before February 2, 2003 may be expanded to occupy a maximum of 10,000 square feet of floor area or an additional 25 Goal 9.4: Support the creation and continuation of rural service centers that support rural communities while not adversely affecting nearby agricultural and forest uses. Policy 9.4.1. Rural Service Centers in Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton, Wilstlestop, and Wildhunt are identified on the percent of the floor area currently occupied Comprehensive Plan Map and -shall -have --- by the existing use, whichever is greater. zoning consistent with Comprehensive Plan designations. Policy 9.3.10. Ensure new uses on Rural Industrial lands are served by on -site sewage disposal systems approved by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Policy 9.3.11. Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on -site wells or public water systems. Policy 9.3.12. Community sewer systems shall not be allowed in Rural Industrial zones. Policy 9.3.13. A 2009 exception (Ordinance 2009-007) included an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 and a reasons exception to Goal 14 to allow rural industrial use with a Limited Use Combining Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. Policy 9.3.14. A 2010 exception (Ordinance 2010-030) took a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use Combing Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. Policy 9.3.15.Properties for which a property owner has demonstrated that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply may be considered for Rural Industrial designation as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative rules and this Comprehensive Plan. Rural Industrial zoning shall be applied to a new property that is approved for the Rural Industrial Plan designation. Policy 9.4.2. In Alfalfa, the remaining 20 acres of the Rural Service Center will continue to be zoned Rural Service Center - Residential District, with a 5-acre minimum lot size. A zone change to mixed use commercial can be considered only for a specific use and upon findings that the existing commercial area is fully developed. Policy 9.4.3. Ensure that land uses at Rural Service Centers do not adversely affect agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding areas. Policy 9.4.4. Zoning in rural service areas shall promote the maintenance of the area's rural character. New commercial uses shall be limited to small-scale, low impact uses that are intended to serve the community and surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. The commercial/mixed use zoning regulations shall allow a mixed use of residential or small-scale commercial uses such as health and retail services. Policy 9.4.5. Residential and commercial uses shall be served by DEQ approved on -site sewage disposal systems. Policy 9.4.6. Residential and commercial uses shall be served by onsite wells or public water systems. 9-8 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Economic Developrnent Policy 9.4.7. Community water systems, motels, hotels and industrial uses shall not be allowed. Policy 9.4.8. Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and other uses catering to travelers shall be permitted. 9-9 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan RIM Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Deschutes County faces a variety of housing demands, issues, and challenges. The County continues to be a desirable and attractive place to live, with access to jobs, recreation, beautiful natural landscapes, and a variety of other amenities. The County's population is projected to continue to grow in the coming decades. At the same time, there are several challenges to the development of housing in the County. Some of the key issues the County faces today include increased demand for rural housing; housing affordability; state planning requirements related to Urban Growth Boundaries, farm and forest land, destination resorts, and others; water availability; and issues related to homelessness. Context PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED DESCHUTES COUNTY Deschutes County is one of the fastest growing counties in Oregon, and that trend is expected to continue. Significant growth is expected to occur in Deschutes County in the coming years (over 90,000 new residents in the next 25 years). However, the majority of this growth is forecasted to happen in urban areas with a more modest amount occurring in unincorporated parts of the County (about 5,000 additional people during the same period). (Source: Portland State University Population Research Center) INCREASED DEMAND FOR RURAL HOUSING Between 2010 and 2022, Deschutes County processed seven applications to rezone approximately 1,200 acres of property from a non-residential zone to a residential zone, with several more applications recently submitted and under review. Most of these applicants requested rezonings of farmland due to poor soil quality for farming. This trend is likely to continue. 10-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Housing Historical and Forecasted Population and Average Annual Growth Rate in Deschutes County and its Sub -Areas 400,000 350,000 300,000 __ ... 25%000 .-__.... *4 200,000 ___.. 2.3% AAG R C. 150,000 ___- 9 100,000 __...._. 2.6 AAGR 1 .7% AAGR 50,0013 ..1% kAGR; 0 --- 4 2% AAGR 2010 2020 ,# I HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The median value of owner -occupied housing units in Deschutes County (including cities), is significantly higher than that of the State of Oregon ($435,600 compared to $362,200 according to 2017-2021 Census figures), and consistently increasing. In July 2023, Becon Appraisal Group reported an all-time high median home value for Bend area homes, in the amount of $785,000. The same report estimated a median home price as $694,000 for Sisters area homes, $473,000 for Redmond area homes, and $401,000 for La Pine area homes. Given that median income is generally on par with the state as a whole, high housing prices are likely an indicator of an inadequate supply of housing affordable to many residents of the Deschutes County, particularly those with low to moderate incomes. 1.7% 1.91 r 2.5% 1 1.9% 2022 2047 2072 STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS Although Deschutes County has numerous prospects to expand residential development, some of these opportunities face challenges with respect to state rules and regulations. The Oregon land use system is designed to concentrate most growth within Urban Growth Boundaries. A variety of statewide planning goals, laws, and administrative rules designed to protect farm and forest land, regulate destination resorts, and ensure cost-effective provision of infrastructure limit where and how housing can be built outside of urban areas. WATER AVAILABILITY AND CONSUMPTION A growing demand for water for residential, business, recreation, and agricultural uses; changes in water table depth; allocation of water rights; and potential future changes in water supply related to climate change all may impact the availability of water to support new housing. Water resources are discussed in Chapter 5 in more detail. 10-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Vacant Lots in Resort Areas Destination Resorts Caldera Springs 1 101 Eagle Crest 1 139 Pronghorn 285 Tetherow 1 200 ._ _. __ . Resort Communities Black Butte � 27 In of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek 1 12 Urban Unincorporated Area Sunriver 1118 Total Vacancies, Resort Areas 1887 Vacant Lots in Rural Residential Areas Areas Number of Rural Residential Rural Residential Zones Vacant Lots 1 Rural Residential 2,139 Multiple use Agriculture 518 Suburban Low Desnsity Rural 32 Residential ! Urban Area Reserve 1292 Rural Communities Tumalo (TUR/TURS) 132 Terrebonne (TER/TERS) 134 i Total Vacancies, Rural Residential 3,447 Areas Future Opportunities for Rural Residential Lots Rural Resicientiai Areas I oj Thornburgh Destination Resort 1950 Caldera Springs Destination i340 ! I Resort Phase 2 j j West Side Transect 187 3 Tumalo Irrigation District 72 Rezoned Parcel i Gopher Gulch (North of Bend) 10 ' Total Vacancies, Rural 1,559 Residential Areas HOMELESSNESS The incidence and impacts of homelessness have been rising in Deschutes County, as well as across the state and nation in recent years. A variety of factors have contributed to this trend, including rising housing costs, increasing income disparities, and limited transitional housing and supportive resources. As a result, impacts on both urban areas and natural resources have concern and support for more action by the County and its partners to address these issues. BALANCING DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS Although population growth in unincorporated Deschutes County is forecasted to be relatively limited, rural parts of the County, including several destination resorts, include significant capacity for new residential development. Community members have expressed concern regarding the use of these homes as primary residences, second homes, or vacation rentals. RECENT CHANGES IN COUNTY HOUSING RULES The County has recently adopted and/or is currently considering new rules related to development and regulation of different types of housing. These include: Changes to where accessory dwelling units are allowed. Repeal of the County's "Conventional Housing Combining Zone" which prohibited manufactured homes in three large unincorporated areas east and west of Tumalo and east of Bend. 10-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Key Community Considerations Given the range of issues and conditions discussed related to this important topic, the Comprehensive Plan includes a variety of policies to guide future development of housing and address impacts to residents in rural areas. Additional related policies are found in Chapter 2 (Land Use) and Chapter 13 (Transportation). These strategies are underpinned by community • Some community members expressed support for allowing or encouraging growth in rural areas, particularly to alleviate housing pressure and provide larger -lot options. However, engagement showed greater opposition to residential development outside of Urban Growth Boundaries. • Overall support for allowing a wider range of types of housing (e.g., accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, etc.), but concerns about the quality of this housing and additional rural residential development in general. • Concern about homelessness and its impacts, coupled with strong support for a proactive approach by the County to work with partner agencies and groups to address this issue. • Relatively strong opposition for rezoning low productivity farmland with poor soil to allow greater opportunities for housing, due to negative impact on open space, habitat, transportation, and active farm practices. 10-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 10.1: Support housing opportunities and choices for rural County residents in unincorporated Deschutes County, while meeting health and safety concerns, minimizing environmental and resource land impacts. Housing Goal 10.2: Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing. Policy 10.2.1. Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other stakeholders to meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County residents by assisting, as needed, in coordinating and implementing Policy 10.1.1. Incorporate annual farm and housing assistance programs. forest housing reports into a wider system for tracking the cumulative _impacts of rural Policy 10.2.2. Utilize block grants and other housing development. funding to assist in providing and maintaining low- and moderate -income housing in Policy 10.1.2. Continue to update the County zoning ordinance and work with partnering organizations to address health and safety issues associated with housing. Policy 10.1.3. Encourage and/or require, where consistent with County policies and requirements, new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns, such as cluster development, that mitigate community and environmental impacts. Policy 10.1.4. Implement legislation allowing accessory dwelling units in rural areas to expand housing choices. Policy 10.1.5. Create and encourage opportunities for flexibility in rural housing including development of manufactured home parks, safe parking sites, and RV parking areas. Policy 10.1.6. Reduce barriers to housing development and supporting services (such as locally serving medical offices or similar uses) in unincorporated communities. Policy 10.1.7. Explore grants and funding opportunities for ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Policy 10.1.8. Evaluate the impacts of short- term rentals and consider regulations to mitigate impacts, as appropriate. partnership with Housing Works and other housing agencies and providers in Deschutes County. Goal 10.3: Regulate the location and density of housing in the area located between the Bend UGB and Shevlin Park through Westside Transect policies Policy 10.3.1. Protect the sensitive eco- systems and interrelationships of the urban/ rural interface on the west side of Bend between the urban area and Shevlin Park and the public and forestlands to the west. Policy 10.3.2. Protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas and provide special setbacks between development and Shevlin Park, Tumalo Creek, and forestlands. Policy 10.3.3. Development patterns shall reflect the protection of land with environmental significance and fire -wise and other fire prevention community design best practices. Policy 10.3.4. Limit residential development to 200 single-family residential lots. Policy 10.3.5. Manage all areas outside of the structural building envelopes on residential lots for wildfire mitigation and wildlife habitat in accordance with coordinated plans prepared by professionals, reviewed annually with reports submitted to the County every three years. The wildfire mitigation and 10-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan wildlife habitat plans shall be funded through homeowner assessments and administered and enforced by a homeowners association established at the time of creation of any residential lots. Policy 10.3.6. Reduce the impact of construction by using best management practices to minimize site disturbance during Housing Policy 10.4.2. Partner with cities to incentivize development within urban growth boundaries and reduce infrastructure costs for workforce and affordable housing. Policy 10.4.3. Partner with local, state, and federal agencies to address and limit nuisance and public health issues related to homelessness. construction and construction impacts (i.e., 10.4,4. Utilize County owned erosion) on Sheviin Park, Tumalo- Creek, -and .Policy _land in city limits for affordable and workforce forestlands. housing, where appropriate. Policy 10.3.7. Coordinate with the City Policy 10.4.5. Promote regional housing of Bend for mitigation of impacts to City planning, including urban reserve planning infrastructure from development within the for cities, to allow for longer term and multi - Transect. jurisdictional housing strategies. Goal 10A Participate in regional efforts to plan for housing. Policy 10.4.1. Collaborate with cities and private sector partners on innovative housing developments to meet the region's housing needs. Policy 10.4.6. Limit parcelization and development adjacent to cities or in conflict with planned and/or known road/utility corridors to preserve land for future urban development. 10-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Deschutes County is home to numerous unincorporated communities, which contain urban levels of development outside of city limits. Many of these communities provide services and amenities to rural residents. As the county continues to grow, many residents are concerned about increasingly dense development in these unincorporated areas which may feel out of scale with the surrounding rural uses. However, many residents also see the need for more opportunities for small-scale rural services and retail opportunities to serve existing and future community members. Deschutes County will need to continue to refine the vision and guidelines for development in these areas while balancing infrastructure needs, protection of natural resources and rural land uses, and community desires. In addition to these unincorporated communities, Destination Resorts are another form of development outside of urban areas. In recent years, community members have expressed concern about the creation of new resorts for a variety of reasons. While Destination Resorts are an opportunity for economic development and housing in the rural County, many residents have expressed opposition to additional development of this type. Context Deschutes County's unincorporated communities generally pre -date Oregon's statewide land use system and have more urban -scale uses in outer - lying rural areas, within a defined geographic boundary. In 1994, Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) were amended to define unincorporated communities and the types of uses that could be allowed in these areas. The OARs established four types of unincorporated communities, all of which were required to be in existence at the time of the change - the Rule did not allow for new rural communities to be established. These community types are described below. URBAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY This is a community which contains at least 150 permanent dwelling units, a mixture of land uses, and contains a community water and sewer system. Sunriver is an Urban Unincorporated community. One parcel just outside of the City of La Pine was mistakenly left outside of the City's urban growth boundary, and is technically under this classification as well. RURAL COMMUNITY This is a community which consists of permanent residential dwellings and at least two other types of land uses - such as commercial, industrial, or public uses provided to the community or travelers. Terrebonne and Tumalo are Rural Communities. 11-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Coynniunities andtinat�a Resorts RESORT COMMUNITY This type of community was established for a recreation -related use on private land prior to 1989 when the state adopted its Destination Resort rules. Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7t" Mountain/Widgi Creek are Resort Communities. It's important to note that there are several other resort style developments in the County on private lands called "Destination Resorts." See mapping process, adding "clear and objective" requirements for eligible and ineligible sites, and the process for amending the destination resort map based on changes in state law. Since that time, Pronghorn, Caldera Springs, and Tetherow resorts have gone through the siting process. Resorts existing prior to the legislative change, such as Black Butte, Sunriver, and the Inn of the Seventh Mountain have also expanded and been - the next section for more information. rezoned to Urban Unincorporated_ Community RURAL SERVICE CENTER This is an unincorporated community that has primarily commercial or industrial uses that provide goods and services to the surrounding rural area and travelers. These are the most common type of unincorporated community in Deschutes County and include Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton, Millican, Whistlestop, and Wildhunt. F- � Since 1979 destination resorts have increased in importance to the economy of Deschutes County. In 1989, recognizing the importance of tourism to the economy of the State of Oregon, the state legislature and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) took steps to make it easier to establish destination resorts on rural lands in the state. Statewide Planning Goal 8, the recreation goal, was amended to specify a process for locating destination resorts on rural land without taking an exception to Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14, which govern development in rural resource lands. Under these changes, destination resorts may be sited in EFU zones where they weren't previously allowed. In 1990, LCDC amended the rule for siting destination resorts on forest lands as well. Eagle Crest Resort, although it had existed prior to these changes, applied for legislative changes to comply with these new rules and expand onto adjacent lands. In 2010, Deschutes County completed an amendment to its destination resort and Resort Community, respectively. Thornburgh Resort has received preliminary approvals, but has not yet broken ground. Destination resorts are a key economic development strategy for Deschutes County. Many community members and visitors enjoy the recreational amenities and accommodations that Destination Resorts provide. 11-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated o rnmu niti and Destination Resorts Key Community Considerations Unincorporated Communities are limited in their development potential due to their specific geographic footprint. Protecting open space and natural resources while providing economic opportunities in these unincorporated areas continues to be a balancing act. As additional rural development occurs, so does the demand for services and goods that can be reached without having to drive to an incorporated city. Aging residents have expressed a desire for additional medical care and offices in rural areas to support aging in place. On the other hand, many residents would prefer limiting development in unincorporated communities in order to preserve the rural of the area. Destination Resort development continues to be a contentious issue. Community members have expressed concern regarding the water use of large-scale development - specifically the effects to groundwater for neighboring property owners. Other community members express support for the economic and amenity benefits of destination resorts, noting that the current requirements sufficiently address natural resource concerns. Additional community conversations will be valuable to understand the diversity of perspectives on this topic. Goals and Policies General Resort Community Policies Policy 11.1.1. Land use regulations shall conform to the requirements of OAR 660 Division 22 or any successor. Policy 11.1.2. Designated open space and common area, unless otherwise zoned for development, shall remain undeveloped except for community amenities such as bike and pedestrian paths, park and picnic areas. Areas developed as golf courses shall remain available for that purpose or for open space/ recreation uses. Policy 11.1.3. The provisions of the Landscape Management Overlay Zone shall apply in Resort Communities where the zone exists along Century Drive, Highway 26 and the Deschutes River. Policy 11.1.4. Residential minimum lot sizes and densities shall be determined by the capacity of the water and sewer facilities to accommodate existing and future development and growth. Policy 11.1.5. The resort facility and resort recreation uses permitted in the zoning for Black Butte Ranch and the Inn of the Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek shall serve the resort community. Black Butte Ranch General Policies Policy 11.2.1. County comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Black Butte Ranch Resort Community do not adversely affect forest uses in the surrounding Forest Use Zones. Policy 11.2.2. The County supports the design review standards administered by the Architectural Review Committee. 11-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorpora4ted Communities and Destination Resorts Policy 11.2.3. Residential, resort and utility Policy 11.2.9. The area west of McCallister uses shall continue to be developed in Road and east of the area zoned Black Butte accordance with the Master Design for Black Ranch may be used for large equipment Butte Ranch and the respective Section storage, general storage, maintenance uses, Declarations. RV storage, telephone communications, administration offices, housekeeping facilities Policy 11.2.4.Industrial activities, including and employee housing. surface mining, shall only occur in the area zoned Black Butte Ranch Surface Mining, Policy 11.2.10. Employee housing shall Limited Use Combining District (Black Butte be set back at least 250 feet from the Ranch SM/LU) located in the northwest eastern boundary of the area zoned Black corner of Black Butte Ranch. Butte Ranch Surface Mining, Limited Use Combining District (Black Butte Ranch SM/ Policy 11.2.5.Employee housing shall be located in the area zoned Black Butte Ranch- Utility/Limited Use Combining District (Black Butte Ranch-U/LU). Policy 11.2.6.Any amendment to the allowable use(s) in either the Resort Community District or the Limited Use Combining District shall require an exception in accordance with applicable statewide planning goal(s), OAR 660-04-018/022 and DCC 18.112 or any successor. Policy 11.2.7.The westerly 38-acres zoned Black Butte Ranch Surface Mining, Limited Use Combining District (Black Butte Ranch SM/LU) shall be used for the mining and storage of aggregate resources. Uses that do not prevent the future mining of these resources, such as disposal of reclaimed effluent and woody debris disposal from thinning and other forest practices may be allowed concurrently. Other resort maintenance, operational and utility uses, such as a solid waste transfer station, maintenance facility or equipment storage may be allowed only after mining and reclamation have occurred. LU). Policy 11.2.11. Surface mining within the Black Butte Ranch community boundary shall adhere to the following Goal 5 ESEE "Program to Meet Goal' requirements: a. Only the western most 38 acres of the site shall continue to be mined. b. Setbacks shall be required for potential conflicting residential and other development. A minimum 50-foot setback shall be maintained from the perimeter of tax lot 202 for all surface mining activity. c. Noise impact shall be mitigated by buffering and screening. d. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays. No operations shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. e. Processing shall be limited to 45 days in any one year, to be negotiated with Deschutes County in the site plan process in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). f. The conditions set forth in the August 10, Policy 11.2.8. The 18.5 acres zoned Black 1989, letter of ODFW shall be adhered to. Butte Ranch-Utility/Limited Use Combining District (Black Butte Ranch-U/LU) may be g. Extraction at the site shall be limited to five used for the disposal of reclaimed sludge. acres at a time with on -going incremental reclamation (subject to DOGAMI review and approval). 11-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts h. Mining operations, siting of equipment, and trucking of product shall be conducted in such a manner that applicable DEQ standards are met and minimizes noise and dust. DOGAMI requirements for a permit once mining affects more than five acres outside the 8.6-acre exemption area shall be met. Policy 11.3.6. The roads and the bicycle/ pedestrian path system within the Black Butte Ranch Resort Community boundary shall be maintained by the Black Butte Ranch Owners Association. Inn of the 7th Mountain Widgi Creek General Policies Policy 11.4.1. Any amendment to the allowable uses in either the Resort j. A conditional use permit shall be obtained Community District or the Widgi Creek from Deschutes County, under the Residential District shall require an exception provisions of section 18.128.280. Surface in accordance with applicable statewide mining of resources exclusively for on- planning goal(s), OAR 660-04-018/022 or any site personal, farm or forest use or successor, and DCC 18.112 or any successor. maintenance of irrigation canals, before mining activity affects more than five acres outside the 8.6-acre exempt area. Black Butte Ranch Public Facility Policies Policy 11.3.1. Police protection services shall be provided by the Black Butte Ranch Police Services District. Policy 11.3.2. The Black Butte Ranch Water Distribution Company and the Black Butte Ranch Corporation shall confirm the water and sewer service, respectively, can be provided for new uses or expansion of existing uses that require land use approval Policy 11.3.3. The Black Butte Ranch Water Distribution Company shall provide water service for the Black Butte Ranch Resort Community. Policy 11.3.4. The Black Butte Ranch Corporation shall provide sewer service for Black Butte Ranch. Policy 11.3.5. The Black Butte Ranch Fire Protection District shall provide fire protection services for Black Butte Ranch Policy 11.4.2. The County shall encourage and support land exchanges efforts by and between private property owners, public agencies, and public trusts for the purpose of fostering public access to and protection of natural resources, such as rivers, streams, caves, areas/features of historical importance and other natural features. Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek Public Facility Policies Policy 11.5.1. Police protection services shall be provided under contract with the Deschutes County Sheriff. Policy 11.5.2. Water service shall be supplied by on -site wells for the Inn/Widgi Resort Community. Policy 11.5.3. New uses or expansion of existing uses that require land use approval shall be approved only upon confirmation from the City of Bend that sewer service can be provided. Policy 11.5.4. Fire protection services for the Inn/Widgi shall be provided through a contract with the City of Bend until such time as Inn/Widgi develops another plan to provide adequate fire protection. 11-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Cornmunifles and Destination Resorts Policy 11.5.5. The Resort Community, not Deschutes County, shall maintain roads in the community. Policy 11.7.2. Ensure protection of water quality, recreational resources, and other County resources and values. Policy 11.5.6. The bicycle/pedestrian path Policy 11.7.3. Ensure that destination resort system shall be maintained by the Inn/Widgi developments support and implement Owners Association. strategies to provide workers with affordable housing options within or in close proximity Policy 11.5.7. Emergency access between to the resorts. Widgi Creek and the Inn of the Seventh Mountain shalt be provided in accordance Policy 11.7,4.Mapping--for destination resort with the approved development plan for the Elkai Woods town homes. The respective resort property owners shall maintain emergency access between the Inn and Widgi Creek Goal 11.6: Provide for development of destination resorts in the County in a manner that will be compatible with farm and forest uses, existing rural development, and in a manner that will maintain important natural features including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands. Policy 11.6.1. Provide a process for the siting of destination resorts facilities that enhance and diversify the recreational opportunities and economy of Deschutes County, on lands that have been mapped by Deschutes County as eligible for this purpose. Goal 11.7: Provide for development of destination resorts consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in a manner that will ensure the resorts are supported by adequate transportation facilities. Policy 11.7.1. Destination resorts shall only be allowed within areas shown on the "Deschutes County Destination Resort Map" and when the resort complies with the requirements of Goal 8, ORS 197.435 to 197.467, and Deschutes County Code 18.113. siting. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of other Statewide Planning Goals, destination resorts shall pursuant to Goal 8 not be sited in Deschutes County in the following areas: 1) Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more unless residential uses are limited to those necessary for the staff and management of the resort; 2) On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm land identified and mapped by the Soil Conservation Service or within three miles of farm land within a High -Value Crop Area; 3) On predominantly Cubic Foot Site Class 1 or 2 forest lands which are not subject to an approved Goal exception; 4) On areas protected as Goal 5 resources in an acknowledged comprehensive plan where all conflicting uses have been prohibited to protect the Goal 5 resource; 11-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Communftles and Destination Resorts 5) Especially sensitive big game habitat, and as listed below, as generally mapped by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in July 1984 an as further refined through development of comprehensive plan provisions implementing this requirement. i. Tumalo deer winter range; 5) Irrigated lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) having 40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation; 6) 6. Non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres; 7) Farm or forest land within one mile outside of urban growth boundaries; ii. Portion of the Metolius deer winter 8) Lands designated Urban Reserve Area - range; under ORS 195.145; iii. Antelope winter range east of Bend near Horse Ridge and Millican; 6) Sites less than 160 acres. b. To assure that resort development does not conflict with Oregon Revised Statute, destination resorts shall not be sited in Deschutes County in Areas of Critical State Concern. c. To assure that resort development does not conflict with the objectives of Deschutes County, destination resorts shall also not be located in the following areas: 1) Sites listed below that are inventoried Goal 5 resources, shown on the Wildlife Combining Zone, that the County has chosen to protect: i. Antelope Range near Horse Ridge and Millican; ii. Elk Habitat Area; and iii. Deer Winter Range; 2) Wildlife Priority Area, identified on the 1999 ODFW map submitted to the South County Regional Problem Solving Group; 3) Lands zoned Open Space and Conservation (OS&C); 4) Lands zoned Forest Use 1 (F-1); 9) Platted subdivisions; d. For those lands not located in any of the areas designated in Policy 3.9.5(a) though (c), destination resorts may, pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code, be sited in the following areas: 1) Forest Use 2 (F-2), Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10), and Rural Residential (RR-10) zones; 2) Unirrigated Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land; 3) Irrigated lands zoned EFU having less than 40 contiguous acres in irrigation; 4) Non-contiguous irrigated EFU acres in the same ownership having less than 60 irrigated acres; 5) All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was obtained prior to 1990, for which the original cluster development approval designated at least 50 percent of the development as open space and which was within the destination resort zone prior to the effective date of Ordinance 2010-024 shall remain on the eligibility map; 6) Minimum site of 160 contiguous acres or greater under one or multiple ownerships; 11-8 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Cownrai, unities and Destination sores e. The County shall adopt a map showing 1) The establishment and maintenance of where destination resorts can be located buffers between the resort and adjacent in the County. Such map shall become part land uses, including natural vegetation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and where appropriate, fenced, berms, Ordinance and shall be an overlay zone designated Destination Resort (DR). Policy 11.7.5. Ordinance Provisions a. The County shall ensure that destination landscaped areas, and other similar types of buffers. 2) Setbacks of structures and other improvements from adjacent land uses. resorts are -compatible _-with the site and __c. The County may adopt additional Land adjacent land uses through enactment of use restrictions to ensure that proposed land use regulations that, at a minimum, destination resorts are compatible with provide for the following: the environmental capabilities of the site and surrounding land uses. 1) Maintenance of important natural features, including habitat of threatened or endangered species, streams, rivers, and significant wetlands; maintenance of riparian vegetation within 100 feet of streams, rivers and significant wetlands; and 2) Location and design of improvements and activities in a manner that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands, particularly effects on intensive farming operations in the area and on the rural transportation system. In order to adequately assess the effect on the transportation system, notice and the opportunity for comment shall be provided to the relevant road authority. 3) Such regulations may allow for alterations to important natural features, including placement of structures, provided that the overall values of the feature are maintained. b. Minimum measures to assure that design and placement of improvements and activities will avoid or minimize the adverse effects noted in Policy 3.9.4(a) shall include: d. Uses in destination resorts shall be limited to visitor- oriented accommodations, overnight lodgings, developed recreational facilities, commercial uses limited to types and levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors to the resort, and uses consistent with preservation and maintenance of open space. e. The zoning ordinance shall include measures that assure that developed recreational facilities, visitor -oriented accommodations and key facilities intended to serve the entire development are physically provided or are guaranteed through surety bonding or substantially equivalent financial assurances prior to closure of sale of individual lots or units. In phased developments, developed recreational facilities and other key facilitated intended to serve a particular phase shall be constructed prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed through surety bonding. SUNRIVER POLICIES General Sunriver Policies Policy 11.8.1. Land use regulations shall conform to the requirements of OAR 660 Division 22 or any successor. 11-9 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Corwn n ies and DestinationResorts Policy 11.8.2. County comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community do not adversely affect forest uses in the surrounding Forest Use Zones. Policy 11.10.3. Multiple -family residences and residential units in commercial buildings shall be permitted in the commercial area for the purpose of providing housing which is adjacent to places of employment. Single- family residences shall not be permitted in Policy 11.8.3. To protect scenic views and commercial areae. riparian habitat within the community, Policy 11.10.4. Approval standards for appropriate setbacks shall be required for all conditional uses in the commercial district structures built on properties with frontage shall take into consideration the impact of along the Deschutes River. the proposed use on the nearby residential Policy 11.8.4.Open space and common area, and commercial uses and the ca acit of the unless otherwise zoned for development, shall remain undeveloped except for community amenities such as bike and pedestrian paths, and parks and picnic areas. Policy 11.8.5. Public access to the Deschutes River shall be preserved. Policy 11.8.6. The County supports the design review standards administered by the Sunriver Owners Association. Sunriver Residential District Policies Policy 11.9.1. Areas designated residential on the comprehensive plan map shall be developed with single family or multiple family residential housing. Sunriver Commercial District Policies Policy 11.10.1. Small-scale, low -impact commercial uses shall be developed in conformance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Larger, more intense commercial uses shall be permitted if they are intended to serve the community, the surrounding rural area and the travel needs of people passing through the area. Policy 11.10.2. No additional land shall be designated Commercial until the next periodic review. p Y transportation system and public facilities and services to serve the proposed use. Sunriver Town Center District Policies Policy 11.11.1. Small-scale, low -impact commercial uses shall be developed in conformance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Larger, more intense commercial uses shall be permitted if they are intended to serve the community, the surrounding rural area or the travel needs of people passing through the area. Policy 11.11.2. Development standards in the town center district should encourage new development that is compatible with a town center style of development that serves as the commercial core of the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The following policies should guide development in the Town Center District in Sunriver: a. Combine a mixture of land uses that may include retail, offices, commercial services, residential housing and civic uses to create economic and social vitality and encourage pedestrian use through mixed use and stand alone residential buildings. b. Develop a commercial mixed -use area that is safe, comfortable and attractive to pedestrians. 11-10 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts c. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high -density development that minimizes the amount of land that is needed for development. d. Provide both formal and informal community gathering places. e. Provide visitor accommodations and tourism amenities appropriate to Sunriver. Sunriver Business Park District Policies Policy 11.13.1. A variety of commercial uses which support the needs of the community and surrounding rural area, and not uses solely intended to attract resort visitors, should be encouraged. Policy 11.13.2. Allow small-scale, low -impact commercial uses in conformance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division f.- Provide design flexibility to anticipate 22. Larger more intense commercial uses changes in the marketplace. shall be permitted if they are intended to g. Provide access and public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel h. Provide road and pedestrian connections to residential areas. i. Facilitate development (land use mix, density and design) that supports public transit where applicable. Develop a distinct character and quality design appropriate to Sunriver that will identify the Town Center as the centerpiece/focal point of the community. Policy 11.11.3. Development within the Town Center (TC) District will be substantially more dense than development elsewhere in Sunriver. This increased density will require changes to existing topography and vegetation in the TC District to allow for screened, underground parking. The requirements of the County's site plan ordinance shall be interpreted to reflect this fact. Sunriver Resort District Policies Policy 11.12.1. Areas designated resort on the comprehensive plan map shall be designated resort, resort marina, resort golf course, resort equestrian or resort nature center district on the zoning map to reflect a development pattern which is consistent with resort uses and activities. serve the community, the surrounding rural area and the travel needs of people passing through the area. Policy 11.13.3. Small-scale, low -impact industrial uses should be allowed in conformance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. 11-11 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unncorporated Con'--�mun Mes and Destination Resorts Sunriver Community District Policies Sunriver Forest District Policies Policy 11.14.1. Areas designated community on the comprehensive plan map shall be designated community general, community recreation, community limited or community neighborhood district on the zoning map to reflect a development pattern which is consistent community uses and activities. Policy 11.14.2.Policy 11.9.2. Lands designated community shall be developed with uses which support all facets of community needs, be they those of year- round residents or part-time residents and tourists. Policy 11.14.3.Policy 11.9.3. Development shall take into consideration the unique physical features of the community and be sensitive to the residential development within which the community areas are interspersed. Sunriver Airport District Policies Policy 11.15.1. Future development shall not result in structures or uses which, due to extreme height or attraction of birds, would pose a hazard to the operation of aircraft. Policy 11.15.2. Future development should not allow uses which would result in large concentrations or gatherings of people in a single location. Sunriver Utility District Policies Policy 11.15.3. Lands designated utility shall allow for development of administrative offices, substations, storage/repair yards, distribution lines and similar amenities for services such as water, sewer, telephone, cable television and wireless telecommunications. Policy 11.16.1. Uses and development on property designated forest that are within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community boundary shall be consistent with uses and development of other lands outside of the community boundary which are also designated forest on the Deschutes County comprehensive plan map. Policy 11.16.2. Forest district property shall be used primarily for effluent storage ponds, spray irrigation of effluent, biosolids application and ancillary facilities necessary to meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality sewage disposal regulations. Policy 11.16.3. The development of resort, residential or non -forest commercial activities on Forest district lands shall be prohibited unless an exception to Goal 14 is taken. Sunriver General Public Facility Policies Policy 11.17.1. Residential minimum lot sizes and densities shall be determined by the capacity of the water and sewer facilities to accommodate existing and future development and growth. Policy 11.17.2. New uses or expansion of existing uses within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community which require land use approval shall be approved only upon confirmation from the Sunriver Utility Company that water and sewer service for such uses can be provided. Policy 11.17.3. Expansion of the Sunriver Water LLC/Environmental/LLC Water and Sewer District outside of the historic Sunriver boundaries shall adequately address the impacts to services provided to existing property owners. 11-12 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Cow4munitles and DesUnation Resorts Sunriver Water Facility Policies Policy 11.18.1. Water service shall continue to be provided by the Sunriver Utilities Company. Sunriver Sewer Facility Policies Policy 11.19.1. Sewer service shall continue to be provided by the Sunriver Utilities Company. Sunriver Transportation System Maintenance Policies Policy 11.20.1. Privately -maintained roads within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community boundary shall continue to be maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association. Policy 11.20.2. The bicycle/pedestrian path system in Sunriver shall continue to be maintained by the Sunriver Owners Association or as otherwise provided by a maintenance agreement. Policy 11.20.3. The County will encourage the future expansion of bicycle/pedestrian paths within the Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community boundary in an effort to provide an alternative to vehicular travel. Policy 11.20.4. All public roads maintained by the County shall continue to be maintained by the County. Improvements to County maintained public roads shall occur as described the County Transportation System Plan. 11-13 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan : / ,d � � �� e Opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations Public facilities and services provide the basic infrastructure for urban and rural development. These systems include water and sewer systems, police and fire protection, health and social services, schools, and libraries. The transportation system is also a public facility - the County has developed and maintains a Transportation System Plan that is included as Appendix B. These public services are provided by a variety of entities, each with their own jurisdiction, funding sources, and regulatory requirements. Overall, the provision of facilities and services is more efficient and cost-effective in urban areas than in rural development, where ratepayers may be few and far between. In some areas of the County, particularly east County, available services are limited due to lower population density and distance from urban centers. Many of the people who choose to reside there consider the limited availability of services and facilities as an acceptable tradeoff for a rural lifestyle. Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and the associated Oregon Administrative Rule 660-011 specify that facilities and services should be appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of rural areas to be served. Public facility plans are not required (with some exceptions); in fact, Goal 11 and the associated rule set limits to the provision of sewers and water systems in rural areas, in order to limit rural growth. There are several important issues relating to the provision of public facilities and services that this Comprehensive Plan addresses, including: Meeting the needs of county residents while supporting the protection of resource lands; Maintaining health, safety, and security throughout the county; and Cooperation among the various providers of public services. 12-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Context Deschutes County plays a role in ensuring that public facilities and services are planned for, however the facilities and services are often not provided by county government directly. The discussion below highlights who provides the services listed and how the County will manage development impacts on existing facilities and services. Public Facilities SOLID WASTE The County manages Knott Landfill Recycling and Transfer Station, which is the only landfill in Deschutes County. In addition to this, the department manages four additional transfer stations throughout the County which gather waste in convenient locations, before transferring to the Knott Landfill facility. Operations at the landfill include recycling, - hazardous waste disposals and composting. - - County Facilities and Services LAW ENFORCEMENT The Deschutes County Sheriffs Office is a full service organization providing patrol, traffic team, criminal investigations, corrections, civil and search and rescue. Special operations include a Marine Patrol, K-9 units, and Forest Patrol. The Sheriff is an elected public official who serves a four-year term. Housed within the Sheriff's office is the County's Emergency Management Unit, which coordinates the countywide response to natural hazards events. This landfill site is anticipated to remain open until 2029 at which time it is projected to reach maximum capacity. The Deschutes County Solid Waste Department is currently undertaking a new landfill siting process, which is anticipated to be completed in 2024. In the future, the County will likely need to site addition facilities to support composting, recycling, and waste stream diversion facilities. Deschutes County Solid Waste System, Source: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2019 Cities & Unincorporated County County -Owner! Transfer Stations and Recycling Center ccr sad a(atana(s frangt#se Yard Warta 8ettd Garoape To Procasskty Warta RaeycBo oat etCowaty coiacUdrt ( comarder ( ( I ( ( ( i ( ( FiR ( ---- ( ( (East county) -- Northwest (( ti ( ( kepur { ( ( (Redmond) C' southwest (U Me) 12-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Deschutes County Health Services has a primary responsibility to help address the basic health and wellness of Deschutes County residents. The department offers services at more than 40 locations in Deschutes County including public schools; health clinics in Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters; five school -based health clinics; h th KIDS C t d h S Public Fadflides and public transportation. COIC continues to evolve to meet the needs of Central Oregon. COIC is governed by a 15-member board made up of elected officials who are appointed by each of the member governments as well as appointed representatives of key economic sectors - business and industry, tourism and recreation, agribusiness and agriculture, timber agencies suc as e en er Cl" t e tate and wood products, and the unemployed/ of Oregon -Department -of Human Services; area underemployed. hospitals; care facilities and homes. FAIRGROUNDS The County maintains the County Fairgrounds and Expo Center. With panoramic views of the snow-capped Cascade range, the Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center is situated on the outskirts of Redmond just off of Hwy 97 and adjacent to the Redmond Municipal Airport. Due to its central location, the fairgrounds also serves as an emergency center. The fairgrounds hosts the annual County Fair and numerous other events throughout the year. Where other agencies provide facilities and services, the County coordinates with numerous other providers of facilities and services for the benefit of County residents. Where there are gaps in the coverage for specific areas, the County can work with providers to fill them. A selection of other agencies and entities are noted below. CENTRAL OREGON INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL (COIL) COIC began serving the residents and communities of Central Oregon in 1972 as a Council of Governments organized under ORS 190 by Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties and Bend, Culver, Madras, Metolius, Prineville, Redmond and Sisters. COIC provides a wide variety of educational and economic development services such as workforce training, alternative high school education, business loans SCHOOL DISTRICTS There are three school districts in Deschutes County: • Bend -La Pine (SD 1), • Redmond (SD 2J) and • Sisters (SD 6). Additionally, the Brothers Community School is owned and operated by Crook County School District (SD 15). The High Desert Education Service District (ESD) partners with the districts to provide support services such as special education, school improvement, administrative and legal services. FIRE DISTRICTS The following fire districts support rural residents: Bend Fire Department, Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District, Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District, Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District, Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 and #2, La Pine Rural Fire Protection District, Sisters - Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District, and Sunriver Service District. Public lands are protected by federal agencies. There are some areas in Deschutes County that are not covered by a fire district. (See Chapter 7 for more on fire protection.) 12-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan IRRIGATION DISTRICTS Irrigation districts in Oregon are organized as Special Districts under ORS Chapter 545. Six irrigation districts operate in Deschutes County: Arnold, Central Oregon, North Unit, Swalley, Tumalo, the Three Sisters Irrigation Districts. They are quasi -municipal corporations under Oregon Law, with prescribed rules for purpose, boards, elections, staffing, charges, etc. The districts operate as political subdivisions of theState of Oregon created for the purpose of delivering water to their patrons. In addition to irrigation uses, these districts also supply a number of other services, including municipal, industrial, and pond maintenance, warranting coordination with municipalities. LIBRARIES Deschutes Public Library has branches in Bend, Redmond, Sisters, La Pine and Sunriver. They also operate a bookmobile program that focuses on children and parenting books and a program for supplying books to homebound residents. HIGHER EDUCATION Deschutes County is home to Oregon State University Cascades Campus (Bend) and Central Oregon Community College (Bend and Redmond). These campuses are expected to grow significantly in the future. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Soil and Water Conservation Districts are authorized by the State of Oregon to provide for the conservation of its soil and water resources. Working in cooperation with stakeholders, the districts address issues such as control and prevention of soil erosion, conservation and development of water resources, water quality, and wildlife preservation. The Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District is a legally defined subdivision of the state government, but, like all soil and conservation districts, functions as a local unity led by a locally elected board of directors who serve without pay. Public FacHities PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS Public Water Systems are defined as those that have more than three connections, supply water at least 60 days/year and are used by at least 10 persons/day. All water systems are regulated under the federal 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and 1981 Oregon Drinking Water Quality Act. Public Water Systems serving over 3,300 people are overseen by the Oregon Department of Human Services Drinking Water Program. The - County acts as a contractor for the Department of Human Services to monitor approximately 180 Public Water Systems. Some privately owned systems are, for various reasons, regulated by the Public Utility Commission, which sets rates and rules for public utilities. UTILITIES Electric Electricity is provided by Pacific Power around Bend and Redmond. Central Electric Cooperative and Midstate Electric provide service in the rest of the County. Phone service is provided by Qwest and numerous cell phone providers. Cable is provided by Bend Cable and satellite providers. Internet access is provided by a variety of entities. Hospitals Cascade Healthcare Community manages two hospitals: St. Charles Bend and St. Charles Redmond. Additionally there are numerous health providers and clinics in the County. Sewer Districts Creating or expanding existing sewer systems outside an urban growth boundary or unincorporated community is governed by Statewide Goal 11 and OAR 660-011-0060. In order to protect rural areas from urban -style development, the rules regulate where and when rural sewers are appropriate. Some sewer districts, such as Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 12-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2, have used the Statewide Goal 2 exception process to create or expand a sewer system INDIVIDUAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES Private wells Most rural properties are served by private wells that are approved and managed by the Oregon Water Resources Department. The County currently does not track the number of wells. Individual septic systems Most rural properties are served by septic systems that are approved by the Onsite Wastewater Division. Public Facilities Key Community Considerations The role that Deschutes County plays in the provision of public facilities and services was part of the community discussion during the update of this Comprehensive Plan. Highlights included: City governments currently own property outside of urban growth boundaries and within County jurisdiction. In some instances, these lands are used for water and wastewater treatment facilities. As the County continues to grow, additional facilities are likely to be needed, and coordination among jurisdictions regarding placement of these facilities will be key. Significant population growth will lead to an increase in solid waste, requiring at minimum the siting of a new landfill. Community members expressed a desire for consideration of livability among other factors when considering the placement of key public facilities. 12-6 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Goal 12.1: Support the orderly, efficient, and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. Policy 12.1.1. Encourage and support the formation of special service districts to serve the need for public facilities in rural areas. Public Facilities Policy 12.1.10. Where practicable, locate utility lines and facilities within or adjacent to existing rights -of -way to avoid dividing farm or forest lands. Policy 12.1.11. Use the development code to mitigate visual and other impacts of public facilities and cell towers. Policy 12.1.2. Encourage and support Policy 12.1.12. Use the Comprehensive planning for and acquisition of sites needed Plan and Development Code to guide rural for public facilities, such as transportation, development in a manner that supports the water, and wastewater facilities. orderly and cost-efficient provision of public facilities and services. Policy 12.1.3. Support the siting of community health clinics, hospitals, and private medical practices to serve rural residents throughout the County. Policy 12.1.4. Continue to support the County Fairgrounds as a community gathering place, event facility and home to the annual County Fair. Policy 12.1.5. Maintain the County Fairgrounds as an emergency readiness location and staging area in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake or other large disaster. Policy 12.1.6. Prior to disposing of County - owned property, consider whether the land is appropriate for needed public projects such as schools, health clinics, fire stations, senior centers, or affordable housing. Policy 12.1.7. Coordinate with rural service districts and providers to review development proposals. Policy 12.1.8. Use the land use entitlement process to ensure new development addresses and mitigates impacts on existing and planned public facilities. Policy 12.1.9. Support education districts, library districts and recreation districts in meeting community needs, such as meeting spaces. Policy 12.1.13. Support siting and development of city owned water and wastewater facilities on rural lands, including innovative facilities that include additional community amenities. Goal 12.2: Pursue sustainable, innovative, and cost-effective waste management practices. Policy 12.2.1. Allow for siting of waste management facilities on rural lands, including but not limited to landfill facilities, transfer stations, organics management facilities, material recovery facilities, and recycling modernization facilities, in a manner that is sensitive to environmental and community concerns. Policy 12.2.2. Provide incentives, education, and resources to promote reuse and recycling of construction waste. Policy 12.2.3. Encourage waste reduction through community education and partnerships with community groups such as the Environmental Center Policy 12.2.4. Support the creation of a landfill overlay zone. Goal 12.3: Serve as a conduit for countywide resources. Policy 12.3.1. Provide resources to connect community members with a variety of housing and health related issues in Deschutes County 12-7 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The Deschutes County transportation system includes roadways, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities, as well as rail, air, marine, and pipeline systems. In general, the County only owns, manages, and maintains facilities in the unincorporated portions of the County. Facilities within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the incorporated cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine are managed and maintained by those cities. In addition, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) owns and maintains a number of state highways throughout the County. Information about existing conditions, planned investments, and policies related to transportation are contained in the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is adopted as Appendix B of this Comprehensive Plan. 13-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan opportunities, Challenges, and Considerations The amount, source, and distribution of energy used in Deschutes County is a fundamental component of how we live our lives, and it is influenced by land use and other decisions made at the County level. The State of Oregon requires land uses to be managed with an eye to their energy impacts. In Deschutes County, the key energy issues include: Community design in more urban areas to limit the need for large vehicles (generally powered with fossil fuel) for everyday tasks. Generating, transporting, and storing energy locally from a variety of sources, and managing the impacts of these facilities. Conservation of energy through building design and orientation, the use of energy - efficient technologies, and incentives/ regulations/education to encourage others to do so. Deschutes County coordinates with utility providers that serve the area, including: • Central Electric Cooperative • Midstate Electric Cooperative • Pacific Power (PacifiCorps) • Cascades Natural Gas 14-2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Context The role of Deschutes County in planning for energy is addressed in more detail below. SOLAR ORIENTATION The solar orientation of structures can create significant energy savings and allows for photovoltaic energy generation. The County has long promoted energy conservation through a passive solar code that requires new structures to be sited so that they do not block the sun from falling on adjacent properties. SITING LARGE-SCALE ENERGY FACILITIES In general, cities and counties have siting authority over energy projects below a certain size or generating capacity. This includes individual projects powering or supplementing homes and businesses or small commercial projects which produce energy for sale. Larger facilities are regulated by the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council. The thresholds for Siting Council jurisdiction are determined by the Legislature and are defined in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 469.300. The Siting Council does not regulate hydroelectric development. Instead, the Oregon Water Resources Commission has the authority to issue licenses for hydroelectric development. Deschutes County currently has five developed large-scale energy facilities, primarily located on the eastern side of the County, approved between 2015-2017. In 2018, the Department of Land Conservation and Development altered statewide rules related to these types of large- scale energy facilities on high value farmland, limiting development opportunities in parts of the County. Community members have expressed concern regarding impacts of these facilities on wildlife habitat and aesthetics. In addition to solar, several irrigation districts have developed in conduit hydroelectric facilities in which existing canals are upgraded with equipment for power generation. Three of these facilities currently exist, two of which are owned and operated by Central Oregon Irrigation District, and the third owned and operated by Three Sisters Irrigation District. SMALL-SCALE RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY GENERATION The State oversees construction and approval of large commercial energy facilities, as noted above. However, there is a role for local governments to oversee smaller commercial projects. Commercial energy generation is considerably more complex than permitting small projects for homes and businesses. From a land use perspective, the scale, extended time frame, investment required and required off -site components all complicate the approval process. For example, to move the electricity generated at an alternative energy facility to market there is often a need for approval of roads, transmission lines or substations. The accessory facilities may or may not be in place at the same site as the main facility, but are an integral part of the project and are currently reviewed separately, based on State regulations. Wind Energy Generation As shown in the following figure, wind energy is most abundant in the eastern portion of Deschutes County. Potential impacts of this type of facility include temporary construction impacts, habitat loss and animal fatalities due to collision with turbines, visual impacts from towers and accessory structures, and noise. Deschutes County regulates small scale wind energy development generating less than 100 kilowatts of power. This allowance was added to the Deschutes County Code in 2010, although since that time no applications have been received to establish this type of facility. 14-3 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Solar Energy Generation The following figure gives a broad sense of where in the US solar irradiance is highest, and therefore where solar generation will be most efficient. Deschutes County is generally favorable to solar generation. Potential impacts of this type of facility include temporary construction impacts, habitat loss, animal fatalities due to reflected sunlight (for some solar facilities), and visual impacts. As noted previously, the Department of Land Conservation and Development amended its rules in 2018 to limit solar development on high value farmland. Typically, solar developments require large acreage and relatively flat terrain for their operations. This requirement is a limiting factor in Deschutes County, as many of the properties that would meet large acreage and terrain requirements are actively used for farming purposes. The Bureau of Land Management is exploring an amendment to its rules to allow for greater opportunity for solar development in the western United States. The County anticipates limited solar development on private land going forward and an increase of leased BLM land for this type of development in the future. Commercial Biomass Commercial biomass uses organic material such as wood, agricultural waste or crop residues to power boilers to generate heat. According to the Oregon Forest Resources Institute an estimated 4.25 million acres (about 15% of Oregon's forestland) have the potential to provide useful woody biomass through thinning to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic forest fires. Potential impacts include temporary construction impacts, transportation impacts (as materials need to be transported to a central location), visual impacts, and air quality and climate impacts due to combustion of biofuels. Energy The County's first biomass facility is under construction through a partnership with the Deschutes National Forest and Mt. Bachelor Ski Resort. The project is located on federal land and outside of the purview of Deschutes County regulations. Geothermal Energy Generation Geothermal energy is a form of renewable energy derived from heat in the earth. This heat is transferred to water through various means and the steam produced is used to produce electricity. Geothermal energy is dependent on the location of geothermal resources; central Oregon may contain some of the best prospects for geothermal exploration in the continental United States. Potential impacts include construction and visual impacts of geothermal facilities. Deschutes County regulates geothermal energy in accordance with state law, although no geothermal development projects have been proposed to date. Hydroelectric Energy Generation Currently, Deschutes County has three approved "in conduit" hydroelectric facilities that are owned and operated by irrigation districts within existing irrigation district canals. Approval of these facilities have previously been contentious, with community members expressing concern about wildlife and impacts to other basin users. Irrigation districts have noted challenges in utilizing the existing county code for these projects, which were drafted to address "in channel" hydroelectric facilities. To promote renewable energy development using man-made waterways, irrigation districts have expressed interest in helping the County update the Deschutes County Code to more appropriately address "in conduit" hydroelectric facilities separate and apart from "in -channel" hydroelectric facilities". 14-4 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Key Community Considerations Community discussions related to energy have revolved around the following topics: Energy Policy 14.1.6. Provide incentives for homes and businesses to install small-scale on -site alternative energy systems consistent with adopted County financing programs. • Interest in planning for and adapting to climate change, including using more Policy 14.1.7. Support development of renewable energy sources. electric vehicle charging stations and facilities • Concern about the design and location to help promote use of electric vehicles. of energy facilities and their impacts on Policy 14.1.8. Use the development code environmental resources and scenic views. to promote_ commercial renewable_ energy_ • Preparation for more use of electric projects while addressing and mitigating vehicles in the future, which often require impacts on the community and natural specialized charging infrastructure. Goals and Policies Goal 14.1: Promote Energy Conservation and Alternative Energy Production Policy 14.1.1. Continue to incorporate energy conservation into the building and management of all County operations and capital projects using regular energy audits to refine the results. Policy 14.1.2. Reduce energy demand by supporting energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy. Policy 14.1.3. Encourage energy suppliers to explore innovative alternative energy conservation technologies and provide energy audits and incentives to patrons. Policy 14.1.4. Provide flexibility and exemptions for small properties and anomalous sites in the development code to promote energy conservation. Promote affordable, efficient, reliable, and environmentally sound commercial energy systems for individual homes, and business consumers. Policy 14.1.5. Promote development of solar, hydropower, wind, geothermal, biomass and other alternative energy systems while mitigating impacts on neighboring properties and the natural environment. environment. Policy 14.1.9. Use Oregon's Rural Renewable Energy Development Zones to support the creation of renewable energy projects. Policy 14.1.10. Identify, protect, and support the development of significant renewable energy sites and resources. Policy 14.1.11. Include evaluation of adverse impacts to natural resources as part of renewable energy siting processes. 14-5 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appeandix A = Terrebonne CO Muneity Plan A-1 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix B m Tumalo Co munity Plan B-1 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix C = Transportation System Plan C-1 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix D = Newberry Country Plan D-1 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appeandix E m Goal 5 Eim 1 :4 11 L 4 11 lr-w� Lei E-1 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section S.1 Introduction Background This chapter provides material that supplements the other chapters of the Plan. There are no goals or policies in these sections. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a glossary, list all acknowledged Goal 5 resources in one location (see Section 2.4) and list all Goal Exceptions and Goal 5 inventories. The final section in this Chapter is a table to track all amendments to this Plan. This table will ensure a clear legislative history is maintained. The following information is covered in this chapter: • Glossary and Acronyms • Goal 5 Water Resources • Goal 5 Wildlife Resources • Goal 5 Open Space and Scenic Views and Sites Resources • Goal 5 Energy Resources • Goal 5 Wilderness, Natural Areas and Recreation Trails • Goal 5 Surface Mining Resources • Goal 5 Cultural and Historic Resources • Goal Exception Statements • Goal 5 Adopted Ordinances • Ordinance History E-2 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Section 5.2 Glossary and Acronyms e =A Note: Terms defined in Deschutes County Code 18.04 (Zoning Code) are not repeated here, but have the some meaning as DCC 18.04. "Agricultural -tourism" or "Agri -tourism" means a commercial enterprise at a working farm or ranch, operated in conjunction with the primary farm or ranch use, conducted for the enjoyment and/or education of visitors, that promotes successful agriculture, generates supplemental income for the owner and complies with Oregon Statute and Rule. "Aquifer" means a water -bearing rock, rock formation or a group of formations. "Common Area" means'common property' as defined in the Oregon Planned Communities Act at ORS 94.550(7). "Comprehensive Plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a state agency, city, county or special district that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and water, transportation, educational and recreational systems and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive" means all- inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. "Generalized" mean a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semi- public and private agencies and the citizens have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. "Land" includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. "Conservation" means limiting or minimizing the use or depletion of natural resources, including such things as land, energy, water or wildlife habitat. "Ecosystem" means the physical and biological components and processes occurring in a given area, which interact to create a dynamic equilibrium. "Findings" means a fact, determination or reason, based on existing information, which, by itself or in conjunction with other findings, leads to a particular conclusion or course of action. "Goal Exception" means a land use process through which a local jurisdiction justifies, based on factual evidence, that a policy embodied in a particular statewide planning goal should not apply to a particular property or set of properties. "Green infrastructure" means design and construction practices that significantly reduce the negative impacts of buildings on the environment and occupants. "Groundwater" means water beneath the earth's surface between saturated soil and rock that supplies wells and springs. "Habitat" means a place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter and other necessities for an organism, community or population of plants and animals. E-3 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan "In -stream" as defined in ORS 537.332, means within the natural stream channel or lake bed or place where water naturally flows or occurs. "Instream flow" means the minimum quantity of water necessary to support the public use requested by an agency. "Post -acknowledgement plan amendment" means an amendment to an adopted and acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. "Regional" is used in the context of projects and collaborative efforts with impacts beyond Deschutes County. "Riparian (zone, habitat, or vegetation)" means of, or pertaining to, the bank of a river, or of a pond or small lake. Riparian habitat is riverbank vegetative cover and food for many wildlife species. "Rural lands" means those lands outside recognized urban growth boundaries which are necessary and suitable for such uses as: A. Exclusive farm use; B. General agriculture; C. Forest; D. Rural residential; E. Rural service center; F. Destination resort, dude ranch, planned community; G. Landscape management; H. Special interest; Open space; Fish and wildlife protective area; K. Recreation; L. Surface mining. "Special District" means any unit of local government, other than a city or county, authorized and regulated by statute, which includes but is not limited to water control, irrigation, port districts, fire, hospital, mass transit and sanitary districts, as well as regional air quality control authorities. "Statewide Planning Goals" means the 19 statewide planning standards adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to OAR 660-015 to express Statewide policies on land use and related topics. Local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the statewide planning goals. "Surface mining" means all or any part of the process of mining by removal of the overburden and extraction of natural mineral deposits. E-4 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Secflons "Urban Growth Boundary" (UGB) rneans a boundary established to identify for each city, the land area needed to accommodate 20 years of growth for the city, which is determined to be necessary and suitable for future urban uses capable of being served by urban facilities and services. "Urbanized lands" means those lands within the urban growth boundaries which can be served by urban services and facilities and are necessary and suitable for future expansion of an urban area. "Urban Reserve Area" means a boundary established to identify for each city, the land area needed to accommodate from 20-50 years of growth for the city. "BLM" stands for Bureau of Land Management "CCI" stands for Committee for Community Involvement "DCC" stands for Deschutes County Code "DLCD" stands for Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. "DEQ" stands for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality "DOGAMI" stands for Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries "ESA" stands for the federal Endangered Species Act "ESEE" stands for Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy in regards to required Goal 5 analyses "FEMA" stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency "LCDC" stands for Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission "NOAA" stands for National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration "OAR" stands for Oregon Administrative Rules "ODFW" stands for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife "ORS" stands for Oregon Revised Statute "OWRD" stands for Oregon Water Resources Department "RPS" stands for Regional Problem Solving "TSP" stands for Transportation System Plan "UGB" stands for Urban Growth Boundary "URA" stands for Urban Reserve Area "USFS" stands for United States Forest Service "USFWS" stands for United States Fish and Wildlife Service "USGS stands for United States Geological Survey E-5 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.3 Goal 5 Inventory - Water Resources Background This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised and the 1986 Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study. It lists the water resources in Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5. No changes have been proposed for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update. Goal 5 requires the following water resources be inventoried and the inventories are listed below. • Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat • Wetlands • Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers • State Scenic Waterways • Groundwater Resources Also included in these inventories are Significant Lakes and Reservoirs. FM !• ' s.• INVENTORIES Table 5.3.1 Deschutes County Rives Mile* Waterway Miles Deschutes River 97 Little Deschutes River 42 Whychus Creek (lower 6 miles in Jefferson County) 39 Tumalo Creek 16 Paulina Creek 10 Fall River 18 Croaked River 17 J u€ce: tJES nuieS i..VNHticrll.ny a De u nwe€ Juluy 1 700 Table 5.3.2 Deschutes County Goal 5 Riparian inventory Streams Riparian Acres Table 5.3.3 Deschutes County Goal 5 Floodplains Adjacent to Rivers and Streams Deschutes River Little Deschutes River Crooked River _ Spring River Dry River Paulina Creek Indian Ford Creek Lang Prairie Whychus Creek Source: 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revisedand Federal Emergency Management Agency maps E-6 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 SupplementalSections Inventory: In 1992 Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. Additionally, Deschutes County Ordinance 2011-008 adopted a Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) covering 18,937 acres in South Deschutes County. Table 5.3.4 Deschutes County Goal 5 Perennial Streams Bottle Creek Full Creek Spring Creek Bridge Creek Goose Creek Three Creek Brush Draw Indian Ford Creek SF Tumalo Creek Bull Creek jack Creek NF Whychus Creek Cache Creek Kaleetan Creek Soda Crater Creek Chariton Creek Metolius Creek NF Trout Creek Cultus Creek Park Creek EF NF Tumalo Creek Cultus River Park Creek WF MF Tumalo Creek Deer Creek Pole Creek First Creek Dry Creek Rode Creek Soap Creek Fall Creek Snow Creek Todd Lake Creek Mote: Alt of these streams, except portions of Indian Ford Creek, Cache Creek and Dry Creek, are located on federal land and are subject to either the Deschutes Natianat Forest or the bureau of Land Management Resource Management Puns. Source: 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised Gable 5.3.5 Deschutes County f ipar'ian Ownership Piver or Stream Ownership Deschute-s Diver PrivaterFedlei al Little Deschutes River PrivatelFederal Fall River Private/Federal Tun-falo Creek PrivateFeder'aI Three Creek Private/Federal Whychus Creek Private/Federal Trout Creek Private/Federal 7 Creek Private/Fed&al Cacher Creek Private/Fedseral Indian Ford Creek Private/Fedeiaal Cultus River Federal Charlton Creep Federal Deer Creek Federal Cultus Creek. Federal Quinn Creek Federal Fall Creek Federal Moore Creek Federal Source: 1 %79 Deschutes County Comprehensive Flan as revised FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Inventory: The following segments of the Deschutes River have been designated as Federal Recreation and Scenic rivers by the passage of the 1988 Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1988. Congress mandates the US Forest Service to prepare a management plan for these segments of the Deschutes River. E-7 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Table 5.3.6 Deschutes County Wild and Scenic River Segments Waterway Description Deschutes River From Wickiup Dam to Fall River (22 miles) Deschutes River Fall River to N boundary Sun River (20 miles) Deschutes River N boundary Sun River to Bend LJGB (13 miles) VVhychus Creek (formerly Squaw Greek) Includes all tributaries within the Three Sisters Wilderness, Soap Creek and the main stem frorn the wilderness boundary to the stream flow gauge station Source: County Ordinance 92-052 'fable 5.3.8 Deschutes County Significant Lakes and Res airs Warm M. -11 Crane Prairie Reservoir o2w, I t I I North Twin LA� Upper Tun -tab Reservoir Source: Deschutes County Ordinance 92-0,52 )cenic Surface and I adjacent to 2d lakes and ,it. E-8 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Ga upp� emmeal Sections Section 5.4 Goal 5 Inventory - Wildlife Habitat Background This section contains wildlife resource information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5. No changes have been proposed for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update. However, an updated inventory has been provided as described in Section 2.6 of this Plan and will be incorporated at a later date. E-9 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supp�ementai Sections (source: 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised) Bald Eagle Habitat Sites on Non -Federal Land or with Non -Federal Sensitive Habitat Areas. Site # Tdx1ot Quarter Section Site Nome DE0035-00 15-10-00-1400 23NWNE Cloverdale NW DE0035-01 15-10-00-1400 23NENE Cloverdale NE Table 5.4.1 — Bird Inventory Birds, Selected List 1992 Use Fle-riod S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Rekrti've Abundance A = Abundiant C = Comn-lon, IF = Few R =Fire U = Unknown American Avocet S F American Bittern S F American Coot X C American Goldfinch S Cr American Destrell X C American Widgeon X C Anna's Hummingbird S F Ash -throated Rycatcher S F Bald E4e X IF Bank Swallow S F Barn CW X C Barn Swallow S C Barred Owl X U Belted Kingfisher X F Bewicies Wren X IF Black backed Woodpecker X IF Black -billed Magpie X C Black-Wped Chickadee W F Black -chinned Hummingbird S F Black -crowned Night Heron S F Black -headed Grosbeak S F Black -throated Grey Warble S IF Blue Grouse X F Blue -winged Teal S IF Bohemian Waxwing W IF Boreal Owl X F Brewer's Blackbird X C Brewer's Sparrow S F Brown Creeper X F E-10 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - GoM S SuppNmental Secflons Sirdi Selected List 1992 Use Period S = Sununer W = Winter X = Year round Rekrtive Abundance A = Abundant C = Comm n F = Few R Rare U Unknown Brown -headed Cowbird S C Bufflehead X C Burrowing Owl S R Calilbrnia Valley Qmail X C Calliope Hummingbird S F Canada Goose X C Canyon Wren X C Caspian Tern S F Cassin's Finch X C Cedar Waxwft' X C Chipping Sparrow S C Chukar Partridge X R California Gull X C Clams, Nutcracker X C Cliff Swallow S C Common Bushitit X C Common Crow X R Conwrion Loon S R Cominon Merganser X C Common NiglAhawk S C Common Raven X C Common Snipe S F Coopers Hawk X C Dark -eyed junco, X A Dipper X F Double -crested Cormorant S C Downy Woodpecker X C E>usky Flycatcher S F Eared Grebe W F Eastern Kingbird S F Evening Grosbeak X C Ferruginous Hawk S F Flammulated Owl S F Fox. Sparrow S C Franklin's Gull S F Gadwall W F Golden Eagle X F Golden -crowned Kirkglet X F Goldeneye X C Goshawk X F Gray Jay X C Gray Partridge X R House Sparrow X C E-11 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - GoM S Supplemental Sections Birds Selected list 1992 Use Period S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Relative Abundance A = Abundant C = Common F = Few R = Rare U = Unknown House Wren S F Killdeer X C Lark Sparrow S F Lazuli Benging S F Least Sandpiper S F Lesser Goldfinch X R Lesser Scaup W C Lewis' Woodpecker, S F Lincoln's Sparrow X F Loggerhead Shrike X F Long -billed Curlew S R. Long -billed Marsh, Wren S F Long-eared Owl X F MacGilfivra)(s Warbler S F Mallard X C Merlin W R Mountain Bluebird X C Mountain Chickadee X C Mourning Dove X C Nashville Warbler X F Northern Harder X F Northern Oriole S F Northern Phalarope S F Three -toed Woodpecker X F Olive -sided Flycathcer S C Orange -crowned Warbler S F Osprey S C Peregrine Falcon X R. Pileated Woodpecker X F Pine Grosbeak X R Pine Si -skin X C Pinon Jay X C Pintail W C Prairie Falcon X C Purple Finch X F Pygmy Nuthatch X C PYVMY Owl X F Red Crossbill X F Red -breasted Nuthatch X C Redhead W F Red -shafted Flicker X C Red-tailed Hawk X C Red -winged Blackbird X C E-1 2 1 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supp1ewnental Sections Birds Selected List 1992 We Period S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Relative Abundance A = Abundant C = Ccnvmn F = Few R = Rare U = Unknown Ring -billed Gull X C Ring —neck Duck W F Ring-necked Pheasant X F Robin X C Rock Dove X C Rock Wren S C Rosy Finch X R. Rough -legged Hawk W C Rough -winged Swallow S F Ruby-crownedKinglet X F Ruffed Grouse X F Ruffous Hummingbird S F Rufous -sided Towhee X F Sage Grouse. X F Sage Sparrow S R. Sage Trasber S C Sarldhill Crane S F Song Sparrow X F Sora S F Spotted Owl X F Spotted Sandpiper S F Starling X C Steller's Jay X F Swainson's Hawk S R. Swainson's Thrush S F Townsend's Solitaire X C Tree Swallow S C Turkey X C Turkey Vulture S C Varied Thrush X F Vau)es Swift S F Vesper Sparrow S F Violet -green Swallow S C Virginia Rail S F Warbling Vireo S F Water Pipit X F Western Bluebird S F Western Flycatcher S F Western Grebe S C Western Kingbird S F Western Meadowlark S C Western Sandpiper S F Western Taager S F E-13 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplewnental Sections Birds Selected List 1992 Use PL-riod S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Relative Abundance A = Abundant C = Common, F = Few R = Rare U = Unknown Western Wood Pewee S F White -breasted Nuthatch X F White -crowned Sparrow S F White -headed Woodpecker X F Wigeon X F Williamson's Sapsucker X F Willow Flycatcher S R Wilson's Phalarope S R Wilson's Warbler. S F Winter Wren X F Wood Duck S F Yellow Warbler S F Yellow -bellied Sapsucker X F Yellow -headed blackbird S F Yellowthroat S F Source: 1%79 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as reviisk! The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified two bald eagle nests in Township Table 5,.4.2 - Amphibian andi Reptile Inventory Amphibians and Reptiles Selected List 1992 Use period S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Relative Abundance A = Abundant C = Cornrnon F = Few R = Rare U = Unknown Bullfrog X F Cascades Frog X F N. Grasshopper Mouse X F Northern Water Shrew X F Norway Rat X F N. Pocket Gopher X u Ch-ds Kangaroo Pat X C Pacific Mole X U Pallid Bat S u Pine Marten X C Pinon Mouse X F Porcupine X C Pronghom Antelope X C Raccoon X C Red Fox X F River Ctter X C Rocky Mtn Elk X C Roosevelt Elk X C Sag6rush Vole X C E-14 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - GoA 5 Supplemental Sections Amphibians and Reptiles Selected List 1992 Lhe Period S = Summer W = Winter X = Year round Rela&e Abundance A = Abundant C = Common F = Few R. Rare U Unknown Shorttail Weasel X F Silver -haired Bat S U Smaill-footed Myotis S U Snowshoe Hare X F Striped Skunk X C Townsend Ground Squirrel X C Townsendis. Big -eared' Bat X F Trowbrk1ge Shrew X F Vagrant Shrew X U Water Vole X C Western Gray Squirrel X C Westem Harvest Mouse X C Western jumping Mouse X F Western Pipistrd S U Whitetail jackrabbit X R. Wolverine X R. Yellow Pine Chipmunk X C Yellow -bellied Marinot X F Yan-M Mlyotm X F Common Garter Snake X F Ensatina X R. Gopher Snake X C Great, Basin Spadefoot Toad X F Long -toed Salamander X F Not Snake X U Northern alligator Lizard X F Pacific Tree Frog X C Racer X F Red -legged Frog X F Roughiskin Newt X R. Rubber Boa X F Sagebrush Lizard X F Sharp -tailed Snake X U Short-homfed Lizard X R. Side -blotched Lizard X U Spotted Frog X F Striped Whipsnake X U Tailed Frog X F Western Fence Ward X C Western Rattlesnake X F Western Skink X F Western Toad X F I_;nmff,ra- 1979 r)PKrhijtAr, Cinuntv Comorehensive Plan as revised E-15 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Table S.4.4 Recommended Minimum Flores for Fish Life Stream ]ore Feb Mar I Apr May June July thug Sept Oct Nov Dec Deschutes Diver (1 ) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Deschutes Diver (2) 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Deschutes River 3) 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 660 Deschutes River 4) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Deschutes River (5) 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Deschutes River (6) 40 40 60 60 60 40 40 40 60 60 60 60 Whychus Creek (7) 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10F20 30 20 20 Whychus Creek 8 10 10120 30 30 30 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 Indian Ford Creek 4 - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3/4 6_ 4-- 4 Turralo, Creek 35 35 47 47 47 5 10 10 II(V35 47 35 35 Spring river 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Little Deschutes River 80 80 80 200 200 150 100 100 100 100 200 200 Fall River 70 70 100 100 100 70 50 50 50 100 100 100 Browns Creek: 15 15 25 25 25 15 15 15 25 25 25 25 Quinn River 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cultus Creek lu lu s2 i2 J2 It) 5 5 5TIO 32 2U 10 Cultus River 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 70 70 70 70 Snova Creek 15, 15 30 30 30 20 15 15 15 30 30 20 Quinn Creels 20 20 20 12 12 12 12 12 12)20 35 35 35 Soda Creek 20 20 20 6 6 6 6 6 &20 31' 31 31 Fall Creek 35, 35 35 20 20 20 20 20 2,(V3,5 46 46 46 Goose Creek 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 4,7 10 10 10 Three Creels 7 1 7 10 10 10 7 2 2 2,17 10 7 7 Fl— — --A in rig feet mer second. The recommended flaws should arrive at the aoint of recommendation tion arrd continue to the mouth of the stream or to the next pert for which a different flow is recommended. Stream flows recoamtended in Appendix f are: designed for ,game fish production and are not necessargy adetprate for wildlife, especiay waterfowl and furlsearers.Neither would they "cesmarily he recommended below f jwre impoundments. (1) Bend eo Round' Butte Reservoir (2) L Deschutes R. to Spring (river (3) Springy River to Bend (4)W kkiip dam to Lye Deschutes River (5) Crane Prairie Dam to Wxkiup Reservoir (4) AtUSGS Gate E4-OSW (7) B6 w vSGS Gage f 4-0 50 (IV) Bed Camp Polk Sou cc 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive roan as revised 15S, Range 10E, Section 23, Tax Lot 1400. The ODFW identifiers for these sites are DE0035-00 and DE0035-01. The sites are also known as Cloverdale. The sites are described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. The sensitive habitat area is identified as the area east of Highway 20 that is within a 1/4-mile radius of each nest site. Site # Toxlot Site Nome DE0036-00 17S-11 E-26-5900 Shevlin Park The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has inventoried a former bald eagle nest site in Township 17S, Range 11 E, Section 26, Tax Lot 5900. The ODFW identifier for this site is DE0036-00. The site is also known as Shevlin Park. The site is described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. Site # Toxlot Site Nome DE0037-00 22S-09E-04-4500 Wickiup Reservoir E-17 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Table 5.4.5 Instream Water Right Program (311/92) Database Summary Report BASIN STREAM > PARENT UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM SPECIES APP CERT# DATE STREAM LIMIT LIMIT NO. RB. BT, 05 Deschutes R > Crn Prairie Res Wickiup Res BR, CO. 070764 1011 1 /90 Columbia R K 05 Deschutes R > Little Lava Lk Crn Prairie Res RB. BT" 070763 1011 1/90 Columbia R K 4"VV'F 05 Deschutes R > 193.0 190.0 MPS, 59777 1 1 10Y83 Columba R. �� Deschutes R 227:0 __ 193.0 _ _ MPS, 59776 4 11-03a8 Columbia R 05 Deschutes R > 190.0 165.0 MPS 59778 11103183, Columbia R 05 Fail R > Deschutes R Gage 14057500 Mouth RB. B3 ° 'aPWF 070762 1 G3LI7 1 NO BR, 05 Indian Ford Cr > 'WWhychus Headwaters Mouth RB 070760 IWI 1190 05 Little, Deschutes R => Crescent Cr Mouth RB, BT, 070757 IO I INO Deschutes R BR,'WWF 05 Metolius R. > Deschutes R Metolius Spring Canyon Cr BUT, K 070699 09124NO 05 Snow Cr > Deschutes R Headwaters Mouth RB, BT 070756 1 Qt 11190 05 Whychus Cr > Deschutes S Fk Whychus Indian. Ford Cr RB, BT 070754 1011 la'90 R 05 Tumalo Cr > Deschutes R S Fk Tumalo Cr Mouth BT, 070752 10a, I 1 N0 BR' I.;nnirrp• 19719 r P,,rtmtPs County ComDrahensiive Place as revised The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a bald eagle nest in Township 22S, Range 09E, Section 04, Tax Lot 500. The ODFW identifier for this site is DE0037-00, Wickiup Reservoir. The site is described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. Site # Taxlot Site Name DE0038-00 22S-09E-34-500 Haner Park The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a bald eagle nest in Township 22S, Range 09E, Section 34, Tax Lot 500. The ODFW identifier for this site is DE0038-00, Haner Park. The site is described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1.The sensitive habitat area includes the area within one -quarter mile of the nest site. Site # Taxlot Site Name DE0039-00 22S-09E-06-500 Wickiup Dam The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a bald eagle nest in Township 22S, Range 09E, Section 06, Tax Lot 500. The ODFW identifier for this site is DE0039-00, Wickiup Dam. The site is described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. Site # Taxlot Quarter Section Site Name DE0046-00 20-10-34-3401 34NWSE Bates Butte E-18 I Deschutes county Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has identified a bald eagle nest in Township 205, Range 10E, Section 34, Tax Lot 3401. The ODFW identifier for this site is DE0046-00, Bates Butte. The site is described in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 93-1. The sensitive habitat area includes the area within one -quarter mile of the nest site. Great Blue Heron Rookery - Black Butte Ranch The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) identified a great blue heron rookery in Township 145, Range 9E, Section 10 SENE. The County inventoried and adopted this site as a Goal 5 resources in Ordinance 92-041. E-19 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Golden Eagle Sites T, able 5.4.6 - Golden Ewde Nest Site Inventory on lhton-Federai Land or with Non -Federal Senslitwe Habitat, Area DE-0034-01 115-10-00-1400 1 15/SENW I Lazy ZIUSFS Source: 1%79 Deschutes County Comrorehensive Plan as revue Table 5.4.7 - Prairie Falcon Nest Site Invemtory, on Non -Federal Land or with Non -Federal Sensitive Habitat Area re MI =.I I WDIMIL11113 ffiRock State Park ,WUIM2. M7/7LL4tMUML9Z.%,UUf1LY I CV"CU Table 5.41.8-- Osprey Nest Site Inventory on Non -Federal Land or with Non -Federal Sensitive Habitat Area t-11 E-20 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supp�emental Sections Table 5.4.9 — Upland Game Bird Habitat Mountain Quail 1 50 Eli Table S.4. 10 - Sne Grouse Lek Inventory an Non -Federal Lands or with Non -Federal Sensitive Habitat Areas E-21 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Section S.S Goal S Inventory - Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Background This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised. It lists the open spaces, scenic views and sites resources in Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5. No changes have been proposed for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update. To protect scenic views, landscape management areas have been defined and a combining zone created. On lands outside urban growth boundaries and rural service centers along the portions of - roadways listed below, landscape management zoning applies and -a case -by -case site plan review is required. The area extends 1/4 mile on either side from the centerline of the roadways and includes all areas designated as State and Federal Wild, Scenic or recreational waterways and within 660 feet from either side of designated rivers and streams as measured from the ordinary high water level. • �_ 111111111111 • 111 111 4: Inventory: All land within one -quarter of a mile, as measured at right angles from the centerline, of any of the following designated Landscape Management Roadways. All land within the boundaries of a state scenic waterway or a federal wild and scenic river corridor; and all land within 660 feet of the ordinary high water mark of portions the following designated rivers and streams which are not designated as state scenic waterways or federal wild and scenic rivers. Table 5.S.I — Deschutes Counq Landscape Managenumt Areas Landscape Managernent Roads Miles U.S. Highway 97 North County litre to Redmond UGB 7:5 U & Highway 97 Redmond U4G13 to Bend UGB 12 U l_& Highway 97 Bend U G-B to South County line 35 U & Highway 20--126 North County litre to Sisters UGB 11 U.I.S. Highway 126 Sisters UGB to Redmond UGB, 21.5 U.S. k-lighwisy 70 Sinker- LIGB Lu Berid UGB 23 Smith mock Road Highway 97 to Smith hock 3.5 Sisemore Road Cloverdale to Rend UGB 119 Winer Road 15.5 Century Drive Bend to M't. Batchelor 25 South Century Drive 27 Cascade Lakes Highway 46 Waldo Labe Road [0 Cultus Lake Road 2 Lithe C=ultus Lake Road 6 E-22 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemean tal Sections Landscape Management Roods Miles Twin Lakes Road 6 Keefer Road (East Crane Prairie Road) 16.5 Ea,st, Deschutes Road 14 Deschutes Road 9 Widdup Road 4 Pringle Falls Loop 8 La Pine Recreation Area Access Road to Paulina-East Lake Road 22.5 Lava Cast Forest Road 20.5 Highvay 20 east to the County Line 25 Pine Mountain Road 7.5 Ford Road 6.5 Three Creeks Lake Road 16 Three Trappers Road 20.5 Dillon Falls Road 60 Matsen Road 2 State Highway 31 15 Road to Benham Falls 4.5 State Highway 242 McKenzie Highway Landscape Management Mvers and Streams Miles Deschutes River Little Deschutes River 43 Paulina Creek 19 Fall River a Spring River 1.2 Tun-kato Creek 16.3 Whychus Creek (formerly Squaw Creek) Crooked River 10 Source- Deschutes County Ordinance 92-052 Areas of Special Concern Inventory Inventory: The Resource Element of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (1979) identified sites as Open Spaces and Areas of Special Concern. Table 5.5.2, lists the inventory of sites identified as Areas of Special Concern located on federal land. Table 5.5.2 "2A!Areas of Special Cancem 1D# Name Location 9 Bachelor Butte T I 8S 110% SEC 29-32 t I Pine Mt. Observatory T20S R. I SE SEC 33 13 Dry River T19S R 15E SEC 19 & 30 T I 9S R 14E SEC 2, 11, 13, 14 & 24 14 Arnold Ice Caves T I 9S R 13 E SEC 22 15 Charcoal Cave T19S R13 E SEC 22 11; 6 Skeleton Cave T I 9S R 13E SESE SEC 4 7 Wind Cave T I 9S R I 3E NW 1/4 SEC 23; SW 1/4 SEC. 14_ 31 Tumalo Falls T18S RIOE NW 1/4 SEC 08 33 Lava River Caves TT19S RI IE SE -/4 SEC 26 E-23 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - GoM 5 Supplemental Sections IDU Name Locadon 34 Pringle Falls Experimental Forest T21 S RME SEC. 21-23, 27 & 29 39 Benham Falls T19S RI I SW '/� SEC 9 45 Paulina Mountain T22S R I 2E SEC 1-3 & 10- 12 49 Lavacicle Cave T22S R 16E SENE SEC 05 50 Lava. Cast. Forest T20S R I 2E SEC 15, 16r 21, 22, 27-35 51 Lava Butte Geologic Area T19S RI I SEC 18 52 Pine Mountain North Slope T20S R, 1 5E SEC 28, 29 & 33 54 McKenzie Summit T I 5S R07E SEC 17 55 Newberry, Crater T21 RI 2E, SEC 34-36 65 Bend Watershed T I 7S R09E SEC 35 & 26 T18S R09E SEC 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, & 12 66 Bat Cave T19S RI 3E SE 1/4 SEC 14 68 Boyd Cave TI 9S R I 3E SENW SEC 8 69 Frederick Butte T22S R I 9E SEC 32 Source: Deschutes County Ordinance 92-052 Land Needed and Desirable for Open Space and Scenic Resources Inventory: The following list shows land needed and desirable for open space and scenic resources: Table 5.S.3 Land Needed and DesiraWe for Open Spaces and Scenic Resources State Parks Locadon size Smith Rock State Park: T114S, 1113 E, SEC 10, 11, 14 & 15 600 acres Cline Falls State Park T I 5S, R I 2F,, SEC 14 9.04 acres Tun mlo State Park T I 7S, R, [ 2E, SEC 6 320.14 acres Pillot Butte State Park TI 7S, R I 2-E,. SEC 33 & 34 100.74 acres T2OS, R ICE, SEC 33 & 34 2,333.12 La Pine State Recreation Area T21 S, R I OF, SEC 3, 4.,8, 9V 10, 11, 12 T21 S, R 1: IF, SEC 7 acres Source: Deschutes C-cmmty Ordinance 92-052 E-24 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.6 Goal 5 Inventory - Energy Resources Background This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised. It lists the energy resources in Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5. No changes have been proposed for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update. Inventory: Available information is adequate to indicate that the resource is significant.. The City of Bend/Deschutes County River Study inventoried 16 proposed hydroelectric project sites in Deschutes County. Twelve were located on the Deschutes River; two on Tumalo Creek; two on Whychus Creek; and one on the Crooked River in Deschutes County. For a more detailed discussion of the hydroelectric resources in Deschutes County see the Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, April 1986 (River Study), Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Also refer to the River Study staff report. The River Study and River Study staff report are incorporated herein by reference. Table 5.6.1 Hydroelectric Resources of the Upper Deschutes Basin* Deschutes River River Mile Capacity (megawatts) Crane Prairie 239 0.6 Wickiup Dam 226.8 7.0 Pringle Falls 217 1.6. Lava Diversion 1812.4 Dillon Falls 177.6 7.2 Aspen Diversion 175.2 3.2 Island Diversion 174.6 7.5 Arnold Flame t 74.5 4.2 Cot Siphon 170.0 6.5 North Canal Dam 164.8 2.0 Bend Canal Diversion 1.62.4 3.0 Tuanaio, Creek River Mile Capacity (rnegawatts) Columbia Southern 9.5 9.3 Whychus Creek River Mile Capecity ftneegawatts) Whychus Creek 25 0.6 Whychus Creek 30.5 3.5 CrookedRiver River Mile Ca c° . me awaits Cacioked River Drop 1!64.83 ID.7 Source: Deschutes County Ordinance 42-052 * Note that the conflicting use analysis from the River Study and subsequent amendments prohibit new hydroelectric facilities that are not physically connected to an existing dam, diversion or conduit. (Ord.86-I} 17, 86-018, 86-019, 92-052) * Note that the conflicting use analysis from the River Study and subsequent amendments prohibit new hydroelectric facilities that are not physically connected to an existing dam, diversion or conduit. (Ord.86-017, 86-018, 86-019, 92-052) The prohibition refers to the following: E-25 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Srion 1. Deschutes River, from its headwaters to River Mile 227, above but not including Wickiup Dam, and from Wickiup Dam to River Mile 171 below Lava Island Falls; 2. Crooked River; 3. Fall River; 4. Little Deschutes River; 5. Spring River; lina Creek: 7. Whychus Creek (was Squaw Creek); 8. Tumalo Creek. Inventory: The County adopted Ordinance 85-001 which complies with Goal 5 (OAR 660-016). The ordinance amended the Comprehensive Plan and adopted a Geothermal Resource Element including a resource inventory and ESEE analysis. E-26 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.7 Goal S Inventory ® Wilderness, Natural Areas, and Recreation Background This section lists wilderness areas, natural areas and recreation trail resources in Deschutes County. Inventory: Wilderness areas are represented by all lands within the existing Mt. Washington and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas as shown on the Deschutes National forest Land and Resource Management Plan Map, and all lands included in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) State of Oregon Wilderness Status Map for Deschutes County and BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) as shown on the Brothers / La Pine Resource Management Plan. Ecologically and Scientifically Significant Natural Areas Inventory: The following sites are the inventories ecologically significant natural areas in Deschutes 'Gable 5.7.1 id i[Jemess Areas A t _ fi Steeffiead Source: Deschutes City Ordinance 92-0-S2 County by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and there is sufficient information based on site reports from the Heritage Program to complete the Goal 5 review process. Approved Oregon Recreation Trails None listed Table 5.7.2 Ecologically and Scientifically Significant Natural Areas Name Location Quality Quantity Pringle Falls Research Natural Area T2 Il S„ R9E SEC 3, 34 & 35 Excellent 1,160 acres Horse Ridge Research Natural Area T 19S„ R 145, SEA 15 & 22 Excellent 600 acres West Hampton Butte T22S„ R20E-,. SEC 31 & 32 Goad 1,280 acres Little Deschutes River I Deschutes River T2t�SN R 1 I' E,. SEA 7 Excellent 4 acres C:oniflnce Davis Lake T22S, R7 E„ SEC 25 & 26 Good 4,000 acres T22S, RBE, SEC 31 Source: Deschutes C(xmty Ordbunce 92-0,52 E-27 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E~Goal 5 SupplementM Sections Section 5.8 Goal S inventory - Mineral and Aggregate Resources Background This section contains information from the 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised. It lists the surface mining resources in Deschutes County. These inventories have been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with Goal 5. No changes have been proposed for the 201OComprehensive Plan update. Table S.& I — Deschutes County Surface Mining Knera] and Aggregrate inventory 1', 51211 -1)0- Harrington Loop, Road Fryrear RdfRedmond- Sisters R DI Oregon DO-01-200 Turnallo Irrigation E-28 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goall 5 Supp�ementM Sections Access/Location M 1.71n � ® I III' !�. 11 I1 �VAIEMZI �Ul 14$14� IVA E 191111 M, 1 1 All ! I: ® r t Black B Ranch Lower MMMM-- Brictgefferrebonn ei Lower F Bridge! Terrebmn e Lower; BridgerFeffebonn 003K3011 141328�00- 00702, 703 141329-00- OGIOOF 103 141329-W- Northwest 00102 Wayfferrebonne F. 3-W- W890 I I IiN ® Pershall Way/Redmond Q er! M r, I I r, -us 0 c, I ButtefRedmond E-29 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections [MU 1� Access/Location rAA 001M iil6l 100- 00- 0400, 10300 136-DO- 00 100 111 61100- 00- 1 10400, 10300 [61146-M ■00100,A61.100- ........... 00-110400, 10300 • 02800 4 Twin Bridge�umaJo T If Mzz' 1r Al E-30 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan LT Arnold Mkt RdfSE iContractors of Bend itt tit. " /' # .. of • t- t 4 t �' �� ! �RJVt 1 Ia t � O .s t of t-!t 1 it Bend Bend ;FAIR 20IEast; Bend Hwy I' i . i i 1 tE, R-T-.F- UM Hwy 20IEastof =�MVV fflm� Bend Hwy -20/East of t tint . Bend l * A f Hwy ; ! Bend RMT, I t.1 �R R "is-a �N Intl ,k.al r!a' 4r. i Finley Butte i7'iR�t R a ICII'T'11,111 R ! I -.® O"'Ir-t WN "I, �i rt E-31 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan C-SL 1 vescnuLeb wunLy %UlllFlenonalvc rIPn Appendix E - Goal 5 Supp�ernentai Sections Access/Location 141035-00- 02000;00, Inc Portions of TL 2200,23K 1800/1900 24M 2500, 2,600 =� Mi�1 ffi I if °I � - ` - � ® � � Pauhna Lake Road * Quantity in cubic yam uniess otnerwtse notea Source: 19179 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised Table 5.8.2 — Deschutes County Non -Significant Mining, Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Site # Taxiot Name Type Quantity* Comments Whychus Creek 15-10-14-700 Irrigation Silt„ sand, 200,000 cy Reservoir Size is 100 District— & dirt 80 acres. Watson Reservoir 1. Whychus Creek f 5-10-14-700 Irrigation wind & dirt 600,OW Cy Reservoir size is 101 District— 40 acres. Watson Reservoir 11. Whychus Creek t4-11-33-500 Irrigation Silt, sand, 100,000 cy Reservoir size is 102 District— & dirt 12 acres McKenzie Reservoir Whychus Creek Reservoir 103 14-11-33-500 Irrigation District— Sand & dirt 250,000 to 300,000 cy expansion size. is McKenzie 20 acres Reservoir E-33 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplernental Sections Site# Taxtot I Name Type Quantity* Comments I FxWsion Ouantit-Y in cubic Yards wMess otherwise noted Source- I gr79 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as revised E-34 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Section 5.9 Goal 5 Inventory - Cultural and Historic Resources This section lists Locally Significant Historic Resources and National Register Resources in rural Deschutes County. These inventories are acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. In 2020, Deschutes County's inventories were updated to comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023-0200, Historic Resources. OAR 660- 023-0200 was amended in 2017. Locally Significant Historic Resources Alfalfa Grange: Grange building and community center, built in 1930, located on Willard Road, Alfalfa. 17-14-26 TL 400. 2. Allen Ranch Cemetery: Oldest cemetery in Deschutes County. 30' by 40' fenced cemetery plot. Situated 100 yards west of South Century Drive, one-half mile south of Road 42. Two marble gravestones, two wooden markers. 20-11-7 TL 1700. 3. Fall River Fish Hatchery "Ice House": The hatchery "Ice House" dates from the beginning of fishery management in Oregon, circa 1920. It is an 18 foot by 18 foot improvement, the only original building remaining on the property, and the only significant building or structure on the site. Located at 15055 S. Century Drive, E1/z; NE'/4; Section 32, Township 205, Range 10 E, Tax Lot 100. (Ordinance 94-006 §1, 1994). 4. Long Hollow Ranch - Black Butte: Headquarters complex of historic ranch, located on Holmes Road in Lower Bridge area, including headquarters house, ranch commissary, equipment shed, barn and bunkhouse. 14-11-1 TL 101. Swamp Ranch - Black Butte: The present day site of the Black Butte Ranch was part of the vast holdings of the Black Butte Land and Livestock Company in 1904. No buildings from the period exist. 14-9-10A, 10B, 15B, 15C, 16A, 21A, 21 B, 21 C, 22A, 22B. 6. Brothers School: Only one -room schoolhouse currently in use in Deschutes County, located on Highway 20 in Brothers. 20-18-00 TL 3200. 7. Bull Creek Dam: The Bull Creek Dam, a component of the Tumalo Irrigation Project was constructed in 1914 to form a water storage reservoir to increase the amount of irrigated acreage at Tumalo. It is a gravity type of overflow dam. Two cut off walls are extended into solid formation, one at the upper toe and the other at the lower toes of the concrete dam. The dam proper is about 17 feet high from the foundation, although the completed structure is about 25 feet. Located on Tumalo Reservoir -Market Road. 16-11-33 TL 2700 SW-'/4; SW-1/4. 8. Bull Creek Dam Bridge (Tumalo Irrigation Ditch Bridge): Built in 1914, the bridge, which spans the dam, consists of five continuous filled spandrel, barrel -type concrete deck arch spans, each 25 feet long. The concrete piers are keyed into notches in the arch structure. The structure is the oldest bridge in Deschutes County. On Tumalo Reserve -market Road. 16-11-33 TL 2700/ SW-�/4; SW-'/4. E-35 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix - o lernen al Sections 9. Camp Abbot Site, Officers' Club: Officers' Club for former military camp, currently identified as Great Hall in Sunriver and used as a meeting hall. 20-11-513 TL 112. 10. Camp Polk Cemetery: One of the last remaining pioneer cemeteries, located off Camp Polk Road near Sisters. The site is composed of a tract of land, including gravestones and memorials, containing 2.112 acres in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 14 South, Range 10 E.W.M., TL 2100, described as follows: Beginning at a point North 20 degrees 06' 20" West 751 feet from the corner common to Sections 26, 27, 34 and 35 in Township 14 South Range 10 E.W.M. and running thence South 88 degrees 30' West 460 feet; thence North 1 degree 30' East 460 feet; thence South 1 degree 30' 200 feet to the point of beginning. 11. Camp Polk Military Post Site: One of the oldest military sites in Deschutes County. Located on Camp Polk Cemetery Road. Site includes entire tax lots, listed as follows 14- 10-00 TL 2805 & 14- 10-34 TL 100, 300. 12. Cloverdale School: School building in Cloverdale, located near 68515 George Cyrus Road. First building built in Cloverdale. 15-11-7 TL 600. 13. Eastern Star Grange: Grange hall for earliest grange organized in Deschutes County, located at 62850 Powell Butte Road. 17-13-19 TL 1900. 14. Enoch Cyrus Homestead Hay Station and Blacksmith Shop: The Enoch Cyrus Homestead was the original homestead of Oscar Maxwell, built in 1892 and purchased in 1900 by Enoch Cyrus. Important stage/store stop for early travelers. The homestead house, including a back porch and cistern, and the Blacksmith Shop are designated. 15-11-10 TL 700. 15. Fremont Meadow: A small natural meadow on Tumalo Creek in Section 34, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, lying within Shevlin Park. TL 5900. Campsite for 1843 Fremont expedition. 17-11-34 TL 5900. 16. Harper School: One -room schoolhouse, located west of South Century Drive, south of Sunriver, moved halfway between the Allen Ranch and the Vandevert Ranch from the former townsite of Harper. 20-11-17 TL 1200. 17. Improved Order of Redmond Cemetery: Historic cemetery used by residents of La Pine/Rosland area. Located on Forest Road 4270, east of Highway 97. A 40-acre parcel described as: The Southwest one -quarter of the Southeast one -quarter (SW-1/4; SE-1/a) Section 7, Township 22 south, Range 11, East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. 18. Laidlaw Bank and Trust: One of the few remaining commercial buildings from the community of Laidlaw, located at 64697 Cook Avenue, Tumalo. 16-12-31 A TL 2900. 19. La Pine Commercial Club: Building was built in 1912 as a community center, serving as a regular meeting place for civic organizations and occasionally served as a church. One of the oldest and continuously used buildings in La Pine. Located at 51518 Morrison Street, La Pine. 22-10-15AA TL 4600. E-36 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 20. Lynch and Roberts Store Advertisement: Ad advertising sign painted on a soft volcanic ash surface. Only area example of early advertising on natural material. Lynch and Roberts established mercantile in Redmond in 1913. Roberts Field near Redmond was named for j.R. Roberts. Site includes the bluff. 14-12-00 TL 1501. 21. Maston Cemetery: One of the oldest cemeteries in County. Oldest grave marker is 1901. About one-half mile from site of Maston Sawmill and Homestead. Site includes the gravestones and memorials and the entire tax lot, identified as 22-09-00 TL 1800. 22. George Millican Ranch and Mill Site: Ranch established in 1886. Well dug at or near that date. Remains of vast cattle ranching empire. 19-15-33 TLs 100, 300. 23. George Millican Townsite: Town established 1913. Site includes store and garage buildings, which retain none of the architectural integrity from era. 19-15-33 TL 500. 24. Petersen Rock Gardens: The Petersen Rock Gardens consist of stone replicas and structures erected by Rasmus Petersen. A residence house and museum are part of the site. The site has been a tourist attraction for over 60 years. Located at 7930 SW 77th, Redmond. Site includes entire tax lot. 16-12-11 TL 400. 25. Pickett's Island: After originally settling in Crook County, Marsh Awbrey moved to Bend and then homesteaded on this island in the Deschutes River south of Tumalo. The site was an early ford for pioneers. Located in Deschutes River near Tumalo State Park. 17- 12-6 NE-1/4 TL 100. Portion between Deschutes River and Old Bend Road is designated. 26. Rease (Paulina Prairie) Cemetery: Historic cemetery on Elizabeth Victoria Castle Rease and Denison Rease's homestead. Earliest known grave is of their son, George Guy Rease, born in 1879, who was also a homesteader on Paulina Prairie. George Guy Rease died of smallpox on the Caldwell Ranch on May 2, 1903. Other known burials are William Henry Caldwell, 1841-October 15, 1910, died on the Caldwell Ranch of injuries sustained on a cattle drive; Melvin Raper, 1892-1914, died in a tent of tuberculosis; Addie Laura Caldwell, 1909-November 16, 1918, died of the Spanish influenza epidemic; and Emma Nimtz Deedon, 1886-April 15, 1915, died of complications from a pregnancy. There are several unmarked graves. The cemetery is a county -owned one -acre parcel on the north edge of Paulina Prairie, two miles east of Highway 97. 210-11-29, SE-1/a; NW-1/4 TL 99. 27. Terrebonne Ladies Pioneer Club: The Club was organized in 1910. The building has been a community -meeting place since 1911. Located at 8334 11th Street, Terrebonne. 14-13- 16DC TL 700. 28. Tetherow House and Crossing: Site is an excellent example of an early Deschutes River crossing. Major route from Santiam Wagon Road to Prineville. Tetherow House was built in 1878. The Tetherows operated a toll bridge, store and livery stable for travelers. Oldest house in County. Site includes house and entire tax lot. 14-12-36A TL 4500. 29. Tumalo Creek - Diversion Dam The original headgate and diversion dam for the feed canal was constructed in 1914. The feed canal's purpose was to convey water from Tumalo Creek to the reservoir. The original headworks were replaced and the original 94.2 ft low overflow weir dam was partially removed in 2009/2010 to accommodate a new fish screen and fish ladder. The E-37 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan remaining original structure is a 90 foot (crest length) section of dam of reinforced concrete. Tax Map 17-11-23, Tax Lot 800 & 1600. 30. Tumalo Community Church: The building is the oldest church in the County, built in 1905. It stands in the former town of Laidlaw, laid out in 1904. Located at 64671 Bruce Avenue, Tumalo. 16-12- 31 A TL 3900. 31. Tumalo Project Dam: Concrete core, earth -filled dam 75 feet high. First project by State of Oregon to use State monies for reclamation project. On Tumalo Creek. 16-11-29. 32. William P. Vandevert Ranch Homestead House: The Vandevert RanchHousestands on the east- - bank of the Little Deschutes River at 17600 Vandevert Road near Sunriver. The homestead was established in 1892, and has been recently relocated and renovated. Vandevert family history in the area spans 100 years. 20-11-18D TL 13800. 33. Kathryn Grace Clark Vandevert Grave: Kathryn Grace Vandevert, daughter of William P. Vandevert, died of influenza during the epidemic of 1918. Her grave is located across a pasture due south of the Vandevert House, 50 feet east of the Little Deschutes River. Site includes gravestone and fenced gravesite measuring is approximately 15 feet by 25 feet. 20-11-00 TL 1900. 34. Young School: Built in 1928, it is an excellent example of a rural "one -room" school which served homesteaders of the 1920s. Located on Butler Market Road. 17-13-19 TL 400. 35. Agnes Mae Allen Sottong and Henry j. Sottong House and Barn: House and barn are constructed with lumber milled on the property in a portable sawmill run by the Pine Forest Lumber Company in 1911. Henry was awarded homestead patent 7364 issued at The Dalles on Dec 1, 1904. Henry was president of the Mountain States Fox Farm. A flume on the Arnold Irrigation District is named the Sottong Flume. The structures are also associated with William Kuhn, a president of the Arnold Irrigation District; Edward and Margaret Uffelman, who were part of the group that privatized and developed the Hoo Doo Ski Resort; and Frank Rust Gilchrist, son of the founder of the town of Gilchrist and Gilchrist Mill and president of the Gilchrist Timber Company from the time of his father's death in 1956 to 1988. Frank R. Gilchrist served on the Oregon Board of Forestry under four governors and was appointed by the governors to serve as a member of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. He served on the Oregon State University's Forest Products Research Lab and was a director and president of the National Forest Products Association. T18 R12 Section 22, 00 Tax lot 01600. inventory note: Unless otherwise indicated the inventoried site includes only the designated structure. No impact areas have been designated for any inventoried site or structure. National Register Resources listed before February 23, 2017 36. Pilot Butte Canal: A gravity -flow irrigation canal constructed in 1904 that diverts 400 cubic feet of Deschutes River water per second. The canal conveys water through a 225- miles -long distribution system of successively narrower and shallower laterals and ditches on its way to those who hold water rights, serving about 20,711 acres by 1922. The canal was built in an area that had a population of 81 people when it was constructed. The historic district measures 7,435 feet long and encompasses 50 feet on either side of the canal centerline to create a 100-foot corridor. The district has a character -defining rocky, uneven bed, and highly irregular slopes, angles, cuts, and embankments. E-38 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 37. Elk Lake Guard Station: A wagon road built in 1920 between Elk Lake and Bend sparked a wave of tourism around the scenic waterfront. To protect natural resources of the Deschutes National Forest and provide visitor information to guests, the Elk Lake Guard Station was constructed in 1929 to house a forest guard. 38. Deedon (Ed and Genvieve) Homestead: The homestead is located between the Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River. All of the buildings were constructed between 1914 and 1915. 39. Gerking, Jonathan N.B. Homestead: Jonathan N.B. Gerking, "Father of the Tumalo Irrigation Project, played a crucial role in getting the project recognized and funded. 40. McKenzie Highway: The McKenzie Salt Springs and Deschutes Wagon Road, a predecessor to the modern McKenzie Highway, was constructed in the 1860s and 1870s. 41. Paulina Lake Guard Station: The station typifies the construction projects undertaken by the Civilian Conservation Corps and signifies the aid to the local community provided by the emergency work -relief program through employment of youth and experienced craftsmen, purchase of building materials and camp supplies, and personal expenditures of enrollees. 42. Paulina Lake I.O.O.F Organization Camp: The Paulina Lake 1.0 .0 F. Organization camp was constructed during the depression era and are the result of cooperative efforts by nonprofessional builders. Such camp buildings are important in Oregon's recreational history as an unusual expression of both its rustic style and its vernacular traditions. 43. Petersen Rock Gardens: The Petersen Rock Gardens consist of stone replicas and structures erected by Rasmus Petersen. The site has been a tourist attraction for over 60 years. 44. Rock O'the Range Bridge: Rock O' The Range is the only covered span east of the Cascades in Oregon. To gain access to his property, William Bowen instructed Maurice Olson - a local contractor - to build a bridge inspired by Lane County's Goodpasture Bridge. 45. Skyliners Lodge: The Skyliners are a Bend -based mountaineering club organized in 1927. In 1935, the group started building the Skyliners Lodge with help from the Deschutes National Forest, the Economic Recovery Act and the City of Bend. 46. Santiam Wagon Road: The Santiam Wagon Road went from Sweet Home to Cache Creek Toll Station. The road was conceived of in 1859 to create a route across the Cascades. By the 1890s, the road had become a major trade route. 47. Wilson, William T.E. Homestead: This homestead house was built in 1903 and has an "American Foursquare" architectural style. National Register Resources listed on / after February 23, 2017 48. Central Oregon Canal: A gravity -flow irrigation canal constructed in 1905 and enlarged in 1907 and 1913. The canal retains its impressive historic open, trapezoidal shape, dimensions and characteristics. It is characterized by the volcanic rock flows, native materials, rocky bed and sides, and its hurried hand-hewn workmanship. The historic district is 3.4 miles long, crossing rural land between the Ward Road Bridge on the western edge and the Gosney Road Bridge on the eastern edge. In the historic district, the canal ranges in width from 34' to 78', averaging around 50% and E-39 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections its depth varies from 1' to 9', averaging around 4' deep, depending on the amount of volcanic lava flows encountered, the terrain, and slope. The canal through the historic district carries nearly the full amount of water diverted from the Deschutes River, 530 cubic feet per second during the irrigation season, April through October. The historic district encompasses 50' on either side of the canal centerline to create a 100' corridor that includes the whole of the easement held by COID, and all the contributing resources. (Date listed: 03/18/2019) E-40 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section S.10 Goal Exception Background The purpose of this section is to identify the lands where Deschutes County demonstrated an exception to meeting the requirements of the Statewide Planning Goals. The intent of goal exceptions is to allow some flexibility in rural areas under strictly defined circumstances. Goal exceptions are defined and regulated by Statewide Planning Goal 2 and Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004 (excerpt below). 660-004-0000(2) An exception is a decision to exclude certain land from the requirements of one or more applicable statewide goals in accordance with the process specified in Goal 2, Part ll, Exceptions. The documentation for an exception must be set forth in a local government's comprehensive plan. Such documentation must support a conclusion that the standards for an exception have been met. Statewide Planning Goals with Deschutes County Exceptions • Goal 3 Agricultural Lands • Goal 4 Forest Lands • Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services • Goal 14 Urbanization Three types of exceptions are permitted by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004 • Irrevocably committed • Physically developed • Reasons The summary below identifies approved goal exceptions and identifies the adopting ordinance for those interested in further information. The ordinances listed are incorporated by reference into this Plan. Comprehensive Plan entire County - PL 20 - 1979 During the preparation of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan it was apparent that many rural lands had already received substantial development and were committed to non -resource uses. Areas were examined and identified where Goal 3 and 4 exceptions were taken. At this time exceptions to Goals 11 and 14 were not required. The total area excepted was 41,556 acres. These lands were residentially developed, committed to development or needed for rural service centers. Additional Exceptions Bend Municipal Airport - Ordinances 80-203, 7980 and 80-22Z 7980 The Bend Municipal Airport received an exception to Goal 3 to allow for the necessary and expected use of airport property. E-41 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan La Pine UUC Boundary - Ordinance 98-001, 1998 Exceptions to Goals 3, 11 and 14 were taken to allow lands to be included in the La Pine UUC boundary and planned and zoned for commercial use. Spring River Rural Service Center - Ordinances 90-009, 7990; 90-070, 1990; 96-022, 1996; 96-045,1996 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 14 to allow the establishment of the Spring River Rural Service Center on residentially designated lands. Burgess Road and Highway 97 - Ordinance 97-060, 7997 An exception was taken toGoal4-to allow for road improvements. Rural Industrial Zone - Ordinances 2010-030, 2010; 2009-007, 2009 Two separate ordinances for rural industrial uses. The 2009 exception included an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3 and a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use Combining Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. The 2010 exception took a reasons exception to Goal 14 with a Limited Use Combing Zone for storage, crushing, processing, sale and distribution of minerals. Prineville Railway - Ordinance 98-017 An exception was taken to Goal 3 to accommodate the relocation of the Redmond Railway Depot and the use of the site for an historic structure to be utilized in conjunction with the Crooked River Dinner Train operations. Resort Communities - Ordinance 2001-047, 2007 An exception was taken to Goal 4 for Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek during the designation of those communities as Resort Communities under OAR 660- 22. Barclay Meadows Business Park - Ordinance 2003-11, 2003 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary. Sisters School District # 6 - Ordinance 2003-11, 2003 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary. Sisters Organization of Activities and Recreation and Sisters School District #6 - Ordinance 2003-017, 2003 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 4 to include certain property within the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary. Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 2 Sewer District - Ordinances 2070-075, 2070; 2003-0751 2003 A reasons exception was taken to Goals 4 and 11 to allow uses approved by the Board of County Commissioners in PA-02-5 and ZC-02-3 as amended by PA-09-4. City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Quniper Ridge) - Ordinance 97-060. 1997 An exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow an amendment of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to incorporate 513 acres for industrial uses. E-42 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Joyce Coats Revocable TrustJohnson Road and Tumolo Reservoir Road Properties - Ordinance 2005- 015, 2005 An irrevocably committed exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow a change of comprehensive plan designation from Surface Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area and zoning from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agriculture for Surface Mine Sites 306 and 307. Watson/Generation Development inc - Ordinance 2005-015 An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property. Oregon Deportment of Transportation Ordinance 2005-019, 2005 An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property. Conklin7Eody Property - Ordinance 2005-035, 2005 An exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property. City of Sisters Property - Ordinance 2005-037, 2005 An exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property. McKenzie Meadows Property - Ordinance 2005-0391 2005 An exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property. Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Properties - Ordinance 2006-025 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 3 to include a portion of agricultural property. Harris and Nancy Kimble Property and Portion of CLR, Inc Property A.KA. the Klippel Pit Property - Ordinance 2008-001, 2008 An irrevocably committed exception was taken to Goal 3 to allow reclassification and zoning from Surface Mine to Rural Residential Exception Area and Rural Residential 10 acre for Surface Mine Site 294. Sunriver Service District, Sunriver Fire Department - Ordinance 2014-021, 2074 A reasons exception was taken to Goal 4 to include a portion of forest property. To ensure that the uses in the Sunriver Utility District Zone on the approximate 4.28 acre site of Tax Lot 102 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 19-11-00 are limited in nature and scope to those justifying the exception to Goal 4 for the site, the Sunriver Forest (SUF) zoning on the subject site shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which will limit the uses on the subject site to a fire training facility and access road for the Sunriver Service District and Sunriver Fire Department. Frances Ramsey Trust Property - Ordinance 2014-027, 2014 An "irrevocably committed" exception was taken to Goal 14 to allow for reclassification and rezoning from agricultural property to Rural Industrial for a 2.65 acre portion of a parcel zoned EFU/RI. E-43 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.11 - Goal 5 Adopted Ordinances As noted in Chapter 5 of this Plan, adopted and acknowledged Goal 5 inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained in this Plan. Generally the Goal 5 inventories and ESEEs were adopted into the previous Comprehensive Plan or Resource Element and the Goal 5 programs were adopted into the Zoning Code. The County does not have a complete listing of Goal 5 inventory and ESEE ordinances, but will continue to research those ordinances. The following list is a start in listing all Goal 5 ordinances that are retained in this Plan. • 80-203 Misc. Goal 5 - • 85-001 Geothermal Resources • 86-019 Deschutes River Corridor • 90-025 Mining • 90-028 Mining • 90-029 Mining • 92-018 Historic and Cultural • 92-033 Open Space, LM • 92-040 Fish and Wildlife • 92-041 Fish and Wildlife (wetlands and riparian) • 92-045 Wetlands RE • 92-051 Misc. including Goal 5 • 92-052 Misc. Goal 5 • 92-067 Mining • 93-003 Misc. Goal 5 • 94-003 Misc. Goal 5 • 94-006 Historic and Cultural • 94-007 Wetlands and Riparian areas • 94-050 Mining • 95-038 Misc. Goal 5 • 95-041 Mining • 96-076 Mining • 99-019 Mining • 99-028 Mining • 2001-027 Mining • 2001-038 Mining • 2001-047 Mining • 2001-018 Fish and Wildlife • 2003-019 Mining • 2005-025 Historic and Cultural • 2005-031 Mining • 2007-013 Mining • 2008-001 Mining • 2011-008 South Deschutes County LWI • 2011-014 Mining E-44 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12 - Legislative History Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2011-003 8-10-11/11-9-11 All, except Transportation, Comprehensive Plan update Tumalo and Terrebonne Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2011-027 10-31-11/11-9-11 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, IS, Housekeeping amendments to ensure a 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.11, 23.40A, smooth transition to the updated Plan 23.40B, 23.40.065, 23.01.010 2012-005 8-20-12/11-19-12 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), Updated Transportation System Plan 3.7 (revised), Appendix C (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 2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13 4.2 Central Oregon Regional Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.11 Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County 2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.11 Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility E-45 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2015-021 11-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. 2015-029 11-23-15/11-30-15 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. 2015-010 12-2-15/12-2-15 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage - Grouse Habitat Inventories 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County 2016-005 11-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non- resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning 2016-022 9-28-16/11-14-16 23.01.010, 1.3, 4.2 Comprehensive plan Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2016-029 12-14-16/12/28/16 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial 2017-007 10-30-17/10-30-17 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-002 1-3-18; 1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone 2018-006 7-23-18/7-23-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9 Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources E-46 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2018-011 9-12-18/12-11-18 23.01.010 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area 2018-005 9-19-18/10-10-18 23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Community Plan, removing Flood Plain Comprehensive Newberry Country Plan Plan Designation; Comprehensive Plan Amendment adding Flood Plain Combining Zone purpose statement. 2018-008 9-26-18/10-26-18 23.01.010, 3.4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing for the potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial 2019-002 1-2-19/4-2-19 23.01.010, 5.8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Surface Mining to Rural Residential Exception Area; Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; Modifying Non - Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Comprehensive Plan and Text Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. 2019-003 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the Large Lot Industrial Program 2019-004 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of Oregon Military Department National Guard Armory. 2019-011 05-01-19/05-16/19 23.01.010, 4.2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area 1 boundary. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. 2019-006 03-13-19/06-11-19 23.01.010, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area E-47 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan AppendN E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2019-016 11-25-19/02-24-20 23.01.01, 2.5 Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments incorporating language from DLCD's 2014 Model Flood Ordinance and Establishing a purpose statement for the Flood Plain Zone. 2019-019 12-11-19/12-11-19 23.01.01, 2.5 Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to provide procedures related to the division of certain split zoned properties containing Flood Plain - zoning and involving a former or piped irrigation canal. 2020-001 1-8-20/4-20-20 23.01.01, 2.6, 3.5, 5.2 Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments relating to Religious Institutions to ensure compliance with RLUIPA. 2020-002 2-26-20/5-26-20 23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary through an equal exchange of land to/from the Redmond UGB. The exchange property is being offered to better achieve land needs that were detailed in the 2012 SB 1544 by providing more development ready land within the Redmond UGB. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. 2020-003 02-26-20/05-26-20 23.01.01, 5.10 Comprehensive Plan Amendment with exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow sewer on rural lands to serve the City of Bend Outback Water Facility. 2020-008 06-24-20/09-22-20 23.01.010, Appendix C Comprehensive PlanTransportation System Plan Amendment to add roundabouts at US 20/Cook-O.B. Riley and US 20/01d Bend -Redmond Hwy intersections; amend Tables 5.371 and 5.372 and amend TSP text. 2020-007 07-29-20/10-27-20 23.01.010, 2.6 Housekeeping Amendments correcting references to two Sage Grouse ordinances. 2020-006 08-12-20/11-10-20 23.01.01, 2.11, 5.9 Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to update the County's Resource List and Historic Preservation Ordinance to comply with the State Historic Preservation Rule. 2020-009 08-19-20/11-17-20 23.01.010, Appendix C Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Amendment to add reference to J turns on US 97 raised median between Bend and Redmond; delete language about disconnecting Vandevert Road from US 97. E-48 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Appendix E - Goal 5 Supplemental Sections Ordinance Date Adopted/ Effective Chapter/Section Amendment 2020-013 08-26-20/11/24/20 23.01.01, 5.8 Comprehensive Plan Text And Map Designation for Certain Properties from Surface Mine (SM) and Agriculture (AG) To Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and Remove Surface Mining Site 461 from the County's Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resource Sites. 2021-002 01-27-21/04-27-21 23.01.01 Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property from Agriculture (AG) To Rural Industrial (RI) E-49 I Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan STAFF FINDINGS FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000644-PA APPLICANT: Deschutes County Planning Division REQUEST: Repeal and Replace 2030 Comprehensive Plan with Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT: Nicole Mardell, AICP, Senior Planner Phone: 541-317-3157 Email:.nicole.mardell@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.deschutes.org/2040 by clicking on the "Hearing Page" link I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.012, Legislative Procedures Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines II. BASIC FINDINGS PROPOSAL This is a legislative plan and text amendment to replace the 2030 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan with the Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal does not seek to replace the Tumalo Community Plan, Terrebonne Community Plan, Newberry Country Plan, nor the Transportation System Plan. This proposal does not include any amendments to the County's Goal 5 Inventory. The proposal does not include any Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map amendments. BACKGROUND The Board of County Commissioners initiated the process to update the County's Comprehensive Plan in November 2021. Staff worked extensively with the project consultant MIG, on creating the project scope and budget for this process. Over the last 18 months, staff has conducted widespread community engagement and analysis of existing conditions and projected trends. This in turn, has 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 `, (541) 388-6575 CDd@deschutes.org ww� ieschutes.org/cd informed updates to chapter narrative, goal, and policy language to provide an up-to-date approach to managing growth and development in rural Deschutes County. REVIEW CRITERIA Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative plan and text amendment. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is initiating one, the County bears the responsibility for justifying that the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and the County's Comprehensive Plan. III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES Section 22.12.010. Hearing Required FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing will be held before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on October 26, 2023, and before the Board of County Commissioners on April 10, 2024. Section 22.12.020, Notice Notice A. Published Notice 1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing. 2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration. FINDING: This criterion is met as notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on October 13th, 2023, for the Planning Commission public hearing and on March 27th, 2024 for the Board of County Commissioners public hearing. B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045. FINDING: Posted notice was determined by the Planning Director not to be necessary. C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC 22.0&010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as required by ORS 215.503. FINDING: Given the proposed legislative amendments do not apply to any specific property, no individual notices were sent. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 2 of 14 D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other newspapers published in Deschutes County. FINDING: Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media distribution. Staff provided additional notice beyond the legal requirements. This was done through the project's constant contact mailing list, including over 550 contacts, through press releases, and coordination with community organizations. This criterion is met. Section 22.12.030 Initiation of Legislative Changes. A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners. FINDING: The application was initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners and has received a fee waiver. This criterion is met. Section 22.12.040. Hearings Body A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this order. 1. The Planning Commission. 2. The Board of County Commissioners. B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of Commissioners. FINDING: The Deschutes County Planning Commission will hold the initial public hearing on October 26, 2023. The Board will hold a public hearing on April 10, 2024. These criteria are or will be met. Section 22.12.050 Final Decision All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance. FINDING: The proposed legislative changes will be implemented by ordinance 20xx-xxx, upon approval and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. This criterion will be met. OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Goal 1: Citizen Involvement: FINDING: The development of the Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan document was a multi -year process with significant public outreach and community member involvement. The following is a short summary of engagement leading up to the initial public hearing: o Established a project email list with over 500 contacts. o Provided 7 project update emails. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 3 of 14 o Established a new, user-friendly website. o Received over 29,000 social media impressions. o Coordinated with media on 13 news stories. o Held 66 small group meetings with over 400 participants. o Held 8 open houses with 296 attendees. o Held an online open house with 361 survey responses. o Hosted a virtual and interactive forum with over 100 responses. o Held 11 planning commission meetings. - o Provided incentives through a raffle, prizes, and food and beverages. Community member input was essential to the development of the resulting Deschutes County 2040 document and staff utilized several novel and innovative techniques to reach rural residents. Chapter 1 of the plan, Community Engagement, outlines numerous policies that reduce barriers to and support community involvement throughout planning processes. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 1, Section 1.2 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 1 - Community Engagement Amendments: Citizen involvement (now Community Engagement) was completely rewritten. The section listed above and this Plan as a whole, complies with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, as described: • The adoption process for these amendments included public hearings before the Planning Commission (Committee for Citizen Involvement) and before the Board of County Commissioners. • The updated goal and policies were created through an extensive two-year public/Planning Commission process that generated considerable public input which was incorporated throughout this Plan. • The new policies recognize the Planning Commission as the required Committee for Community Involvement. • This section complies with the following six components of Statewide Goal 1: • Policies 1.1.1-1.1.8 promote opportunities to involve community members at all stages of planning processes by providing adequate opportunities for input, promoting two-way communication, and continuously improving on outreach activities. • Policies 1.2.1-1.2.6 support the activities and funding of the Committee for Community Involvement. • Policies 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 ensure technical information is available in an understandable form Consistency with Goal 1 is thereby met. Goal 2: Land Use Planning: FINDING: The purpose of the chapter is to ensure the Comprehensive Plan was built with a factual base and will be followed when making future land use decisions. In updating this plan document, information was gained from numerous studies, technical documents, and subject matter experts. ORS 197.610 prescribes the process for local governments to initiate post -acknowledgement plan 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 4 of 14 amendments. 45-day notice was provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation (DLCD) and Development on August 30, 2023 - no comments have been received from DLCD. The draft Plan contains detailed, factual background information in each chapter narrative to provide context for the goals and policies. The Deschutes County 2040 plan update does propose any changes to Comprehensive Plan designations or zoning designations, nor the County's Goal 5 inventories or community plans as part of this update. Key Policy Changes - Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 1, Section 1.3 and Chapter 5, Section 5.10 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 2 Land Use and Regional Coordination Amendments: Land use (previously Section 1.3) was completely rewritten. The sections listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 2 as described: • Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.5 recognize that when making land use regulations, private property rights, economic impacts, sustainability and carrying capacity all need to be considered. • Policy 2.1.2 and 2.1.4 recognize the importance of implementing the plans recommendations through the annual department work plan process and updating the document to incorporate new information. • Policy 2.1.3 clarifies the official Comprehensive Plan map is retained as an electronic layer with the Deschutes County GIS system. • Goal 2.2 and its associated policies support regional coordination and partnership on regional issues and are further discussed under Goal 14 - Urbanization. • Policies 2.3.1-2.3.2 speaks to coordinate and management of County owned land use for park purposes. • Policies 2.4.1-2.4.2 recognize the importance of reducing onerous barriers to land use and planning applications. • There are no amendments to Comprehensive Plan map designations incorporated into this Plan update, although definitions of existing designations are provided. Consistency with Goal 2 is thereby met. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands: FINDING: Goal 3 seeks to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Deschutes County inventoried agricultural lands as required by Goal 3 in 1979 and refined the agricultural land designations as a result of a farm study in 1992. This plan update does not propose to rezone or redesignate any agricultural lands. Staff finds that the goals and policies within the document are supportive of retaining productive and valuable lands for agricultural uses within Deschutes County and reducing barriers to a healthy agricultural economy. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 2, Section 2.2 Deschutes County2040 Plan: Chapter 3 - Farm and Forest Resources 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 5 of 14 Amendments: Chapter 2, Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands and Section 2.3 Forest Lands were combined and rewritten, although existing designations and regulations were retained. The section listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, complies with Statewide Planning Goal 3 as described: • Policies 3.1.1-3.1.2 retain the existing Exclusive Farm Use Zoning and subzones. No map changes are proposed as part of this Plan update. • Policy 3.1.4 ensures the County's farm policies and codes remain compliantwith State regulations. • Policies 3.2.1-3.2.9 support the business of agriculture and review of county regulations to reduce --- -- common issues that impact farming operations and activities. • Policies 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.6 support the accurate designation of agricultural lands in compliance with State rules, while responding to local concerns that there are Deschutes County farmlands that are incorrectly designated. • Policy 3.3.4 addresses the newly allowed state allowance for rural accessory dwelling units. • Policy 3.3.5 encourages coordination between farmers and fish/wildlife managers. Consistency with Goal 3 is thereby met. Goal 4: Forest Lands: FINDING: Goal 4 seeks to conserve forest lands. Deschutes County inventoried forest lands as required by Goal 4 in 1979 and refined the forest land designations to conform to OAR 660-006. Deschutes County is not proposing to rezone or redesignate any forest lands as part of this update process. Staff consolidated the goals that were previously in Section 2.3 Forest Lands into Chapter 3 - Farm and Forest Resources. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 2, Section 2.3 Deschutes County2040 Plan: Chapter 3 - Farm and Forest Lands Amendments: Forest Lands (previously Section 2.3) was rewritten and combined into the same chapter as agricultural lands, although existing designations and regulations were retained. The section listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 4 as described: • Goal 3.4 and Policies 3.4.1-3.4.4 provide the characteristics and criteria for the County's Forest Zones. These policies remain unchanged from the previous 2010 plan. • Policy 3.4.5 ensures forest codes are compliant with State regulations. • Policies 3.4.6-3.4.7, 3.4.9, and 3.4.10 recognize the need for coordination with federal agencies and tribal government in forest management. • Policy 3.4.8 supports economic opportunities within forest zoned lands while meeting other community goals. • Policy 3.4.11 recognizes the need to review and revisit county code to reduce impacts from development on forest health and dependent species. Consistency with Goal 4 is thereby met. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 6 of 14 Goal 5: Open Spaces Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: FINDING: Statewide Planning Goal 5 addresses natural resources, historic and cultural resources, and mineral and aggregate resources. In this update, these topics were divided into three chapters to ensure adequate depth and policy response to each particular topic. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 2, Sections 2.4-2.7 and 2.10-2.11 and Chapter 5, Sections 5.3- 5.9, 5.11 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 4 - Mineral and Aggregate Resources, Chapter 5 - Natural Resources, Chapter 6 - Historic Resources Amendments: The narratives for each topic were rewritten. The Goal 5 inventories for these resources (as well as ESEEs and programs) were retained and remained unchanged in Appendix A. The sections listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5 as described: Chapter 5 - Natural Resources • Water Goals and Policies • Policies 5.1.1 directs the county to participate in statewide regional and water planning efforts including implementation of the Upper Deschutes Basin Study, Habitat Conservation Plan, and Biological Opinion. • Policy 5.1.2 supports grants for improvements, upgrades, or expansions to water systems. • Policies 5.1.4 promotes increased consideration of water quality, water availability, and treaty rights of Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in the land use review process. • Policies 5.2.1-5.2.3 support water conservation efforts through a mixture of incentives, educational opportunities and partnerships with local and regional organizations and agencies. • Policies 5.3.1-5.3.4 seek to maintain a healthy ecosystem in the Deschutes River Basin including partnerships with agencies, implementation of study recommendation, and education. • Policies 5.4.1-5.4.11 seek to maintain and enhance fish and riparian dependent wildlife habitat. These polices address coordination with agencies and organizations during land use review process, implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans and other scientific studies, and additional regulations and educational programs to limit impacts to riparian areas. • Policies 5.5.1-5.5.7 aspire to coordinate land use and water policies to address water allocation and management. These policies address coordination, support to revisit Oregon Water Resources Departments Groundwater Allocation and Mitigation Rules, improvement of stormwater and wastewater facilities, and consideration of hydrology during land use review process. • Open Spaces and Scenic Views • Policies 5.6.1-5.6.4 recognize the importance of working with stakeholders to establish and maintain connected open spaces and scenic view areas. • Policies 5.6.5-5.6.6 support protection for visually significant areas. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 7 of 14 • Wildlife Habitat • Policy 5.7.1 promotes stewardship of wildlife habitat. • Policy 5.7.2 is directed at updating wildlife habitat inventories and protections through future public processes, informed by public process, expert sources, and current or recently updated plans. • Policy 5.7.3 and 5.7.4 seek to incentive or require greater compatibility between development and habitat areas, including clustering of development. • Policy 5.7.5 directs the County to coordinate with Confederate Tribes of Warm Springs on co - management on wildlife resources. • Policies 5.8.-5.8.3 seek to balance the economic and recreation benefits of wildlife with the protection of these resources. • Policies 5.9.1-5.9.3 address federal and state protected species. Chapter 4 - Mineral and Aggregate Resources • Policies 4.1.1-4.1.3 seek to implement the Goal 5 program for mineral and aggregate sites. • Policy 4.1.4 supports reclamation of sites following exhaustion of mineral or aggregate resources. Chapter 6 - Historic and Cultural Resources • Policies 6.1.1- 6.1.3 define roles of the County in promoting a historic landmarks program, including coordination with the State Historic Preservation office and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. Consistency with Goal 5 is thereby met. Goal 6: Air Water and Land Resources Quality: FINDING: Goal 6 instructs local governments to consider protection of air, water, and land resources from pollution and pollutants when developing Comprehensive Plans. This chapter supports maintaining and improving air, water and land quality, which goes beyond the requirements of Goal 6 to comply with State and Federal regulations. Staff notes that there are no comprehensive map or zoning changes associated with this amendment, nor are any amendments to the County's Goal 5 inventory proposed. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 2, Section 2.5 and 2.9 Deschutes County2040 Plan: Chapter 5 - Natural Resources Amendments: This section was entirely rewritten, the policies pertaining to Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality have been integrated into an "Environmental Quality" section of the larger natural resources chapter. The sections listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 6 as described: 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 8 of 14 • Policies 5.10.1 and 5.11.2 promote use of environmentally friendly building practices in County operations and on public property. • Policy 5.10.2 supports implementation of a dark skies program to impacts of light pollution. • Policies 5.10.3-5.10.4, and Policy 5.11.2 promote public education regarding controlled burning, noxious weeds, and reuse and recycling. • Policies 5.11.3-5.11.4 support the process for siting new waste management facilities and implementing best practices in solid waste management. • Policy 5.11.5 seeks to develop and implement a Climate Action Plan to mitigate impacts of climate - -change in Deschutes County. • Policy 5.11.6 promotes green infrastructure to improve stormwater. Consistency with Goal 6 is thereby met. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: FINDING: Goal 7 requires comprehensive plans to address Oregon's natural hazards. Deschutes County has been proactive in addressing natural hazards, through periodic updates to the County's Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP). That Plan provides extensive information on natural hazards in Deschutes County and detailed recommendations to protect people and property. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 3, Section 3.5 Deschutes County2040 Plan: Chapter 7 - Natural Hazards Amendments: Natural hazards (now Chapter 7) was completely rewritten. The section listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 7 as described: • Policies 7.1.1-7.1.3, and 7.2.4 promote coordination agency partners to regularly update the NHMP, update hazard risk maps, review land use applications, and clarify responsibilities pertaining to natural hazard events. • Policy 7.1.4 seeks to utilize development code provisions to manage development in hazard prone areas. • Policies 7.1.5 - 7.1.10 aspires to address wildfire risk and mitigate impacts to wildlife and people. • Policy 7.1.11 provides recommendations to review and revise County code to address common hazard risk issues. • Policies 7.2.1-7.2.2 mitigate risk to essential infrastructure following natural hazard events. • Policy 7.2.3 supports the siting of a regional emergency services training facility. • Policy 7.2.5-7.2.7 provides required and incentivized standards to mitigate risk for new development in hazard prone areas. • Policy 7.2.8 provides compliance with the FEMA flood insurance program. • Policies 7.3.1-7.3.5 promote development of programs to inform the public of increased risk of natural hazards. Consistency with Goal 7 is hereby met. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 9 of 14 Goal 8: Recreational Needs: FINDING: Goal 8 requires local governments to plan for the recreation needs of their residents and visitors. Unlike cities, the County is not required to adopt a parks master plan, but instead coordinate recreational activities among government and private agencies in the rural portions of the County. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 3, Section 3.8 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 8 - Recreation Amendments: This section was completely rewritten. The sections listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 8 as described below. • Goal 8.1 and policies 8.1.1-8.1.6 address the need for cooperation in recreation planning. • Policy 8.1.7 discusses working with Unincorporated Communities that express interest in parks. • Policy 8.1.8 refers to integrating trail designs from other agencies within the Transportation System Plan where appropriate. • Policy 8.1.9 explores an increased role of the County in parks and recreation to serve rural areas not already within a parks and recreation district. • Policy 8.1.10 supports the community effort to acquire and manage Skyline Forest as a community asset. • Policy 8.1.11 speaks to balancing new recreational opportunities with the integrity of the natural environment. Consistency with Goal 8 has been met. Goal 9: Economic Development: FINDING: Goal 9 seeks to provide adequate opportunities for economic development throughout the state. Goal 9 primarily applies to urban development within acknowledged growth boundaries. The County is not required to provide an economic feasibility study or designate land to fulfill employment needs. Rather, these policies are intended to provide guidance for regional economic development activities and rural economic activities allowed under state law. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 3, Section 3.4 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 9 - Economic Development Amendments: The economy chapter was completely rewritten. The section listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 9 as described: • Policy 9.1.1 speaks to promote rural economic initiatives, while balancing impacts to rural livability and natural resources. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 10 of 14 • Policy 9.1.2 supports Economic Development for Central Oregon as the regional coordinator for economic development. • Policy 9.1.3 supports growth and expansion of higher education in Central Oregon to support the regional workforce. • Policy 9.1.4 supports renewable energy generation as an economic tool, with consideration for community concerns or goals such as livability and impact on natural resources. • Policy 9.1.5 promotes master planning for airport facilities to reduce noise and safety concerns as the region grows. • Policy 9.1.6 speaks to allowing local oriented rural commercial uses as state law allows. • Policy 9.1.7-9.1.10 addresses planning for economic development lands, including large lot industrial lands, supporting childcare, and expansion of internet infrastructures. • Policies 9.2.1-9.3.15 are retained from the 2011 /1979 Plan. These policies govern existing Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial designated properties. These properties were previously evaluated under OAR 660-023 and determined to have pre-existing commercial or industrial uses that do not fit into any of the unincorporated community categories. Consistency with Goal 9 is met. Goal 10: Housing: FINDING: Goal 10 directs cities to provide an adequate supply of housing for their residents. Unlike cities, Counties are not required to comply with the requirements of Goal 10 to provide a 20-year supply of housing for its community members, nor undertake any analysis pertaining to housing demand and supply. The County does not have any statutory obligations in providing findings to Goal 10. Instead, staff and community members identified important emerging issues that pertain to rural housing and drafted aspirational policies to address these issues. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 3, Section 3.3 Deschutes County2040 Plan: Chapter 10 - Housing Amendments: Housing (now Chapter 10) was completely rewritten. The policies below and this section as a whole complies with statewide land use Goal 10 as described: • Goal 10.1 was refined from the previous Comprehensive Plan and speaks to balancing housing choice for rural residents with health, safety, environmental, and resource land impacts. • Policy 10.1.1 speaks to establishing a tracking system for cumulative impacts associated with rural housing development. • Policy 10.1.2 addresses health and safety issues associated with housing. • Policy 10.1.3 encourages subdivisions alternative development patterns for subdivisions (such as clustering) to mitigate community and environmental impacts. • Policies 10.1.4-10.2.2 speak to providing affordable housing options and alternatives in Deschutes County and exploring programs to support housing where allowed by state law in rural areas. • Policies 10.3.1-10.3.7 provide guidance for development in the Westside Transect Zone. • Policies 10.4.1-10.4.6 support coordination with cities on affordable housing. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 11 of 14 Consistency with Goal 10 is thereby met. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services: FINDING: Goal 11 directs local governments to plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for rural development. The County does not provide any water or sewer services. The primary services provided by Deschutes County, aside from Transportation which is addressed in the County's Transportation System Plan) pertains to waste management. The County may also serve as a conduit for other resources and may support other local governments in siting of regional facilities. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 3, Section 3.6 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 12 - Public Facilities Amendments: Public facilities and services (now Chapter 12) was completely rewritten. The section listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 11 as described: • Goal 12.1 and policies 12.1.1-12.1.13 supports orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services including natural hazard preparedness, intergovernmental coordination; and reduction of impact to natural and community resources. • Goal 12.2 and policies 12.2.1-122.4 promote sustainable, innovative, and cost-effective waste management practices. • Goal 12.3 and Policy 12.3.1 encourages the County to be a conduit for resources. Consistency with Goal 11 is met. Goal 12: Transportation: FINDING: The Deschutes County 2040 plan does not directly address transportation, but rather refers directly to an appendix for the County's Transportation System Plan. The adoption of the 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan is still under review and is required to comply with this goal and applicable statute and implementing rule. Goal 13: Energy Conservation: FINDING: Goal 13 aspires to conserve energy, by maximizing land and uses to maximize conservation of all forms of energy. This section primarily provides guidance for conservation and alternative energy production in the rural county, as allowed by state law. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 2, Section 2.8 Deschutes County 2040 Plan: Chapter 13 - Energy Amendments: Energy (now Chapter 13) was completely rewritten as a standalone chapter. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 12 of 14 The sections listed above, and this.Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 13 as described: • Goal 14.1 promotes energy conservation and alternative energy production. • Policies 14.1.1-14.1.3 aspire to reduce energy usage in County operations and support working with energy suppliers to promote energy efficiency in all economic sectors. • Policies 14.1.4-14.1.10 seek to promote development of renewable energy projects at a commercial and personal scale, including development of vehicle charging stations, while balancing environmental and community resources. Consistency with Goal 13 is thereby met. Goal 14: Urbanization: FINDING: Two chapters within the 2040 Plan touch on the topic of urbanization - Land Use and Regional Coordination, and Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts. Staff notes the key policies pertaining to urbanization below. Staff notes that the unincorporated community policies pertain to those designated under OAR 660-022. Rural industrial and rural commercial policies are noted in review of Goal 9 above. More specific policies for the unincorporated communities of Tumalo and Terrebonne are included in the small area plans included as appendices to this document. The community plans are not updated or amended through the Deschutes County 2040 update process. Key Policy Changes Comprehensive Plan - 2030: Chapter 4, Sections 4.2-4.4 and 4.57-4.8 Deschutes County 2040: Chapter 2 - Land Use and Regional Coordination, Chapter 11 - Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts Amendments: Urbanization (now retitled and reorganized into the two chapters above) was completely rewritten. Urban Unincorporated Communities, Resort Communities and Rural Service Centers (previously Sections 4.4, 4.7, 4.8) have been moved to Chapter 11. The sections listed above, and this Plan update as a whole, comply with Statewide Planning Goal 14 as described below. Chapter 2 - Land Use and Regional Coordination • Goal 2.2 seeks to coordinate regional planning efforts between the local, regional, and state governments. • Policies 2.2.1-2.2.4, 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 encourage periodic review of intergovernmental and urban management agreements, coordination on land use actions, and support the use of land for public purposes as needed. • Policy 2.2.5 encourages cities to conduct urban reserve planning in partnership with the County. • Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 encourage collaboration with federal agencies and tribal governments on key land management issues. • Policy 2.2.8 seeks to support regional infrastructure projects with community benefit, while mitigating negative impacts. • Policy 2.2.9 supports updates to unincorporated community area plans. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 13 of 14 Chapter 11- Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts • Policies 11.1.1-11.1.5 are general resort community policies and remain unchanged through this update. • Policies 11.2.1-11.3.6 govern the Black Butte Ranch resort community and remain unchanged. • Policies 11.4.1-11.5.7 pertain to Inn of 71" Mountain and Widgi Creek. These polices are unchanged. • Destination Resort Goal 11.6, 11.7 and Policies 11.6.1-11.7.1, 11.7.4-11.7.5 remain unchanged. The goals and policies were moved from the rural recreation element of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan to Chapter 11 - Unincorporated Communities and Destination Resorts and reorganized for consistency. • Policy 11.7.2 was created with Planning Commission and community feedback and seeks to add additional requirements to considerwater quality, recreational resources, and communityvalues during Destination Resort siting. • Policy 11.7.3 seeks to integrate affordable housing for workers within or near destination resorts. • Policies 11.8.1-11.20.4 provide guidance for the unincorporated community of Sunriver and are unchanged through this proposal. Consistency with Goal 14 is thereby met. Goals 15 through 19 FINDING: These goals are not applicable to the proposed plan and text amendments because the County does not contain these types of lands. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan complies with all relevant Deschutes County and OAR requirements. 247-23-000644-PA (Deschutes County 2040) Page 14 of 14 Attachment D Policy Tracker To view the policy tracker, which serves as an extensive reference document comparing iterations of language throughout the update process, click on the link below. It can also be found on the project hearing page under "BOCC Hearing — Applicant Submittals". Note: due to the amount of information, this policy tracker is best viewed on an electronic device rather than as a printed copy. https.//webtink ddeschutes.org/CDD/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&repo=LFCDD&id=1244335 JTEs O p ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING r REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date. Name rAl Address. Phone #s (- ` 1 1 E-mail address Jv- In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS U�JT ESI CAL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Sutijcct. Date: Name & Address Phone #s �— L1(� E-mail addressW (_cam 4 ' ( In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F1 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS April 10, 2024 Board of County Commissioners c/o Nicole Mardell Nicole.Mardell@deschutes. org Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street, 2nd Floor Bend, OR 97703 RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Updates Our File No.: 137893-262943 Dear Commissioners: Kenneth Katzaroff Admitted in Washington and Oregon D:206-405-1985 C:206-755-2011 KKatzaroff@SCHWABE.com Our firm represents 710 Properties, LLC, as well as other property owners whose lands will be impacted by the proposed changes contained in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan") update. Staff has done a laudable job distilling a lot of information, comments, and differing views into a reasonable draft for review by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"). However, this comment addresses a few concerns and will likely be followed with additional comment letters, and requests two clarifications or changes. First, updates to comprehensive plans generally become effective upon adoption. This creates a challenge to parties that have existing decisions that are on challenge before the Land Use Board of Appeals or the Court of Appeals. This means that it is foreseeable that a change to the Comp Plan could impact, complicate, or bar ultimate approval of a land use decision —such as a rezone or other approval —that the BOCC has previously approved. Therefore, we request that an addition to the Comp Plan is inserted to make it clear that updates to the Comp Plan are not effective against existing but not yet final land use applications. Second, I am concerned about the fact that the current plan erases changes previously made by the County and upon which applications regularly rely on to make the argument that the designation of nonresource lands as "RREA" means that are no issues related to Goal 14 for such changes. There were at least two policies involved in the previous 2011 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mardell has a chart that shows changes proposed between the 2011 and the 2024 Comp Plans. 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 1 Seattle, WA 98101 1 M 206-622-1711 1 F 206-292-0460 1 schwabe.com 137893\262943\JKKA\4542683 6.1 Board of County Commissioners April 10, 2024 The first policy of concern is Policy 2.2.3 (2011 Plan), it currently says: "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." The new Policy 3.2.3 (2024) Plan will say: "Continue to apply EFU designations to agricultural lands consistent with and as required by state law and administrative rules." This change may eliminate non -resource land amendments (see notes re proposed options for Policy 3.1.3 on Ms. Mardell's chart) and, unless new Policy 3.3.6(a) remains as written, could eliminate the exemption from Goal 14 for non -resource land amendments. New policy 3.3.6(a) contains the same text as old Policy 2.2.3 (2011), and therefore must remain. Ms. Mardell's notes for old Policy 2.2.3 suggest that the BOCC explore using nonresource lands for open space and needed housing and lists the current Policy 2.2.3 as an "option." This conflicts with Policy 3.3.6(a). Moreover, it appears that staff proposes to eliminate Policy 2.2.13 which provides that the County should "Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands." And, the language applicants have previously relied on in Section 3.3 of the 2011 Plan (see below) appears to have been eliminated entirely. This language and policies need to be returned to the Comp Plan as it plainly makes the RREA designation applicable to lands rezoned as a result of a nonresource plan amendment, unless some new provision says much the same thing. It would, however, be better if no change to this language is made — in hopes it won't be open for discussion if the new Comp Plan is appealed. The language in DCCP Section 1.3, page 15 is found on page 1-4. The language regarding "providing opportunity for rural residential living" is now found in a Purpose Statement chart on p. 2-3. Additionally, the table that lists zones associated with plan designations appears to have been eliminated. It should be reinstated. If not, the County should link the RR-10 and MUA-10 to the RREA designation for nonresource lands, as well as exceptions areas. With regards to Goal 14, Applicants have relied upon the following legal arguments for compliance: 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 1 Seattle, WA 98101 I M 206-622-1711 I F 206-292-0460 I schwabe.com Page 2 137893\262943UKKA\45426836.1 Board of County Commissioners April 10, 2024 "Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("DCCP") Policy 2.2.3 specifically allows nonresource lands zoned EFU to be redesignated and rezoned and identifies the property zoning and plan designations to be applied to non- agricultural lands. The plan also states, in Section 3.3, Rural Residential Exception Areas: "As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through initiating a non -resource plan amendment and zone change by demonstrating the property does not meet the definition of agricultural or forest land * * * " The Plan states that "[e]ach Comprehensive Plan map designation provides the land use framework for establishing zoning districts. Zoning defines in detail what uses are allowed for each area." DCCP Section 1.3, p. 15. Rural Residential Exception Areas, according to the DCCP, "provide opportunities for rural residential living outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated communities ***" DCCP Section 1.3, p. 15. DCCP Table 1.3.3 provides that Title 18's RR-10 and MUA-10 are the "associated Deschutes County Zoning Code[s]" for the RREA plan designation. The determination that the RREA plan designations and RR-10 and MUA-10 zoning districts should apply to non-agricultural lands was made when the County amended the DCCP in 2016. Ordinance 2016-005. That ordinance was acknowledged by DLCD as complying with the Statewide Goals. This means that the lot sizes and uses allowed by the RREA plan designation and RR-10 zone are Goal 14 compliant. The proposed plan amendment simply acts in accordance with the DCCP provisions. It provides no occasion for the County to revisit the issue of whether the RR-10 zone and RREA zoning violate Goal 14 by allowing urban development. This issue is addressed in detail by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, 301 Or App 701, 457 P3d 369 (2020)("TID"). In TID, the Court held that a decision made by Deschutes County decades earlier not to apply a resource plan designation to the subject property made it unnecessary for the property owner to establish that the property is nonresource land when remapping it from Surface Mining to RREA and MUA- 10. This is consistent with earlier Court of Appeals decisions that hold that Goal 5 is not a relevant issue in a plan amendment and zone change application if the 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 1 Seattle, WA 98101 I M 206-622-1711 F 206-292-0460 I schwabe.com Page 3 137893\262943U KKA\45426836.1 Board of County Commissioners April 10, 2024 subject property has not been identified as a Goal 5 resource by the applicable comprehensive plan. Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or. App. 176, 181-82, 721 P.2d 870 (1986); Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 139 - -0r App 39, 911 P2d 350, rev den 323 Or 136 (1996). The case of Jackson County Citizens' League v. Jackson County, 171 Or App 149, 15 P3d 42 (2000) holds that it is unnecessary to establish compliance with Goal 14 for uses conditionally allowed by the EFU zone; just as it is unnecessary for 710 Properties, LLC to establish that Deschutes County's comprehensive plan, a plan that provides that the RREA plan designation and RREA zones (RR-10 and MUA-10) should be applied to non-agricultural lands, complies with Statewide Goal 14." Absent preservation of the above -mentioned provisions, it may be that applicants are unable to, or it may be difficult to show, compliance with Goal 14 when rezoning property. This would thwart the County's previous goals of rezoning lands that are not properly designated as agricultural or other lands. Very truly yours, SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. Kennet�Katzaroff JKKA: aks cc: Tarik Rawlings Stephanie Marshall 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 1 Seattle, WA 98101 I M 206-622-1711 I F 206-292-0460 I schwabe.com Page 4 137893\262943UKKA\45426836.1 J-res c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony r Date: Subject: L-t� 1 Name 2-00 Address bf. 5 �_f Phone #s E-mail address LW, , �J In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed art of testimony? Yes �No Submitting. written documents as p _y If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: April 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Commercial activity in conjunction with Farm use (winery) in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone RECOMMENDED ACTION: Following the public hearing, decide whether to request additional testimony and application materials which may demonstrate compliance with or acknowledgement of specific conditions of approval imposed by the Hearings Officer as those pertain to DCC 18.116 and 18.124. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on April 10, 2024, to consider a request for, and appeal of, proposed commercial activities in conjunction with farm use to establish a winery (file nos. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 018-A). BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner E5 CO 4v? s �.a t� _ . IT, 1_4_►1i Ce1:�1\ 11in TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner DATE: April 10, 2024 RE: Public Hearing: A Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use (Winery) in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone. The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a Public Hearing on April 10, 2024, to consider a request for a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use to establish a winery. The applications and appeal are identified as file nos. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A. The subject property is approximately 5.5 acres in size and is about 750 feet northwest of the City of Bend. Highway 97 is approximately 1,500 feet directly to the east. The property is addressed at 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend, and is further identified on County Assessor's Map 17-12-09B as Tax Lot 1000. A location map is included as Attachment A. I. BACKGROUND The Applicants, Duane and Dina Barker, have requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use to establish a Winery with associated uses in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10). The request also includes a Site Plan Review for the Winery and associated uses. The property owner proposes to convert a portion of an existing accessory building into a tasting room and office space. The proposal also includes the conversion of an existing barn for small-scale wine production and wine storage. The approval would include the production of up to 2,000 cases of wine annually as well as hosting wine related events on the property, wine tastings, wine dinners, and other wine marketing events directly related to the sale and promotion of wine produced from the vineyard. No new buildings or structures are included in the proposal. The applications were submitted on June 7, 2022. An Incomplete Letter was mailed on July 7, 2022. On December 4, 2022, the applicants requested that the applications be deemed complete and 150- day clock be extended. The applications were referred to a Public Hearing on August 4, 2023. On September 15, 2023, the applicants then waived the 150-day clock. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 A, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd9deschutes .org ® www,deschutes.org/cd The initial public hearing before the Hearings Officer was scheduled on Wednesday, October 10th, 2023. On October 6, 2022, the Applicant requested a 2-week continuance of the Public Hearing pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(A)(1). The Hearings Officer opened the initial hearing, but no testimony was received, and the new hearing date was set for October 24, 2023. During the second hearing on October 24, 2023, Hearings Officer Brooks conducted a full hearing and testimony was received in support and in opposition to the proposal. An Open Record Period was set for 7 days of New Evidence and Testimony, 7 days for Rebuttal, and 7 days for the Applicant's Final Legal Arguments. The record was closed 21 days after the hearing on November 14, 2023. II. HEARING OFFICER DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer rendered a decision approving the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Winery on January 2, 2024. Staff notes the following salient elements of the Hearings Officer Decision: • The Hearings Officer addressed issues raised in the Staff Report specific to Title 22 and the Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance. These include: o The appropriate signatures on the application form o The open Code Enforcement Case on the property o The noticing requirements for the application • The proposal meets the requirements of DCC 18.32.030(C) and qualifies as a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use. • The proposal likely conforms to the Site Plan Review standards of DCC 18.116 and DCC 18.124, however more detail is required. The Hearing Officer included 33 conditions of approval in the decision. • The proposal meets the suitability requirements of DCC 18,128.015 III. APPEAL The Appellant (Toby Bayard) submitted a timely appeal to the Hearings Officer's Decision on january 9, 2024. The Appellant requests the Board initiate a review and conduct a hearing to evaluate the following issues: • Whether wineries can only be cited on property in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone pursuant to ORS 215.452, and not in any other zone. • Whether the Hearings Officer erred in finding that a winery can be approved on MUA10- zoned property as a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Page 2 of 5 • Whether there is inconsistency from the Hearings Officer between the subject applications and the previous approval under Deschutes County File nos. 247-22-000024-CU, 22-025-SP, 22-757-A, 22-914-A (Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use for a Meadery in the EFU Zone). • Whether the Hearings Officer erred in the incorporation of testimony placed into the public record. IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION The Board has agreed to hear the appeal de novo. The Board will hear and consider the report by staff, the applicant's presentation and written submittal, the appellant's presentation, and any member of the public that wishes to give testimony or provide written comments. The record is available on the project website listed below. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As noted in the Consideration to Hear, a public hearing before the Board allows for additional testimony and application materials which could confirm compliance with the criteria of DCC 18.116 and DCC 18.124. In the approval issued from the Hearings Officer, there were a number of conditions of approval which require exercising discretion. In addition, other conditions of approval could be considered significant in the Board's decision -making process. Staff recommends that the Board request additional testimony and application materials which demonstrate compliance with, or acknowledgement of, these specific conditions of approval as they pertain to DCC 18.116 and DCC 18.124. They are identified as: Conditions of Approvals which Require Exercise of Discretion I. Clear Vision Areas on the Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which correctly illustrates the clear vision areas at all access points. L. Available Parking. This approval is conditioned upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 as set forth in this Decision. The Applicant shall submit a revised and final site plan showing where the required parking spaces will be located, including the size of each parking stall. O. Parking Area Landscaping_ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting the parking area landscaping required by this Decision, which must note whether any trees are to be planted under overhead utility lines and, if so, show that the height of those trees has been taken into consideration. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Page 3 of 5 S. Access Aisles. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting access aisles at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two-way traffic and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way traffic. T. Service Drive Width. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drives at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two-way access aisles and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way access aisles. U. Service Drive Boundaries. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drive boundaries which are clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. V. Off-street Parking Lot Design. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the parking aisles and spaces and demonstrates compliance with DCC 18.116.030(G)(1-4). W. Bicycle Parking Spaces. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the location of the required bicycle parking spaces. Additional Conditions of Approval for Board Consideration B. General Division Permitting. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. X. Confirmation from Bend Fire & Rescue. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Receipt of approval will be provided to the Planning Division from Bend Fire & Rescue that the access and site design for emergency vehicles are acceptable. EE. Evacuation of the Right of Way. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall cause for the removal of all private property, including fences, posts, walls, crops, landscaping, and other features, from the existing public right of way for Bowery Lane along the frontage to the subject property. GG. Ingress and Egress via Hunnell Road. At all times, once Hunnell Road construction is complete, wayfinding or directional messaging provided by the property owner to vendors and patrons of the proposed commercial activities shall 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Page 4 of 5 direct vendors and patrons to utilize Hunnell Road and the western section of Bowery Lane for ingress and egress to the subject property. VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK As noted above, on September 15, 2023, the applicants then waived the 150-day clock. VII. RECORD The record for file nos. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, (Appeal file No. 247-24-000018-A) is as presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website: https://www deschutes org_/cd/page/247-22-000464-cu-247-22-000466-sp-lava-terrace-cellars- winerv-vinyard VIII. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations; or • Close the hearing and schedule deliberations for a date and time to be determined. ATTAC H M E NT(S): Attachment A: Subject Property Location Map Attachment B: Hearings Officer Decision (22-464-CU, 466-SP) Attachment C: Appeal Application (24-018-A) 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Page 5 of 5 File: 22-464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend RGGERS RD _1 J- eP W- 2 t Z._ F� Q z W 5� Cm Q7 I OCO RD Deschutes ountv GIS. Sources: Esri. USGS. NOAA Mailing Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATES: HEARING LOCATION: 247-22-000464-CU and 247-22-466-SP October 10, 2023, and October 24, 2023 Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/OWNER: Applicant: Lava Terrace Cellars, LLC Owners: Duane Barker and Dina Fay Barker SUBJECT PROPERTY: Map and Tax Lot: 171209B001000 Account: 113221 Situs Addresses: 20520 Bowery Lane Bend, OR 97703 REQUEST: The Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to establish a winery as a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA-10). HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks SUMMARY OF DECISION: This Decision APPROVES the Application WITH CONDITIONS. I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 15, Deschutes County Buildings & Construction Ordinance Chapter 15.08, Signs Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA-10) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.20, Review of Land use Action Applications Page I 1 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS A. Request and Nature of Proceeding This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as a request by the Applicant to approve wine production ("Winery"), wine tasting activities, and wine marketing events as "commercial activities in conjunction with farm use" in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone ("MUA-10 Zone"). The Application seeks two land use approvals — a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review. As described by the Applicant, the proposed use would convert an existing accessory building to a tasting room and office space, and wine production would occur in an existing barn on the Subject Property. The Applicant does not propose any new structures. If approved, the Winery would produce up to two thousand (2,000) cases of wine on an annual basis. The Applicant proposes to limit tastings and wine -related events to specific hours, depending on the season. Based on the hours and size of the facilities, the Applicant anticipates an average of six to eight (6-8) people per tasting appointment. The Applicant's proposal expressly excludes the use of the proposed winery or Subject Property by third parties, such as weddings or other events. The County reviews conditional uses in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") Chapter 18.128 and Title 22. The proposed use must also satisfy the standards of the underlying MUA-10 Zone — set forth in DCC Chapter 18.32 — which in turn requires compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions, and Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review. B. Application, Notices, Hearing The Applicant submitted the Application on June 7, 2022. On July 7, 2022, Staff of the County's Community Development Department ("Staff') provided notice to the Applicant that it did not deem the Application to be complete ("Incomplete Notice"). On December 2, 2022, the Applicant requested that the Application be deemed complete, and that the review process be tolled. On September 14, 2023, Staff mailed a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice"). The Hearing Notice stated the Hearing would be held on October 10, 2023. On September 15, 2023, the Applicant made an additional request to toll the deadline for a final County decision under ORS 215.427 — the 11150-day clock" — and waived the deadline altogether. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on October 10, 2023, opening the Hearing at 6:03 p.m. At the request of the Applicant prior to the Hearing, and pursuant to DCC 22.24.140(A)(1), I continued the Hearing to October 24, 2023. Prior to doing so, I gave other participants the option to provide testimony, but no participant did. The continued Hearing began on October 24, 2023, at 6:01 p.m. The Hearing was held in person and via videoconference, with the Hearings Officer appearing remotely. 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 Page 12 necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I invited but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. The Hearing concluded at 7:40 p.m. Prior to the conclusion of the Hearing, I announced that the written record would remain open as follows: (1) any participant could submit additional materials until October 31, 2023 ("Open Record Period"); (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials (evidence or argument) until November 7, 2023 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal argument, but no additional evidence, until November 14, 2023, at which time the record would close. Staff provided further instruction to participants, noting that all post -Hearing submittals needed to be received by the County by 4:00 p.m. on the applicable due date. No participant objected to the post - Hearing procedures. C. Review Period As noted above, the Applicant has waived the 150-day clock. The 150-day clock serves as a protection for an applicant and ensures that a local jurisdiction acts on a land use decision in a timely manner. The only remedy for the violation of the 150-day clock belongs to an applicant. Specifically, if the local jurisdiction does not make a final decision within the applicable time frame, the applicant can seek a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court pursuant to ORS 215.429(1). Under ORS 215.429(2), the local government retains jurisdiction of the application until a writ of mandamus is filed. Because the Applicant has waived the 150-day clock entirely, the County retains jurisdiction over the Application and no review period applies. D. Record Issues As noted above, the written record remained open after the Hearing for a limited purpose. According to the schedule established at the end of the Hearing, the Rebuttal Period concluded on November 7, 2023, and all rebuttal materials were required to be submitted to the County by 4:00 p.m. that day. After that time period, only the Applicant was authorized to submit anything else to the record — a final legal argument — and no new evidence was to be accepted from any participant, including the Applicant. On November 16 and November 17, 2023, after the record was closed to all participants, including the Applicant, participant Michel Bayard submitted two emails to the County. The email dated November 16, 2023, appears to be a request to Staff seeking a status update regarding this proceeding and not expressly intended to be included in the record. Based on the timing and apparent intent of that document, I find it should be excluded from the record. The email dated November 17, 2023, appears to address the substance of the Application. Because that email was submitted after the close of the record, I find that it should also be excluded from the record. Between November 8 and November 21, 2023, participant Toby Bayard submitted thirty-two (32) emails, all of which appear to address the substance of the Application. Because those submittals all occurred after the Rebuttal Period when the record closed to any new evidence, I find that each of those submittals should be excluded from the record. Page 13 The findings below are based only on the evidence and testimony that are part of the record. I have not reviewed in detail the records that are excluded, and I have given no consideration to those records. III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Staff Report On October 4, 2023, Staff issued a report setting forth the applicable criteria and presenting evidence in the record at that time ("Staff Report"). The Staff Report does not make a final recommendation. Instead, the Staff Report notes that Staff believed additional information was necessary to determine if the Application satisfied all approval criteria. The Staff Report also recommends the imposition of several conditions of approval if the Application is approved. Because much of the information and analysis provided in the Staff Report is not refuted, portions of the findings below refer to the Staff Report and, in some cases, adopt sections of the Staff Report as my findings. In the event of a conflict between the findings in this Decision and the Staff Report, the findings in this Decision control. B. DCC Chapter 22.08, General Provisions DCC Title 22 contains the County's procedural requirements for the application and review of development and land use approvals. Comments in the record addressing the Title 22 provisions are discussed below. 1. DCC 22.08.010 Application Requirements This Code provision states in part that an application for development or land use action must be submitted by the property owner or a person who has written permission from the property owner. The Application form identified the Applicant as "Lava Cellars Terrace (c/o Duane and Dina Barker). In their pre -Hearing submittal, the Applicant's attorney confirmed that the Application form was signed by Dina and Duane Barker.' It is undisputed that the Barkers are the owner of the Subject Property. Testimony indicated that the Barkers also own Lava Terrace Cellars, LLC. The Staff Report confirms that the Barkers are also listed as the managing members of Lave Terrace Cellars, LLC. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Barkers, owners of the Subject Property, caused the Application to be submitted and, by the signature on the Application form, consented to the Application. I therefore find that this Code provision is satisfied. I note that the Application form appears to have only one signature. However, based on the representation from the Applicant's attorney that the signature represented the signature of the Barkers, which no participant disputed, I find that the Barkers signed the Application form. The remainder of this decision will also use "Applicant" to refer to Lava Terrace Cellars, LLC, and the Barkers, collectively. Page 14 2. DCC 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use DCC 22.20.015 prohibits the County from approving new land use development applications and land use decisions if a property is in violation of an applicable land use regulation or condition of approval. As the Staff Report notes however, the County's Board of Commissioners has interpreted this Code provision such that it applies only where there has been an "adjudicated" violation, or where it is otherwise necessary to resolve a potential violation as part of the review of a land use application and such review is the best forum for adjudicating an alleged violation. Some comments in the record indicate that the Applicant already operates a winery on the Subject Property, presumably without authorization since no conditional use permit has been issued for that purpose. The Staff Report notes the existence of a County compliance case, the record for which Staff says indicates "the unpermitted winery is confirmed as a code violation." The Staff Report also notes, however, that approval of the Application would bring the winery into conformance with the Code. Staff therefore suggests a condition of approval, which would include a requirement to obtain all other approvals and documenting closure of the enforcement matter. Although the information Staff provides leads to the conclusion that the "winery is confirmed as a code violation," it is not clear from the record if the alleged violation has been "adjudicated". For example, considering the fact that the County compliance case is apparently still open, it is not clear what process remains before the County can conclude that code enforcement process. Even so, I find that it is not necessary to address the alleged violation as part of this proceeding. If the Application is approved with the condition Staff recommends, the winery would not be allowed to operate until the Code compliance matter is closed. If the Application is denied, then the County would not be approving a land use decision. Either way, this Code provision is satisfied. Because this Decision approves the Application, Staff s proposed condition, which the Applicant does not oppose, is included below with other conditions of approval. 3. DCC 22.24.030, Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action Section (A) of this Code provision requires the County to provide notice of a land use application twenty (20) days prior to a hearing. As applicable to this proceeding, that notice must be sent to property owners within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the Subject Property. Testimony in the record implies that the notice was not sufficient. However, that testimony seems to be aimed at whether a homeowners association received notice, without specifying whether the association is a property owner entitled to receive notice. That testimony also implies that the lack of notice relates to the operation of the existing winery, and it is not evident that any participant asserts that the notice of the Application itself is insufficient for purpose of this review. The Staff Report confirms that the appropriate notice was mailed to all property owners within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the Subject Property. Based on that confirmation, and the lack of more specific evidence indicating the notice was not sufficient, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. Page 15 Section (B) of this Code provision requires a notice of the land use action to be posted on the Subject Property for at least ten (10) continuous days prior to the date set for receipt of comments. Testimony in the record asserts that the posting was not sufficient because notice was posted on the Subject Property beginning on June 21, 2022, and that the deadline for comments was June 25, 2022. The latter date is apparently derived from the Application Notice, which asks for comments by that date. With respect to this proceeding, the "due date" for any comments would have been, at the earliest, the date of the Hearing, which did not take place until more than a year after the Application Notice. Based on the foregoing, I find that it was not an error for the Applicant to post the Subject Property beginning on June 21, 2022. C. DCC Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA-10) The Subject Property is in the MUA-10 Zone. The following findings address the applicable provisions of that zone. 1. DCC 18.32.030, Conditional Use Permitted The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128: C. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial activity may use, process, sort or market farm products produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining County. The Applicant seeks to establish a winery as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use, which is allowed as a conditional use. As summarized in the Staff Report, prior decisions by the County's Board of Commissioners ("Board") interpret this Code provision as requiring the Applicant to demonstrate the following: (1) there is a farm use occurring on the parcel; (2) the proposed use is a commercial activity; (3) the proposed commercial activity is associated with the farm use; and (4) the farm products used in the commercial use are produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining County. There is no dispute in the record that the Subject Property contains an existing vineyard and that a vineyard is a farm use. DCC 18.04 defines a "farm use" in part as the employment of land "by raising, harvesting, and selling crops." The fact that the Applicants raise and harvest grapes — a crop grown on vines — demonstrates that there is a farm use currently on the Subject Property. According to the Applicant, the commercial activities it proposes are the processing of grapes into wine, together with supporting commercial activities like wine sales and tastings. The Staff Report notes that processing grapes into wine is an industrial use. While that appears to be the case based on the definitions of "commercial use" and "industrial use" in the Code, DCC 18.128 does not use the phrase "commercial use" and instead refers to a "commercial activity". The Code language then goes on to state that the commercial activity "may use, process, sort or market farm products...". Because the proposed use here will process a farm product, I find that the proposed use is a "commercial activity" for purposes of this Code provision. Page 16 For the same reason set forth in the above findings, I find that the proposed commercial activity is associated with a farm use. That is, the proposed commercial activity processes grapes into wine, the grapes are a crop from the vineyard farm use, and, therefore, the processing of wine (and wine tastings) are associated with that farm use. According to the Applicant, the grapes it will process at the Winery will primarily be from the Subject Property. The Applicant indicates that other grapes may be used in the process, but that those grapes will come from Deschutes County. There is no evidence in the record that the Applicant intends to process grapes from outside Deschutes County. To ensure that such an outcome remains, I find that it is appropriate to impose a condition of approval that prohibits the Applicant from processing grapes if the grapes are not from Deschutes County or an adjacent county. The opposing comments in the record do not dispute that the vineyard is a farm use, that the winery is a commercial use, that the winery is associated with the vineyard farm use, or that the Applicant will use local grapes. Instead, multiple comments suggest that a winery is not an allowable use at all in the MUA- 10 Zone. Those comments assert that the only zone that allows a winery is the Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") Zone. While it appears to be true that the EFU Zone is the only zone in the Code that addresses wineries specifically, the opposing comments do not explain how this operates as a prohibition on wineries in other zones when there is a separate basis in the Code for that use. DCC Chapter 18.16 implements state -level requirements in the EFU Zone, and the reference to wineries in that Code Chapter expressly refers to wineries allowed by ORS 215.452. That statute allows the development of some wineries in the EFU Zone, based on certain sizes, but it does not prohibit all wineries that do not satisfy those statutory provisions. Wineries that do not qualify under ORS 215.452 may nevertheless be permitted as "commercial activities in conjunction with agriculture" under ORS 215.283(2)(a) and the corresponding Code provision in DCC 18.16.030(E).2 Because there is no language in the Code that prohibits wineries in the MUA-10 Zone, and because the proposed winery meets the criteria for a commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use, I find that the Applicant's proposal is not prohibited as a matter of law and that it can be approved if it satisfies all approval criteria related to that use. Based on the foregoing, I find that Application satisfies DCC 18.32.030(C). 2. DCC 18.32.040, Dimensional Standards The Applicant asserts that the proposed development satisfies the dimensional standards set forth in this Code provision. No participant disputes that assertion. I adopt the finding in the Staff Report relating to DCC 18.32.040 as my finding and will include the conditions of approval Staff recommends in that finding. See Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 66 Or LUBA 212 (2012) (explaining alternative methods of permitting wineries). Page 17 3. DCC 18.32.050, Yards Only the Applicant and Staff address the criteria contained in this Code provision. The Applicant initially asserted that the proposed development satisfies the standards set forth in this Code provision. No participant disputes that assertion, but the Staff Report indicated it was unclear if the barn, which will be the production and storage facility, meets the twenty (20) foot front yard setback requirement. According to Staff, aerial imagery shows that the building may be only seventeen (17) feet from the south property line, which abuts a local street right of way. The Applicant does not appear to address this lack of clarity in later submittals. I therefore find that this Code provision is satisfied only with a condition of approval, and the Applicant must document the precise location of the front yard setback prior to the initiation of the use. That condition is included below. D. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions DCC Chapter 18.116 contains supplementary provisions applicable to multiple zones. The specific Code provisions identified in this section were identified by the Applicant or Staff as being applicable to the proposal. Other participants were offered an opportunity to identify applicable Code provisions, but none did. 1. DCC 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas. DCC 18.116.020 requires the maintenance of clear visions areas. The Application initially stated that "adequate site distance is available," but as noted in the Staff Report, no details were offered to support that statement or otherwise to address the clear vision area criteria. In subsequent submittals, the Applicant provided site plans and other information addressing this Code provision, noting that the clear vision area from the planned access drive is one hundred fifty (150) feet, much farther than any clear vision area required in the Code. At the same time, the actual clear vision area itself does not appear to be delineated on the updated site plan. Although no participant disputes the Applicant's updated site plan and characterization of the clear vision area, I find it appropriate to impose a condition of approval to better document this area. The Applicant's final submittal agrees with such a condition, and that condition appears below. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. 2. DCC 18.116.030, Off street Parking and Loading_ DCC 18.116.030 imposes various off-street parking and loading requirements. There is no dispute that the proposal in the Application complies with a majority of those requirements. I adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to DCC 18.116.030, except for the specific subsections of this Code provision discussed in this section. The remainder of the findings in this section replace the relevant findings in the Staff Report addressing each subsection. DCC 18.116.030(C) and (D) require off-street parking for all uses. The Staff Report calculates that a minimum of nine off-street parking spaces must be provided for the wine production and tasting room activities contemplated in the Application. That calculation, however, did not include any allocation of parking spaces for "wine events", which the Applicant plans to host as part of its commercial activities. In its subsequent submittals, the Applicant provided information indicating that a wine event would Page 18 include up to twenty-five (25) people, requiring up to twelve (12) parking spaces. It is not clear from the record if parking for wine events is required in addition to tasting room activities, or if the wine event would be held in lieu of tasting room activities. I must therefore assume the former, more intensive use, meaning the proposed use requires twenty-one (21) parking spaces — three (3) for employees, six (6) for tasting room activities, and twelve (12) for wine events. The Applicant's site plan shows thirteen (13) parking spaces, and the Applicant asserts that it can use other areas on the Subject Property for temporary parking during wine events, such as in the area of the decommissioned drive, along the secondary access drive, and in a pasture. No participant disputes that these areas are adequate for eight (8) additional parking spaces. At the same time, by showing only the general location of these parking areas on the site plan, it is unclear how the Applicant will ensure these areas remain available for parking. I therefore find it appropriate to impose a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to identify the specific location of the eight (8) additional spaces. That condition appears below. DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) requires off-street parking adjacent to a residential use to be screened either by a fence or a landscaped buffer. The Application states that parking is screened from residential uses due to distance (a buffer area) that is landscaped (with vines from the vineyard). The Applicant provided photographs of the Subject Property and additional detail about the location of adjacent residential uses. Based on the distance from the residential use, as well as the topography and existing vegetation that is depicted in the photographs, I find that the proposal satisfies the screening requirement of this Code provision. DCC 18.116.030(F)(4) requires areas for standing and maneuvering of vehicles to be paved unless the Applicant can meet the standards of certain exceptions spelled out in this Code provision. The Applicant asserts that it qualifies for an exception under DCC 18.116.030(F)(4)(b) because it will maintain these areas in a manner that will not create dust problems. This exception is available for the Subject Property because it is outside of an unincorporated community. The manner in which the Applicant proposes to maintain these areas is to gravel, grade, and water the parking area to prevent dust. No participant disputes that such maintenance complies with DCC 18.116.030(F)(4)(b). Based on the evidence in the record, and the above finding that will require the Applicant to identify all parking areas on the site plan, I find that this Code provision is satisfied, with the imposition of Staffs proposed condition (which the Applicant states it agrees with) that will ensure the surfaces are graveled at all times. DCC 18.116.030(F)(5) requires access aisles to be of sufficient width. According to the Staff Report and information provided by the Applicant, the required access aisles need to be twenty-four (24) feet for two- way traffic and 12-feet for one-way traffic. The Applicant asserts that its updated site plan shows that the new driveway will be sixteen (16) feet wide, and the secondary access will be twelve (12) feet wide. According to those calculations, each access would therefore be wide enough to provide only one-way travel. The Applicant also notes that additional space is available to widen the new driveway, and that the access permit process will ensure that the access aisle requirement for the driveways is met. Based on the Applicant's submittal, I find that this Code provision can be met only through a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a site plan that depicts the actual width of each access aisle, with twenty- four (24) foot aisles for two-way traffic and twelve (12) foot aisles for one-way traffic. Page 19 DCC 18.116.030(F)(6) and (7) require service drives to be of adequate width and to have clear vision areas as set forth in those Code provisions. The Staff Report states, and no participant disputes, that a service drive is adequate if it is twenty-four (24) feet wide. The Applicant states that it can meet this requirement, but the Applicant's submittals appear to address access drives and not service drives, and the Applicant has not provided a site plan that clearly depicts the service drives, their widths, or their associated clear vision areas. I find that this Code provision can be met only through conditions of approval requiring the Applicant to submit a site plan that depicts the service drives and demonstrates that the width of those service drives is twenty-four (24) feet with the appropriate clear vision areas. DCC 18.116.030(G) imposes certain requirements relating to the size of parking stalls. The Applicant's site plans do not appear to describe the actual size of parking stalls. The Applicant proposes to satisfy this Code provision through the condition of approval proposed in the Staff Report. I find that this Code provision can be met only through a condition of approval, which is set forth below. 3. DCC 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking. DCC 18.116.031 imposes minimum bicycle parking requirements whenever the alteration of an existing use requires Site Plan Review. As an initial matter, DCC 18.116.031(A)(1)(a) establishes the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces is one space for every five required off-street motor vehicle parking spaces. When calculating that number, DCC 18.116.031(A)(4) requires that any fractional space be rounded up to the next whole space. As established in earlier findings, the Applicant is required to provide twenty-one (21) parking spaces. Under DCC 18.116.031(A)(1)(a), the Applicant is therefore required to provide five (5) bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant seeks an exception to DCC 18.116.031(A)(1)(a), which is authorized if the Applicant can show compliance with at least one of the factors in DCC 18.116.031(A)(1)(c). The Applicant relies on two of those factors and asserts: (1) that the proposed use generates less than fifty (50) vehicle trips per day and (2) that no existing building on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. The Applicant does not explain in any detail why existing buildings on the site will not accommodate bicycle parking. The record does establish, however, that the proposed use generates fewer than fifty (50) vehicle trips per day. I therefore find that the exception to the bicycle parking requirements is available to the Applicant. I further note that the Applicant does not seek to develop zero bicycle parking spaces, but rather seeks to avoid the requirement in DCC 18.116.031(A)(1)(b) that requires sheltered bicycle parking. The Applicant's request for an exception does not include a request to reduce the required number of bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant states that it will provide "at least" three spaces, and the updated site plan appears to show eight (8) spaces or racks. As determined above, the minimum number of spaces required is five. I therefore find that the Applicant's proposal for eight (8) spaces is sufficient and that those spaces should be depicted on the final site plan. I find that DCC 18.18.116.031(A)(2) and (3) are not applicable to the Applicant's proposal. No participant has asserted otherwise. The Applicant's request for an exception to the bicycle parking standards also requests relief from the requirements of DCC 18.116.031(B)(1)-(6), which regulate the design of the required bicycle parking spaces. For the reasons set forth above, I find that this exception is available. However, the Applicant's Page110 submittals state that the Applicant has proposed bike racks for the unsheltered parking. I therefore find that, notwithstanding the Applicant's request for an exception, the Applicant has agreed to provide those racks as set forth in DCC 18.116.031(B)(1)(b), and a condition of approval is appropriate to require the Applicant to continue to identify the location of those racks on a final site plan. 4. DCC 18.116.035 Bicycle Commuter Facilities. DCC 18.116.035 requires larger commercial employers to have bicycle commuter facilities. No participant in this proceeding asserts that this requirement applies to the proposal, and I find that it is not applicable. E. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 1. DCC 18.124.030. Approval Required. DCC Chapter 18.124 sets forth the standards and criteria for a Site Plan Review. Pursuant to DCC 18.124.030, Site Plan Review is required for, among other uses, commercial uses that require parking facilities and all industrial uses. As discussed in earlier findings, the Applicant's proposed use can be characterized as a "commercial activity" for purposes of the MUA-10 Zone, but it also includes an industrial use (processing grapes into wine) and, therefore, Site Plan Review is required. 2. DCC 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. DCC 18.124.060 sets forth the specific approval criteria that must be satisfied for a site plan to be approved. DCC 18.124.060(A) requires that a proposed development "relate harmoniously" to both the natural environment and existing development. As the Staff Report notes, prior interpretations of the County's Board conclude that this Code provision requires an applicant to demonstrate that the site plan arranges the development in a way that evaluates the natural environment and existing development in the area, and that by doing so, demonstrate that the applicant has minimized visual impacts and reasonably preserved natural features including views and topographic features. In making that interpretation, the County's Board expressly drew a distinction between the analysis of the site plan required by this Code provision and the consideration of the compatibility of the proposed use required by other Code sections. Only the site plan is relevant to this Code provision. To demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.124.060(A), the Applicant relies largely on the fact that it will use existing buildings for the winery and that no new buildings are proposed. Further, the Applicant submits photographs and other information depicting and describing a site plan that relies on setbacks and vegetation to screen the Winery use from other development. The Applicant also asserts that neither existing buildings nor new plantings adversely affect natural features. While comments in the record object to the approval of the Winery, I do not read any of those comments as asserting the Applicant's proposed site plan does not relate harmoniously to the natural environment or existing development, or that this Code provision is otherwise not satisfied. The one exception may be Page Ill that several commenters addressed concerns over potential traffic impacts. However, those comments were aimed more at potential impacts from users traveling to and from the site, which would occur regardless of the specifics of the site plan. I therefore treat those comments as addressing the'adequacy of site access or the compatibility of the proposed use, which are addressed below in separate findings. Although the Applicant's evidence is not particularly detailed, I find that the Applicant has met its burden of demonstrating compliance with DCC 18.124.060(A). DCC 18.124.060(B) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the landscape and existing topography will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. This Code provision also requires preserved trees and shrubs to be protected. The Application proposes almost no changes to the landscape, and no discernible changes to topography. This is because the Applicant will use existing buildings, and the only changes in landscaping will result from closing one driveway, which will allow the addition of new plantings, and creating a new driveway. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. The Staff Report recommends a related condition of approval requiring the Applicant to protect all trees and shrubs not required to be removed by the development. The Applicant opposes this condition. I agree with the Applicant that the proposed condition is not necessary; it largely re -states the requirement in the Code to protect preserved trees and shrubs. Without further explanation by Staff for why its proposed condition is necessary to meet this Code provision, I decline to impose it. DCC 18.124.060(C) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the site plan provides a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. The Applicant asserts that existing vegetative screening and a new gate will help with the transition from private to public spaces, which it characterizes as the transition from the Subject Property to Bowery Lane. The Applicant further asserts that the site plan provides a safe environment because the site will accommodate fire and safety vehicles, and that the Applicant's use of either a private well or the public water system will be reviewed and approved by appropriate authorities to ensure the safety of the use and the appropriateness of the usage. The Applicant notes that safety considerations are also incorporated into the approval by local and state licensing agencies prior to operating. To that end, the Applicant accepts the proposed conditions of approval in the Staff Report relating to this Code provision. One comment in the record asserts that the Winery may impose a safety risk because of the wastewater that will be generated from the Winery. The treatment or disposal of wastewater, however, is also governed by permits that regulate such impacts. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.124.060(C) is satisfied with Staff's proposed conditions of approval, which require approvals from other regulating entities. DCC 18.124.060(D) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that, when appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons. The Application states that the Applicant will provide a parking space and restrooms that comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The Staff Report states that other considerations for disabled persons are determined as part of the issuance of building permits. No participant disputes that statement or otherwise asserts that the site plan does not comply with this Code provision. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. DCC 18.124.060(E) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that the location and number of points of access, the interior circulation patterns, the separation of pedestrians from vehicles, and the overall parking arrangement is harmonious with buildings and structures. The Applicant relies on the location of the parking areas compared to the buildings on the Subject Property as evidence that this criterion is met. The Page 112 Applicant further states that the proposed parking is all on -site and screened from the roadway with existing vegetation and vineyards. The proposed parking and circulation are distant from neighboring buildings and structures, which furthers what the Applicant describes as a harmonious feeling. No comments in the record dispute the Applicant's characterization. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. DCC 18.124.060(F) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that surface drainage systems are designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, and water quality. The Applicant relies on its characterization of existing drainage patterns as all flowing to ponds and grass areas on the Subject Property. No participant disputes that characterization, but the Staff Report states that the Applicant must provide a letter or report from a licensed engineer to demonstrate that drainage patterns operate as the Applicant suggests they do. The Staff Report therefore recommends conditions of approval requiring such a letter or report and requiring the Applicant to maintain drainage systems in good working condition. The Applicant objects to such a condition, largely because of the amount of pervious surfaces on the Subject Property and what the Applicant characterizes as the low likelihood that surface water runoff would have any off -site impacts. The Staff Report does not cite any Code language that requires a letter or report from a licensed engineer. The express language of DCC 18.124.060(E) states only that surface drainage systems must prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, and water quality. It does not appear to impose any requirements on the type of evidence that can be used to show compliance with that criterion. Because the Applicant's evidence is the only evidence in the record relating to surface drainage, and in the absence of express language requiring a specific kind of evidence, I find that the Applicant has met its burden and that DCC 18.124.060(F) is satisfied without the imposition of any condition of approval. DCC 18.124.060(G) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that areas and facilities for storage, machinery, and equipment, and loading and parking are buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and on neighboring properties. The Applicant relies on the buffer and vegetation of the existing site to minimize the impact of all on site uses on neighboring properties. With respect to the site itself, the Applicant asserts there is no visual impact because, in part, there are outbuildings in which machinery and equipment can be stored. No participant disputes the Applicant's characterization of the lack of visual impacts or otherwise asserts this Code provision is not satisfied. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied. DCC 18.124.060(H) requires the Applicant to demonstrate that above ground utility installations will be located to minimize visual impacts. It is not disputed that the Applicant has not proposed any such installations and, therefore, this Code provision is not applicable. DCC 18.124.060(I) does not impose any additional criteria and, instead, incorporates any specific criteria imposed by the underlying zone, such as setbacks. Those criteria are addressed in other findings in this Decision. DCC 18.124.060(J) requires exterior lighting to be shielded so that it does not directly project off site. The Applicant proposed to meet this criterion through a condition of approval. No participant objects or Page 113 otherwise states that this criterion cannot be satisfied in that manner. Based on the foregoing, I find that this Code provision is satisfied with the condition of approval proposed in the Staff Report. DCC 18.124.060(J) requires the Applicant to show adequate transportation access to the site. If necessary, the Applicant must implement mitigation measures for transportation impacts. The Applicant asserts that the existing transportation system provides adequate access to the site, and notes that the transportation system is being improved through the paving of Hunnel Road, which it says can be used for access to the site to reduce impacts to Bowery Lane. In support of its assertion, the Applicant submitted a traffic analysis, including an update to that analysis. The County's Senior Transportation Planner reviewed and provided comments on the initial traffic analysis, agreeing with the conclusion in that report that the proposed use could assume thirty-seven (37) daily vehicle trips. Using that trip count, neither the Applicant's engineer nor the County's Senior Transportation Planner identified a need for specific improvements to the transportation system. The Applicant's updated analysis concluded that even fewer trips would be expected. The County's Senior Transportation Planner does propose multiple conditions of approval to remedy observed encroachments in the right-of-way, to ensure the Applicant obtains the appropriate access permits, and to provide directional signage so that patrons of the winery are more likely to use the improved Hunnel Road. Neither the Applicant nor any participant objects to these conditions. Comments in the record opposing the Application express a general concern over traffic safety. These concerns are grounded in the observation that Bowery Lane is a relatively narrow road without sidewalks. No comments in the record dispute the technical information the Applicant provides. The Applicant proposes to address these concerns in part through the above -identified conditions of approval. The Applicant also proposed to provide winery patrons with directions to the winery in pre -visit communications, which would instruct patrons to use Hunnel Road. Based on the technical opinion of the Applicant's engineer and the concurring review of the County's Senior Transportation Planner, I find that the transportation access to the Subject Property is adequate, with the conditions proposed in the Staff Report and the conditions volunteered by the Applicant. Those conditions appear below. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.124.060(J) is satisfied. 3. DCC 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. DCC 18.124.070 contains additional minimum standards applicable in various scenarios, many of this are not relevant to the Application. I adopt the findings in the Staff Report as my findings relating to DCC 18.124.070, except for the specific subsections of this Code provision discussed in this section. The remainder of the findings in this section replace the relevant findings in the Staff Report addressing each subsection. DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a) contains additional landscaping requirements for parking and loading areas, requiring defined landscaped areas totaling no less than twenty-five (25) square feet per parking space. The Applicant asserts that this landscaping requirement does not apply to a winery in the MUA-10 Zone. However, the Applicant does not explain the legal basis for that assertion. Nor is the Applicant's assertion consistent with the plain language of this Code provision, which clearly applies to "parking and loading areas" as part of a Site Plan Review, regardless of the underlying use or zone. I therefore find that this criterion applies to the Applicant's site plan. Page114 As an alternative argument, the Applicant states that this criterion is satisfied because "the entire property is already landscaped with a vineyard and pasture. That argument, however, fails to tie that "landscaping" to the Code's requirement to improve a parking area "with defined landscaped areas", and it also does not attempt to quantify the improved, defined landscaped area. Based on an earlier finding that the proposed use requires twenty-one (21) parking spaces, the total improved, defined landscaped area for that parking is a minimum of five hundred twenty-five (525) square feet. The Applicant does note that some other (presumably defined) landscaping exists around existing buildings and that additional landscaping can be added where the existing driveway will be decommissioned. Based on the foregoing, I find that this criterion can be satisfied only through a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to denote on its site plan five hundred twenty-five (525) square feet of landscaping around parking areas. The Code does not define "defined landscaping", but as the Staff Report notes, the common meaning of that word denotes that the item being defined must show some shape or outline. Even if the Applicant relies on existing vegetation for that purpose, it must at least show the shape or outline of the area that will be maintained as landscaping for this purpose and document the size of that area. DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(d)-(h) provide additional detail for the design of the landscaping required for parking areas. Because the Applicant does not believe landscaping requirements are applicable, or that the site's existing vegetation are adequate for this Code provision, it does not fully address these Code sections in detail. I therefore find that these Code provisions are satisfied only through the imposition of a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to depict the width of the landscaped area on the site plan and to describe whether and how such landscaping will be watered. The condition will also require the Applicant to note whether any trees are to be planted under overhead utility lines. F. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use The Applicant seeks approval of the winery as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. Such uses are allowed conditionally in the MUA-10 Zone, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.128. The findings in this section address the applicable provisions in that Code chapter. 1. DCC 18.128.015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. This Code provision sets forth specific standards for uses other than single family dwellings that apply in addition to the standards of the underlying zone. The applicable provisions of this Code section are set forth below. A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. This Code provision requires an analysis of the suitability of the site for the proposed use based on the listed factors. The Applicant asserts that the site is suitable for the Winery, wine tastings, and wine -related Page 115 events. The Applicant bases this assertion in part on the fact that existing buildings are being repurposed for the Winery and the fact that there is sufficient space for the planned activities. With the exception of the adequacy of transportation access to the site, no participant asserts that the site is not suitable for the proposed use, or otherwise asserts that this Code provision is not satisfied. The adequacy of transportation access to the site is addressed in previous findings, and those findings are incorporated here. For the same reason set forth in those findings, I conclude that the proposed use on the site, as conditioned, is suitable when taking the adequacy of transportation access into account. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.128.015(A) is satisfied. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). This Code provision is similar to DCC 18.128.015(A) but focuses on the proposed use's compatibility with surrounding properties rather than on the suitability of the site itself. The Applicant provides an analysis of this Code provision by first identifying uses on surrounding properties, which include other parcels in the MUA-10 Zone, as well as properties designated as "Urbanizable Areas" or "Commercial General". These uses are largely residential or farmed. Projected uses include uses allowed in those zones. As the Staff Report notes, current uses on surrounding properties are likely representative of projected uses. The Applicant then identifies potential off -site impacts and assesses whether those impacts are compatible with surrounding properties. The potential off -site impacts include noise, odor, lights, traffic, visual impacts, water demand, and wastewater disposal. Based on the size of the Subject Property, the relatively distant location of "nearby" uses, and the Applicant's proposal to limit tasting room hours, the Applicant suggests that none of the potential off -site impacts it identifies will prevent the winery from being compatible with uses on surroundings properties. With the exception of alleged transportation impacts, no participant identifies off -site impacts from the proposed use that are incompatible with surrounding properties, or otherwise asserts that this Code provision is not satisfied.3 The adequacy of transportation access to the site is addressed in previous findings, and those findings are incorporated here. For the same reason set forth in those findings, I conclude that the proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding uses when taking the adequacy of transportation access into account. Based on the foregoing, I find that DCC 18.128.015(B) is satisfied. C. These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to ensure that the standard will be met. As explained in prior findings, I find it appropriate to impose several conditions of approval. These include limitations on the proposed use offered by the Applicant, such as a limit on tasting room hours and a 3 Comments in the record complain of the use of shotguns to discourage birds from eating grapes. Because those comments are aimed at the farm use (the vineyard) and not the Winery, I find that they are not necessary to address in this Decision. Page116 prohibition on third -party rentals of the Subject Property. These conditions will also help ensure that the conditional use standards are met, because they limit the total potential of any impacts. G. DCC Chapter 15.08 - Signs The Staff Report notes that the uses on the Subject Property may require informational or directional signs. Such a requirement is incorporated above to address potential transportation impacts. Staff proposes a condition of approval requiring compliance with the County's sign regulations. Because the Applicant does not object to the Staff s proposed condition, that condition is included below. IV. CONCLUSION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Application meets the applicable standards for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review with the following conditions of approval: A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, as required to be supplemented by these conditions. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. The Applicant's proposal includes the following, which shall be conditions of this approval: • The winery will process grapes only from Deschutes County or an adjacent county. • This approval does not include third -party rental of the Subject Property B. General Division Permitting. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. C. Winery Signage. All signs on the property for the winery shall comply with Deschutes County Sign Code Title 15. The property owner shall obtain all required permits for signage pursuant to Title 15. D. Code Compliance for Case No. 247-21-000164-CE: Prior to any initiation of use, the unpermitted winery on the property shall receive all required permits from Deschutes County for the winery and any related construction. The applicant shall provide all necessary receipts of approval/closure to the Planning Division to demonstrate compliance. E. Winery Hours of Operation. At all times, the property owner shall observe the following hours of operation: • Summer Hours (Memorial Day Weekend — September 30th): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. • Winter Hours (October Pt — January 1St): by appointment or invite only, on Friday and Saturdays with additional appointments on holiday weekends (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. • Closed (January 2nd — Second week of March). Page 117 • Spring Hours (Second week of March — First week of April): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week for the traditional school spring break for Oregon, California, and Washington (tourist season) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. F. Building and Structure Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. G. Front Yard Setback for Wine Storage Building. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner will submit confirmation that the Wine Storage Building meets the front yard setback requirements. H. Solar Setbacks. Structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. I. General Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. J. Clear Vision Areas on the Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which correctly illustrates the clear vision areas at all access points. K. Clear Vision Area. The clear vision areas located at the intersection of the service drives/ driveways and Bowery Lane, as well as other points of access, shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). L. Available Parking. This approval is conditioned upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 as set forth in this Decision. The Applicant shall submit a revised and final site plan showing where the required parking spaces will be located, including the size of each parking stall. M. Parking and Loading/ Unloading. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. N. Establishment of Parking. Required parking facilities shall be provided prior to or concurrently with construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. O. Use of Parking Facilities for the Winery. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons, and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of bucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. P. Parking Area Li hg ting. Any lighting used to illuminate the off-street parking area shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential Page 118 zone. Q. Parking Area Landscaping. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting the parking area landscaping required by this Decision, which must note whether any trees are to be planted under overhead utility lines and, if so, show that the height of those trees has been taken into consideration. R. Graveled Surface for Standing and Maneuvering of Vehicles. Prior to the initiation of use, the applicant shall gravel all areas for the standing and maneuvering of vehicles onsite as depicted on the site plan. This includes the individual parking areas as proposed and all service drives which provide access for the winery. At all times, the graveled surfaces shall be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. S. Access Aisles. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting access aisles at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two- way traffic and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way traffic. T. Service Drive Width. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drives at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two-way access aisles and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way access aisles. U. Service Drive Boundaries. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drive boundaries which are clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. V. Off-street Parking Lot Design. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the parking aisles and spaces and demonstrates compliance with DCC 18,116.030(G)(1-4). W. Bicycle Parking Spaces. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the location of the required bicycle parking spaces. X. Confirmation from Bend Fire & Rescue. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Receipt of approval will be provided to the Planning Division from Bend Fire & Rescue that the access and site design for emergency vehicles are acceptable. Y. Use of Private Well. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owners shall have the well, if it will provide any water to the public, reviewed, and approved as a Public Water System by either tyre Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) or the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Z. Licensing From Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Page119 AA. Licensing From the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Department of Agriculture Food Safety Program. BB. Licensing From the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission. CC. Licensing From the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. DD. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. EE. Evacuation of the Right of Way. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall cause for the removal of all private property, including fences, posts, walls, crops, landscaping, and other features, from the existing public right of way for Bowery Lane along the frontage to the subject property. FF. Driveway Access Permits. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall obtain driveway access permits for all driveway accesses to Bowery Lane for the subject property pursuant to DCC 12.28.050 and 17.48.210(A). GG. Ingress and Egress via Hunnell Road. At all times, once Hunnell Road construction is complete, wayfinding or directional messaging provided by the property owner to vendors and patrons of the proposed commercial activities shall direct vendors and patrons to utilize Hunnell Road and the western section of Bowery Lane for ingress and egress to the subject property. Dated this 29th day of December 2023. 40�-- - Tommy A. Brooks Deschutes County Hearings Officer Page 120 �\N\)I ES Co DESCHUTES COUNTY Land Use Application 117 NW Lafayette Avenue 0 PO Box 6005 6 - BOCC 54103 8-6575 Appeal 247-24-000018-A www.deschutes.org/cd cdd@deschutes.org APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Type of Application: Appeal - BOCC Description of Work: Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision for File Nos. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP LOCATION INFORMATION Property Address: Parcel: Owner: 20520 Bowery Ln, Bend, OR 97703 171209B001000 - Primary Address: APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Business Name: Address: City: State: Zip Toby Bayard 20555 Bowery Lane Bend OR 97703 APPLICATION FEES Fee Descri tion Quantity Amount Appeals to Board of County Commissioners Deposit 1.00 Qty $3,448.00 Appeals to Board of County Commissioners Additional Fee 1,414.40 Amount $1,414.40 (20% of original fee) Total Fees: $4,862.40 Printed on: 01/09/2024 1 RECEIVED J N 9 2021t Cn ICA ► - uescnuies t;ounty vuu 9, pr-g h14s«iVy> i i V Fk'A/i l C �0 : ui,i 1. Hamm APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FEE: $4,862.40 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32,027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Appellant's Name (print): Toby Bayard Phone:( 41 ) 977-5341 Mailing Address: 20555 Bowery Lane City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97703 Email Address: tobybayard(E gmail com Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247-22-000464 and 247-00466-SP Property Description: Township 27 Range 12 east Section 09 Tax Lot Bayard Digitally signed by Toby Bayard Toby Appellant's Signature: y y Date: 2024 01 07 12 1&24-08'00' Dater By signing this application and paying the appeal deposit, the appellant understands and agrees that Deschutes County is collecting a deposit for hearing services, including "whether to hear" proceedings. The appellant will be responsible for the actual costs of these services. The amount of any refund or additional payment will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the county in reviewing the appeal. Charges for actual cost of services in excess of the collected deposit will be invoiced to the applicant once the hearing is completed. Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each recording copy). Appellant shall submit the transcript to the planning division no later than the close of the day five (5) days prior to the date set for the de novo hearing or, for on -the -record appeals, the date set for receipt of written records. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 t N (541) 388-6575 (c_r7 cdd@deschutes.org (0) www.deschutes.org/cd Rev. 6/22 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL iL ��� 1-ena�^y rahesc� ��2 1rS 54�e (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) to U1 4�- W C7 Z -0 m m O O O �--1 n m n= E- a D rn Z n Z7i n D Z m r 0) 0 e s®® ® w m= a X O X N N m m m O n n ry = m c'n' r m S D v N Z >D D D �' D x C n v' Z n C D C -I � m C m N D w O O m m p C m m m m m n O � a o m x ,� z D O-< o + A Z C Gl D Z � u O Z8 O A® O -1 � v n 09 Co 00 Ap _ 0 N O O =D D D N N I -A N 4N N m Q ® N C C C D C.i N G) Oo A I n D r p m O` N -I N O D m I I I OC Z p D® n D n v m c O r o D -CC 'O'+ Z G1 N n m v a = D D T N a -v m O D D ro O �' N ® m® Z a= O m r n O n D Z _I cn o -m `n cn 2 D C D ® w r1 C R !-� m m D m `C 0 0 D M C D Z-® m n m ® O w s Z D n tr m { cn D Z -TI m © ( rb LO m -I D D Z ®' fla .+ Z n r D co co O to :9 -{ D O O n m 7j ^r m = m Z W ® m� Z Z n a Q® P) m r C M O � m C m Q Ln N m W o m Z o Q D r- r m m ro O Z D m D O O n I" n p n o n D D rn of cn x ja "O O a O LA w O O Z O Ln m D W r 2 m M ® r U O C N I.- f® n —1 ® "q C ZC7 Q Q cn y W w O : 0 0 C O D C Z s OrQ C (A N ro n®, O -n -I D N -P� n z s m Q Z D 7o F m O m cn s C O N I'n ® ® O z m N G C m D N m a � P.0 D � � 0 D Q N ® GZl CA Z mLn C M. v 0 � o O m m o n Z 22 Ln D Dv� ? C v v � ® D A n N D 3 mm 1 I, (o Z m N C O Q z p C .90 CD T' O O z O to a n Z Z m r O Q I- '� O m m D O n' z Z J N -h � Z w rTi S �� (0 Q 0 .� N N O® O S n m C Z N rr O tS O = D O _ C D m O '� m m < w o v, ro Ln a �{ `® m p lm1 m > N O ZZ m `® r n C n O `�° m a� Q °' a C cn ry O cn Q CD Z N r N O. ® D O N D tl u F N m y. o n Q oo 00 00 — Ln Dflo (0 3 '+ 3 j D n 3 O . 7 O aos ® O r+ O o S m W dq Q rr m 00 N "p " 0 (D D m N n n C m to �%� m r+ m O' M r'+' O S N Uq o ® �? n0 o cu p cu p ? N O n SZ r+ O p Q r+ Q Q C O C w 3 ZS O O C w r+ O (D < r+ -i r+ p� Ln Q. 3 `� N 3 O O (D m m 7 m .� I S O o CJQ C v as V to o me n r* (n X w m o~ c Cl) ET `` v -" n Ul Ln O + S r rF O N v o- n st O ON :G '>7 cmn N = m -nc S r°, m fD m O =3 w Ln Q g p 0 3_ rp ro : (D rD m p -a m Q 3 _o w C C _n °; rt O < _0 0 D --t' (D C-r r+ o -a (D O O S O w '� 7 cn fi O (D �• .y -, S m to ,� rt to UU (D p �• � Q w CC �. N �-+ Q. v C qDq < 5,,r-t = r= o- :3 dq N — 3• r) !", O O < ro,` (D1' PZ5 w (D r+ O o S O (D M ® � v Q D o 7 O + O m W z t3 0 r+ -++ S n Q O �I n p + (D O N 'r p m O < N o JI ET Q mn w Q -^ 3 C D O-. m O z r r Ln c O' O � r+ N t O O N -o - - -h w 3 3 p. °° a)Lnw Z a v n01 w 3 a m a N N=3 (D �, 3 (D (D (rD+ — " -p N Op < �, C Ozl :3 Q O �D TS Q -o n Q S N w O C -s 3 r+ (D 'a <C ON (D Q m r+3 Q N O< m '< p� m rr Dq m V) m m Ui w S m n• S ro� p G ' S Q < n O (D S _ 0 O C p• rD 1, -h C: r+ Ln-t, C C w N Ci S (D Ln S C n w ((DD S O w z r+ v m (D p C C O. w S+ 1- o+ N w < (D D < Cr s w > y O (Di 3 rt' n (D (D � l�0 LA r+S (D m O w n 3 + o r+ O �' UQ to wi ro (D pp O C "s �, w D (D (D -O 6) ((DD � -� C O C r-r 3 N O < O ((DD W 3 o ram+•, w w (D cG O - cn n r+ _ o cL n 6 O cn m o w Q O rw+ r+ w (D N r+ S Q O11 m R n Q O S (D w O -* O "p (D a m w o w _' O C -O CL O ro (D,+Q- (DmCL S p -0� SZ w s (n w O (D ((DD O < C) zT _ r+ � < m O < <" < C: m S (D Q w n o w -g D'q (D as o O o (D (D C .h w (> m o- -a O < cn (D N v+ w OiOD Ln rD wrr O O orD (D �- oC S (D O C r+ o w3 :w 0 � o S rD �O+ro o , D (D O O w � + Q O S p (D N w O O O O D (' :n. �' (D N (D 0 p v t a (DD O� n r+ F S 0 bo c a m m w o H m o= r � m�+ m o O Ln (D O 00 O ,< w F-' 0 r+ O m< n' 3 r+ r+ O �-r p oo n -g fn m r+ m S m ((D O w O p m O Ln 0 p p m a o w m c 3 m +n S m r+ CU O r+O w Q rt < (DLn O n G 0 6 7 w = n n � Otil "O 00 cmii o r+ 3. `G o 0 n O Oe ni Ln N O -� °� (D O rr O N O " CL CL 7 iL N C < m O r+ O n o p m w (D O O Ln 3. C. o Q t3 3 (Dw v o ((DD O m V CL N C n I m T_ z v m m C I m m m r � D m m Ln D O D PO N O N z O D N r- ,P m rn n u V) --a 6 z D N O C z m T W r m z = C m D K ;a Go z m N o •A T t -nN n N m O � O -{ o O Cl C W O N T` N � C) D C:) z •P O rn N m 0 m O D D z v u') O O m T Q C x z m O D z G 0 O D O > /l T (;, C m (/) ;U M D r � D � W D M n (� m m m x OM _ n -n m p Ci < • X v c fD , ( O ° -a rt' o� N D 0 N m C� rt m ro 3 'a CD4' I ID v rt• q O O n c N 3 -fir Q n O �. -" m ID 0 a (D v � o <. off, 5• 3 rt �; ro o v v 0 � N - °' v 3 0 O" m n N �. C n 3 C ,Or 00 D' O v v CL n 51 rr m N O < s �D �e N rC (D fD ro 3 _0 � O_ OrD O n N � (D n v 3 3 '^ m OU C O O n m Q ` 3 v Ort 3 O ro O N O N z O 2 3 n - O- (D r(D o m rt 3 c- v Ln C N O n ro � rt Q -rt-h c- c- O C Q =T Ln ro cu rt �, 3 o00 c V) ro v N O 0 n n 0 n �n 3. as O O a O O rt v : ro O C1 ro O S C :3 (D rt rr :- ro n O 3 3 m r� 01 p D � � V) p fD c ro -+� D 3 s O [, n' o O L N — m �' 00 n 0u w C C N 0 In o v � rt N 6 rt ro N O n O O ro a 0- _rt ul O C m U' rn-r Ul p m n 3 Fa r=r 00 rt m N 00 - ro x � n 0 ro m � � w O z l�0 O 0 'O W N 3 O O O ro <_. o `°'p O rrDD l0 N ib n Q F� l0 O o10 Nb to 00 b �.D to `p s N O ro o O O LTI t4' N O O F-* 1-0 � O � W OW 00 O � c.0i N Q N Ql �p N00 b N O O O N 00 O t4 C I� Q N �p O �D b E7' O O rn l0 �p N � N ON o O F-+ N Q lD � O O 0 00 Col F' O o I -A O Ln � uon 00 O Q 0 '= u' Ort n v Q O m O rt ro n v 5 CL m 3 = N � N Un O n -2. C O CL zr o N S m � O cu O 3 m � O O G N ro r+ O S n Ocu =3 n C O fl_ f r m 3 ro W rt "6 T m Q ( v 0 r+•, O O O O O o ro D 1n Z) m 0�' 0 S C G � m N Q to � N v n_' a r n' 3' ro O ro ,n+ v O 7 �C1 0 rt S m a m 3 L' ro Ul IV Gl ?n m ort p n W = Z n O O d ro o Ul Q N Ln v LA ro 3 N (<D rt o a = 3 ro n O to O C' v' -� O rt :3 w CDv O_ v n + CL 0- 0- o M " ° m :3ro rt ry to 1n O N N O N' N m O N rt n- v o ' 3 n U rt 7 rNF Q ro � rt -. S -0 rt n OG m o N a m p N O r) � S (DD n N O O G N G O ' G OC 0' O N OU W d m O 1n rn+ v O O n v � E 00 O � C v O � b O C G _ N O' O O W c LT m rn+ 1n C'1 n c v rni• C (D O 3 O v O v m Cf lD O G N n� w 3 v O C W c (D Q O" O 3 (D o' 0 s (D v 0 O Oh r N U7 7 N J v (D ota O O v (D CL v O C O (D N N i I, 0 r+ (D N O C CD `^ n O o r+ � N N O 0 m 0� 2, (D c v 3 m C a" O 0 0 o' 0 C r) Cl co N A ._. C W (D CL v a s 0 N 0 O O o -�u p tOi+ O rN•+• .< -1 c r* o a 3 =s o (o � N — O zT N (D N o q q :g O C M. :3- -0 O s n C 7 c Z' v 0' m r) p ry 0 O O N fD CL 3 0- 0 N ° (D pOj N O (D r+ r+ O s n Ln, + O v p 0 0 + o n v L 0 3 �o°+ (D Du < O � LA IPN 0- w C Q O ((DD 7. Q (D (A as � N rt D (D 3 N N 0 90 3 0 O0 rt (D O c• 0 -+, O m O O 0 3 O rt rt as cu ro (D p 0 rt v 1 o z (D COD N (oi v p (D r+, p n O (D ((DD V) C 3 (D Q. S O O O 0 O v C m d "6 n• cu ,-r o' O :D O Z C p) (D (D O' Q 0- rt (D 0_ o (D < (D -0 O 0 1 (DD in cn �Cy 0 o D g 3 v (D O Q, 0 rt. 0 (D o O 5c O cr -+ 3 O O � O s 'O ((DD 0 -o 3 TD ("D O O- v rD oO Q O m C o r+ V) O N 0. ;4 o N O O w 0 N O O CL cn C (D C (i O- m S v � C s c 3 v (D n, 0 rD rD 3 - o 0 c =3 o c °t < Q a 0 O O 0 - 0 d 0 O O (D O rD 7S (D = O v LA N � � (D (D O o (D rt Q N s v O (D Q n' O s y C 0zr 3 m wn O W 3 (D v70 n (D (D V) N CU p� (D O Q N. (D C Q Q r � G ') O O m -h iV n O c fD (D w S O 3 (D O- C m r+. O w c s O n N 00 N F-� Ql N O v ((DD ((DD oLn O Q v w s 0 O (D N � N fll vO . dq V rt p p p -+ -, (D v. s s D 0 o Q1 o I Q C — rrt ' N Q -0 O (D C• O N 7 = `n D' 0 �. Q n.crCL < 5 f) rt ((q O 0 O 0 O O v (D o a D -0 � v m O 0 o CU CM cLA 3 N CD (D m Cr v (xi (D C O (D rt N N O O � Q (D C � n — � N (D rt f_1 N rt' 7' (D P v 3. O O rG v can . n (D C N ((DD CL 3 0 3 (D _T cr N O Q v O. O Q O S O O 3 v fU O- O 1' 0 0 0 0 0 00 w I -A m -0 I'J C) -0 0 (D 00 3 rj w -0 — FF — = G) , n -n w > 0- w VI C: n = m w 0) 0 (D :E 0 CD M M a) c -0 0- = o cu S + 0 D- o w (D :3 V) HT -0 b r) C) no 0 '7' 0 0 M M 0 m (D W 0 F- (D =; :E -h 0 42 r+ 0 > n 0 0 0- -V 0 0- w 3 + m 0 X CU Cs a) — (A cu n I- CA 0 (D r_ 1+ rn z 0 co r- (D 0 -0 w Z; (D > < (D =$ W 0 0 0 Z3 C-) < o (A CD �u cr r) 0 r+ a- o- (D C: (D 1+ (D Z (D Z3 C) M — :3 ID 0 --h C rD :3. zT :3 (D (D m o m (D M W - (D C :y CL cu -h 0 " n w 3 (D U.) r+ -- V) 1+ 'Co (D -0 o. 3 90 0 -- = w Fj 0 + W -- 3 — 0 - rm+ C—L O> (D (D E -A m IAA 0 -h C:D Uj 0 0 w :3 (D w C2� n Cj) o Sn r,,) * — o a- 0 Ull w n 3 (D (D 0 0 Z3 (D CL 0 LA :� 6 (D _0 0 z W 0- W LA CL M CL =r CL cl) :3 -0 ;a (D L�n F- F" 11: > 0) C) 136) -h (D (D r-j 00 on 03 0 (D r) — V, n c " (D 0 o (D Ln 0 Z 3 n W c Z3 0 W) Ln Z CS (D 0) Z5 0- W cy Lrl NJ Q. n -0 0 o ul rj Ul -h 0 V� _0 (D =3 N 0 0 V) 3 �:w 0 0 (D > r+ M 3 CL M (D r) Ln r+ c =� 0 0 7A, (D n --il r+ 0 3 — 3 < M h Z 0 3 , 0 0 0 o 3 0 (D > Z + (D (D 3 o --I g m 0 4:� 0 3 c D 0 D 3 = =r a, -0: F) V) 0 CA (D M Ln D M :3- n- 0 0 (D 0 0 + 0 0 c w v -c 0 C: V) n (D m rt 0 - o- r+ zr M M < 0 m < FD 0 (D + zr 0 -0 (D U. 0- CL m (D 0 3 3 Oq (D ID 0 m x m o * D D- Ln cl , :3 W 0 m CL C a- 0 M C: =- ID rl (A Ll :T Ul aj M (D 0 (D -n < w < rt :3 LA M -0 0 (D (D (D < :1 < (D (D (D o- ': 0 3 Lq L. D — (n m 0 w Ln aj 0 — CL U-1 0 0 0 =3 0 m o- LA 0 3 (D Z5 Ln (D (D h 0 o 3 to 00 L/) CY 70 (D 00 Co c X =3 rD :E (D aj (D OL) 0 n 4 0 0- 0 Di -h 1+ 0 N 0 w Ln c F)• a - 0 0 D Ln CL m V) Ul -h m c CD o :3 LI) V) (D D (D 0 -0 :n 0 C, 0 z (D cu (D O (D 0 0 (D (D :E M r+ :r (D n NJ (D 4�N (D CL 0 -r m < m < 0 -a ;0 3 3 A: C) 0 - 0- a 70 0 n 3 1� w r,i (A ;4 5' -h :E (D m Z3 LonN T. (D 6 0- (D 0- (D < m -, m 0 I n -, m CD AC: V) (D w D 0 = S cu — 0- LA 0- r) 0 — Vcr m Ln M 0 [(MD M > 0. r+ F6 m (D (A 3 -0 :3 o- pj 3 It 0 m 3 n , 0 m m :3 Z5 0 r+ Z5- 0. rD c --il --%. r+ 0 0 LA < (D 0) U, ri. :3 =5 -< (D -h Z: a) pj ro Ln _0 :a- (D 0 :3 FA (D n. - 0- F:y EY w r+ 0 4:h FL Z;;- a) n (D 0 rr h fQ lu ro (D 0- (D 0- I I� Mailina Date: NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247-22-000464-CU, 247-22-000466-SP LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97703 and is identified on the County Assessor Tax Map 17- 12-09B, as Tax Lot 1000. OWNER: Duane & Dina Fay Barker APPLICANT: Lava Terrace Cellars PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to establish a winery as a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10). STAFF PLANNER: Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner Phone: 541-317-3164 Email: Nathaniel.Miller@Deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildin eerrmits.ore on.gov APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.04, 18.32, 18.116, 18.124, and 18.128 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q- (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd 1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, as required to be supplemented by these conditions. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. The Applicant's proposal includes the following, which shall be conditions of this approval: The winery will process grapes only from Deschutes County or an adjacent county. This approval does not include third -party rental of the Subject Property B. General Division Permitting. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. C. Winery S&Age. All signs on the property for the winery shall comply with Deschutes County Sign Code Title 15. The property owner shall obtain all required permits for signage pursuant to Title 15. D. Code Compliance for Case No 247-21-000164-CE: Prior to any initiation of use, the unpermitted winery on the property shall receive all required permits from Deschutes County for the winery and any related construction. The applicant shall provide all necessary receipts of approval/closure to the Planning Division to demonstrate compliance. E. Winery Hours of Operation. At all times, the property owner shall observe the following hours of operation: • Summer Hours (Memorial Day Weekend - September 30t"): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. • Winter Hours (October 1 st - January 1st): by appointment or invite only, on Friday and Saturdays with additional appointments on holiday weekends (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. • Closed (January 2nd - Second week of March). • Spring Hours (Second week of March - First week of April): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week for the traditional school spring break for Oregon, California, and Washington (tourist season) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. F. Building and Structure Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. G. Front Yard Setback for Wine Storage Building. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner will submit confirmation that the Wine Storage Building meets the front yard setback requirements. H. Solar Setbacks. Structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. 1. General Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 2 of 5 by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. j. Clear Vision Areas on the Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which correctly illustrates the clear vision areas at all access points. K. Clear Vision Area. The clear vision areas located at the intersection of the service drives/ driveways and Bowery Lane, as well as other points of access, shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). L. Available Parking. This approval is conditioned upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 as set forth in this Decision. The Applicant shall submit a revised and final site plan showing where the required parking spaces will be located, including the size of each parking stall. M. Parking and Loading/ Unloading. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. N. Establishment of Parking. Required parking facilities shall be provided prior to or concurrently with construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. O. Use of Parking Facilities for the Winery. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons, and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. P. Parking Area Lighting. Any lighting used to illuminate the off-street parking area shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. Q. Parking Area Landscaping. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting the parking area landscaping required by this Decision, which must note whether any trees are to be planted under overhead utility lines and, if so, show that the height of those trees has been taken into consideration. R. Graveled Surface for Standing and Maneuvering of Vehicles. Prior to the initiation of use, the applicant shall gravel all areas for the standing and maneuvering of vehicles onsite as depicted on the site plan. This includes the individual parking areas as proposed and all service drives which provide access for the winery. At all times, the graveled surfaces shall be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. S. Access Aisles. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting access aisles at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 3 of 5 two-way traffic and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way traffic. T. Service Drive Width. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drives at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two-way access aisles and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way access aisles. U. Service Drive Boundaries. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drive boundaries which are clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. V. Off-street Parking Lot Design. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the parking aisles and spaces and demonstrates compliance with DCC 18.116.030(G)(1-4). W. Bicycle Parking Spaces. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the location of the required bicycle parking spaces. X. Confirmation from Bend Fire & Rescue. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Receipt of approval will be provided to the Planning Division from Bend Fire & Rescue that the access and site design for emergency vehicles are acceptable. Y. Use of Private Well. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owners shall have the well, if it will provide any water to the public, reviewed, and approved as a Public Water System by either the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) or the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Z. Licensing From Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. AA. Licensing From the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Department of Agriculture Food Safety Program. BB. Licensing -From the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission. CC. Licensing From the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 4 of 5 DD. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. EE. Evacuation of the Right of Way. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall cause for the removal of all private property, including fences, posts, walls, crops, landscaping, and other features, from the existing public right of way for Bowery Lane along the frontage to the subject property. FF. Driveway Access Permits. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall obtain driveway access permits for all driveway accesses to Bowery Lane for the subject property pursuant to DCC 12.28.050 and 17.48.210(A). GG. Ingress and Egress via Hunnell Road. At all times, once Hunnell Road construction is complete, wayfinding or directional messaging provided by the property owner to vendors and patrons of the proposed commercial activities shall direct vendors and patrons to utilize Hunnell Road and the western section of Bowery Lane for ingress and egress to the subject property. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 5 of 5 File: 247-2 2-000464-CU, 466-SP 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97703 GEC m . a .y / J : $ lua � A »» a . ' / LLJ \ / / % § Eros .aah s /� @$ GureE4 mG%�� . se ±z N }\ \ 7y ww° , . ° $« n 3 ,20 \ _9/7/2 DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: File No. 247-22-000757-A (Appeal of files 247-22-000024-CU and 247-22-000025-SP) HEARING DATE: October 26, 2022, 6:00 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/OWNER: Jolur Herman SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot 00700, Map 15-10-10 Situs Address: 68540 E Highway 20, Sisters, OR 97759 APPELLANT: Central Oregon LandWatch REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision: (1) approving a conditional use for a meadery and associated activities as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use; (2) approving a site plan approval for the meadery. HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has not met its burden of proof with respect to a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use and, therefore, SUSTAINS the appeal, and DENIES the Application, based on the findings in this Decision. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.120, Exceptions Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use 1 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS A. Nature of Proceeding This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as an appeal of a decision by the Deschutes County Planning Department ("Staff') in which Staff approved: (1) the operation of a meadery as a commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use (File 247-22-000024-CU); and (2) a site plan for the meadery (File 247-22-000025-SP) (together, the "Staff Decision"). The specific proposal in the Application underlying the Staff Decision is the Applicant's proposal to operate a meadery on the Subject Property. According to the Applicant and other information in the record, a meadery makes mead, a type of wine fermented from honey rather than from grapes. Mead is sometimes referred to as "honey wine," and a meadery is sometimes referred to as a "honey winery." The Applicant currently maintains beehives on the Subject Property from which honey is harvested and engages in the production of mead. The Applicant plans to use honey from the Subject Property and from other farms around the county and state as part of the planned meadery, which will produce mead on a larger scale for sale. In addition to the meadery itself, the Applicant proposes other commercial activities such as an indoor tasting room, an outdoor tasting area, food carts, "winery -related" events, and other unidentified activities "related to the production, sale, marketing, and distribution of wine, farm products, and related incidental items." The Application includes a request for use of the Subject Property as a music venue to support local events that may not be winery related, such as the Sisters Folk Festival. This decision will refer to the meadery and the proposed commercial activities as the "Meadery." B. Notices Decision, Appeal and Hearing The Application was filed on January 19, 2022. On January 28, 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. On September 7, 2022, Staff issued a decision on the Application, styled "Findings and Decision" (the "Staff Decision"). On September 19, 2022, the County received an Appeal Application with a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Central Oregon Landwatch ("Appellant"), seeking review of the Staff Decision. There is no dispute in this proceeding that the appeal documents were timely filed. On September 30, 2022, the County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the appeal of the Staff Decision. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on October 26, 2022, opening the Hearing at 6:01 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff, the Applicant, and a representative of Appellant present in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. 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 pane contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I asked for but received no'objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. No participant requested that the record remain open. The Hearing concluded at approximately 7:35 p.m. At that time, 1 closed the Hearing and the record, and I took this matter under advisement. C. 150-day Clock The Applicant submitted the Application on January 19, 2022. Staff reviewed the Application and, on February 18, 2022, notified the Applicant that the Application was incomplete ("incomplete Notice"). The Applicant provided additional information on or about March 8, 2022 and March 17, 2022, and continued to provide information to the record in response to Staff inquiries. On July 15, 2022, Applicant's attorney notified Staff that the Applicant had provided information in response to the Incomplete Notice, thereby confirming that the Applicant believed the Application to be complete as of that date. Using July 15, 2022, as the date of completeness, the deadline within which the County must make a final decision under ORS 215.427 — "the 150-day clock" — is December 12, 2022. III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Adoption of Findings in Staff Decision The Staff Decision contains comprehensive findings related to the Application and the Subject Property. The vast majority of the findings in the Staff Decision are not challenged in this Appeal, and, although this proceeding is de novo, most criteria in the Staff Decision are not re -addressed by the participants during the appeal. As a result, I hereby adopt the findings in the Staff Decision as my findings, as supplemented and modified by the findings in this Decision, which address the issues and criteria that were raised on appeal. To the extent any of the findings in this Decision conflict with the findings in the Staff Decision, my intent is to have these findings control. B. Issues on Appeal The Appellant's Notice of Appeal sets forth several bases for appeal of the Staff Decision, and Appellant raised other issues during the Hearing. Appellant seeks denial of the Application based on the following assertions: (1) a meadery is not an allowed use in the Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") zone either because no local or state law allows such a use, or because a meadery is not a "winery", which can be allowed by statute; (2) there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding that there is any farm use currently on the Subject Property; (3) there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the Meadery will produce income that is "incidental" or "subordinate" to income from farm uses on the Subject Property; (4) the Applicant has not adequately addressed the farm impacts test required by ORS 215.296; and (5) the Staff Decision violates ORS 215.416(8) because it is based on provisions relating to grape wineries rather than a meadery. The findings below address each of those issues. 1. Is a meadery an allowed use in the EFU zone? The Applicant's proposed Meadery includes meadery facilities for processing mead and several associated commercial activities such as tasting areas, food carts, and incidental sales of mead -related items. Appellant asserts that the Meadery is not an allowed use in the EFU zone. ORS 215.203 establishes a statewide construct for determining which uses are allowed in the EFU zone. Under that statute, an EFU zone "shall be used exclusively for farm use except as otherwise provided in ORS 215.213, 215.283 or 215.284."' ORS 215.213 and ORS 215,284 are not applicable in the present matter. ORS 215.283 sets forth various specif►c uses, other than "farm uses", that are allowed in the EFU zone. The non -farm uses in ORS 215.283(1) are uses a county must allow by right, subject only to statutory standards rather than local standards.' The non -farm uses listed in ORS 215.283(2), in contrast, are considered "conditional" uses that a county can choose to allow, and in doing so a county can impose additional restrictions On those uses.3 Appellant is correct that neither the Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") nor ORS 215.283 expressly lists "meadery" as an allowed non -farm use in the EFU zone. ORS 215.283(1)(n) does list a "winery" as a use permitted by right, but only if the winery is the type of winery described in ORS 215.452 or ORS 215.453. DCC 18.16.025(F) mirrors that statute and also refers to ORS 215.452, which the Code incorporates through DCC 18.16.038(B). By the express terms of those statutory and Code provisions, such wineries are wineries that produce wine from grapes.`► Those statutes therefore do not provide a basis for permitting the Meadery, which processes honey rather than grapes. In contrast to the winery example, ORS 215.283 and the Code also establish broader categories of non- farm uses that encompass multiple specific uses. ORS 215.283(1)(c), for example, authorizes "utility facilities necessary for public service", but that category has been applied to allows different types of specific utilities.5 The absence of the word "meadery" in the statute or Code, therefore, does not mean a meadery cannot ever be approved, and it is possible to approve a meadery under one of the listed use categories, as long as the Meadery is a type of use contemplated by that broader category. The broader category the Applicant seeks as the basis for approving the Meadery is set forth in ORS 215.283(2)(a) — "commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use." The express terms of that statute do not limit that category to any particular type of commercial activity and, instead, require only that the commercial activity be in conjunction with a farm use. Indeed, that is how the courts have applied that statute. Applying ORS 215.283(2)(a) prior to the legislature's enactment of ORS 215.452 and ORS 215.453, which now expressly allow certain wineries as a non -farm use, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a conditional use permit for a winery in the EFU zone as a commercial activity in ORS 215.203(l ). '- Brentnutr v. Jackson Cly., 321 Or 481, 496 (1995). 3 Id. 4 See, e.g., ORS 215.452(1), authorizing wineries that "produce wine" and that either includes an onsite vineyard, includes a contiguous vineyard, or sources grapes from a contiguous vineyard. s See, e.g., Dayton Prairie it'ater Assn v. Minhill County, 38 Or LUBA 14 (2000) (applying statute to approve water facilities); c.f. PVKN Chopin, LLC v. Umatilla County, 66 Or LUBA 1 (2012) (applying statute to approve electric transmission line). conjunction with a farm use. 6 It did so because the winery at issue in that case satisfied the criteria of ORS 215.283(2)(a) and despite the fact that "winery" was not separately listed as an allowed use in the EFU zone. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Meadery is an allowed use in the EFU zone as long as the proposed use satisfies the standards required for "commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use" as contemplated by DCC 18.16.030, which is the County's version of ORS 215.283(2)(a).7 a. Is the Sub'ecl t Property Currently in farm use? Appellant asserts that a farm use is "a predicate for the approval of a commercial activity in conjunction with far►n use." More particularly, Appellant's assertion is that "a current farm use" must be shown before any commercial activities in conjunction with farm use can be permitted. Appellant argues that the record is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Subject Property is "currently" in farm use, as defined by ORS 215.203(2). In support of this argument, Appellant relies on Friends of Nfarion County v. Mai -ion County, -- Or LUBA —, LUBA No. 2021-088/089 (Apr. 21, 2022) ("Friends of iLfcarion Counly"). As presented to the Hearings Officer, Appellant argues only that the Applicant has not demonstrated a "current" farm use. The difficulty with Appellant's argument is that it does not address whether the proposed use of the Subject Property as a Meadery, which would occur in the future, will be in conjunction with a farm use that will exist at that time. Rather, Appellant's written and oral comments acknowledge that the activities the Applicant proposes to produce mead in the fixture — which include beekeeping and honey production — are farm uses. I therefore understand Appellant's argument to be that, regardless of what future farm uses occur as part of the proposal, the Applicant must nevertheless demonstrate that there are currently farm uses on the Subject Property. The Friends of'Marion County case and other cases interpreting ORS 215.283(2)(a) make it clear that a "farm use" must exist if there is to be an allowed commercial activity in conjunction with that farm use. Contrary to Appellant's argument, however, those cases do not hold that the farm use must already be in existence at the time of the application. In other words, they do not prevent an applicant from proposing a future commercial activity that will be in conjunction with a future farm use developed at the same time, and in fact, those cases imply or acknowledge that the farm use can be developed in the future. In Friends of Marion County, for example, the issue LUBA addressed was the argument that "none of the findings or the evidence in the record demonstrates that intervenors currently operate or will operate a farm use." 8 LUBA reversed the county's approval in that case based on its conclusion that a farm use did not currently exist. However, the County's findings in that case determined that the current uses on the subject property were "farm uses" and the county required the applicant to maintain those same uses as part of the approval of the commercial uses the applicant proposed. Because LUBA concluded that the 6 Craven v. Jackson County, 308 Or 281 (1989). 1 also note that Appellant's representative appears to have agreed with this conclusion during the Hearing. in response to a question fi•om the Hearings Officer asking if all meaderies are excluded from the EFU zone as a matter of law, the representative responded that was likely not the case and that it would need to be determined on a case -by -case basis under ORS 215.283(2)(a). $ Friends of Marion County at * 10. 5 I .� current activities were not "farm uses" as defined by statute, the applicant could therefore not rely on those same activities as a basis for the approval of commercial uses in conjunction with farm uses. That case did not involve a record that contemplated the further development of farm uses like the record in this matter does. Craven also illustrates this point. In that case, the Court considered a conditional use permit granted to an applicant who "proposes to establish a vineyard and winery", which "winery is to be constructed before the accompanying vineyard is fully planted."9 Thus, the Court approved the commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use that was not yet established. The Court was concerned only whether the farm use would exist at the same time the proposed commercial activities were conducted. Based on the foregoing, I cannot agree with Appellant's assertion that the Applicant is required to show that a farm use "currently" exits on the Subject Property. As in Craven, the permit can be issued as long as the commercial activities are conducted in conjunction with a farm use, which farm use may be developed in tandem with the commercial activities once the permit is issued. If the Applicant were required to show that the Subject Property, as it currently exists, is in farm use, this would be a more difficult issue to resolve. Appellant takes issue with the fact that the Applicant has not demonstrated a "profit" from farm activities. As explained in Friends of Marion County, "profit" is a broad term, and profit exists "so long as crops are raised, harvested and sold fora gross profit."10 In that case, LUBA held that a farmer had not demonstrated a profit where the farmer "simply testified that they sold the field crops with no other documentation of their production or sale." Here, while it is an extremely close call, I find the Applicant has provided more than mere testimony that it has sold crops. The Applicant has also testified that there has been a gross profit from those sales and that the revenue earned has been reinvested in the farming operation. Based on this record, and although the Applicant has provided little corroboration of revenue from the current farm, I find it more likely than not that the Subject Property is currently in farm use. b. Does the Meadery satisfy the standard for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use? Appellant asserts that the Meadery does not meet the standard for allowing commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. Appellant's specific arguments are that the Meadery is not incidental and subordinate to Applicant's planned farm uses, and that it does not enhance the local agricultural community. Appellant's arguments are grounded in the case law that interprets ORS 215.283(2)(a). One clear articulation of the standard from the Court of Appeals states that any commercial activity beyond the direct processing and selling of a farm product must "be both `incidental' and subordinate to" the farm use.'' In Friends of Yamhill County, the Court of Appeals addressed a county's approval of a permit to allow 44 e Craven, 308 Or at 283-84. 10 Friends of Marion County at * 16 citing Cos v. Polk County, 39 Or LUBA 1, 7-12 (2000). 11 Friends of Yanhill County v. Yanthlll County, 255 Or App 636, 650-51 (2013) citing Craven, 308 Or at 289. annual events as part of a winery.12 Finding the approval to be "dangerously close" to creating a scenario in which the incidental and secondary activities overtake the primary activity, the court nevertheless upheld the approval. The court explained that its decision was based on a condition of approval that limited non -farm income from the commercial activity from exceeding 25 percent of the gross income from the farm use activity, which was the onsite retail sales of wine.13 The Applicant's proposal and the Staff Decision in this matter imposed a condition of approval similar to the condition in Friends of' Yannhill County. Specifically, the Staff Decision imposes a condition that requires the Applicant to confirm, on an annual basis, that no less than 25% of the honey used to produce mead is generated from the Subject Property. However, this condition of approval does not address the same issue the court was concerned with in Friends of Yatnhill County. The condition in Friends of Yamhill County ensured that the scale of the non -farm commercial use was not greater, and therefore subordinate to, the primary farm use. In contrast, the condition in the Staff Decision that the Applicant relies on controls only the scale of the farm product being used for the commercial activity, ensuring that the Subject Property is the primary source of the farm product. That condition does not appear to impose any limitations on the scale of the non -farm commercial uses. Thus, for example, even if the Applicant sourced all of its honey from the Subject Property, nothing would prevent the Applicant from holding events and selling food from food carts in a manner the produces significantly more income than the farm use. If that occurred, the non -farm commercial activities would end up being the primary activity rather than the secondary activity. As the Appellant points out, there are other components of the Application indicating that the non -farm commercial uses are not subordinate to the farm use. For example, the Applicant intends to have four employees for the Meadery, but perhaps only one, if any, for the farm operations. it is perhaps possible to have such a disparity in employees and still have the farm use be the primary use. However, as the Appellant notes, the Applica►i't simply has not attempted to quantify the magnitude of the farm use or the magnitude of the non -farm commercial activities. Some attempt at quantifying those activities is necessary if they are to be compared for the purpose of identifying a primary use and a secondary use.'`► That burden lies with the Applicant. Based on the record before me, I find that the Applicant has not met that burden.15 Although I agree with the Appellant that the Applicant has not demonstrated the Meadery will be incidental and subordinate to a farm use, i disagree with the Appellant's argument that the Applicant has not demonstrated the Meadery enhances the local agricultural community. The Craven decision is informative in this regard. In that case, the Court determined that the proposed winery did enhance the local agricultural community because it provided a local market outlet for grapes of other growers in the area. The Court also noted that it would help transform a hayfield into a vineyard, which increases the 12 The application in that case was made pursuant to ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity and not under ORS 215.283(1)(n) as a winery. 1) The definition of"farm use" includes "the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use." ORS 215.203(2)(a). w See. e.g., Chauncey v. AYlidinoinah County, 23 Or LUBA 599 (1992) (holding that an application without evidence establishing the quantity of products delivered or dollar amount of sales to cannot demonstrate, as a matter of law, the proposed use is a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use). 15 Appellant also relies on Friends of } amhill Counly v. Yamhill County, 301 Or App 726 (2020). That case, although it addresses commercial activities, applies ORS 215.283(4), and is therefore not directly applicable to this matter. intensity and value of agricultural products. LUBA has built on the decision in Craven and stated that, to demonstrate an activity enhances the local agricultural community, "a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use must be either exclusively or primarily a customer or supplier of farm uses." 16 The Applicant's proposal here is nearly identical to the situation in Craven and City of Sanely v. Clackamas County. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to purchase honey from other farmers. Although the Applicant will not be a supplier of other farm uses, it will be primarily a customer of farm uses. The Applicant also proposes to develop regenerative bee pastures, which enrich the soils and, ultimately, increases the intensity and value of agricultural products. I therefore find that the Applicant's proposal satisfies this part of the standard in ORS 215.283(2)(a). Based on the foregoing, I find that the Application must be denied because the Applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the Meadery — as proposed — will be incidental and subordinate to a primary farm use on the Subject Property. c. Did the Applicant adequately address the farm impacts test required by ORS 215.296? As noted above, a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use is an allowed Use in the EFU Zone, subject to any additional conditions the County may impose in its Code. Pursuant to DCC 18.16.040, the County has imposed several limitations on conditional uses, including commercial activities in conjunction with farm use authorized under DCC 18.16.030. The specific restrictions in DCC 18.16.040(A)(1) and (2) are required by state law and are a codification of the restrictions in ORS 215.296(1). LUBA sometimes refers to these restrictions as the "Farm Impacts Test." An applicant carries the burden of proving that ORS 215.296(1) has been met. 17 LUBA has a well - established methodology for demonstrating compliance with the farm impacts test.18 Under that methodology, a proposal can be approved only if it: (1) describes farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use; (2) explains why the proposed development will not force a significant change in those practices; and (3) explains why the proposed development will not significantly impact or increase the cost of those practices. To begin that process, LUBA has held that "[i]n applying ORS 215.296(l), it is entirely appropriate for the applicant to begin by visually surveying surrounding lands to identify the farm and forest uses to which those lands are devoted."19 Other parties are then free to dispute the initial findings, or to add to the record additional evidence of nearby farm uses and farm practices that the applicant must respond to.20 In addressing the Farm Impacts Test, the Applicant initially followed the process described above by providing what amounted to a visual survey of the surrounding land. Specifically, the Applicant provided an inventory of all parcels within a one -mile radius of the Subject Property that are devoted to farm use. As part of that inventory, the Applicant also identified specific farm uses in the study area, 16 City ofSandy v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 316, 321 (19.94). '' Schrepel v. Yamhill County, -- Or LUBA — (LUBA No. 2020-066), 2020 WL 8167220, at *6. $ See Brown v. Union County, 32 Or LUBA 168 (1996). Dierking v. Clackamas County, 38 Or LUBA 106, 120-21 (2000). 20 Id. noting that they included "a combination of grass hay, permaculture, forest, [and] bare land." Other information provided by the Applicant indicates that some properties have horses, cattle, and pastures. The Applicant concludes, primarily based on geographic separation, that there will be no impacts to forest or farm practices on the farm uses identified in the inventory. For example, the Applicant states a nearby property "is buffered by our own dwellings, farm buildings, 12-acres of regenerative bee pasture, and a 20-acre field that will eventually become regenerative bee pasture. At this distance, the winery will not significantly change or increase the cost of any of the accepted farm practices on this Carm property." The Applicant arrived at a similar conclusion for potential noise and light impacts, noting that, because of the adjacent noise and lights from Highway 20, these impacts are already accepted by all adjoining farm and forest land. The flaw in the Applicant's analysis is that it does not actually identify any farm practices that are associated with the various farm uses it identifies. As applied by LUBA and the courts, the Farm Impacts Test must focus on impacts to farm practices. Further, the fact that a similar impact may already exist does not mean that an increase in that impact is necessarily acceptable. An impact that already exists may nevertheless force a significant change to the farm practices associated with that use, or significantly increase the costs of those practices. That determination cannot be made, however, unless the Applicant first identifies specific farm practices that may be impacted. In summary, the record does not include a description of the farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, nor does it include any explanation for why the proposed development will not force a significant change or cost to those practices. It is quite possible that the meadery will not have significant impacts on farm practices, but the burden to demonstrate compliance with the Farm Impacts 'Test unequivocally lies with the Applicant. Without any analysis of the accepted farm practices that are associated with the identified farm uses, I cannot make a factual finding regarding the existence of those farm practices, or a finding that it is more likely than not that the Meadery will not force a significant change to those farm practices. I therefore find that the Applicant has not met its burden to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.16.Q40(A)(1) and (2). d. Did the Staff Decision comply with ORS 215.416(8)? Because a meadery is a type of winery, the Applicant refers to the winery statutes and compares the proposed meadery to a grape winery. As noted in earlier findings, state statues contain provisions specific to grape wineries and grape wineries are allowed in the 6FU zone either outright through ORS 215.283(1)(n), as implemented by ORS 215.452 and ORS 215.453, or conditionally through ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity in conjunction with agriculture. Applicant's stated purpose for comparing a meadery to a winery is that using the winery statutes as a guide helps ensure the meadery remains "incidental and subordinate to farm use." Appellant asserts that this approach is akin to approving the meadery based on inapplicable criteria and, therefore, violates ORS 215.416(8). That statute requires that approval or denial of a permit application be based only on applicable standards and criteria set forth in a county's land use regulations. Appellant argues that the winery statutes are not applicable and, therefore, cannot be relied on for approval of the Meadery. Even though this Decision reverses the outcome of the Staff Decision, ORS 215.416(8) applies to both the approval or denial of an application. I therefore find it appropriate to address whether the Staff Decision violated ORS 215.416(8). I find that it did not. There is no dispute in this proceeding that the Applicant seeks approval of the rneadery under ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity in conjunction with agriculture. The Applicant refers to the winery statutes as a guide and Applicant's express request to the County was "We have suggested that the County consider imposing most of the limitations on the meadery that ORS 215.452 applies to small wineries as a means of assuring that activities associated with the meadery are incidental and subordinate to farm use." Indeed, the Applicant recognized that ORS 215.452 was not a basis for approval of the meadery where it referred to ORS 215.456, which points back to ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a means of approving a winery that cannot otherwise be approved under ORS 215.283(1)(n), ORS 215.452, and ORS 215.453, Contrary to Appellant's assertion, the Staff Decision did not rely on the winery statutes and, therefore, did not rely on inapplicable criteria. Indeed, the Staff Decision very clearly articulated the standard under ORS 215.283(2)(a) and set forth the three components of such a use that Staff would review: (1) the use must be a "commercial" activity; (2) it must be "in conjunction with farm use;" and (3) it must not be the processing of farm crops as described in Section 18.16.025. The Staff Decision then made findings relating to each of those components, and did so without reference to the requirements of the winery statutes. The criteria the Staff Decision relied on are each incorporated into the County's Code. The Staff Decision therefore did not violate ORS 215.416(8). C. Conditions of Approval The Staff Decision imposed several conditions of approval as part of Staffs approval of the Application. The Hearings Officer notes that no participant challenged any condition of approval or otherwise asserted such conditions could not or should not be applied if the Application were approved. Because this Decision finds that the Application cannot be approved based on the current record, however, there is no basis to impose any conditions of approval. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has not met its burden of proof with respect to the standards for approving commercial activities in conjunction with a farm use and with respect to the Farm Impacts Test. The appeal of the Staff Decision is therefore SUSTAINED, and the Application is DENIED. Dated this 17t" day of November 2022 Tommy A. Brooks Deschutes County Hearings Officer 10 �fy FILE NUMBER: SUBJECT PROPERTY/ OWNER: APPLICANT: Mailing Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 FINDINGS AND DECISION 247-22-000024-CU, 247-22-000025-SP Mailing Name: HERMAN, JOHN & RENEE ET AL Map and Taxlot: 1510100000700 Account: 135891 Situs Address: 68540 HWY 20, SISTERS, OR 97759 John Herman REQUEST: The applicant request a Conditional Use Permit for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use to establish a Meadery (Honey Winery) with associated uses. The request also includes a Site Plan Review for the Meadery. STAFF CONTACT: Nathaniel Miller, AICP, Associate Planner Phone: 541-317-3164 Email: Nathaniel.Miller@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildinizr)ermits.oregon.gov 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 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone (LM) Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18,120, Exceptions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org (Lj) wv,/w.deschutes.org/cd / q I1. BASIC FINDINGS LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record being platted Parcel 1 of Minor Partition MP-02-44. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject 83.48-acre property is a developed ranch with 2 single-family dwellings, farm buildings, and supporting ranch infrastructure. The majority of the property is pastureland on the northwest and southeast sides. The developed portion of the property is along the southwest property line which abuts Highway 20. There is a light cover of Ponderosa Pine trees and other vegetation at the northeast, southeast, and around the ranch houses and barns. The property is irregular in shape, and fronts on Highway 20 to the southwest and Highway 126 to the northeast. The grade of the property is relatively even across the parcel. The subject property is depicted in Image One below. Image One -- Subject Property REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application(s) were submitted on January 19, 2022 and deemed incomplete by the Planning Division on February 18, 2022. The application was deemed complete on July 15, 2022. The 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application is December 12, 2022. The submitted application materials are incorporated herein by reference. 247..22-000024-CU, 247-22-000025-SP Page 2 of 74 ow PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use to establish a Meadery (Honey Winery) with associated uses. The Meadery will operate similarly to a winery combining wine production and onsite sales, events, consumption, and education. As outlined below, the proposed Meadery as the commercial activity includes the following associated uses (actions) and subordinate features: 1. Mead Production, Aging, & Packaging 2. Meadery Indoor Tasting Area & Wine Sales 3. Meadery Outdoor Tasting Area 4. Farm Store 5. 1 Food Cart 6. Winery Activities • Wine Tasting • Wine Club Gatherings • Winery and Bee Pasture Tours • Business Functions • Staff Functions • Promotional Events 7. Winery Related Events (Limited to 20 Events Annually) • Events (18 Events Annually) • Concerts (2 Live Music Events Annually) • 2 Addition Food Carts The proposed Meadery will be located in an existing 3,000-square-foot farm building which will be converted to the "Winery Building'. The production, parking, tasting areas, food carts are located in, or in close proximity to, the Winery Building. The Winery Related Events will be staged in the same area but include a lawn and stage area to the northwest, as well as additional parking to the north and east. As the seven (7) associated uses (actions) differ with respect to characteristics, function, and location on the site, staff classifies the uses into the following three aspects for the purposes of this review: I. Mead Production Mead Production, Aging, & Packaging II. Winery Operations Meadery Indoor Tasting Area & Wine Sales Meadery Outdoor Tasting Area Farm Store 1 Food Cart Winery Activities • Wine Tasting • Wine Club Gatherings • Winery and Bee Pasture Tours • Business Functions 247-22-000024-CU, 247-22-000025-SP Page 3 of 74 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE (MUNICODE) Exclusive Farm Use (18.16.010 Purpose) 1. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses. 2. The purposes of this zone are served by the land use restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and in DCC 18.16 and by the restrictions on private civil actions and enforcement actions set forth in ORS 30.930 through 30.947. Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (18.32.010 Purpose) 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. 1. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; 2. To conserve forest lands for forest uses; 3. To conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; 4. to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; 5. to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and 6. to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. In MUA-10 zoned land, the following uses and their accessory uses arc permitted outright: 1. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18. 2. A single-family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070. 3. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product. 4. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116,230. 5. Class III road or street project. 6. Noncommercial horse stables, excluding horse events. 7. Horse events, including associated structures, involving: 1. Fewer than 10 riders; 2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or 3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days. Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants, trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events. CI 8. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. Page 1 of 2 )J 9. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280. 10. Historic Home Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.350. 11. Residential Accessory Dwelling Units, subject to DCC 18.116.355. Page 1 of 2 January 2, 2024 Hi Toby, This letter is about a conversation I had with Duane Barker. You know we live at 20525 Bowery Lane which is across Bowery from the Barkers. And, we have often complained to Duane because he also used his tractor to take gravel from our side of Bowery Lane to his side of the road. He also shoots across Bowery to scare birds out of his grapes and punctured my irrigation pipe with his shotgun which indicates he's shooting into my land. He also runs a squawk box all day during the summer to keep birds out of his grape vines. We have to listen to this all summer. And now he wants to have a winery. I asked him if all the things he'd applied to have going on and all the cars on our 1 lane road — how could he get away with this? Our HOA doesn't allow businesses that sell to customers directly from their property and also the blind corners are very dangerous. How could his application get approved? I'm not sure those were my exact words but the conversation was about how he could get away with having a winery on his land. And he kind of smirked and said I know Tony Debone. Before that I heard he had bragged to neighbors and people from the county that he had personal friends in high places at the county. Anyway Tony Debone is a county commissioner. I guess commissioners decide these things. But it really isn't fair to the rest of us because we obey the law and county rules and share the road enough as it is without a bunch of customers coming to his property illegally to drink and buy wine. Hope this information helps our neighborhood to remain peaceful. Van Jensen Deschutes County Code 18.16.025 https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/736/exclusive farm_ use_efu_zoning_ordinance._chapter_18.16.pdf 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 1.8.124 where applicable. A. Dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use (farm -related dwellings), subject to DCC B..,A relative farm assistance dwelling, subject to DCC 18.16.050. C Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441, that are not within 3 miles of an acknowledged urban growth boundary, on nonhigh value farmland. D. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441, that are within 3 miles of an acknowledged urban growth boundary, subject to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-0330130 on nonhigh value farmland. E. Expansion of an existing church or cemetery in conjunction with a church on the same tract as the existing use, subject to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-033-0130. F. Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatment systems, but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power for public use by sale and transmission towers over 200 feet in height. A utility facility necessary for public service may be established as provided in DCC 18.16.038(A). P G. Winery, as described in ORS 215.452, Oregon Public Lawn Statute: ORS 215.452 - https://oregon public.law/statutes/ors 215.452 A winery may be established as a permitted use on land zoned for exclusive farm use under Olt; 215.213 (Uses rmitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(p) and 215.283 is95 ermitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmargmal lands counties} (1)(n) qr on Ian zoned for mixed farm and forest use if the winery produces wine with a maximum annual production of: (a) Less than 50,000 gallons and: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 15 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 15 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; or (D) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of this paragraph; or (b) At least 50,000 gallons and the winery: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 40 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 40 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 40 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; (D) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres on a tract of at least 40 acres and owns at least 40 additional acres of vineyards in Oregon that are located within 15 miles of the winery site; or (E) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B), (C) or (D) of this paragraph. ORS 215.2 83 Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties (1) The following uses may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use: (a) Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches. ...N/A (b) The propagation or harvesting of a forest product.... N/A (e) Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatment systems but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power ...N/A (d) A dwelling on real property used for farm use if the dwelling is occupied by a relative of the farm operator or the farm operator's spouse ... N/A (e) Subject to ORS 215.279 (Farm income standard for dwelling in conjunction with farm use), primary or accessory dwellings and other buildings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use. (f) Operations for the exploration for and production of geothermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005 (Definitions) and oil and gas as defined by ORS 520.005 (Definitions) ......N/A (g) Operations for the exploration for minerals as defined by ORS 517.750 (Definitions for ORS 517.702 to 517.989). Any activities or construction relating to such operations shall not be a basis for an exception under ORS 197.732 (Goal exceptions) (2)(a) or (b). (h) Climbing and passing lanes within the right of way existing as of July 1, 1987... N/A (i) Reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways N/A (j) Temporary public road and highway detours that will be abandoned and restored N/A (k) Minor betterment of existing public road and highway related facilities such as maintenance yards, weigh stations and rest areas, within right of way existing as of July 1, 1987, and contiguous public -owned property utilized to support the operation and maintenance ...N/A (1) A replacement dwelling to be used in conjunction with farm use if the existing dwelling has been listed in a county inventory as historic property as defined in ORS 358.480 (Definitions for ORS 358.480 to 358.545). ...N/A (m) Creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands.... N/A (n) A winery, as described in ORS 215.452 (Winery) or 215.453 (Large winery) * Deschutes is one of only two Oregon counties that does not have Marginal lands ■ Deschutes County Code 18.16.025 https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/736/exclusive_farm_ use_efu_zoning_ordinance_chapter_18.16.pdf 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 where applicable. A. Dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use (farm -related dwellings), subject to DCC B. A relative farm assistance dwelling, subject to DCC 18.16.050. - C. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441, that are not within 3 miles of an acknowledged urban growth boundary, on nonhigh value farmland. D. Churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441, that are within 3 miles of an acknowledged urban growth boundary, subject to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-0330130 on nonhigh value farmland. E. Expansion of an existing church or cemetery in conjunction with a church on the same tract as the existing use, subject to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-033-0130. F. Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatment systems, but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power for public use by sale and transmission towers over 200 feet in height. A utility facility necessary for public service may be established as provided in DCC 18.16.038(A). G. Winery, as described in ORS 215.452. Oregon Public Law Statute: ORS 215.452 - https•//oregon public.law/statutes/ors 215.452 A winery may be established as a permitted use on land zoned for exclusive farm use under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (1)(p) and 215.283 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties) (1)(n) or on land zoned for mixed farm and forest use if the winery produces wine with a maximum annual production of: (a) Less than 50,000 gallons and: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 15 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 15 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; or (D) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of this paragraph; or (b) At least 50,000 gallons and the winery: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 40 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 40 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 40 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; (D) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres on a tract of at least 40 acres and owns at least 40 additional acres of vineyards in Oregon that are located within 15 miles of the winery site; or (E) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B), (C) or (D) of this paragraph. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) § 215.452: Section 215.452 - Winery; conditions; permissible uses (1) A winery may be established as a permitted use on land zoned for exclusive farm use under ORS 215.213(1)(p) and 215.283(l)(n) or on land zoned for mixed farm and forest use if the winery produces wine with a maximum annual production of: (a) Less than 50,000 gallons and: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 15 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 15 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; or (D) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of this paragraph; or (b) At least 50,000 gallons and the winery: (A) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 40 acres; (B) Owns a contiguous vineyard of at least 40 acres; (C) Has a long-term contract for the purchase of all of the grapes from at least 40 acres of a vineyard contiguous to the winery; (D) Owns an on -site vineyard of at least 15 acres on a tract of at least 40 acres and owns at least 40 additional acres of vineyards in Oregon that are located within 15 miles of the winery site; or (E) Obtains grapes from any combination of subparagraph (A), (B), (C) or (D) of this paragraph. (NOTE• Exclusive Farm Use is also referred to as lands zoned_"EFU") ORS 215.456 Siting winery as commercial activity in exclusive farm use (EFU) zone (1) A local government may authorize the siting of a winery, on land zoned for exclusive farm use, pursuant to the standards that apply to a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use under ORS 215.213 (Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in counties that adopted marginal lands system prior to 1993) (2)(c) or 215.283 ((ses permitted :._ exclusive iye farm use nudes in nonmarg'en/1/ /ands counties) (2)(y) or outer law if the winer permu[eu in eae,eca�evG rsi�i�� ••.�� ti•, (NOTE: Deschutes County does not have marginal lands) (a) Does not qualify for siting under ORS 215.452 (Wineryl or 215.453 (Large winervl;or (b) Seeks to carry out uses or activities that are not authorized by ORS 215.452 (Winery or 215,453 (Large winery . (2) If a county authorizes the establishment of a winery on land zoned for exclusive farm use or mixed farm and forest use under provisions of law other than ORS 215.452 (Winery) or 215.453 (Large winervl after June 28, 2013, the gross income of the winery from any activity other than the production or sale of wine may not exceed 25 percent of the gross income from the on -site retail sale of wine produced in conjunction with the winery. The gross income of a winery does not include income received by third parties unaffiliated with the winery. [2013 c.554 §31 at Thanks for taking the time to speak with me. Inbox tobybayard@gmailacorn Nov 21, 2023, 1:40 PM I3i Nathaniel, - Thanks for speaking with me today about the Barker's CUP application 247-22-000464. I've always worked well with Deschutes County's Community Development Department. I remain hopeful that this will continue. Your ruling for the Lazy Z Meadery (honey wine) business gives me hope that you understand Oregon Revised Statutes and Deschutes County Title 18 code as it relates to wineries. Please put the attached into the public record with the Barkers' application. Respectfully, Toby (and Michel) Bayard 20555 Bowery Lane, Bend 97703 541-977-5341 One attachment • Scanned by Gmail Nathaniel biller<Nathaniel.Miller*desehutes.org> Nov 22, 2023, 10:18 AM . It is unclear to staff why arguments are being made to apply Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) coning and ORS 215.452 to the proposal. ORS 215.452 is specific to property owners who would like to establish a winery on property in the EFU Zone district. Our understanding is that these provisions do not preclude a Similar use on properties which are outside the EFU Zone. The only applicable zone district for the property is the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10). The Staff Report, which was drafted for the Hearings Officer and public, can only address those criteria which are legally relevant. As such, we cannot apply EFU zoning or ORS regulation which address uses in the EFU zone only. Our apologies if previous attempts to explain this were miscommunicated. Also, please note that a Staff Report is not an approval, but a synopsis of a proposal, public and agency participation, and whether the application materials meet the standards of the zoning code. . The applicant is applying for a "Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use" which is a permissible conditionai use in the MUA 10 Zone if the applicant can successfully demonstrate that they meet the criteria. The requirements for a Site Plan Review will also need to be satisfied. As was stated in the Staff Report on page 59, it is unclear to staff if the proposal can be approved. This was why the proposal was referred to a public hearing and a third -party reviewer (Hearings Officer). Again, we appreciate your participation in the process. We anticipate a decision from the Hearings Officer in mid - December. You and your neighbors who are within 250 feet of the subject property, and all parties -of -interest, will be notified of the Hearing Officer's decision. A 12-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the decision. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or questions, I am happy to help. Please call me directly at: 541-317-3164. Regards, Nathaniel J Nathaniel Miller, A@CP I Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3164 1 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer; Pleo e note that the information in this email is an informal statement inade in aa:orclance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a persons property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person From: tobybavardaig nail: cam <tobybEard@gmail.com> Seat: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:40 PM To: Nathaniel Miller<Nathaniet.Miller@deschutes.org> Cc: benacolw.org; mlbayard 1943 mail.com; tob bayaid[ag_m_ ail _cam; tryonsharori l l gmail.com; gkrambeal c mai.l.con"i; briLce@_1cvins774.com Subject: 'Thanks for taking the time to speak with me. Importance: High 5 Attachments m Scanned by Gmail ��U Waste water treatment issues associated with wineries First, I must state that I have a degree in Chemical Engineering with a minor in Oenology from the: University of Bordeaux, France. I worked several summers in Saint Emilion wineries which are near BordeaUX. As a result, I'm well aware of the main challenges that wineries face. A major one is contamination in the manufacturing process. If the wine manufacturing equipment is not kept completely free of contaminants, the risk of microbial spoilage and undesirable compounds in wine manufacturing is high and the result is costly for the winery. J Grape gang` l Blending Harvest "'- �f Cellar preparation f � Clarifica4ian �'� .p Primary Filtra&m�enat��x � Grupe slenrrning and I _ *5 l ,rushin" r ._,.J Aging ti � L-� 5 is ti Grape. juice and --- must analys. ----1 BoWing`lcorkmg _._...-_.....,_. Il' soliduates* Nr _ �"......�.. i & processing _ . _w.Labeling u - / y melioration .__......_.._.._...._ a U (as needed) C351lig K Must termenlation — ,,' shipping 502 or ultrafiltration Contamination risk is present at every stage of the manufacturing process. It can result from improper removal of cleaning agents, dirty production lines, etc. Product contamination is a costly problem that all wineries face. Small wineries (such as what Cava "Terrace Cellars will be, if their CUIP application is approved) face significant challenges in managing this Vwaste water. In St. Etnilion, some of the smaller wineries I consulted for had only septic and leach field systems. They inevitably clogged after the high solid stages in wine processing. The result was untreated wastewater being discharged in the surrounding fields. And, due to "economies of scale, these wineries often used cheaper cleaning chemicals. For instance, chlorine -based bleach is one of the two key contributors to the creation of 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA), a major wine fault. When a wine has TCA present beyond the sensory threshold, it's "corked" and will give off undesirable musty aromas. Adding to this problem is that the sensory threshold is very low. It's �7l less than five (5) nallograllls per liter (5 billionths of grans) the wine consumer will begin to notice the unpleasant aromas of TCA. But wine equipment must be cleaned throughout the manufacturing process. In St. Emilion, the risk of severe pollution was significant as these cheaper cleaning agents result in waters that contain many dangerous chemicals. If this chemical cleaning agents are not constantly removed from the nn iaufacti.iring process, they can seep down into to the underlying aquiter. in the Rock ()' The Range neighborhood, where LavaTerrace Cellars is sited. this would have disastrous consequences since most residents rely on the aquifer for their drinking water. A better solution 17 or slllall wineries is to build wasted aiel• pond s�. sterns. But, these require a significant amount of land. Lave 'Terrace Cellars stated in its C1JP application that it plans on producing 2000 cases of wine per year. "Phis would create about 16.000 gallons of wastewater over a period of two months (mid -September to mid -November) and would require multiple ponds over an area close to one acre. Considering that Barker's 5.45 acres are already occupied by multiple buildings, parking areas, vines, a pond, etc. there is no room for such a wastewater treatment oil their 5.45 acre parcel. In aCtdiilOr?_wastewater treatment ponds are clot effective at breakilul (IMA `1 f 'Llltti Contanlillallts. tdnill;lS aI1C1 ()the,' to? IC Cl1eI11tCi1�5 since they don't pl'C��1Cl�' Sltff�C (('11i biological Oyen d.tTlliillQ (BOD). Such wastewater shoUld not be. released ill thenv elrolllnCil", vvitllULlt Illl'tl]C I' tl'l ailllellt that shotild be done off site. Lastly, wastewater pond generate very unpleasant odors. 11-lese would be totally unacceptable in a residential neighborhood such as the Rock O' The Range. Micihel Bayard. PhD 00, sctitiles County Offiolal Recordo, 2020-2 W- C ornmunioy Developi-nerit Dt,.pt. 117 aftVV I a fa y e t e, P. (), Lq t.Sx 6? 0 (1-5 d . 0 1) 7 7 6 10 0 5 06/0812020 V A8 CONDI'nONS OF APPROVAL AGREEMENT I HIS AGREEMENT, rm.,idle and entered ;Uito by a: -id i.)etweorj Oe,'ChUteS CoUrIty, a i pofitic,-11 ,uh(fi0:,!on of the State of Oregon, ("CotMty"), aIf*ld DUane & Dill -A Barker, --,j real pruper,,y described in E.xi6hit A, Deschutes County, `r/s of cer�..Jt-i 'o,S ",ort W. c ain Stutory`N,flOs affrteedatdco I 'cc'rrjedl In 'N-'�'J'ILIWS C(:)urity E',00k of Re(0','L1s f 998-I)l /1128 ("Reai Pro.f)erly'). W I r W E S S t T Ff : WHiE'.RFAS Coonty has granted approval Of a iland use permit 247-18-000126-AD for the R(,,al N-opero, Upon the condfition that Developer construct and maintain cort'..3in requiren'tcrits as specified therein; now, therefore�, If IS i--',ERFBY AGREPID, by and flhe DarTies, for acid in consideration of the, rnufAic-d covenaw-s- and agreenien's herc!in, as �� cc.wiiiidon preceder"it to the granting of final approv"-11 or occuppm(y, as follc VYS: Scope of Agreement. 'I lhis kxreerrient -iff ects thRfud Property described abcvv. -np rf',quii roi riet its dcscflix �t . vernentsand - s (..0ori rhis A,) coe i nei it. �-h (over Tho ro ; �d in the 0 Of c'mifle'd "'-j('rjs Of Final Approval!' Nw-hing in tl'iis Agreemenc shall IDe'velope- to (OMitcli'i 'iny kvtprov(.'(11011tttgl4."l('1' Lhe Permit, but if Developer canstruction r',f buildings or :Aru(fures, the division of real property or the Perrn't, i"A-veloper shall be r(-,,quired to (-ompiete and maintain all cis dofirwd herein, inaccordance, with applicc-ble County Ordinances and thr- Definition of Improveinerit. AS LI92'[1 hemin, me.-3ris ally or publk", (,',d1:11Y or serviCQ SLI(h f(WidvViOYS, bike� paths, vvpys, pedestriai I k o),). y (.',011eiJ(.J1 c4nd 65POSdl SySterns, water systerns, lightingsystenis, parkirc Jot,,, cable utflitieq, dr�,..vlatic�jl c'.aeas, oitdoor storage areas, seivice. and delivery area�, otvdow recroation retaining walls, signs an(! graphics, cut -and -fill areas, h,ufferliv-, and screening, rneasures, street furniture, draintiloe facilities, Or Other sirrillar irn. provernents as approved and required in the Permit. Toby Bayard - Comments for Public Hearing - 1040-23 - Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 22 WNW Me. My Wodnesday, Juno 20. 20 1 Z. Z!, RNDINGS DECISION FRE WMER; 24 / 1 P JM1 16 M APPLWANVOWNER: 11tv vs 84 Edna Barket, RQUEST: Thq apphunt j1-eOUesting an Adrnin.if.Arative Determ illation to establish a Type 1 home ocapalioll fcr wine ,torage in the MLANPIC! Use Agdcultuml Zone, STAFF CONTACT: laze Lio. Associate Planner 1. RPPLKAW.-CRITERL& (10 11 Dexhutes tzoupty,eoning Ordinance: Ch4,K 10 OA 1 idt Pwpose and EmBILM, ChNnw I s3l PAMVW too AphuMIA (MUMO) WO Chopp, 18116, Q140notamy Rovowns j (:,,nL, (.,,,:ec!i-ji es Or dingy ace 8, AS 1 C, Vj N 01 N G S: A. LOCAPIM WC VIM WWARY rS 100"d at Z0520 bowy LWOV JenM ard is w1n: juSMOM! CAI MwAy Assonorl V'ap t i, "A's tax lc't 1o0u, 13. LOT OF RECORD: Leg,, lot of WOM MMUM" L, not iequirod PLUMant to DOC C. ZONING' !!1e SUbject P, 0Pe!'tY iS ?Wed MA10. D. SITE DESCRIPTION; T'jj(r �,Ljfject property i,,, jp� lal in �jcres. and is irrog�j - sl'apt�' i he pfx"YPe.'!1 ty i,, dtveioped with an exhUng QW&dro Ily rig aw'd twe accessory in W"awyon (RKQ; 1 Wb Aw lot 0; pow A PIWOU Vy re �00-1 0 and wwr wombl PwMV PCM W 1, 7017, a MMUP A P-Mk Qnr November 1, 201 A or„ %y oft porr,�t 1 LVA WiC HMO ON Go?" Rud M 977W Toby Bayard --- Comments for Public F1 ear i i ig -- 10- 10 -23 Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 .1 , ty -Lost's kwkml 1 1 BoNw Lot C. a i o I PROPOSAL, ik W, AV OPP WA Of a pno 1 ho �z ouvo�oon 11 W-le 160 6 r-OnA OKI U gnpw, 00uv ad Kne P own to W! Pw boom a A Lowe The VA" VON be Uoinvoned bak, 100 1 rXopm ty and .U� ad 4MUbAP tO Q (11YALUed WM a 5UJOe 012MY YQU? Q IesMiss j1d 0 WAY noubw W gmay Sm.. U� tY% gray.; 1W Ynn to Who! 10 fv,SFr 1, 4 11 So in REWEVI PERIODOW WIM j*ngj,njtvw Mpowd in !A_vy Y, �18 and dwr oA ,!Ojdz 9, 101F. Upa MKIKkin W& Mov; of OdIH&A :40W QW Tph,ov "MI PIVA w NCO 1 A 018. 10'. jaw IR, nusamni coontyzaning r"Almance. TITLE. PURPI'j"if ANO DEF11NITIONS ,JyMe QrMpation" means an occupadon arprtylssion corriedan wiflim a dwelling andlor a residential accessory structure by a resident of the &,velllng or employees, depepding on eype pav-Ciaor fo 1)(C 18, 110280 and i% secondar to the residential iBse of MA? dwelling onrVoir the kipnria f acce5sciry structure, FINDING- 1' 'o ye, Bandar dvapokIM4 sonnudahe CHAPTER 1&31 AARYPLEE USE AGRICULTUPAL ZONE F ; 1 Home oc"JOW to Vc,C, -18;) 16,230, Occupation, lher t- af , iyees cir rvotroctors, rhis tedon 011 he met, wjj _)e ijo e,�jjpic P : dyf Toby Bayard --Comments for Public Hearing — 10-40-23--Oppositionto CUP Application 247-22-000464 9 17 FINDING., As,, stated' under 2 above, croy the iesido-rAs will be conducting the proposed horne ,)ccupatior,'Flhefe will be C10empkIces or contlActors. f 11J9,ci itt'ionwjlil he W,-?t, CHAPTER IS1 I& SUPIP�EMEN TARY PPOVISIONS n, 1 q 10,; 1h Von -Q)P'"QC 050"s S. '1�,pcs, fn� addirmn to Me home occupations offowed in Se;tioa A above, three types of howl" accupatons may he jilowed v,ith jimitarlons or location and intensity of aYowedirsen Que 7at ows 10mv intenshY uses and jypes 2 and 3 cilow progressively grcaeer 4�tvnsiry of usen n Typo 1, Type I home =jcgivo does noc reqtdre a lanad usc peralu but 5haH b,bjecr to (hejoflovong crderio A Type I home orcoP0001)" Wes 11"'t reqjvW, o triimt-nuni parrO Sue, F I N I i.'�I'j k" , - lonk'0; xf. oy H, yon 'd sr_ a.'. q is cooducred adthin a WHQ or a residenthil accessory structUre Why by reF�idents of the d.,ve8irig, FINDING: k w—M ly q - , 01i.'0" K (01 d& 0 :1 M! K! w. 04"" 1 1 qn Cal orn, I : 1 -: -. �:i 1 - -1 0 T Y a 7 11 t h i q pq VC t P T V . I Y " tj �' !""� ,)e tMi.: 0 u --'" uE '^ wi r w. PI iQ � Qn; 10 k-1, pm fqW pj'', voes not occupy more rhan 25 pe"M ,j' the co'7,6ioed flout areg of Ow 1 5,,ve ffiqq in c ludfrg a U W e d g a mge o n d Cities t7cr e 5 5OPY 5 rn ( rtu re MR —AA A too v6dor, 1 160 gold Y r K j 01 01 e"ning 'Wnj(� q-1 Whq to yr Wd� IV five (5) Qz to the ci-/rrot e o,, rt inrludt, parcel deliveq services. . lj,w uo staves 1W U -o no l'"t gtrvlx� lrac 101 1 T"P 4 the W put VINk 5-. Mayhmhlde ai conttvcforS the,,'- work off sire. o"Awadom A here vKH he no empkjug' ", This n'iterion will he met. 6, adar; Qsr,-glare, 11ashing lights 01'noise, Smoke, on;d Vill ra 5 h.1 excels cif thca Cneares, PY normal reshlendal use Fl,N,DIINGt. {, {t -nhlndkjlLh 5"w k "QhMmi 1. Ju Allot CA ivL Wadi Y p"511.rYd I"!(); -�Cld %Vwhylg ok h- W onaz W War " wx�vf Toby Bayard - Comments for Public Hearing -- 10-10-23 - Opposition to CUP Application 24522-000464 18 Does not irivolvtl 01e 017-site advertisemerit disphy or sale ofstock in ttade, Other than Vehic1c of traile". signagc"; Does not in r1ade: building or ground nir tinted signs. Fj�4DING: - ;i ka 1 do" ino xvwo Qn sity jovonninew cook, (v nVe of V05 it UIR 1 "0 WORM!10. t1u: appiraint Liar" ruL p!UPWs' bujor! W! Does not incWde autside storage of eqtjjpjjjer)t or 11ioterials used in the operation of the -home OccuP060n, FINDING- 73- 1� ;jUk"A UWAY UP FqQ aplWauart that thYT WH bu to %VhYr ow"We of on QWPI A, W I I lan-rish mr the propon, A I Maio of 0qMiJNV MS 00001 WM be qm I, Has adequate access (Ind on she parkAgIN not more than arse (1) custOmer, or d(�Jivety Vehicle art any given time, !' i� rn 1 1M c I I _ u - . jnqn Ic W"! I =0 NVA aw Aty AnYp"VY 'S- jW ploy; pawy or a dKonrylWhirm, Tiry 1411arl MY WAY in 00 J. ny f r z�rltnrwhl he Aflmv� tart. W one (1) bosinesV-related vehiefoor trijr* not vxceediq; 15,00,0 pounds gross vehi(:4? weight ono -one 0) other non -motorized wheeled cquipri I vat (troileq vvhich shall not` excevd3,000peundfibrass vehicle Weight. r- HN D I N Gj I w . a y 1 10 1 00 tin 1 M W 1 1" QJT t v! Of t 1 Ve! Q � tvd 0 0 1 t' i f) ;A 1 cy Am P Of re 1 t TP 5 A NO" P"TP M wi 11 r 12, ConWils Qh W1 requkeniew of the Deschutes Counry Building Safet: rlivWon and the Environmental Heoith Division' and any other applicobt, state or federal lows. Compliance with the requirements of the beschute. f�-oujify RtWding Safety Division shed/ include meeting aft building occuponq! lcrssafiLatiarr requNeMeWs yQhe state-odopted htpilding code, t5 conducred in uclj a Iyay tflat it is (.ampatible with the residential mai or, or, or in rev ource zones, ed character of it� location. F I N 01 N" 6, : ._ �� _; j;�, , , r( -.I ty i,, �uo e N, jA1 0 ard i n adWent _ _ _ j_ �- j p,_ J Lj KMA I Sko num papa Cal T P e V; c jqd WAW U 01 ills ;I Ike ANAVOK Ili. InVA W1 No in .64we yorwe 10M.Per on tho SuQATt home, ''pQ "a L."Now W UK I M0 An"n, vwd Dra MOW, ;s1h Ili 01YOW i w ,)I jppj,,4 ano zwe iq: ru W 5AQ vra 1w axpcied [al (0qMPr,d RVA sir ds Bit A", Toby Bayard Comments for Public Hearing — 10-10-23 — opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 19 14, Does not ;nvolve uny external changes to the dweffing in which the home occupation will he- established that would give the dwelling an outward appearance of o business. I- tf� V� F! X 11 17 FINDING,- d, (. If Ij 1.,�j P U1'1AJW'-- c1ii �—Jb I N it(tor, t� rr.et. Aflcw-, for inspecr;ng,, joaOing, ood or Wspatchit;g of vehiclovand equipment to the home oce-upare . on and ttoredwithin the dwelling, torchIptl gur(rpe or acce5sary structure. FINDING: 1;'. I :-,i r IvIij � I " I, - nf I ho 0thor perlilts may be roquirod. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division, the Deschutes County t',itvlmnnriont;til `pails Vvivi-,ion and tho Deschutes County Road Department, as we(l as any required state and federal permits. V- 0 fl: C I SA C) N APPIRDVAL tiff[, O,,N D! TIO NS CF AP` I OV A. ki'' j"i J V U Ok Aii !J I o�j i 1i ol! It,, el( Liq,�j 'J� f"�!J( Soi J A U, if 42 P 1 CI Lie lirlite�'! If, C, eI Doane C. l3i SCU -1 d, D, ';'', -i, M Y r tv i i I f Toby Bayard -- Comments for Public Hearing-- 10-10-23 — Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 20 6, P" TOO Y juR wunivo owre dwo o0v 1, We Wqwbb WtOd ve"'" Or uk"k, 3PLU ;.PAS H- y I YIS cc rose" j t� lz JAW W 1 A, Q 11 K JQLQ-1tl"� I'!. "igll nf oonwex that incloden R tifrco!'�"--J'l H -ahov�7-' vit. DORATION OF APPRQV4' npykoj shop 7criwoncp We wopaved 'no "Wh = (A Aus YOM the daft`.-` A .,.w 1hu WIAY cod\: JWI denlon heconw",i finai tv,'`ve OZ) daylvi after the datc, rJ rnaiiiiw, I �11 apf (# ed by a party of interest, mulums cuu(MY PLANNINU DIV61ON VW, �jn� ky:,�,: w, NvAwN W KQf ',k Toby Bayard — Comments for Public Hearing — 151423 -- Opposition to CUP Application 24122-000464 21 DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: HEARING LOCATION: APPLICANT/OWNER: SUBJECT PROPERTY: File No. 247-22-000757-A (Appeal of files 247-22-000024-CU and 247-22-000025-SP) October 26, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 John Herman Tax Lot 00700, Map 15-10-10 Sites Address: 68540 E Highway 20, Sisters, OR 97759 APPELLANT: Central Oregon LandWatch REQUEST: Appeal of an administrative decision: (1) approving a conditional use for a meadery and associated activities as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use; (2) approving a site plan approval for the meadery. HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has not met its burden of proof with respect to a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use and, therefore, SUSTAINS the appeal, and DENIES the Application, based on the findings in this Decision. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.120, Exceptions Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use � (I II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL I+INDINGS A. Nature of Proceeding This matter comes before the Hearings Officer as an appeal of a decision by the Deschutes County Planning Department ("Staff') in which Staff approved: (1) the operation of a meadery as a commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use (File 247-22-000024-CU); and (2) a site plan for the meadery (File 247-22-000025-SP) (together, the "Staff Decision"). The specific proposal in the Application underlying the Staff Decision is the Applicant's proposal to operate a meadery on the Subject Property. According to the Applicant and other information in the record, a meadery makes mead, a type of wine fermented from honey rather than from grapes. Mead is sometimes referred to as "honey wine," and a meadery is sometimes referred to as a "honey winery." The Applicant currently maintains beehives on the Subject Property from which honey is harvested and engages in the production of mead. The Applicant plans to use honey from the Subject Property and from other farms around the county and state as part of the planned meadery, which will produce mead on a larger scale for sale. In addition to the meadery itself, the Applicant proposes other commercial activities such as an indoor tasting room, an outdoor tasting area, food carts, "winery -related" events, and other unidentified activities "related to the production, sale, marketing, and distribution of wine, farm products, and related incidental items." The Application includes a request for use of the Subject Property as a music venue to support local events that may not be winery related, such as the Sisters Folk Festival. This decision will refer to the meadery and the proposed commercial activities as the "Meadery." B. Notices Decision Appeal and Hearing The Application was filed on January 19, 2022. On .January 28, 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. On September 7, 2022, Staff issued a decision on the Application, styled "Findings and Decision" (the "Staff Decision"). On September 19, 2022, the County received an Appeal Application with a Notice of Appeal on behalf of Central Oregon Landwatch ("Appellant"), seeking review of the Staff Decision. There is no dispute in this proceeding that the appeal documents were timely filed. On September 30, 2022, the County mailed a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice") announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the appeal of the Staff Decision. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on October 26, 2022, opening the Hearing at 6:01 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference, with Staff, the Applicant, and a representative of Appellant present in the hearing room. The Hearings Officer appeared remotely. 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. f asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. No participant requested that the record remain open. The Hearing concluded at approximately 7:35 p.m. At that time, I closed the Hearing and the record, and I took this matter under advisement. C. 150-day Clock The Applicant submitted the Application on January 19, 2022. Staff reviewed the Application and, on February 18, 2022, notified the Applicant that the Application was incomplete ("incomplete Notice"). The Applicant provided additional information on or about March 8, 2022 and March 17, 2022, and continued to provide information to the record in response to Staff inquiries. On July 15, 2022, Applicant's attorney notified Staff that the Applicant had provided information in response to the Incomplete Notice, thereby confirming that the Applicant believed the Application to be complete as of that date. Using July 15, 2022, as the date of completeness, the deadline within which the County must make a final decision under ORS 215.427 — "the 150-day clock" — is December 12, 2022. III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Adoption of Findings in Staff Decision The Staff Decision contains comprehensive findings related to the Application and the Subject Property. The vast majority of the findings in the Staff Decision are not challenged in this Appeal, and, although this proceeding is de novo, most criteria in the Staff Decision are not re -addressed by the participants during the appeal. As a result, I hereby adopt the findings in the Staff Decision as my findings, as supplemented and modified by the findings in this Decision, which address the issues and criteria that were raised on appeal. To the extent any of the findings in this Decision conflict with the findings in the Staff Decision, my intent is to have these findings control. B. Issues on Appeal The Appellant's Notice of Appeal sets forth several bases for appeal of the Staff Decision, and Appellant raised other issues during the Hearing. Appellant seeks denial of the Application based on the following assertions: (1) a meadery is not an allowed use in the Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") zone either because no local or state law allows such a use, or because a meadery is not a "winery", which can be allowed by statute; (2) there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding that there is any farm use currently on the Subject Property; (3) there is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the Meadery will produce income that is "incidental" or "subordinate" to income from farm uses on the Subject Property; (4) the Applicant has not adequately addressed the farm impacts test required by ORS 215.296; and (5) the Staff Decision violates ORS 215.416(8) because it is based on provisions relating to grape wineries rather than a meadery. The findings below address each of those issues. � 2- 1. Is a meadery an allowed use in the EFU zone? The Applicant's proposed Meadery includes meadery facilities for processing mead and several associated commercial activities such as tasting areas, food carts, and incidental sales of mead -related items. Appellant asserts that the Meadery is not an allowed use in the EFU zone. ORS 215.203 establishes a statewide construct for determining which uses are allowed in the EFU zone. Under that statute, an EFU zone "shall be used exclusively for farm use except as otherwise provided in ORS 215.213, 215.283 or 215.284."l ORS 215.213 and ORS 215.284 are not applicable in the present matter. ORS 215,283 sets forth various specific uses, other than "farm uses", that are allowed in the EFU zone. The non -farm uses in ORS 215.283(1) are uses a county must allow by right, subject only to statutory standards rather than local standards.2 The non -farm uses listed in ORS 215.283(2), in contrast, are considered "conditional" uses that a county can choose to allow, and in doing so a county can impose additional restrictions on those uses.3 Appellant is correct that neither the Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code") nor ORS 215.283 expressly lists "meadery" as an allowed non -farm use in the EFU zone. ORS 215.283(1)(n) does list a "winery" as a use permitted by right, but only if the winery is the type of winery described in ORS 215.452 or ORS 215.453. DCC 18.16.025(F) mirrors that statute and also refers to ORS 215.452, which the Code incorporates through DCC I8.16.038(B). By the express terms of those statutory and Code provisions, such wineries are wineries that produce wine from grapes. ► Those statutes therefore do not provide a basis for permitting the Meadery, which processes honey rather than grapes. In contrast to the winery example, ORS 215.283 and the Code also establish broader categories of non- farm uses that encompass multiple specific uses. ORS 215.283(1)(c), for example, authorizes "utility facilities necessary for public service", but that category has been applied to allows different types of specific utilities.5 The absence of the word "meadery" in the statute or Code, therefore, does not mean a meadery cannot ever be approved, and it is possible to approve a meadery under one of the listed use categories, as long as the Meadery is a type of use contemplated by that broader category. The broader category the Applicant seeks as the basis for approving the Meadery is set forth in ORS 215.283(2)(a) — "commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use." The express terms of that statute do not limit that category to any particular type of commercial activity and, instead, require only that the commercial activity be in conjunction with a farm use. Indeed, that is how the courts have applied that statute. Applying ORS 215.283(2)(a) prior to the legislature's enactment of ORS 215.452 and ORS 215.453, which now expressly allow certain wineries as a non -farm use, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a conditional use permit for a winery in the EFU zone as a commercial activity in ORS 215.203(1). '- Brendnar v. Jackson Cty., 321 Or 481, 496 (1995). 3 Id. ^ See, e.g., ORS 215.452(1), authorizing wineries that "produce wine" and that either includes an onsite vineyard, includes a contiguous vineyard, or sources grapes from a contiguous vineyard. s .See, e.g., Dayton Prairie Water:lss'n v. Yarrrhill County, 38 Or LUBA 14 (2000) (applying statute to approve water facilities); c.f. WKN Chopin, LLC v. Umatilla County, 66 Or LUBA 1 (2012) (applying statute to approve electric transmission line). conjunction with a farm use. 6 It did so because the winery at issue in that case satisfied the criteria of ORS 215.283(2)(a) and despite the fact that "winery" was not separately listed as an allowed use in the EFU zone. Based on the foregoing, i find that the Meadery is an allowed use in the EFU zone as long as the proposed use satisfies the standards required for "commercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use" as contemplated by DCC 18.16.030, which is the County's version of ORS 215.283(2)(a).7 a. Is the Subject Property currently in farm use? Appellant asserts that a farm use is "a predicate for the approval of a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use." More particularly, Appellant's assertion is that "a current farm use" must be shown before any commercial activities in conjunction with farm use can be permitted. Appellant argues that the record is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Subject Property is "currently" in farm use, as defined by ORS 215.203(2). In support of this argument, Appellant relies on Friends of Marion County v. Manion County, -- Or LUBA — , LUBA No. 2021-088/089 (Apr. 21, 2022) ("Fi°iends of Marion County"). As presented to the Hearings Officer, Appellant argues only that the Applicant has not demonstrated a "current" farm use. The difficulty with Appellant's argument is that it does not address whether the proposed use of the Subject Property as a Meadery, which would occur in the future, will be in conjunction with a farm use that will exist at that time. Rather, Appellant's written and oral comments acknowledge that the activities the Applicant proposes to produce mead in the future — which include beekeeping and honey production — are farm uses. I therefore understand Appellant's argument to be that, regardless of what future farm uses occur as part of the proposal, the Applicant must nevertheless demonstrate that there are currently farm uses on the Subject Property. The Friends of'Marion County case and other cases interpreting ORS 215.283(2)(a) make it clear that a "farm use" must exist if there is to be an allowed commercial activity in conjunction with that farm use. Contrary to Appellant's argument, however, those cases do not hold that the farm use must already be in existence at the time of the application. In other words, they do not prevent an applicant from proposing a future commercial activity that will be in conjunction with a future farm use developed at the same time, and in fact, those cases imply or acknowledge that the farm use can be developed in the future. In Friends of Marion County, for example, the issue LUBA addressed was the argument that "none of the findings or the evidence in the record demonstrates that intervenors currently operate or will operate a farm use." 8 LUBA reversed the County's approval in that case based on its conclusion that a farm use did not currently exist. However, the County's findings in that case determined that the current uses on the subject property were "farm uses" and the county required the applicant to maintain those same uses as part of the approval of the commercial uses the applicant proposed. Because LUBA concluded that the G Craven v. Jackson Counly, 308 Or 281 (1989). 1 also note that Appellant's representative appears to have agreed with this conclusion during the Hearing. In response to a question from the Hearings Officer asking if all meaderies are excluded from the EFU zone as a matter of law, the representative responded that was likely not the case and that it would need to be determined on a case -by -case basis under ORS 215.283(2)(a). a Friends of Marion County at x 10. 5 current activities were not "farm uses" as defined by statute, the applicant could therefore not rely on those same activities as a basis for the approval of commercial uses in conjunction with farm uses. That case did not involve a record that contemplated the further development of farm uses like the record in this matter does. Craven also illustrates this point. In that case, the Court considered a conditional use permit granted to an applicant who "proposes to establish a vineyard and winery", which "winery is to be constructed before the accompanying vineyard is fully planted."9 Thus, the Court -approved the commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use that was not yet established. The Court was concerned only whether the farm use would exist at the same time the proposed commercial activities were conducted. Based on the foregoing, I cannot agree with Appellant's assertion that the Applicant is required to show that a farm use "currently" exits on the Subject Property. As in Craven, the permit can be issued as long as the commercial activities are conducted in conjunction with a farm use, which farm use may be developed in tandem with the commercial activities once the permit is issued. If the Applicant were required to show that the Subject Property, as it currently exists, is in farm use, this would be a more difficult issue to resolve. Appellant takes issue with the fact that the Applicant has not demonstrated a "profit" from farm activities. As explained in Friends of Marion Counly, "profit" is a broad term, and profit exists "so long as crops are raised, harvested and sold for a gross profit."10 In that case, LUBA held that a farmer had not demonstrated a profit where the farmer "simply testified that they sold the field crops with no other documentation of their production or sale." Here, while it is an extremely close call, I find the Applicant has provided more than mere testimony that it has sold crops. The Applicant has also testified that there has been a gross profit from those sales and that the revenue earned has been reinvested in the farming operation. Based on this record, and although the Applicant has provided little corroboration of revenue from the Current farm, I find it more likely than not that the Subject Property is currently in farm use. b. Does the Meadery satisfy the standard for commercial activities in coniunction with farm use? Appellant asserts that the Meadery does not meet the standard for allowing commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. Appellant's specific arguments are that the Meadery is not incidental and subordinate to Applicant's planned farm uses, and that it does not enhance the local agricultural community. Appellant's arguments are grounded in the case law that interprets ORS 215.283(2)(a). One clear articulation of the standard from the Court of Appeals states that any commercial activity beyond the direct processing and selling of a farm product must "be both `incidental' and subordinate to" the farm use.11 In Friends of Yamhill County, the Court of Appeals addressed a county's approval of a permit to allow 44 9 Craven, 308 Or at 283-84. 10 !Friends of Marion County at x 16 citing Cox v. Polk Counly, 39 Or LUBA 1, 7-12 (2000). 11 Friends of Yanthill Counly v. )anthill Counly, 255 Or App 636, 650-51 (2013) citing Craven, 308 Or at 289. q �, annual events as part of a winery.11 Finding the approval to be "dangerously close" to creating a scenario in which the incidental and secondary activities overtake the primary activity, the court nevertheless upheld the approval. The court explained that its decision was based on a condition of approval that limited non -farm income from the commercial activity from exceeding 25 percent of the gross income from the farm use activity, which was the onsite retail sales of wine.13 The Applicant's proposal and the Staff Decision in this matter imposed a condition of approval similar to the condition in Friends of Yan7hill County. Specifically, the Staff Decision imposes a condition that requires the Applicant to confirm, on an annual basis, that no less than 25% of the honey used to produce mead is generated from the Subject Property. However, this condition of approval does not address the same issue the court was concerned with in Friends of Yanihill County. The condition in Friends of Yamhill County ensured that the scale of the non -farm commercial use was not greater, and therefore subordinate to, the primary farm use. In contrast, the condition in the Staff Decision that the Applicant relies on controls only the scale of the farm product being used for the commercial activity, ensuring that the Subject Property is the primary source of the farm product. That condition does not appear to impose any limitations on the scale of the non -farm commercial uses. Thus, for example, even if the Applicant sourced all of its honey from the Subject Property, nothing would prevent the Applicant from holding events and selling food from food carts in a manner the produces significantly more income than the farm use. If that occurred, the non -farm commercial activities would end up being the primary activity rather than the secondary activity. As the Appellant points out, there are other components of the Application indicating that the non -farm commercial uses are not subordinate to the farm use. For example, the Applicant intends to have four employees for the Meadery, but perhaps only one, if any, for the farm operations. It is perhaps possible to have such a disparity in employees and still have the farm use be the primary use. However, as the Appellant notes, the Applicant simply has not attempted to quantify the magnitude of the farm use or the magnitude of the non -farm commercial activities. Some attempt at quantifying those activities is necessary if they are to be compared for the purpose of identifying a primary use and a secondary use."' That burden lies with the Applicant. Based on the record before me, I find that the Applicant has not met that burden.15 Although I agree with the Appellant that the Applicant has not demonstrated the Meadery will be incidental and subordinate to a farm use, I disagree with the Appellant's argument that the Applicant has not demonstrated the Meadery enhances the local agricultural community. The Craven decision is informative in this regard. In that case, the Court determined that the proposed winery did enhance the local agricultural community because it provided a local market outlet for grapes of other growers in the area. The Court also noted that it would help transform a hayfield into a vineyard, which increases the i' The application in that case was made pursuant to ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity and not under ORS 215.283(l)(n) as a winery. 13 The definition of "farm use" includes "the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land f'or human or animal use." ORS 215.203(2)(a). is See. e.g., Chauncey v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 599 (1992) (holding that an application without evidence establishing the quantity of products delivered or dollar amount of sales to cannot demonstrate, as a matter of law, the proposed use is a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use). " Appellant also relies on Friends of Yanahill County v. Yanihill County, 301 Or App 726 (2020). That case, although it addresses commercial activities, applies ORS 215.283(4), and is therefore not directly applicable to this matter. 4(o intensity and value of agricultural products. LUBA has built on the decision in Craven and stated that, to demonstrate an activity enhances the local agricultural community, "a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use must be either exclusively or primarily a customer or supplier of farm uses. The Applicant's proposal here is nearly identical to the situation in Craven and City of Sanely v. Clackcanas County. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to purchase honey from other farmers. Although the Applicant will not be a supplier of other farm uses, it will be primarily a customer of farm uses. The Applicant also proposes to develop regenerative bee pastures, which enrich the soils and, ultimately, increases the intensity and value of agricultural products. i therefore find that the Applicant's proposal satisfies this part of the standard in ORS 215.283(2)(a). Based on the foregoing, I find that the Application must be denied because the Applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the Meadery — as proposed — will be incidental and subordinate to a primary farm use on the Subject Property. c. Did the Applicant adequately address the farm impacts test required by ORS 215.296? As noted above, a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use is an allowed use in the EFU Zone, subject to any additional conditions the County may impose in its Code. Pursuant to DCC 18.16.040, the County has imposed several limitations on conditional uses, including commercial activities in conjunction with farm use authorized under DCC 18.16.030. The specific restrictions in DCC 18.16.040(A)(1) and (2) are required by state law and are. a codification of the restrictions in ORS 215.296(l). LUBA sometimes refers to these restrictions as the "Farm Impacts Test." An applicant carries the burden of proving that ORS 215.296(1) has been met.17 LUBA has a well - established methodology for demonstrating compliance with the farm impacts test.' 8 Under that methodology, a proposal can be approved only if it: (1) describes farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use; (2) explains why the proposed development will not force a significant change in those practices; and (3) explains why the proposed development will not significantly impact or increase the cost of those practices. To begin that process, LUBA has held that "[i]n applying ORS 215.296(1), it is entirely appropriate for the applicant to begin by visually surveying surrounding lands to identify the farm and forest uses to which those lands are devoted."19 Other parties are then free to dispute the initial findings, or to add to the record additional evidence of nearby farm uses and farm practices that the applicant must respond to.20 In addressing the Farm Impacts Test, the Applicant initially followed the process described above by providing what amounted to a visual survey of the surrounding land. Specifically, the Applicant provided an inventory of all parcels within a one -mile radius of the Subject Property that are devoted to farm use. As part of that inventory, the Applicant also identified specific farm uses in the study area, 16 Cily of Sandy v. Clackamas County, 28 Or LUBA 316,321 (1994). " Schrepel v. Minhill Counly, -- Or LUBA — (LUBA No, 2020-066), 2020 WL 8167220, at *6. 18 See Brown v. Union County, 32 Or LUBA 168 (1996). " Dierking v. Clackamas County, 38 Or LUBA 106, 120-21 (2000). 20 Id. 41 noting that they included "a combination of grass hay, permaculture, forest, [and] bare land." Other information provided by the Applicant indicates that some properties have horses, cattle, and pastures. The Applicant concludes, primarily based on geographic separation, that there will be no impacts to forest or farm practices on the farm uses identified in the inventory. For example, the Applicant states a nearby property "is buffered by our own dwellings, farm buildings, 12 acres of regenerative bee pasture, and a 20-acre field that will eventually become regenerative bee pasture. At this distance, the winery will not significantly change or increase the cost of any of the accepted farm practices on this farm property." The Applicant arrived at a similar conclusion for potential noise and light impacts, noting that, because of the adjacent noise and lights from Highway 20, these impacts are already accepted by all adjoining far►n and forest land. The flaw in the Applicant's analysis is that it does not actually identify any farm practices that are associated with the various farm uses it identifies. As applied by LUBA and the courts, the Farm Impacts Test must focus on impacts to farm practices. Further, the fact that a similar impact may already exist does not mean that an increase in that impact is necessarily acceptable. An impact that already exists may nevertheless force a significant change to the farm practices associated with that use, or significantly increase the costs of those practices. That determination cannot be made, however, unless the Applicant first identifies specific farm practices that may be impacted. In summary, the record does not include a description of the farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, nor does it include any explanation for why the proposed development will not force a significant change or cost to those practices. It is quite possible that the ►lneade►y will not have significant impacts on farm practices, but the burden to demonstrate compliance with the Farm Impacts Test unequivocally lies with the Applicant. Without any analysis of the accepted farm practices that are associated with the identified farm uses, I cannot make a factual finding regarding the existence of those farm practices, or a finding that it is more likely than not that the Meadery will not force a significant change to those farm practices. I therefore find that the Applicant has not met its burden to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.16.040(A)(1) and (2). d. Did the Staff Decision comply with ORS 215.416(8)? Because a meadery is a type of winery, the Applicant refers to the winery statutes and compares the proposed meadery to a grape winery. As noted in earlier findings, state statues contain provisions specific to grape wineries and grape wineries are allowed in the EFU zone either outright through ORS 215.283(1)(n), as implemented by ORS 215.452 and ORS 215.453, or conditionally through ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity in conjunction with agriculture. Applicant's stated purpose for comparing a meadery to a winery is that using the winery statutes as a guide helps ensure the meadery remains "incidental and subordinate to farm use." Appellant asserts that this approach is akin to approving the meadery based on inapplicable criteria and, therefore, violates ORS 215.416(8). That statute requires that approval or denial of a permit application be based only on applicable standards and criteria set forth in a county's land use regulations. Appellant argues that the winery statutes are not applicable and, therefore, cannot be relied on for approval of the Meadery. ,fi Even though this Decision reverses the outcome of the Staff Decision, ORS 215.416(8) applies to both the approval or denial of an application. I therefore find it appropriate to address whether the Staff Decision violated ORS 215.416(8). 1 find that it did not. There is no dispute in this proceeding that the Applicant seeks approval of the meadery under ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a commercial activity in conjunction with agriculture. The Applicant refers to the winery statutes as a guide and Applicant's express request to the County was "We have suggested that the County consider imposing most of the limitations on the meadery that ORS 215.452 applies to small wineries as a means of assuring that activities associated with the meadery are incidental and subordinate to farm use." Indeed, the Applicant recognized that ORS 215.452 was not a basis for approval of the meadery where it referred to ORS 215.456, which points back to ORS 215.283(2)(a) as a means of approving a winery that cannot otherwise be approved under ORS 215.283(1)(n), ORS 215.452, and ORS 215.453. Contrary to Appellant's assertion, the Staff Decision did not rely on the winery statutes and, therefore, did not rely on inapplicable criteria. Indeed, the Staff Decision very clearly articulated the standard under ORS 215.283(2)(a) and set forth the three components of such a use that Staff would review: (1) the use must be a "commercial" activity; (2) it must be "in conjunction with farm use;" and (3) it must not be the processing of farm crops as described in Section 18.16.025. The Staff Decision then made findings relating to each of those components, and did so without reference to the requirements of the winery statutes. The criteria the Staff Decision relied on are each incorporated into the County's Code. The Staff Decision therefore did not violate ORS 215.416(8). C. Conditions of Approval The Staff Decision imposed several conditions of approval as part of Staff s approval of the Application. The Hearings Officer notes that no participant challenged any condition of approval or otherwise asserted such conditions could not or should not be applied if the Application were approved. Because this Decision finds that the Application cannot be approved based on the current record, however, there is no basis to impose any conditions of approval. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, I find the Applicant has not met its burden of proof with respect to the standards for approving commercial activities in conjunction with a farm use and with respect to the Farm Impacts Test. The appeal of the Staff Decision is therefore SUSTAINED, and the Application is DENIED. Dated this 17"' day of November 2022 Tommy A. Brooks Deschutes County Hearings Officer 10 1+ 1 w1ailing Data: Fridm. March 09, 2018 Community. Development Department 7t I,- "Y:, Re: No, for property lm�,Aecl at 20520 Hoovery Lane, Benid, OR (13ind ftirther id(:,nfified 01*1 COUnty Assessor's Map ",7-12-09B, as Tax Lot "1000 f f o; an Adroinistotiv-,e Dete'unwIVINOn ar',proval to establish a ()(,,Lipaaon the Morage of wnf.: pia' aLi(XHI cn 'he sublec-.t property Selow, g asf/., -,ts of Y,he s- '4,hrntee hilwcs-,,,^;,, cif Proof stalement, sitO plan. and '2r� V U;he I a IocorpthrVeVour -(j, in it Acks information r6ated to the fo4ovving. Dasr-hulles -prov bekow. ,kNle I& DesahLates Count,,'Zonina Ordinarce. '�,-32 (V4 JLTIPI -�SE AGRi-ULTIURA!.. ZONE , NIUA, T., i'oho"v-0,* I ?j i Is es J nheir a ccessory irises at-e rnitteci Ovvkj�ff A, Agricultural as detined in DCC Tifle 18, 0 A sr t gie fai�:dwc-lfinq, w, a nm-,�ohwtur%a(l home subject io DCC Ia. i 16, 070. f Type, I Home Orcupation, subject to DCC 18. 116.280, STAFF RFISPONSE. Bmeo .1�i t1he submitted application niaterials, it appears the scope of th'a, .',ropused use exceeds 1 'Home Occupation stan(fards. 7he cultivation of grapes is T d i!� outrighl Howevear, fine provessing of tile grapes Oto W n 1, d I he killom./ing uses n; a V be allmad su4ject to DCC, 18-128: C. Conmriercial ac,tivities in conjunction zvwith farm use. The commelcial a-ch"lit'y Shall associalocl with r,,l h-va) U,,O Occurring On the Parcel Where aso .15, proposed, '(he commercia! activity ai,3y aso-, Toby Bayaidl- Coi,nn-,ents for Public Heai i.q; -- 10-10-23 - Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 12 proiv':?ss, c-� or inarket Mirmproducls produeW it) Deschutes County or an, S'''""OF-i'- RIESPONIS:E: .),n the !�obniitted application rnatenais, it appearw the scopo of ws" is a co".ercial a"'fiv ti"i in conjunduorr with a farril use Consisting ".)f the ("!""ip'r 'ritc; e, ar'l fine storage and sa[e of the wine. Pifea-se —La-"I` it '."onf.'fitonfal Lls,*,, appl,cation acidlreSSH,10 the applicable slandards in Dv"" '18128. 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW nc,'K,)n 18 124,030 PEI, The provisions of DCC 18. '1124,030 Shall apply to the following: 1, All conditional use permits where a site plan is .2 condition of approval; 2. Muhfqoje family dwellings with more than three units,, 3. All cornmercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All wf'.ter uses that serve the general public or that otherwise requii-o parking facilities, includiig, bast not limited to, landflits, scho, is, atility facilities, churches, community buildings, cervic,41ories, mausolourns, crematories, airports, parks and f Wfi( 11 1 ac-1, ,s and hi",vestoc!,f sales Yards; and... ,---,ESP0i\JSE-. thc,!,application rnatoxln!y, it, appears the sc-,opo of of gr'-r).Peinto wine v"hid i is considered an sndustrial ir) iitIe 22. t, c h a� €a.o3,fEity D L, v e I o ri n) e i i t P, f o c. :; d i r e, s 0 r , i i i i im ice. I ER 22,02. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Secttoni 22,08 010. Armlication she qu irenients, 111, A deposit tot, hearings officers" fool may be requeved at any time prior to the apphr, ation bping deemed complete and, if the application is heard by hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of thc, hParings officer. STAH" RESPONSE. As ind'...'ated on the, land U5fL'(i1rPli'C&1fiCK', f011111, tl'10 appliC-1116� W)CIC.4f"Starlds that Dl�'!SCIIUtOCOLPIty ffl,,ay require a deposit for hearings officers' felas prior to k<erned )ip�elo. Furtheinnore, if a eaiings, officer healls th. alnr�llication' 'nj Z)Y! fe, 'Por, ftthe actual costs nf!lhe hearings officer MIS ')Of vcw 1 aff teria c,,. be fret an,:J the 1ray n,4'�ied U be re.-ferred to a hea(;ngs Indil-Alial w;% k1ei 0w of prifnanly foi, ii1e 'Ae of i'.Ilr ('x% or �arn'durl"' 0 g" of 14 docis rot 5( Toby Baya.-d - Comments for Public Hearing - 10-10-23 --Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 13 rherefu(;. a deposit cif $5,000 is rtiqwredto be SUbMitted to the Planning v'-oc)( .a th"applicafir"-, being deemed compleie. "'X I "mk !:'e deter: Z4j oinpteto u, ac corda nce with (DR S 215.4' V when YOL I i vvnt ane of the fo I I ming Ali flhe rnisel; r. C'Nhe n- -W vr;ft�"�n V-,� ti)C, (-oOLMt th��:if no other �Cnfr'rrn""�iorl 'Y vv:! provded' ol- at riv, i.--- o, tf ie rniissing inforf, ati, n M! be provided. f th- tt.yw, noted if) 'J, 2 or 3, abu,to, Wtl"iin *180 days fi-Oal the date the -jpproval (,)F denial of Che appfication vviiii be based upon the [P-st it i J, "Is v"d, C,rill.-riatpe t v. .ti applicabte at the tin- lt"ie application was. first submiitted, If 180) the application will be void ontho 18151 day after being 215,427(4). No refund is available or] a2pli nS Which Ubnmued� pursuant to OP:�-, cat!G become void, .. - - 915.-127, Qotal oenod for 'the County to issue a final decision on fro it u As nOtE'd W'; •i-!Rz> Lbe -.,xiend d in,- a specific period of timp by submittal o" a written reqUesst frOM Ycou rl-lk,,w,...�var, the total extension of time approved for a Ifinal decision shall not exceed 215 o 'Ontar You have any quzstions �,oncerns this maitc!r at (541) r C: C f'f) I i i -1 "' i'l G L i S e COU"' FY N '"'NG DIASION obv Comalf-nts for Public Hearj;,,; -- 10-10-23 -- Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 14 A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, as required to be supplemented by these conditions. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. The Applicant's proposal includes the following, which shall be conditions of this approval: - - ® The winery will process grapes only from Deschutes County or an adjacent county. ® This approval does not include third -party rental of the Subject Property B. General Division Perrnitting. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. C. Winery Si na e. All signs on the property for the winery shall comply with Deschutes County Sign Code Title 15. The property owner shall obtain all required permits for signage pursuant to Title 1 S. D. Code Cornr)liance for Case No_247_21-000164-CE: Prior to any initiation of use, the unperrnit:ted winery on the property shall receive all required permits from Deschutes County for the winery and any related construction. The applicant shall provide all necessary receipts of approval/closes e to the Planning Division to demonstrate compliance. E. Winery Hours of Operation. At all times, the property owner shall observe the following hours of operation: a Summer Hours (Memorial Day Weekend - September 30t"): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. 0 Winter Hours (October 11t -January 1 st): by appointment or invite only, on Friday and Saturdays with additional appointments on holiday weekends (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.m. ® Closed (January 2" `' - Second week of March). ® Spring Hours (Second week of March - First week of April): by appointment or invite only, three to four (3-4) days per week for the traditional school spring break for Oregon, California, and Washington (tourist season) during the hours of 12 to 7 p.rri. F. Building_ar7d Structure Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. G. Front Yard Setback for Wine Store Building. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner will submit confirmation that the Wine Storage Building meets the front yard setback requirements. H. Solar Setbacks. Structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. 1. General Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required 63 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 2 of 5 by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. �. Clear Vision Areas on the Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which correctly illustrates the clear vision areas at all access points. K. Clear Vision Area. The clear vision areas located at the intersection of the service drives/ driveways and Bowery Lane, as well as other points of access, shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). L. Available Parking. This approval is conditioned upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 as set forth in this Decision.'The Applicant shall submit a revised and final site plan showing where the required parking spaces will be located, including the size of each parking stall. M. Parkingand Loading/ Unloading. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. N. Establ shr;nent _of Parking. Required parking facilities shall be provided prior to or concurrently with construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. 0. Use of Parking Facilities for the Winery. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons, and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. P. Parkin Area Li h$ ting. Any lighting used to illuminate the off-street parking area shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. Q. Parking Area Landscaping. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting the parking area landscaping required by this Decision, which must note whether any trees are to be planted under overhead utility lines and, if so, show that the height of those trees has been taken into consideration. R. Graveled _Surface for Standirl_g and Mariouvering of Vehicles. Prior to the initiation of use, the applicant shall gravel all areas for the standing and maneuvering of vehicles onsite as depicted on the site plan. This includes the individual parking areas as proposed and all service drives which provide access for the winery. At all times, the graveled surfaces shall be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. Access Aisles. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting access aisles at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 3 of 5 two-way traffic and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way traffic. T. Service Drive Width. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drives at a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet for all two-way access aisles and a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for all one-way access aisles. U. Service Drive Boundaries. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall submit a revised site plan depicting service drive boundaries which are clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. V. Off-street Parking Lot Design. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the parking aisles and spaces and demonstrates compliance with DCC 18.116.030(G)(1-4). W. Bicvcle Parkin- Spaces. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised and final site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division which illustrates the location of the required bicycle parking spaces. X. Con firmation_from Bend Fire & Rescue. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Receipt of approval will be provided to the Planning Division from Bend Fire & Rescue that the access and site design for emergency vehicles are acceptable. Y. Use of Private Well. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owners shall have the well, if it will provide any water to the public, reviewed, and approved as a Public Water System by either the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) or the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Z. Licensing From Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. Prior to the Initiation of Use of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes County Environmental Health Department. AA. Licensing From the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Department of Agriculture Food Safety Program. BO. 1-icensirig_Fromthe Orep_ori.Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission. CC. Licensing From the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. (TTB). Prior to the Initiation of Use of any Aspect of the Winery, the property owner shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 4 of 5 ,) IDD. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. EE. Evacuation of the Right of Way. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall cause for the removal of all private property, including fences, posts, walls, crops, landscaping, and other features, from the existing public right of way for Bowery Lane along the frontage to the subject property. FF. Drivewav Access Permits. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall obtain driveway access permits for all driveway accesses to Bowery Lane for the subject property pursuant to DCC 12.28.050 and 17.48.210(A). GG. Ingress and Egress via Hunnell Road. At all tunes, once Hunnell Road construction is complete, wayfinding or directional messaging provided by the property owner to vendors and patrons of the proposed commercial activities shall direct vendors and patrons to utilize Hunnell Road and the western section of Bowery Lane for ingress and egress to the subject property. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE.., IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP Page 5 of 5 File: 247-- 44- , 466-SP Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97703 1 BACKGROUND On 6/7/22, Duane and Dina Barker submitted a land use application to establish a winery as a "commercial activity �nc h farm use". Prior to that, they were operating a winery while holding only a Type I Home Occupation Permit which they were granted on June 8, 2020. When first applying for the permit in March 2018, they made this statement in an email sent to Isabella Liu, who was, at the time, an Associate Planner with Deschutes County. !I a I U ROM: Scot 29� 2()18 4�34 PtA TV: —T7 "HI , ')()I X''qn jnd il,.f�jrlv0 "a" Our V 3M 01;;' l0cltit):l W>l j IV 'i?)d do 1 till" ?v.j i.o. IV, j 7W ':C i';A.`I—i 0 l V QX t j; f 'v aI. j:, It 1,s Nil- k,.i,fw wld ty ;i y 11;,+vvha no MT1(1tiC11!l Df ha�iing a vlr- tvOlflol 1010 .,ky!ftinp, of dio, niltllro, AW ;11ribUtioll 4, Ane rh c Yj illl",! -Ior)o 1'e tt 'r <ris lo <)t%,r o d o or an d i j% o b r o "I ct, V, f, bo(."Iele 130t-Ke'r, S t t f, -) r) t 1�(,' 371' S '16 Toll 7�U (S'; 1) Page 14 -- Appeal of CUP Applications 247-22-000464 and 247-22-000466-SP However, according to Phil Henderson, who filed a lawsuit (a Temporary Restraining Order in an attempt to halt the Rock O' the Range Homeowners' efforts to hold its Annual Meeting) the Barkers began selling wine from their property (20520 Bowery Lane, Bend, OR 97703) in 2018. NY In 2012, Plaintill's planted a gripe vineyard on their property which is zoned �1u.ltii�l�� C's���ric.ultttr<: (iftJx?). C)n c>r alai�.at 2C)1 � 1'lz.iz.ti.l_d �ornt�;d arr E�re,�ot'a f.,i.zr.it�cl (named l.a%a Icrrac t_"{:llaz ,, LLC;.) and obtaizted aType I Hon-ic ptati.on pernnit through Doschittes C"ounty. They harvested their first grape crop and pare(t their first coma-lez-cial ,vine by using otf,,SILC custort. Crush. business in 2018. lelliltili�• b'.' rt Il.CI}1i3rif(�li under t:'.'s' their hCi'C]iIt'}.(9 .`;1o.,'" 1ti�Fi1('. Pi.'Oduot on their Property and have Cii.c_'- 5i:) 1111d I'i:it-t' gI'i)'a'vIt t}]E.',S.I' t:<)IllaT.erC;L'zal vIC..{:-yt..Td to Ctivt'.r ilf:)17."OXll..iatt,.ly J af:I'". Plai ntiffs fs lS`C �'Wried out -,,vine: stalcs from their property. Figure 3: Lawsuit filed by Duane and Dina Barker in May, 2023 The following is an entail sent to nie by Rachel clickers, Associate P!<anner, Hi 1 obv, h-ar}ks for your ermlil, I have answered sore of your questions below in red: Recently, you and I were discussing Bowery Lane. During the conversation, I asked for an update on land use actions in our neighborhood and discovered that Duane and Dina Barker have applied for a Conditional Use Permit; Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining County. L Barkers appiked for a conditional 1-150 permit/site plan revif�w t0 laWfUlly £'StabliSh B coil'ln'1c?rGlc}I activity In /� r , _ r l 1 {<, } y ()/`/7/ 022. h,,4 it 3 I V 't t l ) ti' per t i 1 ) After tl�f4ii e;,it. I`r:?. t.,:.,t:. ctrt �..�� 0-{aa c{?€,t?,e(:{_ne.;�; t�..,�ic?d will to ti .) i.?rt 17 ,LC}�.f.. lft.{:.� ,Ic;-t}._r° ,: tt.crt{. I will tay.. V. . days 1ciS,1�. a iar{s.. � The Barkers live at 2.0520 Bowery Lane - rv= +i Itn, t'axlot: 171209B001000 . Their land is largely covered with a vineyard: Lava Terrace Cellars. Wine. Club i Lava Terrace Cellars. They are planning to host events and hold wine tastings, etc. Previously, Nick Lelack filed a code compliance complaint against the Barkers, as they were holding wine tastings without the proper Type 3 Home Occupation Permit. They were also serving food without a license. Wo are aware that the Balers have been hosting wine events and tasting without permits, which is likely why they have chosen to come in and apply for this land use permit. Flowever If you would like to submit: more 4 you can erymil rrt£', and I will �:1���t:arl£>ti nt<:tt{?rl�ti:� int.")) the record about what -sort of operation is at t„r�?rr property / fad(i thc)se dctuiliS .to the record, Page 17 — Appeal of CUP Applications 247-22-000464 and 247-22-000466-SP� c" ? r unity L)evejopment Departrylent u I P,a Cox 604)5 1 17 tworwo Pend Oreqr,�, 97752,(WA05 3,0 -f) 5 7 �, Flor (i,l I 138 5, 1 '76-1 Wpjumm deschAs mgmd LAND USE- APPLICATION INCOMPL FVAPPOCATkOWVVILI,; NOT BF Accxp-ml) 010 APPONM w a, Twurew. t o ensure V21QY pt-Qceming of Your Em nA wC !,,rgo thm, K,v� JHUY�jj yz� ;&0 10MI j [n4vk& SWIVm rm0f"Z mWww- TYPE or APIRMCATION (check omb FE she pmn up) lj-r! (QU) Setback ExcepRA (SE) -------- ---- eijt A:, May VA W. MOW, Ovum r" IJ f5k fj Q it; (ov-) wm+ Toby Bayard -- Comments for Public Hearing — 1.0-10-23 --- Or pposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 1. j Pm smt U�. to OR, . ..... ....... I L 1 0, it 'At k NO M naved by. Sew Dlspcsal ystem 0 CW Vn0r; 8dg 3, ion pv0pusn! comphys MAO S pwWws mwddbns Of OPKOVW Prd OR 090( or, D'y ;! I jwklimn" A0, Vhm CenhWen GwQ pbnN q ST MY onted nn INS applicuum h wivl Ilia Cott, clonda appbcaUW tho j,')(jd inn wqwnQ) wAmW0d, F-3!ease 1111marvq PMPM4 Dwras M ant)`.. QUM Nanm tf to /il, appHrmion "'. not by m- pn4mly ownc-'r, a felr,�,4r �WthOKZ&! AgnaWro by tho appNeM MW! U , ds appHmnu% Vha apipliwant undelshmland agrcitl� that 01("'0utes. County 'ILI compime, V "m for weadugs 06"em" WON Prior to tho alum ic— by a Salings Nwceq tho appHoant 'NIH be 'os'porlsiblo for t1w! t1('U'0 �.'m"'Iks of wi! heawny o0mr. mmm Toby Bayard -- Comments for Public Hear kig — jo- jo-23 --opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 2 1 Li S Toby Bayard — Comments for Public Nearing — 10-10-23 — Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 3 P(W| ----- � � \ � | ` | | 465' utility Nlnter | AC Disco Ccxoom"�r*� iHonnn /`3 Rarn | / � ^� --` 1 J '--------- Elevation 3y2'0~r*v31n*/�` - 111--` ^|�S--u,wms|n�.On Duw» Dioa6a,xo �-a(O pR[xsTATF\r{JRlC 8,a01 AR Toby Bayard --- Comments for Public, Heariog-10-10'Z3—Opposition toCUP Application 247-Z2,0OU464 4 Frorw pir,:a AM f rid", Kars h OZ ;MIR 116 PM To-, ca"he Ame Cc, Duano WAer Subject, RE Lettei, far Application 4247 18-W)120-AD Ahmhmeils: 20520 Bowery Ln - Google Nlapsjpq; Office layout,pdf, F109613396palf; 2dJso-40 FQWW Up 1049, Qhw up wag Fhqiw�d Gnod ON emoun CaNum'-, Hmc un 0, Wwd docurnents Fild MW pin we ulked AMA and hopefully I havt- aoswered all the que5tioirs You r ail cther adim-ent dews mady where the storage c;opt�i.ipe VVIthis world' ko"l 1: i i e � i't S 4.) ut i I a It" —""A hook W—Wo"elf, "H "W Vtno Soom Wore am bode my CmAnAr m mdog new, io the commocr is our uf6c, w-". 3f', noilv- !'teitdWn,OWVablhiomvanduUHysht The Cunumpran-,,J 04W0 api nui sqddod, The o0y across Yao the rMaker 4 Ow We &xm an Te dAewq eml. No adIC. nrm spun wK he uwd AmWp Um Wee WOW side too mmrds Why dc)kma as AcumAly L -f tie pap,2t .ANr I.-. doos nut give space for d d ding, the square footag,, of the Container for storage, but it is noted above, And, I didindu& off ice space to be utilized fol calls ;?nd compotfir- Work, Mhth Me cWted vw"agas of wine being Produced from the omite %riiiney-,u'rf' We anticipate, having o') MC11%? tk'm 300 cases of wme ansKe at my given tkne, PONQ let m(, k,nk)w if t4ten-', N a"MOgfurthKyou need to process the request. Dma Ba&.r' Dimcu (04 t) �a Toby Bayard - Comments for Public Hearing - 10-10-23 --- Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 5 Nmyeq,� 0 Toby Bayard - Comments for Public Hearing -- 10-10-23 --- Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 6 Ity TQ So jG5 TU "!V; jo J,�pr� . 4 Am" A.FJAL iC,0, TKUhl FOR Ush"'PERAW ir Ve, A Ps Of 1 W4 f0c MOW: 1 COO H 1 opt" (lay n WCOMV1 of How" A a Wid (-41�0 fia' `1ili !.,u ILL W1 1\1 jj .i� hn.3 0 Iq ;Wn idi on on V'f Vol 2: - 4147 0 �Wp; ni,nown oj�,A b. qf Y VAIN TOP= ;W OWI :i 'Ut.",10, lj+;,l 7rq m LV v VOL. vp 11 i A or Emoonn, On s1 s r N "1 &0 Jul 1 1w, Lo owqcq 16 md mu oven AW1 A — 70 "A on W.10 Toby Bayard — comments for AM Hearkg — 10.10-23 -- OppoOion to CUP Application? 24T22-000464 8 6wommum Mr"t Awu041"Qg"I midwk tynnyne 8. `quipwwnt arud Alatodals; Please but he, an�) w-';IenSW that will bp, "e4i to tile �wrme Wl Irc., duqt, snvAu, �3rwc-r edwa (hat :)C, ozs�o LIN T N i�, Ow or W cod to ante: A pprovala: lase it 1 0-0: ope at ly rww to or apsou"S you we ap A.0 CM, Ulm con Wat VC �I Iy HANNA, 1""PIPLg4l, OWA(V,S, fjof a Typ-a I f;owWwnal Use Permo: MOM cmkh tNs MQn f ycq Are alWyIng v ;o 7fro 3 lqj,R AGNT14xv i0d I yoo co)av an Won bn"qn Amp Or wWymeM wd mmem uwt vo ho ',w,Tf T Wnw; Me ma M im, pope WA wo bt uYed Q ondswe Wage on YTF 5 01, 3N'W. x j'i jCAM V coal I?"u ",'A lo 0i,q.,j n Adjw�" ilk, 4�nw"v : Wan 44 1h, ad" any Awnwhi YININS woo � � phyl, opqn! 1 01�f �j! �f Toby Bayard — Comments for Public Hearing — ITID13 — Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 9 3 -- -,; z il s Toby Bayard - Comments for Public: Hearing - 10-10-23 •- Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 10 k,ewen v-j; ou, Assar?me� Flhir,-ier Corrimuniry Dr:.,vclupnt Dr-oi.. DeSSCIWIGS Carr AY C)fficial Records 2020-26201 11 i mil! III IIi11111[i111 VENT 7 0" cow I 10MOM021 111a ANJI D PnS n a 1 903 CONDHIONS COF APPROVAL AGREEMENT YMS A.CiRFIMENT, node am] ancrod hoc by and betvve(�ri Cr.,unty, j of State (."i" clrr�g'nn, (".'OUnty'), w6i Duane P.: 01na iljrhi�,, "".v�nKs 0 cerlain real poperty in A, "')eschutt-'s cr:ooty, ongm as set foRh A OW vm.fln 1�ta!LAOry kb)eeramy Df!t.01, da�ed' rpow"ed w tit mAkQavCwYny,oak o1 Ri-�Colrjs 1998-5,171 12a " [�CA prop�b WITNESSFTH: Alllr-'Ri-AS has gram appoval ;A a land use permit 247-18-OW1126-W Tor d-le !Q!eal 11pon is cumlRen W Developer ccfisttuct �=nrl r?iai -J as spocified thefeNj noAqthereforc,, IT IS ITREBY AGFid-LD, by and thf� paities, for ind iii considpration ,.*,f the i II.JrIJcli (ovenart,i im,,i heic;nj as a cc-m{fit,}on prmedent to the grandng of Nrai 04 :oflows: Scope of Agreement. Thh.'. A�Ireefrwnc aff-efts tht� Real llroper(y, (Ic5crioe(J �f)wv,:,. MkAgmarnwu shaO cover those improvemeats and rvquirmients dearbed in the secdon ant Y Agreement endtlf2r-,= "Condlinons of Final Approvail," -Nothing, in &F7 -,ement,�hall r,, rejAn: foveloper to combou any Kuptaverrenti; under the Porn it UA if lavelopel lk.:!tiJilkcs the -,..Wvuucunl of 60A.�Jonz ol real proper!;yor the Pmno, Devehpvr Wf be ccinriplp;,c., iind wiaintoin all Arpavoriersq. asdofiri,,ad her6n, in accordance Wh cuurlty Orrlirlo.mros'andl the par in I Defflinklut of Qprovernent. As usad horeiri 'I m prove ric W lair w..r} privatr! .r IWA facilly or s"We such as racjdvq,!ys, bikc.,. p,.�Jhs, access ways, pedesttimivall: Wdsvape areas;s ewaev-. wilection.and disposal IQRI quornx 11WRing "Sw=, w4big lots, cat iuUhuny, crixidarmn aNal ouWoor and delivery Orz'0-,,, OULCIOUr ava% nJair;ng wati3, sigcri r.Cf graphic-, WK ing arxI screpi-rurg iiQasuret skes fur"itureahWnec WW, ov Awr AmAxAm, pr000nam asappud 6-1 reqWyd iq an PoTm,.- Dehnklon of parl'c"-Ii 'Lint Ma intel'aa nce g on N My me ma mrj i ft M viur c s, Yptuva u a 11, and 5 mho WQ Wt Ire 1 e ur wke" of 06 Agmemps W a rromin Mat W11 keep ,itdh 5u lrnpr�)vetints, ai)d I-andsr!;[Arqg in good repoir of _Rood condiximi and in a condj,'Jon that isnota h,,o.ard to public Safety. cantit-tued irrigadon i-.)f kindscaping and, vvhere appiicable, pruiiinf, of to guarantee required sight dzsta.ncesand i.0 pioter.T,agaKM hazardous conditions, ARM respet I to drainage 500% Deveksperl obllBadons Shag iridude, %v' thout lirrfliation, puladic denlryof &Inge awwls, di)fwe.11s, oruuh.,,,r drainage I"1611ties'lf of Wrespecrto figure Q Page 1: Barkers' Application for a Type I Home Occupation permit (issued an March 24, 2020) NOTE: Continued on Page 1 5 — Appeal W CUP Applications 247-22-000464 and 247-22-000466-SP such apavo.rr--<nt and Wdewaks, Dev�loper'sobli,�ations NJ Incka1Q, lifnitation, of he Npervinus riature of impervious Surfaces, wintenalcu of rwfflnes� of r:lrfaces sotE such surfaces are not hazardous to the clowtion of vehkhs or use by pedearilans, Cwntlaictlon and Permanent Maintenance. If DevQhper is required under the Qrn I to cownuct Sprovemetnts of any kind or to Ingall landscaping, plafitin ;S and elects, k) PAKeed vAT developmene Linder the pen-nAl Developer ageew 0) to. under zikv Te LonsTruction xxi landnapirig recluked und,Y l:he laid use fxr-mil, a!} rn.()r(, )) in ecit , r!lly f,,)qh m the romAbris set out hemin and in vic 1r.x0 '1..rsc perMR; and, the eve& that Ws Agreemer! amd the ArMit do M eVke W sa foah hervirl, w Q-e. n-tirite-na!-ice of improverrwrit.,,, A beenfucealMeagaMst any pmonbound byrhi, llamas AgmeMNA in pumevion of or it ding, We We to the prapert; If any party bound by tQ Agreement defaults on the obligadons set forth herein, the County shall be entitled to Mom this AL,,rt-.rernent in ecuir; The prevailing, party at 1,riEd or on appeal in i?ny Mycemant action W he esid6d to rcawnabll�,qttorney foes, and costs. This provisibr, Lic - ns providp.d by low, including but not lirr*-d - .It lit -lilt coun"M rights U) ne o i hei mea rn isiiri! a dvil cithionao entm, P the candithris of the WE. Authority of Signatories, By Mir synaunes, all to this Agreemenk syNng A a i qA esencaMe, capanq cerHfy that they are aut,,hw izf'd W, ;i,,, ,ri Lin behalf of and Expladon. TN5 Agreement and the Pennk shall empire on it5 expiration date or 6y of the perinik of L-;,y the Pxplic�t release by Ow CAYRy from M Agireel-neril gal-lud as pal of an auprowl Or a Wye of use of the Rval Prof-wrty, Additionally, thi-s AgrQument and the Pewilit MA MmahaHy expire LIP:01-1 the fot(,(!w,-,urc, of any prior e9curnbrance L.Yonthe Md Pr,.pc-tywhich rr-Tufts No Partnership. CowRyin ao; tivirtueof WsApyerncril, apartnerot-joint verj(we of Developor In C0rV-IP(G,..H'1 witth &:-tivities, rarriµdl on unowr dii-5 AgreFirnent, and Shall havo rl( -w, ah�litic--, of ea. 6i and �ipc(A to deks or ,,it)y ot.tli rof-lr'2:. a'ld '� not, a guarmw Wd-le Developen the twoloco of theywrkto be perforlovd. Limitations, Sj-,(�tdd Vis A shall be Mi. +NM Per' ons Bound byAgreement,'I'I-rc,,,7�rigiriaI of this,4gret?i,nent,,51ii.,)Iibert,-,corcJedwi,,h the DesjWs County Clerk and Kall mm wKh the land. R is the intent of the pairties that the provi,iorts of this kgrecrnent shall be binding upon the parties, the partip�j'.swcc-essors, heirs, exeoacir, adi-rdufstrators, and astgn% or any Mr parties, deriving any r1oSht, utle of interest tar use in or to the Real Properl inchdVig any person who holds sw h Intel-ests- as sect16ty fc)r,lhie p,.iayment on any obligaUs q ine luding the Mortgagee oi other )Ocured party in actual pay&Wn of to Real Rapeny by forecicl-lure or otherwise or ony person taking title swh;xmAWhdW Conditions of Mal Approval. The following swre the requVed condMons of foci awp=w IT, we penn": 1. PW 10 irldtion of usn die apillwats Shall obtain all, rc-quired pjp-rml(�. oi, lkwis(�s frorn L,,w OQschutes Camy WMg, ,dfety aril Envirofirnemal He�il(lj Div --;;Ions, the FtkY 247 Figure 2: Page 2 of Final Approval of file 247-18-000126-AD Page 1 6 - Appeal of CUP Applications 247-22-000464 and 247-22-000466-SP F ram: Sm"v MomQ Fedumy A 2018 12-,2-' PIM Tw. catopm Am. 500ect- FOR LGLei for AppflcMion Follow Up 111aq, Followup Ag SWN5'! Compmed 42,17,181-G,00126-AD CoN morionc Inne, Pet, ille 150 f0lWWQ9 or t!' -I ebq puf m"n JA&M o the AdmINWA a Detwr&na ion. NUwr, k oxcludv&V for Wi Ag cms Q MW won, M'a - - I paqwny, MCA oil in �Wlv cankoHad 40 it sh"POt g mnU"inr!r ski uil-"-d on sili" No Sams VAH be rooducted. Wine ;vM be AWbAccl/deUvered Wrec, jy to 0he Sruyer a( an appr)ved location to i'e�ell or distribute alcohok beverages, but ilOt Outside the StaW(lf 01'E'900, Once thk aprka!Jw s P, ri� ppmved and the detei-roina6clo madv,,.ve cartmove f0rWdfd With SLAWW,iSiOVISILO 1.11C cXkC kw pxnAs r(q,,jaed towholosahYMA who kahe Oam WOM90n TWA ym 1, r)ucmr, Pmiker, Toby Bayard -- Comments for Public Hearing -- 10-10-23 — Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 IS hnnu 'f, -1- -do'nr, I! .-' SWO", nn 16 A'D Oul° mc�eticlg of the c' 'r this list W('ek' !eHvf is to fil 0wr dendbe Our AM WN My Wo am WE kv a pprmh. Thorn a"ems W he an MSMAn NA 0� v vIcKor to jWn-ro grapes M vinn it M; Wc'*or) Wc me noi '!%s vr�'' th�' O� �X' roul -:1 tow d kw donhu tow, Or n framourlof=n. 'N n jr� LAVA, ano jo P,Q vand to, l4ohnon M ow sins PuT city MOM Mwas, ni Wnj a awe UMP nomn or Wv tip ophy nmum A, w�. WAX do, , J3' Anoum aid hou Wn FM :0 PAS 9 yv R {OM A 0 dOA" PhW"S "(1 11 or � y jAvwX InAn LMUW � IF; I p1j) 18:13* nf j 1541) 230-0935 CH 1 YAKS! RX I W F M 1-obV Bayard -- Comments for Public Hearing-- I0-10A3 — Opposition to CUP Application 247-22-000464 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette AvenLle Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 383-i-575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http:/;,,v�v,v.deschLites.orgjcci MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 OCTOBER 22, 2015 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Hugh Palcic. Members present were Vice Chair Ed Criss, Maggie Kirby, Susan Tunno, Dale Crawford and Steve Swisher. Absent: James Powell. Staff present were Nick Lelack, CDD Director; Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Note change in order of agenda items. II. WORK SESSION: 247-15-000542-TA, Text Amendments regulating marijuana related businesses — Matthew Martin, Associate Planner, and Nick Lelack, Director Matt presented PowerPoint slides regarding the Text Amendments. Commissioner Kirby asked about additional setbacks and the reason behind the 300-foot buffer. Matt said it was there to provide additional protections to existing property owners. The Board looked at existing codes in Washington for examples. A person developing a new dwelling would not be subject to the 300 feet. Commissioner Kirby said that in Clackamas County there were additional requirements for odor controls stating that fans had to be in good working order and mentioning use of other alternatives. Matt said that just did not make it into the proposal. Commissioner Kirby asked if middle and junior high schools were included and whether they should be listed in the 1000-foot setback. Matt said he would research the language. Commissioner Kirby said that in Clackamas they also have buffers outside parks and other public areas — have those been omitted in Deschutes County due our park locations? Matt said that Clackamas had contemplated other uses which are hard to identify and which can change — the Board thought that was a little too comprehensive. Commissioner Kirby said that regarding secure disposal, there was no language regarding discarded items remaining in control of the licensee, which Matt said also was not included. Commissioner Swisher mentioned after -school centers, boys' and girls' clubs, etc., and he would like to see those included. Matt said we may need to clarify the language — "child care center" is a specific use, which is what was mentioned. Also, we have a boys' and girls' center that changes locations around Bend, and that would need to be considered. Quality Services witlr Pride Nick said that this is a fluid process and a moving target, but we do not have a choice. The rules will continue to change, proposals keep coming forward. In the next couple of days Clackamas County will have public hearing and will be coming forth with an almost entirely new proposal. This could happen in Deschutes County too. III. PUBLIC HEARING: 247-15-000333-CU/334-S, Conditional use permit and site plan review approval to establish a 184-acre regional park to be known as the Riley Ranch Nature Reserve. The proposed park will include open space, trails, boardwalks, three parking areas, gathering areas, restroom facilities, overlooks, river access areas, environmental education and programming, road improvements, and a bridge that will cross the Deschutes River — Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Peter Gutowsky presented PowerPoint slides and discussed the proposal. Commissioner Swisher asked for clarification on the Hearings Officer's definition of the bridge as being a structure. Peter said she addressed it on page 11 as it relates to the definitions in Title 19. Public Testimony Jim Figurski (Bend Park & Rec District), Susan Cunningham (ESA) and Joe Bessman (Kittleson) testified on behalf of the applicant. They agree with the recommendations of the Hearings Officer and would like to discuss the sight distance issue further this evening. They also would like to present further testimony on whether or not the bridge is a structure. Slides were presented showing the site. Jim said this area is a real asset to the public, with all sorts I f wildlife and plant life, multiple terrain types and biohabitats including a striking rimrock area. The area is well located for connections to other trail systems such as Shevlin Park, Tumalo State Park, etc., and they are working on these connections. There was a citizens' advisory committee and adjacent property owners in Glen Vista were informed as much as possible. A house in one location will eventually be repurposed for an educational center, and a separate application will be filed. No dogs will be allowed anywhere on the property. We want people to park on the edge and experience the area on foot. No bicycles will be allowed, either, and no large groups of more than 30, to keep the area quiet and contemplative. There is space for only one bus to park, and there will be no large school groups which would also be an issue with the flaking rimrock. There will be bicycle parking at the edges but people will have to view the area on foot. The proposed bridge will look similar to other bridges that cross the river — the South Canyon Bridge, the Farewell Bend Bridge, and First Street Rapids Bridge, and the Sawyer Park Bridge. Joe said there are high speeds on O.B. Riley and there is an urban -to -rural transition to consider. Today we have speeds that are higher than the posted speed of 35 mph due to the transition. The 85th percentile speed is 44.5 mph, and with the vegetation the available sight distance is 325 feet. We can bring this to 366 feet and reduce speeds to 35 mph. The City and County are both involved due to the location. There is a menu of options and there will be a lot of coordination for options like LED lights on the signs. Bend Parks and Rec will be responsible for putting in these improvements so drivers comply with the existing posted speed limit. The standards within the right-of-way can be met, and outside that we can make it much better. There are private mailboxes within the right-of-way that may need to be relocated. Susan Cunningham said that Title 19 is not an often -used section of the Code, so they want to be sure they address it in their application. They had three pre -application meetings, one 2 of which was specifically about the bridge, and nowhere did the setback issue come up until Anthony Raguine wrote his staff report. If staff had advised us to get a variance, we would have done that. The Riley Ranch property is landlocked with a rimrock cliff of up to 250 feet. There is no current or historical vehicle access to the canyon floor, and we need to have access. One access will be provided with an easement across the Culligan property which will be the main vehicle access. An access through Johnson Road is also being worked on. The Hearings Officer found that the bridge was a standalone structure. Title 19 does not define scale for driveways, walks or fences. The Hearings Officer may have overlooked the definition of "access" or "access way." The main purpose of the proposed bridge is for pedestrians and bikeways - with no public vehicle access, which will be off Glen Vista Road. The bridge is needed to connect two sections of trail and to get up to Tumalo State Park. We have received our State Scenic Waterway Permit. Oregon Parks and Rec does not consider bridges to be structures. Commissioner Swisher asked if the bridge would accommodate rescue vehicles, and Susan said yes. Vice Chair Criss wanted to clarify that the bridge would not be for vehicle use except for maintenance and emergencies, and Susan said yes. George Findling said he lives in the Windemere neighborhood, across from the proposed park, and the Windemere Association supports the idea of the park and a connecting trail system. They do have one concern which is about parking. The basic plan is to access the park by road, from O.B. Riley from the north, but they are concerned that there is no parking plan for people who want to access the park from the other side of the river. The closest access right now is about a four -mile walk. People already park illegally inside Windemere. Windemere is concerned that the parking problem will get worse. Before the bridge is approved, a parking plan should be implemented. The Hearings Officer did not think this was an issue. He would like to respectfully disagree, recognizing that it is judgment call, but they already see a problem which will only increase. He would like to recommend an addition to the conditions of approval — language that would say that a comprehensive public parking plan for pedestrians accessing the park via the bridge should be prepared. Commissioner Swisher asked how many homes are in Windemere, and George said approximately 90. The Deschutes River Trail runs approximately parallel to the lower part of their subdivision. Commissioner Crawford asked how many vehicles currently park in the area; George said there are two places where people are improperly parking — the switchback near R.G, Briggs, all the time, two to five vehicles; and where the trail crosses Northcliff, two to four cars a week. These vehicles are parking on private property. Justin Gottlieb said he has participated at Bend Parks and Rec since 2011. He has visited the Riley Ranch area twice on bus tours, and it will be a beautiful park. BPRD is not very good at building bridges. Rick Johnson said he drives through this intersection all the time. The park will be nice, although he is disappointed in the dog ban as a dog owner. Traffic in the area does move at 45 mph regularly; the 35-mph speed zone is a recent change in the past few years. There is also Knife River equipment going up and down the road, a lot which needs to be considered. There is a school that was recently built near Tumalo State Park which has created several hundred extra cars in the morning and afternoon, so volume is not spread evenly throughout the day. He has noticed a lot more road kills — recently two coyotes and a deer. The Juniper Ridge improvements will have impacts coming across Cooley Road, and the volume numbers will go up. Future mitigation measures need to be addressed. Also, the mailbox relocations and people crossing the road to get to their mailboxes will not be improved near the "pork chop" intersection and may require people to cross the street more or make U-turns to return to their residences. Dan Kiesow testified his history with this project goes back to emailing Jim Figurski in 2014 and writing a letter to a number of people (copy submitted). He feels the park is a good idea, but he has concerns about the intersection and Glen Vista Road which has a substandard easement for a city street. He and his wife worked with ODOT to decrease the speed limit on the road. He has attended to accident victims twice at the intersection and it is a dangerous area — not only the sight distance but the lack of compliance with the speed limit. The mitigation measures proposed will allow people to drive faster — removal of vegetation, etc. The road usage includes many people riding their bikes, and they will want to access the park which will result in real traffic issues on Glen Vista Road. The applicant will spend 3.7 million dollars to improve the park, but parts of the road are 22 feet side with no shoulders. It won't be long before you have 40 bicycle parking spaces, 66 vehicle parking spaces, restrooms, kiosks, overlooks, etc. They are rushing to develop a park without proper access. He would like to see them build the bridge and extend the river trail, but his main objection is that we need to look hard at not only the intersection of O.B. Riley and Glen Vista, but the one area of only 22 feet in width. They need to come in and repave an area that is 30-32 feet wide, with a bicycle/pedestrian path lined off so people can separate from the traffic. The Hearings Officer also states that Swalley provides potable water and they do not. He would not like to see this permitted at this time — let's see what happens with the urban growth boundary and not rush to spend the money. Ed Elkins said he owns the Gopher Gulf Ranch and sold the property to Bend Park and Rec. He has a few issues with not calling the bridge a structure, since it will have steel, etc. There are other ways to access the west side, through Tumalo State Park on a pathway. They talked to George Kolb years ago about sight distance and got an agreement for a 60-foot- wide dedicated easement between Cooley Road and Bend -Redmond Highway; otherwise there is no way to haul a truck and trailer and it is a deadly zone. At that intersection, the post office moved a resident's box closer to his property because of the safety issue — it is a gamble to cross the road to get mail. There are no crosswalks — that intersection needs them, with the warning systems and flashing lights. The traffic study should be rejected until it is really defined. The mine is not gone yet although it was supposed to be. Commissioner Tunno asked Ed for clarifications on accessing the west side — he said there is no way any firefighter is going down into a canyon to fight a fire. You can go to Tumalo State Park; you can walk across the bridge and come across the other side, so why do you need another bridge? There is already road access there for emergency vehicles. The road that feeds the bridge is an old dirt road and will have more traffic, as well. He feels the Hearings Officer was correct in her decision. Russ Grayson, CDD Director for the City of Bend and City Engineer, testified that the City is reviewing the application to make sure it meets City Code. They reviewed the traffic study and agreed with trip generation data. It does not trigger any intersection analysis, so the issue is one of sight distance which does not meet criteria. Supplemental information from Kittleson as to what they can achieve meets the minimum criteria for stopping and sight distance. We agree with their proposal that additional improvements would help decrease speed. Regarding maintenance questions (City or County), speed flashing signs will be located within the County jurisdiction as well as an LED flasher on the intersection light which would have to be maintained by the County. Their traffic engineer reviewed all of the information he is presenting today. Between 2012 and 2015 there were no calls for public safety officers for that intersection. There were no crashes reported between 2007 and 2013. P" \ Nunzie Gould felt that normally this project would be submitted by the County Parks Department which we do not have — she would like the Planning Commission to think about the needs within the County and questions of road maintenance and emergencies. The draw to recreational amenities is not just from the City but from tourism as well. We know the City of Bend has huge deficiencies in their roads; the County does not accept maintenance on new roads that are going in. What is the role of the County in planning for regional facilities and draws, and what is the funding mechanism? Looping the recreational amenities of Johnson and O.B. Riley Roads, linking cities through the County, the year-round cycling movement we have — the transportation planning aspect needs to be thought through. It is time for our County to provide expertise and planning for these interconnected systems. Jim Figurski said they believe they have provided a reasonable alternative definition of the bridge, which should be exempt from the requirements for setbacks. There are traffic issues, and he lives 500 yards down the road and walks his dogs regularly; but they have provided reasonable answers and are willing to accept the Hearings Officer's conditions of approval. Susan Cunningham said they may be in favor of a shorter timeframe for the comment period to be left open. There is no quick and simple road that exists along the west side, and they will have to acquire easements in the future. Park and Rec recognizes there is a huge demand for people wanting to access the Deschutes River Trail. The bridge will not be built for at least two years. Park and Rec is working on a master plan for the trail that will help alleviate access issues. Jim said that they have been discussing with the Coates property owners a trailhead where the public would park. When the mine is closed down, they will have additional parking and additional trailhead, although no vehicular traffic will be allowed, only emergency/maintenance vehicles. Joe Bessman said mailboxes won't be moved across the road but farther down the road, and they really want to go above and beyond. He has walked the entire distance on Glen Vista, on the pavement and gravel and it was a comfortable walk. The pavement ranges from 22 to 24 feet wide and contributes to the lower speeds. Jim said, regarding the comments about "rushing" to develop the property - they have been working on the property for over two years and have had a year's -long worth of citizens' involvement meetings, etc. It will be another year before drawings are completed. Peter Russell said that he and the Road Department have agreed with the traffic study provided by Kittelson. Glen Vista Road is a low -volume road. O.B. Riley has around 1100 cars a day. The use itself, a recreational park, is a low traffic generator. The Glen Vista/O.B. Riley area has no crash data for the past five years. Chair Palcic and Peter discussed the proposals of flashing signs, etc., and Peter said they were fine with them. Peter Gutowsky summarized options for the Planning Commission to proceed. Commissioner Swisher suggested keeping the written record open for a week and then a few days for the applicant's final argument before deliberation. Motion: Commissioner Swisher motioned to close the oral record and keep the written record open until October 29, with an opportunity for the applicants to respond until November 4, and then hold deliberations on November 12. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 247-15-00491-TA, amend Deschutes County Code 22.20 and 1.16 to allow the County to not process development permits for properties with an existing code violation — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner ��J Peter summarized the application and process to date. Chair Palcic and Peter discussed procedural changes if the application is approved. Commissioner Swisher asked how staff would determine an emergency how that affects the time for working on a code violation. Peter said Planning staff, Building and possibly Environmental Soils may be involved with interpretation. Merry Ann Moore testified in favor of the proposal and felt it has the potential to reduce conflicts between neighbors. If a property has an unimplemented wildlife mitigation plan, it would be great if this shows on DIAL and the next owner has to comply if the property is sold. William Kuhn testified that he lives in the middle of the winter deer range and he is the one who brought forward this proposal. They brought to the County's attention in 1997 the lack of a homeowners' association agreement in their cluster development (two lots) with a 33-acre jointly owned wildlife habitat. They started in January 1997 because there were things going on that needed to be addressed through an association process. This text amendment will not help them and would not have helped them at that time, because they could not convince CDD that there was no homeowners' association agreement. CDD made the wrong interpretation in 1988 that deed restrictions constituted the homeowners' association agreement. They have a stipulation agreement from the County that they made a mistake in 1988. Jerry Norquist encouraged approval of this amendment and moving it forward as soon as possible. Paul Lipscomb said he was a member of the committee that drew this up as a consensus process. County planning staff and the legal department were also participants, and he hopes the hearing will be closed this evening. Bruce Bowen testified that he thinks this is a good compromise and many people have worked hard on it. He would support moving this ahead as quickly as possible. Eva Eagle said this proposal will make a huge difference to the ability to deal with property owners who don't obey the rules, and this needs to become part of the standard procedures of the Planning Department. Motion: Commissioner Crawford motioned to close the oral and written testimony and proceed to deliberation. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed. Motion: Chair Palcic moved to recommend approval; seconded by Commissioner Swisher. Discussion: Commissioner Swisher said several members of his community had indicated to him they are in favor of this proposal. Motion passed. V. DELIBERATIONS: 247-16-000444-TA, Text Amendment to DCC 18.113.060, Standards for Destination Resorts, to modify the current process and requirements for Eagle Crest to provide the County with annual accountings related to the inventory of overnight lodging units — Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Peter Gutowsky summarized the application to date. Vice Chair Criss asked if this would fix the problem. Peter said staff has coordinated with the applicant, legal counsel has been involved, and from a staff standpoint this text amendment is plausible to remedy the need for overnight lodging units. Before the application was initiated, we reached out to DLCD which has no concerns. If this application is successful, staff will track their time and the reports submitted by the applicant — we may need a fee to recover costs for this and all hours will be documented. Chair Palcic and Peter discussed that we are in uncharted territory here. Deschutes County has the most destination resorts in the state, and they were established to bring in visitation which they have done. The state helped lead the Goal 8 process and we heard no issues from them before the formal hearing on this application commenced. Nick said that it is incumbent on us as staff to demonstrate whether this addresses the issue and we need transparency/a public process. We need to provide these reports on an annual basis — it has been a challenge and the rules have changed. Commissioner Swisher felt this entire issue is troubling. Eagle Crest was one of the new places after the Code changed. He would much rather see the units built and the bonding in place, but historically we cannot completely go back and blame and the owners and developers. This is a solution that bears watching and annual reporting to see if it works, but he would not want to see this solution being applied to new applicants. If we have more destination resorts we need to hold to the standard. This solution mitigates a historical issue, but he is still troubled by it. Chair Palcic said he worries about whether we are compounding problems or solving them, as well. What kinds of challenges will we face if this is approved? Commissioner Crawford felt that no matter what, we do set precedents. He is concerned about what the lots were originally platted for and has serious considerations about approving this. Commissioner Swisher suggested that if the Commissioners do approve this, the penalty portion be doubled. Vice Chair Criss felt that Deschutes County has taken quite a few liberties with Goal 8. We need to be careful and understand that we need to do business differently in the future. This does address the problem with Eagle Crest and gets things closer to where they should be, but he is concerned about Judge Lipscomb's letter and the precedents we may not want to be involved in. Some time ago, we had someone in here testifying about how they could not sell homes due to deed restrictions and rental requirements. So now we don't have deed restrictions and we'll just count rentals as overnights. He is not so sure this will fix the real problem and is concerned about certain legal precedents. Chair Palcic said we should aspire to do the right thing and not bail out the bottom of the boat. This patchwork will come back to haunt us. We really should be trying to get this right. Commissioner Kirby asked if we have requested guidance from the state and whether terms are evolving. Peter said the applicants do fall under the obligation to make units available for overnight use through a central reservation system. They have that role and responsibility today and the obligation to submit the text amendment. The entire text amendment was shared with the DLCD and we conveyed to them that we would like to know if they had any concerns — they have indicated they do not. Commissioner Tunno said that this definition and Goal 8 are not about managing the brick and boards of real estate. Real estate includes structures attached to the land. Goal 8 talks about the use of a brick and board structure — using individual units for overnight lodging. This whole evolution includes reserving through online booking agencies to use these spaces. She does disagree with the confusion about booking agencies and the Judge's interpretation about Goal 8 — the discussion is about how this resort can meet the requirements and prove that they are making available so many units for overnight lodging. On whom does the onus fall to do this? She doesn't see the problem with this and feels some of the terminologies have gotten off track with actual use of real estate. Chair Palcic said the effort is admirable but it doesn't get us where we want to go. Commissioner Swisher appreciated Commissioner Tunno's description. What would "better" be? Chair Palcic said there are other approaches to this and it has many holes. We don't "know" and are calling it a pilot program which says a lot. Commissioner Swisher said he hoped no other resort would use this methodology. Chair Palcic said he was recently at a hearing where the applicant used photos and tried to justify their exception to the rule by saying other parcels already violated it. That puts more gravity on getting this right so it isn't another picture in the scrapbook. Vice Chair Criss remarked this has been narrowly fashioned to deal with the applicant's issue and not set a precedent. Chair Palcic said down the road, one piece of this might work for someone and they'll need that and won't see how it would be a problem. Commissioner Tunno said that each of these resorts is hatched in a different timeframe with a changing landscape — how would this effort ever be applicable to any other resorts of today? The custom things we do for South County do not apply anywhere else. Chair Palcic asked how many overnight units have been built at Pronghorn — there's still Caldera, etc. There are a number of these that have not complied, so they may indeed want to use part of this. Peter Gutowsky spoke about the language tying this to Eagle Crest -specific property. All of the other resorts are complying with the Code. Pronghorn posted millions of dollars to fund a two-phase hotel; Phase 1 in 2017 and Phase 2 in 2018. Once built, they will no longer need to bond because they'll have met the ratio. For any other platted units, they will need overnights. Thornburgh has a bond and is building hotels — we are making sure any proposed plats maintain the 2.5:1 ratio; the same is true of Caldera Springs. Tetherow uses Conditions of Approval Agreements. This text amendment is dealing with a resort that does not have the ratio in compliance; the others do. Eagle Crest wants to use its online reservation system to demonstrate compliance. Nick added that if other resorts were to amend the Code, they could then amend their conceptual and final master plans and either have deed restrictions, be bonded or have this new option to comply. Pronghorn is only half built out; a Thornburgh hearing is on the horizon. It would be a significant hurdle to get over as to whether the Planning Commission and Board want to extend this to other resorts. It is possible that the Code could be amended. The question is whether it is practical. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to move this forward with approval. Seconded by Commissioner Swisher. Discussion: Commissioner Swisher asked what happens if the Planning Commission has no recommendation; Nick said we would take that to the Board to consider. Commissioner Swisher said he was contemplating withdrawing his second and recommending moving this forward to the Board without a recommendation. Vice Chair Criss said he is past worrying about other resorts using this because they would have to apply for it. If this fixes the problem with Eagle Crest, great, but this should not be the norm for destination resorts in the County. Nick discussed the Thornburgh case and said that the first 50 units have to be built prior to the sale of real estate. Commissioner Swisher said he would let his second stand. Chair Palcic again wanted to reinforce that he agrees with Judge Lipscomb on this and we should try to achieve better. Commissioner Swisher mentioned this would get tax dollars flowing. Motion passed. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Nunzie Gould encouraged the Commissioners to look at the legislative history as to why the resorts wanted to increase their overnights and how the standard went from 2 to 2.5. It is hypocritical that it is a challenge now — this is a slippery slope and every resort now wants 2.5 to 1 instead of 2 to 1. Pronghorn has put multiple bonds before the County with something like six extensions. Overnights are not being built and that is rural sprawl. It is incumbent on this Commission to understand what that is doing in the community. Get the legislative history from DLCD. Eagle Crest has been the tiger and Deschutes County has been whiplashed to the tail. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS: The Goal 11 public hearing is next Wednesday at 6:00 in Sunriver. The Board on Monday said they had not ever seen this many controversial, high -profile projects on their plates in such a short period of time. Peter Gutowsky and Commissioner Kirby discussed the issue of hunting sage -grouse and why it is allowed. Peter will be providing more information. Vill. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary ■ 0 Code Complianct Progir- Policy and Proceah rQs z Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 1 of 17 ................ 1. Mi1s.riOn................................................................................................................................................................4 I. purpos'(...............................................................................................................................................................4 tll. ItIt rprciatioii..............................................................................:..................................................................... 4 lV. Code Coroplir nc,'.:y('Milo,_),i'sy .............................................................................................I............................4 A. Enforcement Levels.................................................................................................................................... 4 B. Sequence of Enforcement......................................................................................................................... 5 C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement........................................................................................... 5 V. bf. try r{k.d ir'."J E Jj i.., oC ..................................................................................................................... A. Priority Cases.............................................................................................................................................. 5 B. Lower Priority Cases.................................................................................................................................. 5 C. Solid Waste................................................................................................................................................. 6 vi, P\ gPI(£faf.) I4,y....................................................................................................................1................... �............. 6 V11, I n i a:;tIon of C 0 d n I--n 'lsCC.li;`:'it...................................................................................................................... 6 A. Resident Complaints................................................................................................................................. 6 B. Observation by Code Compliance Staff.................................................................................................. 7 C. Proactive Code Enforcement................................................................................................................... 7 D. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring by CDD Staff.......................................................................... 7 E. Report by County Staff............................................................................................................................. 8 F. Report by County Commissioner............................................................................................................ 8 G. Information from Official County Records............................................................................................. 8 Ill's, 1,11ccording Ci71"nplaints...................................................................................................................................... 8 ir`x, Ise aalt.:t? of ................................................................................................................................. 8 i, Inve`itlgafloit..................................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Preliminary Matters ............................................ ............... ................... .°......... .......... ..,,....... .............. ,.... 9 B. Establishing the Elements of a Violation............................................................................................... 9 C. Assignment of Investigation and Enforcement Responsibility........................................................... 9 D. Field Investigation.................................................................................................................................... 10 E. Report of Field Investigation................................................................................................................... 11 r6fnrrs.:+7i2ra Procedurr::............................................................................................................................... 11 A. Voluntary Compliance.............................................................................................................................. 11 B. Pre -Enforcement Notice.......................................................................................................................... 12 C. Citation and Complaint............................................................................................................................. 13 D. Injunctions.................................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Permit Revocation..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Nuisance Abatement................................................................................................................................ 15 G. Dangerous Building Abatement.............................................................................................................. 15 H. Investigative Fees...................................................................................................................................... 15 I. Assisting Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies ....................................................... 16 J. County Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................... 16 K. Liens.................................................................................................................................................I.......... 16 XIL Resolution (P➢ .ode coio.)lainzs............................................................................ Amendien:,..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 2 of 17 Code enforcement in Deschutes County is a priority of the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). The Board believes the policies and procedures in this manual will enhance code compliance and thereby the quality of life in Deschutes County. In August 1994, the Board established the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Task Force to study County Code Enforcement, to recommend improvements to the program and to identify statutory or County Code changes that could increase the effectiveness of County Code enforcement. The task force included residents, representatives of the construction and real estate industries, representatives of the state court system and law enforcement, County Legal Counsel, managers of the County's Community Development Department ("CDD") and the County's Code Enforcement staff. The task force met three times during 1994. In January of 1995, they presented a report to the Board containing their recommendations. The Board accepted those recommendations, and directed County staff to begin to implement them. Among the recommendations was the development of a County Code Enforcement policy and procedures manual. The key task force recommendation in 1995 was the implementation of a more "proactive", or County - initiated, Code Enforcement program. Such a program would begin simultaneously with adoption of the manual and would apply to County Code violations occurring on or after the effective date of the manual. This recommendation effectively created a two -pronged approach to code enforcement— somewhat different policies and procedures for violations occurring before, and after, the effective date of the manual. The intent of this approach was both to increase code enforcement after giving the community ample notice of the County's new, "tougher" enforcement policy, as well as to set enforcement priorities and manage the County's Code Enforcement workload in a manner that is realistic, clear and credible to the community. The original policies and procedures manual reflected this new approach. The County amended the manual in 1997 to reprioritize the criteria in Section IV and to reclassify and add enforcement staff. Since then, the County added Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 1.17 to adopt the required administrative hearings process required by ORS 455.157 adopted by the State Legislature in 2009 for building and specialty code violations. The County also amended Chapter 1.16 to add an additional injunctive remedy once a violation is cited into Circuit Court. In 2014, CDD staff reviewed the manual and suggested changes to the Board, which reviewed the staff - proposed changes and made additional revisions. In 2021, CDD staff reviewed the manual again and suggested changes to the Board. A noteworthy recommendation from this review was an option to change the title of the Community Development Department program from Code Enforcement to Code Compliance. The concept behind this change, which was adopted by the Board, was to better align the program title with its objective, This manual update is reflective of this and other minor operational updates approved by the Board. By the guidance of this 2021 manual and integration of the County's "Every Time Standards", the Community Development Department Code Compliance Program will continue protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Deschutes County. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 3 of 17 The mission of Deschutes County's Code Compliance Program is to protect the health and safety of the County's residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the County's land use, environmental and construction codes. The County will assure County Code compliance both by encouraging voluntary compliance and by sanctioning code violators who do not comply. The purpose of the Deschutes County Code Compliance Program Policy and Procedures Manual (hereafter "manual") is to provide written guidelines for: P, The prioritization of code enforcement cases; z1, Initiation and investigation of code violation complaints; C, Enforcement of the County Code through voluntary compliance; h. Prosecution of code violators who do not comply; Sanctioning of code violators and the assessment of fines and penalties; and Recovery of the County's investigation and enforcement costs. These written guidelines are intended to increase consistency and predictability within the County's Code Compliance Program, and to educate the County's residents and property owners about code compliance and the consequences of violating the County Code. This manual describes the standard policies and procedures for code compliance, and should be interpreted so as to maximize both the efficiency of the program and operations as well as compliance with County Code, This manual should be followed unless otherwise directed by the CDD Director or designee, the County Administrator or designee, or the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). g ' �..�. s-.9. 1 14 ..3E ,.!i,cy-, The County's policy is to achieve compliance with County Code in all cases of reported and verifiable code violations. However, the County may not always have sufficient resources to expeditiously address all cases. Consequently, the County has established, through this manual, both a priority ranking for code enforcement and procedures designed to maximize available code compliance resources. The Code Compliance Program should follow the priority ranking set forth in Section V of this manual, It also should be flexible enough to allow the level of enforcement that best fits the type and circumstances of the code violation(s), within clear and objective criteria set forth in this manual and consistent with the priorities, /\, _ nforce�i scot Levels. The levels of enforcement available to the County are: 1. Mediated settlement of code violation complaints; ?, Pre -Enforcement Notice (hereafter "PEN"); :44 Investigative fees on permits required for code compliance; 1, Obtaining voluntary compliance; Warning letters; Citation and prosecution of violation in state court or Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (hereafter "NOV") through County administrative hearings; 7. Petition for injunction in circuit court; Nuisance or dangerous building abatement; 9. Permit revocation Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 4 of 17 Sr�.quuoce of :r fog c= ra t. The levels of enforcement are not mutually exclusive, and may be used alone or in sequence or combination with other levels. However, in most code violation cases, the County will use the code enforcement levels in the sequence they appear in Paragraph A. C. Critc-Ja for t:hoosinf:- t,.evel o� Some code violation cases may have aggravating circumstances requiring a different sequence for enforcement activity than that set forth in Paragraph A. The County may choose a different sequence if one or more of the following circumstances is present: `i The code violation is severe (e.g., deviates greatly from the Code); The violation poses a significant threat to public health and safety, or to the environment as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; 3, The violation may cause economic harm to residents or to the County as a whole; The physical size or extent of the violation is significant as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; The violation has existed uncorrected for a significant period as determined by the Community Development Director or designee; 6, There is a previous history of complaints and code enforcement on the subject property and/or with the alleged code violator; 7 There is good potential for combining enforcement action on the violation with other violations; There is little likelihood of obtaining voluntary compliance. ;�Aia:y: County staff shall attempt to investigate and resolve all code violations within budget and staffing resources. However, because of limited code compliance resources, there may be times when all code violations cannot be given the same level of attention and some code violations may receive no attention at all for a period of time as determined by the Community Development Director or designee. In circumstances where not all code violations can be investigated, the most serious violations, as determined under the priorities set forth in this section and the criteria for enforcement in Section IV(C) of this manual, shall be addressed before the less serious violations are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. However, complaints alleging both priority and non -priority violations should be processed together to maximize efficiency. Pr€orKy C:.i cs. The Board has established the following priorities for CDD code violations: 'I. Violations that present an imminent threat to public life, health and safety; %'. Violations which impact rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands, 1 Solid Waste Code violations, Environmental Soils violations, and Building Code violations consisting of ongoing non -permitted construction or failure to obtain permits; A. Land use violations. Policy: Complaints alleging code violations that do not fall within the priority ranking above should be processed in the order in which the complaints are received, and as code enforcement resources allow. ,'C ep'Jo e, At the discretion of Code Compliance Specialists and in consultation with the Community Development Director or designee staff, complaints may be processed in any order that maximizes the efficiency of enforcement. i't°r�r.-t-, aduro� All complaints concerning a particular type of code violation (e.g., non -permitted manufactured homes in manufactured home parks), or all complaints of violations occurring in a particular geographic area, may be processed together, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 5 of 17 C. Soli€! Wasto. The County Solid Waste Department may engage any other County Department/ Office to administer its code compliance program for County solid waste code violations. Policy. This manual applies to all code compliance administered by CDD, its employees and agents. Except as otherwise provided, the policies and procedures in this manual apply to all alleged code violations whether or not they existed or were known by the County on the effective date of this manual. The policies and procedures in this manual supersede any conflicting County policies and procedures. i P s p bi 4 y _ C s,, ki , , an Many subdivisions and planned ���o����:�_� .li�;a sil:€, to �c�v��s� .a��.,�, communities are subject to private, recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs). The County's policy is not to enforce private CC & Rs. Non -Applicability W i-r:v�.,`e i �i xb si ii. Residents may undertake private legal action to enforce County Code, including civil litigation against the alleged code violator, as well as personally filing citations and prosecuting County Code violations in court. The policies and procedures in this manual do not apply to private legal action to abate violations. Neither should they be interpreted to suggest that the County will participate in such private legal action. °Ii e,;s i:si" c�`, � Code enforcement may be initiated by any of the following methods: Resitie,bit Com pf"iints, Any person may make a complaint to the County alleging one or more code violations. 1, Forio, A resident may initiate a complaint by submitting a letter or email, complaint form (available online), or by contacting CDD in person or by telephone. If a resident submits a complaint by phone or written communication other than a completed complaint form, County staff shall complete the complaint form, If the County receives a written complaint other than the County - approved complaint form, the written complaint shall be attached to a complaint form completed by County staff. To be investigated, a resident complaint must contain all information required on the complaint form. f, �_nonyfoo?ra C€�iiwl, izi�:: Policy: The County's policy is to not accept anonymous County Code violation complaints. The County believes that anonymous complaints are not as reliable as those made by complainants who are willing to identify themselves. In addition, in many cases, the complainant's identification and testimony in court may be necessary for successful prosecution of Code violators and code enforcement, Exceptionis. The County recognizes there may be casesjustifying an exception to this policy. These are cases where the nature of an anonymous complaint reliably suggests the existence of code violations presenting an imminent threat to public life, health and safety or to the environment, which threat easily may be verified by County staff. In such cases, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, County staff shall accept the anonymous complaint for investigation, t;orim`i i nti ili I Policy: The County's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and computer records, including the identity of the complainant, to the extent legally possible. The County believes it is important to maintain this confidentiality to assure effective investigation and prosecution of code violations. In addition, the County recognizes that some complainants do not want their names disclosed to the alleged code violator for fear of retaliation. However, in Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 6 of 17 some cases it may be necessary for successful prosecution and enforcement for the complainant to be identified and to testify in court. Ex op :ir. os, In cases where the County chooses to cooperate with, or defer to, federal or state agencies for code enforcement, the contents of the file may be disclosed, as necessary, to the other agency. Prnr., tag. re: In order to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and the identity of the complainants, while assuring effective prosecution and enforcement and compliance with state law, the following procedures apply: Code enforcement files will be maintained as confidential files throughout investigation, violation prosecution and/or other types of code enforcement to the extent legally permissible. 1), The contents of code enforcement files will not be disclosed to anyone other than County staff who have a reason to know about and who are involved in the investigation, or to similar staff of an agency with which the County is cooperating. The contents of the file will not be disclosed to any other person absent court order, until: 1) the investigation is complete and a citation discovery request is made; or 2) the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law. i�a, O eivat,ion by 1, Code enforcement staff often observe additional potential County Code violations while conducting complaint investigations. Such observations may form the basis for additional investigation and enforcement action. Policy: The County's policy is that code enforcement staff document any potential code violations the staff observes on property that is the subject of their current investigation. Code enforcement staff shall investigate documented additional potential violations. If substantiated, staff may address noted additional violations. Staff may also document and address code violations observed on any property adjacent to the subject property, which violations are observable from the subject property. Codo C:m f =r =g' '. j '. Within available code enforcement resources, the County may undertake a number of County -initiated procedures for .proactive code enforcement. These procedures may include: 1, Investigations and prosecutions of code violations in particular geographic areas; 9. Investigations and prosecutions of code violations of a particular type throughout the County; 1 Timely and regular follow-up by CDD staff for compliance with conditions and requirements for permits and approvals; r Reporting by County staff of code violations observed while conducting County business; >. Examination and comparison of County files for evidence of code violations; G. Revocation of permits and approvals for failure to comply with requirements or conditions; 7. Cooperation with code compliance by other regulatory and licensing agencies; and Cooperation with utility companies to terminate service, to the extent authorized by law, to non - permitted uses on property. €�. P.;ds�iiti f�hrov< l Cony iitki= i�%-�s���a� s4 �w e „ ,, ; _. The County routinely issues land use, environmental and construction permits with a variety of requirements and conditions, and timelines for meeting them. For example, a land use approval may require landscaping the site by a certain date, and building permits expire if construction progress and inspections are not made within periods set by state law. Code violations occur when these permit and approval conditions are not timely met. Policy: The County's policy is that CDD staff may conduct timely and regular monitoring of conditions of approval and similar permit requirements for all permits and approvals. Pi ocKiuVe: Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 7 of 17 i, All persons issued permits or approvals shall be given written notice of the consequences of failure to comply with requirements and conditions, including potential code enforcement. o If any permits and approvals are found not to be in compliance with conditions of approval or other permit requirements, staff in the appropriate CDD division assigned to the permit or approval monitoring shall undertake appropriate action to obtain compliance. 3. If the assigned CDD staff are unable to obtain compliance within a reasonable time established for that purpose, they shall report the violation and any enforcement action already taken to Code Compliance staff for further code enforcement action. 1-10-wrt by Ccaun' O SVIH. In many cases, County staff may be in a unique position to observe potential code violations. For example, a property appraiser in the Assessor's office may be the only person able to observe new construction for which there is no permit. li{yo Any County staff member may report to code enforcement staff possible Code violations observed while conducting County business. proccdurc:: Reports by County staff under this subsection shall be made on a complaint form provided by CDD Code Compliance Staff. >Wrport by County A County Commissioner may report a potential code violation, or request that code enforcement staff investigate a resident report of a potential code violation by submitting a complaint form or in any other written form or requesting CDD staff to submit a complaint form on behalf of the Commissioner, along with necessary information to initiate an investigation. r:fs'hifori0 ;ioo fi,oiii Potential code violations may be discovered by examining the County's own official records, For example, cross-referencing between the Assessor's records and CDD's records may reveal construction or land use activity without necessary permits or approvals. CDD staff may also discover code violations by comparing the County's own land use, environmental health and construction permit records with each other. t>olirye CDD staff may regularly compare all pertinent County records to identify potential Code violations. r,joccAurc. Code violations discovered through comparison of information in County files shall be reported to Code Compliance on a complaint form. All complaints received by the Code Compliance Program shall be recorded in CDD's computer system. The Complaint Record is the official record of the complaint and its investigation and resolution. The Complaint Record shall include the following minimum information: ?. An assigned complaint number; ?_ The tax map number and tax map for the subject property; 3. Which code enforcement staff is assigned to the case; ''. The complaint form; >. Documentation of investigation; C. Assessor's information on the subject property. When Code Compliance staff initiates an investigation, they may provide notice to any CDD division, other County department, or federal or state agency that may have an interest in the alleged code violation. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 8 of 17 a s S!� .;A € i a A a z(' e'�; p1-e.Ii1y1ia1ary M4auei's: At the beginning of each investigation, the following shall be established: 1Jorisdict:ion. The property upon which the alleged code violation exists must be in the County's code enforcement jurisdiction. 9. oning. The zoning of the subject property shall be determined. 3, p;.,iaait `7tatu s. The status of any land use, environmental soils, building, electrical, construction (including, but not limited to structural, mechanical, plumbing) or other similar permits on the subject property shall be determined. 1, Property Cwjm,a shhp; All persons with a recorded legal interest in the subject property should be identified. These persons should include the owners, contract purchasers, lessees and lienholders or other security interest holders Pot, =ntialiy " I . � --i i�>, In addition to the persons listed in subparagraph 4 of this paragraph, any other persons potentially responsible for the alleged code violation(s) should be identified. These persons could include tenants, construction and landscape contractors and excavators. I iu otificx l:ioi (3, ;4s'i .ili€ l 1 ,..` , �r I ,;,;�', Code Compliance staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, shall identify the pertinent provisions of the County Code that may have been violated according to the complaint. :fri,:)r Cwapl,714A I W tury, Code Compliance staff shall examine CDD records to determine the existence and status of any prior or existing code violation complaints on the subject property or concerning the alleged violator s t<,i3li laitag the icisa,..ii of a W� i-�,'J �o. Before a Pre -Enforcement Notice ("PEN") is sent, it must be determined whether the complaint establishes a code violation. If it does not, the case will be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. Code Compliance staff may, in some instances, make mediation referrals where such referral is anticipated to protect safety or livability. Code Compliance staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, and after any necessary field investigation, shall determine if the following elements have been established. i. �spealawiE l Pnrson, The person or persons who are reasonably believed to have committed the code violation, or who are or may be legally responsible for the alleged code violation, have been identified Allcgc; i Viol i k"m Oct sir A complaint may allege a code violation that occurred in the past (e.g., construction without a permit) or that occurs only intermittently (e.g., surfacing sewage from a drain field, or periodic non -permitted commercial activity in a residential zone). Code Compliance staff shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to find the alleged violation occurred or is occurring. Such grounds may be established either by personal observation by Code Compliance staff or by reliable evidence from a complainant. If Code Compliance staff determines that reasonable grounds do not exist, no enforcement action will be taken until the complainant or the Code Enforcement staff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop such grounds. If no reasonable grounds are developed within a reasonable period, the case will be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. a"t.,^Qc z; r3r„e eaft:C tE t-. In some instances, a complaint may allege a code violation on property subject to other protections. A common example is the State's prohibition on local laws governing forest and farm practices (ORS 30.934 and 30.935). Code Compliance staff shall, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, consider the relevance of statutes in substantiating a County Code.violation. If Code Compliance staff verifies conflicting relevance under the law, the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. As:i8ovki.,Yit: £)ti It"lida;si;igea,£CJr�:°i Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 9 of 17 ��ohcy, The responsibility for field investigation and code enforcement should be assigned to the CDD staff most able and qualified to conduct the investigation and undertake appropriate enforcement action. For example, alleged violations of environmental soils/health codes may best be investigated and resolved by County Environmental Soils Specialists. However, all code enforcement activity should be coordinated with Code Compliance staff and all PEN's and Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCA's) will be drafted by Code Compliance staff. i roc F:lure : L Assiini-wsiei- :. Assignment of field investigation and code enforcement responsibility shall be made by the CDD Director or designee, on a case -by -case basis or pursuant to standing policies in this manual or elsewhere. The following criteria shall be used for assignment of responsibility: a. The nature of the code violation(s) alleged in the complaint; b. The knowledge and expertise needed to investigate the alleged violation; c. The history of prior code enforcement on the subject property or with the alleged violator; d. The status of permits and approvals on the subject property; and e. The workload of the relevant CDD division staff and the projected timeline for investigation and resolution of the complaint. Whenever responsibility for code enforcement activity is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff, such staff shall consult with Code Compliance staff and keep them advised of their activities, When CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff is assigned to investigate a code violation complaint for which a Complaint Record has been created, such staff shall enter into the record a report of any action undertaken to investigate or to obtain compliance. The purposes of code enforcement field investigation are to: Verify the existence and severity of code violations; h. Document code violations by means of written notes, photographs, witness interviews, etc.; and Obtain supporting evidence such as photographs, measurements, names and statements of potential witnesses, etc. don, Whenever responsibility for field investigation is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Compliance staff, the coordination and notification described in Paragraph C (2) of this section shall occur. Prr,parniions PIc olicye Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff, as well as members of the public, should not be exposed to unreasonable risks of violent confrontation or injury during the course of field investigations. Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff shall take whatever actions are reasonable and necessary to minimize the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to themselves or others in conducting their field investigations. ) oceelurd : When appropriate, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff should contact the Sheriff's office to determine if there have been previous criminal complaints or investigations concerning the subject property or alleged code violator, and whether, in the opinion of the Sheriffs office, afield investigation would present any threat to the safety of Code Compliance staff, other staff, the alleged code violator or other persons present during a field investigation. Code Compliance staff or another assigned CDD staff person may request law enforcement assistance in conducting the field investigation, and may postpone such investigation until law enforcement assistance is available. 1,'is i:;. At the discretion of Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff, a field visit to the vicinity of the subject property may be conducted with or Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 10 of 17 without prior notice to the property owner, occupant or alleged code violator. The determination of whether or not to give prior notice shall be made on the basis of the following criteria: I. The nature of the alleged violation; 2. Whether or not prior notice will make detection and documentation of the alleged violation more difficult; and 3. Whether or not prior notice will unnecessarily increase the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff. a". na's"9tei-ii'i ' Upon a=;at" in. rty m policy: it is the County's policy that Code Compliance staff and other assigned CDD staff shall not enter upon private property or premises to conduct a field investigation without authority to enter. Rya r�r esi.6 : Code Compliance staff may enter unposted property to seek permission to investigate on the premises. Unless permission is granted, the investigation shall be conducted from public roads or property where permission to enter has been granted. If Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff does not have permission or other authority to enter upon property or premises, and entry upon the property or premises is necessary to conduct the investigation, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff shall consult with County Legal Counsel about obtaining a search warrant. ,po t, Upon completion of the initial investigation, Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff shall complete a report of investigation in the Case Record, The Field Investigation Report should be completed as soon as reasonably possible after the date and time of the field visit to ensure a complete and accurate report. The report shall include at least the following information: Name of investigator; Date, time and place of field visit; c, Code violation(s) observed; , If no code violation(s) observed, an explanation; Witnesses, if any, interviewed and other persons present, if known, on site at the time of the investigation; f, Evidence, if any, obtained (e.g., photographs); g. Discussion, if any, of violation with owner, occupant or other responsible person; $a, Action necessary, if known, to correct violation; and L Recommended enforcement action. Nkpiificad,--it. Upon completion of the initial investigation, Code Compliance staff shall notify all resident and other agency complainants of the status of complaint investigation. This notification should include information on whether a case will be opened, the reason a case will or will not be opened, and name and contact information of the staff member assigned the code enforcement case. ENT policy: The primary objective of the CDD Code Compliance Program is voluntary compliance. Staff encourages voluntary code compliance by providing code violators and other responsible persons with information about the County Code and an opportunity to comply with the County Code within reasonable timeframes and with little or no penalty. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. Notwithstanding this objective, the County believes that allowing Code violators the opportunity to voluntarily comply any time during code enforcement, or outside reasonable time limits for such Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 11 of 17 compliance, may actually result in abuse of this opportunity in order to delay compliance. Therefore, it is the County's policy to limit the time frame during which Code violators may come into voluntary compliance with little or no penalty, The following procedure shall apply whenever a Code violator brings his or her property into compliance during the code enforcement process: raot I'U11 P M., After complaint/ before citation or NOV. File closed. Application of permit investigative fees where applicable. After citation/before CDD recommends dismissal of citation, no trial or hearing before cost recovery, application of permit hearings officer I investigative fees where applicable. At time of trial or CDD recommends prosecution, conviction or hearing before hearings guilty plea, fine or civil penalty, injunction, cost officer recovery, application of permit investigative fees where applicable. i hillted Opportunities for voluntary compliance, where provided, shall be of limited duration. The facts in each case differ. Therefore, Code Compliance staff shall consider the appropriate time frame for compliance on a case -by -case basis. yz1i fcr., / ���. $i:. Following the issuance of a PEN, if the alleged violator admits the violation(s) and requests extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator shall sign a "Voluntary Compliance Agreement in a form acceptable to the County." County Legal Counsel will determine what is acceptable to the County. The agreement shall provide that, in exchange for the extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator agrees to abate the violation(s) by a specified time, and, if voluntary compliance is not obtained during this extended time, to waive hearing in any subsequent violation proceeding and consent to entry of judgment and imposition of penalties, costs, injunction, and/or such other relief as is deemed appropriate. x a$f(Ir ccl, $s£ mnt No i iC( { •=� !) iniin , When Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff determines there are reasonable grounds to find a violation did or does occur, based upon the information in the complaint and any field investigation, an PEN shall be sent on a standard form approved by the CDD Director or designee in a letter or notice sent by the appropriate CDD division staff. aa) i;x,+s ni(i Sc-Int. A PEN shall be sent to all persons liable for the violation under Deschutes County Code. fl lc j ' �A, PENS shall be sent by certified mail or by other method of delivery as approved by the CDD Director or Designee to the best available address for the persons described in Subsection 2 above. Email may be used in addition to certified or other mail delivery options to expedite the notification process. ra ,oll(w uto, If, within 15 days of the mailing of the PEN, the liable per have not contacted Code Compliance staff, staff shall determine the next step in the code enforcement process, including warning and/or citation, 5. (,bropliatice. If the Code Compliance staff determines that the required corrections have been made or the liable persons have provided evidence that no violation exists, the date and method of compliance shall be noted in the Complaint Record and the case shall be resolved by file closure pursuant to section XII of this manual. 6, (orr )<:Uvo ,",c;00 1—s. In some cases, corrective action may consist of both applying for and obtaining necessary permits or approvals. In such cases, the permit or approval application alone will not be Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 1.2 of 17 C" sufficient to assure compliance. The liable person must complete the application process, including all appeals, within a reasonable time and not allow the application to expire. Once permit approval is obtained, the liable person must complete all permit conditions prior to the expiration of any permit approval. dicy: All code violation cases shall remain open until all permit conditions and other required corrective measures are completed. i, Where the required corrective action consists of both applying for and obtaining permits or approvals, Code Compliance staff, in consultation with other appropriate CDD staff, shall determine a reasonable time frame for applying for and obtaining the necessary permits or approvals. 2, If at any time during the process for obtaining necessary permits or approvals the alleged violator fails to meet the reasonable timelines established by Code Compliance staff and such failure does not result from the actions of others, Code Compliance staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section. If the alleged code violator is not granted the necessary permits or approvals, Code Compliance staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section unless (a) the alleged code violator enters into a written agreement with the County to comply with the County Code within a time frame established by Code Compliance staff, or (b) a lender has begun foreclosure proceedings and, in the opinion of Code Compliance staff, is likely to address the violation within a reasonable time after the foreclosure. i!ait Casz�l�ll�:iiz= s, Where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained by CDD within a reasonable timeframe, Code Compliance staff may cause a citation to issue or may issue a Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (NOV) and initiate administrative enforcement hearing proceedings in accordance with County Code. iiav ..tiNo citation to state court or NOV shall be prepared unless and until an investigation has verified the existence of a Code violation. or'i,n, All citations to state court shall be on a uniform citation which conforms to ORS 153.045 through ORS 153,051. NOV's for administrative enforcement hearing proceedings shall be on the form required by County Code. r+ 1,:,i aanco of 01"Y' ic: o, Any person authorized by County Code Section 1.08.025 may issue a citation or NOV. The person issuing the citation or NOV must verify the conduct or circumstances constituting a violation. Sei vice. All citations to state court shall be served in accordance with ORS 153.154. NOV's shall be served in accordance with County Code. S 1 iiIIg Arr,,ki ,i -ii s. Itfl\�r;,,,,€ Ar-: ,.iv For citations to state court, the officer serving the citation shall set the date for arraignment. For NOV's, Code Compliance Staff shall set the date for the hearing in accordance with the County Code. � . :' .lrp os= s: The purposes of arraignment are to: `i Allow the defendant to enter a plea to the citation; 2, Resolve any jurisdictional issues; 3. Set a trial date if the plea is not guilty; and 4, If the plea is guilty, allow the defendant, the Sheriffs Office Deputy and other County Code Compliance staff the opportunity to provide information to the court regarding penalties and related matters. i, Appearance by County I l gr; County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at arraignment unless the defendant has legal counsel at arraignment. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 13 of 17 Failf.9re to Appear at A, u A(.k If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, Code Compliance staff may request that the court enter a defaultjudgment in favor of the County and impose penalties against the defendant. If the defendant pleads not guilty to the allegations in the citation, Code Compliance staff shall request that the court set the matter for trial at the earliest available date. a, Burden of Proof. The County has the burden of proving at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations in the citation. h� Responsibility of Code Compliance Staff. At trial, the responsibility of Code Compliance staff is to prosecute the case by presenting evidence, calling witnesses and offering any relevant documents and other exhibits in support of the citation. c:, Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at trial unless the defendant is represented by legal counsel at trial. 1,, Fines x> SclWOMlc. The schedule of maximum fines for County Code violations is set forth in DCC 1.16.010. 1 , ,,°voount, If the defendant is convicted, Code Compliance staff shall request that the court impose a fine in an amount consistent with the County Code. Swn)t1 ,v"-,ion of t hvcs. The Circuit Court has authority to suspend the imposition of all or a portion of a fine. In some cases, the court may wish to suspend imposition of a fine or a part thereof on the condition that the defendant comply with County Code within a specified time period. a , € olicy: It is the County's policy to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement activity and the incentives for code compliance by discouraging any suspension of fines in County Code violation cases. l , rr.>=::c,,d urc,. If a defendant is convicted, Code Compliance staff and/or County Legal Counsel shall advise the court of the County's policy against fine suspension and shall ask the court not to suspend imposition of fines. V; a ollortloo ni , Wai-.tra u+: on " s €gE-' . Fines imposed by the state court for County Code violations are collected by the State Court Administrator and are remitted in part to the County. Fines imposed from civil penalty hearings are remitted to the County Treasurer. € of€(..y: It is the County's policy that all fines imposed for County Code violations and remitted to the County should be used to pay the costs of County Code enforcement. C), procc' dm,o: All fines imposed by the court or the Code Enforcement Hearings Officer for County Code violations and remitted to the County shall be deposited in the CDD Revenue Fund for budgeting and expenditure in the Code Compliance program. ''olia,y, Code Compliance staff shall seek injunctions from the court in cases where other methods of code enforcement may be inadequate or have been unsuccessful. insoc%, dare: 1, kAitivnn sought, Code Compliance staff may request County Legal Counsel to obtain/ coordinate injunctions in any case in which: Code violation(s) present an imminent threat to the public life, health and safety or to the environment; or Code violations have not been corrected within a reasonable time after a defendant was found by the court or County Hearings Officer to be guilty of a code violation. y vfhoio. Pursuant to DCC 1.16.040, Code Compliance staff (or County Legal Counsel if appearing in the case) may request that the court order injunctive relief and/or abatement as part of the penalty in a code enforcement proceeding. Alternatively, County Legal Counsel may initiate a separate legal action for injunctive relief and/or abatement of a violation. > I low l:ni'orc: ,,d. After issuance of an injunction, if the defendant fails to comply within the time period specified in the injunction, the Sheriffs Office or CDD staff shall request that County Legal Counsel initiate civil contempt proceedings against the defendant. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 14 of 1.7 6 . povini&: its=voc.atiort, Certain County Codes authorize the revocation of permits or approvals for failure to comply with their requirements or conditions. a`olic y: To maximize code compliance, the County shall revoke permits and approvals to the extent authorized by law in appropriate cases. Revocation of permits are particularly appropriate in cases in which corrective action may not be effective in bringing the subject property into code compliance due to the nature of the violation and the deliberateness of the code violator's actions in violating the Code. 1 t.prprt. i";o Cod conlpji .j.c,ca Sta[ _, if the County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit determines that the conditions or requirements of a permit or approval have not been met, that staff member shall inform Code Compliance staff of such violation, and Code Compliance staff shall enter the information in the code enforcement electronic files. 2. The County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit shall determine whether to undertake permit revocation proceedings as authorized under the applicable County Code provisions. The following factors shall be considered: ;. Whether the criteria for permit revocation set forth in the applicable County Code provisions exist; The severity of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; c, The deliberateness of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; and . Whether compliance can be achieved more effectively through other code enforcement methods. F- i €mSan€o , i ,tnya ;sit, Chapter 13.36 of the Deschutes County Code (hereafter "Code") authorizes the abatement of County Code violations that are defined as "public nuisances." `olicy: County Code violations constituting public nuisances may be abated pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code and within available resources. When County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of a code violation that may constitute a 'public nuisance, staff shall provide the information to Code Compliance staff who shall enter the information into the code enforcement file. Code Compliance staff or other assigned CDD staff may consult County Legal Counsel to initiate nuisance abatement proceedings pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code. is;, Chapter 15.04 of the Code authorizes the abatement of buildings containing violations rendering them "dangerous buildings" as defined in the Code. t-'a:licy: County Code violations that may render a structure a "dangerous building" shall be abated pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Code and within available resources. i" r>: aaclapre: When Code Compliance staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of code violations in a structure that may render the structure a "dangerous building," the staff shall provide the information to Code Compliance staff, who shall enter in the information into a Complaint Record. The Deschutes County Building Official (hereafter "building official") shall be notified and shall promptly consult with County Legal Counsel to initiate abatement proceedings under chapter 15.04 of the code. hw- Ai aIJVo hc.?s, Certain provisions of the state building code allow municipalities administering and enforcing a building inspection program to charge investigative fees for work commencing without the required permit. policy: To maximize the incentives to comply with County Code, the County shall charge investigative fees, to the extent authorized by law, for permits sought for non -permitted construction or installation. 'r�jcLna. a e: Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of non -permitted construction or installation, the information shall be submitted to Code Compliance staff, who shall enter the information into the Code Compliance Complaint Record. To the extent allowed by law, the County shall charge investigative fees for the permit(s) necessary to comply with the County Code. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 15 of 17 1. ,�i ti � k:k a�areF n;ow�b by In some cases, County Code violations also may constitute violations of federal and/or state statutes or administrative rule. For example, surface mining without County land use approval may also violate state statutes and administrative rules governing mining, and performing building construction without necessary permits may also constitute violations of state statutes and administrative rules governing the conduct of licensed contractors. Policy: To maximize code enforcement and the incentives for compliance, County staff shall promptly advise the appropriate federal and/or state agency of County Code violations reported or discovered that may also violate the statutes or administrative rules of that agency, The County shall also cooperate with federal or state agencies, to the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, to obtain voluntary compliance or to punish violations. The County may defer investigation and prosecution to the appropriate federal or state agency in cases in which, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, the federal or state agency enforcement procedure will result in more effective correction of the violation(s). Pry c,e�k,Ig,Ir€,: 'I, >,cporthv-=, Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint regarding a County Code violation that may also constitute a violation of federal or state statute or administrative rule, the staff shall advise the appropriate federal or state agency. r:0t:per°ation, To the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, County staff shall cooperate with the federal or state agency to obtain voluntary compliance or to prosecute and punish violations. That cooperation may include sharing information, conductingjoint investigations, appearing as witnesses and/or providing evidence in enforcement proceedings, and coordinating the timing of investigations and/or enforcement proceedings to maximize their effectiveness. �a r>I co t t�� ;~ n,�pr:y.°. The County may defer some or all code enforcement to a federal or state agency, and forego County Code enforcement, where the Board, CDD Director or the Director's designee determines that the federal or state enforcement activity will be more effective than County Code enforcement. In making the determination to defer to other agencies, the following factors shall be considered: The nature of the violation and necessary corrective action; b; The comparative severity of the penalties available to the federal or state agency and to the County; and c: The comparative time frames required for enforcement by the federal or state agency and by the County. r;cauliLy C.'s, m1)(,C v2J'y. The County incurs costs investigating code violations and enforcing codes. They include the cost of personnel and equipment, legal advice and representation, service of citation, and administrative expenses. Ijt licy: It is the policy of the County to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incentives for code compliance by recovering its reasonable code enforcement costs from code violators. In determining whether to cite a code violator to court or to engage in the administrative hearings process, Code Compliance staff may consider which process will prompt code compliance and/or result in the maximum cost recovery to the CDD, I_i o- In many cases, the most effective way for the County to recover its code enforcement costs, as well as to collect any civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, is to file a legal claim for those costs or penalties against the property subject to code enforcement, or against other property owned by the code violator. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 16 of 17 policy: It is the County's policy to assure recovery of its costs, as well as the collection of civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, by filing claims for those costs and penalties in the form of liens on property subject to code enforcement, or upon other property owned by code violators. vro,- dare: In the appropriate cases, the County staff will explore with County Legal Counsel the means by which liens may be placed against the real property of the code violator for the collection of code enforcement costs and civil penalties assessed through County administrative hearings. tr;-sr imliry, It is the County's policyto attemptto reach final, satisfactory resolution of all code violation complaints. However, the County recognizes that not all complaints may be resolved successfully, due to factors outside the County's control. These factors can include the indigence of the code violator, the lack of County or other resources to assist the violator, statutory limitations on potential fines or other penalties for code violations, and the large number of complaints to be resolved. Therefore, the County shall focus its code enforcement resources on the code violations that meet the priorities set forth in Section V of this manual, and attempt to resolve those violations within a reasonable period. It is the County's policy not to close a case until it is resolved. k A code violation complaint will be resolved by file closure in the following cases: 1. When no code violation is found after investigation; After there is voluntary compliance; After the property owner and/or other responsible person has been found guilty of a violation and has corrected the violation(s); /•. After an injunction has been issued and the property owner or other responsible person has corrected the violation(s); 5. After investigation and prosecution of the violation(s) have been completed by a federal or state agency to which the County deferred code enforcement; 5; When the property on which the violation exists is sold or transferred and a new Code Enforcement case is opened in the name of the new owner. i.ir,tic.o of glue.�ra. The County shall notify complainant when the complaint is resolved, describing the resolution c, A,4a._ f wato% M Wo;:J s r als£F.i # . The County may explore alternate methods to resolve Code violations including mediation. This manual may be amended when deemed necessary by the CDD Director or designee, County Administrator, or the Board. Amendments may be proposed by County staff, Board members and other interested persons. Code Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual, Page 17 of 17 REVIEWED LEGAE COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Adopting the Community Development Department Code Compliance ORDER NO. 2021-029 Program Policy and Procedures Manual. WHEREAS, Deschutes County Community Development Department ("CDD") Code Enforcement staff initiated revisions to the CDD Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual to update the manual that was developed in 1995, adopted in 1996, and amended in 1997 and 2014; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ('Board") held a public hearing on June 30, 2021;and WHEREAS, the Board finds that a change of the CDD program title emphasizing "code compliance" better aligns the program with its objectives and to be in the best interest of the public; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the updates to the CDD Code Compliance Program Policy and Procedures Manual to be in the best interest of the public because the updated policies and procedures will provide for a more efficient and clear code enforcement program; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The Community Development Department Code Compliance Program Policy and Procedures Manual, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, is adopted. Section 2. The Community Development Department Code Compliance Program Policy and Procedures Manual, attached as Exhibit "A", supersedes all prior Community Development Department Code Enforcement Program policy and procedures. DATED this�?Q day of=A,,� 2021. ATTEST: Recording Secretary ORDER NO.2021-029 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ZO3 ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PH\IILL \CHANG, Vice Chair 1 A . ) • r PATTI ADAIR, Co(nmissioner • MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) From: Nathaniel Miller, Associate Planner Date: April 10, 2024 Re: A Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use (Winery) in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (ref. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A) Background During the Work Session on April 1, 2024, for the Board Public Hearing, the Board raised interest in gaining additional information on several specific aspects of the proposal. Staff identifies these topic areas as: • Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) and Exclusive Farms Use (EFU) standards for wineries. Available water rights on the subject property. • Access to the subject property via Hunnell Road for that portion within the City of Bend limits. In addition to these topics, staff highlighted a condition of approval from the Hearings Officer decision which will be impacted from recent coordination with the Onsite Wastewater Division and discussions of permitting and waste management for the Winery. Condition of approval "B. General Permitting' was included in the Staff Memo for the Board Public Hearing. However, staff includes that suggested condition of approval in this memo with additional comments from the Onsite Wastewater Division. This topic is identified as: Winery Septic Permitting and Waste Management To provide clarity in the record concerning the abovementioned issues, staff will address each of the four topics independently. 1 Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) and Exclusive Farms Use (EFU) Standards for Wineries Multiple Use Agricultural Zone The subject property is within the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone and no provisions exist in the zone district chapter specific to wineries. However, staff understands that a range of commercial activities could be permitted as "Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use" through the provisions of DCC 18.32.030(C), DCC 18.116, DCC 18.124, and DCC 18.128. Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Section 18.32.030 Conditional Uses Permitted The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128: C. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The commercial activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining County. DCC 18.04.030 defines a farm use as: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Section 18.04.030 Definitions "Farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use. "Farm Use" also includes the current employment of the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines, including but not limited to, providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows. "Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species and bird and animal species to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. "Farm use" includes the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the activities described above. "Farm use" does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees as defined in ORS 215.203(3). Current employment of the land for farm use also includes those uses listed under ORS 215.203(2)(b). Under this definition of farm use, a commercial activity could be approvable when it meets the standards set by Deschutes County Board of Commissioners in Rank (file no. 247-15-000472-MC) and the Hearings Officer in Tumalo Land Partners by using a 4-step test. K The four -step test includes the following analysis: 1. Is there a farm use? 2. Is the commercial activity associated with that farm use on the parcel? 3. Is the proposal a commercial activity? 4. Are the farm products produced in Deschutes County or an adjoining county? In the decision issued by the Hearings Officer on January 2, 2024, the Hearings Officer found that, based on the applicant's current operation and proposal, the four -step test is met. This is explained further in the Hearings Officer's decision on Pg. 6 and Pg. 7. Exclusive Farm Use Zone The Exclusive Farm Use Zone is a zone district that supports farm uses and these uses are protected under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Specific provisions for wineries in Deschutes County Code are listed under DCC 18.16.038(B). These provisions are largely derived from their ORS counterparts found under ORS 215.452 for small wineries, and ORS 215.453 for large wineries. However, these standards are only applicable to wineries proposed to be sited within EFU-zoned lands. In the Hearings Officer's decision, the Hearings Officer addressed the applicability of ORS 215.452 to the subject proposal. On page 7 of the decision, the Hearings Officer states the following findings: The opposing comments in the record do not dispute that the vineyard is a farm use, that the winery is a commercial use, that the winery is associated with the vineyard farm use, or that the Applicant will use local grapes. Instead, multiple comments suggest that a winery is not an allowable use at all in the MUM 0 Zone. Those comments assert that the only zone that allows a winery is the Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") Zone. While it appears to be true that the EFU Zone is the only zone in the Code that addresses wineries specifically, the opposing comments do not explain how this operates as a prohibition on wineries in other zones when there is a separate basis in the Code for that use. DCC Chapter 18.16 implements state -level requirements in the EFU Zone, and the reference to wineries in that Code Chapter expressly refers to wineries allowed by ORS 215.452. That statute allows the development of some wineries in the EFU Zone, based on certain sizes, but it does not prohibit all wineries that do not satisfy those statutory provisions. Wineries that do not qualify under ORS 215.452 may nevertheless be permitted as "commercial activities in conjunction with agriculture" under ORS 215.283(2)(a) and the corresponding Code provision in DCC 18.16.030(E).' Because there is no language in the ' See Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 66 Or LUBA 212 (2012) (explaining alternative methods of permitting wineries). 3 Code that prohibits wineries in the MUA-10 Zone, and because the proposed winery meets the criteria for a commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use, I find that the Applicant's proposal is not prohibited as a matter of law and that it can be approved if it satisfies all approval criteria related to that use. Based on the foregoing, I find that Application satisfies DCC 18.32.030(C). Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer analysis. Available Water Rights Staff initiated contact with the Swalley Irrigation District on April 2, 2024, via email to confirm water rights status at the property. The District provided the following response: Glad you checked in on this. Please see attached reference maps and below. The address has 4.31 acres of Swalley water rights tied to it and also a private irrigation conveyance and easement that would need to be preserved and protected in place OR relocated with design approval/review from our district. The full email correspondence and attachments are included with this memo as Attachment A. Staff also notes that according to Deschutes County records, the property is also served by Avion Water Company. Hunnell Road Access from the City of Bend According to the Deschutes County Road Department, the Hunnell Road Improvement Project is scheduled to be completed on May 31, 2024. However, the improvement project overseen by the Department includes only that portion of Hunnell Road within Deschutes County. As noted in an email from Cody Smith on April 2, 2024, the improvements stop at the point the road intersects the City of Bend limits which is approximately 475 feet south of Bowery Lane. Identified as the "South Hunnell Segment", this next section of approximately 1,300 feet of Hunnell Road to the south (within the City of Bend) remains unimproved to Loco Road. The email from Cody Smith and an explanation of this unimproved section are included with this Staff Memo as Attachment B. An email was sent to the City of Bend on April 2, 2024, to inquire about the future development of the roadway and connection with Deschutes County improvements. At the time of the publishing of this memo, no response has been received from the city. Access to Bowery from Hunnell Road is proposed by the applicant and the original traffic memo includes analysis which indicates a fully functioning Hunnell Road from Tumalo Road (north) to Loco Road (south). Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings provided this comment to the record considering this update from the Road Department: 4 Please consider this message an updated agency comment related to the proposal under file no. 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP: Based on comments provided by the Deschutes County Road Department on April 2, 2024, it is unclear whether the proposed primary access (utilizing Hunnell Road) is a feasible access route to the subject property. Considering the fact that the subject property and unimproved portion of Hunnell Road is now located within the jurisdiction of the City of Bend, there is no anticipation that the County will be the entity improving that section of Hunnell Road, providing access to the subject property. Based on these changes in circumstance, staff asks that the applicant revise the traffic analysis originally drafted by Transight Consulting (dated June 3, 2022) to address how the property will be lawfully accessed. Thanks for the coordination and please let me know if you have any questions. Staff notes that access to the subject property should be readdressed by the applicant and include revised traffic analysis for review. Winery Septic Permitting and Waste Management In coordination with the Onsite Wastewater Division, the Planning Division was made aware that the current septic system on the property does not have capacity to accommodate the production of 2,000 cases of wine annually which was approved by the Hearings Officer. The current condition of approval in the Hearings Officer's decision remains valid. However, additional details about the potential permitting process with Deschutes County and the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality are outlined by revised comments from the Onsite Wastewater Division below: 1) The property at 20520 Bowery Lane applied for an onsite wastewater Authorization in May of 2023 in order to approve a new system sized to serve the following: -The existing 4 bedroom residence -Catered dinners with up to 30 diners. Foods are prepared off site. No cooking is allowed on the property. -A tasting room able to accommodate up to 8 visitors per tasting, with tastings held 4 days a week. 2) We denied the Authorization as the existing system serving the residence is not large enough to accommodate the proposed use. As part of the Authorization, we evaluated test holes in order to determine feasibility for a new, appropriately sized system. We were able to approve an area large enough for a new system and a system replacement area. In order to proceed, the applicants will need to apply for a new system installation permit. 5 The system will require a designer per rule requirements for systems of this size and type. At this time, no action has been taken beyond the Authorization application. Wine production on the property was not evaluated or approved during our review. The applicant indicated wine production takes place at Elixir Wine in Bend and their intent was to continue that practice. 3) In order to get approval for wine production, the applicant will need to pursue one of the following: -A WPCF permit with DEQ. The waste from wine production is commercial strength and therefore, the County is not involved in permitting. -A land -application permit through DEQ. They may be able to land -apply the waste from wine production. Again, the County is not involved in permitting. IF however, they are required to have bathrooms in the wine production building for any reason, they may not be allowed to land -apply the waste. They may decide to split the waste from the bathrooms and the wine -making and then have a small on -site system solely for the bathrooms. We may be able to permit something like this, but they will need to pursue a site evaluation to install a separate system. If the applicant's intend to produce wine on the property, they need to work with DEQ if they have any desire to produce wine on -site. This information in this email can also be found in the Authorization results letter 247-23-000261-AUTH. Please reach out if there are additional questions. The current condition of approval reads: B. General Division Permitting. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. Staff recommends edits to this condition of approval depending on new information from the applicant's explanation of the proposal and intended use. Attachment A: Email from Swalley Irrigation District Attachment B: Email from Cody Smith, Deschutes County Road Department !: Attachment A Nathaniel Miller From: ter Camarata <jer@swalley.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:06 PM To: Nathaniel Miller Cc: Mikayla Schembari; Kathy Ferguson Subject: Re: Agency Comment for Deschutes County File Nos. 22-464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Attachments: 20520 Bowery Ln Water right map.pdf; 20520 Bowery Ln & surrounding properties map.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Nathaniel - Glad you checked in on this. Please see attached reference maps and below. The address has 4.31 acres of Swalley water rights tied to it and also a private irrigation conveyance and easement that would need to be preserved and protected in place OR relocated with design approval/review from our district. Thanks, Jer Camarata, GM / Board Sec. Swalley Irrigation District WWW.SWALLEY.COM Disclaimer., This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. From: Mikayla Schembari <Mikayla@swalley.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 202410:29 AM To: Jer Camarata <jer@swalley.com> Subject: RE: Agency Comment for Deschutes County File Nos. 22-464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Jer, Here are those maps. This property has 4.31 acres of water right. Mikayla From: Jer Camarata <jer@swalley.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 202410:19 AM To: Mikayla Schembari <Mikayla@swalley.com> Subject: Fwd: Agency Comment for Deschutes County File Nos. 22-464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A 0 I'm away from my desk today out in the field. Can you send me a map of this property and the surrounding areas showing the water rights and private infrastructure. I'll respond back to Nate afterwards. Thanks, Jer Camarata, GM / Board Sec. Swalley Irrigation District WWW.SWALLEY.COM Disclaimer. This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It contains information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. From: Nathaniel Miller<Nathaniel.Miller@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:34 AM To: Jer Camarata <ier@swalley.com> Cc: Kathy Ferguson <kathv swallev.com>; Mikayla Schembari <Mikavla@swallev.com> Subject: Agency Comment for Deschutes County File Nos. 22-464-CU, 466-SP, 24-018-A Hi Jer, am working on an application for a proposed winery at 20520 Bowery Lane. In preparation for an upcoming hearing, we would like to confirm any, or no, irrigation to the subject property. Our records indicate there are no water rights but I also wanted to contact you as well in case there are any other aspects. Thanks for any input you can provide, Nathaniel �, �lES 5'0 Nathaniel Miller, AICPI Associate Planner Deschutes county community Development s [ 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3164 1 www.deschut_Qa.org/cd Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on anyperson Temporary lobby hours, effective March 4 through June 1: Monday - Thursday 9:00am to 12:00pm, 1:00pm to 4:00pm Fri -ay 9:00am to 12:00pm J N O m O ,^ �N Y O N I Y L AG' W U C N N 4- N w c _O ♦J cu �L L a) t� U) o o' c . e 0 0 0 0 M K N 0 L m LO (J N N N o p a �o o� w x N W O O (:5 O O w 0 c 0 O rn m O 0 a� c r 2 Q N� M N m O m "a c m O — N N dam' Q C J A2:% W 3 MO W O N 0 N CL 5cc W U AC, W 4AA2,, ��W/ I.L C _0 •L A^ W cc U) E E N N P- N O N O a P- Ji l6 N O y 7 O o m O 'E m Cl) N 00 N co Attachment B Nathaniel Miller From: Cody Smith Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:36 PM To: Nathaniel Miller Cc: Blaine Wruck; Quinn Shubert Subject: RE: 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP - Lava Terrace Cellars Attachments: MAP - HUNNELL & CARAWAYjpg Nate, The County's Hunnell Road Improvement project includes improvement of Hunnell Road between the Bend city limits and Tumalo Road. The segment of Hunnell Road between Rogers Road and the Bend city limits (which includes the intersection of Hunnell Road and Bowery Lane) is presently under construction. Road Department staff presently anticipate that the project will be substantially completed (open to all traffic) by May 3, 2024 and that all contract work will be completed by May 31, 2024. Since construction of the project began in January 2023, there have been several changes in circumstances regarding the approximately 1,300 feet -long segment of Hunnell Road immediately north of Loco Road ("south Hunnell segment"), which is presently unimproved. Immediately prior to the start of construction, the south Hunnell segment existed outside of the Bend city limits but within the City's UGB, in the area commonly referred to as the "North Triangle". At that time, Palisch was working on the conceptual master plan for the Caraway development, which would encompass most of the North Triangle area and annex it into the Clty. Road Department staff were actively coordinating with City staff and Palisch representatives, and Palisch was indicating at that time that they were still years away from submitting their master plan application to the City of Bend. As such, the Road Department's intent was to construct the south Hunnell segment within the North Triangle area to a minimum County road standard with the understanding that it would be demolished and realigned (per the City's TSP) with the Caraway development at a time uncertain. Immediately after the start of construction of the County's Hunnell Road Improvement project, Palisch representatives indicated that they intended to submit their master plan application to the City of Bend in 2023, and Palisch submitted their application in summer 2023. Road Department staff coordinated with City staff to include provisions in the City's Traffic Analysis Memorandum (TAM) and subsequent land use approval to require construction of a City street connection to Hunnell Road at the UGB prior to the initial development phase. With those provisions in place, Road Department staff determined that the County would not construct the south Hunnell segment, as Palisch anticipated closing and demolishing this segment within a year to allow for construction of utilities and new road alignments within the Caraway development. On October 5, 2023, Palisch representatives submitted a road vacation petition to the County to vacate the south Hunnell segment to allow for platting new road alignments. That petition was deemed incomplete by Road Department staff due to matters regarding utility easements, and Road Department staff are awaiting additional information from Palisch before continued processing. On October 18, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. NS-2485, annexing the Caraway master -planned area upon the effective date of an annexation agreement with the Caraway property owners; the annexation agreement was fully executed and took effect on December 28, 2023. With that action, the south Hunnell segment now exists within the Bend city limits. Please note that County GIS data (i.e., Dial) does not yet reflect the new City limits. On January 23, 2024, Road Department staff received notice from the City of Palisch's initial land use application to begin land divisions within Caraway. However, on March 7, 2024, City staff indicated to Road Department staff that Palisch was no longer under contract with the property owners within Caraway and that they were halting work on the Caraway development. Road Department staff have not received any further communications from City staff or Palisch representatives regarding Caraway since that time. Presently, the Road Department does not intend to construct the south Hunnell segment, as it now lies within the Bend city limits and would require the County to build the 1,300 feet - long road segment to a City collector standard on an alignment contrary to the City's TSP and contrary to the approved Caraway Master Plan. The City's assigned planner for Caraway is Karen Swenson, Senior Planner, kswenson@bendoreeon.gov, 541-388-5567; however, I do not anticipate that City staff can provide much additional information related to the matter before the Board of County Commissioners at their public hearing next week. In regards to the proposed land use at 20520 Bowery Lane, please refer to the attached map. The soon -to -be -improved County road portion of Hunnell Road in the unincorporated area will provide a portion of the primary access route for the subject property (Bowery Lane, Hunnell Road, Rogers Road, Old Bend Redmond Highway, US20). Road Department staff are presently not aware of a timeline for when the south Hunnell segment will be constructed within the City of Bend, which would provide a more direct access route between the subject property and the City's street network. Please let me know if there are any further questions regarding this matter. Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. I County Engineer/Assistant Director DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT 61150 SE 27th Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutescounty.gov Website: www.deschutescounty.sov/road From: Nathaniel Miller <Nathaniel.Miller@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:23 AM To: Quinn Shubert <Quinn.Shubert@deschutes.org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Blaine Wruck <Blaine.Wruck@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: 247-22-000464-CU, 466-SP - Lava Terrace Cellars Quinn, I took this project before the Board yesterday in preparation for the Public Hearing next week. One of the commissioners would like to confirm that the access from Hunnel Road is sufficient to serve the proposed winery for that portion which is within the City of Bend. Is there someone at the City of Bend who is affiliated with the current improvement project that I can contact for comment? Thanks for any input you can provide, Nate �ytES �0 Nathaniel Miller, AICPI Associate Planner 1ei � Deschutes County Community Development �S -c 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-3164 1 www.deschutes.org/cd lice Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey -VEs BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Vt ng4m Date: Name---C2 M Address S7U, dVl,(th� Phone #s a -g10--q®-+( E-mail address 6 0U 136) In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written. documents as part of testimony........1:1 Yes... No If so, please give a_copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS U�JsEs cO` o ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: f' � Date: Name Address ... 91 Phone #s Z `) 5e�� Z E-mail address oil IM In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes LINO If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST T RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS -TES c. ; O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 44 VA VrejLdC `k�l/Ple f Date: d Name w Address 4, ov o/ r Phone #s E-mail address d U In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided F Opposed L� Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes... �No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS C wU �� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING x REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: ADate: Name S" Address c ` s 7 7 Phone #s E-mail address 9�ln Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided El Opposed Submitting written` documents as art of testimony? "Yes No Sub g p, Y If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS w�;?aBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:411iQ�/l/JGL G✓%'4�—r' y Date: Name Address 2ca j 30 ��w 4.�� j (_. A,/� Phone #s e 6 -2 U E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed g Submittin written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: �� i yC Date: � �(. Name Address ` `S co hv�lt L41� Phone #s 65�t , ae a __� 111 E-mail address ' Vml L4kW6�t&ro� 12 In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed `documents as art of testimony? Yes ' u No Submitting written p y If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J' J^rEs c =?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony G , I 6V-J Vio 10 Subject. La'A Date: Name° Address _ e V\ Phone #s E-mail address ` A -v In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed documents as art of testimony? Yes No Submitting written docu p Y If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS U�Js'es° c�L Z BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: i Dater a Name°w Address Phone #s�� E-mail address 0,0t glo, In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as art of testimony? Yes No Su g p If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS �J-cEs c O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony SubjectDate: Name Address (151 S Phone #s Jq1 90 Jyo7t�i E-mail address m�) % In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F1 Yes No _ If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: i Name 1TV-\' Address Phone #s E-mailaddress In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed u Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT 'COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS EES C' O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony ��Subject: C �. Date: Name Address Phone #s1 E-mail addressj'��,, 1-1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the reco SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS HEART of OREGON CORPS ffNpowerar� cbaaye April 8, 2024 Subject: Letter of Support for Lava Terrace Cellars Dear Commissioner Adair, Commissioner Chang, and Commissioner DeBone, am writing on behalf of Heart of Oregon Corps to express our enthusiastic support for Lava Terrace Cellars' land use application. We believe that Lava Terrace Cellars' commitment to community engagement, particularly evidenced by their support of our annual Farm to Fork Dinner & Fundraiser, showcases their dedication to enhancing our community. Heart of Oregon Corps is deeply committed to empowering youth and young adults through employment, job training, education, and service to Central Oregon communities. Our annual Farm to Fork Dinner & Fundraiser serves as a vital fundraising event that not only sustains our programs but also fosters connections within the community. Lava Terrace Cellars' involvement in our event has been invaluable. They serve as our exclusive wine provider, supplying us with their exceptional locally -made wines. Additionally, they graciously host a wine tasting during the evening cocktail hour, further elevating the overall event ambience and guest experience. We believe that Lava Terrace Cellars' continued presence and growth will only serve to further enhance our community. Therefore, we wholeheartedly endorse their request and encourage you to support their efforts. Thank you for considering our perspective and for your dedication to the well-being of Deschutes County. We trust that your decision will reflect the best interests of our community. Sincerely, Laura Handy, Executive Director PO Box 279, Bend, OR 97709 phone: (541)633-7834 1 fox: 541-306-3703 1 info@heartoforegon.org www.heart:ofi oregon.org ES CO BOARD OF i COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: April 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Oregon Department of Energy Community Renewable Energy Grant Program RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize submittal of an application for a Community Renewable Energy Grant from the Oregon Department of Energy for solar power and EV charging stations at the Fair & Expo. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2021, the Oregon Legislature created the Community Renewable Energy Grant Program to support projects outside Portland city limits. The program has a total budget just over $64 million. The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) is now accepting applications for Round 3 of the program. In this application period, ODOE is making $18 million available to support planning and development of community renewable energy and energy resilience projects for tribes, public bodies, and consumer -owned utilities. Applications are due by May 10, 2024. The County applied for and was granted a planning grant in Round 2 of the grant program. The planning grant was in the amount of $100,000 and was for a project at the Fair & Expo Center to install a hybrid grid -tied and battery back-up solar photovoltaic system to provide continuous power to a new water well to replace a well currently used for irrigation. Staff is requesting Board consideration to submit a grant application for Round 3 of the CREP program for a $1 million construction grant for the same project. Due to the eligibility requirements of the CREP program, any grant funds awarded are eligible to be applied to the solar power and EV charging portion of the project. Grant funds are not eligible to be used for the water well portion of the project which was a part of the previous grant application. This project would include the installation of a hybrid grid -tied and battery back-up solar photovoltaic system at the Fair & Expo to provide continuous power to a new water well as well as power for Emergency Operations staging. EV charging stations would also be installed. The County's Fair & Expo Center is routinely used during natural disasters to provide temporary emergency shelter and support for displaced community members and livestock. It also serves as a command post to support regional Emergency Response. Fair & Expo has agreements with multiple local, state and federal emergency response agencies to provide this type of support when needed. This project would allow Fair & Expo to support Emergency Operations in the event that a natural disaster disrupts power supply. It would also ensure that electric vehicle users would have access to "off -grid" charging in the event of a prolonged power outage. BUDGET IMPACT: The potential budget impact would be the receipt of $1,000,000 in construction grant funding through the ODOE's CREP program. ATTENDANCE: Lee Randall, Facilities Director Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager vI ES COL BOARD OF I COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: April 10, 2024 SUBJECT: Request to Accept Grant Funds for Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Move to accept the grant funds awarded BACKGROUND: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners established a Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Commmntte�tee has been 02meet ng regularly since June3. The first comittee ting andtook has place on June 26, 2023. The co established depredation compensation rates per the requirements of the statewide program as well as received expert advise on preventative measures that have been successfully implemented in other counties in the state. The Oregon Department of Agriculture opens a grant opportunity once a year. Counties who have established Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Committees are eligible to apply for grant funding. There are three categories of grant funds: Category 1 -Grant funds requested rfor from February 1 for 202death 3 through January 31livestock 2024r working dogs due to wolf depredation Category 2 - Grant funds requested for livestock and working dogs that are missing due to wolf depredation from February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024. Category 3 - Grant funds requested to implement livestock management activities and nonlethal wolf deterrence techniques to limit/prevent interactions between wolves and livestock or working dogs from March 22, 2024, through January 31, 2025. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has confirmed one wolf depredation in Deschutes County on Ashanti Samuels' Long Hollow Ranch. Additionally, Mr. Samuels provided documentation attesting to 6 missing livestock within Deschutes County. The committee also applied for funds to use for educational and outreach to other Deschutes County producers (Ranch and Livestock Owners and Managers) and additional preventative measures for Central Oregon producers to be determined. Grant Funds awarded include: Category 1: $1,935 (one confirmed depredation of a yearling) o Category 1 was awarded at 100% of requested amount Category 2: $2685.75 o Category 2 was awarded at 50% of requested amount Category 3: $28,000 o Category 3 was awarded at 40% of requested amount ■ Committee is recommending that $20,000 be distributed to Ashanti Samuels to continue his preventative measure practices on his ranch. ■ Committee is recommending that $8,000 be held in the committee fund to use throughout the year for educational workshops and future preventative measure requests from Deschutes County producers. Budget Impact: If awarded, this grant would result in increased revenues by $32,620.75. Grant revenue is expected to be received in FY'24. Revenue is anticipated to be passed through to grant recipients before January 2025. ATTENDANCE: Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager